Sky's the limit as Qantas takes off

Discussion in 'Travel News' started by JohnK, Nov 7, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Welcome to Australia's leading independent Frequent Flyer and Travel Resource!
Our site contains tons of information that will improve your travel experience.
Joining AFF is fast, simple & ABSOLUTELY FREE -  join now by clicking on the JOIN NOW button, and take immediate advantage of these great BENEFITS.
Once registered, this box will disappear. And you will see fewer advertisements :)
  1. JohnK

    JohnK Veteran Member

    Mar 22, 2005
    40,171
    8,658
    BNE, SYD and CNX
    And the transformation becomes clearer! Everything from QF to Jetstar to Qantaslink. There is some interesting challenges handed out to Virgin as well.

    I apologise if this story has already been posted.
     

  2. jpk

    jpk Active Member

    Jun 18, 2006
    602
    137
    MEL
    Two or three years ago the base Qantas international airline business was globally competitive but three dramatic changes have left the Australian airline with a cost base that is now too high.

    First, a series of international airline mergers and/or realignments, including KLM and Air France and Cathay and Dragon Air, have lowered the costs of several major players.

    Second, in the US most of the airlines have gone into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which has enabled them to substantially cut their costs.

    Third, governments are pouring money into airlines, where they have a substantial equity, often promoting the continuation of sub-economic activities. These moves have left Qantas in a position of having higher costs than many of its global competitors.


    Interesting statements. My reaction was:
    1) AF/KLM is very profitable, but not really a player against QF. CX/Dragon perhaps more so, although the benefits of that merger havent been realised as yet. In general all the Asian airlines have always had lower costs than QF though, nothing new there.

    2) The only US airline to actively compete against QF is UA, on the trans-pacific route where QF clean up anyway due to govt protection. US airlines are still focused on their domestic market, not really looking international much at this stage (as anyone who has done AA trans-atlantic will testify to). I see this as false reasoning.

    3) Governments have owned asian airlines forever (SG/EK etc) and used it to promote tourism, so nothing new here either. Those airlines also face the same costs (pilots/fuel/maintenance) as QF and do ok, making profits. I'll concede that it is probably easier for those airlines to access cheap finance, but its not like QF has never received govt help - they used to be owned by the govt, got floated so received all their infrastructure effectively for free, and are route protected on the pacific.

    Now i am not saying dixon is doing the wrong thing. QF flights are always full so its not a load problem. They never seem to manage to expand and make new routes work, they dont have the planes to expand anyway, so what else to do in order to make money but cut costs. i just wish he was a little more open about it rather than using spurious excuses and whinging. maybe he should look at how other carriers are innovating and expanding and try and keep up a little better - eg: OLCI, seats, AVOD, service etc rather than carrying on about things outside his control and looking to cut costs at all times.
     
Loading...

Share This Page