QANTAS - Australia IV
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Top of Descent
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a bad little profit !!!!!...........
QANTAS RESULTS - FOR THE HALF-YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2006
HIGHLIGHTS
§ Profit before tax of $523 million
§ Net profit after tax of $359 million
§ Revenue of $7.7 billion
§ Earnings per share of 18.2 cents
§ Operating cashflow over $1.0 billion
§ Special dividend of 15.0 cents per share fully franked
QANTAS REPORTS HALF-YEAR PROFIT OF $523 MILLION
SYDNEY, 8 February 2007: Qantas today announced a profit before tax (PBT)
of $523 million for the half-year ended 31 December 2006, an 8.3 per cent
increase on the prior comparative half-year to 31 December 2005.
Net profit after tax increased only 1.7 per cent to $359 million as a
result of a favourable tax charge in the prior corresponding half.
The Chairman of Qantas, Ms Margaret Jackson, said that in December 2006,
under the terms of the Airline Partners Australia (APA) takeover offer for
Qantas, it was stated that the interim dividend that would otherwise have
been payable in April 2007 would not be available. It was further stated
that the Board would evaluate whether a fully franked Special Dividend
could be paid during the bid period and, if this were possible, the offer
consideration would be reduced by the dividend amount.
“We have established that a fully franked dividend can be paid and,
accordingly, the Directors have today declared a fully franked Special
Dividend of 15 cents per share, payable whether the APA offer succeeds or
not. This Special Dividend will fully utilise all Qantas available
franking credits,” Ms Jackson said.
The Special Dividend will be paid to all Qantas shareholders who are
recorded on the register at 5.00 pm (Sydney time) on 19 February 2007.
Payment will be made on the earlier of 19 March 2007 and 10 business days
after the APA offer is unconditional.
Ms Jackson said that in accordance with the APA offer terms, if the APA
offer succeeded, Qantas shareholders would receive a total of $5.60,
comprising the fully franked Special Dividend of 15 cents per share and the
balance of the $5.60 offer price by way of cash payment from APA.
She said Qantas had also decided to suspend the Dividend Reinvestment Plan
(DRP), a decision that had been contemplated prior to the takeover offer
from APA.
“This move is in line with the continued strength of the company’s balance
sheet.”
Ms Jackson said Qantas Directors believed the APA offer was the best
opportunity for shareholders to realise significant value for their
investment in Qantas.
She said the half-year result reflected buoyant consumer demand and
efficiency improvements throughout the airline over the past
three-and-a-half years.
“Like other Australian companies, we have benefited from the continued
strength in the Australian economy,” Ms Jackson said.
The Chief Executive Officer of Qantas, Mr Geoff Dixon, said crude oil
prices had remained volatile during the six months – peaking at US$77 a
barrel in July 2006.
“This has resulted in a total fuel bill $388 million higher than the
comparative half year, after hedging.
Mr Dixon said the volatility in price remained, with prices only a few
weeks ago reaching US$50 a barrel, before moving up to the current price of
around US$60.
“On current forecasts, we expect our full year fuel costs to be around $3.5
billion, over $660 million higher than the prior full year.
“At these levels it is imperative we continue to seek efficiencies across
all sections of our business.”
Mr Dixon said Qantas’ Sustainable Future Program had achieved benefits of
$319 million during the half-year.
“Business transformation under the Program enabled an underlying
improvement in unit costs of 0.9 per cent.
“We need to accelerate this unit cost reduction in the second half of the
year if we are to achieve our target of $750 million.”
Mr Dixon said other contributing factors to the half-year result were:
§ capacity growth of 3.7 per cent, particularly within the leisure
market segments as Jetstar consolidated its position domestically following
delivery of its A320 fleet in the prior year and commenced long haul
international operations in November 2006;
§ a four-fold improvement in Jetstar’s profit for the half year from
$10 million to $51 million (excluding start-up costs for Jetstar
International’s operations);
§ an improvement in yield of 7.2 per cent (including the favourable
impact of foreign exchange rate movements) and a 2.8 percentage point
improvement in seat factor to 80.3 per cent, principally in Qantas
Airlines where there had been an improvement in international operations;
§ cashflow from operations of over $1.0 billion which, after capital
investments and other financing costs, saw the airline’s cash position
improve by $151 million to over $3.0 billion.
Mr Dixon said Qantas needed to continue to adjust its business to meet
ongoing intense international competition, potential new costs from changed
environmental regulations, and an expected new low cost airline in the
Australian domestic market.
“However, despite these challenges we have and will continue to expand and
invest in existing and growing markets.
“To this end, Jetstar International operations will expand to six A330-200
aircraft and Qantas will acquire four A330-200s over the next two years.
“Also, in late 2008 the Qantas Group will commence the introduction of the
world’s newest aircraft, the Airbus A380 and the Boeing 787.”
He said Qantas had:
§ increased Qantaslink capacity by over 20 per cent as it expanded
regional flying with new Q400 aircraft;
§ successfully launched Jetstar international operations in November
2006, which had added six new destinations to the Qantas Group network and
created 500 new jobs;
§ opened a new QantasLink pilot and cabin crew base in Canberra in
September 2006, creating 30 jobs;
§ announced increased services to San Francisco from March 2007;
§ increased trans-continental capacity with the addition of wide body
aircraft to these routes; and
§ launched a range of product enhancements, including online check-in,
with refreshed international menus and amenities on board from next month
and state-of-the-art international First lounges opening in Melbourne and
Sydney in April 2007.
Mr Dixon said the Qantas Group intended to build on its track record of
growth and service excellence.
“I would like to take this opportunity to thank our staff for their
unwavering professionalism during a period of difficult operating
conditions and – more recently – relentless public speculation about the
future of Qantas.”
Outlook
We believe that the full year result will be around 30 to 40 per cent
higher than last year’s result subject to fuel costs not increasing
significantly, demand continuing to grow and cost reductions not achieved
in the first half being realised in the second half.
Group Revenue
Total revenue for the half-year was $7.7 billion, an increase of $870
million or 12.7 per cent on the prior half-year compared to capacity
growth, measured in Available Seat Kilometres (ASK), of 3.7 per cent.
Excluding the favourable impact of foreign exchange rate movements, total
revenue increased by 12.5 per cent.
Net passenger revenue including fuel surcharge recoveries increased $717
million or 13.6 per cent to $6.0 billion. Traffic, measured in Revenue
Passenger Kilometres (RPK), increased by 7.4 per cent while yield improved
by 7.2 per cent. Excluding favourable foreign exchange rate movements, net
passenger revenue was up 13.4 per cent, with yield improving 7.0 per cent.
Other revenue categories increased by $153 million or 9.7 per cent
including a 6.7 per cent improvement in freight revenue from additional
wet-leased freighter capacity and stronger yields.
Expenditure
Total operating expenditure increased by 10.7 per cent or $684 million to
$7.1 billion, excluding borrowing costs and future ineffectiveness on open
hedge instruments.
Total fuel costs increased by $388 million to $1.7 billion. The increase
included $379 million due to fuel price rises after hedging, reflecting an
average into-plane fuel price rise of 27.1 per cent. A 2.0 per cent
increase in consumption from activity growth increased costs by $17 million
while favourable foreign exchange rate movements reduced fuel costs by $8
million.
Manpower and staff related costs increased by $22 million or 1.3 per cent.
Capacity growth, Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) wages and salary
increases were offset by cost saving initiatives and productivity
improvements of $114 million. Business restructuring costs increased by
$61 million to a total of $111 million, including $100 million in
redundancy costs with a total of 986 managed redundancies effected or
announced during the period. Full-time equivalent employees (FTEs)
decreased by 4.1 per cent on the prior comparative period.
Aircraft operating variable costs increased $16 million or 1.2 per cent to
$1.3 billion, reflecting activity and price related increases, particularly
domestic airport charges, offset by cost saving initiatives and capitalised
maintenance costs as required under Australian International Financial
Reporting Standards (A-IFRS).
Financing charges including depreciation, non-cancellable operating lease
rentals and net interest increased by 19.7 per cent or $155 million.
Depreciation expense included $19 million on new aircraft deliveries, $14
million from a change in aircraft modification depreciation policy and $41
million in depreciation on capitalised maintenance costs as required under
A-IFRS. The increase in operating lease charges largely reflects the
full-period effect of Jetstar’s A320 aircraft. Net interest costs
decreased $3 million due to higher average cash balances.
Total expenditure also included an unfavourable impact of $99 million from
the accounting recognition of open hedging instruments (hedge
ineffectiveness) as required under A-IFRS. This compares to a favourable
impact of $49 million in the comparative results.
Net Impact of Foreign Exchange Rate Movements
The net effect of foreign exchange rate movements on overall profit before
tax was an unfavourable impact of $8 million.
Sustainable Future Program
Benefits delivered across the Group under the Sustainable Future Program
totalled $319 million in the half-year. Savings comprised labour savings
of $111 million, distribution savings of $61 million and $147 million in
fleet, product and overhead initiatives.
Restructuring costs associated with the Sustainable Future Program totalled
$132 million, including $100 million in redundancy payments and provisions.
Group Unit Costs
Net expenditure cost per ASK increased by 11.6 per cent, driven by fuel
cost movements, restructuring expenses and ineffectiveness from open hedge
positions. After adjusting for those factors, unit costs decreased by 0.9
per cent despite wages and inflationary price increases.
Qantas Mainline
PBT for Qantas Mainline operations (including QantasLink and Australian
Airlines) totalled $424 million, an increase of $9 million or 2.2 per cent
on the comparative half-year.
Passenger revenue increased by 12.3 per cent, including fuel surcharge
recoveries, reflecting an 8.3 per cent improvement in yield (excluding
favourable foreign exchange rate movements) and a 2.8 point increase in
seat factor to 80.4 per cent.
Constant capacity reflected the conversion of some Pacific Islands
codeshare operations from block-space to free-sale, the transfer of some
domestic flying to Jetstar and the new Q400 turboprop aircraft within
QantasLink.
Net expenditure increased by 13.3 per cent, predominantly due to the impact
of fuel price increases. Mainline net expenditure also includes the $132
million in restructuring costs and the $99 million from the accounting
recognition of open hedging instruments.
Jetstar
Jetstar A320 operations, which include domestic Australia, Trans-Tasman and
short-haul international, achieved a PBT of $51 million or a four-fold
increase on the comparative half-year of $10 million.
Passenger revenue increased by $161 million or 55.2 per cent on a 50.7 per
cent increase in capacity reflecting the expansion of the Jetstar domestic
network, a full six months of Trans-Tasman flying and the transition to an
all A320 fleet.
Net operating expenditure increased by $92 million or 39.0 per cent which
was significantly below the capacity increase of 50.7 per cent and includes
the impact of higher fuel prices.
Total expenditure per ASK was 7.75 cents, a reduction of 5.8 per cent on
the comparative half-year and industry leading in Australia.
Jetstar International commenced operations with an interim fleet of
A330-200s on 23 November 2006 with the inaugural flight from Melbourne to
Bangkok followed by services to Phuket commencing on 24 November 2006 andSydney - Ho Chi Minh City operations from 30 November. In December2006,Jetstar International commenced flying to Bali and Honolulu and achieved a break-even operating result for its first full month of operations. Start-up costs expensed in the period prior to commencement of operations totalled $26 million.
Market Share
Total Qantas Group international market share was 31.3 per cent based on
the latest Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE) statistics for
the four months ended October 2006, a 0.2 point increase on the comparative
period.
Total Qantas Group domestic market-share for the five months to November
2006 as reported by the BTRE was 67.5 per cent, a 1.5 point increase on the
comparative period.
Qantas Holidays
Qantas Holidays reported a half-year PBT of $26 million, which was in line
with the comparative half-year. The continued trend of consumers to
unbundle domestic and point-to-point international travel resulted in lower
passenger volumes, although these were offset by improved margin management and stronger inbound and reseller activity.
As an outbound destination, Bali continues to be impacted by the October
2005 bombings, with bookings down 46 per cent on the former level of
activity, although this has been partially offset by substantial growth to
Thailand.
Bookings through the Ready Rooms on-line channel have also seen substantial
growth, increasing over 60 per cent on the comparative period.
Qantas Flight Catering Group
Qantas Flight Catering (QFC) achieved a PBT of $15 million, 5.1 per cent
down on the comparative half-year. This reflected lower client volumes,
including the cessation of services on behalf of Malaysian Airlines, and
lower Qantas volumes from the transfer of some domestic services to
Jetstar. The decline in revenue was largely offset by lower material costs
and labour savings.
QFC has begun a change management program at its Sydney facilities, which is expected to take up to two years, that will see the establishment of a ‘client only’ facility at Caterair Sydney with ‘Qantas only’ volumes being
delivered from the existing QFCL facility.
Cash Flow and Balance Sheet
Net cash held at 31 December 2006 was over $3.0 billion, an increase of
$151 million compared to 30 June 2006.
Cash flow from operations totalled $1,050 million, an increase of $65
million or 6.6 per cent compared to the profit after tax improvement of 1.7
per cent.
Net capital expenditure totalled $661 million and included the purchase of
three new Q400 aircraft, progress payments on A380, A330, B738 and B787 aircraft, modifications, spares and related equipment.
Net cash outflows from financing activities totalled $238 million, and
included $116 million in dividend payments net of reinvestment under the
DRP and net debt repayments of $122 million.
The book debt to equity ratio (including off Balance Sheet debt) at 31
December 2006 was 42:58 compared to 45:55 at 30 June 2006.
Earnings per share (EPS) was 18.2 cents per share.
Special Dividend
The Special Dividend of 15 cents per share is a fully franked Special
Dividend payable on the earlier of 19 March 2007 and 10 business days after
the APA offer is unconditional, with a record date (books close) of Monday,
19 February 2007.
HIGHLIGHTS
§ Profit before tax of $523 million
§ Net profit after tax of $359 million
§ Revenue of $7.7 billion
§ Earnings per share of 18.2 cents
§ Operating cashflow over $1.0 billion
§ Special dividend of 15.0 cents per share fully franked
QANTAS REPORTS HALF-YEAR PROFIT OF $523 MILLION
SYDNEY, 8 February 2007: Qantas today announced a profit before tax (PBT)
of $523 million for the half-year ended 31 December 2006, an 8.3 per cent
increase on the prior comparative half-year to 31 December 2005.
Net profit after tax increased only 1.7 per cent to $359 million as a
result of a favourable tax charge in the prior corresponding half.
The Chairman of Qantas, Ms Margaret Jackson, said that in December 2006,
under the terms of the Airline Partners Australia (APA) takeover offer for
Qantas, it was stated that the interim dividend that would otherwise have
been payable in April 2007 would not be available. It was further stated
that the Board would evaluate whether a fully franked Special Dividend
could be paid during the bid period and, if this were possible, the offer
consideration would be reduced by the dividend amount.
“We have established that a fully franked dividend can be paid and,
accordingly, the Directors have today declared a fully franked Special
Dividend of 15 cents per share, payable whether the APA offer succeeds or
not. This Special Dividend will fully utilise all Qantas available
franking credits,” Ms Jackson said.
The Special Dividend will be paid to all Qantas shareholders who are
recorded on the register at 5.00 pm (Sydney time) on 19 February 2007.
Payment will be made on the earlier of 19 March 2007 and 10 business days
after the APA offer is unconditional.
Ms Jackson said that in accordance with the APA offer terms, if the APA
offer succeeded, Qantas shareholders would receive a total of $5.60,
comprising the fully franked Special Dividend of 15 cents per share and the
balance of the $5.60 offer price by way of cash payment from APA.
She said Qantas had also decided to suspend the Dividend Reinvestment Plan
(DRP), a decision that had been contemplated prior to the takeover offer
from APA.
“This move is in line with the continued strength of the company’s balance
sheet.”
Ms Jackson said Qantas Directors believed the APA offer was the best
opportunity for shareholders to realise significant value for their
investment in Qantas.
She said the half-year result reflected buoyant consumer demand and
efficiency improvements throughout the airline over the past
three-and-a-half years.
“Like other Australian companies, we have benefited from the continued
strength in the Australian economy,” Ms Jackson said.
The Chief Executive Officer of Qantas, Mr Geoff Dixon, said crude oil
prices had remained volatile during the six months – peaking at US$77 a
barrel in July 2006.
“This has resulted in a total fuel bill $388 million higher than the
comparative half year, after hedging.
Mr Dixon said the volatility in price remained, with prices only a few
weeks ago reaching US$50 a barrel, before moving up to the current price of
around US$60.
“On current forecasts, we expect our full year fuel costs to be around $3.5
billion, over $660 million higher than the prior full year.
“At these levels it is imperative we continue to seek efficiencies across
all sections of our business.”
Mr Dixon said Qantas’ Sustainable Future Program had achieved benefits of
$319 million during the half-year.
“Business transformation under the Program enabled an underlying
improvement in unit costs of 0.9 per cent.
“We need to accelerate this unit cost reduction in the second half of the
year if we are to achieve our target of $750 million.”
Mr Dixon said other contributing factors to the half-year result were:
§ capacity growth of 3.7 per cent, particularly within the leisure
market segments as Jetstar consolidated its position domestically following
delivery of its A320 fleet in the prior year and commenced long haul
international operations in November 2006;
§ a four-fold improvement in Jetstar’s profit for the half year from
$10 million to $51 million (excluding start-up costs for Jetstar
International’s operations);
§ an improvement in yield of 7.2 per cent (including the favourable
impact of foreign exchange rate movements) and a 2.8 percentage point
improvement in seat factor to 80.3 per cent, principally in Qantas
Airlines where there had been an improvement in international operations;
§ cashflow from operations of over $1.0 billion which, after capital
investments and other financing costs, saw the airline’s cash position
improve by $151 million to over $3.0 billion.
Mr Dixon said Qantas needed to continue to adjust its business to meet
ongoing intense international competition, potential new costs from changed
environmental regulations, and an expected new low cost airline in the
Australian domestic market.
“However, despite these challenges we have and will continue to expand and
invest in existing and growing markets.
“To this end, Jetstar International operations will expand to six A330-200
aircraft and Qantas will acquire four A330-200s over the next two years.
“Also, in late 2008 the Qantas Group will commence the introduction of the
world’s newest aircraft, the Airbus A380 and the Boeing 787.”
He said Qantas had:
§ increased Qantaslink capacity by over 20 per cent as it expanded
regional flying with new Q400 aircraft;
§ successfully launched Jetstar international operations in November
2006, which had added six new destinations to the Qantas Group network and
created 500 new jobs;
§ opened a new QantasLink pilot and cabin crew base in Canberra in
September 2006, creating 30 jobs;
§ announced increased services to San Francisco from March 2007;
§ increased trans-continental capacity with the addition of wide body
aircraft to these routes; and
§ launched a range of product enhancements, including online check-in,
with refreshed international menus and amenities on board from next month
and state-of-the-art international First lounges opening in Melbourne and
Sydney in April 2007.
Mr Dixon said the Qantas Group intended to build on its track record of
growth and service excellence.
“I would like to take this opportunity to thank our staff for their
unwavering professionalism during a period of difficult operating
conditions and – more recently – relentless public speculation about the
future of Qantas.”
Outlook
We believe that the full year result will be around 30 to 40 per cent
higher than last year’s result subject to fuel costs not increasing
significantly, demand continuing to grow and cost reductions not achieved
in the first half being realised in the second half.
Group Revenue
Total revenue for the half-year was $7.7 billion, an increase of $870
million or 12.7 per cent on the prior half-year compared to capacity
growth, measured in Available Seat Kilometres (ASK), of 3.7 per cent.
Excluding the favourable impact of foreign exchange rate movements, total
revenue increased by 12.5 per cent.
Net passenger revenue including fuel surcharge recoveries increased $717
million or 13.6 per cent to $6.0 billion. Traffic, measured in Revenue
Passenger Kilometres (RPK), increased by 7.4 per cent while yield improved
by 7.2 per cent. Excluding favourable foreign exchange rate movements, net
passenger revenue was up 13.4 per cent, with yield improving 7.0 per cent.
Other revenue categories increased by $153 million or 9.7 per cent
including a 6.7 per cent improvement in freight revenue from additional
wet-leased freighter capacity and stronger yields.
Expenditure
Total operating expenditure increased by 10.7 per cent or $684 million to
$7.1 billion, excluding borrowing costs and future ineffectiveness on open
hedge instruments.
Total fuel costs increased by $388 million to $1.7 billion. The increase
included $379 million due to fuel price rises after hedging, reflecting an
average into-plane fuel price rise of 27.1 per cent. A 2.0 per cent
increase in consumption from activity growth increased costs by $17 million
while favourable foreign exchange rate movements reduced fuel costs by $8
million.
Manpower and staff related costs increased by $22 million or 1.3 per cent.
Capacity growth, Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) wages and salary
increases were offset by cost saving initiatives and productivity
improvements of $114 million. Business restructuring costs increased by
$61 million to a total of $111 million, including $100 million in
redundancy costs with a total of 986 managed redundancies effected or
announced during the period. Full-time equivalent employees (FTEs)
decreased by 4.1 per cent on the prior comparative period.
Aircraft operating variable costs increased $16 million or 1.2 per cent to
$1.3 billion, reflecting activity and price related increases, particularly
domestic airport charges, offset by cost saving initiatives and capitalised
maintenance costs as required under Australian International Financial
Reporting Standards (A-IFRS).
Financing charges including depreciation, non-cancellable operating lease
rentals and net interest increased by 19.7 per cent or $155 million.
Depreciation expense included $19 million on new aircraft deliveries, $14
million from a change in aircraft modification depreciation policy and $41
million in depreciation on capitalised maintenance costs as required under
A-IFRS. The increase in operating lease charges largely reflects the
full-period effect of Jetstar’s A320 aircraft. Net interest costs
decreased $3 million due to higher average cash balances.
Total expenditure also included an unfavourable impact of $99 million from
the accounting recognition of open hedging instruments (hedge
ineffectiveness) as required under A-IFRS. This compares to a favourable
impact of $49 million in the comparative results.
Net Impact of Foreign Exchange Rate Movements
The net effect of foreign exchange rate movements on overall profit before
tax was an unfavourable impact of $8 million.
Sustainable Future Program
Benefits delivered across the Group under the Sustainable Future Program
totalled $319 million in the half-year. Savings comprised labour savings
of $111 million, distribution savings of $61 million and $147 million in
fleet, product and overhead initiatives.
Restructuring costs associated with the Sustainable Future Program totalled
$132 million, including $100 million in redundancy payments and provisions.
Group Unit Costs
Net expenditure cost per ASK increased by 11.6 per cent, driven by fuel
cost movements, restructuring expenses and ineffectiveness from open hedge
positions. After adjusting for those factors, unit costs decreased by 0.9
per cent despite wages and inflationary price increases.
Qantas Mainline
PBT for Qantas Mainline operations (including QantasLink and Australian
Airlines) totalled $424 million, an increase of $9 million or 2.2 per cent
on the comparative half-year.
Passenger revenue increased by 12.3 per cent, including fuel surcharge
recoveries, reflecting an 8.3 per cent improvement in yield (excluding
favourable foreign exchange rate movements) and a 2.8 point increase in
seat factor to 80.4 per cent.
Constant capacity reflected the conversion of some Pacific Islands
codeshare operations from block-space to free-sale, the transfer of some
domestic flying to Jetstar and the new Q400 turboprop aircraft within
QantasLink.
Net expenditure increased by 13.3 per cent, predominantly due to the impact
of fuel price increases. Mainline net expenditure also includes the $132
million in restructuring costs and the $99 million from the accounting
recognition of open hedging instruments.
Jetstar
Jetstar A320 operations, which include domestic Australia, Trans-Tasman and
short-haul international, achieved a PBT of $51 million or a four-fold
increase on the comparative half-year of $10 million.
Passenger revenue increased by $161 million or 55.2 per cent on a 50.7 per
cent increase in capacity reflecting the expansion of the Jetstar domestic
network, a full six months of Trans-Tasman flying and the transition to an
all A320 fleet.
Net operating expenditure increased by $92 million or 39.0 per cent which
was significantly below the capacity increase of 50.7 per cent and includes
the impact of higher fuel prices.
Total expenditure per ASK was 7.75 cents, a reduction of 5.8 per cent on
the comparative half-year and industry leading in Australia.
Jetstar International commenced operations with an interim fleet of
A330-200s on 23 November 2006 with the inaugural flight from Melbourne to
Bangkok followed by services to Phuket commencing on 24 November 2006 andSydney - Ho Chi Minh City operations from 30 November. In December2006,Jetstar International commenced flying to Bali and Honolulu and achieved a break-even operating result for its first full month of operations. Start-up costs expensed in the period prior to commencement of operations totalled $26 million.
Market Share
Total Qantas Group international market share was 31.3 per cent based on
the latest Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE) statistics for
the four months ended October 2006, a 0.2 point increase on the comparative
period.
Total Qantas Group domestic market-share for the five months to November
2006 as reported by the BTRE was 67.5 per cent, a 1.5 point increase on the
comparative period.
Qantas Holidays
Qantas Holidays reported a half-year PBT of $26 million, which was in line
with the comparative half-year. The continued trend of consumers to
unbundle domestic and point-to-point international travel resulted in lower
passenger volumes, although these were offset by improved margin management and stronger inbound and reseller activity.
As an outbound destination, Bali continues to be impacted by the October
2005 bombings, with bookings down 46 per cent on the former level of
activity, although this has been partially offset by substantial growth to
Thailand.
Bookings through the Ready Rooms on-line channel have also seen substantial
growth, increasing over 60 per cent on the comparative period.
Qantas Flight Catering Group
Qantas Flight Catering (QFC) achieved a PBT of $15 million, 5.1 per cent
down on the comparative half-year. This reflected lower client volumes,
including the cessation of services on behalf of Malaysian Airlines, and
lower Qantas volumes from the transfer of some domestic services to
Jetstar. The decline in revenue was largely offset by lower material costs
and labour savings.
QFC has begun a change management program at its Sydney facilities, which is expected to take up to two years, that will see the establishment of a ‘client only’ facility at Caterair Sydney with ‘Qantas only’ volumes being
delivered from the existing QFCL facility.
Cash Flow and Balance Sheet
Net cash held at 31 December 2006 was over $3.0 billion, an increase of
$151 million compared to 30 June 2006.
Cash flow from operations totalled $1,050 million, an increase of $65
million or 6.6 per cent compared to the profit after tax improvement of 1.7
per cent.
Net capital expenditure totalled $661 million and included the purchase of
three new Q400 aircraft, progress payments on A380, A330, B738 and B787 aircraft, modifications, spares and related equipment.
Net cash outflows from financing activities totalled $238 million, and
included $116 million in dividend payments net of reinvestment under the
DRP and net debt repayments of $122 million.
The book debt to equity ratio (including off Balance Sheet debt) at 31
December 2006 was 42:58 compared to 45:55 at 30 June 2006.
Earnings per share (EPS) was 18.2 cents per share.
Special Dividend
The Special Dividend of 15 cents per share is a fully franked Special
Dividend payable on the earlier of 19 March 2007 and 10 business days after
the APA offer is unconditional, with a record date (books close) of Monday,
19 February 2007.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: queensland
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L Haul & S Haul working together.
This is to everyone L Haul and S Haul.Particularly reps of the FAAA.
It is understandable that SHaul felt threatened by J* and agreed to start regional flying. What is sad is that it was not done in FULL consultation with the LHaul FAAA prior to the divisional flying agreement being signed.
If it had been LHaul would have supported S Haul crew receiving the same entitlements that are received by L Haul crew and were designed for regional - L Haul flying. This would have ensured that we arent undercutting each other and the continued maintenance of reasonable conditions that exist for anyone who flys regional/ L Haul for QF.
It is an outrage that the company can look its S Haul crew in the eye knowing they signed them up without conditions necessary to make regional flying bearable - ie slipping formulas/ hours limitations.
It is another outrage that officials of SHaul FAAA signed their members up without ensuring proper and equitable conditions( equitable with L Haul) were in place.
It would have been a smart move for S Haul to insist on the same conditions that L Haul receive.
Its History now and what is important is that I think everyone in both camps now recognises the need for unity between the two unions.
Someone suggested on the aircraft the other day that our EBAs both L Haul and SHaul should be heard and negotiated with reps from both Short and Long FAAA in attendance & working together.
Can you imagine the look on the Companies face when officials from both L Haul and S Haul turn up for the EBA of Short Haul and vice versa?
This would create a united front. very difficult to divide and conquer then.
Everone on the crew including myself thought it was an outstanding suggestion. So are you listening FAAA reps.
Lets stop the infighting, lets join together as people who all do the same great job that has contributed to the great reputation and is the real spirit behind one of the best airlines in the world.
Lets show a bit of this spirit with each other, not just the passengers.
FAAA your membership has had just about enough of the excuses of why both sides cant get it together.
Heres a solution ! Its time to be brave enough to put the past behind and start a new beginning, its called working together for everyone in the FAAA.
As Elvis said "Its now or never".
This is to everyone L Haul and S Haul.Particularly reps of the FAAA.
It is understandable that SHaul felt threatened by J* and agreed to start regional flying. What is sad is that it was not done in FULL consultation with the LHaul FAAA prior to the divisional flying agreement being signed.
If it had been LHaul would have supported S Haul crew receiving the same entitlements that are received by L Haul crew and were designed for regional - L Haul flying. This would have ensured that we arent undercutting each other and the continued maintenance of reasonable conditions that exist for anyone who flys regional/ L Haul for QF.
It is an outrage that the company can look its S Haul crew in the eye knowing they signed them up without conditions necessary to make regional flying bearable - ie slipping formulas/ hours limitations.
It is another outrage that officials of SHaul FAAA signed their members up without ensuring proper and equitable conditions( equitable with L Haul) were in place.
It would have been a smart move for S Haul to insist on the same conditions that L Haul receive.
Its History now and what is important is that I think everyone in both camps now recognises the need for unity between the two unions.
Someone suggested on the aircraft the other day that our EBAs both L Haul and SHaul should be heard and negotiated with reps from both Short and Long FAAA in attendance & working together.
Can you imagine the look on the Companies face when officials from both L Haul and S Haul turn up for the EBA of Short Haul and vice versa?
This would create a united front. very difficult to divide and conquer then.
Everone on the crew including myself thought it was an outstanding suggestion. So are you listening FAAA reps.
Lets stop the infighting, lets join together as people who all do the same great job that has contributed to the great reputation and is the real spirit behind one of the best airlines in the world.
Lets show a bit of this spirit with each other, not just the passengers.
FAAA your membership has had just about enough of the excuses of why both sides cant get it together.
Heres a solution ! Its time to be brave enough to put the past behind and start a new beginning, its called working together for everyone in the FAAA.
As Elvis said "Its now or never".
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAAA a United front?
Couldnt agree more with the sentiments expressed about the FAAA getting back together. It's certainly the best way forward.
What needs to be ensured though is that any new structure does not create an environment where the futures of 3000 LH crew are in the hands of SH/MAM Casuals/Jetstar and Virgin all voting as a block.
Thats where the problems arose last time when LH FAAA officials could not live with a situation where their members were contributing half the assets of the union and had no control over the spending of that money or industrial autonomy.
To be honest it would be fair to say that no FAAA officials in the past have covered themselves in glory demonstrating a willingness to put the needs of the whole membership ahead of their own ambitions. And thats SH and LH.
I for one am in favour of a united FAAA on an industrial front working collectively. But remember around the same table will be virgin crew, Jet star Crew , Long Haul, Short Haul and MAM casuals.
Not a recipe for consensus with competing interests
But we live in hope
What needs to be ensured though is that any new structure does not create an environment where the futures of 3000 LH crew are in the hands of SH/MAM Casuals/Jetstar and Virgin all voting as a block.
Thats where the problems arose last time when LH FAAA officials could not live with a situation where their members were contributing half the assets of the union and had no control over the spending of that money or industrial autonomy.
To be honest it would be fair to say that no FAAA officials in the past have covered themselves in glory demonstrating a willingness to put the needs of the whole membership ahead of their own ambitions. And thats SH and LH.
I for one am in favour of a united FAAA on an industrial front working collectively. But remember around the same table will be virgin crew, Jet star Crew , Long Haul, Short Haul and MAM casuals.
Not a recipe for consensus with competing interests
But we live in hope
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This should be good boys and girls.
After blondies radio gig the other day it'll be fun to see the unions response to this idea.
NZKid , mate i could not agree more BUT
The problem is power and politics which go hand in hand and the only way to get this to work would be to sack both unions leadership teams and elect a new team with new people so that we can start on a fresh page.
and mate that is a big call
After blondies radio gig the other day it'll be fun to see the unions response to this idea.
NZKid , mate i could not agree more BUT
The problem is power and politics which go hand in hand and the only way to get this to work would be to sack both unions leadership teams and elect a new team with new people so that we can start on a fresh page.
and mate that is a big call
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: queensland
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Pegasus.
I dont see the issue in getting consensus from J*, virgin and mam. provided the officials who represent a united front, have an agreed approach prior to the EBA and dont undermine any current workers without their members agreement, we might finally offer a chess move that QF mgmt finds it difficult to get around.
I hasten to explain some of those you represent Australian, j* may agree to a b scale to enter QF mainline that is what i mean by requiring the members consent. That then affects them not the current LHaul/Shaul cabin crew.
To negotiate in the short term for a long term advantage. I think you get my point.
Bottom line is the FAAA both sides turn up collectively to represent all of us equally - in that I refer to LHaul and S Haul specifically.
Question Pegasus are virgin and J* represented by FAAA if so how many are members - stupid question Im sure abuse accepted
Roamingwolf it is a while off yet before there are scheduled union elections. You can vote them out then if you dont like the next EBA or their behaviour between now and then, till then I suggest you make known your issues you feel they should be aware of
I dont see the issue in getting consensus from J*, virgin and mam. provided the officials who represent a united front, have an agreed approach prior to the EBA and dont undermine any current workers without their members agreement, we might finally offer a chess move that QF mgmt finds it difficult to get around.
I hasten to explain some of those you represent Australian, j* may agree to a b scale to enter QF mainline that is what i mean by requiring the members consent. That then affects them not the current LHaul/Shaul cabin crew.
To negotiate in the short term for a long term advantage. I think you get my point.
Bottom line is the FAAA both sides turn up collectively to represent all of us equally - in that I refer to LHaul and S Haul specifically.
Question Pegasus are virgin and J* represented by FAAA if so how many are members - stupid question Im sure abuse accepted
Roamingwolf it is a while off yet before there are scheduled union elections. You can vote them out then if you dont like the next EBA or their behaviour between now and then, till then I suggest you make known your issues you feel they should be aware of
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards to the whole united front with both LH and SH unions....
please correct me if i'm wrong (and i know you lot will!)...
didn't the SH FAAA contact the LH FAAA just recently regarding some sort of getting together thing and it was knocked on the head by the LH'ers?
please correct me if i'm wrong (and i know you lot will!)...
didn't the SH FAAA contact the LH FAAA just recently regarding some sort of getting together thing and it was knocked on the head by the LH'ers?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sydney s/h,
You are correct, the SH FAAA approached LH FAAA afew years back, and it was declined - this was leading upto our EBA negotiations.
SH FAAA have approached them again (Sept 06), but I have never heard what the response was.
For the record, I am SH myself..... (before someone wants to start attacking me )
You are correct, the SH FAAA approached LH FAAA afew years back, and it was declined - this was leading upto our EBA negotiations.
SH FAAA have approached them again (Sept 06), but I have never heard what the response was.
For the record, I am SH myself..... (before someone wants to start attacking me
)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hawk eye Mate I think you misunderstood me.
I believe that if the 2 unions were to join then there would have to be one leadership team and not the 2 combined.
I also reckon there is to much history and ego problems for the 2 current unions leadership to be able to work together.
If this is to work we could disolve both leadership teams and have a fresh election for one team to represent all parties.That means L/H,S/H,MAM etc...with reps from each area.
i reckon it would not work if you asked the current elcted officials of both sides to work together.There is simply to much history,memory,ego,power etc...to be working with.
There would be a lot of things to work out and it is a big call but it is possible
I believe that if the 2 unions were to join then there would have to be one leadership team and not the 2 combined.
I also reckon there is to much history and ego problems for the 2 current unions leadership to be able to work together.
If this is to work we could disolve both leadership teams and have a fresh election for one team to represent all parties.That means L/H,S/H,MAM etc...with reps from each area.
i reckon it would not work if you asked the current elcted officials of both sides to work together.There is simply to much history,memory,ego,power etc...to be working with.
There would be a lot of things to work out and it is a big call but it is possible
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Galley Hag said:
"The difference is short haul are a lot more flexible and are willing to work with the company to manage the surplus that occurs from time to time throughout the year. Furthermore our casual crew somewhat protect permanent crew when a surplus occurs.
So I wouldnt get to excited about exacting your petty revenge just yet!"
Chill out Galley Hag !!!
There was no "petty revenge" in my post.
Do yourself a favour and Google JOHARI WINDOW.......you may find the answer to your hypersensitivity.
I agree with the sentiments of the last few posters.- Strength in Unity
"The difference is short haul are a lot more flexible and are willing to work with the company to manage the surplus that occurs from time to time throughout the year. Furthermore our casual crew somewhat protect permanent crew when a surplus occurs.
So I wouldnt get to excited about exacting your petty revenge just yet!"
Chill out Galley Hag !!!
There was no "petty revenge" in my post.
Do yourself a favour and Google JOHARI WINDOW.......you may find the answer to your hypersensitivity.
I agree with the sentiments of the last few posters.- Strength in Unity
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This newsletter was emailed to all members and is on the FAAA website and mailboxes
8 December 2006
Attention all Qantas Long Haul and Australian Airlines Flight Attendants
FAAA INTERNATIONAL DIVISION PUTS FORWARD PLAN FOR FAAA INTEGRATION
I wish to advise members that the International Division yesterday formally responded to the Domestic/Regional Division with a plan to form the basis for integration of the current two Divisions of the FAAA.
I take this opportunity to publicly inform our membership that in late 2003, I (Michael Mijatov) initiated confidential discussions between senior officials of the International Division and our senior counterparts in the Domestic/Regional Division of the FAAA.
Once I became the Secretary of the International Division in March 2004, the discussions had the formal imprimatur of this Division and it has been the policy of this Division to attempt to reverse the Divisionalisation of the FAAA that occurred in 2000.
It is self evident that an integrated FAAA structure would have benefits for all FAAA members both in industrial terms and in terms of a more effective, efficient and more financially secure FAAA.
However, I above all current elected officials in both Divisions of the FAAA witnessed the debilitating instability, arguments and resentment that ultimately caused the de-facto split of the FAAA in 2000.
Therefore, we in this Division of the FAAA, believe that it is both prudent and essential that certain matters have to be agreed to, before there can be a full “union” between the two FAAA Divisions. The most important of these are as follows:-
The FAAA must be structured in a way that the legitimate interests of members in each airline grouping are acknowledged in the Rules of the FAAA.
Industrial decisions made by each airline grouping must not be able to be thwarted, blocked or overridden by a coalition of officials from other airline groupings.
Election to and voting on, elective bodies in the FAAA must be on the basis of proportional representation (for example it would be unacceptable that almost 3000 Qantas Long Haul members have the same representation on a newly constituted FAAA as would another group of flight attendants with say 600 members).
Many of these issues are complex, but must be properly addressed, to ensure that if we do restructure the FAAA, we do it on a proper basis, to prevent the chaos of pre- 2000 recurring.
We have also indicated to the Domestic/Regional Division that if full re-integration is not possible we are keen to adopt a whole raft of other practical measures which would have the effect of closer industrial co-ordination. We also indicated that sharing of premises would also be possible as far as our Division is concerned, even if full integration is not practical or possible.
We will advise you of developments in due course.
Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division.
Attention all Qantas Long Haul and Australian Airlines Flight Attendants
FAAA INTERNATIONAL DIVISION PUTS FORWARD PLAN FOR FAAA INTEGRATION
I wish to advise members that the International Division yesterday formally responded to the Domestic/Regional Division with a plan to form the basis for integration of the current two Divisions of the FAAA.
I take this opportunity to publicly inform our membership that in late 2003, I (Michael Mijatov) initiated confidential discussions between senior officials of the International Division and our senior counterparts in the Domestic/Regional Division of the FAAA.
Once I became the Secretary of the International Division in March 2004, the discussions had the formal imprimatur of this Division and it has been the policy of this Division to attempt to reverse the Divisionalisation of the FAAA that occurred in 2000.
It is self evident that an integrated FAAA structure would have benefits for all FAAA members both in industrial terms and in terms of a more effective, efficient and more financially secure FAAA.
However, I above all current elected officials in both Divisions of the FAAA witnessed the debilitating instability, arguments and resentment that ultimately caused the de-facto split of the FAAA in 2000.
Therefore, we in this Division of the FAAA, believe that it is both prudent and essential that certain matters have to be agreed to, before there can be a full “union” between the two FAAA Divisions. The most important of these are as follows:-
The FAAA must be structured in a way that the legitimate interests of members in each airline grouping are acknowledged in the Rules of the FAAA.
Industrial decisions made by each airline grouping must not be able to be thwarted, blocked or overridden by a coalition of officials from other airline groupings.
Election to and voting on, elective bodies in the FAAA must be on the basis of proportional representation (for example it would be unacceptable that almost 3000 Qantas Long Haul members have the same representation on a newly constituted FAAA as would another group of flight attendants with say 600 members).
Many of these issues are complex, but must be properly addressed, to ensure that if we do restructure the FAAA, we do it on a proper basis, to prevent the chaos of pre- 2000 recurring.
We have also indicated to the Domestic/Regional Division that if full re-integration is not possible we are keen to adopt a whole raft of other practical measures which would have the effect of closer industrial co-ordination. We also indicated that sharing of premises would also be possible as far as our Division is concerned, even if full integration is not practical or possible.
We will advise you of developments in due course.
Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: queensland
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pegasus,
When it seems like there might be some light at the end of the tunnel(amalgamation of FAAA), I hear the strong adversarial overtones coming through in Mr Mijs letter.
While it is obvious that no industrial agreement should be blocked or thwarted does it have to be stated in such aggressive language.
Whilst we are aware of the need to state industrial niceties and protocols It would have been nice to see the words included that this agreement / merger gives the FAAA the opportunity to come to an agreed concensus prior and during industrial negotiations. Perhaps he might have run with the suggestion the new look FAAA is a united body in that when EBAs are negotiated officials representing both LHaul and Shaul are present and there are no discussions held with the company without all of the EBA negotiating body present.
To be honest it sounded a bit like our politicians and the water debate. They want to be seen to be supportive but no one is prepared to take the leap required and make the commitment.
I hope Im wrong Pegasus and could someone give mr Mijatov a new speach writer his letters smacks of aggressive undertones and arrogance. Imprimatuer really
When it seems like there might be some light at the end of the tunnel(amalgamation of FAAA), I hear the strong adversarial overtones coming through in Mr Mijs letter.
While it is obvious that no industrial agreement should be blocked or thwarted does it have to be stated in such aggressive language.
Whilst we are aware of the need to state industrial niceties and protocols It would have been nice to see the words included that this agreement / merger gives the FAAA the opportunity to come to an agreed concensus prior and during industrial negotiations. Perhaps he might have run with the suggestion the new look FAAA is a united body in that when EBAs are negotiated officials representing both LHaul and Shaul are present and there are no discussions held with the company without all of the EBA negotiating body present.
To be honest it sounded a bit like our politicians and the water debate. They want to be seen to be supportive but no one is prepared to take the leap required and make the commitment.
I hope Im wrong Pegasus and could someone give mr Mijatov a new speach writer his letters smacks of aggressive undertones and arrogance. Imprimatuer really
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: cancun
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S/H union
About a year or so ago, the galley gossip was a group of short haulers were going to move for a vote of no confidence against the union. This had nothing to do with the eba challenge.
Many casuals are not members, reasons being ex AN (no confidence), poor out come of EBA2, lack of knowledge.
The best thing for cabin crew(whom at this stage have the safest jobs, goodbye middle management!) is to join the unions, make casuals a less attractive option and cap the % allowed and watch how the numbers grow. With out a doubt in my mind short haul membership would increase.
At the moment casual are doormats for the company in hope for full time. Some work up to 160hrs in a month, working 25 days. Casual hours need to be capped!
Join the two union, increase short haul membership, get the casual on board and fighting all together.
this is my personal opinion.
Many casuals are not members, reasons being ex AN (no confidence), poor out come of EBA2, lack of knowledge.
The best thing for cabin crew(whom at this stage have the safest jobs, goodbye middle management!) is to join the unions, make casuals a less attractive option and cap the % allowed and watch how the numbers grow. With out a doubt in my mind short haul membership would increase.
At the moment casual are doormats for the company in hope for full time. Some work up to 160hrs in a month, working 25 days. Casual hours need to be capped!
Join the two union, increase short haul membership, get the casual on board and fighting all together.
this is my personal opinion.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: qld
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATSIC card
So Lowerlobe, if someone has an ATSIC card they never have to work again??? Geez, I will have to tell my idigenous family and friends who have been working all their lives that they can retire NOW!
Thanks for that
Thanks for that
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it seems the latest Sydney SH blocks are out and so much for the rumour the BOM's were going. They are still there, as is PVG, PEK and yeap...NRT are now ours.
Are MEL SH short of crew? It seems not only are the Sydney base doing the NRT's but also we are doing the MEL-NRT's as well. 2 a day ex Sydney.
If you are CC and want a mixture of flying apparently Sydney SH base is the place to be.
March overnights are at max 16 and overnighting in...
ADL, AKL, BNE, BOM, CBR, CGK, CNS, DRW, HBR, HKG, MEL, NRT, OOL, PEK, PVG, SIN, TSV.
And a bunch of day trip locations.
Wow...who would have thought a few years ago a big international location was AKL!
Are MEL SH short of crew? It seems not only are the Sydney base doing the NRT's but also we are doing the MEL-NRT's as well. 2 a day ex Sydney.
If you are CC and want a mixture of flying apparently Sydney SH base is the place to be.
March overnights are at max 16 and overnighting in...
ADL, AKL, BNE, BOM, CBR, CGK, CNS, DRW, HBR, HKG, MEL, NRT, OOL, PEK, PVG, SIN, TSV.
And a bunch of day trip locations.
Wow...who would have thought a few years ago a big international location was AKL!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: Manpower and staff related costs increased by $22 million or 1.3 per cent.
Capacity growth, Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) wages and salary
increases were offset by cost saving initiatives and productivity
improvements of $114 million.
Interesting that they included this in the profit results!
MAM hours should be capped at 140 hours but why would management want to do that??
Capacity growth, Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) wages and salary
increases were offset by cost saving initiatives and productivity
improvements of $114 million.
Interesting that they included this in the profit results!
MAM hours should be capped at 140 hours but why would management want to do that??