How does Qantas 'de-transform'?
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,673
Likes: 2
From: Europe
QF has an atrocious fleet but has spent the money that could have solved most (if not all) of its’ issues on JQ. JQ sells tickets far, far cheaper than QF, it’s a legitimate question to ask (among many others). So where are the answers? Phrases like ‘commercial, in confidence’ have been handed out like confetti. People asking genuine questions are not stupid, but the answers are frankly insulting.
No one is disputing JQs existence. There is a market segment for it.
However under nearly every metric, its performance is less than its parent, allowing for management allocation of cost away from JQ. This is permitted, but was never intended to 'distort' in a way to support an industrial narrative.
The JQ 'segment' is NEVER going to be De aggregated. Qantas management would never do that, I leave it to the reader to ask why not? Qantas is 'split' into two segments (both domestic and international) JQ is not and this ensures that no accurate assessment can be made. Qantas was split in 2012, you know when the Qantas international, today transformed, was then terminal.
Given the management discretion allowed with how costs are allocated between those segments means that distortion of 'performance' is easily 'manufactured'.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,596
Likes: 149
From: Not at work
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,410
Likes: 0
From: HKG
Morno,
I don't know what you define as a Premium Airline. For me it includes 1st Class and a Business class with individual beds, not beds that mean you have to climb over the next seat to go to the WC. Compare like with like please.
I don't know what you define as a Premium Airline. For me it includes 1st Class and a Business class with individual beds, not beds that mean you have to climb over the next seat to go to the WC. Compare like with like please.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,596
Likes: 149
From: Not at work
They should just bite the bullet and send the 787 MEL-SFO daily. Makes much more sense to fly a route with zero (direct) competition where you can charge a premium. And besides, no one really likes going to LAX!
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 746
From: sydney
Problem is they have to get the Melbourne based 787s to Lax for maintenance in the huge hangar they built.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,673
Likes: 2
From: Europe
As was sent to me.
Interesting spin.
Dear Angels,
This was all done with:
This report suggests rather subtly, that Qantas is neither efficient nor transformed.
With a grand total of 8 787 and your management signing up to the IATA fuel efficiency targets of:
It may be time for another manufactured decline (you know an industrial dispute) in case management are shown to be the myopic self serving group this independent report suggests your management are
Interesting spin.
Media are reporting on our ranking....We rank low in this study of airline efficiency and carbon emissions when flying across the Pacific. We rank low in this study because we use larger aircraft, fly very long distances and have premium cabins that naturally have fewer people on board...
- The great circle track 'across the Pacific' is the same. Although flex tracking changes this slightly.
- RPK is the Revenue passenger kilometres, this may change with cabin configuration.
- Larger aircraft burn more fuel.
- They also have four engines (in the Qantas fleet)
This was all done with:
- The same fleet A380 and B747
- The same contracts
- and the same staff.
This report suggests rather subtly, that Qantas is neither efficient nor transformed.
With a grand total of 8 787 and your management signing up to the IATA fuel efficiency targets of:
(1) a 1.5% average annual improvement in fuel efficiency from 2009 to 2020; (2) carbon-neutral growth from 2020 and (3) a 50% absolute reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.
Last edited by Rated De; 20th January 2018 at 21:33.
Joined: Aug 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 726
Likes: 368
From: Australia
Rated De,
I get it, Qantas senior management suck. I work there and yep we’ve been through a really !!!!ty decade but some of your oft-repeated statements are about as accurate as the ITN emails we receive.
You have made the comment many times in numerous different threads that the turnaround is a sham as we still have; “
.”
But this is clearly not true. Qantas cut approximately 5000 staff. You see it everywhere. There is no one to answer your call or email in nearly every department we deal with. There is no one to drive the aerobridge, there are less flight attendants on the flight, there is no one in crewing to fix your rostering problem, etc, etc.
And the contracts are clearly different. Long haul has had a major change in the 787 section and both LH and SH have accepted/endured pay freezes. But more broadly, nearly every employee has had a pay freeze forced upon them. Many of our colleagues have been forced onto lesser contracts to do the same role.
Think of the cabin crew, QCCA staff or the QD contract. The baggage handlers are increasing employed on a lesser contract by ‘Qantas Ground Services’ as opposed to the previous Qantas contract.
I’m sure there are many more examples.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favour of ANY of this. It’s just the sad reality of the company we work for. But you can’t keep repeating a line as an attack on the company if it is evidently false.
There is plenty to attack them over without making stuff up.
I get it, Qantas senior management suck. I work there and yep we’ve been through a really !!!!ty decade but some of your oft-repeated statements are about as accurate as the ITN emails we receive.
You have made the comment many times in numerous different threads that the turnaround is a sham as we still have; “
The same contracts and the same staff
But this is clearly not true. Qantas cut approximately 5000 staff. You see it everywhere. There is no one to answer your call or email in nearly every department we deal with. There is no one to drive the aerobridge, there are less flight attendants on the flight, there is no one in crewing to fix your rostering problem, etc, etc.
And the contracts are clearly different. Long haul has had a major change in the 787 section and both LH and SH have accepted/endured pay freezes. But more broadly, nearly every employee has had a pay freeze forced upon them. Many of our colleagues have been forced onto lesser contracts to do the same role.
Think of the cabin crew, QCCA staff or the QD contract. The baggage handlers are increasing employed on a lesser contract by ‘Qantas Ground Services’ as opposed to the previous Qantas contract.
I’m sure there are many more examples.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favour of ANY of this. It’s just the sad reality of the company we work for. But you can’t keep repeating a line as an attack on the company if it is evidently false.
There is plenty to attack them over without making stuff up.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,673
Likes: 2
From: Europe
There is plenty to attack them over without making stuff up.
To save you actually looking;
Staff costs in nominal AUD FTE Staff
2014 $3.77 billion 30,751
2015 $3.60 billion 28,622
2016 $3.86 billion 29,204
2017 $4.03 billion 29,596
But you can’t keep repeating a line as an attack on the company if it is evidently false.
- Where exactly are the approximately 5,000 staff you 'quote'?
- How many pilots are on different contracts flying the 787? Are there three or four in service?
Joined: May 2016
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 696
From: Sunshine Coast
The 5,000 FTE reduction was off the 2013 baseline of 33,265 FTEs, wasn't it? So there's a reduction of 3,669 FTEs in absolute terms to 2017.
And then there's the fact that the 5,000 target was never a straight up reduction in absolute terms; I'm pretty sure that it was always couched as a net reduction after adjusting for activity and new businesses. I'm not sure how they looked to measure activity but passenger numbers aren't a bad surrogate. Passengers numbers between 2013 and 2017 grew by around 11 per cent so "after adjusting for activity" there's the equivalent of something like an additional 3,000 FTEs.
So there's your 5,000+ net reduction in FTEs after adjusting for activity and new businesses right there.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,673
Likes: 2
From: Europe
The real risk to the 'transformed' Qantas lay in the genesis of its so called recovery.
Fuel price falls were $597 million of the turnaround profit, the depreciation change from CGU impairment another $326 million. They were the only substantive changes in expenditure.
With Fuel prices having bottomed in 1QCY16, Qantas with its fleet languishing at a substantially higher fuel included CASK than competitors runs a very real downside risk that its so called 'transformation' vanishes.
Fuel price falls were $597 million of the turnaround profit, the depreciation change from CGU impairment another $326 million. They were the only substantive changes in expenditure.
With Fuel prices having bottomed in 1QCY16, Qantas with its fleet languishing at a substantially higher fuel included CASK than competitors runs a very real downside risk that its so called 'transformation' vanishes.
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 330
Likes: 35
From: Melbourne
I’m looking forward to learning more about leaning out a jet engine. To lean out the engine do you also have to lean out the window to see the flame colour, you know, like adjusting a Bunsen burner?
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 330
Likes: 35
From: Melbourne
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
From: Sydney
Hahaha they seem to miss the point that content happy pilots use less fuel because they can.
Pissed off disgruntle pilots use more fuel because they can.
It aint rocket science
I wonder if the overpaid lepricorn knows that ?
Pissed off disgruntle pilots use more fuel because they can.
It aint rocket science
I wonder if the overpaid lepricorn knows that ?
