How would you operate AN-III?
Oct 8, 2001, 10:19 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Programs: QF Platinum One (LTG), UA Plat IHG Plat
Posts: 5,836
How would you operate AN-III?
Seeing the reports of SQ's idea to launch 320's with a 2x3 seating arrangement - which is an interesting, but I believe futile, idea - got me to thinking about how an AN Mk III might be set up service wise to carve a market niche and differentiate itself from DJ and QF.
In the SQ 2x3 model, the idea being that if the aircraft with 144 seats would never (or rarely) make a 100% LF then cut out 1 seat per row to give you a 2x3 layout which would, in theory, create a product differentiation from QF and DJ's 3x3 narrowbody fleet. A former 80% LF would also now be a 100% LF, and yields may well rise by pax chosing the AN service over QF/DJ price.
I don't think this would work too well because the real benefit means either wider seats, or only one half of the aircraft gets the option of no middle seat. So by the time you get the aircraft to say a 66% LF (I admit I have not done any sums on this) you'll start getting pax in middles anyway on the 3 side, and it won't be any different to flying QF.
Here's my take. If you take a few rows of seats out, a la AA and create a "More ROom" cabin, with say 36" pitch for all rows, you'd end up with about the same number of seats as the 2x3 seating arrangement, and everyone gets extra legroom. This gives a tangible product advantage over QF and DJ Coupled with the 320's wider cabin and seats, this would make a pretty nice cabin I think.
Next, don't charge for coffee/drinks/food like DJ, but provide very limited catering. eg: water, tea, coffee (a la Impulse) and perhaps adopt a "US style" service of offering nuts or pretzels, or even perhaps a pre-board grab "bistro bag" with piece of fruit, cuplet of water and a mars bar or something. Those who want it can get it, those who don't, don't. You don't have to cater galleys with food for each flight so this is a reduced expense. If you stock a limited selection of beverages: water, OJ, tea+coffee say you can meet most pax requirements for a flight. Have some mini bottles of booze on board for those willing to pay.
You'd end up with an attractive cabin layout with comfy pitch, and not wondering what kind of meal service you'd get, and you may still get that fabled Banana on BNE-SYD http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
Of course the big issue is staff costs, and that doesn't address any of this. I think any new AN needs to run with one fleet - eg: All A320 (for argument's sake). If AN International was to be rekindled, they could grab ex-SQ A340's and use CCQ for pilots. This of course assumes some kind of SQ involvement. If you wanted to go Boeing, then run all 737's around the country and 763 or 777 international. However I feel 737's are too small for trunk flying.
If you stay to a standard fleet type (eg: 320) you cut down costs in spares, maintenance, training, simulators, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Anyway, I am now rambling. Interested in ideas from out there on either how you would run an AN-III, or what would sway you to fly an AN-III over say QF or DJ if prices were fairly even....
------------------
RichardMEL, UA 1K
A Star Alliance Member.
In the SQ 2x3 model, the idea being that if the aircraft with 144 seats would never (or rarely) make a 100% LF then cut out 1 seat per row to give you a 2x3 layout which would, in theory, create a product differentiation from QF and DJ's 3x3 narrowbody fleet. A former 80% LF would also now be a 100% LF, and yields may well rise by pax chosing the AN service over QF/DJ price.
I don't think this would work too well because the real benefit means either wider seats, or only one half of the aircraft gets the option of no middle seat. So by the time you get the aircraft to say a 66% LF (I admit I have not done any sums on this) you'll start getting pax in middles anyway on the 3 side, and it won't be any different to flying QF.
Here's my take. If you take a few rows of seats out, a la AA and create a "More ROom" cabin, with say 36" pitch for all rows, you'd end up with about the same number of seats as the 2x3 seating arrangement, and everyone gets extra legroom. This gives a tangible product advantage over QF and DJ Coupled with the 320's wider cabin and seats, this would make a pretty nice cabin I think.
Next, don't charge for coffee/drinks/food like DJ, but provide very limited catering. eg: water, tea, coffee (a la Impulse) and perhaps adopt a "US style" service of offering nuts or pretzels, or even perhaps a pre-board grab "bistro bag" with piece of fruit, cuplet of water and a mars bar or something. Those who want it can get it, those who don't, don't. You don't have to cater galleys with food for each flight so this is a reduced expense. If you stock a limited selection of beverages: water, OJ, tea+coffee say you can meet most pax requirements for a flight. Have some mini bottles of booze on board for those willing to pay.
You'd end up with an attractive cabin layout with comfy pitch, and not wondering what kind of meal service you'd get, and you may still get that fabled Banana on BNE-SYD http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
Of course the big issue is staff costs, and that doesn't address any of this. I think any new AN needs to run with one fleet - eg: All A320 (for argument's sake). If AN International was to be rekindled, they could grab ex-SQ A340's and use CCQ for pilots. This of course assumes some kind of SQ involvement. If you wanted to go Boeing, then run all 737's around the country and 763 or 777 international. However I feel 737's are too small for trunk flying.
If you stay to a standard fleet type (eg: 320) you cut down costs in spares, maintenance, training, simulators, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Anyway, I am now rambling. Interested in ideas from out there on either how you would run an AN-III, or what would sway you to fly an AN-III over say QF or DJ if prices were fairly even....
------------------
RichardMEL, UA 1K
A Star Alliance Member.
Oct 9, 2001, 1:50 am
#2
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Edinburgh
Programs: Still a lowly Blue with BA but inching towards Bronze. Managed to get to KLM Silver!
Posts: 4,308
RichardMel
Correct me if I'm wrong but did Ansett not have some A320's equiped with the "moveable" seat as used by BA, LH, BD etc? By moveable I mean that the ABC side are squashed to give 2, with a narrow gap between and the DEF side are streched to give more elbow room. Perhaps this is the idea that SQ have.
Correct me if I'm wrong but did Ansett not have some A320's equiped with the "moveable" seat as used by BA, LH, BD etc? By moveable I mean that the ABC side are squashed to give 2, with a narrow gap between and the DEF side are streched to give more elbow room. Perhaps this is the idea that SQ have.
Oct 9, 2001, 2:33 am
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Programs: QF Platinum One (LTG), UA Plat IHG Plat
Posts: 5,836
Yes, some of the AN 320's (and other types) have the convert-a-Y seat used to convert Y rows to J rows so that AN could vary the size of the J cabin according to demand for a flight. I think it only went as far as the first 6(?) rows of each 320 (but could be wrong).
------------------
RichardMEL, UA 1K
A Star Alliance Member.
------------------
RichardMEL, UA 1K
A Star Alliance Member.
Oct 9, 2001, 4:20 am
#4
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 657
Gaza,
Ansett did not have those types of convertible seats as you mentioned.
Their convertible seats converted from 3-3 to 2-2, and this involved placing a divider in the centre of where seat B and F would be in a 3-3 layout.
You cannot physically widen or narrow the seats, however you can change what's in the middle.
Please no 2-3 rubbish, European Business Class is a farce. I totally concur with Richard that a more legroom approach is better. People notice legroom, seat width is less significant, especially more so with the convertible seats, where whatever increase in width is really insignificant.
Richard, as for your catering suggestion, I have suggested something along those lines to AN - first starting wiwth coffee & tea (please don't charge for it, it is so painfully slow on DJ to get change). I suggested muffins and biscuits. PER flights apparently have fruit and sandwiches. On some AN and KD flights, flight crew have been known to bring food for their passengers - that's commitment.
CCQ I don't think will ever be able to effectively implemented in Australia because of the unions. In fact, I can't think of any carrier which has been able to use CCQ in daily ops between the A32x and A330/340 - certainly CX uses the 330/340 for CCQ.
Some good ideas there.
Cheers,
Justin
Ansett did not have those types of convertible seats as you mentioned.
Their convertible seats converted from 3-3 to 2-2, and this involved placing a divider in the centre of where seat B and F would be in a 3-3 layout.
You cannot physically widen or narrow the seats, however you can change what's in the middle.
Please no 2-3 rubbish, European Business Class is a farce. I totally concur with Richard that a more legroom approach is better. People notice legroom, seat width is less significant, especially more so with the convertible seats, where whatever increase in width is really insignificant.
Richard, as for your catering suggestion, I have suggested something along those lines to AN - first starting wiwth coffee & tea (please don't charge for it, it is so painfully slow on DJ to get change). I suggested muffins and biscuits. PER flights apparently have fruit and sandwiches. On some AN and KD flights, flight crew have been known to bring food for their passengers - that's commitment.
CCQ I don't think will ever be able to effectively implemented in Australia because of the unions. In fact, I can't think of any carrier which has been able to use CCQ in daily ops between the A32x and A330/340 - certainly CX uses the 330/340 for CCQ.
Some good ideas there.
Cheers,
Justin
Oct 9, 2001, 4:24 am
#5
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 6
As far as ccq is concerned I dont think the pilots union would object at all.
Swissair use (or at least did) ccq with 19/20/21/30 and I think LH do as well.
I personally would not enjoy flying both but I could be convinced.
Swissair use (or at least did) ccq with 19/20/21/30 and I think LH do as well.
I personally would not enjoy flying both but I could be convinced.
Oct 9, 2001, 5:40 am
#6
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 657
AN Pilot,
Interesting, I was told that it would be hard to implement because of pilot concerns over remuneration for flying the different types.
As far as I know, LH pilots fly their allocated type (the only CCQ is between the A32x and the A340), however I'm not sure about SR - you're probably right on this one.
Cheers,
Justin
Interesting, I was told that it would be hard to implement because of pilot concerns over remuneration for flying the different types.
As far as I know, LH pilots fly their allocated type (the only CCQ is between the A32x and the A340), however I'm not sure about SR - you're probably right on this one.
Cheers,
Justin
Oct 9, 2001, 5:53 am
#7
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 6
Skystar,
I think the issue of $$$ is minor, one that could be overcome.
I suspect CASA may be a stumbling block from a safety issue.
Unfortunately its all a wasted argument for AN now, but maybe QF will have to cross this bridge. Standby for an announcment (about DEC)............
I think the issue of $$$ is minor, one that could be overcome.
I suspect CASA may be a stumbling block from a safety issue.
Unfortunately its all a wasted argument for AN now, but maybe QF will have to cross this bridge. Standby for an announcment (about DEC)............
Oct 9, 2001, 6:31 am
#8
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 371
I think that an AN Shuttle idea like Richard's would be a good idea. Have A320's and A321's, maybe A319's. or maybe just A320's and A321's. 36" seat pitch would be good; bistro-bag may well work and would definitely save money.
AN's economy seats are far better than the DJ and QF ones, add some extra pitch and it may win more favour with the Australian public.
As for food, well, tea and coffee for a start. Maybe if Coca-Cola Amatil signed a contract for corporate travel with AN, then they could serve Coke. Muffins, I like that idea, sandwiches, also a good idea.
As for route structure, well, the Eastern triangle for a start. Other routes would include CNS, ADL, PER and OOL. DRW if a bit iffy I think.
Maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves here, but it's nice to think about service improvements http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
Regards,
Clement
AN's economy seats are far better than the DJ and QF ones, add some extra pitch and it may win more favour with the Australian public.
As for food, well, tea and coffee for a start. Maybe if Coca-Cola Amatil signed a contract for corporate travel with AN, then they could serve Coke. Muffins, I like that idea, sandwiches, also a good idea.
As for route structure, well, the Eastern triangle for a start. Other routes would include CNS, ADL, PER and OOL. DRW if a bit iffy I think.
Maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves here, but it's nice to think about service improvements http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
Regards,
Clement
Oct 9, 2001, 7:20 am
#9
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 42
Rows 1 & 2 when converted actually did give you more room, albeit 25% of an extra seat. The divider between takes up half of the seat on either side, therefore giving you extra room. Not that this is any use to us now.
Richard, you make a lot of sense, the airline industry in this country has been the best for years, but at our expense. We ultimately will get to the standards of the US, which really isn't that bad when you think of it. My God, a hot dinner on a 1 hr flight, we must be the only country that provides that. No wonder DJ knew they were on to a winner. I have to admit, we were good, likewise with QF, but in reality this industry is a business that has to remain profitable, and like every other business they are going to cut costs when necessary. Say good bye to the joy of air travel. It's not going to be the same again.
I guess I'm feeling a bit hurt about everything but I think I'm right. Catching a plane right now is just like catching a bus or train, and unless something happens soon (which I doubt), thats the way it's going to stay.
Keep up the support for Ansett, and get those petitions in for AN International. We need you!!!!!!!!
Still feeling betrayed....AN@SYD
[This message has been edited by AN@SYD (edited 10-09-2001).]
Richard, you make a lot of sense, the airline industry in this country has been the best for years, but at our expense. We ultimately will get to the standards of the US, which really isn't that bad when you think of it. My God, a hot dinner on a 1 hr flight, we must be the only country that provides that. No wonder DJ knew they were on to a winner. I have to admit, we were good, likewise with QF, but in reality this industry is a business that has to remain profitable, and like every other business they are going to cut costs when necessary. Say good bye to the joy of air travel. It's not going to be the same again.
I guess I'm feeling a bit hurt about everything but I think I'm right. Catching a plane right now is just like catching a bus or train, and unless something happens soon (which I doubt), thats the way it's going to stay.
Keep up the support for Ansett, and get those petitions in for AN International. We need you!!!!!!!!
Still feeling betrayed....AN@SYD
[This message has been edited by AN@SYD (edited 10-09-2001).]
Oct 10, 2001, 12:09 am
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Programs: QF Platinum One (LTG), UA Plat IHG Plat
Posts: 5,836
Thanks everyone for your support of my ideas http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif I'd write a letter to 501 Swanston St but know there's noone there who could even be interested. d'oh.
Re: CCQ - I'm pretty sure I recall an article in Airways or some other mag like that suggesting that OS was a carrier that used CCQ between short and longhaul ops - pilots aparently liked being able to make up their hours with a mixture of a few long haul ops with a few "home at night" trips - to vary the routine from either all short haul or all long haul.
If I have time I'll go back through the back issues and see if I can find it. It could well have been LH come to think of it.
Re: route structure. The triangle is a given, and CBR would need to stay or else all is doomed. ADL/PER would be nice, and I think we've seen how popular PER-east coast is by all those full flights - considering that the other main option (train) is a trip of days rather than hours (ie: MEL-SYD which you could do via bus or train in a day - abeit a long day).
And it's true AN/QF domestic service standards have always been way ahead of the pack. I think only a few smaller euro carriers (eg: VO) served meals on short hops that came close to the meal service provided on a typical MEL-SYD run. Having said that I only got 2 small muffins on QF MEL-SYD the other day and that was fine (as far as it went). I think for the short hauls you really have the time to eat at the airport or before or after your flight - you're only on the plane for an hour or two. It's the longer hauls (say >2.5 hours flight time) that the airline should consider decent catering levels I'd think.
In the US it's hit and miss. I mean you can get a hot meal(I have had..) in Y on a SFO-DEN trip (~2 hours) while peanuts on a DEN-ORD flight(around the same flight time). Go figure.
------------------
RichardMEL, UA 1K
A Star Alliance Member.
Re: CCQ - I'm pretty sure I recall an article in Airways or some other mag like that suggesting that OS was a carrier that used CCQ between short and longhaul ops - pilots aparently liked being able to make up their hours with a mixture of a few long haul ops with a few "home at night" trips - to vary the routine from either all short haul or all long haul.
If I have time I'll go back through the back issues and see if I can find it. It could well have been LH come to think of it.
Re: route structure. The triangle is a given, and CBR would need to stay or else all is doomed. ADL/PER would be nice, and I think we've seen how popular PER-east coast is by all those full flights - considering that the other main option (train) is a trip of days rather than hours (ie: MEL-SYD which you could do via bus or train in a day - abeit a long day).
And it's true AN/QF domestic service standards have always been way ahead of the pack. I think only a few smaller euro carriers (eg: VO) served meals on short hops that came close to the meal service provided on a typical MEL-SYD run. Having said that I only got 2 small muffins on QF MEL-SYD the other day and that was fine (as far as it went). I think for the short hauls you really have the time to eat at the airport or before or after your flight - you're only on the plane for an hour or two. It's the longer hauls (say >2.5 hours flight time) that the airline should consider decent catering levels I'd think.
In the US it's hit and miss. I mean you can get a hot meal(I have had..) in Y on a SFO-DEN trip (~2 hours) while peanuts on a DEN-ORD flight(around the same flight time). Go figure.
------------------
RichardMEL, UA 1K
A Star Alliance Member.
Oct 10, 2001, 3:13 am
#11
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SYD
Programs: OZ*G, VA Plat, NZ*G (Elite), QF Gold and PC+, Hyatt Explorist, HH Gold, Bonvoyed ("Gold")
Posts: 5,350
The food on Qantas domestic now is a joke - the nasty food boxes on SYD-MEL are, I reckon, considerably worse than I've had on UA on similar US domestic routes lately... although in their post-Sept 11 costcutting frenzy they have put a stop to that (only food on 1000-mile plus flights or something like that).
There is somewhere where you get a hot meal in Y on a 45 minute flight... New Zealand! Though I guess that proves your point, since it's somewhere with minimal domestic competition. Interestingly, QF in NZ seems to be taking a more no-frills, cheaper market position while leaving AirNZ to the trad full-service option... I haven't heard how well they are doing there though, since their reputation took a battering after allowing Qantas NZ to collapse.
It will be really interesting to see what sort of service level ANIII ends up going for. (Re the subjet of this thread: my vote is for the increased seat pitch option - the extra width of the Airbus already makes them noticeably more comfortable - add a bit of extra seat pitch and that might even create that legendary condition of a comfortable Y-class domestic seat! I'd certainly fly them! Mind you, I'd fly them anyway...)
There is somewhere where you get a hot meal in Y on a 45 minute flight... New Zealand! Though I guess that proves your point, since it's somewhere with minimal domestic competition. Interestingly, QF in NZ seems to be taking a more no-frills, cheaper market position while leaving AirNZ to the trad full-service option... I haven't heard how well they are doing there though, since their reputation took a battering after allowing Qantas NZ to collapse.
It will be really interesting to see what sort of service level ANIII ends up going for. (Re the subjet of this thread: my vote is for the increased seat pitch option - the extra width of the Airbus already makes them noticeably more comfortable - add a bit of extra seat pitch and that might even create that legendary condition of a comfortable Y-class domestic seat! I'd certainly fly them! Mind you, I'd fly them anyway...)
Oct 10, 2001, 12:17 pm
#12
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Philippines
Programs: CebGo 5J, Hilton Diamond, IHG Platinum, Alaska 100K
Posts: 4,696
How about regional jet service? Certainly the introduction of Canadair RJs have shaken up the North American market. Air Canada has been succesful with the CRJs and baby airbus's (A318, A319s) in North America.
It would seem that what Australia needs is a low cost aircraft that can break even at 50-55% capacity.
Dave.
It would seem that what Australia needs is a low cost aircraft that can break even at 50-55% capacity.
Dave.
Oct 10, 2001, 11:35 pm
#14
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 657
davistev,
Ansett had Kendell operate CRJ services on its behalf, and they were described as an absolute disaster.
In most situations, RJs have been introduced to replace turboprop aircraft, however in Ansett's situation, they had been introduced to replace mainline jet aircraft, and its lack of Business Class was certainly a problem with ex CBR routes, where politicians require Business Class.
It's interesting about how domestic service is in NZ. Prior to Ansett New Zealand, domestic terminals were like tin sheds and aerobridges were unheard of for domestic flying.
Cheers,
Justin
Ansett had Kendell operate CRJ services on its behalf, and they were described as an absolute disaster.
In most situations, RJs have been introduced to replace turboprop aircraft, however in Ansett's situation, they had been introduced to replace mainline jet aircraft, and its lack of Business Class was certainly a problem with ex CBR routes, where politicians require Business Class.
It's interesting about how domestic service is in NZ. Prior to Ansett New Zealand, domestic terminals were like tin sheds and aerobridges were unheard of for domestic flying.
Cheers,
Justin
Oct 10, 2001, 11:36 pm
#15
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Programs: QF Platinum One (LTG), UA Plat IHG Plat
Posts: 5,836
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by davistev:
How about regional jet service? Certainly the introduction of Canadair RJs have shaken up the North American market. Air Canada has been succesful with the CRJs and baby airbus's (A318, A319s) in North America.
It would seem that what Australia needs is a low cost aircraft that can break even at 50-55% capacity.
Dave.</font>
How about regional jet service? Certainly the introduction of Canadair RJs have shaken up the North American market. Air Canada has been succesful with the CRJs and baby airbus's (A318, A319s) in North America.
It would seem that what Australia needs is a low cost aircraft that can break even at 50-55% capacity.
Dave.</font>
minor nitpick - there are no A318's in service yet.
VQ claimed the 717 did pretty well profit wise, but it wouldn't have the legs to do much more than MEL-BNE.
And while I'm flattered at the suggestion to email the administrator directly, I'm just a wannabe. I'm not going to waste their time with my fantasies http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
------------------
RichardMEL, UA 1K
A Star Alliance Member.