Mango - all you need to know about it (threads merged)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: RSA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
African Tech
why do you guys call yourselves Engineers? what do you Engineer, most Engineers I know go to University for 4 years and get a degree then get registered with the Professional Engineers Association..............you are not Engineers..............you are technicians.
It seems Fluffy did mention that the 737-800's were leased maybe you should read the posts before jumping in, and that figure that he gave is an accurate amount for financing costs.
I am so glad you get the impression that the pilots are well paid, maybe you should get the facts too.
why do you guys call yourselves Engineers? what do you Engineer, most Engineers I know go to University for 4 years and get a degree then get registered with the Professional Engineers Association..............you are not Engineers..............you are technicians.
It seems Fluffy did mention that the 737-800's were leased maybe you should read the posts before jumping in, and that figure that he gave is an accurate amount for financing costs.
I am so glad you get the impression that the pilots are well paid, maybe you should get the facts too.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deanw...... not to be pedantic but Sun Air (and I assume you refer to one that had its head office next door to Ceasers) was no LLC- in fact they operated at the opposite end of the scale- big on service/comfort/rewards, price was not a key selling point.
Now since I was on the recieving end, so to speak, during this sorry episode I think I can offer a version of events that may just cast a slightly different shade on what the general public has heard. Firstly SAA were involved up to their necks but only only at the end- the real conspirators got away scott free- Comair When Sun Air was privatized the government in its infinite wisedom, allowed a BEE partnership to partner with Comair and purchase 30% of Sun Air- Comair's principle competitor at the time. The result of this was that Comair appoined a representitve to the Sun Air board who then could report back as to any new initiatives Sun Air was planning. Needless to say it wasnt long before the man from Comair started influnecing other board members as to the ability of the Sun Air management team- result- 3 top execs were shown the door and replaced by incompetent fools appointed by the principle BEE shareholder. Lots of great plans in the pipline suddenly stopped- new routes etc.
Their next move was to cut Sun Air off from it support base- the corporate travel agencies who booked Sun Air for their clients. Smaller airlines pay very handsome back end commisions to the larger travel agency groupings to ensure they get traffic- its basically money for jam to the agents but the deals are structured in such a way that they off sell the airlines that dont pay them what they want. Comair knew the deals Sun Air put forward and instead of bettering them they then told the agents that the plan was to merge Sun Air with Comair and so dont worry about signing the Sun Air deal. Result- the biggest travel agency group in the country stoppped selling Sun Air and revenue dropped by 30% overnight. No airline will survive that for long.
Next- symaltaneously both SAA and Comair lowered their fares- mmm.. strange that. As Sun Air never sold on price this was going to make it hard to compete as it was used to selling a premium product at a good price. From then on the writing was on the wall.
The Comair man on the board then suggested to the other BEE partners on the board that perhaps the ship was sinking and a buy out should be orcestrated to save the money they had paid for the airline. A brilliant move as it they suggested that SAA may be interested in buying- enter Coleman. He must have thought it was christmas! he quickly promised the BEE chaps that he would gladly buy. Before the ink was dry on the document Coleman announced the purchase the the closure of Sun Air due to its precarious financial position. Notice here that Comair never uttered a word- they had millions pumped into Sun Air and they quite happily let it flow down the drain- but their pay off was the increased market share they thought they were going to get.
The real joke of the whole thing was then the BEE guys asked for their cash- Coleman refused to pay! nice. In fact SAA only paid the liqudators a few months ago- 14 million, cheap at the price.
So Comair's name was never dragged throught the mud and SAA took the heat. The last part of the story is also quite interesting becuase SAA had not paid for Sun Air, some of the ex management of the airline found another backer and offered a counter deal to the BEE guys- Sun Air still had its operating license and had aircraft available - this was based on the premise that the leases on the MD82's were paid up and were therefore legally still avialable for use. Not so, Comair and SAA saw this coming and did a deal with Safair to not release the aircraft to the new company. The essence of the deal was that Comair commited to take the leases on all the Sun Air MD82's over, after a cooling off period during which the aircraft were sent overseas- today they are back and flying in Kulula green. SAA sweetend the deal by selling SAFAIR its B737-200 fleet and leasing it back.
Where SAA were really sharp was the day Sun Air closed down they had senior management over at the Sun Air offices hireing key staff and managers as well as getting the frequent flier database onto Voyager. Comair sort of woke up a few days later but by then all the key people and information was already at Airwasy Park and therefore inacessible to them.
Comair also didnt get all the Sun Air passengers as they had hoped- the real winner here was Nationwide as this event really allowed them a foothold in the market. Today Nationwide is bigger, in market share terms, than Sun Air was and their key competitor is Comair (of course both compete very effectivley with SAA too!)
Whenever I see Comair bleeting about SAA and its uncompetitive
tactis I remember the Sun Air episode -they were quite happy to play dirty with SAA to get what they wanted.
Now since I was on the recieving end, so to speak, during this sorry episode I think I can offer a version of events that may just cast a slightly different shade on what the general public has heard. Firstly SAA were involved up to their necks but only only at the end- the real conspirators got away scott free- Comair When Sun Air was privatized the government in its infinite wisedom, allowed a BEE partnership to partner with Comair and purchase 30% of Sun Air- Comair's principle competitor at the time. The result of this was that Comair appoined a representitve to the Sun Air board who then could report back as to any new initiatives Sun Air was planning. Needless to say it wasnt long before the man from Comair started influnecing other board members as to the ability of the Sun Air management team- result- 3 top execs were shown the door and replaced by incompetent fools appointed by the principle BEE shareholder. Lots of great plans in the pipline suddenly stopped- new routes etc.
Their next move was to cut Sun Air off from it support base- the corporate travel agencies who booked Sun Air for their clients. Smaller airlines pay very handsome back end commisions to the larger travel agency groupings to ensure they get traffic- its basically money for jam to the agents but the deals are structured in such a way that they off sell the airlines that dont pay them what they want. Comair knew the deals Sun Air put forward and instead of bettering them they then told the agents that the plan was to merge Sun Air with Comair and so dont worry about signing the Sun Air deal. Result- the biggest travel agency group in the country stoppped selling Sun Air and revenue dropped by 30% overnight. No airline will survive that for long.
Next- symaltaneously both SAA and Comair lowered their fares- mmm.. strange that. As Sun Air never sold on price this was going to make it hard to compete as it was used to selling a premium product at a good price. From then on the writing was on the wall.
The Comair man on the board then suggested to the other BEE partners on the board that perhaps the ship was sinking and a buy out should be orcestrated to save the money they had paid for the airline. A brilliant move as it they suggested that SAA may be interested in buying- enter Coleman. He must have thought it was christmas! he quickly promised the BEE chaps that he would gladly buy. Before the ink was dry on the document Coleman announced the purchase the the closure of Sun Air due to its precarious financial position. Notice here that Comair never uttered a word- they had millions pumped into Sun Air and they quite happily let it flow down the drain- but their pay off was the increased market share they thought they were going to get.
The real joke of the whole thing was then the BEE guys asked for their cash- Coleman refused to pay! nice. In fact SAA only paid the liqudators a few months ago- 14 million, cheap at the price.
So Comair's name was never dragged throught the mud and SAA took the heat. The last part of the story is also quite interesting becuase SAA had not paid for Sun Air, some of the ex management of the airline found another backer and offered a counter deal to the BEE guys- Sun Air still had its operating license and had aircraft available - this was based on the premise that the leases on the MD82's were paid up and were therefore legally still avialable for use. Not so, Comair and SAA saw this coming and did a deal with Safair to not release the aircraft to the new company. The essence of the deal was that Comair commited to take the leases on all the Sun Air MD82's over, after a cooling off period during which the aircraft were sent overseas- today they are back and flying in Kulula green. SAA sweetend the deal by selling SAFAIR its B737-200 fleet and leasing it back.
Where SAA were really sharp was the day Sun Air closed down they had senior management over at the Sun Air offices hireing key staff and managers as well as getting the frequent flier database onto Voyager. Comair sort of woke up a few days later but by then all the key people and information was already at Airwasy Park and therefore inacessible to them.
Comair also didnt get all the Sun Air passengers as they had hoped- the real winner here was Nationwide as this event really allowed them a foothold in the market. Today Nationwide is bigger, in market share terms, than Sun Air was and their key competitor is Comair (of course both compete very effectivley with SAA too!)
Whenever I see Comair bleeting about SAA and its uncompetitive
tactis I remember the Sun Air episode -they were quite happy to play dirty with SAA to get what they wanted.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I need some clarification on a point that keeps on raising its head here. Will someone please explain to me why we NEED a flag carrier airline? Who is the equivalent in the US? Some ideas would be appreciated....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town (where else?)
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Business Day: 31 October 2005
Flying low
SEPTEMBER 11 2001 was a watershed for the airline industry, a seismic event that finally forced the already struggling industry to make some tough decisions.
More than four years later the pressure has in no way abated, with surging oil prices now adding to the industry’s woes. Airlines have adopted a range of strategies to compete in this new, challenging environment, some with more success than others. It has become clear that traditional airlines, with their high overheads, are finding it increasingly difficult to do business.
In Europe there has been vast consolidation. Air France has merged with the Dutch flag carrier KLM, and Lufthansa has bought Swiss International Airlines, the Swiss carrier that stared bankruptcy in the face once too often.
It is hoped that through consolidation, overheads will be brought under control by sharing certain costs. While Air France-KLM’s first set of results as a merged entity were encouraging, it is perhaps too early to pass judgment on the success of this strategy.
One strategy that has undeniably succeeded the world over is that of the low-cost airline. In Europe, Ryanair has grown its share of the market to the extent that is now one of the world’s biggest airlines.
In SA kulula.com, and more recently 1time, have also been enormously successful.
In the US, several of the main carriers have sought to emulate the success of the low-cost model by establishing separate airlines. While these low-cost airlines are all profitable, they have not helped the traditional carriers that own them come to terms with their own unwieldy cost structures: four of the major carriers — Delta, Northwest, United and US Airways — are currently operating under the US Chapter 11 insolvency rules.
Against this background, it is difficult not to raise an eyebrow when South African Airways (SAA) CEO Khaya Ngqula starts talking about creating a separate low-cost airline, possibly with a regional presence.
SAA has not escaped any of the turbulence in the industry over the past few years. It has been profitable in some years, and wildly unprofitable in others, although its earlier unwise hedging policy played a role here. It still has to contend with high overheads, large management structures and heavy oil prices. SAA has targeted the continent as an area of growth — a market it sees as being lucrative for the airline.
So where does a low-cost airline fit into this scenario? Assuming the new airline will be created as an entirely separate and ring-fenced entity, will it compete head-to-head with SAA?
Certainly the low-cost model must be alluring to legacy carriers and SAA may be seeking a piece of the action. And, given the pricey tickets for flights to African destinations, a low-cost airline could be appealing to business, particularly on key routes such as Lagos to Johannesburg. It would follow kulula’s launch of daily flights to Windhoek and Harare and possible services to other destinations in the region.
On domestic routes, a low-cost airline would allow SAA to win back market share from kulula and 1time.
However, there are warning signals. SAA should be careful how it uses its dominant position in the local market. It has been accused in the past of using its weight to crush competitors. Such tactics in the low-cost market cannot be tolerated.
Furthermore, a low-cost airline might well add an additional burden to the management team, which already has its hands full trying to sort out its existing problems. Then there is its second airline, SA Express, which is in the process of upgrading its fleet, a costly exercise.
As a state-owned entity, any expansionary failure could ultimately become government’s problem. The business case for any such move into the low-cost market needs to be extensively interrogated before SAA goes ahead.
SEPTEMBER 11 2001 was a watershed for the airline industry, a seismic event that finally forced the already struggling industry to make some tough decisions.
More than four years later the pressure has in no way abated, with surging oil prices now adding to the industry’s woes. Airlines have adopted a range of strategies to compete in this new, challenging environment, some with more success than others. It has become clear that traditional airlines, with their high overheads, are finding it increasingly difficult to do business.
In Europe there has been vast consolidation. Air France has merged with the Dutch flag carrier KLM, and Lufthansa has bought Swiss International Airlines, the Swiss carrier that stared bankruptcy in the face once too often.
It is hoped that through consolidation, overheads will be brought under control by sharing certain costs. While Air France-KLM’s first set of results as a merged entity were encouraging, it is perhaps too early to pass judgment on the success of this strategy.
One strategy that has undeniably succeeded the world over is that of the low-cost airline. In Europe, Ryanair has grown its share of the market to the extent that is now one of the world’s biggest airlines.
In SA kulula.com, and more recently 1time, have also been enormously successful.
In the US, several of the main carriers have sought to emulate the success of the low-cost model by establishing separate airlines. While these low-cost airlines are all profitable, they have not helped the traditional carriers that own them come to terms with their own unwieldy cost structures: four of the major carriers — Delta, Northwest, United and US Airways — are currently operating under the US Chapter 11 insolvency rules.
Against this background, it is difficult not to raise an eyebrow when South African Airways (SAA) CEO Khaya Ngqula starts talking about creating a separate low-cost airline, possibly with a regional presence.
SAA has not escaped any of the turbulence in the industry over the past few years. It has been profitable in some years, and wildly unprofitable in others, although its earlier unwise hedging policy played a role here. It still has to contend with high overheads, large management structures and heavy oil prices. SAA has targeted the continent as an area of growth — a market it sees as being lucrative for the airline.
So where does a low-cost airline fit into this scenario? Assuming the new airline will be created as an entirely separate and ring-fenced entity, will it compete head-to-head with SAA?
Certainly the low-cost model must be alluring to legacy carriers and SAA may be seeking a piece of the action. And, given the pricey tickets for flights to African destinations, a low-cost airline could be appealing to business, particularly on key routes such as Lagos to Johannesburg. It would follow kulula’s launch of daily flights to Windhoek and Harare and possible services to other destinations in the region.
On domestic routes, a low-cost airline would allow SAA to win back market share from kulula and 1time.
However, there are warning signals. SAA should be careful how it uses its dominant position in the local market. It has been accused in the past of using its weight to crush competitors. Such tactics in the low-cost market cannot be tolerated.
Furthermore, a low-cost airline might well add an additional burden to the management team, which already has its hands full trying to sort out its existing problems. Then there is its second airline, SA Express, which is in the process of upgrading its fleet, a costly exercise.
As a state-owned entity, any expansionary failure could ultimately become government’s problem. The business case for any such move into the low-cost market needs to be extensively interrogated before SAA goes ahead.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cape Town SA and Manchester UK
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then there is its second airline, SA Express, which is in the process of upgrading its fleet, a costly exercise.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brazil
Age: 61
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry RT – only just saw your question.
I’ve obviously touched a nerve somewhere – but to try and clarify :-
If by “you guys” you mean the hangar guys I’d guess it’s because some of them have CAA issued licence that say’s “Aircraft Maintenance Engineer”.
Fluffy gave a “price tag” whereas a lease rental has actually little to do with the “price tag” – it’s more to do with profit for Lease company / length of lease / amount of MR vs likely drawdown etc.
My impression is that SAA pilot get paid a sufficient – taking into account what they do and the conditions within the country – I did say I’ll be fascinated by the result of the survey.
I have worked with pilots from and in many countries and some I belive are overpaid whilst others underpaid and some sufficiently paid – to me the SAA guys I have dealt with seem sufficiently paid.
Personally I’m a Consultant – who used to be a Mechanic (and still have a valid Cert saying so) and a Technician (as some countries I worked in called me this) and an Engineer (s other countries called me this)
IR Pirate
The US definition of Flag carrier is
Flag operation means any scheduled operation conducted by any person operating any airplane described in paragraph (1) of this definition at the locations described in paragraph (2) of this definition:
(1) Airplanes:
(i) Turbojet-powered airplanes;
(ii) Airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of more than 9 passenger seats, excluding each crewmember seat; or
(iii) Airplanes having a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds.
(2) Locations:
(i) Between any point within the State of Alaska or the State of Hawaii or any territory or possession of the United States and any point outside the State of Alaska or the State of Hawaii or any territory or possession of the United States, respectively; or
(ii) Between any point within the 48 contiguous States of the United States or the District of Columbia and any point outside the 48 contiguous States of the United States and the District of Columbia.
(iii) Between any point outside the U.S. and another point outside the U.S.
(from FAR 119)
So they have more than one Flag carrier.
A simpler version is “the National Airline” – ie BA is the UK’s Flag carrier – I belive SA needs an International Airline and for better or worse right now SAA is it – it gives the Country a world wide presence and should be a symbol of how good the Country is (not saying all are doing this well) – ignoring status symbols etc a Country with no Flag carrier is just too dependant on others.
BTW – I know SAA isn’t the only International airline we have – but it’s the one with the routes.
I’ve obviously touched a nerve somewhere – but to try and clarify :-
If by “you guys” you mean the hangar guys I’d guess it’s because some of them have CAA issued licence that say’s “Aircraft Maintenance Engineer”.
Fluffy gave a “price tag” whereas a lease rental has actually little to do with the “price tag” – it’s more to do with profit for Lease company / length of lease / amount of MR vs likely drawdown etc.
My impression is that SAA pilot get paid a sufficient – taking into account what they do and the conditions within the country – I did say I’ll be fascinated by the result of the survey.
I have worked with pilots from and in many countries and some I belive are overpaid whilst others underpaid and some sufficiently paid – to me the SAA guys I have dealt with seem sufficiently paid.
Personally I’m a Consultant – who used to be a Mechanic (and still have a valid Cert saying so) and a Technician (as some countries I worked in called me this) and an Engineer (s other countries called me this)
IR Pirate
The US definition of Flag carrier is
Flag operation means any scheduled operation conducted by any person operating any airplane described in paragraph (1) of this definition at the locations described in paragraph (2) of this definition:
(1) Airplanes:
(i) Turbojet-powered airplanes;
(ii) Airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of more than 9 passenger seats, excluding each crewmember seat; or
(iii) Airplanes having a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds.
(2) Locations:
(i) Between any point within the State of Alaska or the State of Hawaii or any territory or possession of the United States and any point outside the State of Alaska or the State of Hawaii or any territory or possession of the United States, respectively; or
(ii) Between any point within the 48 contiguous States of the United States or the District of Columbia and any point outside the 48 contiguous States of the United States and the District of Columbia.
(iii) Between any point outside the U.S. and another point outside the U.S.
(from FAR 119)
So they have more than one Flag carrier.
A simpler version is “the National Airline” – ie BA is the UK’s Flag carrier – I belive SA needs an International Airline and for better or worse right now SAA is it – it gives the Country a world wide presence and should be a symbol of how good the Country is (not saying all are doing this well) – ignoring status symbols etc a Country with no Flag carrier is just too dependant on others.
BTW – I know SAA isn’t the only International airline we have – but it’s the one with the routes.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks ATR, i have really been wondering about the definition of the so called flag carrier. As for SAA being our flag carrier, im just wondering whether a fantastic looking, brand new, leased machine is maybe window dressing in this case. There are definitely better Airlines in SA. Unfortunately they do not have the " financial backing".
Join Date: May 2005
Location: ZA
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idea of SAA running a low cost airline must surely be a joke.
If SAA really believe they can be competitive ...in any form ...why dont they...in particular ... allow/not object to additional carriers on the "African" routes. It really pi$$es me off to have to pay mega premium to fly to places like Nigeria... which, with due respect to our Nigerian based pprunes is not a place I relish visiting anyway..especially after I have been ripped off by the Honourable Nigerian Embassy for the requisite green sticker.
And whilst I am at it ... why is it that the Zurich route, which I fly regularly always has the dogs of the fleet allocated to it. The seating in the Lufthansa outcast A340-200's just does not cut it. My ticket last week was R42 000 (bus).....no joke...but unless I routed via Qatar ... the other airlines were playing the same pricing game that week...
OK.. bitch & moan over ...that feels better...I am sure I will be Ok ...that is until I have to fly with them again !
If SAA really believe they can be competitive ...in any form ...why dont they...in particular ... allow/not object to additional carriers on the "African" routes. It really pi$$es me off to have to pay mega premium to fly to places like Nigeria... which, with due respect to our Nigerian based pprunes is not a place I relish visiting anyway..especially after I have been ripped off by the Honourable Nigerian Embassy for the requisite green sticker.
And whilst I am at it ... why is it that the Zurich route, which I fly regularly always has the dogs of the fleet allocated to it. The seating in the Lufthansa outcast A340-200's just does not cut it. My ticket last week was R42 000 (bus).....no joke...but unless I routed via Qatar ... the other airlines were playing the same pricing game that week...
OK.. bitch & moan over ...that feels better...I am sure I will be Ok ...that is until I have to fly with them again !
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: "HARD" TO TELL.....
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this fuss about SAA...when:
The company ALREADY is a LOW COST AIRLINE....!!!!
I paid R57 one way JNB-CPT April this year,airport tax was a killer at R300...
R57...come on...how much lower must they go before being classified as a "low cost"...??? www.flysaa.com
They even threw in a nice meal and drinks,yes..wait for it...FOR FREE...!!
Certainly beats those dispicable green and red flying "steam-engines" of kakalula and lastime...(the latter still refusing to carry little paraplegic girls)....
Good on SAX for looking into the future...and especially for looking at THE BUS..ooooohhhh,even if they buy them just for it's sexy wing...
The company ALREADY is a LOW COST AIRLINE....!!!!
I paid R57 one way JNB-CPT April this year,airport tax was a killer at R300...
R57...come on...how much lower must they go before being classified as a "low cost"...??? www.flysaa.com
They even threw in a nice meal and drinks,yes..wait for it...FOR FREE...!!
Certainly beats those dispicable green and red flying "steam-engines" of kakalula and lastime...(the latter still refusing to carry little paraplegic girls)....
Good on SAX for looking into the future...and especially for looking at THE BUS..ooooohhhh,even if they buy them just for it's sexy wing...
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cape Town SA and Manchester UK
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good on SAX for looking into the future...and especially for looking at THE BUS..ooooohhhh,even if they buy them just for it's sexy wing...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brazil
Age: 61
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IRP
(If I may call you that)
There are good financial reasons for having the nice new planes (better fuel efficiency / lower maintenance requirements) – but in the case of a Flag carrier they would look a bit daft flying 707’s around.
But having had the opportunity of flying in all three classes on both SAA and Virgin to and from SA I see your point about “window dressing” – given the choice I’d be on Virgin every time.
Slapfaan – I think part of the concern is that they (SAA) can afford to give this rates not because of efficiency but because the rest of their costs are covered by the taxpayer – thus if the LCC goes ahead you may well see 1ZAR tickets until they have got rid of the other LCC’s – then bye bye SAA LCC and back to high prices.
It’s not a fair playing field – exasperated by SAA being almost Assetless – if one of the current LCC’s need cash they go to the bank and can mortgage their planes, SAA can’t do this so are reliant on government loans / handouts.
BTW - Of course the wing of the scarebus is the best bit - look who made it
Fluffy – I think our main point of disagreement is the reason SAA lease most (if not all) the planes – the high rate of leasing worldwide for 738’s currently is because lease companies have most of the ones coming off the line – SAA could have bought theirs but the CEO at the time could show more profit on paper by selling assets and leasing replacements – this in the long term is costing SAA LOTS of money and making the lease companies LOTS of profit.
The paper profit has now dissipated, so without a major cash injection SAA can’t really afford to buy many planes.
While I agree SAA have many “hangers on” I do actually feel sympathetic for the CEO’s since the big sell off – the task of making profits from an airline that’s been raped is not an easy one – but I do question their interest to actually rebuilding the airline to somewhere near the status it once had vs their interest in bonuses / golden parachutes and intention to do a bit and then move on.
South Africa is now paying for actions that happened some years ago.
Oh – and while CFM56-7 (738 engines) may have best dispatch reliability right now the CFM56-3 (733/4/5 engines) have best “on wing” time (MTBR) with their reliability unfairly “skewed” nowadays by poor third world operations.
(If I may call you that)
There are good financial reasons for having the nice new planes (better fuel efficiency / lower maintenance requirements) – but in the case of a Flag carrier they would look a bit daft flying 707’s around.
But having had the opportunity of flying in all three classes on both SAA and Virgin to and from SA I see your point about “window dressing” – given the choice I’d be on Virgin every time.
Slapfaan – I think part of the concern is that they (SAA) can afford to give this rates not because of efficiency but because the rest of their costs are covered by the taxpayer – thus if the LCC goes ahead you may well see 1ZAR tickets until they have got rid of the other LCC’s – then bye bye SAA LCC and back to high prices.
It’s not a fair playing field – exasperated by SAA being almost Assetless – if one of the current LCC’s need cash they go to the bank and can mortgage their planes, SAA can’t do this so are reliant on government loans / handouts.
BTW - Of course the wing of the scarebus is the best bit - look who made it
Fluffy – I think our main point of disagreement is the reason SAA lease most (if not all) the planes – the high rate of leasing worldwide for 738’s currently is because lease companies have most of the ones coming off the line – SAA could have bought theirs but the CEO at the time could show more profit on paper by selling assets and leasing replacements – this in the long term is costing SAA LOTS of money and making the lease companies LOTS of profit.
The paper profit has now dissipated, so without a major cash injection SAA can’t really afford to buy many planes.
While I agree SAA have many “hangers on” I do actually feel sympathetic for the CEO’s since the big sell off – the task of making profits from an airline that’s been raped is not an easy one – but I do question their interest to actually rebuilding the airline to somewhere near the status it once had vs their interest in bonuses / golden parachutes and intention to do a bit and then move on.
South Africa is now paying for actions that happened some years ago.
Oh – and while CFM56-7 (738 engines) may have best dispatch reliability right now the CFM56-3 (733/4/5 engines) have best “on wing” time (MTBR) with their reliability unfairly “skewed” nowadays by poor third world operations.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cape Town SA and Manchester UK
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATR (if i may call you that)
Can you perhaps compare the efficency of the new generation of a/c i.e. B738 / A319 to the other types ie. 737 classics, MD 80s etc that are being flown by other operators.
Obviously these older a/c cost sweet FA to acquire yet burn much more fuel. No problem when fuel is cheap but at around 60$ per barrel things are a lot different to 12 months ago. At what point will things become critical for the likes of Nationwide/Kulula etc that operate old kit?
Can you perhaps compare the efficency of the new generation of a/c i.e. B738 / A319 to the other types ie. 737 classics, MD 80s etc that are being flown by other operators.
Obviously these older a/c cost sweet FA to acquire yet burn much more fuel. No problem when fuel is cheap but at around 60$ per barrel things are a lot different to 12 months ago. At what point will things become critical for the likes of Nationwide/Kulula etc that operate old kit?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: turning inbound
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things started getting tough when the oil price went trough $50 a barrel. One LCC in SA facing serious cash-flow problems - their budget worst case scenario was $54 a barrel!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: South africa
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi There I R Pirate and ATR my view about a Flag or National Carrier;In principal mostly Coutries that colonised other countries created an enviroment where they could profit from the public transport system of their colonies,Once thses countries became independant their new goverments continued to supply this kind of services. The rail networks and airlines springs to mind.
The USA however won their war against the European colonial powers ,then created their own laws and for one dicided not to allow their goverment to compete with its citizens, hence all USA airlines are private airlines.
Here in Africa we have a situation where Goverments own airlines and use their powers to protect them etc etc this means That Nationwide's taxes goes directly in to SAA feul tanks? its a sick system.
The Goverment should try to govern and leave commerce to ordenary citizens.
And we will all prosper.
