Who's trying to get KD's CRJ's up???
Evertonian
Thread Starter
Who's trying to get KD's CRJ's up???
I've heard a whisper that there is "some" group trying to put together a deal that will see the KD CRJ's up & running in Oz. Whilst I know that the aircraft are still in Oz, I was under the impression that they were the first to go from KD's fleet. Has anyone else heard of this?? 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: australia
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole fleet still in tact to my knowledge except VH-LPI that was earmarked to go anyway I think.
Can't help thinking there is a bigger picture here or maybe just my optimism. I too would have thought the CRJ would have been the first to go.
Anyway more food for thought
Can't help thinking there is a bigger picture here or maybe just my optimism. I too would have thought the CRJ would have been the first to go.
Anyway more food for thought
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I initially heard that they would be the first KD A/C back in the air....but what I have now been told is that due to selfserving and inept managment the CRJ is dead in the water. And I though they were coming to NZ not long ago. Keep smiling KD boys and girls.
Seems AN/KD still has a management problem....hurry up SQ.
[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: T-bone ]
Seems AN/KD still has a management problem....hurry up SQ.
[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: T-bone ]
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saab340A LPI is on lease to Air Nelson in New Zealand. From my examination of the situation I do not believe anyone in their right mind would take on the CRJ'S. The liability of them is approx USD$190,000,000. According to my sums it would be difficult to makle them pay. Perhaps they were bought to maintain oncarriage and to lessen the loss of running bigger equipment and were never intended to make a profit on a stand alone basis.
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: rpt2 ]
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: rpt2 ]
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Press reports in Tasmania indicated following the collapse that there were issues regarding who actually owned the CRJ's. Apparently, the owners of the airframe are not the same owners of the engines, which is making any negotiations even more complicated.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I should try and add a little perspective to the CRJ issue.
The CRJ has over 500 examples flying, with more than the same again on firm order. The best selling regional aircraft ever, in fact. Why? Because it is a money maker. Has done so all over the world. Hand over fist, in fact. But only if deployed correctly.
This is an upgrade aircraft - to replace turboprops. The seat mile costs compared to saabs, dash-8's, etc, are superb. But when you're up against 717 and 737 types on busier routes, the economies of scale and small size make it difficult to compete. Add to this the poor planning, wasted tens of millions on training costs, contract pilots, non-revenue flying and aircraft parked up against a fence, and you have a total disaster.
The correct role of the aircraft would be to follow the red tail Dash wherever it went...DPO, MIA, TW, etc. How would QF counter? With the 146 at double the cost, 40 % more seats, half the reliability, and business class? With the 717, at almost 2.5 times the seats? On a route previously served by 40 seaters? Or maybe keep running the turboprops? Hmmmm.
The history of the RJ is interesting. They were sold to Lufthansa on the basis of break even at 21 seats. Yes, that's 42% load factor. So successful were they that the 700 series have been ordered by many operators. Why? Because the RJ on many routes previously served by turboprops has grown the market, and rendered the 50 seater too small. But the 70 seater has not been prolific in America, largely because of the scope clause issue.
Bombardier are ropeable that their name has been dragged through the mud in this part of the world by a management who, true to form, knew better than the rest of the world. Who would buy a regional jet now, even if the figures did make sense? But before you bag the aircraft ask yourself why it should be such a loss maker here, and yet such a winner elsewhere. Is Australia that different?
So if somebody purchases KD and wants to keep it as is, they would need to be certified. But if they can see the wood for the trees, and redeploy the aircraft, watch this space.
The RJ is trying to be revived by people who know the aircraft and its capabilities. In my opinion, existing KD management are trying to block progress, claiming KD problems are because the aircraft is a dud? Why? Because it shifts the blame from them and they get to keep their jobs in a reduced turboprop operation. But if the truth is revealed, and the henious management mistakes exposed, the alternative is the retention of the aircraft and the disposing management themselves. The greatest round of corporate ____ covering in history, I submit. Save a management job or two, and hang 500 staff out to dry in the process.
The administrators by their own admission know little about aviation, but are learning fast. What they will do, however, is listen, and they know plenty about figures. Given some decent advice, there may just be a future for the much maligned regional jet.
We RJ pilots knew we were on a hiding to nothing. Sure we whinge and complain like any other drivers. But in this case we knew it was a debacle from the start, and were crying out for someone to show some commonsense. One foreign pilot said to me he has never seen a bus driven at a wall at 100 kmh. No brakes, no cost cutting, no change of philosophy, nothing. Just a big CRASH.
Shattered dreams, shattered families, careers in tatters. But we are still breathing in a world of sadness and confusion. Not many people get a second chance, but if we do, please support us. We will be worth watching.
Thank you.
The CRJ has over 500 examples flying, with more than the same again on firm order. The best selling regional aircraft ever, in fact. Why? Because it is a money maker. Has done so all over the world. Hand over fist, in fact. But only if deployed correctly.
This is an upgrade aircraft - to replace turboprops. The seat mile costs compared to saabs, dash-8's, etc, are superb. But when you're up against 717 and 737 types on busier routes, the economies of scale and small size make it difficult to compete. Add to this the poor planning, wasted tens of millions on training costs, contract pilots, non-revenue flying and aircraft parked up against a fence, and you have a total disaster.
The correct role of the aircraft would be to follow the red tail Dash wherever it went...DPO, MIA, TW, etc. How would QF counter? With the 146 at double the cost, 40 % more seats, half the reliability, and business class? With the 717, at almost 2.5 times the seats? On a route previously served by 40 seaters? Or maybe keep running the turboprops? Hmmmm.
The history of the RJ is interesting. They were sold to Lufthansa on the basis of break even at 21 seats. Yes, that's 42% load factor. So successful were they that the 700 series have been ordered by many operators. Why? Because the RJ on many routes previously served by turboprops has grown the market, and rendered the 50 seater too small. But the 70 seater has not been prolific in America, largely because of the scope clause issue.
Bombardier are ropeable that their name has been dragged through the mud in this part of the world by a management who, true to form, knew better than the rest of the world. Who would buy a regional jet now, even if the figures did make sense? But before you bag the aircraft ask yourself why it should be such a loss maker here, and yet such a winner elsewhere. Is Australia that different?
So if somebody purchases KD and wants to keep it as is, they would need to be certified. But if they can see the wood for the trees, and redeploy the aircraft, watch this space.
The RJ is trying to be revived by people who know the aircraft and its capabilities. In my opinion, existing KD management are trying to block progress, claiming KD problems are because the aircraft is a dud? Why? Because it shifts the blame from them and they get to keep their jobs in a reduced turboprop operation. But if the truth is revealed, and the henious management mistakes exposed, the alternative is the retention of the aircraft and the disposing management themselves. The greatest round of corporate ____ covering in history, I submit. Save a management job or two, and hang 500 staff out to dry in the process.
The administrators by their own admission know little about aviation, but are learning fast. What they will do, however, is listen, and they know plenty about figures. Given some decent advice, there may just be a future for the much maligned regional jet.
We RJ pilots knew we were on a hiding to nothing. Sure we whinge and complain like any other drivers. But in this case we knew it was a debacle from the start, and were crying out for someone to show some commonsense. One foreign pilot said to me he has never seen a bus driven at a wall at 100 kmh. No brakes, no cost cutting, no change of philosophy, nothing. Just a big CRASH.
Shattered dreams, shattered families, careers in tatters. But we are still breathing in a world of sadness and confusion. Not many people get a second chance, but if we do, please support us. We will be worth watching.
Thank you.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Tiger
Your perspective sounds remarkably like the truth of the matter.
It is a very succesful upgrade type elsewhere and there is no reason it should not be here.
The "we know better" routine seems to be a peculiarly Aussie trait which has blighted the progress of much of our aviation history.
Your perspective sounds remarkably like the truth of the matter.
It is a very succesful upgrade type elsewhere and there is no reason it should not be here.
The "we know better" routine seems to be a peculiarly Aussie trait which has blighted the progress of much of our aviation history.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kendells Management is embarased by the lack of forethought with the CRJ.This is why it is percieved as a big liability.For example a passenger flying Perth to Hobart via Melbourne will fly on th RJ on the last leg. Kendells only see's $6 to $10 for the seat out of the whole ticket.No wonder why they lost money.The RJ is designed to be utilised by a low cost operator & not intertwined with the Ansett conglomerate.Only those privy to the stats & figures will see in there own mind that this is a good machine & only then when it is managed well. 
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I overlooked rpt2s comment which is also apposite.
Perhaps they were bought to maintain oncarriage and to lessen the loss of running bigger equipment and were never intended to make a profit on a stand alone basis.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The discussion on the CRJ'S is most interesting. I do not think that they are anything but an excellent aircraft and as I reported earlier this year travelled on a Mel Lst, Lst Mel service, both occasions in VH-KJN. However I do question the ability of them to give a financial return having due regard to how the purchase was financed.
In the 12 months ended 30/06/2001 the CRJ's flew 12,694 Mel Lst, Mel Hob sectors. and moved 509,584 Pax.
Given this utilization you would expect that if the yield managemnet was correct an operator should have made a profit. However the Aircraft were purchased in USD$ and repayments are also being made in USD$ as is the interest. The slide in the currency does not help either. It is a simple matter to do the sums and see how your sums work out using fares availible from other operators and say an interest rate of 10% over a loan period of 12 to 13 years.
The only other comment is it would be interesting to know how these CRJ aircraft will stand up to the work of flying 10 to 13 sectors per day and flying 2000 to 2500 hrs per annum, and still be able to achieve maintinence costs in accordance with budget estimates. Whilst the manufacturer has an impecable record, using upgraded corporate jets in this style of operation over an extended period of time say 10 to 15 years is a bit of an unknown quantity.
In the 12 months ended 30/06/2001 the CRJ's flew 12,694 Mel Lst, Mel Hob sectors. and moved 509,584 Pax.
Given this utilization you would expect that if the yield managemnet was correct an operator should have made a profit. However the Aircraft were purchased in USD$ and repayments are also being made in USD$ as is the interest. The slide in the currency does not help either. It is a simple matter to do the sums and see how your sums work out using fares availible from other operators and say an interest rate of 10% over a loan period of 12 to 13 years.
The only other comment is it would be interesting to know how these CRJ aircraft will stand up to the work of flying 10 to 13 sectors per day and flying 2000 to 2500 hrs per annum, and still be able to achieve maintinence costs in accordance with budget estimates. Whilst the manufacturer has an impecable record, using upgraded corporate jets in this style of operation over an extended period of time say 10 to 15 years is a bit of an unknown quantity.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Tiger.
Hats off to you sir. Couldn't have said it better myself. I may be a little biased but it is so refreshing reading some facts rather some other (how do I put it) less than enlitened opinions.
The biggest problem the CRJ faces in attempting to get back into the air again is running the gauntlet of the "Ansett flying for Ansett pilots" fraternity who always saw Kendell operating jets as an turf issue. The paranoia from these people was amazing. It is in their interest to malign the aircraft at every oportunity. Some people are gulible enough to believe the propagander (Yes that means you TRYOMEAN).
The fact remains the CRJ is the most successful regional jet on the market. It didn't get to be that by accident. The profit figures for the KD aircraft appear less than they should be purely due to some creative accounting to make big brother look better. $6-$10 dollars/pax won't make any aircrafts profit look good in isolation, and that doesn't include package holiday pax that flew for free so far as any money that made it to the Kendell balance sheet is concerned.
An interesting aside is that the CRJ that was deployed to Queensland/NT after Flight West fell over actually made a $1.3 million dollar profit during its short time up there. That looks pretty good in any one's language. Amazing when you look at the aircraft in isolation.
Mark my words, an investor that has some forsight will make a packet out of these aircraft if he snaps them up before the crews and expertise dissappear.
Hats off to you sir. Couldn't have said it better myself. I may be a little biased but it is so refreshing reading some facts rather some other (how do I put it) less than enlitened opinions.
The biggest problem the CRJ faces in attempting to get back into the air again is running the gauntlet of the "Ansett flying for Ansett pilots" fraternity who always saw Kendell operating jets as an turf issue. The paranoia from these people was amazing. It is in their interest to malign the aircraft at every oportunity. Some people are gulible enough to believe the propagander (Yes that means you TRYOMEAN).
The fact remains the CRJ is the most successful regional jet on the market. It didn't get to be that by accident. The profit figures for the KD aircraft appear less than they should be purely due to some creative accounting to make big brother look better. $6-$10 dollars/pax won't make any aircrafts profit look good in isolation, and that doesn't include package holiday pax that flew for free so far as any money that made it to the Kendell balance sheet is concerned.
An interesting aside is that the CRJ that was deployed to Queensland/NT after Flight West fell over actually made a $1.3 million dollar profit during its short time up there. That looks pretty good in any one's language. Amazing when you look at the aircraft in isolation.
Mark my words, an investor that has some forsight will make a packet out of these aircraft if he snaps them up before the crews and expertise dissappear.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The information memorandum put out by the Administrators of Kendell Airlines (Australia) Pty Ltd, does not support the $6-$10 net sector fare mentioned in earlier posts.
Given the confidentiality clauses and disclaimers of the document, it is
inappropriate to say anything more in a public forum like this, other than to suggest you contact the administrators and draw your own conclusions from the information provided by them.
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: rpt2 ]
Given the confidentiality clauses and disclaimers of the document, it is
inappropriate to say anything more in a public forum like this, other than to suggest you contact the administrators and draw your own conclusions from the information provided by them.
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: rpt2 ]
Evertonian
Thread Starter
Technical facts & figures aside, does anyone know where the CRJ was introduced as a perceived "downgrade" of equipment? In other words, the CRJ seems an excellant "upgrade" from turboprops & makes money doing that. Here, AN used it to remove the bigger jets from a loss making route, & transfer that loss making route to KD with very high introduction costs.
I don't think the CRJ ever had a chance when coupled with patriotic Taswegians who missed their big AN jets or fat pollies that missed JCL!
I don't think the CRJ ever had a chance when coupled with patriotic Taswegians who missed their big AN jets or fat pollies that missed JCL!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: home with mum and the kids
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RP2 is obviously in possesion of the facts.
The CRJ is designed as a turbo prop competitor, not to replace 737's. At 17cents per ASK they are a full 2 cents dearer to operate than the Ansett 737's were. In addition to this, customers regularly complained about the product.
If Ansett was to redeploy these aircraft on regional routes they MAY? be acceptable. I say may because they do not offer attractive field capabilities. Certainly they, and their 70 seat version are completely unacceptable in WA.
Also, the aircraft are specifically configured for the Australian market, Kendell ordered the 'cheap and cheerful'no options version. To sell this aircraft outside of Australiasia would require large expenditure in terms of galley, cargo heat and EGPWS etc. With a growing number of these aircraft against fences in the USA, these particular examples are looking very distressed.
They may be a bargain, but KD management have $ 74 million reasons to disagree.
The CRJ is designed as a turbo prop competitor, not to replace 737's. At 17cents per ASK they are a full 2 cents dearer to operate than the Ansett 737's were. In addition to this, customers regularly complained about the product.
If Ansett was to redeploy these aircraft on regional routes they MAY? be acceptable. I say may because they do not offer attractive field capabilities. Certainly they, and their 70 seat version are completely unacceptable in WA.
Also, the aircraft are specifically configured for the Australian market, Kendell ordered the 'cheap and cheerful'no options version. To sell this aircraft outside of Australiasia would require large expenditure in terms of galley, cargo heat and EGPWS etc. With a growing number of these aircraft against fences in the USA, these particular examples are looking very distressed.
They may be a bargain, but KD management have $ 74 million reasons to disagree.
Evertonian
Thread Starter
Longjohn.
They seem to have a history of doing that don't they! Things like, engineers on 767's, narrow forward hold doors on 767's so you can't load palletts, A320's that were illegal to fly SYD-PER unlike the 727LR's they were replacing (although, Robert J. changed the rules for his mate!)
Perhaps SIA managers might just get rid of anyone wearing a suit & start again! Couldn't hurt.
They seem to have a history of doing that don't they! Things like, engineers on 767's, narrow forward hold doors on 767's so you can't load palletts, A320's that were illegal to fly SYD-PER unlike the 727LR's they were replacing (although, Robert J. changed the rules for his mate!)
Perhaps SIA managers might just get rid of anyone wearing a suit & start again! Couldn't hurt.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Very interesting comments about the CRJ....and indirectly Kendell thinking. After reading so much (for so long now)about AN, 737's & A320's I'd ALMOST given up on seeing anything 'encouraging' about the little birdies. For those that have an interest in their possible future operations in Oz I'm sure the enlightenments from y'all are most welcome...!