Has Joyce forgotten how to count? The end of ME transits?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has Joyce forgotten how to count? The end of ME transits?
In keeping with fact, let us examine the numbers closely.
Is Alan and the sparsely 'aviation experienced' board prone to making hap hazard decisions? Is Dubai another
Given there are big questions and zero statements outlining any tangible evidence of any benefit from the EK 'alliance' Does Qantas see a single dollar out of the 'partnership?'
In the same period the 'empire' threw 80 odd aircraft at JQ, growing it from 36 aircraft. They cut 80 odd from Qantas.The 'famous Asian pivot strategy' has worked a treat, swapping JQ for Qantas and giving customers a choice; change airline!....The Asian 'pivot' applauded by Colonel Custer as he purveyed the coming battle, worked out as well as Little Big horn and generated benefits.....for other airlines
Since the EK 'partnership' bestowed unexplained and unqualified benefits on QF shareholders starting on April fool's day 2013, how did the competitors do?:
Given the little fella's inability to state any tangible commercial benefit from an 'Alliance' and passengers sticking to the tried and trusted Asian routes, perhaps QF may be grateful that the 'partnership' providing so much was only five years long.....
Is that why having finally got a new aircraft and Alan being stopped from any more (costly for the QF shareholder) dalliances in Asia, Qantas is desperately trying to spin an 18 hour Y class nightmare on a 787 as a viable alternative to going to Dubai? Just what did the hastily signed deal contain? Asia seems to be a great alternative, something Joyce screamed long and hard was part of the past. Passengers suggest otherwise.
Isn't it about time that fuel price falls and fleet impairment(depreciation reduction) weren't the only sources of tangible return?
- Alan Joyce started as CEO Qantas 28 November 2008.
- Qantas for the FY2008 carried 458,182 passengers to the UK.
- Qantas carried FY2016 carried 281,365 passengers to the UK.
Is Alan and the sparsely 'aviation experienced' board prone to making hap hazard decisions? Is Dubai another
- JQ HK,
- An AOC split that didn't happen,
- An airline needing a $3billion bailout in 2013, then not six weeks later?
- Red Q
- An airline in 'terminal' decline
- A 'transformed' Qantas international?
- A game changer aircraft? (the 787) with hull numbers in the six hundreds? (Any games changed by the aircraft have been changed for other airlines!)
Given there are big questions and zero statements outlining any tangible evidence of any benefit from the EK 'alliance' Does Qantas see a single dollar out of the 'partnership?'
In the same period the 'empire' threw 80 odd aircraft at JQ, growing it from 36 aircraft. They cut 80 odd from Qantas.The 'famous Asian pivot strategy' has worked a treat, swapping JQ for Qantas and giving customers a choice; change airline!....The Asian 'pivot' applauded by Colonel Custer as he purveyed the coming battle, worked out as well as Little Big horn and generated benefits.....for other airlines
Since the EK 'partnership' bestowed unexplained and unqualified benefits on QF shareholders starting on April fool's day 2013, how did the competitors do?:
- SIA grew passenger numbers by5.1% via Singapore,
- Cathay grew passenger numbers 36% via Hong Kong
- Thai lost a bit of market share* via Bangkok
Given the little fella's inability to state any tangible commercial benefit from an 'Alliance' and passengers sticking to the tried and trusted Asian routes, perhaps QF may be grateful that the 'partnership' providing so much was only five years long.....
Is that why having finally got a new aircraft and Alan being stopped from any more (costly for the QF shareholder) dalliances in Asia, Qantas is desperately trying to spin an 18 hour Y class nightmare on a 787 as a viable alternative to going to Dubai? Just what did the hastily signed deal contain? Asia seems to be a great alternative, something Joyce screamed long and hard was part of the past. Passengers suggest otherwise.
Isn't it about time that fuel price falls and fleet impairment(depreciation reduction) weren't the only sources of tangible return?
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has Joyce forgotten how to count?
As far as executives go, they may be a little late on the scene with their "it's all about me" rewarding but these trends have a habit of catching up eventually.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to be an endemic problem actually, beancounters driving companies into the ground to provide better shareholder value.
Short term thinking, Of course these people won't be around to pick up the pieces, when the company goes bankrupt.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Qantas management forgot that low cost also means low fares, with low yields.
I recall the 'Administration' of Ansett taking about 10 years. Korda Mentha even formed their own firm!! They were the first to get paid and the last to leave: Paid for ten years after the last revenue flight...
Qantas head count to aircraft ratio is alarmingly high, a great empire the little General has built adoring him. Buildings full of them, working the break out rooms, taking extra day of annual leave to make a four day weekend...All the whilst helping the little fella shrink (pun intended) his way to greatness and the airline too.......
But is the Qantas management team worth it when compared to the performance of peer airlines? From 2009 to 2015 Singapore Airlines made an aggregate net profit after tax of $3.5 billion; Cathay Pacific $4.8 billion; and Air New Zealand $898 million.
Qantas in the same period lost $2.1 billion but its CEO earned almost 50 per cent more than Singapore Airlines' CEO.
Qantas in the same period lost $2.1 billion but its CEO earned almost 50 per cent more than Singapore Airlines' CEO.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just what did the hastily signed deal contain?
It was admitted that the deal was not done until then so someone had to give way. I found it hard to see that there was benefit to Qantas in this arrangement, although it was argued by some that the BA alliance wasn't to flash either.
Was it simply a matter of an alliance HAD to be agreed by Qantas? It seems that having an alliance with SOMEONE rather than NO-ONE,was the "lesser of the evils."
I find it difficult to believe that Tim Clark gave in to Joyce.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was it simply a matter of an alliance HAD to be agreed by Qantas? It seems that having an alliance with SOMEONE rather than NO-ONE,was the "lesser of the evils."
I find it difficult to believe that Tim Clark gave in to Joyce.
I find it difficult to believe that Tim Clark gave in to Joyce.
Corporate sources tell me the 'shuttle diplomacy' made whistle stops in many South East Asian HQ before ending up in Dubai..
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the same period the 'empire' threw 80 odd aircraft at JQ, growing it from 36 aircraft. They cut 80 odd from Qantas.
(my bold)
(my bold)
Do you actually believe this to be true, or are you subscribing to the trendy alternative facts philosophy that if you state an untruth over and over again, it becomes true?
Now, I am no apologist for management in their infatuation with the Orange star at the expense of the core product, but quoting gross untruths detracts from your argument and your credibility.
According to page 23 of the 2008 Annual Report:
The Qantas passenger fleet size was 188 (including QantasLink).
The Jetstar fleet size was 36 (no mention of whether that included Jetstar Asia, which numbered 4 - the way the report was structured implied that it did not).
According to page 43 of the 2016 Data Sheet:
The Qantas passenger fleet size was 191 (including QantasLink, but excluding Network which numbered an additional 14).
The Jetstar fleet size was 93 (including Jetstar Asia).
So the actual truth seems to be that the Qantas fleet increased by 3, plus another 14 for Network. Network has been (or is being) rebranded and repainted QantasLink.
The Jetstar fleet (including Jetstar Asia) increased by at most 57, or more probably 53 if the 2008 figure did not include Jetstar Asia.
Edit: Jetstar Asia has grown from 4 to 18 in the same period I believe - I have no official source for that. So the Jetstar AU/NZ operation would appear to have increased from 36 to 75, a growth of 39. This includes the Bombardiers sent over from Qantaslink to Jetstar NZ. Jetstar Japan is not included in any of the figures. I believe Jetstar Japan has 20. That would bring the global Jetstar increase to 73 (or possibly 77).
If you just want to talk Qantas (not QantasLink and associated subsidiaries), the fleet has increased from 124 to 126, an increase of 2. That's 737's and larger.
Regards, Fred
Last edited by Derfred; 4th May 2017 at 13:55.
Seriously, what is the point of this thread?? Tuck Mach, you started another thread just 3 weeks ago with almost the same rant. http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...-alliance.html
You replied to your own post 8 more times with more of your well worn diatribe, your latest post there being only 3 days ago. Now you start a whole new thread to repeat the same anti-Joyce rhetoric all over again!!!
Yes, some of your points are valid, some are completely irrelevant and some no one on here can actually know about. But why the fire hose of bile? And how many threads do you need to rehash the same arguments again and again?
You replied to your own post 8 more times with more of your well worn diatribe, your latest post there being only 3 days ago. Now you start a whole new thread to repeat the same anti-Joyce rhetoric all over again!!!
Yes, some of your points are valid, some are completely irrelevant and some no one on here can actually know about. But why the fire hose of bile? And how many threads do you need to rehash the same arguments again and again?
Clever Accounting
One thing that has me very puzzled. As Tuck Mach has so correctly stated it seems very suspicious that Alan pleaded for 3 Billion otherwise QF would be in real trouble then with some clever Accounting showed a turnaround/ profit 6 weeks later. Someone is not telling the truth IMOP!! and I reckon I know who.
Why has there not been any questions asked about this possible untruth?
Looks like protecting the " Rat " again to me .
Why has there not been any questions asked about this possible untruth?
Looks like protecting the " Rat " again to me .
Yes, some of your points are valid, some are completely irrelevant and some no one on here can actually know about. But why the fire hose of bile? And how many threads do you need to rehash the same arguments again and again?
Must be those pesky travel agents, not recommending the red roo!
Last time we travelled to Europe the travel agent booked us Singapore, he muttered something about being a better product and a more competitive airfare.
Last time we travelled to Europe the travel agent booked us Singapore, he muttered something about being a better product and a more competitive airfare.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether it is creative accounting, stripping assets, mismanaging anything else, you gotta admit, he's managed it again. $1.4 bill this time...... While the opposition still loses money......
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: melbourne
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depending on the fine print it is pretty hard to argue that QF are not going pretty well in comparison with the opposition (although you never know what JB might pull out of the hat). Seems the FF program really is critical for their success though
The thing they gets me is that there is alot of complaining about QF over the years, dodgy accounting, hiding this and that, using Jetstar etc. However end of the day they are the ones who are making a profit and look to be in a very strong position. Probably not as strong they as claim yet strong none the less. With VA struggling to even get an aircraft airborne, I don't quite know what all the postulating about QF's woes is about. People have been talking doom and gloom about QF for 20+ years yet it has all come to naught.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to page 43 of the 2016 Data Sheet:
The Qantas passenger fleet size was 191 (including QantasLink, but excluding Network which numbered an additional 14).
The Jetstar fleet size was 93 (including Jetstar Asia).
So the actual truth seems to be that the Qantas fleet increased by 3, plus another 14 for Network. Network has been (or is being) rebranded and repainted QantasLink.
The Jetstar fleet (including Jetstar Asia) increased by at most 57, or more probably 53 if the 2008 figure did not include Jetstar Asia.
The Qantas passenger fleet size was 191 (including QantasLink, but excluding Network which numbered an additional 14).
The Jetstar fleet size was 93 (including Jetstar Asia).
So the actual truth seems to be that the Qantas fleet increased by 3, plus another 14 for Network. Network has been (or is being) rebranded and repainted QantasLink.
The Jetstar fleet (including Jetstar Asia) increased by at most 57, or more probably 53 if the 2008 figure did not include Jetstar Asia.
Let us delve into the Qantas data book, data they provide by choice.
Under AASB128, associate entities are those where substantial influence exists but not control. Those familiar with the JQ HK decision will recall that control of the operation did not rest in HK. It was despite Jayne's protest found to reside in Coward Street.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-from-the-city
Given the JQ Asia fleet wasn't purchased by Dennis Choo, nor was JQ Pacific or Japan, despite associate entity status, and equity accounting the 'investment' aircraft can and likely are sourced by Qantas and 'leased' perhaps at a surprisingly generous rate to the foreign owned entity...
This is why the accounting standard (with respect to treatment of leasing exposure) alignment due next year will be be fascinating...
Therefore adding
JQ Japan 21
JQ pacific 14
To the JQ fleet Qantas tell you about of 93 aircraft gets us 128. A rapid increase from when Joyce assumed control in 2008.
I am not seeing an net increase of three aircraft for Qantas mainline., Of course you need to subtract the aircraft operated by Cobham and Jetconnect, which Qantas choose to include in their data book .My count suggests a numerical decline in the Qantas mainline fleet and former colleagues are probably still feeling the effects of a lost decade or so..Respectfully Fred though I take the point
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Earth
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neville,
I think it comes down to this.
There are the pilots who are in Qantas, some of which have seen the career path they thought they would have when they joined disappear due to the direction QF Management has taken the Group. A very small number of them will come on here and comment that it is the destruction of QF, and probably believe they should be the CEO.
Then there are the pilots who aren't in QF, but tried to get in. A very small number of them will have a heavy chip on the shoulder about not being selected, so they will come on here and cry the downfall of QF because they need it to fail to feel better about themselves, and prove Qantas was wrong (in not employing them.) It's completely irrational - very good people get missed in every field, that is life unfortunately - but a path some follow.
It's also an anonymous board where people just come on to stir the pot.
I think it comes down to this.
There are the pilots who are in Qantas, some of which have seen the career path they thought they would have when they joined disappear due to the direction QF Management has taken the Group. A very small number of them will come on here and comment that it is the destruction of QF, and probably believe they should be the CEO.
Then there are the pilots who aren't in QF, but tried to get in. A very small number of them will have a heavy chip on the shoulder about not being selected, so they will come on here and cry the downfall of QF because they need it to fail to feel better about themselves, and prove Qantas was wrong (in not employing them.) It's completely irrational - very good people get missed in every field, that is life unfortunately - but a path some follow.
It's also an anonymous board where people just come on to stir the pot.
Neville,
I think it comes down to this.
There are the pilots who are in Qantas, some of which have seen the career path they thought they would have when they joined disappear due to the direction QF Management has taken the Group. A very small number of them will come on here and comment that it is the destruction of QF, and probably believe they should be the CEO.
Then there are the pilots who aren't in QF, but tried to get in. A very small number of them will have a heavy chip on the shoulder about not being selected, so they will come on here and cry the downfall of QF because they need it to fail to feel better about themselves, and prove Qantas was wrong (in not employing them.) It's completely irrational - very good people get missed in every field, that is life unfortunately - but a path some follow.
It's also an anonymous board where people just come on to stir the pot.
I think it comes down to this.
There are the pilots who are in Qantas, some of which have seen the career path they thought they would have when they joined disappear due to the direction QF Management has taken the Group. A very small number of them will come on here and comment that it is the destruction of QF, and probably believe they should be the CEO.
Then there are the pilots who aren't in QF, but tried to get in. A very small number of them will have a heavy chip on the shoulder about not being selected, so they will come on here and cry the downfall of QF because they need it to fail to feel better about themselves, and prove Qantas was wrong (in not employing them.) It's completely irrational - very good people get missed in every field, that is life unfortunately - but a path some follow.
It's also an anonymous board where people just come on to stir the pot.
It would just be so good to work for a company whose management actually wanted it to prosper and above all, didn't use it as a personal piggy bank. Simple expectations, one might have thought...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean like an emolyment contract that says something like: "If you do well, we'll pay you $13M. But if you totally screw up, we'll only pay you $2.5M. But we'll keep you on... don't worry, the industry is cyclic. You'll get your $13M soon enough... (then quietly: just write down a few assets and buy back a few shares... it's a guaranteed winner!)