How does Qantas 'de-transform'?
 

Qantas 'worst major airline' for fuel efficiency on trans-Pacific flights, study suggests - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

So Leigh and Alan, was wondering how exactly Qantas was 'terminal' and now 'transformed'?

Same fleet, same route, same everything except lower fuel prices and an accounting write down, timed by you to remove a depreciation charge...

Handsomely rewarded for impairing the fleet and benefitting form lower fuel prices itsn't transformation now is it?



As I stated previously in recent days ;

What now from the most handsomely rewarded CEO in Australia?

Ummmm , An even bigger Bonus to come up with a solution to your question Rated De ?

Read the article.

........ major airline?

We know the angels visit these forums, pray tell what fuel savings measures have Qantas employed to 'close the gap' in fuel per RPK?

Why not just shut an engine down in cruise, surely Fort Fumble has worked on that one? :ok:

It’s a disgrace really, and pretty obvious to anyone with any knowledge of airline ops. Pilots have been saying it for years. Big twins would have made such a difference to this outfit.

Two things to take away from this. No other airline across the Pacific is at greater risk from rising fuel prices and no other airline is at a greater risk from a price on carbon. These are significant risks that should be priced into the share price.

It’s all cool though, shares vested for execs at much higher prices so they’re all good.

And hey, if all else fails they can ask the government for money because it would be 'un-Australian' to let Qantas fail.

Are they comparing apples with oranges? If you're basing the survey on the number of passengers and cargo carried vs fuel usage, of course an airline which squeezes 500 passengers into sardine class is going to be more efficient than an airline with aircraft which have three or four zones of First, Business and Premium class seats with decent legroom ( which weigh far more than regular seats) and have a greater baggage allowance.

Folks, below is one of my posts from another thread.

I would not agree with the quantum of difference , but the fact is that the difference is still stark, there is no way that having an inefficient fleet, fuel wise, can be turned into an efficient fleet, short of having the efficient aeroplanes.

If Qantas had had an efficient fleet during recent years, it would NOT have made the losses it did on international operations. As I also said, in my opinion, the investment freeze that resulted in the present fleet went back to the preparations to take the company private and strip it.

The international operation has never been as bad a business as "management" has made it out to be, one of the few aviation or financial journalists who ever called it for what it was, as opposed to re-publishing the PR spin, was the late Ben Sandilands.

Tootle pip!!

The international business was accounted to look bad. In 2011 3 weeks before the lockout they applied to amend all European bilaterals, other than two slots a day to London they wanted the ability to operate them with a JQ tail...

How else would the public accept their grand plan (of JQ to the world) unless Qantas international was 'Terminal'
Yes he did.
A few others too...

What is left as the tide goes out?

• The Operating Revenue in 2010. $13.7 billion
• The Operating Revenue in 2016 $16.2 billion

If one considers inflation to be 3% discounting 2016 figure back to 2010 dollars you get $13.56 billion.
Qantas 'group' went no where...


They poured resources into Asia and JQ ventures for what?
If you look at the JQ contribution they fly a lot of ASK for small RPK...Certainly cannot generate anything like Qantas margin, at least until these geniuses assumed 'management 'and took a spread sheet view of aviation with more consultants driving these projects than ever in its history!

And to keep themselves looking good with their snouts in the trough you can bet they have hedged a lot of fuel for the next 5 years at the very low prices that were prevailing the last two years. Rather than a kangaroo on the tail a pig with its snout in a trough full of $$$ would be more appropriate!!!!

Qantas used to run 763 domestically.

• Twin aisle, 260 odd passengers.
• two pilots
• Two engines
• One air frame in the terminal area

Having sent the 788 to JQ, for all those high yielding backpackers, Qantas has:

• 67 738
• Handful of A330 (10 of the shorter range variant and 18 200 series)

To get the same passengers into a capital city needs nearly 2 738, with extra pilots, extra cabin crew and indeed two air frames in the same terminal area...


Real genius that

I loved one of the comments at the end of that article from someone name "SomeGuy" Sounds like he knows what he's on about. He would do well as an airline CEO.

I don't consider this compares like with like. You expect premium airlines to have First, Business and Premium Economy so how can you compare that with an all economy flight that cancels half the year because the loads aren't enough and doesn't offer the freight options.

and ETOPS considerations for routing and the costs and restrictions for the longer routings ? Very simplistic !

Errr all the Airlines mentioned in the article are full service airlines. There’s no budget carriers in the study from what I can see.

morno,
A lot of the higher rated ones don't have premium cabins and this becomes more obvious if you look at the transatlantic survey and not just the Pacific one.

Perhaps, but from the article;

It's not talking about trans-Atlantic.

And the one's listed are all premium airlines.

$417 million profit from JQ last financial year. Hardly an insignificant contribution.

Don’t tell the Qantas boys that, they’ll find some way to talk it down and make it seem like Qantas paid for everything to get that profit. ;)

Unfortunately there has been zero real evidence supporting either POV presented. No one in QF doubts the hard work any JQ staff do, but wouldn’t genuine figures and real answers to the litany of serious questions put to ‘management’ solve the issue? One simple fact stands out from all the others. QF has an atrocious fleet but has spent the money that could have solved most (if not all) of its’ issues on JQ. JQ sells tickets far, far cheaper than QF, it’s a legitimate question to ask (among many others). So where are the answers? Phrases like ‘commercial, in confidence’ have been handed out like confetti. People asking genuine questions are not stupid, but the answers are frankly insulting.

On another note, I bet Jetstar can’t wait to get their hands on something as good as Qantas’ new Gamechangers! If I were a JQ driver I’d be pink with envy at Qf’s (two) tiny, shiny jets! Just that display of hypocrisy from management guarantees few will trust what they say. Especially with no hard evidence.

PS: Pink with envy - political pun intended.