|
Had a interesting conversation with the Qantas CFO a few years ago.
He admitted that Qantas International had indeed shrunk as we all know. What he did say is that it had shrunk to the smallest size it could be as it was needed to feed Frequemt Flyer, QF Domestic, and the favourite children Jetstar Domestic and the Pan Asian Jetstar’s. The CFO made the point that if Qantas International was to be any smaller, then all the other entities were at massive risk. Qantas would not and could not outsource the international flying any more than it had already been. Tony Webber the ex Qantas economist said that pilot costs were 1-2% of the operation. IATA also make mention of this. Even the 30% pay cut on the 787 flying long haul makes 0.3% difference. What did any executive sacrifice to help the business case? If the numbers are that tight then don’t buy the jets. It was Ideology more than economics. You can get more to fly a 737 in China. Seeing as fuel is 40% plus of the cost and that’s rising then Rated D is correct. Qantas International has bought only 8 new aircraft. Bonuses and Share Price are high due lack of spending on renewal,however the next poor CEO will have to do something once the CEO leaves with his $100 million in remuneration. Moody’s and Bloomberg reported exactly the same thing. I don’t personally believe Qantas will ever grow substantially. They will have to replace the fleet at some point as every other global airline has done. |
Tony Webber the ex Qantas economist said that pilot costs were 1-2% of the operation. IATA also make mention of this. Even the 30% pay cut on the 787 flying long haul makes 0.3% difference fuel is 40% plus of the cost fuel is 40% plus of the cost fuel is 40% plus of the cost fuel is 40% plus of the cost fuel is 40% plus of the cost Grumpy pilots ‘self manage’ their rosters with sick days more often than happy satisfied pilots. The above statements might not reflect well on the professionalism of pilots, but they are the realities of human nature. Human nature won’t/can’t be bent by rules or ideology, (see communism) it just is. There will be exceptions to the rule but overall it is the case. So with pilot costs being substantially lower than fuel costs, it is cost effective to ensure the grumpy/happy ratio is maintained at an economically viable level. |
To framer above, you get and I get it, why can’t they?
As to the fleet renewal one day someone will do a comprehensive report on the house of cards (my opinion) that is Qantas financially and realise that they need to spend tens of billions of $$$ in the next 5 to 10 years on new aircraft. It is unavoidable. Then they will start to short the shares ala Blue Sky Alternative Investments which have been belted. |
You can get more to fly a 737 in China |
Some of those not employed in mainline are! That decreases the pool of pilots available to mainline. Double whammy!
|
Originally Posted by framer
(Post 10120779)
Grumpy pilots load more fuel than satisfied happy pilots while almost hoping a management pilot queries them on it.
Grumpy pilots make less effort to investigate and obtain more efficient flight levels. Grumpy tired pilots configure earlier on approach than satisfied happy pilots. Grumpy tired pilots utilise less single engine taxi. Grumpy pilots don’t wait at the aircraft for the ground staff to hook up ground power before giving up and leaving the aircraft with the APU running as happy satisfied pilots. Grumpy pilots are less likely to extend duties. Grumpy pilots ‘self manage’ their rosters with sick days more often than happy satisfied pilots. The above statements might not reflect well on the professionalism of pilots, but they are the realities of human nature. Human nature won’t/can’t be bent by rules or ideology, (see communism) it just is. There will be exceptions to the rule but overall it is the case. So with pilot costs being substantially lower than fuel costs, it is cost effective to ensure the grumpy/happy ratio is maintained at an economically viable level. it is relied upon that pilots accept and seek responsibility. Pilots in airlines of our experience, no matter what tail they fly, tend to hold lots of loose ends together. Pilots are proactive, whether it be simply ordering a flight plan or intervening to circumvent a cascade of events. Pilots save far more than they cost by their simple proactive behaviour. With this in mind, imagine for a moment that your employment involves assessing labour cost. The models you use have lots of fixed and incremental variable costs for crew. These models ignore noise as it is not defined nor understood. These models make no assumptions regarding compliance, for it is not a consideration: It is an Achilles heel. The only way it becomes visible is by the absence of compliance. Pilots are a cost, it is right that management focus on labour unit cost control. it is however precarious to cut too far, for disgruntled pilots can very rapidly cause strife by simply withdrawing co-operation. Simply put, want to see how much pilots 'cost', treat them poorly. Qantas will as Mr O'leary did apply more of the same. Qantas unit cost is not the biggest problem, the lack of disciplined capital expenditure re-equipping the company for higher fuel prices is negligent. If Qantas continue to push their pilots attempting to lower labour unit cost, they may well see that higher fuel prices are amplified by an individual response to an adversarial IR/HR employee model. Qantas need a new fleet |
Originally Posted by Rated De
(Post 10121057)
Qantas need a new fleet |
I spent an interesting short contract at a carrier that abused its MD-11 pilots sorely. They didn't just take a couple of tonnes extra...they took 20 tonnes and then ran it out the dumps. That was being grumpy. It was fun to watch.
|
they took 20 tonnes and then ran it out the dumps |
It's a futile protest and ultimately, self-harm.
|
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
(Post 10121114)
I spent an interesting short contract at a carrier that abused its MD-11 pilots sorely. They didn't just take a couple of tonnes extra...they took 20 tonnes and then ran it out the dumps. That was being grumpy. It was fun to watch.
|
Originally Posted by Ken Borough
(Post 10121135)
Understandable that people can be disgruntled but isn't this kind of practice extremely irresponsible?
I am an Army of One (or 2, or 300, ...) I am an army of One - A Captain in the Continental Airlines army. For years I was a loyal soldier in Gordon's army. Now I fight my own war. I used to feel valued and respected. Now I know I am mere fodder. They (CAL) used to exhibit labor leadership. Now they exploit legal loopholes. They used to enjoy my maximum. Now they will suffer my minimum. I am an army of One. I used to save CAL a thousand pounds of fuel per leg; finding the best FL, getting direct routing, throttling back when on-time was made, skimping during ground ops, adjusting for winds, being smart and giving the company every effort I could conjure. Now, it's "burn baby, burn". I used to call maintenance while airborne, so the part would be ready at the gate. Now, they'll find the write-up when they look in the book. I used to try to fix problems in the system, now I sit and watch as the miscues pile up. I used to fly sick. Now I use my sick days, on short notice, on the worst day of the month. I am an army of One. I used to start the APU at the last possible moment. Now my customers enjoy extreme comfort. I used to let the price of fuel at out-stations affect my fuel orders. I still do. I used to cover mistakes by operations. Now I watch them unfold. I used to hustle to ensure an on-time arrival, to make us the best. Now I do it for the rampers and agents who need the bonus money….but this too may change. I used to call dispatch for rerouting, to head off ground delays for bad weather. Now I collect overs, number 35 in line for takeoff. I am on a new mission - to demonstrate that misguided leadership of indifference and disrespect has a cost. It's about character, not contracts. It's about leading by taking care of your people instead of leadership by bean counters (an oxymoron). With acts of omission, not commission, I am a one-man wrecking crew - an army of One. My mission used to be to make CAL rich. Now it's to make CAL pay. When they furlough more pilots than the rest, pilots that cost them 60 cents on the dollar - I will make them pay. When they under-staff bases and over-work reserves to keep pilots downgraded, down-flowed, or downtrodden - I will make them pay. When over-booked customers are denied boarding system wide, while jets are parked in the desert - I will make them pay. When they force pilots, who have waited 12 years to become captains, to be FOs again - I will make them pay. When they ask CAL pilots to show leadership at Express, and then deny them longevity - I will make them pay. When they recall F/As for the summer, just to furlough them again in the fall like migrant workers - I will make them pay. When they constantly violate the letter and spirit of our contract - a contract that's a bargain by any measure, and force us to fight lengthy grievances - I will make them pay. My negotiating committee speaks for me, but I act on my own. I am a walking nightmare to the bean counters that made me. Are you listening? This mercenary has a lot of years left with this company; how long can you afford to keep me bitter? I'm not looking for clauses in a contract, I'm looking for a culture of commitment and caring. When I see it, I'll be a soldier for CAL again. Until then, I am an Army of One…And I'm not alone! |
“Army of one” was very disliked by Geoff Dixon, I doubt if Joyce gives a ****, yet! ;)
|
It's a futile protest and ultimately, self-harm. At the end of the day, the worse your relationship with the pilot group the lower your fuel efficiency. When fuel makes up 40% of your overheads and you run around in four engine jets, the cost of adversarial IR tactics is high. Simple. |
Tick tock...Qantas still need a new fleet.
Rest assured Coward street warriors are busy looking for another industrial distraction. Ever while the fuel included CASK increases. http://www.iata.org/publications/eco...ges/ChartB.png http://style.gq.com.au//media/images...3077-1_lp.jpg? Little Napoleon in a pensive moment, silently hoping the Seattle junkets and Chairman's lounge access with unlimited upgrades ensures that people don't notice; Qantas need a new fleet |
The place is rooted, just spoke to an FO doing command training on the 737, he has need given 2 months off on full pay. Not holidays, two months off , no simulator time. What a joke.
|
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10128497)
The place is rooted, just spoke to an FO doing command training on the 737, he has need given 2 months off on full pay. Not holidays, two months off , no simulator time. What a joke.
|
Originally Posted by FYSTI
(Post 10128518)
Believe it or not, this is probably saving them mone, "time off" avoids out of base training allowances. The current record for that would make you jaw drop...
No no, he’s on full allowances. |
Originally Posted by dragon man
No no, he’s on full allowances.
Originally Posted by dragon man
The place is rooted
|
Training and recruitment should have started 2&1/2 years before it actually did, but QF management had to ensure their KPI's where achieved.
Article about the Banking Royal Commission by Ross Gittins in today's SMH: https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...24-p4zbbj.html Could have been written about QF..management lining their own pockets at the expense of Long Term Strategy and Shareholder Return. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 19:07. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.