He is certainly blow n something. But it's not uncommon for some people to be scared of modern technology

With WTI crude finding resistance lines at USD $71.00 a barrel, hedging costs a lot more.

With a fuel inefficient fleet, consuming a lot more jet fuel per RPK, forward hedging costs face headwinds..

With US10Y Treasury at 3.04% yield, and oil term structure suggesting more upside than down...

Qantas need a new fleet

Re the 787-9 - LATAM seem to manage to do SCL-MEL/AKL no worries, but then again they have 330min EDTO, which the A/C is capable of but the question is will CASA allow it?

I agree if they got 330 min JNB wouldn't be an issue but the T/O performance out of JNB could be, the twins don't like hot and high, which is one of the reasons why the A340 was a popular machine ex JNB. Not sure about the 787 performance, but the 777-300ER is v payload limited when it's hot/vs high, far more so than the A330, at least in 200 guise anyway.

From the airbus site looks like RUN and MRU are A380 capable - but as someone pointed out, vs a 747 thats a LOT more seats onto the market with a lot more fuel burn. Interesting times!

It's a conundrum for sure. It's a similar flight time JNB-SYD as it is to Paris, London, Frankfurt etc. It's the only place I go where you see more quadjets than twins for those 10-11hr flight times. BA operate a mix of 747/380, Air France operate 380s, Lufthansa operate 748i, EK a 380 (but then again they operate 380s everywhere). You see very few 777/787s apart from African operators and various cargo operators who are presumably enroute to other African destinations. Don't know if it's purely for takeoff performance or perhaps those markets support the higher loads from premium carriers for larger aircraft. You would hope a twin capable of flying for 18 hours, only flying 11, would be able to uplift sufficient fuel for a full pax load and still achieve the required performance. It can be very marginal on the 747 in the summer, particularly if there is adverse weather forecast in Sydney. I'm sure the smartest guys in the room have considered all these factors though.

Not cynical. The data supports it.
An 'alliance' with EK cost Qantas 400,000 passengers in the first year. Incidentally EK gained a 1,000,000 (plus) for no Revenue gain to Qantas.
After five years, a return to Singapore confirms what the data already screamed: Passengers prefer going to Europe via Asia. A five year random walk for what exactly?

With all fleet growth directed at JQ, a replicated cost base, flying more air frames generates only 22% of the revenue Qantas does, yet it flies 48% of the ASK. This is likely a suggestion of over scale.

With headwinds indicating Qantas will hedge next FY into much higher WTI/Brent prices, the $597 million gain on fuel price falls in the 'transformation' FY15 profit is quickly at risk.
Fuel included CASK with the current fleet metrics deplete RASK CASK margin quickly at Qantas, far quicker than competitor airlines.
It is a delicate balance, a gamble that needn't have been taken if Qantas simply did what others prudently did years ago: Replaced four engines for two.

Qantas need a new fleet. Stat

To understand how big an impact consider rough this rule of thumb:

For a US$10 rise in the price of a barrel of WTI/Brent crude, an airline can expect an increase of between USD$100m to $300m in their fuel expense, industry wide give or take.

For an airline with a predominantly four engine international fleet, that is a substantial exposure. As as the 'turn around' Qantas profit in FY15 details, of the $975 million PBT, $597 million was reduced fuel expense from falling oil prices. (Most of the the remaining amount was depreciation change; Qantas wrote off the fleet)

• The order of magnitude fuel saving) was big on the way down and could whip saw expense on the way up.
• A weakening terms of trade (falling AUD) and a rising USD could accelerate a down turn.
• Yields are declining (consider rising fuel prices leading to taper off of demand)

Additionally with all the cheap debt sloshing around, Qantas like many other corporates used it to buy back shares. Such 'strategy' may sugar hit the company share price, but does not change fundamentals.That money could comfortably have covered a big chunk of the 787 purchase. Hopefully the term structure of the new debt is locked in as interest rates rise. Otherwise the tide may go out quicker than little Napoleon hoped. Seems self evident, given most of their competitors re-equipped years ago.

Qantas need a new fleet

valid question, responded by PM.
However, for clarification, the rule of thumb is rough and based upon International ASK for a sample of airlines.
Obviously the more exposure to a Qantas type fleet mix increases vulnerability.

Qantas, who have a treasury hedge (options mostly) on WTI/Brent crude at 80% for 12 months, Qantas would be at the upper bound of the rule of thumb.
The rising price means Jet fuel rises a bit above WTI spot (usually about $10). A falling AUD heightens their exposure.
The point of it being that a fleet decision is overdue.

Folks,
What is the problem causing such a high failure rate on F/O training on the 330, and is it only on this type?
Looks more like the system failing to me??
Tootle pip!!

It is a system failure,unfortunately no movement for a decade and limited opportunities for Training in that time will put further pressure on the system.

We maintain a few connections inside the 'empire'.

• There was despair at the 'alliance' The lack of any tangible gain and a five year commitment caused much division
• Whilst JQ was lavished with aircraft, QF International withered
• Preoccupation with internal agendas, including staff at the expense of strategic considerations

Fish rot from the head.

In a decade a fleet decision was deferred, the industry moved on.

Add supply of qualified pilots to the system that generates the operating revenue as another abject example of poor executive management and importantly worse board governance.