QF sale Poll

[Much Ado]

Keep it civil...I'll close the other thread.

Much Ado

[ernestkgann]

I don't think the question is a good one. What might be good for Australia, may not be good for QANTAS and vice versa.

[Fliegenmong]

Can I still beat up on Victorians though?:} :E

[Pete Conrad]

At the end of the day it comes down to branding....what value do you put on a brand like QF? And do you lose the support of that brand if it falls into the wrong hands and is percieved by the public as but a stingy vehicle for a lot of already wealthy airline executives to get even wealthier and a means of allot of loyal airline employees getting burnt.

Time will tell.

[Howard Hughes]

Pete,
Isn't that what Qantas is already?;)

[Pete Conrad]

Howie...my point exactly.

[capt.cynical]

Much Ado,
I think your questions are a little off balance.

In essence you have 1 positive and 2 negative responces to choose from.
May I suggest you strart again (poll 2) and ask if If it is good for the shareholders as well.
You may find a different spread of replies.:ok: ;)

[Merlinrabbi]

SYDNEY — Australia again ruled out opening up Qantas' coveted trans-Pacific route, quashing rumours that rival carriers might gain access once the "Flying Kangaroo" is taken over by a private equity group. Transport Minister Mark Vaile said the flag-carrier's lucrative Sydney-to-Los Angeles route would remain off limits for several years to airlines other than Qantas and Australian discount flyer Virgin Blue.
"It would be a number of years before we revisit that," Mr Vaile told The Australian newspaper.
His comments followed speculation that Canberra might revise its Feb 2006 decision to bar rival carriers from the route after the Qantas board last month accepted an A$11-billion ($13.2-billion) takeover bid.
Qantas earns as much as 20 per cent of its profits from the trans-Pacific route and the government cited it as a "key national asset".
Singapore Airlines has campaigned for more than a decade for access while the Singapore government pressed for an "open skies" deal as part of the free trade agreement that the two countries signed in 2003.
Mr Vaile said that he was committed to allowing Virgin Blue to launch flights to the United States from the middle of 2008 without extra competition. — AFP
=============================================
Comments? :E

[capt.cynical]

Merlin,
Old news,wrong thread....!!!!!!!!:ugh: :uhoh: :=

[Much Ado]

Capt cynical as QF shareholders own QF I dissagree...if you think it's good for shareholders vore yes...it seems we are told often enough that they are the only group who count.:ugh:

[capt.cynical]

Capt cynical as QF shareholders own QF I dissagree...if you think it's good for shareholders vore yes...it seems we are told often enough that they are the only group who count.:ugh:
Point taken Ado,if that is the case why
not just ask the first 2 Q's and leave the 3rd.out.
As I said it is a question of balance..!!
The 3rd question invites predjudices.:)

[Defenestrator]

I really don't. Is it a good thing? I'm not around much of the time to hear whats being sprouted in the press :yuk: so much of my understanding of the situation is gathered from what I read here. Are fellow Ppruners capable of putting down their thoughts, both for and against, in point form so that minows like myself can make a remotely accurate voting decision. Just a thought.
D

[cunninglinguist]

:D Pete, first post in a long time ( possibly ever ) that has'nt involved a derogatory comment about Porn* :D
......ointment and therapy working ? or just upped the alchohol intake? :rolleyes:

PS I voted the 3rd option

[para adams]

Notwithstanding the limitations imposed by the question I voted "no".
Why is the takeover not a good thing for Q and Aust?
Q - Q is the shareholders of Q Ltd. They are being offered $ now for a company which the Equity Funds expect and require a return on capital of > 15%. According to GD the business plan he and his team have developed and are presently undertaking has been embraced by the Equity Fund group and will be carried out. If the plan is to be carried out anyway and will deliver the capital returns required then shareholders would get a better return for their invested funds if they did not sell. But, the Equity Funds are replacing $11b share capital with $8b borrowd funds and $3b capital on which interest has to be paid. Accordingly, if the business plan is so good to satisfy the Funds then the offer is not good enough for s/h as it deprives them of the future growth. If the business plan is not as good as thought then drastic measures will be taken to achieve the required return. This would also not be good for Q.
Aust - Aust will only get a benefit if the special privileges presently enjoyed by Q are withdrawn. Minister Vaile has announced that this will not happen. Accordingly, no tangible benefit can be seen to accrue to Aust.
Accordingly, my answer is - NO

[Sunfish]

I vote to sell it... There is then a good chance that the new owners will break it and then without the perpetual QF Lobbying, we can open the skies and stop Qantas destroying jobs and economic growth outside Sydney.

[Pete Conrad]

Well actually linguist..one of the hidden points in that is that one of the reason's why QF is going the way it is, is because of you lot....you wouldn't recognise that though.....would you? with your rose coloured Jetstar goggles on......
You want to hope the new owners don't sell you mob...with no mothership QF to bludge off, you may fall back to reality.

[bushy]

Are we about to get back to reality? Qantas has had govt guaranteed loans, and all sorts of "special treatment". Casa appears to be a subsidiary of Qantas.
We have to decide whether we are going to keep giving preferential treatment to one airline group, or whether free trading will be permitted.
If the "special treatment" option is continued, it will be done at the expense of other aviation groups, and the general public. Just like GA.
The management are being well rewarded for a sucessful sale. There are some assets that can be stripped here. It happened to Ansett. A short term profit is achieveable for the management and the purchasers, and a further sale is likely soon.

We had better get used to it, and learn how to handle it. There is much more coming.

[jack red]

"They don't think it (the takeover) is going to go ahead,'' he said.
.....and I wonder who slipped that rumour into the market place.

Ah well, more cheap shares being snaffled up by APA. They're going to pay $5.60 for mine.:ok:

[RedTBar]

jack red,

Whether or not the takeover goes ahead and whatever the rumour is on the day ,it is interesting that a large group like the capitol group would sell 110 million shares at 5.29 and risk 30c a share. Groups like these only sell when they believe that there is no more money to be made.

Like all stock market moves this is a gamble and at the end of the day you might not get 5.60 for yours but that is the gamble you take.Capitol group's information led them to believe it is not worth taking.

[jack red]

..........and that's 110 million shares that may have been bought by APA for less than the $5.60 offered. Unless APA can secure enough shares on the market under that offer to buy out the Company, I will get $5.60 a share.

[RedTBar]

Jack Red

As you said it’s not known if the Airline consortium bought the 110 million shares and I agree that it is likely that the government will give the nod to the takeover.

If that is the case you will get your $5.60 per share.

However if the Capitol group is right and the sale does not get the go ahead you will be lucky to get $2.50 a share.

That’s why it is a gamble,if you are convinced that the takeover will go ahead keep your shares.

[jack red]

.......................I'm convinced!:E

[Xcel]

i voted number 3.
it is all about the management deals and the benifits they recieve which is why the original deal wasnt followed through with. the price hardly changed overall only GD's cut...:}
If i where in there i know i would open the skies up, qantas are already outsourcing jobs i.e maintenance elsewhere not to mention the ****e service on j*. wouldnt mind some competition for the benefit of the consumer. :confused:
mind you i dont have a job in qantas, dont have shares, and am only looking out for my next ticket to L.A to be as cheap and comfortable as possible.:ugh:

however i think i would hold out on the share front, at this stage 8% profit or 50% loss. i think i will wait to see this 2.50 price drop and snatch me a nest egg.

[Snowballs]

Macquarie Bank are involved in the Qantas takeover, which is starting to raise some eyebrows and concerns because another scandal brewing in Western Australia due to a possible conflict of Interests.
Does anyone know if Macqurie Bank and or who advises Qantas management during the current takeover attempt.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21087278-643,00.html
Did Macquarie 'cross the line' over Alinta?
Public sensitivity over perceived conflicts of interest has risen greatly, Glenda Korporaal reports
January 20, 2007
IT might have been a deal too far.
Over the past few years, Macquarie Bank has helped transform the former West Australian utility Alinta into a national energy infrastructure company through billion-dollar deals including the purchase of Duke Energy's Australian business and swapping assets with AGL.
But when Macquarie agreed to advise Alinta's top management on their bid to take over the company late last year, the hyper-aggressive investment bank switched sides, bringing a wealth of knowledge about Alinta with it. "They are always fairly close to the line," sniped a rival banker. Indeed, many critics now argue it has crossed the line.

Etc.etc.

[Chimbu chuckles]

An interesting quote from a weekly investment news letter I get.

Who and what are these private equity investors? And why should we care about them?

They are, simply stated, investors who seek to “take companies private” – i.e. to acquire public companies and then to operate them as private concerns...at least for a while. Back in the 1980s, we referred to these folks as “corporate raiders,” mostly because that’s exactly what they did. They would acquire asset-rich public companies, then implement a variety of tactics and maneuvers to “extract value.” Sometimes they would lay off thousands of employees; sometimes they would sell off assets; and sometimes they would do both.

The private equity game has changed a bit since the 1980s. Today, the raiders of many companies are already on the payroll as overly compensated CEOs and vice-presidents. Meanwhile the private equity investors often become the legitimate champions of shareholder interests.

Nevertheless, the targets of private equity investment have changed very little. Lowly valued, asset-rich companies with very little debt, remain the optimal targets.

Ring any bells?

[Jetsbest]

In an article titled "Private equity warned about selling airline on" on p9 of the Financial Review for Thursday 8th March , the obligations in the "deed" are outlined. Most telling to me, and also the least surprising given typical management evasive double-speak, are the final two paragraphs and I quote;
'But lawyers said these last obligations had been drafted in a way which made them virtually unenforceable because they were contained in a clause which specified that they only needed to be "plans and strategies", rather than future facts.
One senior corporate lawyer, who declined to be named because his firm is involved in the deal, said these obligations could be strictly complied with provided that at the time of the deed, Airline Partners honestly believed they were true. But once the deed was signed, Airline Partners would be free to change its plans.'
Ummm. Where have I heard that before?:hmm: