Dear Mikemal,
Thanks for eventually feeling the need to respond. Much better than SAA usually does…especially when pax are stranded.
I feel free to respond to your reply, We do live in a democratic SA don’t we. Is that Tswane or Pretoria you stem from? Anyway, I see you’ve been around on Proone for some time…so I hope you can fathom the depth of your opinion.
Getting down to your comment/opinion…it’s not wasted by the way. I took note of it, thanks.
I don’t feel resentment towards SAA. I have no reason to do so as I never was employed by SAA, never wanted to be employed by SAA and don’t have plans to be employed by SAA. It goes about basic business principles on their behalf, especially customer care. Hopefully KN does something about it.
I freely express my opinion about SAA (not resentment of SAA) because in this country I am allowed to do so. There’s no “deep-rooted cause” as you so freely claim. It seems like slagging off anybody not in line with SAA is fine around here.
As for professing to be a senior manager: read my post. Your reply is typical of somebody that’s gospel is SAA (protective job). I said “…not as a pilot anyway…”. And, I never said with SAA either (they have partners and alliances as well).
As for the shallow understanding of SAA and the aviation industry as a whole… explain the billions of losses? Shallow understanding? I beg your pardon. Maybe you know who in fact suffers (read pays for) from this?
Do you have any idea what SAA went through to transfer their air service licences with the Air Services Licensing Council as well as the International Air Services Council from Transnet (Ltd) to SAA (Pty) Ltd a few years ago? If you want exact details…oh well…leave it there…so called privatisation!
Yes, SAA still belongs to the Government, but why is Transnet going to get SAA out of the Transnet stable…but still in the government? Check the balance sheet!
The ZAR did not go to R15 a US$, so who takes the crap…not AV, not SAA’s management, not the Government, nobody but the taxpayer. Billions of it!!!!
I have no problem with a new fleet of aircraft. If it makes sense, if it’s reasonable an economically viable. E.g. Comparing SAX replacing DHC-8’s with CRJ2’s a while back on the same route? Really, comparing an A320 (20 years+) as new compared to a B73-updated? I do believe that the A320 order was cancelled (in addition to other threads on this forum)!
“Kickbacks to the Government” – well, well, well, maybe the arms deal and the travel agent investigations may shed some light on this!!!! As for your comments on the A340-600 (or any other Airbus performance)…I will leave that to other threads on this forum!
Operating profit: I could not agree with you more…especially the bit on the poor balance sheet. The pity is that the guys and gals doing the job very well at flight level seems to be totally negated by the cock-ups at ground level and at management level.
As for being ordered around by the Government to do fly-pasts at the Union buildings. Then SAA does it. Bull****, SAA does not pay for it. You and I do. If SAA pays for it, the government pays for it, and you said SAA belongs to the government. So, I pay for it and so do you. Do I blame SAA for this? Yes, in terms of
PR. If the Government stuffs SAA around, in terms of transparency, let SAA tell their customers (there must be someone that actually pay for the ticket) the facts and stop the BS!! To try and tell me SAA pays the costs is BS!!! BIG TIME!! YOU pay and I pay!
As for marginal economical routes. Does not make sense? In terms of prestige it does! Especially as far as SAA/Government is concerned. “But SAA has to go there” and in the process prevent anybody else from going there…it sucks…. “Who covers the costs”. Not SAA bru, YOU and I!!!! A loss making route to save face and keep competition out…it sucks!!! Prestige!!!
Cadet pilots. In principle, a very good idea and could have worked if managed properly. Just go ask Link and SAX. Read the other thread on this forum re this issue. Was doomed to failure due to bad management. The wheels are falling off!! And YOU and I are paying for this as well!!!
As for my continued lambasting of SAA, none as accused of as you tried to guess. Sorry to disappoint you. Not involved, never was, didn’t try, don’t want to, not interested.
As for verbal pollution on this forum. It’s a phrase I would rather use for some of the statements made by so called very informed people around here. Just read some other threads. Anyway, as the saying goes, you can BS some of the people some of the time, you cannot BS all the people all the time.
Maybe I’ve been involved and maybe you still want to get there. Have T-shirt, been there, done that. I never said with SAA. (There’s other partners and an alliance).
Also, read more carefully what I say.
As an afterthought, SAA just a few days ago had their pax stranded on an island for three days (SAA pays = government pays = you and I cough), and SAA said they had no standby aircraft as all aircraft were involved in the rest of the schedule. What I don’t understand is that 702 Talk Radio reported that the pilots realised after take-off that they would not reach Atlanta due to a shortage in fuel and then turned back. “Operationally, SAA is sound"? Mikemal, I believed so as well until I heard the above.
Anyway, where’s the principle (policy) of the licensing councils (as appointed by the NDoT) in terms of standby aircraft? They always hammer on it! The pax always comes first…
I rest my case. I just pray SAA gets it together because at present, …??????
Taildraggers teaches you the 5th dimension.
BAKELA