AirAsia X-ing services to 5 cities

[BC Tam 2]

A lot of people understand that D7 is very much experimenting with things. Some may work, others may not .....

Of course we are a more 'understanding' bunch here in this forum

But Joe Bloke out there who just had his travel plans shredded will be much less magnanimous I imagine

Ah well, 54I+ happens I suppose

[Mushrif A 3]

Of course, everything has its breaking point.

 

A lot of people understand that D7 is very much experimenting with things. Some may work, others may not. And D7 is not the only one. AK has also chopped many routes too. And for that matter, MH. People realise that it is better for an airline to cut losses than to get into serious problem that will impact ALL routes, i.e. it closes shop.

 

Of course airlines may cut routes etc, but how the airline treats its displaced pax is also important. A legacy airline will likely put its pax on another carrier serving the same discontinued route - D7 however makes life complicated for its pax, looking at the options given.

[flee 5]

BC tam: agreed, not difficult to remember bad customer service and money pinching

Flee: do u work for D7? U r like Their spokesman!

Why should I be working for D7? I am just an industry observer.

 

Of course airlines may cut routes etc, but how the airline treats its displaced pax is also important. A legacy airline will likely put its pax on another carrier serving the same discontinued route - D7 however makes life complicated for its pax, looking at the options given.

LCCs are not really into providing the best customer service. I always tell my friends that when you book an LCC flight, you pray that nothing goes wrong. LCCs are really a pain in the ass once something goes wrong.

 

D7 did not repeat what they did for the India and EU cancelled routes for CHC "victims" because, as Azran tweets:

No flight option. We don't want to depend on other airlines. Not a good experience

 

I think a lot of people judge LCCs by legacy carrier standards - all you need to do is just look at Skytrax reviews. Those who give good reviews tend to set their expectations according to the fare paid. Many bad reviews are a result of unrealistic expectations. So these people are disappointed.

 

So if you want FSC service, you should book on one of them. LCCs are for people looking for low cost airfares.

[Mike P 0]

Why should I be working for D7? I am just an industry observer.

 

 

LCCs are not really into providing the best customer service. I always tell my friends that when you book an LCC flight, you pray that nothing goes wrong. LCCs are really a pain in the ass once something goes wrong.

 

D7 did not repeat what they did for the India and EU cancelled routes for CHC "victims" because, as Azran tweets:

 

 

I think a lot of people judge LCCs by legacy carrier standards - all you need to do is just look at Skytrax reviews. Those who give good reviews tend to set their expectations according to the fare paid. Many bad reviews are a result of unrealistic expectations. So these people are disappointed.

 

So if you want FSC service, you should book on one of them. LCCs are for people looking for low cost airfares.

 

I don't agree a LCC business is necessarily or bound to offer worse services. Customer service is very important and in order to enhance customer experience, best services must be provided. When we talked about service, it's not necessarily to talk about how luxurious it has to be hence it's concluded the best services. LCC has its own business model and it would find its way of services to fit into customer's needs.

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

LCCs are not really into providing the best customer service. I always tell my friends that when you book an LCC flight, you pray that nothing goes wrong. LCCs are really a pain in the ass once something goes wrong.

 

Jetblue, Southwest, Virgin America - they're LCC but their customer service aren't bad. One should not use the excuse of being an LCC to give lousy customer service!

[V Wong 0]

Flee: do u work for D7? U r like Their spokesman!

 

+1

Official unofficial spokesman

[flee 5]

Jetblue, Southwest, Virgin America - they're LCC but their customer service aren't bad. One should not use the excuse of being an LCC to give lousy customer service!

I did not say lousy - I just said don't expect service levels to be the same as legacy carriers. Each airline has to decide what costs they can bear to provide a certain service level.

 

+1

Official unofficial spokesman

I read a lot of half truths and even deliberate misinformation in the media. That is why I try to dig up information so as to satisfy my own curiosity on matters.

 

If you guys don't like the sharing, then I shall cease sharing the information.

[Johan Z 0]

Jetblue, Southwest, Virgin America - they're LCC but their customer service aren't bad. One should not use the excuse of being an LCC to give lousy customer service!

 

Because in Malaysia, you don't expect good service if you only pay peanuts.

[kandiah k 0]

IIf you guys don't like the sharing, then I shall cease sharing the information.

 

Of course we want the sharing flee

[Waiping 12]

The fact that D7 surrendered in Europe and NZ proved that their business module may not work in certain environment. After they pulled out CHC Jetstar immediately jumped in by offering flights ex-KUL to AKL.

 

I have always thought that as a business entity the aim is always to maximize profit. The best is maybe offer no frills flight BUT with FSC fare. Believe they don't really want to offer low fare lah. If no competition for sure price will be expensive even for AK/D7.

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

I have always thought that as a business entity the aim is always to maximize profit. The best is maybe offer no frills flight BUT with FSC fare. Believe they don't really want to offer low fare lah. If no competition for sure price will be expensive even for AK/D7.

 

No frills with FSC fare kind of defeats the purpose of flying LCCs.

[Izanee 0]

flee: i enjoy reading your posts - was just asking an innocent question

 

don't stop sharing please!

[leon t 0]

wondering what D7is going to do with the impending arrival of its 2 long range A332s and its A350s in the next 3 years - as now they are "re-alinging" from long haul to medium routes of 7 - 8 hrs long.

[BC Tam 2]

wondering what D7is going to do with the impending arrival of its 2 long range A332s and its A350s in the next 3 years - as now they are "re-alinging" from long haul to medium routes of 7 - 8 hrs long.

Sell/Lease them to MH ?

[Juergen Witte 0]

wondering what D7is going to do with the impending arrival of its 2 long range A332s and its A350s in the next 3 years - as now they are "re-alinging" from long haul to medium routes of 7 - 8 hrs long.

 

I´d expect they will either find suitable routes or just get rid for them as soon as posssible if capacity for the remaining markets can be provided without them.

The fact that D7 left the european market is no hint that the longhaul model for LCC´s is not viable.

(Just look at Cebu Pacific waiting for their 330´s - and the Philippines being lifted from the Black List eventually)

I can even imagine - given circumstances - that D7 might return to Europe once the A 350´s are delivered - and forget about the agreement with MH.

D7´s excuse of loss making european routes is fake anyway since loads in both classes were healthy.

As always the PR department needs tell the public "something". D7 is no different than any other airline on this subject.

 

It´s obvious that D7 and MH simply made a "gentleman´s agreement" that both sides benefit from - at least at the moment - (MH in strong competition on european routes and D7 unhappy with the A340´s fuel consumption leaving less yield than planned)

 

Makes me wonder if there was even some political pressure towards D7 pulling out of Europe

Edited March 16, 2012 by Juergen Witte

[Mike P 0]

I´d expect they will either find suitable routes or just get rid for them as soon as posssible if capacity for the remaining markets can be provided without them.

The fact that D7 left the european market is no hint that the longhaul model for LCC´s is not viable.

(Just look at Cebu Pacific waiting for their 330´s - and the Philippines being lifted from the Black List eventually)

I can even imagine - given circumstances - that D7 might return to Europe once the A 350´s are delivered - and forget about the agreement with MH.

D7´s excuse of loss making european routes is fake anyway since loads in both classes were healthy.

As always the PR department needs tell the public "something". D7 is no different than any other airline on this subject.

 

It´s obvious that D7 and MH simply made a "gentleman´s agreement" that both sides benefit from - at least at the moment - (MH in strong competition on european routes and D7 unhappy with the A340´s fuel consumption leaving less yield than planned)

 

Makes me wonder if there was even some political pressure towards D7 pulling out of Europe

 

Load may be healthy but the cost is too high to justify the low cost which is supposedly deserved by the passengers. It would affect the load if they hiked the fares and passengers would rather choose full frilled carriers then.

 

MH on the other hand is the same thing, good load factors but cost is just too high and they failed to manage it well.

[flee 5]

AirAsia X continues concentration theme with Christchurch withdrawal as ultra-long-haul loses favour

 

AirAsia X is continuing to act on its concentration plan to build scale in key markets rather than spread itself out. The Kuala Lumpur-based low-cost long-haul carrier is withdrawing services to Christchurch and increasing capacity to Perth and Taipei. The withdrawal from Christchurch is despite high load factors, indicating – as with the carrier's withdrawals from London and Paris – the problem is of yield on ultra-long-haul sectors where an LCC's lower cost base has less advantage as fuel comprises a greater share of costs than on shorter sectors.

 

The withdrawal of four-weekly services to Christchurch, effective at the end of May-2012, will remove AirAsia X's longest flight, leaving all other services – primarily to Australia and North Asia – in a five-to-eight hour range. Previously the carrier's longest flights were to Paris and London, although operated with A340s instead of A330s to Christchurch, but AirAsia X announced in Jan-2012 that Paris and London would be suspended by the end of Mar-2012.

 

See related article: AirAsia X route changes spotlight ownership complexity post MAS deal, but also growth opportunities

 

In Christchurch's place AirAsia X will increase Perth capacity from seven to nine weekly flights and Taipei from seven to 11 weekly flights. Taipei has previously seen capacity fluctuations, and in particular increases around Chinese New Year.

 

Increasing service to existing destinations is an intentional strategy as AirAsia X looks to build scale in existing markets. "Concentration is going to be a key theme" CEO Azran Osman-Rani said of the carrier's medium-term strategy last month. "We may not even venture into a new country."

 

Mr Osman-Rani said AirAsia X was still evaluating additional destinations in existing markets, part of its original plan. Potential destinations are Adelaide in Australia; Fukuoka, Nagoya and Sapporo in Japan; Busan in South Korea; and cities with a population of over 5m in China.

 

New Zealand was not considered part of AirAsia X's initial route strategy (c. 2008) for the A330s, with the carrier preferring instead to reach New Zealand as part of a second wave of expansion to coincide with the delivery of longer-range A350s. Incentives from Christchurch – some of which will now need to be returned – as well as seeing Jetstar enter the Southeast Asia-New Zealand market facilitated AirAsia X's entrance. AirAsia X could return once A350s are delivered later this decade or if demand and fuel environments change.

 

AirAsia X will end its Christchurch route just a year after launching it in Apr-2011, a date it stuck to and without capacity changes despite a devastating Feb-2011 earthquake in Christchurch that dampened demand. While Air New Zealand saw a domestic rebound within six months, international demand is still soft. AirAsia X has had strong load factors to Christchurch, averaging just under 80%, indicating weakened yields.

 

Low-cost long-haul model has limited applications in high fuel and weakened demand environments

 

The withdrawal of long-haul/ultra-long-haul routes like Christchurch, London and Paris does not, as critics say, indicate a flaw in the low-cost, long-haul model. But it does show the model has limited applications in high fuel price and low demand environments.

 

Scoot's initial focus will be Australia and North Asia, within a six-to-eight hour range of Singapore, while Cebu Pacific, which plans to launch a low-cost long-haul operation in mid 2013, will initially focus on Australia and Middle East. Jetstar also has generally steered clear of ultra-long-haul flights, partially out of interest in higher-margin flying around Asia. Jetstar's longest flights are now Auckland-Singapore and Sydney-Honolulu, which at certain times of the year is one of its most profitable routes, but these are not as long as services to Europe or the mainland US.

 

See related articles:

• In selecting Gold Coast over China as its second destination, Scoot again goes with low risk option
  
• New Cebu Pacific long-haul operation could push out Philippine Airlines but may require hybrid model
  

The gap between LCCs and full-service carriers is most apparent on short-haul flights where the majority of costs are negotiable and can be reduced, such as having faster turnaround times or not using jetways. But as sector distance increases, non-flexible costs like fuel account for a higher proportion of ticket prices, decreasing the gap between LCCs and full-service carriers. AirAsia X's ability to stimulate demand, already soft, by offering low prices was reduced given fuel prices.

 

Competition out of Christchurch is limited, with the only intercontinental links being service to Singapore by Singapore Airlines (daily) and to Tokyo from Air New Zealand (twice weekly). Emirates also serves Christchurch daily but routes this flight to Sydney before proceeding onto Dubai.

 

The Christchurch market is focused almost entirely on leisure traffic. An even higher demand leisure point in New Zealand's South Island is Queenstown, but the airport in Queenstown is not capable of handling widebodies.

 

Christchurch could have the right proposition for Scoot, SIA's planned low-cost, long-haul carrier. But dual service from SIA and Scoot is very unlikely in the medium-term and SIA and Scoot have said they intend for Scoot to open new points in the SIA Group's network rather than replace SIA on less profitable routes. But as Scoot expands, and with history showing that Jetstar replaced Qantas services, there may be movement with the SIA Group in Christchurch.

 

For now SIA will have the only Southeast Asian link from Christchurch and the South Island. Out of Auckland on the North Island, low-cost, long-haul service is provided by Jetstar to Singapore while full-service Southeast Asian carriers include Malaysia Airlines, SIA and Thai.

 

AirAsia X's withdrawal will give a slight uptick for Air New Zealand, which has seen its long-haul network come under pressure following the recent entry of multiple long-haul carriers including AirAsia X, China Southern and Jetstar. ANZ will also benefit from Qantas' upcoming exit on the Auckland-Los Angeles route.

 

See related article: Air New Zealand hones in on long-haul restructure as first half profit falls

 

Full article, charts and illustrations here: http://www.centrefor...es-favour-70010

Edited March 16, 2012 by flee

[Mike P 0]

So does MEL return to 2 x daily flights? HND gets its daily flights?

[kandiah k 0]

So does MEL return to 2 x daily flights? HND gets its daily flights?

 

I am sure HND is due for an increase in its weekly service sometime by August 2012, now that MH has withdrawn HND from BKI, the slots are now given to D7 to operate that daily flight from the current four times weekly.

[flee 5]

HND goes 5X weekly from 26 March, 6X weekly from 7 April and 7X weekly from 30 June.

 

Don't think MEL will get increased frequencies except during their summer season in Dec and Jan, when there are usually 11X weekly flights.

[Kee Hooi Yen 0]

Australia is to introduce carbon tax in July. Wonder if that will affect D7 routes in OZ as well ?

[Mike P 0]

Australia is to introduce carbon tax in July. Wonder if that will affect D7 routes in OZ as well ?

 

And so D7 is going to find excuse to cut the Australian routes now?

[BC Tam 2]

..... now that MH has withdrawn HND from BKI, the slots are now given to D7 to operate that daily flight from the current four times weekly.

Likely it takes more effort to snatch candy from babies in comparison

[BC Tam 2]

But hang on, it was previously announced that BKI services would revert back to NRT from HND and MH will serve HND from KUL instead

Did that ever materialize ?

And is MH still flying into HND ? If so, where is D7 getting the extra slots from ?

[kandiah k 0]

I think the ASA (Air Service Agreement) only allowed a total of 7 weekly flights to any Malaysian carrier. Nothing new has materialized since then so I doubt any extra slots are available unless of course MH decides to "tarik balik" the slots from D7 and use it for themselves. I wonder how they (MH) will sustain 11x weekly flights to NRT with 4 of it onward to LAX and then also sustain KUL-HND. It will be interesting anyhow. Just my two cents worth.