|
Really Rated De, your whole Little Napoleon thing is getting a bit stupid now, even immature :rolleyes: Find me an airline in the world where everyone thinks the leader has done a terrific job and I’ll find you someone full of ****. Alan May have had his moments, but what’s the share price? What’s the profits? Get over it buddy |
Originally Posted by morno
(Post 10562278)
Really Rated De, your whole Little Napoleon thing is getting a bit stupid now, even immature :rolleyes: Find me an airline in the world where everyone thinks the leader has done a terrific job and I’ll find you someone full of ****. Alan May have had his moments, but what’s the share price? What’s the profits? Get over it buddy |
Originally Posted by Rated De
(Post 10562233)
British Airways has a solitary Australian flight, down from two a few years back.
Until the recent past, BA was run poorly by Little Napoleon's second cousin, Willie Walsh. Is there a pattern? /sarc. Although, Alez Cruz has managed to make it worse. Until "terminal decline" was the Fort Fumble buzz word, there were four daily Qantas flights to London and another to Frankfurt. |
Originally Posted by PlasticFantastic
(Post 10562300)
And those four daily flights were loss-making. Now Qantas' LHR flights are profitable. What would you have done differently, to turn that around?
The fact is Qantas is sitting on the back of the power curve. Lastly Please read this as it applies IMO perfect ly to Qantas. https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea....a380-problems/ The planning guru in Qantas told Joyce they were a dog with fleas and not to bother doing the upgrade. Guess what happened to him? Sacked. |
Alan Joyce on QF fleet purchase history, 2012
The formatting is better and plenty more discussion of on the 777 purchase (non) decision in the link.
Mr Joyce : I think it is a good example, that this is not the panacea or the holy grail that solves your international problems. He is absolutely right: Air New Zealand have a large a large number of 777s and they recently replaced their 747s. But Air New Zealand are going through the exact same problems as Qantas with its international operation. Air New Zealand recently reported that its international business is losing over $50 million—a million dollars a week. Since Qantas is five times the size of that business internationally, that is roughly the same proportion of the losses we are experiencing in our international business. The Australian dollar has affected us more than the New Zealand dollar would have and we have got a lot more competition coming into this market. He says that the 777 has not been the panacea for Air New Zealand and has not turned around their international business. Air New Zealand are going through a comprehensive review of their business like we are. Can I talk about the fleet decisions. My background has been in fleet planning for a number of different airlines. It is a topic I am very passionate about and a topic I do know a bit about. If you go back on the history of this, it would be very easy for me, as the current CEO, to blame the problems we have today on the previous decisions that were made on the fleet, because the fleet decisions were made back in 2000. I think it was at that point that they made the decision to go with the A380s. People are glossing over the history of this. First of all, every airline's fleet decisions are different. An aircraft that works for one airline may not necessarily work for another airline. Qantas has a unique operation internationally. It has superlong-haul routes that operate all around the world and because we have these superlong-haul routes there are what we call scheduling windows that work for the services for our biggest markets, which are to the UK and LA. For example, if you go to LA, at around 10 o'clock to midnight every night five or six Qantas aircraft all depart at the same time. Why is that? We like to get the aircraft out before midnight because it is a good local time. We cannot move them any earlier. If we move them any earlier out of LA, they hit the curfew—for example, in Sydney—or arrive at an unacceptable time at the other airports. That means we do not need frequency. We do not need another service to Sydney between 10 and midnight every night out of LA. The best aircraft for us is actually a bigger aircraft to allow us to grow. The A380 was the decision that we made in 2000 because it is the best aircraft to LA. It has a lower seat-mile cost than the 777 because of its size. It is the same to London. If you look at a London schedule, the timings that work to London are an early afternoon service out of Australia. It has to arrive in Singapore before midnight and it has to depart Singapore at that time to get into London early in the morning—usually arriving at five o'clock. Other timing does not work. There is no point in us adding more frequencies to the London market because it does not give us any benefits. Therefore, the A380 is the better aircraft t o London and to LA because of those scheduling windows. Then I look at Asia. The next question is: 'Why didn't you go for the 777s into Asia? That would have helped your operations there.' Certainly the 777 is a good vehicle but when we were making decisions back in 2008, the aircraft did not have the range. Not only was it not the right size, in our mind, or have the right economics compared to the 380; it did not have the range to go into North America or into Europe. It was only in 2003-04 when Boeing produced the 777 300ER that the aircraft became a viable vehicle for us. At that stage we had already committed to the A380 and we already were of the opinion that Boeing was going to produce a new aircraft, the 787. The 787 then became a very interesting vehicle for us because not only is it a good vehicle into Asia also it has lower trip costs than the 777. Lower trip costs are important because frequency into Asia does matter. The 787 is a smaller aircraft and allows us to put frequencies in, and we want to do is service more destinations. The 787 has another advantage: it is an aircraft we could use domestically. The 777 could not be used domestically. It is too big. It would need major changes to the infrastructure at our domestic terminals. It is an aircraft within a domestic consideration that could have over 400 seats and it is too big to operate on a lot of domestic operations. As a consequence of that, we believe that the 787 was going to be a better aircraft than the 777 and it gives us a leapfrog in technology, and that is why we went for the 787. It would be great if I could go back and criticise the decision and say that we are fixing the fleet going forward to recover the international issues, but the truth is they are the right fleet decisions, they were the right fleet decisions for Qantas's network and Qantas's operations, and I do fully support them. CHAIR: Okay. It is unfortunately beyond your control that Boeing are not holding up their part of the deal in delivery. Mr Joyce : Yes. |
They failed in London in the past because the product they offer is garbage. Qatar, Emirates, Etihad, Singapore all for the last decade have been out doing each other on the product front on the Supers out of all major capitals to Heathrow, in all classes. Qantas stood still and did nothing. The product is embarrassing. The service is rubbish. The entire experience is very inconsistent.
You really need to fly Qatar Suites to really get a understanding of how bad this carrier has become. |
Originally Posted by PoppaJo
(Post 10562353)
They failed in London in the past because the product they offer is garbage. Qatar, Emirates, Etihad, Singapore all for the last decade have been out doing each other on the product front on the Supers out of all major capitals to Heathrow, in all classes. Qantas stood still and did nothing. The product is embarrassing. The service is rubbish. The entire experience is very inconsistent.
You really need to fly Qatar Suites to really get a understanding of how bad this carrier has become. |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10562298)
To you it may , however there are many who agree with him and who are of the opinion that with the near monopoly domestically, the flogging of the staff and the lack of investment in new aircraft for long haul the airline could be in a lot better place. Lastly, is paying Joyce $85 million, yes, $85 million over ten years justified? If you think so then you would be the only one I know who does. He’s not there to advance your career, he’s there to run a frigging airline. I’m sure he still goes home and sleeps at night even though he hasn’t made a friend in you. I’m not going to comment on his remuneration. Hell if someone was going to pay me $85m I’d take it too, who cares what some FO who’s cranky he hasn’t been promoted to Captain thinks. Be thankful you have a job, I’m sure there are many who would love to be in your position. |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10562321)
Maybe just maybe if they had gotten twin engine aircraft earlier like 2005 and some nice 777-300 ER aircraft then those 4 services might have been profitable. The one thru HongKong was always a problem as they had a restriction of 50% on HongKong originating traffic however when they pulled out other carriers increased frequency. I would suggest that London was a problem purely and simply because management had failed to purchase the correct aircraft. As pointed out above the game changer which is stillcoming in dribs and drabs to Qantas is a second generation game changer better managed airlines have ordered and are getting delivered A350s and shortly the new 777 which Tim Clark at Emirates raves about and calls an absolute peach. https://simpleflying.com/emirates-bo...rs-completion/ The fact is Qantas is sitting on the back of the power curve. Lastly Please read this as it applies IMO perfect ly to Qantas. https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea....a380-problems/ The planning guru in Qantas told Joyce they were a dog with fleas and not to bother doing the upgrade. Guess what happened to him? Sacked. However, Rated was expressly criticising Joyce's handling of the Europe routes, so the better question might have been what would he have done differently in Joyce's shoes? T A350, as you've suggested, is a red herring in that discussion - if what you're arguing is that QF should scrap the A380 on LHR and replace it with the A350, then that's basically the PER/Sunrise strategy, just with the marginally smaller 787 on PER. The 777X might be a peach when it arrives, but it's not here yet, and QF are actively considering being one of the first airlines to get it. We've discussed the Air France comparison before. I disagree that Air France's situation with the A380 is perfectly comparable to QF's. But YMMV. |
Originally Posted by PoppaJo
(Post 10562353)
They failed in London in the past because the product they offer is garbage. Qatar, Emirates, Etihad, Singapore all for the last decade have been out doing each other on the product front on the Supers out of all major capitals to Heathrow, in all classes. Qantas stood still and did nothing. The product is embarrassing. The service is rubbish. The entire experience is very inconsistent.
You really need to fly Qatar Suites to really get a understanding of how bad this carrier has become. They were never as good as SQ but they were a damn site better than BA. |
Originally Posted by PoppaJo
(Post 10562353)
They failed in London in the past because the product they offer is garbage. Qatar, Emirates, Etihad, Singapore all for the last decade have been out doing each other on the product front on the Supers out of all major capitals to Heathrow, in all classes. Qantas stood still and did nothing. The product is embarrassing. The service is rubbish. The entire experience is very inconsistent.
You really need to fly Qatar Suites to really get a understanding of how bad this carrier has become. But Emirates is pretty average in every class, and is the only one of the three that seems to have worked out well in Australia - Etihad is a basket case and has had to cut capacity, and Qatar has a pretty small presence. I think QF should have upgraded the A380 sooner - business in particular is pretty poor. But, the new hard and soft products are definitely competitive. |
Originally Posted by morno
(Post 10562388)
Isn’t the whole job of a CEO to make money for the airline? To increase the value of the company in the share price? Is he not doing that now? He’s not there to advance your career, he’s there to run a frigging airline. I’m sure he still goes home and sleeps at night even though he hasn’t made a friend in you. I’m not going to comment on his remuneration. Hell if someone was going to pay me $85m I’d take it too, who cares what some FO who’s cranky he hasn’t been promoted to Captain thinks. Be thankful you have a job, I’m sure there are many who would love to be in your position. |
The 777X might be a peach when it arrives, but it's not here yet, and QF are actively considering being one of the first airlines to get it 9 customers to date have placed orders for 344 777X going back to Lufthansa in 2013. Bit of a reach to say QF are considering being one of the first.... |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10562419)
Firstly, I’m not an angry FO but an angry Captain who over 40 years has watched one of the most innovative and top ten airlines in the world be turned into a second rate carrier who has no respect for its staff nor customers. If you are happy for obscene amounts of money in pay and bonuses to be paid to management while they outsource jobs to contract labour companies while those staff exist on welfare so be it, we beg to differ. Only time will tell whose correct. You can stay angry and bitch and moan that it should be done differently, but at the end of the day, is it actually achieving anything? Put your energy into better things like doing your best to provide your passengers with the best you can offer. |
Originally Posted by nike
(Post 10562447)
9 customers to date have placed orders for 344 777X going back to Lufthansa in 2013. Bit of a reach to say QF are considering being one of the first.... |
Boy, the Angels are busy tonight. Must be contract season. No one and certainly not Alan Joyce is worth 90 million dollars in 10 years keep drinking the kool aid peg smokers |
"Firstly, I’m not an angry FO but an angry Captain who over 40 years has watched one of the most innovative and top ten airlines in the world be turned into a second rate carrier"
That's the issue - in 40 years the business has changed out of all recognition - in 1980 it was Friends and relations traffic to/from Europe with a few well heeled tourists. Now it 's half a billion tourists slopping about in all directions from everywhere to everywhere. You had a 747 fleet that did long haul with an occasional stop- now you have thousands of 737's and Airbus's going point to point. The real cost of flying has plummeted and no passenger looks at anything but the cost anymore. Some of the world's largest airlines have just disappeared - PanAm, TWA, NW.................. QF management have to deal with the world as it is, not as it was. Sure they 've made mistakes but they're still there and so are you - count your blessings mate, it could be a lot worse........ |
Absolutely. Dragon Man, Angry Rat, et al need to get over it. Qantas is a business not a trust to preserve the history of Qantas. For better or for worse Joyce is running a business. The Agro on this site have got to accept that the shareholders as opposed to the dreamers and the disgruntled employees and of course that Pygmy, Rated De, are accepting and approving of how the company is being run. Like it or not, Joyce has the runs on the board: Virgin, ANZ, other world airlines? He may not be the best but he is a long way from being the worst. Qantas is not being run as an employee incentive program. Nor is it being run as a National Trust history commemorative program. PanAm,Ansett,Northwest, Eastern, Continental, AiirCalifofrnia,Western,Compass,TWA,CPair, need I mention any more? The point is Qantas is still surviving under Joyce and the others are gone or struggling. So Angry Rat, Dragon Man and the rest, bite your bum and be thankful you are still employed and not on the airline pilot unemployed market! |
Keep drinking people. Interesting how blind individuals are in The street.
https://mavenroundtable.io/theintell...k2styG-qLgnQg/ https://investorplace.com/2019/06/7-...ld-be-illegal/ |
Originally Posted by hotnhigh
(Post 10562837)
Keep drinking people. Interesting how blind individuals are in The street.
https://mavenroundtable.io/theintell...k2styG-qLgnQg/ https://investorplace.com/2019/06/7-...ld-be-illegal/ Your company is making money and you have jobs. Tell me where the problem is. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 19:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.