PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   Qantas Group - New Airline Structure (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/486038-qantas-group-new-airline-structure.html)

EWP 23rd May 2012 04:53

What a sad and sorry mess, no spin in the world will ever justify the reason why JB was let go - that was the moment Qantas died. It is dead.... The rot comes from the top down and permeates all departments...corruption, collaboration, vilification, malignment and fear. Backstabbing....need I go on?

The sooner it all merges, get's sold or disappears the better. The existing carcass and husk of what was a wonderful airline with wonderful workers is an embarassment to their testament as people with integrity and worth.

This is one of the most disgraceful chapters in Australian Aviation history...the death of another aviation icon. Could anyone imagine if JB was at the helm?

It was always predictable that the business would be split and cut and sold. Qantas International is finished, a pyrrhic victory for Joyce and the board.

People who are not prepared to stand up for something, stand to fall for anything. One of the biggest complaints I hear these days is that a single person can’t make a difference. I think that’s a cop-out, an excuse not to try. The trouble is, too many people believe it. Too many people are willing to ignore their principles because it’s the easy thing to do. EVERYONE can make a difference. If you believe in something, let it guide you. Don’t settle for less.


And don’t give up, just because it’s easier than trying. Sounds a bit like a JFK speech however current Qantas management need to be stood up to - the bullying and corruption make it the circus it is...beyond a laugh.

booglaboy 23rd May 2012 05:35

Who is paying for the $150-200million upgrade to the Sydney 'campus'. International perhaps? Is that the 200million loss that is never factually proven?

LHLisa 23rd May 2012 05:53

I believe that the Sydney Campus was paid for with special government Tax concessions made to a company, maybe that was in exchange for something. Its great that organisations value education, isn't it?

Xatrix 23rd May 2012 06:14

The funding for the refurbishment was sourced from the 2010 sale of the campus from a property investment company to the Cromwell company, as an incentive to Qantas to sign a 22 year lease extension. This information is in the public domain.

QF94 23rd May 2012 06:58


I believe that the Sydney Campus was paid for with special government Tax concessions
I didn't realise airlines operated out of a university.

UPPERLOBE 23rd May 2012 07:10

QF94, I'm sure if we did a lap of the room to see what the stakeholders have brought to the meeting the smartest person in the room would feel like they were in pity city.

timer88 23rd May 2012 07:21

what an absurd idea?
 
As a long haul crew with 25 years flying experience, I just could not work out how a young guy like Hickey could suddenly become the CEO of Qantas International? He started with Qantas since 2004, he was an accountant by trade, never worked in airline industry before he joined Qantas. To say the least, his track record was problematic, why? Because he started his career at notorious Arthur Andersen, please follow this link to see the man yourself CEO CookOff - Simon Hickey Profile.

AJ previous job was at the failed incompetent management of Ansett, so a bad egg just appointed another worse egg in Qantas.

timer88 23rd May 2012 07:45

track record
 
Mr Hickey began his career with Arthur Andersen as a business consultant working in Sydney, Melbourne and London.Mr Hickey is currently a director of Air Pacific Limited, flag carrier of Fiji. Arthur Andersen was a notorious accounting fraud firm closed down by USA government.CEO CookOff - Simon Hickey Profile

The previous Job for AJ was the failed AN due to management incompetency. A bad egg appointed another worse egg in Qantas!

Worrals in the wilds 23rd May 2012 08:02


he was an accountant by trade
All you need to know. :yuk: Expect pineapples.

600ft-lb 23rd May 2012 08:05

Speculating as to why BB was let go, did he manage to convince those that count that a bigger Jetstar international A330 fleet would provide better returns to the group ?

Would the A330 resources diverted to Jetstar International flying to heavilyd iscounted to Japan 70% full, reduced flights SIN-MEL etc costing more for the fact that Qantas has lost the high yield (J) market share between the east and west coast to VA that probably won't come back ?

PPRuNeUser0198 23rd May 2012 09:51


Hickey's role the toughest in Qantas split

I started at Qantas alongside Simon Hickey back in September 2004 in the strategy area.

Simon's a really smart, take-no-prisoners, hard-working guy. He has done a terrific job with Qantas Frequent Flyers but he has his work cut out for him in his new position as the CEO of Qantas International.

I say this because Qantas international hasn't consistently made money for 15 years. And this time interval is restricted to the past 15 years because I can't remember seeing any data on international profitability beyond this period.

What does Simon Hickey need to do to turn the international business around, and will the change in airline management structure enable him to do it?

The biggest problem Qantas faces in the international business is that the market is saturated with seats. While Qantas international has control over its own seats it has no direct control over those of its rivals.

If its rivals decide to expand capacity at four or five times the average growth rate, which is true of its Middle East rivals Emirates and Etihad, this action deeply and adversely affects Qantas international yields.

About the only thing Qantas can do in response is to lobby the government to reduce the rate at which it is granting new capacity rights to overseas carriers which are attempting to grow too quickly.

And the lobby message must be that extra seats may be good for international airfares, but it is terrible for Australian tourism at current exchange rates.

The tourism story would be quite different, however, at an exchange rate of 70 US cents, so Qantas would need to get into see the government at current exchange rates because its arguments would be more convincing than if or when the dollar dives.

Oil prices

The international business is more heavily impacted by the price of oil than the domestic business because international flights are over longer distances, and fuel burn is a direct function of distance.

The rapid increase in the price of oil since early 2000 has meant that international airlines should no longer think of growing at 5% per annum as the norm but more like 2% to 3%.

They should lose their preoccupation with market share, and their fear that they may lose market share if they grow at 2% to 3%, because market share doesn't equate to profitability.

And they should forget about fuel surcharges because they just don't work in isolation from lower capacity growth.

Simon Hickey should work more closely with the fuel hedging team in the Treasury Risk Management department, putting into place a framework that better meshes operational means for reducing the impact of higher oil prices with the use of financial instruments to reduce the exposure.

They should contemplate fuel and exchange rate hedging policies that are unique to the international business because the residual exposure of the international business to the price of oil differs from that of domestic operations.

Premium mix

The premium mix is the percentage of seats on the plane that are in first, business and premium economy classes. The higher the premium mix the more exposed an airline's earnings stream is to downturns in the economy.

Relative to other airlines, Qantas international has a high premium mix, which means its exposure to downturns is high.

Given that Qantas international is highly exposed to countries that are likely to experience slow and volatile growth over a long period of time, most notably Europe, the USA and Japan, then it should consider reducing its premium mix. Such a move, though, is likely to be too late for the current batch of aircraft that are due for arrival at Mascot.

Management

I can't help but think that the new CEO of Qantas international will struggle to implement the changes indicated above, even if he does agree with them.

The Group has had the opportunity in the past to implement these strategies and they have chosen not to. Their senior executive group and the board is essentially the same – they are just two fewer.

The one part of the Qantas announcement that is a concern is that they will manage Qantas domestic and international as “two distinct businesses”.

The domestic and international flying segments can't be managed as two distinct businesses. There is enormous overlap between the two.

Around 10% of domestic air travel involves international connecting travel or foreign visitors who fly into a major port and want a domestic side-trip. Successful airline businesses are able to link their international services with these types of domestic connecting and side trip customers.

There is also a large subset of the international market that competes with travel in the domestic market.

Australian resident travel to international leisure destinations such as New Zealand, Fiji, Phuket, Bali, Vanuatu, Tahiti, Honolulu and New Caledonia competes with domestic travel to Coolangatta, Maroochydore, Cairns, Ballina and Margaret River.

The domestic and international CEOs can't make capacity decisions independently in markets such as those just mentioned – but I'd imagine that the Flying Committee at Qantas will have the final say anyway.

Let's hope for the sake of Qantas shareholders that it's the correct say.

Tony Webber was Qantas Group chief economist between 2004 and 2011. He is now managing director of Webber Quantitative Consulting and Associate Professor at the University of Sydney Business School, and contributed this article to BusinessDay.


ALAEA Fed Sec 23rd May 2012 10:07


The international business is more heavily impacted by the price of oil than the domestic business because international flights are over longer distances, and fuel burn is a direct function of distance.

I would have thought International flights were at cruise altitudes for longer where they burn less fuel than the more cyclic domestic sectors?

timer88 23rd May 2012 10:20

an accounting trick
 
track record of New Star of QF Hickey: He has been turning 'frequent flyer' into the most profitable business of Qantas.

1. This statement lacks the most basic reason of logic, people forget to ask the following question: Can Frequent Flyer be called a business ? How can Qantas Flyer Scheme make a cent profit if there is not an airline with major international and domestic networks behind it ?
2. The new kid Hickey can!, a kid straight from Arthur Andersen, which was the auditor accounting firm of Enron.

Fasten your seat belt, if this kind of absurdity keeps going.........

DirectAnywhere 23rd May 2012 11:44

Steve, to fly longer takes more fuel to carry the fuel you need.

For example, for every 1000 kgs extra of fuel you put on a -400 for a 14 hour sector, you'll arrive at destination with about an extra 600 kgs. ie. you burn about 40% of the fuel just to carry it.

gobbledock 23rd May 2012 12:35

Aren't "Hickeys and Hindlicka's" something you pay $3 for at a rubsy joint in Pattaya?
Besides, as all can see, choosing decent CEO's for QF has never been a 'strong point', so anything can happen in all of this mish mash.

Maybe they will even name one of the eventual Asian entities RedEnron?
Face cream anyone?

Product: "Face Creme el Bruce"
Available: Online or in all good LCC's
Cost : As per industry conultancy rates

Before and After
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...slbpDCt2N0Gvxwhttp://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...3IHI2qlY8n9C1w

timer88 23rd May 2012 12:45

why budget airlines is an absurd idea?
 
The whole purpose for those advocating budget airlines is to reduce the cost of travel, so more people can afford air travels. However, there are two fundamental problems as follows:

1. The main reasons why there is still not one major budget long haul airline yet are (a) As it burns a lot more jet fuel to fly long haul route than short haul route as it need more fuel to just carry the extra fuel. (b) therefore, the primary cost of a long haul flight is fuel cost, simply it will make little difference if you try to save on the cost of labor, airport charges and other non-fuel costs.

2. One very important thing which most bean counters forget is airlines do not produce jet fuels, airlines have no control over the market price of jet fuels. The oil companies have the power to raise the price according to the demand for jet fuels. Say example, if every air traveler flies one more overseas trip a year because of the success of budget airlines, then the jet fuels demand will increase 100% and the price will be skyrocketing by say 30%, then you do not need an accounting degree to know how the hell the budget airlines can make a cent?

3. Unless airplanes can fly using water as fuel, then the whole idea of Jetstar will remain as a fantasy of a retarded. At least, BB wakes up to this reality and swaps his water dream with a cream dream, now the lady star JH steps in his role to be the CEO of flying with water.

Captain Gidday 23rd May 2012 12:54


Steve, to fly longer takes more fuel to carry the fuel you need.
For example, for every 1000 kgs extra of fuel you put on a -400 for a 14 hour sector, you'll arrive at destination with about an extra 600 kgs. ie. you burn about 40% of the fuel just to carry it.
Quite correct. Two seven hour sectors are much more fuel efficient than a single 14 hour sector. But an Anderson accountant would never know that. * [Of course there are other considerations. Landing fees, crew duty limits, handling fees etc.]
* Because an accountant would never know anyone who knows. They don't share, we don't share.
This is a big reason why the A380 is such a dog at its Max Range, hauling that extra 100 tonnes of metal structure over to LAX each day compared to a 747, let alone a 777, means it has to really stack the fuel on for the second half of the sector. But as the canny airlines are finding out, the A380 is pretty competitive at about the seven hour mark.
Anyway, sheesh, a Longhaul CEO who hasn't been around long enough for a ten year badge. The Shorthaul CEO, Class of 2001, only just makes that milestone, too. And all the while the real expertise is rapidly being pushed out the door.

Race Bannon 23rd May 2012 13:04

Bingo !!!
 
And all the while the real expertise is rapidly being pushed out the door.
.....and making its way to Virgin Australia

timer88 23rd May 2012 14:43

unqualified rule the qualified, students start to teach the teachers
 
Sadly, let alone Qantas, the whole world is upside down, first time in human history, we are entering into an era of absurdity: To become an CEO or a leader of a nation, no relevant experiences and qualifications needed, only the skill of bean counters and oratory are necessary. Would you hire a dentist to fix your plumbing leaking in your bathroom? would you hire a bean counter to fly an airplane?

Lodown 23rd May 2012 15:35


Quite correct. Two seven hour sectors are much more fuel efficient than a single 14 hour sector. But an Anderson accountant would never know that. * [Of course there are other considerations. Landing fees, crew duty limits, handling fees etc.]
And a 7 hour flight, puts the A380 in direct competition with smaller twins that can appeal to the traveller with faster turnarounds and greater frequency of operations. There has to be an appeal to the customer. Many years ago, Airbus wanted to emphasize capacity: ala A380. Boeing wanted to emphasize frequency: ala 787. Airbus is appealing to the airline beancounters. Boeing is appealing to the airline customer. We'll see which one bears out. One flight per day with 500+ pax with maybe one or two intermediate stops and a crushed check-in and waiting area at both end terminals, or a choice of several direct flights per day to and from terminals with a comfortable number of fellow travellers. I know which option I favour. The flight in the middle is just part of the consideration.

Zapatas Blood 23rd May 2012 19:45

the 787 was a great concept on cheap oil. The 380 is a great concept on expensive oil.

Take a look at history. hub busting and frequency both decline with $$$ oil.

The 380 will be better suited to the $300 plus oil we will be soon seeing.

QF94 24th May 2012 06:00


One flight per day with 500+ pax with maybe one or two intermediate stops and a crushed check-in and waiting area at both end terminals
Who operates them at that capacity? QF certainly doesn't, with only about 40 extra pax than a 744. I don't believe EK or SQ operate anywhere near the 500 pax. Not if they're wanting to have all the creature comforts of individual "suites" and extra roomy comfort for their passengers.

noip 24th May 2012 07:07


with only about 40 extra pax than a 744
A misleading statement.

For equivalent configurations, the A380 has about 130 pax more than the 744.

744ER 317
A380 450

Now this is a premium config. But if we go with the 744 two class of just over 400, you will still have the same relativity of about 150+ additional pax on the A380.


N

another superlame 24th May 2012 08:03

OQD is Manila as we type, getting a rub and tug to put in about 40 extra seats.
Over the next 12 months all dugongs will get it.
They remove the last zone in bizzo, move premo cattle into that zone and add a few seats.
Then add more cattle seats into the old premo zone. As well as removing a galley and lav from the main deck and adding a few seats in their place. I think the new config comes in just below 490 seats. Not 555 like airbus wanted but better that what it had.

gobbledock 24th May 2012 12:40

Safety considerations
 
So all these changes that Joyce has commissioned, a lot of talk about business units, money, structure, money money money.

I see no mention of some more important aspects such as;
1) What considerations did the executives give to potential impacts on safety?
2) What aspects of safety or risks were identified during the restructure process?
3) Are QF following a change management process?
4) What changes in the safety system will now occur, and has planning for this been actioned?
5) Is the Regulator satisfied that all new senior positions are being undertaken by individuals who have adequate safety knowledge and experience?

You see the promotion of accountants, former financial consultants and the like does nothing to instill a measure of safety comfort in me.
And what about CASA? They of course have to approve these structural changes. Obviously they are most satisfied with this change within the QF AOC? One can only assume that the Regulator is most satisfied with the restructure, appointment of new key people and new organizational structure?
And what about Albo, is he happy?

The The 24th May 2012 13:31

Letters are going out! Would you like to cash in your Long Service Leave?

Tidying up the balance sheet for a sale?

dizzylizzy 24th May 2012 19:09

Strong rumours were floating about a week or two previous to this about "an announcement that very few people will like" - coming from ExCo during an appearance in Perth.

Captain Gidday 24th May 2012 19:47

ExCo?
 
Where did this ridiculous ExCo thing come from? Seems to be popping up all over recently. If you ask me, it can stand for Executive Coterie.


coterie [ˈkəʊtərɪ]n
a small exclusive group of friends or people with common interests; clique
Fits exactly.

Keg 24th May 2012 21:23


Letters are going out! Would you like to cash in your Long Service Leave?
Ah yes. Let's increase the loss for international whilst it serves our political purposes. :ugh: Rather than have a 10 year master plan, I'm more convinced than ever that this mob just makes it up as they go along.

Sunfish 24th May 2012 21:53

I detect a private equity bid. It will be timed to execute before the next election so that Julia Gillard, etc. are powerless to stop it. They tried it at $5.70 and they will try again below $1.50.

For Jamie Packer, it gets foreign punters to the Casinos he wants to build all over the country.

In fact the gambling could start on the aircraft when its wheels up.

teresa green 24th May 2012 22:37

I am with you Sunfish. QF International is on the market. Keep domestic, and then bring in JQ as the new International airline for this country. Plain as the nose on your face. Was always going to be as Dixon handed over to Joyce. One would hope they will pick more viable companies than the last two choices of Dixon, one has gone broke, the other struggling. Vale QF, you deserve better than this, this is not what all former staff and management who worked so hard to make you what you were. If only, if only, Borgetti had got the job, QF would be starting to hum by now, instead its only a matter of time before it joins TAA and Ansett into the dustbin. Beautiful airlines destroyed by bean counters and management. I could weep.

Captain Gidday 24th May 2012 22:53


The 380 will be better suited to the $300 plus oil we will be soon seeing.
Zappie. When the A380 was being designed, late 1990s, crude oil was $US15 - $US20 per barrel. This is the future [!] and oil is now five to six times as expensive, which would have been at the high end of expectations back then. If it takes oil to be nearly 20 times as high as it was when you were designing something to make that something viable in the market place, then there are some serious problems with the modelling.

Keg. Cashing in LSL might not be a bad deal for people with large amounts, instead of getting assigned 14 days LSL every Bid Period, when you don't want it. At least you get something of value, instead of being sent on forced vacation one quarter of your life.

Sunfish. Packer would want an airline? Why? He doesn't know anything about running an airline. :) Seriously, though, you'd reckon the scarring he got from the last foray would still not have healed yet. But these guys do have thick hides, it seems.

V-Jet 24th May 2012 23:33

My guess is along Sunfish's lines.

They have bled Longhaul dry and in any case are hopelessly out of their depth and run out of ideas/cash to do anything with it. This is an act of desperation.

Flog it and leave it for the sharks to do with it what they will.

Very doubleplusungood.

UPPERLOBE 24th May 2012 23:41

Qantas and the uncertainties in its great divide | Plane Talking

hewlett 24th May 2012 23:46

What of the employees in the new structure / potential sale? Engineering (whats left), reportedly to follow Strambi to the domestic branch. What will private equity get for its cash?

27/09 24th May 2012 23:55

The Qantas restructure - Do these words fit anywhere? Burns - Fiddles - Rome

blow.n.gasket 25th May 2012 02:12

It will be most interesting, nay, telling, as to what occurs, by just observing where all the flight ops Management types scurry to, in order to save their own hide.:E

teresa green 25th May 2012 02:24

My guess is Gasket, that the CP of JQ will suddenly finding he is sharing his seat. And not by one.

Keg 25th May 2012 03:44


It will be most interesting, nay, telling, as to what occurs, by just observing where all the flight ops Management types scurry to, in order to save their own hide.
More likely they're going to be scurrying for promotion. Chief Pilot Domestic. Head of Flight Operations Domestic, Head of Training Domestic, Head of Audit Domestic, etc, etc. I can picture a bunch of people in there tidying up their resumes already.

Meanwhile, at the coal face, everything changes and nothing changes. :ugh: :{

Toruk Macto 25th May 2012 03:47

Would it be possible to work for domestic and consult for international ?


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:49.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.