I am not privy to any such equation-rather it was an oblique way of saying that you can construct a ratio using any variables to better understand what costs actually are on a unit basis.

Broadly divide the entire flight crew overhead by the number of passengers (multiplied by a qualifier such as distance, time or any other variable which provides the dimensioning insight.

RPKs are the industry standard, but obviously they do not provide a picture of costs on an hourly basis.

Any such pay calculation would have many issues to address. At the end of the day no pilot that I know would accept more financial risk for the current reward.

In any event the way that pay is calculated is moot: there will always be a perception problem that can be manipulated by rhetoric.

An (apparently low) pay per passenger number would only serve to make our pay seem like a bargain. It was a throw-away line on my part, but it could be a tool for educating the travelling public.

Hey Blitzkrieger; the real one?! Do you mean Sunny or Eastern?

The real qlink?

There are some who seem to take offence at Cobham operating under the QantasLink banner. By the real qlink I mean any qlink that is NOT Cobham.

I was curious to see which other companies have bases there. None it seems.

JQ did operate a base at Hobart for a few years but it was closed and most of the guys were sent to the much more profitable Darwin base. Oh hang on... :ugh:

Thanks Buckshot, I can imagine an airline opening a base down there could be quite a positive thing.

An originating jet needs:
Fuel
Catering
Cleaning
Engineering
Aircrew
Somewhere to park
Etc.

Good for the economy surely. So what is Wilkie going on about?

QF mianline will only be SYD-MEL-BNE-PER
 

very soon.