Project Sunrise
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair though, share buybacks only became legal THIRTY SEVEN years ago so it’s still quite relevant and there is also a chance they may make it illegal again which will transform the industry for sure 😉
Your company is making money and you have jobs. Tell me where the problem is.
So the 744 will be gone in under 18 months, the early 330s have a time frame of 18 months before they are a big door stop unless airbus says "here's the new maintenance plan for the jets we thought were actually throw away items at this stage of life."
The 737s are approaching beyond mid life crisis and what does QF have to look forward too? Please tell. And how much do those plans cost?
Oh wait.......
A pilots job is to not just listen but also question. They don't like that terminology in the street. Hence you see why they have been removed from the precinct. And if any of the happy clappers has a change of heart whilst enjoying the surrounds of the street, they'll be thrown off the rooftop for not towing the line. Only one reason for share buybacks.
https://simplywall.st/stocks/au/tran...-their-shares/
I'm sure others can supply the names.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That the management can find no other use of cash than re-purchasing their shares is curious.
After all, with debt so cheap (and interest rates at 3,000 year lows) why bother investing in plant and equipment when you can simply buy your own shares on market and pump the EPS.
Investment horizons being what they are, the EPS pump is rather conveniently tied to Executive remuneration, whereas the impact on operating cost and margins with a new fleet may take time to materialise.
Alan Joseph Joyce has been a substantial shareholder...
As fund manager Roger Montgomery highlighted last year, the CAP EX required to maintain a fleet age of around 11 years necessitates a spend per annum of $1.7 billion dollars.
Whichever way you spin it, investment bank UBS notes Qantas’s “fleet age has increased from 7.7 years in 2015 to a current 10.2 years”. They also note that the fleet is now older than the last peak
of nine years in 2007. According to the same report, Qantas has introduced just nine new aircraft or 3.7 per cent of group seat capacity over the last three years and so a minimum of $1.4bn a year will be required to maintain
a constant fleet age, with an additional $300m spend on the nonaircraft asset base making $1.7bn. That matches depreciation, but depreciation is based on historical costs so it is still probably undercooking how much is needed to
keep the fleet fresh, new and competitive.
of nine years in 2007. According to the same report, Qantas has introduced just nine new aircraft or 3.7 per cent of group seat capacity over the last three years and so a minimum of $1.4bn a year will be required to maintain
a constant fleet age, with an additional $300m spend on the nonaircraft asset base making $1.7bn. That matches depreciation, but depreciation is based on historical costs so it is still probably undercooking how much is needed to
keep the fleet fresh, new and competitive.
Last edited by Rated De; 6th Sep 2019 at 07:12.
As a consequence of that, we believe that the 787 was going to be a better
aircraft than the 777 and it gives us a leapfrog in technology, and that is why we went for the 787.
aircraft than the 777 and it gives us a leapfrog in technology, and that is why we went for the 787.
I'm pretty sure that Qantas management are quite aware of the relative cost/benefit of new aircraft cp increased maintenance/fuel burn - but current oil price forecasts are pretty flat
The average fleet age is 10 years - higher than it was but these aircraft are good for at least 20 years service so no need to go out and replace the lot . Better to buy steadily - or wait (like BA and Ryanair) for the airline market to soften and buy then. The QF fleet is a lot younger than a lot of big airlines
There isn't much evidence that the SLF care what they fly in - as long as you keep the interiors up to date - otherwise how would the DC-9 (sorree B. 717) stay in service?
The average fleet age is 10 years - higher than it was but these aircraft are good for at least 20 years service so no need to go out and replace the lot . Better to buy steadily - or wait (like BA and Ryanair) for the airline market to soften and buy then. The QF fleet is a lot younger than a lot of big airlines
There isn't much evidence that the SLF care what they fly in - as long as you keep the interiors up to date - otherwise how would the DC-9 (sorree B. 717) stay in service?
No but then I don't suffer from envy at people who have shiny new metal to fly
If you want a young fleet join Aeroflot.....................
If you want a young fleet join Aeroflot.....................
PS with a new 777-900 stickered at $ 440 million you might want to spread the load over a few years...............................
I see a big “testosterone attitude” on this issue, SYD-LHR no stop, with a sure mention on the Guinness Book of records.
Industry asks and Regulators follow, as it happened with the “new” (already old) FTL, when EASA asked scientists to reasearch into human on duties/flight times performnce: “scientist” gave the green flag, so the new rules were adopted... the problem here is that, thanks to the technology, we can get “updated” machines which can fly that route, but what about the”human factor”: has been “updated” it too?...I’m not sure. I retired eight years ago as a B744 captain and I remember quite well my “physical feelings” when flying from South-east Asia into LHR...”just” 13 Hours (14 in wintertime)...inbound to Lambourne, the ATC comes in: “flight xyz, leave LAM in heading 270”...then after a while: “flight xxx, descent to 6000ft, QNH 1005, turn left heading 180, reduce speed to 210 kts, change 118.5” (or something like that)... I remember the high stress not to confuse the Numbers, that is not to put the speed number into the heading window and viceversa, And this was just when ATC announced: “No delay expected”, which in LHR means:expect 20 minutes delay.
Now, I wonder what could be the “pilot performance” after 20 hours flight times, (maybe woken-up 25-26 hours earlier), maybe with 30-40 minutes delay, a CAT III approach and a go-around...how many “bites “ will have left in the pilots brain to accomodate a potential abnormal situation? For the flight safety sake, pilots unions should speak up soon.
Industry asks and Regulators follow, as it happened with the “new” (already old) FTL, when EASA asked scientists to reasearch into human on duties/flight times performnce: “scientist” gave the green flag, so the new rules were adopted... the problem here is that, thanks to the technology, we can get “updated” machines which can fly that route, but what about the”human factor”: has been “updated” it too?...I’m not sure. I retired eight years ago as a B744 captain and I remember quite well my “physical feelings” when flying from South-east Asia into LHR...”just” 13 Hours (14 in wintertime)...inbound to Lambourne, the ATC comes in: “flight xyz, leave LAM in heading 270”...then after a while: “flight xxx, descent to 6000ft, QNH 1005, turn left heading 180, reduce speed to 210 kts, change 118.5” (or something like that)... I remember the high stress not to confuse the Numbers, that is not to put the speed number into the heading window and viceversa, And this was just when ATC announced: “No delay expected”, which in LHR means:expect 20 minutes delay.
Now, I wonder what could be the “pilot performance” after 20 hours flight times, (maybe woken-up 25-26 hours earlier), maybe with 30-40 minutes delay, a CAT III approach and a go-around...how many “bites “ will have left in the pilots brain to accomodate a potential abnormal situation? For the flight safety sake, pilots unions should speak up soon.
Thread Starter
So - to take account of human factors - what would the most conservative commentators here see as an appropriate cockpit crew for a SYD-LHR non-stop flight were it to go ahead?
x2 Captains, x2 FOs?
x2 Captains, x2 FOs?
I see a big “testosterone attitude” on this issue, SYD-LHR no stop, with a sure mention on the Guinness Book of records.
Industry asks and Regulators follow, as it happened with the “new” (already old) FTL, when EASA asked scientists to reasearch into human on duties/flight times performnce: “scientist” gave the green flag, so the new rules were adopted... the problem here is that, thanks to the technology, we can get “updated” machines which can fly that route, but what about the”human factor”: has been “updated” it too?...I’m not sure. I retired eight years ago as a B744 captain and I remember quite well my “physical feelings” when flying from South-east Asia into LHR...”just” 13 Hours (14 in wintertime)...inbound to Lambourne, the ATC comes in: “flight xyz, leave LAM in heading 270”...then after a while: “flight xxx, descent to 6000ft, QNH 1005, turn left heading 180, reduce speed to 210 kts, change 118.5” (or something like that)... I remember the high stress not to confuse the Numbers, that is not to put the speed number into the heading window and viceversa, And this was just when ATC announced: “No delay expected”, which in LHR means:expect 20 minutes delay.
Now, I wonder what could be the “pilot performance” after 20 hours flight times, (maybe woken-up 25-26 hours earlier), maybe with 30-40 minutes delay, a CAT III approach and a go-around...how many “bites “ will have left in the pilots brain to accomodate a potential abnormal situation? For the flight safety sake, pilots unions should speak up soon.
Industry asks and Regulators follow, as it happened with the “new” (already old) FTL, when EASA asked scientists to reasearch into human on duties/flight times performnce: “scientist” gave the green flag, so the new rules were adopted... the problem here is that, thanks to the technology, we can get “updated” machines which can fly that route, but what about the”human factor”: has been “updated” it too?...I’m not sure. I retired eight years ago as a B744 captain and I remember quite well my “physical feelings” when flying from South-east Asia into LHR...”just” 13 Hours (14 in wintertime)...inbound to Lambourne, the ATC comes in: “flight xyz, leave LAM in heading 270”...then after a while: “flight xxx, descent to 6000ft, QNH 1005, turn left heading 180, reduce speed to 210 kts, change 118.5” (or something like that)... I remember the high stress not to confuse the Numbers, that is not to put the speed number into the heading window and viceversa, And this was just when ATC announced: “No delay expected”, which in LHR means:expect 20 minutes delay.
Now, I wonder what could be the “pilot performance” after 20 hours flight times, (maybe woken-up 25-26 hours earlier), maybe with 30-40 minutes delay, a CAT III approach and a go-around...how many “bites “ will have left in the pilots brain to accomodate a potential abnormal situation? For the flight safety sake, pilots unions should speak up soon.
I would be more concerned with all the back of the clock red eye, earlies to lates to earlies, yadda yadda yadda contstantly going on around the world with 2 crew!
As I’ve said before it’s not really ground breaking when you compare it to the ole SQ direct Newark or the new service.
Thread Starter
Captain and FO do take off, climb out and part of cruise - go to sleep.
SOs take over - monitor the aircraft for the middle of the flight.
Captain, FO wake up, do descent and landing?
Dic*head!
QF has been using Capt, FO, 2x SOs as a 4 man crew successfully since 1983.
The real question is whether the Project sunrise aircraft creates any need to change this.
Captain and FO do the takeoff and landing.
The concept of takeoff crew and landing crew is a concept that other airlines have adopted.
QF has been using Capt, FO, 2x SOs as a 4 man crew successfully since 1983.
The real question is whether the Project sunrise aircraft creates any need to change this.
Captain and FO do the takeoff and landing.
The concept of takeoff crew and landing crew is a concept that other airlines have adopted.
Thread Starter
Dic*head!
QF has been using Capt, FO, 2x SOs as a 4 man crew successfully since 1983.
The real question is whether the Project sunrise aircraft creates any need to change this.
Captain and FO do the takeoff and landing.
The concept of takeoff crew and landing crew is a concept that other airlines have adopted.
QF has been using Capt, FO, 2x SOs as a 4 man crew successfully since 1983.
The real question is whether the Project sunrise aircraft creates any need to change this.
Captain and FO do the takeoff and landing.
The concept of takeoff crew and landing crew is a concept that other airlines have adopted.
It was an innocent question - which you still haven't answered.
What would you see as an appropriate flight deck crew for a flight like this?
Thread Starter
Interesting.
I had a look at the AusALPA website and could see lots of references to fatigue rules, but nowt specifically on Project Sunrise unless I'm missing something.
Is there a formal AusALPA position on this yet?
I assume you all think the QF insistence on one captain, one first officer and two second officers is due to cost, not wanting to set a precedent?
An extra FO wouldn't seem to be too much of an ask.
Wiki mentions SQ carried six crew Newark - Changi - without breaking down who did what.
I had a look at the AusALPA website and could see lots of references to fatigue rules, but nowt specifically on Project Sunrise unless I'm missing something.
Is there a formal AusALPA position on this yet?
I assume you all think the QF insistence on one captain, one first officer and two second officers is due to cost, not wanting to set a precedent?
An extra FO wouldn't seem to be too much of an ask.
Wiki mentions SQ carried six crew Newark - Changi - without breaking down who did what.
QF’s argument is that Long Haul F/O’s are command rated - between the Captain & F/O, there is always a command endorsed pilot on the flight deck. Both are in the control seats below 20,000’ so, with the planned ULR flight times, there is an excessive amount of seat time if the crew complement remains at 4.