Bonza has its AOC
They are screwed either way. Cut back 25% of the schedule, bad press and customer backlash. Live and hope everyday each aircraft doesn’t require engineering? That’s a fantasy. Need to build some slack into any operation these days considering the supply chain delays should one require a non local available part. Could be a week to two wait for a supplier in the US to get a part out.
The priority seems to be its Canadian outfit. If they have been cut off from all aircraft orders, remains to be seen what is the actual future. Don’t underestimate those delayed leasing repayments, will make it very hard trying to build a fleet if Boeing has wiped any current orders in the system, as the Seattle Times speculated at.
The priority seems to be its Canadian outfit. If they have been cut off from all aircraft orders, remains to be seen what is the actual future. Don’t underestimate those delayed leasing repayments, will make it very hard trying to build a fleet if Boeing has wiped any current orders in the system, as the Seattle Times speculated at.
Lessors are businesses that provide aircraft on an agreed arrangement. No pay = no play. No service = no customers.
Very simple so as I said what is Plan B? Maybe operate a three aircraft schedule with a reserve. Leave people stranded without options of immediate compensation then other alternatives are available and faith and trust lost = business failure
Very simple so as I said what is Plan B? Maybe operate a three aircraft schedule with a reserve. Leave people stranded without options of immediate compensation then other alternatives are available and faith and trust lost = business failure
people forget that airlines only sell one product and that is time. The travel game changer that aviation brought to the table was time otherwise ships, trains cars and horses would be ok. Frequency equals time too. Bonza has no Plan B for disrupts unlike most others. They could have ACMI’d at least one aircraft as backup until they got settled down. The fell for the playbook that says new ships are ultra- reliable which does not take into account things like bird strikes (last Saturday at MCY), wx, or ramp damage or oh dear.
So who ‘heavily subsidises’ the ships that bring most of Australia’s fuel supply to Australia? Are you labouring under the misconception that they are ‘huge bulk carriers’?
And the container ships that bring in most of Australia’s imported goods?
All of these ship pay a big bag of gold to the Commonwealth as shipping levies, based on their tonnage and the amount of fuel carried (whether as cargo or for ‘own use’).
And the container ships that bring in most of Australia’s imported goods?
All of these ship pay a big bag of gold to the Commonwealth as shipping levies, based on their tonnage and the amount of fuel carried (whether as cargo or for ‘own use’).
Actually not quite true, while time is a major factor, large aircraft are far cheaper to run than trains and ships over distance. The capital costs to keep longer distance railways running in the modern world does not compete with that of running a few KM of runways, terminals and what are essentially economical flying busses. Trains and ships are heavily subsidized in almost all countries either in infrastructure or direct payments. The only ships and such that make a semblance of profit are huge bulk carriers or premium cruise ships. Try catching a taxi from Melbourne to Sydney, even with 5 on board its not going to be a competitive price with an airline.
not happy if your flight is seriously delayed or canceled if you need to be somewhere. Four in your car can work depending on the destination
So who ‘heavily subsidises’ the ships that bring most of Australia’s fuel supply to Australia? Are you labouring under the misconception that they are ‘huge bulk carriers’?
And the container ships that bring in most of Australia’s imported goods?
All of these ship pay a big bag of gold to the Commonwealth as shipping levies, based on their tonnage and the amount of fuel carried (whether as cargo or for ‘own use’).
And the container ships that bring in most of Australia’s imported goods?
All of these ship pay a big bag of gold to the Commonwealth as shipping levies, based on their tonnage and the amount of fuel carried (whether as cargo or for ‘own use’).
The ships themselves are not the money makers in the transport chain, the goods they carry are.
Trains and ships are heavily subsidized in almost all countries either in infrastructure or direct payments.
The ships themselves are not the money makers in the transport chain, the goods they carry are.
As Lead Balloon asked, who is subsidising these box ships to Australia?
You also may want to google for GREEK SHIPPING TYCOON.
The ships themselves are not the money makers in the transport chain, the goods they carry are.
You do know the ship owners charge money to carry those goods, don’t you? And if the goods weren’t carried to their market on ships, the goods would be less valuable if not worthless?
Shipping is interwoven into the trade network, like trucks the true cost of infrastructure and such is born by the governments to enable reliable trade markets. Airports have been divested because international aviation can self sustain without much intervention.
An aircraft just needs two runways at either end of the flight, navigation facilities, which are now gps based, so pretty cheap, and en-route control, which is ever reducing. Shipping requires clear, safe, maintained lanes of operation, port control with a huge complement of specialized staff, tugs, security and so on. Just like the question of who pays for the roads that trucks roll on, who pays for all the marine infrastructure ships use, that's where the subsidies come from. Rail now has to pay it's own way and you can see how the cost of a single line between Melbourne and Brisbane is ballooning massively. Once it's operational it will cost further billions to maintain with multitudes of staff to maintain and run the tracks.
As for the shipping magnates, there's barely any Greeks left on the list, Maersk is now the top line. The Greek families that ran the large shipping industries all made most of the family money back when shipping was king pre ww2, now most have dwindled. Yes you will make money off the huge ships, as they can move a 'ship'load of stuff. Try making money off a ferry or small logistics vessel.
There's good reason that a great deal of ships are registered in third world countries with crews from the same and look like the rust barely holds them together. Obviously a cruise liner or top end freighter that ships fragile/time sensitive stuff will make money, the rest, well, yeah....
An aircraft just needs two runways at either end of the flight, navigation facilities, which are now gps based, so pretty cheap, and en-route control, which is ever reducing. Shipping requires clear, safe, maintained lanes of operation, port control with a huge complement of specialized staff, tugs, security and so on. Just like the question of who pays for the roads that trucks roll on, who pays for all the marine infrastructure ships use, that's where the subsidies come from. Rail now has to pay it's own way and you can see how the cost of a single line between Melbourne and Brisbane is ballooning massively. Once it's operational it will cost further billions to maintain with multitudes of staff to maintain and run the tracks.
As for the shipping magnates, there's barely any Greeks left on the list, Maersk is now the top line. The Greek families that ran the large shipping industries all made most of the family money back when shipping was king pre ww2, now most have dwindled. Yes you will make money off the huge ships, as they can move a 'ship'load of stuff. Try making money off a ferry or small logistics vessel.
There's good reason that a great deal of ships are registered in third world countries with crews from the same and look like the rust barely holds them together. Obviously a cruise liner or top end freighter that ships fragile/time sensitive stuff will make money, the rest, well, yeah....
An aircraft just needs two runways at either end of the flight, navigation facilities, which are now gps based, so pretty cheap, and en-route control
I used to think you were pretty smart and switched on and your comments pretty accurate...........nah, I never thought that, I was being sarcastic.
The following users liked this post:
When a politician (or the airport) quotes how many jobs it supports it generally includes even the taxis that sit in the stand outside and so on, and really just emphasizes my point that aviation is much better at making money than shipping.
The shipping companies that make billions are companies with diverse holdings and capture large % of the global market. MSC and Maersk alone own around 35% of the global container (TEU) capacity.
And who is heavily subsidising them?
Budget spend on maritime infrastructure last year and pretty much stable for the last ten years is just under $500million, with Aviation spending dropping below $280 million. The cost of dredging Port Phillip bay for larger freighters alone cost around $1 Billion a few years back. The operators pay about $100 a container and 20c per GT to cover existing infrastructure running costs.
Interesting to note the differences in international trade, ships transport around 11 billion tons annually valued at $14 trillion USD. Aviation only transports around 52 million tons at a value of $6 trillion.
Just like other bulk goods you have to do a lot of shipping to make money, but because only a relatively small group of companies own most of the capacity they make a lot of cash doing it.
Try buying a freighter and compete in the international market and see how much you make, if you can even get the capital to start. The Australian government even has tax incentive schemes to try to get local ships moving. I would suggest that many of the other large shippers get some form of kickbacks that help them along as well in fee and charge discounts at various ports around the world, its all corporate businesses and in constant negotiation.
I found some old stats that Maersk makes around $1500 USD revenue on an average FFE (2 x TEU) container, with around $50 USD profit. There might be up to 8,000 FFE on a ship so thats around $400,000 per trip compared to $12,000,000 revenue. Not a lot of margin for a lot of cash trading hands.
Interesting to note the differences in international trade, ships transport around 11 billion tons annually valued at $14 trillion USD. Aviation only transports around 52 million tons at a value of $6 trillion.
Just like other bulk goods you have to do a lot of shipping to make money, but because only a relatively small group of companies own most of the capacity they make a lot of cash doing it.
Try buying a freighter and compete in the international market and see how much you make, if you can even get the capital to start. The Australian government even has tax incentive schemes to try to get local ships moving. I would suggest that many of the other large shippers get some form of kickbacks that help them along as well in fee and charge discounts at various ports around the world, its all corporate businesses and in constant negotiation.
I found some old stats that Maersk makes around $1500 USD revenue on an average FFE (2 x TEU) container, with around $50 USD profit. There might be up to 8,000 FFE on a ship so thats around $400,000 per trip compared to $12,000,000 revenue. Not a lot of margin for a lot of cash trading hands.
Last edited by 43Inches; 24th May 2023 at 11:36.
According to Australian Aviation today, AB are looking to expand their network!
The TL refueller has heard that AB have to tried to engage operators to assist with AOG’s etc, but the operators have said no.
The TL refueller has heard that AB have to tried to engage operators to assist with AOG’s etc, but the operators have said no.
777 own 100% in regards to Bonza so that might play out differently perhaps in regards to sourcing more aircraft, its Canada offshoot they only hold about 25%.
But isn't that what travel insurance is for? I'm not saying compensation shouldn't be payable - but then ticket prices will rise considerably. At least with travel insurance you have a choice to pay the premium or take your chances. Too many people not paying the premium then complaining when their 'bargain' ticket option falls apart.
[R]eally just emphasizes my point that aviation is much better at making money than shipping.
Without the shipping industry, half the world would freeze and half the world would starve. That’s why the shipping industry makes money. It’s ‘needed’, in the economic sense. Without it, lots and lots of people die.
Without the aviation industry, there’d be no aviation industry. It’s merely ‘wanted’ in the economic sense. Much of the commercial aviation industry that isn’t government subsidised is effectively a Ponzi scheme and that’s why Warren Buffet says what he has to say about it.
The following users liked this post:
More comedy gold! Thanks for another belly laugh, 43.
Without the shipping industry, half the world would freeze and half the world would starve. That’s why the shipping industry makes money. It’s ‘needed’, in the economic sense. Without it, lots and lots of people die.
Without the aviation industry, there’d be no aviation industry. It’s merely ‘wanted’ in the economic sense. Much of the commercial aviation industry that isn’t government subsidised is effectively a Ponzi scheme and that’s why Warren Buffet says what he has to say about it.
Without the shipping industry, half the world would freeze and half the world would starve. That’s why the shipping industry makes money. It’s ‘needed’, in the economic sense. Without it, lots and lots of people die.
Without the aviation industry, there’d be no aviation industry. It’s merely ‘wanted’ in the economic sense. Much of the commercial aviation industry that isn’t government subsidised is effectively a Ponzi scheme and that’s why Warren Buffet says what he has to say about it.
More comedy gold! Thanks for another belly laugh, 43.
Without the shipping industry, half the world would freeze and half the world would starve. That’s why the shipping industry makes money. It’s ‘needed’, in the economic sense. Without it, lots and lots of people die.
Without the aviation industry, there’d be no aviation industry. It’s merely ‘wanted’ in the economic sense. Much of the commercial aviation industry that isn’t government subsidised is effectively a Ponzi scheme and that’s why Warren Buffet says what he has to say about it.
Without the shipping industry, half the world would freeze and half the world would starve. That’s why the shipping industry makes money. It’s ‘needed’, in the economic sense. Without it, lots and lots of people die.
Without the aviation industry, there’d be no aviation industry. It’s merely ‘wanted’ in the economic sense. Much of the commercial aviation industry that isn’t government subsidised is effectively a Ponzi scheme and that’s why Warren Buffet says what he has to say about it.
That being said there is another debt crunch coming for the container industry with China and Korea offering heavily subsidized ship building to offer replacements for what is an ageing fleet stagnated over the last 20 years due to costs. The next few years will see over capacity and losses return especially to the Asia/Pacific markets. There's already data that the Singapore-Euro market has fallen to below cost freight prices.
In the US some rail sectors are making good money, but its a distorted market as the government effectively gave away rail assets a while back and we havn't got to the stage that mass replacement of infrastructure and upgrades are required. So companies are skimming the cream off what the tax payer had paid for year. Just like Melbourne Airport is finding out how much it is just to replace aging taxiways after they had wasted millions on carparks.
The overall freight industry got a massive boost during covid, but it's about to have a big adjustment.