Building a stronger Qantas

[JohnK]

I know J is obviously available on narrow body jets, and indeed BA run BA1/2 as A319's in all J configuration, but will pax accept them over widebody which seem to have been synonymous with space, comfort and luxury?

I don't believe so. No different to the current 734, 738, 763, A330, 747, A380 debate. If you had a choice which would you choose?

The thing I object to is then JQ options are mixed in with the other options. A little orange star looks very similar to a little red triangle when presented with so few pixels inside a large list. But that little orange star represents that I will get nothing (not even FF points). Price is not always different either, I have seen many times where the QF option costed $150 and the JQ option costed $150, also remember that whilst a JQ only booking directs a person to the JQ site, a mixed booking (which every CBR booking is as JQ don't fly here) books directly on the QF site.

What is even scarier is when looking to book SIN-SYD return and the Qantas booking engine recommends a list of flights and the option with a JQ flight is actually $1 more than the QF option. Why anyone in their right minds would choose the JQ option is beyond my comprehension.

And yes I think it is time Qantas gave us a way to remove JQ flights from the search instead of using the lame line that people want to see all the options. If I want to see all the options I will go to Expedia or Zuji, not Qantas website....

 

[drron]

So the answer is a race to the bottom drron? Cool. Lets start with your industry or profession first.

Well after getting charged $400 an hour by my denist and also having to listen to a conversation about her dental assistants love life while having my teeth drilled I decided to outsource and offshore my dentist. Was happy to pay her approx 20 times my own wage to have it done in Australia, but as she couldn't afford me the professional courtesy of acknowledging my existence I decided she wasn't worth quite so much. Yep! This offshoring thing is really great.

As justchecking points out it is already happening in Dentistry and Medicine.
Do you know how many Australian trained doctors are working in the US,England.They often go initially for training but many then stay because of better conditions(at least until the recent strength of the Aussie dollar).Then they are replaced by overseas trained doctors because financially it is better here-surely you have noticed?I dont yet see this happening in Aviation.
If you,like me,lower your viewing standards and watch TT/ACA you will have seen several stories of people going overseas for medical proceedures-the latest is stem cell treatment in india.
So Laffer how is it in your profession?

 

[ajw373]

When you're relatively better than 'bad', it doesn't automatically make you 'good', let alone 'premium'. It just makes you 'less bad'.

QF calls itself a premium airline. With domestic flights, the major differences in the air compared to Virgin or Tiger is included checked baggage (to an extent), a bit of food and some drinks (not all is free).

When people here are doubting how QF can deliver a 'premium' airline on narrow body planes, I'm saying QF is already saying it's doing that now, so don't expect anything more than what we have now. Of course, QF can prove me wrong, but I'm setting my expectations low.

Lastly, I don't see telling people how and where I fly proves anything.

Major major difference compared to Tiger, Jetstar, but to a lesser extent Virgin. In particular you get IFE, food (which at the pointy end is pretty good), lounges, priority baggage etc etc. Compare this to any other major carrier in the world on a like for like basis and tell me who is better? Now I do say like for like, because one issue is so many people compare long haul product to short haul, it is always going to be different.

As I said before BA offers a good long haul product, but short haul is pretty coughpy, especially if you flying business. Even the business seats are the same as the economy seats. Thai short haul is ok, but again not as good as Qantas, and they use 737's, (old) A300's and A330's not that different from Qantas. Singapore ditto, although their narrow body flying is done by a separate premium airline, kinda sounds a bit like Qantas's plan.

 

[ajw373]

Edit: oh forgot, qantas are not yet claiming jetstar is premium, at least from what I've noticed.

Tell you what, if ever Qantas calls Jetstar premium, that's when I pick my bat and ball up and change airlines! Jetstar has a place in this world, but not as a premium carrier.

 

[ajw373]

They have positioned qantasia as a premium airline NOT as a JQ for Asia, they have repeatedly said that the benefits of being a FF would translate to qantasia - why do people keep perpetuating some myth that qantasia is going to be some form of JQ? The only reason qantasia will exist is to reduce operating costs by getting people off the Australian wage/benefit system.

If qantasia was going to really be jqasia then it would have been launched in the same way that JQpan was launched. There is a clear and definite distinction to how the two new airlines are being positioned - why is this so hard for people?

I would have thought the reason "Qantasia" is to exist is to exploit route opportunities in Asia, that should feed into and off Qantas services to Australia. These would be routes that could not justify direct flights to Australia. You don't think for a second that these people should be paid under Australian conditions or that existing or new Qantas staff should be crewing these aircraft? Afterall they will be offshore based employee's serving offshore routes. Saying they should be paid Australian rates is akin to suggesting that Thai airways should pay their staff who fly to Australia an Australian wage.

Now if this airline were to take over Qantas routes out of Australia completely then you may have a valid point, but with the new airline to be not called qantas and scheduled to fly A320's this would not seem likely.

 

[ajw373]

IMHO i don't really care if i can not get a ASA or a free seat of FF points.

I am more concerned that we are going to lose 1000 staff out of the airline where current customer service is already an issue.

I don't want to see a iconic company like Qantas losing staff as it means that less of our kids and our kids kids have the opportunity to get a job in the future.

Losing that many staff will hurt more than just 1000 people it will affect maybe for 4 or 5000 people if not more.

I only see this as weakening QF and also hurting moral to an even lower level than already not building a stronger Qantas

Just my opinion.

So come the next Federal election I take it you are not going to vote Liberal? They plan to cut 15000-20000 from their public service workforce for pretty much the same reason Qantas plans to cut staff, which is to reduce costs. Using the same equation as you this will then effect a good 100,000 people.

 

[simongr]

I would have thought the reason "Qantasia" is to exist is to exploit route opportunities in Asia, that should feed into and off Qantas services to Australia. These would be routes that could not justify direct flights to Australia. You don't think for a second that these people should be paid under Australian conditions or that existing or new Qantas staff should be crewing these aircraft? Afterall they will be offshore based employee's serving offshore routes. Saying they should be paid Australian rates is akin to suggesting that Thai airways should pay their staff who fly to Australia an Australian wage.

I think that is pretty much what I said...

 

[ajw373]

My opinion on this- DISGUSTING.

1000 jobs gone, just like that.

Focusing on an Asian operation then saving yourself here in Australia... oh wait forgot it's spirit of asia now isnt it? You were not loosing money at all, you just wanted half the rates for the workers, and not paying them for work as viewed on the ABC.

Alan Joyce you have thrown the brand into the dirt, all my family members and myself will never fly with you again because of your aircraft are old, the crew are sour faces most of the time, the food is awful and after so many incidents they fear of flying qantas.

I gave you a chance you blew it.

Virgin Australia will show how an Australian company is to operate it is employing as many people onshore as possible, and loves there staff which makes there company a great one.

Just look what you have done to yourself qantas, thrown the brand into the dirt, no longer and Aussie icon. I dont say you are a terrible airline after 1 incident, it has been going down hill for several years, after that period we have had enough. It has all led up to this.

All i can say is watch out Qantasia.

Jack, you seem to forget one very important thing. Virgin Australia is basically restricted to serving Australia and the Pacific out of Australia so of course the bulk of it's staff will be Australians. In fact just like Qantas (the airline) where the bulk of it's staff are Australian and will always be Australian.

Your complaint about Qantas would be like saying that all the Virgin branded airlines should be crewed only by people from the UK. But that doesn't make sense does it, because Virgin America is an American Airline, Virgin Australia is an Australian airline etc?

Well Jetconnect is a NZ based airline, that is owned by Qantas and uses the Qantas name, Jetstar Asia is a Singapore based airline, Jetstar Pacific is a Vietnamese based airline and this new airline will also be based offshore serving offshore routes. So of course it makes perfect sense that the people in this airlines will be non Australian's.

The real issue, which gets lost in all the hysteria is what happens on routes in and out of Australia. Who has the right to crew these? It seems the Qantas pilots union in particular thinks that only they are capable of safely flying these routes, but reality is why can the offshore airline not fly these routes? Would would you think if the Virgin Atlantic pilots union objected to Virgin Australia flying to the UK using Australian crews? Isn't this scenario the same as Qantas crews objecting to Qantas owned companies flying to Australia using crew based offshore?

Now turn to Qantas and isn't what they are doing by setting up these offshore airlines EXACTLY the same as what Richard Branson did with the Virgin Brand? Isn't that a good thing? Afterall they are providing more port options in their network, that can not be served by direct flights from Australia.

 

[medhead]

Now if this airline were to take over Qantas routes out of Australia completely then you may have a valid point, but with the new airline to be not called qantas and scheduled to fly A320's this would not seem likely.

Alan Joyce has explicitly said that qantasia is going to fly from Asia to Australia. That either means from the diverse range of destinations - unlikely if it is unprofitable. Or from the hub, in which case qantasia will be taking over qantas routes.

So come the next Federal election I take it you are not going to vote Liberal? They plan to cut 15000-20000 from their public service workforce for pretty much the same reason Qantas plans to cut staff, which is to reduce costs. Using the same equation as you this will then effect a good 100,000 people.

Trouble is that Abbott's planned job slashing will impact on service delivery from the APS. There was a report in the Australia about this very point, noting that the APS numbers per capita are around the historic low. Job slashing is ok until you slash too far.

 

[ajw373]

I think that is pretty much what I said...

Not quite, the main point of difference is you said "The only reason qantasia will exist is to reduce operating costs by getting people off the Australian wage/benefit system." I don't think this is an issue in this case. I believe they have created Qantasaia to generate new route options to ports that could not justify direct flights from Australia and to compete head to head on the growing inter-asian market with the other big players out there. I don't see how anyone could argue that these flights should be crewed by Australians.

If however this new airline was set-up offshore with the sole intent of taking over Qantas flights into Australia then I think you could argue that it was designed to get people off the Australian wage system. But this isn't the plan... well yet anyway.

 

[medhead]

Not quite, the main point of difference is you said "The only reason qantasia will exist is to reduce operating costs by getting people off the Australian wage/benefit system." I don't think this is an issue in this case. I believe they have created Qantasaia to generate new route options to ports that could not justify direct flights from Australia and to compete head to head on the growing inter-asian market with the other big players out there. I don't see how anyone could argue that these flights should be crewed by Australians.

If however this new airline was set-up offshore with the sole intent of taking over Qantas flights into Australia then I think you could argue that it was designed to get people off the Australian wage system. But this isn't the plan... well yet anyway.

For the third time Alan joyce has clearly stated that qantasia will fly to Australia. So I think it is a false hope to say that isn't about taking over qantas routes.

BTW I didn't read simongr's post as a suggestion that qantasia staff be on Australian conditions. The opposite in fact. I also think people are getting carried away with this Australia conditions for all staff thing. Clearly the reasonable intent of that demand from the unions is that offshore airlines can't take over QF1, for example, with non Australian staff. That is, to preserve qantas. The extreme way Joyce rejects this with is ridiculous claim that it means all staff in the qantas group must be paid the same along with his statement that qantasia will fly to Australia tells me that offshoring is the plan.

 

[ajw373]

Alan Joyce has explicitly said that qantasia is going to fly from Asia to Australia. That either means from the diverse range of destinations - unlikely if it is unprofitable. Or from the hub, in which case qantasia will be taking over qantas routes.

Medhead, do note the word COMPLETELY which I underlined in my post. I have no doubt we will see the new airline fly into Australia, my guess into the same kind of ports that Jetstar Asia currently flies to such as Darwin and Perth, however I believe we will still see Qantas flying to the hub too.

Trouble is that Abbott's planned job slashing will impact on service delivery from the APS. There was a report in the Australia about this very point, noting that the APS numbers per capita are around the historic low. Job slashing is ok until you slash too far.

Correct, slashing is ok if it is needed, but how far is too far? Is 1000 in Qantas too far or is it what is needed to generate an more efficient workforce? Clearly the board, who have all the facts and figures in front of them think the latter.

Though in politics cutting isn't always about what is needed, it is all about getting on a populist bandwagon because that is where the votes are and getting tough on Government spending is an easy vote earner. Getting OT for a sec I recall when Howard got in power he berated BHP's plans to close the Newcastle steel works with a loss of 15,000 or so jobs in such a 'small' city and the effect this would have on the economy of Newcastle. Yet at the same time he was cutting the same number of people from the APS in Canberra, which is only 2/3rds the size of greater Newcastle. How is what he did different compared to BHP? Also look at what certain pollies have said about the Qantas plan and tell me if they are making informed comment or if they too are just getting on the populist bandwagon? The same could be said about certain talk back radio hosts too.

 

[ajw373]

For the third time Alan joyce has clearly stated that qantasia will fly to Australia. So I think it is a false hope to say that isn't about taking over qantas routes.

Medhead if you read my posts rather than looking for a little out of context comment to nit pick on you would see I agree with you that the new airline will fly to Australia. But I don't beleive this is the SOLE purpose of this airline, instead I think it is being set-up to exploit new route opportunities within Asia rather than as direct or indirect replacement for existing Qantas services to/from Asia. Same too with Jetstar Japan. That is the difference I was pointing out.

 

[TiredOldFlyer]

Suddenly I see more J Seats SYD to LA for reward bookings - The New Spirit ?

 

[medhead]

Medhead if you read my posts rather than looking for a little out of context comment to nit pick on you would see I agree with you that the new airline will fly to Australia. But I don't beleive this is the SOLE purpose of this airline, instead I think it is being set-up to exploit new route opportunities within Asia rather than as direct or indirect replacement for existing Qantas services. Same too with Jetstar Japan. That is the difference I was pointing out.

I'm not nit picking, the problem is that you are only mentioning the new opportunities and you continue to say it will not replace Qantas routes. That would be valid if the airline was only flying intra Asia, like JQpan, which is not the case. Having it flying to Australia diminishes qantas' role in feeding qantasia's hub. So rather than nitpicking, I'm making the important point that qantasia is being positioned to replace qantas flights to Asia.

 

[ajw373]

I'm not nit picking, the problem is that you are only mentioning the new opportunities and you continue to say it will not replace Qantas routes. That would be valid if the airline was only flying intra Asia, like JQpan, which is not the case. Having it flying to Australia diminishes qantas' role in feeding qantasia's hub. So rather than nitpicking, I'm making the important point that qantasia is being positioned to replace qantas flights to Asia.

Has Qantas cut any routes or frequencies to/from Asia from Australia? Nope, so clearly it is not replacing them.

Thinking long term though, I reckon on routes to Australia we will see Qantas flying the longer (wide body) routes to the hub of this new airline with the new airline flying narrow bodies to smaller closer destinations in Australia, in much the same way as Jetstar Asia already does. So if anything I reckon this new airline will be displacing Jetstar rather than Qantas, which I know you will reckon is a good thing.

 

[medhead]

Medhead, do note the word COMPLETELY which I underlined in my post. I have no doubt we will see the new airline fly into Australia, my guess into the same kind of ports that Jetstar Asia currently flies to such as Darwin and Perth, however I believe we will still see Qantas flying to the hub too.

Which kind of negates your earlier suggestion that feeding the qantasia hub is a growth option for QFi. I predict that the 787s will go to Qantasia, to deal with the limitations of trying to fly A320s Asia to Oz.

Correct, slashing is ok if it is needed, but how far is too far? Is 1000 in Qantas too far or is it what is needed to generate an more efficient workforce? Clearly the board, who have all the facts and figures in front of them think the latter.

snip

How is what he did different compared to BHP? Also look at what certain pollies have said about the Qantas plan and tell me if they are making informed comment or if they too are just getting on the populist bandwagon? The same could be said about certain talk back radio hosts too.

Slashing is also ok if you plan to reduce your activities.

Politics, politicians and talk back radio are only good for a laugh, really. As for the difference between Howard and BHP. Well that is a long OT conversation. But one underlying fact is that the role of the public service is different to the role of businesses. Service delivery vs production. Anyway, OT

 

[medhead]

Has Qantas cut any routes or frequencies to/from Asia from Australia? Nope, so clearly it is not replacing them.

Thinking long term though, I reckon on routes to Australia we will see Qantas flying the longer (wide body) routes to the hub of this new airline with the new airline flying narrow bodies to smaller closer destinations in Australia, in much the same way as Jetstar Asia already does. So if anything I reckon this new airline will be displacing Jetstar rather than Qantas, which I know you will reckon is a good thing.

Isn't long term the key. We can look at these changes now and say not to bad. But if I look at the direction I'm not happy, especially with the cracks that are appearing in the spin.

I don't mind jetstar, they have a role for the budget traveller. I don't think a new premium airline will change that budget demographic. Personally, I've been hoping for starclass to southern Europe.

 

[serfty]

I do know that they are Non-Australian, but they appreciate where they work and are doing as much work onshore as possible and providing more jobs on shore ...

I think you'll find Virgin Australia's employees are generally being paid significantly less than their Australian based Qantas counterparts.

 

[ajw373]

Which kind of negates your earlier suggestion that feeding the qantasia hub is a growth option for QFi. I predict that the 787s will go to Qantasia, to deal with the limitations of trying to fly A320s Asia to Oz.

No, still reckon this new airline will see an expansion of QFi services out of Australia, though I do concede that the new airline will probably also get 787's.

Now to clarify this is what I reckon will happen over the next few years.

New airline serves regional routes within Asia from hub location, probably Singapore, or 2nd choice Hong Kong or maybe even at some point in the future from both.

Qantas will fly wide body routes from major Australian cities (read Sydney, Melbounre, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth). These will connect to the new airline and also to OneWorld airlines for flights onwards to Europe. The bulk of the passengers on these flights will be Australian passengers. Qantas will also continue to fly to the America's.

New airline takes over Jetstar asia routes from hub (assuming Singapore) to Australia to cities such as Darwin. Jetstar Asia concentraes on being a true LCC with only routes to Australia being to pure tourist destinations but from the Asian end. New airline gets 787's and starts flying to Australian cities however the bulk of their passengers will be new passengers FROM Asian rather than taking Australians out of Australia.

Jetstar Australia gets 787's but fly these to tourist type destinations rather than the major cities.

In other words on routes to/from Australia all 3 airlines will exist serving different markets. Qantas mainly serving Australian's heading to Asia (connecting to new airline rather than flying SQ, TG etc) and beyond (on partner airlines). New airline will feed Asian passengers onto flights to Australia also operated by the new airline as well as onto OneWorld airlines towards Europe. Jetstar stays where it should, serving tourist /secondary destinations only.

Slashing is also ok if you plan to reduce your activities.

Politics, politicians and talk back radio are only good for a laugh, really. As for the difference between Howard and BHP. Well that is a long OT conversation. But one underlying fact is that the role of the public service is different to the role of businesses. Service delivery vs production. Amyway, OT

They are good for a laugh, but they, along with certain news papers and current affairs shows rather than reporting the facts report their own view on things. People then think these are the facts so form their own view based on this rather than actually having the facts reported to them, thus allowing them to make up their own minds. Lobby groups (including unions) are smart to this hence why we have debates that should be left in the back rooms of a company out in the public forum. I really do fear for the future of Australia if company and government policy is formed in the popular media, rather than being formed based on fact and reality.