Quite a good article comparing SAA and ANZ - two quite similarly sized airlines (SAA 53 planes and ANZ 57, SAA 11,500 employees v 11,000 ANZ) and how the usual excuses rolled out by the management of SAA for poor performance should equally apply to ANZ yet ANZ is profitable.

http://www.fin24.com/BizNews/saa-versus ... s-20170103

P.s I haven't fact checked any figures. Fin24 is a fairly decent South African website.

The problem is
1. Supply contracts to boys at inflated prices
2. Top management to under qualified boys/girls at inflated prices
3. Just check in at any SAA counter in SA and see how rude the staff are (compared to 5 years ago plus)
4. They overcharge on most of their flights into Africa therefore uncompetitive
5. Get rid of those 4 holers ie A340's
6. Uncompetitive leasing arrangements eg 738's

my 5 cents

chiki wrote:

5. Get rid of those 4 holers ie A340's

The A340s are the least of SAAs problems. The higher fuel-burn by these types is a drop in the ocean compared to all the other problems.
A well run airline could make money flying DC-8s and 707s if need be. It's the management and it's decisions that make or break an airline.

chiki wrote:

5. Get rid of those 4 holers ie A340's

With JNB being a hot and high airport, wouldn't removing the 4 holers be an issue? Im not very familiar with hot and high airport ops, but I am under the impression that 2 holers have performance issues.

metalinyoni wrote:

Quite a good article comparing SAA and ANZ - two quite similarly sized airlines (SAA 53 planes and ANZ 57, SAA 11,500 employees v 11,000 ANZ) and how the usual excuses rolled out by the management of SAA for poor performance should equally apply to ANZ yet ANZ is profitable.

A few of there facts with NZ fleet are wrong - they currently operate 105x aircraft:

777-300ER - 7
777-200ER - 8
777-9 - 9 (3* on order)
767-300ER - 2
A320 - 30 (* 13NEO on order)
ATR 72-600 - 15 (* 14 on order)
ATR 72-500 - 11
Q300 -23

zkncj wrote:

A few of there facts with NZ fleet are wrong - they currently operate 105x aircraft

I think they were probably comparing the Air NZ-operated fleet, excluding the Air Nelson and Mt Cook fleets. Though I assume that the staff numbers were the whole group, not just Air NZ proper, making the comparison even less favourable to SA.

SAA is faced with a lot of competition on short haul routes especially with LCC which make domestic South African routes very difficult to make a profit on. Meanwhile ANZ has very little competition on long haul routes and almost no competition on domestic flight. (Jetstar still does not have an extensive schedule).

Im not saying this is the only reason ANZ does so much better than SAA but it definitely is a big factor.

The difference is that while both are "National" airlines of their countries, SAA is "Nationalized" and run as such. ANZ is run as a private enterprise for profit. SAA also has some ridiculously long sectors like JFK to Johannesburg which is 7900 miles, flown with inefficient A340-600 ANZ longest route to London from AKL via LX is two sectors, AKL to LAX which is about 6500 miles and LAX to LHR which runs about 5500 miles. ANZ's longest route stops right on the middle and ANZ has efficient 777 and 787 planes. Two different worlds even of they are similar sized.

peterj324 wrote:

SAA is faced with a lot of competition on short haul routes especially with LCC which make domestic South African routes very difficult to make a profit on. Meanwhile ANZ has very little competition on long haul routes and almost no competition on domestic flight. (Jetstar still does not have an extensive schedule).

Im not saying this is the only reason ANZ does so much better than SAA but it definitely is a big factor.

While NZ doesn't have that much competition on Domestic it sure has forced then into an protect mode, and selling AKL-WLG as low as $39 (370SAR) for an 60 minute flight.

On Tasman they operate in a very competitive market for example on AKL-SYD you have:
- Air New Zealand: 320,763,772,77W,789
- Virgin Australia: 738
- Qantas: 738/332
- Jetstar: 230,787
- China Airlines: 332
- Lantam: 789
- Emirates: 388

peterj324 wrote:

SAA is faced with a lot of competition on short haul routes especially with LCC which make domestic South African routes very difficult to make a profit on. Meanwhile ANZ has very little competition on long haul routes and almost no competition on domestic flight. (Jetstar still does not have an extensive schedule).

Im not saying this is the only reason ANZ does so much better than SAA but it definitely is a big factor.

'


i'll just put this out there. Although SAA definitely has some management issues (why they hell are they operating both A230s and 738s for an airline of that size for example.... a bigger carrier like AA it doesn't matter you get economies of scale either way) Air NZ could not fly to destinations like EZE and IAH without Australian feed. For example, if somebody wants to go to Vancouver or San Francisco and they live in Perth or Adelaide it's just was easy to connect in Auckland as it is in Brisbane/Sydney/Melbourne. So much so they're very worried Qantas is getting the 787 as it means more direct flights and Air Canada for example recently started Brisabne with the 787. A lot of these pax previously flew through Auckland. Now they do have good management and are fighting back really hard. I live in Brisbane and regularly get Air NZ ads on facebook or yourtube. One of them features a goose going off to LAX on holiday. It's a bit tacky but Air NZ are so smart, When i was recently in sydney (and a friend tried it in Adelaide as well and confirmed it) that the very first scene where this goose get's out of the back of a black audi (association with luxury brands - aka ppl who drive audi's fly air nz) their ad shows the first scene in the airport of your home city based on where you are streaming from. So Mine clearly had the brisbane international terminal, but somebody departing Sydney or Melbourne would see the same advertisement, And they'd see their own local airport and the rest of the ad would be the same. Australia has 24 or so million people. NZ only had 4 - so they have this to draw on. But SAA has the entire Southern Africa so I don't think it can complain about the ME carriers too much. Sure it's probably never going to support a flight to CPH. But why aren't they doing more to get LHR - CPT for example? BA flies at some times of the year 4 times a day!!!! And if you see the prices QF charges in Y for economy on SYD JNB ex australia, (often more than it costs to fly the much longer SYD LHR) there's a perfect opportunity for SAA to make some cash. And it's got something QF and NZ don't have.... a smaller aircraft (therefore easier to fill) that has 4 engines so it can fly antarctic routes. So in fall fairness to SAA, Air NZ is losing a lot of it's Australian advantage, but they're fighting hard to maintain it. And the LCC argument doesn't stack up either, as JQ starts entry level prices on domestic flights VERY VERY cheap. And any airline that wishes (thinks like for example CAL) that fly to australia or new zealand are free to fly between the two. Emirates even sends daily A320s. NZ is still the market leader. Very interesting article.

peterj324 wrote:

Meanwhile ANZ has very little competition on long haul routes.

I don't think what you wrote is true.

Los Angeles -> Hamilton has 5 airlines.
Singapore -> Hamilton has 4
Toyko -> Hamilton has 6.

That would seem like enough competition on long haul routes.

kitplane01 wrote:

peterj324 wrote:

Meanwhile ANZ has very little competition on long haul routes.

I don't think what you wrote is true.

Los Angeles -> Hamilton has 5 airlines.
Singapore -> Hamilton has 4
Toyko -> Hamilton has 6.

That would seem like enough competition on long haul routes.

You confused? I am with your statement.

There is more competition now for NZ to
LAX AA
HNL HA
PVG MU
HKG HX

NZ run JV's with
SQ SIN, both run daily
UA SFO both run daily, covers IAH, LAX aswell flown by NZ
CA PEK, NZ do PVG CA do AKL-PEK
CX HKG both run daily CX x2 DEC-FEB

And of course EK and soon QR running AKL-DXB/DOH non stop, then MH/TG/PR/KE/CZ etc via their hubs which most have been here for a long time.

NZ codeshare with TN/FJ on PPT/NAN-LAX.

Consider the following:

ME4 to NZ:
Emirates DXB-AKL daily A380, DXB-MEL-AKL daily A380, DXB-BKK-SYD-AKL daily A380, DXB-SYD-CHC daily A380
Qatar DOH-AKL (begins Feb)
Etihad: none
Turkish: none

ME4 to RSA:
Emirates: DXB-JNB 3x daily B77W & daily A380, DXB-CPT 3x daily B77W, DXB-DUR daily B77W
Qatar: DOH-JNB daily B77W and 3x weekly B788, DOH-JNB-DUR 4x weekly B788, DOH-CPT daily B77W
Etihad: AUH-JNB daily B789
Turkish: IST-JNB-MPM 3x weekly A333, IST-JNB-DUR 3x weekly A333, IST-CPT daily A333
May as well add Ethiopian to the mix since they are competing in the same market to RSA as the ME4: ADD-JNB daily B77W, ADD-JNB-CPT 4x weekly B763, ADD-CPT 6x weekly B788/B77L, ADD-DUR 4x weekly B738

I think it's fair to say that NZ and SA face an entirely different competitive environment w.r.t. the ME3/4

kitplane01 wrote:

peterj324 wrote:

Meanwhile ANZ has very little competition on long haul routes.

I don't think what you wrote is true.

Los Angeles -> Hamilton has 5 airlines.
Singapore -> Hamilton has 4
Toyko -> Hamilton has 6.

That would seem like enough competition on long haul routes.

Living 15min from Hamilton (NZHN, HLZ) I would love it if we had ANY international flights, let alone 5 to LAX. I think you mean Auckland, NZAA, AKL, which is about an hours drive north of Hamilton.

Or as they referred to it in another article, "New Zealand International Airport" - which is wrong, but not far from the truth these days.

aircanadaa330 wrote:

chiki wrote:

5. Get rid of those 4 holers ie A340's

With JNB being a hot and high airport, wouldn't removing the 4 holers be an issue? Im not very familiar with hot and high airport ops, but I am under the impression that 2 holers have performance issues.

When flying to Johannesburg and back on SAA from London, I flew on an A340 on the way there, and on an A330 on the way back (the segment that would be affected by the hot and high nature of Johannesburg) so SAA could compete perfectly well without the A340s, even on long 11-hour flights like London to Johannesburg.

UgandAir wrote:

aircanadaa330 wrote:

chiki wrote:

5. Get rid of those 4 holers ie A340's

With JNB being a hot and high airport, wouldn't removing the 4 holers be an issue? Im not very familiar with hot and high airport ops, but I am under the impression that 2 holers have performance issues.

When flying to Johannesburg and back on SAA from London, I flew on an A340 on the way there, and on an A330 on the way back (the segment that would be affected by the hot and high nature of Johannesburg) so SAA could compete perfectly well without the A340s, even on long 11-hour flights like London to Johannesburg.

To be fair, when they ordered the A340s the current, more capable, version of the A330 was not available. That, and they were replacing 747s so probably didn't envision sending +-250 seat A330s to LHR.

But you are right, they current gen A330s are perfect for euro flights, and probably South America and of course African routes as well.

77west wrote:

[I think you mean Auckland, NZAA, AKL, which is about an hours drive north of Hamilton.

Even then, AKL-LAX is only served by two carriers, AKL-SIN is only served by the NZ/SQ joint venture and AKL-TYO is just NZ.

As others have pointed out the A340s are the least of SAA's worries, they have similar economics to the 777Es which are still widely used throughout the world.

SAA needs to get their house in order before spending billions of dollars (of taxpayer money) on new aircraft.

qf002 wrote:

77west wrote:

[I think you mean Auckland, NZAA, AKL, which is about an hours drive north of Hamilton.

Even then, AKL-LAX is only served by two carriers, AKL-SIN is only served by the NZ/SQ joint venture and AKL-TYO is just NZ.

AA and NZ are the only non-stop but then you have these other options that are marketed:

AKL-NAN-LAX FJ
AKL-PPT-LAX TN
AKL-HNL-LAX HA

KaiTak747 wrote:

As others have pointed out the A340s are the least of SAA's worries, they have similar economics to the 777Es which are still widely used throughout the world.

SAA needs to get their house in order before spending billions of dollars (of taxpayer money) on new aircraft.

So what is the issue with SAA is they have a similar sized fleet to ANZ with same number of employees ? The average New Zealander makes more then South Africans so its not wage cost driving SAA toward inefficiency. Management yes but what else. Not the A340 so what is it then. IS it productivity ?

Most of the world is getting invaded by the ME3 so Johannesburg is no different then Sydney or Heathrow, IS it the handicap planes get from the JHB altitude ?

From what I have read the A340 is a good option for hot and high airport from where the 777-300ER can struggle a bit.

jfk777 wrote:

So what is the issue with SAA is they have a similar sized fleet to ANZ with same number of employees ? The average New Zealander makes more then South Africans so its not wage cost driving SAA toward inefficiency. Management yes but what else. Not the A340 so what is it then. IS it productivity ?

Most of the world is getting invaded by the ME3 so Johannesburg is no different then Sydney or Heathrow, IS it the handicap planes get from the JHB altitude ?

There is so much more than just what you mentioned. All of the following are potentially negotiable and/or influenced by management in a good (cheap) or bad (expensive) way: Maintenance and service of the aircraft, ground handling at their bases/hubs as well as at destinations, lounge access deals, landing fees at every single airport that they use, power-by-the-hour engine leasing, aircraft lease costs, deals with fuel companies (hedging), catering, deals with the company that prints the in-flight magazines, duty free store/on-board shopping suppliers, rent of the headquarters building and electricity, pensions, training for all crew, uniforms for all crew, deals with travel agencies and companies that travel a lot and so on.

A management that doesn't spent it's time actively trying to get the best prices throughout is quickly going to run up some very high costs across the entire spectrum. It might not seem like a lot individually, but with the size of a big modern airline it will quickly skyrocket.

This article is full of conjecture but there's very little analysis.

It is lazy to equate SA and NZ as 'similar' based on the broad criteria mentioned (fleet size, employees, destinations served, and geography), while ignoring some pretty obvious other issues.

It has been stated in the public domain, NZ derive most of their highest profits from NA operations. This is mainly due to the limited (AA) and weaker competition (FJ, TN, HA) in that market, and boosted recently with their JV partner UA. Backtracking to Australia, heading East over South America, or traveling via Asia are not really viable competitive options.

The same cannot be said for South Africa to Europe, by far one of their largest markets. To Europe JNB is served by BA, AF, LH, LX, IB, TK, KL, VS, (lump in LY), the Mideast (EY, EK, QR, SV, and finally other African (ET, KQ, MS, DT, HM, MK), All capable of serving significantly more markets one stop. And the ones that can't, can dump capacity from SA to fill beyond flights. No prorates required if BA or LH carries a passenger from JNB to ARN or ORD, There's a high fare hit if SA needs to online to LH in FRA or MUC.

I've heard that African flights are the highest yielding markets, but there's just not enough volume and demand to outweigh to competitive situation to Europe and the Mideast.

Couple this with JNBs location which means wide bodie utilization is lousy, compared to NZ who can tag a turn to Australia in order to make the NA afternoon flights from AKL. Or alternatively not have a 20 hour ground time in AKL.

The sad part is, the newest generation of WB aircraft would serve SA extremely well. Smaller and less expensive to operate, thus making it more viable for shorter domestic and regional daytime sectors. But it is unlikely they could absorb the capital required to purchase/finance these airframes, nor they might not survive the onslaught of lost market share to other carriers with smaller planes. I also don't know if JNBs elevation would continue to provide a challenging factor with twin operations.

This does not excuse the fact that SA has serious management issues and way too much government interference. But chucking out management with new "professionals" does not escape the challenging functional realities of SA's operations.

airzim wrote:

This article is full of conjecture but there's very little analysis.

It is lazy to equate SA and NZ as 'similar' based on the broad criteria mentioned (fleet size, employees, destinations served, and geography), while ignoring some pretty obvious other issues.

It has been stated in the public domain, NZ derive most of their highest profits from NA operations. This is mainly due to the limited (AA) and weaker competition (FJ, TN, HA) in that market, and boosted recently with their JV partner UA. Backtracking to Australia, heading East over South America, or traveling via Asia are not really viable competitive options.

The same cannot be said for South Africa to Europe, by far one of their largest markets. To Europe JNB is served by BA, AF, LH, LX, IB, TK, KL, VS, (lump in LY), the Mideast (EY, EK, QR, SV, and finally other African (ET, KQ, MS, DT, HM, MK), All capable of serving significantly more markets one stop. And the ones that can't, can dump capacity from SA to fill beyond flights. No prorates required if BA or LH carries a passenger from JNB to ARN or ORD, There's a high fare hit if SA needs to online to LH in FRA or MUC.

I've heard that African flights are the highest yielding markets, but there's just not enough volume and demand to outweigh to competitive situation to Europe and the Mideast.

Couple this with JNBs location which means wide bodie utilization is lousy, compared to NZ who can tag a turn to Australia in order to make the NA afternoon flights from AKL. Or alternatively not have a 20 hour ground time in AKL.

The sad part is, the newest generation of WB aircraft would serve SA extremely well. Smaller and less expensive to operate, thus making it more viable for shorter domestic and regional daytime sectors. But it is unlikely they could absorb the capital required to purchase/finance these airframes, nor they might not survive the onslaught of lost market share to other carriers with smaller planes. I also don't know if JNBs elevation would continue to provide a challenging factor with twin operations.

This does not excuse the fact that SA has serious management issues and way too much government interference. But chucking out management with new "professionals" does not escape the challenging functional realities of SA's operations.

From what I have read, the A350-900 will operate out of JNB with little or no restrictions compared to earlier big twins like the 77W. (Don't take that wrong, I think the 777 is great, just not always for JNB)

I believe SAA did have an RFP with Airbus for the A350 a couple of years ago, but that got canned by government at some point. Even if they order now, they will be waiting years...

You do have a valid point, about SAA long ground times. They are one of the few carriers with predominantly north-south traffic flow on their premium routes, where overnight flights are preferred. Not much way around this ground time where NZ can utilize the WB fleet to Australia and the islands.

77west wrote:

airzim wrote:

This article is full of conjecture but there's very little analysis.

It is lazy to equate SA and NZ as 'similar' based on the broad criteria mentioned (fleet size, employees, destinations served, and geography), while ignoring some pretty obvious other issues.

It has been stated in the public domain, NZ derive most of their highest profits from NA operations. This is mainly due to the limited (AA) and weaker competition (FJ, TN, HA) in that market, and boosted recently with their JV partner UA. Backtracking to Australia, heading East over South America, or traveling via Asia are not really viable competitive options.

The same cannot be said for South Africa to Europe, by far one of their largest markets. To Europe JNB is served by BA, AF, LH, LX, IB, TK, KL, VS, (lump in LY), the Mideast (EY, EK, QR, SV, and finally other African (ET, KQ, MS, DT, HM, MK), All capable of serving significantly more markets one stop. And the ones that can't, can dump capacity from SA to fill beyond flights. No prorates required if BA or LH carries a passenger from JNB to ARN or ORD, There's a high fare hit if SA needs to online to LH in FRA or MUC.

I've heard that African flights are the highest yielding markets, but there's just not enough volume and demand to outweigh to competitive situation to Europe and the Mideast.

Couple this with JNBs location which means wide bodie utilization is lousy, compared to NZ who can tag a turn to Australia in order to make the NA afternoon flights from AKL. Or alternatively not have a 20 hour ground time in AKL.

The sad part is, the newest generation of WB aircraft would serve SA extremely well. Smaller and less expensive to operate, thus making it more viable for shorter domestic and regional daytime sectors. But it is unlikely they could absorb the capital required to purchase/finance these airframes, nor they might not survive the onslaught of lost market share to other carriers with smaller planes. I also don't know if JNBs elevation would continue to provide a challenging factor with twin operations.

This does not excuse the fact that SA has serious management issues and way too much government interference. But chucking out management with new "professionals" does not escape the challenging functional realities of SA's operations.

From what I have read, the A350-900 will operate out of JNB with little or no restrictions compared to earlier big twins like the 77W. (Don't take that wrong, I think the 777 is great, just not always for JNB)

I believe SAA did have an RFP with Airbus for the A350 a couple of years ago, but that got canned by government at some point. Even if they order now, they will be waiting years...

You do have a valid point, about SAA long ground times. They are one of the few carriers with predominantly north-south traffic flow on their ccpremium routes, where overnight flights are preferred. Not much way around this ground time where NZ can utilize the WB fleet to Australia and the islands.

While South Africa doesn't have a nice big market like Australia next door, it does have all of Southern Africa for regional flights. A330 or A340 between flights to LHR can fly to Lagos, Windok, Nairobi, Accra, and Zimbabwae. Maybe flying them of 5 hour African flights would be more profitable then the long flights to London, Perth and Hong Kong full of competition. Just a thought for flying where Emirates doesn't.

jfk777 wrote:

77west wrote:

airzim wrote:

This article is full of conjecture but there's very little analysis.

It is lazy to equate SA and NZ as 'similar' based on the broad criteria mentioned (fleet size, employees, destinations served, and geography), while ignoring some pretty obvious other issues.

It has been stated in the public domain, NZ derive most of their highest profits from NA operations. This is mainly due to the limited (AA) and weaker competition (FJ, TN, HA) in that market, and boosted recently with their JV partner UA. Backtracking to Australia, heading East over South America, or traveling via Asia are not really viable competitive options.

The same cannot be said for South Africa to Europe, by far one of their largest markets. To Europe JNB is served by BA, AF, LH, LX, IB, TK, KL, VS, (lump in LY), the Mideast (EY, EK, QR, SV, and finally other African (ET, KQ, MS, DT, HM, MK), All capable of serving significantly more markets one stop. And the ones that can't, can dump capacity from SA to fill beyond flights. No prorates required if BA or LH carries a passenger from JNB to ARN or ORD, There's a high fare hit if SA needs to online to LH in FRA or MUC.

I've heard that African flights are the highest yielding markets, but there's just not enough volume and demand to outweigh to competitive situation to Europe and the Mideast.

Couple this with JNBs location which means wide bodie utilization is lousy, compared to NZ who can tag a turn to Australia in order to make the NA afternoon flights from AKL. Or alternatively not have a 20 hour ground time in AKL.

The sad part is, the newest generation of WB aircraft would serve SA extremely well. Smaller and less expensive to operate, thus making it more viable for shorter domestic and regional daytime sectors. But it is unlikely they could absorb the capital required to purchase/finance these airframes, nor they might not survive the onslaught of lost market share to other carriers with smaller planes. I also don't know if JNBs elevation would continue to provide a challenging factor with twin operations.

This does not excuse the fact that SA has serious management issues and way too much government interference. But chucking out management with new "professionals" does not escape the challenging functional realities of SA's operations.

From what I have read, the A350-900 will operate out of JNB with little or no restrictions compared to earlier big twins like the 77W. (Don't take that wrong, I think the 777 is great, just not always for JNB)

I believe SAA did have an RFP with Airbus for the A350 a couple of years ago, but that got canned by government at some point. Even if they order now, they will be waiting years...

You do have a valid point, about SAA long ground times. They are one of the few carriers with predominantly north-south traffic flow on their ccpremium routes, where overnight flights are preferred. Not much way around this ground time where NZ can utilize the WB fleet to Australia and the islands.

While South Africa doesn't have a nice big market like Australia next door, it does have all of Southern Africa for regional flights. A330 or A340 between flights to LHR can fly to Lagos, Windok, Nairobi, Accra, and Zimbabwae. Maybe flying them of 5 hour African flights would be more profitable then the long flights to London, Perth and Hong Kong full of competition. Just a thought for flying where Emirates doesn't.

Don't underestimate the level of African bureaucracy that some of these destination countries put up though, SAA may be limited in the number of flights even when the country has no decent home airline to protect.

A good example of the shambolic SAA management is the fact that their new (and not very good in my opinion) website which is not yet published is ranking 2nd on Google for all the world to see. https://preview.flysaa.com/

I am close to this type of stuff so probably think its a bigger deal, but what business, let alone a 'major' international airline would allow this to happen?

Sandyb123

jfk777 wrote:

While South Africa doesn't have a nice big market like Australia next door, it does have all of Southern Africa for regional flights. A330 or A340 between flights to LHR can fly to Lagos, Windok, Nairobi, Accra, and Zimbabwae. Maybe flying them of 5 hour African flights would be more profitable then the long flights to London, Perth and Hong Kong full of competition. Just a thought for flying where Emirates doesn't.

And they do. SAA fly daily A330/A340 flights to LOS, LAD, ACC and CPT (the latter between four and six times daily), and very frequency to MRU. WDH, NBO, HRE, LUN, etc are more about frequency than capacity so it doesn't see as many A330/A340 flights. The message is that the A330/A340s are utilized quite nicely on short and medium-haul sectors as well.

I've posted this elsewhere before, but it bears repeating: All the get-rid-of-the-A340 comments - really not understanding the problem. Even if they could get their hands on a hypothetical 797/A360 that has better high-and-dry performance than the A340, twice the range, takes twice as much cargo and runs on water, and even if every other airline withdrew from ZA and passengers were willing to pay twice as much for the ride, they'd still be losing money.

One problem they might be having with their A346 (not sure about the rest of the fleet) is the lack of Premium Economy and First. The one I was on had Business class section that wasn't as large as I expected. Ticket prices (for Business) was much lower than I expected - booked at short notice - or else I would be sitting in the back

As others have hinted, it's easy to underestimate the cost of corruption and incompetent management.

evanb wrote:

And they do. SAA fly daily A330/A340 flights to LOS, LAD, ACC and CPT (the latter between four and six times daily), and very frequency to MRU. WDH, NBO, HRE, LUN, etc are more about frequency than capacity so it doesn't see as many A330/A340 flights. The message is that the A330/A340s are utilized quite nicely on short and medium-haul sectors as well.

Just to add to this: the reason they fly A330/A340s between JNB and CPT is due to demand. They have around 20 daily flights despite a good deal of (cheaper) competition. It is one of the 10 busiest routes in the world - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b ... utes#World