FUC

30 juin, 2010

L’actu en patate

Classé sous dessin — fuc @ 13:21

L'actu en patate dans dessin 175_woerth.1277116491

Christian Blanc aime les cigares: 12 000 € parti en fumée

Classé sous tract — fuc @ 13:15

Christian Blanc aime les cigares: 12 000 € parti en fumée dans tract christianblanc397

29 juin, 2010

Aérien: le traffic repart!

Classé sous presse — fuc @ 12:49

Aérien: le traffic repart! dans presse iata

Air Travel Rebounded in May – Above Pre-Recession Levels

Geneva – The International Air Transport Association (IATA) announced international scheduled traffic statistics for May which showed an 11.7% increase in passenger traffic and a 34.3% jump in freight demand compared to May 2009.

“Demand rebounded strongly in May following the impact of the European volcanic ash fiasco in April. Passenger traffic is now 1% above pre-recession levels, while the freight market is 6% bigger,” said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s Director General and CEO.

A capacity increase of 4.8% in May lagged behind the strong upturn in passenger demand. This pushed May’s international passenger load factor to 76% (78.7% when adjusted for seasonality).  This is the sixth consecutive month with seasonally adjusted load factors near 79%. Matching capacity to demand will become increasingly challenging in the coming months. Aircraft utilization remains 5% below pre-recession levels for single-aisle aircraft and 8% for longer-range twin-aisle aircraft. The 100 aircraft taken out of storage during May and 93 the new aircraft delivered globally add further capacity pressure.

Similarly, the strong surge in cargo traffic outstripped a capacity increase of 12.3%, pushing load factors to a record high of 55.7% (56.3% when adjusted for seasonality).

International Scheduled Passenger Demand

  • European airlines recorded an 8.3% growth compared to May 2009 however this still puts Europe as the region with the weakest growth. Weak economic growth, questions over financial stability and sharply tightening fiscal policies will likely result in continued slower demand growth than is experienced in other parts of the world.
  • Asia-Pacific carriers recorded a 13.2% increase in demand in May 2010 over the same month in 2009. Asia-Pacific carriers continue to drive the recovery based on robust economic growth, primarily in China.
  • North American carriers saw a 10.9% increase in May over the same month last year. Careful matching of capacity to demand has driven the load factor to 82.4%, the highest among all regions.
  • Latin American carriers recorded the fastest growth in demand at 23.6% in May, supported by the region’s strong economic upturn.
  • Middle Eastern carriers recorded a 17.5% growth in May. The region’s carriers continue to post strong growth with connecting traffic through their hubs, although the pace of growth has dropped from the over 20% increases recorded earlier in the year.
  • African carriers reported a demand increase of 16.9% in May as the region’s carriers benefit from growing economies and more success in maintaining market share. At the same time, the region’s load factor was the weakest at 66.5%.

International Scheduled Freight Demand

  • Air freight growth surged in May to 34.3% (significantly up from the 26.0% recorded in April).
  • Latin American and African carriers recorded the fastest increases at 60.2% and 58.2% respectively.
  • Asia-Pacific airlines, which represent the largest market share (45%) grew by 38.7% compared to the previous May on the strength of resurgent regional manufacturing. North American and Middle East airlines posted a similar growth of 35.3% and 38.6% respectively
  • European carriers showed the weakest growth at 21.9%. It is anticipated that the 15% fall in the value of the Euro will stimulate outbound traffic with cheaper European exports.

Strong traffic growth is contributing to a strengthening industry bottom line. Airlines are expected to post a $2.5 billion profit in 2010 in a dramatic turnaround from the $9.9 billion lost in 2009. “This is good news, but it is only a 0.5% margin. We are still a long way from sustainable profitability,” said Bisignani.

“In the short-term, airlines need to focus our efforts on nurturing the recovery by continuing to match capacity carefully to improving demand conditions.  And everybody must control costs. This includes airports, air navigation service providers, global distribution systems and labor. There are no exceptions,” said Bisignani.

“Two months ago, the Icelandic volcano made it clear that aviation is vital to the global economy. When the volcano went to sleep, politicians developed amnesia to the lessons-learned. Germany proposed a EUR 1 billion departure tax that will dampen demand instead of stimulating growth. The new UK government is talking about a future without domestic aviation and no capacity growth, without any analysis of the devastation that this would bring to the UK’s economy. And the much anticipated accelerated progress on the EUR 5 billion savings of the Single European Sky has been truncated at incremental change. The traveling public and Europe’s struggling economy deserves much better than this short-sighted policy myopia,” said Bisignani.

At its recent Annual General Meeting, IATA announced Vision 2050. This is an initiative to build a common vision among industry stakeholders for a sustainable future for air transport. Announcing the vision, Bisignani pointed to four cornerstones of change: a new and sustainable energy source, a regulatory regime that allows airlines to operate as normal businesses, cost-efficient infrastructure that meets the needs of users, and services that exceed customer expectations

28 juin, 2010

AF délocalisation?!

Classé sous presse — fuc @ 13:15

Et si Air France devenait Air Hollande ?

Le vice-président du développement à Air France Gilles Bordes-Pagès dénonce le poids des taxes et des charges en France qui entraîne « un différentiel de 4 à 6 points de chiffres d’affaires par rapport à une Air France qui serait à Amsterdam ». Soit 865 millions d’euros. Il s’interroge : jusqu’à quand la compagnie pourra le supporter ?

« Combien de temps encore Air France pourra-t-elle supporter un différentiel de 4 à 6 points de chiffre d’affaires par rapport à une Air France qui serait à Amsterdam comme l’a fait par exemple EADS ? Nous ne pourrons pas rester longtemps avec un tel niveau de taxes et de charges, qui mettent hors jeu les compagnies françaises ». Vice-président du développement d’Air France, Gilles Bordes-Pagès a dénoncé, comme le fait systématiquement la direction d’Air France depuis quelque temps, les conséquences du manque de compétitivité de la France sur le transport aérien. Il s’exprimait à French Connect, un forum spécialisé sur les relations entre les compagnies à bas coûts (« low cost ») et les aéroports français qui, cette année, se déroulait à Lourdes.

« Il faut remettre à plat un certain nombre de problèmes : les taxes et charges sociales nous pénalisent à hauteur de 18,5% par rapport aux Pays-Bas. Cela pose un problème de fonds si l’on songe que les salaires représentent 34% des coûts d’Air France ». Selon une étude financée par la compagnie, Air France économiserait 865 millions d’euros (700 millions de charges et 165 millions de taxes sociales et parafiscales) si elle troquait sa nationalité française pour baser son siège social à Amsterdam.

Décision impossible

Une hypothèse qu’aucune direction ne prendra afin d’éviter les foudres des politiques et de l’opinion. Quoi qu’il en soit, la compagnie, en grandes difficultés financières, a décidé de mettre sur la table la question de la compétitivité de la France par rapport à d’autres pays européens mais aussi du Golfe. Il y a une dizaine de jours, lors de l’assemblée générale de la Fédération nationale de l’aviation marchande (Fnam), le directeur général d’Air France-KLM Pierre-Henri Gourgeon avait également tiré la sonnette d’alarme.

Les problèmes de compétitivité de la France sont « un sujet de débat. il faudra le traiter, sinon, le futur sera difficile ». Le 2 juin, il avait également alerté les députés lors d’une audition à l’assemblée nationale. L’an dernier Jean-Cyril Spinetta avait également attiré l’attention sur ce dossier.

La déclaration de Gilles Bordes-Pagès constituait le dernier point de son argumentation sur les solutions qui pourraient permettre de maintenir, malgré les low-cost, un réseau moyen-courrier vital pour tout transporteur comme Air France dont le modèle de correspondances (hub) est basé par une alimentation des vols long-courriers par des vols moyen-courriers. Si ce dernier tombe, c’est tout le modèle qui s’écroule. « L’économie du modèle des compagnies organiséees en hub (« legacy carriers » dans le jargon, Ndlr) est menacé. Il faut donc trouver une solution qui ne passerait pas nécessairement par une alliance avec une « low cost »", a-t-il dit en réponse à une question sur la possibilité d’une alliance avec une compagnie à bas coûts.

Solutions espagnole

Pour lui, la solution peut passer par « le modèle que veut mettre en place Iberia » (création d’une nouvelle filiale moyen-courrier conçue pour alimenter à bas coûts les long-courriers) ou par « un travail avec les filiales actuelles dont les coûts sont plus bas » et « par une profonde réduction des coûts de la compagnie pour réduire l’écart avec les « low cost »".

Pour une fois, Gilles Bordes-Pagès s’est trouvé un point commun avec les « low cost ». Celles-ci n’ont cessé lors de ce forum de pointer du doigt le poids des taxes en France qui explique la plus faible pénétration des « low cost » en France qu’ailleurs.

Fucnews

Classé sous texte — fuc @ 13:04

page000145.jpgpage000224.jpgpage00035.jpg

Duel de couts: network airlines/lowcost carriers

Classé sous presse — fuc @ 9:35

Cost Structure – Irreconcilable Differences?

Charles Tyler compares the cost structures of network airlines and low-cost carriers. They may not be as different as they once were

Once, low-cost carriers (LCCs) looked set to become the dominant force in aviation. Many still believe that to be true. But the response of legacy airlines is no longer as muted as it was—and LCCs are not as low cost as they were.

The business model of LCCs—typically using a new-generation single aircraft type on point-to-point routes—has allowed them to achieve short turnaround times, fuel efficiency and high aircraft utilization. Being start-ups, they have also managed to avoid the labor regulations and unionization that have affected bigger airlines.

Research shows that the cost gap between LCCs and network carriers in 2004 ranged from 36% per available seat kilometer (ASK) in the US market to as much as 70% in parts of Asia and Latin America.
But the figures don’t tell the whole story. Costs are only part of the equation. Keeping them low is always beneficial, but higher costs can also be a precursor to higher yields. For example, network carriers generate significantly higher yields from their investment in business and first class services.

“It is like comparing apples with pears,” says Brian Pearce, IATA’s Chief Economist. “The business models are different and we are always going to see a cost gap between LCCs and network carriers.”
Even so, it is clear that the gap is closing. Take IATA’s Simplifying the Business (StB) program, which has been so succesful in making the network carrier’s business model more competitive. StB will eventually take out some $16.8 billiom in costs on an annual basis.

Pearce notes that StB has even been effective in reducing the number of staff required for the passenger relationship on the ground, but says network airlines still tend to have more back office and head office staff than LCCs. “There is a lot more paperwork that can be cut from the system,” says Pearce. “We are continuing to work with airlines to improve efficiency in areas that can yield further cost cuts.”

Alan Joyce, CEO at Qantas, says that is exactly what his airline has been tackling. “During the past 18 months, our management headcount has been reduced by 20%. We are also working to improve the efficiency of the way in which we work with our suppliers. We have some 30,000 suppliers, and we want to streamline this. We want to use our purchasing power more efficiently, while also reducing administration costs.”

The LCCS grow up

Network airlines’ costs are coming down, while the costs of LCCs are rising. “As LCCs mature they tend to lose their cost competitiveness,” says Fred Lazar, a professor at the Schulich School of Business, York University in Toronto, Canada. “New entrants always have an advantage but this is eliminated over time.”
That is certainly the case in the mature North American markets. There, the labor and fuel costs per ASK are now comparable between LCCs and the network carriers, although productivity per employee tends to be higher at LCCs.

But perhaps the bigger concern for LCCs is fuel price, which represents a greater proportion of their overall costs compared with network carriers. During the fuel price spike in 2008, when crude oil rose to more than $140 a barrel, it was LCCs that really felt the pinch. Meanwhile, in 2009, IATA Green Teams helped airlines achieve fuel savings averaging 3% of their annual fuel budget.

And with yields turning the corner and business confidence returning, the role of full-service network carriers is being reinforced. “The advantage of the legacy carriers is their networks,” points out Lazar. “With their hub-and-spoke route structures and global alliances, they can provide connectivity to almost anywhere in the world. LCCs, thus far, only really offer point-to-point connections within a particular region.”

Diverse responses

Some network carriers, however, have chosen to compete head-on with LCCs on domestic and short-haul routes. Air Canada was a leader in this area, gearing up its website and unbundling the product for its lowest economy fares to provide for a basic seat plus add-ons such as check-in baggage, meals and other services.

Lazar sees this spreading into the US and European markets. “Many other carriers are now following in Air Canada’s footsteps, though I think that they have a lot to learn,” he says.

While some airlines have decided to fill up at least part of their economy cabin with price-sensitive passengers, others refuse to toy with customer service. They view the passenger relationship as an integral part of their brand.

“Cost-cutting initiatives have been taking place across the company but nothing that touches the customer has been affected,” says Nicholas Ionides, Vice President Public Affairs at Singapore Airlines. “We are a premium full-service carrier and this is the market niche that we retain. We don’t play in the budget end of the market. Some people have asked whether we should have adapted our business model, but our premium positioning is now being rewarded with renewed growth and improving yields.”
Interestingly, Singapore Airlines also has an equity stake in Tiger Airways, as it is clear that there is major scope for LCC growth in the burgeoning Southeast Asian travel market. Ionides is quick to point out that Tiger Airways operates completely independently of Singapore Airlines, but the approach shows a marked evolution from the days of fully owned subsidiaries. British Airways’ Go, Delta’s Song and the like never really took off.

Even in this respect, big airlines are learning to adapt. Qantas owns Jetstar, a highly successful LCC operation. “We saw the establishment of our own LCC as an imperative,” says Joyce. “After the collapse of Ansett, we saw Virgin Blue looking to take 50% of the market. We knew that there had been many failures in the past where full service carriers wanted to establish their own LCC, and we were aware that we were walking a tightrope.”

In short, if the LCC has too much independence, there is the risk of cannibalizing the major carrier’s routes; if the two airlines are too closely linked the cost base becomes too high.

“We gave Jetstar Asia complete independence, with a different head office in a different city (Melbourne) and set up all the management functions independently,” Joyce informs. “However, we developed a flying committee, which decided which routes Jetstar would operate on to avoid excessive competition.”
Initially, Jetstar and Qantas barely overlapped on domestic routes but, as the brands have developed, the market has segmented. Jetstar now operates in parallel with Qantas on some 26 domestic routes, albeit at different fare levels. “The lowest fare on the Melbourne-Sydney route is $93 (AUD100) with Qantas and $36 (AUD39) with Jetstar, but we are extracting profits from both brands,” says Joyce.

Jetstar has pushed into the booming Southeast Asia region, operating out of Singapore, and is also operating medium-haul flights, with seven A330s on international services out of Australia. It flies to Japan and is looking to take over Qantas’ marginal routes to Athens and Rome. Qantas recently pulled out of the domestic New Zealand market to allow Jetstar more scope to build traffic there.

With Jetstar’s growth running at about 20-30% a year in ASK terms, Joyce says it is easy to keep unit costs down. But he is aware of the threat of increasing fuel prices to Jetstar’s profitability. “Fuel prices could go anywhere, and the ability of LCCs to pass on fuel price increases is limited in this price-sensitive market,” he admits. “We believe, having both a full-service carrier and an LCC, we are well placed to cope, whatever happens.”

Where next for the LCCS?

As Joyce points out, LCCs are under pressure to grow to keep unit costs down. But in the mature markets, the US and most of Europe, the number of route opportunities is beginning to run thin.
Lazar thinks there are three main options for them. Continuing to concentrate on short-haul markets offers limited growth while expansion means a significant shift in strategy and costs to serve long-haul routes. “The third option is to change the business model altogether and try to compete with the majors, which is probably the kiss of death for an LCC,” Lazar suggests.

There is evidence that option two is the preferred choice of LCCs. The AirAsia regional network feeding into the long-haul AirAsia X could mark the beginning of a new trend. AirAsia X and Jetstar recently formed an alliance in an attempt to bring down costs on long-haul services, and Lazar expects to see North American and European LCCs following suit. Ryanair and Westjet are already looking at the possibility of starting transatlantic operations. Lazar can envisage low-cost transpacific operations coming in the future.

Long-haul low cost may challenge the network carriers again. But the short-haul competition from LCCs has ultimately served to build a stronger industry and more efficient airlines.

26 juin, 2010

Régional: heures de nuit

Classé sous tract — fuc @ 19:52

page000144.jpg

25 juin, 2010

Air Asia X pourrait voler vers Paris, Amsterdam, Francfort ou Munich d’ici 2015

Classé sous presse — fuc @ 7:41

 Air Asia X pourrait voler vers Paris, Amsterdam, Francfort ou Munich d'ici 2015  dans presse Air_Asia_X_Airbus_A340-300

La compagnie économique asiatique Air AsiaX External link veut se positionner sur les principaux hubs européens dans le cadre de son plan d’expansion qui doit débuter dans cinq ans.
A partir de 2015, Air AsiaX, qui opère l’activité long-courrier de la compagnie malaysienne Air Asia, va commencer à recevoir les premiers avions de sa commande de 15 A350 de nouvelle génération.

Avec ces nouveaux avions, la taille de sa flotte long-courrier actuelle composée de huit aéronefs va plus que tripler. Des avions nécessaires alors que Tim Claydon, conseillé auprès d’ Air Asia a déclaré le 21 juin dernier que les vols long-courriers d’Air Asia X étaient limités par le nombre d’A330 et A340 possédés par la compagnie.

Ainsi, le vol de Londres Stansted à Kuala Lumpur, qui a été lancé l’an dernier, devrait être opéré neuf fois par semaine avec des vols doubles les mardis et samedis durant l’été alors qu’il était auparavant quotidien.

Claydon indiqué que cela sera la seule diminution de fréquences des deux A340 desservant la liaison Londres-Kuala Lumpur.

A la question de savoir quels aéroports Air AsiaX envisageait de desservir avec ces nouveaux A350, Claydon n’a pas exclu de lancer des vols long-courriers vers Paris-Charles de Gaulle ou Amsterdam-Schiphol.

Claydon a également suggéré les aéroports de Francfort et Munich et a fait allusion à des destinations plus lointaines, dont les aéroports de la côte ouest américaine.

Air AsiaX a enfin dévoilé hier son nouveau siège-lit en classe premium, désormais disponible sur la route Londres-Kuala Lumpur.

Nick Barton, directeur commercial et développement de l’aéroport de Stansted, a déclaré que le lancement de la route d’Air AsiaX entre Londres et Kuala Lumpur a joué un rôle significatif. Il a permis à l’aéroport de réaliser en partie son projet d’être un acteur d’importance sur le marché des vols long-courrier.

Mais il a dit que l’aéroport n’avait pas l’intention de rivaliser avec les transporteurs traditionnels, mais plutôt de rechercher les compagnies «avec un modèle de long-courrier différent».

24 juin, 2010

SCOOP Régional

Classé sous tract — fuc @ 21:44

Une nouvelle alliance est née, bon courage!

SPAC-SNPNAC-CFDT

La renaissance de Régional alpa?!

Porte et guillon dehors!

Classé sous dessin — fuc @ 10:13

Porte et guillon dehors! dans dessin jpg_jpg_Philippe-Val-46c27-3-14659

123456

Bingo |
THEDING ENSEMBLE |
amdh meknes |
Unblog.fr | Créer un blog | Annuaire | Signaler un abus | Blog de la promo 2004 de Su...
| Archives de Bgayet
| validation des acquis