monguCareful with EK
Be very careful using Emirates.
They have 2 flights a day DXB-MEL. One is non-stop on the A340-500 and the second is via SIN on the B777-300.
The 777 stopping service is awful. Not only is it tiring (the journey from the UK becomes a 2-stopper) but whenever I’ve done it they had 10-abreast in economy. That is too cramped on a 777. The A340 service might be OK, but I’ve booked it twice (in 2004 and 2006) and both times my flight was cancelled and I was put on the 777.
My personal choice would be MAN-SIN-MEL on SQ. They do MAN-SIN on the 772 (and it’s 9 abreast in economy, not 10 like EK). The SIN-MEL leg will be either 777 or 744. For an aviation nut, you could always fly to SYD on the A380 and connect to MEL…
monguYou mean 16J/156Y? config. I once had an interesting Because you’d be mistaken if you’re think 188Y. It’s the utter reluctance for BA to attempt anything at the regional airports and tie-in with the oneworld alliance that galls. And when an airline wants to come to the regions, who complains? BA! Sorry, they can’t have it both ways. Either serve Britain or rebrand to London and Europe Airways, and I’m saying that even though MAN-JFK is served by them.
Not sure what the config is, so yes maybe they do have Biz class seats. But that still isn’t BA’s model. Aren’t they going for 3-class 757’s for their new venture? Besides, why is nobody slating Virgin or BMI for ignoring the regions? Virgin don’t bother apart from touristy stuff and BMI started, and stuffed it up totally (and we all know they only started because LHR was not on the table for them at that time).
Why? I thought the European venture was to be based out of New York. Basing a fleet of 6 aircraft there means no need to set up base at the regional. And aren’t we forgetting the MAN-LAX, MAN-JFK, BHX-JFK and GLA-JFK routes in 1993-4, with the MAN-LAX dropped then with the BHX + GLa routes continuing for 3 more years, when they had a sub-fleet of 4 aircaft for 3 airports.
But if you base aircaft at New York, then the regional airports only get one service: New York. To serve 4,5,6 destinations from MAN you need to base a fleet there.
monguSome carriers don’t subscribe to BAs view of the regions
Continental ( as just one example)
BRS-EWR
BFS-EWR
BHX-EWR
EDI-EWR
GLA-EWR
EDI-MCO
GLA-LAX
For those who need it EWR= New York Newark, MCO=Orlando LAX= Los Angeles.
I don’t think they all run at a loss.
Be lucky
David
Who knows if they’re profitable, but as far as assumptions go, it’s a fair one I suppose.
But that doesn’t mean it would work for BA:
1. A lot of those flights are mostly economy-only aren’t they? That isn’t BA’s target market (see point 3).
2. If BA were to launch identical services, they would most likely need to establish a base at the regional airport in question. Otherwise they’d have to ferry aircraft around to position them. If you’re going to the expense of opening a new base, you would want more than 1 route to justify the investment.
3. Logically, a business assesses new opportunities in some sort of order. New market, same product carries some risk. New market, new product carries much more risk. To launch that service/product, the internal rate of return needs to be significantly higher.
If there is still room to grow your existing market, you would tend to do that before looking at new markets. Businesses that don’t focus on home markets (and London = home) first will struggle to do well in new markets.
4. As a matter of pure fact, London is a world class city and places like Manchester, Glasgow or Birmingham just do not compete. They’re villages. I mean, I live in Australia and have some business contact with the Uk. I sometimes look at UK jobs. And guess what…..everything is in London. I sometimes get the impression there are no jobs outside the M25. Complaining about BA being focused on London is like complaining that “Illinois Air” only bases itself at Chicago. Of course it would!
monguwow
This is really quite amazing when you step back and think about it. A real aviation frontier has been crossed. I always thought Antarctic flights were limited to Hercules and Twin Otters equiped with skids. But to fly a modern airliner (and it looks so spacious inside, 2-2 seating!) is just great.
Kudos to those involved! We should celebrate these kind of things a lot more than some poxy new 757 flight to Crete or going from 4x to 5x weekly!
As the aircraft is based at Hobart, do you see Hobart becoming a sort of central meeting place for scientists and administrators from different countries?
monguWell airlines chase the yields. It may be worth sending a few flights a day to MAN etc from your home base, but that’s very different to establishing a base there. In addition, the opportunity cost of operating from MAN etc as opposed to other tried and tested airports is a deterrent.
Bottom line is that other parts of the UK do not have the demand (read: wealth) that London does.
That is arguably a governmental and societal failure, not something you could or should pin on BA.
monguI think with this kind of policy the Conservates could easily loose votes from people who have to fly. Personally i think they are relying too much on the green vote but this is a Commerical Aviation forum so not the place for that topic.
They claimed on the BBC yesterday that this would not effect families taking one holiday a year. They quoted their flight price as something like £50 each which meant VAT would be £8.75. Hence saving on the £10 APD.
£50 seems the wrong figure to me so i checked an average MYT flight from LGW in late July to Lanzarote for 2 adults 2 children.
ADULT BASIC PRICE £278.00
CHILD BASIC PRICE £258.00
FUEL CHARGE MH £40.00
FUEL CHARGE MH £40.00
APD (EU) £20.00
APD (EU) £20.00
FUEL CHARGE MH £40.00
FUEL CHARGE MH £40.00Total: £736.00
So if we take the £40 list APD off it brings price down to £696. VAT on this would be £121.80 which is £817.80 in total. Some £81.80 more than with APD instead of VAT.
Just doenst work and no one who flies even a small amount would be wise to vote for this.
Wrong end of the stick there I think.
They can’t charge VAT on the ticket price (as supply of air transport is exempt under EU VAT law).
What was suggested was that fuel companies charge VAT on the fuel they sell to airlines.
So in your case, the fuel cost is 40*4 = 160. VAT at 17.5% is 28.
As an aside….I doubt that the fuel cost really is 160. More likely that’s just a flat surcharge to show a lower base fare.
monguoh no!
It won’t work. I don’t believe that taxing air travel will decrease consumption of it materially. The only real effect will be to divert money from airlines to the government.
Basically it’s a tax grab.
And as a rule of thumb, when a government says a new tax will be compensated for by reducing existing taxes….they’re lying.
mongunah
How in the name of god can an airline or any company be VOTED the fastest growing whatever????
They either are the fastest gorwing or their not!! Any one else see where Im coming from?
Not really.
How does one measure “fastest growing” ? There’s hundreds of measures, and you could have 100 airlines that are all the fastest growing by one measure or another. If there’s a vote, that means voters are expressing a view on which growth measure they personally consider the most impressive.
It could be growth either numerically or by %. Categories could include:
– Fleet size
– Capacity (ie. adding 2 747’s is more than 10 Dash 8’s)
– Passengers carried
– Destinations served
– Employees
– Profitability
– Share Price
And so on.
mongugood news
Good news about Tiger. Australia needs competition.
I had to laugh when I watched the Great Outdoors today – Jetstar flights Avalon to Perth, from $189 one way! Bargain!! :rolleyes:
I’d pay that much for a full service carrier but not a LCC.
I’m sure this has been disected in the press, but how has the ownership structure got past the 49% foreign ownership cap?
I know it’s being done via Skywest (an Australian company) but on a see-through basis the 49% would seem to be breached. Or does the 49% rule only apply to Qantas? (which may be the case, as Qantas has special laws relating to it).
monguMore “boozers and shaggers” (someone who works in the airport’s words, not mine!) infesting the EMA terminal… :rolleyes: Great – NOT! 🙁
Andy
The great unwashed, huh.
monguIn the U.S., compensation trends for working people have been going down since the 80’s. Very few “cushy” union jobs left for folks with only high school educations….the days of 40 years and a gold watch (and a company funded retirement program) are over. On the one hand, jobs have been outsourced to other countries, on the other hand, illegal immigration has provided a huge influx of cheap workers. The average guy’s job gets squeezed in both directions. Meanwhile, mainland Europe (mostly France and Germany) continue with cradle to grave goodies for everyone. I guess they think they can just stick their head in the sand and the global economy will go away. Of course, BAE saw all this and sold their shares. Airbus is in trouble, indeed all of mainland Europe is. The U.S. has a 25 year head start on pay and benefit cuts for the rank and file.
Airbus is only offering to assemble their tanker entry in the U.S. because U.S. labor is cheaper than Europe.
Consider the auto industry. Count the Toyotas on the Champs Elysee, and then count them on mainstreet U.S.A. Mainland Europe is not only socialist, its protectionist too boot. Yes, its true that Toyota and the other Japanese car companies are building plants in the U.S., but their people have to work (a full shift!) and their contracts aren’t nearly as lucrative as the U.S. automakers. And their managers only make 4 times what the workers do while the U.S. companies managers make 10 times what the workers do. One american manager is not worth two and half times more than the harder working, dedicated, Japanese manager.
One last item, more geopolitics. Japanese carriers held off ordering A380 because they know Europe will never protect them from Chinese agression. Hell, France won’t even defend herself, let alone anyone else. Meanwhile, the U.S. Sixth Fleet is still based in Yokosuka. An attack on Japan is an attack on America, and everyone knows it.
I basically agree, except I don’t think the US would refuse to defend Japan if a Japanese airline bought from Airbus! US would defend Japan for it’s own reasons and ultimately to protect itself.
monguyes!
I agree fully, Melbourne deserves more flights.
I know this is just an aviation forum, but at the risk of getting political I think this is a microcosm for Australian politics in general. Sydney is, to all practical intents and purposes, the national capital. Time for the other cities to be in with a shout.
monguok…
I still think the politicians are in charge!
I agree, this isn’t the mean reason that things are going downhill for Airbus, but it is a contributing factor. If the Euro-Dollar exchange rate is going to change so will the position of Boeing. It isn’t something anyone has any control over. I seem to remember that the Dollar rate was one of the main factors in the downfall of Fokker.
😎
Well if you have an offer from Boeing which is significant less because of the Euro-Dollar exchange then you are more likely to choose for the American product, even though you are in Europe and your hole business cost structure is in Euro’s.
No argument, but my point was more that some customers would prefer to deal in EUR for political reasons.
Well, yes and no. You are diverting the problem to subcontractors. If they are in Euro zone all their cost will be in Euro’s so that subcontractor might go bust, and that is not in the interest of Airbus either.
But that’s just business, you pass risk on to somebody else. There’ll always be suppliers.
? Well R&D = cost no revenues. R&D is at the core of the business so you want it to be done close to home. And you have to move all the current employees to America.
That’s just being political. R&D should be done where it’s best and most cost effective. Airbus has, all its history, spread the action out over many different countries. Why has that been OK, but when you want to concentrate some work in the US that’s not OK? It cuts duplication and matches USD income to some USD expenses, reducing the exchange losses.
True. Let’s see what happens in 5 to 7 years time. Might still become a hit, we don’t know yet.
Yes. They should set up a more businesslike structure. A lot to gain there.
So that were my two cents :diablo:
monguexchange rates
Hmm….the EUR/USD issue is a red herring.
It isn’t an excuse. Lots of companies have largely USD revenues, but other currency costs – especially oil companies and miners. They’re making record profits! Alright, the miners and oil companies escape a little because their USD revenues are inflated due to record commodity prices, calming the problem a lot.
Always be wary of people who offer glib bullet point solutions to complex industrial problems. But having said that this is my 2c worth:
– Why must all sales be in USD? Some customers would like to pay in EUR (Iran!! Russia!! State owned EU airlines!!)
– Why must all costs be in EUR? Airbus has strength with suppliers and could pay them partly in USD.
– Why can’t some production or R&D be done in the US, meaning you match USD revenues and USD expenses (a natural hedge).
Fact is the company stuffed up big time with the A380. That is nobody’s fault except Airbus’s and has nothing to do with exchange rates.
EDIT: Cost control can be improved. Sometimes suppliers are chosen for political reasons not commercial ones. I am not going to elaborate, but if you’re interested, do some public domain searching on Industrial Offset arrangements involving EADS. This goes above and beyond the issues caused by socialist owners insisting on work allocations etc.
monguDon’t believe in upgrades…why should i pay $5000 for a business class fare when some one who has paid $1800 for his economy fare gets upgraded and then gets the same options as me….you get what you pay for in this world
Yes, but you could equally argue that the issue wouldn’t arise if airlines filled up their biz class cabins!
Their pricing mechanism, by effectively allowing cabin arbitrage, prices this in to your $5000 ticket.
Sign In
