QF to cut jobs/routes

[nlagalle]

Will having the 747 on QF107 mean the return of FASA'S to JFK?
If so I can live with that enhancement

But aren't they removing F from the 747's?

 

[markis10]

But aren't they removing F from the 747's?

Only 9, leaving the possibility they may have one or two still around, some of the 744 retirements due soon are three class.

 

[medhead]

AFAIK the only regularly scheduled 747 services QF have in Perth are the 581/582 turnaround. I would imagine it would be those. It is nearly always operated by OJD, so I would think OJD may be one of those slated to exit the fleet.

Going back to my question; it is not clear if it is certain 747 (581/582) services, eg Monday, Wednesday Friday. Or certain services from all services on the route, ie all 581/582 services.


Sent from the Throne (80% chance) using Aust Freq Fly app

 

[oz_mark]

But aren't they removing F from the 747's?

How will they work it? Continue the BNE-LAX service onto JFK?

Also intereting that the SIN/ADL services are changing days

Effective 06 May 2012, Qantas will be changing the day of week operations for the QF82 services from Singapore to Adelaide/Sydney. These services were scheduled to operate on Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays, and will now be changing to operate on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays.

 

[anat0l]

Apparently a more rewarding FF program means less options to earn and less to redeem. On the upside, as a frequent flyer program, I'm sure we're all thrilled about spending our points on toasters and sandwich makers.

Well, there's always oneworld partners. Yeah, it's more expensive....... but in some cases we'd rather be flying them instead.

And PER-NRT is "suspended indefinitely", despite the announcement today of a "rebound in the Japan market".

Was PER-NRT a big market? I'm asking this naively here, is all. Sounds like a little tourist market but I can't see a huge business market, unless the Japanese are really considering the resources sector in Australia.

Most of the Japanese movement to Australia I'd imagine is spearheaded by tourism mainly to the Eastern seaboard, and through that also breeds a business market, again mainly from the Eastern seaboard. (I hope Australians have learnt to respect and not keep ripping off our Japanese friends - Gold Coast I'm looking at you!)

Actually to be honest I don't know what's the reason for the "rebound". Fukushima? Or cheap air fares?




Interesting announcements.

I didn't know A330s operated on the Trans-Tasman - thought they were all new 738s (a transition from the old Jetconnect + Qantas which was a combination of 734s, 738s and 763s). I'd imagine the A330s replaced 763s on occasion, though it's plain to see now that the Trans-Tasman really is good enough only for 738s, as evidenced by the main players (except NZ who have widebody feeder services, and of course the non-main players - EK, LA etc. - which again are mostly feeder services)


We all know the unions are going to give Qantas an immensely tough time - preserving every single job they have right now and then some more.


I'm not sure (read: confused) whether maintenance can be done more efficiently, or with more retirements this really does mean we need less people (i.e. we don't need as many person-hours). Have we been keeping an inefficient person-hour schedule for the last how many years? Do you really need less people now to maintain an aircraft than before? I thought that you do need less people to maintain a car now than you do in times gone by, but the time difference there is measured in decades, not years. And the new "Maintenance on Demand".... there's something unsettling about that new initiative that's clipping at the bounds of acceptable safety. Perhaps it's just a name.........


I do know that when I flew my JASA run last year I was talking to a CSM I'd had the pleasure of being served before. She was at Qantas for a while but she mentioned she was taking voluntary redundancy. I imagine new blood will replace her at lower contracted rates, or route cuts will mean an 'oversupply' of FAs which means some jobs will absolutely go.


I think it's interesting that the Transcon market has been a recent battleground (and one on AFF we are happy to debate about), but Qantas seems quite benign about this. The downgauge of B747 services back to A330 is not a big deal IMO, but it seems they're happy to ride out the recent competition from Virgin (despite the latter having less seats to play with). I wonder if Qantas was really impacted heavily that they decided not to respond? I thought it'd be a big deal for this market. (OTOH Virgin haven't exactly priced their J at a huge difference to Qantas - I really thought they were going to light a big fire under Qantas on this one. So it's not just Qantas that's still in the big game of maximising yield for this market.)

What would be nice is if all the Transcon services moved to A330s (or at least on the major markets... and I'll be nice, let SYD and MEL be first, BNE next, then ADL and finally CBR ). If a downgauge of the 747 service is the price to pay for this then I'm all for it. And give the blocked-seat A330 to Jetstar - help us (one less rogue aircraft), help them (redeploy the A330 to help expand their capacity).

 

[TheInsider]

How will they work it? Continue the BNE-LAX service onto JFK?

Also intereting that the SIN/ADL services are changing days

Should be the QF107?

 

[markis10]

I didn't know A330s operated on the Trans-Tasman - thought they were all new 738s (a transition from the old Jetconnect + Qantas which was a combination of 734s, 738s and 763s). I'd imagine the A330s replaced 763s on occasion, though it's plain to see now that the Trans-Tasman really is good enough only for 738s, as evidenced by the main players (except NZ who have widebody feeder services, and of course the non-main players - EK, LA etc. - which again are mostly feeder services)

They had to get one to AKL to operate the LAX service somehow! Four days a week 141 and 114 were widebody.

 

[oz_mark]

Should be the QF107?

Probably. Just that it's not now

 

[Nigelinoz]

I'm not sure (read: confused) whether maintenance can be done more efficiently, or with more retirements this really does mean we need less people (i.e. we don't need as many person-hours). Have we been keeping an inefficient person-hour schedule for the last how many years? Do you really need less people now to maintain an aircraft than before? I thought that you do need less people to maintain a car now than you do in times gone by, but the time difference there is measured in decades, not years. And the new "Maintenance on Demand".... there's something unsettling about that new initiative that's clipping at the bounds of acceptable safety. Perhaps it's just a name.........

Interesting that Mr Joyce talks about the "advent of new generation high tech fleet" meaning they need less maintenance (I'm paraphrasing him here)but aren't they planning on
keeping the 767's till about 2018? and haven't they deferred deliveries of the very same new fleet he is talking about?
I really hope they have thought this through thoroughly.
Cheers
N'oz

 

[oz_mark]

and haven't they deferred deliveries of the very same new fleet he is talking about?
I really hope they have thought this through thoroughly.

So when are the 787's coming?

 

[Nigelinoz]

So when are the 787's coming?

Does anybody really know? Last I read the first will arrive in 2014?
You probably are more up to date than me on that point .
Cheers
N'oz

 

[oz_mark]

Does anybody really know? Last I read the first will arrive in 2014?
You probably are more up to date than me on that point .
Cheers
N'oz

I'm only up to deferred due to supplier delays.

 

[maninblack]

From press release:

"The following network changes will be made in order to adjust capacity to market conditions and route performance:

ƒ Withdrawal from the Singapore-Mumbai and Auckland-Los Angeles routes, effective 6 May 2012. This is in addition to previously-announced withdrawals from the Hong Kong-London and Bangkok-London routes, effective March 2012.


ƒ Aircraft changes on the following international and domestic routes: Sydney-Bangkok (Boeing 747 replaced with Airbus A330 from 10 June), Sydney-Perth (Boeing 747 replaced with Airbus A330 on certain services from 6 May) and Melbourne-Perth (additional A330 services added from 6 May).


ƒ Capacity increases on the Los Angeles-New York route from 6 May (Airbus A330 replaced with Boeing 747) and Sydney-Tokyo route from 10 June (one Airbus A330 service per week replaced with a Boeing 747 service, resulting in daily Boeing 747 services).


ƒ Early retirement of two further Boeing 747 aircraft (in addition to the four early B747 retirements announced in August 2011)."

Qantas today announced a return to the glory days of the airline with the introduction a change in aircraft type on it's historic Sydney-Honolulu route, thousands turned out to send her off; Qantas 'Connie' Super Constellation Takeoff with flames (1080p HD) - YouTube

STOP PRESS: QF senior management strategy presentation to Board; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTcA-e6bqVY

 

[IGetAround]

But aren't they removing F from the 747's?

Yes - according to Joyce's speech, the LAX-JFK tag will be operated by a refurbished B747. Interesting that, only months ago, he said that the LAX-JFK tag was only profitable because it had moved to an A332. This latest move directly contradicts that.

 

[anat0l]

Yes - according to Joyce's speech, the LAX-JFK tag will be operated by a refurbished B747. Interesting that, only months ago, he said that the LAX-JFK tag was only profitable because it had moved to an A332. This latest move directly contradicts that.

I suppose if they use a refurbed 747 rather than a 4-class 747 they get more capacity on that route without having to worry about F class.

If they cut AKL-LAX then they really don't have a choice, unless a 332 is permanently based at LAX.

I wonder if they will limit codeshare agreements on AA in order to try and consolidate traffic onto the 747.

 

[maninblack]

Dixon used to love axing routes and he also had some other interesting plans for Qantas I seem to remember. I think QF sees NY as a loss leader but it may not survive in the longer term. After axing SYD-SFO, BKK / HKG-LHR and AKL-LAX and various other routes perhaps it is only a matter of time before QF just flies scenic Sydney Harbor joy flights in the A380's for tourists who all arrive on other airlines.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Yes - according to Joyce's speech, the LAX-JFK tag will be operated by a refurbished B747. Interesting that, only months ago, he said that the LAX-JFK tag was only profitable because it had moved to an A332. This latest move directly contradicts that.

I recall figures being quoted that showed demand for LAX-JFK had dropped due to the GFC. But recently demand on that route has become quite strong again. Hence it would make sense to now return the bigger airrcaft to that sector.

So not contradictory at all - just a reflection of changing market conditions.

 

[maninblack]

I recall figures being quoted that showed demand for LAX-JFK had dropped due to the GFC. But recently demand on that route has become quite strong again. Hence it would make sense to now return the bigger airrcaft to that sector.

So not contradictory at all - just a reflection of changing market conditions.

Don't think so. They want the A330's elsewhere. That 747 will run for a while as a loss leader then one day (as a reflection of changing market conditions) will divert to Victorville and not take off again.

 

[harvyk]

Dixon used to love axing routes and he also had some other interesting plans for Qantas I seem to remember. I think QF sees NY as a loss leader but it may not survive in the longer term. After axing SYD-SFO, BKK / HKG-LHR and AKL-LAX and various other routes perhaps it is only a matter of time before QF just flies scenic Sydney Harbor joy flights in the A380's for tourists who all arrive on other airlines.

Slash and burn is what most large companies understand these days, so this is of no surprise. I however do wonder what sort of state QF would be in now had the unions not taken any sort of industrial action, and more importantly what sort of state QF would be in now had the grounding not taken place. Whilst I agree with Joyce that those two actions had a major affect on the QF bottom line, I personally see his approach now as if they are expecting the fight with the unions to never end, not just simply a glitch in QF's balance sheet. Was last year a preview of things to come?

 

[SeaWolf]

Was PER-NRT a big market? I'm asking this naively here, is all. Sounds like a little tourist market but I can't see a huge business market, unless the Japanese are really considering the resources sector in Australia.

No, it wasn't. But I think that was mostly because QF never really made a serious go of it. They used an older configured plane (a 767) I think, only operated the service 3/4 days a week and were often double the price of the (far superior) SQ service via SIN. Occasionally it was possible to get interline deals with AA to JFK, LAX, HNL, ORD etc. via NRT which were often popular but most of the time but they were very difficult to book and QF's website always encouraged you to go via SYD and LAX instead.
I really think there's a market there for JAL or ANA to start services to Perth and then fly people onwards to their range of North American destinations, just one stop from Perth to New York, Chicago, Seattle etc. Something that QF will never be able to match. At this stage QF's only international destinations out of Perth are SIN and HKG. They've pretty much accepted defeat in Perth and allowed the foreign carriers to take over and expand.