CRJ's to Ride Again????????????
Join Date: May 2000
Location: the world
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bulldog,
Close but the APA wanted the same conditions as the AN award. That is overtime after 55 hrs. A KD Capt was earning 95000 plus call outs, DTA etc so all up maybe 110000. The APA deal as I understand was for 95 base and this would have amounted to a min 135000 plus DTA based on 70 hrs a month. At the time the company was placed in Administration I believe most of the line crews were logging between 80-90hrs a month. So at a guess I would say that it would have cost about 155000 for AN to crew it opposed to 110000 for KD.
Having said that though there were a lot of assumptions done by the people that did the costings that would seem to have been right out of left field and not even close.
Dont get me wrong I am not blaming anybody for the situation as it happened. I think it was a joint effort from all the management teams on both sides of the fence and I think it could have been handled in a much better way. I do believe though that the situation was well in hand at the end and there were some very good KD pilots on the jet and it would have been a very good operation.
I think you will find that the aircraft would have made money had it not been for the way AN charged KD for services such as ticketing etc. I guess there is justification for things like this when all the companies are linked but it does make it confusing when one reads financial results that are separated into individual companies and not as a group.
Anyway, lets hope the lesson was learnt.
Close but the APA wanted the same conditions as the AN award. That is overtime after 55 hrs. A KD Capt was earning 95000 plus call outs, DTA etc so all up maybe 110000. The APA deal as I understand was for 95 base and this would have amounted to a min 135000 plus DTA based on 70 hrs a month. At the time the company was placed in Administration I believe most of the line crews were logging between 80-90hrs a month. So at a guess I would say that it would have cost about 155000 for AN to crew it opposed to 110000 for KD.
Having said that though there were a lot of assumptions done by the people that did the costings that would seem to have been right out of left field and not even close.
Dont get me wrong I am not blaming anybody for the situation as it happened. I think it was a joint effort from all the management teams on both sides of the fence and I think it could have been handled in a much better way. I do believe though that the situation was well in hand at the end and there were some very good KD pilots on the jet and it would have been a very good operation.
I think you will find that the aircraft would have made money had it not been for the way AN charged KD for services such as ticketing etc. I guess there is justification for things like this when all the companies are linked but it does make it confusing when one reads financial results that are separated into individual companies and not as a group.
Anyway, lets hope the lesson was learnt.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi folks.
I can confirm there is a group of people who have been working on the CRJ for over two months.
I can also confirm discussions have been held with Tesna re a possible link.
Whilst I would not say the CRJ is "likely" to be flying again, I can say the aircraft need not be confined to the annals of Australian aviation history just yet.
The aircraft itself was doing just fine in Australia. What killed it and led to the enormous losses was the planning and implementation.
Kendell lost 70m last year. Of this, 41m were foreign exchange losses, and 20m depreciation. The 10m that's left is easily explained by the wastage associated with the implementation. At least half that amount was spent for contract crews alone. And that's without factoring in the wastage in terms of aircraft parked against a fence, non-revenue flying, cancelled flights, passenger dislocation, etc, etc. I know how much money was burned. I was a witness.
The aircraft has limitations...but so does every type flying. So just be a little careful about what you believe and what you don't regarding the CRJ....
I can confirm there is a group of people who have been working on the CRJ for over two months.
I can also confirm discussions have been held with Tesna re a possible link.
Whilst I would not say the CRJ is "likely" to be flying again, I can say the aircraft need not be confined to the annals of Australian aviation history just yet.
The aircraft itself was doing just fine in Australia. What killed it and led to the enormous losses was the planning and implementation.
Kendell lost 70m last year. Of this, 41m were foreign exchange losses, and 20m depreciation. The 10m that's left is easily explained by the wastage associated with the implementation. At least half that amount was spent for contract crews alone. And that's without factoring in the wastage in terms of aircraft parked against a fence, non-revenue flying, cancelled flights, passenger dislocation, etc, etc. I know how much money was burned. I was a witness.
The aircraft has limitations...but so does every type flying. So just be a little careful about what you believe and what you don't regarding the CRJ....
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it was going to lose money right from the start. How can you expect to replace 737's and A320's with something smaller and still compete against 737's and 146's?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Caloundra, QLD, Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown thousands of kilometres around Australia over the years as SLF on every type of RPT aircraft except the Brasilia and F100, I must say the CRJ was a big disappointment for me. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
My two experiences on this aircraft were on the CBR-BNE-CBR run. Two hours in this Whistling Shoebox was NOT my idea of comfortable flyng! Cramped, single class and hitting my head on the overhead locker twice! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
For all its faults, give me the Quadropuff anytime!
The CRJ may be OK on short sectors like SYD-CBR for the PAX but is it really economical competing against SAABS and DASH-8s? I wouldn't think so! <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
My two experiences on this aircraft were on the CBR-BNE-CBR run. Two hours in this Whistling Shoebox was NOT my idea of comfortable flyng! Cramped, single class and hitting my head on the overhead locker twice! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
For all its faults, give me the Quadropuff anytime!
The CRJ may be OK on short sectors like SYD-CBR for the PAX but is it really economical competing against SAABS and DASH-8s? I wouldn't think so! <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was used on the wrong runs. If it was put up against a Saab, Dash 8 etc. on runs like Sydney Albury or Sydney Coffs it should have dome alright. Wouldn't you rather fly in a jet even if the turbo props weren't much slower on some of the sectors.
I actually for a bit of fun flew out to Canberra from Sydney, one way on one of Easterns Dash 8-300s and back to Sydney on the KD CRJ. Head to head despite the jump into CBR on the dash(thanks to an unnamed ppruner) i'd have to say the CRJ was probably a little better from the pax perspective. As far as turbines though the Dash 8 was certainly the quiestest i'd been in, but the CRJ certainly was quieter and despite being perhaps a bit more squeezy had a more professional feel to it being a jet than the Dash. Yes the overheads are low but I didn't find them too much of a problem, and i'm not short, it's no Boeing though!
The CRJ was never designed for routes to replace 'real jets', as already mentioned if they were run head to head vs the Dash 8 I reakon the pax would flock to them, they are designed to replace turbines as per the US experience. On that point though surely they are far more expensive to operate head to head vs the Dash 8-300 for the same amount of seats?
The CRJ was never designed for routes to replace 'real jets', as already mentioned if they were run head to head vs the Dash 8 I reakon the pax would flock to them, they are designed to replace turbines as per the US experience. On that point though surely they are far more expensive to operate head to head vs the Dash 8-300 for the same amount of seats?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the experience in the USA has shown that it is uneconomic to fly Jets on sectors under 300 miles, why do we think it would be economic for us to fly jets on sectors of under 300 miles. The minimum rang is 300 miles ideally 500 miles or longer is better.
Also given the substantial cost in servicing the debt on 12 CRJ'S, I haven't seen any mention of Tesna investing in any thing other than the Aircraft that they are going to use courtesy of Airbus.
Do you know more than us in regard to this matter.
No one has convinced me at this time that the CRJ'S will return to the Australian Sky's <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Also given the substantial cost in servicing the debt on 12 CRJ'S, I haven't seen any mention of Tesna investing in any thing other than the Aircraft that they are going to use courtesy of Airbus.
Do you know more than us in regard to this matter.
No one has convinced me at this time that the CRJ'S will return to the Australian Sky's <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
