|
Mango - all you need to know about it (threads merged)
SAA may launch low cost carrier Dikatso Mametse Posted: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 SA Airways will decide soon whether to launch a low-cost airline to take on rivals Kulula.com and 1time. SAA CEO Khaya Ngqula told Moneyweb Radio on Monday that the airline was considering bringing in a budget model to regional destinations such as Windhoek and Harare. (Click here to read/listen to the interview) Ngqula said SAA was talking to its board and shareholders, and said that it ‘makes sense to go that route’. He said plans were still secret at this stage. Gidon Novick, Kulula.com’s executive director, said that they wouldn’t be threatened by such a move, but that it would be a big challenge for the taxpayer. “The SA taxpayers are already subsidising two airlines - SAA and SAA Express. I don’t think they’ll subsidise a third airline,” he said. Rodney James, marketing manager for the other low cost airline in South Africa, 1time, agrees. “The airline is already using R6bn of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer, I would be subsidising an airline with which I compete against. I think that’s unfair. “They basically don’t need to make a profit. This would kill low cost carrier competition – we would not be on a level playing field. The government needs to privatise SAA,” he said. The airline business’s biggest challenge this year has been the rise of fuel prices. In the past six months crude prices have gone up by almost 50% to over $60 a barrel, which makes it difficult for airlines to be viable. But there have been some airlines that have made it work, Ngqula says. “Some of them are not the low fare, like you find in South Africa, because some of them have got plans of twenty-five years and older. But South West in the US does well, Ryan Air is doing well, Easyjet, Virgin Blue in Australia are doing well. And these are no-frills. They have cut costs down to the bone. People are packed like sardines. But it works, Ngqula said that in South Africa, about 20% of the public don’t seem to mind flying in rough conditions. The market share of the low-cost or low-fare carriers is growing significantly which shows that there is an existing market, which doesn’t care about the frills. “There is also the new market which has never flown before, which travels on buses from Johannesburg to East London, Jo’burg to Cape Town, Jo’burg to Durban. “And that new market is saying, yes, the low-cost carriers are competitive, and people are starting to use that. So you’ve got new entrants into the market, and you’ve got some people who are moving from the existing market joining the low-cost carriers. It is a big challenge. It’s something we are dealing with, very aggressively,” Ngqula said. The company has a dual strategy to compete with low cost carriers. “We have to maintain the successful SAA, which has an image as one of the biggest and best airlines in the world. For the long hauls, from Johannesburg to Lagos, Johannesburg even to Angola, to New York, you can’t use low-cost, because there’s the question of inconvenience. “But we need to simplify prices in the regional sphere. Johannesburg-Harare, Johannesburg-Windhoek, or even to Botswana, there you can look at coming up with low-cost carriers which can compete fairly with everybody else. We have been speaking to our board and obviously to our shareholders, Transnet and the government – I think it’s no secret. there “The other option is to sit back and do nothing and hope for the best. And the best might never come. We will just disappear as an airline. So we’ve taken the high road. Look at the original structure, look at the low-cost carriers, improve and upgrade the product, better our service at the existing SAA…market better.” |
Why launch a low cost carrier when they are already competing with the LCC`s?(Just check out there fares on competing routes).
SAA continues to take the tax payers money by rolling over billions of lost hedging finance, and now competing with the Kululas and 1 times of the world by offering similar fares which can NOT be making them money, given the oil price and the modern fleet etc. How wonderful is must be for our millionaire CEO, Mr Ngqula to strategize at state expense without ever having to worry about the bottom line?? More fool the gullible public paying for SAA to lose billions and then still supporting them. It beats me....time for some justice here. |
I thought for a moment that it could be April 1st but alas its not.:p
Let SAA stay state owned for all I care, however I think priavtely owned carriers should not pay any tax, that is VAT, Corporation tax on profits etc. Of course no one will seriously consider this for one moment but just consider the huge injustice of the present situation..... Comair, Nationwide and 1-Time operate in a competitive environment and make a profit. They are then taxed on that profit, (a reward for hard work, good decision making, investor confidence) and that money goes to the government which as far as airlines goes can't manage a piss-up in a brewery!!!! Why should a company's hard earned profit go to subside a state-owned corporate shambles? What annoys me more than anything else is the sheer arrogance of the people that run SAA. The sad thing is that most people (SA Taxpayer) are so ignorant of how flagrently abused their Rands by SAA no one is ever called to account. |
Here we go again!!!! I think he's been flying too high in his chopper again. Clown!!!!!!!!
|
I personally think that Khaya should stay away from such an endevour, but I can see why he thinks its a good Idea
It is very difficult for SAA to compete (price wise) with the other Airlines in SA, for example, one 737-800 has a price tag of around $40million (USD not R) and one DC9/737-200/MD82 has a price of around $1-2mill, you do the math. yes SAA is tax payers money, but its also a taxpayers asset, its a modern airline flying the newest equipment out there with all the correct training devices, granted our management are shocking and they are a danger to themselves. Everyone complains about how the taxpayers money is being abused, and it makes my blood boil as well, but what would you like? SAA to dissapear? only have 20-30 year old aircraft flying the skys, with crew that are worked to the bone and payed peanuts while there bosses prosper and think of new ways to save money, ie there maintenance (its happened in other countries already) corner cutting in maintenance will only lead to an accident, its just a matter of time unfortunately. Unfortunatley if Khaya goes this route, I doubt there will be much expansion in SAA, the low cost carrier will probably get the domestic routes (the rumour is that SAX will be the low cost carrier....flying 737-200's or DC9's) and this means no more intakes of pilots which is a pitty because I know there are many guys/girls out there who would love to fly for SAA. Khaya is no Richard Branson and it scares me that he has the arrogance to act the way he does |
The rumour that SAX becoming the low cost carrier of SAA has been spoken about for a while now - and I suppose SAA will do just about anything to crush the competiton even atat tax payers expense!!!! Lets hope that sense prevails at higher levels and the big guns are left to to do the job they started out to do.....anyway only time will tell. :ok:
|
Fluffyfan.....just because the media loves " informing " the man in the street about the LCC's " alleged " poor maintenance standards, dont jump on the bandwagon. Remember, the same govt that looks after its " flag " (not bok) carrier, also likes to read about the other less financially advantaged carriers in the news....not true?? The beast with two backs....
|
Not accusing all the low cost operators of maintenance shortcuts, however I do believe that when there are financial pressures companies can and do take shortcuts, just ask Alaskan airlines about the lack of grease on the jack screw of the MD82, and that was a first world country where some bright spark thought he could save a few bucks, ok the time issue was also a factor they needed that aircraft back in service asap, the same thing can easily happen here in africa.......just dont think its a good idea to save money on maintenance, and I know its happening with one outfit who does there own servicing at Lanseria, you know who.
I am sure a few guys will respond and say I am talking sh*t, but its common sense, saw it over and over in the contract world. Also know for a fact that DDM requirements which state you CAN NOT DEPART have been overlooked, witnessed it myself. Dont defend someone for the sake of defending them or because you want to shoot the messenger, at least critisise things that are wrong............did that make sense? |
I have mentioned this before but even though the DC9/MD80's and B737-200 cost next to nothing to require they chow an awful lot of fuel. Now with the price of fuel going the way it has, at what point do the old aircraft become uneconomic?
Just out of interest does any one have some average figures as to what the various types of a/c might burn on average CT/JS sector? Be interesting to compare. |
Assets?:ooh: :rolleyes: :confused:
Last I looked most of Spoories' fleet was leased. I suppose they think the taxpayer can stand a little more squeezing.:rolleyes: :* :mad: |
There is absolutely no future in SAA launching its own LLC arm- they have done the analysis and shown that its cheaper to use the existing fleet to compete with the LLC's. By definition these carriers have a very small cost base - hence their competitive fares- a slick paint job is not going to make SAA's cost base dissapear! the sad thing about SAA is that no one will be prepared to make the sacrifices nessesary to make the thing work- ie take pay cuts, agree to a change in working conditions etc etc- and Im not just taking about the chief and his millions but everyone- SAA pays very well across the board and generally speaking does not derive the reqired benefit in terms of productivity- Im speaking generally here, of course there are exceptions.
If you want to see SAA work- it has to start with the people, so why not close it down and restart it as a new public/private partnership ask everyone to reapply for their jobs and offer the successful ones performance based contracts- that are renewable if you perfrom to expectations. This worked in a slightly altered format at Air Lingus who have managed to bring themselves back form the brink. The outlook is simplistic I know,but essentially SAA has all the fundamantal elements already in place to be a really sucessful airline- domestically and regionally/Internationaly, whats needed is the people side to come right and then things will start to happen. |
Its not just a paint job, the rumour is that someone else will be the LCC ie SAX, they are smaller, lower paid etc and just need to get rid of there expensive RJ's and get old 737's or DC9's. Another rumor is that Khaya wants the 800's and A319's flying into africa on the high yield routes (apparently he wants to expand into africa) , not domestically competing against the LCC's
Deskjocky......I have heard it said before that SAA staff are overpaid but I disagree, the problem is that there are too many people employed in that building who do nothing, the jam stealers of this world, I dont have exact figures but a rough guess would be that one aircraft supports about 500 people at SAA and at the LCC one Aircraft supports about 10 people. If you are refering to the pilots who are overpaid then I just shake my head in confusion, I have said this before,they are not overpaid, the others are underpaid. And in fact the SAA pilots union is doing a major study at this point in time to see how SAA pilots salaries compare with other airlines and with a similar position in Industry, its a complicated formula which involves disposable income etc, not just a figure. I suspect SAA pilot salaries will be way under the rest of the world average. Solid rust, you are correct most of the aircraft are leased that is the new world norm with aircraft that cost this much, not many (except maybe the oil states) can afford to buy these aircraft outright, but my point is that at least these modern aircraft are here in SA giving the public the opportunity to choose the most modern safest aircraft ever designed over a 20-30 year old design, was looking at the saftey stats on the notice board the other day the JT8D-15/17 engine which is on the 737-200 has had a fair number of shutdowns in the world this past year (cant remember exact figures), the CFM56 which is on the 800 has already proved to have the highest dispatch reliability, in the world, its old technology versus new. Cant understand it myself, how a passenger will drive to the airport in a brand new Volvo with all the saftey features and then get onto a 30 year old jet and save himself a few rand. That being said, I dont agree with what SAA have done by giving the George-JHB to SAX and also the coastal routes away, SAX cant handle the load so they hire contract aircraft which fly old DC9's and 737-200.............so after all my ranting and raving, if you buy a SAA ticket hoping to fly the latest greatest, you may just be shocked to find you are on a pre 1980 piece of sh :mad: |
dear fluffy fan
its seems to me that your a SAA fan and good for you. but if SAA funds a Low cost airline it will only do it to get rid of the comp. They can do this cause the tax payers will pay for it. As for the so called 30 year old airplane , come on you just got lucky to fly the new 737-800. or the scare bus. that the hard working South African is paying for. I feel that every tax paying South Africa should fly SAA for free . they own the airline dont they. The pilots in SAA want to make the same as a pilot with BA or lufthansa. Thats a joke. You cant compare the cost of living in SA to Europe. And the rest airline in SA are very under paid. your correct there. |
I agree fully Jock, even though SAA would not neccesarily be making a killing by introducing a LCC. What they would however do, is to put the competition (of SAA) out of business, and I suspect that is the motivation behind a move of this kind. Face the facts, Im sure no-one can even attempt to hide the facts that 1-Time, and Kulula hurt SAA on the domestic front, because in my opinion every single domestic passenger that boards these LCC's, is an EX/POTENTIAL saa passenger. Only differrence is that SAA can afford to lose of bit more of the taxpayers money, in an effort to bury the competition. History repeats itsself....
|
Reminds me of a story of a lady that once went into the boardroom, after being invited to the cockpit after TOC was reached.
Her masterplan entailed wonderful cost savings on the HR side.."... two crew is not necessary, ....they just idle around anyway.":ooh: Throw peanuts into the cocpit and cabin - will keep them all occupied and prevent the pax from damaging the seats! Who said you have to feed them anyway! Out comes the "smiley"(halved sheepshead), "Mamelodi Katkop"(halfloaf, chips and atchar) and the Woolies Salad........ If only it was so easy to attract competent BEE directors...ones not so expensive as a Coleman (nice neighbours he now has) or the price of a villa (and it's upkeep) in the south of France.....most successfull LCC & FSC CEO's has some knowledge of Operations! I say the next problem with the current state of crime, violence etc.will be an EXODUS. Excellerated command of non-reflectives will also be a bit unfair then. All the years of experience of the people in how to compete with the privates, LCC and other Phoenix, Shooting Star operations would be lost, after it cost the taxpayers soo much, then to be left without any assets, Haouw! Now that, is what I call a very expensive Bokkie, wouldn't you say old Spotty?! (Hey I need some following here, your research skills far outweigh my time available....:E hey, better go, my bouillion de légumes is Beecomming a Sous'a in da keetchen!) The Mystic 1 |
fluffyfan...wasnt really talking about flight ops, my comments were aimed more at the "gravey trainers" I agree that the rest of the industry- especially pilots- should be earning more. Just have a look at how many staff SAA needs to employ at the airports to get the job done- same in most other departments, productivity is dead and buried!!
|
Productivity?
Don't be silly.:* Why should you get off your huge sadza fuelled posterior when you have a job for life with a taxpayer funded parastatal?:mad: :mad: Plus ca change, mes amis.... It appears the ****'s the same, only the flies have changed.:rolleyes: |
Eish!
Yip, too many wêna's not bringing their side! This gravy thing!
It's just like the government, making peace in Africa, running this whole PAP thing almost from the comfort of his BBJ (it is Business afterall), long before the mielies is off the land. Spoories first needs to prove that they could operate solo - but for that, we don't need Nostradamus either. Now already talks about a LCC, jonawê, I can't believe. Meknows this is heading towards the extinction of a fine specimen - the Bokkie (symbol of old regime thing). Maybe they could get in another great - World Airways, hey even US Airways for example- type of guy, with experience in filing (chapters of course), who could help Spoories.....Striking that in Africa, so many fine examples of have emerged with years of experience in most fields of industry, if they were overseas, great art of concealing their past achievements. Soo many SA people abroad, yield should look excellent even if you double the fequencies and half the price over the major holiday period! More to enrich the handlers and cabin staff, who's reputation for vanishing acts excels, seeing that the ammendments are in place. Quick, anyone has Vernon or PARC's number? PAP Airways! Viva! |
Dear four engine jock
but if SAA funds a Low cost airline it will only do it to get rid of the comp. As for the so called 30 year old airplane , come on you just got lucky to fly the new 737-800. or the scare bus. that the hard working South African is paying for. I feel that every tax paying South Africa should fly SAA for free . they own the airline dont they. The pilots in SAA want to make the same as a pilot with BA or lufthansa. Thats a joke. You cant compare the cost of living in SA to Europe. |
Couple of points for fluffy
738’s are more expensive than 732’s – but SAA are Leasing them – not buying – so using “purchase price” isn’t an accurate picture. Where’s the Asset ? – almost everything is Leased in – it’s an asset for the lease company but a liability for the airline. I’ve seem SAT’s maintenance and the guys are GOOD – but they are still pressured to get it out the door – just like the guys at Lanseria . (actually maybe not as much – in some cases they need a bit more of a push) SAA doesn’t lease it’s equipment because “it’s the new world norm” – they lease them cause a CEO was tasked with making as much profit as he could in a limited time – selling all the assets and leasing their replacements made this EASY. It looks argumentative – but is meant as clarification. If the plan isn’t to use the SAA LCC to kill the other LCC’s and revert to high cost – the SAA management need a few more psychiatrists on staff – It should be the plan cause that would be good business. It’s also why it shouldn’t be allowed. I’ll be fascinated by the result of the pilot salary survey – I am definitely of the impression compared with average SA earning they are well above and they seem to have more “disposable” than equivalents abroad – until you get to senior Captains etc who seem to get a salary I’d like no matter which flag carrier you look at. If anyone is underpaid – look on the hanger floor. SA NEEDS SAA – the only African nation with a reasonably respected Flag Carrier (although Kenya is getting there) what it doesn’t need is a state owned LCC. |
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. |
Let's not forget the last time SAA was involved with a LCC. Anyone remember Sun Air? :E
|
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. |
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....
|
Thanks DJ, made interesting reading.
|
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. |
Then there is its second airline, SA Express, which is in the process of upgrading its fleet, a costly exercise. |
Understand Airbus briefed SAX board late last week - looking at A318/A319.
|
RT
The engineer monicker goes back to the days of steam ships which carried engineers. Same goes for Pursers, Captain, F/O and so on... |
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 hanger 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. |
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".
|
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 ! |
There are definitely better Airlines in SA. Unfortunately they do not have the " financial backing". |
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... :O |
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... |
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. |
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? |
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!
|
:cool: 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.:ok: |
Hear hear....:ok:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:35. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.