Oasis Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Luck and No Suprise
Good luck to all those affected employees. If people are suprised.....why? Given....
'Their business class seats were cheaper than economy in BA. Service was excellent and will be missed.'
Good service costs and needs to be paid for...if we as passengers don't Airlines such as Oasis will continue to go bust.
Long haul low cost notoriously difficult, almost a contradiction in terms!
'Their business class seats were cheaper than economy in BA. Service was excellent and will be missed.'
Good service costs and needs to be paid for...if we as passengers don't Airlines such as Oasis will continue to go bust.
Long haul low cost notoriously difficult, almost a contradiction in terms!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: CGN
Age: 53
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw one of their 747s in Windhoek 2 days ago - probably subchartered to Air Namibia for the flight out of Gatwick - never seen them here before myself...
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Low cost carrier" is not the same as a "Low Fare carrier", and an airline trying to be both can end up in big trouble.
"Cost" is how much the shareholder pays. "Fare" is what the passenger pays.
A low cost carrier providing low fares can do well when the economy is booming, fuel COSTS are low, etc. But if gas goes up and people stop flying, well, you need to rapidly increase fares or lose money. That often won't happen as it's a free kick to the opposition, esp if the opposition has deeper pockets and can hold out at lower fare points for longer.
Sadly that's likely the story here. I suspect the parties with financial stakes in Oasis are cutting their losses early.
The successful "low cost carrier" formula (esp in difficult times) will actually be a "normal fare carrier" with a significantly reduced non-fuel cost base (employees T&C's, core business only, etc), and with significant financial and operational backing. Eg, JetStar brought to you by Qantas. I don't like it but them's facts.
With oil at $110 and Oasis COMPETING against the likes of CX and BA, something had to give. What a bloody shame as I really felt they were a breath of fresh air (and that's saying something in HKG).
"Cost" is how much the shareholder pays. "Fare" is what the passenger pays.
A low cost carrier providing low fares can do well when the economy is booming, fuel COSTS are low, etc. But if gas goes up and people stop flying, well, you need to rapidly increase fares or lose money. That often won't happen as it's a free kick to the opposition, esp if the opposition has deeper pockets and can hold out at lower fare points for longer.
Sadly that's likely the story here. I suspect the parties with financial stakes in Oasis are cutting their losses early.
The successful "low cost carrier" formula (esp in difficult times) will actually be a "normal fare carrier" with a significantly reduced non-fuel cost base (employees T&C's, core business only, etc), and with significant financial and operational backing. Eg, JetStar brought to you by Qantas. I don't like it but them's facts.
With oil at $110 and Oasis COMPETING against the likes of CX and BA, something had to give. What a bloody shame as I really felt they were a breath of fresh air (and that's saying something in HKG).
Last edited by Ron & Edna Johns; 9th Apr 2008 at 23:28.
Hmm I think Spanish low cost carrier Vueling will be next. I hear their management were visiting a certain Luton based orange airline's management not so long ago.
Sad news for the employees of Oasis - hopefully things will turn out for the better soon.
S88
Sad news for the employees of Oasis - hopefully things will turn out for the better soon.
S88
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: uk
Age: 77
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor old Oasis!
I have actually wondered whether the Business model actually works for LowCost,Longhaul. Always assumed virtually all the Revenue/Cost advantages on which the model is based accrue to shorthaul.
Direct selling/reservations systems stack base cost savings per pax, incrementally. The more thru'put, cost per goes down. Short turnarounds decrease overall cost and crucially increase the numerical number of revenue flights - translating into more - Revenue Refreshing sets of pax circulating in the system over a 24hr period - ready to buy into those checkin and inflight revenue opportunities. Shorthaul, YES; the sooner and more often we can we can get to all those new sets of revenue pax waiting for us, the better the profit!
In the Longhaul case the logic doesnt seem to work so well. Longer haul equals less cycles. Presumably less pax therefore flowing over the Salesreservations costbase equals less savings. No particular urgency or gain for a quick turnround - it wont be back for hrs day(s) - not enough ground cycles to excite the airfield into reduced rates; fuel to our small fleet Low cost operation will probably be premiumed etc etc etc
You then set off with just one Revenue Payload Pax Unit (my collective term) which you're then stuck with at yr cost for hours. Revenue ops? C'mn buy something else! No more refreshing revenue replacements for hours ahead! Quick turnaround at the other end - or overnight on the ground God help us. Longhaul doesnt seem, at first glance then to be really able to make the most from the business model. Or so it seems anyway.
I dont know what the actual cause Of Oasis's demise actually was - no case is the same - just prompted me to wonder once again whether the base model for this type of op is basically sound. Right or wrong?
I have actually wondered whether the Business model actually works for LowCost,Longhaul. Always assumed virtually all the Revenue/Cost advantages on which the model is based accrue to shorthaul.
Direct selling/reservations systems stack base cost savings per pax, incrementally. The more thru'put, cost per goes down. Short turnarounds decrease overall cost and crucially increase the numerical number of revenue flights - translating into more - Revenue Refreshing sets of pax circulating in the system over a 24hr period - ready to buy into those checkin and inflight revenue opportunities. Shorthaul, YES; the sooner and more often we can we can get to all those new sets of revenue pax waiting for us, the better the profit!
In the Longhaul case the logic doesnt seem to work so well. Longer haul equals less cycles. Presumably less pax therefore flowing over the Salesreservations costbase equals less savings. No particular urgency or gain for a quick turnround - it wont be back for hrs day(s) - not enough ground cycles to excite the airfield into reduced rates; fuel to our small fleet Low cost operation will probably be premiumed etc etc etc
You then set off with just one Revenue Payload Pax Unit (my collective term) which you're then stuck with at yr cost for hours. Revenue ops? C'mn buy something else! No more refreshing revenue replacements for hours ahead! Quick turnaround at the other end - or overnight on the ground God help us. Longhaul doesnt seem, at first glance then to be really able to make the most from the business model. Or so it seems anyway.
I dont know what the actual cause Of Oasis's demise actually was - no case is the same - just prompted me to wonder once again whether the base model for this type of op is basically sound. Right or wrong?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ..I wish I knew!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard the very sad news yesterday about the airline being handed over to the liquidators.
My heart truely goes out to all whom have lost their jobs under such horrible circumstances and hope a better future amongst all the current confussion and stress comes through soon for the crew.
Just curious also if anyone knows if any airlines have put their hands up to honor the Oasis pax tickets to YVR or LHR?
Regards,
OzyOS
My heart truely goes out to all whom have lost their jobs under such horrible circumstances and hope a better future amongst all the current confussion and stress comes through soon for the crew.
Just curious also if anyone knows if any airlines have put their hands up to honor the Oasis pax tickets to YVR or LHR?
Regards,
OzyOS
Last edited by OzyOS; 12th Apr 2008 at 11:41.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: OXF
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember when Oasis was rumoured to start, and the plan then was to lease aircraft. However, when they got their permission to fly, said planes had been leased to other companies, leaving Oasis no other option but to buy the 744 they fly... That's a sizeable chunk of money gone (although I'm sure they will be able to flog it to get some money back to the shareholders).
The Lees have pointed out that to get credit (for fuel cost hedging - which as you all know is par for the course these days) as a relatively new airline was impossible. A shame really... It was really nice to see Oasis at LGW and elsewhere, the a/c was downright sexy with the paintjob it had.
Interesting though that Oasis did a few FRA-WDH-FRA runs for SW... Is SW that stuck (perhaps if the Namibian government didn't spend N$ 600 million on a fancy new presidential palace, they wouldn't be...).
I hope Oasis comes back in some incarnation or another.
S.
The Lees have pointed out that to get credit (for fuel cost hedging - which as you all know is par for the course these days) as a relatively new airline was impossible. A shame really... It was really nice to see Oasis at LGW and elsewhere, the a/c was downright sexy with the paintjob it had.
Interesting though that Oasis did a few FRA-WDH-FRA runs for SW... Is SW that stuck (perhaps if the Namibian government didn't spend N$ 600 million on a fancy new presidential palace, they wouldn't be...).
I hope Oasis comes back in some incarnation or another.
S.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm I think Spanish low cost carrier Vueling will be next. I hear their management were visiting a certain Luton based orange airline's management not so long ago.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West Yorkshire Zone
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another one bites the dust,
What I saw of Oasis looked cheerful, different, and good.
I guess they were a change from the usual CX.
We can all speculate 'why' But at least they gave it a go, Maybe the decision to use newly built 744's or fast expansion were the causes??
You would think at least one of the worlds 'Greedy Banks' would 'bale' them out until they got into 1st gear??
Hasn't HSBC got a few spare 'trillion'
Dare I say it, But when it comes to the good old Aviation Industry - no
one wants to be bothered??
There's a saying in the UK, In 10 years time all that will be left is 'Takeaways' & Greedy Banks - You never hear of these 2 closing down
do you??
RIP OASIS.
What I saw of Oasis looked cheerful, different, and good.
I guess they were a change from the usual CX.
We can all speculate 'why' But at least they gave it a go, Maybe the decision to use newly built 744's or fast expansion were the causes??
You would think at least one of the worlds 'Greedy Banks' would 'bale' them out until they got into 1st gear??
Hasn't HSBC got a few spare 'trillion'
Dare I say it, But when it comes to the good old Aviation Industry - no
one wants to be bothered??
There's a saying in the UK, In 10 years time all that will be left is 'Takeaways' & Greedy Banks - You never hear of these 2 closing down
do you??
RIP OASIS.
I have actually wondered whether the Business model actually works for LowCost,Longhaul. Always assumed virtually all the Revenue/Cost advantages on which the model is based accrue to shorthaul.
If I was planning a start-up I would plan something along a 3-cabin model:
1. Ultra economy - minimal seat pitch and you pay for everything but with a headline-grabbing low entry fare. Pitch at price-concious market.
2. Premium economy - 38 inch pitch and good quality food service and IFE, upsell lounge access and priority check-in with fares comparable to other carriers' standard economy
3. Business class - but with cradle seats rather than flat beds as it uses less space. Highest quality food service and PTV IFE system. Lounge acces and priority check-in, securiy. Price at other carriers' premium economy fares.
I would also limit sector length to 8 hours as it means you only need one unit per route (i.e. it can do an entire rotation within 24 hrs). It also negates the need for flat-beds in business class.
Also use something a bit smaller like at 767-300 and go to 2 flights per day on a route if demand is there.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 78
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doors to Automatic
In my experience, going smaller is not the right way. A 3-class 767-300 has a very low seat count - not much over 200 - and a high cost per seat. Have you costed it out?
Furthermore, looking at your offering, I think that:
Sardine class: they can always get a great deal by shopping aound the network carriers on the internet. These have the economies of scale and (within limits) can sell some of this class at a price below your cost of production.
The other two classes: you seem to be planning to sell seats at a low fare for a high cost service. I'm not convinced this is the way to go.
Furthermore, looking at your offering, I think that:
Sardine class: they can always get a great deal by shopping aound the network carriers on the internet. These have the economies of scale and (within limits) can sell some of this class at a price below your cost of production.
The other two classes: you seem to be planning to sell seats at a low fare for a high cost service. I'm not convinced this is the way to go.
Last edited by Dysag; 11th Apr 2008 at 20:00.