RedQ or Red Herring?

[amaroo]

No, it's not a happy comment, Amaroo. Personal attacks and other distractions are not acceptable when trying to prosecute a line of argument. Sometimes it is just better not to post and just let it go through to the keeper.

I can see that you practice what you preach

777, this is very, very funny, but be warned, you'll only attract scorn by stating facts.
........I'm surprised you did not refer to the aircraft type purchase bungle.....or the new lows they have reached with the federal government......or the (ahhhh forget it).

 

[markis10]

You've pricked my interest - you write with what appears to be much authority & knowledge of the airline business. If you don't mind.....I'm interested in understanding how many airlines you have created or managed.

If you do take exception to the question - I apologise in advance & will debate some options with myself:-

Option 1 : Maybe you are indeed are highly experienced airline executive that has created & managed a still trading, flying & profitable business - you're comfortable with your stage in life & not one to boast about your achievements.

Option 2 : Maybe you have an incredible chip on your shoulder or shoulders - something has happened & since then you are only capable of seeing red when others just see a red roo on the tail.

I hope it's option 1 but feel it's more in line with options 2.

Since when does a business revolve around its executives??? A business exists for its customers, without customers you don't have a business, the more in touch with the customers an executive is the move likely they are to make decisions that benefit the business. If you look at the track record of some of the best business managers on the planet, you will find they have failures, and more often than not its because they lost track of what the customer wanted, and learned their lesson!

How many board members of today's airlines have learned that lesson, or just run from it???? Who made QFF what it is today after 14 years, and who is now giving the opposition customers a better run for their money? Neither question can be answered correctly by using the name of a current QF executive, food for thought?

Have you looked at where the old AN executives are today??

 

[777]

I shall bite and say I disagree. None of us have any idea what so ever what was planned, what is planned and how far advanced those plans are. That alone is enough to rebuke the claims that the plans were ill conceived etc.

It's not biting to finally bring the thread back on topic. I disagree that "None of us have any idea what so ever what was planned" as there have been a number of public statements along the way that do actually provide a fair amount of information. We know what the aircraft will be (an order has been announced), we know the two countries that Qantas is negotiating with and we know a bit about the publicly stated rationale for what they are planning.

If indeed the whole project has been canned (the current announcement is that it hasn't) then i believe it logically follows that the project was announced prematurely and/or that was (to borrow from the title of thread) a "red herring." Surely that's self evident if you make such a large public commitment and then abandon it shortly after?

Futher Joyce like him or hate him is the CEO of a multi billion dollar business that operataes in an incredibly competitive and politically driven industry that is seriously up the creek and must adapt and change to meet the changing operating environment. Yet we have a group of people, staff, commentators and some passengers who want things to remain like they were in the 90's, despite the fact that the 90's have long been left behind. The future for Qantas is to compete with the likes of Emirates, not in their back yard which is more or less Europe but in ours, read Asia. Qantas choose the wrong alliance partners years ago and has a massive hole so close to home so needs to tap that market.

I largely agree with this. But just because Qantas has to compete in Asia it does not necessarily follow that current management will necessarily do it well.

My argument is not that Qantas needs to go backwards but it is that it has management right now that totally fails to capitalise on it's advantages. Current QF management are effectively arguing that the Qantas brand, it's reputation, and its culture are a net liability and not a net asset. They argue that the company's asset is the ability they have to attract capital and run an airline and that the future is to be found by diminishing the Qantas brand and transfering the "asset" elsewhere. I disagree. I think Qantas is the asset and while it is not perfect, building it, investing in it, reforming it (i am not here to defend dated work practices), and growing it (in Asia and elsewhere) is the right direction to take the company in. I think the risk of investing in a portfolio of new start up airlines is actually a lot higher than investing sensibly in Qantas.

To some extent RedQ or whatever it is called will provide the perfect test of this argument. Should they successfully get it up, running and profitable i will concede the point. If they can't then their strategy has failed at the very first hurdle and no amount of blaming it on foreign countries, or financial crises or other perfectly predictable "unforseen events" will change that.

 

[el_rooto]

I'm behind any corporate strategy that reduces the influence and importance of Steve Purvinas.

 

[777]

I'm behind any corporate strategy that reduces the influence and importance of Steve Purvinas.

So you're happy your LTG will be honoured on Jetstar?

 

[el_rooto]

So you're happy your LTG will be honoured on Jetstar?

I assume it will be honored on QF's new full service airline in asia.

 

[amaroo]

Or maybe you could try just staying on topic and argue the issues at hand. I am genuinely trying to ask you why you disagree? Is it too much to ask that you simply answer that and stop changing the subject?

Whats to discuss - a few press releases, gossip & what appears to be pre-conceved opinions, backed up with a good dose of the old "chip on the shoulder" syndrome.....and, not much else.

Who knows what the CEO & board have planned - no one here (unless they're management) would have any idea.

Yes, I disagree with your assertion that QF management have no idea what they are doing! Probably with the same veracity that you have.

 

[777]

I assume it will be honored on QF's new full service airline in asia.

Why? I'm not saying it's impossible but i can't really see why they necessarily would. Surely the point of starting new airlines is, in part, to get rid of "legacy" commitments whether they're to workers or to customers?

 

[amaroo]

I'm confused as to why you see the quoted post as a personal attack. Guilty conscience?

Unlike you not to read the full thread!

Now, I was accused of purposely straying of course with distractions - I was simply highlighting to my fellow member that one should practice what they preach.

 

[777]

Whats to discuss - a few press releases, gossip & what appears to be pre-conceved opinions, backed up with a good dose of the old "chip on the shoulder" syndrome.....and, not much else.

Not to mention ASX filings, investor presentations, and a major announcement with an aircraft manufacturer. We clearly have a different definition of "nothing to discuss".

Who knows what the CEO & board have planned - no one here (unless they're management) would have any idea.

Qantas are a public company. They are legally obliged to make announcements to the ASX and there's a useful amount of information there.

Yes, I disagree with your assertion that QF management have no idea what they are doing! Probably with the same veracity that you have.

Surely there's a simple test of this. If they can "RedQ" before it gets off the ground i'm right. If it ends up being profitable you're/ they're right. If it ends up somewhere in the middle (they launch it and down the track it fails and ultimately folds) we can call it draw and argue about which team played better?

 

[el_rooto]

Why? I'm not saying it's impossible but i can't really see why they necessarily would. Surely the point of starting new airlines is, in part, to get rid of "legacy" commitments whether they're to workers or to customers?

Wouldn't they want their high revenue customers to be a source of revenue on their new airline?

 

[amaroo]

Since when does a business revolve around its executives??? A business exists for its customers, without customers you don't have a business, the more in touch with the customers an executive is the move likely they are to make decisions that benefit the business. If you look at the track record of some of the best business managers on the planet, you will find they have failures, and more often than not its because they lost track of what the customer wanted, and learned their lesson!

How many board members of today's airlines have learned that lesson, or just run from it???? Who made QFF what it is today after 14 years, and who is now giving the opposition customers a better run for their money? Neither question can be answered correctly by using the name of a current QF executive, food for thought?

Have you looked at where the old AN executives are today??

Deep down all business exists for their shareholders or private owners. Effective management of customers & staff allows a business to move forward.

Great employees don't get to far down the track without an effective executive & board that is able to look over the horizon and manage the business for the mid/long term.

Who knows what the future holds for QF - I'm willing to wager that the recent stability achieved in IR will go along way into shaping the future for Qantas. They may no longer require the leverage that was once RedQ:?:

The landscape is littered with executives with a past....they also have a present & future.

 

[777]

Wouldn't they want their high revenue customers to be a source of revenue on their new airline?

That's where it gets really interesting. Obviously the ones that are paying high revenue now are a no brainer. The ones who racked up LTG 2, 5, 10 or 20 years ago probably not. Why would you give free perks to someone who has never flown your airline? Not to mention that Qantas will be a minority shareholder with no legal obligation to transfer their liabilities across and your LTG on the balance sheet is a liability.

It's also why KUL v. SIN is really important. If they base the airline in SIN then it's obvious that a big part of the strategy will be to attract feed from QF from across Australia and connect it into "secondary" Asian cities that QF doesn't serve. However if it's in KL (or another place that QF doesn't fly to) there will be NO feed from Qantas and the clear implication is that the airline is designed to stand alone - they are redeploying their capital not expanding their route network. Sure QFF is dominant here but [ignoring people on this board!] who is going to take a double stop SIN-KUL-xx_ flight to reach a port Asia just for the FF miles?

 

[el_rooto]

That's where it gets really interesting. Obviously the ones that are paying high revenue now are a no brainer. The ones who racked up LTG 2, 5, 10 or 20 years ago probably not. Why would you give free perks to someone who has never flown your airline? Not to mention that Qantas will be a minority shareholder with no legal obligation to transfer their liabilities across and your LTG on the balance sheet is a liability.

It's also why KUL v. SIN is really important. If they base the airline in SIN then it's obvious that a big part of the strategy will be to attract feed from QF from across Australia and connect it into "secondary" Asian cities that QF doesn't serve. However if it's in KL (or another place that QF doesn't fly to) there will be NO feed from Qantas and the clear implication is that the airline is designed to stand alone - they are redeploying their capital not expanding their route network. Sure QFF is dominant here but [ignoring people on this board!] who is going to take a double stop SIN-KUL-xx_ flight to reach a port Asia just for the FF miles?

I'm pretty sure if the hub is KUL they'll start flying there from australia.

 

[wilco]

I'm pretty sure if the hub is KUL they'll start flying there from australia.

You've just spent the best part of the last hour flaming 777 for expressing his "illformed", "uneducated" opinions and then you have the gall to pipe up with this gem? What gives I wonder.....

 

[777]

I'm pretty sure if the hub is KUL they'll start flying there from australia.

Or the other way round. In which case they'll need more than a320s.

 

[el_rooto]

You've just spent the best part of the last hour flaming 777 for expressing his "illformed", "uneducated" opinions and then you have the gall to pipe up with this gem? What gives I wonder.....

How have I been flaming him?

 

[777]

How have I been flaming him?

I think Wilco's picking on the wrong guy/gal. No flame taken and i hope none intended.

 

[el_rooto]

Are you serious??

Take a look back at your and amaroo's posts and particularly amaroos posts that you have liked. You have failed to effectively refute any of 777 arguments and you dance around the points he makes nitpicking (not arguing, because it seems you are mentally incapable of doing so) semantics. <redacted>

After seeing your comment in the thread about meeting others from AFF, if you're going to get all grumpy with people like this I can see why you don't want to meet others in person.....

Edit: In all seriousness, can everyone just chill out a bit.

 

[amaroo]

Are you serious??

Take a look back at your and amaroo's posts and particularly amaroos posts that you have liked. You have failed to effectively refute any of 777 arguments and you dance around the points he makes nitpicking (not arguing, because it seems you are mentally incapable of doing so) semantics. You 2 remind me of petulant schoolyard bullies.

Wilco, you make me smile.

Are you upset that other members are not arguing with you With quotes like the one above.......I think this forum may not be the one for you:!: