Virgin does a Qantas!
 

Where are the Tiger bashers {like the Jetstar ones}??:hmm:

Virgin transfers SYD-OOL capacity to Tiger | Australian Aviation

Not exactly!

Virgin gives up 3 flights from one destination.
QANTAS pulled every flight out of the Gold Coast from every destination.

Hardly the same!

It's only a matter of time ......

Same as Virgin sending A330 checks overseas. No protests about quality and jobs in the media by Mr P and co.

is it a net reduction in flying for virgin or are the aeroplanes being deployed elsewhere?

Then it's not the same as QANTAS is it?

They removed all the QANTAS services. Virgin isn't.

I'm fairly confident JB wouldn't have spent all that money putting in a lounge if he was then going to cease Virgin flights. He's not stupid!
AJ on the other hand...........

F&@! Boring :ugh::ugh:

Major difference is if you still want to fly Syd-Ool on Virgin you still have plenty of flights to choose from. And if you book virgin that's what you get. Unlike Qantas...........

Yes Virgin have a flight every hour whilst the Roo has a flight morning, arvo and early evening. Hardly convenient.

Even Tiger will offer more seats than QF!

Exactly Porch,

Still 9 services a day with VA, compared to 3 with QF. :rolleyes:

Look back at the 'qf group' (yeah we're all one big happy family...) between 7-10 years ago.

It's gotta start somewhere.....

Sorry to say, it's just the beginning......:ugh:

Yeah, what about that Fedsec??

Borghetti is too smart to follow Qantas's lead
 

Borghetti is too smart to follow Qantas.

I think it will become increasingly apparent that the Virgin/Tiger combo are pursuing a true 'dual brand strategy', whereas Qantas has been cannibalised by Jetstar. Virgin and Tiger will tend to complement each other and compete with Qantas and Jetstar respectively. Qantas have never got that balance right and their attempt at a dual brand strategy has been a flop because the focus has been on fattening up Jetstar while Qantas has gone undernourished. This has lead to a lack of differentiation, internal competition, and is the 'chink' that Borghetti is exploiting cleverly.

The strong possibility is, that it is actually a single brand strategy disguised as a dual brand strategy, & it is working very well for them & their ultimate goal!

Yes - I can see the possibility of a hidden agenda, as you outline.

In which case, it will be interesting to observe the success (or otherwise) of a faithful implementation of a dual brand strategy. If you are correct (hidden agenda) then we have never actually seen one deployed in Australia before.

Another point that interests me is this. It seems apparent that 'Qantas Group think' was that heritage carriers providing full service was an antique arena that was largely unprofitable. This logic has resulted in, what I refer to as, the fattening of JST and the starving of QAL. However, if this is so - why is it that Virgins' transformation into a full-service airline is causing so much grief to QAL domestic profitability? Doesn't this point tend to act as a counterpoint to the deliberate strategy of Qantas Group management to wither their QAL brand and focus on growth of the LCC model?

I seem to remember a long time ago AJ and co saying Jetstar would never take over qantas routes or compete directly against it. :rolleyes:

Make no mistake Tiger are doing exactly that to Virgin now. I am not saying it is not justified or is not a sound decision, maybe it is needed on a group competition lever. However, it is the same thing. Tiger is Virgins Jetstar and this is just the beginning.

Hials said
I have no doubt JB is a very astute business man and saved Virgin from a quick doom had he not come in however the brand layout is more and more like qantas and the hard fact is I think there has been only one year of a small profit in about the last 4 since he has been around. That can only go on so long as well.
Will all the money spent on change, I like many, hope to see his plans bare fruit soon.

The problem with QF & AJ's strategy is its an old strategy.

The QF group strategy was concocted in the early part of the last decade.

Before the GFC when making money was easier. All you needed to do was provide a service and customers would pay.

JQ was born so too the group strategy to expand its operations domestically, international and via bases and investments with franchises in Asia.

JQ was a great idea at the time. As long as BOTH QF & JQ we making profits.

The issue is, the operating environment changed, especially post GFC. QF executives (AJ supported by LC) have failed to modify the strategy as a result of the changing operating environment.

What they should be doing is:

1. Scaling back on JQ domestically replaced by QF business, economy and discount economy tickets

2. Pull the 787 out of JQ and operate them on a mix of QF domestic & international routes. Reduces costs in JQ staying an all airbus fleet.

3. New advertising campaign for QF branding

4. Return the QF brand to ports like HTI & direct services to OOL from more domestic ports.

5. Shutdown Jetconnect and fold the operation in QF domestic.

6. Rebrand JQ Asia as QF on the existing cost base. Increase QF branded flight to Singapore & go upmarket on the JQ Asia inflight product providing the QF brand a greater reach thru Asia on connecting services.

MC

Ahhhhh....... So what you're saying is this could be a case of

Crouching TIGER, Hidden agenda!:}

Jetstar was initially sold as a blocking move to prevent some other operator from starting up in the LCC market sector. At the time industry pundits pointed to every other LCC subsidiary of a legacy carrier eventually harming the parent carrier.

Only the consultants thought it a good idea to host an agent of "creative destruction" . More of such innovative bull****e can be found in the management press of the day. Another obvious fallacy was something called "first mover advantage" used to justify rushing into ill-considered Asian franchises.

Master Caution I agree with most of your points. I would like to see JQ International fold and have all the aircraft return to QF. Possibly they could run a small fleet on Phuket and Bali.

I cannot see QF domestic ever replacing Jetconnect...their cost base is too low, especially for the NZ domestic sectors.

As far as rebranding upscale the Jetstar offshore operations: Hmmmm. Cunning plan. The LCC space in Asia is rapidly becoming a disaster for all the players, but even SQ is bleeding in the full service sector. As is MH and Thai. There may not be enough revenue to warrant staying in business there at all.

Anyway...all of this is moot with the current board/executive and top two layers of yes-men.

Not all about Qantas...
 

What are Tiger's fleet plans? That should be revealing of JB's intentions.

Austral..cus, Jetconnect don't operate nz domestic sectors, just trans Tasman. Also not sure about the low cost base, maintaining a separate (nz) AOC for such a small operation is pretty costly.

Aaah! My apologies. I thought they did domestic over there. Who does? Jetstar?

In any event...yeah, QF could likely do the Tasman cheaper. But that would negate some expensive consultant's per project.

I believe that JB told VANZ pilots during EBA negotiations, that he would never pay them VAA rates.

It would seem that both QF & VA have the same thought processes for the required cost base to make money on the Tasman, which has been a bloodbath over the decades, mainly caused by competition driven over capacity.

I think that Jetconnect is probably doing very well for QF.

And yes, Jetstar do NZ domestic.

Jetconnect is doing very well for QF at what cost?

The cost savings would have to be massive to offset the inefficiencies created in mainline.

The problem with inheriting Dixons silo structure of individual businesses units is one entity may look cheaper on paper but it's increased the overall cost to the group.

True. But the difficulty is in comparing apples with apples.

Jetstar possibly have the better system for costs, where everything is done from OZ & the aircraft are VH registered.

However, arguably it is better to crew from NZ, as it allows 2 returns per day, with no overnights if operating from a port that has crew based in it. Not that Jetconnect don't do overnights, but that is due to flights being operated into NZ ports that don't have a base.

Productivity is another issue, with NZ allowing a 737-800 to be crewed with only 4 F/A's & also having less restrictive flight & duty time limitations.

I'm would imagine that management have done the numbers & they stack up. But I guess that one can never be too sure in that regard.

Oakape - Virgin have been crewing -800s with 4 crew for years! When I was at QF, they'd often do it if someone called in sick. When I was at Alliance (BNE based!) and leased the airwork 737-300 (several years ago), and they went so far as to train us as "NZ based crew" under the NZ aoc - so that they could run the norfolk flights with 3 crew.

Dare I mention the $23,000 base wage for cabin crew?

Aussie airlines will do anything to operate aircraft at NZ costs!

For those of you arguing the 'fairness' aspect (eg. JQ = qantas bashing, why not so with TT)...

Be realistic - Qantas management has run a campaign spanning the better part of two decades, targeting wages and conditions amongst it's own staff. As an ex BNE SH QF flightie, I worked numerous flights to HKG and SIN whereby, amongst the crew, there were too many contracts/ ebas / agreements with the company to count or make any sense...

Yes, we were all doing the same job, but we were all being screwed by management. The same management that has driven said airline into the ground.

The difference between QF and VA - Borghetti actually understands the power of the LCC. YES - there is a place for tiger at OOL (If you don't get that one, you've missed a lot!).

The difference between Borghetti and Joyce is the overall proportion of budget vs full service.

Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes behind the iron curtain on any OOL flight will understand that those wired coke heads love a cheap flight, just about as much as those wanky caviar munching bignoters love the opportunity for an upgrade to Business.

Borghetti has a better balance than Joyce - easily.

I find it hard to believe that VANZ truly is cheaper anymore than VAA on trans-tasman and island flying.

Running a separate AOC down here with separate management and doubling up on everything. Adding to this is the Kiwi dollar strengthening, the contracts crew are on strengthening, inefficient trips with paxing sectors across the ditch both ways, returns out of Australia (with associated hotel and transport costs). Then there is the issue about mid duty sickness/fatigue with either delays, cancellations or VAA stepping in.


Yes at present their flight and duty limits are less restrictive, but Air NZ certainly don't do those returns. VANZ has already lost island flights to VAA with more to come. Business class is on the way so that rules out the excuse why some routes maybe onshored back to Aussie.


I'm afraid to say it, but it's just a matter of time before the true picture is realised and the operation is packed up and operated more efficiently by VAA.

Wow... Nothing like supporting the nz op. :ugh:
Isn't that why ch has said they can save about 1mil doing schedules back in nz, given the inefficiencies created since it changed hands.
We "lost" the Island flights... By that you mean Honiara and Port Moresby, mainly because of the lack of business class wasn't it?
And the cost base may appear similar but is that factoring the elevated lease costs we pay to big brother for our aircraft by the tune of 100k/ month extra each... Returns are best done on the Tasman from nz because you can start earlier in nz due to time change, our rostering and scheduling is best done in nz, as has been shown by the recent examples in increased paxing.
If it didn't suit someone higher up, we wouldn't be here, who knows how long we will be but it's a good job, and to be fair, the cc fatigue issue is a real problem. That is their new toy and they are milking it hard, but mostly it's not truly fatigue and someone in our management needs to sort it out because it is costing heaps. Especially when you have a whole crew in the back go fatigued, then flights get canceled, then said cc say they are fit to operate because they can see what they have done. We don't really have that many fatiguing duties.
The odd one, but the real ones are the Rarotonga pairings, and multiple nadi returns ex Sydney with min rest.

At least they are hiring some FO's shortly and hopefully some upgrades to come also.
Good job, great people and if someone doesn't like the job, then there is the door. I for one enjoy it and am not considering leaving anytime soon.

NZ regs allow an -800 to be operated by 4 cabin crew in normal circumstances & by 3 crew in the case of illness away from a crew base. Oz doesn't. This is because NZ requires 1 F/A for every 50 pax & Oz requires 1 F/A for every 36 pax.

Incorrect. QF routinely crews 4 cabin crew on some domestic B737-800 flights in Oz.

Oakape you are incorrect, Jetstars 320's are operated with 4 cabin crew in Aus.
Used to be 5 with the ability to downgrade to 4 in the event of a crew member going U/S at an outport. Somehow Jetstar managed to get the 1 CC to 50 pax in as the norm.

Well, there you go! Things just keep on changing! :ouch:

Looked it up (perhaps should have done that in the first place!) & concessions started in 2006 & looks like there was a parliamentary inquiry in 2011. However, it doesn't appear that that has led to a rule change as yet.

Thanks guys.

Sorry guys, Oakape is right.
NZ 1 cabin crew per 50 pax, Aus 1 cabin crew per 36.
The only way to crew some aircraft with certain crew numbers is to reduce pax.
This is not company specific but Aussie LAW.:rolleyes:

Unless things have changed very recently.

Or apply for a type specific variation from CASA. Been in place with a few operators for some years now.

Be careful what you wish for! If that was successful, do you really think the rebranding would stop just in the ASIA devision of JQ?