So you need a new fleet Leigh?

[Rated De]

Originally Posted by RealityCzech

Amazing that the 787 could have given a “30% productivity increase” to quote FLightDeck above. If this is accurate then the non-787 long haul terms and conditions must’ve been horribly unproductive to begin with.

Seeing as though you posit that the contract to which you allude is 'unproductive' how about some reality?

• Firstly the existing contract (which the pilots have myopically killed off as it is ring fenced on dying/not growing fleets) is a bit better than most comparable airlines, in comparable terms (Purchasing power adjusted parity)
• Given the stage length the CASK metric is GOOD.
• Include FUEL in the CASK and Qantas slides..(wrong fleet)
• The RASK metrics are good, bu adding fuel to the RASK reduces operating margin
• It was little Napoleon that claimed the cicra 30% saving.

Don't forget Qantas made a record 'transformation' profits in FY15,FY16 and FY17 without a new contract, and fleet of 787 pilots flying it
The contract in reality was never the issue.

The fleet needed renewal a decade ago.

Still waiting for the illumination you promised on JQ

[Rated De]

Pilots were the only union that offered up 30% productivity increase and a pay reduction in order for the privilege to fly a 747 replacement for more work and less money. Sadly Got to hand Alan the credit for getting one over the unions negotiators,it’s pilots and the contract apart.

And that one particular Stream lead was well rewarded.

[FightDeck]

Reality Chick is big on grandiose sweeping statements but is always lacking providing any data or facts. I’ve yet to see any solid data to rebute the facts Rated D has provided. Debate is always healthy but it’s a shame that a counterfactual from Reality Chick is so lacking in any detail.
Qantas International returned its cost of capital and made record profits prior to 787 introduction.
The extra flying on the 787 comes entirely from losing the protection of night credits. Something that was implemented a long time ago that was health related and not pay related. It will be interesting to monitor the long term health of 787 crews once the base establishment has stabilised, fleet has arrived, training has reduced and slip times reduce to normal.
When reality Chick sleeps in he, she or it’s bed every night, eats in the correct time zone, enjoys some Sushi and a latte in the street at the Proper time I suppose it’s easy to be critical. If you hate pilots so much and troll this website I suppose factual arguments are irrelevant.
Or perhaps is a management pilot who plays office dress ups and flies at times of he, she or it’s choosing in a rank, base and category grossly ahead of ones seniority.
Suppose it would be easy for some to be critical if your morals had a monetary value and got paid bonuses/KPIs to sell out your co workers and undermine the profession.
More likely to be someone who is resentful of pilots and contract protections without making the sacrifices to actually enter the profession or actually perform or have performed the work oneself.
You see few office staff including pilot management working regular night shifts. Its a ghost town come Christmas, Easter or holiday time.
Medical reasearch and data continue to illuminate the dangers of night shift work and jet lag.
Dont suspect the CEO on 30 million or David Andrew on 13 million would care about crew health other than send out an R U OK email once a year and tick a box.
The CAOs empower pilots alone of their ability and legal responsibilities to NOT operate or EXPECT to operate fatigued. Multiple night sectors are more fatiguing than day as any PILOT will acknowledge.
Pilots must take steps to manage fatigue risk, including the possible decision not to operate an aircraft if they feel that they are unfit as a result of fatigue, or likely to become so (paragraph 16.1 of CAO 48.1)
A lifetime of extra night sectors each and every bid period till retirement(increasingly likely to be medically) may result in pilots having to comply with their legal responsibilities now that the protection has been lost for the 787 fleet alone.

[dragon man]

Might I add that within less than ten years all pilots in Qantas will be operating ultra long haul with no night credits as the 747,A330 and A380 will all be gone. IMO from first hand experience you are correct about the health effects but it will be to late when they realise it.

[Beer Baron]

Having done 850 stick average the last 3 years

If you are flying 850 hours a year on the current LH EA you certainly won’t be flying 30% more on the 787. In fact you won’t even fly 6% more. So the argument about night credits is about money, not health.

[*Lancer*]

Originally Posted by Beer Baron

If you are flying 850 hours a year on the current LH EA you certainly won’t be flying 30% more on the 787. In fact you won’t even fly 6% more. So the argument about night credits is about money, not health.

Exactly!

It seems much of the anti-EA9 sentiment is actually validating ‘Gamechanger theory’, when the reality is that the 787 contract structure and flying operation is little different to other operators.

I don’t know RealityCzech or Rated De, but it severely undermines your arguments’ integrity when you carry on about Alan Joyce’s teeth to try and make a point.

[Chris2303]

Originally Posted by Rated De

Still waiting for the illumination you promised on JQ

Still waiting for a reply to my question....

[DirectAnywhere]

A lifetime of extra night sectors each and every bid period till retirement(increasingly likely to be medically) may result in pilots having to comply with their legal responsibilities now that the protection has been lost for the 787 fleet alone.

The one saving grace of the 787 contract is it costs nothing to go sick but allowances. There is no longer a perverse incentive to go to work tired or sick as there is now on big overtime sectors and on the SH award. If you're too tired to operate because you're being worked too hard, you go sick. Simples. Getting the certificate to cover such a situation as a generic "medical condition" is a simple matter.

[dragon man]

Originally Posted by DirectAnywhere

The one saving grace of the 787 contract is it costs nothing to go sick but allowances. There is no longer a perverse incentive to go to work tired or sick as there is now on big overtime sectors and on the SH award. If you're too tired to operate because you're being worked too hard, you go sick. Simples. Getting the certificate to cover such a situation as a generic "medical condition" is a simple matter.

You got it.

[cloudsurfng]

Originally Posted by Rated De

And that one particular Stream lead was well rewarded.

Ol' Streamy!! Quickest 180 Ive ever seen....

[Rated De]

So Leigh as you wander off into oblivion, your blistering reference to the re-equipment of Qantas being hamstrung by the QSA 1992 is as hollow as your legacy.

Whilst this thread was a direct challenge to your baseless claims that legislation was stopping the company re-equipping and not your board and executive self enrichment 'share buy back' program, it seems that even a former QF economist acknowledges the obvious.
Off to the woodshed.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/trav...a380-problems/

Qantas need a new fleet and the almost $2 billion wasted on self enrichment would have been prudent use of shareholder funds.

[Rated De]

So Leigh, looks like the term structure of the oil price was indeed suggestive of contango.
The split between Brent and WTI surged past $11 earlier this year and a falling AUD isn't good news as Leigh, Jet Fuel and oil derivatives are hard to hedge and priced higher than their base oil.
Despite waffling about the QSA 1992 as the source of Qantas' problems, the reality is the self enrichment program (share buy back) pumped the share price and enriched insiders nicely, while the company continued to run a fuel inefficient fleet.
With the US likely to attempt to restrict Iranian oil exports, there is probably more upside, your fuel included CASK will get worse.
The shareholders hope Little Napoleon actually starts running an airline rather than spending shareholder funds on social engineering.

Off to the wood shed

[dragon man]

The airline needs more 787s ASAP then a quick decision and delivery on 777/A350. Personally I think oil will see $100 a barrel before if ever it ever sees $50 a barrel again. Management have had the the opportunity in the last 5 years to do something about the fleet but as pointed out above have spent the money on buybacks, bonuses and progressive causes. Rome burns while Nero fiddles.

[Street garbage]

It's just history repeating itself dragon man, 2001-2002 all over again. They could have completely re-equipped with B777, instead they did nothing...just like they are doing now. How many aircraft orders have we placed under our current CEO?

[dragon man]

Originally Posted by Street garbage

It's just history repeating itself dragon man, 2001-2002 all over again. They could have completely re-equipped with B777, instead they did nothing...just like they are doing now. How many aircraft orders have we placed under our current CEO?

This time thou they have been very clever as they have coerced the pilots into effectively a B scale to get new aircraft and in so doing reduced their crewing costs by a massive amount.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

reduced their crewing costs by a massive amount.

At massive expense to the airline long term.

[Rated De]

Here Leigh, it's free to read!

https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/mark...ia/ar-BBO7TT6?

[Rated De]

How is an airline 'de-transformed"???

Rumours abound.

Could it be with the antique politely shown the door, a new cull is underway?
With over $2 billion spent on their self enrichment program (share buy backs) and a whole 6 additional aircraft order by Mr Dixon in their fleet, Little Napoleon has been captured in a pensive pose looking at his navel.
It is rumoured that the little leader is contemplating a round of sackings. Ever present with her un-educated KPMG Partner husband by her side, Olivia may have to hand out a few Chairman's lounge membership and lifetime upgrades. Question is will Mr Goyder be as receptive as the predecessor?

With the fuel price a lot higher than last year, it appears the illusion of 'transformation' is receding and the receding tide shows the little Emperor swimming naked.

[Ken Borough]

My memory is a tad rusty but wasn't QF's fleet renewal in the early part of the century complicated by the late deliveries of the A380s and B787s? I think the Company was caught between a rock and a hard place. And wasn't the gaggle of A330s the result of a deal from Airbus that couldn't be refused as a form of compensation for the late A380s? It's not that difficult to understand why the B777, however desirable, was 'overlooked'.

[Derfred]

Originally Posted by Ken Borough

My memory is a tad rusty but wasn't QF's fleet renewal in the early part of the century complicated by the late deliveries of the A380s and B787s? I think the Company was caught between a rock and a hard place. And wasn't the gaggle of A330s the result of a deal from Airbus that couldn't be refused as a form of compensation for the late A380s? It's not that difficult to understand why the B777, however desirable, was 'overlooked'.

For a small airline already operating B737, B767, B747, A330 and A380, and with B787’s late, adding a B777 to the mix over the last 10 years would probably have spelt short-term disaster, given that the B747, A330 and A380 fleet were too young to get rid of, and adding yet another type has its not insignificant costs and loss of flexibility.

Some argue that the B777 fleet should have been ordered back in the late 1990’s when everyone else was ordering them, and QF were still ordering B747’s. Dixon (and I guess Strong before him) looked at it, and said no thanks. He may have had valid range/payload reasons at the time. A decade later, that ship had sailed, and after ordering A380’s, I suspect the decision not to also order B777’s was a good one.

With hindsight, the B777 may have been a better idea than the A380, and they should have given the whole A330/A380 thing a miss.

Picture a simpler, all-Boeing airline, with a gradual transition from B747/B767 to B777/B787 as they retire, and/or as fuel prices and market conditions dictate. That would be what I would define as “lean and flexible” - something this airline has always said it wants to be, but never seems to achieve in practice.

But Dixon wanted the A380. I get that it was as attractive as the latest iPhone, and great for marketing (he was famous for marketing), but that is basically the single decision that has left us where we are now.

In the early 2000’s, Dixon’s CFO expoused fleet simplicity and flexibilty as a reason not to order B777’s. He even used Southwest as a prime example of a highly successful carrier due to their decision to only fly a single type. He also mentioned fleet complexity as a problem contributing to Ansett’s downfall. Shortly thereafter, QF not only ordered the A380, but the A330 as well, and ordered a fleet of A320’s for JQ, despite having a fleet of B737’s in mainline. Go figure. I don’t know what happened to Dixon’s Swiss Bank account that day, or what kind of smoking hot Toulouse girls were waiting for him in his hotel room, but I think it’s fair to say that that’s the day the B777 died for QF.

In summary, I put the current fleet state down to Dixon. I actually think Joyce (that’s his name, Rated De) is dealing with what fleet and orders he has been given as best he can, although I would have put the B788’s on the QF domestic routes and Asia instead of in JQ. Apart from the poor ROI in JQ, they would have given QF an earlier introduction to the fleet, an opportunity for them to gradually phase out the A330 instead of buying more new ones, and would have prevented the enormous internal pilot shortage generated by the massive training requirements involved with the sudden introduction of the B789 on ULR routes in recent times. Furthermore, several years ago, if those B788’s were actually making money on QF domestic instead of losing money in JQ, he may have been able to persuade the Board to continue to buy more, instead of cancelling numerous deliveries. But I’d better keep my mouth shut, because we know what happened to Buchanan when he suggested something similar.

Waiting for the 777X to prove SYD-LHR capability seems to be the thing of the moment, and I would suggest that ordering an aircraft off-the-plan on promised performance and delivery date is something that QF have learned the hard way is not always a great idea, hence the due diligence. I actually don’t have a problem with that.