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

Ethics in Union Representation

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

Ethics in Union Representation

Old 2nd Mar 2019, 05:02
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Outofoz
Posts: 679
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...lican-tax-cuts

Buybacks may not be the end of the world, but they do result in corporations giving billions of dollars to their shareholders instead of investing in something more productive and broadly beneficial to the economy.
hotnhigh is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 06:57
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by dragon man View Post


And if he can’t provide them can I assume you will to back up share buybacks over aircraft purchases?

No you can't assume that. Share buy-backs, all approved by the shareholder appointed board, don't affect the question of whether the capital investment decision in new aircraft stacks up. I think you could safely use the cancellation of the remaining A380s as evidence that capital investment in such aircraft and their associated cost-base (purchase and ongoing) clearly does not stack up.

What you can safely assume, if Rated can't provide these numbers, is that he has no quantitative basis on which to base his claims. If he can produce a fully developed and accurate 20+ financial year investment proposition then I'll happily look at it. It will have to include revenue modelling, capital purchase costs, cost of capital modelling, a network by financial year, labour cost assumptions, maintenance assumptions, FX, tax and depreciation schedule assumptions. All of this will have to clear an appropriately set commercial hurdle rate for the economic cycle of the aircraft. Why? Because that is how investment decisions in the real (non-pprune) world are made.

Anyone can point out that higher EBIT and margin would've been made with a newer fleet if you ignore acquisition cost of such a fleet. That's axiomatic and my primary school kid could probably tell you that. But that isn't 'analysis' anywhere near the required level to be passed off as meaningful.
Tuner 2 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 08:05
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Lake Como
Posts: 38
If he can produce a fully developed and accurate 20+ financial year investment proposition then I'll happily look at it. It will have to include revenue modelling, capital purchase costs, cost of capital modelling, a network by financial year, labour cost assumptions, maintenance assumptions, FX, tax and depreciation schedule assumptions. All of this will have to clear an appropriately set commercial hurdle rate for the economic cycle of the aircraft. Why? Because that is how investment decisions in the real (non-pprune) world are made.
Why not just use the same figures JQ International provide?
Lezzeno is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 08:14
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: melbourne
Posts: 270
Anyone that thinks they can do a 20 year projection for network and revenue for an Airline put it on paper and think it has any relevance are crazy. 5 year micro and 10 year macro is about as good as you will get and it will be obsolete within 12 months of writing.
coaldemon is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 10:06
  #65 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,679
Anyone can point out that higher EBIT and margin would've been made with a newer fleet if you ignore acquisition cost of such a fleet.
Acquisition cost?

With over $2.0 billion spent on pumping the EPS, perhaps share buy-backs could have been a better use for surplus capital.
Then again the Board themselves might benefit from share buy backs too, nothing like self interest to carry the argument.

Why would corporate executives lavish more of this new money on stockholders, instead of investing it in the future of their companies? Thatís easy: The rewards of buying in investorsí shares are immediately gratifying. And itís not only the investors that are happy about unloading their stock at a premium. Executives like to do a buyback because it pushes up earnings per share. Fewer shares spread over the same earnings equals higher EPS. Some executive bonus programs are keyed to EPS growth. Meanwhile, the payoff from capex takes time to show results, and may never pan out if a company is putting money in the wrong places. After the Great Recession, capital spending shriveled. Many executives didnít think extra capex was warranted amid the sluggish recovery.
$2.0 billion would be a substantial component of the re-fleeting decision even at list prices.

You are right Tuner, it is too complicated and requires a team of spreadsheet wielding accountants to take projections out to 20 years. Given Qantas declines forward earnings guidance commentary, for the next six months, the 'projection' would be as irrelevant as Coaldemon asserts. Meanwhile in the 'real world, not PPRuNe, other airline managers just get on with it.
Not only do they spend less per RPK than Qantas, they produce less pollution, spend less on fuel and still manage an operating margin that Qantas only gets close to with low fuel prices.


https://www.theguardian.com/business...-airbus-boeing

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/cu...nto-fleet.page

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ace-older-jets
Rated De is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 10:19
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
What a lacklustre response from a self appointed aviation expert.

We get that you would rather the money spent on dividends and buy backs was spent on new aircraft. However, by your own admission you are unable to demonstrate a sound investment case for doing so. Probably best you stick to anonymous Internet forums where the laughable level of your ‘analysis’ belongs. Coal demon is way off the mark. Airlines absolutely model capital investments over the life of aircraft, but I’m happy to take a 5 or 10 year model if you’ve got one....
Tuner 2 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 12:40
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 138
Tuner 2

The thread is about ethics or lack thereof in recent union representation. Sympathetic to the view of many crew what a bad look it is jumping from President to negotiating against your own. Donít envy that poison chalice.
Understand the first company job may have been as a very junior assistant to the managers of the pilot program.
I get it that he was only asked to be a negotiatior when Roly left and many others subsequently turned down the job. But even if They struggled to find anyone, and he was their last choice, would you really fail to see how it would be perceived?
Maybe it was the only office job left on offer?
Joyce has announced for years the last 8 A380s were not getting ordered. That decision was made long ago. Digging up old news. Alan said in about 1000 articles going back for years they wouldnít take anymore A380s.
Must say I was impressed with the new AIPA presidents insights today.
I think he will be very effective.Seems to have the pilots interests as his primary focus. Hope he can return some ethics back to the role of President.


fearcampaign is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 12:47
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Fill your boots on that topic. It was Rated who turned this into a discussion about fleet metrics and buy backs about 10 or 12 posts above, not me.

By the way, how much has Qantas spent on 14 new 789s in the last few years versus buy backs and dividends ?
Tuner 2 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 13:24
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 298
Originally Posted by Tuner 2 View Post
Fill your boots on that topic. It was Rated who turned this into a discussion about fleet metrics and buy backs about 10 or 12 posts above, not me.

By the way, how much has Qantas spent on 14 new 789s in the last few years versus buy backs and dividends ?
$1.8 billion on 14 B787s and $2.8 billion on share buybacks to date. The first 45 787s were locked in at US$92 million each. Makes sense to me(not!). Talk about Banks behaving badly! As far as the topic of discussion NS has done more damage than any other former AIPA office bearer ever. Mind you the Company have lit a bonfire. No yes votes no matter how good the deal is.
busdriver007 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 19:47
  #70 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,679
Originally Posted by busdriver007 View Post
$1.8 billion on 14 B787s and $2.8 billion on share buybacks to date. The first 45 787s were locked in at US$92 million each. Makes sense to me(not!). Talk about Banks behaving badly! As far as the topic of discussion NS has done more damage than any other former AIPA office bearer ever. Mind you the Company have lit a bonfire. No yes votes no matter how good the deal is.
Precisely.

Stream Lead's parents would be incredibly proud of their boy.

Reminds one of Paul Howes. A family man and union stalwart.
Abandoned both.
Rated De is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 20:19
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: NSW
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by busdriver007 View Post
As far as the topic of discussion NS has done more damage than any other former AIPA office bearer ever.
Whilst taking on the role he has is not something I would contemplate doing, what damage has he done? Any actual damage that has occurred that you can point to or is it all based on fear of what might happen? What would that damage look like?

Originally Posted by Rated De View Post
Stream Lead's parents would be incredibly proud of their boy.
Thatsís a bit too personal now. While not necessarily agreeing with you, up until this point you have stuck to relatively reasond arguement. Keep it that way.
ddrwk is online now  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 21:50
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 298


Whilst taking on the role he has is not something I would contemplate doing, what damage has he done? Any actual damage that has occurred that you can point to or is it all based on fear of what might happen? What would that damage look like?
If you have to ask that question then that is the problem. The new incumbent has already stated he wants to go beyond where NS is. I am sure the pilots do not want to give up any more conditions that have been fought for over the years to advance someone else's career.
busdriver007 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 21:56
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: NSW
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by busdriver007 View Post



If you have to ask that question then that is the problem. The new incumbent has already stated he wants to go beyond where NS is. I am sure the pilots do not want to give up any more conditions that have been fought for over the years to advance someone else's career.
So no? You canít point to anything?

First Iíve heard that about the new president. Any facts to back up that little gem also?
ddrwk is online now  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 22:15
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
The new incumbent has already stated he wants to go beyond where NS is.
What is that supposed to refer to?
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 22:18
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
14 789s for $1.8b Australian dollars, or about 128m each, when they have a current list price of $400m Australian each? Source?

Rated is just getting really personal now as a diversion from him being unable to produce any good arguments that Qantas should be buying more aircraft than the 14 789s ordered in the last few years.

Last edited by Tuner 2; 2nd Mar 2019 at 22:58.
Tuner 2 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 23:09
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 460
Originally Posted by Tuner 2 View Post
Rated is just getting really personal now as a diversion from him being unable to produce any good arguments that Qantas should be buying more aircraft than the 14 789s ordered in the last few years.
Ordered?

Dont make me laugh.
ruprecht is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 01:44
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: The street
Posts: 63
ďI am sure the pilots do not want to give up any more conditions that have been fought for over the years to advance someone else's career.Ē

Exactly right.
The previous President or rather his EA team that he presided over traded away many protections. The joke is the 787s were ordered long before an EA.
Qantas chose the 787 to replace the 747 and only announced it as a replacement type after the EA being shoukd be telling.
There is no proof that the aircraft were not going to arrive regardless of an EA. It suits Qantas position to say that it was purely cause of a pilot EA because they won a lot of consessions by that strategy.
But the IR narrative and negotiating stategy was that to get pilot conditions lessened, we will threaten the already ordered aircraft arriving unless you sign this agreement in its first version.
Not soon after that NS went to work for the company. Interesting timing.
What NS said as president doesnít sound any different to what heís now saying as a company negotiator.
Difference this time is that Qantas are paying his bonus and he enjoys first class travel.
Nice deal but Same scare strategy.
FightDeck is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 01:55
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Wink

Originally Posted by FightDeck View Post
ďI am sure the pilots do not want to give up any more conditions that have been fought for over the years to advance someone else's career.Ē

Exactly right.
The previous President or rather his EA team that he presided over traded away many protections. The joke is the 787s were ordered long before an EA.
Qantas chose the 787 to replace the 747 and only announced it as a replacement type after the EA being shoukd be telling.
There is no proof that the aircraft were not going to arrive regardless of an EA. It suits Qantas position to say that it was purely cause of a pilot EA because they won a lot of consessions by that strategy.
But the IR narrative and negotiating stategy was that to get pilot conditions lessened, we will threaten the already ordered aircraft arriving unless you sign this agreement in its first version.
Not soon after that NS went to work for the company. Interesting timing.
What NS said as president doesnít sound any different to what heís now saying as a company negotiator.
Difference this time is that Qantas are paying his bonus and he enjoys first class travel.
Nice deal but Same scare strategy.
While the 787s were ordered originally by Dixon (as were the A380s) they were then deferred. So they were absolutely not guaranteed to arrive anyway. How do I know? Because this is exactly what has just happened with the A380s - ordered and then deferred and then finally cancelled because the investment case for more no longer stacked up.
Tuner 2 is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 02:52
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: DeShire
Posts: 103
The Qantas A380 order was announced in November 2000.
They didn’t arrive until 2008 after long delays. In the ensuing 19years. Yes 19 years since the order was announced more efficient aircraft came along.
The orders were cancelled because more efficient and more suitable aircraft now exist to replace the A380.
Thats exactly what the Qantas CEO has said. The A380 is no longer the preferred option for any airline now the 777X or A350 is available. Half the engines, less maintenance cost, almost half the fuel burn. Not that many less pax carried.
The A380 as an aircraft hasn’t made a viable business case for a long time with better alternatives available. Your overinflating the significance of a business case study when its f&$$ing obvious the A380 has better alternatives and has had for many years. Market for used A380s is non existent too.
Qantas are not doing anything differently to any other airline. A collective team of chimps are capable of working out there wasn’t an investment case for an A380 in 2019.



knobbycobby is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 03:28
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 661
Let's face it, if there isn't a business case for further 787's / 777X / A350, there isn't a business case for the airline.

Rumour has it, managers have been boasting QF has half the B787 tech crew costs of a direct competitor across the Pacific on the same equipment.
CurtainTwitcher is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.