Geez Qantas that was quick!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeing as though you referred to the Quantitative threshold,
An entity shall report separately information about an operating segment that meets any of the following quantitative thresholds:
(a) Its reported revenue, including both sales to external customers and intersegment sales or transfers, is 10 per cent or more of the combined revenue, internal and external, of all operating segments.
So practically Qantas group revenue FY16 was $16.2 billion, so the JQ 'segment' meets the threshold, but its 'international' does not.
You are right Keith, it is a dog of a business, probably nothing to be gained for management to show how poorly it contributes to group revenue given the resources it consumes.
An entity shall report separately information about an operating segment that meets any of the following quantitative thresholds:
(a) Its reported revenue, including both sales to external customers and intersegment sales or transfers, is 10 per cent or more of the combined revenue, internal and external, of all operating segments.
So practically Qantas group revenue FY16 was $16.2 billion, so the JQ 'segment' meets the threshold, but its 'international' does not.
- Qantas domestic and international flew 99,879 (million) ASK grossing $11.5 billion revenue
- JQ domestic and international flew 48,832 (million) ASK that is 49% of the Qantas ASK, yet they gross no where near 50% of the revenue.
You are right Keith, it is a dog of a business, probably nothing to be gained for management to show how poorly it contributes to group revenue given the resources it consumes.
If you want to be taken seriously V-Jet, you can’t just pluck figures out of thin air
I’ll paraphrase
You’re going to have to back it up with facts to come up with your back of the envelope loss of $800m. Everyone can have their own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts.
Either there is a massive conspiracy to mislead the market, shareholders, regulatory authorities and so on – or Jetstar, as disclosed in the Qantas Group financial reports is profitable.
If you dispute the figures as published, stump up, or better yet - take it up with ASIC. There are serious penalties for misleading the market. Just make sure you have something more than innuendo, rumour, insinuation, suggestion, feelings and opinions.
You got any evidence to back that assertion up? Or is this just more opinion masquerading as fact?
I’ll paraphrase
Either there is a massive conspiracy to mislead the market, shareholders, regulatory authorities and so on – or Jetstar, as disclosed in the Qantas Group financial reports is profitable.
If you dispute the figures as published, stump up, or better yet - take it up with ASIC. There are serious penalties for misleading the market. Just make sure you have something more than innuendo, rumour, insinuation, suggestion, feelings and opinions.
You got any evidence to back that assertion up? Or is this just more opinion masquerading as fact?
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Hyperspace
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Keith.
What are we saying here? That all LCC’s are a sham, or just JQ?
Surely to suggest that Ryanair, Easyjet, Southwest etc. all independently profitable and none of which have any Legacy carriers to ‘feed’ off are a sham is ludicrous.
So what’s different about JQ?
I don’t subscribe to the ‘cheap seats at the back’ model any more than putting an Ibis inside a Hyatt hotel. They are completely different business models appealing to completely different segments of the market. Yes, the outcome is the same, a nights rest (hopefully), but that’s about it.
The continuing assertion that JQ is somehow being subsidised is a nonsense, I realise the futility, but it really needs to be put to bed.
What are we saying here? That all LCC’s are a sham, or just JQ?
Surely to suggest that Ryanair, Easyjet, Southwest etc. all independently profitable and none of which have any Legacy carriers to ‘feed’ off are a sham is ludicrous.
So what’s different about JQ?
I don’t subscribe to the ‘cheap seats at the back’ model any more than putting an Ibis inside a Hyatt hotel. They are completely different business models appealing to completely different segments of the market. Yes, the outcome is the same, a nights rest (hopefully), but that’s about it.
The continuing assertion that JQ is somehow being subsidised is a nonsense, I realise the futility, but it really needs to be put to bed.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Honah Lee
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t subscribe to the ‘cheap seats at the back’ model any more than putting an Ibis inside a Hyatt hotel. They are completely different business models appealing to completely different segments of the market.
Agree completely with the rest of your post and you only have to look at Air Canada/Rouge, Lufthansa/Eurowings, IAG/Level (LH low cost complementing its’ premium airlines BA and Iberia) as a few examples of the QF/JQ model being used to protect revenues.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Keith.
What are we saying here? That all LCC’s are a sham, or just JQ?
Surely to suggest that Ryanair, Easyjet, Southwest etc. all independently profitable and none of which have any Legacy carriers to ‘feed’ off are a sham is ludicrous.
So what’s different about JQ?
I don’t subscribe to the ‘cheap seats at the back’ model any more than putting an Ibis inside a Hyatt hotel. They are completely different business models appealing to completely different segments of the market. Yes, the outcome is the same, a nights rest (hopefully), but that’s about it.
The continuing assertion that JQ is somehow being subsidised is a nonsense, I realise the futility, but it really needs to be put to bed.
What are we saying here? That all LCC’s are a sham, or just JQ?
Surely to suggest that Ryanair, Easyjet, Southwest etc. all independently profitable and none of which have any Legacy carriers to ‘feed’ off are a sham is ludicrous.
So what’s different about JQ?
I don’t subscribe to the ‘cheap seats at the back’ model any more than putting an Ibis inside a Hyatt hotel. They are completely different business models appealing to completely different segments of the market. Yes, the outcome is the same, a nights rest (hopefully), but that’s about it.
The continuing assertion that JQ is somehow being subsidised is a nonsense, I realise the futility, but it really needs to be put to bed.
Jetstar is owned by Qantas! Of course it is being subsidised (plenty of evidence), and that is OK, just the accounting should show the situation more accurately.
My issue is more that the group as a whole is so missmanaged!
Well best show the evidence, or quit the suggestions that QF is subsidising JQ.
I see plenty of assertions/rumours/feelings/mate told me/he stole my command, very little evidence.
I see plenty of assertions/rumours/feelings/mate told me/he stole my command, very little evidence.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kieth , Morno et al
There are many back issues from news papers espousing multiple Jetstar overseas franchise loss making abilities.
Here’s an example
Plenty more out there if you browse.
Qantas poised to inject millions into Jetstar Japan
By Matt O'Sullivan
29 October 2013 — 12:23pm
Qantas is said to be on the cusp of pouring more money into Jetstar Japan as it seeks to secure its position in the domestic Japanese market against other newcomers.
Japanese newspaper Nikkei has reported that Jetstar Japan will raise 11 billion yen ($118 million) next month from Qantas and Japan Airlines, which each have stakes of 33.3 per cent.
Jetstar Japan’s two other shareholders, Mitsubishi and Century Tokyo Leasing Corporation, are not expected to participate in the private placement. They both have stakes of 16.7 per cent in the budget airline.
Qantas was asked for comment this morning but is yet to respond.
Since it began flying in July last year, Jetstar Japan has become the largest budget airline in Japan with a fleet of 17 A320 aircraft. Low-cost airlines are a new phenomena in the Asian nation.
But the cost of entering the Japanese market has weighed on the financial performance of Melbourne-based Jetstar, which booked $50 million in start-up losses from Jetstar Japan and Jetstar Hong Kong in the year to June.
The airline did not split out the losses when its parent, Qantas, reported its full-year results in August.
Japan Airlines has conceded that Jetstar Japan has experienced growing pains since launching domestic flights.
JAL chairman Masaru Onishi said in June that turning Jetstar Japan into a profitable business would depend to a large extent on the timing of a start to short-haul flying to destinations in China, Korea and Taiwan.
He expected Jetstar Japan to begin international flying within the next two years.
Macquarie Equities has estimated that Jetstar Japan is losing about $50 million a year as it competes against Peach and AirAsia Japan, which will be rebranded Vanilla Air next month.
Malaysian budget airline AirAsia decided several months ago to pull out of the airline joint venture in Japan.
After initially relying on selling tickets via the internet, the budget airlines are looking to boost ways of encouraging consumers to fly with them in a market where people tend to book through travel agents.
There are many back issues from news papers espousing multiple Jetstar overseas franchise loss making abilities.
Here’s an example
Plenty more out there if you browse.
Qantas poised to inject millions into Jetstar Japan
By Matt O'Sullivan
29 October 2013 — 12:23pm
Qantas is said to be on the cusp of pouring more money into Jetstar Japan as it seeks to secure its position in the domestic Japanese market against other newcomers.
Japanese newspaper Nikkei has reported that Jetstar Japan will raise 11 billion yen ($118 million) next month from Qantas and Japan Airlines, which each have stakes of 33.3 per cent.
Jetstar Japan’s two other shareholders, Mitsubishi and Century Tokyo Leasing Corporation, are not expected to participate in the private placement. They both have stakes of 16.7 per cent in the budget airline.
Qantas was asked for comment this morning but is yet to respond.
Since it began flying in July last year, Jetstar Japan has become the largest budget airline in Japan with a fleet of 17 A320 aircraft. Low-cost airlines are a new phenomena in the Asian nation.
But the cost of entering the Japanese market has weighed on the financial performance of Melbourne-based Jetstar, which booked $50 million in start-up losses from Jetstar Japan and Jetstar Hong Kong in the year to June.
The airline did not split out the losses when its parent, Qantas, reported its full-year results in August.
Japan Airlines has conceded that Jetstar Japan has experienced growing pains since launching domestic flights.
JAL chairman Masaru Onishi said in June that turning Jetstar Japan into a profitable business would depend to a large extent on the timing of a start to short-haul flying to destinations in China, Korea and Taiwan.
He expected Jetstar Japan to begin international flying within the next two years.
Macquarie Equities has estimated that Jetstar Japan is losing about $50 million a year as it competes against Peach and AirAsia Japan, which will be rebranded Vanilla Air next month.
Malaysian budget airline AirAsia decided several months ago to pull out of the airline joint venture in Japan.
After initially relying on selling tickets via the internet, the budget airlines are looking to boost ways of encouraging consumers to fly with them in a market where people tend to book through travel agents.
[QUOTE]I don’t subscribe to the ‘cheap seats at the back’ model[QUOTE]
Albiet on a much smaller scale Air NZ managed to do this fairly well post Freedom Air.
Thier economy class is no different to any other LCC yet they still have a preimum cabin to cater for that end of the market.
The cheap seats down the back model in a QF/JQ scenario will still have the same 'overall capacity' but without the mentioned back office and scedule duplications.
As a pax its the scheduling that gets to me. Im amazed how often Ive seen QF departing within half an hour of JQ then nothing for hours (if at all) afterwards.
Does a true LCC (Ryan etc) have a parent company that it competes with? No. Whats done is done but I have to side with the likes of Air NZ on the cheap seats at the back model.
Albiet on a much smaller scale Air NZ managed to do this fairly well post Freedom Air.
Thier economy class is no different to any other LCC yet they still have a preimum cabin to cater for that end of the market.
The cheap seats down the back model in a QF/JQ scenario will still have the same 'overall capacity' but without the mentioned back office and scedule duplications.
As a pax its the scheduling that gets to me. Im amazed how often Ive seen QF departing within half an hour of JQ then nothing for hours (if at all) afterwards.
Does a true LCC (Ryan etc) have a parent company that it competes with? No. Whats done is done but I have to side with the likes of Air NZ on the cheap seats at the back model.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Sydney
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t subscribe to the ‘cheap seats at the back’ model any more than putting an Ibis inside a Hyatt hotel. They are completely different business models appealing to completely different segments of the market. Yes, the outcome is the same, a nights rest (hopefully), but that’s about it.
.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFS, anyone close to the action can see **** happening, and “commercial in confidence” provisions stop “evidence” of accounting practices. I was in a Qantas hangar today with a Jetstar 787, you reckon Jetstar pays rent? Any losses go straight onto international. (Prove me wrong!)
Besides, I need to PROVE to YOU what has been going on over ten years?
Honestly who cares, the Qantas Group is profitable, Qantas Mainline is now expanding and recruiting. Jetstar was setup as a way of protecting the low cost end of the market, a market that Virgin was very successfully eating up for itself, Jetstar has worked a treat in this respect, it has forced Virgin away from that demographic and kept Tiger small. Sure Qantas does give some commercial advantage to Jetstar but that is the benefit of being ONE group, every large entity does exactly the same thing. If you think it is truly illegal then you should report it with your evidence.
Jetstar are never going to generate the equivalent profits for the equivalent ASK's as they are a LCC, margins are thinner, costs need to be lower and it works on bum's on seats as opposed to high yield routes and products (business / first class). The passengers that fly on Jetstar are not necessarily passengers who would travel on Qantas if Jetstar didn't exist. Many only travel because of the $29 fares. Even if you put a basic economy class down the back of a Qantas plane the fares at the lower end would not be sustainable with the cost structure of a large airline. We see examples of legacy carriers all over the world trying to adapt, British Airways now doesn't have reclining seats on Eurofleet and you have to purchase food, Air NZ now has a product where you get nothing on board, they still aren't as competitive as their respective LCC competitors because their costs are so much higher.
Jetstar and Qantas are a strong model together, they dominate the domestic market in Australia, create issues for Air NZ in NZ and are now starting to generate profits for Qantas in markets where qantas had little to no presence such as Japan and Vietnam, this is a good thing for the group surely?
Jetstar are never going to generate the equivalent profits for the equivalent ASK's as they are a LCC, margins are thinner, costs need to be lower and it works on bum's on seats as opposed to high yield routes and products (business / first class). The passengers that fly on Jetstar are not necessarily passengers who would travel on Qantas if Jetstar didn't exist. Many only travel because of the $29 fares. Even if you put a basic economy class down the back of a Qantas plane the fares at the lower end would not be sustainable with the cost structure of a large airline. We see examples of legacy carriers all over the world trying to adapt, British Airways now doesn't have reclining seats on Eurofleet and you have to purchase food, Air NZ now has a product where you get nothing on board, they still aren't as competitive as their respective LCC competitors because their costs are so much higher.
Jetstar and Qantas are a strong model together, they dominate the domestic market in Australia, create issues for Air NZ in NZ and are now starting to generate profits for Qantas in markets where qantas had little to no presence such as Japan and Vietnam, this is a good thing for the group surely?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly who cares, the Qantas Group is profitable
Under Australian Accounting Standards cost (who pays for what) between segments, for example JQ and Qantas is pretty much up to management (within generous limits)
A threshold is set internally, otherwise a box of paperclips would need to be inter-segment accounted. Management decide where this threshold is.
It may be $100,000, it may be $1,000,000. There is no way to tell from the outside, but we would wager they know on the inside! At executive level, there would be regular 'robust' discussions about which segment is going to pay; between Mr Evans (at JQ) and whoever is the CEO of Qantas International now.....Who ultimately pays is a matter for the executive and that consists of the Chief decision 'makers' including the CEO. It is a company policy type decision!
Therefore without seeing these types of thresholds, which are not included in the Annual Report (nor are they required to be), there is no definitive way to ascertain how much this threshold affects a segment and its performance. The auditors merely ascertain that the company accounts are presented consistently as management said they would and the accounts apply with the standard.. This threshold is not a subject for discussion, it gives generous management latitude.
Perhaps this is why the questions persist.
Using the 'JQ is cheaper than Qantas' without a disclosure of this type (as management have done repeatedly) is disingenuous and has been used as a cornerstone of 'labour issues' for a decade. We would argue that the accounting standards were not designed to be used like this.
Last edited by Rated De; 2nd Mar 2018 at 05:53. Reason: objectivity.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Hyperspace
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear.
Yes, we have always been at war with Eurasia.......
As has been said before, if you feel that strongly, call ASIC, call the media, campaign shareholders, go nuts.
Or...... just bitch about it.
Yes, we have always been at war with Eurasia.......
As has been said before, if you feel that strongly, call ASIC, call the media, campaign shareholders, go nuts.
Or...... just bitch about it.
Explaining this really does seem like explaining the value of a good forward defensive stroke to a woman, or using fossil evidence of the Evolutionary process to a Creationist. As no one has seen an ape turn into a human, some will never see the possibility. And so it is with Jetstar.
A far better explanation has been verbalised (in writing no less
by Arthur above) who has in one genius sentence gone straight to the nub of the issue in a way I could only have dreamed of.
Clearly Arthur is well versed in the principals of IngSoc. Or is that QanSoc? QanSoc has a nice ring to it and explains the problem PERFECTLY. To believe Jetstar (particularly) International has actually netted dollar one does require a skilled appreciation of Newspeak, particularly Doublethink. All disseminated from the Corporate Campus (Inner Party) through HR - obviously the Ministry of Truth.
For those of us not so well educated in the principals of Newspeak and can't see 4 fingers held up as anything but 4 fingers (instead of anything The Party says it to be) we just can't see the things the way the Inner Party does.
Outside the Inner Party/Corporate Campus; Jetstar International is seemingly at best struggling and at worst a basket case being propped up by the parent airline that's been shrunk to greatness. It has been gifted routes, lounges, booking systems, maintenance & hangars - you name it, it's either been given or piggybacked off the parent.
To Outer Party members, every single question levied in support of Jetstar can be rebutted by asking the same question in return. So many very serious questions are deliberately NOT answered by Qf/JQ management that it begs the question why? As any parent of a child of even two could tell you - questions are deliberately not answered accurately when they cannot be honestly answered without lying or incriminating oneself. If only the Alan Joyce problem (even seeing that name makes me queasy) could be solved as simply as sending him to bed without milk and cookies!
It is irreconcilable to thinking people that the airline was created out of thin air, for free. The figures for startup have been bandied around as between $2b and $3b.
Keith generously provided 'net' figures (although created by the Inner Party of '2+2=whatever they want' fame), but accepting those as 'genuine' and a startup cost in the middle of the two figures ($2.5b) cost, we come up with a loss over 10 years of some $800m. And as many have pointed out that's in addition to such triumphs as ReqQ, JHKG, JJapan, JPacific etc etc etc (etc etc etc etc etc etc).
Taking that further we add the loss to the mid figure startup cost of $2.5b and we have a $3.3b OPPORTUNITY cost to Qantas - again, that's aside from all the 'freebies' JQ gets on a day to day basis.
As far as my notes make out, in 2005 (TEN years AFTER the 777 flew) the QF International Fleet consisted of:
12 x 747 Classics
30 x 767
32 x 744
Roughly 23,200 seats available to sell.
In 2018 (almost TWENTY FIVE years AFTER the 777 flew) the Qf International Fleet consists of:
12 x 380
10 x 744
3 x 787
26 x 330
Roughly 16,500 seats available to sell.
Note that ALL 747's are being 'replaced' with aircraft with 138 fewer seats.
Looking at that 'Post Transformation' Fleet another way paints a similar, but slightly different picture. For EVERY SINGLE HOUR the QF International Fleet is in the air, it is burning around 167,000kgs of Jet-A/A1 MORE than almost ANY of it's 777/787 competitors. This is INSANE.
Qantas has therefore been shrunk in terms of seats by 40% while it has also managed have INCREASED it's fuel burn in relative terms compared to it's competitors by some 167,000kgs for EVERY, SINGLE HOUR it is operating.
We know $2.5bish has effectively been invested in the personal pockets of Qantas' long suffering and undernourished Management Team (The Inner Party) and it would seem roughly $2.5b has been invested into a group that has lost over ten years $800m.
Had nearly $5b been put into 777's and 787's (sorry - Gamechanger's! JQ has 787's, only Qantas International has been blessed with Gamechangers) instead of $5b into personal pockets and a group that looks like it's lost $800m then just imagine what it could have been generating?
The we get to debt. 1992, Qf had zero debt and $1.5b in the bank. 2005 I understand debt was around 50-55% and now it's 70-75%. As I wrote previously, I'd get that if the fleet was efficient and there were enough of them, but it is as far from efficient as you could almost imagine and will soon be even smaller than the 40% 'Transformational' shrinkage.
The object of business is to charge as much for something as you can. I still do NOT understand why you would seemingly twist yourself in knots, load your company up with massive debt and extra duplicated services to charge around 40% LESS than your primary product. Witness that famous 'Jetstar makes more money selling muffins'. This seems to me completely nuts!
Certainly to me (admittedly an Outer Party Member actively committing Thoughtcrime on a daily basis) it looks like the Great Transformation has simply shrunk the airline 40%, increased it's relative (to competitors) fuel usage by 167,000kgs per HOUR and hugely increased it's debt whilst at the same time massively enrich it's genius Corporate Campus Inner Party Members.
A far better explanation has been verbalised (in writing no less
by Arthur above) who has in one genius sentence gone straight to the nub of the issue in a way I could only have dreamed of.
'Yes, we have always been at war with Eurasia'
For those of us not so well educated in the principals of Newspeak and can't see 4 fingers held up as anything but 4 fingers (instead of anything The Party says it to be) we just can't see the things the way the Inner Party does.
Outside the Inner Party/Corporate Campus; Jetstar International is seemingly at best struggling and at worst a basket case being propped up by the parent airline that's been shrunk to greatness. It has been gifted routes, lounges, booking systems, maintenance & hangars - you name it, it's either been given or piggybacked off the parent.
To Outer Party members, every single question levied in support of Jetstar can be rebutted by asking the same question in return. So many very serious questions are deliberately NOT answered by Qf/JQ management that it begs the question why? As any parent of a child of even two could tell you - questions are deliberately not answered accurately when they cannot be honestly answered without lying or incriminating oneself. If only the Alan Joyce problem (even seeing that name makes me queasy) could be solved as simply as sending him to bed without milk and cookies!
It is irreconcilable to thinking people that the airline was created out of thin air, for free. The figures for startup have been bandied around as between $2b and $3b.
Keith generously provided 'net' figures (although created by the Inner Party of '2+2=whatever they want' fame), but accepting those as 'genuine' and a startup cost in the middle of the two figures ($2.5b) cost, we come up with a loss over 10 years of some $800m. And as many have pointed out that's in addition to such triumphs as ReqQ, JHKG, JJapan, JPacific etc etc etc (etc etc etc etc etc etc).
Taking that further we add the loss to the mid figure startup cost of $2.5b and we have a $3.3b OPPORTUNITY cost to Qantas - again, that's aside from all the 'freebies' JQ gets on a day to day basis.
As far as my notes make out, in 2005 (TEN years AFTER the 777 flew) the QF International Fleet consisted of:
12 x 747 Classics
30 x 767
32 x 744
Roughly 23,200 seats available to sell.
In 2018 (almost TWENTY FIVE years AFTER the 777 flew) the Qf International Fleet consists of:
12 x 380
10 x 744
3 x 787
26 x 330
Roughly 16,500 seats available to sell.
Note that ALL 747's are being 'replaced' with aircraft with 138 fewer seats.
Looking at that 'Post Transformation' Fleet another way paints a similar, but slightly different picture. For EVERY SINGLE HOUR the QF International Fleet is in the air, it is burning around 167,000kgs of Jet-A/A1 MORE than almost ANY of it's 777/787 competitors. This is INSANE.
Qantas has therefore been shrunk in terms of seats by 40% while it has also managed have INCREASED it's fuel burn in relative terms compared to it's competitors by some 167,000kgs for EVERY, SINGLE HOUR it is operating.
We know $2.5bish has effectively been invested in the personal pockets of Qantas' long suffering and undernourished Management Team (The Inner Party) and it would seem roughly $2.5b has been invested into a group that has lost over ten years $800m.
Had nearly $5b been put into 777's and 787's (sorry - Gamechanger's! JQ has 787's, only Qantas International has been blessed with Gamechangers) instead of $5b into personal pockets and a group that looks like it's lost $800m then just imagine what it could have been generating?
The we get to debt. 1992, Qf had zero debt and $1.5b in the bank. 2005 I understand debt was around 50-55% and now it's 70-75%. As I wrote previously, I'd get that if the fleet was efficient and there were enough of them, but it is as far from efficient as you could almost imagine and will soon be even smaller than the 40% 'Transformational' shrinkage.
The object of business is to charge as much for something as you can. I still do NOT understand why you would seemingly twist yourself in knots, load your company up with massive debt and extra duplicated services to charge around 40% LESS than your primary product. Witness that famous 'Jetstar makes more money selling muffins'. This seems to me completely nuts!
Certainly to me (admittedly an Outer Party Member actively committing Thoughtcrime on a daily basis) it looks like the Great Transformation has simply shrunk the airline 40%, increased it's relative (to competitors) fuel usage by 167,000kgs per HOUR and hugely increased it's debt whilst at the same time massively enrich it's genius Corporate Campus Inner Party Members.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lost and running
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people have way too much spare time on their hands.
Where in all of the above carry-on is any analysis (let alone mere acknowledgment) of the fundamental changes in international competition from the fabled glory days of government ownership and flying 747 classics to today’s reality?
Where in all of the above carry-on is any analysis (let alone mere acknowledgment) of the fundamental changes in international competition from the fabled glory days of government ownership and flying 747 classics to today’s reality?
Some people have way too much spare time on their hands.
Where in all of the above carry-on is any analysis (let alone mere acknowledgment) of the fundamental changes in international competition from the fabled glory days of government ownership and flying 747 classics to today’s reality?
Where in all of the above carry-on is any analysis (let alone mere acknowledgment) of the fundamental changes in international competition from the fabled glory days of government ownership and flying 747 classics to today’s reality?
Can you explain why Qf has such gifted management but is burning 170,000kgs of jet fuel more per HOUR than any of its major competitors?
Too much time...... that’s funny!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas International (or any other full service, premium airline) cannot compete effectively against Scoot, Air Asia, Malindo, Norwegian or any of the multitude of International LCCs that have thrown their hat in this arena. The cost base is too high.
I'm certainly no Qantas Angel, but the dual brand strategy seems to be working. Sometimes JQ is a sword...at other times it is a shield.
The crucial thing to remember, however, is that it is attached to the hand (of Qantas). It is not really a separate company. There is only one share price!
The (financial) health of the entire group entity is what REALLY matters.
PG
I'm certainly no Qantas Angel, but the dual brand strategy seems to be working. Sometimes JQ is a sword...at other times it is a shield.
The crucial thing to remember, however, is that it is attached to the hand (of Qantas). It is not really a separate company. There is only one share price!
The (financial) health of the entire group entity is what REALLY matters.
PG
The (financial) health of the entire group entity is what REALLY matters.
The cost base is a furphy. If you think that is so important then you would agree selling tickets for 40++% more and packing them in is more important.
Just think about fuel price vs ticket price.
Not arguing with anyone personally, do not take it as such. I'm just not so sure that many at QanSoc can say the same....
Fuel cost vs ticket price...
Fuel cost vs ticket price...
Just give some thought again about that extra c170,000kgs per hour - it is quite a lot. That is the physical weight of around one hundred SUV's EXTRA being thrown into the atmosphere MORE than any of Qf's major competitors. Every. Single. Hour.
Lucky Qf has such a fantastic Carbon Offset programme - otherwise their bonuses might be completely screwed!!!!
Just did some research. Australia's most popular SUV mid size seems to be the Mazda CX-5. It's curb weight is 1455kgs. Again, putting it into perspective, QF International is throwing the equivalent weight of 114 MORE of those (no doubt luxurious beasties) into the atmosphere in fuel weight EVERY SINGLE HOUR MORE than anyone of its' serious competitors whenever it is in the air and operating. It's completely insane!
Maybe a better way of putting that is if someone buys a ticket on QF International, they are directly contributing to a management that espouses it's green credentials at every opportunity, yet is contributing to Global Warming at an Olympic level!
If you work for JQ and think I'm wrong - then what is the point of JC/NC and any other entity? This pursuit of minuscule savings when the gross waste is ignored is absolutely totally insane! AND - it's a safety related business.
Glad it's not mine!!
Last edited by V-Jet; 4th Mar 2018 at 09:48.
Am I wrong? Point out the errors! Laughing at QF shareholders is comic relief to me at this stage. I just can't believe the insanity continues....
I ask again - am I wrong? If so, where?
I ask again - am I wrong? If so, where?