PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   Steve Purvinas, legend (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/626526-steve-purvinas-legend.html)

JPJP 29th Oct 2019 00:46


Originally Posted by Global Aviator (Post 10605373)
I’m sure that thanks to Prune QF is madly ordering aircraft...

To think that there is no aircraft replacement plan... oh you will say I’m naive call me a QF angel...

787’s are new are they not? Sunrise will be new will it not? The 200 buses (ok no idea how many actually) are going where?

[Nip. Tuck]



How does that window taste ?

swh 29th Oct 2019 00:50


Originally Posted by T-Vasis (Post 10600102)
An example:

Cathay Pacific and Cathay Dragon combined ~181
Qantas Group (includes QLink, Network, Qantas INT/DOM, Jetstar Group) ~367

367/2 = 183 or 50%.

As you have included aircraft which QF have minority ownership, Cathay Group has the following

CX Pax 134 (100% ownership)
CX Cargo 20 (100% ownership)
KA Pax 49 (100% ownership)
LD Cargo 11 (100% ownership)
UO Pax 24 (100% ownership)
CA Pax 421 (20% ownership)
CA Cargo 15 (49% ownership)

Transition Layer 29th Oct 2019 05:01


Originally Posted by dragon man (Post 10604851)


There are people who get it I’m pleased to see. We will see in the new year when the tides out who is naked, the DFW , Lax and Sfo loads on the 380 and 747 are very ordinary at the moment.

Interestingly, it was announced today that DFW is increasing from 6 x week to Daily, so loads can’t be too bad.

maggot 29th Oct 2019 05:49


Originally Posted by Transition Layer (Post 10605550)


Interestingly, it was announced today that DFW is increasing from 6 x week to Daily, so loads can’t be too bad.

Nah ya can't make money on the 380 over ten hours

My mates a 777 captain. Told me

Monopoly helps :D

TimmyTee 30th Oct 2019 11:28

Steve might have been on to something with regards to the aging frames: https://www.theage.com.au/business/c...30-p535xo.html

Chronic Snoozer 30th Oct 2019 22:32


Originally Posted by TimmyTee (Post 10606498)
Steve might have been on to something with regards to the aging frames: https://www.theage.com.au/business/c...30-p535xo.html


The cracks - which Qantas said do not immediately compromise safety
Translation: The wing won't fall off.....yet. Safety is our number one priority, after executive remuneration.

dragon man 30th Oct 2019 23:34


Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer (Post 10607010)
Translation: The wing won't fall off.....yet. Safety is our number one priority, after executive remuneration.

Gold, post of the day.

Green.Dot 31st Oct 2019 00:40

Not sure how Steve’s comments to ground the ENTIRE 737 fleet over the pickle fork issue is going to help the engineers and pilots who will sitting around doing nothing with no overtime, bills to pay, etc. Seems a little flippant following his level headed article this thread discusses. The FAA directive allows them 7 months to inspect. But then again the FAA lacks credibility right now so how can you trust them?

Chronic Snoozer 31st Oct 2019 00:43

But its OK to ground the entire QANTAS fleet because of difficult market conditions?

Green.Dot 31st Oct 2019 00:48


Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer (Post 10607098)
But its OK to ground the entire QANTAS fleet because of difficult market conditions?

Don’t think I said that

CamelSquadron 31st Oct 2019 02:20

Poor article by the biggest own goal kicker in Australian industrial relations history.

Agree that no one is really worth $24m/year remuneration. Thats a solid starting point.

However the selective choice of facts damages the credibility of his subsequent arguments.

Fair comparison on fleet age would be British Airways - big legacy airline, full service, covering domestic and international flying, similar tax environment. Their average fleet age is 13.7 years. Bang - that point is lost Mr Purvinas, case dismissed.

Did Senior Management also have a pay freeze. Yes. Bang - point lost again - case dismissed.

Mr Purvinas does not seem to understand the difference between cashflow and accounting or is choosing to mislead the reader. If Qantas was to spend $1bn on new aircraft this year, it would not take $1bn off the bottom line. The new aircraft are depreciated over 20 years so in simple profit and loss figures, the impact would be around $50m increase in depreciation (keeping it simple). This would be partly offset by lower operating costs and lower maintenance costs if its replacing an old aircraft or by increased revenue/margin if its an addition to the fleet. So the exact impact is not obvious but worst case its a $50m cost per year.

The underlying issue is that current accounting/tax rules essentially force an Australian airline to keep aircraft for 20 years otherwise they take a financial hit from retiring the aircraft early.

It could be argued that by not purchasing more new aircraft now, Joyce is doing future management a very big favour by not lumbering them with ongoing depreciation costs for aircraft that may become obsolete/inefficient in less that the required 20 year life of the aircraft. He is allowing future management the flexibility to purchase the most efficient and suitable aircraft at that time.

Lets not start that the "own goal kicker" appears to be advocating that QF should be replacing the current 737 fleet faster? That would have worked out real well if they had gone for the Max.

I have to wonder who the own goal kicker is really representing?. New aircraft = less maintenance whilst older aircraft = more maintenance = more work for the people he represents.

Keep the first two paragraphs and keep the last sentence.

The last sentence is a fair point:
"Even if Qantas was well run, I do not believe any one person deserves a yearly salary package that an average person couldn't spend in a lifetime."

C441 31st Oct 2019 03:06


Did Senior Management also have a pay freeze. Yes. Bang - point lost again - case dismissed.
Not quite. Their bonus was still paid as expected. Now if asking the staff to 'agree' to a pay freeze then surely accepting a bonus, in some cases a significantly increased bonus, is a little contradictory and does little for staff engagement.

JamieMaree 31st Oct 2019 03:16

“I have to wonder who the own goal kicker is really representing?. New aircraft = less maintenance whilst older aircraft = more maintenance = more work for the people he represents.”
It is a pathetic attempted payback for having his a*se well and truly kicked in 2011 and the subsequent loss of in the order of 5000 engineering jobs.

neville_nobody 31st Oct 2019 03:20


It could be argued that by not purchasing more new aircraft now, Joyce is doing future management a very big favour by not lumbering them with ongoing depreciation costs for aircraft that may become obsolete/inefficient in less that the required 20 year life of the aircraft. He is allowing future management the flexibility to purchase the most efficient and suitable aircraft at that time.
The problem with that argument is that how long is to long? Depending on what happens with the 737, if you wipe out a portion of your fleet with some AD then should have you waited 20 years to find a replacement?

By delaying purchasing new aircraft management also benefit from some supercharged bonuses in the meantime with their resignation occurring just in time for fleet replacement.

CamelSquadron 31st Oct 2019 05:44


Originally Posted by C441 (Post 10607151)
Not quite. Their bonus was still paid as expected. Now if asking the staff to 'agree' to a pay freeze then surely accepting a bonus, in some cases a significantly increased bonus, is a little contradictory and does little for staff engagement.

$54m of bonuses were paid to non management staff who accepted the pay freeze. Another convenient missing fact!


What The 31st Oct 2019 06:16

You mean the $2500 bribe that no one has got or the $1250 staff travel that is worthless as Staff Travel is the plaything of Executives come holiday season?

dragon man 31st Oct 2019 06:24


Originally Posted by What The (Post 10607215)
You mean the $2500 bribe that no one has got or the $1250 staff travel that is worthless as Staff Travel is the plaything of Executives come holiday season?

Cynical but spot on.

AerialPerspective 31st Oct 2019 06:41

The other aspect of this is the constant bleating about safety... when something really serious comes along no one will listen because safety has been raised over and over again for industrial reasons.

As for those saying that Joyce grounded the fleet for industrial reasons, yeh, he also grounded the A380 until it was absolutely certain that the engine failure could not happen again... many other airlines - and some that are lauded as the best - did quick inspections and kept flying them... some said at the time they couldn't possibly have completed the inspections in the time. Don't get me wrong, I agree no one is worth $24M.

I think he lost me when he heaped Germany and Hong Kong in with the third world.
Media is also selective. Qantas does some maintenance off shore and as for the A380, the 747 was maintained by UA in SFO for the first 3-4 years Qantas had them as they only had 4 aircraft, yet VA does ALL its maintenance off shore and never a peep about that.

AerialPerspective 31st Oct 2019 06:44

The fact is though that while new aircraft orders make for big headlines... "airline xx commits to $3BN order for new aircraft"... reality is they're not spending $3 billion in one hit, the aircraft are most likely leased, for an amount surely more than the cost of maintaining the older aircraft, at least initially and then the increased costs are offset by reduce maintenance and fuel costs as the lease continues.
Qantas is not going to 'spend' $15 billion or similar replacing aircraft, it will spend an incremental amount to lease the aircraft each year until it either owns them or disposes of them.

JamieMaree 31st Oct 2019 06:47


Originally Posted by JamieMaree (Post 10607158)
“I have to wonder who the own goal kicker is really representing?. New aircraft = less maintenance whilst older aircraft = more maintenance = more work for the people he represents.”
It is a pathetic attempted payback for having his a*se well and truly kicked in 2011 and the subsequent loss of in the order of 5000 engineering jobs.

The legend tells lies and is a distorter of the facts. From tonight’s news quoting him
” as the FAA says this could cause loss of control and Qantas shouldn’t be flying them” unquote


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:16.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.