Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

How does Qantas 'de-transform'?

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

How does Qantas 'de-transform'?

Old 17th Jan 2018, 22:19
  #21 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Correct.

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'.
Rated De is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 03:31
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not at work
Posts: 1,569
Received 59 Likes on 30 Posts
Originally Posted by morno
Don’t tell the Qantas boys that, they’ll find some way to talk it down and make it seem like Qantas paid for everything to get that profit.
*yawn*
Your Qantas Pilot bashing getting very boring now Morno
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 08:32
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: HKG
Posts: 1,410
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
BusyB is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 22:44
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looks like the 787 Dreamliner will be relegated to just two flights a week Mel-Lax with the rest of to SFO.
A380 to service remainder of MEL-LAX service
That’s transforming.
griffin one is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2018, 12:39
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not at work
Posts: 1,569
Received 59 Likes on 30 Posts
Originally Posted by griffin one
Looks like the 787 Dreamliner will be relegated to just two flights a week Mel-Lax with the rest of to SFO.
A380 to service remainder of MEL-LAX service
That’s transforming.
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!
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2018, 19:00
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,615
Received 599 Likes on 169 Posts
Originally Posted by Transition Layer
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!
Problem is they have to get the Melbourne based 787s to Lax for maintenance in the huge hangar they built.
dragon man is online now  
Old 20th Jan 2018, 21:21
  #27 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As was sent to me.
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...
Dear Angels,

  • 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)
Thus the simple fact that your fleet growth sat with JQ (from 36 to 120 aircraft) Your genius board and executive management took a viable airline in 2009 and trashed the brand in 2011 in a 'terminal decline' grounding and lockout. Only to handsomely reward themselves for its 'transformation'.
This was all done with:


  • The same fleet A380 and B747
  • The same contracts
  • and the same staff.
Sadly despite your attempt to spin it otherwise your fuel included CASK is higher than your competitors because instead of strategically positioning your airline for efficiency with a twin engined fleet, your management ran an IR campaign. 'Right fleet right route; exists only in the minds of marketing and branding, it sounds nice but is ultimately as hollow as the transformation.

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.
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

Last edited by Rated De; 20th Jan 2018 at 21:33.
Rated De is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2018, 05:59
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 610
Received 137 Likes on 44 Posts
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; “
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.
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2018, 06:27
  #29 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is plenty to attack them over without making stuff up.
I certainly don't make it 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?
Rated De is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2018, 09:27
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 1,146
Received 181 Likes on 90 Posts
Originally Posted by Rated De
  • Where exactly are the approximately 5,000 staff you 'quote'?

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.
MickG0105 is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2018, 19:26
  #31 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

Rated De is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2018, 22:35
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 302
Received 13 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by 27/09
I loved one of the comments at the end of that article from someone name "SomeGuy"

Sounds like he knows what he's on about. He would do well as an airline CEO.
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?
Pearly White is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2018, 01:52
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 451
Received 19 Likes on 12 Posts
Apparently fitted on the new Boeing 737 LENO. Automatically adjusts the airflow as well to maintain best mixture when you reduce the fuel flow.
On eyre is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2018, 02:28
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 68
Posts: 365
Received 7 Likes on 1 Post
I expect that I'm the cause of the poor fuel efficiency rating. It's that 2.5 tonnes that I keep on loading...
mrdeux is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2018, 04:30
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 302
Received 13 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by On eyre
Apparently fitted on the new Boeing 737 LENO. Automatically adjusts the airflow as well to maintain best mixture when you reduce the fuel flow.
Hasn't FADEC been doing that for ages?
Pearly White is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2018, 06:15
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,192
Received 27 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Pearly White
Hasn't FADEC been doing that for ages?
Fadec, 737, modern

Heh.
maggot is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2018, 08:52
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Management should not be blamed for Coriolis and aero elasticity.
Motorola is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2018, 12:56
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 106
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 ?
arkmark is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.