How does Qantas 'de-transform'?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does Qantas 'de-transform'?
Qantas 'worst major airline' for fuel efficiency on trans-Pacific flights, study suggests - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
So Leigh and Alan, was wondering how exactly Qantas was 'terminal' and now 'transformed'?
Same fleet, same route, same everything except lower fuel prices and an accounting write down, timed by you to remove a depreciation charge...
Handsomely rewarded for impairing the fleet and benefitting form lower fuel prices itsn't transformation now is it?
As I stated previously in recent days ;
What now from the most handsomely rewarded CEO in Australia?
So Leigh and Alan, was wondering how exactly Qantas was 'terminal' and now 'transformed'?
Same fleet, same route, same everything except lower fuel prices and an accounting write down, timed by you to remove a depreciation charge...
Handsomely rewarded for impairing the fleet and benefitting form lower fuel prices itsn't transformation now is it?
It ranked Qantas the worst in 2016, finding it burned on average 64 per cent more fuel per passenger-kilometre than the top ranked airlines, China-based Hainan and Japan's ANA.
As I stated previously in recent days ;
Qantas fuel spend for ASK is way higher than peer airlines attributable in a substantial part to fleet decisions.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We know the angels visit these forums, pray tell what fuel savings measures have Qantas employed to 'close the gap' in fuel per RPK?
Why not just shut an engine down in cruise, surely Fort Fumble has worked on that one?
Why not just shut an engine down in cruise, surely Fort Fumble has worked on that one?
It’s a disgrace really, and pretty obvious to anyone with any knowledge of airline ops. Pilots have been saying it for years. Big twins would have made such a difference to this outfit.
Two things to take away from this. No other airline across the Pacific is at greater risk from rising fuel prices and no other airline is at a greater risk from a price on carbon. These are significant risks that should be priced into the share price.
It’s all cool though, shares vested for execs at much higher prices so they’re all good.
Two things to take away from this. No other airline across the Pacific is at greater risk from rising fuel prices and no other airline is at a greater risk from a price on carbon. These are significant risks that should be priced into the share price.
It’s all cool though, shares vested for execs at much higher prices so they’re all good.
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s a disgrace really, and pretty obvious to anyone with any knowledge of airline ops. Pilots have been saying it for years. Big twins would have made such a difference to this outfit.
Two things to take away from this. No other airline across the Pacific is at greater risk from rising fuel prices and no other airline is at a greater risk from a price on carbon. These are significant risks that should be priced into the share price.
It’s all cool though, shares vested for execs at much higher prices so they’re all good.
Two things to take away from this. No other airline across the Pacific is at greater risk from rising fuel prices and no other airline is at a greater risk from a price on carbon. These are significant risks that should be priced into the share price.
It’s all cool though, shares vested for execs at much higher prices so they’re all good.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas 'worst major airline' for fuel efficiency on trans-Pacific flights, study suggests - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
It ranked Qantas the worst in 2016, finding it burned on average 64 per cent more fuel per passenger-kilometre than the top ranked airlines, China-based Hainan and Japan's ANA.
I would not agree with the quantum of difference , but the fact is that the difference is still stark, there is no way that having an inefficient fleet, fuel wise, can be turned into an efficient fleet, short of having the efficient aeroplanes.
If Qantas had had an efficient fleet during recent years, it would NOT have made the losses it did on international operations. As I also said, in my opinion, the investment freeze that resulted in the present fleet went back to the preparations to take the company private and strip it.
The international operation has never been as bad a business as "management" has made it out to be, one of the few aviation or financial journalists who ever called it for what it was, as opposed to re-publishing the PR spin, was the late Ben Sandilands.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The international operation has never been as bad a business as "management" has made it out to be, one of the few aviation or financial journalists who ever called it for what it was, as opposed to re-publishing the PR spin, was the late Ben Sandilands.
How else would the public accept their grand plan (of JQ to the world) unless Qantas international was 'Terminal'
Yes he did.
A few others too...
What is left as the tide goes out?
- The Operating Revenue in 2010. $13.7 billion
- The Operating Revenue in 2016 $16.2 billion
Qantas 'group' went no where...
They poured resources into Asia and JQ ventures for what?
If you look at the JQ contribution they fly a lot of ASK for small RPK...Certainly cannot generate anything like Qantas margin, at least until these geniuses assumed 'management 'and took a spread sheet view of aviation with more consultants driving these projects than ever in its history!
And to keep themselves looking good with their snouts in the trough you can bet they have hedged a lot of fuel for the next 5 years at the very low prices that were prevailing the last two years. Rather than a kangaroo on the tail a pig with its snout in a trough full of $$$ would be more appropriate!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas used to run 763 domestically.
Real genius that
- Twin aisle, 260 odd passengers.
- two pilots
- Two engines
- One air frame in the terminal area
- 67 738
- Handful of A330 (10 of the shorter range variant and 18 200 series)
Real genius that
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.
Running engines lean increases the wear on engine components, increasing the chance of engine failures. Also, more reserve fuel means more weight thus hight fuel consumption. I consider myself a environmentalist, but I have no problem flying Qantas.
I don't consider this compares like with like. You expect premium airlines to have First, Business and Premium Economy so how can you compare that with an all economy flight that cancels half the year because the loads aren't enough and doesn't offer the freight options.
Errr all the Airlines mentioned in the article are full service airlines. There’s no budget carriers in the study from what I can see.
Perhaps, but from the article;
It's not talking about trans-Atlantic.
And the one's listed are all premium airlines.
20 major airlines conducting trans-Pacific flights.
And the one's listed are all premium airlines.
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The international business was accounted to look bad. In 2011 3 weeks before the lockout they applied to amend all European bilaterals, other than two slots a day to London they wanted the ability to operate them with a JQ tail...
How else would the public accept their grand plan (of JQ to the world) unless Qantas international was 'Terminal'
Yes he did.
A few others too...
What is left as the tide goes out?
Qantas 'group' went no where...
They poured resources into Asia and JQ ventures for what?
If you look at the JQ contribution they fly a lot of ASK for small RPK...Certainly cannot generate anything like Qantas margin, at least until these geniuses assumed 'management 'and took a spread sheet view of aviation with more consultants driving these projects than ever in its history!
How else would the public accept their grand plan (of JQ to the world) unless Qantas international was 'Terminal'
Yes he did.
A few others too...
What is left as the tide goes out?
- The Operating Revenue in 2010. $13.7 billion
- The Operating Revenue in 2016 $16.2 billion
Qantas 'group' went no where...
They poured resources into Asia and JQ ventures for what?
If you look at the JQ contribution they fly a lot of ASK for small RPK...Certainly cannot generate anything like Qantas margin, at least until these geniuses assumed 'management 'and took a spread sheet view of aviation with more consultants driving these projects than ever in its history!
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. 
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
On another note, I bet Jetstar can’t wait to get their hands on something as good as Qantas’ new Gamechangers! If I were a JQ driver I’d be pink with envy at Qf’s (two) tiny, shiny jets! Just that display of hypocrisy from management guarantees few will trust what they say. Especially with no hard evidence.
PS: Pink with envy - political pun intended.
Last edited by V-Jet; 17th Jan 2018 at 22:07.