Branson's new Aussie flight plan

[Wirraway]

Thurs "The Australian"

Branson's new flight plan
By Steve Creedy
January 20, 2005

BRITISH entrepreneur Richard Branson will set up another locally based airline to fly across the Pacific if plans by Virgin Blue to fly the route do not proceed.

At the launch of the A380 in Toulouse, France, Sir Richard said he was keenly interested in flying the route and was prepared to set up a 51 per cent owned Australian company with separate institutional shareholders if necessary.

"If we can work it with Virgin Blue, that will be great," he said.

"If the board of Virgin Blue decides just to keep it to short haul (flying), then we'll be looking for other Australian partners.

"We are trying to bring it to a head over the next couple of months but we definitely want to fly the Australian-Pacific routes."

Sir Richard's comments came as Qantas announced it would dedicate its first four 501-seat A380s to its US services when it began flying the aircraft in the second half of next year. This comes in the wake of an announcement from Singapore Airlines chief executive Chew Choong Seng, who said he would like to fly the giant planes between Sydney and Los Angeles.

Qantas has ordered 12 A380s, with options for 10 more, and said the first dozen planes would allow the airline to fly at least 17 weekly services between Melbourne and Sydney and Los Angeles and 14 to London via Bangkok, Hong Kong and Singapore.

The A380 services would be bolstered by the use of long-range Boeing 747s.

The decision not to use the A380s initially on the highly competitive kangaroo route surprised observers, given that Singapore has nominated London-Singapore-Sydney as its launch route and expects to start the service by the end of June 2006.

But Qantas executives said high yields and strong demand on US routes made it the best place to start flying the giant plane.

Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon denied he was making the move to head off plans by Singapore Airlines to fly to Los Angeles.

"Our business case has always shown that the best place for us to deploy the aircraft was the US, and the second best place was the UK over the kangaroo route," Mr Dixon said.

"It's a good competitive advantage for us, although it means for a period we'll be flying long-range 747s against Singapore and, by the sounds of it, half the world on the kangaroo route, but I think we can get over this."

Qantas argues Singapore should not be allowed to pick up passengers in Australia and fly them to the US until it can get similar rights out of Singapore.

Mr Chew said he supported the dropping of all restrictions on flying from either country.

"We are all for opening everything up so that it's a level playing field all round – may the best person win because our belief is that competition is good for the consumer," he said.

"At the moment the Pacific route is rather under-served and we would like to be in position to offer the travellers between America and Australia a different-priced service option on the route," Mr Chew said.

"After all, we're not looking for overnight access, although ideally that is the endgame, but we believe we can add to the competition in the marketplace."

Mr Chew said he was not surprised Qantas had chosen to deploy its first A380s on US routes as it was no secret that there was little competition on the route and yields were high.

"Therefore a combination of lower costs and very high fares is natural for anybody who wants to deploy," he said.

When challenged to say what the fares should be on the route he stopped short of committing Singapore to cheaper tickets, saying only that the airline would remain competitive and prices would be determined by supply and demand.

He believed the potential to develop tourism and business traffic from the US to Australia was tremendous and suggested that originating traffic in the US would be at least 60 per cent.

Asked about complaints from Qantas that SIA was hurting Jetstar Asia by undercutting its low launch prices, Mr Chew pointed to Jetstar's pricing on Australian domestic routes and asked: "So who is calling the kettle black?"

Qantas chief financial officer Peter Gregg had earlier said that the Singaporean low-cost start-up faced a level of competition "you might not experience in Australia because the laws wouldn't let it happen".

But Mr Chew said: "We are not controlling what Jetstar Asia is offering beyond Singapore. For Jetstar Asia to complain that we are competitive, vis-a-vis them, is a bit ironic."

The Australian

===========================================

[Johhny Utah]

Mr Chew said he supported the dropping of all restrictions on flying from either country.

What sort of benefit does Mr Chew propose that Australia will receive from adopting an 'open skies' arrangement with Singapore?
there seems to be a lot of bleating from the Singaporeans about gaining rights to fly from Australia onwards, but as yet I haven't seen anyone define any benefits for Australia from the deal.

Anyone...? :confused:

[Beer Can Dreaming]

Johnny Utah, the silence is deafening !!

[Al E. Vator]

Cheaper Flights,
More Frequencies,
Better US Connections via Star,
Better Cabin Configuration,
Better Inflight Service,
Younger and FAR friendlier flight attendants.

Enough reason?

[Johhny Utah]

What rights do airlines from Australia gain by having an 'open skies' agreement with Singapore? Especially given that Singapore has a population that is tiny compared to Australia, is a tiny island in size and has very little tourist value.

I'm guessing that the Singaporeans have realised that the time is coming soon when airlines on the way to Europe from the Pacific (& vice versa) will no longer have to stop in Singapore, and are thus trying to 'grab' as many other routes as they possibly can - what other justification do they have for operating Aust-USa, given that they already operate flights direct from Singapore to the USA...?

Better looking flight attendants wasn't really what I was after - maybe something at a slightly higher level...:rolleyes:

What makes you think that the airfares will be cheaper if SQ start operating the route? They have laready begun to downplay this concept in initial media interviews, and surely if the route is so under capacity at the moment, they would be foolish to offer cheap seats...? :confused:

As a counter point, how much are those benefits listed worth to you...?

Flights no cheaper
oz jobs going overseas
profits going overseas

for what gain - so SQ can continue to make record profits...?:confused:

[bugsmashing]

If SQ are currently making record profits, based on they're current routes, doesn't this suggest that there is potential for QF to pick up unused capacity on these routes? Although of small size, Singapore is still a vital business destination.

If the pacific route is still under capacity, there probably wouldn't be much movement in prices on the SYD-LAX route. However, don't you think that both airlines would have incentive to lower prices if they are not experiencing the current loads?

As to your question about the other benefits:

"Flights no cheaper
oz jobs going overseas
profits going overseas"

Isn't this in line with QF current plan to move jobs to Asia? They should be proud to support this.

[Hippolite]

Hail the great A380....

Direct flights between Singapore and London and Melbourne to Los Angeles. Sounds innovative...I don't think.

I can only imagine the airport fun in BKK when a plane load of 800 people in transit try to move through.

Seems to me that it will just be the same old ride in a bigger plane packed with more passengers.

Surely, the A380 could be made long range enough to do Melbourne or Sydney to London direct and Melbourne to New York or Chicago non stop?

I just don't see much benefit to passengers or much incentive to fly on it myself. It hardly a great leap forward for anyone else but the airlines hoping to save 12% on thier operating costs.

Bars and shops and cafes in the sky....yeah right!!

Am I missing something here with this new plane??

HH:cool:

[PureRisk]

But back to the other topic at hand on this thread......
As we have all been saying for a while, weather Singapore fly Oz - Us direct or not Virgin pacific/blue is not far away. Once again with all the other pressures/challanges that Q are facing, it will be very very interesting to see how they fare when one of their most profitable (and govenment protected) routes is finally opened up. (Cant stop Virgin PAcific when they're 51% Oz owned).
The profits from this route (and the kanga) is what has helped Q subsidise the current onslaught on the domestic front. We all here know how happy the corperate Pax are with Q service on this route and how much they want more options. Can you imagine the Q bottom line on this route WHEN it happens not with just Virgin PAacific but if Singapore start also.........Me thinks the Q shares wont be so happy. :confused:

[Don Esson]

At the current rate, there will be little left for the enxt generation of Australians - your kids and mine! We all know that Qantas leaves much to be desired but that is NOt the point - why should we tolerate giving air traffic rights away to foreigners for little or no return?

Should SQ gain trans Pacific rights, what will they do for Australia? Very little. If Branson manages to get an Ausytalian airline up and running, my guess is that he will simply share the profits - or indeed losses - with Qantas and United. There are a few very short periods during the year when capacity is constarined byt by and large, everyone on the route has plenty of unsold seats most of the time.

New carriers will not grow the market except at the cost of yield. Good yields generally means profit, low yields equate to losses. Neither QF nor SQ nor anyone else want to see a blood bath, but that will happen if SQ gets its way. How many US carriers have been seen off the route by QF and UA (and before them Pan Am)? Northwest, Continenatal, and American ) The times have not changed all that much.

[Wirraway]

Fri "Mebourne Age"

Branson willing to fly solo across Pacific
By Fleur Leyden
January 21, 2005

Aviation analysts have given the thumbs up to plans by Virgin Atlantic chief Richard Branson to set up a locally based airline to fly the lucrative Australian-Pacific routes, with or without the help of Virgin Blue.

At the launch of the Airbus A380 in France on Tuesday, Sir Richard said he was interested in flying the route with Virgin Blue. But he did not rule out establishing a 51 per cent-owned Australian company with separate institutional shareholders if Virgin Blue did not come on board.

Analysts said Sir Richard's plan made sense because the route across the Pacific is one of the world's most profitable.

Qantas and United Airlines are at present the main players servicing the routes between the US and Australia.

"Virgin would be looking to link up all its other businesses or airlines around the world, and that would make it the only truly global airline," said one analyst.

Just who Sir Richard would take as a partner in the absence of Virgin Blue is unclear.

==========================================

[schnauzer]

Aviation analysts have given the thumbs up
And who exactly is that? Peter Harbison?:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

What is this, Virgin paid advertising?:mad:

[Kaptin M]

Johhny U, you ask, "What rights do airlines from Australia gain by having an 'open skies' agreement with Singapore?", but according to the article it states, "Qantas argues Singapore should not be allowed to pick up passengers in Australia and fly them to the US until it can get similar rights out of Singapore."
So obviously your own company has the answer you're looking for.

Don, your comments, "There are a few very short periods during the year when capacity is constarined byt by and large, everyone on the route has plenty of unsold seats most of the time.
New carriers will not grow the market except at the cost of yield.", seem grossly at odds with those made by Dixon of QF when he stated,
"Our business case has always shown that the best place for us to deploy the aircraft was the US", and also with SQ's Mr Chew....
"At the moment the Pacific route is rather under-served...it was no secret that there was little competition on the route and yields were high".

Do YOU know something neither of these men don't??

[Don Esson]

Kaptin,

Who knows what these guys know or don't know? Would you think that they are really telling it 'as it is' when one is defending a part of his patch with the other seeking to expand his patch into that of the other? Truth is always a casulaty of war, in whatever form war takes place. To take Dixon's comment first, why don't they suspend operations to J'burg or London or Frankfurt or Hong Kong in order to get them onto the route "that's best to deploy aircraft"? If his statement is correct, then he can't be that serious about making the best money he can for his shareholders.

Mr Chew said ' "At the moment the Pacific route is rather under-served...it was no secret that there was little competition on the route and yields were high". How does he define Air New Zealand, Air Canada, Air Pacific and Hawaiian who all operate on the Pacific? I believe they will be joined by Air Tahiti Niue in a few months. And then we have the likes of Philippines, Eva Air, China Airlines, Asiana, Korean and some others who are active players in the Australia-Nth American market . Who says there's no competition?

As posted in another thread, the latest stats on the Dept of Transport website are for September 2004. Inbound to Oz, QF had a load factor of 70.1% with UAL having a reported load factor of 78.8%. Outbound, the numbers are 74.9% and 84.5% respectively. Can anyone say that capacity is constrained?

I don't hold a brief for Qantas, but I do want to see Australia and its interests protected. Too much has already been given away for little or no return. What value for example does Gulf or Emirates add to Australian society? Since they began their unfettered operations, has there been any significant increase in the numbers of Middle East tourists travelling to Australia? They, like SQ and some other parasites, are interested solely in the business they can carry between Australia and the UK and Europe. Call me protectionist if you wish but I want a future for my children and my children's children. The way the country is going, there will be nothing left for Australians except to bow and scrape to foreign masters. Think about it, and do so without the thought processes of Pauline Hanson, or not being xenophobic.

[bugsmashing]

Don,

I agree with you about protecting the interests of Australia. However, with the QANTAS chairman pushing for increased foreign ownership and the CEO talking about moving jobs overseas, is protecting QANTAS' interest protecting Australia's?

If QANTAS has no interest in ensuring that its growth helps Australia, why should the Australian people be concerned in helping maintain QANTAS?

[Don Esson]

BS,

Appreciate what you are saying which is hard to refute we need to think long term. We all need to be very careful of these pr!cks (MJ and GD) as they have a short term focus so that they can achieve their short term targets and thus 'earn' their large bonuses. They will be gone by the time the damage is done as a result of their greed.

What to do about this is the dilemma as all small shareholders are essentially without voice. Does the Board and Qantas's major shareholders have a long term vision for the company. if they have, its pretty well hidden. Do they suffer tunnell vision and myopia? British Airways didn't hang around for long, did they?

I am doing my bit by writing to politicians in the hope that they do care about the nation's future and will add their weight to meaningfully support the cries of many who are saying 'enough is enough'. I encourage others to do likewise. If enough speak up, the the pollies may listen and discover that there's some sense in what we are saying. Even if Qantas does export more jobs off-shore, or sells more to foreign interests, we need to do all we can to protect what is left, and to not ignore the 30,000 plus Australiands and their families who are relying on Qantas for the meal tickets. Some are not worth helping but the majority are good, hard working decent people who need all the support we can lend.

[Three Bars]

If QANTAS has no interest in ensuring that its growth helps Australia, why should the Australian people be concerned in helping maintain QANTAS?

Bugsmashing and all other readers of this forum:

Please DO NOT confuse the actions of QF management with the attitudes of QF staff. We too, have strong views about where the company seems to be heading at present, but if the Australian public let QF die (as you seem to be advocating) who will be hurt? The CEO? The management team? They will have their money in the bank by now thnaks to those very generous self-appointed and self-regulated bonus packages.

The ones who would be hurt most would be the QF workers who find even CPI increases in EBAs very difficult to negotiate these days without having to give up T&Cs.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[DJ737]

From www.smh.com.au

By Frank Walker
January 23, 2005
The Sun-Herald

Qantas's role as Australia's national airline will dwindle over the next five years as it joins more international partnerships and domestic routes are taken over by cut-price airlines, aviation experts predict.

Governments are also drastically changing attitudes to supporting flag-carrier airlines, allowing more competition to give travellers better access and increase tourism.

The Australian Government has signalled it will soon allow Singapore Airlines to fly the lucrative Sydney-Los Angeles route in competition with Qantas.

Transport Minister John Anderson said Singapore Airlines' request to fly across the Pacific out of Sydney was "not unreasonable", and the Government would look seriously at some access.

In return, Qantas hopes to set up its cut-price airline Jetstar to fly the internal Asian market, using Singapore as a base.

The shifts in the airline business come on top of Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon's shock declaration that Qantas could not be "all-Australian" and that the airline would have to source more of its people, services and products overseas.

"Governments are now considering what is best for the economic big picture, bringing in more tourists and allowing more competition so that Qantas can expand overseas," said Peter Harbison, managing director of the Centre for Asia-Pacific Aviation.

"Qantas is very profitable in the domestic market, but it will grow only 3 to 4 per cent a year. But the Asian internal market will grow more than 10 per cent and Qantas has to be in it."

Mr Harbison said huge planes such as the Airbus A380, carrying more than 500 passengers, would force Qantas to be involved in more partnerships with other airlines to fill them.

Doug Nancarrow, editor of Aircraft And Aerospace magazine, said the Qantas offshoot Jetstar could end up taking over most of the domestic flights.

"Jetstar could become the primary domestic airline with Qantas running the premium routes of Sydney-Melbourne-Brisbane," he said.


DJ737

[Icarus2001]

Good work Frank. :rolleyes: In return, Qantas hopes to set up its cut-price airline Jetstar to fly the internal Asian market, using Singapore as a base.

Try: www.jetstarasia.com

Another triumph of aviation journalism in Australia.

[bugsmashing]

Don Esson/Threebars

Thanks to both of you for replying. Please let me clarify my position. I would support the government protecting QF SYD-LAX route, IF they get an agreement from QF to ensure if continues to remain an Australian flag carrier. Which means it will keep its jobs in Australia where ever possible (ie. when they are making 600 million+ profits) and not attempt to screw its employees.

I believe that QF employees at the front line are primarily proud of working for QF and provide a good service. However, management decisions are policys are killing the company, and its image. QF management continue to layoff staff, claim poor when it comes to EBA negotiations and plan to move its workforce to foreign countries. And then they want us to help protect their cash cow services from competition. I can't help but feel like saying "f*** you".

I would like to think that the federal government would say "okay, we'll keep em out, but you keep those jobs in Australia". I just can't see it happening. I think I'll take up Don's plan of writing to some pollys.

[Chilli Muscle]

Looks like QF have taken the bait and will be screwed like telstra was.

As ye sow so shall ye reap.

[Sunfish]

Umm the issue is one of free markets and market forces.

Qantas is an effective monopoly that operates under an exemption from the ACCC. Air capacity is subject to intergovernment regulation in the interests of maintaining a stable air transport service to and from all countries involved.

There is always tension in such a situation because airlines will always scream at allowing new entrants and economists will allays scream at cartels.

In my opinion, now that Qantas is becoming less Australian in character, and is fast losing its iconic status, as well as the fact that anyone (even Richard Branson) can build and operate an airline, there is room for more competition and less regulation of capacity.

[schnauzer]

The good thing about that article, DJ, is that "Harbison" hasn't yet been correct with any of his aviation predictions. I'm quite frankly surprised that the media still listen to him.

But we know why YOU listen to him DJ. He fuels your hatred of QF. Turned down by QF were we, hmmmm?:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[Three Bars]

Bugsmashing,

You are spot on when you say that most frontline QF staff are still proud of THEIR company and want to see it do well. We too, see the danger in the current management tactic of no-holds-barred cost reduction - a reputation has no face value, but it is very expensive to restore if destroyed.

What is so frustrating currently is that:

If the airline makes a profit, managers get big bonuses - management wins.

If staff try to keep their current conditions, GOD cries poor, we take a wage freeze - management wins.

The airline then makes a bigger profit, managers get bigger bonuses - management wins.

The QF board meets and suggests bigger salary packages for the managers, the institututional investors vote for it - management wins.

Staff threaten industrial action to get a fair go, management accuses them of "holding a gun to the head of the travelling public". This is widely reported in the media - management wins.

To cut costs, management set up LCCs and employ people prepared to work for far less than their contemporaries to get a toehold in this fabulous industry - management wins.

The airline then makes a bigger profit, managers get bigger bonuses - management wins.

To cut costs, the product goes to s&*t, passengers are upset but the airline makes a bigger profit, managers get bigger bonuses - management wins.

The travelling public eventually get sick of the product and travel on other carriers, QF disappears - the managers retire, the staff lose.

I really wish that all those who are concerned about QF would write a letter to the QF board and explain their concerns. If the board got a lot of letters and a reduction in business, maybe they'd get the message. Unfortunately, it is usually the frontline staff (who are all too aware of the problems) who have to face the disgruntled public.

[Kaptin M]

VIRGIN's A380 layout.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/hanmersprings/vs380.gif

[QFinsider]

Remember the days fellas economic theory worked? It is a theory. Yes increased competition will yield short term gain, but it never lasts because markets aren't perfect.

Having spent much time on the island state, i would be treading very carefully. You shake hands, check you still got your watch.

three bars is spot on.
Don't mix us up with the crap going on at QF. The visitors(management) don't care, we do. Our livelihoods and those of our families depend on it.
The family at QF grow angrier by the day...
And the next day we just feel sad

[bigfella5]

Three bars,Qfinsider and so on,
if Q employees are so worried as so many have attested to on this site, why haven't they "enmasse" taken significant industrial action ie: ALL unions involved have banded together and worked towards stopping the erosion of entitlements?
Every time I see a post on PPRUNE in regards to what is happening at Qantas, it usually ends up with "two weeks training and now they're earning 90k a year" or " don't trust those mexicans, and what the hell do they know about fixing international aircraft" or "SOs get far too much for just twiddling some buttons and getting the beer ready for the bus trip" or " why should desk workers get 10% fares" or " I'm sick and tired of those limp wristed fairies giving me attitude" or " jetstar boys n girls can't even pass the pegs and blocks test and now they're threatening MY seniorioty" (or add easterns, sunstate, whatever) or "Dixon is taking what he can'....the list goes on.
If you people can see what is going on (it's common knowledge in the financial markets, go and watch the "Wall St" movie again!) and haven't done anything about it and still insist on bitching about one another then I'd suggest that the reasons for Dixon and co's being able to do what they're doing can be in a major way be attributed back to yourselves.
Harsh words I know but can anyone argue with that?
Handing over:ok:

[Three Bars]

Bigfella,

There's a small thing in the way of what you are advocating and it's called Industrial Relations Legislation.

Protected industrial action can only take place in an EBA period. The laws are all firmly in favour of the employers and even keeping pace with inflation is difficult. This is definitely not the era of the 70s and 80s when unions could strike whenever they felt like it. Today, employers have workers believing that they are lucky to have a job and should be grateful for the crumbs that are thrown their way after all of the hard-working management team have taken their bonuses.

Our conditions of employment and working environment are under attack from every angle by beancounters in management. I still try to do my job as best I can, but I am under no misapprehension that I am anything to Qantas other than a drain on the bottom line. The fact that this affect on morale will inevitably damage Qantas does not matter a jot to the current management ethos which only cares about the shareholder (not employees or customers). The majority of Qantas' profit these days is as a result of cost-cutting, not yield.

When combined with the fact that half of the AIPA COM seems to be lining up for their own QF management job, there is little that can be done to ease the frustration other than venting on these forums. From the posts of others on these threads, for a variety of reasons and grievances, very few would grieve the loss of Qantas mainline (who are the only Australian employer still curently offering reasonable employment conditions in the aviation industry).

You are very misguided if you expect individuals to combine to take action outside of the due process. In the current climate, if individuals resigned or went on strike, there would be pilots falling over themselves to take our jobs at a much lower pay rate who would convince themselves that their actions were justified and that we were overpaid in the first place.

Personally, I hope for nothing more than to be able to keep the remaining conditions that I have until I retire in 15 years or so. I would hate to be a 20 year-old just starting out in this industry and I feel that the only way that pilot conditions will turn around is when the labour supply from GA and the flying training establishments in Australia begins to dry up.

The only bright light in recent times is the realistation by Corrigan that the low-fare war is killing everybody. What a stupid industry we are in when the last company to go broke wins the game!!!!!

[Kaptin M]

A most excellent, and succint summary of the airline industry generally, worldwide at this time, Three Bars.
Substitute "QANTAS" for airline X, Y, or Z - the pillaging is the same.

The biggest THREAT to the survival of many airlines, and the future of the workers employed by them, is - imo - coming from WITHIN the companies themselves, by those at the top.
Management seem to view their positions as ones which can be taken advantage of, to reward themselves excessively at the expense of the workers in their charge, and eventually the company itself.

I only hope there will be some recourse to bringing these people to justice, once obvious failures occur.
They seem more like deliberately planned crashes, than crashed plans!

[bigfella5]

Three bars,
Thanks for a straight forward and insightful answer. Seems that your saying what I'm thinking.
I don't believe that I'm misguided in advocating mass indutrial action whether it be direct or by stealth however, I guess that's another subject though.
It interests me that you imply the AIPA com are nothing more than self centred individuals lining up for a gravy train seat.
Would it be too much to ask exactly what is the role of that organisation? (how do you get on it,responsibilities and the like). I'm genuinely curious.
Cheers?

[Eastwest Loco]

three bars

I am sorry to say that QF is finding more ways to shoot itself in the foot than I would have believed.

My agency sold around 1.8 million bucks worth of QF, but with the commission revision and fee for service mode; "we had to have", I will be lucky to sell 20% of that figure this year.

New Zealand has already gone to 1% commission - answer? - sell EK at 9% or NZ at 5 with flown revenue overide.

Global explorer and one world fares? 7% on QF - sell the AA side of the codeshare outbound over the pacific or CX or AY over Asia - again 9%.

South Africa? Easy - SAA side ot the codeshare.

Santiago? LA side of the codeshare.

Fiji - FJ flight number - etc etc.

Just because some Wally at QF (and I bet Wally da Wog had a hand in it too!) decides they know better doesn't mean we have to take it.

The sad bit is that we are endangering the jobs of mates by standing up for ourselves. I personally do not like that.

Best

EWL

[dirty deeds]

This is a time in the Australasian/Pacific aviation arena where dark clouds seem to hover over the whole industry. With airlines competing for lower costs and higher yields, they can only reduce fixed costs so far, and the only tangible costs left are our livelyhoods. Jobs heading overseas, pilots and FA overworked and underpaid, jobs contracted out internally and externally, engineers replaced by contractors overseas, institutions complaining that record profits are still not enough or a down grade to $140m not enough. Its about time that the Jetstar, DJ, QF, QF link etc etc rivalry be forgotten and a unified work force gather with safety in numbers and fight this greed and insult upon our professionalism. I pose a question, why don't all our representatives pool resources and, drop their own agendas and fight the cancer that will see all of us potentialy soon watching our jobs fade away before our eyes. It's up to all of us to get motivated towards a common cause before its to late.

[bonvol]

It's too late already mate.

The cancer was caught in August 89 and it's in the bones now. Just a matter of how long till the patient dies and the way it's going the RIP sign will be up soon enough.

Just in QF there are so many factions that spend all their energy punching each other out. The union is a training ground for management so what hope is there. Bugger all.

[dirty deeds]

Great attitude. See you in the unemployment line.

[bonvol]

Well, you wont see me there.

It was a few years ago that the penny dropped with me that the pilots in this country are incapable of unity. No suprise really. We couldn't keep it together in the real test 15 years ago and its a lot worse now.

The only solution imo was to use the current "good' conditions to start another source of income. I earn more in this now than in QF so I personally will be ok. Pilots will always earn "reasonable" dough when compared to secretaries and waiters but will work their guts out for it, a la jetstar. It's worlds best practice after all :yuk:

You must be a young bloke dirty deeds who still has some idealism left.

[Sheep Guts]

I do agree with the fact that Qantas should get reciprocal rights out of Singapore. Those who say it wouldnt be beneficial are forgeting that Singapore is a major hub in SE Asia and they carried over 30 million people thru Singapore last year, 2/3s more than Sydney. If Qantas started flying to the US out of Singapore it could be beneficial.

As for Bransons Pacific ideaswho knows. Maybe we are seeing the First truly Global Airline in our midst unfolding.

One things for sure this industry is allways exciting, except for the lacking of job security.


Sheep