Originally Posted by
Wingspar
Subsidising is my subjective term.
For example, Qantas has no commercial international network yet others in the IFAM list do. They do have a network because of financial assistance from their respective governments.
Its not commercial.
However if the Australian Government assistance package selects a foreign carrier then that puts money into their coffers. I would call that a subsidy! Others may not.
Now Qantas is reliant on this package to operate a very limited network and they have to bid against these foreign carriers.
Hence my position.
I take your point.
However, IFAM is not there to subsidise international flights; it's an AusTrade program designed to subsidise farmers and producers by maintaining and opening export opportunities.
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications has already thrown over $130 million at supporting Australian airlines maintaining international flying via the repatriation and minimal international network programs. At some point there has to be a value-for-money test. If you were to take IFAM money and give it to QF or VA to run international freight services I doubt whether you would get anywhere near the utility from your outlay.
And it's probably relevant that QF and VA have large domestic operations that are being subsidised by the government via the minimal domestic network program. Government has already put nearly $190 million into that. So, Australian airlines have already been the beneficiaries of well over $300 million in government subsidies just via the two minimal network programs.
I don't know what money Etihad, Emirates and Cathay have received from their respective governments but bear in mind that they don't have domestic networks so their government support manifests itself entirely in the international market.
Interesting times though.