PDA

View Full Version : Ozjet


Weed
20th Jun 2005, 01:12
Anyone know what's going on at Ozjet?

ROCKSTEADY
20th Jun 2005, 02:05
Not a thing, but looks like they are busy here:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=172180

:}

ROCKSTEADY
20th Jun 2005, 06:20
To the top for more info... All these views and not a response!

jarjar
20th Jun 2005, 08:08
Well it sounds as though FA recruitment is going ahead. Where are we at as far as Flight Crew? As far as I am aware interviews have not taken place yet, havnt heard of anyone even being contacted yet, except for thanks but no thanks letters.

BAE146
20th Jun 2005, 08:53
It'll never happen.................IMHO !

cyclops camel
20th Jun 2005, 11:18
This week Ozjet have applied for their AOC. The authority say it is the most professional application that has ever crossed their desk.

Oh, and at A$198 000 to lodge, me thinks Ozjet are go!!

F111
20th Jun 2005, 11:38
I believe emails went out late last week providing further information on the next phase of the interview process.

jarjar
21st Jun 2005, 02:08
Rang them this morning to find out what was going on. Apparently there is a short list and they will be contacted shortly if not already. I just used the number they provided on the website.

Chris Higgins
21st Jun 2005, 02:28
Well, they may not have an AOC, but they have a F1 car with the Ozjet logo on it. Saw it going around in circles at Indy. Must not have had Michelin tires. Looked pretty cool!

Le Pilot
21st Jun 2005, 10:32
Driven on Bridgestone.
They were all in the points.
Good Year for OzJet!

apacau
21st Jun 2005, 22:30
Forget the F1 car, they have a fully decked out 737 with the ozjet logo and another one or two in the UK getting prepared.

Chris Higgins
23rd Jun 2005, 02:06
Yeah, I must admit, it's all very humbling. They've obviously done a better job of it than anyone else as a "start-up".

If they've got those kind of resources they can get new planes at a later date once they know they have a going concern anyway.

Good luck to 'em. I don't want to fly the plane..I wanna drive the car!

apacau
23rd Jun 2005, 06:35
That's just it... Use fully owned/depreciated jets to start = low start-up costs. Once it proves to be a goer (and no-one knows for sure yet), they order some new planes. Quite smart actually!

Chilli Muscle
23rd Jun 2005, 07:16
People seem to forget the parent company of this operation are no "Virgins" in the sky. The grape vine suggest they have a couple of Jumbos and a small flock of these 200s buzzing around Europe on a daily basis. Will it get up ? - anyones guess .:suspect:

Chris Higgins
24th Jun 2005, 01:52
Yeah and if they've got charters running around Europe to offset the cash burn of a new operation in OZ, it won't flounder. If they can get through the first couple of years, it should work out.

A37575
27th Jun 2005, 14:04
Anyone know where the pilot interviews are being held and if they are conducting simulator tests on applicants yet? What type of simulator is being used?

Capn Bloggs
27th Jun 2005, 14:29
The Sim From Hell: the 146 Sim in MEL. Good luck: you'll need it!! :} :zzz: :ok: :bored: :oh:

SAS check
28th Jun 2005, 04:09
There is something far worse than that!!!! Its called the Metro Sim at the Ansett Sim Centre and I believe that is where Ozjet sim rides are going to take place. Good Luck to all candidates you will need it on that contraption!!!

questil
28th Jun 2005, 06:23
yes i have heard that as well
but never had a problem with the beast myself its just a little pitchy all is required is a decent scan rate.:ok:

oldhasbeen
28th Jun 2005, 23:04
If they're gonna use a Metro sim, they may as well use the old Redifon,which I think was brought online about the same time as the 737's they plan to use:E

BankAngle50
29th Jun 2005, 02:35
Any truth that CASA is not happy with the antique -200's?
Imagine the fuel bill with those old JT8D's. I’m not having a stab, but I wonder if the Freq Flyers will want to go on these old clunkers, stuck down in WX. :hmm:

Howard Hughes
29th Jun 2005, 04:05
I wish I had a dollar for every time a passenger boarding a clapped out 20-30 year old "clunker" with new paint and flash interior says.....

"Oh were flying in the new one today are we?"

Passengers don't really give a crap, if it looks new then surely it must be new!!

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

Legal_Counsel
3rd Aug 2005, 23:45
I think we must give credit to Ozjet for at least trying to present a clean (inside), reliable product despite its age.

I guess in today's sensitive environment, however I think it unfair for it to operate engines of this type.

From my office in Sydney looking south in the morning there is pollution over Mascot on most days. Perhaps it is not a big issue in Melbourne. But as an asthmatic it is a big issue for me.

I am surprised the department of the transport would allow a 737-200 to still fly from that airport.

That aside I still do not understand the need for Ozjet to even be in the air. It adds nothing of value in my view.

morning mungrel
5th Aug 2005, 09:33
Well, gee, excuse me, If we applied that criteria to every other aviation business, we wouldn't have many left at all.

Legal_Counsel
7th Aug 2005, 14:11
The fact is that most people are satisfied with the way Aviation has gone in this country. Only a few traditionalists from the legacy airline era are complaining.

I am not worried that Qantas is the only airline providing a full service product, the frequency of service, the network and the availability of two other airlines, is sufficient. Ozjet is not adding anything of tangible value to the network.

When I get a discounted fair for $99 and a meal in a 18 inch wide seat in economy, together with all the benefits of frequency and service, then I might reconsider my current position. And I think most people will agree with me on that point.

I can say there are some innovative ideas yet to be tapped. It doesn't mean you have to compete with the big boys to be profitable. The problem with Ozjet is that it has put its faith on a product with no sustainable advantage. Given that it has taken that position though, it now must deliver at least a basic level of service. It will degenerate to a plain-jane as it struggles for revenue. :=

Sunfish
7th Aug 2005, 21:46
Ozjet is not adding anything of tangible value to the network

Legal, what planet are you from or do you only fly first or business class?

OZBUSDRIVER
8th Aug 2005, 10:06
As long as noise complaints do not kill them off early, the product to put business class seats throughout at economy rates has merit.

Legal_Counsel
13th Aug 2005, 09:04
Hi Sunfish,

I sometimes wonder what planet I am from but just to clarify the way I travel:

1. If I need to review an immediate legal case because the sector is long, I will usually book a business class seat. It's because I will usually be travelling with my articled clerk who makes sure may stuff is in the right order when I roll the trolley into court.

2. If I have some days to spare before a case, we usually try to keep the cost down for the client and I will usually take the cheapest fare. I am fairly tall so tend to just ask if something is available at the counter and the staff already know me fairly well.

3. When I visit my mum in Adelaide, I just travel in jeans and smart top or blouse and take whatever I get.

My priority of travel would still be Qantas over Ozjet as I naturally think that Qantas provides our firm with a quality product and the staff are pretty good up front.

My background is in aviation litigation which I basically drifted into when I was studying my MRes in air transport airline failure management at Cranfield in the UK after my sister was serverely burnt in the British Airtours 737-200 accident in 1985 at Manchester. She now lives in Bournemouth but has acquired a fear of flying. It's amazing what plastic surgery can do but she has a slightly scarred tissue area under her hairline where the heat got to her. She was seated one row back from the LH over wing exit. :ugh:

Chronic Snoozer
13th Aug 2005, 15:26
however I think it unfair for it to operate engines of this type I am surprised the department of the transport would allow a 737-200 to still fly from that airport. That aside I still do not understand the need for Ozjet to even be in the air. It adds nothing of value in my view. Legal Counsel, what is your agenda?

The fact is that most people are satisfied with the way Aviation has gone in this country. Only a few traditionalists from the legacy airline era are complaining. Is this your professional opinion?

I can say there are some innovative ideas yet to be tapped. It doesn't mean you have to compete with the big boys to be profitable. The problem with Ozjet is that it has put its faith on a product with no sustainable advantage. Its interesting that you say that because the business model Ozjet is promoting is not new. Lufthansa and Swiss are airlines that I know of that operate all business class flights between Europe and East Coast USA. (using 737/A320 class a/c) Flights are being expanded because its apparently a sustainable business.

Legal_Counsel
14th Aug 2005, 11:08
These markets do not exist in Australia and if you check the facts from DOTARS you would see that between 2003 and 2004 the load factors on average in Australia declined Chronic Snoozer. With a prediction of a cost of a barrel of oil to rise to USD75 by the end of September 2005, Ozjet will be in no position to operate in this market let alone compete. This means the existing carriers will protect what they already have. My prediction is that the arrival of Ozjet is ill timed because it will be forced to charge very high fares just to survive and I just cannot see that happening.

You are right though, some markets can support this product. However, as far as I know, Lufthansa's all-business product does not do as well as its ordinary business product. The problem is, that despite a 10% growth in traffic on Melbourne-Sydney, it was nearly all in the low cost sector. :hmm:

Howard Hughes
14th Aug 2005, 11:28
The problem is, that despite a 10% growth in traffic on Melbourne-Sydney, it was nearly all in the low cost sector.
Perhaps thats because there was no other option, all the added capacity was low cost/economy seats. There were no extra business seats added to this route, as we all know only one airline operates business on this route at the moment.

Just take a look at Virgin, their product is slowly morphing into a multi class airline, it hasnt happened yet, but I suspect sometime in the next two years they will offer a premium business class on some, if not all of their flights. (Perhaps sooner if Ozjet produces even modest results!!)

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

PS: By the way the figures from Dotars are not 'facts' they are statistics and like all statistics can be interpreted many ways.

Chronic Snoozer
14th Aug 2005, 15:21
Legal Counsel

If the load factors have decreased according to DOTARS, then to me it means capacity outgrew passenger numbers - however I would imagine passenger numbers are showing healthy growth.

These markets do not exist in Australia
If Ozjet have aircraft free of debt, then who knows how they will fare (pardon the pun), but certainly they appear to be in a position to exploit a market that according to you doesn't exist, but could be developed. Hats off to them for giving it a go. The discerning business traveller will decide, I mean after all, there isn't much on offer from the big/medium-sized three - its all been in the low cost segment.

For comparison here is a link to the way its done over in Europe. Admittedly new aircraft, hence better cost per seat/mile, however on short legs such as MLB-SYD may be sustainable with an older 737 and load factors around 60%. Definitely would be the way to go on the redeye from Perth-Sydney from the comfort angle.

Lufthansa all business service (http://portal.lufthansa.com/online/portal/lh/us/info_services?l=en&nodeid=956842)
Interesting article (http://www.ainonline.com/issues/06_03/06_03_linebetweenp28.html)

Moniker
14th Aug 2005, 16:20
Just take a look at Virgin, their product is slowly morphing into a multi class airline with this in mind, how long before there is a 'Virgin link' - something akin to QF and NJS?

Legal_Counsel
15th Aug 2005, 00:22
With Qantas operating B737NG, A330 on the trunks and the Dash 8 - 400 on Link, the 737-200 cannot compete. Ownership is immaterial for Ozjet on these scales of economy and the market simply cannot be developed in time before an investor sees red. Unless they are blind. With RPT blindness and Investor Blindness, sustainable advantage is difficult to measure and they may go ahead anyway and one might hope and pray they will not use the money they get from a fare until the passenger has flown.

There is another subject post I set up here on PPRUNE for those willing and able to post indicative data about Ozjet. I challenge all to show their skill at backing up what they say on PPRUNE. Figures backed by chckable data is what I would like to see.

Apart from the initial support for Ozjet, the capacity that it will add exceeds the supply of business class travellers in this category (fully flexible) and based on my estimate its load factor will be more like 3% for that many flights. When it realises this it will change its product offering. The problem, in my view, is that Ozjet has already taken the first step to failure by entering the golden triangle too soon and it will run out of cash. Compass 3. :eek:

morning mungrel
15th Aug 2005, 01:25
Soooo LC, if they change their plan to have 737-300's, according to your theory, then can succeed?:rolleyes: The capitalist society in which we live gives everyone the right to attempt to spend their or their investors money however they see fit. If it works good luck. If it doesn't, then good luck to qf or dj or whoever else wants to have a go. As i said before, if everyone took your attitude towards a start up venture, we'd still be flying DC-3's. Good luck to them. At least they are making an attempt. The words of a certain U.S President to be of many years ago comes to mind...... Teddy Roosevelt it were...

gaunty
15th Aug 2005, 02:19
Legal_Counsel

It seems that any way you do the numbers you get a whole lot of blue sky. :rolleyes:

As the author and auditor of more than few business plans over the years, the amount of "blue sky" in them, is directly proportional going towards asymptotic to the level of risk, it's not even paradoxical, the more there is, the less you need/want to go there.:eek:

At least he is not asking for somebody elses money. The major cash outflows will be, fuel, waaay out in front of crew and Enroute/Terminal ANCs and Airport.

The fuel companies are generally unwilling to be "silent" shareholders and they will be on real short terms.

Deep pockets he will need for start up, before the cash flow starts

Can ya let us in on the secret hiding spot of your indicative data about Ozjet :ok:

Pass-A-Frozo
15th Aug 2005, 05:20
I think that anyone with a Formula One team (albeit not a crash hot one (excuse the pun), has deep pockets. I think it's not whether he can stay afloat, it's whether he can make a reasonable return on his investment. No point running an airline for a 5% return when he could get higher with a term deposit :)

Although I suppose it would be fun to own an airline.

Howard Hughes
15th Aug 2005, 07:34
LC,
Figures backed by checkable data is what I would like to see.
and based on my estimate its load factor will be more like 3% for that many flights
So would we, where do you get this figure from, it is mere speculation your honour?;)

Ozjet is going to provide a business class service at a fully flexible economy airfare (around $368*). The current going rate for a business class seat Mel-Syd is more like $562*.

Now given that around 70% of people I meet who travel for business, travel fully flexible economy (ie: pay $368*). Now if Ozjet can convince 1-2% of these people to switch, then back it up with reasonable service that keeps the people returning, they will have a more than profitable business.

Surely people will be at least willing to try the product, they will receive a larger seat with more workspace, a greater carry on luggage allowance, more personalised service and all for the SAME PRICE they already pay.

You seem to be forgetting that Ozjet are not trying to capture the "business class" market, but the economy punters who travel for business!

Whilst this will not affect the majors significantly, I do believe that they will create a profitable niche market for themselves.

Chers, HH.

:ok:

PS: Given that they own their aircraft, their break even could be as low as 15 seats based on todays prices.

* based on market prices as at 15-8-2005.

SmoothCriminal
15th Aug 2005, 08:15
Do they have an AOC yet ?!?!

Smoothie....:ok:

Legal_Counsel
15th Aug 2005, 08:43
If Ozjet was flying 737-300s and owned them that would go some way toward rearranging the numbers.

However, an Ozjet operation based in Canberra using a Dash 8-400 fleet spoking out to regional QLD, NSW, VIC, TAS and SA would pull far better profits for the owners than that proposed.

Keeping within a differentiable niche market and exploiting it is the key to success but although the Ozjet product appears visibly different, it is in effect no different to what already flies in these markets.

If you fly a plane like a 737 from Sydney to Melbourne with 15 passengers to break even, do you have any idea what it will cost the passenger?

Let's take stock of some numbers:

Fuel Consumption = Jet A1 approx 3,500 Litres. Cost $0.77/L (unhedged today) Fuel Cost = $2,737 or $182 per passenger.

Crew Cost = 1.5 hours Capt = $130K/900 x 1.5 = $144 x 1.5 = $216 F/O = $60K/900 x 1.5 = $67 x 1.5 = $100 Flight Attendants x 2, $45K/1976 x 1.5 x 2 = $68

So $182 + ($216 + $100 + $68)/15 = $208 approx.

Applying the NAV Charges/Landing Fees etc using a formula these amount to about $1,000 or $66 per passenger. This varies with the number of passengers and aircraft weight.

The maintenance burden (excluding spares) for the aircraft would be typically $400 for a sector like this for this aircraft or about $27 per passenger.


For the low cost of ownership, we can give some credit for hull insurance and spares so say $2 per pax.

Of course the airline has an overhead and ground handling contracts to satisfy and we can apply a notional figure to this as representative of a tightly negotiated contract. $61 per passenger in this case.

Adding up:

$208 + $66 + $27 + $2 + $61 = $ 364 plus $36.40 GST

Total fare $400.

Did I forget some costs? Oh yes of course, Superannuation, Company Tax, OH&S expenses, electricity, paper, telephone, breakdown insurance, petrol for the mercedes.....mmmmm

:confused:

I think if CASA gives them one soon they can go broke sooner and spare us the pain. :oh:

As far as I can work out from the press they made an application around June 10, 2005 so I would expect they should have it this month.

Needless to say, I would be watching that other lot as well as they have gone very quiet but on the grapevine I heard they were backed by Lufthansa (don\'t quote me on it though).

:suspect:

Chronic Snoozer
15th Aug 2005, 09:16
Seriously mate, what is your agenda here?

Why don't you just let their accountants figure it out and go from there?

I think if CASA gives them one soon they can go broke sooner and spare us the pain.
'The pain'? This is all about the engine noise isn't it LC?

Legal_Counsel
15th Aug 2005, 10:09
What accountants? Some MBA graduate is doing all the work presumably. No accountant would be stupid enough to think of such an absurd entry into the market. And they wouldn't dare ask for more than $25/hour.

I guess I find it amusing how people dream about the future success of an airline which has no visible business plan. If you read the Melbourne Herald Sun on 12 August 05, Ozjet is now ready to buy the Ansett hangars. Now I am sure that is in the plan...and who will they ask to pay for that?

Now where were we $400 + super, electricity, rent, hangars, .... Sounds like about $800 return for a starter. + accountants + lawyers....their owner can't even manage to win a race! (or sell the racing business).

Sorry, got a bit side tracked there. Yes, the engine noise and the pollution. They should keep their grotty engines out of here, we Sydney folk are clean people.

Now, if our good wannabe has money to buy hangars, I am sure it has the money to operate cleaner and quieter aircraft. What on earth does Ozjet need so many hangars for? That place looks like it could take 8-12 jets at once. Fleet size 2 ? Is it expecting some breakdowns or does it think it can get them for a couple of million? I think a few people out there would be quite happy to pay in the order of $100 mil and it aint gonna be Ozjet. A quiet 737-300 costs less than $US10 mil. Take note of the comment by Mr Stoddart that he has something of lesser "value" in the UK. Well, maybe the Ansett hangars are "fantastic" literally.

:uhoh:

Zigzag
15th Aug 2005, 10:43
Mention Ozjet, and who comes a-runnin?

L_C, that's who!

Blah, blah, blah, flip-flopping all over the joint, clutching at straws, hoping someone will back him up. Nothing more than pure speculation, and as is the norm, taking the easy (negative) approach.

I never knew that Business Plans had to be passed thru L_C to be signed off on, or that the accessibility of a website is a direct correlation of a business' possible fortunes.

Agendas are meant for meetings. :yuk:

Chronic Snoozer
15th Aug 2005, 13:17
Why do you care?

gaunty
15th Aug 2005, 14:22
After the Adelaide/Melbourne switcheroo, I suspect Ozjets have been taking lessons from the Fox and Lew "Big Book on how to start an airline" with foreword by Mark and Mark. :}

With the assistance of the ACTU the Marks have set amazing new benchmarks for the Administration industry in how to convert creditor and staff entitlements into houses, school fees, boats and skiing holidays. :sad:

Legal_Counsel
15th Aug 2005, 22:43
I would have to agree with you their Gaunty. It all seems very fishy. It's a wonder the creditors haven't all gone to the meetings and asked for an audit to be done on that administration.

I quite agree also with your switcheroo observation, this is very much the typical behaviour of a single entrepreneur who has no thourough background in RPT logistics and sees opportunities everywhere but cannot sew them together and so becomes grossly inefficient and misfocussed.

It's not uncommon for an administrator to lend funds to a prospective business to buy assets and as long as the administrator takes a charge over the asset there shouldn't be a problem in losing the asset for creditors. Unfortunately it does extend the administration with the loans then being sold to third party financial institutions who will discount them based on Ozjet's credit rading (not EAL's).


The big problem comes when the administrators start to deal with themselves and make returns without checks and balances. Therefore, the administrators may see that the advancement of the hangars to Ozjet is in the interest of the creditors and themselves. I think something like that needs to be put to a creditors meeting as it is a major asset and if I were a former Ansett employee I would vehemently object to this arrangement as it is too risky. It shares the same start up risk as Ozjet and I would be looking for a bank guaranteed security deposit of at least $200M for 5 years to be held in escrow to ensure former staff are at least paid out within the next 5 years.

I would have thought that the Ansett base would be more ideal for Jetstar or Virgin Blue or strong domestic/international Melbourne based airline. Letting it go to Ozjet would seem to be an absolute waste of good resources.

I am not sure what Ozjet's aim is with Adelaide, however, my view is that, Ozjet's financial position is driving much of this behaviour and I think there is grounds to be somewhat coy.

gaunty
16th Aug 2005, 01:25
Legal_Counsel

Classic herd behaviour.
The Creditors Committee is controlled by the ACTU using staff proxies, obtained on the basis of we are here to help you = we can play politics with this, otherwise we will lose a power base, and, who gives a stuff about the creditors even if they are our own members.

There is a very high probability that the airline would still today be flying had the ACTU not rejected and fired the original administrators.
The two prospective owners were not in the thrall of the ACTU and were in insisting on a reorganisation of the staffing conditions which would have seen off the ACTU .

Irony is that it is happening anyway and deliciously so, now that Corrigan has control of Virgin who stepped straight into the Ansett shoes.

The Marks approved either tacitly or implicitly the breathtaking fraud that was the Lew/Fox take over offer.
It was the Marks who kept the airline going at a significant nett loss to the creditors to enable the Bobbsey twins to make their play, with nothing more than a nod and a wink at risk to them.

Classic conflict of interest. The game was up the day I saw a media conference with the Marks wearing Ansett caps and talking about "their" airline. The language was unmistakable, they had been "captured".

It's a wonder the creditors haven't all gone to the meetings and asked for an audit to be done on that administration.

It truly is, but first they have to tip out the incumbent Creditors Committee, to do that they need to be organised.

They rely on the fact that the staff creditors are not the least bit sophisticated in these matters, anybody capable of leading the charge now will be in other employment. They are easily driven on to the guns.

It would take a brave and resilient set of individuals, because it will not be the Marks it will be the Labour Govt and the ACTU with whom you will have to deal.

They have IMHO been fed just enough to to keep em quiet for long enough to go back to sleep/get alternative employment and mentally write off the entitlements that have been transferred elsewhere, leaving the carcass still with plenty of meat on it, to be picked over at their leisure.

Besides its Melbourne.:rolleyes: The home of Elliot, Freddo, Painters and Dockers, Tricontinental and a huge host of other colourful characters who with panache, the wink and the nod, make the Sydney "push" look like absolute rank amateurs.
One of their favourite sons in the eighties, simply "stole" in plain sight tens of millions of dollars from an insurance company he happened to own, to get himself out of a tight spot, he now parades on the world stage philanthropising? and lecturing all and sundry on corporate governance. And you all thought that life insurance company funds were "safe". :rolleyes:

Administration 101 says; you keep it alive for as long as it is possible to take fees, then at the instant that this is no longer possible;............."your administrators regret that it is no longer possible ...blah blah blah...it has not been possible blah blah....it is now time to wind up the company and place it into liquidation, which will be handled by our sister company" which will suck whatever is left out of the bones. :E

BOHEuropean
16th Aug 2005, 15:28
Hey

G-GPFI & G-CEAI are in ozjet livery and are out in Australia.

Looks like there gonna send the European fleet out there once they have been banned from the European Skies.

cya

Legal_Counsel
17th Aug 2005, 06:20
Coffee shop talk in Pitt St is Ozjet is about to make an announcement. Something to do with further delays.

Point taken Gaunty it is a complex issue which is at the root of frustation of many who might have seen a better outcome.

They should ban those jets from flying here too BOHEuropean.

It's a fact that Ansett could have continued to operate on a 1/4 of its fleet size with less than 2000 staff, and I think Air NZ could have achieved that with far less damage than had occurred with the total shut down of the airline.

If Qantas had been smart it would have supported the government to do that, because in effect all the airlines would have been winners and 3 airlines could have successfully brought about the same fare benefits to the public as the arrangement today at probably a far lessor cost.

Zigzag
17th Aug 2005, 08:58
And the dribble rolls on...........

Legal_Counsel
21st Aug 2005, 01:39
The recent news that Ozjet is back in Adelaide looking for money clearly shows it hasn't got the money to operate the airline. Since when does a "business" airline develop a plan that hinges on government support. What a joke. Government should be more responsible.

:yuk:

Howard Hughes
21st Aug 2005, 02:27
Coffee shop talk in Pitt St is Ozjet is about to make an announcement.
Once again it seems Pitt Street is out of touch with what is going on in the rest of the country.;)

Legal_Counsel
22nd Aug 2005, 05:08
Sorry Howard Hughes, what do you mean by that? To date I think I have been pretty spot on in picking up which way Ozjet will go.

The key changes will be:

1. Ozjet will change its offering to a 2 class 84 seat domestic shuttle between Adelaide and Melbourne to ensure it gets it F1 benefit both ways. It will abandon Melbourne - Sydney and Adelaide-Sydney as these markets are not sustainable for their own reasons. The Adelaide-Melbourne sector has sustainable advantage for the race oriented concept and fleet size will be limited to four aircraft for this sector running at 2 hour intervals.

2. To enhance connectivity to the Adelaide hub, the airline will start services to Perth and Darwin.

3. To achieve support from the SA Government it will operate regional shuttles out of Adelaide to improve commerce connections.

Basically this would hub and spoke Ozjet in Adelaide.

Ozjet could use Melbourne as a maintenance base although if it intends to use the BAe146s of former Ansett then that might be better handled by National Jet in Adelaide. Or it could use both, but I would imagine that this would be cost prohibitive.

I think its owners need to find an amicable solution for Ozjet. Continual press announcements leave some people wondering whether it is serious because most would know after the owner's effort in the Melbourne Grand Prix some people would treat these antics as a joke. I think people have basically concluded this animal probably wont fly and if it does, not for long.

Let's see who is right Howard Hughes. Pitt street has a pretty good ear. :p

ozangel
23rd Aug 2005, 03:35
Legal...
you claim you are spot on, but wheres the evidence? You saying you know for sure its going to be 2 class?

Dont take offense when I say I dont believe you!

Besides, what have you been spot on so far? When you predict every possible negative aspect of the start up, your bound to hit once or twice, no matter what start up! Its like getting excited because you won the lottery after buying every available ticket!
Despite that, I cant really see where your psychic powers have hit anything in relation to Ozjet!?

Finally, and I know this will sound harsh, but does your negative attitude stem from your sister being involved in the 732 Airtours accident? Everyone has motivation, is this yours? Tragic as it was, (and by what you say, she appears to have been one of the lucky ones!), it was 20 years ago and 732s have been flying pretty safely ever since, especially for their age! My only reason for asking is you are so passionate about it not succeeding, and have insulted the crew who got jobs on other threads... There has to be some motivation coming from somewhere? Or is it just bitterness about airlines - your comment suggesting pilots being paid $80,000 is too much could suggest this?!

Legal_Counsel
24th Aug 2005, 04:48
Ozangel you are probably right. My sister would tell you she chose to fly with Airtours because she thought is was a safe company. She bears the scars of that decision and now trusts no one. And if you look at the history of that aircraft you realise that the engineers may have done her and others a gross dis-service. It certainly placed credence to Murphy's Law.

However, that aside, I wasn't trying to destroy the hopes and aspirations of people who need work. For some who have left their current employment with the established airlines, I say don't burn your bridge behind you.

My statistical analysis suggests the Ozjet model is not feasible. Yes there is a market for the product to some degree but not to the extent Ozjet believes. This is not about crossing the Atlantic where there is such a market. This is why i strongly believe Ozjet must change or it will fail.

BOHEuropean
1st Oct 2005, 14:22
G-FIGP is reported to be painted one side OZJET and the other side EUROPEAN


I have also heared they want 12 737-200's out there by this time next year - looks like thats where the European fleet is going..


cya

Jimmi