51 replies to this topic

[UpperDeck]

per Dagger..."There's a lot that can be done - and might be if there is another CCAA - to make things work more efficiently without attacking wages or benefits. For example, pull flight attendant off the damn plane to help the desk check in passengers. It's a matter of looking a passenger in the face to check photo ID and flashing a boarding pass in front of a bar code reader. The FA can say hi at the desk just as easily as they can say hi at the door of the plane. But I know, it's two unions trying to preserve dues... err... jobs..."

Sometimes, you just have to shake your head. Time and time again, this fellow--this pundit---is shown to be a "shill" and an often inaccurate harbinger and yet is afforded status by some as a guru.
The above remark to me constitutes persuasive evidence that the scope of his observations are severely constrained.

The aircraft comes in from LAX. It's scheduled for an 8:20 pm departure to CDG. The in-bound aircraft is delayed. There are 67 "special meals" to be assembled in the back galley. As soon as the LAX pax are off-loaded, the aircraft is catered and groomed. The pilots board for pre-flight and the I/C does the briefing.....and then what? The FA's sit and enjoy a smoke and leaf through the latest issue of People moving only for a boarding pax taking his/her seat?

Please----these types of remarks aren't simply unproductive; they're foolish.

And I'm fairly sure most frequent fliers have noted that on the majority of flights of late, there are only two CSA's boarding the aircraft. Do you want to replace them with those indolent FA's or simply supplement their efforts?

Now---if we were talking about during a long-haul flight----no question. After food and bar service in "Y", and until preparation for the pre-arrival snack, the Fa's definitely don't have much to do other than water service----so long as we exclude the almost inevitable one or two medical emergencies of one sort or another.

[J.O.]

There's also the minor matter of having the required number of flight attendants on board as per the regulations when passengers are on board. So no, you can't just pull one off to check boarding cards.

[dagger]

UpperDeck, on 26 February 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

per Dagger..."There's a lot that can be done - and might be if there is another CCAA - to make things work more efficiently without attacking wages or benefits. For example, pull flight attendant off the damn plane to help the desk check in passengers. It's a matter of looking a passenger in the face to check photo ID and flashing a boarding pass in front of a bar code reader. The FA can say hi at the desk just as easily as they can say hi at the door of the plane. But I know, it's two unions trying to preserve dues... err... jobs..."

Sometimes, you just have to shake your head. Time and time again, this fellow--this pundit---is shown to be a "shill" and an often inaccurate harbinger and yet is afforded status by some as a guru.
The above remark to me constitutes persuasive evidence that the scope of his observations are severely constrained.

The aircraft comes in from LAX. It's scheduled for an 8:20 pm departure to CDG. The in-bound aircraft is delayed. There are 67 "special meals" to be assembled in the back galley. As soon as the LAX pax are off-loaded, the aircraft is catered and groomed. The pilots board for pre-flight and the I/C does the briefing.....and then what? The FA's sit and enjoy a smoke and leaf through the latest issue of People moving only for a boarding pax taking his/her seat?

Please----these types of remarks aren't simply unproductive; they're foolish.

And I'm fairly sure most frequent fliers have noted that on the majority of flights of late, there are only two CSA's boarding the aircraft. Do you want to replace them with those indolent FA's or simply supplement their efforts?

Now---if we were talking about during a long-haul flight----no question. After food and bar service in "Y", and until preparation for the pre-arrival snack, the Fa's definitely don't have much to do other than water service----so long as we exclude the almost inevitable one or two medical emergencies of one sort or another.

And yet the US carriers were doing some FA ticket lift at least 12 years ago. Maybe they had more automation back then, but one FA was working the desk with a CSA at YYZ whenever I flew AA.

If you think that Air Canada's operations are efficient as they can be without taxing staff unduly, you're the shill - for union featherbedding.

How many years did the CAW insist that only a full fledged CSA could push somebody in a wheelchair! Seriously? Do you think it takes a $40,000 or $50,000 to push someone in a wheelchair? If it does, why did the CAW finally loosen up on that issue in the latest collective agreement?

You know, maybe the lesson of Westjet isn't so much that they take part of their compensation in the form of stock, but that they don't view their job descriptions so rigidly, like the pilot who picks up odds and ends like newspaper in the cabin after a flight.

All I ever hear from AC people is, "hey, that's not my job - it says so right here in the contract... GRIEVANCE!"

Edited by dagger, 26 February 2012 - 09:54 AM.

[spreadsheet]

A simple way to save money on flight attendants would be if we had the same regulations as the US – one in 50 seats vs. 1 in 40 passengers in Canada.  This puts the Canadian carriers at a disadvantage even on the same routes as the US carriers (among many other disadvantages in Canada).   Based on a load factor of 80% it really wouldn’t make much difference, but the Canadian carriers have to staff to 100% load factor.   I think Captain Sully and the crew in the Hudson helped show the US regulations are perfectly safe.

[jkavafian]

spreadsheet, on 26 February 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

A simple way to save money on flight attendants would be if we had the same regulations as the US – one in 50 seats vs. 1 in 40 passengers in Canada.  This puts the Canadian carriers at a disadvantage even on the same routes as the US carriers (among many other disadvantages in Canada).   Based on a load factor of 80% it really wouldn’t make much difference, but the Canadian carriers have to staff to 100% load factor.   I think Captain Sully and the crew in the Hudson helped show the US regulations are perfectly safe.

The rules are what they are. You have to figure out a way to compete within that environment. Blaming this and that is not a sound business plan.

[spreadsheet]

Fido, on 25 February 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

Jacques:

You are mistaken in thinking that a Leisure traveller has any idea about 'value'.
They think that $100 is an appropriate fare from YVR to YYC and $200 is appropriate for YVR to YYZ ( five times the distance) and $400 is OK YVR-LHR (eight times the distance).

While your numbers show an inappropriate fare level you know there is a very significant portion of the flight costs that are fixed, so cost/revenue is clearly not a one to one relationship with distance.

[spreadsheet]

jkavafian, on 26 February 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

The rules are what they are. You have to figure out a way to compete within that environment. Blaming this and that is not a sound business plan.

But there should be significant lobbying to get the government to change this.  I had heard the Cons didn't want to touch this until they had a majority because of the union implications.  Still waiting...

[J.O.]

spreadsheet, on 26 February 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

Based on a load factor of 80% it really wouldn’t make much difference, but the Canadian carriers have to staff to 100% load factor.

Not quite, the Canadian regulations allow you to "staff to load" with the 1 in 40 rule, provided the minimum crew for the aircraft type is on board. The US does not allow this, you always have to carry the minimum crew for a full aircraft based on 1 in 50, regardless of the load.

The change was run through the CARAC process a few years ago but it died before getting on the order paper.

Edited by J.O., 26 February 2012 - 11:53 AM.

[Fido]

spreadsheet, on 26 February 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

While your numbers show an inappropriate fare level you know there is a very significant portion of the flight costs that are fixed, so cost/revenue is clearly not a one to one relationship with distance.

Frequency costs are on a continual downhill as a percentage of total flight costs.
It is not just the fuel cost rising that has changed the calculations but the advent of much longer stage lengths that has thrown out the old idea that CASM went down as stage length increased.

Air Canada first noticed this when they ran the numbers on YYZ-HKG.  The aircraft was blamed (A340-500) as being a fuel hog but the real reason was because the was so much fuel to carry for the extra flight time that the downward cost curve had turned around and went up with distance.

[Fido]

J.O., on 26 February 2012 - 05:03 AM, said:

There is still a significant difference between an upgradeable fare and a business class fare. Unless you are prepared to tell me that the upgradeable fares are covering the operating costs of the business class seats that are filled with upgrades, then those upgrades are still being given at a loss. Also, if I was a frequent flyer who was paying the upgradeable fare and not getting an upgrade consistently, I'd be less than pleased that I was subsidizing someone else's upgrade.

In the airline business you cannot stand around waiting for everyone to pay your top price.

The cabin needs to be 'scaled' into different fare levels and then there needs to be an estimation of how many seats you can expect to sell at each price point.  Whether it is the economy cabin or the premium cabin the same is true.  If someone will give you $1,500 instead of just $500 you cannot leave the $1,000 sitting in his wallet.

[shockwave]

manwest, on 21 February 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

http://business.financialpost.com/20...t-carrierline/


Was just wondering if AC still has the naming rights for Canadi>n or Roots???  would they consider using these for the New LCC.  Guess they wouldn't use Tango Plus or ZIp 2 as choices.  Just wondering what it might be called????

You forgot "Sky Regional"

[malcolm]

Seems everyone is talking about LowCost and the pitfalls therein

Quote

Chris Tarry's Market Outlook: Low-cost, what's in a name?

• By:   Chris Tarry London

02:51 20 Feb 2012
Source:





The past few months have been particularly dramatic for the airline industry. There have been a number of airline failures, in particular Spanair and Malev, where the owners decided sustaining the unsustainable was no longer an option, with no new investors emerging and the retrenchment of AirAsia X.
The significant ordering level by airlines in the low-cost segment in 2011 has continued into 2012, and it seems ambition may get the better of reality.
At the same time, manufacturers continue to insist there are no problems regarding funding of future deliveries, which gives rise to the question: what role will they play in a more challenging market for aircraft finance?
For now our focus is on some of the developments in the low-cost market.
As regular readers know, we do not particularly like the term low-cost airline - clearly cost matters, including having the lowest possible price - but at the same time it is a necessary phrase to attract passengers who don't want to pay top-dollar.
Fixations over terminology are never far from the surface in the aviation industry. During a recent presentation at the Aviation Club in London, EasyJet chief executive Carolyn McCall repeated her view that she wants the airline to be regarded as offering best value, rather than be defined as a low-cost carrier.
One of the many messages from EasyJet's recent investor day was that in communicating its value proposition, it was able to show the airline was not only cheaper than its competitors, but it also flew to and from principal airports. Although there are, of course, a number of these where they are not represented.
In Europe, the early part of the last decade was characterised by Ryanair and EasyJet's acceleration into a new market opportunity - the feature of the latter part of that decade and this one has been what is best described as convergence.
There has been a structural behavioural shift in short-haul travel in Europe, meaning that where airlines are competing for the same traffic, the only difference from 10 years ago is that this is now more pronounced and obvious. About 18% of EasyJet's passengers fly business, with up to 40% on some routes, while Vueling describes its front-row seats as "business class without the curtain".
The so-called "copy and improve" strategy approach has a long history, and in the case of airlines we would add the additional step of having to adapt a strategy to local market conditions. Similarly, the theory of evolution - in the simplest terms - suggests you adapt or die.
There is, however, no escape from the fact that no matter how high or low your costs, the difference between success and failure is your ability to attract a sufficient volume of traffic that offers you the necessary structure of traffic. In particular, traffic that pays the fares you need to cover your costs and generate a return.
In the low-cost, long-haul segment, the retrenchment of AirAsia X from Europe and India poses some interesting questions about the model.
No matter how much management suggests origin economies are to blame - as the economies were weak before AirAsia X launched its services - this provides a clear indication that, among other things, airlines need to reach the corporate market and low-yield traffic is not the route to profitability.
Of course traffic volume alone may be insufficient, even in an under-served market. By applying our suite of development indicators we can identify what appears to be significant market potential in a large number of countries in the world.
The problem comes when you look at what the achievable fare might be and, in particular, its relationship with the competing mode for the journey. If, to make the airline economics work, it has to be 15 to 20 times the cost of the alternative, it is unlikely to open the market.
All of this raises some questions about the nature of future growth, and with it, the demand particularly for narrowbody aircraft in some regions. Inevitably there may be fewer survivors, let alone winners, in the future than there have been in the past. Ordering aircraft is the easy bit. Often the problems are finding affordable finance and profitably deploying the aircraft.
With airline results and cash flow under greater pressure in 2012 as fuel prices continue to rise, there are indeed challenges ahead. Low-cost carriers will not be immune from this and it is reasonable to expect failures in this segment too.
Another scenario seems likely: that as we move to the latter part of 2012 and into 2013, there may be some real aircraft bargains about. Many wait for these opportunities to emerge.

http://www.flightglo...-a-name-368518/