Tiger Airways Australia in Mega Trouble

[Starship]

Not a chance. To be designated as an Australian airline it to meet ownership and control provisions - it is 100% Singapore owned. Don't you think SQ would have just set up a shelf company here if that were all it took to be able to fly trans-Pacific?

And from what i understand (and see), Virgin has considered and exercised every acceptable combination and permutation.
Thanks for your guidance Dave.

 

[oz_mark]

Yeah, it did sound too simple. But I thought maybe TT may meet the ownership and control criteria through its current domestic ops. Maybe not??

I seem to remember Tiger saying something about this, but can't find the reference, but basically their international ops (say SIN-PER for example), had to be operated by their Singapore based operation (TR), and could not be operated by TT.

 

[moa999]

CrazyDave,

Under what rules can EK and LA operate on the SYD-AKL/CHC routes for international passengers??
I assume SQ would be able to do the same if they really wanted to?

 

[crazydave98]

CrazyDave,

Under what rules can EK and LA operate on the SYD-AKL/CHC routes for international passengers??
I assume SQ would be able to do the same if they really wanted to?

In answer to your last question first - yes.

Traffic rights between countries are negotiated as a series of bilateral agreements which include references to third countries - usually refered to as "beyond" rights or "intermediate points". So for example (generalised) the United Arab Emirates has a bilateral agreement with Australia that allows it what are called 5th freedom rights to fly not only too Australia from Dubai, but to pick up pax in Australia and carry them "beyond" (onwards) to other specified 3rd party countries including NZ. But the UAE then has to negotiate with NZ for the counterpoint rights, which are to fly between UAE and NZ via intermediate points (in this case Australia).

Essentially the trans-Tasman is open slather - basically any airline flying to/from Australia or NZ can fly the Tasman. It is one reason why the market is chronically unprofitable for AirNZ and Qantas (the other is their pig-headedness trying to bludgeon each other with capacity although they have been more sensible since their application to collude on the trans-Tasman to control 80% of the capacity was rejected).

The long haul carriers can marginally price on the trans-Tasman using spare capacity - spare in that the aircraft would otherwise just be sitting on the ground at SYD paying parking fees to McBank. For example the way EK makes its hub work is that they have 3 banks or waves of flights a day into DXB where pax change planes and go onwards to their final destination, so the timing of the applicable bank of flights into DXB determines when the aircraft leaves SYD. If the aircraft arriving into SYD just turned around and went straight back to DXB they would be in between waves - bad connections onwards for Europe.

cheers

CrazyDave98

 

[dajop]

Essentially the trans-Tasman is open slather - basically any airline flying to/from Australia or NZ can fly the Tasman. It is one reason why the market is chronically unprofitable for AirNZ and Qantas

Which begs the question - will we ever see TT try the Tasman as well (ADL-CHC? MEL-ZQN?).

One day you can't help think that AirNZ might have to more strongly align themselves with either DJ or QF to ensure their longtime viability (especially trans tasman) - if it weren't perhaps for the whole botched AN thing - a DJ/NZ/VA alliance would make a whole lot of sense and provide strong competition to QF ( ... .oh why not throw ZL/XR in there as well .... )

 

[Starship]

Which begs the question - will we ever see TT try the Tasman as well (ADL-CHC? MEL-ZQN?).

I expect with the capacity already there - and as yet limited aircraft, not sensible for TT to extend itself.

Dave is right on the timing back via Dubai. This also assists in regulating aircrew timing / sleep patterns.

A friend of mine is an EK flight officer who is part of the B team on Melb flights - who is then the A team to take it to NZ / layover and back to Melb - before being the B team on the return journey.

The have it very well scheduled 3 days ahead to prepare their A / B teams for the different time zones they will address during flight time. eg B team has a sleep immediately on liftoff from Dubai and then handles the arrival into Melb.

 

[NM]

... would otherwise just be sitting on the ground at SYD paying parking fees to McBank.

And we all know how much they sting for parking at SYD :shock:

 

[straitman]

And we all know how much they sting for parking at SYD :shock:

Both sides of the fence :!:

 

[JohnK]

And we all know how much they sting for parking at SYD :shock:

Does anyone know the actual $ cost for an airline to park an aircraft at SYD or any other airport for that matter?

 

[Standby]

So long as the direct operating costs of whatever additional legs are flown are covered and the parking costs avoided, a lazy leg like Aust to NZ is worthwhile...cash flow from increased utilisation is the key here over and above any profit expectation...its like a foodmanufactuer doing an extra shift to make homebrand products..machines are made to work ,to leave them idle is a sin if there is a better use.

 

[markis10]

Does anyone know the actual $ cost for an airline to park an aircraft at SYD or any other airport for that matter?

Sydney is $38.50 per 15 minutes for all but GA aircraft who get charged $66 per day on the GA apron, airlines get a discount of $3 per pax for stand off parking of arriving aircraft!

 

[Evan]

So long as the direct operating costs of whatever additional legs are flown are covered and the parking costs avoided, a lazy leg like Aust to NZ is worthwhile...cash flow from increased utilisation is the key here over and above any profit expectation...its like a foodmanufactuer doing an extra shift to make homebrand products..machines are made to work ,to leave them idle is a sin if there is a better use.

But increased utilisation can cause more issues if you have an aircraft go un-servicable, then you have less capacity to switch and make it up some how, And we all know how that annoys most people finiding there flight is delayed 4 hours ! then again they are an LCC so people should almost expect that.

E

 

[crazydave98]

then again they are an LCC so people should almost expect that.

?? we were talking about SQ and EK operating trans-Tasman.

Looking at domestic airlines though, both Virgin Blue and Jetstar have better average on time performance and fewer cancellations than Qantas.

 

[Skyring]

Which begs the question - will we ever see TT try the Tasman as well (ADL-CHC? MEL-ZQN?).

Ah. This might explain an intriguing little teaser in CIA's latest public relations magazine, about direct flights to New Zealand coming soon. I can't see anything on their website, and I've left the maglet in the seatpocket of the cab (along with CX and AA inflight mags and assorted airsickness bags from around the world - subtly, every cab is different), but I was wondering about the nuts and bolts.

QF isn't going to be flying direct to NZ anytime soon, because it would make no sense to fly there from Canberra when Sydney is so close with existing flights. DJ, likewise, via Pacific Blue.

But TT doesn't fly out of Sydney, so Canberra could be a useful Trans-Tasman base for international expansion. CIA, despite the "International" part of the title, hasn't had any commercial international flights for years. There used to be a service to Fiji in winter, which you'd think would be attractive for frosty Canberrans seeking some warmth, but it was discontinued after a few weeks and hasn't returned.

CIA is busy working on a terminal expansion. Work for the new multistory carpark is already underway (and don't ask about the problems thus created for we cabbies, ugh!) and there is a new terminal building slated for construction in due course, with more lounge, baggage and airbridge capacity.

Never know, direct flights to NZ from Canberra might even attract me. A good price, a big saving on transfer time in Sydney, it could compensate for the lack of lounge access and the premium perks via QF.

 

[serfty]

... and fewer cancellations than Qantas.

Having more aircraft, Qantas are able to cancel more often for operational (read - low load) reasons.

About every fourth Domestic Saturday booking I have between MEL/SYD/BNE is affected by the removal of unpurchased capacity from these routes during "quiet" periods. This generally happens within 36 hours of the flight.

 

[Starship]

Having more aircraft, Qantas are able to cancel more often for operational (read - low load) reasons.

Oh - how cynical - would they do that? [nearly swallowed my tongue]

 

[oz_mark]

Oh - how cynical - would they do that? [nearly swallowed my tongue]

It's a bit of a no win for the airlines. If the cancel a flight with low loadings people complain. If they do fly a near empty plane, people complain about lack of greenness.

 

[NM]

Does anyone know the actual $ cost for an airline to park an aircraft at SYD or any other airport for that matter?

Oh, were we discussing airline parking. We could probably extrapolate from the short-term parking rates for cars :shock:

 

[markis10]

Oh, were we discussing airline parking. We could probably extrapolate from the short-term parking rates for cars :shock:

Interesting comparison across airports:

SYD $3696
BNE $530 (first two hours free LOL)
MEL Free (if RPT only - otherwise after three hours $3208 for freight/GA)
ADL GA only $14.22 per day otherwise free
PER $33 per day.

Those chaarges are for 24 hours after any free period mentioned has finished!

 

[crazydave98]

Having more aircraft, Qantas are able to cancel more often for operational (read - low load) reasons.

Actually Virgin Blue has more departures than Qantas (but does it with fewer and newer aircraft). In August for example Virgin Blue flew 11,168 sectors compared to Qantas 10,789 (note that QantasLink is counted separately)
http://www.btre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/otphome.aspx
Qantas are able to cancel more often, and hence do, because there are so many people/companies that will put up with it and not transfer their business to the competition for whatever reason (and yes there are valid reasons).