Q4NVS

I agree that even though they would probably like to believe this, not even Comair comes close at the moment.

If this was the case they would have had to be on an impressive expansion drive at the moment. I do doubt this, as apparently guys are sitting around for 12+ months on a short list, before getting that favoured call..

These are also only due to replacements, not really expansion. Taking an aircraft off 1 route and publicly putting it onto another is also not really expansion.

There are other SA Airlines that are expanding at a rate faster than crew can be trained though.

I tend to agree that some of the LCC glory days are over and specifically Comair would have to do a bit of housekeeping and realignment of however many "brands" they seek to operate, to continue it's "successes"..?

fluffyfan

Would have to agree, the LCC are not going to have such an easy future, they have large obstacles to overcome, the main ones being the fuel price (ok so everyone suffers but for operators using old equipment it will hurt more)

They also have to think of replacing there aging fleets, old MD82's, DC9's and 737-200's will not comply with noise requiremnts in 2009, and cheap aircraft are not so easy to come by now as they were post 911.

Solid Rust Twotter

Details? Right now I'm prepared to fly a bucket of fried chicken if the wings can generate enough lift....

vagabond 47

Apparently the "Parsons Nose", just above the APU Exhaust, has been known to develop the most lift ...........got it off a Harrier Pilot I fly with?

T Hairy Henry

AfricanSkies:

It's not about paying peanuts and getting monkeys. All the pilots have to be up to the correct standard no matter what you pay them!!!

The likes of Ryanair and easyJet pay top dollar for their pilots in order to retain there services, while at the same time getting them to fly as much as possible. In other words, give up the easy life at BA and you'll earn more cash!!

tamboekie

It must be obvious who this magic low cost carrier is, has everybody forgotten the "independant SA Express" who have never made a cent profit in their own right, and being part of the SAA stable has never enhanced things???

Q4NVS

I suggest you get your facts straight first..

At the moment it is believed that SAX is one of the few Airlines in SA that is actually turning a profit.

Also have a look at their expansion, believed to include 2 x Q400's as well as 2 or 3 CRJ200's.

cigar

I heard from a SAX pilot a couple months back that the ultimate aim was to phase out the CRJs and bring in more Q400s. Have things changed since then?

George Tower

Must admit that I had also heard the crj200s were being withdrawn at some pont in the future. I mean if you are doing the FAJS-FAGG sector in a turbo prop what do you need the crj200 for......namibian sectors only??????

IMHO that would be the only reason not to have total fleet commonality......

At 20m USD these things ain't cheap but it appears the SA taxpayer just loves to see the public flying in the latest kit

Q4NVS

Sorry to be the bearer of "bad" news....

But it was not the SA Taxpayer, unfortunately it was Rand Merchant Bank.

George Tower

Q4NVS

I'm not so naive as to assume that an aircraft would ever be financed directly from the treasury, however, may point is that SAA and SAX, have over the long run been a liability to the tax payer of SA and additionally taken part in trading practices which fall foul of national law. We have a court case that demonstrates that.

Although RMB no doubt have satisfied itself that the Q400 acquisition represents acceptable risk, I still feel this is an unfair advantage in what essentially supposed to be a free market.

nugpot

SAX has never been capitalised or re-capitalised like SAA. If you talk about the overdraft facility at Transnet, how does that qualify your statement above?

SAX has never done their own revenue accounting. They pay SAA to do it and was not involved in the fuel surcharge decision.

How can RMB's decision to finance the Q400 possibly be an unfair advantage?

George Tower

Nugpot

My point all the long has been that state run airlines in free markets do not work and moreover are immoral. The only lesson from history is that even in spite of unfair advantages in the market place they still fail due to a variety of issues

Although it is easier to prove that SAA is to all intents and purposes a liability, given that SAX is a seperate entity albeit within Transnet it is easy to make a few statements like I have done and then take them out of context.

The question I have is this for those of you getting shirty with me regarding SAX - if the SA government has a policy of privatisation which it says it does, then why, if SAX is as healthy as you all believe it is, is it not floated on the stock market?

George Tower

The vast majority of airlines have very poor credit ratings - so either SAX is performing very well in which case, there is a strong argument in favour of privatising NOW, or is it because they're a state owned company, backed by Government operating on routes where in the main they're the only carrier. hence a degree of security which wouldn't be open to a private company operating in the same environment.

fluffyfan

George Tower I have to say its getting really old hearing you champion the cause of the SA tax payer, you and Solid rust Twotter dont seem to add much to these posts except your incessant bitching about the poor old tax payer and the free market......ok we all get the point, please give it a rest.

Solid Rust Twotter

Truth getting a bit problematic there, Fluffy?

reptile

Your statement is in error......

If and when Transnet does not provide finance to either SAX or SAA, a letter of guarantee is issued by Transnet to the institution providing finance. This in essence states that should SAA/SAX not be able to service their debt to the bank, then Transnet will be responsible for the outstanding balance.

When the Q400's were purchased, Transnet was unable to give a letter of guarantee. They believed that with the imminent departure of SAX out of the Transnet stable, that they cannot be held liable for the long term debt of SAX. SAX was therefore forced to find finance based on only the strength of their own finance - exactly the way a privately held airline would do.

RMB provided the finance to SAX after a normal risk analysis. For you to insist that SAX is operating with a "degree of security" not available to privately held airlines is plain nonsense.

Your mission to be the champion for the poor SA taxpayer is to be applauded....but get your facts straight before you set off on a tangent again.

reptile

SAX is in a perfect position to be privatised. Passenger growth on certain routes takes place faster than capacity can be increased. SAX is not operating a single loss making route. The company exceeded stringent budget targets during the last financial year and employees will almost cerainly be paid a performance bonus in July.

The governent and Transnet view SAX as an essential part of SAA's route coverage, and it provides a generous amount of passengers for onward connection on SAA. As we are well aware, SAA is no position to be privatised. DTI cannot risk privatising SAX and having it fall in the hands of one of SAA's competitors. Until SAA is ready for privitisation, SAX will always have the government as mayor shareholder.

saywhat

If all's fair in love, war and aviation, how is it possible that Comair and kulula operate with a common pool of pilots. This is surely not two indipendant airlines, and must, to some degree be construed as anti competitive. I'm not complaining, as my belief is that the more pilots employed in SA by however many airlines the better.

As for salaries, I believe that the problem in SAA lies not with pilot remuneration, but with the fact that there must be a very high ratio of management positions within the airline to aircraft operated.

Deskjocky

Your outlook is too simplistic, there are a number of factors affecting SAA’s position right now, yes there are too many managers- the airline could cull off at least 150 and not feel the difference, but then again there also too many members of staff as well- in fact at least 3000 too many, SAA’s issues are productivity based- if the staff were more motivated to be more productive then the airline would need less of them or be able to grow the revenue base. The root cause of all of this is the union movement that has got the business by the balls- SAA pays its staff way above what the other airlines in the country are paying and its all driven my very militant unions.(before everyone goes off on a tangent about why this is the case, I clearly concede that its due to inept management of these same unions by top management over a long period of time) This is exactly the same situation the airline faces with the pilots- pilots earning high salaries while being for the most part underutilized.

On the point of salaries- I want to be clear : its not about pay- its about productivity. This applies to the CEO as it does to a pilot as it does to the reservation agent.

The funny thing is despite all of this SAA can be a very profitable business- even with the low cost carriers. The oil crisis has forced it into looking at its costs- finally! From what I have seen the savings are not stellar so far, in the region of 600 million this year, but are long term based and should bode well for the future.