27th February Big Qantas announcement

[markis10]

Am I naive in thinking that if Qantas has $2B+ in cash reserves and a $600M line of credit that someone doesn't just say to the board 'hey why not go buy some new planes, sell off the old ones we can't use any more and make the punters happy and get more bums on seats'? Surely a good quality product with good quality services that people want to use will get people in the door...

What a novel concept, especially as Qantas had $3B not so long ago . Yes I am being sarcastic and agree with your thoughts. It seems the contraction in available cash, the cost of keeping shareholders happy via a share buy back etc has seen cash grab from the low hanging fruit, OPEX coming second to CAPEX savings.

A lot of the a330s came cheaply because of the A380 delays, similarity a year or so ago a profit was achieved by qantas off the back of compensation paid via Boeing re Dreamliner delays and the return of monies for order cancellations. How ironic to hear in the latest announcements that the two orders that assisted QF so much on the CAPEX front are now partially being further delayed by qantas themselves.

We now have the a330 being positioned as the wide body backbone of the fleet, necessitating dropping routes to Asia including the fourth business international pair ex Australia (PER SIN) while competitors start enjoying OPEX savings on offer from the Dreamliner of some 20% over that very aircraft? It's going to be interesting to watch scoots transformation to a Dreamliner fleet and the effects it has on the bottom line. Meanwhile QF8 takes off every day with mandatory empty seats and an empty belly sans most freight (20T a month is its average or single digit percentage of ex LA freight).

I wonder if there is a chocolate wheel in the QF boardroom labelled "this months excuses", with options like fuel costs, law restrictions, unions and labour, old equipment choices etc?

 

[Major]

I wonder if there is a chocolate wheel in the QF boardroom labelled "this months excuses", with options like fuel costs, law restrictions, unions and labour, old equipment choices etc?

If there is, I bet they do not have a segment marked "bad management decisions"

 

[SeatBackForward]

I wonder if there is a chocolate wheel in the QF boardroom labelled "this months excuses", with options like fuel costs, law restrictions, unions and labour, old equipment choices etc?

You missed natural disasters - cyclones, volcanoes and the odd act of terrorism come to mind.

 

[codash1099]

What did I write again? The only external impediment is the sale act. That general comment includes the totality of the sale act, in case mentioning one specific example afterwards was confusing for anyone.

Still the primary point Joyce consistently raises is access to capital.

QF's problem is profitablilty. A profitable company can access cash at good prices, an unprofitable and poorly managed one has difficulty.

And why is it unprofitable? High costs from labour, poor customer treatment and old aircraft (which adds to fuel and maintenance costs). They hitched their star to unproven new planes that were yet to fly and were badly burnt. Their strategy to recover from this was non-existant.

 

[medhead]

QF's problem is profitablilty. A profitable company can access cash at good prices, an unprofitable and poorly managed one has difficulty.

And why is it unprofitable? High costs from labour, poor customer treatment and old aircraft (which adds to fuel and maintenance costs). They hitched their star to unproven new planes that were yet to fly and were badly burnt. Their strategy to recover from this was non-existant.

We agree on the problems. Yet they are deferring aircraft that are 20% more efficient and sticking to (not so) old aircraft instead, in the name of capital and return on capital.

 

[JohnK]

Least you still have a flight, we have lost ours over here in PERTH!

Yes that is sad but time to move on.

And as some have mentioned there must be a very good reason to drop the route. I did that route a number of times and from memory it was never full. Very empty a few times. Perhaps Qantas should have tried a 767 on this route and an A330 on the SYD-HNL route.

 

[eastwest101]

We agree on the problems. Yet they are deferring aircraft that are 20% more efficient and sticking to (no so) old aircraft instead, in the name of capital and return on capital.

As medhead and many other posters have all contributed, there are multiple problems for QF and a comprehensive list would be huge, they all contribute to the situation that QF is in now but mostly fall into the categories of what management can control and what they cannot.

At the moment QF are trying to live off their savings and continuing to use old and less efficient equipment even though they are already behind the competition in product and costs and think by cuting services they will shrink the airline to profitability. They seem to have forgotten about reducing the fixed costs which are loaded onto the decreasing number of seats and services that they do offer, thus destroying their own economy of scale and the vicious cycle we have seen. They refuse to buy the latest and best tools/aircraft to do the job, despite all their overseas competitors doing so and wonder why they are going backwards.

I don't know who's in charge of spin and PR at QF, but it was also curious to see that (from the reports I read) QF were trying to deny/downplay the effects of the Carbon Tax when all other airlines in Australia are complaining about the cost imposition of the CT and its there in black and white in everyones accounts to see. Or can't we beleive the figures that QF presents to us now? I know its unlikely but I wonder if the Government would be inclined to call their bluff and remove the Carbon Tax from VA/Rex and others, but leave it on for QF? Or would that be an uneven playing field? Hang on - where have I heard that before. So a multiple PR fail in a matter of days on matters of consistency, logic, reason and even just 'real-politik'.

Seems to be another case of politicking/spinning when they should be concentrating on fixing the numerous problems with the business....

 

[a330j]

I agree there are many problems for QANTAS, however one of the biggest which is purely a management decision has been the irrational capacity war with VA. This in large part has resulted in QF domestic EBIT collapsing 74% or $160m from $218m to $57m over the last 12 months, and consequent destruction of shareholder value. Hard to believe, as some have suggested, that this could be a tactic to force the Government's hand.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

They refuse to buy the latest and best tools/aircraft to do the job, despite all their overseas competitors doing so and wonder why they are going backwards.

So, they get panned for not buying the 777, and instead betting on "unproven" next-gen aircraft like the A380 and 787.
Then they get panned for "not buying" the latest and greatest.

How can you say that buying a very expensive, depreciating, asset, like a 787 makes good business sense, without doing any modelling? Sounds just like most of the rest of the "arm chair" CEO stuff we read here. Put together a rudimentary business case if you want to convince anyone (except those with the same preconceived ideas you have), otherwise, I for one, remain intensely sceptical that any of these suggestions have more merit than the decisions management at QF (who have oodles of data and analysis at hand) are making (much as we might not like them)


I don't know who's in charge of spin and PR at QF, but it was also curious to see that (from the reports I read) QF were trying to deny/downplay the effects of the Carbon Tax when all other airlines in Australia are complaining about the cost imposition of the CT and its there in black and white in everyones accounts to see. Or can't we beleive the figures that QF presents to us now? I know its unlikely but I wonder if the Government would be inclined to call their bluff and remove the Carbon Tax from VA/Rex and others, but leave it on for QF? Or would that be an uneven playing field? Hang on - where have I heard that before. So a multiple PR fail in a matter of days on matters of consistency, logic, reason and even just 'real-politik'.

Seems to be another case of politicking/spinning when they should be concentrating on fixing the numerous problems with the business....[/QUOTE]

 

[medhead]

They are being panned for deferring and cancelling their purchase of the latest and greatest.

 

[lovestotravel]

I am surprised MEL-SIN-MEL survived the chopping block, that would have been easy to leave to Jetstar

 

[Limewood]

If more of the farm is sold, QF will still be known to be Aussie, the world flying public wouldn't know who owned what.

 

[Jos888]

Yes that is sad but time to move on.

And as some have mentioned there must be a very good reason to drop the route. I did that route a number of times and from memory it was never full. Very empty a few times. Perhaps Qantas should have tried a 767 on this route and an A330 on the SYD-HNL route.

I fly this route 8-10 times per year and have never seen it "very empty". Always seemed to be pretty full. Perhaps back in the days of 2 flights per day it may have happened. I agree that perhaps they could have tried a 767 or even cut down to 3 or 4 flights a week.

 

[Must...Fly!]

I fly this route 8-10 times per year and have never seen it "very empty". Always seemed to be pretty full. Perhaps back in the days of 2 flights per day it may have happened. I agree that perhaps they could have tried a 767 or even cut down to 3 or 4 flights a week.

I have flown it a handful of times and the last time was about this time last year, my experience being it was rather empty both ways.

 

[Jos888]

I have flown it a handful of times and the last time was about this time last year, my experience being it was rather empty both ways.

This time last year there were two flights a day

 

[Must...Fly!]

This time last year there were two flights a day

QF71/72 was not operating for at least a few days a week during the last months of the BA JSA, the days I flew only had one flight.

 

[Jos888]

QF71/72 was not operating for at least a few days a week during the last months of the BA JSA, the days I flew only had one flight.

Mmm.... don't remember that happening. But I guess there's no point arguing about it. It won't bring back QF77/78

 

[mannej]

Mmm.... don't remember that happening. But I guess there's no point arguing about it. It won't bring back QF77/78

It did happen. However some of the reasons did include the need for aircraft elsewhere (think 380 grounding for one part), and I guess some flights with lower loads.

Some pilots felt that the 72 in its later days (4:45 arrival) was named after the number of pax it would normally carry...

 

[kevrosmith]

Mmm.... don't remember that happening. But I guess there's no point arguing about it. It won't bring back QF77/78

If you know how to read a schedule file, this may help you all work out what you are trying to work out...

This is the Northern Winter 2012 schedule: so covers period from late October 2012 to late March 2013...



(I've only snipped the flights you're talking about).

And then the QF schedule for Northern Summer 2013 only has this:



Hope this helps with whatever you were discussing. (Times are UTC)

Edit:
Seeing I actually don't know what you guys are referring to, I now can't work out whether you're talking about 71/72 or 77/78, so here's the rest of the NW12 schedule...

 

[Jos888]

Thanks for that kevrosmith. We have been discussing how many flights per day between PER and SIN prior to the EK link-up (pointless I know). I'm afraid I can't work it out from the schedules. Thank you though.