Capt Fathom,

It is going exactly as planned so all they will do is open another case of Cognac light up those Havana's and wait.

In the usual well worn c-level tradition, he will resign with a golden parachute, and leave the mess for the next sucker.

Was only reviewing this article the other day. All roads lead to 2020.
Good luck to the poor bastard that inherits the mother of all **** sandwiches.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/comp...15-p4z0gd.html

It is well known in the broader industry that the Qantas footprint and withdrawal was an indication that the business focus shifted. The growth of JQ at the expense of the parent is a dangerous knife to balance. Buoyed by surplus cash flow and cheap fuel, on first examination, which is all the MSM bother with, it appeared ok.

That the segment accounts hide the impact is one thing, but an airline of JQ's size flying the amount of ASK for such a small revenue return should concern investors.
Endless discussion of cost base aside, with the depreciation change accounted and the cheap fuel 'bonanza' buying time other airlines have taken advantage of the respite to re-equip.
That this management and board chose to to neglect long term strategic imperatives for short term personal gain is not new, but the gap is ever more obvious every day.

Even the bought and paid for ratings agencies acknowledge what this thread highlighted well before their analysts looked through the spin: Qantas fleet metrics are horrible.


Mr Goyder ought, given his experience with Bunnings UK, understand the there is perhaps a reason no airline has followed Qantas, scaling up an demand elastic model to the size that JQ is now.
With group revenues declining in real terms despite all the additional JQ capacity re-equipping Qantas is axiomatic.

Perhaps the circuit breaker is that a new set of eyes are needed, a set of eyes not focused on maintaining the hero narrative and the image in the mirror.

Qantas need a new fleet.
Qantas need a new management.







Qantas need a new fleet.

That the ratings agencies are stock exchange listed entities and companies pay them to rate their equity the rating system is akin to stars on junior's drawing, sitting proudly on the family refrigerator.
That S&P are now calling the obvious and passing comment on poor and declining fleet metrics, given the 'fee for service' is suggestive that they believe that the term structure of the debt required for an eventual re-equipment puts even the current rating at risk.
Fair point though, Little Napoleon is expensive ballast.

At least he pulls above his weight somewhere!

Have EK or any other operators found big problems during D checks?