SIA studying starting a LCC!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: singapore
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIA studying starting a LCC!
Not one of the brightest ideas that has come out of SQ lately. With the history of LCCs that have been run by full service carriers, this doesn't seem to be the smartest road to go down on.
They should first examine how much they think they will lose in revenue from LCCs in the region. Then ask themselves how much it would take to set up and brand a new airline.
Why now? When for the past 20 years, they have ignored other carriers flying into SIN and charging lower fares. Now they think that an LCC would suddenly be a threat? When they have had competition from full service carriers from the past!
Would not an LCC run by SQ cannibalize their passengers more than an LCC run by someone else? Afterall, if I were a passenger, knowing that I can get cheaper fares from an SQ diffusion line, I would be more inclined to travel that LCC, rather than travel on another LCC, not knowing it's service standard or safety record.
Have they finally come to grips that their study of turning MI into a LCC would not be viable? If that is the case, how do they then expect that setting up another airline would be more viable?
Staff Moral? Shareholders? When you're in a period of cutting salaries, retrenchments, cost cuttings, they're thinking of setting up another airline? Why not use that money to further consolidate their position in the high-end, premium catagory? Afterall, they would be in the best position to gain even a bigger market share when passengers return and the market recovers!
On one hand, you're retrenching people from SQ, on the other, you're hiring for another airline! I wonder how the unions will be able to stand this.
United's staff told their management that they will support their new LCC if only their 'laid off' staff were re-hired to the new airline. Then again, can a LCC survive with the parent's company pay scales and management mentality?
SQ is losing it's focus! Who pay's the price? Staff and shareholders!
They should first examine how much they think they will lose in revenue from LCCs in the region. Then ask themselves how much it would take to set up and brand a new airline.
Why now? When for the past 20 years, they have ignored other carriers flying into SIN and charging lower fares. Now they think that an LCC would suddenly be a threat? When they have had competition from full service carriers from the past!
Would not an LCC run by SQ cannibalize their passengers more than an LCC run by someone else? Afterall, if I were a passenger, knowing that I can get cheaper fares from an SQ diffusion line, I would be more inclined to travel that LCC, rather than travel on another LCC, not knowing it's service standard or safety record.
Have they finally come to grips that their study of turning MI into a LCC would not be viable? If that is the case, how do they then expect that setting up another airline would be more viable?
Staff Moral? Shareholders? When you're in a period of cutting salaries, retrenchments, cost cuttings, they're thinking of setting up another airline? Why not use that money to further consolidate their position in the high-end, premium catagory? Afterall, they would be in the best position to gain even a bigger market share when passengers return and the market recovers!
On one hand, you're retrenching people from SQ, on the other, you're hiring for another airline! I wonder how the unions will be able to stand this.
United's staff told their management that they will support their new LCC if only their 'laid off' staff were re-hired to the new airline. Then again, can a LCC survive with the parent's company pay scales and management mentality?
SQ is losing it's focus! Who pay's the price? Staff and shareholders!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
family
Much sense in your post.
I don't believe SIA are really serious about a low cost airline. They seem to be confused as to what a low cost airline is. It is supposed to be low cost to the customer. They seem to think it is about low cost to the airline.
It is more likely that this announcement is about distracting attention from the dispute with the pilots whilst increasing the press and public perseption that the problems SIA are experiencing at the moment are caused by "high costs" which they would have you believe = pilots salaries. Costs at SIA are well below those of most of their competition already. The only things that are high are greed, arrogance and blinkered short term accounting.
It would be interesting to see the response to pilot recruitment for this proposed airline. The advertisement would no doubt point out that any losses made by the fledgeling airline would be recovered from the staff's wages. At least investors could rest assured that if the profits were not high enough they could be topped up by reducing salaries till profit is greater than say 350 million! No lets make it 700 million. Hey, just pick any number you like! If your top management are incompetent you can dip into employees pockets to save some face.
Much sense in your post.
I don't believe SIA are really serious about a low cost airline. They seem to be confused as to what a low cost airline is. It is supposed to be low cost to the customer. They seem to think it is about low cost to the airline.
It is more likely that this announcement is about distracting attention from the dispute with the pilots whilst increasing the press and public perseption that the problems SIA are experiencing at the moment are caused by "high costs" which they would have you believe = pilots salaries. Costs at SIA are well below those of most of their competition already. The only things that are high are greed, arrogance and blinkered short term accounting.
It would be interesting to see the response to pilot recruitment for this proposed airline. The advertisement would no doubt point out that any losses made by the fledgeling airline would be recovered from the staff's wages. At least investors could rest assured that if the profits were not high enough they could be topped up by reducing salaries till profit is greater than say 350 million! No lets make it 700 million. Hey, just pick any number you like! If your top management are incompetent you can dip into employees pockets to save some face.
