Merged: Tiger Tales
Tiger isnt going to like that and I doubt they will make money from operating that way.
Pretty funny comment though because they were not making money "the other way", you know flying ten aircraft around with "amazing" load factors.
So if big Tony meant amazingly good load factors but they still could not make money, then their model is flawed surely? Allowing for start up costs etc
Maybe as Mr Citizen said above, big Tony meant amazingly bad load factors?
What a guy...
liaise for infor only
yep - we do provide our own separation (normally with altitude), but we check on descent with FRS and Company Radio to see who is likely to be around when we arrive.
I have been #5 holding overhead when runway works have meant that no taxiways or extra parking are available.
Yes - expensive to hold - but we do coordinate with our Dispatchers who invariably request us to wait and not divert..fuel is cheap here ( JetA1 is 50C/ US gallon...car gas 25c/litre - V8s rule !!)
I have been #5 holding overhead when runway works have meant that no taxiways or extra parking are available.
Yes - expensive to hold - but we do coordinate with our Dispatchers who invariably request us to wait and not divert..fuel is cheap here ( JetA1 is 50C/ US gallon...car gas 25c/litre - V8s rule !!)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huuh
???
"yep - we do provide our own separation (normally with altitude), but we check on descent with FRS and Company Radio to see who is likely to be around when we arrive.
I have been #5 holding overhead when runway works have meant that no taxiways or extra parking are available.
Yes - expensive to hold - but we do coordinate with our Dispatchers who invariably request us to wait and not divert..fuel is cheap here ( JetA1 is 50C/ US gallon...car gas 25c/litre - V8s rule !!) "
???"yep - we do provide our own separation (normally with altitude), but we check on descent with FRS and Company Radio to see who is likely to be around when we arrive.
I have been #5 holding overhead when runway works have meant that no taxiways or extra parking are available.
Yes - expensive to hold - but we do coordinate with our Dispatchers who invariably request us to wait and not divert..fuel is cheap here ( JetA1 is 50C/ US gallon...car gas 25c/litre - V8s rule !!) "
Just checked a bus from MEL-CNS return $900 and 56 hours each way. Why the F&*# are we still trying to sell air tickets for $195 return?
Something is seriously wrong with this entire industry. Bring back part fare regulation and end this ridiculous discounting, it is unsustainable.
All the dramas at QF wouldnt be happening if the Govt kept control of this industry. Try setting up a 100% Aussie airline in SIN - NOT going to happen
Something is seriously wrong with this entire industry. Bring back part fare regulation and end this ridiculous discounting, it is unsustainable.
All the dramas at QF wouldnt be happening if the Govt kept control of this industry. Try setting up a 100% Aussie airline in SIN - NOT going to happen
Why the F&*# are we still trying to sell air tickets for $195 return?
It's a little like asking the big two supermarkets why they use loss leaders, eg milk for $1 a litre. You have to look at the big picture.
Bring back part fare regulation and end this ridiculous discounting, it is unsustainable.
As to being unsustainable, you may be right, this is all about finding that point. Tiger have just shown us how far is too far. What worries me is they could not make money with "amazing" load factors. So their model is wrong even with DOCs cut to the bone.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U K
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1a
You are so right: Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, East Germany all had state owned airlines and they would be a perfect model for a government run QANTAS. Oh I nearly forgot Alitalia.
Those parliamentarians have just got to be the best people to decide on operational and commercial matters.
.
Right on: $900 for the bus and 56 hours gotta be reasonable to pay at least what $1500 for a 3 1/2 hour flight. Hell if there is only QANTAS charge what you like!!
Hell lets go the whole hog only: one car manufacturer, the Trabant brand is still available I believe. One brand of electronics goods, one type of washing powder, one type of beer! etc etc. Hells bells, its obvious now; competition never did the consumer any good! History proves without a doubt, monopolies provide the best service and government run monpolies are historically just awesome! Well regulated competition, that just sucks!!
Comrade Cleve Saville,
QANTASFLOT 'We never forget you have no choice!'
All the dramas at QF wouldnt be happening if the Govt kept control of this industry
Those parliamentarians have just got to be the best people to decide on operational and commercial matters.
Bring back part fare regulation and end this ridiculous discounting, it is unsustainable
Right on: $900 for the bus and 56 hours gotta be reasonable to pay at least what $1500 for a 3 1/2 hour flight. Hell if there is only QANTAS charge what you like!!
Hell lets go the whole hog only: one car manufacturer, the Trabant brand is still available I believe. One brand of electronics goods, one type of washing powder, one type of beer! etc etc. Hells bells, its obvious now; competition never did the consumer any good! History proves without a doubt, monopolies provide the best service and government run monpolies are historically just awesome! Well regulated competition, that just sucks!!
Comrade Cleve Saville,
QANTASFLOT 'We never forget you have no choice!'
I said bring back fare regulation, I didnt mean regulation of the entire industry.
Just some sensible minimum benchmarks....
ie. SYD-MEL $99 SYD-BNE $99 SYD-CNS $199 SYD-PER $249 CPI adjusted each year.
Its the likes of JQ/TT fares that are putting pressures on crew pay
Just some sensible minimum benchmarks....
ie. SYD-MEL $99 SYD-BNE $99 SYD-CNS $199 SYD-PER $249 CPI adjusted each year.
Its the likes of JQ/TT fares that are putting pressures on crew pay
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You need to check out the economic of price discrimination Airlines would be worse of with this form of policy. The sale of the cheaper seats can actually be their profit which they would miss out on if they did not do this.
1a sound asleep.
The Green's would be proud of you. If fares increase pilot etc jobs will vanish. The growth since deregulation has been fuelled by cheap(er) fares.
BTW. The Green's policy apart from closing SYD is for everyone to travel by electric (wind power) train.
The Green's would be proud of you. If fares increase pilot etc jobs will vanish. The growth since deregulation has been fuelled by cheap(er) fares.
BTW. The Green's policy apart from closing SYD is for everyone to travel by electric (wind power) train.
Heard from a Tiger hostess today about the possibility of a name change
or was it that Tiger is now Cub Air - (Cashed Up Bogan Air)?
Or with CM now appointed perhaps its now FIGJAM airlines, or just arrogant lunatic airlines?
on a serious note.
To the Tiger employees, I wish you all the best of luck. It was not your fault (or should I say it was not the majority) that the airline has been run in such an unsatisfactory fashion. I hope it works out for you all.
regit
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No decision made about change in Tiger Airways shareholding: SIA
By Timothy Ouyang and Azhar Khalid | Posted: 20 July 2011 1938 hrs
Photos 1 of 1
7Share
SINGAPORE: Singapore Airlines (SIA) said no decision has been made about a change in its shareholding in budget carrier Tiger Airways.
SIA was responding to queries by Channel NewsAsia, amid market speculation that SIA might raise its stake in Tiger.
In Wednesday's trade, shares of Tiger Airways rose 13.5 per cent to close at S$1.135, with some 53.5 million shares changing hands.
That prompted the Singapore Exchange (SGX) to ask the carrier to explain the sharp rise in its share price and the surge in trading activity on Wednesday.
In response, Tiger said that as part of its "ongoing efforts to strengthen its financial performance and strategic position, and provide financial flexibility for its operations, it continually reviews various proposals of a business, financing or other nature".
It added that it is also approached by various parties to discuss business opportunities but "there is no assurance that any definitive or binding agreement will result from these discussions".
Tiger said that "it has not made a decision whether or not to pursue any of these initiatives" and is not aware of any particular reason for the trading activity.
As of 30 June 2011, SIA owns a 32.9 per cent stake in Tiger.
The budget carrier is currently suspended from operating domestic flights in Australia due to safety concerns.
By Timothy Ouyang and Azhar Khalid | Posted: 20 July 2011 1938 hrs
Photos 1 of 1
7Share
SINGAPORE: Singapore Airlines (SIA) said no decision has been made about a change in its shareholding in budget carrier Tiger Airways.
SIA was responding to queries by Channel NewsAsia, amid market speculation that SIA might raise its stake in Tiger.
In Wednesday's trade, shares of Tiger Airways rose 13.5 per cent to close at S$1.135, with some 53.5 million shares changing hands.
That prompted the Singapore Exchange (SGX) to ask the carrier to explain the sharp rise in its share price and the surge in trading activity on Wednesday.
In response, Tiger said that as part of its "ongoing efforts to strengthen its financial performance and strategic position, and provide financial flexibility for its operations, it continually reviews various proposals of a business, financing or other nature".
It added that it is also approached by various parties to discuss business opportunities but "there is no assurance that any definitive or binding agreement will result from these discussions".
Tiger said that "it has not made a decision whether or not to pursue any of these initiatives" and is not aware of any particular reason for the trading activity.
As of 30 June 2011, SIA owns a 32.9 per cent stake in Tiger.
The budget carrier is currently suspended from operating domestic flights in Australia due to safety concerns.
Interesting to see if SIA will increase their shareholding in Tiger to more than 51%. Temasek has 8%, so SQ just needs to buy out Temasek and another 10% to reach that threshold.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to some people in the know, the reason Tiger Airways' SIN operations have not had any systemic failures is because they completely latch onto SQ's safety management system, training, maintenance etc.
It would appear that the problem with TR Australia was that they did not have specfic safety management committees and oversight on training etc which was based in Australia .
The Tiger Airways Prospectus from 2009 does speak volumes. You can download it here
SGX - Singapore Exchange Ltd
One can see that Tiger just about used SIA's safety and maintenance systems out of Singapore, had access to their simulators, and so on. I don't think they had a similar level of training support in Australia.
Also, there was a safety advisory committee for Tiger Singapore, but not for Tiger Australia.
As such at least on paper, it could not be said that Tiger Singapore suffers from systemic training and maintenance deficiencies, because it's all latching on SIA's existing systems anyway.
=====
It would appear that the problem with TR Australia was that they did not have specfic safety management committees and oversight on training etc which was based in Australia .
The Tiger Airways Prospectus from 2009 does speak volumes. You can download it here
SGX - Singapore Exchange Ltd
One can see that Tiger just about used SIA's safety and maintenance systems out of Singapore, had access to their simulators, and so on. I don't think they had a similar level of training support in Australia.
Also, there was a safety advisory committee for Tiger Singapore, but not for Tiger Australia.
As such at least on paper, it could not be said that Tiger Singapore suffers from systemic training and maintenance deficiencies, because it's all latching on SIA's existing systems anyway.
Material Transactions with the SIA Group
Singapore Airlines
Singapore Airlines, to the best of our knowledge, is the only owner and operator of flight crew training facilities and a crisis management centre in Singapore that meet our requirements. We have entered into flight crew
training facilities agreements with Singapore Airlines since 2004 whereby Singapore Airlines agrees to provide training facilities for our technical crew, cabin crew and other personnel in order to operate our business. In addition, we have also entered into an agreement with Singapore Airlines on 8 September 2008 for the use of SingaporeAirlines’ Crisis Management Centre (the “CMCAgreement”) to ensure availability of a working space for Tiger Airways’ management in the event of any crisis or disaster arising in the course of operating our business.
We also entered into an agreement with Singapore Airlines on 7 September 2004 for the procurement of jet fuel required for our operations by Singapore Airlines (the “Fuel Procurement Agreement”), of which we are required to pay Singapore Airlines an annual fee for its procurement services. The Fuel Procurement Agreement was terminated on 13 March 2008.
The terms of the training facilities agreements, the CMC Agreement, the Fuel Procurement Agreement and any charges payable by us to Singapore Airlines pursuant to such agreements were negotiated on an arm’s length
basis. The training facilities agreements and the CMC Agreement with Singapore Airlines are likely to be recurrent interested person transactions.
We intend to continue to enter into such or similar transactions with Singapore Airlines under our Shareholders’ Mandate (as defined herein) following our listing on the SGX-ST. The continuance or renewal of these
arrangements will be subject to the review procedures under our Shareholders’ Mandate.
The aggregate values of our expenses in all our transactions with Singapore Airlines pursuant to the training facilities agreements, the CMC Agreement and the Fuel Procurement Agreement for the past three fiscal years and from 1 April 2009 up to the Latest Practicable Date are set out in the summary table above.
Singapore Airlines
Singapore Airlines, to the best of our knowledge, is the only owner and operator of flight crew training facilities and a crisis management centre in Singapore that meet our requirements. We have entered into flight crew
training facilities agreements with Singapore Airlines since 2004 whereby Singapore Airlines agrees to provide training facilities for our technical crew, cabin crew and other personnel in order to operate our business. In addition, we have also entered into an agreement with Singapore Airlines on 8 September 2008 for the use of SingaporeAirlines’ Crisis Management Centre (the “CMCAgreement”) to ensure availability of a working space for Tiger Airways’ management in the event of any crisis or disaster arising in the course of operating our business.
We also entered into an agreement with Singapore Airlines on 7 September 2004 for the procurement of jet fuel required for our operations by Singapore Airlines (the “Fuel Procurement Agreement”), of which we are required to pay Singapore Airlines an annual fee for its procurement services. The Fuel Procurement Agreement was terminated on 13 March 2008.
The terms of the training facilities agreements, the CMC Agreement, the Fuel Procurement Agreement and any charges payable by us to Singapore Airlines pursuant to such agreements were negotiated on an arm’s length
basis. The training facilities agreements and the CMC Agreement with Singapore Airlines are likely to be recurrent interested person transactions.
We intend to continue to enter into such or similar transactions with Singapore Airlines under our Shareholders’ Mandate (as defined herein) following our listing on the SGX-ST. The continuance or renewal of these
arrangements will be subject to the review procedures under our Shareholders’ Mandate.
The aggregate values of our expenses in all our transactions with Singapore Airlines pursuant to the training facilities agreements, the CMC Agreement and the Fuel Procurement Agreement for the past three fiscal years and from 1 April 2009 up to the Latest Practicable Date are set out in the summary table above.
Tiger Airways Singapore has a board advisory safety committee that comprises three members and is chaired by Mr. Koh Swee Lim, our Director and senior vice president (commercial) of SIAEC. Mr. Chow Kok Wah,
divisional vice president (engineering operations) of Singapore Airlines, chairs the board advisory safety committee of Tiger Airways Australia which comprises three members. Our President and Chief Executive Officer, Tony Davis, sits on both board advisory safety committees.
divisional vice president (engineering operations) of Singapore Airlines, chairs the board advisory safety committee of Tiger Airways Australia which comprises three members. Our President and Chief Executive Officer, Tony Davis, sits on both board advisory safety committees.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DrPepz
Fair points - but the biggest problem was that ANY ANY ANY cost was screwed down from day 1 (and that has to be TD's claim to fame) to the point of stupidity.
Want to work the crew hard and have 30min turnarounds??
Fine - but get to work at 0530 and can't download your self briefing material because the "management" don't see the benefit/need to buy toner cartridges.
Dumb and cheap and ... dumb.
Sing management advise Oz of new aircraft for expansion...to be operational in 6 weeks.
Surprised when advised can't get the extra crews organised in that time - and happened again...and again...and...etc.
Dumb and cheap and ... dumb.
Also nice the imported CEO who could not grasp the concept that all office holders had to be approved by CASA - and who refused to have a Deputy CP processed and approved.
The reality - if the CP has a heart attack, gets run over by the proverbial "bus", whatever...Tiger get closed down EOFS!
Dumb and cheap and ... dumb.
TD has much to correct - but also much to accept responsibility for.
Chances?????????????????????????????
Fair points - but the biggest problem was that ANY ANY ANY cost was screwed down from day 1 (and that has to be TD's claim to fame) to the point of stupidity.
Want to work the crew hard and have 30min turnarounds??
Fine - but get to work at 0530 and can't download your self briefing material because the "management" don't see the benefit/need to buy toner cartridges.
Dumb and cheap and ... dumb.
Sing management advise Oz of new aircraft for expansion...to be operational in 6 weeks.
Surprised when advised can't get the extra crews organised in that time - and happened again...and again...and...etc.
Dumb and cheap and ... dumb.
Also nice the imported CEO who could not grasp the concept that all office holders had to be approved by CASA - and who refused to have a Deputy CP processed and approved.
The reality - if the CP has a heart attack, gets run over by the proverbial "bus", whatever...Tiger get closed down EOFS!
Dumb and cheap and ... dumb.
TD has much to correct - but also much to accept responsibility for.
Chances?????????????????????????????