So you need a new fleet Leigh?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears to all come down to poor fleet planning. Some plan and order their fleets like clockwork. You have Qatar as an example, who has their fleet plans outlined for the next two decades. They could tell you precisely what their fleet would be in the year 2032. Singapore is no different. The exit dates are all known, and the like for like replacements are all scheduled in for the rest of next decade. These guys can then successfully plan years out and they can budget accurately.
So much upside in such fleet planning. So many efficiencies. It’s nothing but a disorganised ballsup here. Is there a end date even confirmed for the 747 removal? Something that would normally be planned out a few years prior.
So much upside in such fleet planning. So many efficiencies. It’s nothing but a disorganised ballsup here. Is there a end date even confirmed for the 747 removal? Something that would normally be planned out a few years prior.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears to all come down to poor fleet planning. Some plan and order their fleets like clockwork. You have Qatar as an example, who has their fleet plans outlined for the next two decades. They could tell you precisely what their fleet would be in the year 2032. Singapore is no different. The exit dates are all known, and the like for like replacements are all scheduled in for the rest of next decade. These guys can then successfully plan years out and they can budget accurately.
So much upside in such fleet planning. So many efficiencies. It’s nothing but a disorganised ballsup here. Is there a end date even confirmed for the 747 removal? Something that would normally be planned out a few years prior.
So much upside in such fleet planning. So many efficiencies. It’s nothing but a disorganised ballsup here. Is there a end date even confirmed for the 747 removal? Something that would normally be planned out a few years prior.
During the last few years with lower oil prices they have squandered over AUD $2.5 billion buying back shares, finding no other use for shareholder funds.
Apologists and useful idiots aside, most realise that there is strategy and a practical benefit for an airline to organise itself around its fleet. It is central to unit cost reduction and given the complexity and cost something that needs attention.
That they haven't is testament to a poor choice of CEO, one who prefers social discourse, ego gratification and personal enrichment.
The announced A380 issues have been known for a period yet Fort Fumble prefers to intervene in the posts of social media than plan, budget for and execute a fleet replacement strategy.
Qantas need a new fleet.
They desperately need leadership.
Did I hear someone say spanner in the works?
As I see it committing to another 10 years of what I think is fair to say is a fuel inefficient aircraft is a massive call IMO. YEs , you can hedge the fuel price but not that far out. Where will the oil price be in 8/10 years no one knows but I suspect higher than it is know and the price of a used 380 probably close to zero. Yes, Qantas needs a new fuel efficient fleet.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I suppose if you ignore the single largest factor that contributes to Qantas holding aircraft for longer than its international competitors, then it is pretty easy to criticise its strategy.
Sadly, in the real world, the ATO has set a 20-year depreciation period for passenger aircraft, whereas other countries have much shorter periods. Qantas could write down half the value of every A380 it owns by scrapping them after 10 years (since there is almost no secondary market). But, unless each A380 is burning (say) 5-10m a year (depending on your depreciation method, and which year) fuel and other OPEX than an equivalent replacement (assuming a 200m actual purchase price), that'd be financially questionable move. And thats before considering revenue potential.
Sadly, in the real world, the ATO has set a 20-year depreciation period for passenger aircraft, whereas other countries have much shorter periods. Qantas could write down half the value of every A380 it owns by scrapping them after 10 years (since there is almost no secondary market). But, unless each A380 is burning (say) 5-10m a year (depending on your depreciation method, and which year) fuel and other OPEX than an equivalent replacement (assuming a 200m actual purchase price), that'd be financially questionable move. And thats before considering revenue potential.
As far as depreciation goes the last 747 at retirement will only be 17 years old.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: DeShire
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do Qatar, Singapore Airlines, Cathay or many others Airlines know about fleet replacement in advance?
This is completely stupid. Everyone knows each fleet renewal has nothing to do with improved Fuel consumption, enhanced product, increased range to fly new routes or less maintenance.
Every order hinges on pilot contracts. Have they not been paying attention!
This is completely stupid. Everyone knows each fleet renewal has nothing to do with improved Fuel consumption, enhanced product, increased range to fly new routes or less maintenance.
Every order hinges on pilot contracts. Have they not been paying attention!
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The announced A380 issues have been known for a period yet Fort Fumble prefers to intervene in the posts of social media than plan, budget for and execute a fleet replacement strategy.
So, turns out Qantas has already checked two of their six affected A380s, and they are both fine. We should wait til all six are done before drawing any conclusions, but s far looking better for Qantas than for you on this point.
Maybe you can explain how they could have done the inspections prior to Airbus releasing the requirement to do it on July 5?
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably EASA, Airbus and the very small number of affected airlines have been talking about this for a little while, and EASA is satisfied that the checks Qantas did during scheduled maintenance, while the directive was being drafted and finalised, fully comply with the directive.
After all, the requirement is for prescribed checks to be undertaken before a particular date. Qantas and Airbus have under taken those checks, before that date. It'd be pointless for EASA to require them to undertake those same checks again.
The article says what it says. Figuring out how it likely happened isn't that hard, really...
After all, the requirement is for prescribed checks to be undertaken before a particular date. Qantas and Airbus have under taken those checks, before that date. It'd be pointless for EASA to require them to undertake those same checks again.
The article says what it says. Figuring out how it likely happened isn't that hard, really...
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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?
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.