|
Originally Posted by Tuner 2
(Post 10397430)
Isn’t that why the 787 plannng divisor is 155 instead of 170 on other fleets? |
But you can’t do more than about 165 hours a bid period averaged over a year of 4 pilot flying - assuming your statement that 170 divisor on the 787 is 170 stick is correct (hint; you’re wrong). Have you heard of MDC? What about the night credits on 3 pilot HKG flying? 170 divisor on the 787 is clearly not 170 stick. 950 stick per year divided by 5.75 bid periods allows for 165 stick per 56 day BP, not 170. This assumes that rosters are built to a max of 950/365 days stick. |
Of note the VIC metro firefighters have only now had their certified agreement stamped by fair work and guess what...it expires again in 6 months. The new frontier is a “slow bake” strategy. PIA is yesterday’s game plan because as individuals the people have the true power. The only question left is whether the pilots are willing. Given that cost of living rises anyway, despite the theatre of 'negotiation' people fall further behind. Naturally the employer can engineer say a 'fleet impairment' declare a huge loss and then freeze the pay 'until things improve'. A QF pilot on a domestic contract in 2000 would, in standard of living terms be a long way in front. An interesting exercise. A kabuki theatre of Fair Work, employers and diligent unions all playing their part so real wages continue their ever slow spiral. The real power always belonged to the individual. The individuals first have to realise they have been played. The 'stream lead' 'promotion' to lead negotiator is breath taking for QF pilots. That the company is now so blatant as to parachute a very recent union president into a high profile IR role shows just how confident the company are that pilots are yet to catch on. |
That the company is now so blatant as to parachute a very recent union president into a high profile IR role shows just how confident the company are that pilots are yet to catch on. |
Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay
(Post 10398254)
and how confident they are of being able to control the FWC. All theatre. After all soft corruption is 'money well spent' Court judges, senior public servants, both sides of parliament and of course most of the senior regulators are members. Of course with no list published and no requirement to do so, tacit approval of corruption goes all the way to the top... Wonder whether the new lead IR negotiator gets access to the Chairman's lounge or will he have to keep delivering for his new masters? |
Originally Posted by Rated De
(Post 10398266)
Precisely.
All theatre. After all soft corruption is 'money well spent' Court judges, senior public servants, both sides of parliament and of course most of the senior regulators are members. Of course with no list published and no requirement to do so, tacit approval of corruption goes all the way to the top... Wonder whether the new lead IR negotiator gets access to the Chairman's lounge or will he have to keep delivering for his new masters? Not quite, but pretty close I believe. The first class lounge is not a bad place to slum it. |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10398538)
Not quite, but pretty close I believe. The first class lounge is not a bad place to slum it. Although by modern standards, the 30 bits of silver needs an inflationary element. |
Doesn’t pass the pub test Nathan
From Union President to lead Company negotiator against pilots. This doesn’t pass the pub test as remotely ethical. There are no excuses it is poor ethics and repugnant. Certainly a management TRE that flies less than half a line on SCC pay is going to say it’s ok. Easy to be biased when you hold a position outside of seniority. Also easy when you also have access to an executive F11 category above the unwashed masses. Can tell everybody how easy their staff travel access is to First Class. What’s all the drama? No Credibility of a turn coat whom one day is selling a company EA as an AIPA President and very soon after working against pilots and being rewarded for it. It’s a discrace. |
Folks,
As somebody who started out as a member of the AFAP/NSW branch, and was a continuous member of AFAP or AIPA for almost 40 years, and having held executive committee positions, I think most of these objections are a bit overdone. As I said in my first post, there is nothing wrong with ambition, and at least in this case, all the "facts and circumstances" are on public view. As I could (but I won't) detail some pretty iffy things over those 40 years in industrial representation, ( both AFAP and AIPA) up to and including "unknown" payments, or promoting political ambitions riding on our backs, the usual run of mendacity has been present in "pilot" matters, just as it has in so many other industrial fields. Ain't human nature just grand!! Tootle pip!! |
As I am sure you know Airline Management deliberately target people in the Union that they think are vulnerable and ripe for changing sides. Although I have not, and never would be, a part of this appalling behaviour I have watched it happen. To my own shame I did not speak up. " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
|
Originally Posted by The Pirate
(Post 10400648)
As I am sure you know Airline Management deliberately target people in the Union that they think are vulnerable and ripe for changing sides. Although I have not, and never would be, a part of this appalling behaviour I have watched it happen. To my own shame I did not speak up. " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Preaching equality and offering social discourse on one hand, quietly acting like this on the other. As posters have lamented, it fails the pub test. |
Hooker with a heart of gold
Interesting response from the ex president turned Qantas IR spokesman and now head stooge against the pilots. What a lovely hooker with a heart of gold story though. When your paid by Qantas, including F11 staff travel to f&$#@ your mates. That’s business but your still f*&$ing over your mates and getting paid for it. Anything he says is IR and Qantas view to take as much from you as possible. Suppose you’d have to come out to defend yourself when your actions look as bad as they are. Still doesn’t pass the pub test. |
Stream lead cheery picking and fallacy
Anything he says is IR and Qantas view to take as much from you as possible Rather unsurprising, numbers to which he refers only tell the part of the picture his IR overlords wants Qantas pilots to focus on.Wonder why that is? I see these negotiations as an opportunity for both pilots and for the business. The fact is that the international aviation market is ruthless and incredibly tough. While the Group as a whole is generating a ROIC of just over 19%, the half-yearly results showed the 60% EBIT decline for international and an operating margin of just 2.4%. These numbers make capital investment into long haul flying subject to highly detailed costings, revenue modelling and scrutiny – including flight ops’ cost base. EBIT- Is Earnings Before Interest and Taxes, perhaps one of the least worst international comparisons. Ignoring Qantas 'preferred' non-legal measures of 'profit' and focusing on statutory numbers is very difficult. Qantas neither provide segment breakdowns of expense and revenue, selectively choosing what to tell investors. Corporate Governance and the lack of disclosures is another conversation. So Stream Lead selectively tells 'colleagues' about an EBIT decline. This is on the surface true. The EBIT did decline but why? Little Napoleon provides the answer...Fuel expense rose. Why does Qantas International suffer from a large impact from a rising fuel price? Fleet metrics.
Little Napoleon actually explains why. Internationally our performance was heavily impacted by higher fuel costs, mostly because of the long haul nature of our network and the effect that has on fuel burn.....with an increase in fuel expense of $219 million. It is after all the biggest operating cost by a country mile. That his master have the wrong fleet is ignored. Were Qantas to have accelerated the fleet replacement, their Operating Margin would not be subject to swings because they would simply burn and pay less money for fuel to generate their revenue. In the interests of balance, Stream Lead selectively cherry picking numbers to support yet another IR war on his colleagues adds nothing to his credibility. He is not in a position of objectivity to provide any sort of financial commentary of balance, when he sits opposite the pilots he allegedly once represented. By the way, it might be interesting to ask what Operating Margin Jetstar International delivers? |
Rated De,
There you go, quoting "facts" again, don't you know this is the post-deconstructionist era, facts are so yesterday. Tootle pip!! |
RD,
What your analysis and oft-repeated slogan of Qantas need a new fleet completely ignores is that new aircraft need to be paid for.and new jets are not exactly cheap Much of the current fleet is paid for and unencumbered. It is true that a new fleet would have less fuel burn, but the real question is would a new fleet have a higher operating margin and make a sufficient ROIC once you allow for the purchase price using forecast revenue over the 20 odd year life cycle of the aircraft taking into account revenue predictions in an ever-increasing competitive market? The total after tax profit reported last week is about enough to buy 2 787s. |
The total after tax profit reported last week is about enough to buy 2 787s. |
Originally Posted by Tuner 2
(Post 10404334)
RD,
What your analysis and oft-repeated slogan of Qantas need a new fleet completely ignores is that new aircraft need to be paid for.and new jets are not exactly cheap Much of the current fleet is paid for and unencumbered. It is true that a new fleet would have less fuel burn, but the real question is would a new fleet have a higher operating margin and make a sufficient ROIC once you allow for the purchase price using forecast revenue over the 20 odd year life cycle of the aircraft taking into account revenue predictions in an ever-increasing competitive market? The total after tax profit reported last week is about enough to buy 2 787s. Share buy backs benefit certain insiders, usually those with a lot of stock in the company. An amazing coincidence that management have been rewarded millions of share options Isn't Little Napoleon a substantial shareholder? With over $2.3 billion spent on concentrating the EPS, via share buybacks (yet another KPI management performance metric, amazing coincidence) could that capital have been better spent reducing the fuel included CASK and preserving the Net Operating Margin and be put to purchasing a new fleet? Then again the Stream Lead would have to selectively chose some other metric to convince his 'colleagues' that the business is in trouble again... |
Nice job of dodging the question. We get that you don’t like share buybacks. The decision to buy back is made by the board, the members of which don’t have KPIs linked to EPS but are elected by the owners of the company. They obviously believe that a lot of the profits are better used for shareholder returns than new aircraft. Let’s see your analysis that shows the capital cost of new aircraft, revenue modelling for the life of those aircraft, cost base modelling for the life and your cost of capital workings and hurdle rate. Excel format is ok. Standing by. |
Originally Posted by Tuner 2
(Post 10404405)
Nice job of dodging the question. We get that you don’t like share buybacks. The decision to buy back is made by the board, the members of which don’t have KPIs linked to EPS but are elected by the owners of the company. They obviously believe that a lot of the profits are better used for shareholder returns than new aircraft. Let’s see your analysis that shows the capital cost of new aircraft, revenue modelling for the life of those aircraft, cost base modelling for the life and your cost of capital workings and hurdle rate. Excel format is ok. Standing by. |
A billion dollars worth of buybacks I think you’ll find. And 3 787s to replace 3 747s. And a few hundred million to pay Executive bonuses. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:16. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.