Do people REALLY want to save Qantas or is it just talk?

[oz_mark]

I think the perception that QF is an aging airline is fully justified on the grounds of it's marketing and product. SQ is hardly a spring chicken with it's 1970's uniforms and livery but they keep it fresh with relevant marketing and refreshing the onboard product (not talking about FAs). Being fresh and vibrant is about being relevant. SQ don't market solely to singaporeans and you'll see non-Asian people featured in their advertising because they know their major customers live outside of Singapore.

It's not all roses over at SQ. They are rolling out Scoot for a reason.....

 

[Justchecking]

It's not all roses over at SQ. They are rolling out Scoot for a reason.....

Didnt say it was, just using them as an illustration of how even a longstanding airline can be perceived as fresh and vibrant.

Back to the original question....

Do I want to see a 90yr old airline that calls Australia home be re-birthed in Sin as 'Asias airline'? No. I think QF is a uniquely Australian achievement and the closest thing we have to a tradition in this country. I don't think it needs saving...as in bailing out....but I do think it needs reinventing to continue to be an achievement we can be proud of and last the next 90yrs. I'd much rather not know Qantas as a Wikipedia entry

 

[serfty]

It goes back to cost of delivery.

Qantas are competing against airlines with a 25% lower cost base. This was Quoted on the ABC (7:30 report).

Here's an article by Geoff Dixon.

Blistering winds of competition beneath Qantas's strained wings

 

[Dessie]

Surely he is only complying with the governments BFOD policy:mrgreen:

Correct.

Worthwhile discussion to have but whether Tony Abbott is flying QF or not is irrelevant, unless he is paying with his own $$ and not ours.

 

[The Rok]

Correct.

Worthwhile discussion to have but whether Tony Abbott is flying QF or not is irrelevant, unless he is paying with his own $$ and not ours.

That's a fair point. But I think the point I am trying to get across is what right does the govt have to meddle in QF affairs if it is simply out to get the cheapest price itself? (BFOD). I support the BFOD policy but then we cannot demand they QF maintain a more expensive cost base here. It simply does not make sense!

There HAS to be a compromise, because as I see it we cannot have both.

 

[Justchecking]

It goes back to cost of delivery.

Qantas are competing against airlines with a 25% lower cost base. This was Quoted on the ABC (7:30 report).

Here's an article by Geoff Dixon.

Blistering winds of competition beneath Qantas's strained wings

Nobody denies that. What people are disputing is that the 25% extra is due soley to employee wage costs, which is what present airline management would have us believe. They will not automatically have a 25% lower cost base by setting up a new base somewhere else. A lot of those costs have nothing to do with what they pay pilots and baggage handlers, but may have a lot to do with running a much older, and less efficient fleet than their competitors.

 

[serfty]

Nobody denies that. What people are disputing is that the 25% extra is due soley to employee wage costs, which is what present airline management would have us believe. ...

I was not quoting management! Nor did I indicate or imply cost structure.

The 25% was quoted by an independent industry spokesman (with no further breakdown) on the show indicated.

I'll try to ascertain the actual source and you can only then assess the reliability of that claim.

 

[simongr]

A lot of those costs have nothing to do with what they pay pilots and baggage handlers, but may have a lot to do with running a much older, and less efficient fleet than their competitors.

So what can management do about the fleet? Buy 150 new aircraft and have them operating tomorrow? No! Maybe some decisions were not the right ones given the GFC, 9/11 and the delays to both A380 and 787 programs. That doesn't change what today's fleet is so the only variable is employee costs.

I am sick of the rhetoric that QF is going to "relocate to Asia" - you can't fly SYD-MEL-SYD from SIN! Why can't we embrace an airline expanding into new markets?

And re the outsourcing - have you checked where your products were made? Were they australia or china? Also where do people think the resources are going that are keeping this economy afloat? They aren't going to Oz - they are going to keep manufacturing jobs in China.

Frankly I hope all of the hypocrites hyping Virgin Australia who service their aircraft overseas feel a lot guilty about their choice of partly foreign owned airline! Personally I have no issues with Virgin using overseas employees and servicing.

 

[oz_mark]

Frankly I hope all of the hypocrites hyping Virgin Australia who service their aircraft overseas feel a lot guilty about their choice of partly foreign owned airline! Personally I have no issues with Virgin using overseas employees and servicing.

The last time I can find a market update for, Qantas was 39.1% foreign owned at 19 Nov 2010. So I would say Qantas is partly foreign owned as well.

Virgin is, I think, higher, as IIRC Air New Zealand ran into some troubles getting too many shares...

 

[serfty]

Ok,

I did some digging - here's the actual program: ABC iview (May be be available only for a day or three more).

The specific content goes from 09:30 to 15:30.

The analyst is Geoffrey Thompson, editor "Air Transport World" who at 13:05 states that Qantas faces employment costs up to 25% more than their competitors.

 

[simongr]

The last time I can find a market update for, Qantas was 39.1% foreign owned at 19 Nov 2010. So I would say Qantas is partly foreign owned as well.

Virgin is, I think, higher, as IIRC Air New Zealand ran into some troubles getting too many shares...

Thanks for clarification - as an FYI I was not criticising DJ/VA for part foreign ownership - mainly criticising people who are obsessing about QF being an Australian airline employing only Australians...

 

[medhead]

But does this whole dillema not all come back to QF's cost base? People are adamant that they want QF in the Australian market, but then there are those who are also adamant that the union are in the right and QF should cough up.... where is the balance...

Can QF be be profitable to the satisfaction of its shareholders, while also paying the unions what they want, keeping all the jobs in Australia and at the same time offer a level of service over and above its competitors for a similar price.....

A couple of points:

• The balance comes with qantas management negotiating with the employees and leading them in the change
• shareholders will never be happy with the profit, they always want more. Management are required to act in the best interest of shareholders, which doesn't necessarily mean maximum profit.
• the point about price is that they should provide a level of service that matches the price asked. That does not mean better service for the same price as competitors.

 

[juddles]

I have listened to so much cough from Tony Abbott about Qantas being a national icon, how it needs to be saved from the big bad boys over seas and how Australians love Qantas, yet now he is off to the UK............. but not on Qantas.....

Good to see the true loyalty mate.. ..... What an example to set................

But it begs the question. If the Govt, or opposition, or Unions or other interested parties are hell bent on "Saving" Qantas, should they not first "Support" Qantas by actually "Flying" Qantas.....

I think the main question posed in this thread, that of whether government travel should be on Qantas, is a very good one. However the thread has veered off course from that initial discussion point. Cost structures, etc are also interesting topics, but getting back to what (I understood the OP's) principal question is: should our government travel be exclusively (or predominantly) on Qantas?

Possible reason for "yes": shows support for "national icon"
Possible reason for "no": why pay more to a private company, etc

Can we get back to this discussion?

 

[medhead]

The analyst is Geoffrey Thompson, editor "Air Transport World" who at 13:05 states that Qantas faces employment costs up to 25% more than their competitors.

Of course, that is only employment costs, which doesn't say anything about total cost base. For example I recall someone on AFF quoting 2% of the cost of a flight as due to pilots. I would guess that bad fuel hedging costs far more than a quarter of 2%.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[Pushka]

My take is that the Qantas that will be 'saved" will be a totally different beast to what we have known as the iconic Qantas. We were discussing Joyce's previous employers at work yesterday and someone said he had come from Ryan Air in the UK. And Ryan Air were the ones who tried charging a pound for every pee in the loo.

 

[TonyHancock]

My take is that the Qantas that will be 'saved" will be a totally different beast to what we have known as the iconic Qantas. We were discussing Joyce's previous employers at work yesterday and someone said he had come from Ryan Air in the UK. And Ryan Air were the ones who tried charging a pound for every pee in the loo.

I thought Alan Joyce came from Aer Lingus?

 

[nlagalle]

My take is that the Qantas that will be 'saved" will be a totally different beast to what we have known as the iconic Qantas. We were discussing Joyce's previous employers at work yesterday and someone said he had come from Ryan Air in the UK. And Ryan Air were the ones who tried charging a pound for every pee in the loo.

AJ never worked at Ryanair. He worked at Aer Lingus before joining Ansett.

 

[simongr]

My take is that the Qantas that will be 'saved" will be a totally different beast to what we have known as the iconic Qantas. We were discussing Joyce's previous employers at work yesterday and someone said he had come from Ryan Air in the UK. And Ryan Air were the ones who tried charging a pound for every pee in the loo.

SO not only are your facts about AJ wrong but so are facts about Ryan Air. They have never charged for use of the loos. They suggested the idea of it but never went ahead.

 

[The Rok]

My take is that the Qantas that will be 'saved" will be a totally different beast to what we have known as the iconic Qantas. We were discussing Joyce's previous employers at work yesterday and someone said he had come from Ryan Air in the UK. And Ryan Air were the ones who tried charging a pound for every pee in the loo.

1. Ryanair is not a UK airline, it is an Irish airline, with its head office in Dublin.
2. Alan Joyce worked for Aer-Lingus when it was part of OW and a full service carrier. (He worked in senior management roles, never as a director)
3. Ryanair never charged for using the toilet, nor did they ever intend to, they just have a very clever PR/Marketing dept. One only needs to look at their European advertising to know that.

 

[harvyk]

Sadly QF going down will be like AN going down. Everyone will go through the 7 stages of loss, but at the end of it all life will go on.

That said QF as a group is profitable (very few airlines can claim this honor, most have been making losses), so this begs the question, is the cheap fairs shown by a lot of the LCC's which QF is consistantly compared to really sustainable? I know officially QFi is not making any money, but it's part of a company that is.

QF's biggest threat comes from it's own people, and IMHO unions have worked hard to provide reasons to QF's case for off-shoring work to third party countries. Besides in 6 months time the latest shutdown will be all but a dim memory for everyone but the more ambitious nonews writer \ editor.