Lagrange you miss qcc2's point. SQ have Fifth Freedom rigts across the Tasman, but they don't take them up because they wouldn't make money on them.
I go back to my earlier point - if there was sooooooo much money to be made across the Pacific using first-world business models, then why wouldn't the first-world airlines who ALREADY HAVE TRAFFIC RIGHTS ON THE ROUTE be using them?
The only way a non-first-world carrier can make a buck on the route is by employing its lower cost base.
And that might be competition, but it's UNFAIR competition.
Take away the subsidies and equalise the tax and then I suggest qcc2, myself and others would be all for it.
And what the blazes do they want the rights for anyway??!! Because they see it as easy money. It'd be like United deciding to operate to Jo'burg out of Sydney. No actually that'd be more logical as it'd just be an extension... let's see... it'd be like UA deciding they wanted to go to HK or Tokyo out of Sydney. No logic to it, aside from wanting to rip someone else off.
Real competition would be great as it would lower prices. But they want in, so they can charge the same (or not that much lower) fares and just make $$$. Their directors have a duty to do just that in that they have a duty to maximise returns to shareholders. You can bang on about 'better for the punter' all you like but that's the commercial reality.
There is an avenue available to SIA and that is to set up an operation under an Australian AOC; they're competent enough, they'd get it and there is a clear precedent to an Australian-incorporated airline being 100% owned by offshore interests (my, didn't that work well... ). But that would jack the costs up to a first-world level, thus taking away their advantage. And that says it all.