|
Qantas will survive long term IMO , they have basically a monopoly on domestic services , a massive loyalty scheme and as aircraft are able to do direct services from Australia to either Europe or the USA the competition from Asian and the middle eastern airlines declines. The question for Qantas pilots will be how much they allow the company to screw their wages and conditions. |
Additionally, there are no more gates or terminal space for a new entrant. That takes care of domestic. Internationally, sunrise means no competition unless the bilateral nation has a partner willing to commit. . |
Comparing the 1972 route map with the 2019 one almost all of Europe has gone, the Middle East has gone, no flights to the sub-continent, and been there has been partial replacement by flights to East Asia
I take the points about domestic - but never underestimate just what people will put up with to save $10............. Internationally Chinese airlines will continue to grow and might bring serious pressure on those Chinese routes. To my mind Project Sunrise is quite a clever response to their problems - if your main market is UK or US to Australia then by flying direct you are doing something your main opposition (SQ, Qatar, Emirates etc) can't compete on and may never be able to compete on. Not too sure about the benefits of the vast QF Loyalty scheme - I suspect it puts bums on seats but is diluting the income - especially when those points are used to upgrade to Business or Prem Econ. https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3373340c34.png https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....454ddda318.png |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10569792)
Comparing the 1972 route map with the 2019 one almost all of Europe has gone, the Middle East has gone, no flights to the sub-continent, and been there has been partial replacement by flights to East Asia
I take the points about domestic - but never underestimate just what people will put up with to save $10............. Internationally Chinese airlines will continue to grow and might bring serious pressure on those Chinese routes. To my mind Project Sunrise is quite a clever response to their problems - if your main market is UK or US to Australia then by flying direct you are doing something your main opposition (SQ, Qatar, Emirates etc) can't compete on and may never be able to compete on. Not too sure about the benefits of the vast QF Loyalty scheme - I suspect it puts bums on seats but is diluting the income - especially when those points are used to upgrade to Business or Prem Econ. https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3373340c34.png https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....454ddda318.png |
Well said Troo... If QF want bananarama to happen it will! Subject to to aircraft capabilities. Divers will accept Ts & Cs at some point, let’s face it the % cost of pirates ain’t that much in the grand scheme of things. What will be interesting is reading this thread after 6 months of operations to read what the naysayers are banging out. As has been said the PER - LHR has the same criticism before wheels up, now look at that... Straya......... |
Originally Posted by Troo believer
(Post 10569858)
Qantas makes money out of the points they sell. Do you think they give them away? One can’t survive without the other. This always makes the FF scheme very profitable but it doesn’t generate much cash for the airline. |
Boeing would be disappointed with the B777-9 static frame test result after a cargo door blew off during final load testing.
|
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10569792)
Comparing the 1972 route map with the 2019 one almost all of Europe has gone, the Middle East has gone, no flights to the sub-continent, and been there has been partial replacement by flights to East Asia
I take the points about domestic - but never underestimate just what people will put up with to save $10............. Internationally Chinese airlines will continue to grow and might bring serious pressure on those Chinese routes. To my mind Project Sunrise is quite a clever response to their problems - if your main market is UK or US to Australia then by flying direct you are doing something your main opposition (SQ, Qatar, Emirates etc) can't compete on and may never be able to compete on. Not too sure about the benefits of the vast QF Loyalty scheme - I suspect it puts bums on seats but is diluting the income - especially when those points are used to upgrade to Business or Prem Econ. https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3373340c34.png https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....454ddda318.png Destinations like BOM and BAH were not for profit reasons but essentially for refuelling en route. Before suggesting Qantas has shrunk, check out who of their competitors from that era still fly those routes... no KLM, no Lufthansa, no Alitalia, no Olympic, no British Airways to speak of, no Air France and a few more to boot. Somehow all these route comparisons ignore the lack of other majors who flew the same routes. Geez, when some of those routes were being flown they were by the 707-338C!!! QF didn’t fly to DFW, LAX, JFK or others back then either. |
Originally Posted by Troo believer
(Post 10569858)
You wouldn’t go down this path of self promotion unless you already know the outcome. I predict an announcement after the LHR-SYD flight which ties in nicely with the 100th year anniversary. It’s a fait accompli. It’s so obvious you’d have to be an Ostrich not to see it. Jetstar HK? You mightn’t..... |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10569700)
I'm not so sure - in my travelling life-time QF have declined to become a niche international player - I can't see how they can compete with the Asian airlines long term
Domestic you can protect ....... until Ryanair Australia turn-up Aus $400K is normal for a 737 Captain. Tell Alan that he may have to readjust his goals. Again. It’s going to be amazing. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7a6dedab6.jpeg |
"In your travelling life” doesn’t seem to have included the modern global airline industry"
regretfully I still seem to spend an awful lot of time flying about the globe....................:(. TBH things have changed and keep changing - I can remember when the height of sophistication was a pull down screen on the forward bulkhead to watch an out of focus movie. That has improved - but check-in and security have become far worse. Real prices have plummeted - but so have standards of passenger treatment. Airlines run much more fuel efficient jets and the fuel price is much lower than the 80's but they still seem to lose money most of the time...................... Pilots always think they are underpaid and their T&C are awful - but it's one of the few industries were some people actually PAY (or work for nothing) their employers to build up experience (in the legal profession this went out around 1970) I just see constant pressure on costs - from shareholders, banks etc and that means a change in the business model - go onto the Fragrant Harbour thread and read how the CX guys have had their T&C chipped away over the last 10-15 years and you'll get a flavour of what will happen at QF in the next 20. |
I just see constant pressure on costs - from shareholders, banks etc and that means a change in the business model - go onto the Fragrant Harbour thread and read how the CX guys have had their T&C chipped away over the last 10-15 years and you'll get a flavour of what will happen at QF in the next 20. If you refer to operating costs, that is low hanging fruit. However, if you want a glimpse into the future, reform of the back office is where things will change. Until that time, pilots will be under pressure but operating revenue is generated from operating, not administering. With an aging western economy and substantial barriers to entry (money, time and aptitude) airlines have a relationship problem; their relationship with their staff, particularly operationally critical staff like pilots will change, eventually. Wander around Cathay Pacific city, Waterside or the aptly named Coward Street. Floors of staff all doing who knows what. They have to be carried in the seat cost of the the CGU (Qantas term Capital Generating Unit-Accountant speak for aircraft) |
They'll just hire people from other countries claiming that the in-place staff are hidebound relics of the last Century
They'll throw around big buck numbers for earnings in the media to influence the guy in the street (see BA currently in the UK), they'll bang on about how few days you work and the perks................... These people are not nice |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10570331)
"In your travelling life” doesn’t seem to have included the modern global airline industry"
regretfully I still seem to spend an awful lot of time flying about the globe....................:(. TBH things have changed and keep changing - I can remember when the height of sophistication was a pull down screen on the forward bulkhead to watch an out of focus movie. That has improved - but check-in and security have become far worse. Real prices have plummeted - but so have standards of passenger treatment. Airlines run much more fuel efficient jets and the fuel price is much lower than the 80's but they still seem to lose money most of the time...................... Pilots always think they are underpaid and their T&C are awful - but it's one of the few industries were some people actually PAY (or work for nothing) their employers to build up experience (in the legal profession this went out around 1970) I just see constant pressure on costs - from shareholders, banks etc and that means a change in the business model - go onto the Fragrant Harbour thread and read how the CX guys have had their T&C chipped away over the last 10-15 years and you'll get a flavour of what will happen at QF in the next 20. I heard the opening statement from our ex AIPA president in the recently opened LH EA is for the Project Publicity a/c to be flown at B787 minus 10%...what would that make the productivity gain? Have a look at how much the BA CEO makes. 1.3 million pounds. Cost saving should begin at Coward St... And if you think people pay for GA flying, you are obviously stuck in the early 1990's. |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10570465)
They'll just hire people from other countries claiming that the in-place staff are hidebound relics of the last Century
They'll throw around big buck numbers for earnings in the media to influence the guy in the street (see BA currently in the UK), they'll bang on about how few days you work and the perks................... These people are not nice Let them throw around the big numbers, the British Airways campaign is cut from the same playbook. Problematic for all airlines is supply. Demographics are creating big headaches, the barriers (cost) of entry and reduced terms and conditions make the industry far less attractive. These issues will continue to generate real problems that will never be admitted but the market will adjust: either terms improve to induce supply or the cancellation rates grow. |
|
Some more detail on the Project Sunrise research flights (or whatever you want to call them) in today's New Zealand Herald.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12268868 |
Originally Posted by tartare
(Post 10573352)
Some more detail on the Project Sunrise research flights (or whatever you want to call them) in today's New Zealand Herald.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12268868 (which I'll rarely use again). Any chance you can PM me a PDF? |
Originally Posted by tartare
(Post 10573352)
Some more detail on the Project Sunrise research flights (or whatever you want to call them) in today's New Zealand Herald.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12268868 |
Hong Kong used to be the bees bees as usual anything associated with China turns to **** rather rapidly, enter at own risk! |
Originally Posted by Chris2303
(Post 10573432)
If I may be so bold - please don't link articles behind a paywall..........
I didn't realise. Summary of main points: Three flights over the next three months. About a sixth the usual number of passengers and crew on board Captain Lisa Norman in command 78 likely to use 40 per cent less fuel than historic 74 40 passengers and crew on what is private flight. Qantas using the new cloud-based Constellation system, to analyse millions of pieces of data and recommend flight tracks. Airline has a huge amount of information about the route from A380s. Headwinds stronger coming out of JFK into LAX and then over the Pacific light and variable Getting closer to Australia hits jetstream headwinds. Running different routes to see what is the most optimised Stay high track straight across US passing between San Francisco and Los Angeles and then cut down over Hawaii. Or head as far south as New Mexico. As everyone will be in biz class nose-heavy load affects pitch and increases fuel burn. TOW 235 tonnes, 19 tonnes under MTOW. Takeoff middle of next month - crew based in NYC for four days to acclimatise. Melatonin and cognitive ability to be monitored. |
Originally Posted by tartare
(Post 10574153)
My apologies.
I didn't realise. Summary of main points: Three flights over the next three months. About a sixth the usual number of passengers and crew on board Captain Lisa Norman in command 78 likely to use 40 per cent less fuel than historic 74 40 passengers and crew on what is private flight. Qantas using the new cloud-based Constellation system, to analyse millions of pieces of data and recommend flight tracks. Airline has a huge amount of information about the route from A380s. Headwinds stronger coming out of JFK into LAX and then over the Pacific light and variable Getting closer to Australia hits jetstream headwinds. Running different routes to see what is the most optimised Stay high track straight across US passing between San Francisco and Los Angeles and then cut down over Hawaii. Or head as far south as New Mexico. As everyone will be in biz class nose-heavy load affects pitch and increases fuel burn. TOW 235 tonnes, 19 tonnes under MTOW. Takeoff middle of next month - crew based in NYC for four days to acclimatise. Melatonin and cognitive ability to be monitored. Management pilot? Management crew? for three flights with 40 hand picked passengers.. Sounds like sufficient sampling with a sample size of three. Each event a month apart, with hand picked crew and passengers. That ought satisfy an inept regulator that there is "real science" supporting long term health impacts. If that is what the line crew fly, then fantastic, a month in New York is a real bonus. 40 passengers makes for superior and seamless service in all cabins. /sarc One might hope the cabin crew and pilot union reject out of hand the "data" it is unadulterated marketing BS. |
Hammer nail and head. |
Chief pilot in waiting flying?
totally legit study Also https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....91ff67e9ff.jpg |
Yep, a litre of koolaid before descent should do the trick.."I feel great! I feel great!"..
|
No management pilots. A Fatigue group representative Captain on one, a normal line Captain on one and a AIPA rep the Captain on the other. The FO are all normal line pilots as are the SO’s. Fatigue monitoring for ten days before and after and reaction tests every 2 hours in flight. Yes it’s not a large data set but better than no data set. |
Originally Posted by engine out
(Post 10574267)
No management pilots. A Fatigue group representative Captain on one, a normal line Captain on one and a AIPA rep the Captain on the other. The FO are all normal line pilots as are the SO’s. Fatigue monitoring for ten days before and after and reaction tests every 2 hours in flight. Yes it’s not a large data set but better than no data set. |
The only way to run these is to preregister the the criteria end points prior to running the experiment. There is a large push for studies to do exactly this in modern science. A significant proportion of medical & psychological research has been found to be faulty even though poportially i gives the external appearance of going through a rigorous scientific process. It is all too easy to come to a conclusion after collecting and analysing the data.
The preregistration revolution AbstractProgress in science relies in part on generating hypotheses with existing observations and testing hypotheses with new observations. This distinction between postdiction and prediction is appreciated conceptually but is not respected in practice. Mistaking generation of postdictions with testing of predictions reduces the credibility of research findings. However, ordinary biases in human reasoning, such as hindsight bias, make it hard to avoid this mistake. An effective solution is to define the research questions and analysis plan before observing the research outcomes—a process called preregistration. Preregistration distinguishes analyses and outcomes that result from predictions from those that result from postdictions. A variety of practical strategies are available to make the best possible use of preregistration in circumstances that fall short of the ideal application, such as when the data are preexisting. Services are now available for preregistration across all disciplines, facilitating a rapid increase in the practice. Widespread adoption of preregistration will increase distinctiveness between hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing and will improve the credibility of research findings.Bem, Tressoldi, Rabeyron, and Duggan (2014), full text available for download at the top bar of the link above, is parapsychology’s way of saying “thanks but no thanks” to the idea of a more rigorous scientific paradigm making them quietly wither away. You might remember Bem as the prestigious establishment psychologist who decided to try his hand at parapsychology and to his and everyone else’s surprise got positive results. Everyone had a lot of criticisms, some of which were very very good, and the study failed replication several times. Case closed, right? Earlier this month Bem came back with a meta-analysis of ninety replications from tens of thousands of participants in thirty three laboratories in fourteen countries confirming his original finding, p < 1.2 * -1010, Bayes factor 7.4 * 109, funnel plot beautifully symmetrical, p-hacking curve nice and right-skewed, Orwin fail-safe n of 559, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Originally Posted by The Lancet
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
Originally Posted by Marcia Angell NEMJ Editor
Journal editors have expended much time and effort in teasing out how to handle authors' and reviewers' competing interests. They need now to concentrate on their own and those of their employers, lest we reach the dismal scenario described by Marcia Angell: “it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine
So no, I would not be putting much faith in the outcome of a minuscule sample size when the company with a vested interest in the outcome is paying the bill. If the study was preregistered and followed a larger cohort over a significant period of time with open raw data available I would have faith in the outcome. |
Originally Posted by engine out
(Post 10574267)
No management pilots. A Fatigue group representative Captain on one, a normal line Captain on one and a AIPA rep the Captain on the other. The FO are all normal line pilots as are the SO’s. Fatigue monitoring for ten days before and after and reaction tests every 2 hours in flight. Yes it’s not a large data set but better than no data set. If it is proposed that IF the "data" supports the fatigue profile, the union accepts this type of flying, then questions ought be asked about probity. By all means conduct a study, but at least make it robust. The health and well being of union members depends on it. Other stakeholders are far more skeptical. From a statistical point of view obvious problems are many.
No matter the argument, a study paid for by an employer, designed to ensure a commercial outcome is axiomatically likely to result in the outcome being pre-determined. The first and most important rule of statistical model is unbiased sampling. Having achieved that, there must be sufficient observations, over sufficient time to draw meaningful inferences for the generalised form. This rubbish does neither and is a thinly veiled commercial consultation. |
Blah blah blah whine whine whine blah blah blab..... We all know Bananananananaramramramaaa WILL happen regardless of what the precious ones at the pointy end type one here. I am more concerned about only travelling in J on a sector this long! Must day I’ve done SQ J, 17 hours, United Premium Economy 17.5 hours (empty row of 3), so 20+ hours would certainly want J. Also more concerned they will have enough premium beer and wine onboard for me! Yes a ****e stir but seriously... Are you flying the shuttle to the moon or mars??? |
No moon launch
theyre just trying to sell a pup (to casa) |
Originally Posted by maggot
(Post 10574382)
No moon launch
theyre just trying to sell a pup (to casa) |
Originally Posted by Global Aviator
(Post 10574351)
Blah blah blah whine whine whine blah blah blab..... We all know Bananananananaramramramaaa WILL happen regardless of what the precious ones at the pointy end type one here. I am more concerned about only travelling in J on a sector this long! Must day I’ve done SQ J, 17 hours, United Premium Economy 17.5 hours (empty row of 3), so 20+ hours would certainly want J. Also more concerned they will have enough premium beer and wine onboard for me! Yes a ****e stir but seriously... Are you flying the shuttle to the moon or mars??? You are obviously a pilot hater- like most of our management. Have a serious look at the crap you are writing. Now look at it from a Duty of Care/ OHS angle. Do you think ULH is a joke? Do you think repeated sleep interruption, dehydration,and sitting for extended hours is somehow good for your long term health? Why is the average retirement age trending southwards? I seriously doubt Sunrise will happen- how risk adverse are CASA?- How will other regulators allow these ULH to operate in their airspace?- and QF management are again looking to blame everyone (read pilots) except themselves. |
Originally Posted by maggot
(Post 10574382)
No moon launch
theyre just trying to sell a pup (to casa) |
Is the 777-8 still in the competition? Hadn't Boeing put in on ice for the time being?
|
Originally Posted by Global Aviator
(Post 10574384)
That is my point in a way. They will succeed. Honestly can not see how it possibly won’t??? 10 hours in the seat? |
Originally Posted by Street garbage
(Post 10574393)
So Global Aviator, I will ask you again, are you with QF Management? Or just an Angel? Your post sound exactly like the fairy floss we read on the Friday Flyer, or one of motivational pieces from Tino or Andrew David.
You are obviously a pilot hater- like most of our management. Have a serious look at the crap you are writing. Now look at it from a Duty of Care/ OHS angle. Do you think ULH is a joke? Do you think repeated sleep interruption, dehydration,and sitting for extended hours is somehow good for your long term health? Why is the average retirement age trending southwards? I seriously doubt Sunrise will happen- how risk adverse are CASA?- How will other regulators allow these ULH to operate in their airspace?- and QF management are again looking to blame everyone (read pilots) except themselves. I have pointed out my concern to more than multiple crew ULH which is two pilot red eye, back of the clock flying. With ****e rostering from earlies to lates to red eyes. This happens around the world day in night out. EK do ULH and look at how they log duty time..... Not right in our eyes but it happens! So as I’ve said I do stir the pot as I play devils advocate. It is how it is because we allow management to get away with it! Also as I’ve said how do SQ do the Newark ULH? They were some of the pioneers back in the A340, it worked. I have also pointed out that crew that did it generally did that only. The biggest issue they had was landing recency. Aus - reinventing the wheel... again! |
|
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10574940)
|
Originally Posted by Less Hair
(Post 10574395)
Is the 777-8 still in the competition? Hadn't Boeing put in on ice for the time being?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:01. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.