|
GB is right. Don't forget that a number of B767 routes were abandoned in the 90s that allowed more domestic flying. Routes such as PER/BKK, SYD/SGN and SYD/SEL to name three. Domestic needed some addition capacity to replace the A300s so the 767 was 'conscripted!. The units ex BA I seem to recall came after the Ansett collapse and were specifically for domestic use.
|
|
And take all his cronies with him, sick to death of this Ar*****e and the pressure he puts people through. he needs a swift kick up the A**E he would know all about that particular area.
|
Cosgrove to be announced new GG Monday.
Getting back to earlier posts, perhaps this would be a good time for a shakeup on the board? Catalysed by a petition of 100 shareholders to request an EGM to discuss any potential golden parachutes, given the rising pressure in the financial press for the current management and board to move on? I'm guessing there are at least 100 disaffected shareholding current and former staff who still give a $h!t? No time to organise it myself but I'll sign up. Someone to second the motion? |
Hooroo is, in effect, Jetstar. Qantas provide the infrastructure, Jetstar earn the revenue. Hooroo was launched in mid-2012 and is fully owned by Qantas. Qantas launches 'Hooroo' hotel booking and social travel site - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller AFAIK Qantas has always operated a travel agency business - remember all the Qantas Holidays stores that used to be around. This business was merged into Jetstet Travelworld and Stella and is now called helloworld and I believe Qantas still has a stake. As for selling cruises - well often people fly to take cruises - and indeed often book the very lucrative one-way fares - why wouldn't Qantas want a piece of this action |
Help needed for economic moron
Can someone please explain, (in plain terms, no MBA wank speak), how it is that a Frequent Flyer business can be counted as a tangible asset.
To my unqualified sense of reasoning: Frequent Flyer points are a perishable paper asset of the member, held in trust by the provider, redeemable in the transfer of goods or services, created by the provider or an affiliate, (co-service provider). As points are in effect a credit note granting that the provider owes reward to the member (for services previously bought and paid for), there is no further flow from the member to the provider, but there is an obligation on the part of the provider. This surely is a liability, not an asset. If the parent company folds, members FF points dissolve and have no worth, to either party. I get the fact that co-providers probably pay a royalty to QANTAS to be a part of the program, but, presumably future participation/contribution would be conditional on both sides, and as such could hardly be counted as guaranteed revenue. And is it seriously contemplated that the value of the co-providers participation, exceeds the liability by billions of dollars. How is it that the FF program, a paper shell, is categorised as a bona fide asset that can legitimately be carried on the positive side of the books rather than the deficit side. Why the hell would anyone want to buy into it. Maui EM (economic moron) |
Hear hear, Maui.
I too, have wondered how FF can be sold off as a tangible asset? Cheers. |
Maui - here's a lengthy explanation: The airline frequent flyer programme: for love and money
From the linked article The more successful programmes have progressed far beyond awarding points for miles flown, as airlines add new partners to their lists. Now the FFPs are typically integrated with large external companies, including banks, credit cards, retailers (especially food sellers, sales outlets that no consumer can avoid), as well as car rentals, petrol companies, hotels and other travel- related operators. In all of these cases, a cobweb of loyalties develops which entraps the willing consumer; for example using an airline branded credit card to buy groceries. And that’s where the money comes from. The airline is simply the gleaming light that attracts the moths. Redeeming points on a set of wine glasses or a gift voucher does not generate the same attraction as a flight on the magic carpet – or an upgrade towards the front of the aircraft. Dependent on where those dollars are being spent too, the frequent flyer family can be grown substantially, in a virtuous spiral. Staple product retailers, such as utilities, telcos and retail chains, are sound partners. Major food conglomerates are the most valuable. ... This is all a very nice position for the airline to be in, as a virtual banker, holding points which almost have the status of currency. Hived-off Air Canada FFP, Groupe Aeroplan, reports that the average elapsed time between earning and redeeming (“burning”) frequent flyer points is 30 months; and some 17% of points are never redeemed. This, as Aeroplan explains, ensures that, “a significant portion of our profitability is based on estimates of the number of GA Loyalty Units that will never be redeemed by the member base.” |
Qantas Loyalty chief executive Lesley Grant refers to the airline’s Frequent Flyer program as the glue that holds the airline together. “It’s very integrated because we provide valuable insight to the airline and we create reward and recognition for members of the program, who are obviously frequent flyers,” Grant says. The vast amount of data that can be gathered from an airline’s millions of members creates a competitive advantage and can inform the airline’s business decisions, she says. The airline knows which passengers flew which segments and when and why, and how much they paid. “The important thing is to understand how they’re behaving and being able to target offers that are relevant to those segments,” Grant says. Loyalty schemes are invaluable to airlines’ marketing efforts because they provide access to millions of receptive flyers – although aviation analyst Chris Tarry says airlines have yet to take full advantage of the highly detailed data they have on the flying and spending habits of their loyalty club members. “You look at airline marketing, it’s all pretty general stuff,” says Tarry, founder of British aviation consultancy CTAIRA. “The real opportunity is to use your particular travel behaviour to either upsell or sell better.” For example, rather than cutting fares across the board, airlines can offer individuals special deals without showing the rest of the market. Frequent flyer schemes have also become an important means of communicating with passengers, to let them know of flight delays or changes to their flight schedule. Alongside a contribution to airlines in terms of market intelligence, marketing opportunities and driving customer loyalty, frequent flyer schemes have become profitable businesses in their own right. The airlines make money by selling points to their partners, which the partners can then hand out to their own customers in exchange for purchases. For instance, Qantas sells points to Woolworths – one of its 450 partners – which then gives them out to its own customers as part of its Everyday Rewards program. Qantas is one of the few airlines to reveal its frequent flyer scheme earnings, which show how valuable the schemes can be. In the past financial year Qantas Frequent Flyer earned A$1.2 billion from the sales of points and membership fees and A$231 million in earnings before interest and tax. Qantas (and its competitors) won’t reveal the value it attributes to each point in its financial statements. At any one time the airline is carrying a A$2 billion liability for outstanding points on its books. “It doesn’t matter whether you’re flying or not,” Grant says. “As long as you’re earning and we create ways for you to be able to redeem, then you’re very engaged in the program.” |
As I understand it the partner businesses (Coles, woollies, whoever) pay the frequent flyer business for the points they give away.
The frequent flyer business sells a product that in effect costs it nothing (or next to nothing) to provide. Reward seats are revenue managed and don't typically displace people paying real money for the seats - they are a perishable commodity and are a wasted commodity if the flight leaves with an empty seat, so as a result all they really cost is the delta burn for carrying the extra weight on the aeroplane and the catering. In many cases the catering is full ship catered anyway so doesn't cost a huge amount anyway. So, the frequent flyer business (insert airline name here) is selling a perishable product that doesn't really cost it much to provide. |
Here you go:
http://loyalty360.org/images/uploads...lent_times.pdf Air Canada Aeroplan was sold in 2005. The attached link is a a discussion paper from Carlson Marketing which was written in 2008. It is a very good primer on the factors in play. |
I like the quote from Leslie Grant about FF members providing valuable insight to management. Yet, they still managed to **** up the airline. All those FF members must have been clamouring for endless Jetstar franchises throughout Asia, and for a really ancient legacy fleet to burn their points in.
...also: it is apparent that breakage (the points never redeemed) are a major driver of the profit in FF programs which explains the periodic fooling with the redemption schedule, making it harder to redeem. Here is my favourite FF story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_P..._(entrepreneur) |
Isn't it wonderful how these "smartest Guys/women in the room spin according to their agenda of the day or what they want us to believe with NO regard to the facts. Just love it and look forward to the day when some new CEO holds them ALL accountable for their woeful performance and destruction of shareholder value. No Board member is ever going to fess up they endorsed what was done and will leave them without a chair when the AJ music stops.
|
This is a link to S &P's recent rating of Qantas.
https://content.markitcdn.com/CommSe...pudWxsfQ==.pdf It should be noted that while S & P considers that the business is a going concern, "our assessment that the business would retain more value as a re-organised operating entity than in liquidation". It's clear to all concerned parties, i.e. staff, shareholders, posters on this forum, that a "re-organisation" of the board would be the #1 priority. In saying that, "re-organising" might be taken as exactly what they are doing now. Still, I felt it was worth posting the link. |
Joyce gone sooner rather than later. Business is shifting chess pieces as we speak to make this happen. It's been very quiet lately for a reason. Watch this space as he will be gone by February.
|
Ooohhh... Don't tease me!
|
It should be noted that while S & P considers that the business is a going concern, "our assessment that the business would retain more value as a re-organised operating entity than in liquidation". |
I have a gut feeling Joyce will be out the door before the end of January.
I have no 'insider' knowledge but I would bet money on it. |
by ohallen, Isn't it wonderful how these "smartest Guys/women in the room spin according to their agenda of the day or what they want us to believe with NO regard to the facts. Just love it and look forward to the day when some new CEO holds them ALL accountable for their woeful performance and destruction of shareholder value. No Board member is ever going to fess up they endorsed what was done and will leave them without a chair when the AJ music stops. Well said, but I think some on the current board will have a lot of explaining to do... "they backed the wrong horse" (not out of the MBA school book) Qantas CEO Joyce Faces Top Test in Borghetti?s Revenge - Bloomberg The problem is, re-organisation implies some kind of organisation in the first place! Chaos being the opposite of organisation, then to organise might be the more correct imperative. . |
Clifford & his board are responsible for the chaos over the past 5 years, |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:24. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.