Correct.

No one is disputing JQs existence. There is a market segment for it.
However under nearly every metric, its performance is less than its parent, allowing for management allocation of cost away from JQ. This is permitted, but was never intended to 'distort' in a way to support an industrial narrative.

The JQ 'segment' is NEVER going to be De aggregated. Qantas management would never do that, I leave it to the reader to ask why not? Qantas is 'split' into two segments (both domestic and international) JQ is not and this ensures that no accurate assessment can be made. Qantas was split in 2012, you know when the Qantas international, today transformed, was then terminal.
Given the management discretion allowed with how costs are allocated between those segments means that distortion of 'performance' is easily 'manufactured'.

*yawn*
Your Qantas Pilot bashing getting very boring now Morno :rolleyes:

Morno,

I don't know what you define as a Premium Airline. For me it includes 1st Class and a Business class with individual beds, not beds that mean you have to climb over the next seat to go to the WC. Compare like with like please.

Looks like the 787 Dreamliner will be relegated to just two flights a week Mel-Lax with the rest of to SFO.
A380 to service remainder of MEL-LAX service
That’s transforming.

They should just bite the bullet and send the 787 MEL-SFO daily. Makes much more sense to fly a route with zero (direct) competition where you can charge a premium. And besides, no one really likes going to LAX!

Problem is they have to get the Melbourne based 787s to Lax for maintenance in the huge hanger they built.

As was sent to me.
Interesting spin.

Dear Angels,

• The great circle track 'across the Pacific' is the same. Although flex tracking changes this slightly.
• RPK is the Revenue passenger kilometres, this may change with cabin configuration.
• Larger aircraft burn more fuel.
• They also have four engines (in the Qantas fleet)

Thus the simple fact that your fleet growth sat with JQ (from 36 to 120 aircraft) Your genius board and executive management took a viable airline in 2009 and trashed the brand in 2011 in a 'terminal decline' grounding and lockout. Only to handsomely reward themselves for its 'transformation'.
This was all done with:

• The same fleet A380 and B747
• The same contracts
• and the same staff.

Sadly despite your attempt to spin it otherwise your fuel included CASK is higher than your competitors because instead of strategically positioning your airline for efficiency with a twin engined fleet, your management ran an IR campaign. 'Right fleet right route; exists only in the minds of marketing and branding, it sounds nice but is ultimately as hollow as the transformation.

This report suggests rather subtly, that Qantas is neither efficient nor transformed.


With a grand total of 8 787 and your management signing up to the IATA fuel efficiency targets of:


It may be time for another manufactured decline (you know an industrial dispute) in case management are shown to be the myopic self serving group this independent report suggests your management are

Rated De,

I get it, Qantas senior management suck. I work there and yep we’ve been through a really ****ty decade but some of your oft-repeated statements are about as accurate as the ITN emails we receive.

You have made the comment many times in numerous different threads that the turnaround is a sham as we still have; “.”

But this is clearly not true. Qantas cut approximately 5000 staff. You see it everywhere. There is no one to answer your call or email in nearly every department we deal with. There is no one to drive the aerobridge, there are less flight attendants on the flight, there is no one in crewing to fix your rostering problem, etc, etc.

And the contracts are clearly different. Long haul has had a major change in the 787 section and both LH and SH have accepted/endured pay freezes. But more broadly, nearly every employee has had a pay freeze forced upon them. Many of our colleagues have been forced onto lesser contracts to do the same role.
Think of the cabin crew, QCCA staff or the QD contract. The baggage handlers are increasing employed on a lesser contract by ‘Qantas Ground Services’ as opposed to the previous Qantas contract.

I’m sure there are many more examples.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favour of ANY of this. It’s just the sad reality of the company we work for. But you can’t keep repeating a line as an attack on the company if it is evidently false.

There is plenty to attack them over without making stuff up.

I certainly don't make it up.



To save you actually looking;

Staff costs in nominal AUD FTE Staff


2014 $3.77 billion 30,751
2015 $3.60 billion 28,622
2016 $3.86 billion 29,204
2017 $4.03 billion 29,596

• Where exactly are the approximately 5,000 staff you 'quote'?

• How many pilots are on different contracts flying the 787? Are there three or four in service?

The 5,000 FTE reduction was off the 2013 baseline of 33,265 FTEs, wasn't it? So there's a reduction of 3,669 FTEs in absolute terms to 2017.

And then there's the fact that the 5,000 target was never a straight up reduction in absolute terms; I'm pretty sure that it was always couched as a net reduction after adjusting for activity and new businesses. I'm not sure how they looked to measure activity but passenger numbers aren't a bad surrogate. Passengers numbers between 2013 and 2017 grew by around 11 per cent so "after adjusting for activity" there's the equivalent of something like an additional 3,000 FTEs.

So there's your 5,000+ net reduction in FTEs after adjusting for activity and new businesses right there.

The real risk to the 'transformed' Qantas lay in the genesis of its so called recovery.

Fuel price falls were $597 million of the turnaround profit, the depreciation change from CGU impairment another $326 million. They were the only substantive changes in expenditure.

With Fuel prices having bottomed in 1QCY16, Qantas with its fleet languishing at a substantially higher fuel included CASK than competitors runs a very real downside risk that its so called 'transformation' vanishes.

http://www.iata.org/publications/eco...nts/ChartB.png

I’m looking forward to learning more about leaning out a jet engine. To lean out the engine do you also have to lean out the window to see the flame colour, you know, like adjusting a Bunsen burner?

Apparently fitted on the new Boeing 737 LENO. Automatically adjusts the airflow as well to maintain best mixture when you reduce the fuel flow.

I expect that I'm the cause of the poor fuel efficiency rating. It's that 2.5 tonnes that I keep on loading...

Hasn't FADEC been doing that for ages?

Fadec, 737, modern

Heh.

Management should not be blamed for Coriolis and aero elasticity.

Hahaha they seem to miss the point that content happy pilots use less fuel because they can.
Pissed off disgruntle pilots use more fuel because they can.
It aint rocket science
I wonder if the overpaid lepricorn knows that ?