I'd guess each "CEO" wants their own AOC so they can do their own thing.

You may be right Ida.
Ralph didn't intuitively `get' the airline industry.
He's a banker after all.
But aside from an early blip in backing down on some union issues - the one thing he had in his favour was that he garnered immense respect from the workforce.
One unusual thing about him - he has a photographic memory for names and faces.
It was quite astonishing to see him addressing people from all levels of the company that he'd only met once by name, when he met them again.

Norris followed the same formula when he was boss at the Commonwealth Bank, and look at how that place is doing now.

Engaged staff = happy customers = money rolling in through the door.

Norris got it, but Joyce sure as hell doesn't.

There's a bit more to it in an airline (ie, fleet) but once you've got the staff engagement situation sorted out the rest is relatively easy from there.

Tartare, you have to also give Rob Fyfe credit for going onto the "workshop floor" and getting along side the staff. How many other CEO's have helped chuck bags, serve drinks etc or gone and spoken face to face to staff when there were changes proposed in that area. From what I heard those actions also bought him some respect from the staff.

Was present at the meeting on Level 21, in the old building, in the very corner southeast meeting room when that idea was put forward.
It was actually inspired by the requirement that McDonalds has (or had) that all staff must spend 1 day a year flipping burgers.
The phrase used was `if Maccas can get their boss to flip burgers, then it should be good enough for our boss.'

Spilt AOC
 

While the motivations to split QF's AOC into domestic & international may be ominous there could be another reason.

Alan is pissed off that VA have spilt their ops into (majority foreign owned) domestic and (ostensibly Aus owned) international, the latter includes what was V Aus, Pacific Blue and the. Bali wet lease ops. He would like to be able to do the same... invite foreign investment in the domestic business but not endanger the Aus-flagged rights QF int holds.

It was easier for Virgin, the 777 was always on another AOC, and that AOC now includes 10 737-800s for Bali ops, and Pacific Blue has long held another two AOCs, one for the usual ZK- registered fleet and another for the regular VH aircraft they borrow from VAA.

If you're going to separate the costs and profits of QF dom and QF int you may need to split the AOC into two. Where the A330 falls is not for me to speculate.

The A330 will be under the international AOC.

767 was to be under domestic AOC but apparently that was too difficult to do.

The Domestic business covers Engineering.

Even with the two AOC's, there will be lots of cost allocation back and forth. The company line is that splitting the business is about accountability; but the foreign ownership limit/cap is likely more the reason.

And sell off the Domestic arm to foreigners? The profitable part of the Red-Tail Qantas Group? Then how does he cover the "loss-making" International until it is "transformed" into a profitable business unit some time in 2015/2016?

Why would it be difficult to put the 767 on the domestic AOC? 767s spent years on Ansetts AOC before Ansett went international. Probably I don't understand the fundamentals of getting an AOC.

I'm lead to believe not so much difficult, rather an unnecessary cost (not that that's stopped Alan & Co before) to move the 767 to the domestic AoC given the 767 has an apparently limited lifespan left in the fleet.

Other minor considerations are, for example, the difficulty of incorporating 2 awards under one FRMS within the domestic AoC.

Don't forget ETOPS issues for a new AOC holder as well. Makes it difficult to run the 767 to HNL without ETOPS in the short term. I think too that a full new IOSA audit is needed on the domestic AOC application too otherwise code sharing can't happen. Time frames are incredibly tight and contingent upon certain things happening to quite a precision timing schedule from here on.

The duplication also includes separate 'integrated' operations Center as well. Hardly integrated when there are now two of them for two aeroplanes from the same company flying the same route 15 minutes apart but with different people looking out for each of them! :ugh:

Anyway, nothing that any of us can do about it anyway. Strap in, hold on.

An AOC is a privilege, not a right. If CASA put the QF Group 'applicants' through some of the same rigorous pedantic bollocks that they put others through I would guess that no future AOC's would be granted! But of course we are talking about Qantas here, so I am certain that any changes, additions, inclusion of new AOC's or anything else they want will be a granted by CASA without hesitation.

Not so Para. That is why it is taking so long.

The applicant for the AOC must be an entity separate from QAL. Related but separate. Otherwise there’d be no point, so far as I can see. :confused:

(Para: CASA has a statutory obligation to issue an AOC to an applicant which satisfies the criteria in s 28(1) of the Civil Aviation Act. To that extent it’s a right.)

Further example of QAL people management.

AirNZ approach QF to provide engineering coverage in Perth for the B777. AirNZ offer to provide and pay for the cost of training engineers. QF decline the offer.

QF decide not to renew or source new contracts for International baggage handling in Sydney. This action leads to a surplus of full time international baggage handlers. Staff told the amount of baggage handling work now only warrants a part time work force.

Full time International baggage handlers will transfer to Sydney Domestic next year. Only 20 or so full timers will stay at SIT the rest replaced by a part time workforce.

Alan's transformation continues........

On the eve of Christmas Eve, Qantas Group November stats are released:

http://centreforaviation.com/files/a...03/Nov2013.pdf

Qantas Airways Group passenger numbers down 0.4% – traffic highlights for Nov-2013:
• Passenger numbers: 4.1 million, -0.4% year-on-year;
•
o Qantas Domestic: 1.4 million, -3.2%;
o Qantas International: 469,000, -0.5%;
o Jetstar Domestic: 988,000, +1.8%;
o Jetstar International: 395,000, -7.2%;
o QantasLink: 449,000, -3.2%;
o Jetstar Asia: 357,000, +20.4%;
• Passenger load factor: 76.7%, -3.3 ppts;
•
o Qantas Domestic: 76.7%, -3.2 ppts;
o Qantas International: 76.6%, -4.7 ppts;
o Jetstar Domestic: 83.1%, -2.2 ppts;
o Jetstar International: 73.5%, -3.1 ppts;
o QantasLink: 63.5%, -4.3 ppts;
o Jetstar Asia: 80.4%, +4.8 ppts.

Jetstar International can't be making any money. Jetstar Asia at 80.4% is probably just breaking even. Qantas International at 76.6% must be losing so much money - and they carried in absolute numbers less pax than last year

Oh why are Jetstar Asia numbers consolidated into the Qantas Group? This means that under IFRS, Qantas exercises management and board control over Jetstar Asia. Shall SQ complain?

Aust / NZ JQ CEO David Hall was reported as saying JQ Domestic required 98% load factor to break even if ancillary sales weren't taken into account.

Keep selling those donuts :E

I was under the impression that muffins were where the money was.... Not sure if donuts would give the required ROI. I stand to be corrected, I'm not an expert in this, just reporting what I was told by management.

And Jetstar International needs 96% break even load factor...wonder where the shortfall comes from..:confused:
Where does the passenger loads come from for Jetstar Asia...does that include domestic loads as well? :)
Full service carriers earn on average 2 to 2.5 times the revenue on ticket prices alone.(Doganis 4th edition). Great move Qantas Board.:D