Lew And Fox What Is Their Game? (Business Sunday)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Auztraya
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all you doubters....here is a an abbreviated account of whats been happening IMHO!!.. .First let me start by saying we at Ansett have always been told that this Deal was going through.w. .We as rank and file may have had our doubts as has every one else but the top end boys have been unwavering.. .Fox and Lew (FLEW)themselves are very sucessfull self made businessmen collectivly worth in excess of 1 billion dollars,now that does not make them great Airline Operators but it does mean that they are big players capable of taking this on.. .FLEW,in my opinion,have orchastrated this delay in the sale.. .A delay would let QF and DJ run there Airline crushing Fares and Advertising at the worst time of the aviation year while AN plodded along losing a million dollars a day at the the Creditors expense...Brilliant on the part of FLEW,imagine the Creditors meeting.. .M&M;. ."Thank you all for coming....in the absence of a better offer we recomend you accept the Tesna Deal...hands please....carried.". ."Oh and by the way because of the complexity of this deal we still have some major hurdles to overcome and that may delay the the sale completion for another 30 days with losses up to 6 million a week.....Good afternoon.". .How's that for manipulating the play!!!. .SACL have said that they have been trying to tie down the Sydney Lease deal since early December,but Tesna only started talking three weeks before the Creditors meeting.The delay of securing Sydney Terminal, being the largest tangible asset of the deal, was the perfect reason to give the ever suffering Creditors.All this was planned by FLEW.. .Why would anyone want to fly Ansett at the moment ?...I wouldn't...with all the uncertainty about falling over again bad press no more Govt ticket guarantee its no wonder things don't look good but that dosn't concern FLEW,sure they would like thinks to be booming but it isn't set up that way at the present time.Come sometime before the 28th Feb they will care ,very much.i Its all there waiting to happen and there will be all the fanfare to go with it.In fact FLEW have been rumoured to have spent about 40 million of their own money so far in just getting this deal across the line, so they certainly have "Put up one dollar".. .There are only about half a dozen people in the country at the moment who know what the true game plan is.These people have told us next to nothing and it will stay that way until they are ready!!.. .anything else we hear or rumoured is pure speculation.. .I also expect that Brett Godfrey may also have an Idea of whats in store,but I would not support any argument suggesting Virgin are going to pull us out of the poo.In fact I would be interested in some comment from those supporting it.. .I expect Virgin and Ansett to tie up some way and for everyones employment security that can only be a good thing,and if it kicks off well and remains so I think the boys down the road at QF might fly into some turbulance.
Am I right ??....We'll see.
Am I right ??....We'll see.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Syd
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty, me thinks you're as one-eyed as McCrann!. .Fox and Lew were required to place a significant, non-returnable deposit with Airbus, confirmed by the ACTU. SACL are saying that part of the deal involved FLEW convincing them that they are serious about running an airline. FLEW have had no less than 12 opportunities to walk, they have'nt. Just what will it take to convince you guys!! I suppose you think that Elvis is still alive, Armstrong did'nt walk on the Moon and Osama Bin Laden was the real killer of JFK!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mon "Sydney Morning Herald"
Qantas rejects Ansett appeal
Qantas has blocked Ansett from bidding for contracts to service the airline's jets, preferring instead to send them overseas for maintenance.
Ansett's administrator, Mark Mentha, has appealed to Qantas to reconsider, arguing that giving the contracts to idle Ansett engineers would carry no commercial risk and save up to 400 jobs.
New tensions between Qantas and its main domestic competitor come just days from possible finalisation of the sale of Ansett to the Tesna consortium headed by Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew.
Ansett's heavy maintenance and components workshops are up for separate sale because Mr Fox and Mr Lew do not want to buy them, deciding instead to outsource all of their aircraft servicing.
Qantas is outsourcing the heavy maintenance work on its Boeing 737s that is beyond the capacity of its own engineering crews. But it has told Mr Mentha that giving the tender to Ansett's maintenance business represented an "unacceptable risk" considering it could be placed in liquidation if no buyer was found.
Instead, Qantas is set to send the Boeing 737s to Singapore for heavy maintenance.
In a letter obtained by the Herald, Mr Mentha appealed personally to Qantas's chief executive, Geoff Dixon, to change his mind.
Mr Mentha said that he understood concerns that Ansett's engineering services might be placed in liquidation, with implications for warranties, supply of parts, certainty of completion and other issues.
However, he gave a written assurance that he had satisfied the concerns of other companies with which Ansett was doing business.
He said that any amount owing for any claim of breach of warranty by Ansett would be met as a cost of the administration, thus giving Qantas priority over Ansett assets, estimated at $1.6 billion.
Mr Mentha claimed Ansett's maintenance business could offer services at a globally competitive price, and that giving it the work would contribute to its sale. It would also
"go a long way to saving the jobs of up to 400 staff".
Mr Mentha said the sale of Ansett's maintenance business was likely in the next two to three months and the "identity and credibility" of interested parties were known to senior Qantas executive David Forsyth.
Mr Dixon responded tersely to Mr Mentha's approach, saying that Qantas would run its company in the best interests of employees and shareholders and "not at the behest of the administrator of Ansett".
"The facts are that Ansett is in administration, the engineering facilities are not one of the assets being purchased by Tesna, and we don't know whether they will find a purchaser," he said.
"If no purchaser is found, it is likely that the business would be liquidated."
Mr Dixon accused Mr Mentha of having refused to enter into dialogue with Qantas after it had expressed interest soon after Ansett's collapse to buy a range of assets. "This included the Ansett engineering facilities in Melbourne - a Qantas purchase would have preserved more than a thousand jobs," he said.
[ 18 February 2002: Message edited by: Wirraway ]</p>
Qantas rejects Ansett appeal
Qantas has blocked Ansett from bidding for contracts to service the airline's jets, preferring instead to send them overseas for maintenance.
Ansett's administrator, Mark Mentha, has appealed to Qantas to reconsider, arguing that giving the contracts to idle Ansett engineers would carry no commercial risk and save up to 400 jobs.
New tensions between Qantas and its main domestic competitor come just days from possible finalisation of the sale of Ansett to the Tesna consortium headed by Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew.
Ansett's heavy maintenance and components workshops are up for separate sale because Mr Fox and Mr Lew do not want to buy them, deciding instead to outsource all of their aircraft servicing.
Qantas is outsourcing the heavy maintenance work on its Boeing 737s that is beyond the capacity of its own engineering crews. But it has told Mr Mentha that giving the tender to Ansett's maintenance business represented an "unacceptable risk" considering it could be placed in liquidation if no buyer was found.
Instead, Qantas is set to send the Boeing 737s to Singapore for heavy maintenance.
In a letter obtained by the Herald, Mr Mentha appealed personally to Qantas's chief executive, Geoff Dixon, to change his mind.
Mr Mentha said that he understood concerns that Ansett's engineering services might be placed in liquidation, with implications for warranties, supply of parts, certainty of completion and other issues.
However, he gave a written assurance that he had satisfied the concerns of other companies with which Ansett was doing business.
He said that any amount owing for any claim of breach of warranty by Ansett would be met as a cost of the administration, thus giving Qantas priority over Ansett assets, estimated at $1.6 billion.
Mr Mentha claimed Ansett's maintenance business could offer services at a globally competitive price, and that giving it the work would contribute to its sale. It would also
"go a long way to saving the jobs of up to 400 staff".
Mr Mentha said the sale of Ansett's maintenance business was likely in the next two to three months and the "identity and credibility" of interested parties were known to senior Qantas executive David Forsyth.
Mr Dixon responded tersely to Mr Mentha's approach, saying that Qantas would run its company in the best interests of employees and shareholders and "not at the behest of the administrator of Ansett".
"The facts are that Ansett is in administration, the engineering facilities are not one of the assets being purchased by Tesna, and we don't know whether they will find a purchaser," he said.
"If no purchaser is found, it is likely that the business would be liquidated."
Mr Dixon accused Mr Mentha of having refused to enter into dialogue with Qantas after it had expressed interest soon after Ansett's collapse to buy a range of assets. "This included the Ansett engineering facilities in Melbourne - a Qantas purchase would have preserved more than a thousand jobs," he said.
[ 18 February 2002: Message edited by: Wirraway ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Thumbs Up has hit the nail right on the head. Who is wearing the losses at the moment not FLEW. I also agree that when Tesna take over there will be more publicity than Big Brother! The media are spejaculating about what is going to happen.They are going to look like the ******s they are when Ansett launches.Don't forget that Virgin was also delayed beyond their original launch date because of "paperwork" and all the doom and gloomers said at the time that this was a bad sign. If virgin do get access to the Ansett terminals I will be reminded of the scene from "The Longest Day" when the column of Americans walks past the column of Germans and both pretend that neither exists! <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Launceston. Tasmania,Australia
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's two minutes to midnight and the TESNA syndicate still hasn't signed ANYTHING in concrete. Everything is dependant on each other component of the jigsaw. Can ANYONE who has been offered a position in the new enterprise tell us if they have anything in writing to say when they do start up what their conditions are, pay is, or even that they definitely have a position if and when the operation starts? I cannot even see any evidence of them knowing what staff they will employ to fly and manage the aircraft upon start up.
The whole deal smells rotten. Too much leaked to the press about deals with Virgin, denied then wink wink yes maybe.
Odds on Ansett will not rise like Phoenix from its ashes. They have well and truly been kicked over.
The whole deal smells rotten. Too much leaked to the press about deals with Virgin, denied then wink wink yes maybe.
Odds on Ansett will not rise like Phoenix from its ashes. They have well and truly been kicked over.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: OZ
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's easy to understand why advanced passenger booking's are low, would you be buying a ticket to travel in say 2 months on an airline that is under administration, I know I wouldn't. This will change once Tesna have control and the public know it is finally has an owner.. .During the last 2 years with the arrival of Impulse and Virgin Blue the public have shown they have no loyaty to any one airline, money talks. Some passengers are only after the cheapest airfare others want the full service, there are many reasons why one flies airline "A" and the other airline "B".. .Yes there were many passengers who lost out when Ansett collapsed and they will be bitter, but think back 10-12 years ago when Compass 1 & 2 collapsed the passrngers lost out then. But history has shown that passengers were willing to give other new airlines(Impulse/VB) a go. When these 2 airlines entered the market each passenger was at risk of losing money just like those who had travelled on Compass 1 & 2. Yes passengers maybe be a litle nervous with Ansett at first, but as each day, each week, each month they stay in the air this will change.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LA, Cal, USA
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking to someone yesterday who is flying with AN, the loads are apparently not quite as dismal as the merchants of Ansett's death would have us believe.
FL CH, poor advanced bookings - what do you expect with no advertising etc?
I note that the wave of anti FLEW hysteria immediately reduced somewhat when the SACL in principle deal was announced.
Like it or not, TESNA will get up. Virgin may well end up sharing terminals in return for part ownership by TESNA of Virgin.(not the other way round).
This commercial approach will really make QF just a bit more accountable. Their cost base is way over AN or DJ and, believe me, they will have problems in the future.
Watch Australian Airlines rise and rise.
FL CH, poor advanced bookings - what do you expect with no advertising etc?
I note that the wave of anti FLEW hysteria immediately reduced somewhat when the SACL in principle deal was announced.
Like it or not, TESNA will get up. Virgin may well end up sharing terminals in return for part ownership by TESNA of Virgin.(not the other way round).
This commercial approach will really make QF just a bit more accountable. Their cost base is way over AN or DJ and, believe me, they will have problems in the future.
Watch Australian Airlines rise and rise.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Syd
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thylacine, those offered jobs do have a commitment in writing about pay and conditions, I wont go into details because, frankly, it's none of your business. All of your other concerns that you mentioned have also been addressed. Thanks for showing us so much concern, it's really appreciated.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is true to say that pax have no brand loyalty any more. This bodes well for anyone offering as good or better product for less than the competitor.
The loads at AN are better than the press would have you think. Mr McCrann has managed to mislead people by using a non reflective Wed/Thur load factor as a basis for weekly and even monthly loads.
The loads at AN are better than the press would have you think. Mr McCrann has managed to mislead people by using a non reflective Wed/Thur load factor as a basis for weekly and even monthly loads.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tues "Melbourne Age"
Ansett talks drag on over fine detail
By LEONIE WOOD. .Tuesday 19 February 2002
Ansett's administrators and representatives of the Tesna consortium held lengthy talks yesterday in an effort to nail down the final details of the airline's sale as the parties prepare for a Federal Court hearing this morning.
But as talks dragged on, it was unclear if the administrators, Mark Mentha and Mark Korda of accounting firm Andersen, would ask the court either to approve the $453 million sale or defer it yet again.
Insiders still believe the deal will be settled before the administrators' self-imposed deadline of February 28, but the parties are quibbling over the fine detail.
Each day the deal is delayed represents another $1 million of operating losses to come from the already small pool of returns to Ansett's creditors.
The court last week heard there was some dispute between the administrators and Tesna, controlled by Melbourne businessmen Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew, about whether the terms of the sale contract allowed the administrators to sell plant and equipment that belonged to other parties.
Ansett talks drag on over fine detail
By LEONIE WOOD. .Tuesday 19 February 2002
Ansett's administrators and representatives of the Tesna consortium held lengthy talks yesterday in an effort to nail down the final details of the airline's sale as the parties prepare for a Federal Court hearing this morning.
But as talks dragged on, it was unclear if the administrators, Mark Mentha and Mark Korda of accounting firm Andersen, would ask the court either to approve the $453 million sale or defer it yet again.
Insiders still believe the deal will be settled before the administrators' self-imposed deadline of February 28, but the parties are quibbling over the fine detail.
Each day the deal is delayed represents another $1 million of operating losses to come from the already small pool of returns to Ansett's creditors.
The court last week heard there was some dispute between the administrators and Tesna, controlled by Melbourne businessmen Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew, about whether the terms of the sale contract allowed the administrators to sell plant and equipment that belonged to other parties.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tues "The Australian"
Tesna's Ansett fumbling
19feb02
LINDSAY Fox and Solly Lew's Tesna consortium is edging closer to its stated aim of buying the rump of the old Ansett Airlines, but the process remains balanced on a knife edge.
. .Tesna was due to have completed its purchase on February 1 but the deal has been strung out to the end of the month as Ansett steadily chews through at a rate of between $6 million and $10 million a week the $150 million in cash paid by Air New Zealand in settlement of any legal actions late last year. . .If the money has not already run out, it is very close to it. Lindsay and Solly are engaging in high-stakes brinkmanship by delaying the day they take responsibility for these losses.
Time has run out and the people most desperate to complete the sale are the administrators, the Marks Korda and Mentha, whose firm Andersen is potentially liable for the erosion of funds in Ansett II due to the delays. This money should be going to Ansett creditors.
Once Ansett II emerges butterfly-like out of the chrysalis then the danger really begins.
As if to show just how high the mountain is confronting Lindsay and Solly, Qantas will announce a first-half profit of close to $200 million on Thursday.
This will be down a touch on the previous year, but is about as much as Ansett has lost since it went into administration last September.
If Tesna is to survive more than a few months it must double or, more likely, treble its market share. It can only achieve its aim in this zero sum game by taking business away from Qantas and the third player Virgin Blue.
Neither Geoff Dixon at Qantas nor Brett Godfrey at Virgin Blue will willingly hand back to Ansett the business they've snared over the last five months. Lindsay and Solly will have a fight on their hands and it will cost them a lot of money. Apart from the additional costs of getting all Ansett's 16 Airbuses into the air (it is flying 14 at present) they are will have to spend big on marketing to persuade all those passengers and cargo customers that Ansett abandoned last year to return.
Until they restore faith in the airline, no-one will be prepared to book more than a few days ahead.
Ansett must take on a cashed-up and profitable Qantas to win back the high-margin corporate business of which Qantas is the monopoly holder and at the same time get bottoms on seats in the rest of the aircraft by meeting Virgin Blue in the discount trenches.
Although Lindsay and Solly will have a lot of goodwill backing them in their bid to make Ansett viable again, their task on the face of it looks impossible. Either Ansett or Virgin will collapse. The survivor will pick up the pieces of the failed airline, and go on to make money.
Although Virgin Blue looks comfortable in its niche as the low-cost discount airline, it is not invulnerable.
If Lindsay and Solly were prepared to do the unthinkable, and kick in some of their own money to show they were really serious, then Ansett might just see Virgin Blue off, but it would be very expensive. Too expensive to be a realistic option, but do-able nevertheless.
Virgin Blue has doubled its market share since September and grown at a rate far more quickly than Godfrey or Richard Branson would have imagined before September. It needs cash, as does the whole Virgin group.
It will not buy or merge with Ansett and there is little in it for Virgin Blue to help Ansett out by sharing the Ansett terminals. Why give a rival oxygen?
[email protected]
Tesna's Ansett fumbling
19feb02
LINDSAY Fox and Solly Lew's Tesna consortium is edging closer to its stated aim of buying the rump of the old Ansett Airlines, but the process remains balanced on a knife edge.
. .Tesna was due to have completed its purchase on February 1 but the deal has been strung out to the end of the month as Ansett steadily chews through at a rate of between $6 million and $10 million a week the $150 million in cash paid by Air New Zealand in settlement of any legal actions late last year. . .If the money has not already run out, it is very close to it. Lindsay and Solly are engaging in high-stakes brinkmanship by delaying the day they take responsibility for these losses.
Time has run out and the people most desperate to complete the sale are the administrators, the Marks Korda and Mentha, whose firm Andersen is potentially liable for the erosion of funds in Ansett II due to the delays. This money should be going to Ansett creditors.
Once Ansett II emerges butterfly-like out of the chrysalis then the danger really begins.
As if to show just how high the mountain is confronting Lindsay and Solly, Qantas will announce a first-half profit of close to $200 million on Thursday.
This will be down a touch on the previous year, but is about as much as Ansett has lost since it went into administration last September.
If Tesna is to survive more than a few months it must double or, more likely, treble its market share. It can only achieve its aim in this zero sum game by taking business away from Qantas and the third player Virgin Blue.
Neither Geoff Dixon at Qantas nor Brett Godfrey at Virgin Blue will willingly hand back to Ansett the business they've snared over the last five months. Lindsay and Solly will have a fight on their hands and it will cost them a lot of money. Apart from the additional costs of getting all Ansett's 16 Airbuses into the air (it is flying 14 at present) they are will have to spend big on marketing to persuade all those passengers and cargo customers that Ansett abandoned last year to return.
Until they restore faith in the airline, no-one will be prepared to book more than a few days ahead.
Ansett must take on a cashed-up and profitable Qantas to win back the high-margin corporate business of which Qantas is the monopoly holder and at the same time get bottoms on seats in the rest of the aircraft by meeting Virgin Blue in the discount trenches.
Although Lindsay and Solly will have a lot of goodwill backing them in their bid to make Ansett viable again, their task on the face of it looks impossible. Either Ansett or Virgin will collapse. The survivor will pick up the pieces of the failed airline, and go on to make money.
Although Virgin Blue looks comfortable in its niche as the low-cost discount airline, it is not invulnerable.
If Lindsay and Solly were prepared to do the unthinkable, and kick in some of their own money to show they were really serious, then Ansett might just see Virgin Blue off, but it would be very expensive. Too expensive to be a realistic option, but do-able nevertheless.
Virgin Blue has doubled its market share since September and grown at a rate far more quickly than Godfrey or Richard Branson would have imagined before September. It needs cash, as does the whole Virgin group.
It will not buy or merge with Ansett and there is little in it for Virgin Blue to help Ansett out by sharing the Ansett terminals. Why give a rival oxygen?
[email protected]
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here you are chaps.
"Fox and Lew have always believed there was room for Virgin operating separately, but there are clearly economies in running the two airlines in tandem – particularly if Virgin uses Ansett terminals and the two airlines use the same operating system.
It wouldn't make sense to run airlines in tandem without a merger or an equity link. Fox and Lew believe they are in the long-term winning position and won't invite Virgin into the tent unless the terms are right.
Of course, the profitability of the rescue will depend on whether Fox and Lew can convince large organisations to switch part of their business to Ansett.
Qantas will fight hard to keep its current share of the business market. Frequency between major centres will be a Qantas advantage and it will take time for Fox and Lew to win back the old business customers.
In the long term, Qantas will need to lower its cost structure to match Ansett's, particularly if Ansett can offer the equivalent service.
The share market understands the threat Fox and Lew pose to Qantas. When the press reports were indicating the Fox and Lew consortium was having difficulty, Qantas shares began rising. Had the rescue failed, Qantas would have the business market to itself and would have more than 80 per cent of the total market.
When it became clear the odds were favouring a relaunch of a new Ansett with a lower cost structure than the old Ansett, Qantas's share price fell back.
Qantas will have to lower its cost structures to go close to matching, which may cause industrial problems. Qantas pilots and air crew have a totally different reward and conditions structure to those at Ansett. The winners in the re-launch of Ansett are airline travellers.
By Robert Gottliebsen. .February 19, 2002"
"Fox and Lew have always believed there was room for Virgin operating separately, but there are clearly economies in running the two airlines in tandem – particularly if Virgin uses Ansett terminals and the two airlines use the same operating system.
It wouldn't make sense to run airlines in tandem without a merger or an equity link. Fox and Lew believe they are in the long-term winning position and won't invite Virgin into the tent unless the terms are right.
Of course, the profitability of the rescue will depend on whether Fox and Lew can convince large organisations to switch part of their business to Ansett.
Qantas will fight hard to keep its current share of the business market. Frequency between major centres will be a Qantas advantage and it will take time for Fox and Lew to win back the old business customers.
In the long term, Qantas will need to lower its cost structure to match Ansett's, particularly if Ansett can offer the equivalent service.
The share market understands the threat Fox and Lew pose to Qantas. When the press reports were indicating the Fox and Lew consortium was having difficulty, Qantas shares began rising. Had the rescue failed, Qantas would have the business market to itself and would have more than 80 per cent of the total market.
When it became clear the odds were favouring a relaunch of a new Ansett with a lower cost structure than the old Ansett, Qantas's share price fell back.
Qantas will have to lower its cost structures to go close to matching, which may cause industrial problems. Qantas pilots and air crew have a totally different reward and conditions structure to those at Ansett. The winners in the re-launch of Ansett are airline travellers.
By Robert Gottliebsen. .February 19, 2002"
Evertonian
After reading a few posted articles here, it's easy to tell who was successfully sued by Solly!!!! <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
It's not a matter of favouritism, Boeing Belly, wrt to what was posted. The first acticle is FACTUAL and down the line.. .The other one (as posted by Arctaurus) by Gottliebson, is very "wishy-washy" and staccato-like in composition.
10 days to go!!, to see whether FLEW fly (AN - or the coop!), or whether M&M end up passing Ansett off, or costing Andersons a bundle.
10 days to go!!, to see whether FLEW fly (AN - or the coop!), or whether M&M end up passing Ansett off, or costing Andersons a bundle.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two things:
1. About a Virgin/Tesna tie-up to compete with Qantas. I think the ACCC might have something to say about that one. Terms like collusion, price fixing etc come to mind. I sure Qantas will remind them of this.
2. Whilst we seem to think McCrann is anti-Tesna, Gottliebsen seems to believe that Qantas pilots are overpaid and that will be their down fall. On the domestic front the 767 is the main aircraft on the trunk routes and seems to be the main bread winner. Now I had a look at the Qantas Longhaul award (it is posted on the net by the IRC) and whilst it is a very complicated document, what I did gleen out of it was that a 767 CPT (on top increment) gets paid $166.24 per hour and a 767 F/O (mid range) gets $100.85 per hour. Thats a typical total 767 techcrew cost of about $267 /hr. I acknowledge that this pay rate is for what Qantas call a 'credited' hour which is calculated in a variety of different ways, but for the purposes of this rough look at pilot costs it is close enough to flight hours. Now from the QF schedules the SYD/MEL block time is 1:20. Therefore on a SYD/MEL sector a 767 crew would cost QF $366. With the 767 having about 240 pax seats that works out to be about $1.50 per seat. Let me say that again: between SYD/MEL QF 767 pilot crew costs are around $1.50 per seat per sector . I don't believe Virgin or Tesna pilot costs are going to be better that. So from a pilot wages perspective I believe QF is very competative.(Cabin crew/ ground crew etc may well be a different matter though.)
1. About a Virgin/Tesna tie-up to compete with Qantas. I think the ACCC might have something to say about that one. Terms like collusion, price fixing etc come to mind. I sure Qantas will remind them of this.
2. Whilst we seem to think McCrann is anti-Tesna, Gottliebsen seems to believe that Qantas pilots are overpaid and that will be their down fall. On the domestic front the 767 is the main aircraft on the trunk routes and seems to be the main bread winner. Now I had a look at the Qantas Longhaul award (it is posted on the net by the IRC) and whilst it is a very complicated document, what I did gleen out of it was that a 767 CPT (on top increment) gets paid $166.24 per hour and a 767 F/O (mid range) gets $100.85 per hour. Thats a typical total 767 techcrew cost of about $267 /hr. I acknowledge that this pay rate is for what Qantas call a 'credited' hour which is calculated in a variety of different ways, but for the purposes of this rough look at pilot costs it is close enough to flight hours. Now from the QF schedules the SYD/MEL block time is 1:20. Therefore on a SYD/MEL sector a 767 crew would cost QF $366. With the 767 having about 240 pax seats that works out to be about $1.50 per seat. Let me say that again: between SYD/MEL QF 767 pilot crew costs are around $1.50 per seat per sector . I don't believe Virgin or Tesna pilot costs are going to be better that. So from a pilot wages perspective I believe QF is very competative.(Cabin crew/ ground crew etc may well be a different matter though.)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney, NSW,Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the belief amongst many in QF that the "new" Ansett pilot award is actually based on our (QF) award with very similar pay rates but different conditions. This has been in our favour in the ongoing negotiations of the Australian Airlines award. Anybody who thiks QF pilots are inefficient is just plain ignorant,most of us fly close to, if not right on, max. legal hours.
Mr McGoo, I venture to suggest QF will struggle to get too much sympathy out of Professor Fels. 80% market share tends to suggest you can look after yourself and the ACCC will be aware that a failure of AN2 or DJ will mean QF will move to 90%+.
The ACCC may be calling on QF soon though to see how they are going on their voluntary code of conduct. QF agreed to produce this in November to stop ACCC moving to legislative limits on QF market power. Since then, we've heard exactly nothing about this voluntary code.
The ACCC may be calling on QF soon though to see how they are going on their voluntary code of conduct. QF agreed to produce this in November to stop ACCC moving to legislative limits on QF market power. Since then, we've heard exactly nothing about this voluntary code.