Singapore Airlines has a secret agenda.

[The Riddler]

Singapore Air has a secret agenda, claims the Frightened Kangaroo
Sydney Morning Herald
By Scott Rochfort
June 10, 2005

Qantas has warned that Singapore Airlines' plans to enter the lucrative Sydney to Los Angeles route could be part of a longer-term - and covert - strategy by the Asian carrier to eventually drive the Flying Kangaroo out of business.

With Federal Cabinet expected to make a decision as early as next week on whether to grant Singapore Air access to the route from Australia to the US, Qantas chief financial officer Peter Gregg said: "The long-term aim is for them to be the biggest, the best - and if that means knocking people over on the way through, Qantas is not the only one they are taking aim at."

Raising concerns about the growing influence of government-owned airlines, including Emirates, Mr Gregg said: "They would like to see the back of Qantas and take this market for themselves, with the consequent loss of the 38,000 jobs in Australia that we've got."

Mr Gregg said the public needed to note the "uneven" advantages Singapore Air had over Qantas, such as its lower corporate taxes, lower labour costs and the effect government-owned foreign airlines could have on the Australian aviation sector if they were granted more access to Australian routes.

Let's not just focus on the Pacific route. Let's focus on the totality of what we're trying to deliver for Australia and for Australians versus what Singapore Airlines is trying to deliver for Singapore and Singaporeans - which is bring more people through the Singapore hub."

In response to a report commissioned by Singapore Air which claimed the lack of competition on the US air route was costing Australia $126 million a year in lost tourist revenue, Mr Gregg said: "For them to come and address one route in our network as being … of paramount importance to them when we provide so many other routes to network Australia to the rest of the world - [that] is a question that needs to be considered.

"Why is that so? It's so because they believe they can produce a higher return. It's called cherry picking."

Claiming largely government-owned carriers such as Singapore Air did not have the pressure to return high levels of dividends to shareholders, Mr Gregg said: "They drop their return with the sole aim of driving commercial airlines out of business."

The publicly listed Singapore Air generates a dividend yield of about 3.95 per cent, compared with Qantas's 5.1 per cent.

Singapore Air spokesman Stephen Foreshaw said Qantas's comments were "sounding increasingly desperate".

[QFinsider]

Peter Gregg may well be onto something. The only problem with his and the rest of the cronies is that the very weapon they posess to numb the blow are the employees...The same asset being pushed to despair by a management so devoid of creative ideas it makes most of us cry..Cutting costs, skybeds and accountants won't save QF and now the markets have noticed maybe brokers will remember to ask them what their labour relations are like!:E

[Ronnie Honker]

Mr Gregg said: "They drop their return with the sole aim of driving commercial airlines out of business."

That's hardly startling news, is it Mr Gregg?
If it is (for you), how did you ever get into the position (Qantas chief financial officer ) you're in?

Mr Gregg said: "They would like to see the back of Qantas and take this market for themselves, with the consequent loss of the 38,000 jobs in Australia that we've got." Yes, GD likes to have the monopoly on getting rid of Australians' jobs from QANTAS, doesn't he!

[Flying Ninja]

Singapore Airlines secret agenda???????
It's no secret. It's business, and they are open about it.

Where was talk of Aussies losing jobs when Ansett was on the edge?
Remember Dikko telling Anderson that QF was in more danger of going under? They both agreed and then went to ANZ to see about a merger or what ever while Ansett went over the egde.
All smoke and mirrors.
Wasn't a problem for QF when Jetstar went to Singapore and then soon to be everywhere else in Asia. Bitching about not getting routes into other countries and now bitching that someone else wants to take AVAILABLE routes out of Aust.
Short answer for QF. Buy more planes, take the routes and fly 'em at a profit or a loss , or, let someone else do it. It is called competetion.
You can't say," don't let anyone else into OUR market" claiming that you are looking after Aussies, while you are trying to get into other peoples markets . What about their "flag" carriers and it's employees?

By the way I think that QF actually treats Aussies like Sh1t when it comes to service. Couldn't hope to compare with SIA or Emirates.
This more competetive tax regime is cr.p. A level playing field is service and price. Then let the passengers vote with their feet.
If QF get more competetion, they will have to lift their game or they will lose. That means "fat arse." attendants who care about the passenger and not screwing people on the price of a ticket.

I reckon that Dixon ought to try for Canberra next. Better sprooker ( is that how it's spelt?) that Costello and anyone in Labour.

[Pinky the pilot]

Flying Ninja;I reckon that Dixon ought to try for Canberra next. Better spruiker than Costello or anyone in Labor
Many a true word has been spoken in jest, and these days nothing surprises me. I shall mark your words and let us see what unfolds in the future.
We all of us do live in interesting times indeed!

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[Kaptin M]

You've mis-quoted our resident fruit cake, Pinky, when you correctly spelt the word "spru(i)ker" - from the German, sprechen..to speak.
Be that as it may, QF is, after all's said and done, an Aussie icon.

Ansett was a TWU stronghold, known best for its association with Hawke's mates, (the dead) Abeles, and union-busting Rupe.
Letting Ansett go down the plughole was a fast, convenient way for Little Johnny to incur serious damage on the TWU's (ACTU's) stronghold in aviation.

As much as QF are now the last bastion, I believe that the history that the name QANTAS embodies, means too much to have an all out affront.
It's happening. But the Government, Dixon, and Oldmeadow, know that it's important to basically keep the name "intact" to avoid any political backlash.

Dixon's not interested in parliament - at $6 million per year, wtf would you waste your time trying to court the very people whose jobs you've outsourced!

...and "No" Fruitcake Ninja, you will not be going to NG's based out of Kobe. (BTW, did you and your s_mate, Wizofoz, attend the same spelling classes? )

[Sunfish]

QF is no longer an Australian Icon. One flight with it will demonstrate that.

It is a public company that is unaccountable to anyone except its shareholders. Even CASA does what QF tells them because QF has more technical ability in this area.

It enjoys an effective monopoly of capacity that in my opinion deserves to be broken because its flights are choked to keep its load factors up It strangles every other state except Sydney as it is run by a Sydney-centric Board and management. It has deep and multitudinous links into both sides of Government in NSW as its current and past Board composition obviously indicates

To put it another way guys, QF should aspire to being internationally competitive, and I think your own posting demonstrate that it is not. It relies on its stranglehold on capacity to generate its profits, not its reputation for service and punctuality.

To put it another way, every other airline in the world has been struggling, and what does QF do? Makes a billion dollar profit!

Is this due to superior managment and a highly motivated staff, delivering an exquisitely crafted level of service that makes Australians salivate at the mere thought of travelling Qantas???

Nope. We will go to any lengths to AVOID QF!

To put it yet another way, Yes QF is an Australian Icon. So is Telstra and the four main banks. All of you are monopolies and deserve a bit more competition.

Furthermore, the longer you are insulated from competition, the harder and more painful the inevitcable adjustment when the Australian public works out just what a the cost of your cosy protection actually is.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

A Sunfish never changes it's spots.

[OCCR]

NINJA,
you really seem to have a hatred for QF pilots and Cabin Crew,
Ditched by one of them...were you!...
such negativity in your posts, such loathing, freaky!!!!!

[Tutaewera]

Nothing secret I agree, but must say there is a price to be paid for a truly "free market". That is job losses and decay of our national transport industry...

SIA pays 2nd world wages to all but its tech crew & mgt (just ask a bag chucker or F/A how much they get at SQ) and enjoys operating in a country where there are few employee rights to speak of. Obviously this makes it easy for them to exploit rich pickings in higher cost economies who try to behave with some kind of ethical code (albeit enforced).

Canberra has to decide how far its support of globalisation is to go. Ultimately one could see the demise of many std setting western carriers as 2nd & 3rd world operators set up bases wherever the juicey markets are, unhindered by local costs and legislation. Competition is one thing - exploitation is another.

How would you feel if in 10 years time there was no QF or NZ and Air China ruled the roost in OZ? Remember the OZ clothing industry?

:sad:

[Ralph the Bong]

Spot on Ninja.

I remember QANTAS'S secret agenda when Ansett was in strife. Remember Jackson and Anderson's little trip to Wellingtun to tell the Kiwis that SQ was not to be permitted to inject capital into AN via a greater equity stake in Air New Zealand? I sure do!:hmm:

Aside from seizing the moment to eliminate QF main competitor (remember, AN was planning to operate trans pac.), it was a great opportunity to engaging some micro-economic reform, as Kap'nM says. Problem now is:

1) QF is approaching a total monopoly in Oz.

2) Fares are still at similar levels for compareable tickets as when Ansett was flying (ie SYD-MEL with QF or DJ is higher than when AN operated, accounting for inflation).

3) Of the 830 pilots at AN, 520 are still employed as pilots and ~380 of these are now living overseas.

The reality of this is that the Liberals aviation policy is a failure:It has failed the test of true competion, it has failed the staff at all companies in Australia and it has failed the Lib's own political philosophy of non-interferance with business. what are they? A bunch of socialist Keynesians??? :* :yuk:

[tinpis]

How would you feel if in 10 years time there was no QF or NZ and Air China ruled the roost in OZ? Remember the OZ clothing industry?

Might not be that close cuzzy,but it WILL happen.

[Flying Ninja]

Hey Kraptin,

You really are moderated theses days( or do you prefer the word " Controlled" as you like to use in other posts). Moderated to the point of being weak as p1ss. "resident cry baby "
I am so cut up......
You been eating too strong a dose of fugu. Numbed the lips and brain, has it?

Thank you for the lesson in english expression. Not only do you know the spelling but, I am sure that you know the definition as you obviously also know the origins of the word. WOW!

Have you learned anything about honesty, integrity, duty of care in the past 16 years. Certainly didn't know those words then when you "SC-BBED" and went slinking behind peoples backs to ( now let me see ??)..... Hawke, ( the dead) Abels and the ...what was it about Rupe that you said earlier??????

My suggestion for a alternative career for GD was a comment on his tactics in this situation........ playing a politician.
I think the majority of readers and those not filled with rage and vendetta ( sorry moderation and modesty... must get that right ,but it is so unlike you ......dear boy) would have gleened that Krap.
On the topic of moderation and modesty, didn't show much of that in front of the TWU boys in BNE just before the strike. I think I remember you said" take your leave and get ready for a long one boys 'cause we are going to really F-CK 'em". Pretty good "spruiker" you are too. Not to mention a SNAKE. No that's not right. It's unfair to the snakes!!!!

I like the way you take comments from one post and re arrange them to suit.
My jibe at you re: being sim buddies was designed to
show how wrong this ' buy a job' idea is . People will be looking at finance and getting buddies so as to go as a package and spend less . They have already accepted that this will be the way things will be forever more. They are just trying to make the best of it. Thanks to who? ... a group of staunch '89ers. True heros to go down in history as the ones who F-CKED themselves and others who follow as well as "their sons and the sons of their sons"( another great AFAP war cry).
It was refering to a Sydney based Virgin international operation across the pacific. It's called the topic KRAP, not your stinking little Kobe pondlife operation where you want to be the resident "89er loudmouth" .
Talking about "CONTROLLING SC-BS" Kraptin, me thinks it is you that has "CONTROLLED " himself into a little pond along with the other parasites. If the shoe fits Krap.....WEAR IT !!!!!!

You will ever know how close to you I really am........he,he,he,he.

I have gone off the topic.
That's OK ,KRAP will cut and paste it somewhere else to suit himself.

:} :} :} :} :} :} :} :} :} :} :} .. I like this face, it's all you , CR.

OCCR

Hatred for QF cabin crew?

If QF is an Australian icon ( and it is ) they are doing it a great disservice. It is all about professionalism and service when it comes to reputation and ultimately making money.
Hicks from the country will "flyyyy wiff the great Ozzie airline... maaaate" until the next trip when they see what that can get from Asian and some European airlines . Not to mention the price.

I know the first priority is safety but, after the first and last half hour passengers become secure in the fact that they will get there. There are 14 hours left to fill in. Yeah, it probably is a bit like child minding but, early child hood teachers do a longer course that F/As.
Try and get some sevice either domestically or internationally.
Been sitting with my "luchbox left overs" in my hand as I get passed by half a dozen times my F/As domestically.

Not to mention having to wave both hands over my head once in order to get her attention so she would 1/2 fill my cup with coffee.

Is it possible to ask for something like wine or ,a glass of water with my wine? No because they are talking about their private life as they "Fembot" their way on the meal service.

Been completely ignored ( Krap will be happy to hear this) during a bar service, in an almost empty plane ,on two dashes through the cabin, only to be told...... "bar service is over ,wait for the meal "when i walked up to the galley.
Think you will see this on SQ, Thai, Malaysian, JAL ,Emirates......need I go on?

It\'s about attitude and professionalism. It\'s a big world out there and I fear that Australians are looking ugly at the moment. In the aviation business QF cabin crew aren\'t helping. Work harder.. NO... work better and smarter. Your there for 14 or 15 hours, make those hours count for you and the passengers. You never know what will come of it and time will fly. Yes, you will be tired after it but, try talking tired with a ditch digger to know what \'tired\' really is. Do the minimum because you are disatisfied or you are on a \'go slow union thing\', bitch and wine..... time drags on ..... and you will be tired at the end but still dissatisfied.
This is a generalisation. I know that there are those that are serious about service. Just not enough to survive against an army of cabin crew from Asia.
Now the power hungry man VS subservient female arguements start.
Again SQs agenda is no secret, they base everything they do on it.

[OCCR]

Well I have seen some bitter and twisted opinions posted on these forums, but I would have to say you are the saddest individual on here, what a shocking attitude...
I know your type, Old, leachy, dribbling...waiting to "get the hosties eye", yet only to be ignored because you probably made a revolting remark, or maybe you just look creepy, ...... yes that is it creepy......ooooh you make my skin crawl.. that is why when you go down the back to get another drink, they all ignore you....because you didnt go there to get a drink did you.......rejected again,,,, story of your life.....
sad very very sad...............

ohh I forgot, it seems you like the Asian F/A, because their culture doesnt permit them to tell you to F@@@ off, but have a look at their eyes next time, its telling you the same thing

[DEE-DUCK]

At least the Singaporeans are nice people....
Would do Dixon and the rest of them a good wake up call to the real world of competiton if they where there....:ouch:

[hadagutful]

Good on you Sunfish, well said.

Basically Qantas stinks because they are a lazy outfit that tries to avoid competition through the political process.

And they have had another win, temporarily I might add.

They are also hypocrites, devise QF mark 11 to chuck it at Virgin domestically but the moment they sniff any competition internationally, they go into 'why should we cop that ' mode and go squealing off to the mob in Canberra.

Bloody shame on you Qantas, you've lost the plot entirely.

P.S. Sunfish, one correction, you say they are only responsible to their shareholders - there are others,
1. the regulators (governments here and o/s)
2. more importantly, the consumers and their customers who may continue to desert them in droves if they keep up the anti-competitive behaviour.

[Pinky the pilot]

Kaptin M; Dixon's not interested in Parliament.......
With all due respect I disagree as a reasonable precedent has already been set. Otherwise why would a genuine 'silvertail' such as Malcolm Turnbull stand for political office?

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[404 Titan]

hadagutful
Basically Qantas stinks because they are a lazy outfit that tries to avoid competition through the political process.
Name me one outfit that doesn’t use this tactic to protect its own turf. Why do you think that this has been the biggest stumbling block to world aviation since the end of WW11? Fifth freedom rights, and this is what we are talking about here have been political hot potatoes for decades and has never been resolved. Every country is looking after its own interest. Don’t be fooled for one moment by the smoke screen arguments about competition and benefits to the traveling public. It is all BS. All carriers have played this card at some stage. If you want to look at how one sided aviation negotiations can be, look at how the Americans play business. It makes the Australian negotiations look like they are being conducted by pre-schoolers. You have only got to go to Japan and look at the number of US aircraft there. You could swear you had just land at a major us airport. The American idea of open skies is total fifth freedom rights through your country for absolutely nothing in return. They protect their airlines to the tenth degree from foreign carriers with the use of such things as donations disguised as 911 grants and chapter 11 bankruptcy protections. People seem to have dismissed UA 25% stake across the Pacific as not relevant. Well let me tell you that only fools would think that. In their current state they are a predator after cash flow. Since their fall into Chapter 11 a couple of years ago they have been redeploying capacity onto the Pacific in order to generate cash. Australia is no exception and has seen the cost of the average airfare to the US fall substantially over the last few years. People, price competition on the Pacific is alive and well. Don’t be fooled for one minute by SQ and the Singapore government’s argument about competition. Their motives do not reflect their mouth music and I would be deeply suspicious.

Pinky the pilot
With all due respect I disagree as a reasonable precedent has already been set. Otherwise why would a genuine 'silvertail' such as Malcolm Turnbull stand for political office?
With all due respect Malcolm Turnbull still owns a very profitable legal business and still derives an income from it. I suspect Geoff Dixon would be substantially out of pocket if he went into politics unless he substantial income from other sources.

[Flying Ninja]

OCCR,

I saw you coming a mile away. You were looking for a fight.So , let's go.
Hey, Your not misses Kraptin are you ?

FYI (not that I give a sh-T) the drink event was an attempt to get the one and only drink and it happened to be a male that I approached. Knew you'd bite on that one as only an F/A will.

As for the rest of your comments..........

I think that if you were able to look down past the flab, you would see that there is sooooo much loose skin over the cellulite that it is DANCING AROUND and not infact, crawling .

Get a grip on life, the world and QF doesn't owe you a living, you do.
Work is supposed to be just that not an inconvenient interuption to social activities as it appears to be with most Australian F/As.
Got a party to go to .....take another sickie, New Year and Christmas......you bet, lunch with the other fat tarts...why not?
Stop sitting on your ar-e eating chocolate bars and groaning when the call button is pushed.
Tell you what, the alarm bells should ring when you see the male F/As taking more pride in how they look than the females .

:hmm:

[Chief Chook]

You are one venomous, little man Flying Ninja (or perhaps that should be Flying Fruitcake, as someone said before).
Does your Doctor know that you've altered your dosage?

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Truly an inspirational and uplifting thread.:rolleyes:

[schnauzer]

Jeez. Try Flying Farkwit. Agree with TCOB. Awful thread filled with stupidity... Wish I hadn't bothered to read it...

[frangatang]

Since when was singapore a level playing field? Came in the other evening when the sin airforce was practising(only 2 months to go) for its national day. Had to hold for 45 mins,nearly had to divert.That was bad enough,but to then see sin airlines being given normal approaches really sucked.

[Flying Ninja]

Read somewhere that SIA is one of the worlds biggest based on market valuation.
They don't have any union problems, positioned in a natural hub and are cashed up. Yes, they also provide service that makes people want to fly with them. Profits now take care of themselves. With all that natural compost, the roses are blooming.
Qf want to be more like them, a tough road in Australia.

Friend inside QF says that their current thinking is that there is no more expansion possible. Profit margins must be increased through internal restructuring and cost cutting. You know what that means.

Perhaps to allow SQ in to Australia would allow them to do this and SQ would employ those Australians that will work as they want them to. Globalization spells bad news for unions and airlines like QF. They don't want a shark in the fish pond until they are as ready as they can be. From what I can see, they will never be fully ready. Therefore use the threat of mass unemployment to pressure the government for more time. Either way, the workers will get it in the neck.
The brave new world will require more work for the same or less money. The sooner persons like OCCR etc realize this .......
:ok:

[Sunfish]

Here we go again...

Were all you Qantas lovers standing at the picket lines when the car companies were told they would have their protection removed? No.

Why are all you Qantas lovers loudly screaming about SIA undercutting you deliberately? After all, what did you do to Compass I and II and then VB via your alter ego Jetstar?

When Ansett was drowning, did QF force a firehose down its throat to finish it off? Yes.

Do I care if all of you lose your jobs as a result of a wave of cheaper airfares? No. The jobs growth in the local tourism industry as a result will dwarf Qantas's entire workforce.

You are, with the greatest of respect, total and complete hypocrites.

[404 Titan]

Sunfish

For your information I only travel on QF when I absolutely have to and that is very few and far between. I am the last to be called a QF lover but I have a very good understanding of the history and workings of the international airline environment. Fifth freedom rights have and continue to be the biggest stumbling block to “REAL OPEN SKIES” anywhere in the world. Every single country that says it embraces open skies are only playing the mouth music everyone wants to hear. The Singaporeans are very protective of their own airlines and play extreme hard ball when it comes to fifth freedom rights through their country.

It is quite clear from your previous threads on QF, including this one, you have an agenda against them. Since your views are clearly biased and emotionally driven, anything you have to say should be ignored as you aren’t looking at it from an unbiased and open minded point of view.

[schnauzer]

Do I care if all of you lose your jobs as a result of a wave of cheaper airfares? No.
Well, thats the reason you enjoy basically zero respect on these boards, Sunfish.

Those jobs you speak of will go to OVERSEAS Airlines, the tourism money will substantially go to OVERSEAS interests; basically few Australians would benefit, because we will have sold out yet again.

But then we can only thank the Lord that there are those far smarter than YOU making the decisions, because you would happily sell your soul to destroy Qantas.

How about you go back to Sydney bashing, eh?

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

I was about to embark on a Sunfish directed rant, pointing out the utter illogicality of his latest post... but I think schnauzer said it all.

[captainrats]

Qantas Bashing...the favourite sport of the overweight,underintelligent armchair champions.

[mach2male]

Just once I would love someone to come up with some constructive solutions instead of the bashing,insults personal vitriol and bating that have come to characterize any thread regarding Qantas

[Sunfish]

404 and Titan. When the car industry was deregulated, did you stand on the picket lines and say "This is a national disgrace! I am prepared to pay an extra $1000 to buy a Holden, no matter how crappy it is, because it is in the national interest"?

With the greatest of respect, of course you didn't!!!!!! You took your discount and looked the other way!!! this is despite the fact that the car industry at the time employed about five times what Qantas did!!!!!!!!!

And yet you have the GALL to suggest that you are a special case?????????????????????????????

I couldn't give a flying f*%^ if you are Qantas, Ansett VB or whoever, but you cannot embrace "globalisation" in some industries while refraining from it in your own.

If you are to be true to your supposed beliefs, you will oppose ALL trade liberalisation, which of course you won't do.


And furthermore, how many of you arew refusing to fly with cabin staff who are not Australian and based in Australia? And when you heavy maintenance moves to China, how many of you are going to refuce to flu the aircraft??????

That, my friends, is total hypocrisy, nothing more, nothing less..

Furthermore, there is good economic theory that says if someone is stupid enough to sell you product at less than the price of production, then you are stupid not to accept it.

We can always rebuild Qantas later, and do it without the stench of S$%# that surrounds it.

To put it another way so that you understand it, you are total hypocrits, but of course QF didn't teach you anything except flying did they?

To put it another way, where you stands depends on where you sit. You demonstrate this beautifully. If SIA offered all of you Captains positions with lots of $$$$ you would change your tune immediately.

[sumtingwong]

Nurse!!!!
Call the doctor, Sunfish is flatlining

[HGW]

Would one single route being opened up be the demise of QF?. Wouldn't they just compete like any other time. They have done a pretty good job against Compass, Ansett, Virgin, etc.

[rescue 1]

Good point Sunfish.

As you say HGW, QF will compete - just as it does against so many other competitors on the world arena.

One more on the pacific means the end of QF - if that's the case then things are far worse than we all imagine...

[404 Titan]

Sunfish
If you are to be true to your supposed beliefs, you will oppose ALL trade liberalisation, which of course you won't do.
You sir are talking BS.

For your information I am totally anti free trade and globalization and I have made my point known on this forum before. These economic boffins, and I call them this for a very good reason because most are academics with no real world experience piss me off. As an accountant I detest most of them. If you want to see what trade liberalization is doing right now you can look no further than the textile industries in both the US and Europe. Both opened up their markets to quota less imports in January this year. Within two months imports from China to both these places increased close the 2000%. Yes that’s right 2000%. Quite rightly both Europe and the US are now going to reimpose quotas to stop the Chinese from abusing the situation. Globalization is all very well and good if everyone and I mean everyone plays by the same rules. Unfortunately every country is out there to protect its own interest and this my friend defeats the who premise of globalization.
404 and Titan. When the car industry was deregulated, did you stand on the picket lines and say "This is a national disgrace! I am prepared to pay an extra $1000 to buy a Holden, no matter how crappy it is, because it is in the national interest"?
You want to talk about the car industry? Fine, I'll go there. You tell me any car maker that is Australian owned? You can’t can you. They are all American or Japanese. At the time it was quite obvious to the Federal Labour Government that if the subsidization remained most of these car makers were not going to have the incentive to invest in new plant and equipment to improve the efficiency of the car manufacturing industry in this country. The Button plan was to make Australia a car exporter. Up until that time the only cars exported were to NZ and PNG. Now I regularly see Commodores in the Middle East as well as Australian built Camry’s in other parts of the world. Does the total Australian car industry employ more people than before? No. This is mostly due to Mitsubishi which has major problems with its parent company in Japan and has closed plants in this country and the USA because it doesn’t have the resources to keep them running. Will the Australian car industry survive? Who knows? Certainly if is going to it is going to have to make further inroads into the export market because Australia is too small a place to support a car industry in its own right.
To put it another way so that you understand it, you are total hypocrits, but of course QF didn't teach you anything except flying did they?
They didn't teach me anything because I don't work for them.
To put it another way, where you stands depends on where you sit. You demonstrate this beautifully. If SIA offered all of you Captains positions with lots of $$$$ you would change your tune immediately.
Just for the record I work for one of those airlines that are trying to get access to the Aus/US route. My tune still hasn’t changed. If fifth freedom rights are going to be handed out then every country must open up there markets to everyone else. Then and only then will there be true globalization in the aviation industry. This though will never happen because every country wants to protect its own airlines. Why should Australia once again be the sacrificial lamb to an economic theory which isn’t going to work unless everyone else plays by the same rules?
We can always rebuild Qantas later, and do it without the stench of S$%# that surrounds it.
Well this last quote just proves my case. You have an axe to grind with QF, nothing more, nothing less and everything you have to say is an emotive response which lacks all credibility.

[schnauzer]

Zero respect, Sunfish. Zero.

I should ask you, who does the hypocrisy rest with? You pontificate about the Australian car industry, and how "WE" have sold it out.

This somehow justifies selling out the Australian Airline industry? As though two wrongs will make everything right? There is NO logic in this argument.

YOU, Sir, are the hypocrit.

Your logic is seriously flawed, and as 404 states, you have an emotional bent against Qantas. This is clouding your judgement and ensuring that your reasoning is unsound.

Like I said, ZERO respect. Now please, please go back to something you know about. Bash Sydney, not Qantas.

[orangepeel]

Since the oz gov has denied SQ from flying OZ-US, does anyone think that DJ may have a go at it one day ?? or a subsidary of DJ or VS ??
:hmm:

[avion345]

All airlines around the globe will put out the same old scare tactics to protect their turf....QF is no different to the rest in that regard.

Given QF have often stated they could not make a go of SIN to CDG with only 3 weekly frequencies,but wanted daily, then the Aust Government should let SQ have 3 flights a week SYD to LAX, increasing to daily when the Singapore Govt can negotiate with France and provide QF with daily rights SIN-CDG!

I have no problem with our Government granting more traffic rights, provided there are equivalent rights granted to Australia.

[Sunfish]

Schnaus baby, I have to tell you and 403titan something.

Every manufacturing industry in Australia is competing against imports, often from China.

Every car company in the world is locked in competition with imports. GM and Fords' commercial paper (bonds) are now rated "Junk " by Wall Street.

Even our services sector is under great pressure either from call centre operators in Thailand or computer programmers in India.

Every farmer and miner is competing against farmers and miners elsewhere.

Now there are three common features of this situation.

1. This competition and resultant specialisation is driving the biggest increase in standards of living throughout the world since time began. Economic rationalism and globalisation are not new theories, they have been around for 100 years. Its only taken this long to get rid of the whiners and special pleaders who prevent change

2. If any of our local industries cannot compete, they go under. However we already know that most of them can compete very nicely thankyou.

3. Airlines, airline pilots and aircraft manufacturers are beneficiaries of these changes because the growth in Asia is being driven by globalisation.

4. The opening of borders, especialy in Europe, and fifth freedom rights have already generated a massive increase in the amount of air travel through the use of low cost carriers.


Yet in spite of the fact that globalisation has delivered all these benefits into your own industry, you still persist with the quaint and outmoded idea, that out of ALL the businesses in Australia, there is one, just one, Qantas, that must be protected like the proverbial Koala?????

Its hypocrisy, pure and simple.

To put it another way mate. Do you want to pay $300 or $100 for a power drill? Do you want to protect Qantas? If you want the benefit of the $100 drill, then you don't get to protect Qantas without being a Hypocrit.

BTW, we don't know if QF is an Australian company anymore anyway. Its largest shareholder is an American Nominee company, your maintenance is probably going offshore and you already employ large numbers of foriegn cabin crew who aren't even based in Australia, and will probably increase the numbers if management can get away with it. QF is an Australian brand name, nothing more.

[schnauzer]

Sunfish, you are a fool who just cannot listen, because you are so emotively bent against Qantas. You will make any fact fit your argument, rightly or wrongly. Your attitude is quite sociopathic.

You are suggesting on one hand that globalisation of the car industry was a bad thing, yet promoting it when it comes to Qantas. YOU are the HYPOCRIT. The logic that you are using is fundamentally flawed.

You have no right to call my collegues or I hypocrits on the basis of our employment. To do so is callous and wrong. We are earning a living the best way that we can. We are the last bastion of reasonable pay and conditions of airline employees in this country.

Yet YOU seem to think that we have no right to this because YOU say so? Because YOU think that YOU know what is best?

Two words for you mate, and they aint very nice....

I don't expect you to listen, because you neither read nor understood my previous post. I'm out of here...

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

There are two things that Sunfish hates in life. Qantas and Sydney. I remember on a previous thread how Sunfish stated how he would be flying on his holidays with Virgin over Qantas. Someone posed the question to him as to whom he would fly with if the Qantas fare was cheaper than Virgin. Sunfish avoided answering the question. So I'll aske the question again. Sunfish, if the Qantas airfare was cheaper than Virgin's, who would you fly with? Now go back to your aero club Sunfish. (After you've answered the question.)

[Butterfield8]

Qantas produces nothing and exports nothing.It is a provider of a service: transport.How is it possible to globalize a service?.Every airline on the planet except SQ, KLM and Emirates have a domestic backyard to defend.Fifth Freedom rights are like gold.SQ is cherry picking ..pure and simple.All its profit from entering the Oz/Us market goes where?Singapore.In real terms it is cheaper to fly to the states than it has ever been...just look at the loads.A few years ago the route was bleeding red.Where was SQ then?.An opportunisitc island state trying to punch above its weight.Qantas and Virgin are right to protest.Open skies exists as an idea and nothing else.No open skies in Europe,no open skies in Asia,no open skies in the States.
Wait til the foreign ownership cap is lifted on QF.Who will be first on the share register...SQ
Sunfish my friend you are letting your emotion make you myopic.

[Sunfish]

In reverse order:

Butterfield asked "How is it possible to globalise a service?" Easy, where do you think the person on the end of the phone is when you call the Water company, or the Computer help desk, or When American Express rings you? Bombay or elsewhere in India!

It is entirely possible to globalise QF with heavy maint done in Asia somewhere and flight crew and cabin crew based in the regions they service. The only thing Australian will then be the brand name and maybe the wine and cheese they serve.

EBD, I LOVE competition! I'll fly VB by choice because I prefer their blue room to the QF lounges and I like their attitude of trying to put a bit of fun and maybe even humor back into flying.

Schnaus mate, did I say the car industry globalisation was a bad thing? Nope, it was a good thing! And finally after all the screaming and crying from the car companies about how the sky was falling, they straightened up, put their house in order and started producing cars that are competitive with the rest of the world. We export cars and engines now right? Try imagining that pre the Button plan!

And Schnaus, you and your mates screaming about these awful competitors sound exactly like the car companies at the time their protection started to be removed!

When QF gets some real competition, and can no longer hide behind the skirts of a Labor or Liberal Government, I'm sure that QF will make some hard decisions and compete right back!

Meanwhile we are stuck with plain dreary old Qantas that acts like a big fat protected Koala. Peeing on all us poor consumers from a great height.

As for the theoretical basis for economic rationalism, its there all right, including the bit about the rationality of buying cut price product.

If SQ wants to spend its money trying to drive QF out of business, good luck to them! All us consumers will benefit while they try, and if they do drive QF under and raise their prices again, why we just start another airline don't we?

To put it another way Schnaus baby, you have no more right to industry protection than I, or anyone else in Australia has!

[Captain.Q]

What you propose is an absolute waste of time and resources.Totally inefficient circle of nonsense

[Three Bars]

Sunfish,

I've wasted my time reading your anti-Qantas vitriol in the past. For a God of industry, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands to reply to bulletin boards.

Now you are saying you would rather see SQ cherry pick the Pacific for their own increased profits while Qantas goes broke.

You are saying that you would be happy to see 30,000 Australian jobs go down the tube, simply because you have an anti-Qantas bias. You are saying you want me to lose my job and my family to lose their sole source of income.

So I really hope you won't be offended when I tell you that I think you are an IDIOT and that you should:

GO AND STICK YOUR HEAD UP A DEAD BEAR'S BUM!

[Redstone]

But three bars, he has a valid reason. So he can fly the pacific route to the US west coast for $100 or so less...............

Yeah, good one.

[scrubed]

Meanwhile......... let SIA sink along with other relics of the past.... for example, Ansett.

The world has changed and they need to change to survive. Singapore will be inconsequential soon as aircraft with longer legs become more and more prevalent, thus the ****s desperation to crack the aussie east coast scene.

They sat back and picked over carcasses in recent years with no concern, now it's good to see them squirm.

[EPIRB]

I have to agree with Three Bars. Sunfish, you are an absolute idiot. I went through the trauma of losing my job at Ansett. I witnessed the depression that it caused, not to mention the suicides, family heartbreak, houses lost etc. Obviously you would rather people go through this sort of pain so you can get a cheap airfare. You selfish twit.

[schnauzer]

You listening yet sunfish? Guess not. Probably explains why you failed as a "CEO".

[Metro Boy]

I think it was The Enema Bandit called him scumfish on another thread. Now I know why.

[hadagutful]

Sunfish,

Don't even try and argue with them, they will only throw dirt and get personal.
They are only looking at the issue with blinkered vision and wouldn't know much about competition, protection, the theory of comparative advantage, trade theory etc.

Just as the old domestic 2 airline policy slowly changed it will happen eventually on a global scale slowly but surely, time will prove us right.
In the meantime of course Qantas will use the political process as much as possible to protect its position. I can understand that, natural thing to to. They just shouldn't be so blatantly hypocrtical about it. (Jet*??!!!)

So don't worry about the Schnaus's , titans etc. just let them wallow in their ignorance and hypocracy.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

I love this one..

Every farmer and miner is competing against farmers and miners elsewhere.

Tell that to the farmers and miners who cannot get access to the US and EU markets due to tariff barriers. The Europeans and Yanks know full well how to protect their industries and livelihoods.

Then we get this gem..

2. If any of our local industries cannot compete, they go under. However we already know that most of them can compete very nicely thankyou

The ONLY reason most of them can compete is due to a weak dollar. Otherwise they go under. But I guess that is ok in the Sunfish world.

4. The opening of borders, especialy in Europe, and fifth freedom rights have already generated a massive increase in the amount of air travel through the use of low cost carriers.

So Qantas has the right to go set up a domestic operation in the EU?? Or even a unfettered International operation? The answer is of course No. The EU is not open to Australian companies, nor is the US. Nor is most of the world from an aviation standpoint. This BS that SQ should be allowed to cherry-pick QF routes as some sort of idealistic competitive nirvana serves only to service your deep anti-QF bias and hatred.

You have said on many occasions in this forum that you would love to see QF go down. People have long memories Sunfish. We know PRECISELY where you are coming from because you have told us.

[scrubed]

At least the Singaporeans are nice people....Well they do TRY to be... but their chronic anallity prevents them most of the time. Also, the average Singporean is just as racist as his neighbours to the north, and not just about white people.


The Singapore carrier appears to be turning its sights to Australia's domestic market.

Those pesky market rumours about Singapore Airlines buying a stake in Virgin Blue have resurfaced again.

The Asian carrier dismissed talk about its potential interest in January when Patrick launched its takeover for Virgin Blue.

But given signs Singapore Air's attempts to gain access to the Sydney-Los Angeles route could again be blocked by the Federal Government, there is now gossip the airline may want to turn its attention again to getting into the Australian domestic market.

Patrick Corp has declined to comment on the rumours, which have helped the company's share price rise 18c to $5.91 since Friday.

True or not, the talk appears to have been given some oxygen by the simple fact the airline is cashed up and might want to enter the domestic market by buying an established player rather than fighting for market share as a new entrant. It is now five years since the Singapore carrier attempted to buy half of Ansett.

Then too, Singapore Air could launch flights from Sydney to Los Angeles if it has a 51 per cent-owned Australian partner.

When it talked down the rumours in January, Singapore Air stressed it was no longer interested in investing in non-core businesses, highlighting the sale of its remaining 6.3 per cent stake in Air New Zealand as an example.

But maybe Virgin Blue could be treated as a business core for Singapore Air's expansion plans, particularly in the case of the carrier overcoming its disadvantage of not having a domestic air market to lean on. Yet one market watcher suggested the rumours could have been triggered by Qantas's increasingly desperate comments last week about Singapore Airlines' plans to dominate the region.


Let's hope they swing in the wind, instead. Maybe the gov't could block the purchase if it were to go ahead. Wouldn't be the first time they:

1. Blocked a sale.
2. Stood up for Qantas to the "detriment" of a smaller domestic Aussie player.
3. Stuck it to those slimy *****s to the north.

[Sunfish]

All you gentleman are proving is the old proverb "where you stand is where you sit".

Don't blame me for stating the bleedin obvious. Which is all I am doing.

Your arguments are as old as Adam Smith. It is called "Special pleading" in economic terms and your reliance on patriotism and a false concern for "Australian Jobs" is just rubbish. Translation : Its YOUR job you are worried about! But you try and dress it up in the national interest argument.

Economic rationalism is about 80% correct based on some economists views. Globalisation is also producing huge benefits for people around the globe, especially third world countries.

The fact that other countries protect some of their markets is not sufficient reason to abandon the concept of free trade. Its true our farmers have trouble accessing some protected markets, but in general the farmers and miners are commodity price takers and have been for years.

Translation: An Australian gold miner bases his operation on the international price of gold as established by the London Metals Exchange and so on. If he can make a profit at that price he produces. If he cannot he closes the mine. Same with agriculture except the issue with Europe is that their subsidies DEPRESS the price our farmers can get.

On the point of subsidies, there is strong economic argument that if someone is stupid enough to sell to you below cost, then you are stupid not to buy it and invest the money saved elsewhere.

Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger trying to tell you what has been going on in the Australian economy these last twenty years.

To put it another way: NO ONE in australia is complaining about globalisation except you lot! So please try to grow up and start imagining what QF might be like in a globalised world. Goodness knows even your management is trying to do that.

[schnauzer]

Qantas' cabinet co-pilot
By Katharine Murphy
June 15, 2005

QANTAS has won a new ally in John Howard's cabinet, with Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane declaring he is not sure whether Singapore Airlines should win access to the lucrative aviation route between Australia and the US.

"The most desirable outcome would be to have Singapore Airlines on the route without damage to Qantas, but I am not sure if we can do that," Mr Macfarlane said.
"This is a very difficult and complex decision," he said.

His comments came as the Howard Government shelved a decision about whether or not to allow Singapore Airlines to fly the Pacific route while it conducts a broad-ranging review of aviation policy.

A sub-grouping of cabinet comprised of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, the Treasurer Peter Costello, and the Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer are conducting the review which will determine Qantas's future.

The Government is likely to lift the current foreign ownership restrictions governing Qantas and work out a means of providing support to ensure that Australian aviation jobs and skills remain onshore. Labor's industry spokesman Stephen Smith has indicated Labor would offer bipartisan support if the Government wanted to allow a single foreign airline to gain a bigger stake in Qantas, provided the overall level of foreign investment did not go above 49 per cent.

Qantas and Singapore Airlines have mounted a lobbying effort with politicians in Canberra over the last six months. Singapore Airlines representatives were in Canberra again yesterday.

Cabinet is divided on the issue, with some senior ministers believing Qantas should face competition on the Pacific route and others cautious that additional competition could jeopardise the national carrier.

Mr Macfarlane was a strong supporter of Singapore Airlines because their addition to the route could lift US tourist numbers, which have stagnated. But while he would like to see the tourism market rebound and Singapore Airlines play a role in increasing the cross-Pacific traffic, Mr Macfarlane is now concerned that additional competition could harm Qantas. "We need to look at options which give us maximum tourism penetration from the US, but I think we need to recognise that Qantas faces challenges. The global aviation market is really tough," he said.

"Qantas needs to develop the critical mass to allow it to get scale to compete in the global industry."

His comments follow a debate in the Coalition partyroom yesterday over Qantas's future, with some backbenchers backing Singapore Airlines and others strongly backing Qantas's position to lock SIA out of the Pacific route.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enjoy, Scumfish et al.....

[Sunfish]

Since when did an Australian Cabinet Minister care if overseas competition could "hurt" Australian Industry????????

Oh Right! This is Qantas we are talking about! Pardon me! Its a national icon! We wouldn't want to "Hurt" Qantas would we?

But wait! There's more! We are going to relax foriegn ownership provisions! So thats great! We are protecting a national icon, that won't really be "national" anymore, sort of.

As for Qantas getting "critical mass" to compete, what has this Cabinet been smoking? QF has had thirty years to get "critical mass". Furthermore, you would need ten Sydney Airports to hold enough aircraft for QF to have "Critical Mass"!

Here comes another sh***y deal. Oh sorry Mr. Packer, sorry Mr. Kennedy, I'm sure the ACCC will leave you alone! How high do you want us to jump this time??:yuk:

[labia vortex]

Using your criteria name one airline that is truly globalized and explain why?

[Jetsbest]

I'll be happy for Singapore Airlines (or any other QF competitor) to fly fifth freedom routes when one of two things happen.

Either:

the Australian government relaxes, tightens or otherwise aligns with Singapore the laws governing corporate tax rates, equal opportunity employment, competition regulation, retrenchment/dismissal, workplace harassment, superannuation, occupational health and safety, foreign ownership, union membership choice, crew training requirements & standards, fleet depreciation, outsourcing, transfer of business, route access etc

OR

the Singapore government does the same with Australia!

That, in my view, is when true market forces could set pay and price.

Companies can lobby all they like but until the meddling and over-regulating government factors which keep the table tilted against certain aspects of profitability in global businesses (ie airlines in this case) are evened, there cannot be the magical 'level field'. Companies like Qantas will be obliged to slash to the lowest possible denominator if they don't win the odd decision like this. They're doing it anyway! Costs are the enemy to the bean-counters and I'm sure that even SQ, if they thought they could base in, say, the Congo for cost-base minimisation and still retain 'flag-carrier' status in Singapore, would seriously consider doing it!

[Buster Hyman]

....:uhoh:....So...what did happen in 89?:ouch:

[CASEY JONES]

JETSBEST



It really is that simple well put

[Kaptin M]

.....but isn't that the way it's ALWAYS been, Jetsbest?

The only difference now, is that QANTAS is not Government backed.

You f----wit, Buster!! :mad: The Tianamin Square massacre, of course! :mad: ......how soon we forget! :mad:

[scrubed]

Singapore Airlines' drive to unlock Qantas's near-stranglehold on the lucrative trans-Pacific route was put on indefinite hold by Canberra yesterday after months of heated debate.

"The Government feels the time is not right," a spokesman for Federal Transport Minister John Anderson said.

He said both Qantas and the Singapore government had been informed of the deferral late last week, and refused to say when the Government would revisit the issue.

A media report on Saturday said Singapore's bid would be denied for the time being, but on Sunday the Prime Minister's office insisted that a final decision could be weeks away. The confusion has raised questions about the Government's handling of this sensitive diplomatic issue.

Mr Anderson's office informed the media of the deferral yesterday, but by late afternoon the Singapore Ministry of Transport said it had not received official notice. "We await a favourable response from the Australian Government," the Singapore Ministry of Transport said.

Australian officials also failed to formally notify Singapore Air of their decision, forcing airline executives to resort to phoning Mr Anderson's office for confirmation.

The deferral yesterday marked the third time since 2003 that a decision on trans-Pacific route access was placed on hold, despite a free trade agreement between the two countries being signed early last year.

The issue had divided the Federal Cabinet and many observers had expected Singapore Air to be granted at least limited access to the route after the latest round of negotiations.

But Qantas, which would lose an estimated $45 million in pre-tax profit if Singapore Air were allowed access to the Sydney-LA route, lobbied heavily in Canberra to maintain its duopoly with United Airlines and welcomed yesterday's announcement.

Qantas had warned that up to 3000 jobs could be lost if Singapore Air entered the route and argued an agreement was fair only if Singapore allowed Qantas reciprocal access to European routes.

In contrast, Singapore Air issued a 50-page report which estimated that extra route capacity would bring in an additional $126 million in tourist spending. The report also noted that fares on the Sydney-LA route were on average 17 per cent pricier per kilometre than tickets on the highly competitive Sydney-Asia-London route.

But last night Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon said it was "ludicrous" for Singapore Air to suggest Sydney-LA was one of the most protected air routes, noting Air New Zealand and any US or Australian carrier were allowed access. He said several US carriers in the past had cut Pacific flights after losing money.

But even if there is room for a third player on the Sydney-LA route, as Singapore Air has suggested, most leading US carriers are now near-bankrupt and lack the financial capability needed to expand Pacific operations.

Qantas controls 66 per cent of capacity on the route, but analysts expect it to face competition from Virgin Blue on the route within the next two to three years.

And Singapore Airline's vice-president for public affairs, Stephen Forshaw, said his airline would continue to press its case with the Federal Government and the Australian public, noting that yesterday's announcement was "not a rejection but another delay". -They just don't listen....

Take the hint fellas and FLAG OFF. Go take over something else if you want to solve ya national small-weenie syndrome problem.

[Buster Hyman]

Was that in 89? My, how time flies when you're driving a tank!:} :ouch:

[Sunfish]

Labby, I don't think there is any airline that is truly globalised. It's the markets that are becoming globalised.

What this means is that the prices of goods and services need to be internationally competitive, and free trade must exist. Although we have a long way to go and there are plenty of impediments and special pleaders - European Farmers, American steelworkers and so on.

The benefits of this approach to trade and economics are proven both theoretically and in practice.

Australia has been one of the leading lights in both pushing for free trade as well as opening up our own markets.

I grew up in Australia in the 50's and 60's. While everybody had a job, the cost of consumer goods, houses and cars, let alone industrial inputs, was stratospheric thanks to a comprehensive system of tariffs designed to "protect" the economy.

You youngsters would have no idea. Cars cost twice what they sold for overseas, as did just about everything else, including clothes.

It became manifestly obvious in the 70's that tariff protection did not "protect" jobs, it cost the community heaps and destroyed the international competitiveness of the Australian industries that had the potential to compete.

The classic example was the car industry. Ford and GM made heaps of profits which were sent back to the states making and selling third world standard vehicles for twice what they were worth.

They screamed a lot louder than QF does when their tariffs started getting cut.

However, today we are exporting cars - even to the U.S., and GM even has an international design team here!

The Australian economy is successful today because we opened it up to foriegn competition and we will continue to benefit from this wise decision.

We are rated the most "open" economy in the world - except when it comes to QbloodyF!

So what would happen if we did throw the skies wide open to SIA and anyone else?

My guess is that after the QF Board picked itself up off the floor, the first thing it would do is start asking for fifth freedom rights to every country it could.

We would then see an absolute explosion in International tourism numbers, as the likes of VB, Ryanair and all start competing and eventually pushing "Australia for $300" fares.

QF International would lose some of its economy passengers but then gain through opening new routes under fifth freedom rights itself.

My guess would be QF domestic and Jetstar and VB demand would explode due to increased tourism.

We would get more international investement here which means more jobs, and our own companies would be able to increase their exports taking advantage of cheaper air transport costs and the exposure of international tourists to Australian products.

Would your jobs be at stake? I don't think so. Free trade stimulates demand and demand creates jobs. My guess is that SIA and other carriers are not going to subsidise Australian routes for very long once they have enough market share to be viable. It would however mean that QF would have to be internationally competitve in its costing and pricing, but how far off the mark is QF these days? I suspect from reading Pprune that most of the fat is in management anyway.


I rail at QF because it is holding back the Australian economy, and has done for many, many years.

[surfside6]

Sunfish ..a small workforce(9Million) and an appalling lack of investment in infrastructure(coupled with a very large land mass) is what holds back the Australian economy.Market forces have seen a great number of airlines withdraw from Australia because they can`t turn a profit.Qantas doesn`t determine fare prices...market forces do.It is a volatile industry which is capital intensive and subject to oil prices,war and disease etc.
One company holding back Australia`s development is a bit over the top.

[Lead Balloon]

Sunfish

Stop making sense.

A truly liberal aviation market can only be a good thing for the 19,970,000 Australians who aren't Qantas employees.

After a sharp correction Qantas will survive and lift its game to be a bigger and better airline without the shackles of Government protectionism and foreign ownership laws. And if it can't - who wants it!