...What DirectAnywhere said, re mates who work there. Given this latest development from CASA, I simply cannot see any future for Tiger in this country, & would suggest it's 'Game Over.'

I don't have any sympathy for the management of this airline, having displayed as much arrogance as they have during the course of this affair. I sure as hell don't have any sympathy for the bogans who bitch & moan because they expected top notch service at cattle class rates. And I'm not going to subscribe to any below-the-belt digs at guys for accepting what most of us consider to be a lousy gig in the first place. Whatever reasons they took the job are their reasons. Nevertheless, & whilst there's no denying that my employer stands to benefit from Tiger's demise, I feel deeply saddened at the prospect of people losing their jobs. Whilst many of us can look forward to next week's healthy pay cheque, there are going to be a number of our industry colleagues losing sleep over how they're going to make the next mortgage payment & provide for themselves & their families. That is not something I would wish on anyone.

Best of luck to all those affected, & hopefully you guys land on your feet with something better down the track.

There all casual its over

can someone explain to me what incidences actually happened?...and if it involved the pilots not following procedures then how come we havn't heard from them and were they suspended? me thinks and others that there is some scandel/sabotage involved here especially to drive out tiger so that there is less competition in the market. Virgin/Qantas /jetstar will surely drive up prices now. i was actually looking forward to working with tiger, the people are great. my family now also have to rebook flights at much higher prices now..i don't know. i just smell a rat.

What do you mean IF? You mean WHEN

Sorry we have all had our lives impacted at some time or another. If I worked for a new start up company that I could see was yet established and on track to sustained profits I wouldnt be out buying that new Porsche or Brighton mansion.

Thats why you take out redundancy insurance

JQ is starting to look bloody good

"My Family have to buy tickets at much higher prices"......

That is EXACTLY the issue..when it costs more to park at the airport than it does to buy a ticket, there is something VERY VERY wrong, and it cannot be sustained....and you are now seeing the end results...

elrehab, whilst I understand that it's human nature to seek out the best deal you can get (hey, we all love a bargain), you & the rest of society need a reality check: you simply can't sustain a long-term safe & efficient operation on bargain basement fares. When it costs less to fly from Melbourne to Sydney than the cost of the taxi fare to the airport, there's something seriously wrong, as SOPS also said. This was a recurring theme in the recent senate inquiry, & on more than one occasion Sen. Bill Heffernan (committee chairman) posed the question - both direct & rhetorical - as to how much longer the industry can sustain such unrealistic fare prices.

If you can't afford to fly, well as the saying goes: 'too bad, so sad.' There are other modes of transportation if you're that desperate. Whilst Tiger may be copping the brunt of the attention at the moment, the fact is that the industry as a whole has a lot to answer for, in as much as we've made it too affordable to fly. Consequently, everyone expects to fly for peanuts now, as if it were their God-given right.

Bring back part regulation of fares. At least set reasonable minimums like $79 MEL-SYD and $99 MEL-BNE etc. Gives an airline to get safety right, make a profit and compete on quality

Blind Freddy could see that Tigers fares were too low to be sustainable. Nobody else would fly them apart from bogans and cheap skates.

The Bunglerat

I feel that everyone deserves a chance to fly and tiger fills that niche. if i had billions of dollars, i too would create an airline like tiger. i dont claim to know much about the workings of airlines. i dont know too much about the tiger mess, but surely an airline can have good safety measures in place whilst being cheap for consumers. isnt there a few budget airlines doing ok business overseas??

Short answer: No, you can't.

Long answer: Depends on what you define as cheap. I mean, there's cheap, & then there's cheap. Every airline, from time to time, offers discount fares relative to the normal seat price. In Tiger's case, they dropped the bar so low as to simply be absurd. An airline is not a charity, it's a business. It costs money to operate aeroplanes. It costs money to put fuel in them. It costs money to maintain them. It costs money to provide training for everyone who works on them. And on top of all that, those very same people also need to get paid. Need I go on?

And by the way, if I had billions of dollars, investing in an airline would be the last thing on my mind. :ugh:

Quite simply if Tiger were playing by all the rules, then they would not be in the position they are in. CASA would not have had a basis for grounding them.
Flight below LSAT is IREX stuff. Almost as basic as it gets.
The ACCC tonight suggests the airline might be engaging in deceptive and misleading conduct by selling tickets up until it was told to stop yesterday. Sort of sums up the airlines managements contempt for the regulators and the rules.


As for every second post leveling crap at Jetstar. I notice you continually bring up incidents from a few years ago. After which, procedures and systems were put in place to try to prevent a recurrence.
Not recent and repetitive incidents, as Tiger have experienced.
I can published a list of Qantas and Virgin`s greatest hits, each of which was serious and could have been prevented.


Truth is the only difference between yours, mine and just about every other airline is the colour of the aircrafts tail.

The Bunglerat

for example i recently wanted to travel to hobart....so i compared prices between Virgin, Qantas,Tiger and Jetstar. All three were priced the same..i think it was about $75 one way. anyway i chose virgin. virgin is my airline of choice. but if you knock back tiger..then we have qantas, virgin and jetstar...qantas is too expensive to travel, so that leaves virgin and jetstar...prices are going to rise, so that hobart trip will end up costing me a lot more. i think competition is simply healthy.

i do understand what you're saying and you make sense. those $2 fares tiger offer, look it does sound ridiculous considering staff do need to be paid , and airport costs etc.

Yes, competition IS healthy, to a point. However there needs to be a balance struck between being able to offer competitive fares, whilst still having enough fat in the figures to ensure the airline can thrive. When you cut prices to the bone, eventually something has to give. As such, I can't put it any more simply than I already have: you & the rest of society need a reality check when it comes to the cost & affordability of air travel.

Southwest Airlines
 

@ The Bunglerat

Southwest off very reasonable fares and are consistently lower in cost and offer better service than their competitors - plus they have never killed a passenger.

There is no problem with low-cost. Only with skimping low cost.

You cant sell $49 seats in Australia and make a profit. Simple. Southwest has a massive fleet of over 500 planes. They can spread the costs of saftey administration etc over a huge fleet. Cant be done here - Tiger with 10 planes is on a totally different game plan.

Mahatma, on principle I'm not disagreeing, & I think I said words to similar effect in my earlier post, in the context of offering competitive fares, albeit realistic ones that enable an airline to remain profitable & still cover costs for maintaining safety, proficiency, ongoing training, decent wages, etc. But the key word you use is 'reasonable,' & what we're seeing is anything but. I'm talking about two extreme ends of the spectrum: We don't want to see fares upwards of $800 to fly from Melbourne to Sydney, nor can we afford to see the industry promoting $10 fares for the same service.

Balance, people. Balance. That's what I'm talking about.

Mahatma, you may want to check out how Southwest are going with their high cycle, clapped out 737s.
Cheap to run, until the roof rips off with fatigue and grounds a big percentage of your fleet.

Tiger's cost model was never going to provide the required management support systems.

There are some VERY capable people in the day to day Tiger management, but when they were let down by a CEO who probably thought this was yet another idle threat with 7 days on the ground, what chance for survival?

I would fear that the Frankston 901 Melbourne Airport bus service may be in some trouble also:}:p

With all due respect and sadness for the potential loss of jobs to many hard working front line staff, I do hope this is the tip of the iceberg for the LCC management "mantra", not just in Australia, but around the world.

Aviation is an expensive business, and rightly so. High Tech, Highly skilled, labour intensive and a margin for error that tipped just slightly the wrong way - has the potential to result in catastrophe. It is as simple as that!

This is an industry with no place for aggressively minded management who thumb their noses at safety and safety management systems. Safety costs money, plain and simple. If you cannot afford (or choose not to) implement, monitor and develop the necessary system of checks and balances to ensure a robust safety priority managed organisation, then get out!

Attempting and expecting to make money (over and above the margin of safety) from ridiculous airfares is stupidity that should see management sent to the asylum. It is simply not possible!

These imported management types with their so called "global experience" of airline management need to be pursued to the full extent as possible for any breaches of the law. They attempted to give the finger to CASA, the Australian Law and most importantly, the safety of the travelling public. They should be hung, drawn and quartered, and firstly by the staff they so badly misrepresent.

"Low Cost Carrier" is a sham worldwide, a furphy from airline executives, who think they are smarter than everyone else and believe they can make money by saving money (aka cutting costs). It simply doesn't work that way. The number one lesson in aviation economics 101 is "aviation safety costs money", and a lot of it, with good reason to boot.

Whilst the cheap-shot post by 1a (a page or so back) was in poor taste, he sure hit the nail on the head with the one regarding partial industry regulation. It's the only way this madness will end.