777 - really do we want another type? What about dipping a toe into the french market with a long range (yes Geoff, they are not the small, short range aircraft you thought you were buying for domestic flying) A330-200.:ok:

The A330-200.

Another QF management cluster f@#k. :ugh:

Ordering an aircraft [with almost the range of a 744] and specifying it with only enough galley space to serve one meal service despite the protestations of every operational department in the company.

What geniuses.:mad:

Silly question old chap because the 777 is not French besides the skygods can fly anything and will probably offer to do it without a pay rise so Jetstar don't get it.:E

Metro Man,I think what the others were saying is that we could have done that once but if they keep cutting back we will be doing LHR and LAX and thats about it.

Here's an idea.How about basing a dozen or so Jetstar aircraft in Frankfurt and then we would have our own hub.It could be called something like,hang on this is a hard one,I've got it.
Jetstar Europe:E
The problem with that is that it would mean that jetstar would be bigger than it's parent and we can't have that.
Can we?

Not only the French
 

A lot of UK residents detest Death Row(AKA Heathrow).
Going to CDG meant a lot of Irish,Scottish and Northern UK residents could bypass Heathrow and fly Direct to Manchester,Shannon and Edinburgh.
There was more UK residents on these sectors than there were French.
Critical mass for QF was 5 slots a week.
3 slots just wouldnt cut it

What might have been with a fleet of B777s operating through the Singapore hub. The right aircraft with the right product at the right price, if QF could have delivered that years ago the network could be far more extensive.

SYD/BNE/PER/MEL/ADL to Paris, Athens, Rome, India etc via Singapore.

MM,thats thinking ahead and you cannot do that if you are looking for a job with QF.
Instead if you come up with ideas for cutting costs and services you're into the finals.
Cutting back is todays mantra for this airline.

Pontious was a pilot for QF the last time we extended our network.

Red, I checked an old seniority list and couldn't find "Pontious"
However I do recall a fellow named Pontius, but he was a 'pilate' in some other outfit. :E

Wod it is pretty hard to carry freight when you are already off loading pax to carry fuel for the sector. The 400 when it was used on this route (and CDG) used to have first class and made money, the classic got it because there was more money putting it through LHR. Agree with you re aircraft types, QF should have had 777's long ago but domestic focus and crap management-well you know the story.

I'd dare say there would be a market for flights from India to France.

QF already fly the A330 into India. Keep it moving onto Europe.

I knew there would be one.:rolleyes:

I should have just said it was a long time ago.

sigh :hmm:

By the way BSD I was joking.He was really a scheduler with El Al but told everyone he was a pilot(sic) :cool:

The difference there being that QFLH Cabin Crew signed off on the creation of QCCA in their last EBA for a lousy couple of grand. As for what QF Tech Crew (and younger cabin crew for that matter) think; well that was a pretty silly/selfish decision. Hopefully tech crew will not do the same! But to say that QF tech crew wish lower conditions upon our cabin crew is inaccurate.

Why then was the comment by Mr Wooby.It seems fairly obvious to anyone reading that comment that the author means to have cheaper cabin crew would mean the airline would be more profitable.

The same then would be true about any group in the airline including tech crew.
The politics about that decision have been debated time and again and there is no point going over them again.Not all of us agreed with the idea and still don't but sometimes you are left with no other option.
I remember the 400 influenced tech crew union making some agreements that had the 767 tech crew seething.
So if you are telling us that your union is one big happy bunch you can pull the other one.
I remember watching 2 groups of tech crew (767 and 747) in Cairns drinking at separate tables and not mixing.There was also the infamous statement made by the head of your union about not trusting any 767 tech crew.
This has already been talked about in other posts when your union did not let the impulse guys join.
The result was onestar.So much for solidarity.

Your union and some tech crew also agreed to AO.There you had QF tech crew flying the 767 on different terms and conditions with QF and AO.That set the ball rolling for Darth to start up Onestar.

I don't want to start an argument but the airline had us over a barrel.We don't have the industrial power that you guys have and even now I'm still not happy about it but I honestly think that if the airline had you guys in the same situation your union and you guys would do the same.

Nunc,

What do you mean that "SFO is a case in point"?

The fact it is not full all the time? Or that is it not well run?

The fact is that we pulled out in a very short sighted decision once only to work out that it was a dumb move and we went back again after a few years.

Ok... wasn't sure what the statement meant.

Typical though... we did the same in EZE a few years ago as well!!

It took 15 years to get back in to be precise.

Geniuses :mad:

Thanks Ditch,I had forgotten it was that long.15 years,no wonder we burn our bridges so many times.It takes years to get into a port and then many more to get a good market share then how many times have we just given it away?:ugh:

We are very lucky to have the leaders that we do.:yuk:

Your pay for a job is all about skills required, who can do the job, are you easily replaced, etc. As pilots, your looking at years of training, skill development etc. We are finite resource as was seen in the recent pilot shortage, and given the forecast growth in our area it will happen again. I think pilots are paid fairly for the skills required and the responsibility we have. Some pilots have chosen to sell their skills a bit cheaper to gain that job, thats their choice. There is bit of argy bargy about our pay levels at the moment, management trying to reduce costs, pilots trying to maintain them. Hopefully we can bring the pay of LCC's up without too much of a drop in pay for full service airlines. But overall, if you want good pilots you have to pay for them.

However with flight attendants I would say that most Qf cabin crew would secretly admit they are paid extremely well for the work they do and the skills required. I wish they could maintain that position, however if you can be replaced with someone who has a few weeks training, its going to be very difficult to maintain your pricing power.

Yes Mr Wooby but that's not what you said.You said IF we used 777 and cheaper cabin crew then we could offer a profitable service to Paris.Why not with QAL cabin crew?
If you want to save the airline money and help it's profitability why not with J* tech crew to save even more money?
Are you saying that QF tech crew could do the job better than J* tech crew because you are paid more.If not then the smart thing to do would be to use J* tech crew and save AJ a lot of money as you suggested with using QCCA crew.
I bet there are a lot of QF tech crew that would secretly say the same under the current circumstances.

The other side of the coin for QF flights to CDG is the INBOUND / VFR traffic.
As there is a Federal Election later in the year -this will become a very hot issue for the pollies to argue about.
The Tourism industry is been smashed at the moment ( especially in FNQ). The high dollar,GFC etc means its basically the back packer fraternity keeping things going.
The French love to come to Oz. BUT-sadly as cheaply as possible. Enter stage left -JQ.

As been stated previously QF fleet planning has been appalling. Just look at our kiwi cousins and what they are doing with their 777-300's.

I reckon QF will "pulle Le Pin" on Paris-as they need the daily slot for a 744 to make it cost effective.

...............another one bites the dust :ugh: