Qantas CEO Joyce doesn’t mention Emirates in speech
Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has just given a luncheon speech to the American Chamber of Commerce in Sydney and not used the Emirates word once.
It was a peculiarly rambling speech, at least as seen via patchy broadband on ABC News 24.
However in summary Joyce said everything in Qantas was going really well, particularly in Qantas domestic, but also described customer support for the Dallas Fort Worth service as performing “fantastically well.”
He said that Qantas was the largest carrier on the Australia-US routes, and the only airline to fly from Australia to the US west coast and beyond.
This will come as a surprise to both Delta and United. If Joyce meant to say it was the only Australian airline to do this, why would he bother with such a statement of the obvious? Alternatively did he think an AmCham audience is so ill informed as to which airline flies where in America that it would overlook such a glaring inaccuracy?
There wasn’t anything new in the speech other than a recital as to the merits of Qantas service, its iPads in every seat in its 767s, and its award winning wine list.
In what might be especially apposite, Joyce told the audience that Hooroo [the name it has given an accommodation booking service] was “An Australian term for hullo.”
It is in fact Australian for “good bye” and it fell out of common usage when Chips Rafferty was still a boy. It’s “Good bye”, Alan, “good bye”.
While the audience seemed to titter politely, Joyce said the price of fuel was so badly affected by the strong Australian dollar that a flight to London now raised $1 million in revenues but costs of $500,000 in kerosene.
(This is an odd point in that Qantas supposedly benefits from a strong dollar in relation to fuel compared to airline like Emirates, with a fixed exchange rate, or Singapore Airlines, for whom the Singapore dollar has not appreciated to the extent of the Australian dollar.)
Joyce recited geography and fuel as the reasons “Why we are moving at speed to execute a dramatic five year plan.”
He said the audience might conclude from headlines that the Qantas response to tough times was to retreat or cut back. He assured them that “this was just not the case.”
He said that it had a gateway strategy in its approach to alliances that were “all about extending our reach while lowering our costs.”
The consolidated number of full time positions to be cut at Qantas in the current period were 2800, but he also said some of those who lost their jobs may find them elsewhere in the group. There were 26,000 full time positions in the Qantas group excluding Jetstar at the end of June.
He confirmed previous guidance that the airline would report a statutory loss for the year to 30 June but an ‘underlying profit before tax’.
There were several moments that seemed like an appropriate place for Joyce to use the E-word, or even resuscitate an Asia based premium carrier in narrow body aircraft with seats wider than a first class suite in an A380, but he did neither.
Joyce said Qantas was getting fantastic responses to customer surveys that people filled in at the end of their flights, and said that its refurbished 747s were getting an even better reaction from fliers than its A380s [the standard to which the 747s were raised during the renovations].
He reaffirmed that Qantas was fully on track to return Qantas international to profitability within three years (or by now, about two years) and return its costs of capital within five years (which would be about four years, as the timetable was first announced a year ago).
This report is compiled from what was broadcast by ABC News 24 and not a full hearing of the speech.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
Isnt it – yoohoo for hello and hooroo for goodbye ?
In the 40s, when nobody locked their doors, and people queued at telephone booths to make phone calls, YooHoo was the polite way of calling out “Anyone there” or “Are you there” rather than knocking on the door. Dad said this was done to allow the milk man to escape. I was too young to get the joke.
The name for the new Qantas on-line accommidation booking engine is ‘HooRoo’. It seems to me this is a bit like confusing ‘Aloha’ with ‘Mahalo’.
With regards to Qantas being the only airline operating from Australia to beyond the West Coast, AJ isn’t entirely incorrect. Qantas is the only airline with either non-stop or direct flights. All other airlines will require a change of aircraft and flight number with the accompanying possibility of a missed connection and the stress that entails.
The advantage for QF107/108 is trivial because of the stop at LAX (and change of aircraft?) and the requirement to pass through immigration there. However, QF7/8 non-stop to DFW is a clear advantage if your final destination is DFW.
Let’s be real about this. You cannot fly an RPT service to anywhere in the US, or make a connection anywhere in the US, without getting out of the jet, fulfilling border and baggage protocols, and if necessary boarding another flight. In the case of Qantas this may mean a change from an A380 to 747, formerly an A330, and does, unless the process has been overhauled, require change of gates on boarding or reboarding.
In these respects, Qantas has no advantage to offer compared to its competitors.
yoohoo: Virgin Australia also fly direct to LA…. from Brisbane,Sydney AND Melbourne ,(and onward with Delta and Virgin Atlantic) Slipped your mind, did it Alan??
Is DFW not beyond the west coast? Every other airline flying to/from Australia will only take you to LAX or SFO.
The full speech is on the QF website and this quote may be a refernceto Emirates
“Now, to partnerships more broadly. Qantas is recognised in the aviation world as an alliance specialist. We have been a pioneer in this area. But we only enter partnerships when we have the right arrangement for the long term.In the current economic environment, taking our time with this part of our agenda will clearly not undermine our broader transformation plan. which to me means ‘watch this space’;re Emirates. No news’till it is fully stitched up, and QF is not happy to mention it at this saage while Emirates is, which is interesting
Ahh, AJ another load of…’chk chk boom’.. comments…….
In his whingeing speech today, one of the many excuses Alan Joyce used for Qantas’ poor performance was Australia’s small population.
Compare Joyce’s whingeing about our population to the comments on the same subject by Emirates President, Tim Clark, about Emirates’ performance in Australia.
“Our flights are doing very well, it remains, for a market size of 22 million people, to have over 70 widebody frequencies into Australia is amazing,” Mr Clark said.
Source of quote: News Ltd, 12 June, 2012.
http://www.news.com.au/business/breaking-news/emirates-eyeing-adelaide-as-a-destination/story-e6frfkur-1226393522768
My reading of EK is different. It has said what it wants, and by when it wants it, and it will not agree to anything that isn’t on its terms. It’s a classic case of negotiation from a position of overwhelming strength, and it has already set itself up to offer a whole range of air links that Qantas on its own can’t or won’t offer.
Comet I think you will find QF has far more than 70 wide body frequencies per week
Whatever the count it’s an awful lot of seats for a foreign airline [EK] to have in such a relatively small market as Oz.
It would be interesting to read what our IASC job description is and what the minister has to say about the way they give out traffic rights to all who apply.
Ben? What are you talking about? Qantas fly to DFW non-stop from SYD. No change of plane, no need to pass through immigration until passengers reach DFW. DFW is well beyond the West Coast. That is clearly a flight from Australia to beyond the West Coast. That you argue otherwise suggests you have an axe to grind with someone or something.
As a side note, QF107/108 is 747 all the way these days. QF108 is very occasionally operated LAX-SYD by an A380 as a positioning flight when one of the other LAX-Aus flights is cancelled. The A330 disappeared when QF cancelled the MEL-AKL-LAX route.
ButFli,
The speech has been filed to the ASX.
The relevant section reads:
We are by far the biggest airline in the trans-Pacific market and still the only carrier to operate from Australia beyond the US west coast. (UNQUOTE).
Delta and United both operate from Australia beyond the US west coast.
It doesn’t matter where or if they land on the way. They operate from Australia to places beyond the west coast.
I could provide Mr Joyce with more concise, and more exquisitely incendiary attention grabbing speeches, and await his call with interest.
Guys, aren’t we getting a bit trivial and pedantic here arguing about this “beyond west coast” statement.
To use Ben’s own words “let’s get real about this”.
We all know that heaps of carriiers fly non-stop from Australia TO the west coast. We all also know that Joyce when he mentioned flying “beyond the west coast” was referring to a carrier that flies non-stop beyond the westcoast from Australia and we all know that this means he was referring to the non-stop Qantas Australia – Dallas/Fort Worth service.
So let’s all cut the c…p about such a trivial matter.
Joyce is an idiot who is slowly ruining the airline. I haven’t confirmed it but a friend told me yesterday that after Joyce’s speech the shares dropped 3%. Good going, if true.
On a side note another friend (works for QF) mentioned in a recent conversation with me re Joyce and QF that he is intensely disliked by staff, can’t understand why the shareholders won’t get rid off him and other on the board (my friend has a goodly number of shares but not in the major league so vote doesn’t count).
Friend was also advised that if the day ever came when Borghetti left QF then that was the time for my friend to go too. Alas the advice wasn’t taken.
Notwithstanding the regular comments from those experts here who have flown millions of miles (but not necessarily on QF) and claim to understand the ins and outs of the business better than a journalist who has spent decades in the industry (and doubtless has many, many contacts within), it is obvious to me, a mere layman, than Joyce and Co haven’t a clue.
QF will end up flying SYD/MEL if they are lucky (sarcasm emoticon here). Then they can change the name to VANSWAS.
Mr Allan Moyes
Commentators on this blog who have spent decades working within airlines and who provide consulting services to airlines worldwide, I guarantee you will have a better understanding of the airline industry than a journalist sitting outside and observing the surface of the airline industry; especially those that listen to pilots and engineers who are notoriously opinionated about airlines but who continue to demonstrate that they know very little about the business of airlines. They tend to think its all about airplanes. But airplanes are the equivalent of the machines in the factory; an integral part requiring machine operators and mechanics, but far from being the business.
I do not defend Joyce, but I venture to say after reading your comments that your so-called friend at Qantas is part of Qantas’ problem. Sounds to me more like a liability than an asset of the company.
Also, I do not think that your friend knows John Borghetti very well.
Dear Mr Postman
You wouldn’t have a clue who my friend knows. You are insulting in many of your posts and remind me of another poster on here who made similar supercilious and condescending remarks but hasn’t been seen for a while. Changed your posting name recently have you?
You come across as a self-opinionated know-it-all. I still contend that Ben would know a lot more than you do about aviation, even if you have flown zillions of miles and are on first term names with the CEO of every airline, as your posts often intimate. Well good on you. It’s probably “consulting services” from people like you that got QF into this mess in the first place.
I found this article recently, I agree with points 9 & 10…
http://inside.org.au/qantas-a-ten-point-plan/
Written by someone with an insight into this failing business….
I’m sure the shareholders would be fine with these underlying profits, so long as QF paid them an underlying dividend.
Hello again Mr Allan Moyes
I was not actually referring to myself in my earlier comments (I was referring to a blogger who I know who comes on here from time to time and gives people a bit of stick); but thank you for thinking I was referring to me, anyway.
I assure you that I intentionally talk on this blog in a condescending way to people like you Mr Moyes; simply to antagonise you and to draw out a response.
Also to try and rev up Ben every now and then for his overt bias which frequently gets in the way of good reporting; even though I also happen to appreciate his underlying knowledge and fervor, but a pity when it is often tarnished with prejudice.
But I do not think that he needs you running to his defence Mr Moyes; for to be aligned with you would denigrate his reputation.
Anyway, I also do it because otherwise it is no fun whatsoever to read the rubbish that often appears on this blog.
The fact that you have such narrow opinions based on hearsay and a bit of journalistic opinion that is often very ill-informed and acutely biased deserves my scorn.
Mr TN BlueTail I happen to know the person who wrote the article you refer to.
His commentary is superficial and theoretical, although he makes a good point about the government getting sucked-in re the granting of extra capacity to non-Australian carriers; but that’s open skies, free trade commerce for you. Bit of a problem when there’s no level playing field though.
In other areas he draws some very strange conclusions. For example, I quote: “The root cause of the shutdown, however, is the sub-par performance of Qantas International.”
FYI, he was not an airline person (it shows and always has) even though he worked for a while at Qantas in a role/area that existed for a short time (macro-economic analysis). I would actually put Ben way ahead on knowledge and understanding of airline business than the said commentator.
Here’s some more of what he said:
“It’s this under-performance [Qantas International] that has driven the new Asian airline strategy, the offshoring of jobs, the need to contain wages, and the shedding of labour in the pursuit of productivity improvements – all key issues over which there is union and management conflict”. [that's somewhat true, albeit there has not been much off-shoring of jobs]
“The international business has performed beyond expectations on only one or possibly two occasions over the past ten to fifteen years.” [He is definitely wrong here; Qantas International has only reached its return on cost of capital (return-on-assets) on only one or possibly two occasions (2007 and 2008) over the past 90 years; not 10 to 15 years.]
“The sub-par international performance has meant that the highly profitable domestic and regional businesses have had to prop up the ailing international business financially.” [that's true, he got that right]
But as for the balance of what he wrote; well let’s not go there because of the risk that I insult him further.
As a general helpful request, I don’t mind being personally criticised or taken to task, but I’d prefer that readers not brawl with each other.
Prediction: My criticisms of the board and management of Qantas are not the fiercest that will we will hear or see in the foreseeable future.
Agree with you postman on said commentator, he’s good to read for a bit of a laugh. There’s even one story for Fairfax where this “economist” advocates renationalisation of Qantas.
I definitely don’t want my tax going to propping up outdated work conditions and overpaid management. If it cant be turned around let it fail, and something will fill the void whether its RedQ, Red Roo, Hoo Roo or No Roo.
I agree with you Ben re criticisms of QF Board.
I also believe that the recent splitting the airline into domestic and international with a CEO of each was/is a stupid idea. The strength of Qantas is in its whole. If it was disfunctional before; well it will be twice as bad going forward under the new structure.
Qantas could have easily reported separate P&Ls for domestic and international (as it has always done internally) without rendering it in two physically.
It is also not as if it can separate the two entities and sell one off, or even do what Virgin did with its organisational re-engineering (which was very clever BTW).
Ben, I will endeavour to accede to your request and stop brawling with your guests. It is however a bit of sport every now and then to antagonise some who enter the fray.
Ben, I saw that Tom Horton hinted in yesterday’s FT that the oneworld alliance was on the brink of signing up “one of the fast-growing Gulf based carriers – Dubai’s Emirates, Abu Dhabi’s Etihad or Qatar Airways – as a member” (see http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/00dab556-e465-11e1-affe-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fglobal-economy%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz23NkjTQu9)
This would radically lift the weight of oneworld compared to Star.
Negotiating a set of agreements that British Airways and American and Cathay Pacific can live with would be something perhaps as complex as a full session of the UN General Assembly!
Of course if the party that enters oneworld is Etihad, which has already signed a close commercial alliance with Malaysia Airlines, not to mention Virgin Australia, we’d unleash all sort of unpredictable consequences that the airline media, including myself, would find keeping us busy for the rest of our lives.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.