So you need a new fleet Leigh?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Originally Posted by Global Aviator

Let’s get this into a worldwide perspective as QF’s fleet are but a wee drop in the ocean.....

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...eral-jets.html

What have other airlines done with effected airframes?

QF 's new jingle

[Don Diego]

Hey JM, wrong again go and read the tax rules champ.

[JamieMaree]

Originally Posted by Don Diego

Hey JM, wrong again go and read the tax rules champ.

I have,many times, more than you would know,chump.

[FightDeck]

Fake news and fraud

The pay figures are bogus and inflated. Regardless it’s still well short of 747 pay
Sunrise isn’t the 787 and does much harder flying so the 787 is not relevant
3 half patterns represents fraud and not science. I’d doubt CASA is going to allow it anyway. If they do it’s negligent
All a setup to blame pilots and be a red herring. 787 needs to be improved and SH especially

[Don Diego]

You may have read it but you still don't understand it so get your tax agent to explain to you slowly and in words of one syllable.

[neville_nobody]

your major problem is that, although what you assert used to be the way allowances were considered, modern generations of pilots and cabin crew use meal allowances to inflate their income when applying for loans. Nowadays, the ATO, banks, employers consider meal allowances to be income. All that is different is that there is a certain amount that the ATO considers to be tax free. the horse has bolted. A long time ago on this issue

The ATO does not consider allowances as income, if they did you would be paying your marginal rate on them. The idea is that allowances are fully expended. And if you are stupid enough to try and claim them as income the portion you are saying that is not being spent could be taxable at your marginal rate.

Any of your Cabin Crew buddies who are using their allowances as income could be in for a nasty surprise if they get audited by the ATO.

[Maggie Island]

I obviously don’t know how every airline works, but surely all aircrew are in receipt of allowances that are “folded into” salaries as described by the ATO as a taxable part of your income?

https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/PAYG...el-allowances/

Therefore if the tax man is happy to tax the relevant allowances as income I’m sure using em for loan applications etc is above board!

[Vindiesel]

Originally Posted by FightDeck

The pay figures are bogus and inflated. Regardless it’s still well short of 747 pay
Sunrise isn’t the 787 and does much harder flying so the 787 is not relevant
3 half patterns represents fraud and not science. I’d doubt CASA is going to allow it anyway. If they do it’s negligent
All a setup to blame pilots and be a red herring. 787 needs to be improved and SH especially

I doubt they're inflated. More likely they are higher than pilots expect because they don't understand their own EBA and are forgetting to include things like defined benefit superannuation (which many 787 pilots are on and which is linked directly to the hourly rate - higher than the A380 rate) and forgetting to include things like ADTA and ODTA ($90 per day and $40 per day off the top of my head) which can easily add another $10k per year to these figures as well.

[Blueskymine]

The correct way to lodge allowances is to add your total allowances to your gross salary.

Then you claim the max reasonable amount back for every night you were away.

The ATO views allowances as income. They also want to see what you spent it on. If you don’t keep a travel diary and you do get audited, they will treat your allowances as income and they will tax your marginal rate on it.

Hence why you need to declare it.

[neville_nobody]

I obviously don’t know how every airline works, but surely all aircrew are in receipt of allowances that are “folded into” salaries as described by the ATO as a taxable part of your income?

No they are not folded into anything they are separate. In the 'good old days' they were paid in cash by the hotel. Each airline has a different way of paying them these days but the principle is the same.
They are not considered income by anyone except for maybe a few cool aid drinking management types and a few angels who have no idea how aviation works it would appear.

[JamieMaree]

As you can see there is a taxable component

[V-Jet]

your major problem is that, although what you assert used to be the way allowances were considered, modern generations of pilots and cabin crew use meal allowances to inflate their income when applying for loans. Nowadays, the ATO, banks, employers consider meal allowances to be income. All that is different is that there is a certain amount that the ATO considers to be tax free.
the horse has bolted. A long time ago on this issue.

1) If anyone isn't doing everything to maximise their affordability profile when applying for loans then they are clinically insane. Of particular note there is Qantas' nasty habit of contracting as opposed to full time, only full time workers get easy access to home loans.
2) Whether allowances are considered income or not, they are generally spent on exactly what they were designed to be spent on. Living when away from home.
3) Is there a point to your interest in allowances? Will it help get Qantas back on track after years of neglect? Will it help any 73 be inspected for wing cracks any faster?

[Rated De]

3) Is there a point to your interest in allowances? Will it help get Qantas back on track after years of neglect? Will it help any 73 be inspected for wing cracks any faster?

Fair point.

Hypothetically, even if Little Napoleon breaks away from his marital bliss and "cuts" a deal any new type he has admitted is at least four years away.
In four years, the fleet metrics left unchecked will be much worse. The capital expenditure requirements more onerous.

What has been evident is that the mood of the financial community has changed a little with respect to Qantas. Once jovial and light hearted, with Little Napoleon taking the audience on a magical fantasy ride of aviation wonder, the analysts are now a little more attentive with respect to the fleet, the future and indeed succession.
By usual industry metrics he has had a long run, with little to show other than personal remuneration.
The analysts that talked it up can just as easily ask harder questions. Off script he performs terribly.

[neville_nobody]

As you can see there is a taxable component

Yes that is because Qantas exceed what the ATO think is a reasonable amount. It does not make it income. Just give up on this. The ATO does not think that your allowances are part of your salary.

Is there a point to your interest in allowances? Will it help get Qantas back on track after years of neglect? Will it help any 73 be inspected for wing cracks any faster?

I suspect that they think it is a way of somehow lowering people's salaries by claiming allowances are part of your income. That way they pay a lower salary then the allowance part which is variable and tax free which means less actual money paid out.

[JamieMaree]

Qantas longhaul pilots don’t get paid a salary. Short haul pilots get paid a salary. Then they get other money as well.
Each two weeks they get an amount of money that goes into their nominated bank account. It is the amount left over after deductions, one of which is tax.
Some of it is meal allowances, some of it is ODTA/ADTA.
Various parts of the gross of that money get taxed at different rates for different reasons.
I never said that the ATO thought that allowances were part of salary. All I said was that these days a lot of aircrew use meal allowances to inflate their income so that a bank will give them a bigger loan. No more no less.
Some people choose to include meal allowances and superannuation when describing how much someone is paid. I’m not one of them.

[neville_nobody]

Yeah you did........

your major problem is that, although what you assert used to be the way allowances were considered, modern generations of pilots and cabin crew use meal allowances to inflate their income when applying for loans. Nowadays, the ATO, banks, employers consider meal allowances to be income. All that is different is that there is a certain amount that the ATO considers to be tax free. the horse has bolted. A long time ago on this issue.

And people still should not be using it as part of a loan application

[JamieMaree]

You still haven’t come to grips with the difference between income and salary.
Your bold, I said income, not salary.

[rockarpee]

JM’s keyboard is SMOKIN.....well done guys and gals, thread drift at its best.

[V-Jet]

.JM’s keyboard is SMOKIN.

Indeed - and I had no idea this was a banking forum! For JM's benefit (as he has so little to contribute on anything aviation) banks rely on last three years ITR's, payslips and costs of living. Costs of living these days in Australia border on good old fashioned communism. What Credit at a bank decides you should be allowed to have. The rules are insane but allow people like QF another form of financial bastardy I referred to earlier. Particularly F/A's (that I'm aware of) are employed as contractors which effectively locks them out of the housing market. Want a home loan? Become a full time employee 'just sign here and we will fill in the conditions later' and of course, take a paycut! It's disgusting behaviour and financial bullying at it's 'soft glove' finest, but young Jamie and his/her/LGBTQIOMBYUS (it's worth adding a few letters lest I offend through omission) ilk would be very supportive of same I am sure.

Now once again, how the HELL is this banking conversation (which I am happy to discuss in great depth) relating in ANY way to the point of the thread. Which (as I read it) is the fact Qf don't have;
a) the right management
b) making anything like the right decisions
c) nor showing any capability of genuinely forward thinking strategic decision making
d) to achieve anything like the right fleet/partner/destination mix, or
e) any ambition excepting their world class expertise and truly exemplary efforts in personal remuneration at the expense of anything that is in the long term interests of the Company.
f) It doesn’t take much for the shorts get their teeth into something like this

[Transition Layer]

Come on Alan!

Sounds like Alan took Patrick out for a nice long lunch and talked up buying new aircraft “possibly” next year, as a thinly veiled attempt to divert attention away from the pickle fork controversy.