Australia to London for $378?

[Pedota]

Sounds incredible . . . but it can apparently be done on AirAsia. This is from today's The Age.

AirAsia offers Australia to London for $378

ANDREW HEASLEY, AVIATION REPORTER, THE AGE
May 18, 2010

Fancy flying Australia to London for $378?

Some aviation analysts’ predictions that air fares would rise this year as airlines seek to recover losses incurred during the global financial crisis, along with service interruptions from incidents such as Iceland's volcanic eruption, appear to be wrong.

AirAsia is the latest carrier to offer one-way fares from Australia to London via Kuala Lumpur for as little as $378, as part of a special network sale that sees virtual giveaway fares as low as $3 a flight.

And Tiger Airways, fresh from its recent profit announcement, is vowing to keep pushing down domestic air fares and has its eyes on expanding services that may include Pacific Islands and flights to Indonesia.

From today until May 23, AirAsia is offering cut-price fares to 70 of its destinations, for travel between January 3 and May 8 next year, though the perennial caveat "seats are limited" applies.

Just how "limited" is limited? An airline spokesman said "tens of thousands" of seats were bing offered in the sale across the AirAsia network.

Malaysian-based AirAsia is selling seats from Melbourne, the Gold Coast or Perth to Kuala Lumpur (KL) from $129. Travellers can book KL to London (Stansted Airport) on the airline from $249 — a total of $378 one-way. The fares include all mandatory taxes and charges.

Fares coming back from London to Australia may not be identical (airport taxes differ) but are similarly low, a spokesman said.

AirAsia has $3 fares available on the routes of KL to other Malaysian destinations, including Langkawi, Kuching and Panang, with $9 and $18 fares to other parts of Asia.

The cheapest fares are for bookings made through AirAsia website only; book by phone and there will be an extra charge of $25.

The move comes as discount airline Tiger Airways vowed to keep driving down domestic air fares while giving Fairfax Media hints into its future expansion plans.

The airline group's chief executive Tony Davis said he is looking at new routes and destinations from Asia and Australian ports that are within the five-hour flying range of its fleet of its 19 Airbus A320s.

The limited flying time means Tiger currently only links Australia with its Singapore hub from Perth.

But speaking to Fairfax Media, Mr Davis suggested other routes linking Australia with Indonesia or Pacific islands such as Fiji and Vanuatu are being studied.

Sticking with the Airbus A320 means further route expansion must be within its five-hour flying range.

"The east coast of Australia to Asia...is not my game plan. My game plan is to use my A320 fleet as efficiently as possible on whatever routes make sense," he said.

New routes could include link Darwin, Brisbane, Broome or the Gold Coast into Indonesia, allowing further connections to Asia, he said.

"Airports like Darwin, like Perth (are) those that can access Asia.
"Brisbane to Indonesia works, Gold Coast to Indonesia, or going east to New Zealand or the Pacific Islands there are opportunities there as well.

"What I'm doing is drawing a circumference around Australia, and saying, 'Where is there within five hours of here?' There's quite a few places.
"But what I'm not interested in doing is buying a different aircraft type to go seven hours."

The simplicity of only having one aircraft type to maintain and train pilots and crew on, Mr Davis says, is at the heart of its low-cost business model.
"Flying the A330, or the (Boeing) 777 or Dreamliner that some of our competitors have chosen to do, you add another set of pilots, another set of engineers, spares, a different aircraft type which you've got to go out and purchase — all of those things add cost and complexity to the operations," he said.

The full thread can be found at . . . Cheap flights to Europe: AirAsia offers Australia to London for $378 (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/airasia-offers-australia-to-london-for-378-20100518-vba6.html) - and it includes some low cost flat bed seats.

[Jabawocky]

Pedota

you are a smart man...........

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/414820-aircraft-too-low-seq.html

:uhoh:

[ROH111]

Couldn't agree more Jaba...

[OneDotLow]

You wouldn't go to see a low cost heart surgeon would you?!

[Bob Morane]

What we need now is a Low Cost Government, this would certainly lower our tax......:p

[Bolty McBolt]

You wouldn't go to see a low cost heart surgeon would you?!

Hi ya Doctor Nickhttp://blacksportsonline.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Dr-Nick-Simpsons.png

[viking320]

what about the low cost labour:ugh::ugh::ugh: to do all these flying with in the 5 hour radius on A320:=:=:=:= .
Ok you have pilots to pay for the type and bonded:D:D:D:D

[The Professor]

“You wouldn't go to see a low cost heart surgeon would you?!”

Yes. If the surgeon provided surgery for lower cost, why not.

If a surgeon could trim the cost of an operation by reducing service such as no magazines in the waiting room, no validated car parking out back, fewer office staff at the counter, no free coffee, then why would you pay for the extras if you don’t want them?

The implication that a “low cost airline” is staffed by employees of lesser competence than those at legacy carriers is simply not supported by fact. As far as I am aware, the same regulator is providing oversight to QF and the low cost entrants.

TN/AN/QF have all been involved in incidents similar to the Air Asia one described above, in some cases on numerous occasions. Were they crewed by low cost pilots?

It’s a slippery slope to start pointing fingers at incidents made by those of lower salary.

[zzoott]

These low price tickets probably represent less than 10% of airfares on board the aircraft. The fixed costs of operating these aircraft are the same for everyone and I would assume the this type of airfare sold throughout the aircraft would see any carrier broke very quickly. These very low fares are offered by almost every carrier all the time but unless you are first in line you miss out . Yield management in one form or another will provide a mix of airfares from the expensive to the very cheap on all airlines. The airlines that play this game the best make a profit and those that don't usually disappear. When I use a doctor I look a little further than price. I do the same for airlines as well.

[Jabawocky]

Prof.

Agree with your sentiment generally, however think about this.
It’s a slippery slope to start pointing fingers at incidents made by those of lower salary.

If you are paying low salary you will not attract the quality and experience. This then leads to lowering of standards. If you can only safely do coupled ILS landings, when everyone else was having no trouble at all at CG.....it makes you wonder what was going on.:eek:

[Capn Bloggs]

It’s a slippery slope to start pointing fingers at incidents made by those of lower salary.
Not only salary, aircraft capability. As pointed out on the AirAsia YBCG thread, there is some conjecture about whether they had VNAV capability for the VOR they were doing. Certainly, on the second approach they were not using it. If somebody was saving money by not paying for that capability, then that is a "Low Cost carrier" issue.

TN/AN/QF have all been involved in incidents similar to the Air Asia one described above, in some cases on numerous occasions.
Really? In state-of-the-art FMS-equipped aircraft? Examples?

The implication that a “low cost airline” is staffed by employees of lesser competence than those at legacy carriers is simply not supported by fact.
If you have a pool of prospective applicants for a selection of similar jobs at different employers, then obviously the most competition will be for the higher-paying jobs. The higher-paying employers will have more applicants to choose from. Happens in any industry, I imagine. Capitalism at work. :ok:

[The Professor]

Jab

“If you are paying low salary you will not attract the quality and experience.”

Just how much “experience” do you think there is to draw upon for a carrier based in a country like Malaysia? The laws that govern the labor market in Asia are very different to what you are accustomed too in western countries like Australia.

Bloggs,

There was a little incident with a 737 in the dead of night in Canberra several years ago. An A320 with a blue tail landed on the wrong runway in Cairns one night. Then there was the 737 that almost landed on the highway at an airport several hundred miles north of Coolangatta. Or the 737 that almost landed on the highway near Adelaide. The 146 that almost came a cropper on Hamilton Island.

There are many more, shall I dig a little deeper for you?

[Metro man]

Quality of pilots employed has a lot to do with timing and the "windows of opportunity". If a well qualified and highly suitable applicant is on the job market and the major airlines aren't employing at the time, he is quite likely to take what's available rather than sit around unemployed. This may well be a low cost.

If there is a recruitment boom with few high quality applicants available at the time then sights get adjusted downwards and as long as the minimum standards are met lesser quality gets a look in.

Low cost airlines have some very good pilots in their ranks. Those who; had to go overseas for the airline job and now want to come home, previous employer went broke, had to retire at 60 and want to stay flying, only option available at the time because the majors weren't employing, they were too old, wanted a quick upgrade etc

Then again there are others.....:E

[Pedota]

I agree with Metro Man . . . and the relationship between remuneration, company culture and results is complex. The authors of The Hidden Face of Air France claim that despite the airline having a modern fleet and excellent pilots, its safety statistic are those of a second division company.

This was reported in today’s The Age . . .

'Second most deadly': Air France slammed over safety
May 20, 2010 - The Age

Under fire ... a new book slams Air France's safety record.
Air France-KLM's safety record came under harsh scrutiny yesterday as a shock new book added to the problems facing Europe's biggest airline as it announced record losses.

The company's recent record of disastrous crashes was already on the front pages of the press even as executives announced losses of 1.55 billion euros ($A2.26 billion) between March 2009 and March 2010.

The Hidden Face of Air France, an investigation by journalist Fabrice Amedeo into what he alleges are failures in Air France's management culture, accuses Air France executives of having a lax attitude to flight safety.
Air France rejects the allegations.

Air France flights have fallen victim to several accidents in recent years and, according to the French daily Liberation, statistics compiled online rank its safety record as only the 65th best in the world.

And with 1783 fatalities in its history, according to a tally compiled by the Swiss-based website "Aircraft Crashes Record Office", Air France has been the second most deadly airline for passengers after Russia's Aeroflot.
Germany's Lufthansa, which is of similar size and age, is in 43rd place.
In June last year Air France flight 447 from Rio to Paris broke apart and plunged into the Atlantic with the loss of all 228 people on board.

The cause of the crash has not been officially determined, but investigators found that cockpit flight computers were receiving incorrect airspeed readings and Air France has since replaced speed probes on its other jets.

An undersea search has so far failed to find the missing black box flight data recorders, but lawyers acting for the victims' families have accused the airline of knowingly flying with probes known to be at risk of icing up.

In the new book, Amedeo suggests the pilots might have been able to save the flight if their Airbus A330 had been equipped with a safety system known as a BUSS of a type Lufthansa fitted to all its planes in 2008.

In July 2000 an Air France Concorde supersonic airliner caught fire after take off from Paris and exploded, killing all 113 on board.

In August 2005, and Air France flight into Toronto skidded on the runway on arrival and broke apart. Miraculously, no-one was killed.

"Air France has a fleet of ultramodern planes, and its pilots are among the best in the world ... but its safety statistics are those of a second division company," writes Amedeo in his book.

"The problem appears not to be technical but cultural," he says, accusing the airline's executives of a "certain laxity" in responding to incidents and adapting their safety procedures.

The company responded to Liberation's account of the book with a statement.

"Air France's safety standards meet the most stringent requirements in the international aviation industry," it said.

"Air France is continuously working on improving flight safety which has always been one of its main priorities."

Air France shares were trading down 4.61 per cent on the Paris exchange as markets awaited confirmation of the annual results, which were expected to be the company's worst since its 2004 merger with Dutch carrier KLM.

AFP


The full link can be seen at 'Second most deadly': Air France slammed over safety (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/second-most-deadly-air-france-slammed-over-safety-20100520-vgg0.html)

[flightleader]

A330 without ETOPS doing KUL-OOL with limited choices of airways,enroute alternates. Wonder what happen is this enrouute alternate goes below minima at plaining stage or inflight? Oops....haven't got those stages defined, nevermind the differences,who would know,Malaysia DCA is always asleep...just send those cheap tourists all the way to UK!:yuk:

[oicur12]

Metroman,

So basically pilots only work for low cast carriers because they are forced too. Have you ever considered that many of them are there by choice.

I have many ex AN mates working for the new outfits in oz and not one of them has ever sent an application to QF.

[Metro man]

So basically pilots only work for low cast carriers because they are forced too.

Not necessarily, but the majors usually have better pay and conditions. Pilots leave low cost airlines for full service, not nearly as many go the other way.

A 25 year old choosing between QANTAS and Tiger would probably go for QF. Free endorsement, good pay and conditions, variety of long haul or short haul. Even with the long wait for upgrade, overall well ahead.

A 45 year old SAAB 340 skipper may well prefer straight into the right seat of an A320 vs S/O on a B744, home every night vs long trips away, 2-4 years to upgrade vs 10-15. With only 20 years to retirement, will be better off spending most of it in the left hand seat with a low cost rather than in the cheap seats with a major airline.

For many ex Ansett skippers, the chance to come home to the left seat of a jet vs bottom of a new seniority list wouldn't be a difficult choice.

If the positives of low cost flying outweigh the negatives for you, then go for it.

[Capn Bloggs]

Prof,
An A320 with a blue tail landed on the wrong runway in Cairns one night.
I didn't know about that one. What happened?

Sure, incidents such as those you mentioned happen. The rate per 100,000 sectors is the key. And what tools airline has paid for so that the drivers can do a decent, safe job even if there isn't an ILS there.

[Tmbstory]

flightleader:

I notice your comment about Malaysian DCA being always asleep. During the long time that I spent flying in Malaysia I did not find that to be true.

Tmb

[Normasars]

OIC,

There is a of reason for that and we both know why.

Considering their age(s) they probably realise that they will never obtain a gig in the LHS in Mainline. They don't want to sit in the JUMP watching the other 2 gurus for half a dozen years, then if they are not already too old, retire in the RHS.

Makes perfect sense that they don't apply to Mainline at their stages in their respective careers. At least there is a possibility(for these EX AN guys anyway) for DEC. After all, nothing like a bit of nepotism at work heh??
After all, the Flt Ops management is primarily all ex AN. Something like "jobs for the boys"!

After all JQ is AN reincarnated:ok:

Norma.

[neville_nobody]

The LCC argument doesn't really work in Asia as most airlines pay for the entire cost of training their pilots. I believe the airline in question also does the same.
It makes the Australian system look utterly ridiculous. Even more so when Australian CEOs say that the Australian cost base is too high!!

I would guess that these guys wouldn't have too much exposure to VOR approaches or NPAs for that matter.

[Metro man]

Air Asia have their own flying school in Langkawi. Obviously NDB/VOR approaches would be covered in training but with very little GA in Malaysia most of the airports are equipped with ILS and suitable for airliners. Aussie pilots would be far more familiar with NPAs from their time of night freight in Chieftains going into YSBK or right seat in a SAAB 340 going into YBNA on a wet day.

Air Asia pay the cost of training BUT the bond is horrendous, unless from a wealthy family a pilot couldn't afford to buy his way out given the relatively low incomes in Malaysia.

Pay is low and work is hard, six sector days not unusual.

Having spent a considerable amount of money on a cadet off the street, the airline would be averse to chopping someone at an advanced stage in the training. Remember they are a commercial organization which has to make a profit, unlike the air force which spends government money. The pressure would be on to give the benefit of the doubt to a marginal candidate.

Australian low costs require a self funded licence and endorsement to work for them. If a candidate fails the line training the cost of a chop is insignificant to the airline and they simply pull the next one off the pile. Unsuitable people are far less likely to slide through.

BTW Is the phrase "That's not how we did things at Ansett." being used much in Jetstar ? :E

[AnQrKa]

"BTW Is the phrase "That's not how we did things at Ansett." being used much in Jetstar"

It has more credibility than "Thats how we did things at impulse".

Every airline pilot in the world who moves to a different carrier makes a comparison to the previous outfit.

[Normasars]

AnQrKa

Have never worked for either AN or IMP,

But wasn't aware that AN operated the B717 or B1900. The 320 came along long after IMPULSE was morphed in JQ.

And BTW, with the intro of the B717 back in 2001, they actually did employ a few highly qualified guys as DECS; ex RAAF/CX/etc.

And who said AN procedures were world's best practice either?

Just an honest question?

[Icarus2001]

http://www.garybadger.com/smais/files/ansett01.jpg

[AnQrKa]

Norma,

"And who said AN procedures were world's best practice either?"

Ahhhh, no body. Re read the post buddy.

So you reckon 2 years operating a couple of 717's put impulse in a good position to take on ex AN drivers with umpteen thousand hours of bus time and tell them "shut up, no need for your input, we have it covered".

I wonder how well that went down with CASA. We all know the answer to that.

Icarus,

Lets come back when JQ has operated for 60 plus years and see what interesting pics are available.

[lowerlobe]

“You wouldn't go to see a low cost heart surgeon would you?!”

Yes. If the surgeon provided surgery for lower cost, why not.

If a surgeon could trim the cost of an operation by reducing service such as no magazines in the waiting room, no validated car parking out back, fewer office staff at the counter, no free coffee, then why would you pay for the extras if you don’t want them?
That goes to show how little some people understand about cost structures....

Does the author really think that taking away magazines,coffee etc.....would have a significant impact on medical costs?

The main difference between the medical specialists and crew is that the medical specialists wouldn't undercut each other to get work.....

Also the comparison between the new LCC's and QF is as weak as you could get...

Let's wait until those new LCC's have operated for as long and extensively as QF has and then you can sit down and compare them on an incident basis....

The reality is that the LCC is not around to benefit the passenger.....

It's around to benefit the owners of the LCC....

[Icarus2001]

The reality is that the LCC is not around to benefit the passenger.....

It's around to benefit the owners of the LCC....

So who are the non LCC airlines there to benefit?:sad: You don't think that "the passengers" is the answer do you?:ugh:

[lowerlobe]

So who are the non LCC airlines there to benefit? You don't think that "the passengers" is the answer do you?
Certainly not.....but the idea I get is that some people think that the LCC's were created for the benefit of the passenger....

The reality is that any airline is there to make money as is any business...

The difference between the LCC's and legacy airlines is that the idea behind LCC's was to slash the cost of airline staff and give the punter even less than they were getting before....

[The Professor]

“I didn't know about that one. What happened?”

Do some research; the information is out there.

“Does the author really think that taking away magazines,coffee etc.....would have a significant impact on medical costs?”

No, I did not imply that such a practice would make a “significant” impact. I was using the example to illustrate a principal. You have obviously missed the main point I am trying to make.

The qualifications and competency of the surgeon, like the pilot of a low cost carrier, are unrelated to the services provided in the waiting room of the surgery or the cabin of an aeroplane. Some carriers such as Ryanair anticipate reducing service to virtually zero including the provision of standing room only. But they will not be employing pilots with less experience or providing them with fewer training sessions.

The pilot has the same licensing requirements and training and checking targets regardless of what service is provided to the customer. There is only one regulator.

“Let's wait until those new LCC's have operated for as long and extensively as QF has and then you can sit down and compare them on an incident basis....”

Lets do it now. WN now operate almost 3500 sectors per day. They have operated 10 times more sectors in their entire history thus far than QF has in its entire history. Based on the few accidents the carriers have each had, WN outshines QF by a significant margin. WN is a low cost carrier.

“The main difference between the medical specialists and crew is that the medical specialists wouldn't undercut each other to get work.....”

No, they wouldn’t. Doctors and surgeons exist in a regulated system limiting labour access to the market place. They don’t need to undercut each other. Much like pilots once operated under the Two Airline Policy in Australia for 40 years. I don’t recall TN or AN pilots ever undercutting each other until deregulation.

Doctors and surgeons would do exactly the same were the barriers to their labour market removed.

“The reality is that the LCC is not around to benefit the passenger..... It's around to benefit the owners of the LCC....”

The stupidity of this comment has already been addressed.

[Capn Bloggs]

Prof,
“I didn't know about that one. What happened?”

Do some research; the information is out there.
Thanks for your help.

[oicur12]

A320 CNS.

Runway change from 33 to 15 on ATIS.

PNF didnt get latest ATIS.

ATC cleared aircraft to land.

A320 landed on 33. Tower didnt know until rollout.

I think, from memory.

[lowerlobe]

No, I did not imply that such a practice would make a “significant” impact
I think you should read your own post again....
“You wouldn't go to see a low cost heart surgeon would you?!”

Yes. If the surgeon provided surgery for lower cost, why not.

If a surgeon could trim the cost of an operation by reducing service such as no magazines in the waiting room
Yes you did say it and I didn't miss your point....

[Normasars]

ANQrKA

easy up tiger, take a chill pill.

So you reckon 2 years operating a couple of 717's put impulse in a good position to take on ex AN drivers with umpteen thousand hours of bus time and tell them "shut up, no need for your input, we have it covered".

I didn't say anything of the sought mate. Your words not mine. What is it with ex AN guys getting so defensive when ever anybody questions anything about AN. It's ok to hurl abuse at QF/DJ etc but as soon as somebody mentions AN, well thats another story.

Get over it mate, time moves on. You're in beautiful HK now breathing all that fresh air and enjoying all the wonderful open spaces. :ok:

[AnQrKa]

norma,

Defensive, maybe . . .a little.

"It's ok to hurl abuse at QF/DJ etc but as soon as somebody mentions AN, well thats another story."

I dont "hurl abuse" at QF/DJ or any other airline for that matter. I merely commented on the fact that Impulse were operationally better off with the experience bought in by ex AN pilots, thats all. CASA appears to have agreed.

As for getting over it. I cant speak for my ex AN mates but I wanted to wear a blue shirt from when I was wearing a blue nappy. It really hurt when AN went under, and it still does a bit . . . occasionally.

Perhaps if you had been in similar shoes you would be a bit more . . . .understanding. But I suspect you have never had the misfortune of seeing your career job collapse from under you. You fortunate soul.

[Gnadenburg]

Like it or not, there is no way Jetstar would have been allowed to expand as quickly as it did without the corporate knowledge of the ex-Ansett pilots.

You should all be very happy in your low cost paradise.

[Zigzag]

The 320 came along long after IMPULSE was morphed in JQ.

What, a whole 27 days?

JQ commence services - 25/4/04
VH-JQG delivered - 21/6/04

???