Ah, yes: But...
Wombat's 1 – 2 – 3 pretty much on the corporate money agenda; no doubt about it. But, the money saved on 'minimum' (legal) requirements for maintenance cannot ever replace the serious expertise lost by adopting the practice. It is proving to be (IMO) a much greater loss in the long term game – Big 'Q' was always known as a 'safe' airline, world leader in some areas even. The stories related to the engineering excellence and reliability of the fleet on 'long haul' routes is the stuff of legend. The lesser known tales are of small 'miracles' performed at 'o-dark o'clock' by station engineers to get a stricken ship back 'en-route'(and on time); to say little of the pilots who went above and beyond the call of duty to deliver the payload – in one piece – at scheduled destination. Now, Qantas is starting to appear to the public as 'just another carrier' and the fare price becomes the deciding factor. Ask anyone who has had a stuffed up journey with 'another' carrier if they would have paid (in hindsight) a percentage more for the old style Qantas 'service'. Long gone now; small engineering snags not fixed, 'legal only' the lowest common denominator; pilots same class as 'other carriers; engineering oversight cut back to legal minimums; HR and bean counters running the show?. Qantas has become just another carrier, nothing special, nothing to be proud of, a national icon fed into the maw of the advertorial modern Low cost world.
However – we need to accommodate the virus we had to have – the Covid thing. Financial decisions? Toss a coin. The bottom line question was “how long” will this 'thing' go on for? Who knew? So, to mothball a fleet etc. is a fixed number; the down side is the hidden, (not considered?) costs in return to service for aircraft, engineering and crew. It was a 'bet' of significant proportions. 'Q' opted for the best balance sheet solution.
This is proving to be a 'bad blue' – in hindsight, they backed the wrong horse, but – who knew when, where or how Covid was going to finish up. Hard to blame anyone for that – not even 'Q' management. However: dedication to shareholders should have given pause to 'deep' thought and consequences. There are two items worthy of discussion, and several 'other' items which should, probably. have been 'on the table'.
One. The cost of 'mothballing' a fleet and the hidden costs in 'undoing' that treatment. There is no 'cheap' way of reversing that process: and; aircraft are at their most unpredictable after a long spell out of service – we all have had experience of that. The time of most danger and operational caution is when an aircraft has been 'in-the-shed' for a long time. Small seals, bearing, connections, perishable items etc. etc all suffer through stagnation and lack of 'work' to keep 'em 'match fit'. Personally, I've had more 'anxious' moments during return to service 'test' than in any other part of of a working life. This without the added burden of fully 'un- mothballing' and subsequent, extensive systems checks before RTS. Engines suffer nearly as much as hydraulics and in the old days, electrical and 'air' driven systems all seemed to take a while, and returns to engineering before returning to a 'vigorous' work ethic.
Two. There was an 'on- paper' cost of maintaing a 'skeleton crew' of check and training fellah's. An additional cost associated with flying aircraft for an hour or so every week, to keep the aircraft and senior crew 'match fit'. Say 'three crews' per ten air frames; one take off; climb to cruise, return to an instrument landing – taxi in, shut down, fill in the forms, have 'Brunch' – do it again before Lunch; one last time before afternoon tea, and home to Mum and a cold beer, four days a week. Result – a match fit fleet, C&T current and operationally 'fit' – Covid exits the scene; and, Bingo! Normal service resumed as soon as possible, without considering the costly, customer loosing embarrassment of returning, broken aircraft, pissed off punters and fed up aircrew. Not mention the negative impact the media 'experts' have on “Q” quality being on a par with – well no names eh?
Bean counters have a role – but, at the end of the day, it is the engineering excellence providing the reliability, the skills of those flying the ship and the quality of service delivered that will keep the public flying with their 'preferred' carrier; not the balance sheet or bonuses doled out to those who fail to understand 'how' in human terms the reputation of an airline can be trashed – from 'star' to just another Banjo player in the orchestra pit.
As an old mate of mine phrased it – Qantas ain't what it used to be; it's just another wannabe. There are better carriers, much better in many ways; who do not emulate the LCC model – don't need to – they are the worlds 'premium' airlines. Why, well study their approach to Covid and LCC competition; they shoot the boots of Joyce's trite, short term thinking. Back to basic perhaps ??? Or, just get their act into gear. Two choices, fewer options methinks.
Yus, it's my two Bob, spent as pleased me best.
And No, retirement suits me – besides: I told it to Orville, I told it to Wilbur and I'll tell you the same thing: etc....
Wombat's 1 – 2 – 3 pretty much on the corporate money agenda; no doubt about it. But, the money saved on 'minimum' (legal) requirements for maintenance cannot ever replace the serious expertise lost by adopting the practice. It is proving to be (IMO) a much greater loss in the long term game – Big 'Q' was always known as a 'safe' airline, world leader in some areas even. The stories related to the engineering excellence and reliability of the fleet on 'long haul' routes is the stuff of legend. The lesser known tales are of small 'miracles' performed at 'o-dark o'clock' by station engineers to get a stricken ship back 'en-route'(and on time); to say little of the pilots who went above and beyond the call of duty to deliver the payload – in one piece – at scheduled destination. Now, Qantas is starting to appear to the public as 'just another carrier' and the fare price becomes the deciding factor. Ask anyone who has had a stuffed up journey with 'another' carrier if they would have paid (in hindsight) a percentage more for the old style Qantas 'service'. Long gone now; small engineering snags not fixed, 'legal only' the lowest common denominator; pilots same class as 'other carriers; engineering oversight cut back to legal minimums; HR and bean counters running the show?. Qantas has become just another carrier, nothing special, nothing to be proud of, a national icon fed into the maw of the advertorial modern Low cost world.
However – we need to accommodate the virus we had to have – the Covid thing. Financial decisions? Toss a coin. The bottom line question was “how long” will this 'thing' go on for? Who knew? So, to mothball a fleet etc. is a fixed number; the down side is the hidden, (not considered?) costs in return to service for aircraft, engineering and crew. It was a 'bet' of significant proportions. 'Q' opted for the best balance sheet solution.
This is proving to be a 'bad blue' – in hindsight, they backed the wrong horse, but – who knew when, where or how Covid was going to finish up. Hard to blame anyone for that – not even 'Q' management. However: dedication to shareholders should have given pause to 'deep' thought and consequences. There are two items worthy of discussion, and several 'other' items which should, probably. have been 'on the table'.
One. The cost of 'mothballing' a fleet and the hidden costs in 'undoing' that treatment. There is no 'cheap' way of reversing that process: and; aircraft are at their most unpredictable after a long spell out of service – we all have had experience of that. The time of most danger and operational caution is when an aircraft has been 'in-the-shed' for a long time. Small seals, bearing, connections, perishable items etc. etc all suffer through stagnation and lack of 'work' to keep 'em 'match fit'. Personally, I've had more 'anxious' moments during return to service 'test' than in any other part of of a working life. This without the added burden of fully 'un- mothballing' and subsequent, extensive systems checks before RTS. Engines suffer nearly as much as hydraulics and in the old days, electrical and 'air' driven systems all seemed to take a while, and returns to engineering before returning to a 'vigorous' work ethic.
Two. There was an 'on- paper' cost of maintaing a 'skeleton crew' of check and training fellah's. An additional cost associated with flying aircraft for an hour or so every week, to keep the aircraft and senior crew 'match fit'. Say 'three crews' per ten air frames; one take off; climb to cruise, return to an instrument landing – taxi in, shut down, fill in the forms, have 'Brunch' – do it again before Lunch; one last time before afternoon tea, and home to Mum and a cold beer, four days a week. Result – a match fit fleet, C&T current and operationally 'fit' – Covid exits the scene; and, Bingo! Normal service resumed as soon as possible, without considering the costly, customer loosing embarrassment of returning, broken aircraft, pissed off punters and fed up aircrew. Not mention the negative impact the media 'experts' have on “Q” quality being on a par with – well no names eh?
Bean counters have a role – but, at the end of the day, it is the engineering excellence providing the reliability, the skills of those flying the ship and the quality of service delivered that will keep the public flying with their 'preferred' carrier; not the balance sheet or bonuses doled out to those who fail to understand 'how' in human terms the reputation of an airline can be trashed – from 'star' to just another Banjo player in the orchestra pit.
As an old mate of mine phrased it – Qantas ain't what it used to be; it's just another wannabe. There are better carriers, much better in many ways; who do not emulate the LCC model – don't need to – they are the worlds 'premium' airlines. Why, well study their approach to Covid and LCC competition; they shoot the boots of Joyce's trite, short term thinking. Back to basic perhaps ??? Or, just get their act into gear. Two choices, fewer options methinks.
Yus, it's my two Bob, spent as pleased me best.
And No, retirement suits me – besides: I told it to Orville, I told it to Wilbur and I'll tell you the same thing: etc....