SQ domestic confirmed??????
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whiskery
Dr Cheong received a huge slap in the face and lost face when Dicky Branson gleefully tore up his cheque.
The ox is slow but the earth is patient.
He will regain face on this particular battlefield.
One does not do that to a powerful Asian wihout retribution.
EWL
Dr Cheong received a huge slap in the face and lost face when Dicky Branson gleefully tore up his cheque.
The ox is slow but the earth is patient.
He will regain face on this particular battlefield.
One does not do that to a powerful Asian wihout retribution.
EWL
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EWL
That assumes that there is anybody about who really cares.
My favourite scene of all time is in the Indiana Jones movie where this HUGE guy dressed all in black arab gear, burnous and all waving this ENORMOUS Scimitar around steps out of the crowd, who all melt away around him, leaving Indiana facing him alone.
Simple, ....Indiana rolls his eyes shoots him dead and gets on with saving the girl.
The good Dr does not seem to have learned that whilst the ox may be slow and the earth patient, the rest of the world is getting on with it and all the inscrutable gameplay isn't worth a hill of beans. Eventually you have to front and put your money where your mouth is.
Ads they say in the used car business "money talks bulls hit walks"
Oh and BTW in case he didn't learn it in Business school 101, retribution is the very last thing on which to base your business plan. It will gaurantee failure.
That assumes that there is anybody about who really cares.
My favourite scene of all time is in the Indiana Jones movie where this HUGE guy dressed all in black arab gear, burnous and all waving this ENORMOUS Scimitar around steps out of the crowd, who all melt away around him, leaving Indiana facing him alone.
Simple, ....Indiana rolls his eyes shoots him dead and gets on with saving the girl.
The good Dr does not seem to have learned that whilst the ox may be slow and the earth patient, the rest of the world is getting on with it and all the inscrutable gameplay isn't worth a hill of beans. Eventually you have to front and put your money where your mouth is.
Ads they say in the used car business "money talks bulls hit walks"
Oh and BTW in case he didn't learn it in Business school 101, retribution is the very last thing on which to base your business plan. It will gaurantee failure.
Evertonian
...Ahh, yes Gaunty, but don't you remember, in one of the sequels, Indy tries it again, but there was no gun in his holster!
Having a cheeky grin & being cocky, only gets you so far in business these days. Almost time to move on Sir Dick eh?
Having a cheeky grin & being cocky, only gets you so far in business these days. Almost time to move on Sir Dick eh?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQ is the biggest joke in the Aviation world. A city state island
carrying on as one of the worlds premier airlines. Their meagre
population barely supports patronage of their ZOO, as nice as
that is!
2 million odd people who through their mandatory government
provident fund run airliners around the world on semi-slave
wages and conditions. SQ's success is underwritten by the
public of Singapore not by true competition with commercial
airlines. Not much debt means high profits, especially with crew
now reposing in economy seats for crew rest. The world of
aviation will one day awake to SQ's sham. They actually use
Australian scenery to advertise their product. Wake up folks...
carrying on as one of the worlds premier airlines. Their meagre
population barely supports patronage of their ZOO, as nice as
that is!
2 million odd people who through their mandatory government
provident fund run airliners around the world on semi-slave
wages and conditions. SQ's success is underwritten by the
public of Singapore not by true competition with commercial
airlines. Not much debt means high profits, especially with crew
now reposing in economy seats for crew rest. The world of
aviation will one day awake to SQ's sham. They actually use
Australian scenery to advertise their product. Wake up folks...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People / pilots all seem to get excited by “on carriage” and alliances albeit Star or One World etc.
On carriage really means very low yield seats to smaller carriers like VB, Southwest Airlines, Ryanair etc, if they participate or become part of any alliance. Without sophisticated yield management software and smart business planning you can go broke (As did AN), flying around FULL airplanes and providing on carriage seats to big airlines.
No carrier is going to pay VB or any other new carrier for that matter, $300-400, Economy, to fly someone from Sydney to Melbourne return when they have to fly the same pax to the other side of the world, and back, for about $1500-$1800.
Obviously the yield would be higher Business Class but that market is also shrinking. A recent survey in the US indicated that over 60% of business were considering trying to reduce travel costs, ie using low cost carriers in the US like Jet Blue and Southwest.
Companies like Southwest and Ryanair (and probably now VB) are successful because they avoid on carriage and alliances and generate a satisfactory yield while maintaining a low cost structure, carrying their own passengers.
The aviation scene in Australia has now changed forever. Any new carrier will have to be low cost to have any hope. The public now have a taste for low fares regardless of what we as pilots think or feel and airline should be.
On carriage really means very low yield seats to smaller carriers like VB, Southwest Airlines, Ryanair etc, if they participate or become part of any alliance. Without sophisticated yield management software and smart business planning you can go broke (As did AN), flying around FULL airplanes and providing on carriage seats to big airlines.
No carrier is going to pay VB or any other new carrier for that matter, $300-400, Economy, to fly someone from Sydney to Melbourne return when they have to fly the same pax to the other side of the world, and back, for about $1500-$1800.
Obviously the yield would be higher Business Class but that market is also shrinking. A recent survey in the US indicated that over 60% of business were considering trying to reduce travel costs, ie using low cost carriers in the US like Jet Blue and Southwest.
Companies like Southwest and Ryanair (and probably now VB) are successful because they avoid on carriage and alliances and generate a satisfactory yield while maintaining a low cost structure, carrying their own passengers.
The aviation scene in Australia has now changed forever. Any new carrier will have to be low cost to have any hope. The public now have a taste for low fares regardless of what we as pilots think or feel and airline should be.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phlap1 - You sound awfully like a chap called 'Titan' that used to post a lot of very anti SIA stuff on PPRuNe, any relation?
Singapore has a population of five million and it may not pay top dollar but it certainly isn't in the slave trade either.
Does it matter that they are an island state running an international airline? They manage to run it very well from the commercial point of view and make a whole lot of money too.
SQ make no bones about the fact that they are a state run airline with some private interest, paticularly since 50% of the profit goes back to the Government/State/People.
You may dislike them but the fact is they are out there and doing well and I don't think there is much of a 'sham' for anyone to wake up to.
Singapore has a population of five million and it may not pay top dollar but it certainly isn't in the slave trade either.
Does it matter that they are an island state running an international airline? They manage to run it very well from the commercial point of view and make a whole lot of money too.
SQ make no bones about the fact that they are a state run airline with some private interest, paticularly since 50% of the profit goes back to the Government/State/People.
You may dislike them but the fact is they are out there and doing well and I don't think there is much of a 'sham' for anyone to wake up to.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB and Citzen XX…… you guys must be sniffing petrol. I was not having a go at QF but rather just making a comment about the misguided belief that SIA is some white night out to re invent the wheel here in Oz ….. but as you did bring it up, a recent Sydney Melbourne return fare using QF at the times I wanted was roughly double that available on the competition (I won’t mention their name as you seem sensitive)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Syd
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No mate, no petrol here. You can have a go at QF if you want, I've got no problem with them or Virgin. From personal experience and from the experiences of friends and family, invariably, you can find the same deal on both carriers. I accept that on some flights Virgin are cheaper, as is QF on others. With the extras you get at QF ( Terminals at SY so you don't get wet, lounges, in-flight entertainment, food of varying quantity and standards, more flexible time-table, more flexible conditions with respect to tickets etc) you would think that QF would be significantly more expensive at all times. This is simply not the case. For value for money, I think that QF is the better deal. It's a bloody long way from SY to PH when you're sitting in wet clothes, eating an expensive muffin and can't even watch a movie!!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Age: 69
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whiskery is the only one making sense here, although I can't work out why the beer is in the shed.
The zipperheads do not have the coddies to move into Australia as proven by their inability to act when the chance was really there after Ansett's demise. They froze when the prize was there for the taking. Dr. Cueball is now indulging himself in a bit of vengeful retaliation after recognising his missed opportunity. Notice how the talk of a third domestic has reduced Qantas' ability to borrow funds on market? Qantas' capital expansion plans are being throttled by increasing costs of finance that will make marginal capital expenditures unattractive. If Dr. Cueball can make Qantas' cost of capital relatively more expensive than SQ's costs he wins in the competition race.
The zipperheads do not have the coddies to move into Australia as proven by their inability to act when the chance was really there after Ansett's demise. They froze when the prize was there for the taking. Dr. Cueball is now indulging himself in a bit of vengeful retaliation after recognising his missed opportunity. Notice how the talk of a third domestic has reduced Qantas' ability to borrow funds on market? Qantas' capital expansion plans are being throttled by increasing costs of finance that will make marginal capital expenditures unattractive. If Dr. Cueball can make Qantas' cost of capital relatively more expensive than SQ's costs he wins in the competition race.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I can think of a few reasons why SIA wouldn't have moved into Australia immediately after the Ansett collapse but they don't have much to do with a lack of 'coddies'.
1. There is no way SIA would have stepped in and saved Ansett as the financial baggage would have crippled their efforts to resurrect the airline.
2. SIA got their fingers burned both by the near demise of ANZ and the non peformance of Virgin Atlantic.
3. The end of Ansett coincided with the events of Sept. 11 and at that time no one, world-wide, was thinking of expanding existing airlines or setting up new ones, quite the reverse in fact as there were closures and retrenchments all over the place.
1. There is no way SIA would have stepped in and saved Ansett as the financial baggage would have crippled their efforts to resurrect the airline.
2. SIA got their fingers burned both by the near demise of ANZ and the non peformance of Virgin Atlantic.
3. The end of Ansett coincided with the events of Sept. 11 and at that time no one, world-wide, was thinking of expanding existing airlines or setting up new ones, quite the reverse in fact as there were closures and retrenchments all over the place.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Metung RSL or Collingwood Social Club on weekends!
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue Eagle, I would be interested to know "a few reasons" why SIA would move into the Oz domestic scene now. There are two players, one has 80% of the market and an established business supporter base and the other has marketed a product and service that has already put one competitor out of business and has a similar supporter base to QF.
It would be ideal for the consumer to have a third airline flying around in competition with Virgin and Qantas, however, I suggest it would take a pretty gutzzee move to start up a new airline in this present climate. Now I'll go out and buy another case of Crownies and put them in the shed but the bet remains the same:-
SQ don't have the cods to start up a third airline, in their own right, down here in Oz.
Keep the faith:]
It would be ideal for the consumer to have a third airline flying around in competition with Virgin and Qantas, however, I suggest it would take a pretty gutzzee move to start up a new airline in this present climate. Now I'll go out and buy another case of Crownies and put them in the shed but the bet remains the same:-
SQ don't have the cods to start up a third airline, in their own right, down here in Oz.
Keep the faith:]
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Age: 69
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Blue Eagle I didn't mention anything about taking over Ansetts' assets or in this case liabilities. The fact remains that the demise of Ansett offered the prize of significant market share, particularly the high yield segment of the market, to someone like SQ who has the infrastrcture in place to act quickly and decisively. They dropped the ball. Got the collywobbles. The debacle at Air NZ cost them a packet but what is conveniently forgotten is that SQ were represented on the board throughout the entire process and could have acted to protect their investment or bail out and pick up the pieces for zip later on. Once again they took their eye off the ball. Outside the protected corporate Singapore environment with its financial subsidies that result in lower financing costs, SQ management has a lousy track record.
Maybe I should change my mind. Perhaps they are stupid enough to try and take 50% off Qantas. I doubt they would get any of the virgin share. Remember 50% of Qantas' share is still only 35% of the total domestic market, historically proven not to be enough to support a full service carrier.
I still reckon Dr. Mudguard is just irritating the Qantas (defacto Aussie Airlines) capital expansion to deflect competition from SQ.
Maybe I should change my mind. Perhaps they are stupid enough to try and take 50% off Qantas. I doubt they would get any of the virgin share. Remember 50% of Qantas' share is still only 35% of the total domestic market, historically proven not to be enough to support a full service carrier.
I still reckon Dr. Mudguard is just irritating the Qantas (defacto Aussie Airlines) capital expansion to deflect competition from SQ.