So you need a new fleet Leigh?
They are hurting as I have said on the US flights which I suspect will get a lot worse in the new year. There is a recession happening in Australia I have spoken to two people with small businesses there turnover is off 30%.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: messemate way to bondi icebergs
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
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.
TL spot on!!
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose pushing is for a couple of extra stories on old news could be a good PR distraction. I reckon that's a good thing, if it fills more seats and keeps us all in the job.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/comp...29-p535fo.html
Just Head Office - bonuses up by the one salary gone, good news there.
Also very important:
“To be clear about this, we are still growing in cabin crew, in pilots, in airport staff. We have a new aircraft arriving next week.”
See - they are expanding!
Just Head Office - bonuses up by the one salary gone, good news there.
Also very important:
“To be clear about this, we are still growing in cabin crew, in pilots, in airport staff. We have a new aircraft arriving next week.”
See - they are expanding!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a new aircraft arriving next week
So Little Napoleon needs a new fleet.
Who would have thought it.
They are also heavy back office staff, what an amazing revelation.
A proposed cap ex of AUD$2billion a year does little other than maintain the current fleet age.
They need to spend far more than that.
OQB Qantas 1door nearly removed I guess by a catering truck this afternoon, 3 weeks on the ground. Oh dear.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Patrick Hatch, First class all the way...
Thanks Patrick, your Chairman’s lounge access is finalised.
It has been a hell of a week.Fresh of the “research flight” you shovelled out some well-timed articles, with a crescendo of anti-staff rhetoric; those pesky pilots.Then of course, pickle forks made an appearance. We had to send out a well fed Head of Engineering and the only idiot left in the village to slander the head of the engineering union. The game changing CEO is still enjoying her honeymoon. Despite the elevated salary, he had other things to do. Sadly, with no superlative in sight it appears he just isn’t interested. Unfortunately, Steve Purvinas was right, the pickle forks are cracking on aircraft well outside the FAA edict. You could have actually done some journalism and published a rebuttal of Andrew David’s slanderous allegations and apologised to Steve Purvinas, but you didn’t. Good choice Patrick, the point end is much more comfortable isn’t it?
So to today’s little puff piece.
At Coward Street we take our spin seriously. ICAO has no ETS and the one that it does only applies for International airlines in 2027. The reality Patrick is that the aviation industry has no plan to “transition” off hydrocarbon based fuel. Offsets are great, excess emitter airlines "buy" them (at a cheap enough price not to be a Problem-Thank you ICAO!) from those with less emissions. The industry continues at a growth rate of 5% or so into perpetuity but airlines themselves can trundle around with fuel inefficient aircraft and hopefully no one notices that the fleet burns more fuel per seat than the competitors.
Clearly Patrick, you haven't read Qantas' concerns with bio-fuel. Technically feasible but commercially a minefield.
Is certainly a revelation that Qantas are logging in Tasmania. Not much a stretch when an airline now sells insurance and gym memberships...
Not sure what $50 million will achieve when an airline spends over $4 billion a year on fuel.
It sure would be a long reigning emperor, Little Napoleon will have nearly chalked up his own century by 2050. Will Qantas have a new fleet by then Patrick?
https://www.smh.com.au/business/comp...10-p5394d.html
It has been a hell of a week.Fresh of the “research flight” you shovelled out some well-timed articles, with a crescendo of anti-staff rhetoric; those pesky pilots.Then of course, pickle forks made an appearance. We had to send out a well fed Head of Engineering and the only idiot left in the village to slander the head of the engineering union. The game changing CEO is still enjoying her honeymoon. Despite the elevated salary, he had other things to do. Sadly, with no superlative in sight it appears he just isn’t interested. Unfortunately, Steve Purvinas was right, the pickle forks are cracking on aircraft well outside the FAA edict. You could have actually done some journalism and published a rebuttal of Andrew David’s slanderous allegations and apologised to Steve Purvinas, but you didn’t. Good choice Patrick, the point end is much more comfortable isn’t it?
So to today’s little puff piece.
At Coward Street we take our spin seriously. ICAO has no ETS and the one that it does only applies for International airlines in 2027. The reality Patrick is that the aviation industry has no plan to “transition” off hydrocarbon based fuel. Offsets are great, excess emitter airlines "buy" them (at a cheap enough price not to be a Problem-Thank you ICAO!) from those with less emissions. The industry continues at a growth rate of 5% or so into perpetuity but airlines themselves can trundle around with fuel inefficient aircraft and hopefully no one notices that the fleet burns more fuel per seat than the competitors.
Qantas' current offsetting projects include restoring wetlands and rainforest in far north Queensland, reducing the chance of wildfires in the North Kimberley and conserving 7000 hectares of Tasmanian forest which might otherwise be logged.However some scientists and environmentalists question the merits of land-based offsetting schemes, because they do not stop carbon entering the atmosphere in the first place.The company will also spend $50 million over 10 years on research and investment to help develop a biofuel industry in Australia.
Is certainly a revelation that Qantas are logging in Tasmania. Not much a stretch when an airline now sells insurance and gym memberships...
Not sure what $50 million will achieve when an airline spends over $4 billion a year on fuel.
It sure would be a long reigning emperor, Little Napoleon will have nearly chalked up his own century by 2050. Will Qantas have a new fleet by then Patrick?
https://www.smh.com.au/business/comp...10-p5394d.html
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Gods Country
Age: 65
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had to send out a well fed Head of Engineering and the only idiot left in the village
by upper management! If it were up to him I think the EBA would be signed long ago without the drawn out games of the board!
I am be bemused at that story. It is utter crap on the face of it. Qantas can’t plan three years down the road, let alone thirty. And what if those selfish pilots don’t take a pay cut to fund it?
Oh well, the way that actual climate change is accelerating faster than the average predictions means that in 30 years airlines will be much smaller than they are now,, so that’ll take care of some of the 12 million tonnes
Oh well, the way that actual climate change is accelerating faster than the average predictions means that in 30 years airlines will be much smaller than they are now,, so that’ll take care of some of the 12 million tonnes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am be bemused at that story. It is utter crap on the face of it. Qantas can’t plan three years down the road, let alone thirty.
Little Napoleon is fortunate that ICAO is also big on spin, small on substance.
- The ETS has priced carbon with negligible cost impost. (Thanks ICAO)
- Doesn't start until 2027 (Thanks ICAO)
- Is only for International Airlines (Thanks ICAO)
- Airlines can continue growing ASK at around 5-6% per year (Thanks ICAO)
- From 2019 CO2 data will be collected yet strangely not disseminated (Thanks again)
Most fortunately for airlines like Qantas, it can continue to burn however much hydrocarbon fuel its aging fleet needs.
Of course the best way to actually do something would be to replace an aging four engine international fleet, where CO2 output eclipses the competitors (both on a seat and aggregate basis.)
Much better to have "aspirational puff pieces" in the daily rags claiming that in 30 years time something will be different while the "externality" of pollution is borne by others.
Spin over substance, it is the ICAO and Qantas way.
Here is a fantastic summary of the LTCM (Long Term Capital Management) collapse. It has relevance for every collapse from Rome, Nazi Germany and of course that other over blown 'leader' we all love so much:
With multi-billions of losses and running the prospect of ruining the financial system LTCM was bailed out by the Federal Reserve and a consortium of dealers – the first and only time in history that a hedge fund has had to be bailed out by the US’s supreme financial authority.
So what went wrong? Was it Meriwether? Hubris? Bad luck? In fact, none of the three. Meriwether, indeed, appears to have been a good guy: “When you’re that successful people build up myths around you – the Master of the Universe thing, Meriwether is a very nice guy but kind of quiet, not bombastic at all and his decision making was consensus driven.”
The weakness at LTCM was the lack of cognitive diversity. Running on pure talent was not enough. The men behind LTCM had studied at the same schools, learned or taught each other the same theories and shared the same blind spots. LTCM would have done better to fire a couple of partners and hire a landscape gardener for an opposing point of view. All these guys had 160 IQs – it was like a meeting of the fathers of financial theory. But they were all the same. We were missing the dissenting point of view.
By 1998, the company had equity of $4.7bn but was running off-balance sheet derivative positions with a notional value of $1.25 trillion over 106 different strategies. Statistically speaking, they could not all fail. What happened was, they all failed at the same time.
With leverage we were getting brilliant returns on equity and it was impossible to lose money on all of the strategies at the same time. Statistically that was true. But there was a thread that ran through all of them and created a conditional correlation. The thread was they were all short volatility.”
When the market moved against it the whole thing shifted at once. Its lack of diverse thinking was its weakness – and it came up against a ruthless market. There was no denying Wall Street’s piranhas.
So what went wrong? Was it Meriwether? Hubris? Bad luck? In fact, none of the three. Meriwether, indeed, appears to have been a good guy: “When you’re that successful people build up myths around you – the Master of the Universe thing, Meriwether is a very nice guy but kind of quiet, not bombastic at all and his decision making was consensus driven.”
The weakness at LTCM was the lack of cognitive diversity. Running on pure talent was not enough. The men behind LTCM had studied at the same schools, learned or taught each other the same theories and shared the same blind spots. LTCM would have done better to fire a couple of partners and hire a landscape gardener for an opposing point of view. All these guys had 160 IQs – it was like a meeting of the fathers of financial theory. But they were all the same. We were missing the dissenting point of view.
By 1998, the company had equity of $4.7bn but was running off-balance sheet derivative positions with a notional value of $1.25 trillion over 106 different strategies. Statistically speaking, they could not all fail. What happened was, they all failed at the same time.
With leverage we were getting brilliant returns on equity and it was impossible to lose money on all of the strategies at the same time. Statistically that was true. But there was a thread that ran through all of them and created a conditional correlation. The thread was they were all short volatility.”
When the market moved against it the whole thing shifted at once. Its lack of diverse thinking was its weakness – and it came up against a ruthless market. There was no denying Wall Street’s piranhas.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wellington
Posts: 258
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
His omnipotence is known to all.
It remains an interesting study into just how these "errors" due complexity of the payment structures always results in underpayment.
"It remains an interesting study into just how these "errors" due complexity of the payment structures always results in underpayment."
When working in a large multi-national company I once put a similar question to a (relatively) friendly face in HR.
HR & Finance are judged as everyone else on "performance" - a major item is sticking to (or coming in under) budget. Thus in any situation that allows for choice it is very tempting to go the cheapest route - this may not be a major decision on that item but it may gain you some shuffle space if something else in the future unexpectedly goes wrong. The absolute maximum you can expect is what is in the policy - and normally you will get (a lot or a little) less depending on how many "decisions" are required.
.
It's not nice but it's human nature in a system that measures people by "metrics" and "output".
When working in a large multi-national company I once put a similar question to a (relatively) friendly face in HR.
HR & Finance are judged as everyone else on "performance" - a major item is sticking to (or coming in under) budget. Thus in any situation that allows for choice it is very tempting to go the cheapest route - this may not be a major decision on that item but it may gain you some shuffle space if something else in the future unexpectedly goes wrong. The absolute maximum you can expect is what is in the policy - and normally you will get (a lot or a little) less depending on how many "decisions" are required.
.
It's not nice but it's human nature in a system that measures people by "metrics" and "output".
Whilst I have no doubt of the validity of the ‘absolute maximum’ comment (except in the case of Elaine etc) I think it’s reasonable to point out that very few would approach their manager and complain about overpayment, even fewer to a regulatory authority. Statistics are likely to be skewed towards underpayment, in other words.
The famous BA story/myth? springs to mind where a SYD-AKL-SYD shuttle service was cancelled but the accommodation and allowances continued to be paid. On realising this, enterprising crew were apparently sent from SYD to the hotel in AKL to collect the cash.
The famous BA story/myth? springs to mind where a SYD-AKL-SYD shuttle service was cancelled but the accommodation and allowances continued to be paid. On realising this, enterprising crew were apparently sent from SYD to the hotel in AKL to collect the cash.
At the same multi-national a colleague who was moved to another office discovered he had been substantially over-payed (over $ 7000) in moving and relocation allowances.
He then tried to pay it back - he was eventually hauled in and told to "stop making trouble" by HR - of course 18 months later they came and demanded he pay it back INSTANTLY and suggested he had been totally dishonest.
Wisely he'd kept it separate and just wrote them a cheque - and quit for another company 3 weeks later. Did wonders for morale around the section
He then tried to pay it back - he was eventually hauled in and told to "stop making trouble" by HR - of course 18 months later they came and demanded he pay it back INSTANTLY and suggested he had been totally dishonest.
Wisely he'd kept it separate and just wrote them a cheque - and quit for another company 3 weeks later. Did wonders for morale around the section
