PDA

View Full Version : SIA misses out on SY-LA


Lord Snot
19th Feb 2006, 19:11
Sad luck, Sunfish!!!

AUSTRALIA'S new aviation policy is set to reject Singapore Airlines' bid to fly Qantas's most lucrative route, from Sydney to Los Angeles.

The policy, which is expected to be considered by federal cabinet tomorrow, could deeply divide ministers and backbenchers.

Although Singapore Airlines is poised to miss out on the Sydney to Los Angeles route, Qantas is expected to face more competition from other airlines, including budget carrier Virgin Blue.

This could lead to lower prices for air travellers on popular domestic routes and possibly some international ones.

One option being considered is to relax the rules limiting foreign ownership in the carrier to 49 per cent to allow a merger with another airline.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, believes Qantas and Singapore Airlines should one day merge into a giant new airline.

The Government is divided over the policy. A number of backbenchers are worried about the impact on Qantas of allowing Singapore Airlines to fly between Sydney and Los Angeles.

Government backbenchers Bruce Baird and Warren Entsch have lobbied Mr Howard on aviation policy changes, arguing that jobs at Qantas as well as routes in rural areas would be lost if the carrier was put under intense competitive pressure.

Backbenchers also argue that Qantas is not competing on a level playing field because Singapore Airlines enjoys lower tax rates than Qantas.

But other Coalition backbenchers, including West Australians Geoff Prosser and Michael Keenan, have pushed for Qantas to face greater competition on the Sydney to Los Angeles route as well as within Australia, arguing that it would lower air fares for Australians.

Mr Baird has argued that many of Qantas's 38,000 jobs could move to Singapore if the island's airline was allowed to operate the Australia-US west coast route.

But the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, Fran Bailey, believes Australian tourism would be boosted if there were more airlines flying between Australia and the US

All of a sudden the gov't is worried about jobs in aviation??? WTF???

What about Ansett?

What about LAMEs' work being farmed off to the Chinese?

And as if they really care if the ugg-boot crowd can get a cheaper air-fare. But then as if I do either..... :p

cyclops camel
19th Feb 2006, 21:01
How many of our devoted politicians own Qantas shares?
What am I saying - I'm sure they are putting the best interests of the country and their constituents ahead of their own.

peuce
19th Feb 2006, 21:29
If I was a politician, there would be only two issues:


If QANTAS is to be treated as just another commercial entity then competition should be opened up ... thus potentially reducing fares and improving service. If the airline's profits drop, or it goes bust ... who cares ... there's plenty of other airlines to come in and fill the void.
However, if we are to treat QANTAS as THE Australian Airline/THE Australian Icon/THE Australian company, then we need to ensure that its competition is reduced and its profits maximised. To be afforded this treatment/protection the Airline has certain responsibilities ... Australian ownership, Australian Staff, Australian maintenance.


It's over to you, QANTAS.

Buster Hyman
20th Feb 2006, 06:26
So, whilst I know they'll deny it, hanging Van Nguyen may have tipped the balance against SQ. Perhaps sending more QF jobs offshore will tip it back again...:hmm:

Patience Grasshopper....:suspect:

chemical alli
20th Feb 2006, 07:42
do you really think the goverment cares if the trade between lax and syd is opened up to sia lets just refresh ansett went out.the goverment loved virgin coming in sweetheart deals and all,werent they an aussie icon too,also the polies couldnt give a stuff more tourists more tax dollars and more jobs on tne bad side 3000 job cuts but millions more $ per year.the punters dont care they love the no frills no class sit next to a redneck for 49 dollar fares just ask the once beautful hamilton island jetset crowd there cheering (not) about yobbos in thongs i myself hate the box lunch and what australian airline makes you buy piss before four oclock sacrilage i say ,how many of the goverment never workrd a day in there life baclbenchs fly no frills really we fund there j class trips so do they care? no and no and let me think no

The_Cutest_of_Borg
21st Feb 2006, 01:44
A fatted calf to the man who can read aloud that last post without passing out from lack of oxygen!:eek:

Feather #3
21st Feb 2006, 02:17
It's about time a few folks who post here get out and have a good look at the rest of the World!:uhoh:

The ONLY [that's a word meaning uniquely singular] country in the World I can think of in my 38th year of international flying that would even dream of giving away the traffic rights of its own carriers is; you guessed it - AUSTRALIA!:eek:

We are blessed with a Government that at every chance [bar one] has grasped the nettle to go along with opening up trade to the World, no matter what the cost to our Industry. Be it GATT or whatever, we've been in there first to "drop our daks in Pitt St" for the World to have a go!

Try to do what SIA are pulling anywhere else and see how you get on? Not past the first post. Note also that I make the point here about "Australian carriers". Watch what happens if Qantas [for one] loses its 51% Ozzie ownership; bilaterals will fall like a pack of cards. Whether or not the World should have bilaterals in this day & age is another matter, but if that's the playing field, let's keep it level.

As to the export of Oz jobs to overseas to keep QF going [??:confused: ], that's a side issue of no mean importance and not the subject of this rant. My point is that throwing away your traffic rights to third parties is plain stupid!:yuk:

Enough for one day.

G'day ;)

Scumfish
21st Feb 2006, 05:19
You people don't realise that this is bad news for Australia. We have to look at economic rationalistaion and globalisation. There are no borders these days and the sooner you lot recognise this, the better off the Australian economy will be. SIA would have created many more jobs in Australia, even at the expense of Qantas....:uhoh:

Scumfish
21st Feb 2006, 07:02
The world economy is all about supply and demand these days. Everybody has to learn to adjust, it's a fact of life. By creating all of the extra jobs that SIA could have done, would have done wonders for the economy. It's a shame the government has taken this decision as I have just signed up in SIA's frequent flyer program and was looking forward to buying cheaper tickets with them as I've always wanted to go to Disneyland.

Skinny Dog
21st Feb 2006, 08:23
While I am no supporter of Qantas, the alternative proposed by SIA and the idiot total free market gurus, just defies belief. Trade albeit in goods or services should be bilateral not unilateral. SIA and the government are a bunch of wingers, they sprout open skies yet QF cannot fly through Singapore to most European destinations. There is very little, or no benefit to Australia in granting open skies to SIA, unless QF or any other Australian operator is offered open skies through Singapore to European destinations, which Singapore cannot offer !
Giving open skies to the likes of SIA is just outsourcing the last vestiges of the once proud Australian industry to Singapore. The only thing Singapore outsources is rational and free thinking for its people.
Canberra now should get on with encouraging competition from the likes of VB or any other Oz carrier that may be willing to give it a go and or North American carriers, not SIA. :yuk:

chemical alli
21st Feb 2006, 08:31
A fatted calf to the man who can read aloud that last post without passing out from lack of oxygen!:eek:

maybe i dont have a great grasp of the english language mr the cutest of borg (wonderful guy) but just remember maybe ill order the wrong nut or bolt next time i fix your big plane or read the wrong maint manual data, get with the programme good friend this isnt about my very limited vocabulary and pronunciation, but I apologise for the offensive language I've used:\



And PPRuNe isn't about the language you post!

You have been warned!!! No further warnings!!

:mad:

Woomera

LookinDown
21st Feb 2006, 08:52
[quote=chemical alli]maybe ill order the wrong nut or bolt next time i fix your big plane

Alli,
I'm more than a little concerned that as you are obviously sipping from those chemical containers in your stores, you have probably already ordered the wrong nut or bolt or even many of them. Have you considered taking up another career? Journalism perhaps.:D

chemical alli
21st Feb 2006, 09:00
your not wrong i fly higher than anyone sniffffffffffff

Sunfish
21st Feb 2006, 19:01
Happy happy, joy joy. Australia loses again. I knew it was never going to happen because QF is run by for the benefit of the Sydney push, all of whom are one big corrupt happy family.

Scumfish
21st Feb 2006, 21:12
The sooner Qantas gets away from its Sydney roots the better for this nation as a whole. It also means that I may have a better chance of using my frequent flyer points and getting cheaper airfares.

lowerlobe
22nd Feb 2006, 00:36
Scumfish has just established that he/she does not live in Sydney and does not really care for Australian jobs but is only interested in his frequent flyer points with SIA.

I wonder if the government were to allow a foreign company which has various tax and other financial advantages to enter Australia and compete with his business ,then would scumfish be as happy with that arrangement.

Of course he would …..unfair competition is fine because we are one big happy world without borders….that is unless an Australian company wants to trade or do business overseas and is a threat to that country and their business and population.

Wake up scumfish,the only government that thinks the world is all rosy and fair is the Australian government,that is why we export technology that we have developed to China and other parts of the world because the only plans our egotistical politicians have is to be players on the world stage.

The beauty of this forum is that we are able and indeed allowed to discuss this very thing but if we were in Singapore you would find out what their concept of free press and other individual freedoms are like.

sling load
22nd Feb 2006, 00:56
Hey Sunfish,
You sure are on Pprune alot, if you joined in August 2004 and have posted 1369 times thats 3 posts per day! You must be up for a record there boy

Sunfish
22nd Feb 2006, 02:09
The argument about free trade is long finished and the results are well and truly on the side of the free traders. All Australians will suffer as a result of this decision because experience has conclusively shown that protection costs more jobs than it protects.

Has it crossed anyone's mind that an increase in passenger numbers will require more seats and hence more flights - that means more crew, more aircraft and more maintenance jobs. It would even mean that SIA would have to hire more pilots - creating more jobs. Qantas would also pick up additional pax - meaning more flights, more crew etc.etc., and might actually maintain profitability.

Then of course those increased passenger numbers would include a signifigant number of inbound US Tourists, which would creat demand for domestic QF flights, more aircraft, more crew etc. etc.

It's not theory anymore guys. Were any of you out of short pants when industry protection started getting phased out? All the pundits said the sky would fall in. It didn't. Look at the economy today.

The longer QF puts off taking the tough decisions about supporting an open skies policy, the harder its going to fall when the walls come tumbling down.

Chris Higgins
22nd Feb 2006, 02:15
Nah, I think some things are just too Australian to give up! Screw Singapore, they can go somewhere out of Asia to fly to/from. Leave Australian premium routes to Australian based companies.

jetblues
22nd Feb 2006, 02:17
Perhaps we could re-phrase the thread Virgin Gains ?

As mentioned on another thread, now that SIA has been locked out, Virgin will accelerate its plans to fly the US routes. So this could create a multitude of new opportunities from top to bottom.

Bring it on.

Chris Higgins
22nd Feb 2006, 02:19
Yep, that's fine as long as they base their aircraft and crews in Aus.

lowerlobe
22nd Feb 2006, 02:23
The only country advocating and really meaning free trade is the Australia government…All other governments support and protect their country and business.

What are you talking about when you refer to more seats,more aircraft,more crew and more maintenance…Where on earth do you think those jobs will come from…in one word Singapore ,not Australia.

Do you think for one moment that SIA would hire Australian cabin crew or buy aircraft from an Australian company or maintain them in Australia.The profit generated would go straight back to Singapore.

As I said to Scumfish,how would you like you job or business to be threatened by an overseas business that had an inherently lower cost base and tax benefits not available to you??????

So we buy your theory of the world and Australian business goes out the window because of unfair competition and all of us are out of jobs .So then who has enough money to buy cheap tickets or washing machines let alone pay a mortgage off?????

The only ones in Australia left with jobs will be the ones on the company boards..I’m all for competition but does Singapore let QF fly through Singapore to any destination…NO..

Does QF enjoy the same tax breaks and cost base some of these other airlines have ..NO

Competition by your definition is not really competition at all it is a one sided free for all

Scumfish
22nd Feb 2006, 02:39
Globalisation is part of the new world order. Jobs come and go, you have to accept that fact. Qantas will just have to adapt to competition and if jobs are lost then so be it. Other jobs will eventuate due to the stimulation of the Australian economy that would follow SIA's entry on to the Pacific Route. Anybody who has studied management would realise that if there is no competition then the economy starts to become stifled.

Pass-A-Frozo
22nd Feb 2006, 02:42
shhh... don't mention education Scumfish :p Everyone knows tertiary education is a waste of time and doesn't apply to the "Real World" :E

Animalclub
22nd Feb 2006, 03:42
What does "Open Skies" mean?

From what I can find it is not a free for all where any carrier can fly into or out of any country.

All my looking (I hesitate to us the words research or even search) indicates that "open skies" is an agreement between two countries regarding flights operating between the said two countries without restriction on the number of carriers or the type of equipment.

Does this mean that if there is an "open skies" agreement between say Singapore and USA that a flight originating in Singapore for USA can operate via say Australia if the Australian Government agrees? Or does the US government have to agree to the Aus-USA bit too?

I see that USA and Australia have an "open skies" agreement for Cargo only - not passenger.

Lodown
22nd Feb 2006, 04:02
Geoff Dixon will be smiling while he pulls on his black cape and sharpens the blade. Assuming Virgin takes about 2 years to get a Pacific route up and running, Mr Dixon has until then to slash, burn, rape and pillage pilot conditions. Good luck because I'm sure he's not going to waste any time getting started. Two years is not long to carry out the changes.

parabellum
22nd Feb 2006, 04:15
Don't think you've done your homework, have you Skinny Dog?

Skinny Dog said:
"There is very little, or no benefit to Australia in granting open skies to SIA, unless QF or any other Australian operator is offered open skies through Singapore to European destinations, which Singapore cannot offer !"

Not only can Singapore offer traffic rights to other carriers to Europe, they most certainly do, QANTAS in particular.

Problem is QANTAS only go to London and Frankfurt these days but you can book to both these destinations, out of Singapore on QF and you used to be able to book to Rome or Athens too!

HotDog
22nd Feb 2006, 04:24
I’m all for competition but does Singapore let QF fly through Singapore to any destination…NO..


What about QF31 SIN/LHR and QF5 SIN/FRA.:confused:

lowerlobe
22nd Feb 2006, 05:14
Hot Dog,
I meant that in context to SIA wanting the SYD/LAX runs what are they offering Qantas in addition to what already exists ?

SIA has not offered any other through flights to make up for the SYD/LAX..therefore what is in this for QF ?

"Anybody who has studied management would realise that if there is no competition then the economy starts to become stifled."

Scumfish..the operative word here is "competition" and you don't have to have studied management to know that competition is a good thing but FAIR competition not a one sided contest..you did not answer my question about you facing competition from someone who has an advantage that you do not?

You don't allow a heavy weight boxer to fight against a middle weight ..but I suppose you think that is fair as well

Chimbu chuckles
22nd Feb 2006, 05:26
Its all very well suggesting SQ can offer this or that out of Sin but in a very few years Sin will NOT be required as a tech stop...which is effectively what it is now most of the time...so in the very near future SQs overtures become meaningless...but they still have their rights across the Pacific to the west coast.

Personally I am sick to death of the Oz Guvmint selling off the furniture in a disgracefull display of total idealogical subservience to economic theory.

The way Oz is going we, as a nation, will be stripped of relatively well paid careers and then what will the Govt do for tax revenue....when we are a nation of min wage, semi skilled grunt labour?

You only have to look to the US to see the long term economic aims of this Govt and the social results of unfettered market control of EVERYTHING.

What the economic rationalists seem to ignore is that living on this planet is a human experience...not a mathematical equation.

Scumfish
22nd Feb 2006, 07:47
Lower Lobe, in response to your question, I would use my superior management skills to solve any problems where I would see my company disadvantaged. I would have a casualised workforce and bring in cheap overseas labour and reap the profits. This would give me extreme flexibility. Remember, it's all about economic rationalistation. There are always going to be losers.

lowerlobe
22nd Feb 2006, 08:41
Scumfish,
The first part of your name is extremely pertinent but it does not take superior management skills to operate with no regard to others just an ego but this is the “ME” generation so you should fit in very well.

However using slave labour is not the only thing against you as far as costs go,you might have to move offshore...

Why not apply to SIA for a job,they would appreciate someone with your attitude but then again you might have to move to Sydney.

HotDog
22nd Feb 2006, 10:14
Lowerlobe. compared to the trans pacific from Sydney to LA, there is nothing SQ can offer in return. QF code sharing with BA does not need anything more from Singapore. Qantas do have a virtual monopoly on this route, you can't really call United service a competition, even though Qantas service is not what it used to be. Yes, Singapore Airlines would have presented a real and worrying competion to Qantas but as Little Johnny has come to the party, it might even satisfy the heavy maintenance brigade at last.

Lodown
22nd Feb 2006, 21:07
Quite a loss for Qld and Brisbane. With capacity at close to peak in SYD I assume SIA would have been operating out of BNE, which also has the room for expansion.

Buster Hyman
22nd Feb 2006, 21:14
Qantas v Singapore Airlines (Age online poll)
Is the government right to deny Singapore Airlines access to US route?

Yes - 42%

No - 58%

QF better start selling it to the punters...

lowerlobe
22nd Feb 2006, 22:31
If there is enough of a market then Virgin Blue can start up a service from BNE or MEL or both or other ports for that matter and then the profits and emplyment can stay in Australia...and we can all be happy

Gnadenburg
23rd Feb 2006, 02:11
Qantas v Singapore Airlines (Age online poll)
Is the government right to deny Singapore Airlines access to US route?
Yes - 42%
No - 58%
QF better start selling it to the punters...


You could turn that poll around if you leaked the extent of surreptitious, intelligence opertions by Singaporians against Australian military and economic interests.

A nation of sly, control freaks- a friendship at a distance is all that is needed and warranted. Well done Mr Howard.

plainmaker
23rd Feb 2006, 02:48
While we are all discussing the effect of arrangements on the LAX-SYD sector, and the 'trade-off' to QF if SQ were given access (what will QF get in return), there is another issue.

Given that JetStar Asia (and JetStar Domestic) are seeking to increase their presence in Asia (out of Singapore particularly), will we now se more 'difficulties' for the 'Star brigade in sectors out of Changi.

That could alter Geoff's strategy / growth just a little.

Plainmaker

lowerlobe
23rd Feb 2006, 03:00
Doesn't Tomasek (company owned or major shareholder of Singapore government) own half of jet star asia ?

(Excuse spelling of Tomasek if not correct)

Pass-A-Frozo
23rd Feb 2006, 03:38
You could turn that poll around if you leaked the extent of surreptitious, intelligence opertions by Singaporians against Australian military and economic interests.

A nation of sly, control freaks- a friendship at a distance is all that is needed and warranted. Well done Mr Howard.

A shame they own our Defence Communications satellite :eek:

019360
24th Feb 2006, 05:19
I have been away for a while and somehow lost the plot re: Sunfish and Scumfish. Who is who? One of them sounds like being abusive under Woomera's recent edicts.
That aside, this was a monumental piece of flawed public policy. Let's ban US movies and of course CNN. And the BBC. And Macdonalds. And Ferraris. And Evian water. Fact is that most countries have some natural advantage or another, whether it be their own tax system, oil, a large domestic economy give economies of scale, weather or some such. Wine acreage here and training at publicly funded universities have given us a wonderful competitive wine export business. Imagine if that were stopped as being unfair?
On what possible grounds do we selectively deny Australian consumers access to a product simply because it comes at a lower price? As I understand the theory and prcatice of international trade, that's the whole point. I live and work overseas and would be really annoyed if the locals said I should leave here simply because I got trained in Australia years ago when it was easier and cheaper and therefore I am an unfair competitor.
Qantas ruthlessly outsource everything they can and I understand that. But you can't buy on a world market yet operate in a protected market. That way is hypocrisy, unvarnished. And the public suffer. And, tho economics be the dismal science, it is true that more competition in the end means more jobs for Australia as a whole.
When will we learn? If we're really concerned to protect Qantas (why on earth/) why not suggest to SIA that, as with Defence contracts, we require say a 40% offset in local investment or employment if we give you access.

The_Cutest_of_Borg
24th Feb 2006, 09:01
This is the way of bilateral rights. Bilateral rights are part of the national estate in the current setup of the world aviation market.

Singapore has no natural right to that route so why should we cede it to them without offset?

Should we hand over portions of our mineral wealth because Singapore reckons it can dig it up more efficiently? Well lets just give it to them, then.

Should we let Singaporean tourist operators on to the Great Barrier Reef, using Singaporean workers because Singaporean workers are cheaper? Think of the benefits for tourists from the lower rates these operators would charge....!!!

QF goes to Johannesburg. So does SQ and probably very profitably. How far do you think QF would get if it demanded access to the SIN-JNB route on the basis of improving Singapore tourism? That is what is happening here... pure cherry picking.

Until there is true "open skies" world wide; then bilateral rights remain part of a nations' intrinsic wealth. Give them away for nothing??? What planet are you on?

numbskull
24th Feb 2006, 09:58
Well said Mr Borg

019360
24th Feb 2006, 10:31
I agree with Numbskull...well said,it certainly sounds good.

But like most simple easy to understand little bits of bar room rhetoric it is simply wrong. Waiting til the rest of the world is perfect til we do something would, if followed in all the worlds where Australian exporters work, cost us our entire future.

numbskull
24th Feb 2006, 11:25
Don't be so theoretical "019360"

Nothing is black and white, the world is not perfect and neither is Australia.

Mr Borg makes some valid points and it is not bar room rhetoric nor is it "simply wrong"

Lets be brutally honest here. Singapore is a natural stopover for many routes. With the introduction of new aircraft that can easily overfly Singapore, it is looking at ways to ensure the ongoing profitability and survival of its own national carrier and its own economy. It does not particularly care about the Australian economy or the Australian tourist unless it affects them. They can see an opportunity to make a quick buck and open new profitable routes easily and that is all that this is about.

Free market is a great idea in theory but it simply doesn't exist in practice. I'm sure you can think of many examples yourself without me having to quote them.

019360
24th Feb 2006, 23:21
Mercantilism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mercantilism is the economic theory holding that the prosperity of a nation depends upon its supply of capital, and that the global volume of trade is "unchangeable." The amount of capital, represented by bullion (amount of precious metal) held by the state, is best increased through a positive balance of trade with other nations, with large exports and low imports. Mercantilism suggests that the ruling government should advance these goals by playing a protectionist role in the economy, by encouraging exports and discouraging imports, especially through the use of tariffs. The economic policy based upon these ideas is often called the mercantile system.
Mercantilism was the dominant school of economics throughout the early modern period (from the 16th to the 18th century, which roughly corresponded to the emergence of the nation-state). Domestically, this led to some of the first instances of significant government intervention and control over the economy, and it was during this period that much of the modern capitalist system was established. Internationally, mercantilism encouraged the many European wars of the period, and fueled European imperialism, as the European powers fought over "available markets". Belief in mercantilism began to fade in the late 18th century, as the arguments of Adam Smith, and the other classical economists won out. Today, mercantilism as a whole is rejected by all serious economists, though some elements are looked upon favorably.

rammel
26th Feb 2006, 01:12
Most people outside the industry just think that it is QF and UA who fly to the US (most of these people probably also think of only LAX).

There are a lot of other airlines that also fly to the US. ANZ flys to HNL,LAX and SFO I think. I think that they also used to go to LHR from LAX (I could be wrong). Air Tahiti also flys to the US (JFK not sure about anywhere else), as does FJ (HNL,LAX and also on to YVR). Air Canada also flys to HNL (LAX soon I think) on the way to Canada.

So as you see there are a lot of ways already to get across the pacific to North America. Sure QF and UA have a monoply at the moment, but that is on the direct flights between Australia and the US. NZ also used to fly direct from SYD but no longer do.

On the US side of the pacific, don't their airlines have equal rights as UA to fly to/from Australia?

If you look at airlines in the US that could fly here, there is DL, CO, NW and AA who all have the equipment to fly here. For some reason they don't.

So if you look at all this there is no reason for SQ to be allowed on the route. There is enough competition or potential competition there already. Perhaps our government should lobby the US government or airlines to get them to increase competition from their end.
I'm sorry but until I see SQ asking to fly PER-DPS or DRW-DPS then they are just cherry picking pure and simple. So by doing this they may say they are doing for the customers to have cheaper flights, but it is only for them to make more money.

P.S I forgot that Hawaiian also flies from SYD to HNL.

gaunty
26th Feb 2006, 01:25
Cutest of Borg exactly so:ok:

confoutre
26th Feb 2006, 02:02
Those arguing for SQ to fly Aus-US claim that it will be a boost for the Oz economy and create new jobs. Sounds good....in theory. So far I have not seen any concrete evidence of this. Exactly how many jobs would be created? Exactly how much of a boost to the economy will there be? Quoting economic textbooks is one thing. Show me some hard evidence that allowing SQ to operate the route will make any difference. If there is this huge unfilled demand for the trans-pacific route, why don't other US airlines think it is worth flying?

Animalclub
26th Feb 2006, 03:58
Confoutre because the returns aren't there? Both American Airlines and Continental Airlines used to fly the route (going back to the early '70's) and both decided that they could better utilise their aircraft elsewhere.

I knew the economics of the route in those days - I don't know them now - but the returns look as if they've improved.

4PW's
26th Feb 2006, 04:36
I'm with TCOB. Well put together old son! Giving SQ rights across the Pacific pond doesn't make sense, for Australia at least. It sure would be good for Singapore, though.

Conversely, isn't it amazing how many people read Management books these days, then rush to a terminal and spout off about economic theory!

Sunfish mate, you're a genius.

Jetsbest
26th Feb 2006, 04:41
Good point Rammel

So Animalclub... If the economics have improved then Continental, American, Northwest, Air Canada (through its CP/Canadian Airlines history) and Air NZ will imminently return to the Aust/trans-Pac route to get back on the gravy-train won't they? Maybe even others with the automatic rights. And what about Virgin and J*? Of course, if this is really about cherry picking for Singair, then the 'lack of competition' argument will be continuously brought to the fore while the bilaterally entitled airlines make purely financial decisions. It would appear that they're not exactly rushing to get onto the transpac goldmine train.

I've seen enough marketing 'SPIN' from my own company to know what spin is! There's nothing personal in spin; eveyone has an angle... ALWAYS. It's all about perception generation &/or management, and Singair's is very transparent I think.:ok:

Sunfish
26th Feb 2006, 05:10
I'm sorry possums but you are all wrong. There is heaps of evidence in dozens of markets, that free trade benefits everybody - except of course those that benefit from a closed market.

Economics 101 strongly suggests that any job losses suffered by Qantas if SIA was allowed in would be more than offset by the jobs created - here as well as in Singapore. there is plenty of research and evidence to back this up.

The economic consequences of SIA being awarded access to the American routes would be:

1. A reduced passenger price on this route.

2. An increased capacity.

3. Reduced margins for Qantas (offset in part by increased volume through lower prices).

4. Increase economic activity through more inbound tourism from the US as well as activity by Australians accessing the US.

The net result will be a higher GDP for Australia. More jobs for Australians, even if they are not Qantas jobs.

Please give up. The research has been done. Qantas is no special case. You are simply showing economic illiteracy by arguing otherwise. Its rather like me, a dumb PPL trying to tell you how to fly a B747!. There is no basis in fact for you to argue that QF should be protected (except that defence case which none of you have raised). I will not make the final comment because I don't wish to be banned by the woomeri as "anti Qantas".

lowerlobe
26th Feb 2006, 10:25
Dame Edna (sunfish),

"any job losses suffered by Qantas if SIA was allowed in would be more than offset by the jobs created - here as well as in Singapore."

Can you explain how job losses in qantas can be offset by jobs created in Singapore ?

in other words exactly how do jobs created in Singapore make up for Australian jobs lost here ?????

I'm sure the Australians would love to know.

chockchucker
26th Feb 2006, 10:52
"Economics 101 strongly suggests that any job losses suffered by Qantas if SIA was allowed in would be more than offset by the jobs created - here as well as in Singapore. there is plenty of research and evidence to back this up."


Yes, well that all sounds fine in economic theory. However, in reality Sunfish, the people who's "Qantas Jobs" are about to be pissed up against the wall probably won't thank you for it.


Do you really think that a 50 year old LAME is going to be able to obtain comparable employment after the vast majority of his industry (the only one for which he holds any qualifications for by the way) has been flushed down the globalisation toilet.


Why is it that this country is the only one willing to shoot itself in the foot with all this nonsense. America may spout free trade and globalisation all the time but, at least the U.S. politicians realise that they are responsible first and foremost to their constituents. Hence one of the most protected workforces on the planet.


Globalisation only works if every country plays by the same set of rules. Obviously that's never going to happen so, why piss all our heavy industry and manufacturing capabilities away?

Pass-A-Frozo
26th Feb 2006, 11:01
Yes, well that all sounds fine in economic theory. However, in reality Sunfish, the people who's "Qantas Jobs" are about to be pissed up against the wall probably won't thank you for it.
Do you really think that a 50 year old LAME is going to be able to obtain comparable employment after the vast majority of his industry (the only one for which he holds any qualifications for by the way) has been flushed down the globalisation toilet.

Believe it or not but the people that come up with the "Economic theory's" know about all these issues. There are ways of addressing structural unemployment. For example the 50 year old LAME could go to uni, get qualified in the field of economics and become an economist :E

Buster Hyman
26th Feb 2006, 11:07
It's all very well saying that job losses will be offset by growth in other areas but, what price will it eventually cost the country if a highly skilled (specialised) employee loses their job and the offset is a new waiter in Port Douglas?

The math might be fine, but the social aspect sucks!:suspect:

BHMvictim
26th Feb 2006, 11:55
By creating all of the extra jobs that SIA could have done, would have done wonders for the economy.

What jobs would they have created? Could you elaborate? How many?

HotDog
26th Feb 2006, 11:59
Why should anybody lose their jobs if they allow SQ on the SYD/LA sector? As the equipment is the same (747-400), the only way SQ can compete is cabin service and I'm sorry to have to say, it is superior to QF:uhoh:

BHMvictim
26th Feb 2006, 12:32
Why should anybody lose their jobs if they allow SQ on the SYD/LA sector? As the equipment is the same (747-400), the only way SQ can compete is cabin service and I'm sorry to have to say, it is superior to QF:uhoh:

For once Hotdog, I agree with you. Cabin service on QF is pretty ordinary compared to Singapore Airlines. (QF being tight as usual?)

As far as jobs go, when all is said and done, Dixon will do as he pleases, regardless of the decision. He simply made threats to Heavy Maintenance in order to persuade the government against allowing Singapore in.

Now that the government has done as Dixon wishes…… NOTHING has changed for QF engineering staff. Our jobs are under just as much threat as before Little Johnny & Co.s’ decision.

confoutre
26th Feb 2006, 15:28
I'm sure that if I pick up Idiot's Guide to Economics I reckon I could spurt out some of the economic theories posted previously in no time. However, I am yet to see the concrete evidence that allowing SQ onto the route is good for Aus. Once again - how many jobs created? What increase to GDP? Show me the figures and back it up with evidence. The federal government obviously wasn't convinced. No I know some of you will say because they own QANTAS shares or are part of the "Sydney set" but that is just emotive rubbish! The government is elected by the people. It does want it thinks will get it re-elected. It obviously thinks that the Australian people don't want SQ on the route. If you want to convince the Australian people otherwise, show us the facts. I do not think Please give up. The research has been done.
wins the argument!!!!!!

Sunfish
26th Feb 2006, 20:22
The jobs growth will NOT be at Qantas. The growth will be across the entire economy. It comes about from increases in local demand caused by increased travel caused by reduced ticket prices and increased capacity. That generates increased economic activity which increase the number of jobs.

You guys are using exactly the same "The sky is falling" argument the car industry used in the 80's when the government started removing protection from said industry. Probably none of you remember buying an Australian car from the days when the manufacturers were "protected" - badly made, poor quality copies of outdated copies of american stuff, sold at twice the price of the equivalent american or european car. I grew up in the era where industry was "protected", and what a miserable array of goods and services those "protected" industries produced.

The only industry "protection" that really works is to produce a world class product at a world class price - as the car industry now does. You are kidding yourselves if you think you have any long term job security without doing exactly the same, and please stop coming up with these "level playing field" arguments.

The rest of the Australian economy has to compete without protection, and so should you, because otherwise our transaction costs are higher than our competitors, and we lose business as a result.

I'll bet you guys probably can't even remember the days of the "Two airline " domestic policy. Domestic ticket prices were set over a few beers at Mac's. God those were wonderful days:D

confoutre
26th Feb 2006, 20:46
Still reading a lot of economic theory but still no figures to back it up. I await any figures such as expected job growth an expected increased in GDP with bated breath....

Those who argue that allowing SQ on the route will create jobs and boost the economy must be arguing that it will encourage American tourists to come Dunnunda. Now I have been to the US many times, and when Americans hear that I am from Australia, they almost invariably comment on how great they think Oz is and how they would love to travel there. When I ask why they don't travel there, most of them mention the distance and that they simply don't have the time. NOT ONCE have I ever heard anyone say that the airfare is too high. Can SIA tell us how much they would charge for a return economy ticket LAX-SYD? How many more American tourists would come if the ticket were $100 cheaper. Now that would be an interesting survey.

And answer me one last thing - why is SQ the only saviour of the transpacific route. Wouldn't having J* or DJ (or some offshoot thereof) on the route be better for the Australian economy?

Scumfish
26th Feb 2006, 20:48
The jobs created by SIA would be a direct result of globalisation. More people employed equals a stronger Australian economy. We cannot afford to have "protectionalism" in this world economy otherwise we will lose our competitiveness.

chockchucker
26th Feb 2006, 20:57
" We cannot afford to have "protectionalism" in this world economy otherwise we will lose our competitiveness."


Seems to work fine for the Yanks.

Buster Hyman
26th Feb 2006, 21:11
I guess economic growth is good...especially when you aren't on the dole.

I wonder how the Nissan factory workers are faring these days...How are the Mitsubishi guys feeling about the economy?

It can't always be a Win-Win scenario...someone ultimately pays.:(

The_Cutest_of_Borg
26th Feb 2006, 23:28
This is the Australian forum for Professional pilots. Tell me Sunfish, how would letting SIA operate SYD-LA benefit Australian pilots? Oh that's right, you don't make you living as one do you? Neither incidentally does P-A-F, being a General Duties officer. Definition, an officer whos duties sometimes include flying aeroplanes.

Why do you guys hang around here if you don't fit in? You are not going to get any sympathy and you know this. Do you like picking fights with pilots who have more to be concerned about than trading esoteric economic points with amateurs?

confoutre
26th Feb 2006, 23:56
"Globalisation", "competitiveness", protectionism" - all words I could pick up too if I read Idiot's Guide to Economics. Seen a lot of buzz words but no substance to support the argument for SIA.

To all of you who quote economic textbooks for your arguments, let me ask you this - is economics a science? To be a science, your hypotheses or theories need to accurately predict an outcome based on a set of circumstances. My experience of economics (very limited as it might be) is that it may be very good at explaining why something happened, but it certainly cannot accurately predict future occurences. Truth is, no one can give an accurate prediction of jobs created or effect on GDP from allowing SIA to do SYD-LAX because you do not know! I'm sure the economists on this website in ten years time will be able to give us an outstanding account of why the predicted jobs growth or economic growth from allowing SIA to fly the route did not eventuate.

Show me proof that opening up the route to SIA will benefit Oz and I might listen. Don't give me buzz words. Put up or shut up!

Gnadenburg
27th Feb 2006, 00:28
Almost traitorous sentiments, in my opinion, giving up air rights unneccessarily to the Singaporians ( or the Arabs for that matter ).

Before government starts shipping jobs off shore with policies as such, it needs to look at the uncompetitiveness of the taxation system in Australia. Why should Australian labour & business, be forced to compete at a whim with foreign entities who possess home grown government protectionism ( labour policies, law & taxation ) when the root of the problem is the worlds worst taxation practices.

So, before SQ given a gift horse of trans-pacific flying 1) significant taxation reform needs to have taken place in Oz 2) there is committment from Singaporians in the employment, in numbers, of Australian based airline personnel - labour offsets! 3) Singaporians are forced to invest in local infrastrucutre and not do as they do now, cleverly bring their needs back to their local economy. 4) Singaporian conduct in this country is revealed to the public for media debate.

Until 1-5 addressed, it would be un-Australian to give up another resource to off shore interests.

BEACH KING
27th Feb 2006, 01:21
Cutest of Borg...
Well put
Eloquently explained with flair and panache
A fatted calf to you my good man!:ok:

Pass-A-Frozo
27th Feb 2006, 04:13
General Duties officer Term went out years ago. The category is "Pilot" now.

You certainly have your feathers ruffled if you are left saying that "Aussie Military pilots aren't real Aussie Pilots". A rather unkind stab at a group of over 600 - 700 pilots in Australia, simply because I have right wing economic views. :confused:

All I've ever said is that people should consider their own situation when signing on for pay and conditions. None of this union stuff. I still fail to see why you get so offended at this. After all, the people advocating union and enterprise bargaining aren't advocating it becuase of some higher calling. They are doing it because they think it will gain them a better outcome. Well I don't agree with that way of getting a better outcome.. Now, back to the thread..

I believe the only thing I've stated in here is that structural unemployment can be addressed and economists are aware of the matter. If you must know, I think the fact that Singapore Airlines gets huge benefits being government owned is a limiting factor in allowing them to "compete" against QANTAS. I think that since Singapore won't change how it financially assists SIA the only unfortunately option left is allow them on the route with a suitable tax / tariff on every seat they sell that essentially pegs them back to level playing.

Gnadenburg
27th Feb 2006, 04:23
Singapore Airlines gets huge benefits being government owned is a limiting factor in allowing them to "compete" against QANTAS. I think that since Singapore won't change how it financially assists SIA the only unfortunately option left is allow them on the route with a suitable tax / tariff on every seat they sell that essentially pegs them back to level playing.

Another tax whilst putting Australians out of work?

No way. If Australian & American airlines can't compete with QF, and begrudingly SQ needed for competition, their hand needs to be forced into employing a suitable number of Australian airline personnel.

Ain't nothing wrong with a Singapore girl named Cheryl! :} :} :}

019360
27th Feb 2006, 04:50
The beauty of competition is that people can vote with their feet. So if the "Protect Qantas" brigade are right...and they could be, what a great show of affection for this Australian icon if the passengers simply didn't fly with SIA and put the money in QF's pockets instead. Wouldn't the customers listen to the same "Australia First" arguments posted here? And if they wouldn't, being dollar hungry or wanting better service....on what basis do our leaders say 'you can't have that choice" when in almost every other area of life they have choices bewtween imports and home grown products.

In any case, assuming Qantas is serving the route(s) properly there's no need for another single seat so SIA would be whistling in the wind. And QF are lean and mean aren't they? What's to fear?

Protection, under the mask of patriotism is a mean cruel and nasty job destroying tool of populist and weak leaders. We are an exporting nation and our best undustry groups do it well. Sooner or later Qantas will be ready to compete the way Penfolds, Fosters and a thousand other groups do. When they can those shares could really be worth someting. Til then...would I invest in a sheltered workshop that effectively taxes every travelling Australian? I don't think so.

BHMvictim
27th Feb 2006, 04:51
The jobs created by SIA would be a direct result of globalisation. More people employed equals a stronger Australian economy. We cannot afford to have "protectionalism" in this world economy otherwise we will lose our competitiveness.

.... where are the figures??? Employment in what industries? Hotels & Tourism?
Reasonably paid skilled jobs are lost to low paid unskilled jobs? Is that a good thing??? Yet more "dumbing" of our once strong skilled workforce.

Whom is this good for? Certainly NOT for those who are filling these jobs. Yes, the good of all this may be increased employment, but at LOWER wages. Who benifits.........?

Pass-A-Frozo
27th Feb 2006, 05:11
An economics forcasting company econtech did a report on it. Although I gather you'd have to pay them to see it :)
Bit of a longish read but ..
Here is a synopsis of the argument put forward:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/SingAir-flies-its-argument-for-US-route/2005/06/08/1118123898035.html

The lack of competition on the Qantas-dominated Australia-US route is costing Australia up to $126 million in lost tourist revenue a year, a study commissioned by Singapore Airlines found.

With Federal Cabinet expected to decide next Tuesday on whether to grant Singapore Airlines access to the highly profitable route, economic forecaster Econtech has backed the Asian carrier's claims its entry on the Los Angeles route would substantially boost the number of passengers travelling on the route and help tourism.

"More competition on the Australia-US route would lead to a reduction in air fares on the route and greater flexibility in flight schedules and choice in airlines for prospective passengers," the report said.

Qantas controls two-thirds of the capacity on direct flights to the United States, and United Airways the rest.

The report said the entry of a third airline would boost passenger traffic by between 4 per cent and 8 per cent.

It said greater competition and lower air fares from a third entrant would lead to an extra 48,000 American visitors and between 7000 and 13,000 more Australians travelling to the US each year. This bolstered Singapore Airline's argument that its entry would stimulate new traffic rather than steal passengers from Qantas.

The publication of Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics's figures last week showed the Sydney-to-Los Angeles route had the lowest rate of passenger growth of the 10 busiest air routes into Australia in 2004. Passenger traffic on the route grew 1.6 per cent for the year compared with an average of 17.8 per cent for the other routes.

Highlighting the "clear lack of effective competition" on direct flights to the US, the report said "fares per kilometre on the Sydney-LA return route are, on average, significantly higher than on the Sydney-London return route, despite the costs of the stopover on the Sydney-London route".

The flight distance from Sydney to Los Angeles is about 12,000 kilometres compared with about 20,000 kilometres from Sydney to London. The study found economy fares per kilometre on the Los Angeles route were 17 per cent more expensive than for flights to London. The report said the fare per kilometre to Los Angeles was 8.9c compared with 7.6c for London.

Singapore Airlines said it would make a heavy dent on business fares if it entered the Los Angeles route.

The cheapest business class return ticket to Los Angeles on the Qantas website last night for travel on August 1 was $12,005 not including taxes. This compares with $9385 for a London business flight.

Qantas's chief financial officer, Peter Gregg, questioned the merits of the report commissioned by Singapore Airlines.

"The report was obviously written by someone who knows nothing about the aviation industry," he said.

Mr Gregg said when the report measured "the aircraft-per-kilometre [cost], they didn't take into consideration" the extra operational costs of deploying aircraft on the Los Angeles route. This was, in part, because of the payload restrictions and headwinds encountered on the route.

Mr Gregg said Qantas had "spent billions of dollars developing the route", noting the expense of buying longer-range Boeing 747-400ER aircraft.

Mr Gregg said the report failed to take into consideration the large numbers of passengers who flew between the US and Australia each year through stopovers such as Auckland and Tokyo.

ENTRY EXAMINATION Econtech sees:

- Two-way passenger traffic rising between 4pc and 8pc
- Tourists bringing extra $126m a year into Australia
- 13,000 more Australians heading for US each year
- Air fares down
- Flight schedules more flexible

Gnadenburg
27th Feb 2006, 05:14
. We are an exporting nation and our best undustry groups do it well. Sooner or later Qantas will be ready to compete the way Penfolds, Fosters and a thousand other groups do. .

A bottle of Penfold's Grange is exported with no government tax ie: zero GST and zero wine equalisation tax ( about 45% ). This is to allow competiton on foreign markets.

Perhaps, Qantas long haul staff should become "tax free" and rebates offered to Qantas, from any government wishing to allow foreign carriers willy-nilly access to OUR air routes!

Sunfish
27th Feb 2006, 05:18
Gentlemen, please stop demonstrating your lack of knowledge of economics. The verdict that free trade was better than protectionism was passed at least twenty years ago. Thets what the world trade organisation talks each year are about - opening up markets.

What do you think you would be paying for telephone calls if Optus and Vodaphone were not at Telstra's throat?

What do you think you would be paying for cars without the flood of cheap imports?

Industry protection is called "rent seeking behaviour" it appears to protect your jobs but it actually protects inefficient managers while penalising the rest of the economy that is internationally competitive.

You want examples - look no further than the car industry, computers and telecommunications.

Furthermore, your international competitors in aviation are doing just that - competing with each other. They get better at what they do day by day through competition. So what does QF do? Well if its not competing, but sitting on its fat @ss, then it isn't improving at the same rate as its competitors is it?

What that means is that it is not "protecting pilots jobs" at all! When the government does finally remove your industry protection, the adjustment is going to be all the more painful because the "gap" between your performance and your competitors is widening all the time.

Please don't shoot the messenger, its just the economic facts of life these days and aviation is no exception. It's nothing personal.

Those of you who wish to argue this point are like the flat earth society. All around the world everyone is trying to open markets and advance the cause of free trade.

Gnadenburg
27th Feb 2006, 05:18
An economics forcasting company econtech did a report on it. Although I gather you'd have to pay them to see it :)
Bit of a longish read but ..
Here is a synopsis of the argument put forward:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/SingAir-flies-its-argument-for-US-route/2005/06/08/1118123898035.html
The lack of competition on the Qantas-dominated Australia-US route is costing Australia up to $126 million in lost tourist revenue a year, a study commissioned by Singapore Airlines found.
With Federal Cabinet expected to decide next Tuesday on whether to grant Singapore Airlines access to the highly profitable route, economic forecaster Econtech has backed the Asian carrier's claims its entry on the Los Angeles route would substantially boost the number of passengers travelling on the route and help tourism.
"More competition on the Australia-US route would lead to a reduction in air fares on the route and greater flexibility in flight schedules and choice in airlines for prospective passengers," the report said.
Qantas controls two-thirds of the capacity on direct flights to the United States, and United Airways the rest.
The report said the entry of a third airline would boost passenger traffic by between 4 per cent and 8 per cent.
It said greater competition and lower air fares from a third entrant would lead to an extra 48,000 American visitors and between 7000 and 13,000 more Australians travelling to the US each year. This bolstered Singapore Airline's argument that its entry would stimulate new traffic rather than steal passengers from Qantas.
The publication of Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics's figures last week showed the Sydney-to-Los Angeles route had the lowest rate of passenger growth of the 10 busiest air routes into Australia in 2004. Passenger traffic on the route grew 1.6 per cent for the year compared with an average of 17.8 per cent for the other routes.
Highlighting the "clear lack of effective competition" on direct flights to the US, the report said "fares per kilometre on the Sydney-LA return route are, on average, significantly higher than on the Sydney-London return route, despite the costs of the stopover on the Sydney-London route".
The flight distance from Sydney to Los Angeles is about 12,000 kilometres compared with about 20,000 kilometres from Sydney to London. The study found economy fares per kilometre on the Los Angeles route were 17 per cent more expensive than for flights to London. The report said the fare per kilometre to Los Angeles was 8.9c compared with 7.6c for London.
Singapore Airlines said it would make a heavy dent on business fares if it entered the Los Angeles route.
The cheapest business class return ticket to Los Angeles on the Qantas website last night for travel on August 1 was $12,005 not including taxes. This compares with $9385 for a London business flight.
Qantas's chief financial officer, Peter Gregg, questioned the merits of the report commissioned by Singapore Airlines.
"The report was obviously written by someone who knows nothing about the aviation industry," he said.
Mr Gregg said when the report measured "the aircraft-per-kilometre [cost], they didn't take into consideration" the extra operational costs of deploying aircraft on the Los Angeles route. This was, in part, because of the payload restrictions and headwinds encountered on the route.
Mr Gregg said Qantas had "spent billions of dollars developing the route", noting the expense of buying longer-range Boeing 747-400ER aircraft.
Mr Gregg said the report failed to take into consideration the large numbers of passengers who flew between the US and Australia each year through stopovers such as Auckland and Tokyo.
ENTRY EXAMINATION Econtech sees:
- Two-way passenger traffic rising between 4pc and 8pc
- Tourists bringing extra $126m a year into Australia
- 13,000 more Australians heading for US each year
- Air fares down
- Flight schedules more flexible


Virgin will be the competion. Stuff the Singaporians!

B A Lert
27th Feb 2006, 05:30
...... Tell me Sunfish, how would letting SIA operate SYD-LA benefit Australian pilots? :confused: :confused:


Well, Cutey, those old buggers with their millions of superannuation at the top of the seniority list (:yuk: :yuk: ) can become YSSY based Pacific Barons for SIA. For years SIA was full of 'retired' Qantas drivers, many of whom no doubt had debt remaining after their third or more divorce or large a acreage to pay off. And they'd probably find many young Aussies to act as cruise captains to hold their hands and push their wheelchairs for not much more than the minimum wage. :} :}

Transition Layer
27th Feb 2006, 05:56
The publication of Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics's figures last week showed the Sydney-to-Los Angeles route had the lowest rate of passenger growth of the 10 busiest air routes into Australia in 2004. Passenger traffic on the route grew 1.6 per cent for the year compared with an average of 17.8 per cent for the other routes.

Once again, the media (and SQ) are using only the figures that suit their argument. The figures are from 2004 but are probably not all that different now.

Of course the SYD-LAX route is growing slowly, simply because QF is using the capacity to the US out of BNE and MEL. Off the top of my head, BNE-LAX direct is now 5 times weekly soon, and MEL-LAX is daily (and double daily at certain times of the year). The daily AKL-LAX flights now originate in MEL instead of BNE, offering an additional one-stop service from MEL that didn't exist 12 months ago.

In the past a lot of the BNE and MEL traffic would have to transit SYD, now they are flying direct. Of course the growth in SYD-LAX is only 1.6%.

As a QF employee and a proud Australian, I would much prefer seeing DJ have a shot at the Aus-LA route, using 777s/A340s etc. More jobs for my mates, and more jobs for Australians. What's wrong with that?

TL

Gnadenburg
27th Feb 2006, 06:22
Gentlemen, please stop demonstrating your lack of knowledge of economics. The verdict that free trade was better than protectionism was passed at least twenty years ago. Thets what the world trade organisation talks each year are about - opening up markets.
What do you think you would be paying for telephone calls if Optus and Vodaphone were not at Telstra's throat?
What do you think you would be paying for cars without the flood of cheap imports?
Industry protection is called "rent seeking behaviour" it appears to protect your jobs but it actually protects inefficient managers while penalising the rest of the economy that is internationally competitive.
You want examples - look no further than the car industry, computers and telecommunications.
Furthermore, your international competitors in aviation are doing just that - competing with each other. They get better at what they do day by day through competition. So what does QF do? Well if its not competing, but sitting on its fat @ss, then it isn't improving at the same rate as its competitors is it?
What that means is that it is not "protecting pilots jobs" at all! When the government does finally remove your industry protection, the adjustment is going to be all the more painful because the "gap" between your performance and your competitors is widening all the time.
Please don't shoot the messenger, its just the economic facts of life these days and aviation is no exception. It's nothing personal.
Those of you who wish to argue this point are like the flat earth society. All around the world everyone is trying to open markets and advance the cause of free trade.



Rubbish Sunfish.

The issue here is SQ. Not protectionism. In the case of SQ, jobs will move off shore. In the case of Australian born competition, jobs are created and your economic models tested!

Another issue is labour taxation in this country. I would go as far to say, Australian industry has very high efficiency and productivity. And, if you take out the huge levels of personal taxation, are incredibly cheap by world standards.

The_Cutest_of_Borg
27th Feb 2006, 07:15
The lack of competition on the Qantas-dominated Australia-US route is costing Australia up to $126 million in lost tourist revenue a year, a study commissioned by Singapore Airlines found.

We asked for proof, not propaganda.
I didn't say that military pilots are not professional; I was one myself so I know the standards. Having been in the RAAF I also know that no matter what the category description, you can end up in virtually any job that doesn't require degree qualifications to fill. I believe you are living proof of that at the moment.
When I was in the RAAF I actually thought a lot like yourself. Unions were for left-wing ratbags. Now I see them as an absolutely essential counter-balance to out of control "market forces" that seek to benefit only one class of person, the shareholder and the CEO's they pander to.
PAF you claim that when you eventually leave the RAAF you will work for what you are worth. No union for you... I hope you are a shareholder of the Johnson and Johnson company because you will be in need of their products fairly rapidly.
You said that my call to unify was a call to strike. You are only showing your naivety. Unifying is the only way that pilots can stem the tide of the feral abacus's. (abacai?) I never mentioned anything about striking and would only ever suggest it as a last resort. The fact is that you don't need to strike.
Airline company's and QF in particular have stated they intend to use the current laws to lever maximum advantage. I suggest that the law, the CAO's that protect the flight crews ultimate responsibility for the operation they are engaged in, are the ones that can be used to make the point.
You probably don't even know what I am talking about and that is the reason I say that RAAF pilots should stick to the military forums in matters such as these.
RAAF pilots never:
*have to be concerned about the economics of a fuel order.
*have schedule pressures (With the exception of the VIP squadron, hardly a "military" operation.)
*have to go cap in hand to their employer to gain a wage rise.
*have to worry about being undercut by someone for their next flying job.
*have to pay for their endorsements. (unless you count ROSO.)
* have their employer start up another operation with the SPECIFIC AIM of reducing their salaries.
You'll find out how the real world operates, as I did, in good order. Maybe we can see how quickly you change you views.

019360
27th Feb 2006, 07:41
Actually Sunfish is wrong on one point........the verdict on free trade was actually passed about 200 years ago! Protecting your "home"markets against foreigners is a tax on every consumer and a total disincentive to QF management to finally get it right.
How come,for example, they are the only major carrier in the world without the 777 or 340-500/600? Yes, I studied economics and I would love to see the ratio of dollars of fuel cost per occupied seat or per seat/mile on the 744 dinosaur laden QF compared with EVERY other major top 20 carrier in the world.
And if the SYD-LAX route is not being currently served so well (fares, services, frequency) then why not? There shouldn't be anything SIA can offer that QF isn't already doing......ummm...should there?
Beoing wouldn't have produced the 787 (want to fly that!) if Airbus hadn't been nipping at their heels. Vice versa too with the A350. That is what its all about. Study some history gentlemen.....protection destroys jobs. FACT!

confoutre
27th Feb 2006, 07:48
The reason they don't have the A340-500/600 is because they are a heap of sh!t.

Animalclub
27th Feb 2006, 08:28
Good point Rammel
So Animalclub... If the economics have improved then Continental, American, Northwest, Air Canada (through its CP/Canadian Airlines history) and Air NZ will imminently return to the Aust/trans-Pac route to get back on the gravy-train won't they?

Not necessarilly - they may still obtain better aircraft utilisation and/or economics elsewhere.

Just a small point. We (Australian Government) appear to let anyone operate across the Tasman. To use the arguments put forward in this thread (and I do not disagree with the majority of posters) why did we allow foreign carriers operate over these routes? If left to Australian and NZ carriers would things improve or be as good for the PASSENGER as well as the ANZ airlines?

Chimbu chuckles
27th Feb 2006, 10:52
Perhaps all you pro globalisation freaks might like to read some of the stuff on www.globalresearch.ca

It's a giant con designed to transfer maximum wealth into the hands of the few at the expense of the other 98% of the people on the planet.,,,and the charge is being led by US multinationals.:sad: :mad: :mad:

Particularly interesting is The Globalisation of Poverty by Chossodovsky

The faint moans of his daughter's cello practice barely break the hush of Michel Chossudovsky's household.

The kitchen, bathed in winter light, is gleaming. It is here, at a well-worn wooden table, that the University of Ottawa economics professor wants to talk.

The sunken-leather sofas of the living room -- with its gallery of African masks, Peruvian pottery, Chinese teapots and other treasures from some of the 100 countries he has visited --would be "too comfortable."

Stiff-backed chairs do feel more appropriate for the subject at hand: How poverty is increasing around the world and how this is not by accident, but by the design of a small, powerful banking and business elite at whose behest the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have provoked "economic and social collapse" in many countries.

The discussion is about widespread complacency toward what Mr. Chossudovsky calls a global financial crisis -- in which private speculators wield more power than governments over central bank coffers -- that may swerve into a crash far worse than the Dirty Thirties, jeopardizing pension and retirement savings funds.

It is about how so many people, expert and layman alike, accept a dominant "neo-liberal" economic dogma which makes suffering and sacrifice -- from unemployment and social service cuts in Ontario to mass destitution in Russia -- seem inevitable, if not justifiable and acceptable.

"Absurdity," he says. "I have difficulty in understanding why the dismantling or closing down of productive assets -- hospitals and schools -- could constitute the key to prosperity. But that is what is actually being conveyed. The official mainstream economic agenda is that you have to close down, downsize, lay off, and that is the key to prosperity."

Mr. Chossudovsky, a 52-year-old author who has learned to speak 10 languages and writes in three (English, French and Spanish), has persisted for three decades with an increasingly unfashionable perspective on world events.

It keeps him on the margins of mainstream commentary in Canada but wins praise from such equally anti-establishment social theorists as American Noam Chomsky.

He agrees to being described as having a leftist perspective, but emphasizes that he is not allied with any political party, including socialists, at home or abroad.

"One doesn't know who the socialists are any more because the socialists are all in favour of the neo-liberal agenda," he says. "If you look at socialists in Europe, what are they doing? They're adopting austerity measures. I wouldn't want to put a political label on myself because the neo-liberal consensus is supported by right-wing and left-wing parties alike, including the New Democratic Party."

Raised in Geneva, Switzerland, Mr. Chossudovsky followed in his father's footsteps by becoming an economist. But his father, a Russian emigre, made a career as a United Nations diplomat, while Mr. Chossudovsky put his economics training to use as a teacher and analyst. He came to the University of Ottawa in 1968, attracted by the promise of a bilingual lifestyle.

It was as a young visiting professor at the Catholic University in Santiago, Chile, that Mr. Chossudovsky's interest in "economic repression" was first pricked.

Augusto Pinochet's military junta, which overthrew Salvador Allende in 1973, quadrupled the price of bread and introduced other measures that would now be referred to as "a structural adjustment program."

Mr. Chossudovsky set out, with a doctor, to study the malnourishment resulting from the bread price hike. He wound up with a paper that held the Pinochet regime responsible not only for conventional forms of political repression but for "economic repression" that impoverished three-quarters of Chile's population.

Since then he has documented the purposeful impoverishment of people in dozens of countries. His latest book, the Globalization of Poverty, contains case studies of the collapse of economies and social structures in Somalia, Rwanda, Vietnam, India, Brazil, Peru, Russia and the former Yugoslavia. In some of these countries, IMF/World Bank intervention preceded violent conflict.

He refers often to "the hidden agenda" of the big banking and financial organizations. They orchestrate collapses, he says, by demanding payment of debt service charges and then lending money to cover the charges but only on condition the recipient country impose such measures as austerity, privatization and currency devaluation. The impact is usually destructive: mass shutdowns, huge unemployment, a wipeout of savings and pensions and purchasing power, a loss of social services.

Such economic shock therapy, he says, has pushed Russia, for one, "back to the medieval era," impoverishing millions of people, deepening the country's foreign debt, driving more than half the country's industrial plants into bankruptcy and allowing organized crime to flourish in the banking, real estate and other sectors of the economy.

Mr. Chossudovsky generally condemns "the criminalization" of the global economy in which increasingly large amounts of drug money and other illegally obtained funds are deposited in the world's 55 offshore havens, escaping taxation. The funds are laundered through an international banking system in which capital movement is easier than ever owing to the revolution in digital communications.

"This critical drain of billions of dollars in capital flight dramatically reduces state tax revenues, paralyses social programs, drives up budget deficits and spurs the accumulation of large public debts," he writes.

An end to offshore tax havens is one of the few solutions Chossudovsky advocates. He also says the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and commercial banks should not be allowed to "pillage" the central banks of troubled countries.

He is much stronger on description than prescription. But his descriptions alone constitute a defiance of mainstream economic scholarship in which "critical analysis is strongly discouraged."

It has not, however, stopped him from teaching for 30 years at U of O and as a visiting professor in several other countries, as well as publishing several books, the latest appearing in nine languages. And while the mainstream media in Canada do not publish his commentary, he is published frequently in Le Monde Diplomatique and smaller magazines that don't have investors or business advertisers.

Pass-A-Frozo
27th Feb 2006, 16:23
Borg:
We asked for proof, not propaganda I didn't present these figures or this article as being my own viewpoint? People wanted some figures to discuss and I provided some from a news article?? Hence why I pasted the entire article and it's source - as I do with other newspaper articles. I agree with some of it's content but I've not made mention of what parts.

Perhaps if you do some research you can find some information on market deregulation, globalisation and the net effects on national economies. (I'd suggest personally from something more mainstream)
As for your other "comments" regarding the military. I'll await some guidance from Woomera on how I can answer those. Several of the points you present I'll address if given the chance. However they relate more to points I'd make on your military service so I'll leave it at that till those on high speak!

As for your piece on unions - I'm not sure I can respond without taking Woomera offside. However I'll say one thing. You said how would letting SIA operate SYD-LA benefit Australian pilots? Oh that's right, you don't make you living as one do you? Neither incidentally does P-A-F, being a General Duties officer. Definition, an officer whos duties sometimes include flying aeroplanes.
Do you like picking fights with pilots who have more to be concerned about than trading esoteric economic points with amateurs?

How do you expect me to respond. If I say anything, all you do is say that "You've never worked for a major airline, and you're only someone who sometimes flies planes", and "I'm not interested in economics". I can't answer you if you don't want to talk economics because the answer lies in the field of economics. I thought the issue here was the economic effects of opening up an air route to competition? I'm quite happy to discuss the issue at hand - if given the chance! I thought that was the idea, to debate the issue rather than just dismiss my comments because you don't like my current form of employment.

Doesn't your logic that military pilots should only stay in the Military forum mean you should stick to threads that talk about say "work cycles down final" or "crosswind landing techniques" , and not post in threads that discuss globalisation, macroeconomic reform, and protectionism?? (leaving that to people who have an education in economics?) I don't believe that should be the case and I'm sure you'd agree!
I disagree with your logic personally.

[Edited for to early AM grammer / spelling :) ]

confoutre
27th Feb 2006, 18:49
I originally joined PPRuNE so I could chat with other pilots and keep up to date with what's going on in our world. I did not join so that I can be told by some plonker that my job is bad for the economy and we would be better off having some Singaporean doing it. It's a waste of my time and I don't think I'll be back. So I'd like to take this opportunity to pass on my greetings to those who want to export my job overseas - go fcuk yourselves! Au revoir.......



confoutre

Joined February 16, 2006; 16 posts. Didn't stay long did you?

And incase you were tempted to return, I made your departure rather permanent!

Sunshine Woomera

longjohn
27th Feb 2006, 19:19
To all the Free and Open market protagonists.

Singapore Airlines receives a massive competitive advantage against Qantas through its ability to secure greater reciprocal rights into Foreign Countries, rights which Qantas is unable to secure. I did not see any offer from the Singaporeans to trade off Landing slots in Heathrow or Paris in return for Syd - Lax. Is it fair competition that Qantas cannot get more than 3 slots a week into Paris whilst Singapore operates daily? Qantas has stated Paris (I am using this as an example) was uneconomical due to the lack of frequency.

Or consider Emirates, who not only enjoy the above mentioned advantages, but also a massive Government subsidy in the form of ZERO income tax. Net salaries for Emirates pilots are similar to Qantas, however the Australian government imposes a massive cost to Qantas in the form of income taxes for its employees, effectively increasing its wage bill by 35 - 40%!

The modern free world economic management is one of 'managing the market' through Fiscal and Interest rate intervention.. The Great depression proved that the market mechanisms of Supply and Demand alone are simply not enough.

Similarly, an unrestricted market would allow for the Monopolist, Oligopolistic etc. In that case Virgin Blue would have been history years ago and Jetstar would be unnecessary.

So bring on the free market I say, but a real free market with no interference whatsoever, then sit back and watch the chaos.

Desert Whine
27th Feb 2006, 20:16
Net salaries for Emirates pilots are similar to QantasAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA.........!!!!!!!Net salaries for Emirates pilots are similar to Qantas, however the Australian government imposes a massive cost to Qantas in the form of income taxes for its employees, effectively increasing its wage bill by 35 - 40%Do you understand the difference between NET and GROSS?

Income Tax doesn't increase the wage bill, it decreases the cash-in-hand (net) amount for the employee.Emirates, who not only enjoy the above mentioned advantages, but also a massive Government subsidy in the form of ZERO income taxCompanies pay "income tax"??? Since when?

Get ys facts straight. If you want to hear why EK is doing so well, I can give you an almost endless list of the advantages they enjoy.

They do NOT pay the same net value as Qantas pilots are paid, exept maybe the 737 guys.

Or would it be the DASH drivers.....??

Sunfish
27th Feb 2006, 20:49
I'm afraid some of you are demonstrating that old saw "Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit".

You care not one whit for Australian jobs, you simply care for your own, which is perfectly understandable. I expect that the pilots among you will avert your eyes and stand primly on the sidelines if QF's heavy maintenance is outsourced to China, as long as you are not affected.

It would be great if VB could start a Pacific run, but the logistics of doing so might be prohibitively expensive.


Woomera could we please lock this thread? Its going nowhere in particular.

Lodown
27th Feb 2006, 21:01
No! Don't lock it! It might not be winning proponents on either side to cross the fence, but it is enjoyable when someone takes a discussion so personally they take their bat and ball, deposits a four letter word in the place of rational debate and heads off to his or her bunker to fight off the big, bad globalisation hoardes and joust at windmills.

B A Lert
27th Feb 2006, 22:43
It would be great if VB could start a Pacific run, but the logistics of doing so might be prohibitively expensive.
.


Gee, Sunfish, maybe that's why Qantas finds it tough and doesn't need SIA (or anyone else for that matter) to muddy the water??

Reality bites?? :)

Gnadenburg
28th Feb 2006, 00:37
I'm afraid some of you are demonstrating that old saw "Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit".
You care not one whit for Australian jobs, you simply care for your own, which is perfectly understandable. I expect that the pilots among you will avert your eyes and stand primly on the sidelines if QF's heavy maintenance is outsourced to China, as long as you are not affected.
It would be great if VB could start a Pacific run, but the logistics of doing so might be prohibitively expensive.
Woomera could we please lock this thread? Its going nowhere in particular.
Rubbish again Sunfish.

I am far removed from your old saw. But despite my interests being unaffected, the surrendering of Australian jobs to Singaporean business, traitorous. And the nature of the Singaporian business practices, should leave no doubt that aviation jobs will be sent offshore.

Do you really believe SQ will have an Australian ( who has every right ) as a "Singapore Girl" ? Or do you believe they will wish to be burdened with high Australian taxation and employ locally?

Desert Whine

You are deluded by the Arab bread you take- there are significant benefits in EK not having to pay wages crippled with high Australian taxation rates.
Would you fly for EK if you had to pay 50% tax? No. Well that means EK pays a lot less than QF to attract skilled labour!

Herin is the REAL ISSUES facing Australia. Taxation reform to make efficient labour and business practices competitive in a heavily subsidised world!

Frozo

Hope you ain't taken the ugly road there mate.

Sunfish
28th Feb 2006, 02:54
Gnadenburg, you are forgetting that Australian jobs will also be created if SIA was allowed in by the increase in economic activity, granted Qantas may shed jobs (or they may not), but the key to understanding free trade is that removing protection creates more jobs than are lost from the formerly protected industries and a certain mathematician (whose name escapes me) won a Nobel prize for proving it theoretically.

To put it another way, why do you think unemployment is at a record low in Australia after 15 years of prying open the Australian economy?

None of you can say free trade has failed. You are all basking in what it has delivered. Cheap cars, electronics, food, clothes and consumer goods. Have any of you any idea what it was like growing up in Australia in the 1960's and marvelling at the quality of American cars, homes, clothes and consumer goods compared to what was available in good old protected Australia? You guys have no idea what you are talking about.

Maybe Qantas should use the Koala as its logo. Protected, slow moving, sleepy and high on gum leaves.

Gnadenburg
28th Feb 2006, 03:32
Sunfish

I don't promote protectionism. The issue here is SQ, or EK for that matter, flying the Pacific. As opposed to promoting Australian business in doing similar. The politicians know this, and I assume, that is why they are holding out to enable a Virgin start up. There will be more Australian jobs.

Keg
28th Feb 2006, 04:29
Sunfish, all things being equal, I don't think any of us are worried about 'competition'. In fact, bring it on. If we had equal taxation rates (both company and personal) and the ability to write off aircraft over three years instead of 30 then the QF dividend would have been much more significant, the airline probably would have expanded much more significantly over the last bunch of years and the outlook would be for many more services and thus creating the jobs you're talking about.

The reality is, 'all things' sure as hell ain't equal- from access rights to everything else. In fact, SQ could quite easily predatory price QF right off the LAX route- i'm not sure that the ACCCs reach would get through the border control at Changi let alone into the internal workings of SQ. That would leave us....precisely where we are now with one major carrier on the pacific. The difference is, now the profits and the jobs go to Singaporeans and not Aussies. What a great future that would be!

Buster Hyman
28th Feb 2006, 05:48
Unemployment at a record low...that's great news if you've got a full time job!

The increase in part-time employment over the last decade has occurred at a time of significant underlying changes in the economy and in society more generally. Some of these changes have affected the demand for part-time labour while others have influenced the supply.

The increase in demand for part-time labour is often associated with restructuring within Australia’s economy, and in particular the relative growth in service industries, the deregulation of the workplace and the introduction of new technologies.

The demand for part-time labour is concentrated in a small number of industries. In August 2001, 50% of part-time workers were employed in just three service industries: Retail trade, Health and community services, and Property and business services. These same industries accounted for only 31% of full-time employment.

Industries with higher proportions of part-time employment have accounted for most of the growth in total employment over the last decade. Those with smaller proportions of part-time employment have increased their total employment levels only slowly, or not at all. There were eight industry divisions in which part-time employment accounted for 20% or more of total employment in August 2001. These industries accounted for 79% (2.0 million) of the total part-time employment of 2.6 million, although they only accounted for just over half (52%) of full-time employment. Except for Agriculture, all of the industries belong to the service sector.

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/ef163e7fe2165aecca256b130075f601/Body/0.6074!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif

LookinDown
28th Feb 2006, 07:52
Thank you Buster,
There is employment ....and there is employment.

Part time work when it constitutes the main income source is full of holes- shorter term, lower pay rates (after consideration of full time benefits and conditions), engenders lower levels of job satisfaction, loyalty, long term commitment.

Worse still is the nature of that work. Its primarily in the service sector. How assured of a solid economic future is a nation of waiters. (No offence to all those waiting to help pay the rent).

B A Lert
28th Feb 2006, 08:54
Slightly off topic but as employment is being discussed, don't forget that you're not unemployed in Australia unless you work for pay for less than one (yes, one) hour per week.

How do the politicians and fat cats in Canberra get away with it???:yuk: :yuk:

BHMvictim
28th Feb 2006, 09:24
Guys, before you get too worked up about things, take a look around the threads on pprune. You may see that there are certain members whose primary reason for posting is to stir people up.

Different threads, competently different subjects, same old people getting their kicks out of deliberately “poking” people on a touchy issue.

Getting angry, swearing at them and calling them offensive/abusive names simply gets you banned by moderators (who seem to be biased). The Stirrers objectives are achieved.

Woomera
28th Feb 2006, 09:41
Yes BHMvictim, we are glad you now see certain posts in the same manner we do. Thanks for the support. :ok:

We have been tempted to close this thread, not because the topic is unworthy of debate, but simply because the debate from some users has become non existent! PPRuNe Dunnunda certainly has a small cadre of "rent a crowd" which inevitably stifles worthwhile debate by the majority.

:rolleyes:

Sunny Woomera

Buster Hyman
28th Feb 2006, 11:22
Yes, but it can be educational Moonshine W! Spent just a short time surfing to find some ABS stats. Learnt a few other things along the way...

We'll just wait for some opposing facts now....:confused: ....:hmm: .....:zzz:

019360
28th Feb 2006, 11:50
The company I work for doesn't outsource anything.They figure that if there's a buck to be made in maintenance or catering or reservations then they'll make it, not hand profits to someone else. Qantas could choose that route if they really wanted and I'll bet they would have the unions with them if they wanted.

But it is competition that stirs the collective management soul....not sloth or duopoly. I keep thinking that all of us know of those cosy "two airline" days....yet the grey hairs I see each morning remind me that was 20 years (ish) ago. It was truly horrible,stifling and anti-consumer....yet at the time so many senior people thought it right, as do many people in the "protect QF" brigade now. They were wrong then, they're wrong now.

BHMvictim
28th Feb 2006, 12:24
Yes BHMvictim, we are glad you now see certain posts in the same manner we do. Thanks for the support. :ok:Sunny Woomera

However, I still feel you are biased in favour certain users......

Taildragger67
28th Feb 2006, 13:45
Just dropping in from a page or two back discussing competition...

Like Keg says, bring it on; generally, we all benefit; but it has to be wide and remove pricing power from just one or two at the detriment of others.

However if there are all these supernormal profits to be made (as SQ and EK appear to argue), then why aren't some of the four other carriers (NW, CO, AA, NZ and I think AC also have fifth-freedom from the US under their open skies agreement (and their upcoming 777 service will not be from the US)) who actually have existing traffic rights on the route, using them? OK, at least one (AA) may have alliance restrictions, but that's a commercial decision on their own part to give up their capacity to an alliance partner - precisely because they don't think they can turn a quid on the route on their own. There might even be others that I'm not aware of (DL? US?). CO don't even come to Oz as part of their Micronesia network out of Guam.

Indeed doing it within an alliance framework would be the cheapest way as you can tap into an existing infrastructure.

In a wider sense, there is competition across the Pacific - Hawaiian, Air Canada, Air Pacific, Air Tahiti Nui and Air NZ will all sell you SYD-LAX tickets, but you'll have to connect. (Going to NY, Lan and Aero Argie are just as viable alternatives as, say, Korean or JAL are to London.) In that sense, it's little different to the London run - two dominant carriers (which are even in closer cahoots than what's on the Pacific run) and a few others doing a one-stop connect. If SIA are peeved about not being allowed onto the Pac run, then the corollary is that they should oppose anyone else operating to Sydney who might be able to offer a connection to London but they're strangely quiet. Indeed it seems that SIA are only interested in the LAX run, rather than wider USA or they'd be aggressively offering connections to NY on their SIN-NYC directs, where Cathay, Malaysian, JAL, Korean and Asiana are already also competing for Australian-origin business. So to say that SQ are interested in bringing in lots of US-origin business is a spurious argument as there are loads of one-stops from the East Coast (and some middle-America cities) available.

All the competition arguments are fine, but when there is a company which has lower ULCs and tax wanting to jump in, there is only one reason: to make money for their shareholders (read the Singapore government via Temasek). In fact that is their duty. If you want competition, fine - open it up full-tilt - 10 or so alternatives, so that none have monopolist pricing power. Letting only one or two in, who have deep (government-backed) pockets will lead to capacity dumping to get the price down and then it becomes a war of attrition. Lower fares in the short term, but then when you've all lost your jobs as the Rat can no longer play the game, up they'll go again, higher than before.

Can't happen?

History suggests it can. In the Australian context, that history is called 'Compass' and given the protagonists in that stoush, one can see why the Rat is understandably paranoid about someone with lower costs and taxes, a less transparent cost structure and more explicit government backing, getting on the route.

AUD 12k J/C to LAX against AUD 9k to London? Because that's what the market to the US will bear. If people didn't pay it, QF and UA wouldn't be able to charge it.

Sunfish
28th Feb 2006, 20:16
It seems my efforts here are regarded as misguided by the Woomeri. So I will cease them. If you want to understand why it is that I say your arguments against free trade are pointless and twenty years out of date, please go here and start reading. The entire world is working towards free trade and has been for at least 20 years.

http://www.wto.org/

Its general agreement on trade in services already covers aircraft maintenance, marketing and reservations systems. Liberalisation of air traffic rights is not covered by this, but its definitely on the agenda.

If you want to know what the real debate is, its about how to open markets to free trade without creating large scale economic chaos from job losses and restructuring.

Keg
28th Feb 2006, 23:18
If you want to know what the real debate is, its about how to open markets to free trade without creating large scale economic chaos from job losses and restructuring.

Whaddya think the rest of us have been saying Sunfish? :rolleyes: This' free trade' that you keep talking about in the aviation industry would cause a massive hit to the Australian economy and probably result in the replacment of a lot of highly skilled, highly paid jobs with lots of significantly lower paid, lower skilled jobs in the service industry. :yuk: :*

B A Lert
28th Feb 2006, 23:30
Whaddya think the rest of us have been saying Sunfish? :rolleyes: This' free trade' that you keep talking about in the aviation industry would cause a massive hit to the Australian economy and probably result in the replacment of a lot of highly skilled, highly paid jobs with lots of significantly lower paid, lower skilled jobs in the service industry. :yuk: :*


Lower pay is not synonymous with lower skill. You need to look no farther than the aviation industry to see that this is not the case. The guys that peddle 737s and A320s for Ryanair and Ezyjet are lower paid than their brothers at BA but as they all hold the same Govt issued licences, are the former any less skilled than the latter? Just to broaden the matter, next time you ask about a book at Borders or CD at the HMV shop or buy a cup of caffein at your favorite coffeee shop, also ask the service person his ir her educational and training levels. These guys aren't paid much but their education and traning, and by default, their skillls will amaze you. They are just unfortunate that they haven't had some of the breaks that the better paid in our midst have had.

Buster Hyman
1st Mar 2006, 00:27
They are just unfortunate that they haven't had some of the breaks that the better paid in our midst have had.
They could also be unfortunate that there are not enough jobs within their chosen field due to organisations competing under a FTA or open skies etc...

I think Keg's lower skill reference is not a sleight on the individual, rather a reference to the job types that will be replacing the higher skilled ones.

019360
1st Mar 2006, 02:23
One of the lessons that US deregulation showed was that the entry into the market by new competitors was what stimulated change. PanAm TWA and Eastern all at times had as much a claim as does Qantas now to be supported in some way....but the bottomline was that they were dinosaurs and died. Net high level airline employment has grown enormously despite that. This whole issue of contestable marklets is so well proved empirically that it makes Darwin's Theory of Evolution look very dodgy. Just think to yourself about how the world would be if Microsoft didn't have Apple and Linux nipping at its heels.
And in any case, if SIA put on a daily 777-200LR or -300ER on the SYD_LAX route.....how would that shrink jobs at Qantas? They wouldn't stop operating on the route would they? If SIA operated modern equipment like the 777 compared to the inefficient 744....overall costs on the route would fall and traffic would rise. It may well be that Singapore's entry wouldn't affect QF traffic much at all...certainly can't see how it would cost a single job. Please tell me?
Entrenched interests (that would include unions like AIPA and QF management and shareholders) have always had good emotive arguments to protect privilege. To allow those arguments to make their way into public policy-making is a vote for less employment and slower growth.

Sunfish
1st Mar 2006, 02:25
"This' free trade' that you keep talking about in the aviation industry would cause a massive hit to the Australian economy and probably result in the replacment of a lot of highly skilled, highly paid jobs with lots of significantly lower paid, lower skilled jobs in the service industry."

Keg, with the greatest of respect, you are micturating into the wind. The rest of the Australian economy has already gone through this transformation with the exception of a few agricultural products...and the airline industry.

Your arguments are exactly the same as the Car industry made.

I personally worked with the Australian tooling industry when they thought they had the same problem - their bogy was not SIA, it was "Chinese Tooling Manufacturers". Today the Australian tooling industry is bigger and healthier than ever and last I looked you could nt' find a young toolmaker skilled on CNC machines for under $80,000 per year.

Qantas will survive the entry of SIA and a whole lot of other airlines into the Australian market and furthermore it will be bigger, better, more competitive and more profitable as a result. You all say there are a stack of things that need changing at Qantas, God knows I say the same thing. Please understand that protection is really about refusing to change, or changing too slowly.

Please go away and read about the Button plan, by which the car industry was forced to lift its game.

B A Lert
1st Mar 2006, 03:25
".....Keg, with the greatest of respect, you are micturating into the wind. The rest of the Australian economy has already gone through this transformation with the exception of a few agricultural products...and the airline industry......"

For once, dear Sunfish, I have to agree with you but only certain parts of the aviation industry have not yet been transformed. Believe it or not, most ground staff have been 'put through the mill' several times over. Aircrew have largely escaped and that's why Qantas has had to look at softer options to bring them into the 21st century with the development of Jet* Australia and Jet* International.

The AIPA Certified Agreement is based on an award that has its genesis in a long and tawdry strike by Qantas pilots in 1966. Many of the conditions still enjoyed by Qantas pilots have gradually been taken from ground staff over the years - probably as they don't have the muscle to instanttly disrupt the airline. That aside, this current Agreement is so blody complex that one almost needs to be a Rhodes scholar to read it let alone make sense of it - when dowloaded from the AIRC( or whatever its now called), its size is 2.4Mb!!! Compare that to the simplicity of the VB and Jet* agreements. AIPA and its supporters don't like the thought but many of their T's and C's are so far out of date it ain't funny and are such that Qantas could not readily take on the likes of SIA on the Pacific.

Longhaul Cabin Crew also work to basic terms and conditions that are up to 30 plus years old. Qantas was able to partially overcome theese outdated conditions by introducing bases in Auckland, Bangkok and London but much still needs to be done.

Unless and until both of these work groups agree to modern working practices and terms of employment, the airline industry, from Qantas's perspective, will remain pretty much stuck in the rut in which it's been for years. Only after transformation of crew terms and conditions will Qantas be able to take on the world as the unions presently has one of Qantas's arms tied tightly behind its back.

019360
1st Mar 2006, 03:52
Well said BA,
And its not just the employees who could be "set free" from the past....I'll bet QF could run 50 777s for the daily cost or running 35 (ish) 747-400s.That's a lot more jobs. And I understand that most QF drivers and crews only see "other" airlines from their crew bus and out the windows of a Hilton somewhere. But the truth is that there are dozens of modern carriers out there, with good and growing records....who will slowly squeeze Qantas out of its markets if it does not get into the 21st Century....and so the "do nothing-rely on protection"strategy for QF simply delays the inevitable.

Taildragger67
1st Mar 2006, 08:33
Sunfish,

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the Australian airline industry had been deregulated; the fact that there are only two major carriers is more a factor of start-up economics and the limited size of local-market demand rather than policy.

BA Lert,

Are you sure that FR and Ezy techies are lower-paid than BA on similar types? This gets are regular airing on the main R&N.

And as for Auckland crew - those who fly Australian-flagged aircraft and then proceed to slag off everything Australian in the galley?

I return to my earlier post: there are already several airlines which have existing traffic rights across the Pacific. If there were all these great profits to be had, they'd be using them. Add in all the not-that-inconvenient connections and SQ's argument begins to spring a few leaks. They are not in business to be nice to the Australian tourism industry; they exist to make money and they simply see the Pacific as a cash-cow.

speedbirdhouse
1st Mar 2006, 08:52
BA Lert,

i'd be very gratefull if you would take the time to list the SPECIFICS of the "outdated" terms and conditions that Longhaul CC enjoy.

You make reference to the conditions of our offshore based crew as the "ideal"-

No increase pay beyond the basic even if they go from 190 hours to 249 hours worked per roster.

15 Days off out of 56 as a minimum.

Less than $1000 NZD per fortnight as a wage..............

You might be interested to hear that 30% of their base resigned last year.

"Ideal ?"

HotDog
1st Mar 2006, 09:20
Sunfish,
SQ's argument begins to spring a few leaks. They are not in business to be nice to the Australian tourism industry; they exist to make money and they simply see the Pacific as a cash-cow.

With their superior cabin service, that cash cow would have a very high yield of milk.:ok:

B A Lert
1st Mar 2006, 09:32
speedbirdhouse: I won't accept your challenge for very obvious reasons. You know and I know, in fact we all know, that there's a lot of inefficiencies and 'fat' in many of your work practices and terms and conditions of employment. That's the very raison d'etre for the off-shore bases. I do not say that these bases are ideal as I think we would all prefer that Qantas's entire cabin crew establishment be based in Oz; because of cost and inflexibility, it does not seem to be possible. You cite '15 days off in 56 days". Surely you mean 15 days at home every 56 days (and presumably this count excludes day of arrival and day of departure)?. Don't the slip days upline count as rest days? Let's get real - it really isn't as arduous as you suggest - try being a seven day shift worker at the Jet Base. And is the alleged attrition rate due to the way those at the off-shore bases are treated by a minority of Oz based 'colleagues?

BelfastChild
1st Mar 2006, 10:05
Just out of interest, can anyone out there tell me what proportion of SQs flights/passengers/revenues etc are derived from its current operations out of Australia? Or if not, does anyone know where I might look to find it. Thanks

speedbirdhouse
1st Mar 2006, 10:07
BALert,

tell us about the "obvious reasons" if backing up your broad bull**** statement is so difficult, will you...........

You might be interested to consider that a full time 9-5er will over a 56 day period have 8 weekends off not including flexi-days [if applicable].

Do you consider that our KIWI based FA have less than an earthling in the way off days at home???

How much difficulty do you think these people have developing and maintaining relationships, having families and lives outside work?

Perhaps you don't think they are entitled to such "luxuries" in the race for profitability?

Have you considered how much time at home after every trip is spent managing and recoverying from the effects of jetlag???

Leaving in droves because of the way Australian based FA's treat them?

You are a toad.

Oh BTW.

Do you think that its appropriate for our pilots to have similar "ideal ,time at home" conditions

Keg
1st Mar 2006, 10:40
Sunfish, Lert et al,

You still haven't answered the question. Sunny, [i[YOU[/i] were the one that made this comment:

...the real debate is, its about how to open markets to free trade without creating large scale economic chaos from job losses and restructuring

You highlighted the issue Sunfish. So how will that happen? I just agreed with the point that it would cause economic chaos. Tell me again why this is a good thing? Is this anything like the 'recession we had to have'? I also made the point that EVERYONE else agrees with that point too. You are the one who keeps banging on about 'free trade' and how we should have it. Then you say the real debate is how to do it without causing economic chaos (oops, sorry, make that 'large scale' chaos) from job losses and restructuring.

So go on grand master, you've defined the terms. What is the answer. Until you can give the answer, get back in your box.

4PW's
1st Mar 2006, 15:10
This is amazing. Sunfish, Lert et al, you malcontents are more see-through than polished glass. You must hate pilots, or our work conditions. Hatred and jealousy are sins. Not because hatred and jealousy stop you going to a mythical place called Heaven. Because it fecks with your head. Stops you thinking clearly. But hey, don't let that stop you regurgitating mantras from the latest management guru's book. Love the wto link, Sunfish. You're a real smart guy. Whiz kid. I could never have Googled that up without help. Hey, I know! Why don't you ask the Moderator to lock the thread again? Not going your way, and all. Too many PILOTS with views dissimilar to yours. And the rotters just won't LISTEN.

Animalclub
1st Mar 2006, 21:44
BALert,

You might be interested to consider that a full time 9-5er will over a 56 day period have 8 weekends off not including flexi-days [if applicable].

How much difficulty do you think these people have developing and maintaining relationships, having families and lives outside work?

Perhaps you don't think they are entitled to such "luxuries" in the race for profitability?

Have you considered how much time at home after every trip is spent managing and recoverying from the effects of jetlag???

Leaving in droves because of the way Australian based FA's treat them?

You are a toad.

Oh BTW.

Do you think that its appropriate for our pilots to have similar "ideal ,time at home" conditions

Surely speedbird you knew all about the lifestyle before you took the job. You CHOSE the lifestyle so don't use it in an arguement or debate. You can CHOOSE to get out of it.

Lagrange
3rd Mar 2006, 06:48
SIA is not coming on the Pacific. End of story. Maybe not!

QF generates a grand part of its profit from the pacific cashcow. Those long suffering warlords heading up the state propped airlines of the Land of the Free should re-focus. They dumped on the North Atlantic. Why not move to the Pacific. Johnny 10 years and Wazza cannot do anything to stop them. US airlines do not have to make a profit, they have received over $15 Billion in subsidies since September 11 (hang on, not another conspiracy - Chapter 11 / 911, isn't that some sort of emergency call? Quick Marg, we have to get to Canberra)

speedbirdhouse
3rd Mar 2006, 06:59
animal club,

the conditions are not my own.

I'm concerned however that others work under, what another poster has suggested are these "ideal" and quite frankly inhumane conditions.

Concern beyond ones own self interest?

Incomprehensible isn't it............?

lowerlobe
3rd Mar 2006, 07:37
“You know and I know, in fact we all know, that there's a lot of inefficiencies and 'fat' in many of your work practices and terms and conditions of employment. That's the very raison d'etre for the off-shore bases.”

BALERT now makes this statement concerning cabin crew and tech crew…

I wonder where he works and if he is confident that his job has no FAT and cannot and will not be outsourced like so many others maybe to India or Taiwan or mainline China.It is interesting when considering the possibilities when the shoe is on the other foot and you have a French dictionary or not.

Animalclub
3rd Mar 2006, 07:56
I'm pleased you are concerned about others conditions of work but what you stated really is about work LOAD not conditions.
animal club,
the conditions are not my own.
I'm concerned however that others work under, what another poster has suggested are these "ideal" and quite frankly inhumane conditions.
Concern beyond ones own self interest?
Incomprehensible isn't it............?
I'm sure that more than a few pilots as well as doctors, engineers and bureacrats (sp) etc. were involved in calculating what a pilot and other flying staff can do in certain situations and how it would affect his/her mental and physical health and way of life. I'm talking about cockpit and aircraft design, flying hours, duty hours, rules of flying, social life and so on.
I don't think pilots are questioning this at all (hey, I could be wrong). The majority love the job... I even had a pilot say to me that he should pay "Junior" for flying on one such "great day".
From reading the threads on PPrune it appears that their beef is with managements' attitude, pay scales, staff travel, inter airline rivalry, other pilots' attitudes and perhaps the lack of unity in the pilot group as a whole. Also the perception of work and conditions being taken from them. Look at the discussions on QF v Jetstar v Impulse... just one constant slanging match about money.
As I said... I could be wrong.

The_Cutest_of_Borg
3rd Mar 2006, 21:51
Lagrange, if the North American airlines decide to up their presence on the Pacific you will find no complaint from people like me. That is their entitlement.

Similarly, if VB decide to enter the market, you will also find no complaint from me.

Despite the attempted hijacking of this thread by the "free-traders", the argument has always been of the natural right of SQ to enter that market. In the current worldwide aviation regime, SQ have zero rights to that market. Pure and simple.

Change the regime and Sunfish et al will have a valid argument. Until then, to paraphrase my comment in other posts, SQ can get ****ed!

BelfastChild
3rd Mar 2006, 22:26
Have to agree with you C_O_B. I think there is nothing wrong with competition but why not leave it to the airlines that already have the rights. I don't see why SQ has to be the saviour of the Pacific route. And don't tell anyone tell me that they should get the rights because they are the only ones at the moment that want them. I am sure there are plenty of workers in China (about 1 billion of them, including the children) who would love to come and work in Australia, would probably work on the cheap, lower the wages bill for Australian companies, make them more competitive overseas etc. But there is one important thing - they don't have the right.

numbskull
4th Mar 2006, 08:07
Hey Belfast, its already hapenning in many industries- cheap overseas labour bought into the country for short term contracts. Don't be surprised if it happens in aviation as well.

Lagrange
4th Mar 2006, 23:37
Sort of amazing really. Competition is great, I am all for it, bring it on. But we can't have SIA on the route, they are successful and they will take market share from QF. I think that is a realo precis of thyis thread.

Customers want SIA. Customers are important stakeholders in any airline. They are the ones with free choice between different service- price offers and provide the real judgement between airlines. We should listen to them, not emotional ***** outbursts by non-customers!

QF cannot even hold it's own as the national carrier in its own playground. Doesn't that tell you something?

GD talks about competition, if he had had any he would have been fired long ago.

qcc2
5th Mar 2006, 05:08
not a great friend of gd i might say but lag you are up there with the pixies. facts are if little jonnie would give qf the same corporate tax rate as sq,i think it is 25%, let qf write ofthe aircraft in 3 years instead of 10 or more and provide airport support. the singapore government works together with singairport and singair, not like maqairport which is trying to screw every airport customer. that would save qf around 1 billion a year and then i say lets bring competition on. why doesn't singair fly to auckland, christchurch, wellington from sydney or melbourne (they have the rights).they cant see making any money on those routes. they only want to cherrypick.:ok:

Lagrange
5th Mar 2006, 09:32
qcc2 SIA are delivering what the market wants ex NZ, direct services to SIN ex AKL and CHC. Why operate via SYD or MEL? Rather than fighting to restrict competition, perhaps GD should be lobbying Peter the Penny Minder for tax concessions. Maybe then we could all benefit through tax relief (now that is being away with the fairies!). UA does not provide real competition, nor would any other US airline. Real competition (SIA) would generate growth on the route through better fares. That is not cherry picking, it is being commercially savvy.

missy
5th Mar 2006, 11:43
Why don't SQ provide the services for another carrier that has rights, eg Continental, North West, American, Air New Zealand?

qcc2
5th Mar 2006, 21:04
lagrange sq has more or less unlimited access to oz's capital cities. they sure have an advantage in getting better access to various european capital cities. being commercial savy or as i would call it just cherry picking is not the answer. sq does not invest in the community, bring capital to australia, pay taxes and so on.it only employs few ground and sales staff. all they want is to take the cream. not if i can help it. :E

Animalclub
6th Mar 2006, 06:17
Seems we aren't the only country with a not nice aviation situation.

Following is from Trevor Michies PNG Gossip Newsletter.

** Royal Brunei **

It has been reported that Royal Brunei and other airlines are considering flying to PNG under the open skies policy to compete with the National Flag Carrier - Air Niugini. It is tipped that if these airlines do take up the opportunity that they will only take up the lucrative and profitable overseas routes.

Sunfish
6th Mar 2006, 20:19
Does anyone here remember why we had "the recession we had to have"?

The answer is that we had thirty years of protection, convoluted tax concessions for all sorts of industries, marketing "arrangements", anyone remember the egg board? The milk board? All those marketing authorities? All of it propping up an unsustainable wage setting system?
The economy was sclerotic, scarred, a mess, whatever you want to call it, just like New Zealands before Lange pulled the pin.

I would suggest to you that your views of Qantas as a "special case" are understandable. Your desire to avoid competition is understandable. But the longer you leave things without changing the worse the inevitable change is going to be for you when the community finally forces the government to open the skies....As it will one day.

qcc2
7th Mar 2006, 02:02
Your desire to avoid competition is understandable. But the longer you leave things without changing the worse the inevitable change is going to be for you when the community finally forces the government to open the skies....As it will one day.
lets put this in perspectice.
there are around 40 airlines competing internationally in/out of australia.
used to be more then 50 but the rest pulled out because of not making any/little profits.
many others continue flying to oz however in commercial terms they make no money.
government subsidies allows them to continue distorting the true picture.
the only country in the world which has allowed a foreign company to set up an airline (virgin).
Nowhere in the world can you just rock up and set up an airline. not in Europa, US or in Asia.
those of you going to refer to j* asia, reminder it is 51% owned by singapore interests, including temasek holding the governments investment arm. and they sure as hell have a lot to do where j* asia flies too.
qantas would like to have more access in europa, india, china, via hongkong, shanghai, peking etc., however cant get to the end destination.
to survive this surreal environment airlines (like the oldest trade in the world)go to bed with anyone on any route as long as it works for both (make money).QF with LH star alliance, QF with AF skyteam, QF with SAA star alliance, and so on. thats called reality.
middle east airlines (emirates, ethiad, qatar), have the largest orders of aircraft out there. if you analyze their financial position,where each of their chairman controls the local CAA, Airports, and the airline, and then has the benefit of no corporate tax, subsidised oil. add access to any destination in Europa, US, Australia and Asia.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE A REAL COMPETITION AGAINST THOSE SETUPS?

Sunfish
7th Mar 2006, 03:02
Gcc, with the greatest of respect, I don't know how you are going to compete, but I am sure you will compete and do just fine.

The rest of Australian industry has to put up with exactly the same situation, its not just airlines. Look at China artificially holding down the value of the Yuan. Look at the subsidies Airbus receives from the european union. Look at U.S. airlines and their "chapter 11" shedding of union agreements and pension schemes.

Qantas is not alone in not wanting to compete with competitors who seem to be unfairly advantaged, but its the same in any market. However I submit that you have no long term choice but to allow open skies because not doing so disadvantages the rest of the Australian Economy by saddling it with higher transport costs that make our products less competitive.

I'm sorry, its basic economics. It does work. Please don't shoot the messenger. The problem for Qantas is that its been insulated for so long from real competition it has trouble understanding that the rules are changing.

lowerlobe
7th Mar 2006, 04:03
Sunfish,

With your hollow logic and repetitive rhetoric you are sounding more and more like one P.Keating....eg the recession we had to have etc...

qcc2
7th Mar 2006, 06:20
nothing personal, but lets face it since QF has been a private company some ten years ago there is little protection. as you would know sq,cp,ek and others have almost unlimited access to oz. so do most european and Us airlines. there are other competitors who have the opportunity to compete on the US sectors but choose not to do so. going back to sq they also had the opportunity to invest long term into oz but choose not to do so. qantas can compete on a wage level with most carries but not with taxrates, depriciation etc.as i said cherry picking is the name of the game:E

Lagrange
7th Mar 2006, 11:05
qcc2, mate it is called the real world. The customers want SIA. Why, because the big Q cannot provide what they want. You can hide from competition for only so long. When it comes, the Q will wilt and die.

Any airline that cannot command its home market is dead!

Taildragger67
7th Mar 2006, 13:34
Lagrange you miss qcc2's point. SQ have Fifth Freedom rigts across the Tasman, but they don't take them up because they wouldn't make money on them.

I go back to my earlier point - if there was sooooooo much money to be made across the Pacific using first-world business models, then why wouldn't the first-world airlines who ALREADY HAVE TRAFFIC RIGHTS ON THE ROUTE be using them?

The only way a non-first-world carrier can make a buck on the route is by employing its lower cost base.

And that might be competition, but it's UNFAIR competition.

Take away the subsidies and equalise the tax and then I suggest qcc2, myself and others would be all for it.

And what the blazes do they want the rights for anyway??!! Because they see it as easy money. It'd be like United deciding to operate to Jo'burg out of Sydney. No actually that'd be more logical as it'd just be an extension... let's see... it'd be like UA deciding they wanted to go to HK or Tokyo out of Sydney. No logic to it, aside from wanting to rip someone else off.

Real competition would be great as it would lower prices. But they want in, so they can charge the same (or not that much lower) fares and just make $$$. Their directors have a duty to do just that in that they have a duty to maximise returns to shareholders. You can bang on about 'better for the punter' all you like but that's the commercial reality.

There is an avenue available to SIA and that is to set up an operation under an Australian AOC; they're competent enough, they'd get it and there is a clear precedent to an Australian-incorporated airline being 100% owned by offshore interests (my, didn't that work well... ). But that would jack the costs up to a first-world level, thus taking away their advantage. And that says it all.

Animalclub
8th Mar 2006, 02:14
It'd be like United deciding to operate to Jo'burg out of Sydney. No actually that'd be more logical as it'd just be an extension... let's see... it'd be like UA deciding they wanted to go to HK or Tokyo out of Sydney. No logic to it, aside from wanting to rip someone else off..

Not quite right... PA811 operated LAX - HNL - then other Pacific Isands - SYD - HKG to connect with their PA1 around the world to BKK - DEL - Tehran - Beirut - IST - FRA - LON - NYC. However SYD - HKG flights ceased when flights started to operate with fewer stops and better connections between Australia and Europe. That was in the days of fares being controlled by IATA!

Although United operate RTW via HKG I very much doubt whether they'd apply for SYD or MEL - HKG rights due to the above.

qcc2
8th Mar 2006, 02:42
around 65% of the home market is going to put qf out of business? interesting economics, wouldn't you agree. sq competes already on many sectors out of oz. result some 7/8% of the outbound / inbound market, i think that says it all for your comment customers want sq.:E
read this little beauty. this should help you sleep well tonight.
Free Flow: An airline deregulator has second thoughts
By Don Phillips International Herald Tribune

The U.S. Congress would have killed airline deregulation a quarter-century ago if lawmakers had known the effect it would have on employees, taxpayers and smaller cities, according to a man who helped make the bill into law.

Tom Allison, then the chief counsel to the Senate Commerce Committee, said the movement to allow open competition and remove restrictions on where airlines could fly, now spreading through Europe and Asia, would prove to be the right move over time. But it has produced so much disruption and expense, he said, that no member of Congress would have dared vote for it back in 1980 if they had had a clear view of the future. And he said he wished Congress had added significant human and financial protections to the law.

Allison, now a semiretired attorney living in Seattle, contacted the International Herald Tribune after reading a Free Flow column about Jeffrey Shane, a top Transportation Department official who is shepherding a series of regulatory changes designed to open U.S. and European skies to much greater airline competition. At the same time, European airlines would be allowed to invest significantly in U.S. airlines without some of the current restrictions.

Allison and Shane worked together on the U.S. deregulation bill in 1979 and 1980, shortly after Allison left his position as a Senate staff member to take up a job in President Jimmy Carter's administration as general counsel for the Transportation Department. Shane was then assistant general counsel for international affairs.

Allison said that he had a great deal of respect for Shane and that they both worked hard in 1979 and 1980 to shepherd deregulation through Congress, but he said, "I don't think Congress would have passed deregulation if they had known what would happen."

The public now sees the effects mainly as lower airfares between big cities, but it fails to understand some of the serious human and other costs of deregulation, he said.

"I had no idea these things would occur," Allison said.

Airline employees in particular have suffered because of deregulation, he said. In many cases, salaries have been cut and retirement benefits slashed, he said, and unemployment has risen in the industry even as the frequency of service increases.

Passengers may think they received a bargain with deregulation, and fares have stayed relatively low on many routes between major cities around the world, he said. But many small cities have lost air service entirely, and the cost of flying to medium-size cities is much higher than it used to be, he said.

"It's cheaper to fly to Paris than to Missoula," Montana, he said.

Despite all the freedom, airlines are also in terrible financial condition, and many are in bankruptcy or just emerging from bankruptcy, he said. At the same time, passengers suffer from a loss of service quality, he added.

"It's not as nice as it used to be," he said.

One thing that many people overlook, including politicians, is the massive shift of airline pension debt to the public, he said. Years ago, the United States set up the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation to guarantee that pensions would be paid even if a company went bankrupt or went out of business.

The original expectation was that this government body would pay out a relatively small amount of money and that a lot of that money would be made up by seizing the assets of bankrupt companies.

But apparently, no one counted on the dumping of billions of dollars in pension obligations by major transportation companies. U.S. transportation companies may go bankrupt under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy law, which does not result in a shutdown but instead protects the company from creditors while the company reorganizes. Thus, transportation company pensions may be dumped on the government with no real way to recoup federal costs.

"A private cost is shifted to a public cost," he said.

Allison said he would never go back to the days of strict regulation, but if he could do it over he would add more safeguards for workers and the public.

"I don't think you could go back," he said. "Once you scramble the egg, it's scrambled."

Sunfish
8th Mar 2006, 02:53
Gcc, I have never said customers want SQ, EK etc. What customers want is competition. - Real competition, not with one party with one arm tied behind its back.

The one concession that the government should have made to Qantas in return for letting in SQ and all comers is the removal of the 49% cap on foriegn ownership. This would have allowed you access to cheaper capital and debt so that you can get your weighted average cost of capital and debt servicing costs down to something like your competitors.

Taildragger67
8th Mar 2006, 16:59
Animalclub...

ok bad example. A better one might be UA deciding they wanted to operate SYD-EZE.

My point is that SQ want in simply to milk someone else's profitable route when there's no other logical reason for them to be there - it'd not be on their way to anywhere. How about they ante up that QF can muscle in on their most profitable sector? How about a couple of Rat tails doing SIN-KUL or SIN-NRT runs all day?

Anyway the decision's been made. Now we can all get some sleep.

Animalclub
9th Mar 2006, 02:36
QF used to (may still do) operate between HKG and SIN (or was that HKG BKK) as an extension of the SYD HKG service. Did SIN withdraw the rights?