Jetstar A330s in SIN

[SMOC]

I see jobs are being offered to crew A330s for Jetstar in Singapore. (Capt & F/O)

Who owns these A/C and what routes will they be flying, will they include domestic in Aus? Singapore registered A/C I take it.

A330 Captain - Singapore - 1401196849 - Flightglobal Jobs (http://www.flightglobal.com/jobs/job/a330-captain-singapore-singapore-1401196849.htm)

A330 First Officer - Singapore - 1401196846 - Flightglobal Jobs (http://www.flightglobal.com/jobs/job/a330-first-officer-singapore-singapore-1401196846.htm)

Isn't QF going to announce their Asian startup on August 24?

[tourismman]

I believe these 2 new A330-200's are for Jetstar Asia and will operate both to Europe and AKL and be based in SIN.
Obviously European ports will be announced on 24 august.

[Artificial Horizon]

In theory the aircraft are to be owned and operated by Valueair one the Singapore register on behalf of the Jetstar Group. There has also been an internal notice asking for interest from pilots who will take Leave Without Pay for a period of 3 years to move to Singapore. Operating SIN - OZ and SIN - AKL at the moment with strong rumours of SIN - Southern Europe (ATH or FCO) shortly. Also uncle Bruce has pointed out recently that because they are Singaporian based and registered aircraft then Jetstar automatically have access to New Zealand - United States routes as part of an Open Skies agreement between SIN and USA. So further down the track expect AKL to west coast USA which fits with Qantas suspending SFO and mumurings that AKL - LAX is not paying its way. Also a small A330 base of Jetstar NZ pilots has just been set up in AKL to support future 'expansion'. Once 787 timelines are fixed I would expect a significant amount of expansion out of Singapore to Europe and a small amount of expansion from New Zealand to USA.

Also it would seem Qantas mainline is about to start an Asian based longhaul airline for those passengers who won't fly Jetstar longhaul and on the basis that Qantas International is not profitable. I would think this links in with Jetstar trying to recently offer a Jetstar group contract where pilots are able to be moved anywhere they are needed. I can see a 'jetconnect' scenario in Asia, Qantas colours crewed by Jetstar Group pilots taking over most Qantas International flying out of Singapore and New Zealand.

I know it sucks, but everything that Qantas and Jetstar have been doing over the past few years seems to be increasingly pointing in this direction.

[Mach2point7]

Artificial Horizon

Thanks for your comments. Are you able to confirm that the aircraft are 9V registered ? Tracking software (such as Flight24.com) indicates that they are VH registered. e.g. VH-EBK has been active on SIN-MEL and SIN-AKL over the last week. If this is correct, I wonder how long the CAAS will permit this.

Also, I notice that the SIN-MEL flight is operated by Jetstar Australia (JQ8) but the SIN-AKL flight is operated by Jetstar Asia (3K401). Interesting compliance issues must result.

Trusting that Ben Sandilands does a detailed investigation of how these Singapore based aircraft are meeting both Aus and Sin regulatory requirements.

[Artificial Horizon]

From what I heard (could be rubbish) the Singapore regulator 'put their foot down' when Valuair set-up their longhaul operation out of SIN and imposed some quite strict experience requirements for Captains, combine this with a lack of applicants from within the Jetstar Australia pilot group and Jetstar were a bit stuffed since they had already announced the new SIN longhaul routes. To overcome this they are operating the MEL - SIN - AKL -SIN - MEL trip out of MEL with EBA crews and VH aircraft. Once this aircraft leaves SIN they are using the Valuair callsign. I think they have probably set it up as some kind of 'wet - lease' operation until Valuair has enough pilots to take over the flying. It is another example of J* having such a crappy foreign contract they can't fill the seats and then end up 'propping' up the operation using highly expensive EBA pilots on allowances which ironically ends up costing more than if the company had just expanded using EBA pilots. :ugh:

[Jetsbest]

Can you clarify 'highly expensive' EBA pilots? You're talking about Jetstar aren't you? Or are you referring the the allowances EBA pilots accrue by being away from home port for days at a time? Ta.

[KRUSTY 34]

Too clever by half, these D!CKHE@DS! :}:}:}

[Artificial Horizon]

Referring purely to the allowances :E , I flew with a guy recently who had been 'imported' for 5 days due to a lack of pilots and was being paid a day off payment for all 5 days on top of overnight allowances. Also there is a group of 'temporary pilots' who are on leave without pay for 6 months to top up numbers who are getting the local contract plus $2000 per month to compensate for the 'inadequate' wages (their words not mine). Not to mention the 3 month secondments to Auckland with accommodation, hire car, EBA pay and overnight allowances being paid throughout. All so they can keep an operation going that can't attract enough pilots on local conditions.

[Jetsbest]

And QF think they'll get enough applicants on 'world's best practice' low pay to start a new 'premium' pan-asian airline without similar blowouts? :E

[DrPepz]

Nothing that the QF Group is doing out of Singapore is illegal, both from Singapore and Australia's perspective.

Having worked for Changi Airport Group and its predecessor, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, Jetstar Asia (3K) is a Singaporean carrer with a Singapore AOC.

There is nothing to stop QF from basing Australian-registered planes in Singapore. A few years ago when QF did PER-SIN-CDG (QF17/18), many times the 744 would do a PER-SIN-SYD rotation.

3K flies SIN-AKL because Singapore and NZ have open skies. Which means all Singaporean carriers can fly any number of times between SIN and NZ. Being a Singaporean carrier, 3K can do so, but as an Australian carrier, QF cannot do so.

About whether other countries will band together to force 3K to be designated an Australian carrier - well the general practice is so long as the civil aviation authority of a particular country recognises and designates a carrier as from that country, it is rare that other civil aviation authorities would challenge it. If CAAS tells other aviation authorities that 3K is a Singaporean carrier, politically and diplomatically, it's difficult for that country to say "NO YOU ARE LYING. or NO IT IS SO OBVIOUSLY A QANTAS PROXY".

The same principles applies to Indonesian Air Asia and Thai Air Asia.

At Changi Airport, we worked hard to encourage QF and JQ to hub here, and grow 3K's business out of SIN. Of course it pisses SQ off, but we are not in the business of protecting SQ, but encouraging pax growth into the country. And thankfully we did that, because SQ's pax numbers have not grown in ten years!

And the registration number of the aircraft doesn't really amount to much. I've said previously that JQ operates a VH-operated aircraft into SIN for PER-SIN. The aircraft then is wet-leased immediately to 3K, which operates SIN-BKK-SIN or SIN-PEN-SIN, after which it returns back to PER as a JQ flight number on SIN-PER.

I don't think JQ/3K has gotten into much trouble with CAAS. If anyone has, its Tiger, who tried to import Indonesian pilots en masse, and they all failed the CAAS exams spectacularly apparently!

[an3_bolt]

Singapore - AKA Panama for Australian airlines.:p

[dogsfatass]

They're leaving them VH registered for now because CAAS wouldn't give them ETOPS approval. Once they sort that out, expect the change.

[myshoutcaptain]

DrPepz - SIN BKK SIN , SIN PEN SIN is all JQ Asia. The VH a/c returns via BLI to PH.

[Icarus2001]

Having worked for Changi Airport Group and its predecessor, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore

Predecessor, what is that supposed to mean? Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (http://www.caas.gov.sg/caas/en/index.html)

it is rare that other civil aviation authorities would challenge it.
Perhaps from a regulatory standpoint that may be true. However from a TRADE standpoint you may find other government agencies get involved. Companies trying to avoid paying Australian crews under Australian labour laws, circumventing visa requirements and diverting tax revenue from the ATO may attract unwanted attention from unexpected directions.

Singapore - AKA Panama for Australian airlines I think this is a valid analogy. The BIG difference being that the general public do not care about cargo ships being crewed by twenty year old phillipina crews (until they hit the GBR!) but they probably do not wish to fly overseas on aircraft crewed by "foreign" crews of unknown competence. Hence Onestar wish to have the cudos of Australian crews up the front but wish to pay south east asian wages.

The reality is that the pilot supply side in Australia is now swinging in favour of crews. The senate recommendations if followed by CASA will put an end to 250 hour indentured labour. I just cannot see this scheme working long term.

Last point CAAS is an arm of the Singapore government. Singapore Airlines is government owned through Temasek Holdings. Therefore CAAS will not bend over backwards to help Qantas. Their motivation would more likely be to do the opposite.

[DrPepz]

Icarus: Up till 2009, CAAS was both regulator of civil aviation in Singapore and operator of Changi Airport. AFter that, it was split into Changi Airport Group which operates the airport, and a separately restructured CAAS which does purely regulatory stuff and air rights negotiations.

About CAAS/CAG not bending over to help QF, do bear in mind that Temasek was a cornerstone investor in the original Jetstar Asia. The entire civil aviation framework in Singapore is built around growing pax traffic, and not protecting SIA. And as I said before, SIA's pax numbers haven't grown in 10 years, whereas Changi's has grown substantially (SIA's marketshare has plunged from 50% in 2001 to 35% today).

Would you say though, that CAAS is allowing foreign crew of unknown competence to staff 3K and other SIN-based airlines? If so why did they disqualify a lot of Tiger's pilots, throwing them into operational disarray some months back (and I think another operational disaster is dawning upon them in the next month or two.... same story).

[Taildragger67]

Icarus,

The Singapore government has made it clear that the preference is Changi as a hub, then SIA; in other words, if there is a conflict of interest between the interests of Changi as a hub and SIA, then the winner will be Changi.

This goes some way to explaining why Singapore has not said a peep in the direction of limiting QF's rights though / into / out of WSSS despite Australia not allowing SQ to fly direct Aus - USA.

The Jetstar website says pretty clearly that SIN-AKL flights are operated by JQ on behalf of 3K. Simple wet-lease, I'd suspect. The airframes are (currently, at least) standard VH- airframes.

What I find interesting is that these aircraft are supposed to be part of the "Singapore base" yet the MEL rotations are 007 on the way north and 008 on the way south; if the rotation 'originated' in Singapore, I would've thought it'd be the other way round... :hmm:

[Mach2point7]

Taildragger67

Just for my info - where did you find "The Jetstar website says pretty clearly that SIN-AKL flights are operated by JQ on behalf of 3K." ?

When I do a dummy booking it is clearly identified that the flight is operated by Jetstar Asia and not Jetstar Airways.

Perhaps you are looking in a different area of the website. Thanks.

[Taildragger67]

M2.7,

You may be right - I think it used to be there until the website 'upgrade'.

However I can say definitively (as I'm looking at one now), that Jetstar's spruiking emails (at least those sent to people in Singapore) contains the following note:

Singapore-Melbourne flights are operated by Jetstar Airways (JQ). Singapore-Auckland flights are operated by Jetstar Airways (JQ) for Jetstar Asia (3K).

The website does state:

From Singapore, Jetstar Asia operates 12 A320 aircraft and has two A330 aircraft based in Singapore.

That, to my simple mind, connotes having identifiable airframes starting and finishing their rotations in Singapore (in much the same way as a pilot based in Singapore would have their rosters start and finish in Singapore); perhaps on 9V- registration and with the 'based' aircraft on the local AOC. I don't think that is the case, with different airframes passing through Singapore.