Concern For Qantas.

[airsupport]

Concern for Qantas

Skynews 3-2-2007


There's mounting concern within Federal Government ranks over the proposed takeover bid of Qantas.

It's been revealed senior Qantas executives will receive bonuses of up to $300 million if the consortium's bid for the airline goes ahead.

Airline Partners Australia released its bidder's statement yesterday, vowing to keep the company majority Australian owned and run.

Shareholders have until March 9 to respond to the offer of $5.60 a share.

But as details of the acquisition emerge, a number of high profile MPs have already made it clear they're nervous.

The consortium has indicated it wont be seeking federal approval for the $11 billion takeover unless its forced to do so by the Government.

It has also since confirmed 11 Qantas executives will do exceptionally well if the bid is approved, with the consortium promising incentives equal to a 4.5 per cent share in the airline.

[lowerlobe]

The truth is starting to filter out!

[freddyKrueger]

The truth is starting to filter out!

More question for the Texas Pacific bid on Qantas
Letters to the editor, AFR, Saturday 3rd February 2007
What is the real agenda of the private equity consortium bidding for Qantas? This is the question now being asked by Garry Weaven, executive chairman of the industry superannuation leader Industry Funds Management.
This same question was asked in 2005 by the citizens of Oregon in the United States when a Texas Pacific consortium bid for their electric utility. (Texas Pacific is the powerful US member of the private equity consortium bidding for Qantas).
After a lengthy legal wrangle Oregon obtained Texas Pacific's secret internal analysis. This was reported to reveal that crucial elements of the consortium's public pronouncements were directly at contradictory to the analysis.
No wonder Texas Pacific fought so hard to keep the analysis secret. The public pronouncements by the Texas Pacific consortium in the Oregon bid sound similar to those recently made in Australia by the consortium bidding for Qantas.
Here's a sample of the substance of some of the consortium's claims as reported in Oregon's Willamette Week(May 1,2005)
Business as usual, there will be no wholesale lay-offs of employees: the secret analysis showed planned wholesale lay-offs and dramatic cuts in maintenance.
Texas Pacific was a patient investor for the long haul; the secret analysis showed that Texas Pacific planned to sell in five years.
The Oregon electric utility was extremely well run and there would be few changes; the secret analysis showed that Texas Pacific considered that the utility was anything but well run and there would be a lot of changes.Oregon's Public Utility Commissioner held a public inquiry into the bid. It found that the bid was not in Oregon's best interest.
This was a great shock to Texas Pacific, as it was contemplated that approval would be given with conditions. With a striking lesson for Australia the commission identified "several sources of harm".
"the primary source" of harm was the proposal to finance the takeover with an "excessive amount of debt". This according to the commission, was likely to lead the electric utility into a lower credit rating, imprudent cost cutting and reduced capital investment representing "a package of potential harms" that could result in the degradation of services, increase consumer rates, a weakened financial structure for the Oregon utility and a diminution of the utilities assets.
The debt to finance Texas Pacific's consortium takeover of the Oregon utility was $US707 million.
The debt to finance Texas Pacific's consortium takeover of Qantas is in excess of $8 billion, over 10 times that in Oregon.
No wonder it is reported (December 15) that the international credit rating agencies are ringing warning bells on the Qantas if the takeover proceeds.
It is time for Peter Costello or Kevin Rudd to cut through the assurances and represent us by keeping Qantas as a financially sound Qantas - not as a debt-riddled Qantas.


Name supplied in print, but suppressed on Pprune

[B A Lert]

This is from todays Australian newspaper


Qantas execs buy the blue sky

* Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
* February 03, 2007

QANTAS management stands to gain a further 4.5 per cent stake in the airline, if they meet the growth and performance requirements of the carrier's potential new owners.

Yesterday's Qantas bidder's statement revealed management would be eligible to buy into a pool of shares in Airline Partners Australia worth $160 million, if they meet certain performance and time-based incentive hurdles.

The executive would pay the offer price of $5.60 and be able take any profit once the carrier is resold or through an exit formula.

The scheme, which is available to the airline's 36 most senior managers, is in addition to 1 per cent stake they receive by rolling over $36 million in existing Qantas entitlements into APA.

Airline Partners Australia, which is putting $3.5 billion into the $11.1 billion cash offer for the airline, yesterday unveiled seven of the 12 directors it is putting up to run the airline.

It also outlined for the first time the breakdown of voting and economic rights between the partners and revealed it has yet to finalise foreign investors for an 11.5 per cent economic stake in the airline, worth $410 million.

But it said it had in place the funding to cover the $11.1 billion offer, which closes on March 9, as well as the $3 billion in cash and cash facilities to protect the airline against potential disasters.

Roughly three-quarters of the almost $8 billion of the debt it would carry would be secured, it said.

Analysts found few surprises in the bidder's statement and said the next hurdle was government approval. But they believed the detail in the statement would help assuage some government doubts about the deal.

"We maintain our hold recommendation and target price at $5.39, reflecting our continued belief that the probability of the current APA bid occurring at $5.60 is approximately 80 per cent," Deutsche Bank analyst Jason Bloom said.

But APA spokesman Bob Mansfield conceded that some people in the market did not not believe the deal would proceed.

"And I think it's fair to say that until all the issues, such as government's position, are made public, that's probably an understandable position," he said.

Mr Mansfield acknowledged that there was some nervousness in Canberra about the deal in an election year, but said the consortium had been providing information to government officials and still believed it did not break any rules.

Nonetheless, he revealed that the consortium was now looking at lodging a notice with the Foreign Investment Review Board in response to pressure from Treasurer Peter Costello.

"What has happened is we announced the deal just before Christmas, we provided all the information and everyone's been away," he said.

"So it's only at this point of time that everyone's back on deck so we can have informed discussions on that matter."

APA repeated many of its recent promises on issues such as not breaking up the airline, keeping the frequent flyer scheme and maintaining regional services.

It was less forthcoming about the massive fees that were expected to change hands as a result of the deal or how it would structure its tax liabilities.

Mr Mansfield said the biggest area of fees involved the financing arrangements.

"We want to make the point that the fees involved are not being paid by Qantas shareholders and they are a matter between the partners and confidential to that extent," he said.


Anyone know the identity of the '36 most senior managers'? How do they counsel their staff when the takeover discussions arise as so often a lot of people look to their managers for guidance, rightly or wrongly. How can these 36 possible give unbiassed views? This proposal appears to be getting smellier by the day.:E :E

[Chimbu chuckles]

"What has happened is we announced the deal just before Christmas, we provided all the information and everyone's been away," he said.

"So it's only at this point of time that everyone's back on deck so we can have informed discussions on that matter."



I guess that was just an accident...they wouldn't do that deliberately to place time pressures on decision makers...would they?:hmm:

[4Greens]

The most important issue facing the Government concerns the often forgotten fact that Qantas is the fourth arm of the Defence force. If you need to get a lot of people a long way fast then only Qantas can do it.
This can be military scenario or a national emergency.

This also requires, amongst other things, in house heavy maintenance capability. This also includes the ability to carry out heavy maintenance for the RAAF.

If any of these options are to be degraded by commercial interests then the Government should step in.

[speedbirdhouse]

If this article is to be believed it seems that Qantas executives stand to make AUD $354 million if the deal does ahead.:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21161418-16942,00.html

OINK, OINK......

[freddyKrueger]

...Last week about 40 Qantas employees who work at Sydney airport were told that their lunchroom was being closed and they would have to use a lunchroom 15 minutes' walk away. They get half-an-hour for lunch. "So they decided to meet and work out what to do," says McManus. "They had a 10-minute meeting." But, she says, "Qantas management told us it was illegal industrial action and that they had no choice under Work Choices but to dock these workers four hours' pay." That was only the beginning. Qantas went to the commission to seek orders against the union and the employees, and stop any further action. If anyone breaches the orders, says McManus, "it's a $33,000 fine for the union."The Weekend Australian, February 3-4 2007 (http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21161466-28737,00.html)

[speedbirdhouse]

www.news.com.au/sundayheraldsun/story/0,21985,21161556-661,00.html

[freddyKrueger]

How do these filth sleep at night......? This sets the scene for potentially one of the ugliest industrial disputes this country has seen. This may well put 89 and the waterfront disputes combined in the shade. Macquarie & Howard have created the perfect storm, the ugly intersection of business & politics.
In a single generation the upper class have been displaced by the managerial class, with fortunes that leave even old money gasping. Make no mistake, these are the robber baron's of our time.
All the elements of a classic are there, unbridled greed & lust, lies, mistreatment of the "hired help" & Orwellian industrial laws.
Howard must be praying that APA delays its campaign until after the election, APA are praying for a Howard victory.
I cannot see Qantas employees bending over to take it, while the bosses make off like bandits. Public sympathy for a confrontational IR approach by APA will be NIL.
They can run all the pictures of pilots waterfront properties in newspapers all they like, but the politics of the managers calling these people "greedy" when they stand to make $300+ million is simply morally indefensible. What can Howard say? Dixon may give his bonus away, but the history will not judge him to be Robin Hood.
If APA want a confrontation, they are going to burn all the $2 billion sitting in the war chest, without gaining any public sympathy. The liberals face decimation as the slowly burning fuse of the new IR laws ignites a powderkeg.

[Sunfish]

In very very comfy beds, in houses so expensive, they are beyond your wildest dreams.

Unless I am totally off the planet in ways that even Lowerlobe cannot fathom, I fail to see how Qantas be worth double its previous shareprice unless there is some amazing business plan that unlocks amazing shareholder value.

If there is an amazing business plan, created by GD and Co. that will double the company's worth, then it belongs to the current owners of Qantas - the shareholders. They paid for it. It was devised on their time.

Now I don't believe in amazing business plans that simply double net worth overnight, we aren't that smart.

So instead, what would be the conventional way of doubling the company's net worth? And if the same people who are running QF today are charged with doing so, how will they do it? What have they done before?

You've guessed it! Cut costs - and that means labor costs since fuel is effectively a given.

Now how could Qantas cut costs? Well for a start, there is the free trade agreement with America. And perhaps shortly a free trade agreement with China.

Start with engineering and do a little Lindsay Fox (linfox) stuff (if this hasnt been done already). Lindsay is a very smart operator and I have a great deal of respect for his operation from my own dealings with its senior management.
Sell your wheel shop, wheels, brakes, and tyres to BF Goodrich. They man this operation and all QF pays is a low per wheel/per landing rate. Sack all the staff associated with this operation from the manager down - you can under workchoices, it's for operational reasons!

Sell the engines and engine shop to GE on similar terms, QF pays a low per engine hour, per cycle rate. Sack all the staff and managers associated with these operations as well. GE will of course hire some of them on much lower Terms and conditions.

Maybe sell the rest of the engineeering operation to Boeing or even to a Chinese Maintenance organisation. That will neatly void any undertakings Qantas has given to the Federal Government won't it? You can't be forced to maintain employment in a business you no longer own can you? Furthermore once LAME's refuse offers to work in China, they can be removed for "operational reasons" and you can bring in guest worker Chinese LAMES for a fraction of the price - so yes, maintenance will be kept in Australia, it just won't be Australians doing it.

Thats taken care of engineering. You have now saved all that capital and you are paying for your aircraft by the hour with no fixed costs. Funny thing is that most of the staff will probably be happier this way.

Now pilots and cabin crew,,hmmmm, we do a similar thing with you. Qantas contracts to Forstaff or suchlike to provide contract pilots and CC, trained to QF standards. Forstaff gets paid on per hour/per cycle basis. We do it under t he "change of operations" provision in workchoices. Perhaps pilots get furloughed off overseas and when they return they are hired into a new company, or perhaps the QF fleet gets sold to a new ACT based entity, but anyway you are prised out of Qantas and forced to enter a labor service contract with a staff leasing company.

Catering staff- of course you get outsourced, easy!

Again Qantas has weaselled through its undertakings to the Federal Government, and how can the Federal Government enforce them anyway? Would they penalise Qantas? Not while it has such superb Sydney based lobbying!

So here we have the new Qantas - not many permanent staff, very low fixed costs, lower variable costs because the staff are paid lower rates and are only paid when they are needed which insulates against downturns etc.
We slash the size of management and the indirect costs of service departments. Who needs a purchasing clerk for wheels brakes and tyres if all that has been outsourced, the same goes for human resources, training everything.

Maybe its worth looking at US airlines and how many these days have their own engine shops, component overhaul shops and suchlike? My guess is that the Americans have run their tape measure over Qf and looked at the staff to seat/block hour/whatever ratios compared to American type airlines and realised that Qantas is monstrously overmanned by American standards. In fact, I wouldn't mind betting that some of the nice young men who consulted to Qantas last year may be assisting the bidders.

But cheer up! Some of you may indeed be happier working for yourself as a contractor. Australians may get better service and cheaper flights as well.


And of course, seven years down the track after the crew has walked away counting its millions, the new management can start bringing everything back in house can't it?

The smart thing for the new owners to do is to set a "float day" five years from now, then make sure all outsourcing contracts expire after float day.

[Chimbu chuckles]

American Airlines for starters...biggest airline in the world.

Outsourcing is old news...it doesn't work near as well as they thought it would in the US...not with highly technical trades...not that braindead Australian management have worked that out yet.

AA's maintenance facilities rather than outsourced and minimised are making a large profit doing 3rd party maintenance as well as AA's.

Howard won't let this takeover happen...it will be the end of QF and the end of his Govt...and it will be forever remembered as his legacy of office.

[Buster Hyman]

often forgotten fact that Qantas is the fourth arm of the Defence force
Also, your car manufacturing plants will pump out your tanks & APC's in time of war...but, they're endangered too!:(

[soldier of fortune]

quote "howard won't let this take over happen......."
'we can only hope..:\ :\

[BHMvictim]

it will be the end of QF
....not so happy about that.

and the end of his Govt...
....would be damn happy about that though!!!! :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

[freddyKrueger]

Now pilots and cabin crew,,hmmmm, we do a similar thing with you. Qantas contracts to Forstaff or suchlike to provide contract pilots and CC, trained to QF standards. Forstaff gets paid on per hour/per cycle basis. We do it under t he "change of operations" provision in workchoices. Perhaps pilots get furloughed off overseas and when they return they are hired into a new company, or perhaps the QF fleet gets sold to a new ACT based entity, but anyway you are prised out of Qantas and forced to enter a labor service contract with a staff leasing company. Sunfish, yes all this is now perfectly legal, but as the Tristar case, involving some 30 workers and entitlements of around $5 million seems to have captured national attention through Alan Jones.
I suspect Howard, really didn't think that he would have to deal with Qantas size operation at the cutting edge of workchoices before the next election. Understandably the backbenchers are nervous as hell, realising the monster THEY voted for is about to be unleased before its time is due. Cunning as always, Howard built in time protections to get him a fifth term before they would really start to bite.
So, Howards wedgie: block the takeover, and diminish the private equity torrent or allow it to fly and almost certainly lose the next election. The ACTU's campaign will receive an huge boost via the Tristar precedent & by extension the possibilites for Qantas on the first day after the election (whoever wins).
If Rudd wins, on the other hand, he can promise to rip up workchoices knowing he won't have control of the senate, and therefore will blame the liberals for blocking his mandate. Nice own goal John.

[pilotdude09]

Workchoices in my opinion hasnt effected Australia that badly at all, infact i know a couple of sparkys thatgot sacked by their company and out sourced and now earning 20k more than what they earnt at the orginall company which they were happy about. But obviously it didnt happen everywhere.

I really hope that this doesnt go through. I just wis Geoff Dixon would have a hear attack and cark it :} or 'happen' to go missing in the middle of the pacific. :E

[Redstone]

Start with engineering and do a little Lindsay Fox (linfox) stuff (if this hasnt been done already). Lindsay is a very smart operator and I have a great deal of respect for his operation from my own dealings with its senior management.
Sell your wheel shop, wheels, brakes, and tyres to BF Goodrich. They man this operation and all QF pays is a low per wheel/per landing rate. Sack all the staff associated with this operation from the manager down - you can under workchoices, it's for operational reasons!

Qantas Engineering did just that years ago, infact it works so well that from time to time Goodrich are unable to supply.

The concept of "outsourcing" is not a new one, even to Qf management. The only problem is if you are going to sell off the farm then you should first make sure there is another farm somewhere out there that can cover your production. Brilliant move, fantastic cost savings, only problem is that all the engine overhaul facilities world wide have no capacity for years. All the 3rd party MROs have no line space to carry out a/c heavy maint checks for years. Qf could be in a bit of a pickle shortly because they reduced their maint. capacity rather rashly last year.

[4PW's]

It's difficult to know what to say, other than this is one very scary world.

Not sure whether you're taking the piss and trying to wind people up, Sunfish, but I am "not hearing you", as the Americans love to say.

As a reader looking for an answer to why this deal 'feels' so bad to others, I think this thread has many of the answers.

At least it seems to have.

I'm leaving it to others to contribute sensible and unemotional comment to counter the abject rot that must be present in the boardroom of Qantas right now.

Texas seems to have a past, a sordid past filled with lies, while the Qantas Managers seem to have a very bright future!

Neither seems to be healthy for the shareholders at all.

Not long term.

How is it profitable if there's no airline left?

How can the Manager's be acting in the company's best interests when they're receiving such massive bonuses for approving a sale?

Isn't there a conflict of interest there?

You seem to have dropped the ball, Sunfish.

If you don't mind, we'd probably do quite well hearing some unemotional analysis anytime soon.

[lowerlobe]

THE consortium looking to buy Qantas says any parliamentary inquiry into the sale of the airline would "be most unfortunate"...........

I think that just about say's it all...............

[Sunfish]

4PW, I am being unemotional. I am simply saying that I fail to see how Qantas can effectively double in value through the magical laying on of hands by a private equity fund.

Now these guys are not fools, and we already know they have an exit strategy maybe five years down the track. So what I'm asking is what magic can the new owners do that will double Qantas's value in five years? I'm sure they have a (highly secret) spreadsheet that explains it.

Is it going to come from travel growth? I wouldn't have thought so, growth numbers would already be "captured" by Qantas's current value assuming analysts and continuous disclosure are working as they should, unless Qantas is going to become the Ryanair of the Asia/Pacific region, something I doubt Asian countries would allow.

The simplest, "Occams Razor" theory would be that the new owners will use workchoices to stage, as Freddy Kreuger said, the mother of all industrial disputes and reduce the terms and conditions of those Qantas staff who remain after the sackings and redundancies. However at the same time Qantas must maintain its monopoly on capacity and stop anyone else (like Singapore airlines) increasing capacity in the marketplace.

It may be instructive to look at the work practices, customer service and general behaviour of another airline (Ryanair) this group is connected with. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about the desirability of QF heading in that direction.

It's difficult to see how the Federal Government could stop Qantas from doing anything it likes because any "undertakings" it gives can be carefully crafted with loopholes, for example, QF could undertake to do maintenance in Australia, but use cheaper overseas labor.

I guess I could just be cynical and maybe there is a brand new strategy that will be sweetness and light, flowere and chocolates all round, pay increases, cheaper fares and better services, but with the current management team I don't think so.

I guess the real issue now is if Howard can get re-elected before the chopping starts.

[freddyKrueger]

...reduce the terms and conditions of those Qantas staff who remain after the sackings and redundancies.For pilots & engineers this represents handing the opposition a big competive advantage. These two groups are going to be the limiting factor in growth for the forseeable future for most, if not all QF's major competitors. So letting them go/ slashing conditions simply strengthes your opponents. Qantas may well have locals knocking on the door to join, CX, SQ & EK don't. Perhaps denying your competitors the advantage, by monopolising the CREW instead of the routes may be smarter. Nice & clean, no politics... Who says you need an MBA.

However at the same time Qantas must maintain its monopoly on capacity and stop anyone else (like Singapore airlines) increasing capacity in the marketplace.Smells like a deal to be done between Johny and APA for the timing. A scandal in the making...

[Mud Skipper]

Initially I thought that was a question......

Would have been an easy answer, along the lines of ever decreasing.

There was a time when Qantas pilots thought they had the best flying jobs in the world and even accepted less pay than some OS companies offered because we got to live in Oz.

Now you would be lucky to find one pilot who gives a rats for the company. Congrats CM you have the honour of helming the Wreck of the Hesperus.

[speeeedy]

Any promises they have regarding the future of Qantas, such as:

"Qantas will continue to do maintenance in Australia"

are worthless, because the Dixon plan is very simple, grow Jetstar to a point that Jetstar starts to wetlease for and on behalf of Qantas.

The fact that Jetstar planes (even if in Qantas colours) might be maintained elsewhere means they didn't lie, Qantas will continue to do maintenance in Australia, its just that (eventually) there won't be any Qantas aeroplanes, just Jetstar ones in Qantas livery!!!

All their assurances are just as obviously dodgy as this example.

[max autobrakes]

Have a look at the forign ownership caps.
Then have a look at the voting power some of those forign owners have.
Thats right their voting power, in a lot of instances, is well in excess of their ownership percentage.
This wouldn't be to get around the Qantas Sales Act would it?
I smell a rat and the stench is eminating from Dixon's office.:mad:

[HANOI]

Sunfish
at the same time Qantas must maintain it's monopoly on capacity
Where does Qantas have this " monopoly " on capacity.
You have been asked this question many times but never come up with an answer.

[Sunfish]

It means Hanoi, that when other airlines ask for rights to fly into places like Melbourne, Qantas lobbies the government to reject their applications. Meanwhile the direct flights by Qantas and others into and out of said city are full to bursting and there is no spare capacity.

[HANOI]

the direct flights by Qantas and others into and out of said city
So Qantas does not have a monopoly then ?.

[speeeedy]

I agree:

"a few more years."

and thats it.

[Sunfish]

To those who try and categorise me as some left wing nut with an axe to grind for Qantas, I'm not the only one concerned about Qantas, its service levels and future - and having dealt with Mac bank in some interestiing "commerical" transactions (about $60 million worth), I don't believe you can trust a single word they say:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21176329-643,00.html

ONE of Australia's most respected fund managers, Kerr Neilson, has urged the federal Government to allow Singapore Airlines to fly on the Pacific route if Airline Partners Australia is allowed to buy Qantas.

Mr Neilson said it was time that the Australian Government opened up the Pacific route to the US to new carriers, including Singapore Airlines.
"You can never get a seat," he said. "It is not consumer friendly. It's not in keeping with a deregulated economy."

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/matthewstevens/index.php/theaustralian/comments/qantas_sits_pretty_under_costellos_wing//

Here is a little selection of what a few other people think:

If Costello values his political career at all, then, he will find a way to block, frustrate and prevent the privatisation of Qantas, a strategic Australian public company.
Qantas is profitable (and potentially even more profitable) due to the granting by the Government of Australia, representing its peoples, of the rights to fly certain international routes.

For more good reasons why Qantas should not be allowed to be taken over by Macquarie Bank and their international consortium partners including Jerry Schwartz and his Canadian Onex Corporation, I encourage you to reveiw the involvement of Onex in the Canadian airline industry a few years ago at the time that Canadian Airlines was searching for equity/ a new owner and Air Canada was bankrupt. Schwartz’s play was a bold faced attempt to screw the airlines for a fast buck, irrespective of the consequences.
Australia and Australians will regret the day that Qantas falls under the control of these predators.
Al Gill
Edmonton Canada

onsumers certainly don’t get the best deal at the moment - air fares are considerably more expensive in Australia than comparable countries overseas. One of the main reasons for this is a lack of competion - itself in no small part due to the privileges Qantas enjoys from protectionist Government policy. Costello’s “review” will, I fear, lead to restrictions on Qantas which in turn will give Qantas more reasons to ask for market restrictions that favour them.
Higher fares in turn don’t serve Australia’s economy well - tourism being an obvious sufferer.

The reality is that the government has already sold us down the road. How so ? by protecting Qantas on the USA route which costs me more money to fly there than I would otherwise and by the appalling Macquarie ownership of Sydney.

Many people seem to think that Qantas is a special case, and it certainly gets very special treatment from the government, but why should this be so? It is just another airline, albeit an “Australian” one. For the sake of maintaining 37,000 jobs in Australia, should everyone else have to pay higher fares to fly to other parts of the world?, because that is happening now. This is just a hangover from the days before the Keating reforms which saw the tarriff barriers slashed - and our economy has hardly looked back since, making everyone wealthier.

[Mud Skipper]

Sunfish,

You should try and get an airways clearance and pushback out of Singapore. Somehow, 95% of the time, we seem to be after SIA and at the less preferred level, no doubt just coincidence though as their government would never play favours, ever, never ever ever, ever.....:mad:

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Very fair and balanced post there Sunfish.........NOT.

Your cut and paste skills are good but very selective. You neglected to paste this little gem from the bottom of that article... vis:

However, as a major shareholder with $180 million in Singapore Airlines, Mr Neilson said he was "delighted" with the proposed takeover, as he felt it would benefit SIA.

"We own (shares in) Singapore Airlines and we are delighted at this takeover," he said. "We think it puts more and more opportunity in the way of Singapore."


I think that effectively puts anything Mr Neilson would say squarely in the arena of rampant self-interest.:hmm:

[lowerlobe]

Sunfish,

I’ll play this your way for once…definition of monopoly….

”A company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service”

So as Hanoi has said Qantas according to Gilligan is the only airline to fly in and out of Australia because as the definition states …to have a monopoly a company must have “EXCLUSIVE” control over a service.

Now anyone who has an MBA and belongs to a Yacht club will tell you that exclusive means you are the only one. To put this in a way that a squid would understand..If someone was to have exclusive salvage rights to a shipwreck then you are the only one permitted to salvage items from that wreck..

Gilligan…EXCLUSIVE...

“Restricted or limited to the person, group, or area concerned”
That means in the context of aviation that apparently Qantas is the only airline permitted to fly into and out of Australia.

GILLIGAN..what are all those other aircraft sitting at our airports doing?
So as per usual Gilligan is trying to pull another one just as he tries to quote from someone who is completely impartial in this debate .

However as Cutest of Borg has pointed out Gilligans source is a stakeholder in SIA.SIA by the way is one of those dastardly airlines mentioned in the price fixing for cargo rates that Gilligan has tried to show only involves QF.

This all leads me to the inescapable conclusion that Sunfish…aka Gilligan is none other than Lee Kuan Yew.

Well if we have to read the absurd and completely delusional theories of Sunfish then I can accuse Gilligan of being a plant of the Singapore Government.
:E

[Sunfish]

Cutest, yes, you caught me. :ok: I did it on purpose to see if anyone would read the article.

As for the others regarding monopoly. Qantas is the dog in the manger and the only reason other airlines can't get into Australia. You know exactly what I mean.

[noip]

Sunfish

"xxxxxx is the dog in the manger, and the only reason other airlines cant get into xxxxxxx"

Pick an airline, pick a country....... Your complaint is erroneous and untrue, in that it implies this is purely a QF manipulation of the market.

You really do need to learn about Bilateral Aviation Agreements - but what the hell, whoever would want to let the facts get in the way of a good story?

N

[HANOI]

Qantas.....is the only reason other airlines can't get into Australia
What other airlines can't get into Australia ?.

[roamingwolf]

Boys and Girls

WHO is the bigger IDIOT ?

The Idiot

or

Those who argue with the IDIOT

[Fliegenmong]

If you took all the worlds village idiots and gave them their own village then who would be that villages idiot? :} :D

[noip]

RW,

I understand the sentiment, however if we allow delusional opinions to be propogated unchallenged, then we risk the acceptance of them as fact.

Not good.


N


"the more I drink, the more sufistucated I becum"

[roamingwolf]

noip,

fair enough mate .I wonder where this is going because he is like a drunk that will not leave you alone and I reckon the his lift does not go to the top floor if you know what i mean.

[noip]

RW,

Yep, you're right. It appears that Sunfish has detemined that the destruction of QF will cure his pain. Unfortunately, as I pointed out previously, this is akin to a "Cargo Cult" mentality.

I guess that I can't help thinking that we really need to separate Qantas the icon, from the people who are "managing" this national treasure at the moment. Owing to historical quirks, Qantas is the oldest, continuously operating, safest airline in the world (WWII sort of stuffed KLM). Surely it is up to us to husband this responsibility. If people don't understand that QF pilots and engineers don't realize we could lose that in a heartbeat, then they have rocks in their head.

Opposing this is an army of spreadsheet weilding accountants who believe the world conforms to the current version of XL. Unfortunately, from my experience, an accountant's view is advice only. And anyway, they'll be gone in a few years, and simply don't care.

Perhaps we need to think about the "pale blue dot (http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/space_missions/voyager/pale_blue_dot.html)" .....

Ah, what the hell.

Where's the rest of that Cabernet .............. :)

N

[Sunfish]

If Qantas is such a beacon of free enterprise, why is it that the lobbied so heavily against Singapore and Emirates from increasing their direct services to Melbourne and elsewhere?

[lowerlobe]

AHhhhhhhhh

Groundhog Day...

And as rw said his lifts do not go to the top floor.....

Could not have put it better myself.

[roamingwolf]

Boys and Girls,

Sorry about this especially after my post about a certain idiot.

But I could not help myself after reading an article on the net about Jetstar Asia and it's failure to gain access to a number of destinations in China and Indonesia.

They reckon that SIA and the Singapore Government lobbied against Jetstar Asia being granted access to these ports.

Sunfish mate this kinda makes a mockery of your line that only QF protects it's backyard.

Pal the Singapore gov looks after it's own very well thanks very much.....

What's even more astounding is that SIA is Singapore centric and have gone out of their way to convince qf and other airlines to give BKK the flick in favour of Changi.

Now that there is evidence that other airlines and countries protect their own turf maybe you can shove your BS somewhere else.

[priapism]

I wish Ansett had received the same parliamentary support .

[lowerlobe]

Priapism,

Firstly I could not agree more.

Secondly, I only hope that this parliamentary support is real and not just a show pony because of the federal election later this year.

M.P's have a habit of being fair weather friends.

[priapism]

Indeed,

I hope the concern is not just another piece of populist vote catching.

It seems a bit of momentum is building here. My spidey senses are telling me that this sale won't get up.

I don't trust Mansfield and co.

[lowerlobe]

priapism,

Yes , certainly an interesting conundrum !

Who would you trust ..........a politician or the Mansfield group?

[airsupport]

Don't expect a bail-out, Vaile tells Qantas

4:00 PM February 14


Federal Transport Minister Mark Vaile has issued a warning to Qantas that the Government does not endorse airlines seeking taxpayer funded bail-outs.

Former transport minister John Anderson says he has deep reservations about the high debt level involved in the proposed $11 billion Qantas takeover.

Mr Vaile says it is not up to the Federal Government to decide debt arrangements for private companies but Qantas would carry a much higher level of debt under the proposed deal.

"As we've seen in international experience in the past where, and in our neighbourhood, where airlines have run into trouble, they often do come knocking on the Government's door and that is not something that we would like to countenance," he said.

Source: ABC

[roamingwolf]

If Johnny does not win the next election I'd like to see which boards he will be on by Christmas.

Do you reckon it might be the Mac bank and as a consultant to QF and Darth?

He might be like ex Liberal premier who is on just about every board except the ironing board

[gaunty]

priapism

Ansett did, BIG time, i.e until the departure from this mortal coil of one of our more colorful Knights and the replay of the doing in of Julius Caesar.

Without mentioning the date of which we dare not speak, it's not often the Parliament sits and silently watches the Constitution suborned and the Military used in support of a private companies agenda.:=

[Elroy Jettson]

And even before that Gaunty. I would consider "The two Airline Policy" as a form of government protection wouldn't you? One would argue that this form of protection made both of its beneficiaries unable to function in the real world of deregulated protectionism. Infact neither of the airlines protected by this agreement exist anymore, protection hardly made them into corporate goliaths did it? Its like having your big brother protect you from the school bully. There comes a time where your big brother isn't going to be there to hold your hand.

[Hardworker]

Its interesting the media hasnt noticed a B747-300 VH-EBT sitting at the Jetbase, unable to fly as it is out of hours...requires a D check and what did Qantas management do recently....closed down heavy maintenance in sydney....they cant get it into anyother MRO as they are all booked.....Plua the recent 4 B747-400 that returned from having checks in Sinagpore spent 3 to 4 days on the ground AOG while bugs that were built into the D check had to be sorted out before the aircraft were airworthy to fly.....
Its interesting....Management make all these outsourcing decisions..
Change the name of QF engineering to ETOMs, which no one knew what it meant, so 2 years later, they changed it back to QF Engineering....the same manager also responsible for the outsourcing of B744 to Singapore and the closure of sydney heavy maintenance..
No accountability for QF management, only bonuses and big payoffs by APA..
Yet no media has investigated these points....
Just goes to show having J Packer on the board hides all the problems from the media...

[Veruka Salt]

Apparently -EBT is now up for sale. Who would buy a time-expired classic (apart from Sims Metal, of course :} )?

[B A Lert]

Hardworker,

Just maybe the APA mob know more than they have let on. If this is one of the ways in which the business is conducted, and Qantas still turns heads with its profit performances, is it any wonder that APA reckon that they can do better?

[Hardworker]

Its interesting that APA think they can make more from Qantas, the only way that would be, would to break the company into bits and sell off parts of it, hide the debt and the areas that they feel are too expensive or unprofitable and outsource the required services from that same part of the company at a lower rate!
Mean while the management take all the glory?
Yeah who would buy and old classic...
There are apparently 4 B744 also requiring D checks that will also joining VH-EBT on the ground...
another great plan by management.....
Give them all a bonus....

[Veruka Salt]

Lack of capacity has been a problem for Qantas for many years, yet they let their highest capacity aircraft type deteriorate to this state! :hmm:

. . . . And then palm off 4 of their newest, longest range aircraft to the new as yet unproven/low yield/price sensitive "experiment". Some serious questions need to be asked here.:confused:

[bushy]

Who says the airlines are any different from GA?

[max autobrakes]

Funny you should say that Bushy,
A mate in Qantas was telling me about some graffiti he saw in the overhead hatch on his aircraft.
"Qantas now the largest GA outfit in Australia"
Actually this would be funny if it wasn't true :\