View Full Version : Sia Syd/lax

18th Jun 2005, 05:20
Clueless. First its Rights rejected, then the papers say decision postponed. Then its postponed indifinitely, as good as 'Non'. Then, no decision was ever made. So what is it? Lots of fog here it seems. :O

18th Jun 2005, 07:48
It is not just Qantas being protected here. The Virgin group has said it wants to do Australia to USA. The delay by Australian government gives Virgin a window to show whether they are serious about wanting to this service,

18th Jun 2005, 08:06
The Australian government have said that QANTAS canot expect to survive the future alone and that foreign investment is inevitable. My guess is that although SIA don't get to fly the route now they may well do so when they own a big chunk of QF sometime in the future.

18th Jun 2005, 11:08
Some things that must be considered abut singapore getting access to SYD?LAX.

Most SQ crew are non Aussies............foreigners flying the route, displacing aussies.

The route would not be SQ's prime route, there fore thay could cost it much more sharly than QF could, they could dramatically undercut QF. At the end of the day it would simply be a case of exporting jobs and $$$ to overseas nationals.

Of course the argument that QF needs some healty competeition, they having become complacent in the last decade or two. Look at how many ways one could go round the world in the 60's on Qantas. 3 ways I think.

The Virgin Pacific idea is much more pallatable, as long as its Aussies flying, maintaining and running the airline.

18th Jun 2005, 12:58
Giving the bearded one time to get Virgin Nigeria started and to free up another VS 343 or two? (G-VBUS is going to VK)

18th Jun 2005, 23:17
What type would Virgin Pacific use? The A340-300s are a bit short of range to do SYDLAX, are they not? Does Virgin Atlantic have spare 744s or A346s which it could transfer to the Pacific? Will it be VA 744s operating with British Pilots and Australian FAs?

Or will it be Pacific Blue operating out of AKL by Kiwis?

Over to you, Virgin group.

404 Titan
19th Jun 2005, 00:50
The A340-300 has about the same range as the B747-400. Syd/LAX I would think wouldn't be a problem non stop if the -400 can do it.

19th Jun 2005, 01:46
But with the A343 isint there a range/payload issue. ie to get a certain range you have to offload some cargp/pax/baggage to get the desired range?

Buster Hyman
19th Jun 2005, 02:18
Maybe they'll sell fuel to the punters as well as sandwiches..."Go on, buy a litre..help us get to LA"!

19th Jun 2005, 20:17
Since when did any Australian Government or business care about jobs being exported overseas????????

Trico just told 140 workers their jobs are going to China.

Oh! Of course! We are talking about Qantas right?:yuk:

Enema Bandit's Dad
19th Jun 2005, 21:34
Sunfish, when did you care about Australain jobs?

19th Jun 2005, 22:06
He doesn’t.....and neither do most of the travelling public. Sooner Q moves layabout cabin crew jobs offshore sooner we get some service.:O

handgun fellashio
20th Jun 2005, 07:59
Haven`t you heard ...800 CC jobs have gone off shore.A further 250 positions have been casualised.A portion of International stuff is being done by shorthaul.Then there are part timers.Also MAM contractors.That`s a pretty flexible workforce
The service won`t improve until management starts providing the resources for it to improve.
Chimbu,rather than scapegoating the crew look at the bigger picture.There are 26,000 other employees who just might have an impact on the poor service.CC are not the only employees at QF.

20th Jun 2005, 22:15
EBD, I did once, then I realised the hard way that it was a crock.

The jobs being protected were crappy jobs whose occupants had no future. By protecting those jobs we were at the same time denying other Australians better jobs - and the displacement was not equal and it was the wrong way.

Translation: Protection doesn't work, and that is from personal observation.

I spent 18 months working with the tooling industry as a result of concerns about its demise now that it was no longer "protected". The industry participants fell into two groups.

The ones who wanted protection had not invested in their skills, machinery, capability or marketing. In other words the basket cases.

The other guys who were too busy even to stop and discuss "protection". They were making money so fast that one of them was changing Ferraris every year instead of just Mercedes - and they were paying relatively young toolmakers $80,000 a year - when they could find them.

You CAN compete internationally even against government subsidised airlines, and you should be spending your time working out how you are going to do it instead of flapping your gums dreaming of the old days.

handgun fellashio
21st Jun 2005, 00:03
The QF Workforce(CC in Particular)has been internationalized,casualized and every other "ized" for the purpose of reducing wages.Globalization in the Airline industry is about reducing wages not improving lifestyles/wages for anyone except Dixon and his mangement thugs
Your way of thinking suggests that the entire QF workforce should be exported.No one country has a "comparative advantage"regarding airlines.Send the entire workforce off shore,reduce your cost base and make QF a website...then what happens?.In the short term fares fall.Then guess what ...with rationalization and consolidation they go up...higher than they were before and the quality of service comes down.You then cram 600 pax onto a 400 and have 8 CC look after them.A flying bloody bus service with all the niceties removed.
The brave new world of globalization..How much has the average wage gone up in the last 14 years?This is the period of greatest continued economic Australia has seen for a generation.Who are the benficiaries?.
Not your average Australian thats for bloody sure.
In many indudstries real wages have gone down.The oft quoted Car industry is an example.(and with a smaller workforce)
I don`t know where you live Sunfish but it ain`t in reality!!

21st Jun 2005, 01:08
Handy, in case you have been living on another planet, the incredible strength of Australias economy and its record low unemployment rate are a direct result of the opening up of the Australian economy to international competition.

What this is all about has been proven to be both theoretically and practically correct.

To survive and prosper, Australia needs to trade with the rest of the world. To trade with the rest of the world, our businesses by definition must be internationally competitive. It is axiomatic that you cannot be internationally competitive if your suppliers of goods and services are not also internationally competitive.

Industry protection forces businesses to pay a higher price for their goods and services inputs than the international price - and this hurts their competitiveness. For example, U.S. carmakers are at a disadvantgae because the U.S. steel industry is protected, and they therefore pay more for steel than their competitors.

The net result of ANY protection is a DECLINE in the number and quality of jobs locally.

To put it another way: Would you rather work for a protected and cossetted Qantas, where all change has stopped? Where work practices are unchangeable? Where there is no investment? Where your job is only guaranteed by Government protection of QF's capacity? After a few years of that you wil have slipped even further behind those airlines that have bitten the bullet. Finally the difference in price and service between Qantas and overseas carriers (such as Emirates) will become so great that even blind Freddy can see it, and the will of your political puppets to protect you will finally fail. Thats why your share price is so low - the market percieves that your performance is a function of the degree of Government protection - which can (and will) be removed by the stroke of a pen.

Of course you could grab the bull by the horns and engage with change - which is always a better strategy than burying your head in the sand. Then you might end up working for an Internationally competitive Qantas - meaning your job would be secure WITHOUT help from ther government, because your share price would be so high you are no longer a takeover target.

Some of the things you might like to consider are:

Removing all your heavy maintenance operations from Sydney to a lower cost area.

Taking an axe to your management structure. Why do you need all those managers, and why do they occupy the most expensive real estate in the country?

Get rid of your Sydney hubbing strategy, it will lower your real estate costs and give you the potential to get bigger shares of the other capital cities markets.

If other people want fifth freedom rights, why don't you do the same?

Sure it MAY cost jobs, but the net result will be more jobs than before for ALL Australians.

P.S. There are a great deal of internationally competitive Australian manufacturing and service companies who are doing very nicely thankyou. Trust me on that. Of course lesson#1 in running a business is never to sing and dance about how much money you are making because it only attracts competitors. The only stuff you read in the newspapers is about the losers who complain.

21st Jun 2005, 01:45
As usual Sunfish you dont answer the questions put to you. You just go on with your standard rubbish and bring up your Sydney hubbing issue (you seem to be the only person that has this issue) at any opportunity.

21st Jun 2005, 02:14
Galleyhag, its not rubbish. As for the Sydney hubbing matter. It IS an issue with anyone who doesn't live in Sydney because we are sick and tired of being carted through there on our way somewhere else. Nut of course you woulodn't know about that - you live in "Sydeny" dont you:yuk:

handgun fellashio
21st Jun 2005, 02:39
The record low unemployment has been bought about by casualization.These people are participating in the workforce but they sure as hell are not participating in the prosperity.They can`t because they don`t earn enough income...the working poor.Get out of your silvertailed suburb and take a walk in reality.Talk to some real people and find out what their problems are.They will laugh at your economic rationalism.Tertiary education for their children is unaffordable.The cycle continues,they are trapped.Which suburb do you inhabit?..bloody Disneyland.
You and Little Johhnny must be great mates.. both with wet pockets.

21st Jun 2005, 04:10

Instead of wasting time writing on this forum, you should be out improving (or gaining new) skills for the time when “the job you had for life” disappears offshore.
Cause it’s gunna happen whatever the AFAA does. Wanna see the future..... next time instead of Q staff travel, buy a 25% fare on Singapore Airlines, you’re in for a shock, I’m tellin you.

Also you should be putting money into secure areas. Get rid of margin loans, home equity facilities, spendthrift partners. Divest yourself of shonky real estate. Seekout wise counsel. Don’t spend 110% of your paycheck

Do these things and you might just survive, trust me.

21st Jun 2005, 04:54
HF, I'll let you in on a secret, the ticket to prosperity these days is a trade, not a University education.

I see plenty of happy people - why they even elected Little Johnny Howard again - with an increased majority!

Alien Sex God
21st Jun 2005, 05:05
Sunfish in the tooling industry. Now that makes sense. That explains why he always has his hand on it.

21st Jun 2005, 05:59
Too big to get my hands around it - like most pilots

handgun fellashio
21st Jun 2005, 07:28
It is timely to remind you that air travel for most is still considered a luxury because of the time involved for an overseas trip.You sir are an elitist who carps on about hubbing.Ever tried to cross the States from LAX to JFK direct?Its a bloody milkrun no matter who you travel with.
John Howards coalition was voted in by 46% of the electorate...not a majority.
Too bad if someone`s son/daughter doesn`t want to be a tradesperson but rather have a profession.They are denied Choice due to lack of funds.What a bourgeois attitude>Marie Antoinette was guillotined for having similar disregard.Too bad if someone`s progeny want to work for Qantas.They will have to migrate.
Here`s a reality check:
1.The current account deficit is rising to record levels
2.Domestic inventory levels are rising
3.Consumer demand is tapering
4.Debt levels are at an alltime high
5.Savings are at an all time low
6.The stockmarket is fully valued.
7.The real estate market is still overvalued.
There is a correction on the way.The RBA is terrified of what a further rate rise will do under these circumstances.Mortagee defaults,distressed sale of real estate,bankruptcies will increase.
Still you want to export jobs.
Liquidate..cash is king when it all hits the fan.Remember `87...they said it wouldn`t happen then.The pundits were wrong then and they will be wrong again.
Who suffers?Always always the little guy with a mortgage two kids and a wife who is trying to participate in his country`s prosperity.
Smug comments from you and your ilk expose you for what you are!!
As for your appendage..you must have bloody small hands

sling load
21st Jun 2005, 22:47
Handgun Fellashio,
An excellent post, well said.

21st Jun 2005, 23:26
We'll all be rooned said Hanrahan.

As for an overseas trip being a luxury these days, why even student beauty technicians can afford to go to Bali!:p

21st Jun 2005, 23:31
“Air travel for most is still considered a luxury”.....
Nah... used to be but not any more... London and back for three weeks wages..

The rest of the “reality check” is superficial. Don’t forget number 8

8)..... some employees are paid too much for their skill level

handgun fellashio
22nd Jun 2005, 00:48
Trite responses to a serious topic...I expected as much(as little)from a pair of Dilettantes.

22nd Jun 2005, 01:17
Trite response called for. No point in trying to educate an economic illiterate.

For the record, opening up QF to competition would actually be beneficial to all the indicators you mentioned

1. Current account deficit reduced by additional tourism, and further reduced by Qf not buying more aircraft. Other people can provide the capital necessary for new aircraft.

2. Domestic inventory levels reduced by increased tourism driven consumption.

3. Consumer demand increased by tourism

4. Debt levels reduced by inflow of foriegn income from tourism

5., 6. and 7, the same.

handgun fellashio
22nd Jun 2005, 03:27
B.Comm.LLB(Hons) UNSW.(My Degree)
Prof.Neil Runcie Head of Economics Dept(UNSW)in the mid 70`s always said it would be a waste of time attempting to educate phillistines in the vagaries of macro economic theory.You sir are one such phillistine.Tourists do not buy white goods,furniture,cars etc.to take home.To have the effects you suggest tourism would have to increase by at 30%.We do not have the necessary infrastructure in place to accommodate such an increase.Allowing SQ to fly the Pacific is cherry picking ..pure and simple.The positive effect on OUR economy would be negligible.It would however have a beneficial effect on the now struggling Singapore economy.
You sir, would still have to HUB through Sydney regardless.
SQ is not a panacea for your problems.
A tourist will assist you in paying off your credit card debt and mortgage?Where does that tourist live?A lot of Australians would love to meet him/her.
The debt I referred to is personal/household debt...likewise savings.

22nd Jun 2005, 07:46
B.Eng, MBA (Melbourne). May I suggest ERSA's at 50 paces Sir?????????

handgun fellashio
22nd Jun 2005, 08:57
A pizzing contest?
I have made my point. Besides, I have just polished my shoes .No need to get them wet unnecessarily.