Can We Afford These Cheap Air Fares?

[lame]

While the Public in general of course LOVE all these cheap air fares, can we really afford them?

Like most of you here, I have a good idea of some of the costs involved in this Industry, particularly in Maintenance and Engineering.

I just cannot see how these cheap fares are possible long term, unless there are some mighty cost savings to the Airlines, and I mean both Virgin Blue and Qantas, not singling one out.

There are of course the well publicised savings in staff costs, reductions in pay and conditions, use of contract labour, removing LAMEs from the tarmac etc.

However are there more sinisters economies being made.

I hear virtually daily, stories about passengers facing delay after delay due to Aircraft U/S, not just some times but EVERY time they travel. While there have of course always been delays, it is MUCH worse now, are the Airlines economising too much on Maintenance, and other areas?

My Father-in-law, who has always travelled Qantas because he doesn't trust anyone else (I don't mean VB, it goes back way before that), has been in Melbourne and travelled back last night to OOL.

He was so annoyed with Qantas as he was 90 minutes late.

They were loaded onto one Aircraft at Tullamarine, then off loaded again as it was U/S, they were told an engine problem. Then loaded onto a second Aircraft which went U/S before departure, this time they were told it was an hydraulic problem. Finally Aircraft number 3 managed to stay serviceable long enough to do MEL to OOL.

As someone who has played a SMALL part in our Industry for the last 40 years, I would hate to see our fine safety record destroyed, just to provide cheap fares.

Cheap fares are all well and good, but NOT at the expense of safety, or God forbid an Aircraft loss. :(

[ER2nd.]

....perhaps it all comes down to owning (or seemingly needing to own) a 'national' airline. The face (and pride) of their respective countries used to be tied up in their carriers. Flying the flag abd all that. Whilst one or two such airlines still exist, most seem merely to be money grabbing enterprizes run by bean counters. Surely it's just pure coincidence if service and frequency are really, really provided for the actual passengers benefit. When you see these so-called 'new age' leaders of our industry hiding in their plush glass cages, just sifting/analysing data all day long, then there has to be something wrong. Where have the true and inspiring aviation leaders gone? Spin doctors and chess players (or is it monopoly players), hardly the types to encourage (long term) much respect or trust from their rank and file.
Vote ER2nd for President:cool:

[Animalclub]

Was there ever a national carrier making a profit when it was owned by the Government of the carriers own country? Except perhaps in the days of the two airline policy.

[slamer]

I know!!!.... how about we fly a/c that should be AOG, dont tell the Pax...EVERYONES HAPPY and on time! after all "what you dont know wont hurt you"...eh!
Seems to work in parts of Asia/Australasia for some of the more high profile companies and everyone thinks their "the bees knees", wouldnt it be interesting if their Maint log (not the Bees) was available for open viewing at boarding?(assuming defects are being written up!)

[Nudlaug]

Many defects are not written up. I worked as a Lame for such a company, we were always on time, but the aircraft was f****d! That is why I don't understand the whole punctuality discussion, I rather fly with an aircraft 3 hours late but serviceable than with a covered up ****box that goes out on time. But most people seem to think otherwise. How can you get annoyed if the aircraft is delayed because of a technical defect? It is getting fixed, isn't it? That delay might have saved your life!

[lame]

Of course what you say about delays is not just with the Low Cost Carriers. ;)

Always amazed me the attitude of some passengers, if we had to delay them say 30 minutes to fix a problem, they would get so mad.

I used to say to some of them, would you rather go on time with a broken Aircraft, or 30 minutes late on a good Aircraft?

Strangely some of them had to think about it. :rolleyes:

[tobzalp]

Nice timing. I just read an article in the Courier Mail (the brisbane rag) and they had a title along the lines of Flight Cente hits turbulence (rolleyes).

http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,9169161%255E3122,00.html

They then went on to say how they have given their staff an 8% payrise and have made a 10% growth on last year with some 3 times the travel bookings of last year.

While the fares are down the customers far outweigh.

[Hugh Jarse]

They were loaded onto one Aircraft at Tullamarine, then off loaded again as it was U/S, they were told an engine problem. Then loaded onto a second Aircraft which went U/S before departure, this time they were told it was an hydraulic problem. Finally Aircraft number 3 managed to stay serviceable long enough to do MEL to OOL.
I think the system worked for your father in law LAME, if they went U/S. I think I know what you mean though...shouldn't have done so in the first place.

The problem I see now from a pilot's point of view is that the buck increasingly stops with the Tech Crew, as it appears happened in the abovementioned cases, because preventative maintenance appears to be cut back as we move to "reactive" type maintenance, ie "write it up when it breaks".

More pressure on pilots.........