AirAsia will replace Tiger Australia

[Sunstar320]

Watch this space, they have already begun the process behind the scenes I hear...

From a year ago..

AirAsia evaluating domestic Australian operation (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/28/345422/airasia-evaluating-domestic-australian-operation.html)

[1a sound asleep]

My question is why are we permitting majority foreign owned carriers to operate domestically? Makes no sense to me

[Mahatma Kote]

For what it's worth I've flown Air-Asia and Tiger in SE asia a few times.

My impression is that Air-Asia is a heap more professional than Tiger and a lot easier to deal with - very few of the 'optional' extras and a decent booking/boarding/inflight experience.

I've also had the misfortune to fly Jetstar PER-SIN and it ranks well below Tiger, QF or Air-Asia.

For some unknown reason, recently QF gave me a AUD650 return flight PER-SIN. It was quite enjoyable, full booked, but unfortunately 60A on an A330.

[Icarus2001]

Simply replace Avalon cock up with Gold Coast cock up. Progress.

[B772]

I heard CASA visited Air Asia in KUL for a Foreign AOC renewal exercise not long after the Gold Coast incidents. Air Asia scraped through and I doubt Air Asia has any interest in a domestic operation in Australia after the Tiger experience.

[MONK]

So who owned Tiger?......

BTW.....who owns Jetstar Asia?.....and where are they operating?

[gruntyfen]

AirAsia to boost record Airbus deal to 300 planes
=================================================

Wed 06 Jul, 2011 04:11

By Liau Y-Sing and Raju Gopalakrishnan

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - AirAsia Bhd will buy an extra 100 Airbus A320neo jets, taking its record-breaking order to 300 planes, a source said, a deal which would make the Malaysia-based budget airline one of the world's largest carriers.

The two sides announced an $18.2 billion (11.3 billion pound) deal for 200 planes at the Paris Air show last month, shattering aviation records for the largest ever airline order. The additional order takes the list price of the contract to a staggering $27 billion.

The bumper order highlights Airbus' growing lead over Boeing and throws the spotlight on AirAsia's aggressive growth plans at a time when high oil prices and an uncertain global economy are clouding the outlook for travel demand.

Analysts expect the extended order to drive AirAsia's expansion as it competes with carriers such as India's IndiGo, Singapore's Tiger Airways and Australia's Jetstar .

"AirAsia had the first-mover advantage and it continues to stay ahead of the game by ordering fuel-efficient planes and keeping the size growing," said an aviation analyst with a Malaysian investment bank who declined to be identified due to company policy.

"But the key risk is if expansion plans do not succeed. The Malaysian base is fairly saturated so if the other markets do not grow or cannot take off because of protectionism or other factors, then they will find themselves having to manage a lot of aircraft," the analyst said.

Like the previous order, the additional 100 planes would also carry CFM International engines, the source with direct knowledge of the deal said, declining to be identified because the deal is not public yet.

The source said AirAsia would receive a discount for the entire order, but did not give further details.

The schedule for deliveries of the latest batch of the A320neo planes will be at the discretion of AirAsia, the source added, without giving a timeline.

AirAsia was not immediately available for comment.

GROWTH PLANS

The initial order of 200 planes will be delivered from 2016, as Air-Asia seeks to reap the benefits of being based near the two fastest-growing aviation markets in the world -- India and China.

The A320neo is a version of Airbus's best-selling 150-seat passenger jet offering fuel savings with new engines from 2015.

Asian budget airlines placed a record $42 billion in plane orders during the Paris Airshow, signalling their high expectations for travel in the world's fastest growing market and also triggering worries some may not survive.

Many of the no-frills carries such as AirAsia and Indigo aim to more than double their fleets to power rapid growth, partly at the expense of full-service airlines such as Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines .

AirAsia chief Tony Fernandes told Reuters earlier this week he saw the company as a 500-plane airline, which would make it second only to America's Southwest Airlines.

AirAsia, which flies to 63 destinations in more than 20 countries, has 90 planes currently, almost all single-aisle Airbus A320s. Besides the 300 Airbus A320neo deal, it has another 75 Airbus aircraft already in the pipeline.

The group has a 6 percent market share in intra-Asia routes, ex-domestic, higher than Malaysian Airlines' 4 percent, but lower than Singapore Airlines' 9 percent, Goldman Sachs said in a recent research report.

AirAsia, which has a market value of $3.2 billion, plans to list its Thai and Indonesian units this year and its long-haul unit AirAsia X in 2011 or 2012. It is also looking to build a hub in Singapore.

Fernandes has said AirAsia will fund the Airbus purchase through a mix of debt and cashflow.

"Obviously we're a much, much bigger company than when we bought a hundred planes so we're taking the same number of planes a year but now our cashflow is much, much stronger than it was before," said the 47-year old Malaysian entrepreneur who also owns the Team Lotus Formula One squad.

Worldwide passenger demand is expected to rise 4.4 percent over the next year with the Asia-Pacific region growing faster at 6.4 percent, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which represents the majority of airlines operating in the $598 billion industry.

The Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, an independent aviation market research provider, said low-cost carriers accounted for 16 percent of the market in terms of seats within Asia Pacific last year, up from 6 percent in 2005.

Their market share is set to rise 2 percentage points annually to about 26 percent in 2015, it said.

(Editing by Vinu Pilakkot)

[Xcel]

Air asia is a Malaysian company.. Unless they had a shareholder willing to be their "name" in oz, singa's or nz didn't think it would be allowed under current cabotage rules... But I could be wrong I haven't looked into it for a while...

[gruntyfen]

Jet Star Asia

Air Asia Australia?

[waren9]

AirAsia to boost record Airbus deal to 300 planes



Dont Air Asia and Jetstar have an agreement regarding aircraft orders, engines and spares etc?

If so, are some of these aircraft possibly for Jetstar? Was the CFM option much cheaper? Jetstar run IAE.

[novice110]

Airaustralasia

[hiwaytohell]

You wouldn't put Air Asia in the same category as Tiger (and probably even Jetstar)! Tony Fernandez is a good operator and a class act. Particularly with his attitude to training and his people.

[Xcel]

^^ class act that doesn't have any selection process over a good proportion of his pilots. When you see eagle jet and others advertising for 500 hrs experience a320, where do you think they send you?

External training with pay for hour schemes and standards low enough it has pilots paying the employer through a 3rd party.... Yep class act alright...

[ReverseFlight]

So who owned Tiger?......Tiger Airways Holdings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Airways_Holdings)
As of February 2010, Tiger Airways is publicly listed on the Singapore Exchange. The main shareholders in Tiger Airways Holdings as of March 2011, who hold more than 5% shares, are:


Singapore Airlines Limited (32.9%)
The Capital Group Companies Inc. 8.1%
Dahlia Investments Pte Ltd 7.4%
Schroder Investment Management Group 5.05%

BTW.....who owns Jetstar Asia?.....and where are they operating?Jetstar Asia Airways - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetstar_Asia_Airways)
Newstar, the new owner of Jetstar Asia, is itself 49 per cent owned by Australia’s Qantas. Dennis Khoo is the other shareholder in Newstar, and is a long-time regional partner of Qantas.

For Jetstar Asia destinations, see link below:
Jetstar Asia Airways destinations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetstar_Asia_Airways_destinations)

All your work nicely done for you. Easy. :ok:

[inandout]

The Australian Government should learn from this, if you allow foreign low cost airlines into Australia working on a shoe string , paying wages that are not in line with what those within the industry should earn then some thing has to break.
Replacing the devil we know with the one we do not is not the answer.
Our Government needs to place some protection on Australian airlines so standards are at a level all Australians expect and have received in the past.
It's the old story, You get nothing for free and if it's too good to be true then it is.
The Austraian public needs to realise that airfares need to rise for safe passage to continue.
In no way is this directed to those employed by Tiger, it's directed to our government and the public.

[1a sound asleep]

just why are we allowing foreign owned airlines to operate in Australia??

[Icarus2001]

Because we have a small population of only 22 million souls so we cannot generate enough capital or market to create and sustain our own apparently.

[1a sound asleep]

I reckon that's rubbish.... try letting a 100% foreign company set up a rail link between MEL-SYD-BNE and watch authorities scream.... try establishing a 100% foreign company to build our roads and charge tools.

[Icarus2001]

Not quite 100% but 60% buys control...

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Trains_Melbourne

[Dani]

The reason why foreign LCC are flocking into Australian domestic market is because the ticket prices here are way above industry standards. Australia is - not only in Aviation - a closed market and this causes high prices. Just look in Woolworth, Target or Coles.

It would be a good idea for Australia as a whole to open these markets, and this has been done with Tiger, but obviously not all parties of the government are willing to do so.

The scientific term is called protectionism.

Dani

[standard unit]

Breathtaking logic there Dani.

Thank you.

We in Australia have a population of 23 million.

How many profitable and safe airlines do you propose our minuscule population can support?

Current circumstances might suggest we have reached [or even exceeded] our limit.

[tourismman]

The problem is not how many airlines we have in Australia,but that one Airline group has 65% of the market-that is the problem!!!!

[Dani]

Well, if airfaire are too high, then there are definetly to *few* airlines on the market, not too many. This is called competetion and has been very succesful in the rest of the Western world. Safe or not safe is then another question and not dependant on air fairs. There is still no correlation between safety and ticket prices. To the contrary, there are very very succesful LCC with a impeccable safety record - and Tiger belongs to them.

We in Switzerland are 7 mio people in a heavily competitive European market environment and have - let me count - about 5 independent airlines (Swiss+Edelweiss, Air Berlin, Easy Jet, Helvetic, Darwin and some smaller airlines too). And our country is 400km long.

But as I was talking before, I'm referring not only to the aviation industry in Australia but in general. As a foreigner, one has the impression that Australia doesn't want to belong to the rest of the world. As you said it, you are only 23 mio, so it might be better to be more open. It would help your economy the most.

Dani

[Moony123]

We in Switzerland are 7 mio people in a heavily competitive European market environment and have - let me count - about 5 independent airlines (Swiss+Edelweiss, Air Berlin, Easy Jet, Helvetic, Darwin and some smaller airlines too). And our country is 400km long.


You may only have 7 million people Dani, but I suggest taking a quick look at World Population Density Map (http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-population-density.htm)

Look at where you are located. Look at the population density of where you are, and everywhere around you. Now move all of that over to Australia.

Have a quick guess why you can have 5 or more Airlines, and why we really can't.

[Worrals in the wilds]

...and that density is so low and unprofitable that many regional routes have to be subsidised by government, otherwise no carrier in their right minds would run a service and the locals would have no transport in the wet season. I can't see the likes of Easyjet making a fortune out of regional services and the trunk routes are already well serviced and cost competitive. How many carriers need to be flying between the capitals when the current services are often half full and low priced?

Also, Switzerland is only an hour or so flight from about fifteen different countries. Australia is at least four hours from anywhere and eight hours from even SE Asia, so it's not like the European bunny hop where you can jet off to another country for the long weekend is a viable option.

As a foreigner, one has the impression that Australia doesn't want to belong to the rest of the world.

Did I miss the announcement of Slag the Aussie Week commencing on D&G? According to one poster our government and airlines backed a racist conspiracy cos we hate foreigners, now we're insular and close minded.

That must be why most of our major food suppliers and many other companies have been sold to foreign companies, because we're racist and insular. Bonds, Golden Circle, CSR, Bundy Rum, the list goes on. Of course despite promising otherwise most of them have slowed or ceased production in Australia because it's apparently unviable when you can pay a bunch of Chinese a pittance and not bother about all those pesky OH&S requirements ...yet they all still advertise as being "Australian" as much as they can :yuk:. I don't see the Swiss outsourcing their watchmaking businesses, because they know that Swiss made (or Japanese made) carries a guarantee of quality workmanship. Maybe they're all just insular too.

FWIW a number of foreign supermarket chains have looked at opening up in Australia (Sainsbury's for one) and the public would love to see them, because it would increase price competition and many of their products are great. The government is also keen because it would create jobs and they don't like the Coles/Woolies duopoly any more than the public. None of them have followed through, because the costs of logistics (among other things) are huge for a small return and it's simply not worth the effort. Far from being a close minded conpsiracy to ice the foreigners out, it's more that to our despair we're stuck with Coles/Woolies because no-one else wants the hassle of trucking fresh (or kind of fresh :E) lettuce to Mt Isa and Perth.

Tiger were doing badly before the grounding. They were losing money, had an awful reputation and weren't increasing their market share. Was that all an Australian conspiracy as well because we hate foreigners, or did they just have a really sucky product? Virgin had a foreign, British identity when it started and that didn't stop people flying them.

The foreign posters here seem quick to jump on the Conspiracy bandwagon and assume the whole thing was a racket. Maybe that will turn out to be the case, but it's also possible that CASA were right and Tiger was unsafe.

[chimbu warrior]

We in Switzerland are 7 mio people in a heavily competitive European market environment and have - let me count - about 5 independent airlines (Swiss+Edelweiss, Air Berlin, Easy Jet, Helvetic, Darwin and some smaller airlines too). And our country is 400km long.

And what happened to Swissair............?

[standard unit]

You have to piss yourself laughing when you have someone from Switzerland implies that your country is xenophobic......

[Dani]

You completly miss the point if you are implying that I hate Australia or their inhabitants - quite the opposite is true.

Opening your domestic market doesn't mean that you sell yourself to foreigners. Look at what happened with liberalization in aviation and other key industries: the strongest survived, to the interest of everyone.

It is a fact that price level in Australia is at record high, as are the air fares. Opening the markets would help to reduce it. That's all I am saying. Draw yourself your own conclusions. A domestic ticket for 500 $ average is just insane. For that price you could buy half a cabin in the US or in Europe.

[porch monkey]

Sorry, but given the taxation levels at all points in aviation here, the fact that one company has 65%, limited population and great distances, bringing in more airlines to "bring prices down" is a crock of ****. There is a limit under which you cannot go given the factors above. Tiger tried, and found they couldn't make money or indeed it seems, cover the other necessities, like maintenance, training etc. Anyone who thinks they can do better is welcome as far as I'm concerned. But they won't be getting my money, either as a passenger or investor. Because we all know where it will end, don't we?:ugh:

[porch monkey]

Dani, utmost respect, but you're not comparing apples with apples. $500 domestic flight here equates to sy-ph-sy or ml-ph-ml. 4+ hrs EACH way. How far can you travel in Europe in 4 hrs? 6-8 COUNTRIES maybe? With all that population and catchment area for your airline. It just isn't the same, sorry.

[Worrals in the wilds]

There are also a lot more people in the US and Europe wanting to fly places.

The whole of Australia has the population of one large European city spread out over a country with the area of the US. If we had six or seven carriers it would be an ugly race of cost cutting and loss leading tickets at unsustainably low prices until the weakest carriers collapsed or cut costs so far that the operation was unsafe. This is not in anyone's interests. I suspect that the reason no Euro carriers have set up in Australia is because they've done the maths and worked out there's no money in it. The government is not anti new airline, Tiger were given money by the SA gvernment )among others) and received plenty of fanfare from the federal government when they started up.

Everything in Australia costs a lot (not just airline fares) because the market is small and widely spread out.

[ReverseFlight]

AirAsia to launch new budget carrier with Japan's ANA (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/airasia-to-launch-new-budget-carrier-with-japans-ana-20110722-1hrrs.html)
AirAsia has other similar joint-ventures in Southeast Asia -- in Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines and Thailand -- while its long-haul airline AirAsia X flies to Tokyo's Haneda airport.Such is the standard of Aussie journalism these days. :sad:

[7378FE]

Which European city has a population of 22 million?

Most Euro LCC fly between places with just a few hundred thousand population.

[Icarus2001]

None of them do. You are correct. The biggest is 10.5 million people. However I think his point is still valid.

Largest urban areas of the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_urban_areas_of_the_European_Union)

Most Euro LCC fly between places with just a few hundred thousand population.

Yes but they service nearby larger population areas.

Since this is an Air Asia thread take Stansted for example. A quiet country town north of London but it gets sold as LONDON (STANSTED).

Tiger used to fly ;) to Avalon and call it Melbourne.

Which makes me wonder just how far one can go from the target city and still call it a service to there.:rolleyes:

[mcgrath50]

I believe Ryanair was planning on buying one of the UKs decommissioned aircraft carriers, floating it off the coast of Ireland and calling it New York...

[abc1]

Because we have a small population of only 22 million souls so we cannot generate enough capital or market to create and sustain our own apparently.
So it follows that Singapore is significantly smaller then and it can buy Aus with change to spare.
Rhetoric perhaps or just pure incompetence on behalf of the laureates in charge in Canberra and in various organisations?
Imagine what Singapore would be if it had Australia's resources.

[porch monkey]

Sure, and imagine what we would have or could do IF we were a tiny island with 27 mill rather than the huge one we are. The amount and size and therefore cost of the infrastructure is defined more by the distances required than the population size.

[TAFDamo]

Which makes me wonder just how far one can go from the target city and still call it a service to there.

Frankfurt (Hahn) is a good example of this too... However even though it's in the boonies (130K from Frankfurt), it can also serve as a second airport to Koln (180K) and I think even other cities are kind of within reaching distance.

Though, having travelled there a number of times, if you actually think of it as anything to do with Frankfurt or Koln you will be bitterly disappointed... You know that when it takes you longer to get to your destination once you've arrived at the destination airport than the flight takes that you're definitely travelling LCC. :rolleyes:

[airdualbleedfault]

400 euro 1 way for me and Mrs Air last Easter over a 1hr sector with sleezyjet yeh, real cheap :hmm:
Yes it was Easter, but 400 euro !!!

[TSRABECOMING]

Airasia (Tony) likes to join a domestic airline as a partner or a share holder. The airline is starting this model in Vietnam and (not sure) The Philipines. and now outside ASEAN in Japan with ANA. He may looking for a chance in Australia (may be buying Tiger??). At least AAX will add Sydney as its new international destination soon.

[Dani]

Well, I see what I'm reading - AA to replace Tiger. Good luck!

I agree that Tiger is a very "lean" airline. Air Asia is way leaner. OK, they offer full service, ok, they have a brilliant infrastructure. But that is in Asian countries with salaries one Australian wouldn't place a foot out of his bed for.

I also fail to see where AA is more professional than Tiger, since I know about some of the incidents they experienced in the few years they existed. Did I mention salaries for the pilots and their training bonds?

Australian aviation authorities may not be completly happy with what they see in a modern LCC. Qantas for ever - isn't it? Probably they will soon see how aviation is made up outside of their neat home...

I say again: Good luck!

Dani