View Full Version : 380 hangars manila style.
11th Feb 2012, 21:34
Giant hangar sends Aquino?s dream soaring | Inquirer News (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/144021/giant-hangar-sends-aquinos-dream-soaring)
LTP, a joint venture between Germany’s Lufthansa Technik and the Philippines’ MacroAsia Corp., has invested $30 million to build the cavernous aircraft maintenance facility. It is expected to employ 400 Filipinos in high-technology and high-skilled jobs.
Management: Qantas Engineers among the ?Highest Paid in the World? (http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/230410/20111013/qantas-engineers-already-the-highest-paid-in-the-world.htm)
Ms Wirth said.
The total cost of the ALAEA’s claim is $165 million - plus $95 million to build a new hangar.
11th Feb 2012, 22:34
And yet another shonk! When will governments around the world wake up to the problems these are causing and either introduce their own, or tax their own companies in the same manner. If you don't know what an SEZ or Freeport is look up google and then put the pieces together of which countries are doing well in aviation. It's not rocket science!:ugh:
I live here, the local manager for one of the big steel suppliers told me the contracts have not been signed yet. The frames have to be made in India and then shipped to MANILA. Buildings take a long time here to complete.
12th Feb 2012, 00:05
That's something grouped labour could be trying to push, working with their respective companies, to find a mutual advantage instead of just clashing heads... Unfortunately it seems some in charge rather make a fuss for personal carrier advancement in he political scene instead of mutual solutions.
12th Feb 2012, 10:42
Word is QF is sending their entire A380 fleet there for a retrofit. The cost of the hangar will be paid off in a very short time. None of the work done here in Oz!
13th Feb 2012, 02:11
A genuine question, not inflammatory:
Let's say a bit of turf at Avalon was quarantined as a "tax-free zone" where foreign airframes (or those VH- registered which spend a lot of time outside the jurisdiction) could be flown in for maint with no GST and other forms of tax break - would the cost to the customer airline then be competitive with MROs elsewhere (so including wages etc)?
If so, has this idea been floated to the gov't? "If you create this tax environment, for fixing foreign-reg equipment (so essentially an export), we'll not only save a few jobs, but actually create 400".
The gov't might lose a bit from the GST foregone, but would gain from the corporate and individual income tax and lower transfer payments for the (now-not unemployed) LAMEs.
Or is that all a bit too logical?
13th Feb 2012, 03:32
Taildragger. The problem is if they agree to that with the airlines, then they set a dangerous precedent for all other industries that are currently offshoring.
13th Feb 2012, 03:45
Thanks for your input to PPRUNE taildragger, aka Gina Rinehart.;)
Our Future in Poetry – Gina Rinehart | The Preston Institute (http://prestoninstitute.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/ginarinehartpoem/)
Develop North Australia, embrace multiculturalism and welcome short term foreign workers to our shores
To benefit from the export of our minerals and ores
The world’s poor need our resources: do not leave them to their fate
Our nation needs special economic zones and wiser government, before it is too late.
13th Feb 2012, 04:23
The Philippines are in on the act as well with Lufthansa Technik being afforded this special tax consideration helping to get the 380 maintenance. It is about time AIPA, AFAP, VIPA, JPC, ALAEA and the AWU etc take this TOGETHER with QANTAS, VIRGIN AUSTRALIA, JETSTAR and AIR AUSTRALIA to the government to allow us, all airline employees to have half a chance of competing. It is not just the pressure on wages due to the high dollar but more importantly, the massive difference in taxation that is hampering our ability to compete. It is government policy from both sides that is helping to export ALL our jobs.
Domestically we all compete, internationally however, we will continue to be slaughtered. VA employees you will fly to the States and may get a little more flying to ASIA, SA with new EDTO provisions but that probably is it. That's because you're not competing with airlines from an SEZ, instead your feeding them. This will help you domestically but do nothing for you internationally.
We need Australia to have an SEZ / Freeport in order to compete when it comes to International aviation because the logical conclusion is the revenue we're getting from these Australian companies at the moment will be gone, you may as well at least try to keep the jobs and PAYG tax. The government and opposition need to be lobbied as ONE industry. Does someone here have the skills to start a petition that could be passed through all our industry so that finally, we too, may have a voice?
13th Feb 2012, 04:51
Give Gina Reinhardt a call.:hmm:
13th Feb 2012, 05:16
GST is not an issue. Companies claim that anyway and offset it against GST earned. So GST means nothing.
13th Feb 2012, 05:41
And if I understand correctly, foreign customers of Australian MRO's do not get charged GST anyway. Likewise any other exported goods or services.
It is an unfortunate fact/inconvenient truth that the high AUD is the main problem here.
13th Feb 2012, 06:35
RedWine, that was announced a fair while ago. But the schedule has been put on hold until OQA is back in the air etc
13th Feb 2012, 08:13
I'd be happy to take a 50% pay cut if my income tax was cut to leave me no worse off. That would allow me to compete globally in the labour market. No political party is going to agree to that, however. The government's coffers would be a little worse off but I would still be spending the money in Australia, generating economic activity, paying GST and not drawing any benefits.
As it is, it looks like my job's going to disappear offshore meaning the tax is lost, the money is not being spent here leaving retailers worse off and I might start drawing the dole.
I doubt Gina's motives are about anything other than looking after Gina but our international competitiveness is about more than just salaries.
13th Feb 2012, 08:39
You pay 50% tax?
13th Feb 2012, 08:46
You know what I mean.
13th Feb 2012, 09:09
Anyone who thinks this benefits anyone apart from those 1% of the 1% sitting at the top have got rocks in their head.
Every country has some form of protectionism - about time we started using some of our own. Trade tarriffs in the USA, they want to get rid of the Australian PBS because they think it interferes with the competitiveness of their 'poor' pharmacuetical giants. The have farm subsidies to protect their farm workers. Frankly I dont blame them. Keeping the knowledge, land and ability to produce food locally is going to be more and more important - food security, expect to hear more of it. Instead of transporting food everywhere using fossil fuels. Try setting up a business in most Asian countries without a local 'partner' : protectionism.
The argument about high labour costs in Australia is a furphy. Australian workers are far more efficent than their American and Asian counterparts. The Asian/US worker may get paid only 1/2 as much but there are two or three of them employed. Been in to a US department store lately? Australian systems are far more efficient and developed.
The government and the country loses through loss of taxation revenue - but the 'free zone' still needs 'paid for' infrastructure.
Blaming unions is rhetoric - most of the time they argue for CPI and cant even get that.
Little point in racing to the bottom on simple labour costs.
being an owner of a liquor store,i would be able to grow my business 10000 % p/a over 20yrs if i was given a complete tax exception on liquor, i wouldn't mined some of that ,where do i sign up.:cool: what rubbish
13th Feb 2012, 09:45
Sorry Direct Anywhere, but I'm not sure where, in my earlier post, I indicated that I'm in favour of employing anyone but Australians, in Australia.
I was simply posing a question to see if there is some way to get this sort of activity back within Australia, so as to create long-term, value-adding, skilled jobs for Australians. I don't recall mentioning "welcom[ing] short term foreign workers".
So I'm afraid your Gina Rinehart comment has gone a bit over my head. :confused:
Another way to interpret my earlier post would be to ask: what effect do Australia's tax rates have on export competitiveness and could such competitiveness be improved by adjustments to tax laws?
13th Feb 2012, 10:04
Taildragger, my comment was tongue-in-cheek.
Gina Rinehart has been on the record for some time now suggesting that NW Australia should be opened up as a 'special economic zone' with tax exemptions and the ability to bring in workers from SE Asia on contracts that are exempted from the need to comply with Australian labour laws.
The idea of opening up an area of Avalon as you suggested reminded me of her plans. There are certain parallels even though they are clearly not identical.
And the poetry? Apparently somewhere she has stuck a poem on a rock (seriously) which I've quoted (see the link) about her brilliant ideas to establish these SEZs and import low cost labour. The story of the rock has been all over the papers today. Try a google search on Gina Rinehart poetry.
13th Feb 2012, 13:19
Qf 1, firstly, I assume, you know what a mathematical constant (k) is? I'm sure you can work out how it is different in your case compared to airlines. Secondly, how about, I am allowed to bring in some 457 visa specials and open up a store next to yours paying their rates and tax? Tell me your conclusion and then talk to me about rubbish. That, I'm afraid, is our government policy!:ugh:
13th Feb 2012, 15:55
No worries. Sorry if I fired back a bit quick.
I've no idea what Ms Rinehart's up to, but I'd like to see jobs which could be done in Aus by Aussies, done in Aus by Aussies.
maggotdriver could you imagine all the large companys threatening the government with off shoring work, if they aren't given the same exemptions .This dim wit government needs to stop the hand outs,and no i don't know what mathematical constant (k)is.cheers:ugh:
13th Feb 2012, 19:02
The call to protect industries and put an end to free trade is going to be overwhelming around the world by 2012. Qantas has left its run way too late.
"Level playing field" is just another new age oxymoron, like self regulation it just doesn't happen.
Will knowing the mathematical constant (k) help me keep my job?
13th Feb 2012, 22:32
My whole point is quite simple, very few other industries are run in specific tax haven (or close to it) areas that make them very difficult to compete against. Most countries require some tax rate that falls within a normal range when they tax companies and or individuals. Why are we allowing countries to manipulate their tax or more particularly, the areas in which they pay their normal tax rate, without response? We manipulate tax rates between the states in our own country (think Virgin startup) and yet we don't see it or want to address it when it comes to international predatory nations. I think we need to get a voice as an industry, not just as one employer or one employee group. We need a rational response from our government otherwise internationally we're stuffed.
Qf1, my reference was purely to a constant in maths (you've probably got a degree in pure mathematics now that I've said it!). When it comes to oil for example, Australia must calculate the cost to transport the oil from overseas to Australia, plus the cost of the oil, PLUS the cost of the return of the vessel. Then we can compare the cost that it would be to produce it locally (assuming we could). Normal global trade occurs like this in most industries.
Similar occurs when it comes to normal goods with containers but usually you would pay less transport costs because the shipping company effectively gets a "back charter", i.e. you don't pay for the return of the vessel. When you buy a good from overseas, it is consumed here and another good is sent overseas as an export. However, in aviation this only occurs with freight (and peolple immigrating or emigrating). With passengers there is no consumption of the good after travelling in one direction. In fact, if the person travels from A to B first then B to A or B to A first then A to B is irrelevant. They are still travelling between A and B or B and A BOTH ways. Given the cost of aircraft is roughly constant, the cost of fuel is roughly constant you can remove them from the equation. What you have left is direct comparison of taxation policy and wages. We continually hear about the wages, what about a little more noise about taxation policy?