So you need a new fleet Leigh?

[Asturias56]

Mr B has a lot on his mind right now - the Max, the problem getting the 777X first flight (now 2020), the tanker issues and of course do they launch the NMA .............

[Rated De]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

Mr B has a lot on his mind right now - the Max, the problem getting the 777X first flight (now 2020), the tanker issues and of course do they launch the NMA .............

With the good folk at Boeing busy buying re-certification for the MAX and delaying the 777X, just who will Little Napoleon blame this time?
Ipso facto, these problems ought mean the order book at the other place is full to over flowing...

What to do what to do...
Industrial dispute anyone?

Qantas need a new fleet as much as they need "management"

[Capt Fathom]

Originally Posted by FightDeck

The newest 747s are 2003/2004 models. Thats only 4 years younger than the A380s.

So if the A380’s came in 2007/8, that makes them 4years younger than the B747s.

[FightDeck]

Correct. My bad.
That should of read the A380s are only a few years younger than the 747 ERs that are soon going and replaced by 787s.

[Australopithecus]

The difference between the 747 and the 380 is that the 747 has some residual value while the 380 does not, except as parts. Air France has just announced they are quitting the 380 completely by 2022.

Question for accounting experts: How is the balance sheet affected when an asset is worthless yet still has ten years left on the depreciation schedule?

[Rated De]

Originally Posted by Australopithecus

The difference between the 747 and the 380 is that the 747 has some residual value while the 380 does not, except as parts. Air France has just announced they are quitting the 380 completely by 2022.

Question for accounting experts: How is the balance sheet affected when an asset is worthless yet still has ten years left on the depreciation schedule?

That is a fantastic question given the "confronting loss" in FY15. Over $2.6 billion of the "loss" was accounting loss as the long haul fleet was "impaired". What this means is that the "judgement" is that the book value of the asset exceeds the asset value that can realised if sold.
That many analysts asked questions of the book value prior to the "loss" is because the book values were considered not realistic.

Thus, specifically under AASB 136 the impairment becomes a judgement combining accounting treatments and valuation assessments. A bit of nudge-nudge wink-wink between the big 4 auditors and "executive management" helps with the timing. It was really lucky that the "impairment" in FY15 was the year before the recovery at which time millions of management share options vested.

To answer the question, ASIC has some concerns about asset impairment.

While there are many judgmental areas involved in impairment testing, if the asset is considered to be impaired because the value recognised on the balance sheet cannot be recovered that impairment loss must be recognised at the time it is identified.

With regulators and auditors likely all members of the Chairman's lounge, it is something that "isn't recognised" until a more convenient time.

To paraphrase Upton Sinclair,

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary (perks) depends upon his not understanding it!"

[Don Diego]

Blind Freddy can see the failure that has been the 380, creative accounting will, however, save the day.

[Rated De]

Here Little Napoleon.
In the big world of aviation, Airline CEOs spend their time on fleet economics, not social discourse.
Perhaps you could call up an airline CEO like Air France-KLM CEO Ben Smith and ask what to do..

https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea....a380-problems/

[dragon man]

The only thing wrong with that article is you could change AirFrance to Qantas and the reasons are the same.

[PlasticFantastic]

Are they? Qantas flies the A380 to and from a number of congested airports (SYD, LHR, HKG etc) and on routes where its range and payload are important (DFW, potentially SCL and JNB once the 747s go, although I think 787s or 777X/A350 would be better for the last two), and where frequency is less important than arrival and departure timing (anything trans Pacific or to Europe). The markets it operates in are also quite different to the European market, which is highly fragmented given the number of airlines and hubs available to travellers with only a short connection, killing any revenue premium for most airlines - Qantas dominates Transpacific, and is P2P to HKG, and is increasingly locking in premium traffic from Australia which can fill a large number of premium seats that attract a revenue premium.

Yes, QF will need to retire the A380 and replace it with more efficient twin engine planes. I'm not arguing against that. But, I don't think that the argument that the economics of Air France and Qantas are the same, in respect of the A380, is right at all. I'd expect Qantas to be one of the later airlines to retire the A380.

[dragon man]

Let’s see, Heathrow they have 4 slots available but two are leased out. Dallas it flys home with about 100/120 empty seats, reliability I think about the same or worse than AF probably, disruptions due to breakdowns are diabolical because they have no spare aircraft and they can’t put 480 people on another flight it’s just to many people. When they work they punters love them , for the people at the coal face they are a nightmare.

[Chris2303]

Given that two separate A380s have gone mechanical in the past week, I'd say that AF have it about right

[Going Boeing]

Unfortunately, at some airports such as LAX, the A380 does nothing for arrival/departure congestion. Following the wake turbulence event over the North Arabian sea involving an Emirates A380, ATC in the US applies an increased separation compared - ie, it is double the spacing between other wide bodies & thus it takes up two arrival or departure slots resulting in no savings. The only saving being for parking bays at the terminal.

[Rated De]

Little Napoleon is worried...Airlines might actually have taxes levied for pollution.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-message-field

Qantas need a new fleet.

[PlasticFantastic]

Originally Posted by Rated De

Little Napoleon is worried...Airlines might actually have taxes levied for pollution.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-message-field

Qantas need a new fleet.

Rated, the kinds of taxes quoted in the article (flat per-passenger taxes by travel class, in France and the Netherlands) would give Qantas a competitive advantage, and have absolutely no bearing on the fuel efficiency of an airline's fleet.

So, no, Joyce isn't worried about the impact on Qantas; his point is about whether there is much point in taxing airlines when there is usually no substitute to flying (e.g. high speed rail is good over shorter distances, but that's about it). And, these taxes have absolutely no bearing on whether Qantas should or shouldn't get a new fleet.

[Rated De]

And, these taxes have absolutely no bearing on whether Qantas should or shouldn't get a new fleet.

The ICAO ETS is only on International services. CORSIA requires as of CY2019 airlines report pollution metrics. Member states can set their own ETS for domestic operations. This has been done in Europe. Taxation of output could be the next step, this is what is being signalled. This has airline management concerned.

"Excess emissions" charged at the customer interface combined with the growing spectre of flight shaming, as alluded to by Little Napoleon, are the concern. Fleet choices (particularly as it relates to type and configuration) might see a per passenger emissions charge highlight exactly which airlines have "game changed" and those who are busy creating project names or social discourse.

[dragon man]

In simple English I think you are saying that what the progressives are lecturing the deplorables about might be about to come back and bite then on the back side. Also if they tax on the basis of emissions per sector length per person and that would spell trouble for Syd direct JFK and Heathrow.

[Rated De]

Originally Posted by dragon man

In simple English I think you are saying that what the progressives are lecturing the deplorables about might be about to come back and bite then on the back side. Also if they tax on the basis of emissions per sector length per person and that would spell trouble for Syd direct JFK and Heathrow.

That sums it up.
The regulator had a little conference back in May, discussing what the likely member state responses might be..
A per passenger tax isn't a concern, but taxes levied in other ways would highlight precisely why Little Napoleon is concerned with "flight shaming" as some fleets pollute more than others....

[kiwi grey]

No B777-8 for "Operation Sunrise"?
According to the usually-reliable Jon Ostrower (here: https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-d...ge-777-8-777x/) "Boeing is freezing efforts to develop an ultra-long range follow on to the 777-9", i.e. the 777-8

Awkward

[Rated De]

Originally Posted by kiwi grey

No B777-8 for "Operation Sunrise"?
According to the usually-reliable Jon Ostrower (here: https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-d...ge-777-8-777x/) "Boeing is freezing efforts to develop an ultra-long range follow on to the 777-9", i.e. the 777-8

Awkward

Imagine the joy when Little Napoleon wrote to Boeing about his ambitious plans for up to a dozen aircraft.
Given it is contract season for pilots and the daily rags have featured puff pieces about project "Bananarama" he will, true to form, blame either of or and some combination of the following:"

1. Pilots not taking pay cuts, to "meet the business case" (given the contribution of pilots to hourly operating costs is in the range of 3-6%) the business case must be VERY weak..
2. Blame the regulator for not, despite Chairman's lounge membership, permitting extended operating Tour of Duty.
3. The manufacturer, for not taking up the generous offer to absorb the fixed cost of development for maybe a dozen aircraft.
4. Some combination of all three previous points.

Likely there will be some further emissions from him some about some disastrous "conflageration" of events all pointing to the fact that the region's most highly remunerated airline CEO is not responsible.