Singapore Airlines to copy JetStar with a LCC
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SMOC, you have a point, however, it is extremely difficult to get publicly available data, airlines seem very reluctant to release information to make valid comparisons. Perhaps you could point us to an independent source of information.
In the absence of such information we have to make do with the manufacturers data & our own detective work to get a ballpark estimates. In any case all twins outperform quads in terms of fuel burn. There may be certain sectors for which the a four engine is the optimum aircraft (slot restrictions was the Airbus logic for the 380), however, for almost any other sectors twins appear to have significant cost saving.
Sherm's B.O.E calculations seem to agree quite closely with the Boeing data.
In the absence of such information we have to make do with the manufacturers data & our own detective work to get a ballpark estimates. In any case all twins outperform quads in terms of fuel burn. There may be certain sectors for which the a four engine is the optimum aircraft (slot restrictions was the Airbus logic for the 380), however, for almost any other sectors twins appear to have significant cost saving.
Sherm's B.O.E calculations seem to agree quite closely with the Boeing data.
I think Singapore can smell blood (Qantas labour relations looking likely to kill it, Jetstar admitting it doesn't actually make money, etc....).
They are going for the jugular to rid the world of Qantas and it's subsidiaries for good.
Payback.
Oh S@#t.
They are going for the jugular to rid the world of Qantas and it's subsidiaries for good.
Payback.
Oh S@#t.
Last edited by Fatguyinalittlecoat; 26th May 2011 at 05:57.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
breakfastburrito,
Sorry I don't have any independent data and agree, no doubt any data provided by Airbus will favor them.
With only Airbus and Boeing competing without the likes of McDonald Douglas Lockheed & Convair etc and with accountants running the show I honestly believe the two don't compete head to head except perhaps for the the 737 & A320, probably due the the shear number of A/C of that size in the market.
Sure there's some overlap but it's usually not optimal.
I wish engineers ran the show as they would compete head to head and that would be interesting.
Sorry I don't have any independent data and agree, no doubt any data provided by Airbus will favor them.
With only Airbus and Boeing competing without the likes of McDonald Douglas Lockheed & Convair etc and with accountants running the show I honestly believe the two don't compete head to head except perhaps for the the 737 & A320, probably due the the shear number of A/C of that size in the market.
Sure there's some overlap but it's usually not optimal.
I wish engineers ran the show as they would compete head to head and that would be interesting.
There's a bit more to it than just fuel burn, whilst a B777 could be ideal for airline "A" , an A330 may be the better aircraft for airline "B".
Extra range may not matter if all your routes are comfortably inside the lower figure. Fleet commonality may lean towards one manufacture rather than the other, as could maintenance support. Availability may be a consideration if you need it now instead of two years time. Attractive pricing could be offered if a manufacturer is keen to break into a new market or meet sales targets.
Betamax was a better system than VHS, but lost out in the end.
Extra range may not matter if all your routes are comfortably inside the lower figure. Fleet commonality may lean towards one manufacture rather than the other, as could maintenance support. Availability may be a consideration if you need it now instead of two years time. Attractive pricing could be offered if a manufacturer is keen to break into a new market or meet sales targets.
Betamax was a better system than VHS, but lost out in the end.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
777 vs A330
Well, SQ have both - so they clearly see a niche for both.
Or were the A330s part of the A380 deal... ??
On another point - why won't Qantas order 777s? Can't afford them? Admission of error? It's not as if the order book's closed.
Or were the A330s part of the A380 deal... ??
On another point - why won't Qantas order 777s? Can't afford them? Admission of error? It's not as if the order book's closed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by breakfastburrito
Suffice to say, the B777 appears to be ~30% lower fuel burn per seat compared to both the A380 & the 744.
The CEOs of both Singapore Airlines and Emirates have both stated that the A380 burns 15-22.5% less fuel per seat compared to the 777-300ER. Their comparison is using their real world seating configuration, on their route structure.
The 777-300ER has a lower fuel burn per seat than the 777-200/200ER.
They CEOs should know, they operate both.
Originally Posted by Taildragger67
Well, SQ have both - so they clearly see a niche for both.
Originally Posted by Taildragger67
On another point - why won't Qantas order 777s? Can't afford them? Admission of error? It's not as if the order book's closed.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, there's the question of whether Airbus or Boeing figures are accurate - your mileage may (literally) vary.
And ignores purchase costs, mx costs, reliability, expected life etc etc
And ignores purchase costs, mx costs, reliability, expected life etc etc
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fleet
Hang on there's something wrong there. according to world's best practise at Qantas, one should always give the newest a/c to the LCC part of the group. I don't know how SQ make such large profits and have so much money in the bank with such incompetence,let alone pay a 10% dividend. I think they really should call in Boston Consulting, or better yet Bain & Co., then they'll easily be as successful as Ansett, which all students of airline management should aspire to.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WalterMitty: I posted this in another forum and will cut it here
SQ has been for the past decade chasing yields that will never ever return to the industry. In 1994, they had revenues of S$5 bil and expenses of S$4 bil - and a profit of S$ 1 bil - profit margin 20%.
Today - they have revenues of S$15 bil and expenses of S$14 bil - and STILL a profit of S$1 bil - profit margin in the single digits.
This is why SIA's market cap has been stagnant for 20 years. Well, 20 years ago they were a huge airline and pioneered many things. Today they're just so conservative and don't know what to do except put big seats in J Class.
They are sitting on piles of cash (S$7 bil) and don't know what to do with it. Not many aircraft on order, no investments...... So what did they do this year? They announced a dividend of S$1.40 - which based on today's share price is a dividend yield of 10%. No airline on earth has come close to offering such a dividend yield. So basically they just want to redistribute their cash to shareholders, and use whatever remaining cash left to put into this silly longhaul LCC.
The only companies on the Singapore Exchange offering high dividend yields are those with no growth prospects. Companies like SIngapore Press Holdings, which publishes the Straits Times, and Starhub, a local telco. For SIA's shares to be placed in the same category as those two companies is very sad.
This shows that they have really, really run out of ideas. They built up so much cash from the management of 20 years ago, and have no idea what to do with the money. They have nothing on order (don't speak about the 787s and A350s because they're just replacing the A330s and 777s one for one) and their overseas investments have largely failed.
The new business class may be a fantastic product - but what's the point of having 42 J in the 77W when EK fits in at least 20 more seats? And it's not like SQ's J fares on that product are any lower than EK's. EK's 77W can fit in 100 pax more than SQ - allowing EK much more leverage to discount.
And if this wonderful move was to "kill" Jetstar Asia's longhaul plans - for goodness sake - Jetstar Asia is doing a fine job of killing itself and sapping money from QF without SQ having to set up yet another airline.
No aircraft on order and no growth strategy - yet all the analysts and investment banks have been upgrading SIA to the moon for the past few years. Perhaps it's because of the $7 bil they are sitting on. But that's not a result of the current management, or even the previous management under Chew Choon Seng.
SQ has been for the past decade chasing yields that will never ever return to the industry. In 1994, they had revenues of S$5 bil and expenses of S$4 bil - and a profit of S$ 1 bil - profit margin 20%.
Today - they have revenues of S$15 bil and expenses of S$14 bil - and STILL a profit of S$1 bil - profit margin in the single digits.
This is why SIA's market cap has been stagnant for 20 years. Well, 20 years ago they were a huge airline and pioneered many things. Today they're just so conservative and don't know what to do except put big seats in J Class.
They are sitting on piles of cash (S$7 bil) and don't know what to do with it. Not many aircraft on order, no investments...... So what did they do this year? They announced a dividend of S$1.40 - which based on today's share price is a dividend yield of 10%. No airline on earth has come close to offering such a dividend yield. So basically they just want to redistribute their cash to shareholders, and use whatever remaining cash left to put into this silly longhaul LCC.
The only companies on the Singapore Exchange offering high dividend yields are those with no growth prospects. Companies like SIngapore Press Holdings, which publishes the Straits Times, and Starhub, a local telco. For SIA's shares to be placed in the same category as those two companies is very sad.
This shows that they have really, really run out of ideas. They built up so much cash from the management of 20 years ago, and have no idea what to do with the money. They have nothing on order (don't speak about the 787s and A350s because they're just replacing the A330s and 777s one for one) and their overseas investments have largely failed.
The new business class may be a fantastic product - but what's the point of having 42 J in the 77W when EK fits in at least 20 more seats? And it's not like SQ's J fares on that product are any lower than EK's. EK's 77W can fit in 100 pax more than SQ - allowing EK much more leverage to discount.
And if this wonderful move was to "kill" Jetstar Asia's longhaul plans - for goodness sake - Jetstar Asia is doing a fine job of killing itself and sapping money from QF without SQ having to set up yet another airline.
No aircraft on order and no growth strategy - yet all the analysts and investment banks have been upgrading SIA to the moon for the past few years. Perhaps it's because of the $7 bil they are sitting on. But that's not a result of the current management, or even the previous management under Chew Choon Seng.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The actions of SQ speak louder than any words and I think the Rat may soon regret even contemplating pissing in their backyard.
Never thought I would ever say/think it, but sometimes market forces do bring some justice.
It is time that this bunch of "smartest guys in the room" with all their consultants got what they deserved. It is unfortunate that the staff will suffer with them with not a thought from the elite few.
TG hit the nail on the head, but this lot have an agenda that they are pursuing with little if any regard for those that count and who made the place what it used to be.
I wish there was another way but negotiation requires two willing parties.
Never thought I would ever say/think it, but sometimes market forces do bring some justice.
It is time that this bunch of "smartest guys in the room" with all their consultants got what they deserved. It is unfortunate that the staff will suffer with them with not a thought from the elite few.
TG hit the nail on the head, but this lot have an agenda that they are pursuing with little if any regard for those that count and who made the place what it used to be.
I wish there was another way but negotiation requires two willing parties.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Here & There
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree Rockchucker, all involved need to back an all round change of tack. No amount of industrial action will trump the game changing strategies now on the table.
IMHO, the answer is the consolidation, not fragmentation of the world’s legacy carriers.
Out with the old and in with the new.
IMHO, the answer is the consolidation, not fragmentation of the world’s legacy carriers.
Out with the old and in with the new.
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SQ A330s were a sweetener due to the A380 delays. And they were offered to Tiger Airways twice in the past I believe. But unfortunately they, "Tiger" stuck with their Ryan Air model ( which is being busted incidentally with Ryan Air's A320 orders) and their capacity being scaled down first time ever.
Not sure if this will work, maybe the start of something else. Maybe Tiger could be swallowed up, or up for a make over itself, lets see.
With Tiger lack luster profits and performance in Australia especially 3 years in the red according to smh. SQ wants to have safety net ready.
Not sure if this will work, maybe the start of something else. Maybe Tiger could be swallowed up, or up for a make over itself, lets see.
With Tiger lack luster profits and performance in Australia especially 3 years in the red according to smh. SQ wants to have safety net ready.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zeke:
Yes, it was their fault. Where was their contingency planning? Where was their due diligence? Where, for heaven's sake, was any form of business sense which is what they are supposedly paid the big dollars for?
Everyone could see that the Boeing timeline for 787 design, testing and delivery was ridiculously optimistic. Plenty of people on this forum said so - going way back. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see that significant delays would be highly likely - if not a certainty.
Plus, they'd already just been through it with the A380. If that wasn't enough to arouse their suspicions about 787 delivery I don't know how hard they have to be hit in the face with a wet fish to get the message.
They ordered Boeing new generation widebody twin, the 787. It is not their fault that Boeing was unable to deliver them years ago when they should have started showing up.
Everyone could see that the Boeing timeline for 787 design, testing and delivery was ridiculously optimistic. Plenty of people on this forum said so - going way back. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see that significant delays would be highly likely - if not a certainty.
Plus, they'd already just been through it with the A380. If that wasn't enough to arouse their suspicions about 787 delivery I don't know how hard they have to be hit in the face with a wet fish to get the message.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Cairns Australia
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAIRNS has been tipped as one of the destinations of Singapore Airlines new international low cost carrier.
Singapore Airlines plans to establish a no-frills, low-fare airline operating wide-body aircraft on medium and long-haul routes.
The new airline is seen as a competitive threat to Jetstar and Air-AsiaX expansion plans as well as a way for SIA to expand its significant presence in Australia.
SIA has yet to announce the name, fleet type or network details of the proposed wholly owned subsidiary but Macquarie Equities analysts Russell Shaw and Sam Thornton said Cairns, as well as the Gold Coast and Perth, would be among the destinations.
Tourism Tropical North Queensland chief executive officer Rob Giason said it was good news and would not only open up Cairns to Singapore and China but to European travellers as well.
Singapore is the major hub for SIA and its flights to Europe as well as to mainland China.
Cairns Airport business development manager Rob Evans said the news was welcome and the airport would arrange a meeting with the new airline as soon as possible.
He said the airport had been lobbying Jetstar for sometime to fly direct to Singapore and this gave the airport a new option.
“Singapore is a very important hub for us and we’ll be presenting a very strong business case to them (SIA),” Mr Evans said.
He said now the airline was using a low cost carrier model and targeting leisure travellers it would make their case stronger.
The analysts said the move increased low-cost competition in Asia and with Singapore-based Jetstar Asia in particular.
They said there had been media speculation the new airline would use some of SIA's 35 Boeing 777-200ERs but they believed they were more likely to use A330-300s, which were better suited to five- to nine-hour flight sectors, with an ultimate move to more efficient Boeing 787s and Airbus A350s.
The analysts said it was possible the new airline would enter the Australian market, potentially opening up new routes such as the Gold Coast and Cairns.
Australia is a major SIA market. It flies 92 services a week into five Australian ports and last year accounted for 9.2 per cent of the international market.
The carrier also has a significant stake in ailing low-cost domestic airline Tiger Australia, which could provide feeder traffic to the long-haul product. Tiger flies daily between Cairns and Melbourne.
The airline said operations were expected to begin within a year and the new carrier would be operated independently and managed separately from the full-service flagship.
“We are seeing a new market segment being created and this will provide another growth opportunity for the SIA Group,” SIA chief executive Goh Choon Phong said.
“As we have observed on short-haul routes within Asia, low-fare airlines help stimulate demand for travel and we expect this will prove true for longer flights.”
Singapore Airlines to introduce low-cost carrier with route to Cairns- Local Cairns News | cairns.com.au
Singapore Airlines plans to establish a no-frills, low-fare airline operating wide-body aircraft on medium and long-haul routes.
The new airline is seen as a competitive threat to Jetstar and Air-AsiaX expansion plans as well as a way for SIA to expand its significant presence in Australia.
SIA has yet to announce the name, fleet type or network details of the proposed wholly owned subsidiary but Macquarie Equities analysts Russell Shaw and Sam Thornton said Cairns, as well as the Gold Coast and Perth, would be among the destinations.
Tourism Tropical North Queensland chief executive officer Rob Giason said it was good news and would not only open up Cairns to Singapore and China but to European travellers as well.
Singapore is the major hub for SIA and its flights to Europe as well as to mainland China.
Cairns Airport business development manager Rob Evans said the news was welcome and the airport would arrange a meeting with the new airline as soon as possible.
He said the airport had been lobbying Jetstar for sometime to fly direct to Singapore and this gave the airport a new option.
“Singapore is a very important hub for us and we’ll be presenting a very strong business case to them (SIA),” Mr Evans said.
He said now the airline was using a low cost carrier model and targeting leisure travellers it would make their case stronger.
The analysts said the move increased low-cost competition in Asia and with Singapore-based Jetstar Asia in particular.
They said there had been media speculation the new airline would use some of SIA's 35 Boeing 777-200ERs but they believed they were more likely to use A330-300s, which were better suited to five- to nine-hour flight sectors, with an ultimate move to more efficient Boeing 787s and Airbus A350s.
The analysts said it was possible the new airline would enter the Australian market, potentially opening up new routes such as the Gold Coast and Cairns.
Australia is a major SIA market. It flies 92 services a week into five Australian ports and last year accounted for 9.2 per cent of the international market.
The carrier also has a significant stake in ailing low-cost domestic airline Tiger Australia, which could provide feeder traffic to the long-haul product. Tiger flies daily between Cairns and Melbourne.
The airline said operations were expected to begin within a year and the new carrier would be operated independently and managed separately from the full-service flagship.
“We are seeing a new market segment being created and this will provide another growth opportunity for the SIA Group,” SIA chief executive Goh Choon Phong said.
“As we have observed on short-haul routes within Asia, low-fare airlines help stimulate demand for travel and we expect this will prove true for longer flights.”
Singapore Airlines to introduce low-cost carrier with route to Cairns- Local Cairns News | cairns.com.au
