Singapore says close to full open-skies agreement

[Wirraway]

AFP
Posted: 24 January 2005 1624 hrs AEDT

Singapore says close to full open-skies agreement with Australia

SINGAPORE : Singapore and Australia are close to signing a full open-skies agreement that would give Singapore Airlines (SIA) access to lucrative Australia-United States routes, Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong said Monday.

While declining to comment on when the deal would be inked, Yeo said significant progress was likely to be made in February when he and Australian Transport Minister John Anderson meet in Canberra.

"Both John Anderson and I agreed that once the aviation industry stabilises, post September 11, we'll sit down and do the final steps to a full open-skies agreement," he told reporters.

"I think that the aviation industry has not just settled down but has also recovered strongly so I think the timing is right, just about now," he said.

The two countries signed an agreement in September 2003 that expanded bilateral air links and gave Qantas rights to use Singapore as a base to fly to Europe and beyond.

Singapore Airlines, however, was denied reciprocal rights to fly from Australia to the United States, with Canberra seeking to protect national carrier Qantas from competition on the profitable Australia-Los Angeles route.

The Australian government had cited the poor state of the local aviation industry following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, as a reason for holding back on full liberalisation.

Yeo said Singapore's allowing of Qantas-backed budget carrier Jetstar Asia to operate from the city-state last year was another "big development" that he would point to in talks with Anderson, who is also Australia's deputy prime minister.

"Such a move will benefit Qantas to a huge extent and we'll be happy to give Qantas whatever they want," he said.

Yeo was speaking at a regional aviation conference, where he repeated Singapore's receptiveness towards signing open-skies agreements with all interested parties.

"We will continue to liberalise air service agreements through bilateral or multilateral agreements with other countries and we will always be ready for open skies agreements," he said.

- AFP

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

[404 Titan]

I don’t see Australia any closer to full open skies with Singapore than what they were at the last air services talks. What I see going on here is Singapore putting the screws on Australia prior to the next round of talks in February. Be very very careful dealing with the Lion State. They work to a different set of rules than Australia and there intentions are not honorable.

[Chronic Snoozer]

They work to a different set of rules than Australia and there (sic) intentions are not honorable. On the face of evidence in the article, I'd say thats rather a sweeping statement. I'm sure I know what you mean, but why do you say that?

[404 Titan]

Chronic Snoozer

My comments regard their business and social ethics. If you read between the lines of the article the Singaporeans are making a threat to Qantas and the Australian Government. Give us what we want or we will screw you. Some may say that they are already making it difficult for Jetstar Asia to operate in the region just to make a point. They know dam well any complete open skies agreement has huge benefits for Singapore but very little for Australia. When Australia bargains with the Lion State they must play extreme hardball. First demand is the complete selling off of the Singapore Governments stake in SIA. If the Singaporeans want a level playing field then they must sell SIA completely to private investors. Second is full and free democratic elections in Singapore. Under the current dictatorship employment conditions are imposed on workers instead of being bargained for between employer and employee. The relationship between supply and demand doesn’t exist in the workplace because the government muzzles Unions and prevents proper enterprise bargaining. By using these methods the Singapore government has artificially allowed Singapore Airlines to have one of the cheapest operating costs in Asia. If and only if the Lion State abides by these rules I would consider allowing them limited frequency and capacity from Australia to the US. If they renege then all bets are off. Australia after all doesn’t need Singapore but they need us. Use this advantage to make it a truly level playing field.

[Crusty Demon]

Great. Less flying for Australian pilots and more for foreign nationals.

Singapore has many advantages over Qantas, Virgin, and any other Australian company. We need a level playing field to start with, otherwise the government is just screwing Australians for employment opportunities. Things like the fact that the Singaporeans have government subsidies in effect and our carriers don't. They can keep updating and operating the latest and greatest brand new aircraft as they can depreciate theirs over 3 years. We have to depreciate ours over 12 in Aus. This gives them massive tax advantages for a start and is just one area they can gain a competitive advantage.

Can only be good for Virgin's chances of setting up a carrier to operate on the route in the future as well.

If they are to operate out of here, make them pay Australian tax, employ Australian crews and play by the same rules as everyone else. If they play by their own rules, then what good does that do for the Australian aviation community?

[Wirraway]

Tues "Sydney Morning Herald"

Air Asia chief backs Qantas on LA route
By Scott Rochfort, in Singapore
January 25, 2005

The head of Asia's largest low-cost airline has accused Singapore Airlines of double standards in its long-fought campaign to gain access to Qantas's lucrative Sydney-Los Angeles route.

With Singapore Air protesting it does not enjoy the same rights to fly on certain routes out of Australia as Qantas has to fly out of Singapore, AirAsia chief executive Tony Fernandes said the Singaporean authorities had hindered his airline's access into the island state.

"I support [Qantas chief executive] Geoff Dixon 250 per cent," he said. "Singapore would give them what Singapore wants to give them."

With AirAsia's 49 per cent Indonesian subsidiary AWAIR being forced to refund thousands of airline tickets in the past week after failing to gain its air operator's certificate to fly into Singapore, Mr Fernandes questioned Singapore Air's claims of being anti-protectionist.

"On one side they criticise the Australian Government for not allowing them [access to the Australia-US route] but twice we have been slammed."

Mr Fernandes also noted AirAsia's frustration in being blocked from operating a bus shuttle from the Malaysian Airport of Senai across the causeway into Singapore, which he said would represent competition to Singapore Airlines.

AWAIR is considering legal action against the Singapore government over not being granted access into Singapore in time for its first scheduled flight last Wednesday.

The airline said it opened tickets for the route "on the understanding that all necessary documentation including all flight-related and safety compliance certification has been submitted to CAAS [Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore]".

Mr Fernandes said the Singapore authorities had only raised their objections to granting AWAIR a licence at the eleventh hour, after three months of talks with the airline.

The Singapore Transport Minister, Yeo Cheow Tong, however, had earlier told the Aviation and Tourism Outlook conference in Singapore that he was willing to give Qantas "whatever they want".

With Qantas complaining that Singapore Air's push to enter the US route would create an uneven playing field, Mr Yeo said: "We are very happy to sign open skies agreements with any country, and especially Australia.

"After all, we have economic ties, we've got very strong relationships that go back many many decades. Who else [is] better to have an open skies agreement with than Australia?"

The minister said he believed there were few "remaining limitations" on where Qantas could fly out of Singapore, "as can be seen with the setting up of Jetstar Asia in Singapore ... it will benefit Qantas to a huge extent."

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

[Sunfish]

" Some may say that they are already making it difficult for Jetstar Asia to operate in the region just to make a point. They know dam well any complete open skies agreement has huge benefits for Singapore but very little for Australia."


Lets get this straight. I am not an airline pilot or staff member. I am a member of the travelling public.


"very little for Australia" = "very little for Qantas". I don't give a rats rectum for Qantas. They forfieted the title of flag carrier long ago.


"difficult for Jetstar Asia to operate in the region" = "f%^$# disaster". I have consistently posted on this board that J* Asia is an ill conceived idea that will never go anywhere, except perhaps as a bargaining chip.

The quaint notion that airlines should have regulated capacity on international routes is a load of bollocks, with zero public benefit.

[Crusty Demon]

So the travelling public gain benefits. No issues there.

However, what does it do to our economy as a whole when potentially thousands of jobs, lots of profits and potential taxes for our governments go overseas to the island state?

Sure, give them access but on terms that protect the interests of Australians. Australian staff, australian taxes and profits reinvested in the interests of this country, not Singapore. Then we will see how much better they are and what advantage there is for the travelling public.

[Jetsbest]

If Singair wants to use Qantas' Jetstar Asia as a case/ploy to argue for access to routes out of Aust, why don't they start a Silkair Aust. THAT would be the more correct analogy to what Qantas has done in Singapore.
To me,the fact that they aren't talking about such an option shows that they know they're comparing apples and oranges. They want access to lucrative possibilites without the likelihood of such cut-throat fare wars in the discount arena. Good business if you can get it, but I hope Mr Anderson recognises the 'skewed' benefits should such an outcome eventuate.

[Skinny Dog]

If you think Singapore are out help Australia, you are just naive. The country is a benevolent dictatorship. Singapore are looking for profits at Australia’s expense. There will be No maintenance done in Australia, No aircraft registered in Australia, and No meaningful jobs in Australia. It will all be based in Singapore along with what's left of your aviation future.
If they are granted access to the Pacific it will make it almost economically impossible for any other Australian carrier to start.
I have no particular liking for Qantas, especially the way things are heading, but I would find it a sad day indeed, if the politicians in Canberra, sell out our aviation future, to Singapore. They already have a disportionate share of Australian travel

If you have feelings about it, write or email the Minister for Transport

Email: [email protected]

Or

The Hon. John Anderson
Minister For Transport and Regional Services
Parliament House
Canberra ACT
2600
:mad:

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Sunfish, why are you here?

The first two PP's in PPrune stand for Professional Pilots.
From what you post in this forum it is obvious you are professional at one thing... I'll give you a clue, it starts with "W" and sounds like a Chinese city.

Go find the PWRuNe somewhere will you?

[Sunfish]

Dear Borglet, I respectfully suggest that if you were discussing the pecularities of GE inlet guide vane scheduling or an IFR approach to xyz using a rubber band and two paper clips, I would cheerfully leave.

However you are discussing the economics of airlines, customer service, industrial relations, CASA, politics and many other matters that are of interest to me and where I modestly believe I may have something useful to contribute occasionally.

I am occasionally wistful because some of the happiest days of my life were spent working for AN. However those days are long over and cannot be recreated.

Now for something else you didn't know.

There is a strong economic argument, pushed by a lot of economists, that says that if some other country is subsidising production of something and is selling it at or below cost, then the smart thing to do is to buy the product and stop making it yourself.

Some of you claim that Singapore, Malaysian, Emirates, etc. are government subsidised and offer us services at or below cost. The correct rationalist economic response to this is to buy their services - that way the Government of Singapore is subsidising my travel.

You may well ask, what happens to Qantas staff, employment and so on. What about the benefit to Australia? The answer to that in Economic rationalist terms is stark. Australians benefit by being subsidised by Singapore and the Arabs. We get to spend the money we save on other useful things to the benefit of the Australian economy.

What about you? Well, you get "redeployed" as do Qantas assets into more economically productive areas as the economists would say.

What about the human cost you may ask? Since when did the various sectional interests in the airlines ever care about each other? Since when did you care about the rationalisation of the car industry? Or the textile industry?

You can also ask what if Qantas cannot compete? Well you go under, or get bought and restructured so you can compete!

What if foriegn airlines then raise prices? Thats simple- we start another airline. If Branson can do it from scratch so can we.

[404 Titan]

Sunfish

Firstly I wasn’t talking about Qantas. I was talking about bilateral air service agreements between Australia and Singapore. The reality is that Singapore Airlines is the flag carrier of Singapore and Qantas is of Australia. That is reality. I have no vested interest in Qantas or SIA. I don’t work for any of them. I am talking about a fair playing field. One airline is government owned, the other is private. One country openly encourages full and free trade, the other only pays lip service to it. If you want to get in bed with the devil, go for it, but leave the rest of us out of it.

I also note your economic argument to using subsidized services. As an accountant I often find myself in conflict with economists and their economic rationalist ideas. Frankly some are just pie in the sky stuff. Free trade is one. Economics after all is just a social science and isn’t a very exact science at that.

Somehow I feel you are clouding your obviously educated opinion with your dislike for everything Qantas and how, “according to you”, they ignore the needs of Melbourne in favour of Sydney. When you can remove yourself from these obviously distorted opinions, some on this forum may take you seriously.

[Three Bars]

Sunfish,

You are living proof of the personal appeal of economic rationalists.

Let me get your argument straight. Let's say QF offers a flight for $1000. You pay your $1000 to QF who then uses part of it to employ Australians (yes, I know GOD would like to make this part smaller). These Australian workers then spend most of their portion of it in Australia.

On the other hand, SIA offer the same flight for $900. You pay your $900 to SIA who then take it to Singapore and spend it on Singaporeans. Meantime, it is the $100 extra that you now have to spend in Australia that is of such great benefit to the country. Fantastic idea!!!

QF goes broke? No problem, more Australian workers join the scrap heap and the government has to raise your (obviously substantial) tax bill to cover the increased drain on social security. Most of your bonus $100 now goes to the government.

Yep - economic rationalism - you gotta love it!! :yuk: :yuk: :mad:

[rescue 1]

Why is it that debate always turns to personal attacks rather than facts?

Qantas is under pressure and it could well go broke. i recall reading more than once on this forum that "AN won't go under..."

As has been posted elsewhere revenue is down and current and future profit cannot only come from spiraling downward pressure on conditions; someone has to pay for the shiny new A380 - and at current fare levels its not Joe Public.

That's the conundrum facing all airline managers.

[Kaptin M]

Hate to say it, Sunfish, but some of the responses to your own questions are far too simplistic and not thought through.Some of you claim that Singapore, Malaysian, Emirates, etc. are government subsidised and offer us services at or below cost. The correct rationalist economic response to this is to buy their services - that way the Government of Singapore is subsidising my travel.
You may well ask, what happens to Qantas staff, employment and so on. (Yes, I do!) What about the benefit to Australia? The answer to that in Economic rationalist terms is stark. Australians benefit by being subsidised by Singapore and the Arabs. We get to spend the money we save on other useful things to the benefit of the Australian economy.


How much do you think an unemployed person, drawing Social Welfare benefits, costs each Australian, Sunfish?
A f:mad:ing lot MORE than "the money we (spend) on other useful things"

So once we "financially astute" Australians allow QANTAS to go under, and SQ (for example) now has a monopoly, which direction do you think prices might head?
Oh, but I forgot the solutionThats simple- we start another airline. Who's the "we"? And if starting another airline was as "simple" as you state, why don't you think other simpletons haven't been kicking them off, left, right, and centre, to compete with QF on some of their other routes. :rolleyes:

[Sunfish]

Guys I understand your pain. I've been through all this myself in other industries. What all of you are really talking about is industry protection. There may be some case to accuse other airlines of "dumping", but its a faint hope. There is also a case for keeping Qantas for strategic defence related issues, but its not strong.

You are just going to have to compete any way you can, and if you can't you go under or get sold and restructured. Sorry, thats how the market works. Its nothing personal.

The screaming by Dixon and Co will be treated exactly the same way as the screaming by car company executives fifteen years ago. Remember the cost and quality of Australian cars back then? Remember how the sky was going to fall in? Today we export cars!

[Wirraway]

Wed "The Star" Kuala Lumpa

AirAsia may give up expansion into Singapore

HAVING undergone a tough time to launch its latest flight from Jakarta to Singapore, AirAsia Bhd chief executive officer Tony Fernandes says he has had enough of Singapore’s tactics and the airline may give up completely its interest to expand there.

The Singapore government is currently deciding whether to allow AWAIR, an AirAsia 49% associate, to operate flights from Jakarta after halting its maiden flight at the eleventh hour recently for allegedly not having a full documentation.

Addressing an audience comprising bankers and senior officials from regional financial institutions at the 5th Malaysia Capital Market Conference 2005 in Kuala Lumpur, Fernandes did not mince his words about the treatment he had received from the Singapore government.

He said the latest incident reflected how the Singapore government had tried to block the entry of low-cost carriers (LCCs) such as AirAsia from competing directly with the republic’s homegrown LCC and its national airlines Singapore Airlines (SIA) and Silk Air. There are currently three LCCs based in Singapore - SIA-owned Tiger Airways, Qantas-owned Jetstar Asia and privately-owned Valuair.

Tony Fernandes
“First they barred our bus from entering Singapore, now they have barred us from taking our planes there despite their earlier approvals,” he said.

He said his experience showed that Singapore was not as open to business as they had portrayed itself to be.

“From our experience, they are very closed and we want to tell the whole world about it,” said Fernandes, who left the conference audience in stitches with his straightforward presentation style.

He said the decision to stop AWAIR flight had upset the Indonesian authorities and disrupted the travel plans of passengers who had made their travel bookings earlier.

Fernandes said he was prepared to face the consequences for being vocal about the treatment he received from the Singaporean government.

“After this, we may cancel our intention to fly to Singapore from Jakarta,” he said, adding that AirAsia could grow well without having to operate from the island.

Fernandes also said AirAsia was on track to achieve its forecast profit of RM172.8mil for its financial year ending June 2005.

“Our second quarter result had been encouraging, and we are confident of achieving our target,” he said, but declined to elaborate.

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

[404 Titan]

Sunfish
Guys I understand your pain.
I feel no pain. I don’t work for either airline or work in Australia anymore for that matter. I am making the point that Singapore doesn’t play honest in business. They have operated this way for as long as I can remember. They are an authoritarian dictatorship that are use to getting their own way. I hope the Australian government is smart enough to realize this and not to give them everything they want.
What all of you are really talking about is industry protection.
No, what we are talking about is a level playing field. Any open skies agreement under the current environment won’t be on a level playing field. It will be disproportionately slanted in favor of Singapore at Australia’s expense. In this light until Singapore can show they are serious about playing fair then Australia’s aviation industry and full and free open skies should be off limits.
The screaming by Dixon and Co will be treated exactly the same way as the screaming by car company executives fifteen years ago. Remember the cost and quality of Australian cars back then? Remember how the sky was going to fall in? Today we export cars!
Tell that to the workers at the Mitsubishi Australian car plant. Australia’s car industry has ridden on the back of the low Australian Dollar not the quality of Australian cars. GMH exports a token number of cars to the Middle East but has failed to penetrate the most important markets of Asia and North America. It is also widely known that Australians subsidize every Holden Commodore sold overseas just to make them competitive. The same rubbish went on in the early nineties when Ford exported Capri’s to the USA. The same car was 40% cheaper in the US than Aus. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Australian car industry over the next five years if the Australian dollar stays as high as it has gone over the last six months.

[alangirvan]

Flight Internatiional 11-17 Jan p14 reports that in the longer term Valuair wants long haul aircraft. So, there may be more than one airline from Singapore taking advantage of an open skies agreement with Australia.

[Sunfish]

Titan, I take your point, there is no such thing as a level playing field, it is a dream. However there is serious economic argument that if the opposing player wants to subsidise his business, then we are better off taking his money and using ours for some more productive purposes.

[fugitive]

I cant see the problem;they are not entitled to anything and should they be allowed in;they will try to screw anyone and any business that is not owned and controlled by that little Chinese owned Island State.
they are a racist bunch of low life ratbags,so tell them to P%$## off.We dont need or want them.
End of story.

[Kaptin M]

As biased and bigoted as fugitive sounds, the reality is Singapore Inc. plays extremely hard ball, when it comes to ANYTHING to do with Singapore.
IMO, Dixon has vastly under-estimated the lengths to which The Lyin' City will go to obtain the upper hand - in spite of his perceived interpretations of written agreements.

Dixon could do worse than to enlist the assistance of ex-SQ Captain, Ryan Goh, as an adviser in dealing with Sing Inc....but then again why enlist experience, when "All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure" [Mark Twain].

[Wirraway]

Thurs "Sydney Morning Herald"

Qantas bashes Yeo's ear
January 27, 2005

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/01/26/geoffdixon_narrowweb__200x252.jpg

Geoff Dixon ... defending us from northern invaders.

Christine Lacy listens as the flying Kanga defends its territory from interlopers.

Preoccupied with the task of keeping Singapore Airlines off Qantas's money-spinning Los Angeles route, airline boss Geoff Dixon gave Singapore's Transport Minister, Yeo Cheow Tong, a taste of Aussie hospitality this week.

Before heading up to collect the gong as Asia Pacific Airline of the Year at the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation Awards in Singapore, Dicko looked to be having something of an intense chat with the pollie.

And with Yeo set to discuss a possible "Open Skies" agreement with the Federal Government next month, Dicko didn't mind revealing the substance of their dialogue as he rose to accept his latest award.

"I just asked him not to go to Australia. Qantas needs to win this award next year and I know he was sitting next to CS [Singapore Air chief Chew Choon Seng] and I know what CS was talking about.

"We'll keep trying to keep the minister out of our turf."

Dicko, however, did have some kind words for AirAsia chief Tony Fernandes, whom he congratulated on winning the low-cost airline and airline executive of the year awards.

No surprise there, given Tony earlier in the day had been "250 per cent" behind Dicko when he lay the boot into Singapore Airlines over his frustrations flying into the island state.

"He's a great guy but I must tell him in Australia there's a saying that every dog has its day."

Perhaps Dicko was referring to Virgin Blue, which won last year's airline of the year award. It's unclear whether repeated profit warnings disqualify airlines from winning such awards. Virgin didn't even bother to attend.

=============================================
Thu "The Australian"

SIA claims credit for open skies
Steve Creedy
January 27, 2005

IN the most audacious claim yet in the PR battle to open up air services between the US and Australia, Singapore Airlines has taken credit for decisions by existing carriers such as Qantas to improve services on the Pacific.

The claim came during a speech to a Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation conference in Singapore at which Singapore Airlines chief executive Chew Choon Seng was extolling the virtues of liberalisation and free market competition.

"I would submit that, at the very least, our indication of interest has at least sparked the incumbent carriers to put on more capacity to try and do better at making the route more competitive, more accessible," Mr Chew said.

The Singaporeans are lobbying the Australian Government for permission to fly passengers between Australia and the US, arguing it will make it easier to get seats, give people a greater choice in pricing and raise Australia's tourist profile. Qantas is attempting to derail the Singaporean bid, arguing permission to fly the route would put it at an unfair advantage.

However, the Australian carrier has already moved to boost capacity on route and last week announced that it would fly its first four A380 superjumbos to the US.

Mr Chew described the Pacific route from Australia as "demonstrably underserved" and said the airline was aware corporate customers in Australia found it hard to get seats and paid higher fares at certain times of the year.

He said the tourism potential from the Americas to Australia was also not being realised because of a relative shortage of capacity.

"So I would submit that the opening up of the sector would see more accessibility, more options of price, service, alternatives for travellers to choose from," he said.

Lobbying for the new route is intensifying ahead of a meeting next month between Transport Minister John Anderson and his Singaporean counterpart, Yeo Cheow Tong. The Singaporean push is likely to complicate any moves by Virgin Blue or entrepreneur Richard Branson to start up their own US services.

But Mr Chew said Singapore was not party to any moves by Virgin Blue to spread its wings across the Pacific.

"All I can observe is that under the entitlements to the Virgin trademark for airline usage, Virgin Blue's application is limited to continental Australia," he said.

The Singapore boss predicted that only a handful of the low-fare start-ups proliferating in the region would survive.

He said legacy airlines such as Singapore, Thai International and Cathay Pacific had all watched and learned from what happened with low-cost carriers in North America and Europe.

He also believed some of the local start-ups were not truly low cost.

"And definitely we are not taking the challenges lying down," he said.

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

[oicur12]

National carriers such as QF, BA, SQ and EK are less vulnerable to the ebb and flow of the market place than most airlines because of the (often perceived) strategic economic and political value they provide the host country. Qantas enjoyed Government protection from the forces of the free market (if ever there was such a beast) for most of its life and stands as a powerful force now directly as a result.

There is now and never was a "level playing field" in the airline industry, something for which the employees of Qantas should be very thankful.

404,

"They work to a different set of rules than Australia and there intentions are not honorable."

Are you implying that the Australian Government works to an honorable "set of rules"?

"One country openly encourages full and free trade"

Oh really. Tariffs, trade barriers, quotas, import tax. They don't exist in Australia do they?

Crusty

"Great. Less flying for Australian pilots and more for foreign nationals."

"what does it do to our economy as a whole when potentially thousands of jobs"

3 bars

"No problem, more Australian workers join the scrap heap"

Singapore Airlines entry into the US - AUS market will eventually happen. It may take a couple of years and a few failed diplomatic standoffs but it is a fait de compli.
This may result in Qantas requiring fewer employees but the industry is relatively small - the political impact of such a policy shift would not harm Howard nor would the economy suffer.

[404 Titan]

oicur12
Are you implying that the Australian Government works to an honorable "set of rules"?
All governments have their own motives for doing what they do. The Australian Government is no different and does what it does for the good of Australia, not Singapore or anyone else for that matter. The big difference between Australia and Singapore though is with Australia you get what you see.
Oh really. Tariffs, trade barriers, quotas, import tax. They don't exist in Australia do they?
Yes they do but as promised to our main trading partners they have been dramatically reduced over the last ten years with more reductions to follow. Australia has honored its pledge to reduce trade protectionism unlike some counties in the region.

Fifth freedom protection is the thorniest issue in aviation. It has been the thorniest issue since WWII. If it weren’t so contentious we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The reality is that as a percentage of total airline traffic, less than 5% is operated under fifth freedom rights. If the rest of the world can’t agree on it why should Australia be so stupid to give fifth freedom rights to a country that has nothing to offer in return? As more and more airlines start flying longer-range aircraft, countries like Singapore will become irrelevant as a destination, after all it is little more than a shopping mall and a fuel stop now.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Why don't we offer an olive branch?

Why don't we let them fly Singapore citizens SYD-Lax?

Sounds fair to me.

[Zapatas Blood]

404 - how did you feel when Air NZ were operating SYD - LAX. Was that more acceptable?

[Orville]

404 As more and more airlines start flying longer-range aircraft, countries like Singapore will become irrelevant as a destination, after all it is little more than a shopping mall and a fuel stop now.

You make a good point. this could be a way for Singapore to start planning for their own future. With little more to offer than shopping and fuel they could go like Nauru when their only resources have dried up.

I suppose it could be likened to the progress of the Hume Hyw. as it has grown and now bypasses most of the local communities along its route, some business have gone resulting in closures and populations to move on. Because all they ever really offered for all those years was fuel , shopping and a refreshing stop over.

What really is Singapores motive.

[NS Driver]

Would Qantas have the commercial clout over Singapore with out the need for the Australian Govt to act as it's negoiator. Qantas is the biggest user of Changi outside of SQ themselves. What would be the ramifications for Changi if QF upped and went to say Sepang which has been trying to lure the white rat for a number of years? I really wonder what the commercial advantage of hubbing at Changi is? The Singaporean population that totals to the about the same as Sydney would not be a crucial market for any airline especially with the number of carriers operating out of Changi so why the attraction? Sepang is new modern and provides all that changi does when it comes to transit.

[knackeredII]

To say that Singapore will become irrelevant because of longer range aircraft shows an ignorance of the market which SIA, and to a lesser extent Qantas, serves. Changi operates as a hub, and one visit to the airport will make it obvious that it is set up for a smooth flow of pax from one flight to another - much more so than most other airports anywhere around the region. An example is the same-level arivals and departures with no requirement for transfersbetween floors as is the case in somewhere like HK. They feed pax from destinations such as India through to the US, Australia, Europe to Asia. Their great advantage is their central location where they can be hub and spoke, not like a largely end to end carrier like Qantas. This is not a defense of SIA, simply an observation.
The fact that Singapore is Qantas' second biggest international hub outside of Sydney says that they also see the advantage of the place. They don't hub from Darwin to Australian ports, or Perth or Cairns but Singapore.
Also, for all SIA's faults, they know their product and rarely take their eye off the ball when it comes to the customer, something which Qantas can't claim (Jetstar being a prime example). If Qantas have not served their customer's well on the Pacific then they deserve the competition. They will not relish competing with this particular carrier though.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

They don't hub from Darwin to Australian ports, or Perth or Cairns but Singapore.

Thats because they cannot reach Europe from these places... YET!

Wait till they can and Singapore will become a backwater as far as QF is concerned. Singapore knows this as well.

[knackeredII]

I seriously doubt it!