Should SQ be granted "open skies" to the Australian market

[Woomera]

What do you think?.

[Sunfish]

Rats! Damned intelligent software! I only get to vote once.

[Don Esson]

Better get the results to the Deputy PM in Canberra before it's too bloody late!

It probably won't make a jot of difference to the decision makers in Canberra but at least it can be said that PPRUNE has spoken :ok: :ok:

[ernestkgann]

.. and a completely representative vote of...26 people at this time!

Isn't denying them 'open skies' delaying the inevitable?

[tinpis]

If they can do a better job for less why not?
Globularism int it?

[bulolobob]

When the Singapore Government (Not SQ) give QF the right to on-carry people who arrive in Singapore from Japan/USA/China. then that is the time to grant SQ the rights to the Aus/USA route.

It is all tied up in the Freedoms of the Air and that right (to on carry pax that QF did not carry into SIN) is a 5th Freedom right. If the SIN Government grants QF 5th Freedom rights, the the Aust Govt should grant SQ 5th Freedom rights.

But not until then!
Cheers
Bulolobob

[Icarus2001]

Bulolobob, surely that is what is being negotiated as we speak? The Australian government will be asked to grant rights to SQ in return for QF rights in to, or more correctly, out of, Singapore.

[OzExpat]

I suspect that the low rate of response to date is due to the confusion over the 5th Freedom negotiations. Personally, I'm unsure how to answer this poll for that very reason. The fact is that, if QF is granted 5th Freedom then SQ must also be granted it.

Am I missing something here?

[bulolobob]

Bulolobob, surely that is what is being negotiated as we speak? The Australian government will be asked to grant rights to SQ in return for QF rights in to, or more correctly, out of, Singapore.

Icarus

It may be -IT SHOULD BE - but with the current Government's Free trade agenda, and wish to be 'part of Asia' I haven't seen the 5th Freedom argument mentioned yet.

It wouldn't surprise me to see the Aust Govt give the AUS/USA rights away for far less than full 5th Freedom rights out of SIN.

I hope I'm proved wrong.

Some may remember the PNG Govt a few years back gave Indonesia (and hence Garuda) 5th Freedom rights to NZ in return for nothing. Obviously Wewak-AUK or even POM-AUK are not high density routes. But SIN-LHR 5th Freedom rights are very, very valuable - possibly much more so than 5th Freedom SYD/LAX.

Only time will tell
Cheers
BB

[missy]

Maybe this is the sweetner for QFA.

Federal Transport Minister John Anderson has supported a merger of Qantas and Air New Zealand, telling government MPs the airlines should have been allowed to merge.

Mr Anderson made the comments after a number of Liberal and National backbenchers expressed opposition to a Singapore Airlines proposal to have routes through Australia to the west coast of the United States.

"They were concerned about the jobs aspect of it," a party room spokesman said.

The spokesman said Mr Anderson made his comment when one backbencher raised the question of the merger.

"(Mr Anderson said) he believed that they should have been allowed to merge with Air New Zealand," the spokesman said.

But he said Qantas was a profitable airline and that Australians already had a great deal of choice in airlines.




Competition watchdogs in Australia and New Zealand knocked back the planned merger in 2003, saying it would give the merged airline too much control over the trans-Tasman route.

But the Australian Competition Tribunal last October upheld the airlines' appeal against the decision.

It is up to airlines to submit another application for a merger.

The Labor caucus also discussed the Singapore Airlines proposal but no decision was taken.

Qantas currently dominates the coveted south Pacific route, which it is looking increasingly likely to be opened up to competition.

Mr Anderson and his Singaporean counterpart, Yeo Cheow Tong, wound up talks on whether Singapore could enter the lucrative Australia-US air route.

Officials from both countries will meet within weeks for further talks and Mr Anderson and Mr Yeo will later get together again to make a decision.

Qantas is opposed to any moves by Singapore Airlines to enter the Australia-US route, saying this would give its rival an unfair competitive advantage.




©AAP 2005

[Buster Hyman]

Have we done a poll on 89 yet?:} :ouch: :ouch:

[Mr.Buzzy]

How bout asking the punters if they are tired of overpriced bad service? Or if they would choose another carrier if it were a better service or price? We've all seen the Aussie loyalty at work, so maybe those that are worried about SQ having open skies need to be looking in the backyard before worrying about the neighbours!

bbbzzzbzbbzzz...i rike dimsim....bbbbbbbbzzzz

[Eastwest Loco]

Personally, I would say that SQ coming in would go a long way to making QF look hard at how it treats its people and resellers.

I can see them as the Don Chipp Democrat Airline we had to have. Keep the bastards honest.

While there are some serious issues that have been raised about SQ homegrown management style, at least they have a style and if Australian crew were employed locally that would be a good thing that helps our mates and help them, as that would be the best way to make any domestic component totally viable.

As for the Pacific, anything that breaks the duopoly that allows airlines to charge the same for a SYD LAX J class seat as is charged for another 8 hours flight time to LON has to be a bonus. Things were actually so much better when NZ14 and 15 were operating, as they kept the discount J seats at a fair rate.

I cannot see them taking on the Tasman, which is already saturated, and would be very hard to make a buck on.

Domestic full service on trunk and deserted high volume regional? Deserted for JQ to take over that is.

Bring it awn and take Rex on as a regional feeder, giving them bigger fangs to bite with. With the infrastructure, I am sure they would embrace Star Alliance again.

Best all

EWL:ok:

[jetjockey7]

I know Air NZ are small but don`t discount them entirely.They are doing a fine job of servicing the South Pacific...I can finally fly thru`AKL to SFO instead of transitting LAX.CHC to LAX .Its cheaper to boot
MR BUZZY...its cheaper to fly around this planet now than its ever been...2 weeks salary will get you to LHR.10 years ago is was 6 months salary.Its bus fare really.In the broad light of day airlines are transport not 5 star flying restaurants.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Jetjockey, with all due respect; Im not suggesting QF needs to become a flying restaraunt, goodness only knows that a flying melbourne kebab van would give friendlier service. What I am saying is that for whatever level service, most people will show zero loyalty to the kangaroo carrier when price comes into play. We only need to see how the masses have flocked to Jetstar, when clearly doing so will mean the end to cheap travel in OZ. It's all to do with the "Me, me, now, now" generation!

bbbbbbzbzbzbbzbzzzzzzzzzzzbbbzzzzzzzzzzz

[Eastwest Loco]

Buzzysan

All JQ and DJ fighting on price has done in many markets is move the Firefly bus market to the airport.

Same is evident on the Spirit of Tasmania services between DPO and MEL or SYD - they are known locally as "Housing Commission Osmosis Machinery" - ie: moving the nearly dead and never wed and dole bludgers anonymous members from an area of high concentration to an area of lower concentration via a semi permiable Ferry service.

There is still room for a second full service carrier, particularly into ports with high disposable incomes who have been lobbed with JQ or swim.

Best

EWL

[Mr.Buzzy]

:ok:
Agreed EWL. Im certain that regardless of whoever tries to offer whatever service, our mate Dicko aint gonna be happy 'til the crowd with the deepest pockets is left standing alone! Maybe thats why he's so worried about the deep pockets of SQ.
Like I said, If the product is competitive..... and the price is right, the odd average Aussie punter couldnt care if its a kangaroo or a panda on the tail!
Please dont for a minute think that I'm an exception to the rule, I look for a good deal when we consume any goods or services, it's just the current state of affairs.... Right or wrong, it just has to be considered today.
Australians all let us rejoice, for we are young and free. With ..... how does the next bit go?

bbbbbbbbbbzbzbzbzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbb

[Mr.Buzzy]

:ok:
EWL nice work. How's the weather in your part of the world? Mrs. Buzzy and Moi are soon to enjoy a week in the best part of the best country.
Cheeries

bbbbbbbbbbzbzbzbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Eastwest Loco]

Buzzysan

WX needs work - we had one very good week followed by easterly gales like I have never seen. Even brought down a 30ft Silver Birch in our back yard, along with masses of trees around town and surrounds.

This is normally the best and most stable period for weather, so your chances are good to hit a lucky spot.

If you get near DPO please give me a buzzzzzz on 0419 323989 or at work on 1800 067 207. Sixteen beers is definitely in order.

Best regards

EWL

Ron

[cornholeyo]

What a disgrace.

SIA is so precious to you, you'd rather see your own national airline suffer finacially so the foreign competition stroll in and suck aussie dollars off-shore on those rare occasions you actually fly overseas, would you?

So you don't like Qantarse, so what? You've been sucked in by the "globalisation" cr@p people push.

Singapore and some of their neighbours have a chip on their collective shoulders about Australia and Aussies.....

EWL, SIA in here offers more product for you to sell to the punters. Is that your self-interest-driven motivation???

[Mr.Buzzy]

EWL .Thanks Pal, may just have to take you up on that one. Used to overnight in DPO with Southern and would be keen to hit the haunts again.
All the best.

Cornholeyo, so long as our government encourages goods such as sugar and oranges to be imported and services such as Telstra to be farmed off then why shouldnt the Aussie public expect every other industry to be equally as competitive. I detest it equally but the sooner we wake up and look at the bigger picture ie. stop blaming pilots ie. each other; for the sad state of affairs the better.
Oh and Im not so sure if the "national carrier" sing song holds much water at the present.

bbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzz:ok:

[cornholeyo]

I don't care if they are the "flag carrier". I'd just rather see you pay them than some blow-ins from overseas.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Mate so would I.

bbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbzzzz

[Plas Teek]

Just do what has been done in the past.
Agree to it and say its all go, then, at the 11th hour, get the Dep. PM (read Minister for Qantas) to send a fax to them saying,....
NAH! Go away! We don't want to play anymore.
Just watch history repeat itself.

[boofta]

SQ is a government controlled and run enterprise, it's the
biggest employer in Singapore.

No airline can compete with a government agency in the same
business.

Wake up Australia, we have sold all our major mining groups
overseas, even Vegemite is gone, leave our airline be.

Singapore has nothing to offer Australia compared to Pacific
rights.

Open skies means the end of all competition when Govt.
agencies are involved.

The Australian government is stupidly following it's policy of
free markets, competing against the singapore government is
NOT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
IDIOTS!!

[Sunfish]

Yes Boofta you are right its not a level playing field. Take it from me that there is serious economic argument that if someone wants to give us something for less than the cost of production, it makes sense for us to take it and reallocate our resources (people, money) to something more profitable.

To put it another way, if SQ sells us travel at a loss to them, it is a NETT GAIN for the Australian economy and a LOSS to Singapore.

To put it another way Boofta, the car companies screamed blue murder that the sky was falling when we dismantled industry protection - the same stuff some of you are pushing.

Are Australian cars still being built? Yes. Are they better built and designed then before? Yes. Are they cheaper than before? Yes.

By arguing against change you are actually making things worse for yourselves. QF is a bloody dinosaur in many ways and it MUST change. The LONGER you put it off the WORSE will be the adjustment when we all get sick and tired of high fares crappy schedules and rotten service.

Legacy Airline? Yes. I agree with Dixon on that one, but I disagree about his proposed solution which is stupid.

[CT7]

Plas Teak

Actually if they just changed the date on the fax copy that's probably hanging on Paul Keating's wall it would do.

[cornholeyo]

plasteek...

yeah baby. Doo it. Doo it.

[Ex QF]

February 17, 2005
From: AAP
SINGAPORE Airlines (SIA) could be flying the lucrative Australia-US route within a year, Singapore Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong said in comments reported today following talks with his Australian counterpart.

Yeo told reporters upon his return to Singapore on Wednesday that he had put forward the timeframe during "positive and friendly" negotiations this week with Australian Transport Minister John Anderson in Canberra.
"What I asked for is the first trans-Pacific flight by SIA should take place in about 12 months time," Yeo said, according to the Today newspaper.

Anderson, Yeo said, had "taken note" of this request and that he expected both countries to determine an exact timeframe by the middle of this year.

Yeo said Anderson had confirmed the time was right to address the thorny issue of SIA securing access to the Australia-US route following a partial "open skies" agreement that was inked in 2003.

"He appreciated the fact that there was a commitment made in September 2003 that we will proceed onto this last issue when the aviation industry has stabilised," Yeo said, according to local radio bulletins on Thursday.

"And indeed he recognised the fact that it has not just stabilised but the airlines concerned are actually doing very well."

In the 2003 agreement, Australian national carrier Qantas was granted unrestricted rights to fly into Singapore's Changi airport and onwards, giving the airline greater access to Europe.

Qantas, however, successfully lobbied the Australian government to deny SIA similar access to fly from Australia to the United States, which is one of the Australian carrier's most luctrative routes.

Qantas argued then that the travel slump following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) crisis meant it should not have to face increased competition from SIA.

Qantas announced on Thursday a 28 percent increase in first-half profits to a record 458.4 million dollars (359.7 million US).

==============================================
Intersting that it states "In the 2003 agreement, Australian national carrier Qantas was granted unrestricted rights to fly into Singapore's Changi airport and onwards, giving the airline greater access to Europe." Is this correct? surely it's up to the government of the next country to say yes or no then?



As for the rights, this may help in the discussion:
Air Freedom Rights : In 1944 an International Convention was held in Chicago to map out the frame work for all future bi-lateral and multi-lateral (i.e., between two or between many different countries) air agreements. Traditionally, and preserved in this convention, an airline needs the approval of the governments of the various countries involved before it can fly in or out of country, or even across the country without landing.

The 1944 Chicago Convention has been extended somewhat since that time, and currently there are generally considered to be Eight different freedoms. These days, it seems the "fifth freedom" rights are most in the news as airlines seek to expand their rout systems and become more global in scope.

Please note that although these provisions are called " freedom " , they are not automatically granted to an airline as a right. They are privilages , not rights.

The exchange of commercial air rights is determined by bi-lateral negotiations. The Air Freedom Rights is divided into categories as follows:

First Freedom The right to fly across another country without landing.( maybe called transit freedom )

Second Freedom The right to land in another country for purposes other than carrying passengers, such as re-fueling or maintenance. (usually first and second freedoms are considered as temporary flight, not a schedule flight ).

Third Freedom The right to land in another country from their own country for purpose of commercial services.

Fourth Freedom The right to fly from another country to their own country for purpose of commercial services.

Third and Fourth Freedoms They stand together as the basis for commercial services, providing the rights to load and unload passengers, mail and cargo in another country.

Fifth Freedom Sometimes refered to as " beyond right" . This freedom enables airlines to carry passengers to one country, and then fly on to another country (rather than back to their own).This freedom divided into two categories:
Intermediate Fifth Freedom Type is the right to carries from the third country to second country.
Beyond Fifth Freedom Type is the right to carries from second country to the third country.

Sixth Freedom Not formally part of the original convention, this refers to a state's right to carry traffic between two other countries via an airport in its own territory.

Seventh Freedom Also an unofficial extension, this covers the right to operate stand-alone services between two other countries.

Eighth Freedom Another unofficial extension of the treaty, this is sometimes also refered to as " cabotage " rights. This refers to the carriage of passengers and cargo within the borders of another country

[Eastwest Loco]

Cornholeyo

Yes - I am most certainly pushing my own barrow in regards to wanting more competition on the full service market, and I personally prefer to fly QF where financially viable and am a member of QF Club.

An airline that forces me to charge fee for service on some international routes now, and all domestic from 01 July is not engendering loyalty from or offering reward to Australian supporters.

I have numerous awards from QF for sales levels in my office, but will not blindly wipe my nose just because the Great White Rat tells me I should.

What I hope is that the blow ins from overseas and the millions of dollars Australian Agents are placing on the foreign side of the code share on the same aeroplane for an extra 2% commission (it does add up VERY quickly) will remind the Aussie icon that respect and support is not automatic. They show some, we return it.

AA UA SA and NZ are all peeing themselves with glee at the moment, and AY must be trying to figure out where all the revenue on their code share SYD BKK is coming from. LA would be the same on the SYD SCL leg as well.

We are now up to around $250,000 diverted in my little office alone. It is called survival, and for one I will not adopt a plan that I am told I have to have when there are alternatives that cost my client less, and provide the same service.

The day I believe anything that comes from the former TN mmbers of QF upper management will be a dark day in the morning.

Best regards

EWL

[boofta]

Dear Sunfish
What makes you think SQ will be providing anything below the
cost of production.
SQ does not carry debt. because their government underights
their loans, it's not run like any normal business.
If you perceive some advantage to Ozzy consumers, yourself
included, have a good look at airfares on the net.
You might be surprised at the relative fares, SQ charges more
than most.
QF has been trimmed of some ancient work practices and is
making a decent profit.
Taking your argument to its unholy conclusion means we sit
and watch the country stop doing anything, because it can
be bought cheaply overseas.
No I don't work for QF, but another competing asian carrier
that runs profitably even at double QF salaries.

[P51D]

Should SQ get approval to get 5th freedom rights beyond Australia, whether it be in 12 months, phased in or whatever, then expect Emirates, Cathay and Virgin Atlantic to line up.

Singapore is an island and has no domestic traffic and have encouraged airlines to come in for the benefit of the economy. Emirates and the UAE works the same way and Hong Kong is slowly heading that way.

The EU support this happening, but are reluctant to give unfettered capacity to UK and some European airports. At the moment all the capacity on the Kanga route has been used up and if you want more be prepared to pay big bucks for slots at LHR in particular.

Singapore has nothing to lose, as do Emirates, but QF have nothing to gain but a lot to lose. Competition will be good, but there will be losers.

Roll on the likes of B777-200LR. Straight through, no stops.

[Sunfish]

Boof, with great respect, SQ would be paying less for its debt (ie.interest charges) than QF because of SQ's government gaurantee. These interest payments are the cost of its debt capital.

Dixon was saying yesterday that QF does not earn enough to provide a decent return on capital, but I wonder if he was talking actual capital (ie shareholders funds) or investment (shareholders funds plus borrowings).

I have a sense that QF's appeal to Australians is gradually declining, and if it isn't SQ that gets open skies it is going to be someone else.

[hadagutful]

FORGET WHO OWNS WHAT AND DIXON SHOULD STOP HIS BLEATING !

IT'S ALRIGHT FOR HIM, HE WANTS TO FIGHT VIRGIN ON DOMESTIC TERRITORY AND CREATES QF MARK 2 I.E. JETS* THEN SOBS AND CRIES WHEN HE THINKS HE WILL FACE SOME "UNFAIR" COMPETITION ON THE PACIFIC ROUTE.

LET'S GET RID OF THE COSY DUOPOLY AND OPEN IT UP, DIXON SHOULD KNOW HOW TO RUN A COMPETITIVE AIRLINE NOW, HE HAS BEEN IN THE POSITION LONG ENOUGH.

DIXON AND HIS COHORTS NEED TO STOP BEING HYPOCRITICAL AND IMPROVE THE SERVICE ON QANTAS. THEN THEY MIGHT FIND THAT PEOPLE WILL STILL FLY WITH THEM DESPITE THE COMPETITION.

[RIVER1]

why wouldnt we want SQ to operate internally in Australia.Apart from simply protecting the QF staff Anderson and cohorts are holding back much of the Australian economy which would benifit from proper competition.QF look like turning a cosy duopoly into a virtual monopoly which makes a mockery of the system.More tourists arriving and spending money helps the wider economy and the sooner we get over the third world type thinking that every country must have and at all cost protect a national carrier the better.We can all see that Dixon is turning QF into a conglomerate of airlines to lower company costs but unless a major operator is allowed to stack up against QF we will all continue to pay for QF shareholders dividends and unrealistic staff conditions.

[flyingfox]

Singapore is a place where airport guards tote machine guns and democracy means voting only for 'approved' candidates. The opposition is either crushed by the state or outlawed. Singaporean people genearally have to do what they are told; not what they want. The 'Singaporean state' medels in business and select people often hold commercial power due to Govt. patronage. Is this the sort of business we want as part owners of our own national estate?
Singapore has nothing to offer Australian aviation companies in return for the priveledge of skimming fine profits from our domestic market into their own corporate coffers. 'Buying Australia' piece by piece would suit them fine as they are kind of short on space. Their last big buy here was probably Optus, which now feeds their economy and adds to their future 'purchasing power'. (We all know how 'Monopoly' works!) And from a pilots' point of view, Singapore Airlines crews know how 'caring' their management can be.
We already have an assault on our local aviation market from the taxless and oil rich UAE; another state sponsored enterprise.
In a few years Australia will have aircraft which can 'hub' from Darwin to all the countries of Europe. Singapore knows this and that they will become less relevant except for their natural 'to / from' traffic. It is now or never for them to find a 'domestic' market to operate in. Their own internal distances obviously don't call for much aviationactivity. It is all international from Singapore.
With new ultra long range aircraft types becoming available, opportunities will arise for Australian entrepeneurs to set up operations which service distant markets without the 'politics' of offshore hubs in foreign countries. However they won't even get to the starters blocks if Singapore Airlines or other foreign airlines have already snatched the Australian internal market as their own; especially ones which are 'state' sponsored.
Wake up! Lets be a bit patient and not 'sell the farm' too early in this time of change. 'Australians' can do this better in the medium and long terms. The lobbies that bleat for instant deregulation on the basis of 'competition' aren't worrying about our futures.
Lobby your nearest politician hard now against this short sighted proposal.

[Mr Qantas]

LET'S GET RID OF THE COSY DUOPOLY AND OPEN IT UP, DIXON SHOULD KNOW HOW TO RUN A COMPETITIVE AIRLINE NOW, HE HAS BEEN IN THE POSITION LONG ENOUGH.

I hope your aware that its rude to post in capitals.


Mr Dixon nows how to run a airline thats why we are doing so well right now. But try to run the airline against SQ who dont have the same debt ratio as us because they are goverment backed and we are competing in on diferent levels. Compare apples to apples and then try posting again loser.

[Animalclub]

I don't remember this kind of uproar when PanAm had "beyond rights" from SYD to HKG... PA812 LAX HNL NAN or NOU SYD HKG. PA811 was the reverse.

Look what happened to PanAm.

[Daniel Beurich]

Right now the poll is tied, 66 say Yes 66 say no, 2.22 percent say undecided, but peronsally, i think SQ should go to hell. Support the local economy, SQ and QF were the most profitable airlines last year, the difference between their profits was minimal, give SQ access and they will roar in front, with the lead. Those decision makers in Canberra should feel the same way!

Daniel

[bulolobob]

There is another perspective that few have mentioned in this and many other posts. I'll stick my head out and draw the flack:D

Domestically, Australia has long had a duopoly - with TAA and Ansett. Then Compass Mark I arrived and the duopoly became a triopoly. Compass Mark I failed because, many believe, fares were being sold at less than what it cost to operate the aricraft.

Along came Compass Mark II which fell to a similar fate. TAA morphed into Qantas then re-emerged as Jetstar. Meanwhile Virgin Blue started up and Ansett failed and we were back to a duopoly.

During the 80's and 90's nobody can deny there was competition in the Australian domestic market. What did that competition bring? If nothing else it brought a HUGE increase in the numbers of people travelling. That huge increase was brought about by the ridiculouly low fares on offer. People believed flying was affordable so they flew - often.

Now what has all this competition done for Pilots? It has created, I believe a massive increase in the number of Airline Pilots employed by the major airlines. Does anyone have any figures on this? Just how many pilots were employed by major airlines in 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000? I am sure that number has increased dramatically.

Now these pilots and other crew contribute directly to the cost of operating each and every sector. Whether that cost is $60,000, $120,000 or $180,000 per annum per person is not critical when SQ is not competing in our Domestic market.

However, if you allow SQ to compete domestically or internationally and thier pilots are earning less, and their taxation regime on company profits is less that Australia's, then the level playing field tilts.

I can understand Airline Management wanting to reduce operating costs - of which salaries are a major part. I can understand trying to reduce training costs by trying to have pilots fund their own endorsements. After all it is the lower fares that have attracted the increase in passenger numbers - but the operating cost has remained a fairly finite amount.

So the conundum is - raise the fares = lower passenger numbers = less pilots needed. Or, keep the low fares and see passenger numbers continue to increase but at the same time aggressively try to cuts costs = same or more pilots needed.

To allow an overseas player into our domestic market is a bit like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank!
Cheers

:ok:

[Capt Fathom]

SQ will not bring lower airfares or more competition to the Pacific. United will pull out and QF will scale back. As simple as that. SQ still have a few 747-400's lying around idle. They have nothing to lose. In the long term, Australians will lose jobs!

[marshall]

Yes and the sooner the better!!!

It would at least give QF a run for there money...

And if you're worried about AUSTRALIANS losing jobs don't trust QF to keep the size of their current workforce... Big Geoff is always looking at ways to trim and save a few extra dollars...

I say open it up.... Let SQ have a bite of the Australian Aviation pie. Who know's? Maybe Ansett might still be here if SQ was in Australia sooner....:hmm:

[Sunfish]

We have been through this protectionist debate before. There is absolutely NO good economic argument for protecting Qantas and plenty of good argument for letting SQ in.

Then we will see if QF really can compete or not. My guess is that if SQ was allowed in then QF would have to do a whole lot more than just screw its staff - it would have to reorganise and streamline its managment.

Managers are telling you guys that you will suffer if SQ is allowed in. I suspect the reality is the reverse.

[hadagutful]

YOU ARE QUITE RIGHT SUNFISH, THE PROTECTIONISTS RAISE THEIR UGLY HEADS AGAIN, OH AND I WILL SPEAK IN CAPITALS JUST TO PISS OFF MR. QANTARSE HIMSELF.

QUESTION; IS QANTAS A BUSINESS? WELL I THINK WE ALL KNOW THE ANSWER. BY DEFINITION A BUSINESS USUALLY MUST COMPETE WITH OTHER BUSINESSES UNLESS IT IS A PURE MONOPOLY AND THERE ARE NOT TOO MANY OF THOSE AROUND IN THIS DAY AND AGE.

I"LL SAY AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF MR. Q., IT DOESN'T MATTER A DAMN WHO OWNS SQ. OR QANTAS, THE OWNER EXPECTS A DIVIDEND AND THE COMPANY MUST COMPETE.
FORGET APPLES WITH APPLES NONESENSE OR LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, THE COMPANIES MUST WIN PASSENGERS AND MAKE A PROFIT AND PAY A DIVIDEND WHETHER IT BE TO A FAMILY, SHAREHOLDERS OR TAXPAYERS, I.E. A GOVERNMENT.
THEY BOTH HAVE A SIMILAR COST STRUCTURE, I.E. AIRCRAFT, PARTS, FUEL, STAFF, AIRPORT CHARGES, ETC. THERE IS NOT A LOT OF DIFFERENCE OVER THE LONG
TERM.
SET THE SAFETY PARAMETERS AND REGULATIONS AND OPEN UP THE SKY.
WHY WOULD UNITED PULL OUT, THEY ALREADY HAVE AN ADVANTAGE WITH QANTAS IN OPERATING THE ROUTE?

IF THEY ARE NOT COMPETITIVE FOR WHATEVER REASON OR CANNOT DERIVE THE MINIMUM ECONOMIC YIELD THEN THEY MUST MAKE A BUSINESS DECISION WHETHER TO CONTINUE.
THEY MAY NOT COMPETE JUST ON FARES ALONE, PEOPLE ARE ATTRACTED TO GOOD SERVICE.

ALSO THE ROUTE TO EUROPE AND OTHER DESTINATIONS SHOULD BE OPEN TO QANTAS AND OTHERS AS WELL, NOT JUST PROTECTED FOR SQ.

OF COURSE POLITICS AND VESTED INTERESTS ALWAYS PLAY SOME PART IN OBSTRUCTING TRUE COMPETITION.

[flyingfox]

Protectionism should not be confused with the 'National Interest' when international players are involved. There is a Government role in keeping the playingfield level. Qantas can certainly do with competition, but not from 'all comers.' The domestic market is already covered by Virgin Blue and others are trying. If the Pacific route between Australia and the USA is such a money spinner, why aren't other US carriers screaming for access.They posess more natural right to operate on the route than does SIA. Giving domestic rights to the likes of SIA is not the way to go. They have absolutely no 'national interest' role for Australia, nor a domestic market to exchange. (Maybe SIA could be included with other airlines when Australia gets domestic rights to Asian, American and European countries. But don't hold your breath!) The specific issues relating to domestic airlines such as taxation, IR, corporate law, fuel costs, frequency etc. would all need to be addressed for an 'open skies' policy to apply to SIA in Australia. Otherwise their presence would be nothing but a cash skimming from Australia excercise. Those whos' posts call for 'Qantas Blood' at any cost probably wouldn't much enjoy losing their own 'Government protection'. Lets face it; China could provide 'cheap' competition for every Australian activity and job. But is it in the Nations' best interest?

[bolto_79]

Just a quick few Questions for the people that are after "Qantas blood"? Can I ask:

1.Who of you work for Qantas or even in the Qantas Group??

2. Stressed of not knowing if they have a job?

3.Getting out of bed at 3.30 in morning, working overnights, missing Christmas and special family functions?

4. Get abused by the public everyday?

SQ are allowed to fly unlimted flights in and out of Australia to Singapore (even more flights than Qantas ex places like Perth, Brisbane) and when (not if) they start on the SYD-LAX route are they going to the following:

1. Employee the Australian cabin crew and pilots?
2. Employee the staff from Qantas that are put off due to the reduction of flights across the big pond?
3. Put the money they are earning back into Australia
4. Employee young Australians? (I was employed by QF at 18)

People need to wake up and see that Qantas does employee 35 000 Australians that puts money back into our ecomony, and the company and employees pays tax to the government which then goes into funding roads , hospitals, schools, people on the dole ect ect

Where will the money that SQ makes from Australia market go????? not into that pothole that needs fixing in at the back of Bourke, but into fixing the one in Scotts Road Singapore

[Ichiban]

bolto:

1. No, I don't work for the Qantas Group.

2. Yes, I have lost my job in the past.

3. Yes, I experience shift work.

4. No, I don't get abused by the public every day.

I’m sick of Dixon’s whinging and double standards. So he wants to save Aussie jobs does he? Then why does he want to base more foreign Qantas and Australian Airlines Cabin Crew offshore?

Qantas, as part of the Singapore Australia 2003 aviation agreement, are also allowed unlimited flights between Australia and Singapore. Ask yourself how many beyond rights Qantas use or are entilted to use from Singapore, compared with how many beyond rights Singapore use or are entitled to use from Australia and you will see how level the playing field really is. (I’ll answer the second part for you: SIA have beyond rights from Australia to New Zealand). The playing field is heavily weighted in favour of Qantas!

Why weren’t Geoff Dixon and his supporters pushing their present “poor us” argument when Air New Zealand were flying daily SYD-LAX non-stop?

Perhaps Qantas should stop flying AKL-LAX non-stop to level the playing field for “poor old” government controlled Air New Zealand…

Whether you agree with it or not, Australia and Singapore have a Free Trade Agreement. Aviation is a part of trade.

Singapore Airlines provide and will provide competion that will be good for Australia.

[Sunfish]

Bolto with great respect, if the protection of QF's 35,000 jobs is costing 100,000 jobs in the rest of Australian economy than yes, stop protecting it.

The only way to tell if QF is an inefficient service provider charging more than market rates is to expose it to competition.

The debate is about industry protection.

The debate was lost 30 years ago. Industry protection is always wrong.

If Australian airlines cannot compete, then take the resources employed in them back and redeploy them where we can compete to the benefit of the entire economy. Given that QF buys billions of dollars worth of aircraft and has an appreciable effect on our balance of payments, the effect of its protection must have an appreciable negative effect on our economy.

I should also tell you that the Australian economy, including manufacturing, is highly competitive internationally, although you would never know it.

My guess is that if open skies was introduced, QF would lose a few jobs, but most of these would be in management, and in five years time you would be wondering what all the fuss was about.

I suspect most of you are too young to remember what happened with the car industry. Their special pleading makes your efforts look pathetic.

[gaunty]

Hmmmm one of the Princess gauntys just bought another new Toyota Echo, one of the new "global cars" and also, Mrs gaunty is just starting on her third Echo, a top product.

In idle chat with the sales guy I learned that Toyota have annual to date sold 201,000 new cars, MORE cars than Holden or Ford, both also foreign owned and controlled anyway.

I have only ever owned one of each of the local cars, one new 1990 Ford Fairlane (company supplied) which IMHO was a huge confidence trick heap of cr@p and the first of the original Euro import Opel/Commodores late seventies I think, which was several dozen magnitudes better than the old Kingers.

To be fair, at the time the Australian? cars were a product of the Australian environment and worked well in it, then.

At that time, late seventies, a Toyota was the butt of jokes, Holden and Ford have come a fair way too, but not anyway near as far.

Moral of the story?

[Eastwest Loco]

Bolto - I just cannot resist

1/. Yes - I have been employed by a forerunner of the QF group - TAA - port closed by some of the low lives that inhabit QF head office now - redunant. Went to East West - ran airports for them - moved up to Sales Manager Tasmania - redundant when AN bought us and shut down the sales position. Reapplied for position at DPO airport in Traffic - got it. A year later - port closed - redundant. Short stint of 11 weeks at AN ADL, then got a job back here in Travel.

2/. 18 months on medication after a bout of depression - something that I had never experienced before. Stress induced apparently. I thought I was dying at the time as I couldnt understand what was going on. Long time ago, but brought on by the loss of an airline and other worries like nearly losing a house etc. The stress was also there in the TN days with constant threats and rumours of the closure of Wynyard, something Wally the Wog told us would not happen just 3 months before the Age leaked internal information of the closure to the masses. The bastard sat there in our back room, drank our beer and told us there would be no closure in the forseeable future.

3/. I have worked my share of 3.30 - 4.00 am days, and late late nights, and a heap of double shifts stacked back to back. Fourteen Christmas days in a row, and accept that. It goes with the territory. If you don't like it, join an accountancy firm.

4/. I copped many an earful over the years, and generally when the Airline involved did something revolutionarily stupid, which in those days would be relayed back to management who generally acted responsibly on it. There is however no cure for the dickbrain passengers who should have been on the Firefly bus but bought a $9.00 fare though. The standby brigade and the green wallies of the Franklin dispute were our bete noir.

5/. And most important, I adored every second I worked for MY airlines, and would do again if the opportunity presented itself. In a nanosecond. The airline is not the management bolto. The airline is everything.

As for supporting Aussies, maybe you should have a close look at QF. 3000 jobs are being shipped offshore, not counting flight crew bases. We recieve debit memos postmarked Surrey in the UK - so accounting functions have already left. Commission levels have been cut, so it is much more profitable for Agents to sell non QF product to maintain income levels and pay their staff.

I am all for buying Australian and selling Australian, but I need the product that I am selling to show me the support and loyalty that they themselves take for granted.

It saddens me that I may in the long run be depriving good hard working QF staff of a living, but I am doing just what QF management is NOT doing for their people. I am trying desperately to provide an ongoing living in a good working environment to the people that rely on me for their employment and personal financial security.

bolto - your point of view and mine do not vary one bit. I want QF to employ lots of happy staff. I want the money to stay in Australia. I want the work force at QF to increase. More than that, I want to be able to afford to sell them rather than off shore competition. Currently I cannot.

Having worked in regimes that were walking around behind your back with a concealed knife and a fake smile on the face, it is not hard to see what you are feeling.

Here endeth the sermon.

Best regards

EWL

[Sunfish]

And the best way to see your vision EWL is for the skies to be opened to give QF management a foot up the.......

It's axiomatic that everyone is in favour of change......as long as it is the other guy who has to change. We are never in favour of change if it involves us having to change.

My guess is that GD and Co. are desperately trying to force change on everyone else so that THEY don't have to change.

Does QF still live in that big office building in central Sydney? Move to cheap real estate. Does QF still have multiple layers of management modelled on United? Cut out a few layers. Normally when you do life boat drill in a company you find that its the guys one or two levels down from the "Executive General Manager whatever" that are worth saving.

If you are going to slash and burn, its generally smartest to start from the top down.

My guess is that an open skies policy would see QF management slashed to the bone. You still need cabin staff, ground staff, pilots and engineers. You do not outsource this without destroying QF's reputation.

[Eastwest Loco]

Well Sunny - there indeed is the rub.

What the hell do we do. Like the "old days" QF,DJ, NZ, EK, SQ and so on crews and groundies fight tooth and nail from reservations to flight line (in the best of all worlds) to get and keep passengers despite how management treats them, and at the end of the day have a beer together in the pub they are overnighting at or close to work. Nothing there has changed.

We leeches on the butt of the industry (agents) try to offer the best deal to get the sale with new clients and take care of repeat or referred clients.

One player that we love to fly with and trusted has knifed us and told us "we must restructure" when others have said steady as she goes. Do we offer the QF services with a cost impost on our clients end bill with fee for service, or offer the others who will ship the money offshore and sell a cheaper competitive fare? It is a totally un Australian corner we have been backed into.

I can also see the decreased revenue from the inevitable migration of fund distribution percentage away from QF being a perfect vehicle for Dixon to use as justification for exporting yet more jobs.

Received a Qantas debit memo today - for plating an Air Tahiti Niui fare on QF paper (reminds self to get TN plate happening) postmarked - wait for it - Christchurch. NZ has a new you beaut yield management and tracking system, and I would not be amazed or astounded to find they were sub contracting to QF. The damned fare was sold in October.

We are being forced into NOT selling QF, and I personally find that distasteful.

How the hell do we get around this without losing revenue ourselves and not putting our mates at QF in even more danger?

regards

EWL

[Crusty Demon]

How do you change all the middle management though? AN tried to do it and payed a price in the end. All managers were too afraid to make a decision that didn't involve cost cutting and saving money, and their job insecurity cost them a lot in terms of job performance.

Would love to see the levels of management in QF cut drastically, but hopefully they can find a way to do it that doesn't cost more than it saves. At the moment, if you prove you have saved a few costs somewhere, up goes the bonus, and your promotion to the next tier of management becomes more likely.

However, if Singair are given approval to operate on the pacific, perhaps the focus will be to save even more costs. More jobs overseas, and more managers to achieve savings than there already are now.

[Fluke]

Let SQ and others fly 5th freedom but make them rebuild and redevelop our airports. Woops I forgot they are already privately owned.

[Blue Mullode]

I'd prefer to see them locked out. They are greedy and want to bleed us dry. Screw them. They can come back in a couple of years with a new offer when they've been sweating a little......

Don't be so short-sighted guys, it's not all about "yeah I can get a slightly cheaper ticket to LA..... oh hang on I never go there anyway. But yeah, I hate Kwannus so let's let them in..."

Think of the bigger picture. Same goes for swinging voters.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

...on an entirely off-topic note... I'd like to nominate Blue for the funniest new nick award....

[HGW]

Quoted from The AGE - Business Section

"Hong Kong has fully rebounded as a tourist destination following the difficulties created by SARS in 2003 - and Australians are leading the way in the growth in tourist numbers.

The Hong Kong Tourism Board last week announced that in 2004 it had received 21.8 million visitors from around the world, a new record.

Visitors from Australia reached 408,000 last year - up 61 per cent on 2003, which was affected by SARS. The figures show the number of Australian tourists travelling to Hong Kong in 2004 was 19 per cent higher than in pre-SARS 2002.

The main reason fot the growth in tourism numbers out of Australia was increased air capacity to Hong Kong

In the past year Cathy Pacific alone has added an extra 1000 seats a week out of Melbourne.

In addition Qantas has substantially increased its capacity to Hong Kong over the past year as Virgin Atlantic has just begun services linking Sydney with the Asian destination"


This is what competition does. It grows a market and produces earnings for more than just the airline. The whole economy benefits and isn't it amazing this happens every time a Virgin company starts somewhere.

[Ex QF]

In the SMH yesterday it stated that Valuair would start flying between Oz and Singapore from December. The interesting line in the article was,

“Singapore-based airlines have unlimited access into Australia.”

I wonder, is this the argument that Dixon uses in Canberra? – Singapore has unlimited access into Australia and we have unlimited access into Singapore – so we are equal? Or Singapore has unlimited access into Australia and within Australia perhaps, so we are equal now?

Then on the etravelblackboad site yesterday, it stated that the Deputy PM was in Brussels for talks and wanted on behalf of Australia,

“more access for the country's biggest airline, Qantas, and other possible carriers to London and other European capitals.

Anderson said in a statement he would like to see Qantas gain a fourth daily flight between Australia and London, and would eventually like to see the lucrative air route more liberalized. “

So he Anderson, (read as being Qantas, naturally) wants more access to other European capitals ? who’s telling porkys here? Doesn’t he know that in the past xx years Qantas has pulled out of, Frankfurt, Paris, Rome, Vienna, Amsterdam, Athens and Belgrade – places you’d presume that there would still be ‘rights’ to fly into.

I wonder - is it just a case of handing it over to the Deputy PM to do his bit – so it all just gets lost in the public service black hole for say 18 more months. All the while telling the Singaporeans that their rights to fly ex Oz to the US hinge on our rights in Europe? In the mean time, Qantas look at the likes of the 777 or whatever, look at what ports they really want to fly into etc, and when and only when Qantas are ready – the give the green light to Singapore.

:ok:

[numbskull]

I think Qantas has proved that it can handle anything that comes its way and its not only due to the management brilliance? of Geoff Dixon but the 35000 troops in the front line!!

Personally I couldn't care less if there was an open skies agreement because I know QF will have no problem handling yet another challenge.

However there seem to be no shortage of crisis that head our way and I see no need to voluntarily bring one on when nearly every one else is taking the easy option !!

[HGW]

Does the whole viability of QF rest on one route???.
I agree with numbskull, QF would react as it always does and that is to compete. If you have a good product with value for money pricing you do alright.

[Redstone]

If it is that importanat to them then they will help Australian carriers obtain more flights thru Singapore to European destinations, one for one.

[Sheep Guts]

It looks like Emirates want oart of the action aswell. If they get in aswell as SQ then Maybe Branson will want a chunk with Virgin Atlantic changing to say "Virgin Pacific?"

I havent had great experiences with QF myself lately especially on the LAX route. I would vote yes.

Sheep

P.S. Sold my shares last week :O

[Eastwest Loco]

Sheeps

The EK network ex DXB into Europe is just plain scary - Into all major European capitols, and into places like Nice, and Birmingham, Manchester, Heathrow and Gatwick and it just goes on and on.

Birmingham is a beauty. 45 minute connection time - EI DUB BHX and then EK with 45 minute minima - I avoid that and put them back a flight but it is there if needed.

I have a fair idea that the industry as a whole has no idea what a juggernaut EK actually is. We are finding that it is prudent to sell them more often than not. Price and schedule.

Time will tell of those who fell and who was left behind.

Best all

EWL

[Delta Whiskey]

Coming into this pretty late in the day and only got thu to page 2 before tiring of all the bleating - HOWEVER

Plas Tique - you da man - hit the nail right on the head. There are always lessons to be learned from history aren't there?

I think that overall the NZ public has benefited from the competition brought by overseas owned airline(s) flying domestic routes - something STILL NOT RECIPROCATED by our Western neighbours since the infamous fax episode.

I can't see any reason the Okker public wouldn't reap the same benefits with improvements to service and a reduction of fares.

If you have any faith in your aviation product then competition shouldn't scare you - brace up to it.

[Skinny Dog]

Delta Whiskey
Perhaps Singapore Airlines and Emirates should apply for Auckland San Francisco and Los Angeles etc as well ..... good for competition. I am sure the public will benefit as you ship the last remaining vestige of NZ aviation off overseas, then you can all get back to doing what you do best with sheep

[Delta Whiskey]

Nice note at the end Skinny Dingo - keeping the standard of debate right up there ...
They've been and gone before - Continental, United, Pan Am, Canadian to name some I remember flew out of NZAA to the East, and there are a whole bunch going West right now - where's the problem?? If someone who can offer a better service than your own mob comes along then surely it's a bloody good reason to pick up your game and not put up the barricades and huddle in the middle of your mediocrity.
Have a good one

[cnsnz]

Skinny
With the open skys policy in NZ any carrier can operate to and from nz to the states.
We dont hide behind the goverment to protect us from competition.I think you will find the two carriers you mention are already looking at this so maybe Qf will get pushed out of SYD/AKL/LAX by superior product and service.

[Three Bars]

We dont hide behind the goverment to protect us from competition.

So where does the fact that AirNZ is over 80% (I think) owned by the NZ Government. Would they let AirNZ go bankrupt and lose their stake or would they step in to protect it, if necessary?

[cnsnz]

I would say they would still step in probably with financial support and I dare say if QF the national carrier of australia was going the same way CBR would step in also, but that does not alter the fact that the NZ gov has an open skies policy that allows other airlines to compete against them on any route and not keep it purely for themselves.