wazua Thu, Mar 19, 2026
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Log In

1,583 Pages«<11361137113811391140>»
Kenya Airways...why ignore..
Options
Previous Topic · Next Topic
ArrestedDev
#11371 Posted : Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:54:44 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 5/29/2016
Posts: 898
Location: Nairobi
maka wrote:
VituVingiSana wrote:
obiero wrote:
tandich wrote:
VituVingiSana wrote:
maka wrote:
On 17Nov, 29 bags to JFK were left behind because of payload. Flight had 196 passengers against a full capacity of 234.
Too much cargo? It's good to see high load factors but pissing off pax isn't good!


As I suspected, the chosen aeroplane can't carry full capacity for such a long flight. If break-even load factor is 90% and even 83% is technically unachievable, the only way to make money is to hike prices. Could this work in a competitive environment?

It could work based on the fuel efficiency of the chosen aircraft.. Ethiopian flies the same type of plane on its long haul. Remember current pricing is still introductory. Meanwhile why would anyone care to count the number of bags left, if not to smear KQ. 29 bags are not many bags out of the number of passangers
It's a painful experience for the pax whose bags were left behind. One might be getting married. One might be there for business and had samples. Poor planning.
What if all 234 seats had been filled? Leave behind 70 bags?


Yep extrapolate... Now add the cost of delivering the bag to wherever you are.... 😊


I thought @maka you knew this. I am very surprised. This is a common phenomenon with a long haul flights. Payload restrictions must be applied at all times especially during bad weather/ any other conditions that lead to a higher fuel burn. The pilots need fuel to divert/ do a go around if required.

Frequent flyers understand this and they just need to be paid a bagggage relief allowance and bags delivered to their address.This is not a huge cost to an Airline at all.
Back to top
  |
maka
#11372 Posted : Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:58:22 AM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 4/22/2010
Posts: 11,522
Location: Nairobi
ArrestedDev wrote:
maka wrote:
VituVingiSana wrote:
obiero wrote:
tandich wrote:
VituVingiSana wrote:
maka wrote:
On 17Nov, 29 bags to JFK were left behind because of payload. Flight had 196 passengers against a full capacity of 234.
Too much cargo? It's good to see high load factors but pissing off pax isn't good!


As I suspected, the chosen aeroplane can't carry full capacity for such a long flight. If break-even load factor is 90% and even 83% is technically unachievable, the only way to make money is to hike prices. Could this work in a competitive environment?

It could work based on the fuel efficiency of the chosen aircraft.. Ethiopian flies the same type of plane on its long haul. Remember current pricing is still introductory. Meanwhile why would anyone care to count the number of bags left, if not to smear KQ. 29 bags are not many bags out of the number of passangers
It's a painful experience for the pax whose bags were left behind. One might be getting married. One might be there for business and had samples. Poor planning.
What if all 234 seats had been filled? Leave behind 70 bags?


Yep extrapolate... Now add the cost of delivering the bag to wherever you are.... 😊


I thought @maka you knew this. I am very surprised. This is a common phenomenon with a long haul flights. Payload restrictions must be applied at all times especially during bad weather/ any other conditions that lead to a higher fuel burn. The pilots need fuel to divert/ do a go around if required.

Frequent flyers understand this and they just need to be paid a bagggage relief allowance and bags delivered to their address.This is not a huge cost to an Airline at all.


What do you mean its not a huge cost... 1 sec let me get you a figure...
possunt quia posse videntur
Back to top
  |
obiero
#11373 Posted : Tuesday, November 20, 2018 11:03:48 AM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 6/23/2009
Posts: 14,217
Location: nairobi
maka wrote:
ArrestedDev wrote:
maka wrote:
VituVingiSana wrote:
obiero wrote:
tandich wrote:
VituVingiSana wrote:
maka wrote:
On 17Nov, 29 bags to JFK were left behind because of payload. Flight had 196 passengers against a full capacity of 234.
Too much cargo? It's good to see high load factors but pissing off pax isn't good!


As I suspected, the chosen aeroplane can't carry full capacity for such a long flight. If break-even load factor is 90% and even 83% is technically unachievable, the only way to make money is to hike prices. Could this work in a competitive environment?

It could work based on the fuel efficiency of the chosen aircraft.. Ethiopian flies the same type of plane on its long haul. Remember current pricing is still introductory. Meanwhile why would anyone care to count the number of bags left, if not to smear KQ. 29 bags are not many bags out of the number of passangers
It's a painful experience for the pax whose bags were left behind. One might be getting married. One might be there for business and had samples. Poor planning.
What if all 234 seats had been filled? Leave behind 70 bags?


Yep extrapolate... Now add the cost of delivering the bag to wherever you are.... 😊


I thought @maka you knew this. I am very surprised. This is a common phenomenon with a long haul flights. Payload restrictions must be applied at all times especially during bad weather/ any other conditions that lead to a higher fuel burn. The pilots need fuel to divert/ do a go around if required.

Frequent flyers understand this and they just need to be paid a bagggage relief allowance and bags delivered to their address.This is not a huge cost to an Airline at all.


What do you mean its not a huge cost... 1 sec let me get you a figure...

Whatever figure you are getting, compare it with the inherent risk of a plane crash leading to deaths, in the event of overcapacity on payload; coupled with default of insurance cover

KQ ABP 4.26
Back to top
WWW
  |
maka
#11374 Posted : Tuesday, November 20, 2018 12:05:51 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 4/22/2010
Posts: 11,522
Location: Nairobi
obiero wrote:
maka wrote:
ArrestedDev wrote:
maka wrote:
VituVingiSana wrote:
obiero wrote:
tandich wrote:
VituVingiSana wrote:
maka wrote:
On 17Nov, 29 bags to JFK were left behind because of payload. Flight had 196 passengers against a full capacity of 234.
Too much cargo? It's good to see high load factors but pissing off pax isn't good!


As I suspected, the chosen aeroplane can't carry full capacity for such a long flight. If break-even load factor is 90% and even 83% is technically unachievable, the only way to make money is to hike prices. Could this work in a competitive environment?

It could work based on the fuel efficiency of the chosen aircraft.. Ethiopian flies the same type of plane on its long haul. Remember current pricing is still introductory. Meanwhile why would anyone care to count the number of bags left, if not to smear KQ. 29 bags are not many bags out of the number of passangers
It's a painful experience for the pax whose bags were left behind. One might be getting married. One might be there for business and had samples. Poor planning.
What if all 234 seats had been filled? Leave behind 70 bags?


Yep extrapolate... Now add the cost of delivering the bag to wherever you are.... 😊


I thought @maka you knew this. I am very surprised. This is a common phenomenon with a long haul flights. Payload restrictions must be applied at all times especially during bad weather/ any other conditions that lead to a higher fuel burn. The pilots need fuel to divert/ do a go around if required.

Frequent flyers understand this and they just need to be paid a bagggage relief allowance and bags delivered to their address.This is not a huge cost to an Airline at all.


What do you mean its not a huge cost... 1 sec let me get you a figure...

Whatever figure you are getting, compare it with the inherent risk of a plane crash leading to deaths, in the event of overcapacity on payload; coupled with default of insurance cover


We are now losing the plot... Without a doubt safety comes first actually KQ is well respected when it comes to this area... The issue are the figures and the overall picture rem what @Tandich posted... Lets just agree Mikosi and co goofed we should have just done a flight through one of the West African countries...
possunt quia posse videntur
Back to top
  |
VituVingiSana
#11375 Posted : Tuesday, November 20, 2018 1:12:44 PM
Rank: Chief

Joined: 1/3/2007
Posts: 18,347
Location: Nairobi
NBO-West Africa-NYC could have captured a lot of traffic to/from USA-West Africa.
The 787 could have replaced some of the 737 seats on NBO-West Africa routes.
The disadvantage would have been the 787 can't do the matatu hops like the 737.
Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
Back to top
  |
obiero
#11376 Posted : Tuesday, November 20, 2018 1:34:19 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 6/23/2009
Posts: 14,217
Location: nairobi
VituVingiSana wrote:
NBO-West Africa-NYC could have captured a lot of traffic to/from USA-West Africa.
The 787 could have replaced some of the 737 seats on NBO-West Africa routes.
The disadvantage would have been the 787 can't do the matatu hops like the 737.

The two most crucial components of a flight remain take off and landing.. I would rather reduce the odds than increase them on route serviced by Delta. Which American would rather fly KQ out of Accra than their very own Delta!

KQ ABP 4.26
Back to top
WWW
  |
hardwood
#11377 Posted : Tuesday, November 20, 2018 2:15:45 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 7/28/2015
Posts: 9,562
Location: Rodi Kopany, Homa Bay
VituVingiSana wrote:
NBO-West Africa-NYC could have captured a lot of traffic to/from USA-West Africa.
The 787 could have replaced some of the 737 seats on NBO-West Africa routes.
The disadvantage would have been the 787 can't do the matatu hops like the 737.


This would mean even more bags left behind and "pissing off pax isn't good".
Back to top
  |
VituVingiSana
#11378 Posted : Tuesday, November 20, 2018 2:33:10 PM
Rank: Chief

Joined: 1/3/2007
Posts: 18,347
Location: Nairobi
hardwood wrote:
VituVingiSana wrote:
NBO-West Africa-NYC could have captured a lot of traffic to/from USA-West Africa.
The 787 could have replaced some of the 737 seats on NBO-West Africa routes.
The disadvantage would have been the 787 can't do the matatu hops like the 737.

This would mean even more bags left behind and "pissing off pax isn't good".
How so?
If I understand what @maka said earlier, 80 tonnes [please correct me if I am wrong] of fuel is loaded for a 15 hour flight.
From NBO-ACC (as an example), it is just 5 hours so less fuel (30 tons) needs to be loaded thus more luggage/cargo (50 tons) can be loaded from NBO.
Luggage will also be offloaded in ACC for NBO-ACC pax. That can be replaced with ACC-NYC luggage.

The remainder (10 hrs?) flight requires less than 80 tons [50 tons?] which means 30 additional tons of luggage can be loaded.

Of course, adjustments will be made depending on what is dropped off or picked up in ACC. One doesn't want pissed off pax!
Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
Back to top
  | | Edit by user: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 2:35 PM | Reason: Not specified
VituVingiSana
#11379 Posted : Tuesday, November 20, 2018 2:34:48 PM
Rank: Chief

Joined: 1/3/2007
Posts: 18,347
Location: Nairobi
obiero wrote:
VituVingiSana wrote:
NBO-West Africa-NYC could have captured a lot of traffic to/from USA-West Africa.
The 787 could have replaced some of the 737 seats on NBO-West Africa routes.
The disadvantage would have been the 787 can't do the matatu hops like the 737.

The two most crucial components of a flight remain take off and landing.. I would rather reduce the odds than increase them on route serviced by Delta. Which American would rather fly KQ out of Accra than their very own Delta!

The same Americans who fly KLM to AMS? Or AF to CDG? Or BA to LHR?
Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
Back to top
  |
obiero
#11380 Posted : Tuesday, November 20, 2018 2:38:48 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 6/23/2009
Posts: 14,217
Location: nairobi
VituVingiSana wrote:
obiero wrote:
VituVingiSana wrote:
NBO-West Africa-NYC could have captured a lot of traffic to/from USA-West Africa.
The 787 could have replaced some of the 737 seats on NBO-West Africa routes.
The disadvantage would have been the 787 can't do the matatu hops like the 737.

The two most crucial components of a flight remain take off and landing.. I would rather reduce the odds than increase them on route serviced by Delta. Which American would rather fly KQ out of Accra than their very own Delta!

The same Americans who fly KLM to AMS? Or AF to CDG? Or BA to LHR?

Check the NTSB stats and the Fly American state policy of the USA

KQ ABP 4.26
Back to top
WWW
  |
1,583 Pages«<11361137113811391140>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Wazua Investor Theme
Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2009, Yet Another Forum.NET
Copyright © 2026 Wazua.co.ke. All Rights Reserved.