Hear, hear.

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I'm going to be controversial and say that I don't think there is a case for 'urgent' fleet renewal at QF, over and above what they're already doing. Certainly, they need to replace the B747s in the near to medium term - and that will happen by 2020.

But, why replace the rest of the fleet any time soon? Starting from the bottom up:

- the Q300s and Q400s are doing fine service, as are the B717s - yes, they are old, and they will need to be replaced eventually, but they are reliable, fill a niche well, and are highly profitable from all reports.
- the B737s - the oldest is coming up on 16 years old and many are owned by QF; aircraft in Australia are depreciated over 20 years, so QF would be lighting money on fire to get rid of them early (unless they can secure good rates for 16yo B737NGs on the secondary market...). More importantly, they remain reliable and highly profitable. There is no burning need for more ASK domestically or trans-Tasman. VA is moving to B737MAXs, but from all reports that will stretch their balance sheet - in other words, the capital cost of MAXs is high. So, not a clear case to start replacing the NGs... Yet. By waiting, QF keeps its options open to move to a fleet that includes the NMA. And, if fuel prices skyrocket, the group has a stack of neo orders...
- A330 - Pretty similar arguments to the B737s. Just refurbished, and competitive in all markets they serve. The east-west flying is a useful hedge if VA bring in flat beds with their MAX10s. B787s will replace some of the international flying in the medium term, and the NMA has the potential to pick up east-west, triangle, Tasman and thin regional routes.
- B747 - On the way out. (Sadly, but all good things must end.)
- A380 - Only halfway through their life, and highly competitive against both B77W and B777X/A35K... If they can be filled. See Leeham's for the CASK/RASK analysis. QF's challenge will be to keep them full even as it moves away from a hub-to-hub model. Perhaps some early retirements once the B777X/A350ULRs arrive.

TLDR - QF will need to up its fleet replacement in the 2020s, but there's not a clear case to begin replacing any particular fleet sooner (other than the B747s).

So you can only criticise if you work for them?
That's the point. He should care about you. But he doesn't. He locked you out for two days to teach you a lesson. That's why he needs a security detail.
So you agree with Rated De
Qantas did. It's just that they bought them for another airline.
Lots of companies pass audits, up until the day they go bankrupt.
Joyce has not bought a single jet for QF.
Yet the staff's pittance is tied to EBA agreements and won't be paid until then.
Imagine how much more profitable the company could have been, if the CEO's last eight years had been spent making decisions that benefited the company long term, rather than the select few at the top short term.
Unfortunately, no one else in QF senior management does.

While I'm not going to defend every action of QF management, this statement seems to deny reality. How can a company be more profitable if its costs keep rising above CPI and competition is increasing? Stripping out layers of management, cutting unprofitable routes, adding more seats to aircraft and losing the older, less efficient jets have cut costs and ultimately made it more sustainable. I fail to see how not taking those actions (and many more) can enhance profits. If there was a way that everything could be kept as it was eight years ago and Qantas could still be one of the most profitable carriers in the world, I'd be fascinated to hear it.

Oh dear..... They have ripped the guts out of Qf, spent any money they haven't spent on themselves on Jetstar, haven't upgraded anything (they've downgraded everything), to the best of my knowledge haven't made a singe investment decision that would benefit Qantas, haven't ordered a single new jet and 'invested' billions in share buybacks to line their own pockets. And that's just for starters. I wouldn't put the current management of Qf in charge of anything anywhere near as complex as a school tuck shop - and only then with constant adult supervision. Qantas management for the last 15 years has been an abject lesson in what NOT to do.

Do some creative accounting, and Qantas is suddenly profitable.
When Joyce became CEO of QF, Jetstar had 43 aircraft, and QF had 188. By 2015 JQ had 118, and QF 117. Where do you think the money was being spent? Perhaps those unprofitable routes that "had" to be dropped could have been made profitable if a desperately ailing QF mainline had bought those 75 more efficient aircraft for itself instead of a subsidiary?
Joyce is on the hustings telling all and sundry about how his team have just now magically "discovered" the B787 and how it will be the saviour of Qantas, despite the fact that they received some 5 years ago, and GAVE them to someone else!

And Big Brother's Head Office accounting practices. Tell me, how much money does JQ Intl actually make from their 11 B787's? You won't find it in the Annual Report.

It's almost as if they were a State Secret. I'm sure they don't get out of the locked safe more than a few times a year...

It would be interesting to compare this to what profit they might make if deployed as a domestic 767 replacement on golden triangle for peak services (in mainline colours). As has been mentioned previously, narrow body services are chockers and replicate resources when multiple flights leave at the same time. And that's not counting lost revenue for potential pax who miss out due to no seats available. The 788 is used widely in Japan on peak high density domestic services.

Extra capacity does not always equal extra profits. It has been the rationalisation of capacity growth that has seen the increase in yields and profits.

Thanks JJJ01,

I too have pondered why Rated De would spend so many hours on here attacking Qantas & its Management. In the end I came to the conclusion Rated De is just another egotist who hasn't achieved what they believe they were owed in life so has to feed the yearning in an anonymous forum.

Just another Narcissist.

As opposed to yourself, taking advantage of the same anonymous forum purely to attack someones character while adding nothing to the debate?

Also, just because JAL and ANA use 787s for shorthaul routes, it doesn't mean they are great aircraft for those routes. The 787 is optimised for longhaul flying - QF would be carrying a huge amount of unnecessary structure and weight to use it on triangle routes. I'm sure it could still turn a profit; I'd be sceptical that it would be the best use of the aircraft, however.

Joyce has even stated that the A330 is not ideal for triangle or transcontinental flying, which is why QF is interested in the NMA proposal - better capacity than a 737/320, but optimised for shorter routes.

Can I just say this?

Qantas need a new fleet.

On a more personal note, I will add that Qantas need new management as well. Hopefully while there is still enough money/assets to provide a new fleet. Which is NOT a foregone conclusion.