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 10th Jul 2019, 09:53
  #1061 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by dragon man View Post
As far as depreciation goes the last 747 at retirement will only be 17 years old.
That's true, but Qantas wrote off the value of its 747 fleet, so hasn't benefitted from depreciation on that fleet for years.
PlasticFantastic is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2019, 09:57
  #1062 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,248
Originally Posted by T-Vasis View Post
How is it known that the QF 380's are all leased?
Qantas owns all the A380, outright, hire purchase or finance leased.
(Source: Qantas Data book)
Rated De is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2019, 10:08
  #1063 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,248
Originally Posted by PlasticFantastic View Post
That's true, but Qantas wrote off the value of its 747 fleet, so hasn't benefitted from depreciation on that fleet for years.
Actually yes they did as the 'loss' in FY15 from the CGU impairment of the 747 fleet, meant no corporate tax payable for the next few years, a gift that kept on giving.
The question remains that even with the inspection, what realisable value have these aircraft?
Qantas may be the one trick pony holding them on balance sheet at an unrealistic book value. Might be good to fool the staff again for another round of pay freezes, with such a 'confronting loss', then an 'amazing transformation' with well timed options for the insiders.


https://www.michaelwest.com.au/qanta...-timing-caper/
Rated De is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2019, 10:28
  #1064 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 333
As far as depreciation goes the last 747 at retirement will only be 17 years old.
The depreciation schedule isn't that long. A debt-free asset on the balance sheet.
T-Vasis is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2019, 11:21
  #1065 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,248
Originally Posted by T-Vasis View Post
The depreciation schedule isn't that long. A debt-free asset on the balance sheet.
Qantas use straight line depreciation for aircraft from 2.5-20 years, with a residual value between 0-10%
Rated De is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2019, 22:10
  #1066 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 755
https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/EASA_...f/PAD_19-116_1

This is a proposed AD issued on July 5 so how could Qantas have complied with it and sign off on it on two aircraft when it’s not yet in existence?
dragon man is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 00:09
  #1067 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 540
This is a proposed AD issued on July 5 so how could Qantas have complied with it and sign off on it on two aircraft when it’s not yet in existence?
As I understand it, the issue has been known about for some time with no immediate ramifications on the fleets.
Qantas conducted inspections as a precaution as routine maintenance was carried out but the proposed AD, with the time-frame included, has only recently been published.
Qantas (and probably Singair and Emirates) had already inspected some of the affected aircraft, and those inspections met the requirements of the AD.
C441 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 00:37
  #1068 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 755
How can they meet the requirements when there isn’t one and it doesn’t say how the inspection is to be done? I have never heard of retrospective signing off on an AD?
dragon man is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 01:55
  #1069 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by dragon man View Post
How can they meet the requirements when there isn’t one and it doesn’t say how the inspection is to be done? I have never heard of retrospective signing off on an AD?
There are exceptions, but most of the time, an AD simply mandates an existing Service Bulletin (either airframer or engine). So if the existing SB has already been complied with, and the AD doesn't include any additional actions aside from what in the SB, then they could easily have already complied. It won't be official until the AD gets released (sometimes the released AD changes based on comments or new data), but it's not unreasonable for an operator to say they've already complied based on the preliminary version of the AD.
A primary reason for AD's is that Service Bulletins - even Alert SBs - are not mandatory So some operators don't bother unless it gets AD'ed.
tdracer is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 06:50
  #1070 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 755
I believe there is not even a service bulletin issued yet so to me the question still remains valid.
dragon man is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 10:17
  #1071 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 30
The first line of the required actions in the AD says "unless accomplished previously" - i.e. if an airline had already undertaken the required inspection (and any corrective action) then it isn't required to do so again, until the second inspection period falls due.
PlasticFantastic is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 10:30
  #1072 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 292
Originally Posted by PlasticFantastic View Post
The first line of the required actions in the AD says "unless accomplished previously" - i.e. if an airline had already undertaken the required inspection (and any corrective action) then it isn't required to do so again, until the second inspection period falls due.
With that I think you have slain the dragon 🤪🤪
On eyre is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 12:40
  #1073 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by On eyre View Post


With that I think you have slain the dragon 🤪🤪
Do I get a maiden, or maybe Chairman's Lounge access for that?
PlasticFantastic is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 18:26
  #1074 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by dragon man View Post
I believe there is not even a service bulletin issued yet so to me the question still remains valid.
Just because a SB hasn't been formally released doesn't mean it's not "out there". It's pretty much SOP to go out with a preliminary SB and have one or more operators 'try it' (frequently with airframer representatives assisting) to make sure it's correct and to incorporate any lessons learned into the final release.
Further, if a SB is going to be the subject of an AD, the release process once it's finalized takes much longer than for a routine S/B because the regulating authority has to review and approve everything. Routine SBs can be approved by a DER and the release takes a couple days - an AD'd SB approval takes weeks or months.
One of my biggest complaints about the process before I retired was that the greater the safety implications of a change, the longer it took to get it out to the field. The longest flow for a routine SB was actually drafting it up - once it was done I could review and sign it off and it was ready to release. If it was safety related and I expected it to be AD'd (which safety related stuff nearly always was), then I needed to create a cert plan (~week), get it approved by the Boeing Regulatory Authority (~2 weeks), which then forwarded it to the FAA for approval (~2 weeks), then after confirmation the FAA had approved the cert plan, I could "recommend approve" the SB (big No-No to sign the recommend approve before you had an approved cert plan) - after which it went the same route (with the same flow times) as the cert plan. And of course if something got rejected anywhere along the line, it was back to square one and start over again (I once had a 'recommend approve' rejected because under the affected models it said "747-SP" where as the TCDS says "747SP", and a Cert Plan rejected for EGT as an undefined acronym ).
tdracer is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 08:00
  #1075 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 755
A380 officially rejected from Haneda by the Japanese, anyone know what plan B is?
dragon man is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 08:33
  #1076 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,248
Originally Posted by dragon man View Post
A380 officially rejected from Haneda by the Japanese, anyone know what plan B is?
Get involved in some social engineering, claim a death threat has been made, demand three billion corporate welfare, buy an airline with fleet older than yours or simply a fear, uncertainty and doubt campaign. After all is it contract season.

All far easier than actually planning for and running an airline.
Rated De is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 00:11
  #1077 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 540
Originally Posted by dragon man View Post
A380 officially rejected from Haneda by the Japanese, anyone know what plan B is?
Cancel the Haneda training in the current sim program?
C441 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 04:38
  #1078 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 333
Another critical element to pressing the go button is achieving a deal with the carrier’s pilots. At present, cockpit crew cannot be on duty for longer than 20 hours, which is less than the 23 hours, including time before and after the flight, required for Sydney-London flights.

Regulators will need to be convinced crewing rosters will not lead to pilot fatigue and therefore be a threat to safety. “We are saying the current arrangement [with pilots] does not work so we need an efficiency change,” Joyce said.

“These aircraft will create a huge amount of promotions. A first officer typically is paid 55% of a captain’s salary and the biggest thing a pilot can want is growth of an airline.

“Sunrise means massive growth for us and it would create a very fast promotional opportunity for a lot of pilots. They have to look at how they will miss that opportunity if they don’t give the productivity needed on the aircraft.

“The best thing we can all do for the success of Qantas long term is to have a pilot agreement, the manufacturers to give the right price and do to this.
http://www.orientaviation.com/articles/4492/flying-into-the-sun
T-Vasis is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 04:52
  #1079 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 755
In other words bend over no soap it’s for your own good just like the 787 contract. Yea, sure?
dragon man is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 05:05
  #1080 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: DeShire
Posts: 74
Sorry who else does close to 24 hour Tours of Duty leaving at night? Youíll be up all day then do 23-24 hours at work to end up 12 hours out of your time zone in London.
Thats all youíll do.
Strange that every other airline just orders aircraft.
Never seen pilot EAs as the stumbling block.
If you want to do something thatís currently not legal because itís unsafe and illegal you canít expect an exemption AND worse conditions to do more hazardous work.
Whats Alan and the executive team doing to get this over the line.
Not their multi million dollar bonuses.
He can go and shove it. Order it or donít but stop crying wolf whilst you make billions and pay yourself millions.
knobbycobby 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.