Ordinary Gweilo

It's not big and it's not clever, it's just a Brit in Hong Kong writing (mainly) about Hong Kong

recent posts

Archives

Categories

  • Missing the point (as usual)

    The SCMP has picked up on the announcement by Hong Kong Oasis Airlines that I mentioned yesterday.  They quote "industry sources" who appear to be sceptical, but who also seem to have missed the point:

    The fare, just 40 per cent of the cost of a comparable ticket with competitors, will cover an economy seat on a Boeing 747-400 and include a basic meal.  Including taxes and surcharges, the fare will be $1,600, as opposed to $4,070 and $3,790 offered by Cathay Pacific and Virgin Atlantic respectively. 

    The budget carrier will run just five flights a week against Cathay’s four daily flights on the same route.

    Industry sources predict Oasis’ price-cutting strategy will have little impact on its rivals.  A disadvantage for the airline is that it will serve only Gatwick Airport, 30 minutes by rail from central London’s Victoria Station.

    With the operating cost of a flight from Hong Kong to London running at around $1.1 million, analysts said they did not expect the airline to be able to maintain the cheap fares. To break even, it would have to fill all 278 economy seats on the 359-seat B747-400 and sell the remaining luxury seats for $10,000 each.

    "It’s an impossible task for a start-up airline," an industry source said.

    What a load of old rubbish.  Firstly, the fare that Oasis announced was HK$1,000 one way, which equates to about HK$3,200 return including taxes (20-30% cheaper than the competition, not 60%).  Also, it seems fairly obvious that this will be the price only if you book in advance, and they will charge more for later bookings and at peak times (just like all other budget airlines).  Cheap, but not unreasonably so.

    As for Gatwick, there are advantages and disadvantages.  Personally, I prefer Gatwick to Heathrow because it is smaller, but the disadvantage is that there are less choice of connecting flights – though there are more cheap flights (from Easyjet and others).  The Heathrow Express may be faster than the Gatwick Express, but 15 minutes is fairly marginal when the total journey door-to-door is 16+ hours, and anyway Victoria is more central than Paddington.

    Budget airlines have been successful because they offer something a bit different.  If you want to fly to Heathrow on Cathay/BA/Virgin/Qantas then that’s fine, but soon you will have another choice.

  • Overblown nonsense

    Hilariously over the top nonsense from James Lawton in The Independent:

    Auf Wiedersehen, Germany, but, yet again, ciao, Italy. It is hard to believe that any other football nation, while operating from under an avalanche of dirt, could have found their way so sure-footedly to such a superb performance. It was as if they were inspired by the old Simon and Garfunkel lyric. They had diamonds on the soles of their shoes.

    The Germans, brilliant hosts and warrior contenders in the 18th World Cup, performed once again with tremendous effort. They had a competitive character set deeply into an astonishing national tradition of consistently high achievement, but there was rarely a moment’s doubt about the team more likely to claim the first available place in Sunday’s final.

    The Italian captain, Fabio Cannavaro, not only confirmed the ticket to Berlin but insisted that the journey would be made in the most opulent Pullman riding the tracks of international football.

    Oh, and Simon & Garfunkel?  I think not.

  • Cheaper flights

    Cheap flights direct to London?  From The Guardian:

    Oasis Hong Kong Airlines yesterday announced plans to operate five direct Gatwick-Hong Kong flights a week from October, with tickets costing from £75 one way, plus taxes.

    Presumably this means that a small number of seats will be available at this price if you book far enough ahead, and prices will rise for later bookings – the classic "budget airline" model.

    The start-up Asian carrier will offer free food and some business-class accommodation. Passengers can also pay a supplement to upgrade their meals. The new London service will be operated using Boeing 747s.

    The airline will be competing directly against British Airways, Cathay Pacific and Virgin Atlantic on the route. BA’s lowest Hong Kong return fare is currently £389 flying out of Heathrow.

    Gatwick is an altogether more pleasant place than Heathrow (with a direct train service to central London).  No news on the schedule or the seat pitch (but they bought the planes from Singapore Airlines, and I suppose they won’t have made many changes to the configuration).  Apparently there will be 81 business class seats, and 278 in economy.  Their website is here (but currently has no real information).

    I predict that Virgin, BA & Cathay will offer a limited number of seats at a lower price (for advance booking) to try to reduce the impact made by their new competitor.

  • Even more options

    Virgin will add a second flight between London and Hong Kong starting on 3 November.  For the first 3 months it will operate three days a week, and then it will be daily from 2 February.

    The flight will leave Hong Kong at 1.20 a.m. (in the winter) and 12.40 a.m. (in the summer) and arrive in London at 7.10 a.m.  I suppose this must be because there are no spare spots for early morning arrivals.  It’s a big issue – people living near Heathrow like to be able get a good night’s sleep – but selfishly I’d like to be on my way before the rush hour starts, so the later flight will not be my first choice. 

    Virgin did briefly have a 2nd service about five years ago (only 3 days a week, as I recall), but then they (quietly) abandoned it and started operating 747s instead (because of lack of demand elsewhere after 9/11), though that didn’t last all that long either and they switched to the A340-600.  Now they are also operating through to Sydney, and have talked about a service to Melbourne as well, so I guess they need more capacity.

    I’m losing count of the number of flights to London (BA, Cathay, Virgin, Qantas and soon Air New Zealand and possibly Oasis).  Cheap flights, anyone?  Please?   

  • Thought for the day

    Thanks to Fumier for drawing this to my attention.  It’s from the marvellous letter column of the always interesting SCMP from that great thinker Simon Patkin:

    Let there be light

    I refer to news that the group Lights Out Hong Kong wants to plunge our city into darkness for three minutes next month ("Green groups hoping for City of Darkness", June 30). I can’t help thinking that this campaign has nothing to do with clean air. It takes us down a slippery slope, with its anti-development message. How soon before they lobby for lights out for five or even 24 hours a day?

    We need electricity and light for life. Before electricity, the average life expectancy was 30; today it is about 80. No business or business group should support a cause that openly advocates darkness for Hong Kong – not even for three minutes. Man must reshape his environment to survive. Instead of this darkness campaign, let’s celebrate the achievement of people like light bulb inventor Thomas Edison. Let there be light.

    SIMON PATKIN, Causeway Bay

    He’s a genius, really he is, and I won’t hear a word said against him.

    [Link to Lights Out from Shaky]

  • Paying the penalty

    I’m afraid to say that my feeling after the end of the penalty shoot-out was that if England couldn’t score in 120 minutes then they didn’t deserve to win.  The blame, I think, has to rest with Sven.  After Rooney’s sending-off, England played better with a 4 man midfield than they had with a 5 man midfield, and Rooney was scarcely missed. 

    The decision to gamble on Rooney and Owen and Walcott was insane, and this folly was compounded by playing Rooney on his own when he was recovering from injury.  Surely another striker would have made all the difference?  Sven’s lack of ambition here stands in strange contrast to his almost reckless gambling when it came to picking the squad – if Walcott was worth picking, why not bring him on?  Based on England’s past record, they could hardly rely on penalties.

    Also, what can you say when the loss of David Beckham forced Sven to bring on Aaron Lennon, who was much more lively and creative?  Or that England probably created as many chances after Rooney went off as when he was on the field?

    One has to hope that Steve McClaren has learned something from all of this. 

    As for Rooney’s sending-off, the commentator seemed convinced that he was sent off for the push on Cristiano Ronaldo, whereas other reports say that it was for the stamp on Carvalho.  The latter explanation makes a lot more sense, but why did the referee not send Rooney off immediately?  At the very least he gave the appearance of being influenced by Ronaldo, and it would not have been the first time that had happened in this tournament.  If he really was sent off for pushing Ronaldo then that was absurd.  Anyway, the first Manchester United training session where those two players come into contact might be interesting…

    Meanwhile, Cable TV have made a real mess of their schedules today.  I wanted to watch the Brazil game, but they appear to be determined to show the England game and nothing else.  How can that happen when they have 2 or 3 channels devoted to the World Cup?  They really are hopeless.

    Oh, and Frank Lampard to take the first penalty – what ever kind of crazy decision was that?

  • Incredible

    Last week’s Economist had an article about Ray Ozzie, who is taking over from Bill Gates as Chief Software Architect for Microsoft.  Who he, you may be asking:

    Mr Ozzie personally wrote a million of the first 3.5m lines of code for the first successful collaboration software, Lotus Notes. At a time when nobody had heard of the world wide web, Lotus Notes already offered “workspaces” not unlike today’s wikis. Mr Gates watched with his usual mixture of emotions towards innovations by others – envy and grudging admiration. These probably gave way to anxiety when IBM, Microsoft’s partner-turned-enemy, bought Lotus in 1995 for $3.5 billion.

    Ah, Lotus Notes, my favourite piece of software in the whole world.

    What made me stop and wonder, was this quote (my highlighting):

    One reason why Mr Gates is so drawn to Mr Ozzie is that, as Mr Gates has said, “Ray is incredible at thinking of the end-user experience,” an area where Mr Gates, whose own genius is weighted towards business strategy rather than software finesse, has a less stellar reputation.

    Lotus Notes may be very powerful and awfully clever, but the "end-user experience” is not one of its strengths.  So what is Bill Gates thinking?

    The Guardian had another, more credible, theory:

    Mr Ozzie’s influence is expected to push Microsoft further into highly developed web applications and knowledge sharing programs, areas where Microsoft is feeling the pressure from such companies as Google.

    If Ray Ozzie could develop something with the power of Notes that was not so user-hostile then that might just work.  The other way around is just too horrible to contemplate

  • Spot on

    Maybe one of the problems with the English commentary on the FIFA World Cup is that the commentators feel under an obligation to offer us "insight" and opinions rather than sticking to describing what they can see.

    After a few minutes of the Brazil vs. Ghana game, our man offered the insight that referees had "probably" been told to issue less cards.  Or maybe not, because a few minutes later the cards started coming out, and eventually Ghana were down to ten men.

    When Spain scored against France, we were told that this was "decisive" because few teams have recovered after falling behind.  Er, well there was Australia against Japan, Brazil against Japan, Argentina against Mexico, and (as it turned out) France against Spain, so spot on with that one.

    Later, when Puyol was booked our man felt that the referee had made a mistake and the card should have been red.  Er, no.

  • A good rail system

    The commentator on one of the recent World Cup games was enthusing about the efficiency of the German rail network.  I think the commentator was John Helm, but Cable TV never tell us who is commentating so I may be doing him an injustice.  What I’m trying to figure out is how he managed to be at the England vs. Ecuador game and the Portugal vs. Netherlands game on the same day – either the rail network must be extremely efficient or all the commentators sound the same (apart from the excellent Martin Tyler, who it certainly was not).    

    Or maybe he only goes to one of the games and does the commentary for the other one remotely.  Eurosport used to provide almost all of their football coverage from a studio in West London, and one UK radio station provided "unauthorized" commentary by sitting some experts in front of a TV set.  I’m not sure anyone could tell the difference.

    However, John Helm (or whoever it is) obviously wants us to know that he is actually in Germany.  Unfortunately, being there doesn’t seem to help much – for example, when Michael Owen went off injured, "John Helm" told us that this would disrupt Sven’s master plan because England would start hoofing the ball up to Peter Crouch.  No, of course they didn’t, because as we know, Crouch is good with his feet and not so good with his head.  He’s got a good touch for a big man, you know.   

    The other annoying part of the commentary is that they seem to be obliged to say "FIFA World Cup" and "FIFA World Cup stadium" every few minutes.  Oh, and if Sepp Blatter is at the game we always get a shot of him, because he’s an important person.     

  • “Our actions were illegal and wrong. We will not repeat them.”

    Receiving "unauthorised" overseas satellite TV signals is not illegal under the Broadcasting Ordinance.  Yet a bar in Sai Kung wrote an open letter "admitting" that they had been naughty:

    "We did not pay the fair price for this programming. We now recognise that our actions were illegal and wrong. We will not repeat them."

    They were forced to issue this public apology because the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Association (Casbaa) took legal action and Poets (the bar) could not afford to defend themselves in court, and so settled the case.  From the SCMP (subscription required):

    But why, if the problem is so widespread and the number of bars taking unauthorised feed so great, has action only been taken against one, privately owned bar in Sai Kung? Why did Casbaa not send out a stronger message by taking court action against a number of offenders, or by targeting a bigger and better-known bar?  The owners of Poets declined to speak about the case, saying they had put the dispute behind them, but friends say they seriously considered contesting the case in the High Court and would have done so if it had not been for the huge legal costs involved.

    "They were receiving and paying for a satellite service that might be unauthorised but isn’t illegal under current legislation," one friend said. "They believed it would have been a difficult case for the broadcasters to win. They also believe the reason Poets was chosen as a target was because it was a small bar that couldn’t afford to fight back.

    "As it was, the costs of the case almost closed Poets down. But if the broadcasters had taken on a bigger bar with more resources, they might have found themselves with a real fight on their hands."

    Casbaa chief executive officer Simon Twiston-Davies responded that it was "unfair to the organisation and unfair to the industry" to suggest that Poets had been targeted because it had limited resources.

    "We don’t pick on small players. We don’t pick on anybody," he said. "We moved forward on that particular case but there have been many, many others where we didn’t find ourselves obliged to take legal action. Instead, we came to amicable arrangements where they have legitimised their service."

    The interesting point here is that if Casbaa took on a bigger company they might well lose the case.  So they threaten legal action and then settle before it gets to court (they asked Poets to pay HK$100,000, but settled for HK$30,000 and the letter mentioned above).  In spite of this action, many bars in Hong Kong still use "unauthorized" satellite signals from overseas:

    Noel Smyth, managing director of sports bar chain Delaney’s and Dublin Jack in Lan Kwai Fong, said the proliferation of unauthorised satellite systems in Hong Kong bars was at least partly due to the high cost and patchy quality of legitimate services.

    Major chains subscribe to unauthorised satellite systems and authorised broadcasters because they want to be sure that key sporting events are available to their customers. "They [Casbaa] know about it and they are not delighted but they accept it so far because we subscribe to the authorised channels as well," he said.

    In spite of there being a reasonable number of sports channels available on Now and Cable TV, many sporting events are still not available here on any of those channels, and, even when they are, the coverage tends towards the inane.  Understandably, bar owners resent this state of affairs.  Yet Casbaa want the law changed to make it illegal to watch unauthorized satellite channels. 

    Fortunately there is little chance of the government doing that, so this pantomime will continue.