View Full Version : Tiger exapands again!
highflya
29th Oct 2007, 05:05
TIGER Airways today announced 40,000 tickets starting at $9.95 one-way on an expanded range of new services that will now include Newcastle, Canberra and Hobart.
The Melbourne-based airline will fly from the Victorian capital to the new destinations from the start of 2008.
Its conditional launch fares cover a range of travel periods, depending on the destination, but also apply to already announced routes such as the Gold Coast, Launceston and the Sunshine Coast.
Newcastle heralds the airline’s first foray into New South Wales after it gave back slots it had been allocated over the summer for Sydney Airport.
Chief executive Tony Davis described the NSW industrial town at the gateway to the Hunter Valley wine district as “an attractive alternative for tourists”.
He said it would also give travellers living in Sydney’s Northern suburbs a low fare alternative to Sydney Airport.
The decision to launch to Hobart came after an “impressive” response to its Launceston services, Mr Davis said.
He said the Canberra service was aimed at giving travellers from the ACT a low fare alternative.
“Not everyone who flies to Canberra has an expense account,” he said.
Skystar320
29th Oct 2007, 05:43
This is going to get interesting!
I'm sorry but why does Tiger feel they can get away with such a deliberate breach of CAR 210?
Surely whilst in the process of gaining your AOC you would want to demonstrate that you are going to comply with the law of the country.
All previous High Cap AOC applicants, since Virgin Blue, have respected CAR 210. Why does Tiger choose not to?
Why does JetStar point out the breach of ACCC code but not point out such a breach of aviation law?
Yawn
210 Restriction of advertising of commercial operations
(1) A person must not give a public notice, by newspaper advertisement,
broadcast statement or any other means of public announcement, to the
effect that a person is willing to undertake by use of an Australian
aircraft any commercial operations if the last-mentioned person has not
obtained an Air Operator’s Certificate authorising the conduct of those
operations.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
Mr.Buzzy
29th Oct 2007, 08:56
Here we go again. Selling dollar coins for fifty cents. Nothing new.... Including the outcome!
bbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
priapism
29th Oct 2007, 22:45
Except for the fact that the parent company has a hell of a lot of dollar coins in their pocket Buzzy!
This will get interesting indeed.
loveJet
30th Oct 2007, 02:07
on all their advertising they have stated 'subject to regulatory approval' which means they are perfectly within their rights to sell tickets
LoveJet
You are factually incorrect. Tiger are clearly in breach of CAR 210.
CASA has always held the AOC applicants to not advertising and, in particular, not to take passenger's money until they have a legal right to do so, ie an Australian AOC.
However, CASA has allowed operators who hold an AOC to advertise for routes on which they do not have on their AOC 'subject to regularly approval'. This is common sense as often the proving flight will be the first revenue flight.
The disclaimer has not been allowed by CASA since the VB issue over 5 years ago where thousands of people had to be refunded their money after VB failed to get their AOC on time.
This is to protect the travelling public.
What really is silly though, is that Tiger could have conducted flights SIN-DRW-MEL months ago in August under their legitimate Foreign AOC, subject to DOTARS approval, without the embarrassment of missing their commercial start date by a number of months.
Yawn.
cunninglinguist
30th Oct 2007, 02:38
He said it would also give travellers living in Sydney’s Northern suburbs a low fare alternative to Sydney Airport
What, like Gosford
I want some of what Tony is smoking, either he is delerious or has no idea of what driving from anywhere in Sydney to the corner shop is like, let alone NTL.
Buzzy, spot on, and who is paying all the taxes on these $9.95 fares :hmm:
ruby tuesday
30th Oct 2007, 05:49
Whats wrong with Gosford? Plenty of people on the Central Coast go to NTL rather than SYD already - easier to get to, cheaper (no tolls) journey and cheaper to park - bring it on I say...
olderairhead
30th Oct 2007, 10:20
The grapevine is saying that they failed in their latest attempt to gain their AOC.
Only a rumour and would be interested if this can be confirmed.