If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
AirAsia
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:10:38 +0300, "Markku Grönroos"
wrote: "Chris Blunt" kirjoitti viestissä:mnn565phr18gukuqn1gp106blpko6ubkcs@4ax. com... On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 09:19:11 +0300, "Markku Grönroos" I'm not sure which of the above posters you think is talking nonsense, but I think they are both right to a certain extent. I've flown many times with Air Asia and most of the flights have been on time and great value for the money. However, I've also had them cancel a flight and rebook me on the next one, presumably because they found they could accommodate passengers from both flights on a single aircraft. They did not pronounce the reason for cancellation? Airlines hardly (must not?) cancel flights at so short a notice for such a reason. No. They just sent me a SMS text message the day before departure informing me that my flight had been changed. In fact I still have that message in my archive as follows: "URGENT!! FD 3028 from Phuket to Bangkok on 29 May07 CANCELLED. Move to FD 3026 dept. time 11.05pm(23.05Hrs) For more info pls contact 662-515-9999. Thank you" If they want to cancel a flight, then that's what they're going to do. Chris |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
AirAsia
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:19:22 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote: In article , Chris Blunt says... I've also had them cancel a flight and rebook me on the next one That has not yet happened to me and I've been flying with them for years. The worst that happened was a delay of 2-3 hours (can't remember exactly) many years ago, but delays seem a thing of the past now. Delays can happen for all kinds of reasons. Weather, congestion at airports, aircraft technical problems etc. All airlines are affected by those factors and always have been. Low-cost airlines like Air Asia are affected most of all because they have tighter turnaround times at airports to keep their aircraft in the air for a higher proportion of the time. If an airline schedules only 45 minutes between a flight arriving and the same aircraft taking off again that leaves less time to make up for any delays than if you allow a couple of hours between flights. As for the excellent value, they are now only a bit cheaper than Malaysian Airlines. That's only because Malaysian Airlines,along with many other carriers, have cut their fares recently to try to get passengers flying again during the economic recession. The problems those full-service carriers have now is those lower fares are not sustainable in the long term with the business models they have. They will eventually have to raise their fares again or they'll go bankrupt. Chris |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
AirAsia
In article , Chris Blunt
says... Delays can happen for all kinds of reasons. Weather, congestion at airports, aircraft technical problems etc. All airlines are affected by those factors and always have been. Low-cost airlines like Air Asia are affected most of all because they have tighter turnaround times at airports to keep their aircraft in the air for a higher proportion of the time. If an airline schedules only 45 minutes between a flight arriving and the same aircraft taking off again that leaves less time to make up for any delays than if you allow a couple of hours between flights. Well, just consider the following. Most European flights by full-service airlines are delayed, while out of the 8 Airasia flights I took in June 7 were on time or early and just one delayed. Besides, Airasia starts the checkin procedure around 40 minutes before the departure, so the planes must have more than just 45 minutes between flights at the airports. That's only because Malaysian Airlines,along with many other carriers, have cut their fares recently to try to get passengers flying again during the economic recession. The problems those full-service carriers have now is those lower fares are not sustainable in the long term with the business models they have. They will eventually have to raise their fares again or they'll go bankrupt. You are making some speculations here without having sufficient information. Malaysian is undertaking measures to cut costs, for instance by selling more through the web (lower selling costs) and by reducing salaries. I know this because I read an article in a local Malaysian newspaper talking about salary reductions at MAS. By the way, nowadays Airasia is "full service". They are even better than MAS, because they offer more flights. The only advantage of MAS is that they use the better terminal (KLIA vs LCCT for Airasia). -- Alfred Molon http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
AirAsia
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:32:27 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote: In article , Chris Blunt says... Delays can happen for all kinds of reasons. Weather, congestion at airports, aircraft technical problems etc. All airlines are affected by those factors and always have been. Low-cost airlines like Air Asia are affected most of all because they have tighter turnaround times at airports to keep their aircraft in the air for a higher proportion of the time. If an airline schedules only 45 minutes between a flight arriving and the same aircraft taking off again that leaves less time to make up for any delays than if you allow a couple of hours between flights. Well, just consider the following. Most European flights by full-service airlines are delayed, while out of the 8 Airasia flights I took in June 7 were on time or early and just one delayed. We're not comparing like with like here. European air space is generally quite overcrowded, and that results in delays to all airlines flying in that region. For a better comparison, look at the on-time performance ratings of budget airlines such as Air Asia and Tiger Airways, and then compare them to airlines like Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines. The full-service carriers always beat the low-cost airlines, but there's a price to be paid for that with higher fares. Besides, Airasia starts the checkin procedure around 40 minutes before the departure, so the planes must have more than just 45 minutes between flights at the airports. Why is that? An airline can start checking-in passengers long before the arrival of the incoming aircraft. Many times I've checked in and got to the departure gate only to find the aircraft has not yet arrived. Just look at the schedules of the different airlines and you'll see that the budget airlines always have tighter turnaround times at airports. That's only because Malaysian Airlines,along with many other carriers, have cut their fares recently to try to get passengers flying again during the economic recession. The problems those full-service carriers have now is those lower fares are not sustainable in the long term with the business models they have. They will eventually have to raise their fares again or they'll go bankrupt. You are making some speculations here without having sufficient information. Malaysian is undertaking measures to cut costs, for instance by selling more through the web (lower selling costs) and by reducing salaries. I know this because I read an article in a local Malaysian newspaper talking about salary reductions at MAS. By the way, nowadays Airasia is "full service". They are even better than MAS, because they offer more flights. The only advantage of MAS is that they use the better terminal (KLIA vs LCCT for Airasia). Maybe you're misunderstanding the terminology here. A "full-service" airline normally means one of the more traditionally established airlines that offer the full range of services such as meals and drinks included in the fare, better in-flight service, more flexible booking conditions, more generous baggage allowances etc. These airlines are quite different to the low-cost carriers that cut costs to the bone and offer a basic "just get you there" service. I'm not trying to say that one is better than the other, but obviously only an airline that has cut out a lot of the frills and reduced its overheads can consistently offer lower fares and still survive. If that's what MAS is now doing then fine. Chris |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
AirAsia
In article , Chris Blunt
says... The full-service carriers always beat the low-cost airlines, but there's a price to be paid for that with higher fares. That's a bold statement. Do you have any data to back it up? As explained, this June out of the 8 AirAsia flights I took 7 were on time or early, just one was delayed. Why is that? An airline can start checking-in passengers long before the arrival of the incoming aircraft. Many times I've checked in and got to the departure gate only to find the aircraft has not yet arrived. Just look at the schedules of the different airlines and you'll see that the budget airlines always have tighter turnaround times at airports. I meant AirAsia starts boarding the plane 40-45 minutes before departure. Aircraft being physically there. Maybe you're misunderstanding the terminology here. A "full-service" airline normally means one of the more traditionally established airlines that offer the full range of services such as meals and drinks included in the fare, You can buy meals and drinks for small amounts on any AirAsia flights. better in-flight service, I didn't notice much of a difference between AirAsia and MAS. more flexible booking conditions, No difference anymore here. Actually AirAsia has the better booking conditions now, because they offer more flights. You can even book a few hours before departure, but have to go to the AirAsia counter at the airport. more generous baggage allowances etc. Yes, you have to pay for the extra baggage with AirAsia. This is why I wrote that if you include all costs (i.e. also the baggage allowance) AirAsia is perhaps only 10%-20% cheaper than MAS. These airlines are quite different to the low-cost carriers that cut costs to the bone and offer a basic "just get you there" service. AirAsia is actually now starting to look more like a full-service airline. -- Alfred Molon http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
AirAsia
"Chris Blunt" kirjoitti om... On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:32:27 +0200, Alfred Molon Maybe you're misunderstanding the terminology here. A "full-service" airline normally means one of the more traditionally established airlines that offer the full range of services such as meals and drinks included in the fare, better in-flight service, more flexible booking conditions, more generous baggage allowances etc. These Naturally it is quite different a task to provide a connection along any route between any two points commercial airlines ply. It makes things much more complex and definitely more expensive. Point to point airlines merely provide connection between any two points the company itself operates non-stop flights. The scheme is so different that there is little point making too close comparisons. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
AirAsia
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:14:53 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote: In article , Chris Blunt says... The full-service carriers always beat the low-cost airlines, but there's a price to be paid for that with higher fares. That's a bold statement. Do you have any data to back it up? As explained, this June out of the 8 AirAsia flights I took 7 were on time or early, just one was delayed. Air Asia's on-time performance rating for June 2009 was 79%. Its there on the front page of their web site. That means that less than 8 out of 10 of their flights were on time. Chris |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
AirAsia
Chris Blunt wrote in message
... Air Asia's on-time performance rating for June 2009 was 79%. Its there on the front page of their web site. That means that less than 8 out of 10 of their flights were on time. That compares with all reporting US airlines for the period of April 2009 to May 2009 with on time arrival rate of 79.82% at http://www.transtats.bts.gov/OT_Dela...ause1.asp?pn=1. Pretty much the I'd say. rg |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
AirAsia
Meant to say; "Pretty much the same I'd say."
rg "Sharkbait" wrote in message ... Chris Blunt wrote in message ... Air Asia's on-time performance rating for June 2009 was 79%. Its there on the front page of their web site. That means that less than 8 out of 10 of their flights were on time. That compares with all reporting US airlines for the period of April 2009 to May 2009 with on time arrival rate of 79.82% at http://www.transtats.bts.gov/OT_Dela...ause1.asp?pn=1. Pretty much the I'd say. rg |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
AirAsia
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:57:04 GMT, "Sharkbait"
wrote: Meant to say; "Pretty much the same I'd say." rg "Sharkbait" wrote in message ... Chris Blunt wrote in message ... Air Asia's on-time performance rating for June 2009 was 79%. Its there on the front page of their web site. That means that less than 8 out of 10 of their flights were on time. That compares with all reporting US airlines for the period of April 2009 to May 2009 with on time arrival rate of 79.82% at http://www.transtats.bts.gov/OT_Dela...ause1.asp?pn=1. Pretty much the I'd say. But those statistics are for US airlines which mainly operate within North America. For Air Asia, a better comparison would be with an Asian full-service airline flying to similar destinations. For example, Singapore Airlines on-time performance rating for June 2009 was 90.5%. Chris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Airasia to Manila | Alfred Molon[_6_] | Asia | 8 | October 8th, 2007 08:34 AM |
AirAsia goes to the Philippines | aseanair | Asia | 8 | April 15th, 2005 01:03 PM |
AirAsia counter in BKK ?? | Michel | Asia | 11 | August 16th, 2004 06:36 PM |
AirAsia to Bali | Miguel Cruz | Air travel | 0 | July 3rd, 2004 12:40 PM |
AirAsia deepens the mystery | texan@texas,,,removethisbit.usa.com | Australia & New Zealand | 0 | April 2nd, 2004 06:01 AM |