Singapore girl, you're a great way to fly!

[1279shp]

Australia should consider letting Singapore Airlines fly the lucrative Sydney-Los Angeles route if this would boost tourism, Treasurer Peter Costello said on Tuesday.

Singapore Air has been pressing for access to the trans-Pacific route for some time, but Australia's government has said the international aviation market was too uncertain to open up the route to further competition.

"If that would increase the tourist trade into and out of Australia, but particularly into, I think it would be something well worth looking at," Costello told reporters.

Transport Minister John Anderson said the government would consider Singapore Airlines' access to the trans-Pacific route before the end of the month.

Qantas Airways, Australia's largest airline, has a strong grip on trans-Pacific traffic from the United States, but Singapore Air and discount carrier Virgin Blue have signalled they want a slice of the pie.

Flying to the United States is a major revenue earner for Qantas, which has said letting in Singapore Air would be unfair as it has no reciprocal access to routes out of Singapore.

A spokesman for Singapore Air, the world's second-largest airline by market value, said the Australian government's decision should consider the interests of consumers and the tourism industry.

"It would be very concerning for us if the decision by the government was focused on the narrow interests of Qantas," the spokesman said. "Fares on the trans-Pacific route are high. We see this as a disincentive to traffic growth."

In February, Anderson visited Europe to seek greater access to London and European destinations for Australian airlines.

He has said successful negotiations for access for Australian airlines in Europe would be a factor in any decision to let Singapore Airlines, which is 57 percent-owned by the Singapore government, fly the trans-Pacific route.

(Reuters)

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

Don't you love the way they pretend to be the consumers best mate and make it sound like they are trying to help the consumer and not make all that extra profit?

[hadagutful]

Yes the political lobbying has intensified ahead of the Cabinet decision expected next week re the trans Pacific route to the US.

Firstly it is joke that a commercial operator in order to greatly expand it's routes must depend on a decision by a group of shiney arse politicians rather than any pure commercial grounds being the major factor.
So much for an open skies policy flirted so much by Anderson and others.
I'm sure if the route proves uneconomic for SQ or others they will then make a commercial decision.

And of course what of the blatant hypocracy shown by the flying kangaroo, who have around two thirds of the route stitched up and naturally want to keep it that way.
Back here in Oz though they set up QF Mark 11 to compete with the Virgin, but that's different!
Well GD, you can't have it both ways, if you want to throw down the gauntlet to VB, why shouldn't that be the case on international.

Similarly Qantas and others should be able to fly the European routes if the requirements are met without the political over regulation.

[KID Quality]

More chance for us UP AND COMING...............shove over grandad;)

[halas]

In February, Anderson visited Europe to seek greater access to London and European destinations for Australian airlines.

Which Australian airlines?

Not the one that only serves Heathrow and Frankfurt (for the time being).

He has said successful negotiations for access for Australian airlines in Europe would be a factor in any decision to let Singapore Airlines, which is 57 percent-owned by the Singapore government, fly the trans-Pacific route.

After pulling out of all Euro destinations bar two, of their own accord, the Gument are negotiating for more access.
Unless they are asking for more slots in Heathrow, l don't get it.

halas

[Capn Bloggs]

Gut,

SQ a commercial operator ?

57% government owned? Get real. That's not a level playing field. And do you reckon Singas would give QF more flights to/from WSSS? You're dreaming.

Tell them to keep out of the Pacific until they start playing fair. I don't want to start living like the Chinese but that's what's going to happen thru no fault of my own.

[HotDog]

I don't want to start living like the Chinese but that's what's going to happen thru no fault of my own.

I don't get it; Singapore Chinese seemed to be living quite well, even way back when I was posted to Singapore with QF when it was 100% government owned.:confused:

[bushy]

Strange that Ansett were shut down about the time they started talking to Singapore.

[schnauzer]

Ha! Up your @rse Singapore! Finally some common sense from our Govt!

Howard protects Qantas
By Dennis Shanahan and Patrick Walters
June 11, 2005
From: The Australian
THE Howard Government will continue to protect Qantas from extra competition on its lucrative Pacific route, as it launches a wholesale review of the aviation industry.

Despite three years of persistent lobbying from Singapore to open up the route, John Howard yesterday telephoned his Singaporean counterpart, Lee Hsien Loong, to tell him a final decision would be delayed indefinitely.
A top-level ministerial committee will consider major changes to aviation policy including lifting restrictions on foreign ownership of Qantas. It will also review market access rules for foreign airlines into Australia and on other key international routes including the Pacific.

Advertisement:
"It's all in the melting pot," a senior minister told The Weekend Australian yesterday.

The Singapore application to fly the Pacific route in competition with Qantas has been deferred to allow time for the industry reappraisal.

Singapore, after three years of lobbying, said it was disappointed "but not surprised" by the decision.

The Government review will also consider the timing of new A380 airbus services out of Australia, future heavy aircraft maintenance, a broader role for Virgin Blue including potential links between the airline and Singapore Airlines, inbound tourism promotion and airport control.

Qantas chairman Margaret Jackson and chief executive Geoff Dixon told senior ministers in Canberra last week that the world's oldest continuously operating airline had come to a strategic crossroads.

The pair said Qantas would have to consider making major changes to its corporate structure if there was not an overhaul of aviation policy.

The Qantas chiefs told ministers they should not assume that Qantas, which employs 38,000 people worldwide, could continue to exist as an independent "end-of-line" carrier on an international playing field grossly distorted by government intervention.

Qantas also wants the Government to recognise that aviation policy should go well beyond market access and capacity issues and acknowledge that the industry is a vital strategic asset for Australia.

A key issue for the Government, according to Qantas, is whether Canberra wants to maintain a skilled aviation industrial base in Australia.

It told the Government that the US market was already well serviced, that airfares were now at "all-time lows" and that there had been more than 468,000 unsold seats on the trans-Pacific routes in the year to April.

The company warned that giving Singapore Airlines access to Australia's US routes would severely reduce Qantas's profit, because the "playing field is uneven and grossly distorted by (Singapore) government ownership and agendas".

Senior government sources told The Weekend Australian that Qantas was under pressure to consider shifting much of its Sydney base to other Australian locations such as Brisbane, or Avalon in Victoria, or even overseas.

The decision on granting Singapore access to the Pacific route, which has divided cabinet, had been expected by the middle of this year, after talks between Australian and Singaporean transport ministers in February.

The Prime Minister told Mr Lee it would not be possible to make the decision, because of the review of the long-term future of aviation in Australia.

Mr Howard asked Mr Lee to give the Government "a bit of room" on the question of the flight route access.

The Government has indicated it will give Singapore Airlines some access, and senior ministers including Peter Costello believe it should allow access in the interests of competition and our new free trade agreement with Singapore.

But other senior ministers are concerned about the long-term consequences for Qantas of what they regard as a "corrupt" international airline market and the strategic ambitions of government-backed airlines such as Singapore and Emirates.

Singapore Airlines has lobbied hard for Canberra to make a decision on the route access and last night an airline spokesman said they were disappointed with the delay.

Mr Lee told Mr Howard the links developed between Australia and Singapore through the airline industry would add to Australia's constructive role in Asia.

Mr Howard said the specific questions of routes, access and airline co-operation were just part of the broader dimensions of the "end game".

Mr Howard, Transport Minister John Anderson and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer have begun informal discussions on issues affecting Australia's aviation industry.

Matters for consideration include an expanded role for Virgin Blue, possibly including domestic links with Singapore Airlines; how to strengthen the domestic market; expanding joint Virgin Blue-Qantas heavy maintenance; and promoting inbound tourism.

Qantas has long argued that allowing Singapore Airlines to fly from Sydney to the US does not represent fair competition, in the absence of rights for Qantas beyond Singapore to Europe and Asia.

It also argues that international competition has become increasingly distorted with the swift rise of government-backed airlines.

[Kaptin M]

IMO - the ONLY way QANTAS is going to survive in the longer term (against competition from other government-owned/backed carriers such as SQ, Air N.Z., JAL, & EK) is for it, to once again also become (Australian) government backed.
Australians see QANTAS as their national airline.

Stop fiddling, Howard. Just do it!

[ferris]

A key issue for the Government, according to Qantas, is whether Canberra wants to maintain a skilled aviation industrial base in Australia How is this reconciled with QF cowing various sections of it's workforce with threats of off-shoring their jobs? Engineering? O/S bases for cabin crew? Call centres in India etc. Why just the 'skilled aviation industrial base' (whatever that is). If QF is being afforded government protection, how can they let any jobs go?

Hat's off to their lobbyists.

[Chris Higgins]

The prices to Australia on QF have never been cheaper from stateside. I don't see how they could be any cheaper than the $680 US round trip I've paid, (plus all the tax and security fees), ex LAX.

[blueloo]

I Hope once it becomes government owned again Kaptin, is that they return the pay the way it used to be - where the pilots were paid more than the CEO.



Not the way it currently is, with the pilots poised kneeled over, coping a reaming, and AIPA monitoring the queue of reamers to be...........

[hadagutful]

Howard and Cabinet colleagues wimped it, QF is to remain a protected beast across the Pacific.

Question: Why does QF fear SQ?
Answer: I suspect they are concerned the competition might be a bit hot and of course they stand to lose some 'duopoly revenue'.
What is that you say? Go and check an economics text book.

Govt can't get much right on aviation and certainly not on international airline policy, over regulated and stuff the consumer !!

All the usual nonesense arguments above: e.g. SQ government ownership, so what! they still have to compete to get bums on seats.
Jobs etc. well we have seen what has happened to the car industry using same argument.

Hey Bloggsy, don't know how you live but many millions of Chinese live very well, why? Because they work hard. Just in case you hadn't noticed on your travels !!!

Missy Higgins, don't know where you paid < AUS$1000 return LAX to Aus return but that is NOT the fare I'm seeing.

[schnauzer]

Gutful? That is possibly some of the most illogical diatribe I have read on this board.

If you are so "economically educated" then please enlighten the rst of us. Dont just wave an economics text book in front of us. You are displaying your own ignorance.

many millions of Chinese live very well, why? Because they work hard
Yes. Many millions of Chinese live in slums, too. They earn about a dollar a day. That justified?

And finally. Missy as you so rudely name him quoted in US dollars, not AU$ as you suggest. RTFP. Read The Farking Post.

And learn some manners whilst you are at it.

[TIMMEEEE]

More chance for us UP AND COMING...............shove over grandad

Kid Quality- You are the very reason that airline management worldwide loves to take advantage of those in the aviation industry.

Your selfish characteristics are an affront to those other hard working up and comings that have worked hard and want a good job without having to pay for their endorsement or are not willing to sell their souls like yourself.

Being a member of the "me" generation probably, you dont give a rat's ar$e about your fellow aviator or the industry in general.
You care about yourself only and would be happy to sell your fellow aviators down the toilet to get what you want.

And when you possibly get the opportunity to wear a nice uniform (resplendant with cap) who will be the first to whinge when the rug is pulled from underneath you?????

And how would you feel Kid Quality if you couldnt get a job because QF may hire less pilots (and many other staff in general) as a consequence of letting SQ fly the pacific??

Look at the big picture son, grow up and stop thinking about your greedy selfish self!

[schnauzer]

Well stated, Tim.

There are seriously some on these forums that need to take a good hard look at themselves.

[frangatang]

Mr Dixon announced he wants to increase QF services to LHR.
Can someone ask him where he is going to park his bloody aircraft there as there aint no room!

[Flying Ninja]

Blueloo

You must be F#)king Joking!!!!!!!!

QF pilots are the original FAT CATS of the industry.

Yes, the CEO is on a rort of immense proportions but so is the 21 year old IT wiz who has convinced those with the $$$$$ that no one else can fix their problem.

As for QF pilots ( Cpts in particular).... the salary and benefits are OBSCENE for the work that they do, compared with the work that many other pilots do with a fraction of the support given to the QF guys.
The insult is having to put up with the many( not all but many) who find it necessary to inform all who they meet what their position in life is in the first 30 seconds of conversation.
How do you spot a QF pilot at a party? ......... fear not....

If this is being reamed, where is the end of the line?

Get real, most of you long haul guys couldn't hack a day as a VB/Jstar pilot on less a quarter of your package. Don't mention those in even less lucrative jobs

Don't even start to think about defending with arguements like deserved renumeration or hard won allowances as compensation for inconvenience/ instability/lifestyle sacrifice/harsh work environment.

:yuk: :yuk:

[schnauzer]

Flying Farkwit. Whilst I doubt that youv'e flown a day in your mediocre life, by your last post you have clearly illustrated why you know nothing of what you are saying. Now go troll somewhere else....

[Lead Balloon]

Shnauzer

Hadagutful did the translation of AUD to USD for you - if you read his post!

What was it you said, ah yes.... RTFP.

As for Qantas and SQ... Seems to me like there is no such thing as a level playing field for airlines and hasn't been since the whole thing started. But it also seems to me that there are too many airlines, doing too poor of a job due to government imposed restrictions.

We should allow Qantas to be able to sell its shares without impediment and we should not protect one business at a cost to consumers.

[The The]

Ninj,

You will never better your own conditions by berating those who have improved/better conditions.

Sadly, even some withinin the QF fleets can't see this.

Put your efforts into improving things for yourself, not whining about what others have got.

I really hate the bludger at a party who knocks every and all that he perceives has more or has it better than him, yet is totally unwilling to get off his a%$e and do something for himself.

[schnauzer]

Good pickup, Lead.:ouch:

His post was still obnoxious though....

[neville_nobody]

Flying Ninja,


QF Long haul pilots fly in conditions that you'll never see,(ie blowing snow, very low RVR's, foreign language problems, alternates hours away etc etc) work up to 20 hours at a time. So I would hardly argue that they couldn't hack domestic OZ jobs. Infact I would suggest many would find it VERY BORING. And if they can negotiate a very high salary package when then more fool you!! Instead of comlaining abiut it GO AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

Woomera, can you set up a kindergarten forum for the likes of Ninja please?
Don't you Qantas dudes also do four sims a year? If that's the case, that means your licence is on the line four times per year. I take my hat off to you blokes and think you deserve everything you get.

[Keg]

Ninja, I remember a wise old skipper telling me once, 'our pay isn't for what we do every day, it's for what we may be required to do on those half a dozen days per annum or per career'.

As for domestic stuff? Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. I can do it but you're correct about doing it on J* or DJ wages! I have zero desire to do that and nor should any pilot have to. Personally, I reckon that both groups are significantly underpaid. I'm hoping that being a part of AIPA can help out the former (although that is a can of worms in itself) and I'm certainly on the side of the DJ drivers in trying to improve their pay and conditions.

[Flying Ninja]

To those who find what I have said so insulting.

Don't need to qualify my credentials to know sh1t when I can smell and in this case read it.
My comment was to Blue loo saying he was getting a reaming.
I am not complaining about my lot as it is as good as I can get. I am not even complaining about what QF guys make, good luck to them.
I am complaining about Blue loo thinking he is hard done by.
I believe the comparison with VB/Jstar and GA pilots is correct.
You want to argue? List your QF package.

Jstar is offering $124,000 per annum plus super of 8 or 10% for a captain. That's it. No allowances.
Think that the work is too easy? Anyone know what a JetBlue captain makes flying in and out of New York in winter?
Over to you......for a 747 package

[blueloo]

Ninja, whilst you try to find reverse gear by trying to deflect your rather deserved flak by saying your post was directed at me, methinks you should spend more time thinking about the drivel you type. If you insult an entire group of aviators in a company by saying they are overpaid and can't hack domestic work you are clearly :mad: in the head.

Further to the above, yes I think given QFs profitability we are getting a reaming. I also think Jetstar and Virgin are getting reamed.....the difference is, some people were willing to take a bigger reaming than others.

I personally, unlike you, would like to see their conditions improve, as I would like mine to. You apparently, would like to screw fellow aviators and yourself.

Unfortunately, people like you have helped lower the conditions to what you see.

[Zapatas Blood]

Jetblue captain makes less than 100,000 USD. NYC is a VERY expensive place to live.

[greybeard]

Ninja et all,

The paradyme shift from "Long Haul" to "Domestic" apart from the so called pay and conditions is a tin of worms in itself.
Having trained/assessed Senior F/Os from the long haul fleets where 10 sectors a month was the norm,to do 25/30 in a week caused some people to melt at the pace of it all.
Very different process, not to be taken lightly at all, physically, physiologically, socially etc.
I have mostly done "short", longest crew airborne was 8.30 Hobart-Singapore, no wish ever to do the longer, sleep broken, split duties at all. Those of my peers who do the 14/18 hour legs age far too quickly for my liking, so if they get the $, bloddy good luck to them.
So far this year as a pax, 20 sectors of 5/6 hours is plenty thank you, the simulator is a quiet have of electronic wizardry to weave the magic of endorsements and renewals to a wide variety of "victims" and a nice way to chuff off to the roses and slippers.

As to who gets what for doing the task of Aviation in this day and age, YOU/WE are all in the main YOUR/OUR own enemies, if you accept crap, there are always second helpings available from the Masters and Commanders, thats why so many did what they did in a previous life/situation on both "sides"
As pilots we have the final say to our daily destinies, once you have said NO, the rest of the day is easier.
At the risk of being an old F#@t, worked for me in 5 different Countries/Companies, still works in the Simulator, you just have to do it.

DO OR NOT DO, THERE IS NO TRY.----- Yoda

C Ya

Greybeard
:ok: :ok:

[hadagutful]

Schnausty

Just a quick reply to your post:

Talk to me about manners? I did read in your earlier spiel

"up your @rse Singapore" etc.

I think that says it all about manners and class.
I wouldn't bother trying to educate you on any economics anyway, probably all too hard for you.

Also re the quoted airfare, yes I did know it was US$.
Not sure about your maths ability but 680 $US still works out to be < $1,000 Aus at current exchange rates.
Try working it out.

Please try and stick to the debate on Qantas and its protected air routes rather than get personal, it only shows you have lost the plot.

Thanks.

[404 Titan]

hadagutful

I will take you and Sunfish on any day regarding economic rational. I am more than qualified to debate you and your kind. I too had a life before I committed aviation.

I have no problem making QF or any carriers for that matter compete, as long as they are given equal opportunity to compete on the other carrier’s routes. To give you an idea what I am talking about, where I work, HK, the US is wanting unlimited Fifth Freedom rights to operate through here. In return, we want to be able to compete with US carriers on their routes. The US won’t allow this even though they are talking about Open Skies with HK. Open skies for whom? It certainly isn’t for HK as the same restrictions will exist for us as there is now. This type of BS goes on all around the world. The Indians play it, so do the Chinese. Infact I can’t think of a single country that doesn’t play it to some extent. It is played at a global level by every nation, some worse than others. If you can think of some way to fix that, then and only then will I listen to your argument about free trade and true open skies. As the world has not been able to solve it over the past 60 years, and you haven’t been able to offer a solution, all your economic theories are pointless.