Even more Job Losses at Qantas 2-3000 from QFi.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ansett

Established Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
3,700
Points
720
Qantas
Platinum 1
Virgin
Red
Last edited:

Mattg

Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
11,044
Solutions
14
Points
1,545
"For us, it’s about controlling what we can control, and pulling out $1 billion worth of costs [and] continuing to improve the network and the product quality for our customers is absolutely what we can control."

How can they expand their network and improve the quality of their product while cutting a billion dollars of expenditure? Doesn't quite add up...
 

dougieboy

Intern
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
97
Points
180
When QFi stop flying to JFK it's time for me to move on and start dating some other proverbial bird. Start putting out not cutting out. I don't want my all of my international flying outsourced to the likes of EK & AA, I want some Qantas loving. I hope 'winter is coming' for the Qantas Board as we all know in Game of Thrones everyone is fair game.
 

markis10

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
30,449
Points
10
Today's AFR article has a quote from Mr Webber stating what many customers have been thinking for awhile.

ImageUploadedByAustFreqFly1408312225.467877.jpg

It's no coincidence that QF HQ sits next to Coward Street.
 

Reggie

Established Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
1,642
Points
420
Maybe Brisbane will be the next capital city to lose QF International services, with PAX expected to connect through Sydney. At least it is shorter and quicker than those in PER and ADL that are expected to connect through the east!
 

RooFlyer

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
18,988
Solutions
2
Points
3,125
Qantas
Platinum
Its the Yes, Minister solution isn't it? Remember the episode where they had a hospital, which ran very efficiently and within budget ... oh, because it didn't have any patients or medical staff.

QFi without any international routes is probably seen in much the same light by management.
 

eastwest101

Established Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
3,258
Points
720
Qantas
Gold
Virgin
Gold
I see some of the graphics seem to present stuff that is actually just re-announcements of existing cuts (seemed to have lumped Management restructure in with Avalon closure + new supply chain and others such as retirement of B767 and non-ER 747 fleet and crews are ongoing but already announced) so not sure if its a SMH graphic or one provided by Qantas.

We all know that aircraft retirements always come with savings on employees, supply chains and decrease of the existing fuel bill etc, but would it be too much to ask to have it broken up into savings per business unit? E.g. QFd vs QFi vs JQd vs JQi vs 3K vs JQ Japan vs JQ HK ?

The QF shareholders sure are a long suffering and patient bunch aren't they?
 

smit0847

Established Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
4,044
Points
5
'You can't cut costs to profitability'

I agree the issue is fast becoming lack of revenue, not high costs. Where are all these jobs cuts going to come from without a noticeable difference to customer experience? Are there really that many staff at QF sitting around doing nothing that they can lose their jobs and the customers won't notice?

We're still waiting to see what QF plan to do to replace the 747s on non-A380 long haul routes like JNB, SCL, JFK etc. The A330 refurb will apparently 'fix' the Asian problem and the A380 routes seem fairly safe and functional for now but with no new non-A330 aircraft on the way what exactly is the plan? Cutting routes is not going to result in a profit because the revenue goes when the costs do too.

I was thinking just yesterday about how different the situation would have been if the EK partnership was different and they had agreed that QF would take over all of EK's Australian routes and in exchange, QF would no longer fly to Europe. QF could have had flights from every capital city to DXB using a mix of A380 and B787 aircraft (2 or 3 x daily from MEL and SYD and 1 or 2 daily from BNE, PER and ADL) and then EK could distribute them all over Europe and Africa. DXB would then be a major hub for QF (hell, they could have 100 flights a week there is they wanted) and could also increase its SIN, KUL, BKK, HKG etc routes to link up to EK's onward services.

How different life would have been for QF.....
 

moa999

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
11,845
Solutions
1
Points
1,200
Agree there is a massive revenue problem, that isn't going away - which makes QFs cost problem even more difficult to deal with.
Just look at some of the recent sales in Y...
even the current J fares to LAX and JFK,
and the one-way upgrade to F (first time QF has ever offered this)


SE-Asia routes must be a bloodbath with Scoot, AirAsiaX and even Jetstar, and will only get worse in the future if Cebu Pacific or LionAir ever get to Australia (I suspect they will),

While the emirates airlines have hurt the Kangaroo route, this is before the Chinese airlines start putting large numbers into Australia (with the ability to hit both the Kangaroo and US routes)


---

I also thought the previous 5,000 job cuts were over a couple of years, so having 2-3000 to go would make sense.
Whilst I agree you need to look to increase the revenue side, in a competitive market you can almost guarantee you will never be profitable if you are highest cost.
 

VHOEJ

Active Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
571
Points
300
Another couple of thousands to go but the ones who should go will still be there - the board, the CEO, the many other CEO's (like the CEO of INTL)............none.

The same ones who make stupid decisions that the whole airlines is paying for - like not ordering the 777, not taking the 787 when they could, the whole Red Q rubbish, Jetstar's expansion beyond its means, 65%...........the list goes on. The people making those wrong decisions are still there........
 

smit0847

Established Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
4,044
Points
5
Another couple of thousands to go but the ones who should go will still be there - the board, the CEO, the many other CEO's (like the CEO of INTL)............none.

The same ones who make stupid decisions that the whole airlines is paying for - like not ordering the 777, not taking the 787 when they could, the whole Red Q rubbish, Jetstar's expansion beyond its means, 65%...........the list goes on. The people making those wrong decisions are still there........

There are some things the current board has no control over and can't be blamed for (i.e. not ordering 777s) but the mistakes this board will be remembered for more than anything are 787s going to JQ and keeping the 65%.
 

RAM

Established Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
3,077
Points
700
Qantas to slash international operations

Qantas aims to slash $1 billion from cost of international operations


When will this end?

Seriously how can a once great airline be in such a mess and yet still retain the same management team that have driven this once profitable iconic airline into the ground?

Enough is Enough surely Joyce and ensemble have to go.

Trouble is the only substantial shareholder will not do anything as their reputation as a fund manager is at severe risk here. The best lesson I ever was taught was to learn to cut your losses and let your profits run.

The board have endorsed AJ so many times that they should do the right thing - but then when your snout is in the trough your view IS very limited.

Brief OT - I suppose it is a bit like an MP caught out over some brown/white envelopes or a poor memory (BTW a certain person has not declared EVER receiving a single gift despite attending for free (so declarable) ever State of Origin (including hospitality suite before/half and after) in NSW and the value is above the threshold. It is great what is online these days (gift register since 2010/11) but it is a long trawl.

The denied cost shifting was blown out of the water by the Q 2012 media release on Fuel surcharges - All Q routes will increase and some JQ will increase. Strange, I did not know some JQ planes do not use avgas?

The free-gift to Emirates just cannot be explained rationally. Q did not need to fly via Dubai but Emirates had no choice for getting landing rights in Oz. Hope the first case for the (hoped for) Federal ICAC-look alike will not be Q. Would that mean Govt Depts could no longer fly Q?
 

RAM

Established Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
3,077
Points
700
There are some things the current board has no control over and can't be blamed for (i.e. not ordering 777s) but the mistakes this board will be remembered for more than anything are 787s going to JQ and keeping the 65%.


The current board has been around quite some years. Q's competitors have taken up the B777/300 one by one (including during the current board's tenure). Q could quite easily (Boeing would have fallen over themselves to make some slots available for Q - the PR damage for the A380 would have been enormous) have retired their 747-400s (written down to near zero if correctly accounted for) and immediately improved their position even after depn.

The fuel saving and HUGE cargo capacity increase, lower ongoing maintenance (1/3rd annual cost for first 5 years in comparison to cost of 16yr old B747/400, more up time (less maintenance time and less frequent maintenance required).

Huge compelling reasons since before the A380 first came on board even yet not a move. Is it just injured pride - Q cannot say "We were wrong about the B777, we bet the airline on the A380 and lost."
 

smit0847

Established Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
4,044
Points
5
Huge compelling reasons since before the A380 first came on board even yet not a move. Is it just injured pride - Q cannot say "We were wrong about the B777, we bet the airline on the A380 and lost."

This is an argument for another thread but I dont think the A380 was the wrong choice for QF - for LAX services it seems perfect.

I think the biggest advantage of the A380 is that it is a massive marketing tool. I know heaps of leisure travellers who go out of their way to book A380 flights because they think its going to be some vastly different travel experience (even though they often have an identical hard product).
 
Get paid up to 25% in real cash from your everyday purchases from leading companies such as Virgin Australia, Booking.com, Coles, Apple, Microsoft and much more. Free to join and no catches!

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

RAM

Established Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
3,077
Points
700
This is an argument for another thread but I dont think the A380 was the wrong choice for QF - for LAX services it seems perfect.

I think the biggest advantage of the A380 is that it is a massive marketing tool. I know heaps of leisure travellers who go out of their way to book A380 flights because they think its going to be some vastly different travel experience (even though they often have an identical hard product).

The trouble is though the yield figures do not bear that out. Because the A380 has such a small other cargo capacity (fraction of B777 for example) it requires a much higher yield (seats sold per filght) to break-even. Emirates suggested for them the break even was in low 80s and for Emirates it could only match the B777 operating cost when all 1st, biz and overall 85% seats sold. He then said and filling the seats are no problem for us.

Unfortunately for Q 85% is not an everyday achievement on virtually any flight.

Useful post:
OpEd: A barrier to A380 sales in the United States - Runway GirlRunway Girl

"One common theme across the A380 fleet is that all but one of the carriers that operate it also have dedicated cargo arms. British Airways is the single outlier; it recently disbanded its joint venture with Atlas Air, opting for a capacity purchase agreement with Oneworld partner Qatar Airways. The majority of British Airways’ cargo is carried in the belly of its passenger aircraft, as is the case with all US carriers. The shifting economics that required a re-evaluation of seat counts on the A380 had a knock-on effect. It led to reduced belly cargo capacity in A380s because more under-floor cargo volume had to be dedicated to passenger baggage. In contrast with the A380, Boeing’s 777-300ER and other big twins shine in their ability to produce revenue from both passenger and cargo operations simultaneously. American Airlines became an operator of the 777-300ER in February 2013, and the model began operating between Los Angeles and London in June 2013. In February of this year, AA Cargo announced that one of its aircraft had operated a flight between LAX and London Heathrow with 50 tons of belly cargo, in addition to a full passenger load. For reference, the maximum payload for a 777 freighter is 113 tons. This revenue diversification is both a huge profit driver and an incredible risk neutralizer. It is a feature of big twins like the 777-300ER as well as Airbus’s A350-1000 and Boeing’s upcoming 777X. The combination of passenger and cargo revenues drastically reduces the possibility that any given flight will fail to cover its operational costs.


Have a look at the Emirates site: Our Fleet - Airbus 380-800 - Emirates SkyCargo
It shows:
- the A380-800 can carry an additional 8,000kgs of cargo in addition to a full passenger load
- the B777-300ER can carry an additional 23,000kgs of cargo in addition to a full passenger load

That changes the breakeven hugely.
 

moa999

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
11,845
Solutions
1
Points
1,200
But given Emirates has both A380s and B777s.
Which aircraft does EK use on SYD/MEL-DXB and DXB-LHR

I still think the A380 was a good aircraft choice for QF - it is the right aircraft for the Kangaroo and Pacific routes which are high pax routes with relatively small landing/takeoff windows due to curfews.

While the 777 is theoretically more efficient than say the 747 for JNB, SCL you then run into ETOPS issues, as VA found out leading it to cancel JNB for example.
On the shorter Asian routes I believe the 330 is more cost effective than the 777, but obviously doesn't have the range.

So you aren't left with a lot of current QF routes for the 777....
Now granted that the 777 may be the right aircraft for secondary international services from PER, ADL, BNE,
but is the yield there, and is it worth all the extra involvement of introducing a new type for a small fleet.


QF also has a dedicated cargo fleet - both under QF Freight and Atlas Air.


The 789 with ETOPS 330 is potentially a much more versatile aircraft for QF.
 

markis10

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
30,449
Points
10
But given Emirates has both A380s and B777s.
Which aircraft does EK use on SYD/MEL-DXB and DXB-LHR

I still think the A380 was a good aircraft choice for QF - it is the right aircraft for the Kangaroo and Pacific routes which are high pax routes with relatively small landing/takeoff windows due to curfews.

While the 777 is theoretically more efficient than say the 747 for JNB, SCL you then run into ETOPS issues, as VA found out leading it to cancel JNB for example.
On the shorter Asian routes I believe the 330 is more cost effective than the 777, but obviously doesn't have the range.

So you aren't left with a lot of current QF routes for the 777....
Now granted that the 777 may be the right aircraft for secondary international services from PER, ADL, BNE,
but is the yield there, and is it worth all the extra involvement of introducing a new type for a small fleet.


QF also has a dedicated cargo fleet - both under QF Freight and Atlas Air.


The 789 with ETOPS 330 is potentially a much more versatile aircraft for QF.

I look forward to the day CASA approve ETOPS 330, should be the same day QF orders 777s ;)
 

RAM

Established Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
3,077
Points
700
I look forward to the day CASA approve ETOPS 330, should be the same day QF orders 777s ;)

Currently Etihad, VA and others fly B777 for 14 hour 30+ minutes flights such as from Abu Dhabi to Australia. There is nothing stopping Q using it for possibly all but the Dallas route (and even then it may qualify - I have not looked into it).

Previously on the traditional Kangaroo route virtually every competitor flys the B777 vs Q's B747/400 or A380. So there was nothing stopping Q using the B777 for those routes either.

From the funds management perspective the detailed broker research (out of the US and UK) on the economics of the routes and which aircraft can fly them is undeniable just not distributable on this forum. That is why Airbus has officially admitted in a results briefing that it is unlikely to recoup its A380 investment. More recently the A350/8 was 'unofficially' officially abandoned due to its non-economics vs the revamped A330 planned.

I totally agree with you that the B787-9 is a great looking aircraft but like all new toys it is better to wait for the initial product issues to be ironed out. The B777 (from memory) has the best performance (lack of maintenance issues per 1 million RPKs of any model). It also benefits from being able to use hundreds more airports as pairs.

Aspire Aviation is a good site to explore for some more rigorous tech comparisons.
 

markis10

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
30,449
Points
10
Currently Etihad, VA and others fly B777 for 14 hour 30+ minutes flights such as from Abu Dhabi to Australia. There is nothing stopping Q using it for possibly all but the Dallas route (and even then it may qualify - I have not looked into it).

Previously on the traditional Kangaroo route virtually every competitor flys the B777 vs Q's B747/400 or A380. So there was nothing stopping Q using the B777 for those routes either.

From the funds management perspective the detailed broker research (out of the US and UK) on the economics of the routes and which aircraft can fly them is undeniable just not distributable on this forum. That is why Airbus has officially admitted in a results briefing that it is unlikely to recoup its A380 investment. More recently the A350/8 was 'unofficially' officially abandoned due to its non-economics vs the revamped A330 planned.

I totally agree with you that the B787-9 is a great looking aircraft but like all new toys it is better to wait for the initial product issues to be ironed out. The B777 (from memory) has the best performance (lack of maintenance issues per 1 million RPKs of any model). It also benefits from being able to use hundreds more airports as pairs.

Aspire Aviation is a good site to explore for some more rigorous tech comparisons.

I am already a strong advocate of the B777, what I was saying is the chance of CASA approving ETOPS 330 is the same as QF saying we were wrong about the B777 ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Enhance your AFF viewing experience!

From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.

And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)


Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..
Top