monguIn the past 5 years, I have witnessed Zambia picking up as a destination.
(1) Tourism wise, the redevelopment of Livingstone as a destination. Some nice new hotels there, by Victoria Falls. Helped by the fact that the rival town of Victoria Falls, is located in Zimbabwe.
(2) The Zimbabwe exodus. Farmers and traders from Zim are crossing into Zambia as it is politically far more stable.
(3) Governmental. The Zambian government is a “little” less corrupt these days. There are some good new initiatives. FDI is slowly increasing – the South African government underwrites a lot of it. Global trade from Zambia is evolving technically – there is even a bilateral tax treaty with Ireland now.
SAA fly daily (twice daily?) JNB-LUN. Last time I saw their planes on the tarmac it was with 738’s. By contract, the BA franchise (Comair) were using 732’s and I think that might have been only daily. SAA also fly JNB-NLA (Ndola) with the EMB-145. I think InterAir fly JNB-NLA also, with a 721.
LUN also receives service from Ethiopian to Addis Ababa (752 and 763). Air Kenya fly to Nairobi with a 738 and possibly (I’m not sure) a 767 service too.
Yet what is BA’s response? Downgrade the route.
It’s silly. ALL the indicators say that demand is there and that it exceeds supply, even with stable good yields.
Are BA really so short of aircraft? They’re getting rid of their 757’s and want rid of their 767’s too it seems. They booted their 742’s out like a bad smell after 9/11. I find it hard to be sympathetic for a shortage when so many aircraft are gotten rid of before their time.
mongu1982:
When I was 5, my dad took a new job in Bahrain. At that time, we lived near Middlesbrough. My parents had worked overseas before and missed the expat lifestyle as well as the tax free salary. I’d been to Spain and Portugal before, but wasn’t interested in flying much and didn’t remember the flights.
The act of moving to a new country got me sparked up though.
My dad left 3 months in advance of us – I think the employer would only pay for our tickets after he finished his probationary period. He also had to choose a place to live.
The day before, my nan came over from the Isle of Man – we met her at Teesside airport. This was when you could fly IOM-MME, probably in an Air UK HP Herald or a Shorts 330.
On the big day, we arose early and a neighbour drove us to Darlington railway station. Me, my little brother, my mum and my nan. We took the train to Kings Cross and I remember all the travel sweets and crossword books we were given. Then it was in a taxi to LHR.
I was bored at the airport, though in later visits I loved it – I remember Pan Am 747’s vividly. Gleaming tails visible from the terminal entrance.
Eventually we boarded a bus (we always seemed to take the bus – did LHR have a shortage of jetways in the early 80’s?).
It drove us around the airfield and I was hooked. So fascinating!
We stopped besides a British Airways L-1011 Tristar. I recall all of us sitting together in the middle row – it must have been 2-4-2 ?
The flight was uneventful.
Towards the end, I could sense that we were close. I got impatient and started tapping my feet on the floor. I was told off by a stewardess!
Living in a foreign country was an amazing experience for a 5 year old. And it all started on a Tristar. I became hooked.
Our 3x yearly holidays were usually either BAH-LHR with Gulfair L-1011 “Golden Falcons” and connecting BMI flights to MME on Viscounts or DC-9’s. I much perferred the DC-9’s after 7 hours on another flight.
Or we flew BAH-AUH on a Gulfair B732 and connected to a BA 747-200. From there it was usually somewhere in the Far East. As a kid, it seemed that BA flew everywhere in the world from Abu Dhabi using 742s!
monguEveryone is feeling the pinch at the moment.
But oil prices have been high for a good few years now. BA have endured the high prices all along, and basically they got it wrong. They thought, 2 years or so ago, “hey, the oil price is so high, it’s gotta fall soon”
Other airlines took a different view “it’s high, but sods law it’ll go even higher”.
So the other airlines hedged against a price increase, and the extra £’s they paid for fuel were mostly offset by profits from their hedging activities. Ryanair did this.
mongu[QUOTE=Bmused55]Its all about numbers.
An Airline will not start up a route or continue a route when the PAX number will not support it.
…QUOTE]
Another interesting issue.
What’s one of the first lessons any manager learns in strategy? If the numbers are negative, reject a project, unless there are sound strategic reasons why not. Ever heard of a loss leader?
Sometimes routes are unprofitable but nevertheless they are continued with. Even profitable airlines do this on occassion, albeit as the exception rather than the rule.
monguIts all about numbers.
An Airline will not start up a route or continue a route when the PAX number will not support it.Clearly you have no understanding of this concept and feel airlines should operate wherever, regardless of pax number.
If you were an airline CEO Danairboy, your airline would never make it past a month old. Over expanding your routes and developing huge overheads with free meals and sweets.
Well it is clearly impossible to argue either way what the demand is like, unless you actually do a little route proving. Or have access to demand modelling data from an airline’s planning department, though clearly these things do go wrong sometimes.
So all we have to go on are indicators – such as anecdotal evidence.
Based on these, there are a lot of routes where the demand conditions are right for increased frequency. There a some potential destinations that look like good bets.
In the real world, it is not always down to passenger demand. Sometimes there are inter-governmental issues; or logistical issues to do with scheduling. These could both prevent the launch of a seemingly successful route. As could a risk averse mentality.
That, I think, is essentially what Danairboy and others were trying to portray.
monguI agree fully.
BA have a chip on their shoulder with colonial routes.
Africa:
I used to fly to Lusaka very frequently – must be over 20 flights all in. At first, it was LGW-LUN with a 742. I think it was 2 or 3 times weekly. Then they upgraded to a 744, same frequency. Then they changed to LHR and switched equipment to the 772. In all 3 cases, the tickets were hardly cheap, even the cheapest economy option. The aircraft were always totally full. I have heard anecdotes of similar situations with other African destinations. They need to increase frequency and consider re-introducing the 744. Personally I can see EK starting to fly to LUN, and if they don’t act fairly soon BA might not be able to act at all. The market can withstand more frequency with the same yields, but not perhaps 2 widebody carriers. I’ve been bumped off through overbooking before now, and have seen maybe 50 or 60 pax bumped off at LUN – on more than one occassion.
Australia:
BA are allergic to flying down under. Why so little frequency? 1x daily to MEL? 1 or 2 to SYD? Ignoring PER and BNE? OK, so Qantas are a codeshare partner, but even so, the frequency is too little. Airlines like SQ and EK have grown/will continue to grow on the back of this. And why is New Zealand ignored?
It just seems strange to me, given that they have 30 flights an hour to JFK!
monguA year ago I flew BA domestic and got a quattro formaggio sandwich.
Unfortunately it only contained 3 types of cheese.
I counted!
But it was still tasty and beats the heck out of Flybe, who my next flight was with. This was more expensive and I didn’t even get a cuppa.
6 months ago, on another Flybe flight, my employer picked up the tab. The ticket was extortionate (over £300 IOM-JER) and I felt “honoured” to get a voucher for tea/coffee/pringles in return.
It isn’t just charter airlines.
monguweighted average of:
passengers carried
size of fleet
sales
number of staff employed
value of assets
number of routes
number of daily departures
amount of belly freight carried
geographical reach
and probably 20 others I can’t think of right now.
monguI went to Reus in February with Ryanair.
It is a long way from Barcelona! We tried to take a taxi at first – but the price (EUR 200+) put us off. We got a coach instead. Took nearly 90 minutes!
monguTrue, but eventually an airline will own that aircraft. Northwest owns their 200+ DC-9’s outright, no leases to pay or anything. Every penny they earn on a ticket is their’s. Imagine if they had opted for a more efficient aircraft 30 years ago. What would have given them a bigger return over the last 3 decades, a lower lease rate for 10 years with higher operating costs or a higher lease rate for 10 years but the benefit of a lower operating cost for the next 20+ years?
Plus a lease doesn’t release a company from the burden of competing against their rivals and that is all about efficiency. A company pays $20,000 a month (a fabricated number) no matter how much they fly so it’s in their interest to fly that airplane as much as they can for those 30 days with the most passengers and with the lowest operating cost to get the largest return from that $20,000 price tag. Having a lower operating cost allows them to either a) charge less for a ticket than then an airline with a higher operating cost or b) charge the same amount and pocket extra profit due to a greater return from that lower operating cost.
All very true.
However I doubt that most decision makers have even a 20 year planning horizon, let alone 30 years. I’ve known CFO’s who limit themselves to 5 years.
It’s all part of a big, big, horrible calculation.
Initial capital outlay, monthly cash outflow on interest (less tax saved due to relief on the interest) vs. the “technical” issues such as maint. down time, mechanic-hours per aircraft per year (future labour costs are considered here), spare parts, and clearly also the ultimate fuel bill.
With so many variables, exactly which is the more efficient aircraft is very hard to determine.
Remember, efficiency is not just a “this plane uses less fuel” issue. It’s all about which choice ultimately is the most profitable. Fuel, despite all the hype over the cost, is not that crucial – it’s only one of many factors to be considered.
How about a totally different factor: if we choose the 737NG, it will take (say) 4 years for our whole order to be delivered and in service. The A320 would take 3 years 2 months (say). What is the extra cashflow involved with that timing difference? What if, on the other hand,
I just find it depressing that so many people have such a simplistic view of the matter. There is no generic correct choice. A or B, the decision is not easy and does not just come down to gross headline statistics like the ICAO report someone is so keen on. All factors are important, since they all affect the bottom line. Fobbing issues off by saying they are “market factors” etc. is rubbish. If it affects the bottom line, it merits consideration.
monguWhat is it about 707’s – they’re one of my favourite types too, but I can’t explain why.
I only flew on a 720B once, in the early 80’s, and it was horrible – noisy, falling apart inside, no air conditioning that I could feel…..yet I would still love to ride in one.
I feel the same way about Viscounts – I used to regularly fly in them as a child and they were horrible too.
Does anyone know how I could fly in a 707 today?
monguInitial cost is a one time savings where as operational costs are reoccurring for the life of that airframe. US Airways is looking at a $750 Million increase in fuel costs over the next 12 months. Any costs they saved by going for a cheaper albeit more operationally expensive aircraft are eliminated.
Northwest airlines has been operating the same DC-9’s for about 30 years. What would have been the bigger savings over those 30 years? A cheaper airplane or a more efficient airplane?
The shortterm bonus of a cheaper airplane is even more shortterm now in our current high fuel price era.
But don’t forget, most airlines can’t just write out a cheque to Mr. Boeing for their new planes.
Usually the aircraft are either financed by lending, or they are leased (or both). Usually there are interest costs and debt servicing costs, which are not one off…they last the lifetime of the loan.
So the lower upfront price can translate into regular monthly savings for perhaps a decade or longer.
monguWell, they’re hardly going to say “we got it cos it was cheap” are they 😉
Everytime an airline orders aircraft, be it A or B, its always “because they are more efficient”. I and the folk I talk to (One acquires aircraft for airlines) know that that is not always the case.
Define efficiency.
monguHow on earth do you know this?
The a380 is just as likely to be crammed with seats as any other. You do not have the right, nor the facts to say it will provide a better experience.
A) heck, its not even in service yet!
B) Aircraft interiors are purely the responsibility of the airline.
Re. point (B)
Not totally correct.
Aircraft designers look at various factors when figuring out what cross section a fueslage should have. Undoubtedly seating configuration is one of them. Ever wondered why, with certain aircraft types, virtually all operators ave the same configuration?
How many airlines do you know who have NOT gone for 3-4-3 in a 747 or 3-3 in a 737? Do you think, perhaps, that they haven’t changed from the default, because they can’t do so economically? Boeing designed the 747 to carry 10 abreast in economy. Do you dispute this?
monguMongu, with all due respect, it is not the fault of Boeing what interior an airline put in its planes.
Do not single out the 777 or 747 because of its seating arrangements when you were on board.Your comments sound exactly like what an A.net spotter would say. Biased and uninformed.
Why shouldn’t I single out the 777 or 747?
I’ve flown with many airlines on both the 747 and 777. My Airbus trips are less numerous, but my experience is consistent with my comment.
We’re talking probabilities. In economy class, with most airlines, the 747/777 gives you less personal space (or the feeling thereof) than the Airbus. As I said, 2-4-2 feels better (in some seats) than 3-4-3 or 3-3-3.
Granted, an airline could change the configuration. But do they??
By contrast, the 767 is very good in the same way that the 330/340 is. I only flew once on a 767 but it was a lot more comfortable than the bigger Boeings. As it happens, I have a feeling that the 7E7 will be a lot comfier than the A380. Boeing’s research pans this out: passengers like smaller aircraft as the feeling of personal space is better.
Sign In
