Air Asia

[sendbaht]

This week wife and I drove to the airport to buy 2 tickets to Bangkok on Asia Air. All went well until I discover

I made a mistake on the return date. So 45 minutes I was back at the ticket counter. I smiled and said,

Khun lady, I made a mistake I want to return the next day not the day I said, "ok" 1150 baht more please,

But it was just 45 minutes ago, "1150 baht to change ticket" ok, I paid, smiled again, but thought, that sure is s___ty.

I believe it is 16kilos you may carry on or check also she told be it cost B450 per bicycle extra if we wish to check in a bike.

Next time I will be more careful with my return dates, or take Thai Air which over the years has been

nothing but kind and first class in their treatment towards me.

[hagler]

and Air Asia will keep growing and Thai Airways will probably keep losing money. Within about a year all of Thai Air Asia's fleet will be brand new A320's, all delivered in the past 2 to 3 years.

That is providing Air Asia don't go out of business this year. They are precariously close to doing so at the moment.

Air Asia announced their first ever operating losses last quarter due to having to buy out their fuel hedging contracts early which cost them, on top of losses already made, some $90m.

If they did go out of business, it is likely their Thai subsidiary would survive in another guise though.

I know this is probably a bit late but could you post some links that justify your preposterous statement. Me thinks you are not in, and have never been in, finance or business and are just "making porkies up.

[SmugFarangBore]

and Air Asia will keep growing and Thai Airways will probably keep losing money. Within about a year all of Thai Air Asia's fleet will be brand new A320's, all delivered in the past 2 to 3 years.

That is providing Air Asia don't go out of business this year. They are precariously close to doing so at the moment.

Air Asia announced their first ever operating losses last quarter due to having to buy out their fuel hedging contracts early which cost them, on top of losses already made, some $90m.

If they did go out of business, it is likely their Thai subsidiary would survive in another guise though.

I know this is probably a bit late but could you post some links that justify your preposterous statement. Me thinks you are not in, and have never been in, finance or business and are just "making porkies up.

THE Malaysian low-cost carrier AirAsia has shown that fuel hedging can be a risky game.

The airline reported on Friday its first loss since its 2004 sharemarket listing after being forced to liquidate its fuel hedging contracts and write off derivatives held by the failed investment bank Lehman Brothers at a cost of 215 million ringgit ($90 million).

AirAsia declined to say at what price it had locked in 35 per cent of its fuel bill. But thanks to the slump in fuel prices to about $US50 a barrel, it said the one-off hit was better than incurring $US481 million ($735 million) of hedging losses if it remained in the contract.

Adding to its woes, the recent fall in the Malaysian ringgit forced AirAsia to unwind its currency hedging contracts at a cost of 213 million ringgit. On top of the 76 million ringgit of operating losses, the write-offs resulted in a 466 million ringgit third quarter loss for the airline.

http://www.businessday.com.au/business/air...81130-6nqo.html

Enjoy.

Edited February 6, 2009 by SmugFarangBore

[ozfarang81]

the article doesnt show they are 'precariously' close to going under at all. the above article refers to the malaysian business anyway

[SmugFarangBore]

the article doesnt show they are 'precariously' close to going under at all. the above article refers to the malaysian business anyway

I'm fully aware the article refers to 'Air Asia' and not 'Thai Air Asia' which is why I said, "If they did go out of business, it is likely their Thai subsidiary would survive in another guise" in the earlier post.

Fewer people are flying, but AirAsia is deploying more planes. Tony Fernandes bet wrong on fuel prices, but his play for discount travelers may pay off.

Late one evening recently Tony Fernandes was kicking back on his living room sofa in baggy shorts and a T-shirt in his suburban Kuala Lumpur home. He looked less like a chief executive getting pummeled by a global financial crisis than an overgrown teenager likely to have an Xbox controller in his lap. His company, discount carrier AirAsia, is careening, just like the rest of the industry, but he's upbeat. "One has to see our record of coping with crises," he says.

When we last checked in with Fernandes, his airline business was soaring and he was rolling out hotel and finance outfits. Now the airline is flying into some stiff headwinds. Nearly 30 airlines worldwide went out of business in 2008. The International Air Transport Association figures the industry lost $5.2 billion and will lose another $2.5 billion in 2009. And air travel in Asia shrank 6.1% in October versus the same month the year before. But AirAsia is expanding as it takes delivery of new planes. "I still think there's a huge demand for travel," he says. His hunch is that as the financial crisis deepens, travelers will trade down from full-service to no-frills carriers.

It's a risky strategy.

<snip>

Just as with the delisting, financing these planes is somewhat problematic. Already aircraft loans have pushed AirAsia's debt to $1.8 billion, nearly double its level at the close of 2007, and it has secured funding for only the next 27 aircraft, taking it up to mid-2010.

http://www.forbes.com/global/2009/0112/070.html

Edited February 6, 2009 by SmugFarangBore

[MJo]

It's not only AA, almost all airlines lost money on fuel hedging.

For me AA is ok as any other LCC in the region, just stopped using them as i could not take people complaining in check-in. Rolling their eyes very well knowing they are trying to free 40kg's with the price of 15kg they paid for

Took Tiger Air from Singapore last week, talk about good service and new planes. Even got exit row seat without asking. Not like Jetstar where they sell the exit row seats during the flight...

[hagler]

and Air Asia will keep growing and Thai Airways will probably keep losing money. Within about a year all of Thai Air Asia's fleet will be brand new A320's, all delivered in the past 2 to 3 years.

That is providing Air Asia don't go out of business this year. They are precariously close to doing so at the moment.

Air Asia announced their first ever operating losses last quarter due to having to buy out their fuel hedging contracts early which cost them, on top of losses already made, some $90m.

If they did go out of business, it is likely their Thai subsidiary would survive in another guise though.

I know this is probably a bit late but could you post some links that justify your preposterous statement. Me thinks you are not in, and have never been in, finance or business and are just "making porkies up.

THE Malaysian low-cost carrier AirAsia has shown that fuel hedging can be a risky game.

The airline reported on Friday its first loss since its 2004 sharemarket listing after being forced to liquidate its fuel hedging contracts and write off derivatives held by the failed investment bank Lehman Brothers at a cost of 215 million ringgit ($90 million).

AirAsia declined to say at what price it had locked in 35 per cent of its fuel bill. But thanks to the slump in fuel prices to about $US50 a barrel, it said the one-off hit was better than incurring $US481 million ($735 million) of hedging losses if it remained in the contract.

Adding to its woes, the recent fall in the Malaysian ringgit forced AirAsia to unwind its currency hedging contracts at a cost of 213 million ringgit. On top of the 76 million ringgit of operating losses, the write-offs resulted in a 466 million ringgit third quarter loss for the airline.

http://www.businessday.com.au/business/air...81130-6nqo.html

Enjoy.

yep I will stand by my previous statement and expand on it further.. Your assertions that AA are "precariously close to doing so at the moment" is an illinformed and unsubstantiated statement from an underinformed and inexperienced casual financial observer"

Edited February 7, 2009 by hagler

[SmugFarangBore]

yep I will stand by my previous statement and expand on it further.. Your assertions that AA are "precariously close to doing so at the moment" is an illinformed and unsubstantiated statement from an underinformed and inexperienced casual financial observer"

You do what you want.

I brought the links and took you to school.

No reference to the Forbes article that substantiates my claims either I notice.

Edited February 7, 2009 by SmugFarangBore

[ozfarang81]

the article makes no mention of the airline about to go broke. it has made its first ever loss. almost every airline in the world has made a loss in the past year. hagler is 100% right. you know nothing!

[SmugFarangBore]

the article makes no mention of the airline about to go broke. it has made its first ever loss. almost every airline in the world has made a loss in the past year. hagler is 100% right. you know nothing!

The Forbes article I linked to is quite clear that Air Asia faces a risk of going out of business if Fernandes' business plan doesn't pay off. As it points out some 30 airlines went under last year.

You just don't want to see your beloved budget carrier go out of business as you are probably too skint or cheap to travel around the region on full fare airlines.

You and hagler also display a staggering ignorance in refusing to accept the distinct possibility that an airline, some $1.8billion in debt could easily go under this year, especially given the global economic climate and the bleak outlook for the airline industry as a whole.

Continue to live in your fantasy world if it pleases you.

Edited February 8, 2009 by SmugFarangBore

[ozfarang81]

compiled a big long reply to your last but can't be bothered anymore.

[SmugFarangBore]

compiled a big long reply to your last but can't be bothered anymore.

It was probably nothing more substantial than you and Hagler's previous empty responses of "no you're wrong", or "you know nothing" even when I've presented the facts to back up my claims.