Why an Air Canada plane in SIN?
Nov 25, 2014, 3:50 pm
#31
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
Nov 25, 2014, 6:20 pm
#32
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MLL / AC Cafe
Programs: It's hard to get status when the website won't let me book flights.
Posts: 5,706
The fact that AC can send a 777 to SIN, basically the opposite side of the world, pay for the pilots, deadhead the pilots back, pay for the fuel (huge cost), and have the plane out of service the extra time it takes to get from Canada to SIN and back, and it's still cheaper than doing the service in Winnipeg. That scares me.
An empty 77W will still likely burn around 6100 KG/Hr (possibly more, I'm being conservative). At 18.2 hours each way (36.4 hours r/t) that's 222,040kg r/t. At 0.3261 gallons per kg, that's 72,407.2 gallons. At the low current price of $2.47 per gallon (USD) that's $178,845.78 USD in fuel (we will stick with USD since AC hedge funded and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and not convert to canadian). 4 pilots + deadhead back, let's call that a weeks' work, at 100k per pilot, x4 is $7,692 in salary. Another $8k for 4 deadhead back on other airlines. At least 36.4 hours of of operation extra (there and back) so easily another lost $20,000 in profits (random number and probably pretty low, but I don't have these numbers) for flights that could be flow for profit.
You're telling me that Winnipeg is charging $214,539 more per plane for maint than SIN? If that's the case, I'm sorry but Winnipeg isn't being competitive. And that would be break even, so it's got to be higher than that!
oh, and let's not forget the cost of getting pilots back out there to bring it back! sorry missed that, but you get the idea
An empty 77W will still likely burn around 6100 KG/Hr (possibly more, I'm being conservative). At 18.2 hours each way (36.4 hours r/t) that's 222,040kg r/t. At 0.3261 gallons per kg, that's 72,407.2 gallons. At the low current price of $2.47 per gallon (USD) that's $178,845.78 USD in fuel (we will stick with USD since AC hedge funded and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and not convert to canadian). 4 pilots + deadhead back, let's call that a weeks' work, at 100k per pilot, x4 is $7,692 in salary. Another $8k for 4 deadhead back on other airlines. At least 36.4 hours of of operation extra (there and back) so easily another lost $20,000 in profits (random number and probably pretty low, but I don't have these numbers) for flights that could be flow for profit.
You're telling me that Winnipeg is charging $214,539 more per plane for maint than SIN? If that's the case, I'm sorry but Winnipeg isn't being competitive. And that would be break even, so it's got to be higher than that!
oh, and let's not forget the cost of getting pilots back out there to bring it back! sorry missed that, but you get the idea
Nov 25, 2014, 7:02 pm
#33
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Never home.
Posts: 2,971
The fact that AC can send a 777 to SIN, basically the opposite side of the world, pay for the pilots, deadhead the pilots back, pay for the fuel (huge cost), and have the plane out of service the extra time it takes to get from Canada to SIN and back, and it's still cheaper than doing the service in Winnipeg. That scares me.
An empty 77W will still likely burn around 6100 KG/Hr (possibly more, I'm being conservative). At 18.2 hours each way (36.4 hours r/t) that's 222,040kg r/t. At 0.3261 gallons per kg, that's 72,407.2 gallons. At the low current price of $2.47 per gallon (USD) that's $178,845.78 USD in fuel (we will stick with USD since AC hedge funded and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and not convert to canadian). 4 pilots + deadhead back, let's call that a weeks' work, at 100k per pilot, x4 is $7,692 in salary. Another $8k for 4 deadhead back on other airlines. At least 36.4 hours of of operation extra (there and back) so easily another lost $20,000 in profits (random number and probably pretty low, but I don't have these numbers) for flights that could be flow for profit.
You're telling me that Winnipeg is charging $214,539 more per plane for maint than SIN? If that's the case, I'm sorry but Winnipeg isn't being competitive. And that would be break even, so it's got to be higher than that!
oh, and let's not forget the cost of getting pilots back out there to bring it back! sorry missed that, but you get the idea
An empty 77W will still likely burn around 6100 KG/Hr (possibly more, I'm being conservative). At 18.2 hours each way (36.4 hours r/t) that's 222,040kg r/t. At 0.3261 gallons per kg, that's 72,407.2 gallons. At the low current price of $2.47 per gallon (USD) that's $178,845.78 USD in fuel (we will stick with USD since AC hedge funded and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and not convert to canadian). 4 pilots + deadhead back, let's call that a weeks' work, at 100k per pilot, x4 is $7,692 in salary. Another $8k for 4 deadhead back on other airlines. At least 36.4 hours of of operation extra (there and back) so easily another lost $20,000 in profits (random number and probably pretty low, but I don't have these numbers) for flights that could be flow for profit.
You're telling me that Winnipeg is charging $214,539 more per plane for maint than SIN? If that's the case, I'm sorry but Winnipeg isn't being competitive. And that would be break even, so it's got to be higher than that!
oh, and let's not forget the cost of getting pilots back out there to bring it back! sorry missed that, but you get the idea
I don't think YYZ can do them as they are short hangar space anyway. There is a new hangar plan the GTAA is working towards to increase large hangar space in AC's end.
As I mentioned, the 777s are very rarely ferried. Usually they are subbed in/out on scheduled HKG flights. So really it is 3.5hrs*2ways*~7000kg = $39,500 using your numbers (price, weight) above. About 7 hours of extra operation. And being contracted, AC probably knows EXACTLY when the plane will get out of the hangar and be ready to fly, unlike their Canadian staff who don't have the luxury of hundreds of SIN heavy mtce trained workers able to jump projects to 'get the job done' as per the contract. As such, I bet AC actually get HIGHER aircraft utilization out of overseas mtce as they can schedule planes by having a reliable hangar exit date!
AC seems to treat overseas mtce like seasonal workers. They can't maintain the required staff to do the heavy checks in Canada on AC's payroll since AC primarily only does the heavy mtce in the winter off period. AC would need a ton of AMEs for winter widebody check time, and lay them all off every summer when heavy checks drop to essentially 0 if they can't get other airlines' mtce contracts.
AC has no problem using Canadian heavy maintenance if the costs make sense... look at the contracts signed at Trois Rivieres for Premier Aviation (E75/E90s) for proof of that.
Nov 25, 2014, 8:14 pm
#34
Formerly known as tireman77
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,488
Or I'm suggesting that the executives of a huge multinational corporation should adopt the principle they purport to support, instead of, you know, continuing with what appears to be a cynical and dishonest approach.
I find it very disconcerting when a person talks about protecting Canadian jobs on one day, and then ships off high-skilled Canadian jobs the very next day to make sure he and his minions can keep their jobs and pocket their bonuses. If that constitutes ivory tower ideology, so be it.
The irony of it all is that they've shipped the jobs to Singapore of all places. As you may recall, Canada unilaterally cancelled its aviation bilateral with Singapore in the early 1990s at AC's request. I don't know of too many other cases where countries have unilaterally terminated bilateral agreements at the request of a private airline.
I always did have a soft spot for creative destruction. Its a pity its never allowed to run its course in Canada.
I find it very disconcerting when a person talks about protecting Canadian jobs on one day, and then ships off high-skilled Canadian jobs the very next day to make sure he and his minions can keep their jobs and pocket their bonuses. If that constitutes ivory tower ideology, so be it.
The irony of it all is that they've shipped the jobs to Singapore of all places. As you may recall, Canada unilaterally cancelled its aviation bilateral with Singapore in the early 1990s at AC's request. I don't know of too many other cases where countries have unilaterally terminated bilateral agreements at the request of a private airline.
I always did have a soft spot for creative destruction. Its a pity its never allowed to run its course in Canada.
As I said, ideology belongs on a campus or in a church, not in a boardroom.
Nov 25, 2014, 8:38 pm
#35
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE*2MM. SPG Plat life
Posts: 4,644
The fact that AC can send a 777 to SIN, basically the opposite side of the world, pay for the pilots, deadhead the pilots back, pay for the fuel (huge cost), and have the plane out of service the extra time it takes to get from Canada to SIN and back, and it's still cheaper than doing the service in Winnipeg. That scares me.
An empty 77W will still likely burn around 6100 KG/Hr (possibly more, I'm being conservative). At 18.2 hours each way (36.4 hours r/t) that's 222,040kg r/t. At 0.3261 gallons per kg, that's 72,407.2 gallons. At the low current price of $2.47 per gallon (USD) that's $178,845.78 USD in fuel (we will stick with USD since AC hedge funded and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and not convert to canadian). 4 pilots + deadhead back, let's call that a weeks' work, at 100k per pilot, x4 is $7,692 in salary. Another $8k for 4 deadhead back on other airlines. At least 36.4 hours of of operation extra (there and back) so easily another lost $20,000 in profits (random number and probably pretty low, but I don't have these numbers) for flights that could be flow for profit.
You're telling me that Winnipeg is charging $214,539 more per plane for maint than SIN? If that's the case, I'm sorry but Winnipeg isn't being competitive. And that would be break even, so it's got to be higher than that!
oh, and let's not forget the cost of getting pilots back out there to bring it back! sorry missed that, but you get the idea
An empty 77W will still likely burn around 6100 KG/Hr (possibly more, I'm being conservative). At 18.2 hours each way (36.4 hours r/t) that's 222,040kg r/t. At 0.3261 gallons per kg, that's 72,407.2 gallons. At the low current price of $2.47 per gallon (USD) that's $178,845.78 USD in fuel (we will stick with USD since AC hedge funded and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and not convert to canadian). 4 pilots + deadhead back, let's call that a weeks' work, at 100k per pilot, x4 is $7,692 in salary. Another $8k for 4 deadhead back on other airlines. At least 36.4 hours of of operation extra (there and back) so easily another lost $20,000 in profits (random number and probably pretty low, but I don't have these numbers) for flights that could be flow for profit.
You're telling me that Winnipeg is charging $214,539 more per plane for maint than SIN? If that's the case, I'm sorry but Winnipeg isn't being competitive. And that would be break even, so it's got to be higher than that!
oh, and let's not forget the cost of getting pilots back out there to bring it back! sorry missed that, but you get the idea
Nov 25, 2014, 8:47 pm
#37
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MLL / AC Cafe
Programs: It's hard to get status when the website won't let me book flights.
Posts: 5,706
As I mentioned, the 777s are very rarely ferried. Usually they are subbed in/out on scheduled HKG flights. So really it is 3.5hrs*2ways*~7000kg = $39,500 using your numbers (price, weight) above. About 7 hours of extra operation. And being contracted, AC probably knows EXACTLY when the plane will get out of the hangar and be ready to fly, unlike their Canadian staff who don't have the luxury of hundreds of SIN heavy mtce trained workers able to jump projects to 'get the job done' as per the contract. As such, I bet AC actually get HIGHER aircraft utilization out of overseas mtce as they can schedule planes by having a reliable hangar exit date!
They don't deadhead pilots/planes(777) from Canada. The crews/planes are deadhead from Hong Kong. When planes need service, AC skips a day from schedule from Hong Kong. When the plane is ready for service again, they drop a flight from Yvr or yyz so they don't have a extra plane/crew in Asia.
Nov 25, 2014, 9:03 pm
#38
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Never home.
Posts: 2,971
Other than that the 763s have their heavy maintenance done at much closer-to-home MIA, or TLV. I've seen AC sell seats on the extra sections (so 2 YYZTLV flights some days) - that can only be done if AC knows well in advance when the aircraft are going in/out of heavy. Likely the crew operates in on the extra section to go into heavy, and operates the plane which just finished heavy in TLV back the next day.
They probably use some expensive software to schedule everything the cheapest possible way.
Nov 25, 2014, 9:04 pm
#39
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E50K (*G) WS Gold | SPG/Fairmont Plat Hilton/Hyatt Diamond Marriott Silver | National Exec Elite
Posts: 19,284
Nov 25, 2014, 9:06 pm
#40
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E50K (*G) WS Gold | SPG/Fairmont Plat Hilton/Hyatt Diamond Marriott Silver | National Exec Elite
Posts: 19,284
The A333 and B763 are ferried YVR/YYZ-ICN-SIN, but the only 763s going all the way to SIN are for Rouge conversion (these things are literally in a hangar for 2 months, it probably makes sense).
Other than that the 763s have their heavy maintenance done at much closer-to-home MIA, or TLV. I've seen AC sell seats on the extra sections (so 2 YYZTLV flights some days) - that can only be done if AC knows well in advance when the aircraft are going in/out of heavy. Likely the crew operates in on the extra section to go into heavy, and operates the plane which just finished heavy in TLV back the next day.
They probably use some expensive software to schedule everything the cheapest possible way.
Other than that the 763s have their heavy maintenance done at much closer-to-home MIA, or TLV. I've seen AC sell seats on the extra sections (so 2 YYZTLV flights some days) - that can only be done if AC knows well in advance when the aircraft are going in/out of heavy. Likely the crew operates in on the extra section to go into heavy, and operates the plane which just finished heavy in TLV back the next day.
They probably use some expensive software to schedule everything the cheapest possible way.
Nov 25, 2014, 9:09 pm
#41
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Never home.
Posts: 2,971
I'm not sure what else is involved but they are probably doing a check of some sort simultaneously... plus equipping with winglets adds roughly 3 weeks of time unless they've figured a way to speed things up in the last few years.
Nov 25, 2014, 9:17 pm
#42
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Honesty belongs on the campus. Or in a church. Or in a boardroom. Though it is evidently in short supply in at least one boardroom, if this board is any indicator.
That's not to suggest that there is no ideology in boardrooms. One need only look at the statements coming out of the AC boardroom or Canadian telcos to see the manner in which ideology has run amok in them. Canada is, apparently, a special country. So special, that it requires the adoption of all kinds of outdated economic policies to keep Canada going. The type of policies that other countries abandoned a while ago. The ideology of Canadian exceptionalism, if you will.
But then again, one could point out that the efforts to engage in obfuscation to cover up for the lack of honesty in a boardroom is, in itself, a manifestation of an ideology.
Nov 25, 2014, 9:17 pm
#43
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E50K (*G) WS Gold | SPG/Fairmont Plat Hilton/Hyatt Diamond Marriott Silver | National Exec Elite
Posts: 19,284
Thanks for that. If winglets save 8% or so in fuel economy (as per the WS article many years ago), why didn't they just deliver the 767s with winglets originally? I assume this is from a time perspective as that tech wasn't available when the 67's were first delivered?
Nov 25, 2014, 10:10 pm
#44
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Never home.
Posts: 2,971
Thanks for that. If winglets save 8% or so in fuel economy (as per the WS article many years ago), why didn't they just deliver the 767s with winglets originally? I assume this is from a time perspective as that tech wasn't available when the 67's were first delivered?
Nov 25, 2014, 10:16 pm
#45
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E50K (*G) WS Gold | SPG/Fairmont Plat Hilton/Hyatt Diamond Marriott Silver | National Exec Elite
Posts: 19,284
