A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Asia
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AirAsia



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 19th, 2009, 06:13 PM posted to rec.travel.asia
Chris Blunt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default 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  
Old July 19th, 2009, 06:13 PM posted to rec.travel.asia
Chris Blunt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default 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  
Old July 19th, 2009, 08:32 PM posted to rec.travel.asia
Alfred Molon[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 996
Default 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  
Old July 20th, 2009, 01:05 PM posted to rec.travel.asia
Chris Blunt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default 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  
Old July 20th, 2009, 04:14 PM posted to rec.travel.asia
Alfred Molon[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 996
Default 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  
Old July 20th, 2009, 06:45 PM posted to rec.travel.asia
Markku Grönroos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,095
Default 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  
Old July 21st, 2009, 08:13 AM posted to rec.travel.asia
Chris Blunt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default 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  
Old July 22nd, 2009, 02:49 AM posted to rec.travel.asia
Sharkbait
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 231
Default 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  
Old July 22nd, 2009, 02:57 AM posted to rec.travel.asia
Sharkbait
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 231
Default 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  
Old July 22nd, 2009, 09:23 AM posted to rec.travel.asia
Chris Blunt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.