Air Asia vs. Qantas Essay Essays

Air Asia vs. Qantas Essay Essays Air Asia vs. Qantas Essay Essay Air Asia vs. Qantas Essay Essay 1. Overview1. 1 Qantas-Main concern and schemesThe chief concern of Qantas air passages limited is the transit of riders. Their core scheme of Qantas is productively grows and the longer-term scheme of Qantas is to reorganise its concern construction in order to extinguish climb losingss. The scheme that implement by company is to cut down the capital strength of the concern by hammering partnerships with bearers in certain sectors that are wasteful. ( Qantas. 2012 ) Such as cooperate with British Air passages. Qantas use two complementary air hose trade names ; these two trade names are used to touch different clients. Two trade names runing together has occupied 65 % market portion in Australia. ( Qantas. 2012 ) because. two trade names provide flexibleness in changing market conditions. Qantas. ( 2011 pp. 4 )On the other manus. these two trade names pattern some sub-strategies to back up its chief scheme. These appropriate sub-strategies are the cardinal success for point that lead to Qantas continually enlargement in the universe. | Qantas| Jetstar| Sub-Strategy| * Premium full service * Maximized profitability| * Cost leading * Low menu airline| Operational improvement| * Enhanced client service focus| * Expand locally and into international leisure markets | In statistics of 2012. Qantas has full-employees for 33. 584. Flights over 550 airdromes and riders carried are 44. 456. 000. which increase the 5. 06 % base on the twelvemonth 2011. ( Qantas. 2012 ) 1. 2 Air Asia-Main concern and schemesAir Asia is the largest low-priced circular bearer in the universe. It is set uping with the dream of doing winging possible for everyone. On the other manus. it is non merely concentrating on the cost factor. but besides safety foremost. The Air Asia has operated around 11 old ages. but it’s still maintain highgrow rate. The Air Asia is the regional bearer with the largest finish web. highest flight frequences and high aircraft use. ( Air Asia. 2012 ) Air Asia was named the 2012 World’s Best Low Cost Airline in the one-year World Airline Survey by Skytrax for three back-to-back old ages. There are some actions that support its chief scheme in order to do it success. Such as the doomed cost theoretical account is based on: ( Hill. C. W. 1988 ) . * Single rider category * Flying to cheaper. less engorged secondary airdromes* A individual type of aeroplane in order to cut downing preparation and serving cost * Point to indicate flights with no transportationsIn statistics. Air Asia has full –employees for 4346. Passengers carried are around 22. 474. 620 in 2012. which addition more than 10 % base on the twelvemonth 2011. Services web over 216 paths covering finishs in and around universe. The below image has shown that air Asia are seeking to acquire more market portion in the sou-west of Asia. there are more than 143 paths in sou-west of Asia out of 216. This is the developing way of the Air Asia in recent old ages. ( Air Asia. 2012 ) 2. Industry analysis 2. 1 Overview Goble air hoses markets A ; PESTLE manner analysis The Lift side is show that. the air travel remains a growing market. This prognosis references that air traffic will duplicate in the following 15 old ages. which means. the external environment still maintain optimistic. Both of Qantas and Air Asia have same chance. ( Airbus. 2012 ) The PESTLE theoretical account lists the factors or driver for growing. external environment can be moderately expected as optimistic. but this chart showed that existent GDP 2011-2031 by part. the economic growing is a cardinal driver for air traffic growing. increasing urbanisation will besides drive economic growing and the leaning to wing. ( Airbus. 2012 ) PESTLE theoretical accountPESTLE model|Political * Stable political environment * Deregulation| Economic * Global fiscal crisis * Rising currency * Rising fuel cost| Social* Changing consumer demographics * Increasing travel life style * Changing consumer preferences| Technology * Internet * Surface conveyance investings * Efficient aircrafts| Legal * Legislation conformity demands * Allegations of misdirecting advertising| Environmental * Greenhouse and C emanations * Tourism impregnation * Shortage of substructure capacity| 2. 2 Overview Australia air hose marketsQantas is the biggest air hose operator in Australia. which represent as 75. 6 % for domestic market. but Qantas still has some rivals in Australia. such as Virgin blue ( 14. 4 % ) . Skywest ( 1. 3 % ) . Tiger ( 1. 0 % ) and others ( 6. 3 % ) . We should understand it run environment before we traveling to depth analysis. because the every company is restricted by external environment. PESTLE model clearly show Qantas runing external environment Harmonizing to this chart. we can reason that the overall environment is good and stable. but overall industry still confronting some job. the biggest issues has shown at lift image. which is purchases. purchases of fuel. ( Australia authorities 2013 ) 2. 3 Qantas SWOT analysisStrength:1. As one of the biggest Airline in the universe. QAN has big measure of flight clients and concern relationships. Large graduated table could convey more benefits. 2. Qantas operates in a sea of concern activities in different sectors. But all of them the support activities of the air power industry. such as catering. technology and luggage handling. Thus operation contributes to assisting command provider and aircraft care costs. 3. Qantas Airways. Canada airlines. United Kingdom air hose. United States air hoses and Cathay Pacific founded a direction company called One universe Alliance. This centrally is to assist each other in non-core concern activities. such as selling and online ticketing. in intent of cut downing costs and thereby cutting ticket monetary values. Members of the Union may besides reassign riders for linking flights. 4. As monopolizing in Australian Market. Qantas has a place advantage. Thus its subsidies couldsupply better res ources for its concern. Failing: Without the mandate of the trade brotherhood functionaries. workers in Qantas took an action called Wild Cat Strikes. Qantas was damaged by that action in detaining flights. researching its issues between employees and the company. Besides. QAN Company is excessively concentrated on Australia side. Opportunities: As publication of Open sky constabulary. such as Pricing determined by market forces. Fair and equal chance to finish. Concerted selling agreements. QAN could be good from international air power liberalisation and retrenchment in authorities intercession. In add-on. more international finishs particularly in Asia are developing. Due to Australia Market is less tapped so far. QAN could acquire a better opportunity to derive a major market portions than other air hose companies. Furthermore. QAN found a new chance of new market and created Jetstar enchantress is a low budget air hose to pull possible big measures of clients. Menace: With the consequence of unifying between n United Airlines and Continental. Qantas is under menace because United Airlines- Continental is be aftering to perforate into Australian market. One of Qantas most of import international modus operandi. between Australia and USA. will be affected. Unfortunately. big fluctuation in oil monetary values. together with planetary fiscal crisis. large air hose companies was affected earnestly due to lifting operation and labour costs. Increasing Australia Airline market completion besides will be a menace for QAN developing. 2. 4 Overview Southwest of Asia marketsThe chief rivals of Air Asia are Thai air passages. Nok air. One Two GO Airline. and Singapore air hoses. among of them SIG is the chief rival with Air Aira. in order to vie with Air Asia. SIG introduced 2 budget air hoses ; Valu Air and Tiger Airways. both of them are pattern as the low-priced place. AIRASIA SWOT Analysis: Strength:AIRASIA has a well-known name and it is celebrated for its low cost operation. inconformity with the 2011-2012 twelvemonth fiscal study. the company’s non-fuel costs fell 3 % . proposing that companies continue to implement cost control ; in 2011-2012. the company plans to non-fuel unit costs to fall by 5 % . While accessory gross rose 23 % . which helps companies to accomplish one-year gross growing marks Furthermore. it has the first-mover advantage of first low cost air hose company in Asia. After that. AirAisa has strong promotional schemes for general publicity and media advertisement. In add-on. they companioning with other service suppliers. such as hotel ) and recognition cards create a alone image among clients. Because of its punctual public presentation. AirAsia was offered award of five-star service and flashes. AIRASIA has developed a well-established distribution channel in its merchandises and services. Furthermore. it is ever utilizing individual type of aeroplane. therefore minimising care fees. Failings Due to the study. Aircraft renting costs increased by 8 % since the figure of aircraft increased by 8 per cent while renting costs and depreciation of the dollar. leting the company to salvage rental costs. Airport and operating costs increased by 12 % . reached 444. 34 million dollars. Other disbursals have increased by 14 % . As the economic status recovery. how to command the lifting costs becomes o one of the most serious challenges faced by AIRASIA. Because of the lower cost. AIRASIA has limited service resources. Thus besides is related to being deficiency of ability of managing irregular state of affairs. Government intervention regulates airdromes. In add-on. AIRASIA receives a batch of ailments from clients such flight holds and non able to alter flight. When competition is acquiring intense. good client service and direction is particularly of import. Opportunity With holding first-move advantages. AIRASIA could be more possible to last and win under the large intense environment such as lifting oil monetary value and authorities ordinance. There is another chance for AIRASIA is collaborating with other low cost air hoses such as Jetstar. The important action could assist tap into their strength and resources. Besides. larger population of clients is willing to take cheaper flight. Menace In presents. tonss of low cost air hose companies are appeared such as Jetstar.Virgin. and Southwest. These companies improve that AIRASIA’s low cost scheme could non be a strong competitory advantage in the industry. It could be copied easy. Many sorts of disbursals such as security fees and landing fees are out of control. Furthermore. unstable economic conditions in the universe have impacted on air hose industry. Thus dainty is same with inquiries confronting by Qantas. 3. Accounting policies analysis3. 1 Footing of readying of the fiscal statementsThe accounting policies are the processs that used by a company to fix its fiscal statements. Qantas’ studies fundamentally are prepared in conformity with AASBs. but besides following the IFRS ( Qantas. 2012 pp. 78 ) . Air Asia prepared their studies following the MASBs and besides in conformance with IFRS. IFRS is the general usher for these two companies when they prepared their study. It means non merely significantly enhance comparison of fiscal coverage between these two companies. but besides diminish our uncertainness. increase the dependability and accurately of analysis. ( Burgstahler. D. C. . Hail. L. . A ; Leuz. C. 2006 ) These two companies are running same concern industry and prepare study in conformity with IFRS. so there are some accounting policies are similar. the undermentioned lists show the similarities of accounting policies practiced as these two companies 3. 2 Similarities of accounting policies ( Qantas. 2012 pp. 80. Air Asia. 2012 pp. 73 ) * Reports on the footing of historical costs except in conformity with relevant accounting policies where assets and liabilities are stated at their just values * Main gross recognition-The value of seats sold for which services have non been rendered is included in current liabilities as gross revenues in progress * Other revenue-such as fuel surcharge. insurance surcharge. administrative fees. extra luggage and luggage handling fees. are recognized upon the completion of services rendered. * Residual value-the changing estimations are based on historical experience and assorted other factors that are believed to be sensible under the fortunes * PPE-Depreciation is used the straight-line method * Inventory-The values of stock lists are reported as weight norm cost. * Repair and care outgo. fix dainty as cost. deduct in the same period. Maintenance. if it changes in the utilizing life of equipment. it will be treat as capitalisation. Even these policies are similar. but they still have some flexibleness. such as the study can be influenced by altering accounting estimations. The following tabular array has been showed that there are wholly different usage for life and residuary values between these two companies’ assets. These two factors are depended on the judgement and estimation of direction. Matsumoto. D. A. ( 2002 ) references that management’s estimations and judgements involved in the accounting policies which have important possible impact on their fiscal statements. because these affairs are truly uncertainness. Finally. this uncertainness will reflect on the ROA. ROE. even if these two ratios addition or lessening. it does non needfully because of altering in the company’s profitableness. ( Lev. B. . Li. S. . A ; Sougiannis. T. 2010 ) . | Qantas| As Asia|| Use for life ( Years ) | Residual values| Use for life ( Years ) | Residual values| Buildings| 10-40| 0 % | 28. 75-50| 0 % |Passenger aircraft and engines| 2. 5-20| Up limited 10 % | 7-25| Adjusting harmonizing to a prospective footing ( note1 ) | Air trim parts| 15-20| Up limited 20 % | 10| Adjusting harmonizing to a prospective footing ( note1 ) | Note1:Estimates and judgements are continually evaluated by the Directors and are based on historical experience and other factors. including outlooks of future events that are believed to be sensible under the fortunes. ( Air Asia. 2012 pp. 77 ) 3. 3 Main different accounting policies3. 3. 1 ReceivableQantas and Air Asia receivables contain of trade debitors. other debitors and loans owing from related parties. Normally. the net receivable is recognized as its original sum less a proviso for bad debts. Qantas make an estimation for dubious debts when aggregation of the full sum is nolonger likely. The appraisal of proviso of dubious debt relation to receivable is on a regular basis reviewed. Bad debts are written off as incurred ( Qantas. 2012 pp. 101 ) . As consequence. it is a hazardous manner for the company non to delegate proviso of bad debts harmonizing to the per centum of recognition gross revenues. In Air Asia. they assign proviso of bad debts harmonizing to the per centum of recognition sale. ( Air Asia. 2012 pp. 98 ) company will run more stable. less hazard so Qantas. but allowance will diminish its operating plus. reflect on the ATO. as consequence influence ROE. ( Davidson A ; Thompson 1962 ) 3. 3. 2 Discount RateDiscount rate is the involvement rate that used in discounted hard currency flow analysis to find the present value of future hard currency flows. ( Qantas. 2012 pp. 101 ) Changing price reduction rate will act upon the company’s pension program. Normally. pension is company’s liability ; it is measured by three factors. PBO. ABO and VBO. Either PBO. ABO. should be discounted before reported. Due to peculiar class of pension program. company merely reports the different between the pension benefits and pension duty on the fiscal study. if the benefits are greater than duties it will be reported on the assets side. on the antonym. it will be reported on the liabilities side. ( Wiener 1995 ) So the consequence will straight reflect on its ROA and ROE. Discount rate of Qantas is based on the riskless rate for the ten-year Australian Government Bonds adjusted for a hazard premium that represented as 10. 5 % per centum per annum ( Qantas. 2012 pp. 103 ) . Air Asia usage weight mean effectual involvement rate that represent as 10 % per annum. The alterations in price reduction rates of Qantas in 2011 to 2012 that lead to diminish in the Workers ’ Compensation proviso of $ 15 million and an addition in the long service leave proviso of $ 45 million. The net consequence of these alterations was a $ 30 million addition in commissariats as at 30 June 2012. ( Qantas. 2012 pp. 103 ) as consequences. the changing of proviso will reflect on the ROE of Qantas. because proviso is comprised of liability. Finally. the ratio analysis will miss of comparison. 4. Ratio analysis:4. 1 Return on equity analysis: The ROE altering line of Qantas Airline limited ( QAN ) has a crisp fluctuation during twelvemonth 2009. which has reached the top point of about 60 % . Then ROE index declined until 16. 89 % after the top and maintained about the flat figure of 20 % from twelvemonth 2010. Compared with QAN. Aireys Berhad ( AIRASIA ) has a comparative complicated ROE line. AIRASIA started from -50 % from terminal of twelvemonth 2008. afterwards got to the first top of 35. 37 % in 2010. After that the concave curve reached the underside of 14. 28 % . and was back to the top at point of 37. 39 % . As personal sentiment. AIRASIA has a brighter hereafter than QAN on ROE side due to its turning tendency ROE ratio from twelvemonth 2011 though it had a negative figure from the beginning point. In add-on. with the research of 5 twelvemonth mean ROE rate. the entire air hose industry index is 26. 9 % . which is higher than QAN and lower than AIRAISA ( StockCentral. 2013 ) . AIRAISA is making a better occupati on in utilizing investors’ money and pulling more investing capital. 4. 2 Leverage affectFrom above two graphs. different index reflect different relationships. On QAN side. ROE rates altering are chiefly due to altering in return of plus rate. It is bespeaking that QAN achieved a better consequence of plus use by increasing gross and salvaging plus financess to raise ROE ratio up. Different with QAN. AIRAISA’s ROE rate is chiefly rely on fiscal purchase. which is equal to net fiscal liabilities / equity. Overwhelming other related facts. higher fiscal purchase rates mean stronger power of utilizing liabilities to make net income. From this facet. it is non difficult to unwrap different net income channels between two companies. 4. 3 Borrowing cost drivers:Retrenchment of borrowing cost rate gives chances to raise ROE ratio. In QAN. from twelvemonth 2011 the adoption rates have been continuously worsening which gave parts to gain gaining. From AIRASIA side. borrowing cost rate kept on degree of 3 % -4 % in recent two old ages. which may weaken ROE public presentation viing with QAN. 4. 4 Operating net income drivers Tax return on plus ratio. which could be divided in plus turnover and net income border straight. affects the public presentation of ROE. Compared with twocompanies. ATO ratio gave more impacts on ROA in past five old ages in QAN. Relatively much higher ATO ratio of QAN reflects that concern higher velocity of plus use from input to end product for the period. better enterprise’s assets direction quality and efficiency. Downsizing in ATO rate will straight act upon ROA rate. evidently between twelvemonth 2008 and 2009. In AIRASIA side. ROA ratio fluctuation chiefly affect by PM ration. On whole. PM ratio curve indicates increasing tendency in the 5-year period. though a little bead in twelvemonth 2011. Higher PM ratio compared with QAN could give groundss that AIRASIA has better ability to retrieve sorts of outgos and cost of goods sold. profiting from the low cost scheme. Low costs give parts to deriving higher ROA ratio of AIRASIA than QAN in recent twelvemonth. 4. 5 Cost constructionThese two graphs are drawn on the base of gross as 100 % . Harmonizing to two artworks. we can easy see that After deduct COGS. Air Asia reported Gross net income about 50 % over 5 old ages. but Qantas merely has less than 20 % for Gross net income. Air Asia patterns cost-lead ship scheme. so COGS and its merchandising A ; disposal disbursal is significantly lower than Qantas. So the Air Asia command its COGS are better than Qantas. But nevertheless. the merchandising A ; disposal disbursal of Qantas ( around 11 % of 100 % gross ) less so Air Asia ( around 26 % of 100 % gross ) . which average Qantas. is good at direction. Thus tendency indicates that low-costs of air hose industry would be bewilderment for increasing net income. Compared with two companies’ gross net income and gross border ratio curve. Qantas has been suffered drop tendency in five-year gross net income due to its retrenchment gross and high cost of goods sold. AIRASIA has optimistic tendencies both in gross net income and gross border. The company was engaged in spread outing gross revenues and gross. bettering cost direction degree and seeking appreciate company scheme at the same clip. Higher gross net income and gross border indicate company could hold higher possibilities to derive net income. 4. 6 Average industry analysis The first graph shows the ROE of Air Asia in the Malaysia air hose industry. after 2009. the ROE of Air Asia is significantly higher than norm. The 2nd procure compare the Qantas with Australia air hose industry. if wecipher the mean ROE of Qantas. the consequence is a small spot lower than norm. The last graph we put two-airline companies in the Asia- Pacific part. the graph has shown that Qantas’ operating is lower than the norm. after 2009. Air Asia is maintaining upward. 5. DecisionAfter our analysis. due to using different policies and schemes. two air hose companies did different public presentation in deriving net incomes. we think that even though Air Asia merely put up around 11years. and its size of the company is rather less than Qantas. But they have been adapted to the turbulent planetary environment. Its scheme has fitted with external environment. the advantage of little company is easy to alter its direction control system to response with the turbulent environment and better to maintain consistent with its scheme. Finally. the whole company will be easier to accomplish the end. As consequence. AIRASIA seems to be better in rise ROE ratios. profiting from its increasing gross revenues and costs commanding. So we can concluded that AIRASIA’s public presentation is better than Qantas. Mention:Qantas. ( 2012 ) â€Å"Qantas Annual Report 2012† Qantas Airways Limited lt ; World Wide Web. qantas. com gt ; Qantas. ( 2011 ) â€Å"Qantas Group presentation December 2011† Qantas Group World Wide Web. qantas. com. Air Asia. ( 2012 ) â€Å"Air Asia Annual Report 2012† Air Asia Airways Limited World Wide Web. airaisa. com Airbus. ( 2012 ) â€Å"Navigating the future† Global Market Forecast 2012-2031 World Wide Web. airbus. com â€Å"Domestic air hose activity. Department of Infrastructure and Transport† . Australia authorities. update 19 August. 2013 World Wide Web. bitre. gov. gold Qantas Customers 2012. by Segment 2012. Statistic. viewed 8 May 2012. Qantas’Situation: Yesterday. Today and Tomorrow 2011. The Age. viewed 8 May 2013. Stockcentral ( 2013 ) . industry norms. Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. stockcentral. com/ ? utm_source=iclubindustryaverages A ; utm_mdium=link [ Accessed: August 17. 2013 ] . Burgstahler. D. C. . Hail. L. . A ; Leuz. C. ( 2006 ) . The importance of describing inducements: net incomes direction in European private and public houses. The accounting reappraisal. 81 ( 5 ) . 983-1016. Lev. B. . Li. S. . A ; Sougiannis. T. ( 2010 ) . The utility of accounting estimations for foretelling hard currency flows and net incomes. Review of Accounting Studies. 15 ( 4 ) . 779-807. Kotlikoff. L. J. . A ; Wise. D. A. ( 1989 ) . Employee retirement and a firm’s pension program. Hill. C. W. ( 1988 ) . Differentiation versus low cost or distinction and low cost: a eventuality model. Academy of Management Review. 13 ( 3 ) . 401-412. Matsumoto. D. A. ( 2002 ) . Management’s incentives to avoid negative net incomes surprises. The Accounting Review. 77 ( 3 ) . 483-514. Cyert. R. M. . Davidson. H. J. . A ; Thompson. G. L. ( 1962 ) . Appraisal of the allowance for dubious histories by Markov ironss. Management Science. 8 ( 3 ) . 287-303. Scott. T. W. ( 1994 ) . Incentives and deterrences for fiscal revelation: Voluntary revelation of defined benefit pension program information by Canadian houses. Accounting Review. 26-43. Wiener. H. J. ( 1995 ) . †Pension Plan Strategy† A Comprehensive Guide to Retirement Planning for doctors and Other Professionals 7 ( 2 ) . 101-212. AppendixAir Asia ANALYSIS| | | | | | |REFORMULATED BALANCE SHEET| | 12/31/2012USD| 12/31/2011USD| 12/31/2010USD| 12/31/2009USD| 12/31/2008USD|Operating Assets| | | | | | |Net Receivables| | 315. 898. 627| 176. 713. 880| 158. 421. 275| 170. 371. 203| 262. 514. 740| Entire Inventories| | 7. 758. 339| 6. 223. 975| 5. 692. 557| 6. 093. 458| 5. 978. 035| Prepaid Expenses| | 240. 199. 477| 149. 035. 647| 105. 739. 906| 73. 305. 199| 32. 597. 110| Other Current Assets| | 0| 198. 398. 423| 174. 299. 659| 180. 913. 551| 212. 788. 150| Net Property. Plant A ; Equip. | | 3. 200. 140. 615| 2. 744. 062. 776| 3. 021. 904. 005| 2. 319. 564. 252| 1. 905. 866. 763| Other Assets| | 863. 519. 621| 282. 959. 621| 106. 643. 425| 141. 351. 051| 40. 122. 254| | | 4. 627. 516. 678| 3. 557. 394. 322| 3. 572. 700. 827| 2. 891. 598. 715| 2. 459. 867. 052| Operating Liabilities| | | | | | | Histories Payable| | 21. 299. 542| 25. 636. 593| 17. 245. 987| 26. 411. 507| 31. 597. 399| Accrued Payroll| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|Income Taxes Payable| | 1. 674. 951| 0| 529. 269| 2. 869. 159| 0| Dividends Payable| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|Other Current Liabilities| | 606. 007. 521| 479. 045. 110| 400. 453. 705| 312. 255. 549| 322. 342. 775| Provisions for Risks A ; Charges| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| Deferred Income| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| Deferred Taxes| | -118. 180. 510| -162. 807. 571| -233. 260. 905| -219. 414. 136| -247. 430. 347| Other Liabilities| | 166. 843. 689| 154. 044. 479| 146. 867. 196| 0| 0| | | 677. 645. 193| 495. 918. 612| 331. 835. 252| 122. 122. 079| 106. 509. 827| Net Operating Assets| | 3. 949. 871. 485| 3. 061. 475. 710| 3. 240. 865. 575| 2. 769. 476. 636| 2. 353. 357. 225| | | | | | | | Fiscal Assets| | | | | | |Cash A ; Short Term Inv. | | 730. 127. 861| 666. 457. 098| 487. 957. 516| 217. 964. 953| 44. 439. 884| | | 730. 127. 861| 666. 457. 098| 487. 957. 516| 217. 964. 953| 44. 439. 884| Financial Liabilities| | | | | | | Short Term Debt and Current LTD| | 368. 264. 879| 187. 454. 574| 179. 660. 126| 157. 788. 551| 157. 243. 353| Long Term Debt| | 2. 381. 682. 472| 2. 267. 166. 877| 2. 368. 374. 899| 2. 064. 168. 224| 1. 776. 526. 012| | | 2. 749. 947. 351| 2. 454. 621. 451| 2. 548. 035. 025| 2. 221. 956. 776| 1. 933. 769. 364| Net Financial Liabilities ( Assets ) | | 2. 019. 819. 490| 1. 788. 164. 353| 2. 060. 077. 509| 2. 003. 991. 822| 1. 889. 329. 480| Shareholders’ Equity| | 1. 930. 051. 995| 1. 273. 311. 356| 1. 180. 788. 066| 765. 484. 813| 464. 027. 746| check| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| REFORMULATED INCOME STATEMENT| | | | | | |Sales| | 1. 617. 426. 750| 1. 418. 025. 552| 1. 280. 394. 033| 914. 982. 769| 761. 470. 520| Entire Costs| | 864. 089. 928| 1. 074. 545. 110| 934. 371. 331| 648. 407. 418| 932. 758. 092| Net incomes before Interest and Taxation ( EBIT ) | 753. 336. 821| 343. 480. 442| 346. 022. 701| 266. 575. 350| -171. 287. 572| Tax| | 56. 556. 246| 69. 934. 700| 12. 143. 668| 33. 884. 638| -107. 697. 977| Income after Taxation| | 696. 780. 576| 273. 545. 741| 333. 879. 034| 232. 690. 713| -63. 589. 595| Net Interest| | 97. 912. 688| 98. 364. 669| -10. 343. 765| 84. 832. 360| 79. 925. 723| Net Income ( before Pref Dividends A ; Minority Interests ) | 598. 867. 888| 175. 181. 073| 344. 222. 799| 147. 858. 353| -143. 515. 318| TAX-SHIELD| | | | | | | Effective Tax Rate| | 7. 5 % | 20. 4 % | 3. 5 % | 12. 7 % | 62. 9 % | Net Interest| | 97. 912. 688| 98. 364. 669| -10. 343. 765| 84. 832. 360| 79. 925. 723| Tax Shield| | 7. 350. 728| 20. 027. 643| -363. 014| 10. 783. 119| 50. 253. 725| TAX-ADJUSTED OPERATING INCOME| | | | | | | Operating Income ( with revenue enhancement shield ) | | 689. 429. 848| 253. 518. 098| 334. 242. 048| 221. 907. 593| -113. 843. 321| Net Financing Costs| | 90. 561. 960| 78. 337. 026| -9. 980. 751| 74. 049. 241| 29. 671. 997| Net Income| | 598. 867. 888| 175. 181. 073| 344. 222. 799| 147. 858. 353|-143. 515. 318| AVERAGED BALANCE SHEEETS| | | | | | | Operating Assets| OA| 4. 092. 455. 500| 3. 565. 047. 574| 3. 232. 149. 771| 2. 675. 732. 883| 1. 298. 921. 526| Operating Liabilities| OL| 586. 781. 902| 413. 876. 932| 226. 978. 666| 114. 315. 953| 65. 446. 413| Net Operating Assets| NOA| 3. 505. 673. 597| 3. 151. 170. 642| 3. 005. 171. 105| 2. 561. 416. 930| 1. 233. 475. 113| Financial Assets| FA| 698. 292. 480| 577. 207. 307| 352. 961. 235| 131. 202. 419| 26. 432. 942| Financial Liabilities| FL| 2. 602. 284. 401| 2. 501. 328. 238| 2. 384. 995. 900| 2. 077. 863. 070| 991. 642. 182| Net Financial Liabilities ( Assets ) | NFL ( NFA ) | 1. 903. 991. 922| 1. 924. 120. 931| 2. 032. 034. 666| 1. 946. 660. 651| 965. 209. 240| Shareholders’ Equity| SE| 1. 601. 681. 676| 1. 227. 049. 711| 973. 136. 439| 614. 756. 279| 268. 265. 873| check| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| Sales| SA| 1. 617. 426. 750| 1. 418. 025. 552| 1. 280. 394. 033| 914. 982. 769| 761. 470. 520| Operating Income ( with revenue enhancement shield ) | OI| 689. 429. 848| 253. 518. 098| 334. 242. 048| 221. 907. 593| -113. 843. 321| Net Financing Costs| NFC| 90. 561. 960| 78. 337. 026| -9. 980. 751| 74. 049. 241| 29. 671. 997| Net Income| NI| 598. 867. 888| 175. 181. 073| 344. 222. 799| 147. 858. 353| -143. 515. 318| ROE DECOMPOSITION| | | | | | BASIC ANALYSIS| | | | | | |ATO ( gross revenues / net runing assets ) | | 0. 46| 0. 45| 0. 43| 0. 36| 0. 62| PM ( runing income / gross revenues ) | | 42. 63 % | 17. 88 % | 26. 10 % | 24. 25 % | -14. 95 % | ROA ( runing income / cyberspace runing assets ) | 19. 67 % | 8. 05 % | 11. 12 % | 8. 66 % | -9. 23 % | check| | 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| CLEV ( net runing assets / equity ) | | 2. 19| 2. 57| 3. 09| 4. 17| 4. 60| ILEV ( runing income / net income ) | | 1. 15| 1. 45| 0. 97| 1. 50| 0. 79| ROE ( net income / equity ) | | 37. 39 % | 14. 28 % | 35. 37 % | 24. 05 % | -53. 50 % | check| | 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| SPREAD ANALYSIS| | | | | | |ROA| | 19. 67 % | 8. 05 % | 11. 12 % | 8. 66 % | -9. 23 % |Borrowing Rate ( net funding costs / net fiscal liabilities ) | 4. 76 % |4. 07 % | -0. 49 % | 3. 80 % | 3. 07 % | Spread ( ROA – funding costs ) | | 14. 91 % | 3. 97 % | 11. 61 % | 4. 86 % | -12. 30 % | FLEV ( net fiscal liabilities / equity ) | | 1. 19| 1. 57| 2. 09| 3. 17| 3. 60| Leveraged Spread| | 17. 72 % | 6. 23 % | 24. 25 % | 15. 39 % | -44. 27 % | ROE| | 37. 39 % | 14. 28 % | 35. 37 % | 24. 05 % | -53. 50 % | check| | 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| Qantas ANALYSIS| | | | | | |REFORMULATED BALANCE SHEET| | 06/30/2012NZDpreliminary| 06/30/2011NZD| 06/30/2010NZDrestated| 06/30/2009NZD| 06/30/2008NZD|Operating Assets| | | | | | |Net Receivables| | 1. 138. 830. 550| 1. 099. 506. 200| 918. 979. 200| 914. 755. 950| 955. 587. 900| Entire Inventories| | 385. 418. 800| 398. 263. 200| 269. 443. 350| 269. 443. 350| 202. 112. 500| Prepaid Expenses| | 410. 020. 000| 434. 663. 600| 326. 034. 900| 326. 034. 900| 0| Other Current Assets| | 89. 179. 350| 23. 553. 200| 86. 154. 300| 90. 377. 550| 287. 808. 200| Net Property. Plant A ; Equip. | | 14. 493. 181. 950| 14. 615. 831. 200| 10. 571. 639. 400| 10. 571. 639. 400| 9. 826. 709. 750| Other Assets| | 1. 618. 553. 950| 1. 675. 489. 000| 1. 319. 343. 300| 1. 319. 343. 300| 1. 558. 691. 600| | | 18. 135. 184. 600| 18. 247. 306. 400| 13. 491. 594. 450| 13. 491. 594. 450| 12. 830. 909. 950| Operating Liabilities| | | | | | | Histories Payable| | 661. 157. 250| 639. 148. 200| 506. 790. 000| 506. 790. 000| 482. 644. 650| Accrued Payroll| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 337. 932. 100|Income Taxes Payable| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|Dividends Payable| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 4. 042. 250|Other Current Liabilities| | 5. 488. 117. 700| 5. 418. 306. 600|4. 232. 541. 150| 4. 241. 832. 300| 4. 111. 776. 700| Provisions for Risks A ; Charges| | 755. 461. 850| 692. 678. 200| 473. 004. 000| 473. 004. 000| 430. 903. 850| Deferred Income| | 1. 164. 456. 800| 1. 189. 436. 600| 901. 241. 550| 914. 755. 950| 1. 024. 306. 150| Deferred Taxes| | 660. 132. 200| 821. 150. 200| 603. 924. 750| 603. 924. 750| 490. 729. 150| Other Liabilities| | 229. 611. 200| 527. 805. 800| 195. 114. 150| 195. 114. 150| 216. 664. 600| | | 8. 958. 937. 000| 9. 288. 525. 600| 6. 912. 615. 600| 6. 935. 421. 150| 7. 098. 999. 450| Net Operating Assets| | 9. 176. 247. 600| 8. 958. 780. 800| 6. 578. 978. 850| 6. 556. 173. 300| 5. 731. 910. 500| | | | | | | | Fiscal Assets| | | | | | |Cash A ; Short Term Inv. | | 3. 573. 324. 300| 4. 083. 268. 400| 3. 325. 387. 050| 3. 325. 387. 050| 3. 377. 704. 100| | | 3. 573. 324. 300| 4. 083. 268. 400| 3. 325. 387. 050| 3. 325. 387. 050| 3. 377. 704. 100| Financial Liabilities| | | | | | | Short Term Debt and Current LTD| | 1. 147. 030. 950| 617. 736. 200| 532. 129. 500| 522. 838. 350| 491. 537. 600| Long Term Debt| | 5. 566. 021. 500| 5. 839. 052. 400| 4. 320. 384. 750| 4. 306. 870. 350| 3. 957. 362. 750| | | 6. 713. 052. 450| 6. 456. 788. 600| 4. 852. 514. 250| 4. 829. 708. 700| 4. 448. 900. 350| Net Financial Liabilities ( Assets ) | | 3. 139. 728. 150| 2. 373. 520. 200| 1. 527. 127. 200| 1. 504. 321. 650| 1. 071. 196. 250| Shareholders’ Equity| | 6. 036. 519. 450| 6. 585. 260. 600| 5. 051. 851. 650| 5. 051. 851. 650| 4. 660. 714. 250| check| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| REFORMULATED INCOME STATEMENT| | | | | | |Sales| | 16. 117. 886. 200| 15. 945. 516. 400| 11. 632. 519. 800| 11. 632. 519. 800| 11. 764. 564. 400| Entire Costs| | 16. 221. 416. 250| 15. 412. 357. 600| 11. 379. 969. 450| 11. 379. 969. 450| 11. 506. 668. 850| Net incomes before Interest and Taxation ( EBIT ) | -103. 530. 050| 533. 158. 800| 252. 550. 350| 252. 550. 350| 257. 895. 550| Tax| | -107. 630. 250| 79. 224. 400| 52. 368. 300| 52. 368. 300| 46. 890. 100| Income after Taxation| | 4. 100. 200| 453. 934. 400| 200. 182. 050| 200. 182. 050| 211. 005. 450| InternetInterest| | 254. 212. 400| 187. 355. 000| 102. 202. 650| 102. 202. 650| 111. 566. 100| Net Income ( before Pref Dividends A ; Minority Interests ) | -250. 112. 200| 266. 579. 400| 97. 979. 400| 97. 979. 400| 99. 439. 350| TAX-SHIELD| | | | | | | Effective Tax Rate| | 104. 0 % | 14. 9 % | 20. 7 % | 20. 7 % | 18. 2 % | Net Interest| | 254. 212. 400| 187. 355. 000| 102. 202. 650| 102. 202. 650| 111. 566. 100| Tax Shield| | 264. 280. 218| 27. 839. 900| 21. 192. 523| 21. 192. 523| 20. 284. 745| TAX-ADJUSTED OPERATING INCOME| | | | | | | Operating Income ( with revenue enhancement shield ) | | -260. 180. 018| 426. 094. 500| 178. 989. 527| 178. 989. 527| 190. 720. 705| Net Financing Costs| | -10. 067. 818| 159. 515. 100| 81. 010. 127| 81. 010. 127| 91. 281. 355| Net Income| | -250. 112. 200| 266. 579. 400| 97. 979. 400| 97. 979. 400| 99. 439. 350| AVERAGED BALANCE SHEEETS| | | | | | | Operating Assets| OA| 18. 191. 245. 500| 15. 869. 450. 425| 13. 491. 594. 450| 13. 161. 252. 200| 6. 415. 454. 975| Operating Liabilities| OL| 9. 123. 731. 300| 8. 100. 570. 600| 6. 924. 018. 375| 7. 017. 210. 300| 3. 549. 499. 725| Net Operating Assets| NOA| 9. 067. 514. 200| 7. 768. 879. 825| 6. 567. 576. 075| 6. 144. 041. 900| 2. 865. 955. 250| Financial Assets| FA| 3. 828. 296. 350| 3. 704. 327. 725| 3. 325. 387. 050| 3. 351. 545. 575| 1. 688. 852. 050| Financial Liabilities| FL| 6. 584. 920. 525| 5. 654. 651. 425| 4. 841. 111. 475| 4. 639. 304. 525| 2. 224. 450. 175| Net Financial Liabilities ( Assets ) | NFL ( NFA ) | 2. 756. 624. 175| 1. 950. 323. 700| 1. 515. 724. 425| 1. 287. 758. 950| 535. 598. 125| Shareholders’ Equity| SE| 6. 310. 890. 025| 5. 818. 556. 125| 5. 051. 851. 650| 4. 856. 282. 950| 2. 330. 357. 125| check| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| Sales| SA| 16. 117. 886. 200| 15. 945. 516. 400| 11. 632. 519. 800| 11. 632. 519. 800| 11. 764. 564. 400| Operating Income ( with revenue enhancement shield ) | OI| -260. 180. 018| 426. 094. 500| 178. 989. 527| 178. 989. 527| 190. 720. 705| Net Financing Costs| NFC| -10. 067. 818| 159. 515. 100| 81. 010. 127| 81. 010. 127| 91. 281. 355| Net Income| NI| -250. 112. 200| 266. 579. 400|97. 979. 400| 97. 979. 400| 99. 439. 350| ROE DECOMPOSITION| | | | | | BASIC ANALYSIS| | | | | | |ATO ( gross revenues / net runing assets ) | | 1. 78| 2. 05| 1. 77| 1. 89| 4. 10| PM ( runing income / gross revenues ) | | -1. 61 % | 2. 67 % | 1. 54 % | 1. 54 % | 1. 62 % | ROA ( runing income / cyberspace runing assets ) | -2. 87 % | 5. 48 % | 2. 73 % | 2. 91 % | 6. 65 % | check| | 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| CLEV ( net runing assets / equity ) | | 1. 44| 1. 34| 1. 30| 1. 27| 1. 23| ILEV ( runing income / net income ) | | 1. 04| 1. 60| 1. 83| 1. 83| 1. 92| ROE ( net income / equity ) | | -3. 96 % | 4. 58 % | 1. 94 % | 2. 02 % | 4. 27 % | check| | 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| SPREAD ANALYSIS| | | | | | |ROA| | -2. 87 % | 5. 48 % | 2. 73 % | 2. 91 % | 6. 65 % |Borrowing Rate ( net funding costs / net fiscal liabilities ) | -0. 37 % | 8. 18 % | 5. 34 % | 6. 29 % | 17. 04 % | Spread ( ROA – funding costs ) | | -2. 50 % | -2. 69 % | -2. 62 % | -3. 38 % | -10. 39 % | FLEV ( net fiscal liabilities / equity ) | | 0. 44| 0. 34| 0. 30| 0. 27| 0. 23| Leveraged Spread| | -1. 09 % | -0. 90 % | -0. 79 % | -0. 90 % | -2. 39 % | ROE| | -3. 96 % | 4. 58 % | 1. 94 % | 2. 02 % | 4. 27 % | check| | 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| Company | Return On Equity Per Share [ Y2008 ] | Return On Equity Per Share [ Y2009 ] | Return On Equity Per Share [ Y2010 ] | Return On Equity Per Share [ Y2011 ] | Return On Equity Per Share [ Y2012 ] | 1| | | | | | 2| -27. 03| 25. 33| 33. 93| 14. 46| 36. 86|3| 6. 1| 20. 38| 10. 32| -18. 51| -27. 24|| | | | -16. 22| 6. 01|Malaysia industry average| -10. 47 % | 22. 86 % | 22. 13 % | -6. 76 % | 4. 81 % | | | | | | |1| 17. 02| 2| 1. 89| 4. 09| -4. 07|2| 22. 45| 19. 73| 18. 2| 11. 46| 15. 25|3| 11. 61| -21. 09| 2. 26| -7. 32| 2. 36|Austrilia industry average| 17. 03 % | 0. 21 % | 7. 45 % | 2. 74 % | 4. 51 % | | | | | | || | | | | || Return On Equity Per Share [ Y2008 ] | Return On Equity Per Share [ Y2009 ] | Return On Equity Per Share [ Y2010 ] | Return On Equity Per Share [ Y2011 ] | Return On Equity Per Share [ Y2012 ] | 1| -37. 81| 22. 91| 39. 91| 17. 15| 10. 29| 2| 14. 73| 1. 33| 5. 13| 5. 29| 4. 46|3| -27. 03| 25. 33| 33. 93| 14. 46| 36. 86|4| 15. 02| -1. 08| -13. 73| 4. 69| 5. 27|5| -19. 27| 11. 89| 29. 11| 9. 99| 1. 62|6| -76. 38| 57. 88| 57. 42| 19. 5| 17. 28|7| -70. 4| -11. 18| 23. 64| -4. 06| 0. 1|8| -51. 42| 4. 23| 34. 87| 17. 31| 8. 15|9| -27. 96| -10. 48| 33. 11| 0. 5| 1. 31|10| 19. 69| 39. 08| 9. 61| 13. 94| 10. 66|11| -20. 6| 5. 01| 30. 35| 19. 6| 10. 79|12| -20. 47| -30. 29| -21. 4| -5. 16| -14. 43|13| -26. 05| -3. 37| 14. 11| -9. 31| 9. 83|14| 6. 1| 20. 38| 10. 32| -110. 51| -27. 24|15| -0. 11| -13. 94| 9. 05| 85. 17| -13. 52|16| 17. 02| 2| 1. 89| 4. 09| -4. 07|17| 22. 45| 19. 73| 18. 2| 11. 46| 15. 25|17| 16. 21| 43. 36| 56. 31| 44. 68| 25. 97|18| 13. 1| 7. 31| 1. 58| 7. 88| 2. 48|19| -37. 71| 14. 89| 24. 31| -14. 64| 9. 45|20| -14. 02| 0. 34| 17. 5| 10. 69| 1. 37|21| 11. 61| -21. 09| 2. 26| -7. 32| 2. 36|Asia A ; Pacific Region industry average| -13. 33 % | 8. 37 % | 18. 98 % | 6. 15 % | 5. 19 % |