Q. A. Because, apart from John Borghetti, none of them have "real airline" experience. We now have degree qualified managers who think that they know everything but don't have "the feel" that you acquire when you accumulate true experience &, consequently, you get bad decisions that have long term implications. :ugh:

I have to ask, what's with the "operational spare" sitting at the Lake in SYD for the past 2 days, with no one near it?

Is it to allow for a ''flexible approach with the allocation of flying resources'' :confused:

Errrrr.......yes I believe so!
One could also add......inept, unskillful, unskilled, inexpert, amateurish, unprofessional, bungling, blundering, clumsy, inadequate, substandard, inferior, ineffective, deficient, inefficient, ineffectual, wanting, lacking, leaving much to be desired; incapable, unfit, unqualified; informal useless, pathetic, ham-fisted, not up to it, not up to scratch, bush-league. :)

What is GTs total aeronautical experience?
I think most airlines were created by pilots, QF by a pilot and an engineer.
My how far we have come.

I guess the bit that puzzles me is that these decisions are not rushed into they are calculated and planned and reviewed. Yet ALL the airlines have massive screwups.

I just don't get how you can have such a long time to a decision and still get it wrong so badly. It doesn't make sense, yet all the airlines are having the same problem.

Sometimes I guess that these things are 'calculated' mistakes. Rumours were circulating around 18 months ago that the 787 for J* were not fit for purpose. The fact that they have been pushed into service anyway would suggest to me that a decision has been taken higher up the chain regarding a much wider group strategy.

Any shrewd businessman would have seen the problem coming and would have taken the decision to place the aircraft with Qantas mainline to get the best utilisation out of them. The fact that they have not shows that they would rather place them in a loss making role within Jetstar to perhaps further strangle the dog that has become Qantas International.

It's only a dog because it keeps giving birth to bitches...

My personal view is that giving the 14 787s to Jetstar was the quickest and easiest way to get A330s for Qanttas. IE: they were at a price too low to refuse and QF then got an efficiency in retiring the remaining 767s and getting the A330s. More luck than good management probably.

Don't forget that towards the end, according to the senior management section of Pan Am, they never made a loss - they simply had another year of "negative profit". Obviously the Hooka that's permeating through the halls of Qantas's sabateurs in Sydney was the same stuff in the air cond ducts of Pan Am's all those years ago.

So, my question is, where can the Jetstar 787s actually fly to? And didn't anyone from Boeing say at the time of ordering, you know guys putting low powered engines and 330 odd seats in this thing is only going to end in tears?

Ii was not party to the JQ 787 order process, but I have ordered a fleet of 36 new airliners once. Before the contract was signed every single option, provision for option, alternative vendor etc was hashed out. Sometimes from 08:00 tiil last drinks. Many times, in fact.

It isn't rocket surgery, but you have to pay attention. Having a couple of experienced pilots on the team is key. Eventually the winnowing should yield a useable compromise between the wish list and the essentials. Adequate thrust options rank higher than avionics suites. (Which are next on the list) Dispatch reliability is foremost: can you go? Can you go with a paying load? Can you go on time? 99.9% of the time? Why not?

The A330 initial order was screwed up, as was the follow-up domestic aircraft without brake fans. The 737-800 low thrust model, the 717 low thrust model are both examples of naive aircraft ordering. We have form in this department.

Manufacturers may sometimes offer guidance, but it is more fun for them to watch someone order a cripple: that way you get to sell the same customer twice for no extra effort. The guys who order the follow-on planes will not be the the guys from the first order, so no embarrassment to share.

Ordering planes is like contracting the building of a house: every change once the contract is signed is going to be costly...there are no free do-overs. It pays to do your homework before you accept that lunch date with the salesmen.

I am, however, standing by for the next round of cost-cuttiing, aware as I am that my pay is too generous and may compromise the long-term health of the company. Or something.

Keg,
The 330s should never have gone to Jetstar in the first place!
Older 767s were capable of operating any of the international flights that Jetstar international have operated to date!
This would have meant the ludicrous situation that occurs Sydney Honolulu,
QF operating old 767s next to the low cost Jetstar flying near new 330s would never have happened!
Air Canada recently started a long haul LCC, Rouge, no shiny Air Canada 330s for them, old 767s!
Then by now Qantas would have new 787s, either to take on Virgin to from Perth, or to do regional SE Asia flights, or a mix of both, as the 330s do now.
People who fly business class and or fly regularly appreciate a better product, and by all accounts the 787 is a big improvement for passengers, when compared to a 330 or 767!

People who fly business class and or fly regularly appreciate a better product, and by all accounts the 787 is a big improvement for passengers, when compared to a 330 or 767!

I flew YYZ-LHR-YYZ on BA 787 set up for 214 seats , on Christmas Eve return Jan 18th, Business ( an upgrade by BA) eastbound and PE westbound. The business lie flat seat was wonderful, the Z setting is to die for in my view. Much of my body weight was transferred to the excellent lumbar support cushion. The PE seat had a poor cushion , my 2012 Ford Focus has a more comfortable seat. The cabin noise was a dramatic improvement . It is a continuous shush , no tremulant or vibration within the sound. The cabin lighting was very easy on the eyes. The fuel burn was very economical . According to one of the pilots who I was able to chat with the burn, was 1.30kg ( ~ $1.30) for each kg of payload for a 7hr 45m sector. For a standard passenger with baggage that is about $122.00.

Part of the problem for managers who are focussed on finding new and better ways to shave costs and increase revenue is that if they don't have an airline background its almost impossible for them to look at the array of specs available with a new type in the same way as professionals.

Pilots, fleet planners, engineers and load controllers have the range/payload trade-offs embedded within their DNA. I doubt there's ever been an airliner where the hard choices didn't have to be made. And inevitably airliners end up going to the extreme of their range and giving grey hair to marketers trying to reliably sell seats. Think QF's 747 SYD-DFW-BNE operation. Think way further back to DC-9s operating SYD-TSV or ADL-PER. "Fill it up overwing and leave the bags behind"

Professional fleet planners and manufacturers technical marketing reps are good at understanding the implications of each seat layout, each engine choice, each spec. Not for them the "low hanging fruit" of choosing or advising an airline to get the low strength floor, don't buy life rafts, select non-reclining seats, get the low TOW option, buy de-rated engines, save money by not buying ACARS or HF radio etc etc etc.

But those who think that being a great manager is to see self-evident truths that have eluded previous generations look at those range/payload graphs and drift-down charts, ETOPS planning, escape routes, seasonal take-off performance limits, second segment and obstacle issues, engine-out take off and missed approach limits etc etc and want in their hearts to cut through it in the same way well meaning but ignorant manager might by-pass a Matron's knowledge and seek to cut costs on cleaning in a hospital. Great idea but flawed in the extreme.

They just so want there to be a way to jam in lots of people without range implications that it defies logic. Its another manifestation of the law of unintended consequences. Maximise revenue by jamming the cabin while losing revenue opportunities by crippling the range capabilities. So you get an aeroplane like the 787-8 that should happily operate MEL-LAX with say 180-210 pax barely able to get SYD-HNL with well over 300. Or an airline that can't see the virtues of the 777-200LR and instead tries to get an ancient 4 engine 747 fleet to operate ultra long range routes.

Yes it might seem at first glance to be pathetic. But in a KPI driven and cost focussed world eager hearts so want to get it right and not have to make difficult choices based on actual facts and ramifications. Just like little children who get invited to two birthday parties on the same day......they just so want to have it all......

No doubt the Air Canada team search the globe for the 'best model' and 'best management' in regards to a successfully run LCC.
No doubt they wanted to find the best approach in regards to LCC v parent company and competing on same routes.
New aircraft for the LCC v older aircraft made available from parent, whilst parent get new aircraft and retain their long term, loyal customer base.

I guess the Canadians didn't look at the QF/JQ model:ok:

Re Airline management in Australia getting it wrong with Aircraft specifications, link below to Aviation Week and Space Technology article interviewing Tim Clark CEO of Emirates is very interesting!
Seems he has the knowledge and hands on approach, which has seen Emirates pretty well get it right with Aircraft choices and specifications!

Emirates President Tim Clark Is Person Of The Year

Seemingly all systems go with Phuket routes on 787s -- SYD-HKT commencing yesteray and MEL-HKT on some days in Feb/March and all services from April

Jetstar introduces 787 on Melbourne-Phuket route
Jetstar adds new Thai 787 route, Thai to fly 787s to Perth | Plane Talking

I believe they are going to start flying the 787 4 times a week from Melbourne to Narita :ugh:

Don't they realise that so many business class travellers already travel from Brisbane/Melbourne to hop on the QF21 because they don't want to fly ****star :ugh:

PUT,

I don't think their business travellers will be happy, 787 notwithstanding. At best, JQ's so-called 'International Business Class' should be categorized as 'Premium Economy Class' or just plain 'Economy Class' while their existing Y class should truly become 'Cattle Class'.

Agree Star Class was a more apt name.
It is more like PE on BA (which serves Economy food)..

That said at the right price I dont think you need any more for a day flight.