Tiger Airways trip report #2

[simongr]

I didn't say it was better - just different. Point being that if there is any rough handling of baggage it would be visible while you couldn't tell if Qantas and Jetstar were using a garbage compactor to load their containers (but just for the record I don't think this is the case). Personally, I agree that containerisation is a better solution, not only for rain, but for OH&S of our crew who work inside the hold.

cheers

CrazyDave98

Sorry Dave - but I think this reflects poorly on DJ. As DJ staffer that gives a lot of useful info to people who might fly DJ the comment regarding containerisation was a dig without substance or justification and detracted from the overall key point made regarding fewer bags lost (I assume that was as a % rather than an absolute given the fewer pax carred).

 

[goldfishinabowl]

(Incidentally, in some airports the ground safety standards of JQ absolutely stink, but that's another story.)

Could you please provide details of this? Sounds interesting?

 

[straitman]

crazydave98,
Thanks for your response to my/our comments.

Bill, I hope that since it is quite a few years ago that you last tried Virgin Blue that your trip in March does not disapoint.

I’m more than happy to provide feedback after the trip and rest assured my comments will be rational & unbiased. As I pointed out earlier, I'm one of the people that businesses should spend a dollar to keep rather than having to spend the mega dollars to get back. I don’t change allegiances very often and it’s hard to move me once I’ve settled on something. On the other hand this does not stop me window shopping and changing if appropriate.

One thing though - we regard Pacific Blue as a leisure focussed airline, running lower frequencies than Virgin Blue on routes that are predominantly leisure, so it is not just a clone of Virgin Blue. To be frank you are more likely to come across crew behaving like Virgin Blue did several years ago but are training them out of now for the business clientele in Australia.

The behaviour by itself doesn’t worry me, it’s when that behaviour affects the outcome that is of concern.

I would very much like to hear what you would say about say a SYD-MEL trip.

I’ll let you know after that occurs.

I was a bit puzzled about the baggage handling comment - what makes you think there is any difference at all between the airlines (other than that we lose fewer bags than Qantas and they put them into containers out of sight while we load directly into the hold in full view)?

You summed this up yourself when you talk about containers versus direct loading. I’ve seen unacceptable baggage loading practices with DJ and I’ve made written comment to the airline. To their credit they’ve provided positive feedback when I’ve done this. At the same time QF may be more or less aggressive/damaging to baggage but I don’t see or know this and I’m only commenting on my experiences. The DJ manual baggage system leaves the airline open to scrutiny and that’s what I’m commenting upon.

Platy, I hear you on frequent flyer benefits/redemptions/transfers on other airlines. All I can say is watch this space.

I look forward to seeing how your product and FF scheme develop and trust that if you get it right, you will be rewarded for your efforts with a win-win for both airline and customer.

We’re watching as fast as we can!

No-one is fooling themselves that Tiger won't take some marketshare, so I'm surprised that you seem to think that's our attitude. As I said in my 2nd post of this thread Tiger will always get leisure travellers through aggressive pricing. But whether they can make a profit is another matter - they haven't yet in over 3 years and eventually even the Singaporean tax payer will get tired of throwing money at them.

I hope the Singaporeans see the logic sooner rather than later.

 

[kpc]

Originally Posted by crazydave98
they haven't yet in over 3 years and eventually even the Singaporean tax payer will get tired of throwing money at them.

I hope the Singaporeans see the logic sooner rather than later.

Singaporeans are publicly incapable of disagreeing with their govt, and therefore Tiger

I saw the tail end of a news clip tonite...a load of a passengers at ?Gold Coast were furious with Tiger for cancelling their flight, and they were left to fend for themselves at the airport...until Tiger called in security to move them on:?:

 

[straitman]

Singaporeans are publicly incapable of disagreeing with their govt, and therefore Tiger

Maybe I should rewrite 'I hope the Singaporean government sees the logic sooner rather than later.

I saw the tail end of a news clip tonite...a load of a passengers at ?Gold Coast were furious with Tiger for cancelling their flight, and they were left to fend for themselves at the airport...until Tiger called in security to move them on:?:

They did have their ticket price refunded though

The damage caused to their reputation could be substantial. Certainly makes JQ look great by comparison :!:

 

[Mal]

In its most recent financial statements (2006) Tiger had accumulatd losses of SGD63m and a profit margin of -50% (that is they lost 50 cents for every dollar of revenue) which is a world first amongst low cost airlines, so their pricing is very obviously unsustainable if they want to eventually make a profit.

They seem to be doing ok now in Singapore according to (yet unpublished) financial data:

Lean and hungry Tiger flies into black | The Australian

"TIGER Airways says it has flown into the black and claims its seat-kilometre costs are now the second lowest in the world."

 

[Platy]

Could you please provide details of this? Sounds interesting?

Ground handling contracts are outsourced. To operate airside (ie within the airport perimeter) all employees/contracted individuals need security identification (ASIC, a security card requiring a police check, for example the red background cards people wear around their neck) or be under escort with someone who has one, since it is an area defined with varying levels of security (at minimum an ariside security zone)

They require a special driving licence to operate a vehicle airside ("Airside Driving Authority") issued by the airport operator (eg. SACL in SYD, Port Authority in CNS, etc), which are defined at different levels, typically category 2 (drive on aprons and airside roads) or cat 3 (add taxiways) or cat 4 (add runways). Obviously the 3 and 4 also need radio proficiency since access to areas such as the runway strip are under air traffic control and require clearance to enter by radio. Most people working airside only need the category 2 and thus muct only go on airside roads and aprons and only when and where they need to do to their job. People pass a test beofre they can drive airside unsupervised or unescorted.

Remarkably these things are not totally standard nationally, the requirement is for each individual airport to define their own individual set of rules and standards, which in turn must meet a basic set of criteria defined by the government transport and safety agencies, who then audit the lcoal rules (eg. check the individual airport's airside driving manual).

SO...basically, there are various driving (and security) rules, which must be followed, depending on the category of airside driving licence and the speicfic airport.

Furthermore, people need to be trained to operate safely within the airside environment, so called airside or ground or ramp safety. Ths includes essential competencies such as keeping minimum separation from aircraft, avoiding jet blast, picking up loose objects ("FOD"), not smoking, etc, etc.

To put this in perspective, an airport like Sydney may have around 250 or more organisations with atround 5,000-7,500 people who need security ID and airside driver authorisations and training in ground safety.

NOW...there are a variety of companies supplying airlines such as JQ under contract, including localised contracts, where companies have bid for the work. You can have a ground handling organisation with a contract unique to an airport. In other cases a contract may have gone to a company with outreach in several airports. BA for example recently changed their ground handling contract at SYD away from QF to another operator, hence I couldn't check in for a BA flight on a QF ticket at SYD recently since QF and the other company are running different computer check in systems.

Larger and established companies may have evolved robust training and safety systems, smaller newer ones may or may not. In this age of obsessive outsourcing, there is the natural buck passing of who is responsible for training and safety (airport operator vs airline vs subcontracted supplier).

In terms of safety, this plethora of organisations makes it far more complex to ensure people are trained, assessed and competent in airside safety and driving issues.

SO...when you see someone, for example, smoking airside, driving a vehicle on a taxiway without authorisation, driving too fast, etc etc, you know that either/or they have not been trained properly, and/or they have been distracted, and/or they are being bloody minded.

I have seen many examples of unsafe airside behaviour, it is perhaps unfortunate that some of the worst were exhibited by one or two of the smaller ground handling companies operating under contract to JQ.

 

[straitman]

Ground handling contracts are outsourced. To operate airside (ie within the airport perimeter) all employees/contracted individuals need security identification (ASIC, a security card requiring a police check, for example the red background cards people wear around their neck) or be under escort with someone who has one, since it is an area defined with varying levels of security (at minimum an ariside security zone)

Platy,

A good summary.

In addition if you have a need for ports access (as we do) you must have a Maritime Security Identification Card (MSIC) as well. The MSIC, like the ASIC can be issued by a variety of people to a variety of levels and is controlled differently by location as well. The MSIC is overseen by DOTARS, the ASIC by CASA and this is where the commonality seems to finish. The only part that seems to be common is the requirement to do a Federal Police check for both.

 

[futaris]

I saw the tail end of a news clip tonite...a load of a passengers at ?Gold Coast were furious with Tiger for cancelling their flight, and they were left to fend for themselves at the airport...until Tiger called in security to move them on:?:

Here are two articles on the cancellations:

Fury over Tiger flight cancellation
Grounded Tiger, unhidden anger

Bottom line, have travel insurance if you plan on travelling on Tiger Airways.

 

[straitman]

Tiger are pushing the 'Travel Insurance' line so I'll be interested to look at their insurance and see what it actually covers. I'll post the results when I get the research done. :shock:

 

[Skoogle]

After looking at the insurance offered on the Tiger website, I cannot read that it will cover the costs of flying another airline after Tiger cancels.

Someone with more legal wisdom will need to have a look.

 

[Mal]

After looking at the insurance offered on the Tiger website, I cannot read that it will cover the costs of flying another airline after Tiger cancels.

Their annual multi-trip insurance will (as I read it), with a $50 excess and a max of $1000 claim.
The Australian Travel/Australian Advance Purchase Airline insurances (as far as I can read) don't cover delay by a carrier.

I can't see Tiger recommending a particular insurance product, only that you buy AIG insurance. Their website states:
"If the unexpected occurs on your holiday, AIG Australia eTravel insurance provides cover for overseas medical expenses, flight cancellation, theft, loss of luggage, personal accident and so much more."

but as indicated above, the coverage (appears to be) severly lacking in the types of policies that you would tend to buy for a MEL-OOL trip.

 

[pauly7]

Maybe I should rewrite 'I hope the Singaporean government sees the logic sooner rather than later.

They did have their ticket price refunded though

The damage caused to their reputation could be substantial. Certainly makes JQ look great by comparison :!:

I hate to repeat the news but if you pay peanuts you get a monkey, or in this case a Tiger!

 

[Skoogle]

Tiger are in complete control of their planes and services. They shouldn't hide behind the insurance line to avoid responsibilities.

It should be enough to purchase a ticket (at any price, on any deal) in order to get from A to B.

 

[crazydave98]

They seem to be doing ok now in Singapore according to (yet unpublished) financial data:

Lean and hungry Tiger flies into black | The Australian

"TIGER Airways says it has flown into the black and claims its seat-kilometre costs are now the second lowest in the world."

This is a very good example of how to say something technically true but totally and deliberately misleading (remember Bill Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman"?). The article says "Chief executive Tony Davis said this week that the Singapore low-cost carrier had been cash-flow-positive for two years in Singapore, and profitable for the last two quarters."

If you have a look at the published financial statements for 2006 (i.e. one of the two years referred to by Tony Davis as cash flow positive), you see that "net cash used in operating activities" or in other words cash operating losses, were SGD14m. What made them cash flow positive was issuance of SGE12.5m of shares, plus the difference between the bank loans SGD84.3m and the cost of what they bought with the mondy SGD81.3m. So the amount of cash in the bank increased by SGD2.7m and was therefore cash flow positive (I have left out some minor items so these numbers don't reconcile exactly). But as any of the business owners among you will realise, the purpose of a business is to generate cash to give back to its shareholdes, not suck cash out of the shareholders.

Very lazy journalism just regurgitating what's told to them by an inherently biased source without independently checking the facts.

The reason for the low cost per available seat kilometre is that most of its rotues are over 2,000km long - the longer the stage length the lower the cost. Compare this to Virgin Blue and Jetstar average stage lengths being 1,200km and other LCC typically even less (Ryanair abou 900km last time I looked). What Tony Davis doesn't say is that as well as having a very low cost per available seat kilometre he has an even lower revenue per available seat kilometre - in fact the lowest in the world which is why they will still make a loss for the full year and dip further into shareholder funds.

cheers

CrazyDave98

 

[serfty]

It look like booked passengers were not necessarily cut adrift with a refund of their flight cost, still very poor PR:

Tiger Airways' head of corporate communication, Matt Hobbs, said the airline would not put on an extra flight to Melbourne today.

"We have three flights going to Melbourne but all of them are very full. If we can accommodate passengers on those flights we will or we will reimburse them if they fly with another airline," he said.

...

He said Tiger would refund flights or reimburse people who had gone to another carrier but could not reimburse passengers for the added expense of another night's accommodation.

"We relocated as many people as possible to the 8.25pm flight and we are offering refunds on the flights. Already 150 passengers have asked for refunds but some are waiting to see if they can get on another flight with us," he said. ...

 

[oz_mark]

I would be interested to know what the legal position is. From what I can see they have cancelled a flight and yet they are contracted to get people from A to B. Given that, I would have thought that they would be responsible for any costs others incur in getting to B.

Perhaps the consumer bodies need to look at it.

(Before the usual crowd chime in with T&C stuff, I am actually interested in what the law says)

 

[Petch]

Perhaps the consumer bodies need to look at it.

I assume they will, problem is, which ones? Queensland, where it happened, Victoria where its based, or New South Wales where the corporate registration is listed & in accordance with article 15 of their contract of carriage.

It is a problem in Singapore as well. Channelnewsasia.com

 

[straitman]

I assume they will, problem is, which ones? Queensland, where it happened, Victoria where its based, or New South Wales where the corporate registration is listed & in accordance with article 15 of their contract of carriage.

It is a problem in Singapore as well. Channelnewsasia.com

This sort of publicity really encourages me to fly Tiger.

NOT :!:

 

[docjames]

I agree with some others - you get what you pay for.

If you want to risk the annoyances for the cheap airfares, go for it, just dont complain when there are issues.