Whats wrong with QANTAS ???????? - Page 2

NTF6 · 14-12-2014, 12:28 AM

Better than Jetstar I suppose...!!!
One crash in all these years says something tho!
I actually had the pleasure to inspect Mascot jet base from the pilots in the simulator to the techs fixing instruments in the shop and the engine repairers and it was impressive to say the least I would be very happy to trust these guys over anyone else.

NTF6 · 14-12-2014, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltd

What's wrong with Qantas? Well I can sum it up in two words:
The Management.

You could always fly Malaysian Airlines MH 370 or MH 17...!!!

jpblue1000 · 14-12-2014, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work Horse

I posted this 2 years ago, just saying........

"At 90, Qantas is the world's oldest continuously running airline. It is an iconic Australian company. Its story is woven into the story of Australia and Australians have long taken pride in the service and safety standards provided by our national carrier. Who didn't feel a little proud when Dustin Hoffman uttered the immortal line in Rain Man, 'Qantas never crashed'?

While it is true that Qantas never crashes, the sad reality is that Qantas is being deliberately trashed by management in the pursuit of short-term profits and at the expense of its workers and passengers. For a long time, Qantas management has been pushing the line that Qantas international is losing money and that Jetstar is profitable.The reality is that Qantas has long been used to subsidise Jetstar in order to make Jetstar look profitable and Qantas look like a burden. When there is a cost to be paid, Qantas pays it, and when there is a profit to be made, Jetstar makes it.

But first we need to ask ourselves: why? Why would management want Qantas to look unprofitable? Why would they want to hide the cost of a competing brand within their group, namely Jetstar, in amongst the costs faced by Qantas?

To understand that, you need to go back to the days when Qantas was being privatised. When Qantas was privatised the Qantas Sale Act 1992 imposed a number of conditions, which in turn created a number of problems for any management group that wanted to flog off parts of the business. Basically, Qantas has to maintain its principal place of operations here in Australia, but that does not stop management selling any subsidiaries, which brings us to Jetstar.

Qantas has systematically built up the low-cost carrier at the expense of the parent company. These are practices that I believe Qantas and Jetstar management need to explain. For example, when Jetstar took over the Cairns-Darwin-Singapore route, replacing Qantas flights, a deal was struck that required Qantas to provide Jetstar with $6 million a year in revenue. Why? Why would one part of the business give up a profitable route like that and then be asked to pay for the privilege? Then there are other subsidies when it comes to freight. On every sector Jetstar operates an A330, Qantas pays $6,200 to $6,400 for freight space regardless of actual uplift. When you do the calculations, this turns out to be a small fortune. Based on 82 departures a week, that is nearly half-a-million dollars a week or $25 million a year.

Then there are the arrangements within the airport gates. In Melbourne, for example, Jetstar does not pay for any gates, but instead Qantas domestic is charged for the gates. My question for Qantas management is simple: are these arrangements replicated right around Australia and why is Qantas paying Jetstar's bills? Why does Qantas lease five check-in counters at Sydney Terminal 2, only to let Jetstar use one for free? It has been reported that there are other areas where Jetstar's costs magically become Qantas's costs. For example, Jetstar does not have a treasury department and has only one person in government affairs. Qantas's legal department also does free work for Jetstar.

Then there is the area of disruption handling where flights are cancelled and people need to be rebooked. Here, Qantas handles all rebookings and the traffic is all one way. It is extremely rare for a Qantas passenger to be rebooked on a Jetstar flight, but Jetstar passengers are regularly rebooked onto Qantas flights. Jetstar never pays Qantas for the cost of those rebooked passengers and yet Jetstar gets to keep the revenue from the original bookings. This is worth millions of dollars every year. So Jetstar gets the profit while Qantas bears the costs of carriage. Qantas provides an aircraft to Jetstar to cover an unserviceable plane, Jetstar does not pay for the use of this plane.

Yet another example relates to the Qantas Club. Jetstar passengers can and do use the Qantas Club but Jetstar does not pay for the cost of any of this. So is Qantas really losing money? Or is it profitable but simply losing money on paper because it is carrying so many costs incurred by Jetstar? We have been told by Qantas management that the changes that will effectively gut Qantas are necessary because Qantas international is losing money but, given the information above I would argue those claims need to be reassessed.

Indeed, given these extensive allegations of hidden costs, it would be foolish to take management's word that Qantas international is losing money. So why would Qantas want to make it look like Qantas international is losing money? Remember the failed 2007 private equity bid by the Allco Finance Group. It was rejected by shareholders, and thank goodness it was, what we are seeing now is effectively a strategy of private equity sell-off by stealth.

Here is how it works. You have to keep Qantas flying to avoid breaching the Qantas Sale Act but that does not stop you from moving assets out of Qantas and putting them into an airline that you own but that is not controlled by the Qantas Sale Act. Then you work the figures to make it appear as though the international arm of Qantas is losing money. You use this to justify the slashing of jobs, maintenance standards and employment of foreign crews and, ultimately, the creation of an entirely new airlines to be based in Asia and which will not be called Qantas. The end result? Technically Qantas would still exist but it would end up a shell of its former self and the Qantas Group would end up with all these subsidiaries it can base overseas using poorly paid foreign crews with engineering and safety standards that do not match Australian standards. In time, if the Qantas Group wants to make a buck, they can flog these subsidiaries off for a tidy profit. Qantas management could pay the National Boys Choir and the Australian Girls’ Choir to run to the desert and sing about still calling Australia home, but people would not buy it. It is not just about feeling good about our national carrier—in times of trouble our national carrier plays a key strategic role. In an international emergency, in a time of war, a national carrier is required to freight resources and people around the country and around the world. Qantas also operates Qantas Defence Services, which conducts work for the RAAF. If Qantas is allowed to wither, who will meet these strategic needs?

I pay tribute to the 35,000 employees of the Qantas Group. At the forefront of the fight against the strategy of Qantas management have been the Qantas pilots, to whom millions of Australians have literally entrusted their lives. The Australian and International Pilots Association sees Qantas management strategy as a race to the bottom when it comes to service and safety. On 8 November last year, QF32 experienced a serious malfunction with the explosion of an engine on an A380 aircraft. In the wrong hands, that plane could have crashed. But it did not, in large part because the Qantas flight crew had been trained to exemplary world-class standards and knew how to cope with such a terrifying reality. I am deeply concerned that what is being pursued may well cause training levels to fall and that as a result safety standards in the Qantas Group may fall as well. AIPA pilots and the licensed aircraft engineers are not fighting for themselves; they are fighting for the Australian public. That is why I am deeply concerned about any action Qantas management may be considering taking against pilots who speak out in the public interest.

A lot of claims have been made about the financial state of Qantas international but given the information I have presented tonight, which has come from within the Qantas Group, I believe these claims by management are crying out for further serious forensic investigation. Qantas should not be allowed to face death by a thousand cuts—job cuts, route cuts, quality cuts, engineering cuts, wage cuts. None of this is acceptable and it must all be resisted for the sake of the pilots, the crews, the passengers and ultimately the future of our national carrier. "
http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...41#post4511341

Agree 100 percent, my earlier posts make the exact same claim in less eloquent and lengthy ways.
Joyce et al are still there because they are doing what they were employed to do, beat the sales act.

JP

AlanD · 14-12-2014, 09:20 PM

Post 29 is well written and well argued.

It would not be the first time that an airline either created a subsidiary or managed to obtain a controlling or close to controlling interest in another airline and then shifted costs to that airline to improve its own bottom line.

I'm thinking Air New Zealand and Ansett - but I could have mis-remembered.

In this case it would appear to be the reverse - perhaps to get the capital out of QANTAS by stealth since the Allco attempt to get control of the airline failed. And I might add - if memory serves - that failed because a corporate investor failed to lodge papers in time, apparently because they thought the offer was under priced.

QANTAS is a privately owned airline operating in an environment where most of its local international competitors are either state owned or, if not, subsidized. Many of them buy fuel at very low cost, because they are located in the middle east. QANTAS on the other hand buys a significant percentage of the fuel it uses from Australian sources, paying "world market" prices.

So, in my view, its ability to compete is compromised in two ways. Firstly by a salary cost that reflects Australian standards of living and secondly by uncompetitive fuel costs.

And I'm not going to argue about salary costs. It is said that if you pay peanuts then you get monkeys. I want a fully qualified and properly trained aircraft captain sitting in the left hand seat at the pointy end of the aircraft, so they should be paid accordingly. And I say the same with respect to all the other aircrew that make the aircraft "work". When things start to unravel they unravel remarkably quickly.

Now go here if you want some information about QANTAS CEO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Joyce_(executive)

And I wonder about the ability of anyone who, at one company, held positions in seven different parts of the organization in a period of eight years with the company, qualifications not withstanding. Possibly his wide expertise was required in a number of differing areas in a short space of time - how's Air Lingus doing?

QANTAS is, in my view, a strategic asset. No other transportation organization is capable of moving large numbers of people and materiel to any part of our continent at short notice in times of natural calamity or threat. But governments of various flavours seem incapable of recognizing this fact. One of them sold QANTAS to the public and the other stands idly by wringing it's hands when the airlines is seen to be incapable of mixing it with the big boys - many of whom are backed by their national governments or get back door subsidies by way of low fuel cost at their home port hubs - in some cases both.

Non the less this airline has a technical reputation second to none and the training of its aircrew is outstanding. It is doubtful if any other airline faced with the emergency that presented to QF32 in 2010 would have fared better - no lives lost nor injuries sustained and they repaired the airplane - although it might have been cheaper to buy a new one - but maintaining the no aircraft or passenger lost motto has value. It was a testament to the training of the crew and the durability of the aircraft.

Oh, and for the record - SWMBO and I own QANTAS shares since day one.

Cheers

Mainforcepatrol · 15-12-2014, 06:51 AM

Qantas actually hedge their fuel pricing.

During the heady days after the Ansett collapse QF had a $5 share price and almost $1billon dollar profits. QF competitors were state backed then just as they are now so what has changed.Fair to say competition has increased but QF introduced a low cost carrier and here lay one of its problems as Jetstar has expanded at a huge rate and QF routes especially internationally have shrunk.Competitors have moved ahead with having the proper aircraft for the route and flying to where the public want to go while QF has been idle.BA were in a similar situation with their low cost offshoot GO a number of years ago and did say if it started to cannabalise mainline they would shut it down and in the end it did and was purchased by Easyjet.Jetstar is Joyces baby and that wont happen as he was the manager right at the beggining and just recently the managers of both the international and domestic arms departed and word is the domestic manager voiced his disapproval at Jetstars expansion to the detriment of mainline.Almost 25 year old 747-400,s as opposed to brand new 787,s.A premium passenger would rather fly in the latest and most comfortable aircraft whereas a passenger paying $50 couldnt care less what he is flying in.Credit to all the Qantas employees and their hard work as it certainly has not been the ceo and board that have got them this far.You would only need a ceo and board with some smarts and QF could be right back up their as one of the worlds great carriers.