Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

So you need a new fleet Leigh?

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

So you need a new fleet Leigh?

Old 22nd Nov 2018, 01:37
  #581 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 515
Originally Posted by a_pilot View Post
Get your facts right.

Airbus aircraft are actually made of aluminium alloys.

The Boeing 787 and 797 are the ones actually made of plastic.

Regarding disposable rubbish, yes the desert graveyard is full of Qantas Boeing aircraft, and no Jetstar Airbus aircraft. It is very obvious what is the disposable rubbish.
Oh please, wake up... the 'graveyard' - yes, lots of 20-25 year old + Qantas Boeings. I'm yet to see an Airbus product of ANY model that has flown anywhere near 20 years, bar maybe a few older A320s. The reference to plastic was that they are disposable. VA originally started their trans-continental flights with A330-200s that were approaching 13-14 years of age and were WELL past their use-by date. It is a FACT, they just don't last that long - hence the comment. They can make a reasonably efficient aeroplane but they are basically done by the time they get past 10 years of age. The history of the Qantas A380 has been a disaster, outclassed very quickly in cost of operation by the 747-8I and has had more engineering issues than any Boeing aircraft I can recall.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 01:50
  #582 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 543
The history of the Qantas A380 has been a disaster, outclassed very quickly in cost of operation by the 747-8I and has had more engineering issues than any Boeing aircraft I can recall……...
…….but remains enormously popular with passengers; particularly Premium passengers. I would suggest that "disaster" is ever-so-slightly overplaying the case. If the 748I is so wonderful, is there a reason why there are very few 748-I's in use as passenger aircraft relative to the number of A380's?

Either way, both are now difficult to justify against modern long-range twins (except as a freighter which, it seems, is where the 748I is well suited).
C441 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 02:03
  #583 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 782
Originally Posted by C441 View Post
…….but remains enormously popular with passengers; particularly Premium passengers. I would suggest that "disaster" is ever-so-slightly overplaying the case. If the 748I is so wonderful, is there a reason why there are very few 748-I's in use as passenger aircraft relative to the number of A380's?

Either way, both are now difficult to justify against modern long-range twins (except as a freighter which, it seems, is where the 748I is well suited).
I would suggest that the 748 was to slow to market and that the 380 had the lions share by the time it was ready to go. The specs are brilliant and it’s empty weight I believe is approx 50,000 kg less than the 380.
dragon man is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 03:28
  #584 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: in denial
Posts: 219
AerialPerspective,

With respect; are you willing to back up your statement "I'm yet to see an Airbus product of ANY model that has flown anywhere near 20 years, bar maybe a few older A320s"?
We (and our subsidiary) operate quite a few A330s over 20 years old - including the first 2 built. Until recently, we also operated even older A340s. IIRC, your first A330 (-EBA) was delivered in Jan 2003. Almost 16 years ago.

We also operate 748s (freighters) - their economics aren't particularly great, although they do make a great freighter - hence why so few -8is have been ordered, and certainly none by us. They too have had their share of technical issues, particularly around their GENX engines. We previously operated a large fleet of -400s (and 200 & 300 series Classics before that).

I've flown 2 x Boeing widebody types, and now 4 x widebody Airbus ones. Both manufacturers make great machines, although as someone recently remarked to me: "With the A350, Airbus has finally made a Boeing, whilst with the 787, Boeing has finally made an Airbus). Says it all.

VS.
Veruka Salt is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 05:03
  #585 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,176
One of the recent issues that have frustrated QF beancounters has been the massive amount of 'churn' caused by people changing types and its impact on the operation. I expect that the Sunrise aeroplane will be heavily influenced by that decision.

In that respect the logical replacement for the A330 on international routes is the 787. We have them ordered, at great prices, and can get delivery slots for them at the required time.
Domestically perhaps the 797/ MMA is probably the replacement for the A330 which whilst immensely popular on trans continental routes is probably too big and better yield available from a smaller airframe with perhaps higher frequency. Long term that probably means the 777X is the likely Sunrise aeroplane given the ability to rapidly transition crews between those types. I'm not sure if the 777/ 787 do common fleet flying though so perhaps that is a fly in the ointment.

Of course that could still go either way. If CASA say 'no' to 787/ 777X Common fleet flying but say 'yes' to the A350ULR/ A330 common fleet flying then that could swing things back towards the A350 option. It depends a bit on whether Airbus want to come to the party and offer up A330NEO/ A350s at a cost that doesn't exceed what Qantas has paid for the 787s.

So my heart wants the A350 as it'd be great to do domestic one week and then head over to NYC or LHR the next week as part of A330/A350 CFF but my head says long term QF is headed back towards being an all Boeing fleet.
Keg is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 07:06
  #586 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,306
Originally Posted by Street garbage View Post
Hey Keg, word from the Bean Counters is an additional 35 789's to replace the A330's on domestic/ Asia, ex Jstar 788's for Shark Patrol...I just wish the would order something...
And, apparently our new chairman is not a fan of our CEO, with a possible new CEO by April..but maybe I was dreaming.
You may well find Mr Goyder is not swayed by Industrial Armageddon.
He is well aware that ill founded and poorly executed 'ventures' with other'people's money didn't end well for Westfarmers.

Unfortunately despite the hyperbole the populates Little Napoleon's vernacular, there is little to show for it.
In real terms the Qantas 'group' is well behind the pack both in Revenue, NPAT, and fleet metrics. They do lead the pack in executive remuneration, by a large margin. With the brief respite in the oil price, QF has a little time, but Little Napoleon may prefer some other distraction. Isn't it contract season?

The over scale JQ operation, is an obsession to those in Coward street clinging to their IR driven model. JQ has a role and even despite their obfuscation of the JQ data it is clear that when a fleet of 120 aircraft flying 50% of the ASK of QF can only generate 25% of the revenue, that the airline is in desperate need of a new direction.

Virtue signalling won't work for ever, share buy backs totalling over $2 billion can't last for ever either Tino.

Qantas do need a new fleet.
Rated De is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 08:20
  #587 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 48
it is clear that when a fleet of 120 aircraft flying 50% of the ASK of QF can only generate 25% of the revenue,
It is very clear that you have no idea, and that you just like to distort and exaggerate the facts to rubbish JQ as much as you can.

If you bother to read the FY18 report, you will see that JQ generated 23% revenue (which contributed to 28% of the profit for the whole QF group) with only 32% of the ASK, and not 50% as you falsely stated. Compare this to QF INTL which made less profit for the group, at only 24%, but flew 45% of the ASK. Your statement actually seems more correct for QF INTL and not JQ.

JQ also have a much better operating margin of 12.2, compared to only 9.2 for QF (DOM and INTL). QF INTL only has an operating margin of 5.8.

Isn't it better business sense to direct towards something with a better operating margin ?

Last edited by a_pilot; 22nd Nov 2018 at 11:52.
a_pilot is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 19:08
  #588 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,306
Originally Posted by a_pilot View Post
It is very clear that you have no idea, and that you just like to distort and exaggerate the facts to rubbish JQ as much as you can.

If you bother to read the FY18 report, you will see that JQ generated 23% revenue (which contributed to 28% of the profit for the whole QF group) with only 32% of the ASK, and not 50% as you falsely stated. Compare this to QF INTL which made less profit for the group, at only 24%, but flew 45% of the ASK. Your statement actually seems more correct for QF INTL and not JQ.

JQ also have a much better operating margin of 12.2, compared to only 9.2 for QF (DOM and INTL). QF INTL only has an operating margin of 5.8.

Isn't it better business sense to direct towards something with a better operating margin ?

As a pilot crosschecking data is important, you are correct in that ought have stated FY17. It is actually 48% of ASK and 31% revenue. The fleet is almost the same in aggregate.

Qantas is unique. Their data is scant on JQ. It meets the minimum required to comply legally, but effectively it is a question of trusting what they choose to tell you. As a company they choose to provide very little detail about JQ. Ever considered why they remain so big on their claim but so scant with detail?
They, as a company have chosen in FY12 to report QF International and QF domestic as two distinct operating segments. This is detailed in AASB 8. At the time the QF narrative was 'terminal decline' of QF international. Such a separation served their intent well. After all, this was the framing argument for many concessions they sought including a tax payer bailout. Reversing course only six weeks later, Qantas recorded huge profits less than two years later. How lucky was that?
Jetstar could be presumed to meet the aggregation threshold and the quantitative detailed in AASB 8, yet management choose not to provide any more detail. Ever wonder why?

With respect to your claim of better operating margin, that is worthy of investigation.
The audit undertaken every year by one of the big four firms, is called a general purpose audit.
To actually make a detailed comparison of who contributes what what in terms of deriving an operating margin requires a far closer look than is required for a 'General Purpose Audit' as detailed under AASB 10.
The key thing to remember is that management themselves determine which expense goes where. This is called 'marteriality'. As an extreme example,one segment can pay for say an item like a subsidiarie's fuel or all the lease payments.Qantas have generally capitalised their leases, bringing them on balance sheet. The coming change to IFRS 16 will give a little more detail, however imagine the impact on operating margin if Qantas International (the segment) own all the aircraft of JQ, The JQ segment then pays a 'lease charge' back to Qantas. This is not illegal, it complies with the standard, but imagine the impact on operating expense (and hence margin) if the rate agreed was actually less than a market rate? The external auditors make no statements about the threshold chosen by management in this type of audit. Nor does the standard require them to. They won't comment any more than the standard requires.

The real contribution each reported segment brings is subject to distortion.. To obtain a meaningful metric to compare like for like requires far more detail than management choose to provide.

The criticism of JQ is not directed at people working there, of which we are sure there are many hard working well intentioned people. JQ most certainly has a role. Analysis of how it delivers its capacity to the market and how much it can earn for doing that is the point. Management provided data provides you with the opportunity to assess what they choose to tell you, rather than what is actually occurring.

JQ is a brand. It has a place. It is, as are all low fare airlines subject to very elastic consumer demand. The Achilles heel of that model is that yield is tricky to obtain. Ask Mr O'Leary. Flying 50% of the ASK for 30% of the revenue is not efficient. JQ is over scale. It is well known in aviation circles that Little Napoleon clings to the creation myth of JQ, perhaps with a less than diligent board he was allowed too much latitude. Growing the fleet to its current level and now replacing the entire JQ fleet is an interesting 'decision'.

Perhaps Mr Goyder will take a different approach to contribution and segments.
He did after all witness the mess here with ' Bunnings'. B&Q had a pretty good model and re-inventing the wheel didn't turn out so well. Luckily for Qantas 'group' the Qantas brand is tangible and provides substantial margin. When combined with selective disclosure, it is quite plausible that JQ can exist side by side at the current scale.Whether it contributes anything like ROIC is unknown. Breaking out the JQ international segment would allow scrutiny. There are some in the investment community who would welcome transparency. They are not optimistic it is forthcoming.

Qantas after all, need the new fleet.
Replacing their four engined fleet with two engine twins, like all their competitors have already done, will lower substantially, their fuel included CASK, improve RASK and demonstrably improve their operating margin.
FY18 saw them spend 21% of the operating expense on fuel. A different story in FY15 at 27%. With the same fleet they burn far more fuel per ASK, have higher fuel expense and generate much more unnecessary pollution.

It is to this point the ICCT referred.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-...-study/9333616

A point Mr Roger Montgomery also highlighted.

Last edited by Rated De; 22nd Nov 2018 at 19:42. Reason: punctuation
Rated De is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 21:09
  #589 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 515
Originally Posted by Veruka Salt View Post
AerialPerspective,

With respect; are you willing to back up your statement "I'm yet to see an Airbus product of ANY model that has flown anywhere near 20 years, bar maybe a few older A320s"?
We (and our subsidiary) operate quite a few A330s over 20 years old - including the first 2 built. Until recently, we also operated even older A340s. IIRC, your first A330 (-EBA) was delivered in Jan 2003. Almost 16 years ago.

We also operate 748s (freighters) - their economics aren't particularly great, although they do make a great freighter - hence why so few -8is have been ordered, and certainly none by us. They too have had their share of technical issues, particularly around their GENX engines. We previously operated a large fleet of -400s (and 200 & 300 series Classics before that).

I've flown 2 x Boeing widebody types, and now 4 x widebody Airbus ones. Both manufacturers make great machines, although as someone recently remarked to me: "With the A350, Airbus has finally made a Boeing, whilst with the 787, Boeing has finally made an Airbus). Says it all.

VS.
OK, I was citing anecdotal evidence but looking at the production list, there are maybe a dozen or so A330s that are over 20 years old, most of the production list however that dates back that far have been stored or scrapped. This is pretty much in line with the experience of someone like VA who's first two (XFA and XFB) were 13-14 years old and despatch reliability was woeful. Going back 15-20 years, this is no surprise considering the experience of QF with a mix of A300B4s and B767-200/300s of similar vintage, the Airbus product was nothing short of junk in terms of despatch reliability compared to the Boeings. I am told that QF were more or less gifted the A330-200s as others have alluded to here and the bean counters then decided to buy -300s as well, but there were issues with configurations because of floor strength, etc.

Going back to Ansett, the Boeing 737 fleet was demonstrably more reliable than the A320s - numerous times A320s were delayed for no reason other than computer/software problems, which often righted themselves spontaneously. I think when you consider there are still B747-SPs, B747-200s/-300s still flying that date back more than 30 years and even 707s still flying it remains to be seen whether Airbus will ever produce a product with such longevity. Anecdotally, engineers and crew I've spoken to have said things such as "they're not bad aircraft efficiency-wise but they're simply not built to last". I don't think you can make a judgement about the 787 at this early stage.

As for the 747-8I, my understanding is that it is more efficient than the A380 by a reasonable margin and as another poster alluded to, probably the small numbers are due to it coming to the market late and the general trend away from 4 engine aircraft recently.
As for engine problems, while Boeing chose the engine/airframe combination I suppose they can bear some blame for introductory problems but the engine isn't built by Boeing, you could say the same thing about the Rolls-Royce engines on the A380 - just ask Qantas (and how much support they got from RR at the time).

BTW - carbon fibre composite is not plastic.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 21:19
  #590 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 515
Originally Posted by a_pilot View Post
It is very clear that you have no idea, and that you just like to distort and exaggerate the facts to rubbish JQ as much as you can.

If you bother to read the FY18 report, you will see that JQ generated 23% revenue (which contributed to 28% of the profit for the whole QF group) with only 32% of the ASK, and not 50% as you falsely stated. Compare this to QF INTL which made less profit for the group, at only 24%, but flew 45% of the ASK. Your statement actually seems more correct for QF INTL and not JQ.

JQ also have a much better operating margin of 12.2, compared to only 9.2 for QF (DOM and INTL). QF INTL only has an operating margin of 5.8.

Isn't it better business sense to direct towards something with a better operating margin ?
I'd just observe that QF INTL provides feed to DOM, so some of that DOM contribution is a result of INTL contribution - hard to determine INTL true contribution/return without knowing how the costs are allocated - INTL has also suffered from fleet renewal lagging behind JQ and DOM so there's also the factor of increased operating costs due to that. JQ has a key role in the QF Group but so do INTL and DOM mainline - they are full service carriers so the costs will be slightly higher and the returns lower but they have brand value which flows onto JQ as part of it's traffic would come from the fact it is QF owned or perceived as such. I don't think it's as clear as it's all been portrayed. I have old Annual Reports that in the 90s were touting the lopsided contribution that INTL made to over group ROI - yet the current management painted a picture not so many years ago that INTL had not met it's cost of capital since the early 90s... were they lying or was management at the time lying... I think the 'facts' were just manipulated to serve a purpose.

Having said that, JQ, QFD and QFI all have a role to play, QF Group just needs to get the balance right so that QFI and QFD are not cannibalised by JQD/I

Last edited by AerialPerspective; 24th Nov 2018 at 03:13.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 21:56
  #591 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,836
Rated DE,
Excellent posts.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2018, 23:08
  #592 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,306
Maybe instead fix your fleet metrics!

https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/comp...m5j?li=AAgfOd8

'the addition of Dreamliners to Qantas' fleet last year gave it an opportunity to rethink how to cut weight from the aircraft, which are made from light-weight composite carbon material.“Some of these initiatives have been rolled out across our broader fleet,” he said. The airline developed a range of business-class cutlery, crockery and glassware which was 11 per cent lighter - shaving about 244 kilograms off each aircraft and saving 535,000 kilograms of fuel a year.
How many 787 again? That fuel saving QF state, sounds impressive, but is only about three trips across the pacific from Australia to LAX. How many do QF fly per week? Annualise that saving with the correct fleet metrics.


What an unappreciated genius management are! Don't put add in pages in the inflight magazine! Use plastic cutlery! How about what nearly every airline on the planet reognised a decade ago; Reduce the fuel consumption by removing two engines.

Qantas said in October it expected to spend about $800 million more on fuel this year compared with last year owing to higher oil prices, at about $4 billion compared with $3.23 billion.
Qantas need a new fleet.

They need new management too.
Rated De is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2018, 23:48
  #593 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: S33E151
Posts: 823
How many 787 again?
As the Friday Flyer announced proudly yesterday, Qantas is welcoming its EIGHTH 787.

They also mentioned Boeing are celebrating delivery of their 787'th 787 this week.
V-Jet is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2018, 00:17
  #594 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: All over the Planet
Posts: 749
Originally Posted by V-Jet View Post
As the Friday Flyer announced proudly yesterday, Qantas is welcoming its EIGHTH 787.

They also mentioned Boeing are celebrating delivery of their 787'th 787 this week.

Sheer genius!
Ken Borough is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2018, 00:20
  #595 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Wherever the work is...
Posts: 117
Chairman's Lounge membership at risk??

Originally Posted by Rated De View Post
https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/comp...m5j?li=AAgfOd8



How many 787 again? That fuel saving QF state, sounds impressive, but is only about three trips across the pacific from Australia to LAX. How many do QF fly per week? Annualise that saving with the correct fleet metrics.


What an unappreciated genius management are! Don't put add in pages in the inflight magazine! Use plastic cutlery! How about what nearly every airline on the planet reognised a decade ago; Reduce the fuel consumption by removing two engines.



Qantas need a new fleet.

They need new management too.
This article is accessible on The Age website as well, with the option to comment.

I took up the option, and pointed out that issues like saving the weight of pages in an Inflight Magazine are a long way from the real issue.

My comment highlighted all of the factors that have been previously mentioned.

Guess what- my comments have been excluded by the discussion moderator.

Let's hide the truth from the masses. There's advertising $ and club memberships to protect.
Gearupandorrf is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2018, 02:22
  #596 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,306
Let's hide the truth from the masses. There's advertising $ and club memberships to protect.

‘United wishes and good will cannot overcome brute facts. Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is.’ - Sir Winston Churchill

Seems like a slow copy day, as this 535,000 kg saving was mentioned two months ago.
One might muse that they would make up some bigger number, but as this previous article asserts, QF did this cutlery saving months ago in preparation for the 'game changing' 787 flight....

Airline weight reduction to save fuel: The crazy ways airlines save weight on planes


The one trick pony, Little Napoleon is busily digging through the bag of distraction.
As reported earlier Little Napoleon is musing a staff cull. Precisely how you de-transform a transformed airline is not known.
No doubt a team are spending countless hours of shareholder funds 'group thinking' to develop an 'out of the box' solution, taking the results driven solution off line, to re-engage and energise fort fumble..
Simultaneously, it is reported that another team is busily compiling a short list of value defining, strategy encapsulating titles for this new management initiative. Rumoured to be called Project loop back, Little Napoleon is evaluating the savings to be had if he removes olives from the business class salad. The moves resembles a similar strategy from code share partner American Airlines in 1987.

Qantas need new management.

Last edited by Rated De; 26th Nov 2018 at 03:04. Reason: typo-it's late!
Rated De is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2018, 02:30
  #597 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Global Citizen
Posts: 148
Originally Posted by Rated De View Post
‘United wishes and good will cannot overcome brute facts. Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is.’ - Sir Winston Churchill

Seems like a slow copy day, as this 535,000 kg saving was mentioned two months ago.
One might muse that would make up some bigger number, but as this previous article asserts, QF did this cutlery saving months ago...

Airline weight reduction to save fuel: The crazy ways airlines save weight on planes


The one trick pony, Little Napoleon is busily digging through the bag of distraction.

Qantas need new management.
C’mon Rated, don’t be so ‘cynical’.

PS great posts.
stormfury is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2018, 03:31
  #598 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 171
Anyone else heard rumours of cracks being found in A380 wings, resulting in the 744 looking at being extended until at least 2023?
engine out is online now  
Old 26th Nov 2018, 03:58
  #599 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 324
I was under the impression wing cracks were found many years ago
TurningFinalRWY36 is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2018, 04:41
  #600 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 782
Firstly, it should be referred to by its correct Qantas name ‘ the game changer 787’ ( tounge firmly in cheek). There are lots of rumours around regarding the A380s, ranging from no contractor appointed yet to do the D checks/ refurbishment, the time for this blowing out from 60 days to 150 days and lastly the cost been very much over budget. Yes, there are also rumours that more cracks have been found in at least two of the 380s. All round just a typical circus that Qantas management excel at.
dragon man is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.