Tag Archives: Garuda


Singapore Airlines buka Jakarta-Sydney nonstop!

Mulai 23 November 2016, Singapore Airlines akan membuka penerbangan langsung Jakarta-Sydney sebanyak 3x seminggu menggunakan pesawat Boeing 777-200ER dengan jadwal sebagai berikut:

  • SQ261
    • Singapore (SIN) – Jakarta (CGK)
      • Berangkat: 2015
      • Tiba: 2100
      • Hari: Senin, Rabu, Jumat
    • Jakarta (CGK) – Sydney (SYD)
      • Berangkat: 2225
      • Tiba: 0930+1
      • Hari: Senin, Rabu, Jumat
  • SQ262
    • Sydney (SYD) – Jakarta (CGK)
      • Berangkat: 1100
      • Tiba: 1435
      • Hari: Selasa, Kamis, Sabtu
    • Jakarta (CGK) – Singapore (SIN)
      • Berangkat: 1535
      • Tiba: 1810
      • Hari: Selasa, Kamis, Sabtu

Singapore Airlines memang merupakan salah satu maskapai terbesar untuk pasar Indonesia – Australia namun selama ini jika ingin menggunakan maskapai ini antara Indonesia dan Australia, anda harus singgah di Singapura untuk ganti pesawat. Bagi penumpang² yang tinggal di pulau Jawa dan Bali, singgah di Singapura artinya menambah waktu terbang perjalanan antara 2 jam hingga 4 jam dan tentunya ini diharapkan akan memberi alternatif bagi penumpang Singapore Airlines di Jakarta.

Rute Jakarta-Sydney saat ini dilayani oleh Qantas dan Garuda Indonesia, kecuali pada hari Senin dan Rabu (Jakarta – Sydney, Selasa dan Kamis untuk Sydney-Jakarta) yang akan dilayani Singapore Airlines. Untuk Jumat (dari Jakarta, dan Sabtu dari Sydney), rute ini akan diterbangi oleh ketiga maskapai tersebut.

Rute Jakarta-Sydney ini merupakan rute yang menggunakan Fifth Freedom Rights (Hak Kebebasan Kelima) yang memperbolehkan tiket antara negara kedua dan ketiga (Jakarta-Sydney) dijual selama nomor penerbangan dan pesawat yang digunakan berasal atau menuju negara asal maskapai (Singapura). Sebelumnya, penerbangan Fifth Freedom antara ASEAN dan Australia melewati Indonesia sudah pernah dilakukan oleh:

  • Ansett Australia (KUL-CGK-SYD, B763) di akhir 1990an
  • Thai Airways (BKK-CGK-SYD) di akhir 1990an
  • Malaysia Airlines (KUL-CGK-MEL, B772) sekitar 2007 – 2009
  • Qantas (SYD-CGK-SIN dan SYD-DPS-SIN) dari tahun 1990-an hingga pertengahan 2000an.

Sebelum ada yang ngomel kok Indonesia memberikan Fifth Freedom Rights, jangan lupa bahwa Indonesia selama ini juga memiliki hak yang sama antara lain (yang pernah dilakukan dalam 15 tahun terakhir, diluar ASEAN)

  • Garuda
    • SIN-LHR (dari CGK-SIN-LHR), B773, masih berlangsung
    • SIN-AMS (dari CGK-SIN-AMS), B773, masih berlangsung
    • AMS-LGW (dari CGK-AMS-LGW) B773, sudah berakhir
    • SIN-FRA (dari CGK-SIN-FRA), B744, berakhir awal 2000an
    • DXB-AUH(dari CGK-DXB-AMS), A332, digantikan dengan lewat AUH
    • CGK-AUH-AMS, A332, digantikan CGK-AMS/CGK-SIN-AMS

Pertanyaannya sekarang adalah, apa yang akan dilakukan Garuda untuk mempertahankan pangsa pasarnya di rute Jakarta-Sydney dan Jakarta-Denpasar-Sydney?


SQ buka rute Jakarta-Singapore, bagaimana menurut anda?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


Garuda 737 Low Fuel Emergency – Can We Seek Fairness At The DGCA On Serious Incidents?

At 0730UTC today I received a message, which had been spreading around various industry chat groups:

GIA646 WIII-WAPP at 05.22 req Divert to WAAA and at time 06.26 pilot state distress msg “Mayday 2x.” due to short fuel endurance just only 13 minutes” at position 56 miles east of Mks. A/c normal landing at 06.43 with high priority.

Being my usual curious self, I went to FlightRadar24 and searched for the aircraft. I soon found out the aircraft was operated by a 737-800 with registration PK-GMK, and that the aircraft had left relatively on time from Jakarta (CGK/WIII) towards Ambon (AMQ/WAPP), the aircraft made it to Ambon, then diverted to Makassar (UPG/WAAA).

Flightpath of GIA646 overflying UPG towards AMQ, then diverting to UPG.

A search at another site, revealed the following weather information:

  • METAR: WAPP 310030Z 06003KT 020V080 2000 -RA FEW012CB BKN013 25/24 Q1011 TEMPO TL0100 5000 RMK CB TO E
  • TAF: WAPP 310700Z 3107/0106 VRB06KT 1000 +RA FEW012CB BKN013 TEMPO 3112/3115 6000 NSW

Back to the replay. The following rough timeline was constructed by me based on the Flightradar24 replay (times in UTC, and there is a 7 minute or so time difference with the report above):

  • 0400 GIA646 abeam of Kendari at FL350
  • 0411 Batik Air A320 departed AMQ
  • 0430 (approx) GIA646 commended descent
  • 0443 Aircraft descended through 10000ft
  • 0447 Aircraft at 6000ft about to enter holding at AUDRI at 6000ft.
  • 0455 Batik Air 737-900ER departed AMQ, and 1 Wings Air ATR72 either before or after it.
  • 0510 Aircraft left holding at AUDRI and passed 4000ft
  • 0514 Aircraft at 400ft and commenced go-around.
  • 0516 Aircraft reached 4000ft amidst missed-approach procedure, to return to AUDRI.
  • 0525 Aircraft left holding fix at AUDRI to divert to Makassar (UPG/WAAA), 1 737-300 (unknown) was holding, and landed not long after. Aircraft did not hold after the missed-approach. Aircraft cruised at FL340 during the diversion and nothing out of the ordinary was observed.
  • 0613 Top of Descent inbound UPG/WAAA
  • 0634 Aircraft commenced approach
  • 0636 Aircraft landed at UPG/WAAA
  • 0709 A Lion Air 737-900ER landed at AMQ/WAPP
ILS Approach chart for Ambon runway 04, showing waypoint AUDRI.

Before GIA646 arrived on scene, several aircraft had been holding due to weather at Ambon, but all had landed by the time it entered the area. From here it can be ascertained that apart from the bad weather and the go-around, nothing was unusual and it made little sense for the aircraft to declare Mayday due to low fuel upon descent to Makassar, unless a major screw up in the fuel planning occured, which was unlikely.

GIA646 did not spend too long holding at AUDRI and immediately set upon its diversion after the missed approach.

Let’s look back at what was reported:

GIA646 WIII-WAPP at 05.22 req Divert to WAAA and at time 06.26 pilot state distress msg “Mayday 2x.” due to short fuel endurance just only 13 minutes” at position 56 miles east of Mks. A/c normal landing at 06.43 with high priority.

If they only had 13 minutes of fuel left, why didn’t they declare the emergency before, after all, they declared it amidst their descent.

There is a possibility that there is a misunderstanding about the nature of the emergency and the requirement of fuel reserves. When planning your flight, under IFR rules in Indonesia, you must carry enough fuel to go from Origin to Destination, plus fuel to go from your Destination to you Alternate, and hold over your alternate for if I remember correctly, 30 minutes. You must also land with a final reserve of 30 minutes flight.

When do you declare your Mayday if you are low on fuel? The obvious answer is to declare a Mayday if you are sure your estimated fuel remaining after landing is going to be less than 30 minutes endurance.

Now while we don’t know the facts at the moment, we know that GIA646 did not have an excessive holding period near Ambon, and for it to claim to have only 13 minutes left of fuel while still on descent would constitute a massive screw up, I mean, MASSIVE! After the previous transport minister said “airlines should follow Garuda’s example”, and making rules requiring “face-to-face briefing between dispatchers and pilots,” if that aircraft did have only 13 minutes of fuel left, it just shows that those rules were just a burden with little or no use to generally accepted normal methodologies used in the world.

When the crew reported having only 13 minutes endurance at 0626, what was most likely was that they were going to land with less than 30 minutes of fuel on board, or, 43 minutes of fuel left. The aircraft landed at 0643, which was 17 minutes later, the Mayday call was justified.

A quick look at CASR Part 830.2 indicate that this is a serious incident as it involves:

830.2 b. 15) Fuel quantity requiring the declaration of an emergency by the pilot.

Now, this is where it gets interesting. Since the Air Asia 8501 accident, many had become concerned that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation were either by their own will, or by the instructions of the then Transport Minister (who seemed to have went on a rampage to blame LCCs and calling them as unsafe, and insisted that the industry should follow Garuda), as it put in several punitive regulations when it came to accidents and serious incidents. For this case, this would include:

  1. The suspension of routes, in this case the suspension of GIA646’s schedule until conclusion of the NTSC investigation.
  2. Barring the carrier, in this case, Garuda, from adding new routes and frequencies anywhere pending the investigation’s completion.
  3. Preventive grounding of the pilots involved, until the completion of the accident investigation.

Points 1 and 2 are, in the opinion of many in the industry (in Indonesia and the rest of the world), utterly useless, and may be aimed at sabotaging business recovery of airlines suffering these mishaps, likely under the premise of the then minister’s alleged favoritism of Garuda. Point 3, may appear normal but in Indonesia’s case at the moment, the grounding has always been extended to the whole investigation period (that is, until the publication of the final report, even if the interim report does not deem the crew actions to be a factor).

The challenge now for the DGCA and the current minister is to either:

  1. Prove impartiality by giving Garuda equal treatment to the other airlines that suffered serious incidents since these “silly rules” were put in place; or
  2. Remove these “silly rules” and restore common sense into our industry.

If the transport minister had not change, option 2 is out of the question, and option 1 would basically be slapping himself in the face. Regulatory partiality has been proven by one previous serious incident involving Citilink (Part of Garuda) that occurred since the “silly rules” were in force, escaping the punitive treatment by the DGCA, of which the saddest part of all is that some high ranking officials (well, I know at least one) there didn’t even know that it had happened.

Decompression case of QG861 several months ago constitutes as a serious incident under CASR 830, yet no route suspension, pilot groundings, nor investigations took place, raising suspicion of regulator’s favouritism.

I do hope that now, under the new minister, swift decision will be taken into putting alternative 1 in force while waiting for alternative 2 to take place. After all, the new minister had already announced he would make a wholesale review of rules that were counter-productive, which gives us in the industry a big ray of hope, and we do hope it includes these so-called “silly rules.”


Saham Garuda naik 70%, tetapi kok penjelasan agak gimana gitu?


Para pemegang saham Garuda Indonesia (GIAA) tahun ini bisa bersenyum lebar. Harga saham maskapai ini jatuh ke nilai terendah salam sejarahnya pada akhir tahun 2015 yang sempat menyentuh angka dibawah Rp. 300 per lembar saham. Namun harga di akhir Mei 2016 adalah Rp. 510 per lembar saham, atau naik 70% dari awal tahun.


Banyak faktor yang menghasilkan melonjaknya harga saham, salah satu diantaranya adalah strategi financial turnaround yang dilakukan oleh manajemen pimpinan Direktur Utama Garuda Indonesia, Arif Wibowo, yang fokus terhadap profitability dan cost control, dan bukan ekspansi atau rute² gengsi. Selain itu juga sentimen pasar modal dengan kondisi industri airline dalam negeri Indonesia juga menjadi faktor. Dibanding maskapai² lain, Garuda relatif luput dari berita buruk dan juga sorotan regulator yang sepertinya sedang gencar mengejar Air Asia group dan Lion Air group, sehingga pasar modal melihat Garuda Indonesia sebagai safe bet di sektor ini.

Namun saya sedikit kaget ketika melihat newspiece yang satu ini:

Saya tidak bisa menyalahkan tendency presenternya menggunakan alasan gejolak didalam Lion Air sebagai pemicu kenaikan saham Garuda, namun kalau kita lihat dari trend harga yang di post diatas, pada bulan Mei merupakan turnaround dari fase profit-taking investor jangka pendek saham Garuda, karena harga tertinggi dalam 12 bulan terakhir terjadi di 13 April pada harga Rp. 565 per saham. Namun ada hal yang sangat menjanggal bagi saya di newspiece tersebut.

Market Share-nya kok sepertinya ngawur yah?

Presenternya memperlihatkan bahwa market share domestik Garuda di tahun 2014 adalah 37% dan Lion adalah 41% dan berubah besar menjadi 45% untuk Garuda dan 34% untuk Lion Air di tahun 2015. WOW! Data yang tertera di newspiece tersebut sebagai berasal dari Bareksa.com ini kok sepertinya, salah yah?


Data yang diterbitkan oleh Kementerian Perhubungan untuk jumlah penumpang pada tahun 2015 memperlihatkan gambar yang sangat berbeda.

Data terkini mengenai market share maskapai domestik berjadwal, 2015.

Sayang sekali penjelasan presenternya yang sangat energetik ini berdasarkan data yang menurut saya, salah. Lalu saya berpikir, kenapa kok sepertinya presenternya sangat mengelu-elukan Garuda disini? Apakah ada hubungannya dengan hubungan antara pemilik CNN Indonesia dengan Garuda Indonesia? Atau memang sekedar bagian sentimen negatif masyarakat terhadap Lion Air? Saya sangat menyayangkan bahwa media yang merupakan franchise dari media global ini kok bisa memperlihatkan data yang salah… kenapa?

Apapun jawabannya, 1 fakta kita tidak bisa pungkiri, bahwa pertumbuhan pasar domestik yang tahun kemarin hanyalah 0.17% menjadi keprihatinan kita semua di sektor penerbangan, dan khususnya bagi Garuda, PR bagi pak Arif Wibowo masih panjang, namun sebagian dari hasilnya sudah bisa kita lihat (misalnya, dari nilai laba bersih tahun 2015).


Bandara Lombok Praya tutup 45 jam karena ATR Garuda keluar landasan

Pada tanggal 3 Februari, pesawat Garuda Indonesia jenis ATR72-600 dengan nomor penerbangan GA7040 dari Denpasar (DPS/WADD) menuju Lombok (LOP/WADL) keluar landasan ketika melakukan pendaratan pada pukul 1703 WITA (0903UTC). Pesawat yang beregistrasi PK-GAG tersebut awalnya mendarat dengan normal lalu tiba2 belok ke kanan dan berhenti sekitar 15-20 meter dari pinggir landasan.


Pesawat mengangkut 28 penumpang dewasa dan 1 bayi, semua penumpang tidak ada yang mengalami cedera. Pesawatpun terlihat tidak mengalami kerusakan parah kecuali pada roda depan pesawat. Cuaca pada saat kejadian pun cukup baik:

WADL 030900Z 23008KT 9999 SCT016 30/23 Q1010 NOSIG

Pesawat membawa 1 pilot instrutur dan 2 pilot yang sedang melakukan pelatihan lanjut konversi ATR72 (line training). Salah satu pilot yang sedang melakukan latihan lanjut konversi ATR72 dilaporkan sebelumnya adalah pilot MA-60 Merpati.

Akibat dari kejadian ini, bandara Lombok Praya terpaksa harus ditutup menunggu pesawat nahas tersebut bisa dipindahkan. Upaya pemindahan pesawat terkendala karena peralatan berat yang diperlukan harus diangkut terlebih dahulu dari Pulau Bali. Bandara tutup selama kurang lebih 45 jam sebelum pesawat berhasil dipindahkan pada pukul 1410 WITA (0610UTC) tanggal 5 Februari. Dikabarkan penerbangan akan mulai kembali pada pukul 1630WITA (0830UTC) tanggal 5 Februari.



Lombok Praya airport closed for 45 hours after Garuda ATR went off runway

On 03 February, Garuda Indonesia ATR72-600 PK-GAG operating flight 7040 from Denpasar (DPS/WADD) to Lombok (LOP/WADL) suffered a runway excursion upon landing. The aircraft landed at 1703L (0903Z) on runway 13 and then swung to the right exiting the runway where it came to rest some 15-20 meters from the paved surface.


28 adult passengers and 1 infant was reportedly onboard. No injuries were reported and the aircraft was relatively undamaged except for the nose landing gear. The weather during the incident was relatively fine:

WADL 030900Z 23008KT 9999 SCT016 30/23 Q1010 NOSIG

The aircraft was reportedly flown with a flight crew consisting of an instructor and 2 trainee first officers. One of whom is reported as a former Merpati MA-60 pilot.

As a result of the incident, Lombok Airport was closed pending the aircraft to be moved from the runway strip. Lack of heavy removal equipment hampered recovery efforts and Lombok Airport was closed for some 45 hours before the runway strip was clear at 1410L (0610Z) on 5 February. Heavy equipment to move the aircraft had to be brought in from Bali. Flights are set to resume from 1630L (0830Z).



LCC boss heads Garuda: What to expect?

Citilink A320 vacates the runway at Jakarta Soekarno-Hatta Intl Airport near Garuda’s main apron. (Photo by V2, with permission)

As Garuda replaces it’s CEO Emirsyah Satar with its LCC subsidiary boss, Arif Wibowo of Citilink, another flag carrier group headed by a former LCC boss, is having changes too.

Qantas group, like Garuda, is headed by someone who formerly headed its LCC subsidiary. Alan Joyce, formerly headed Jetstar before taking the helm of Qantas. The continuing woes at Qantas, saw 2 CEOs within the group leave today. CEO of Qantas International Simon Hickey and CEO of Qantas Domestic Lyell Strambi both resigned today.

Whilst I like to poke fun at Joyce, the fact is that investors seem to have confidence in him, whether they want to admit it or not, the Qantas share price have doubled throughout 2014. Of course, for Qantas to survive, it had to take drastic measures, and offload some of its market share to the more efficient Jetstar. It ended up conceding the Kangaroo route battle by tying up with Emirates (despite Qatar being in OneWorld) in order for Qantas to focus on defending its Asian and Pacific markets. These, and probably countless of other unpopular decisions, while easy to shoot at, are mostly necessary for the survivor against the onslaught of the Middle Eastern big 3 airlines, and the LCCs in domestic and regional markets.

If we look at the case of Garuda, as soon as rumors of Arif Wibowo becoming the candidate be the next Garuda CEO, the share price rose. Be the increase coincidental or not, investors seem to have faith that he can pull Garuda out of the financial demise. His track record in Citilink has proved his ability to “leave old habits behind”, as under his helm, Citilink was able to change from the “state owned enterprise” mentality that plagued the various iterations of Citilink in the past.

From what I personally know of Arif Wibowo (which is not much), he is not the type of boss that likes to sit and “play being a  boss.” This guy knows his stuff! Words like CASK, RASK, utility, cost index, etc, spews out of his head with little trouble. I experienced that whilst walking with him through a shopping mall from a meeting onto an airline event, and the numbers he said
were said with confidence and weight that was obvious to me they didn’t just come out of thin air (his personal tablet is continuously used to calculate, look at documents, etc).

So what to expect? He already said he will focus on 3 things:

  • Profitability
  • Cost Control
  • Adequate Finance

I wouldn’t be surprised if he decides to close unprofitable routes in the near future, and some of those routes may surprise some. Don’t be surprised if those route closures end up being unpopular.

I wouldn’t be surprised either if the product is changed or downgraded (without becoming cheapskate), after all, he was heading Garuda’s sales and marketing before heading Citilink, and those were the days when the sales of Garuda helped the financial turnaround and the products were right for the day. Let’s face it, the days of full service high-end carriers ruling the skies in short haul is history. We’ve seen it in Europe where flag carriers have become hybrid carriers (full service and LCC style products). And what Citilink offered to the passengers, seemed more in tune with what was wanted compared with its competitors. This guy seems to know what the passengers want.

Cost control will probably be the least popular aspect of his strategy. Well, let’s face it, Garuda has the highest cost per available seat in the country for a mainline carrier (since the demise of Merpati, whose CASK seemed beyond the ridiculous). Let’s look at the flag carriers in Europe facing the onslaught of ME3 and the LCCs, and look at Qantas. While I admit it’s easy and fun to poke fun at these decisions, the measures were necessary to ensure long-term survival of the company, and I as a critic, would probably only offer alternatives that aren’t too different.

As for adequate finance, it’s obvious that Garuda’s problems cannot be solved quickly if true change is to be made. Finance is needed to ensure the company survive throughout the change period. The need for adequate finance throughout a period of change, is nothing new for Garuda. They did it under the Robby Djohan, Abdul Gani, and Emirsyah Satar eras.

So what to expect from Garuda? Without reinventing the wheel, we can look at what happened to Qantas as the other flag carrier headed by a former boss of its LCC subsidiary. Beyond that, we can look at the struggles the European flag carriers had to go through. Nothing’s new. Reality has to catch up with Garuda eventually, and I for one am relieved they seem to have the right CEO this time.


Garuda dapat bintang 5 dan ganti DirUt dari LCC

gaGaruda Indonesia baru saja mendapatkan status 5-star airline oleh Skytrax setelah berjuang cukup lama dalam memperbaiki produknya. Namun, begitu mendapatkan penghargaan ini, Garuda Indonesia juga mengganti direktur utama Emirsyah Satar dengan Arif Wibowo yang sebelumnya adalah direktur utama anak perusahaannya, Citilink.

Strategi Emirsyah Satar untuk mengejar peringkat 5-star dari Skytrax meskipun bagus tetap menimbulkan pertanyaan mengenai performa laba/rugi Garuda. Kerugian tahun ini diperkirakan mencapai $200 juta, dan harga sahamnya sempat turun ke Rp. 415, nilai terendah sejak IPO. Anehnya, harga saham Garuda mulai naik ketika mulai muncul kabar bahwa Emirsyah Satar akan diganti di bulan Desember, dimana harga saham melonjak ke Rp. 540, sebelum turun kembali ke RP. 462. Ketika bulan Desember tiba, harga saham terus meningkat hingga RP. 625 dan bertahan tidak jauh dibawah nilai tersebut satu minggu ini.

Harga saham Garuda Indonesia sejak awal 2013 dan efek kabar akan digantinya Direktur Utama sejak Q3 2014 (Chart: Yahoo)

Sepertinya pasar, meskipun sangat menghargai apa yang dilakukan oleh Emirsyah Satar untuk memperbaiki Garuda, merasa bahwa waktunya sudah tiba untuk perubahan lanjut. Strategi yang mungkin tepat di dekade lalu belum tentu tepat untuk masa kini.

Direktur utama baru Garuda Indonesia, Arif Wibowo, sebelumnya menjabat sebagai direktur utama Citilink dimana beliau berhasil membawa Citilink menjadi salah satu pemain besar di pasar domestik Indonesia sekaligus mengurangi kerugiannya. Hal ini dilakukan di saat kompetisi sengit, tidak hanya di pasar penumpang, tetapi juga untuk sumber daya manusia (khususnya pilot). Dengan beliau yang baru, saya malah diam² mulai prihatin apakah Citilink bisa melanjutkan suksesnya.

Ujung-ujungnya, sungguh ironis bagi saya bahwa ketika Garuda Indonesia mendapatkan rating 5-star airline oleh Skytrax, kepemimpinannya langsung diganti oleh kepala bisnis usaha LCCnya.

Apakah ini berarti akan ada banyak perubahan untuk membuat Garuda menjadi lebih efisien? Selamat bertugas dan good luck Pak Arif!


Garuda gets 5 stars and brings its LCC boss as new CEO

gaGaruda Indonesia has recently attained Skytrax 5-star airline status after an almost decade long effort to revamp its product. However, just as the award came, Garuda Indonesia also announced that Emirsyah Satar will step down and to be replaced by Citilink CEO, Arif Wibowo.

Many has questioned Satar’s strategy to pursue the 5 star Skytrax ratings as Garuda continues to make a loss. The loss for this year is estimated to be $200 million, and the shareprice went to IDR 415 per share, its lowest levels since the IPO. Interestingly, the shareprice began to rise when it was announced that Satar would be replaced in December, briefly going up to IDR 540, before dipping to IDR 462. As we entered December, the share price has been going up and peaked at around IDR 625 and has stayed there for this week.

Garuda Indonesia share price performance since start of 2013 and effect of CEO replacement news since end of Q3 2014

It seems that the market, although appreciate what Satar has done for turning around Garuda, feels that his time has come. What may have been the right strategy in the past decade, may no longer be applicable today and therefore it is time to find a new head to run a new strategy.

Arif Wibowo has brought Citilink to become a major player in the Indonesian domestic market while it continues to reduce its losses. This was achieved in extremely competitive conditions not only in the market but also in human resources, especially pilots. While I am confident Arif Wibowo can lead Garuda into brighter days ahead, I cannot help but wonder if Citilink can now continue its streak.

At the end of the day however, I find it extremely ironic that Garuda got 5-star Skytrax rating, it immediately replaces its CEO with the former head of it’s LCC subsidiary.

Will this bring a new set of changes at Garuda? Good luck Pak Arif!