Talk:Oasis Hong Kong Airlines

"Selling point"
I've toned down the text here which doesn't seem completely credible. The original statement was that there is a pay-to-eat service, so this saves the company money, so their fares are 30-50% below other carriers. They can certainly find ways to save money (including pay-to-eat) but the elimination of free catering in itself is not going to produce anything like a 30-50% reduction in costs (catering costs are more like USD20 per passenger at most). Ecozeppelin 14:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Right around that area they called their comfort excellent which I dont think is a neutral statement hence the npov marking. Antonio The stick inside the Hole Martin


 * Catering costs are no where near US$20 per passenger... try $3-4 per passenger... Oasis HK buy directly from Cathay Pacific (YVR & HKG) and British Airways (LGW).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.132.12.80 (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumours
''There are also unconfirmed rumours of a possible purchase of some Boeing 787 Dreamliner. '' This doesn't belong in Wikipedia until the unconfirmed rumours become confirmed fact. Wsbhopkin 19:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Budget Long Haul?
Oasis are now frequently more expensive than their full fare competitors (a point that is made in the opening paragraph). I recently spoke to an Oasis pilot who told me that this is due to the airlines late entry into the market- they have not hedged their fuel to the extent of their competitors and so their costs are higher. Does anyone have any evidence of this so that itr can be incorporated into the main text? (8/4/08) Anansis (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article explained the lack of fuel hedging that you heard from the Oasis pilot. http://hk.news.yahoo.com/080409/318/2s3ct.html Schui (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

History
"Flying long haul sectors burns more fuel and requires similar maintenance to short-haul aircraft in order to ensure airworthiness."

Two major problems with this sentence which I'm going to remove:

1. On a dollar per nautical mile basis the taxi, take off, climb, approach and landing phases actually burn a lot more fuel than cruise. Do fewer of those and you do burn less fuel. That does not mean there is any advantage to be gained here though (see bottom).

2. Most items on an airliner's maintenance schedule are "cycle" based. A "cycle" is a take off plus a landing. I won't go into the reason here (feel free to do your own research) but again, aircraft flying long haul really does cost less in both time and money to maintain.

Having said the above, Oasis's established competitors were not run by idiots and they'd have figured these out ages ago and priced accordingly, so there was really no advantage for Oasis here compared to running short haul routes. CW (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)