How does AK manage to keep cost low?

[Naim 6]

I read AK's cost per seat per km is 2.33 (US) cents, which is 30% of costs of major airlines, and arguably lowest in the world [ref. HERE]

 

Then I spotted this interesting excerpt from http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?Item...t&task=view dated 17/09/07:

According to a study titled “Perspectives on the Development of Low-Cost Airlines in Southeast Asia” by Juliana Kim and Tom Baum at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland, the low-cost carriers cut their expenses to the bone. Kim and Baum cite the case of AirAsia, undeniably the most successful of Southeast Asia’s low-cost carriers, which is now operating 50 aircraft on a variety of domestic and international routes and has orders in with Airbus for another 150 planes. Tony Fernandes, the Chief Executive Officer of AirAsia and a Virgin Airlines alumnus, has cabin crews cleaning out the planes after they land.

 

Air Asia turns planes around in 22 minutes at Kuala Lumpur International Airport, keeping them in the air 10 hours per day. AirAsia, according to Kim and Baum, gets 180 landings out of a set of tires compared with 80 for conventional airlines. Pilots are taught to burn 770 US gallons of fuel per hour, compared with Malaysia’s flag carrier, MAS, which burns 1,100 gallons per hour in similar planes. That gives AirAsia the lowest costs per average seat per kilometer in the world, the two write.

 

[Radzi 2]

Pilots are taught to burn 770 US gallons of fuel per hour, compared with Malaysia’s flag carrier, MAS, which burns 1,100 gallons per hour in similar planes.

 

Really? I don't think that is possible due to crew alone. Even comparing the B734 and the A320, I don't think it is physically possible. For comparison, the B734 burns 2400 kg of fuel per hour. How many USG is that?

[kianhong 0]

Really? I don't think that is possible due to crew alone. Even comparing the B734 and the A320, I don't think it is physically possible. For comparison, the B734 burns 2400 kg of fuel per hour. How many USG is that?

 

If density of Jet A1 is assumed to be at 0.80 (density varies between 0.76 to 0.84), then 2400kg of Jet A1 is about 790 USG, not much different.

 

2400kg/0.8 = 3000 L

 

2927L/3.8 = 790 USG

 

So what's the different?

 

[Gavin Andrew David 6]

Wow , enter the cockpit , cost index 0 right away?

[Mushrif A 3]

Also, how does AK squeeze 180 landings from the set of tyres vs 80 for other airlines? Don't the lifetimes of the tyres are based on cycles or landings? Hence, inadvertently, could the article suggest that AK is unsafe?

[Y. J. Foo 0]

Also, how does AK squeeze 180 landings from the set of tyres vs 80 for other airlines? Don't the lifetimes of the tyres are based on cycles or landings? Hence, inadvertently, could the article suggest that AK is unsafe?

 

I read once before that they:

 

1. Use brakes sparingly, and

2. Deploy reversers only when absolutely necessary.

 

These will no doubt reduce wears of the tyres.

[Radzi 2]

I read once before that they:

 

1. Use brakes sparingly, and

2. Deploy reversers only when absolutely necessary.

 

These will no doubt reduce wears of the tyres.

 

1. Using the brakes sparingly cannot stop tire wear. All aircraft are equipped with antiskid / ABS so flat spot due to hard braking does not occur. Tire wear wil occur anytime the tire rolls against the surface.

 

2. Using less reverser will save fuel, but not tire. Same reason as item 1.

 

But there is one way to use a tire longer than normal: by not changing them when they're supposed to be changed. Of course, don't talk about safety la.

 

I don't know about AK, but with other local passanger airlines operating out of KLIA, safety issue is non-negotiable; the pilots will refuse any aircraft they deemed unsafe. I believe the enginers have the same mentality too. Higher cost? Who cares when it comes to safety.

[Waiping 12]

1. Using the brakes sparingly cannot stop tire wear. All aircraft are equipped with antiskid / ABS so flat spot due to hard braking does not occur. Tire wear wil occur anytime the tire rolls against the surface.

 

2. Using less reverser will save fuel, but not tire. Same reason as item 1.

 

But there is one way to use a tire longer than normal: by not changing them when they're supposed to be changed. Of course, don't talk about safety la.

 

I don't know about AK, but with other local passanger airlines operating out of KLIA, safety issue is non-negotiable; the pilots will refuse any aircraft they deemed unsafe. I believe the enginers have the same mentality too. Higher cost? Who cares when it comes to safety.

 

So it like you are supposed to service your car every 5000 kms but you waited until 7500 kms.

[kianhong 0]

So it like you are supposed to service your car every 5000 kms but you waited until 7500 kms.

 

Nope, it's different. If u don't service your car, the worst could happen is the car engine die and you pull off to the side of a road

If same thing happened to an aircraft, you fall from the sky. And you ...

 

Safety is paramount in flying, there's no compromises!

[Waiping 12]

Nope, it's different. If u don't service your car, the worst could happen is the car engine die and you pull off to the side of a road

If same thing happened to an aircraft, you fall from the sky. And you ...

 

Safety is paramount in flying, there's no compromises!

 

Oh, ya. I thought airbus and minibus are the same.

[Mushrif A 3]

Nope, it's different. If u don't service your car, the worst could happen is the car engine die and you pull off to the side of a road

If same thing happened to an aircraft, you fall from the sky. And you ...

 

Safety is paramount in flying, there's no compromises!

 

SInce the original post was on tyres, you are very unlikely to fall from the sky. maybe the tyres will just explode on landing, aircraft may venture beyond runway at high speed, then maybe hit some obstruction or worst, a fuel farm. Then you end as statistics and potential content for a particular program on National geographic. But, at least you wont drop from the sky....

 

Anyway, I find that original study to be dubious...how does one get 180 landings versus 80 from the tyres?

[Naim 6]

All these claims sound like urban legends to me.

[Nizam 0]

 

Dont get mad with me ...

Edited May 21, 2008 by Nizam

[Mohd Saat 0]

So the truth is that they do this by not paying their bills and what they owe to others, subsidies but call them payment for just being partners. By making other pay as if it is their god given right. By not paying services rendered by both staff and business partners..........excuse the swipe

Edited May 21, 2008 by Mohd Saat

[Naim 6]

Saturday June 14, 2008

How AirAsia keeps its fares low

By PAUL CHOO

 

PETALING JAYA: AirAsia is able to retain its low fares despite the rising cost of fuel by reducing other costs, its director Conor McCarthy said.

 

“We’ve adopted various measures to offset our costs, such as charging for checked-in luggage, and promoting more merchandise and food sales on flights.

 

“We also have to rely on our tour packages and insurance to help alleviate costs,” said McCarthy, adding that low fares were a “need” to stimulate demand.

 

McCarthy, who is also adviser to AirAsia, was responding to public queries on whether price increases were in store following the recent rise in fuel prices after subsidies were restructured last week.

 

He added that AirAsia’s fleet of Airbus A320 aircraft also reduced fuel costs by 25% per seat.

 

However, even with such measures in place, McCarthy said AirAsia was being bogged down by the Government.

 

“Malaysia, and South-East Asia for that matter, is ripe for development and one method would be to liberalise the airways, especially the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore route, of which AirAsia is now accorded only two flights per day.

 

“In addition, AirAsia has requested to partially move its operations to Subang airport due to the congestion in the Low-Cost Carrier Terminal (LCCT), and that too has not been allowed.

 

“There is no harm in encouraging competition among airlines, because it is Malaysians that stand to gain whilst the airlines improve themselves over time,” added McCarthy, who is also PlaneConsult.com managing director, an international aviation consultation company.

 

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?f...&sec=nation

[Azri M. 0]

They seem to be pushing for 2 demands every single week in the newspapers: Flying more flights from many destinations to Singapore, and moving some operations to Subang because arguably the LCCT is too full already.

 

Though I agree to the first one (more competition is good for us), but the latter demand do not make sense as if they were given a chance to operate Subang again, they will desert LCCT for sure.

 

Remember once given, they'll ask more and more.. one day they'll say, lets move ALL operations to Subang!

 

Opening Subang for scheduled commercial aircrafts in the first place is a BAD idea already......

[Azri M. 0]

They seem to be pushing for 2 demands every single week in the newspapers: Flying more flights from many destinations to Singapore, and moving some operations to Subang because arguably the LCCT is too full already.

 

Though I agree to the first one (more competition is good for us), but the latter demand do not make sense as if they were given a chance to operate Subang again, they will desert LCCT for sure.

 

Remember once given, they'll ask more and more.. one day they'll say, lets move ALL operations to Subang!

 

Opening Subang for scheduled commercial aircrafts in the first place is a BAD idea already......

 

Or, tell AirAsia, they can fly to Subang anytime, as long as its propeller planes. That solves it.

[Kenneth T 0]

I read the AK 's advertisement yesterday and the article is actually a directly hit to MH. AK is a kiasu airline, thats for sure.

[Sung 0]

Previously they operating the F50 using FAX already half dead, don't think they will repeat it again with turboprop.

 

[Ahmad M 1]

Not paying airport charges is one way to keep the cost down. More than RM 100 million at the last count !