AF returns to JKT
Oct 12, 2013, 3:22 am
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,531
AF has periodically added tag ons to its BKK flight then dropped them as they were not that successful.
The announced SIN-CGK is not even loaded in the system yet. I assume that AF will have fifth-freedom rights on SIN-CGK, although that is not going to bring a large number of pax.
The problem that AF (and other European airlines) are facing is that the CDG flight arrives in SIN in the afternoon and can only return late evening for the opening of CDG airport the next morning. So the plane is idle for a few hours. Tagging a short flight to CGK (90 min) allows fuller utilization of the plane. Furthermore, AF 77W has a tough time competing with SQ A380 to SIN and the QF codesharing is gone so fewer pax continuing to OZ.
The hope is that the load from CDG will improve a bit with pax doing CDG-CGK and that there will be a sufficient number of pax to cover the extra cost of the tag on. The risk for SIN pax to CDG is that delays can occur on the SIN-CGK-SIN route and that flights out of SIN might run late, while the current schedule (5 hours rest for the ac) insured an excellent reliability.
As long as there is no nonstop competition to CGK, the strategy might work. But there is limited PtP traffic between CDG and CGK and even LH, facing the same situation, dropped its tag on. And if you want to fly to DPS, there many 1-stop alternatives compared to this new 2-stop solution involving changing airline in CGK. It will be cheaper and safer (IRROPS) to use any of the Asian airlines flying CDG-XX-DPS.
The announced SIN-CGK is not even loaded in the system yet. I assume that AF will have fifth-freedom rights on SIN-CGK, although that is not going to bring a large number of pax.
The problem that AF (and other European airlines) are facing is that the CDG flight arrives in SIN in the afternoon and can only return late evening for the opening of CDG airport the next morning. So the plane is idle for a few hours. Tagging a short flight to CGK (90 min) allows fuller utilization of the plane. Furthermore, AF 77W has a tough time competing with SQ A380 to SIN and the QF codesharing is gone so fewer pax continuing to OZ.
The hope is that the load from CDG will improve a bit with pax doing CDG-CGK and that there will be a sufficient number of pax to cover the extra cost of the tag on. The risk for SIN pax to CDG is that delays can occur on the SIN-CGK-SIN route and that flights out of SIN might run late, while the current schedule (5 hours rest for the ac) insured an excellent reliability.
As long as there is no nonstop competition to CGK, the strategy might work. But there is limited PtP traffic between CDG and CGK and even LH, facing the same situation, dropped its tag on. And if you want to fly to DPS, there many 1-stop alternatives compared to this new 2-stop solution involving changing airline in CGK. It will be cheaper and safer (IRROPS) to use any of the Asian airlines flying CDG-XX-DPS.
You have two ways of doing this.
- The first is to have a dedicated crew based in SIN. This would be cheaper as it would be hired under Singapore laws which would probably be far less costly for AF. However, (1) the crew would be underworked (it would only work two short segments in one day where normal short/medium haul would typically work 4-5), (2) you need to over recruit (they still need holidays, can be ill etc), and (3) unions are going to kick and scream about it.
Of course, in a less silly world, AF and KL who are effectively the same airline would recruit common crews in SIN to work on both AF's SIN-CGK and KL's SIN-DPS. The flights are similarly timed but do not need to be on the same day, especially if we assume DPS to be a more touristy destination (day 6 flights key, flexibility otherwise) and CGK a more business oriented destination (days 1 and 5 crucial).
- The first is to use the long haul crew to do this but this is complex and costly - it would mean something like:
* Day 1: crews A and B (CDG-SIN)
* Day 2: crews A and B rest [crews C and D arrive on the new CDG-SIN]
* Day 3: crew A flies SIN-CGK-SIN, crew B rests
* Day 4: crew A rests, crew B flies SIN-CDG with crew C
* Day 5: crew A flies SIN-CDG with crew D
or something similar. Long haul flight attendants tend to be more senior, there are more CC and highly paid CCP so that second solution automatically places the bar quite high for profitability.
Altogether, I agree with you - CGK is an important destination and as San Gottardo says, the biggest surprise is not to see AF open it but LH close it although synergies with SQ probably explain much of the decision. Still, the airline's work is cut for it if it is to make this a financially viable operation and it is by no means a guaranteed success. On the whole, as always, AF is probably less-well placed than many others to do well on the route because of its high costs, relatively low presence at SIN compared to several key competitors, and lower product quality compared to all local players... arguably including Asian low-cost operators such as Silk Air! It will probably sell fifth freedom flights at rock bottom prices and will still find it hard to sell them so in essence, the demands and pricings on Europe-CGK or CGK-Europe will determine almost on their own whether the route is viable or not, especially as it will naturally impact the straightforward offer to/from SIN at peak times.
Oct 12, 2013, 5:30 am
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hong Kong, France
Programs: FB , BA Gold
Posts: 15,557
I think you summarise the situation very well - but I will just add a crucial point about the cost of this new additional segment: it means either new additional crews based in SIN or far more money spent on extra rest days and accommodations for crews. In essence, the CDG-SIN flight is so long (12h+) that you cannot use either of the two sets of crew on the long haul flight all the way to CGK. You thus need to start the trip with a new crew which will work the SIN-CGK-SIN segments before being replaced by another crew (or rather two sets of crew) for the SIN-CDG.
You have two ways of doing this.
- The first is to have a dedicated crew based in SIN. This would be cheaper as it would be hired under Singapore laws which would probably be far less costly for AF. However, (1) the crew would be underworked (it would only work two short segments in one day where normal short/medium haul would typically work 4-5), (2) you need to over recruit (they still need holidays, can be ill etc), and (3) unions are going to kick and scream about it.
Of course, in a less silly world, AF and KL who are effectively the same airline would recruit common crews in SIN to work on both AF's SIN-CGK and KL's SIN-DPS. The flights are similarly timed but do not need to be on the same day, especially if we assume DPS to be a more touristy destination (day 6 flights key, flexibility otherwise) and CGK a more business oriented destination (days 1 and 5 crucial).
- The first is to use the long haul crew to do this but this is complex and costly - it would mean something like:
* Day 1: crews A and B (CDG-SIN)
* Day 2: crews A and B rest [crews C and D arrive on the new CDG-SIN]
* Day 3: crew A flies SIN-CGK-SIN, crew B rests
* Day 4: crew A rests, crew B flies SIN-CDG with crew C
* Day 5: crew A flies SIN-CDG with crew D
or something similar. Long haul flight attendants tend to be more senior, there are more CC and highly paid CCP so that second solution automatically places the bar quite high for profitability.
Altogether, I agree with you - CGK is an important destination and as San Gottardo says, the biggest surprise is not to see AF open it but LH close it although synergies with SQ probably explain much of the decision. Still, the airline's work is cut for it if it is to make this a financially viable operation and it is by no means a guaranteed success. On the whole, as always, AF is probably less-well placed than many others to do well on the route because of its high costs, relatively low presence at SIN compared to several key competitors, and lower product quality compared to all local players... arguably including Asian low-cost operators such as Silk Air! It will probably sell fifth freedom flights at rock bottom prices and will still find it hard to sell them so in essence, the demands and pricings on Europe-CGK or CGK-Europe will determine almost on their own whether the route is viable or not, especially as it will naturally impact the straightforward offer to/from SIN at peak times.
You have two ways of doing this.
- The first is to have a dedicated crew based in SIN. This would be cheaper as it would be hired under Singapore laws which would probably be far less costly for AF. However, (1) the crew would be underworked (it would only work two short segments in one day where normal short/medium haul would typically work 4-5), (2) you need to over recruit (they still need holidays, can be ill etc), and (3) unions are going to kick and scream about it.
Of course, in a less silly world, AF and KL who are effectively the same airline would recruit common crews in SIN to work on both AF's SIN-CGK and KL's SIN-DPS. The flights are similarly timed but do not need to be on the same day, especially if we assume DPS to be a more touristy destination (day 6 flights key, flexibility otherwise) and CGK a more business oriented destination (days 1 and 5 crucial).
- The first is to use the long haul crew to do this but this is complex and costly - it would mean something like:
* Day 1: crews A and B (CDG-SIN)
* Day 2: crews A and B rest [crews C and D arrive on the new CDG-SIN]
* Day 3: crew A flies SIN-CGK-SIN, crew B rests
* Day 4: crew A rests, crew B flies SIN-CDG with crew C
* Day 5: crew A flies SIN-CDG with crew D
or something similar. Long haul flight attendants tend to be more senior, there are more CC and highly paid CCP so that second solution automatically places the bar quite high for profitability.
Altogether, I agree with you - CGK is an important destination and as San Gottardo says, the biggest surprise is not to see AF open it but LH close it although synergies with SQ probably explain much of the decision. Still, the airline's work is cut for it if it is to make this a financially viable operation and it is by no means a guaranteed success. On the whole, as always, AF is probably less-well placed than many others to do well on the route because of its high costs, relatively low presence at SIN compared to several key competitors, and lower product quality compared to all local players... arguably including Asian low-cost operators such as Silk Air! It will probably sell fifth freedom flights at rock bottom prices and will still find it hard to sell them so in essence, the demands and pricings on Europe-CGK or CGK-Europe will determine almost on their own whether the route is viable or not, especially as it will naturally impact the straightforward offer to/from SIN at peak times.
The only real possibility is to use a "fresh" longhaul crew to do SIN-CGK-SIN. That is what AF used to do when they had tag-ons from BKK. It is impossible to recruit a local crew given the uncertainty on the route and unions.
However, the management is less complex than what you describe in our A-B-C-D example and they will only have one crew on each flight. BTW a crew typically rests a couple of days in SIN, BKK or HKG. Some might stay 2 or 3 days.
Indeed, it seems a bit inefficient to have one crew just working the short flights SIN-CGK-SIN, but that does not mean that they need to fly two crews (one idle) on the CDG-SIN or SIN-CDG. They just need to include one (or two) more crews in their rotations. I am sure that AF contracts makes it complex but the cost is one additional crew per day once the steady state is reached. By cost of crew, I mean both the flying and resting time. I do not wish to bore you with an hypothetical example, but we could easily construct one assuming that each crew gets only a one-day rest (which is usually not the case). That means that at any point of time, there will be two crews resting at SIN, the one that just arrived from CDG and will operate the SIN-CGK-SIN route the next day, and the one that has just done that and will operate the CDG flight the next day.
Oct 12, 2013, 6:01 am
#18
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: AMS
Programs: KLM Elite for life; LH Senator for life
Posts: 210
Flown recently to CGK from AMS.
Was not at all impressed by the load KUL-CGK (both ways).
I believe it is KLM's strong wish to have a non-stop CGK-AMS service.
Crew on the return trip confirmed this to me and also blamed Apron parking and the related delays to political issues with Garuda regarding this wish.
KLM gate was taken by a Garuda plane for unknown reasons. Furthermore there was a fire issue somewhere near the runway that let small planes take off but not KLM 777-300 as this plane was apperently to big????
The AF tag-on to CGK makes KL's wish of direct flights to AMS even further away (missing load from CDG). Do not understand this AF move from an overall Company point of view.
Was not at all impressed by the load KUL-CGK (both ways).
I believe it is KLM's strong wish to have a non-stop CGK-AMS service.
Crew on the return trip confirmed this to me and also blamed Apron parking and the related delays to political issues with Garuda regarding this wish.
KLM gate was taken by a Garuda plane for unknown reasons. Furthermore there was a fire issue somewhere near the runway that let small planes take off but not KLM 777-300 as this plane was apperently to big????
The AF tag-on to CGK makes KL's wish of direct flights to AMS even further away (missing load from CDG). Do not understand this AF move from an overall Company point of view.
Oct 12, 2013, 7:07 am
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,531
I agree that the tag on makes the crew management a bit more complex but AF and other airlines are used to that.
The only real possibility is to use a "fresh" longhaul crew to do SIN-CGK-SIN. That is what AF used to do when they had tag-ons from BKK. It is impossible to recruit a local crew given the uncertainty on the route and unions.
However, the management is less complex than what you describe in our A-B-C-D example and they will only have one crew on each flight. BTW a crew typically rests a couple of days in SIN, BKK or HKG. Some might stay 2 or 3 days.
Indeed, it seems a bit inefficient to have one crew just working the short flights SIN-CGK-SIN, but that does not mean that they need to fly two crews (one idle) on the CDG-SIN or SIN-CDG. They just need to include one (or two) more crews in their rotations. I am sure that AF contracts makes it complex but the cost is one additional crew per day once the steady state is reached. By cost of crew, I mean both the flying and resting time. I do not wish to bore you with an hypothetical example, but we could easily construct one assuming that each crew gets only a one-day rest (which is usually not the case). That means that at any point of time, there will be two crews resting at SIN, the one that just arrived from CDG and will operate the SIN-CGK-SIN route the next day, and the one that has just done that and will operate the CDG flight the next day.
The only real possibility is to use a "fresh" longhaul crew to do SIN-CGK-SIN. That is what AF used to do when they had tag-ons from BKK. It is impossible to recruit a local crew given the uncertainty on the route and unions.
However, the management is less complex than what you describe in our A-B-C-D example and they will only have one crew on each flight. BTW a crew typically rests a couple of days in SIN, BKK or HKG. Some might stay 2 or 3 days.
Indeed, it seems a bit inefficient to have one crew just working the short flights SIN-CGK-SIN, but that does not mean that they need to fly two crews (one idle) on the CDG-SIN or SIN-CDG. They just need to include one (or two) more crews in their rotations. I am sure that AF contracts makes it complex but the cost is one additional crew per day once the steady state is reached. By cost of crew, I mean both the flying and resting time. I do not wish to bore you with an hypothetical example, but we could easily construct one assuming that each crew gets only a one-day rest (which is usually not the case). That means that at any point of time, there will be two crews resting at SIN, the one that just arrived from CDG and will operate the SIN-CGK-SIN route the next day, and the one that has just done that and will operate the CDG flight the next day.
Also note that while I happily take your word that for AF the only solution is additional Paris-based crew, some other airlines do it differently - at least for a period of time, BA used to have crew based in GRU when they used to fly LHR-GRU-EZE.
Oct 12, 2013, 8:54 am
#20
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: France
Programs: FB Plat for Life, UAMP, BAEC, Accor ALL Platinum, Marriott silver, Hilton, Meliá silver.
Posts: 3,120
Oct 16, 2013, 3:43 am
#21
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: AMS
Programs: KLM Elite for life; LH Senator for life
Posts: 210
Also on the outbound flight the purser told me that he had too better loading when flying the CGK-KUL strech.
According to that purser KLM is still very eager to fly directly CGK-AMS but political obstacles prevent this at the moment. How well this purser is informed I cannot assess.
Sep 25, 2014, 1:25 pm
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Paris, France
Programs: AF/KL Flying Blue Platinum for life/Club2000 Ultimate, Accor ALL Diamond
Posts: 21,927
New code-shares AF/GA from end october
http://airlineroute.net/2014/09/25/afga-codeshare-w14/
AIRFRANCE operated by Garuda Indonesia
Singapore – Denpasar
Singapore – Jakarta
Singapore – Surabaya
Garuda Indonesia operated by AIRFRANCE
Amsterdam – Paris CDG
Singapore – Jakarta
http://airlineroute.net/2014/09/25/afga-codeshare-w14/
AIRFRANCE operated by Garuda Indonesia
Singapore – Denpasar
Singapore – Jakarta
Singapore – Surabaya
Garuda Indonesia operated by AIRFRANCE
Amsterdam – Paris CDG
Singapore – Jakarta
