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 14th Dec 2018, 11:54
  #641 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by Australopithecus View Post
QF needs a new aircraft every ten weeks just to keep the fleet average age pegged in the yellow. And by the time project sunrise is technically possible there will be a long (five years? more?) waiting list. By the time project sunrise is possible there may be pesky crew duty hurdles remaining too.

i'm glad to be past peak caring.

Or Qantas could just remove the oldest aircraft quietly.

Like replace the average age 25 yo F100s with 10yo A320. Thatís 250 year aircraft with 100. Spread over 150 aircraft.

That brings the the average age of the fleet down by 1 year. Pretty simple.

Bring in 14 is it? 787s . Average age 2/3 years?

This airline is is run by accountants and Mathmaticians.
Aussie Fo is online now  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 19:25
  #642 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,679
Originally Posted by Aussie Fo View Post



Or Qantas could just remove the oldest aircraft quietly.

Like replace the average age 25 yo F100s with 10yo A320. Thatís 250 year aircraft with 100. Spread over 150 aircraft.

That brings the the average age of the fleet down by 1 year. Pretty simple.

Bring in 14 is it? 787s . Average age 2/3 years?

This airline is is run by accountants and Mathmaticians.
The fleet age is nudging (on average) 11.0 years without the aircraft for the mining work.
With respect to the replacement of F100 (poor Little Napoleon struggled to say Fokker!) the older A320 will continue to flow into 'Network'. Serves a dual purpose of hiding the stupidity of the $9.5 billion A320-321 order in 2011 for 110 aircraft. The average fleet age for the JQ fleet is around 8.0 years, so naturally for an airline equal in size of fleet to the parent, completely replace the fleet! Of course it can only generate (accounting opaqueness aside) 30% of the revenue flying nearly 50% of the ASK.

The second part of the expensive fallacy serves the adversarial IR model well. With recently established pilot bases in the West, growing Network scares the herd of Qantas pilots. Despite having enormous trouble finding 'qualified applicants' even offering substantial un-disclosed bonuses to new hires with the elusive promise of residency, the stalking horse is effective only in the minds of Fort Fumble.

Fort Fumble of course is driven by ideology and MBA cost driven accounting.

Qantas need a new fleet.
Rated De is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2018, 04:53
  #643 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,364
But if you reduce the fuel bill, you can't save as much with the new tool. Saving 1% of 4 billion looks much better than 1% of 3 billion. They could have just got a new CEO, paid him substantially less, and saved another 10 million a year.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2018, 07:40
  #644 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 298
It must be remembered that the original order was carried out in 2005 which was for 115 which included 45 ordered for US$4.3 billion which is the cheapest that anyone could get these aircraft I would suggest. Instead of spending this money on aircraft and turning over all the B744s and potential the A330s the current management has continued to buyback shares. You reckon the Banking industry has demonstrated bad behaviour well this takes the cake. Show me an incentive(KPI) and I will show you the outcome.God help the next CEO.
busdriver007 is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2018, 02:13
  #645 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 31
Rated De....

you just don't give up trying to distort the facts. It's no wonder you are having such a battle with Qantas with that stubborn level of arrogance.

At least 3 times (Nov 22nd Dec 1st, Dec 15th), you have stated the following the false claims:

In the same period JQ have had a 110 aircraft order, to replace a fleet substantially younger than that from which it borrows so much. Generating 31% of the revenue, flying 48% of the ASK is hardly efficient. Accounting fudges aside, JQ grew to be larger than the parent. Yet it can't generate more than one third of the revenue.....30% of the revenue flying nearly 50% of the ASK.
Now let me state this again
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.
Read the latest report here Qantas Annual Report 2018
a_pilot is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2018, 03:52
  #646 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wellington
Posts: 216
What I would give for once for management to front up on a Friday afternoon (with thunderstorms, like this week) and see how utterly decimated our Company is. 20 minutes waiting for a tug in Melbourne on each transit? Not unusual. One ground staff member to disembark 4 wheelchair passengers and take them to the people mover? Another 25 minutes for that.
All our management has done is to retrench front line staff to line their pockets, whilst the remaining ground staff are utterly run off their feet whilst being repeatedly being verbally abused by "customers".
The company email to ask for volunteers over Christmas just makes me vomit.
Street garbage is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2018, 03:52
  #647 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 298
a_pilot- The 2018 Annual Report also states that the EBITDAR for Qantas was $2.478 billion and JQ was $890 million. I suspect you need a little help with reading Financial Reports.
busdriver007 is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2018, 04:17
  #648 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,200
Originally Posted by Street garbage View Post
What I would give for once for management to front up on a Friday afternoon (with thunderstorms, like this week) and see how utterly decimated our Company is. 20 minutes waiting for a tug in Melbourne on each transit? Not unusual. One ground staff member to disembark 4 wheelchair passengers and take them to the people mover? Another 25 minutes for that.
All our management has done is to retrench front line staff to line their pockets, whilst the remaining ground staff are utterly run off their feet whilst being repeatedly being verbally abused by "customers".
The company email to ask for volunteers over Christmas just makes me vomit.
Wellsaid, add in, the cancelled flights, the crap food, the dirty aircraft, no tugs and or drivers in Sydney, no catering staff and not enough trucks, no driver for the water truck, not enough cleaning staff, not enough cabin crew, on some types not enough pilots . The list goes on and on, a great airline has been ruined. The only place there is enough man power is in the ivory towers and street FFS, the leeches living off the front line staff who are flogged to death.
dragon man is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2018, 04:27
  #649 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 452
Regarding the JQ/QF employee sibling squabbling that continues on this forum...

It is completely impossible to determine how profitable one entity would be without the other. That scenario and any figures derived = pure speculation. The two brands are completely inter-related and inter-dependent now and, while I’m no AJ apologist, the market has determined that the “dual brand” strategy is a success.

Sometimes one acts as a shield for the other...sometimes a sword. One thing, however, that should be completely obvious to even the casual observer is that there is a (large) market for both premium and low cost flights. If you try to force ALL customers onto a QF service, or ALL onto a JQ service, you will lose a significant amount of revenue to a non-QF Group competitor. The data available from sophisticated modelling these days would enable them to be quite accurate in right-sizing the number of premium vs low cost seats on various routes.

There’s only 1 share price...only 1 team...operating in a very competitive arena.

PG
Popgun is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2018, 04:52
  #650 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 298
One Share price but not one career! All used to divide the workforce and I must admit quite successfully! Illegal in most first world economies.
busdriver007 is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2018, 05:26
  #651 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 31
Thumbs up

busdriver:

you wrote
JQ only made $890 million compared to QF of $2,478 million
You used EBITDAR and not EBIT. Fine this gives JQ a 26% share of the EBITDAR.

I came up with the 28% profit figure in my original post 22 November using the EBIT. 26% or 28% is close enough for what I am trying to discuss. However, you might want to take note, that when QF discuss profit (in the media or the summary on page 2), they use EBIT and not EBITDAR, so I believe EBIT is the figure to use.

Here are my calculations (using the numbers on page 4 of the report):
JQ = $461 EBIT
Qantas = $1,167 EBIT

Total = $1,628 EBIT

JQ ($461) divided by the total ($1,628) = 28%, which is what I wrote. (I said 28%, but 26% is not far off and I am happy to accept it).

Let me quote again what I wrote
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
I am NOT disputing the profit (be it 26% or 28%).

I am disputing the 50% ASK that someone falsely stated.

At least 3 times the same person here has misleadingly stated that JQ fly 50% of the ASK's when the actual facts (as per the FY18 report) clearly state that JQ only flew 32% of the ASK.

50% ASK compared to only 32% ASK is a very misleading exaggeration with a 1.5 bullsh1t factor (50%).

I am well aware how to read a financial report. Seems like some people don't know how to read and comprehend basic English.

Thanks Traffic (changed it now)

Last edited by a_pilot; 16th Dec 2018 at 12:08.
a_pilot is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2018, 08:18
  #652 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,364
Then wouldn't it be....?

"Yes I am well aware that JQ only made $890 million compared to QF of $2,478 million and I do not dispute this at all. This is exactly how I came up with the 28% (?) revenue figure in my original post 22 November.
...........................
Here are my calculations:
JQ = $980
$890
Qantas = $2,478

Total = $3,458 $3368

JQ ($980 $890) divided by the total ($3,458 $3368) = 28% 26%"
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2018, 12:06
  #653 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 983
With no order for the MAX to this day, itís now at the point where Virgin will have its full fleet delivered before QF gets its even first delivered.

Most certainly in keeping with tradition being the last carrier to operate new technology whilst others are always a decade ahead!

Last edited by wheels_down; 16th Dec 2018 at 12:49.
wheels_down is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2018, 12:35
  #654 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,364
I think what that person is trying to say, is that between them QF Dom & Intl earn $12965m (EBIT) flying 103665 ASK's, using 214 aircraft. JQ only earns $3767m (EBIT) while flying 48763 ASKs using 93 aircraft. ie earns 29% as much, while flying 48% as many ASKs (and incidentally using 48% as many much younger aircraft to do it).

It's interesting that Alan Joyce Pty Ltd is among the top 20 shareholders. I guess that's why anything that increases the share price is better than wasting money on aeroplanes.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2018, 13:05
  #655 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was View Post

It's interesting that Alan Joyce Pty Ltd is among the top 20 shareholders. I guess that's why anything that increases the share price is better than wasting money on aeroplanes.
Sigh......if this was the USA he would be in a Federal Penitentiary guilty of Racketeering, yet here in Australia it’s common accepted corporate corruption practice. Not only is he incompetent, he pretends to be blind to the corruption he’s undertaking, hiding behind and pulling the puppet strings of the Qantas PR machine.

From Wikipedia -
A racket is an organized criminal act, usually in which the criminal act is a form of business or a way to earn illegal money regularly or briefly but repeatedly. A racket is often a repeated or continuous criminal operation. Originally and often still specifically, a racket was a criminal act in which the perpetrator or perpetrators offer a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a nonexistent problem, a service that will not be put into effect, or a service that would not exist without the racket. Conducting a racket is racketeering.

Last edited by CSTGuy; 16th Dec 2018 at 13:15.
CSTGuy is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2018, 13:10
  #656 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 70
Posts: 903
Would be interesting to trace the flow of money and to whom it flows with regards to the leases on all these new aircraft !
blow.n.gasket is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2018, 13:36
  #657 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by blow.n.gasket View Post
Would be interesting to trace the flow of money and to whom it flows with regards to the leases on all these new aircraft !
It’s been well rumoured and alleged for years that Alan & co set up finance companies to buy aircraft and lease them to Qantas. Very few of the newer JQ 320’s and QF 737 are solely owned and financed by Qantas Airways Pty Ltd. I remember flying a relatively new 738 a few years back that had the ownership plaque on the back of the flight deck wall stating that the aircraft was owned by “Cello Leasing Plc” of Dublin Ireland and leased to Qantas Airways. Gee, I wonder who the director of Cello Leasing might be and whether they are allegedly associated to AJ? And then there was the big rumour that GD & PG’s aircraft leasing company bought the 767’s and leased them back to Qantas, hence QF were stuck with them longer them longer they needed them and were a financial burden way longer than they were ever engaged in revenue flying for the airline. Allegedly, AJ was aware of this deal and was happy to play along, hence he got the CEO gig and allegedly JB was not compliant hence he missed out and moved on to VA.

Last edited by CSTGuy; 16th Dec 2018 at 13:49.
CSTGuy is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2018, 15:07
  #658 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 31
traffic..

once again thanks for the clarification

Yes, I was comparing JQ to the total group (JQ + QF), and not JQ vs QF.

Yes, JQ, do fly 47% ASK (compared to QF and not the whole group as a total) for 29% revenue, but lets not forget what is important. Do we want profit or revenue ?

When we look at profit (EBIT), JQ make 40% profit (as a percentage of QF profit) for 47% ASK.

In the meantime, QF INTL only make 34% profit (as a percentage of QF profit) with 69% ASK (QF ASK). Is QF INTL better than JQ ?

JQ, $461 million profit vs QF INTL $399 million profit.

JQ, 48,736 ASK vs QF INTL 69,280 ASK ?

JQ made 15% more profit with only 70% of the ASK as QF INTL. Is JQ really such a basket case ? Is it really such a waste of resources ? Doesn't JQ provide the group a better return than QF INTL ? Shouldn't this be where more resources go ?

Last edited by a_pilot; 16th Dec 2018 at 23:52.
a_pilot is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2018, 15:27
  #659 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 983
Howís Jetstar Asia going these days? 15 years and not a single dollar made. What a failure.

Whats the big secret up there. All very hush hush like it doesnít exist.
wheels_down is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2018, 20:04
  #660 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,679
Originally Posted by a_pilot View Post
traffic..

once again thanks for the clarification

Yes, I was comparing JQ to the total group (JQ + QF), and not JQ vs QF.

Yes, JQ, do fly 47% ASK (compared to QF and not the whole group as a total) for 29% revenue, but lets not forget what is important. Do we want profit or revenue ?

When we look at profit (EBIT), JQ make 40% profit (as a percentage of QF profit) for 47% ASK.

In the meantime, QF INTL only make 34% profit (as a percentage of QF profit) with 69% ASK (QF ASK). Is QF INTL better than JQ ?

JQ, $461 million profit vs QF INTL $399 million profit.

JQ, 48,736 ASK vs QF INTL 69,280 ASK ?

JQ made 15% more profit with only 70% of the ASK as QF INTL. Is JQ really such a basket case ? Is it really such a waste of resources ? Doesn't JQ provide the group a better return than QF INTL ? Shouldn't this be were more resources go ?
Clarification or correction? Comparing JQ to 'group' was not the calculation presented it was as you now clarify JQ to QF.

Reading a set of CONSOLIDATED financial statements that provide no detail on how Management apportion costs between the segments, means that whilst complying with the requisite standard, management have a 'low bar to clear' They are well aware of that. Qantas provide zero detail on costs between segments, nor does the standard require them to. However, the unique lack of detail about JQ necessitates one trusting Little Napoleon and his gang of robber barons, taking their claims at face value. Thus to have any confidence, other than the word of Little Napoleon requires a leap of faith.
  • This is the same Little Napoleon that on a Saturday morning in October 2011 claimed to have grounded an entire airline, apparently all by himself.
  • This is the same Little Napoleon that rushed to the ACCC stating Qantas International was 'in terminal decline' and needed an exception to the Competition laws. Show us where the 'amazing alliance' generated revenue for Qantas?
  • This is the same Little Napoleon that in December 2013 apparently needed $3 billion of tax payer funds. Only to rescind the requirement six weeks later. Within 18 months a 'transformation' had occurred. Amazing that his, and the insider options also vested at the same time!
If JQ really did all these amazing things, Qantas would segment their business into two operating segments; Domestic and International. They choose not to.
If JQ Asia was an 'amazing' business they would not need to hide it in JQ group.
If JQ in Vietnam was an amazing business, why was it necessary to classify the details surrounding the commercial terms of the release of two executives as 'for Australian eyes only"?


JQ made 15% more profit with only 70% of the ASK as QF INTL. Is JQ really such a basket case ? Is it really such a waste of resources ? Doesn't JQ provide the group a better return than QF INTL ? Shouldn't this be were more resources go ?
Just how much of the resources are actually consumed by JQ to generate that 'profit' is very fortunately for the gang at KPMG a question they do not have to address.


Qantas need a new fleet.

Last edited by Rated De; 16th Dec 2018 at 21:34.
Rated De is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

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