Building a stronger Qantas

[drron]

So i guess we wont see QF pilots doing this-

Southwest Airlines pilots held a demonstration in support of chairman and CEO Gary Kelly and other Southwest managers on Tuesday afternoon.

Southwest Airlines pilots mill around in support of management | Airline Biz Blog | dallasnews.com

 

[medhead]

but you don't see QF management leading with the kind of example shown by Haruka Nishimatsu of JAL, who took a significant salary cut himself during JAL's toughest times to bring his employees on board with other cost-cutting measures.

Joyce did claim to have taken a significant pay cut when he moved from Jetstar to Qantas CEO on 7:30 the night of the announcements.

 

[russ]

markis10, thanks for that list of ATSB investigations. It seems that there are just as many QF investigations as DJ investigations. So on that tenuous logic, DJ pilots are just as safe as QF pilots! I say "tenuous" because I realise we are talking numbers below the level of statistical significance.

djfuzz, I agree with your assessment of QF management: they have been shockers. More information (and poll!) here: http://www.australianfrequentflyer....program/does-qf-board-have-ability-32395.html

 

[markis10]

markis10, thanks for that list of ATSB investigations. It seems that there are just as many QF investigations as DJ investigations. So on that tenuous logic, DJ pilots are just as safe as QF pilots! I say "tenuous" because I realise we are talking numbers below the level of statistical significance.

djfuzz, I agree with your assessment of QF management: they have been shockers. More information (and poll!) here: http://www.australianfrequentflyer....program/does-qf-board-have-ability-32395.html

I note you have not posted those QF investigations apart from the one, so saying there are equal numbers is somewhat untruthful given it's 12 versus 0 for final investigations in the last 5 years or so (I have excluded others such as EK in MEL and Air Asia x2 at OOL). If you think such incidents are statistically irrelevant then we will have to agree to disagree, e fact there has been 7 in the last 12 months does node bode well for the future.

 

[goldy]

that's a bit unfair...

you guys in australia had a whole airline grounded for safety reasons. Thank god I don't live in Australia!

Shame that the airline of which you speak is owned by........the Chinese but of a Singaporean persuasion....boom tish!

 

[russ]

I note you have not posted those QF investigations apart from the one, so saying there are equal numbers is somewhat untruthful given it's 12 versus 0 for final investigations in the last 5 years or so (I have excluded others such as EK in MEL and Air Asia x2 at OOL). If you think such incidents are statistically irrelevant then we will have to agree to disagree, e fact there has been 7 in the last 12 months does node bode well for the future.

Hang on, you can't say 12 versus 0 because that's adding all the non-QF airlines, whereas you should be averaging them so that the comparison is on a per-airline basis.

I'm not sure what the count of 12 refers, but I could count 7 in one of your previous posts, so in that set of 7, isn't there 1 DJ and 1 QF? Isn't that about equal?

Mods, I realise this is now pretty much off-topic, so I am happy to split this out into a different thread if you wish.

 

[markis10]

Hang on, you can't say 12 versus 0 because that's adding all the non-QF airlines, whereas you should be averaging them so that the comparison is on a per-airline basis.

I'm not sure what the count of 12 refers, but I could count 7 in one of your previous posts, so in that set of 7, isn't there 1 DJ and 1 QF? Isn't that about equal?

Mods, I realise this is now pretty much off-topic, so I am happy to split this out into a different thread if you wish.

Your saying QF pilots are overpaid versus others and I am showing why ? As I said the 12 includes EK et al, I just focused on the A320s given you assertion they were fine . As I said, we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[russ]

markis10, I disagree to disagree! I want logic to prevail!

The evidence we have is:

1. Of the gazillions of flights that have been undertaken in the last few years, there are only about 7 ATSB investigations that you/we have found that include pilot error.
2. Of those 7, there were an equal number of investigations into DJ and QF pilots.

It seems to me that we have no evidence to say that QF pilots are safer than DJ pilots.

If you have some evidence, then please let me know!

 

[rechoboam]

Paying people lots of money doesn't prevent human-error related incidents aka mistakes.

On the other hand, the (off the top of my head) 60-70% decline in QF share price is clearly not related substantially to the pay of the pilots. This must be a tiny fraction of total costs.

 

[russ]

It's a good place to start though...
The single largest expense line-item in QAN's 2010 accounts is "Manpower and staff related" at $3.4bn
If you have a large number of people being paid above-market packages, it all adds up!

 

[tuapekastar]

This whole "poor me" WP attitude is wearing a bit thin. The WP benefits are as described and its up to you to either take it or leave it. If you choose to leave it, then I hope you find greener pastures elsewhere but please for the love of god can we stop this "SG and PS get too many benefits when compared to WP's" nonsense. SG and PS benefits have NOTHING to do with any WP's. They have their benefits and you have yours and I think you ought to be a tad more appreciative, rather than wasting your time looking over your shoulder and complaining about everyone else getting "everything" when this is clearly not the case.

Rant over......

I've only been WP for a bit over a year and TBH I'm quite happy with it (perhaps those who have held WP long-term may have noticed a bigger difference over the years). As with any benefit, the anytime access would have been nice to have had in the event that a circumstance developed where I wanted to use it, but it's something I would hardly ever have used, and the 100% Plat FF points bonus is fine, and still more than other levels

My only real beef with QFF is one common to all members, and that is what I perceive as the double-whammy of (for international flights) needing to purchase a higher-priced fare in order to get the opportunity to apply for an upgrade, but not being guaranteed it (by that I mean being able to determine prior to forking out the extra $$$ that the upgrade will be available). I could handle the lottery if I could pay red-e-deal fares and be in it, or paying higher fares and knowing I'm going to be able to get an upgrade with my points, but not the current system. Oh, and flavour-of-the-day, priority boarding. I'm not all that fussed whether they have it or not (though it'd be nice) but they should not advertise it as a benefit, then not deliver it. That's just wrong (and I know they are trialling systems of delivering it - let's hope they come up with a good one - heaven knows they've had enough advice from this board. ).

Anyway, I'm happy enough with WP, though I would never knock back any enhanc...sorry, wrong word improvements to the scheme and to any specific level (that I am at ).

 

[drron]

markis10, I disagree to disagree! I want logic to prevail!

The evidence we have is:

1. Of the gazillions of flights that have been undertaken in the last few years, there are only about 7 ATSB investigations that you/we have found that include pilot error.
2. Of those 7, there were an equal number of investigations into DJ and QF pilots.

It seems to me that we have no evidence to say that QF pilots are safer than DJ pilots.

If you have some evidence, then please let me know!

Well there are a lot more QF pilots than DJ ones.
From their websites-QF-198 planes.JQ-71.DJ-78.

So if DJ pilots make 1 error for 78 that is approx 2.5 per 198 planes or 3.5 for 269 planes.
So on your figures QF pilots are safer.

 

[markis10]

Let me put it another way, a QF 747 burns around 10T of fuel an hour or possibly $30000 worth, and we are talking about a crew that has an hourly cost at 400k a year or 2-4% of that fuel burn for the entire technical crew, to me the wages seem statistically insignificant by comparison, and that's just comparing fuel costs, not fleet TCO! Maybe this discussion is the sort of red herring that's trying to be achieved by management to deflect from the real issues at hand?

 

[indigo1]

Qantas cant have it both ways, playing the patriotism card and being the "Spirit of Australia" whilst giving its fellow Australians the boot and replacing them with cheap foreign labour. It just doesn't work like that, not in my book anyway.

+1 I agree 100%

 

[markis10]

It's a good place to start though...
The single largest expense line-item in QAN's 2010 accounts is "Manpower and staff related" at $3.4bn
If you have a large number of people being paid above-market packages, it all adds up!

Its interesting to look at the comparison for exective renumeration year on year, it went from 7.9M to 12.6M in one year!

As for 3.4Bn beng the biggest expense, thats QF group, not the so called problem child, strip JQ out and its 2.8Bn.

 

[moa999]

Let me put it another way, a QF 747 burns around 10T of fuel an hour or possibly $30000 worth, and we are talking about a crew that has an hourly cost at 400k a year or 2-4% of that fuel burn for the entire technical crew, to me the wages seem statistically insignificant by comparison, and that's just comparing fuel costs, not fleet TCO! Maybe this discussion is the sort of red herring that's trying to be achieved by management to deflect from the real issues at hand?

While I agree that wages are less than fuel, fuel is pretty much a constant across all airlines, wages are not and equated to wages is t&cs... eg if you pilots do 1200hrs rather than 1000hrs /year flying time that substantially reduces the number you need.

The TCO - balance between fuel costs, plane depreciation and interest or lease, and maintenance should be a constant between airlines, although on the international side there are big differences in depreciation due to differing government policy.


Qantas (mainline dom and int) had PBT of $228m on revenue of $11315, ie only 2c in every $ to the bottom line. Its a skinny business where every dollar counts.

 

[markis10]

While I agree that wages are less than fuel, fuel is pretty much a constant across all airlines, wages are not and equated to wages is t&cs... eg if you pilots do 1200hrs rather than 1000hrs /year flying time that substantially reduces the number you need.

The TCO - balance between fuel costs, plane depreciation and interest or lease, and maintenance should be a constant between airlines, although on the international side there are big differences in depreciation due to differing government policy.


Qantas (mainline dom and int) had PBT of $228m on revenue of $11315, ie only 2c in every $ to the bottom line. Its a skinny business where every dollar counts.

But fuel is not the same across all airlines, RPKs are directly impacted by fleet choices, if you look at senior management, their past and the parallels with Ansett you soon see why they have fleet issues, and they missed a golden opportunity to get it right post 911 at a cheap price.

 

[mannej]

Hindsight is wonderful isn't it!

Would the 777 have helped the roo? More than likely. Forgetting the 777, would some foresight have helped the Roo prepare for the 380 and 787 delays? You would think so. The 767s may rattle and roll, but perhaps a refit may have helped some of the problem (considering there are some younger ones out there)

 

[russ]

Well there are a lot more QF pilots than DJ ones.
From their websites-QF-198 planes.JQ-71.DJ-78.

So if DJ pilots make 1 error for 78 that is approx 2.5 per 198 planes or 3.5 for 269 planes.
So on your figures QF pilots are safer.

drron, Please think back to your rats and stats classes and recall the concept of statistical significance (remember p-values and stuff?). We are analysing 7 incidents out of gazillions of flights. This is such a low number that we can never get a statistically significant result! So we don't have evidence that QF pilots are any better than DJ ones.

Let me put it another way, a QF 747 burns around 10T of fuel an hour or possibly $30000 worth, and we are talking about a crew that has an hourly cost at 400k a year or 2-4% of that fuel burn for the entire technical crew, to me the wages seem statistically insignificant by comparison, and that's just comparing fuel costs, not fleet TCO! Maybe this discussion is the sort of red herring that's trying to be achieved by management to deflect from the real issues at hand?

markis10, The QAN accounts show that total "Manpower and staff related" costs are higher than fuel costs. If you strip out JQ labour costs, then you should strip out JQ fuel costs as well. Given that QF staff are paid more than JQ staff, this means that the ratio of QF manpower to QF fuel will be even higher than shown in the QAN accounts.

But fuel is not the same across all airlines, RPKs are directly impacted by fleet choices, if you look at senior management, their past and the parallels with Ansett you soon see why they have fleet issues, and they missed a golden opportunity to get it right post 911 at a cheap price.

markis10, I agree with you there. QAN management have made some pretty dumb decisions! Fleet choices was one. Paying their pilots way too much was another!

 

[drron]

Its interesting to look at the comparison for exective renumeration year on year, it went from 7.9M to 12.6M in one year!

As for 3.4Bn beng the biggest expense, thats QF group, not the so called problem child, strip JQ out and its 2.8Bn.

So Executive salaries are just 0.45% of staff costs.So even if you cut their remuneration to one third of the present amount your savings are only 0.3% of the budget.
Or saving 8.5 million is going to make little difference to QFis 218 million loss.