Tiger Airways Objects to Qantas-Jetstar Asia Tie-Up

[Wirraway]

Thurs "Bloomberg"
Singapore's Tiger Airways Objects to Qantas-Jetstar Asia Tie-Up
May 18 (Bloomberg) --

Tiger Airways Pte, the low-fare carrier owned by Singapore Airlines Ltd., said it has asked the Australian authorities not to approve a request from Qantas Airways Ltd. to cooperate with Jetstar Asia.

Qantas is seeking approval from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to work together with Singapore-based Jetstar Asia, which is 49 percent owned by the Australian carrier, Tiger Airways said in an e-mailed statement today.

Tiger Airways was responding to a report by the Straits Times today that Orangestar, the holding company of Jetstar Asia and Valuair Ltd., signed an agreement on April 21 that would allow Qantas to run the two Singapore-based airlines.

The airline "has asked not to approve the request by Qantas to engage in such activities or at least ensure that appropriate safeguards are imposed to ensure that airlines such as Tiger Airways remain able to compete effectively'' against the combined entity, Tiger Airways said in the statement.

It is also concerned that the arrangement "will work against consumer interests and could stifle competition,'' the carrier said.
Tiger will ask the Singaporean authorities to ensure air rights are not awarded to Jetstar Asia, should it co-operate with Qantas, it said.

Jetstar Asia in July last year agreed to merge with discount airline Valuair to help it compete against at least 18 low-fare carriers flying in Southeast Asia, targeting a market of 550 million people
====================================================

[go_dj]

Hmmm, get the impression Singapore Inc has had a gutfull of QF/Jetstar, maybe the answer for Jetstar Asia is to move out of Singapore to a more friendly base e.g.
Bangkok, Manila, or Hong Kong.

[B A Lert]

Three simple words sum up this situation: pay-back time.

Don't you all admire the way Tamesek Holdings invests with an interest in Jetstar Asia and an interest in Tiger and SIA and then plays off one against the other? What sort of ethices do these people have? Uniquely Singaporean I guess. :rolleyes:

[Snowballs]

Smutocracy is a facade for democracy
By Michael Backman (The Age)
May 17, 2006
Singapore's first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, 82, now Minister Mentor, is seen by some as the greatest impediment to genuine democracy in Singapore.
WHEN will Lee Kuan Yew die? Sadly, that is the question now on the minds of many Singaporeans. At 82, Lee retains a cabinet post, with the title Minister Mentor, continues to dominate the Government and shows no sign of quitting. But many believe that although he has done much for Singapore, he is now the greatest impediment to reform, and that little can change until after he is gone.
Last week, Lee admonished the younger generation for not fully supporting the People's Action Party at the elections the weekend before. It's a usual claim: young Singaporeans are insufficiently grateful for all that the older PAP leaders have done for them in developing the economy. It's as if a country's progress should be measured only by material comfort. The problem for Lee is that young people in other developed countries have money and freedom of expression. But in Singapore, all they have is money. Young Singaporeans are beginning to see that a gilded cage is a cage, nonetheless.
To combat this growing restiveness, Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong * Lee's son * talks of political regeneration in his efforts to make the PAP appeal to younger people. But it's the same old tricks, if last week's elections are anything to go by. The ruling PAP won two-thirds of the votes. The real surprise is that it didn't win by more, given all the petty restrictions designed to head off opposition.
The PAP faced two main opposition parties: the Singapore Democratic Party and the Workers' Party. The SDP's leadership was hit with a series of defamation writs from the two Lees soon after the elections were called. It managed to win one of the two seats not won by the PAP.
The Workers' Party won the other seat. James Gomez, one of its leading candidates, blamed the elections department for losing one of his required polling forms at the start of the campaign. He moderately chastised a member of the department's staff for the apparent loss. But it turned out he had put the form in his brief case and had left the building without lodging it. He claimed this was an oversight * he was distracted * and he publicly apologised. But the PAP accused him of attempting to set up the elections commission.
The incident dominated the nine-day campaign. The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, other ministers and the Government-controlled media raised it repeatedly. The highly litigious Lee Kuan Yew publicly labelled Gomez a liar.
The day after the election, Gomez was detained at Changi Airport. His boarding pass and passport were confiscated and police questioned him for eight hours. The next day he was questioned for five hours. A day later he was questioned for another three hours. That's 16 hours of police questioning over whether or not he intentionally put something in his brief case. The Public Prosecutor announced on Friday Gomez would not be charged but would be let off with a "stern warning".
Certainly, it's true that integrity is important in politics. That's why so many people were surprised back in 1996 when it was revealed that Lee Kuan Yew and many family members had accepted large discounts on a series of expensive apartments in Singapore from a local property developer, on whose board sat one of Lee's brothers. Lee and Lee Hsien Loong received more than $S1 million ($A829,000) in discounts, discounts that were in excess of the usual discounts offered in the market.
The company was later censured by the local stock exchange for not seeking shareholder approval for favourable transactions with related parties.
Lee has claimed that the election result demonstrates to foreign investors that Singapore is politically stable, which is good for business.
But his argument is simplistic. North Korea is politically stable but who wants to invest there? And Australia periodically changes government, has a free media and attracts plenty of investors, including many from Singapore.
But how good is Singapore, really? As every expatriate in Singapore knows, Singapore's media is appalling. Sex is covered endlessly. Rape and incest cases are described in unnecessary minutiae, as are instances of alleged sexual deviance ("Oh, isn't it dreadful?" is the line usually taken before the incident is recounted in slavish detail.) In essence, Singaporeans are fed a regular diet of soft porn, perhaps as compensation for precious little political debate. That's not democracy. It's smutocracy.
Academic freedom is also stunted. Daniel Bell, a prominent writer and academic who has taught at universities in Singapore and Beijing, writes in the latest issue of the respected intellectual journal Dissent that for him, "China is a paradise of academic freedom" after Singapore. The governments of both countries practise media censorship but after a newspaper in China ran some of his comments in an interview, but not others, the editor rang him to apologise. Not so in Singapore, where according to Bell, "public humiliation is a more common tactic for dealing with those who do not toe the party line". Singapore might be rich but it is out of step.
Meanwhile, Thailand faces fresh elections after the Thai courts declared invalid those that were held last month. Prime Minister Thaksin had called the elections due to huge public disapproval of the sale of his family's massive telecommunications assets to an arm of the Singapore Government. Tax changes meant that his family saved millions on the sale.
And this weekend there are elections in the wealthy Malaysian state of Sarawak. The family of Chief Minister Abu Taib Mahmud has accumulated hundreds of millions of dollars in timber concessions and public works contracts while he has been in office. No doubt he is heading for a landslide win. Stability is indeed good for business.

['aveagoodknight]

and then plays off one against the other?

Oh, you mean like an Australian airline that plays itself off in a similar fashion?

[Ndicho Moja]

If you believe the Singaporean and Australian aviation press writers, then you will know that Qantas owns about 49% and Tamasek 51% of Jetstar Asia. Tamasek own a major portion (if not all) of Singapore Airlines, who, in turn, own a major(?) portion of Tiger Airways. Singapore Airlines are into SilkAir as well. Which pot is calling whose kettle....you know the saying.
The management of Tiger Airways went out of their way, yesterday, to say that Tiger intentionally does not ply the same routes as the major carriers(SIA,Cathay etc.). Where as JetStar does. As a result Tiger appears to be steaming ahead with new routes and aircraft orders, whereas JetStar Asia is marking time and has contracted the size of its fleet and pilot numbers.
Recently the Management of Tiger was quoted in the Singapore press (paraphrase here), that if JetStar Asia are having troubles and there are any routes that JetStar Asia wished to relinquish, then Tiger Airways was ready to take over those routes.(Mischievious, in this writer's opinion).
So, after all that, I think that JetStar is absolutely no threat to Tiger and Tiger management are making a noise for the sake of it and again being mischievious. I do feel that aligning JetStar, JetStar Asia, Qantas and JetStar International will be a massive life line for JetStar Asia.

[404 Titan]

Or it will be a massive noose around the Qantas groups neck. But hey GD won't care because he will have long gone and taken his fat bonus with him.

[Phil Squares]

If you believe the Singaporean and Australian aviation press writers, then you will know that Qantas owns about 49% and Tamasek 51% of Jetstar Asia. Tamasek own a major portion (if not all) of Singapore Airlines, who, in turn, own a major(?) portion of Tiger Airways. Singapore Airlines are into SilkAir as well. Which pot is calling whose kettle....you know the saying.
The management of Tiger Airways went out of their way, yesterday, to say that Tiger intentionally does not ply the same routes as the major carriers(SIA,Cathay etc.). Where as JetStar does. As a result Tiger appears to be steaming ahead with new routes and aircraft orders, whereas JetStar Asia is marking time and has contracted the size of its fleet and pilot numbers.
Recently the Management of Tiger was quoted in the Singapore press (paraphrase here), that if JetStar Asia are having troubles and there are any routes that JetStar Asia wished to relinquish, then Tiger Airways was ready to take over those routes.(Mischievious, in this writer's opinion).
So, after all that, I think that JetStar is absolutely no threat to Tiger and Tiger management are making a noise for the sake of it and again being mischievious. I do feel that aligning JetStar, JetStar Asia, Qantas and JetStar International will be a massive life line for JetStar Asia.

Suggest you do a little bit more fact checking. Temasek Holdings owns 19% of Jetstar Asia, QF owns 49.9% and two investor own the remaining 32%.

Temasek holdings owns 56.46% while the remaining shares are owned by various investors.

Major Shareholders
(as at 31 Mar 2006) Number of shares %
1 Temasek Holdings (Pte) Ltd 691,451,172 56.46
2 DBS Nominees (Pte) Ltd 145,996,202 11.92
3 HSBC (Singapore) Noms Pte Ltd 93,069,258 7.60
4 DBSN Services Pte Ltd 69,049,417 5.64
5 Citibank Nominees (Singapore) Pte Ltd 45,685,313 3.73
6 Raffles Nominees Pte Ltd 28,644,529 2.34
7 United Overseas Bank Nominees 20,658,408 1.69
8 Morgan Stanley Asia (Singapore) 4,901,887 0.40
9 Chang Shyh Jin 4,208,000 0.34
10 Merrill Lynch (Singapore) Pte Ltd 3,650,426 0.30
Total 1,107,314,612 90.41

[Ndicho Moja]

Thank you, and perhaps I stand corrected. Do these figures reflect the last $36million share issue of which ,the last I heard, had been subscribed by 80%...probably by Qantas and Tamasek.
Having said that, I did start my posting by saying " If you believe the ...aviation press".

[Phil Squares]

Thank you, and perhaps I stand corrected. Do these figures reflect the last $36million share issue of which ,the last I heard, had been subscribed by 80%...probably by Qantas and Tamasek.
Having said that, I did start my posting by saying " If you believe the ...aviation press".


Those are all the latest figures that do supposedly include the latest share offering.

While Temasek owns the majority of SQ they are pretty much a "silent" investor. In reality, they don't really exercise much control. However, they do expect a very "healthy" return each year.

I honestly think the Singapore government through the Tiger will object to any tie in with Jetstar Asia and QF simply as a means of payback for the OZ-USA route denial.

I agree about the "aviation press" remarks.

[NZLeardriver]

Wont Qantas be restricted by their OneWorld tie-ups? I thought that was why Qantas stopped regional flying in SE Asia in the first place.

[Buster Hyman]

young Singaporeans are insufficiently grateful for all that the older PAP leaders have done for them
Sounds like a PAP smear campaign...

[faheel]

Yeah, make sure you proof read it before you submit first ! ;)

[mt050204]

Yeah, make sure you proof read it before you submit first ! ;)

haha whoops.. well you know what i mean!

[Bolty McBolt]

.
While Temasek owns the majority of SQ they are pretty much a "silent" investor. In reality, they don't really exercise much control. However, they do expect a very "healthy" return each year.


You are kidding. SQ is Minister Mentor’s baby and he meddles often. Or have you forgotten how head of pilot union/assoc was sacked after rattling a sabre at SQ management.

[Ndicho Moja]

Again, in today's Business Times, Australian ACCC (competion and consumer commission) have agreed to QF/JQ/J*Int/Orange Star arrangements, subject to....etc, etc. And we all know how the local authorities loove competition!!:oh: did I say that?

[Shot Nancy]

Or have you forgotten how head of pilot union/assoc was sacked after rattling a sabre at SQ management
I heard that his right to abode in Singers was revoked, they didn't sack him but he could no longer work there. Problem went away, face was saved.

[Bolty McBolt]

Shot Nancy..Call it what you like but you can bet minister mentor was involved.

[Metro man]

Singapore doesn't like militant unions, there are unions which are more like workers clubs and only go so far in disputes with the company. Strike, picket line what's that ?

If wanting to go there to work know how thing are done if you don't find it acceptable don't go. Many other countries are anti union, especially in the middle east.

It's Singapores train set, their rules if you want to play with it.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Buster tell me that was an inadvertant pun! PLEASE:}

[Animalclub]

Simbu Man

Having enjoyed Buster's previous posts and humour I'd say that it was done on purpose!!!