Qantas Sale Act?

[Mud Skipper]

Any bush lawyers understand how Jetstar is able to operate internationally and not breach the sale act?
QANTAS SALE ACT 1992 No. 196, 1992 - SECT 7 Qantas' articles of association to include certain provisions
7.(1) The articles of association of Qantas ....snip......
(e) prohibit Qantas from taking any action to bring about a change of its
company name to a name that does not include the expression "Qantas"; and
(f) prohibit Qantas from conducting scheduled international air transport
passenger services under a name other than:
(i) its company name; or
(ii) a registered business name that includes the expression "Qantas";
I know they have recently added the tag "A Qantas Group Airline" but I don't believe this is part of their registered buisness name.
If the situation is in breach of the sales act then who would be responsible and what action should follow?

[Icarus2001]

I'll have a crack... Qantas has not changed it's name. Jetstar is a separate company wholly owned by Qantas, the Act only applies to Qantas, not any wholly owned subsidiaries.
http://www.casa.gov.au/casadata/aoc/displayaoc.asp?srchinput=jetstar&num_results=10

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

If thats true Icarus then if Qantas wishes to get around any requirement in the Sale act, then all it has to do is create a subsidiary.

Is that the intent of the law?

I think the lawyers will have their day on this one.

[max autobrakes]

If JetStar is a separate entity ,does that not then mean that JetStar "international" pilots are automatically covered by AIPA as per a High Court decision a few years ago? :confused:
Can't have it both ways, icarus old bean!

[Mud Skipper]

So if it was found that the act has been broken, may it then be possible to mount a class action against those responsible for the loss of income and stress we have suffered as a result?

[Mud Skipper]

Max,

Would it make any difference if they were covered by AIPA. Whilst we expected the ARG to have taken some time to settle in, how long is enough?
It's time one would think for some runs on the board for the members.

Have they gone the same way as previous AIPA Com's?

It seams the members are screaming in a vacuum, no one hears them.

How can it be that no one in government or opposition has picked up on or been made aware of this clear breach of the sales act? :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[Torres]

I’m no expert on Australian corporations law, but I would think:

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
ACN 009 661 901
Registration Date: 18 January 1934.

Is complying with the extract you quote from the QANTAS SALE ACT 1992.

I think you’d be pulling a long bow to suggest that a separate autonomous company, with it’s own independent Board and Management - albeit wholly owned by Qantas - was legally in breach of the Act.

Morally perhaps, but I doubt legally in breach of the Act. And Courts don’t deal with morals where companies are concerned.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Jetstar as a company cannot be in breach of the Act, only Qantas can.

The questions would be;

1. Is Jetstar truly an autonomous company, and,

2. Has Qantas created Jetstar to circumvent the Qantas Sale Act?

[Torres]

1. Yes.

2. Probably.

Have any laws been broken: I doubt it!

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Question one is a gray area and the most important.

Is Jetstar truly autonomous? Consider the announcement of the 787. Who announced they were buying them? Qantas management.

Who decides to which airline they are going? Qantas management.

Who did Boeing deal with when they bought the aircraft? Qantas management.

Did Boeing give Qantas the Qantas price or the Jetstar price? Most probably the Qantas price?

Does Jetstar get the Qantas price for fuel or the Jetstar price for fuel? Answer, the Qantas price.

Jetstar doesn't scratch itself without referring to Qantas senior management with regard to routes flown. Jetstar is not like a OneWorld airline like Cathay or BA where they compete on the same routes. Part of Jetstars charter is that it never competes directly with Qantas.

Doesn't sound like an autonomous company to me.

[Hardworker]

what it also means is that Qantas or APA can sell off Jetstar anytime without breaching any of the laws as Jetstar is considered a separate company...
Will APA sell off loss making ventures?
You only have to look at their history of company aquistions, thats all they do....segmentate the business and sell off the parts they think are not profitable...

[Taildragger67]

S.1 of the Qantas Sale Act 1992 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/management.nsf/lookupindexpagesbyid/IP200403686?OpenDocument)defines 'Qantas' as Qantas Airways Limited.

'Qantas subsidiary' gets a specific mention so any s.7 restrictions on the operations of Qantas (as defined in s.1) do not apply to any subsidiary companies owned by Qantas.

As a result, whilst it might not be within the spirit of the Act, Jetstar and its operations are not prohibited by the Act and are therefore not illegal with respect to the Act. :{

The smart b:mad:s...

[freddyKrueger]

So now the gameplan becomes obvious.
1. Grow the j* subsidiary rapidly.
2. Block SQ for another 2 to 3 years across the pacific,
3. sell j* to SQ or EK.
4. j* sale profit $$$ ---> mac, allco, tpg, onex et al
5. Sell mainline back to public.

Simple.
The crucial bit here is that j* can gain utilise "Qantas Group" international rights, without being subject to the Qantas sale act.
See the QF IASC variation HERE (http://www.iasc.gov.au/pubs/2006iasc208.pdf)
Regulatory arbitrage.

[Taildragger67]

You forgot point 4A: include a no-competition clause in the JQ sale agreement.

[Truckster]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/christopher-webb/is-a-rose-by-any-name-qantas/2007/02/17/1171405501026.html

Word is that AIPA are acting.

[Mud Skipper]

Anyone know when this might get to court or will it be like the tx of buisness case, just go's on and on, lawyer after lawyer.

I'd fear if something does not occur soon then it's going to be irrelevant as APA takes over and Qantas goes the way of Ansett.:\

[bushy]

Freddy K
I think you are right.
That seems to be why Air NZ bought Ansett. Despite the supposed trans Tasman agreement the only way Air NZ could get operating in Australia was to buy Ansett. And they paid lots for it.
This sort of thing may happen again.

Yea, verily. We live in the land of the underarm bowlers.

[Hugh G Rection]

So it’s of to the courts again, spend our union subs for more attacks on Jetstar, while at the same time trying to get more of the Jetstar pilots to join AIPA.I fear our esteemed leader is going around and around in circles so fast his head is about to disappear up his own arse.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Always sad when one of our resident management wannabe's feels the need to post but realises they are sounding like a broken record eh Hugh?... or is it Lucius... or Wayne?

[Hugh G Rection]

TCOB you are off the mark with the management wannabe / Wayne dig. Plenty of pilots disagree with the direction of ‘NEW’ APIA. The attacks against Jetstar are not achieving anything other than building up resentment between Mainline and Jetstar.

GD: So Chris, how is our plan progressing with the pilot body?
CM: Great, pilots have evolved into little groups, either attacking each other or ignoring each other. There is no positive talk going on, only more attacks and court action. They are either so distracted or worn out from continual dysfunction that they have lost sight of the big picture.
GD: OK, time to move into overdrive with operation shaft.

All this talk of using the Qantas sale act to limit the bleeding to Jetstar ignores the fact that we happily operated Australian Airlines for years over international routes. A dangerous precedent one would think. So while we are in the business of sticking it to the Jetstar international pilots, how about providing a ready supply of swords for the Australian Airlines pilots to fall on.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

So whats your "Roadmap for Peace"? Please don't tell me, "Engage in a meaningful dialogue with all parties" because it takes two to tango and the company is simply not interested.

I am listening.

[Mud Skipper]

No Borg, the next line was

CM: Fantastic, then I can get on and collect my 2 Million Dollar bonus. Oh and GD did I mention how smart you're looking today, love the tie.... XOXOXOX

[Hugh G Rection]

TCOB, Start with a ceasefire of attacks on Jetstar, it is not achieving anything. As for pilot unity, do you know anyone who can herd cats? Any attempt to increase remuneration or promotion prospects simply is not going to happen without the support of the Jetstar pilot group from here on in. There in lies the crux of the issue, how to get the Jetstar pilots on board? I’m fresh out of ideas but looking forward to constructive input. We’ve done the ‘beat them into submission’ thing for long enough and it has had the opposite effect. Do you not think its time to try something else? Not to sure on how to deal with the company yet, I don’t ‘tango’ to well either. I think the answer lies somewhere between the roadmap to peace and heading down the warpath, at some stage we will have to all stand together….or not, but who will fall on their sword?

[B A Lert]

AIPA's proposed court action to try to have the international arm of Jetstar declared illegal is breathtaking hypocrisy and self-interest at its best. While it would be good to see Qantas operations restored to the pre-eminence they deserve, what was AIPA saying when Qantas started Australian Airlines a few years ago? They were in bed with Qantas with a cosy agreement to operate Australian's aircraft on terms and conditions, though different from mainline, that did not in any way have the potential to reduce mainline conditions. AIPA's position with Jetstar is not as pure as its motives suggest and I hope the mainstream media pick up on this.

Hugh G Rection's comments are very defensible. One would be hard pressed to argue the contrary position and win the argument. Time for AIPA to wake up but I think it's too late as their introverted ways and interests are now coming home to bite them on the bum.

[Mud Skipper]

It's no longer proposed B A Lert it's happening. http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21287458-462,00.html

Qantas pilots in bid to restrict takeover
By Steve Creedy
February 26, 2007 01:00am
Article from: The Australian
Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
QANTAS pilots will today attempt to impose significant restrictions on the $11 billion takeover of the airline by asking the Federal Court to rule the carrier's Jetstar International subsidiary is operating unlawfully.
The Australian and International Pilots Association will argue that Jetstar's international services breach a section of the Qantas Sale Act preventing the national carrier from operating international passenger services under another name.
The union argues the Act requires Qantas to conduct scheduled international passenger services under the Qantas name or a name that contains the word Qantas.
It is taking the action after the Government revealed advice that the Sale Act, enacted in 1992 to ensure Qantas remained Australian, would not prevent the flying kangaroo spinning off Jetstar and selling it as a separate entity.
The Government subsequently argued that legislation covering international aviation agreements required an airline to keep its "principal place of business" in Australia and that this would prevent the low-cost carrier being sold overseas.
But some aviation experts and AIPA disagree, saying significant chunks of Jetstar could still be transferred offshore.
The union is also worried the Qantas Sale Act could be rendered meaningless by a simple transfer of Qantas business to its low-cost offshoot. And it remains unimpressed by repeated assurances from Airline Partners Australia – the private equity consortium behind the takeover – that it has no intention of breaking up the airline.
"We contend there is an exit strategy to spin Jetstar off," AIPA president Ian Woods said yesterday.
"Clearly, that was never intended by the Sale Act and it's not something that's in the interest of Qantas pilots."
APA has identified Jetstar International's growth as central to its plans to make money from its $5.60 a share bid.
Qantas pilots worry they are being excluded from the expansionary thrust. The union is hoping its action will force the Government to intervene and place restrictions on the deal.
"If our case succeeds the entire Jetstar International strategy – where a separate entity is created to hollow out Qantas – would breach the Qantas Sale Act and the Minister for Transport would be obliged to intervene," Mr Woods said.
There is no hypocrisy about this, this is what we pay AIPA for, defending it's members jobs.
When AO was started AIPA proved how flexible it could be and yet still the company wanted more and more, effectivly trying to implement AO conditions on mailine pilot by the improper use of a wet lease. This was never the accepted intent of having lower pay and conditions. Conditions which only stack up to those concerned by living in a place like Cairns where the lower cost of housing etc offsets the lower remuneration offered.
You are also implying AIPA knew of this possible breach of the Qantas Sale Act when AO was being set up, do you know this is the case as that would be central to your claim? Perhaps is only been under the new direction which GD and APA has forced AIPA that has lead to this discovery.
There are over 1000 First and Second Officers who have seen their carreers decimated by the advent of JetStar, how do you explain to them that it's just bad luck their next promotion has been put back 10 years so GD/APA etc can grab another few buckets of gold before sinking Qantas.
Best of luck IAN WOODS & Co, thank you AIPA for championing Qantas pilots.

[Animalclub]

If it's just the name that's the problem - would "Qantas Jetstar" or "Jetstar Qantas" solve it? Isn't Qantas Link a separate company?

[freddyKrueger]

The dixon/apa plan is quite simple. Because of the Qantas sale act, QF had a negative takeover premium. Why would any consortium takeover Qantas if all it could do was tart it up and sell it back to the Australian public? Not a lot of money to be made there.
Hence the sale act loophole. The sale of j* effectively allows ANY foreign purchaser(s) to buy the select parts of the QF network, hence turning the negative premium into a positive.
j* has been built from the ground up as a trading vehicle to "capture" this takeover premium.
Further, it recognises that SQ & possibly EK would inevitably be given the rights to fly the Pacific. If you are going to have to share the pineapple, why not give them the prickly end?
All that has to happen is for the Federal government to recommend to the IASC that j* now be given the rights in its own right, rather than as a variation to QF's as part of the sale of j* to SQ. This convieniently gets Singapore off the governments back.
Some really interesting questions arise as to when QF knew about the loophole, and how & when apa became aware. dixon's regular pleading to the Federal government in hindsight, where obviously warning shots across the bow. Better to get the pollies to do your dirty work if you can, but they sensed the danger, therfore plan B.

[Keg]

Hugh, interesting diversion you've taken by stating that this is about QF pilots vs J* pilots. I don't see it anything of the sort. Despite the fact that I think they blinked (much the same as many QF drivers have over the last couple of years) I see J* crew very much as my colleagues- the same way I view DJ pilots as well. We share the industry. This is not about slagging off a particular pilot group. This is not QF pilots against J* pilots.

It is about QF pilots vs QF management including the CEO. We had better believe this is us against him because I reckon he sees it as him against us. I'm not privy to the in's and out's of this and I confess to being an idealist of the highest order but to tart this AIPA action as being anti-J* pilot is an error at least and a gross misrepresentation at worst.

[Mud Skipper]

Keg,

Could not agree with you more. Along those lines I think, should AIPA be successful with this court action, we'll need to ensure the company looks after any Jetstar pilots disadvantaged by possibly winding back of their international operations. On the otherhand if 'Qantas' is simply inserted into their name and they continue to expand, perhaps they may aguably be covered by our award and should be paid accordingly at Qantas mainline levels.

[noip]

I think the whole point is being missed. This has nothing to do with Pilot groups, but about keeping APA honest. Read Freddy K's post again.

IS or IS NOT J* International subject to the Sale Act? There's a difference of opinion, and a determination is being sought. Simple.

Seems to me that if J* Int is NOT subject to the act, then the way is open to a few sleight of hand tricks to enrich a few at the expense of the many.


N

[TineeTim]

should AIPA be successful with this court action


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

About as likely as snow on Bondi at Christmas. How many (unsuccesful) court actions, how much $$$ has to be spent, how long with ZERO accomplished (Other than 'Standing up to the Company' whatever that means)?

[slim]

It seems people here are falling into the trap of believing the media version of what is occuring. There is no court action against Jetstar, this is not about AIPA vs Jetstar or its pilots. This is simply AIPA asking the Federal Court to give an interprative ruling on the applicability of the Qantas Sale Act with regard to Jetstar. This is not a court case with two sides making legal arguments and a winner declared at the end, it is a request for legal clarification. Hope that stops some of the BS I've read above (yeah right:rolleyes: ).

[Mud Skipper]

Tinee,
Thanks for the measured response. Please tell us, 'How many (unsuccessful) court actions' have been pursued?
I believe the cost to Qantas vs AIPA and the pilot group is about 50:1 as they try to muscle and bully any actions out of court.
Zero would have been accomplished if AIPA had done nothing and allowed a few greedy selfish evil men and women to flourish. I don't see this as an act of standing up against the company so much as standing up for the company to ensure we are not stripped naked and 30,000 people, including myself, end up on the street.

[freddyKrueger]

If it's just the name that's the problem - would "Qantas Jetstar" or "Jetstar Qantas" solve it? Isn't Qantas Link a separate company?The dixon plan cannot simply add the word Qantas to the j* operation, because then it would then be subject to the QF sale act! This would defeat the whole purpose of the plan.

In order for the plan to work, j* was required to have the appearance of being a completely separate subsiduary, rather than simply window dressing. This meant, avoiding at all costs the transfer of any staff to the j* operation, as this could be seen as contrived.
Further, the growth would only be in j*,to maximise its sale price.
Stop and think about this, dixon knew full well when the plan was activated that career progression for pilots would be slowed to a trickle for mainline crew, dependant entirely upon the retirement rate. dixon snuffed out your mainline careers, in full knowledge of its devestating effects many, many years ago.

[SM4 Pirate]

So just to throw some oil on it...

Jet* does get sold off to a "different" private equity partnership (the same principle owners); buys QFA mainline for $1.00 (off the other/same owners); would that open the door for transmission of business rules and full use of the QFA brand for whatever evil it chooses.:uhoh:

[roamingwolf]

This is a minefield and anything could happen and i suppose that is why apa want to delist the company.The bottom line is that they will want a fast return on their money and they are borrowing a motsa.the interest alone would make my wifes credit card bill look pathetic..and thats not easy..

on another note this mornings news of australias 3 wealthiest men looking at starting their own nuclear power plant reminds me of the simpsons and mr burns...and then they will probably sell it to the Mac bank.......duohhh

[Keith Myath]

Mud skipper wrote:

There is no hypocrisy about this, this is what we pay AIPA for, defending it's members jobs.


No hypocrisy other than the fact that there are Jetstar Pilots who are members of APIA (some admittedly are on LWOP from Q, but most are not), and AIPA is actively trying to recruit more Jetstar pilots. This is too stupid for words, Join up fellas, and we will use your hard earned to f:mad: you over.

Keg wrote:

Hugh, interesting diversion you've taken by stating that this is about QF pilots vs J* pilots. I don't see it anything of the sort.

Really, well standing on the other side of the fence that is exactly how it looks. Hugh is on the money. AIPA (QF pilots) is taking Qantas to court to try to shut down Jetstar Int. (JQ Int. in breach of the Qantas Sale Act). How is that NOT QF pilots against JQ pilots. JQ pilots may not be respondents to the court action but we are directly affected by the outcome. Do you consider us as collateral damage should you be successful?

Mud Skipper wrote:

Could not agree with you more. Along those lines I think, should AIPA be successful with this court action, we'll need to ensure the company looks after any Jetstar pilots disadvantaged by possibly winding back of their international operations.

How do you propose to ‘ensure the company looks after any Jetstar pilots……’

Last time I checked Australian Airlines Wet Leasing did not have Qantas in its name. How are the hundreds of AOWL pilots faring with their necks also on the line. Are you sharing Mud skippers’ sentiments regarding AIPA:

Best of luck IAN WOODS & Co, thank you AIPA for championing Qantas pilots.

Or do you have a slightly bitter taste in your mouth knowing that you are funding this little adventure.

[Jetsbest]

As I understand it AIPA has been seeking the 'Group Opportunity List' and management keep saying 'NO' with no verifiable explanation of why. AIPA has sought to talk with QF and been stonewalled at every turn. The only legal alternative is to ask a judge to decide since all other doors are effectively closed.

I cannot imagine any J* pilots being demoted/sacked... the QF Group still need the pilots. The bright side might be that J* pilots actually converge with mainline conditions after all. Would you still be bitter then?

And another thing. AOWL has only about 80 pilots who are all ex-QF and have the right of return to mainline under present arrangements. Their EBA negotiations are stalled too as it seems that the company wants to import the discount FNQ (ie Cairns) conditions to Sydney or anywhere else for that matter. Facts please. Maybe even Aust Airlines was, in hindsight, a dubious bend on the intent of the QF Sale Act. The court action is about getting an independent arbitrator to rule.

AIPA may win or lose, but at least we'll all know where we stand. I don't think you need to fear, you're still in the low-watermark (pay-wise) group, even if you're proud of it. Aim higher!:ok:

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Getting a bit emotive here aren't we?

If the court ruling says that J* Int is illegal, the simple fix is to change the name. All that means is that J* International pilots become Qantas (Express, Lite...whatever) pilots.

It doesn't mean they lose jobs or opportunities.

Ever wondered why Dixon is so implacably opposed to a group opportunity list? On the face of it, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Operationally there is a lot to be gained by cross-pollination of the two pilot groups. But Dixon has stated that it will never happen, and has gone on to spend large sums of money to ensure that by having QF A330 crews sitting on their rears while employing overseas pilots to fly those A330's for J* on a lot more than what the JPC negotiated for it's pilots.

The only real reason to do something like that is that he wants to avoid having QF pilots in Jetstar when he flogs it off to Emirates or Singair in a few years time. Any QF pilots in J* would have to come back to mainline and J* would not have enough pilots to crew their aeroplanes. Hence the requirement in the MOU for any QF FO seeking a Jetstar command to resign from Qantas.

It all makes perfect sense now.

J* pilots should realise that their company is the prize in Dixons game. If J* is not subject to the Sale Act, then there remains no legal impediment to expanding J* at the expense of mainline, asset stripping such as what we have already seen with the A330's but on a much grander scale and selling it off as a fully integrated domestic/international carrier based in Australia to the highest bidder.

Instead of being a QF group airline, in will be Qantas main rival. What happens to mainline in this time is open to conjecture. You would think that there would still be some investment in QF but it may end suffering the same fate as Ansett.

There is nothing to stop this occurring if the Sale act does not apply.... not a thing.

So if you J* pilots see this as some sort of threat, I think you haven't seen the ramifications of this to 2600 QF pilots and 35000 QF staff.

Making J* international beholden to the Sale Act may be the one thing that makes this exercise in capitalism gone mad unviable.

But it doesn't mean that Qantas cannot operate a low cost international operation if it wants to.

[lowerlobe]

COB....I'm curious as to what you mean by this line in your post...

"But it doesn't mean that Qantas cannot operate a low cost international operation if it wants to"

If QF wants to operate as a low cost international carrier exactly where do they cut their cost base.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

They use what they already have in Jetstar. Except it won't be called Jetstar International and it won't be able to be sold off holus bolus to the highest international bidder.

[lowerlobe]

COB does that mean you would be happy for the T & C's for tech crew under the current Jetstar eba?.

[max autobrakes]

Keith Myath wrote:

Hypocrisy on a grand scale
Mud skipper wrote:
Quote:
There is no hypocrisy about this, this is what we pay AIPA for, defending it's members jobs.
No hypocrisy other than the fact that there are Jetstar Pilots who are members of APIA (some admittedly are on LWOP from Q, but most are not), and AIPA is actively trying to recruit more Jetstar pilots. This is too stupid for words, Join up fellas, and we will use your hard earned to f:mad: you over.

Keg wrote:

Quote:
Hugh, interesting diversion you've taken by stating that this is about QF pilots vs J* pilots. I don't see it anything of the sort.
Really, well standing on the other side of the fence that is exactly how it looks. Hugh is on the money. AIPA (QF pilots) is taking Qantas to court to try to shut down Jetstar Int. (JQ Int. in breach of the Qantas Sale Act). How is that NOT QF pilots against JQ pilots. JQ pilots may not be respondents to the court action but we are directly affected by the outcome. Do you consider us as collateral damage should you be successful?

Mud Skipper wrote:

Quote:
Could not agree with you more. Along those lines I think, should AIPA be successful with this court action, we'll need to ensure the company looks after any Jetstar pilots disadvantaged by possibly winding back of their international operations.


How do you propose to ‘ensure the company looks after any Jetstar pilots……’

Last time I checked Australian Airlines Wet Leasing did not have Qantas in its name. How are the hundreds of AOWL pilots faring with their necks also on the line. Are you sharing Mud skippers’ sentiments regarding AIPA:

Quote:
Best of luck IAN WOODS & Co, thank you AIPA for championing Qantas pilots.


Or do you have a slightly bitter taste in your mouth knowing that you are funding this little adventure.
_
_
_
_
_


Sorry Keith,
Just ask the exTAA boys and girls what happened when Qantas and the old Australian Airlines merged.
I don't think too many pilots were too disadvantaged by the Y list.
As for AoWL pilots they came from Qantas ranks to start with and are covered by a LOA to return. Not the same as you are trying to suggest.
I think AIPA has proved it's bonafides enough to suggest that your post has a touch of paranoia to it.
Yes I know it's hard to believe ,but don't believe everything management tells you, and definitely don't trust anything from people on a union (or should that be psudo-union for the JPC), who have management aspirations.

[Mud Skipper]

Max,

Keiths post doesn't have a touch of paranoia to it, it's just that old faithful greed and self interest. Whilst the rest of us have waited our turns he wants it now regardless of the cost to others or the industry.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Regarding the Y list, I think you'll hear arguments of some disadvantage untill the cows come home but it's probably a good direction to look in.

Should the bulk of JetStar pilots become members of AIPA I suggest they would be far better of than the JPC. Increased/more balanced representation would ensure Keith's concerns of hypocrasy are unfounded and they might have half a chance of better T&C's abet at the possible cost of explosive expansion currently experienced.

----------------------------

Keith,

A new user name to flame on, whats wrong with your regular name?:hmm:

Come on join AIPA before the pimps kick you out, don't expect any T&C increase if APA is allowed to sell you off, they will make Virgin look like utopia.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

LL, no, but that is not the issue here.

Let's have no misunderstanding. Ever since the Government refused to amend the Sale Act back in '02, Dixon has been trying to find ways around it.

Jetstar, if not covered by the Act, is that way. It also performs several other useful functions like internal competition and supplying a potential management motza on a scale hitherto undreamed.

If the Federal Court Judge comes down on the side of Dixon, then the flood gates are open. The Sale Act is meaningless. Mainline will be used as a cash cow on a few highly profitable routes to service the interest bill, while J* int is grown at it's expense, and then the big payoff will occur in 3-5 years. Mainline will still exist, but it will have shrunk and been gutted of anything worthwhile. It will be re-listed for whatever they can get, but the money will have been made by the sale of Jetstar.

I don't know how J* pilots view all this. I suspect they have mixed feelings. They see the opportunities opening up for them but the knowledge that they may be owned in the medium term by Singair or EK must give some pause.

Either way it will be interesting to see if the APA bid goes ahead with this ruling still pending. If it does then maybe I am wrong. But I doubt it. I suspect we will see some sort of announcement soon about a delay in the takeover. If that is so then it can be reasonably assumed that they will be waiting for their exit strategy to be cleared.

[Pete Conrad]

Do you really think that SQ are going to want to own Jetstar? when they can get access to Australia via Tiger Airways or even VB?...


Virgin Blue could be a target for an equity buyout by Singapore Airlines, according to the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation. Speaking to ATWOnline, CAPA Executive Chairman Peter Harbison said, "Virgin Blue's 62% owner, Australia's transport giant Toll Holdings, has again refused to rule out the possibility of liquidating its interest in the airline beyond the end of the current financial year to June 2007." He added that "this is near to an effective signal to the equity markets that Virgin Blue is up for bids."

Some analysts believe Toll indeed is ready to sell down. The deal would be complex, but Harbison suggests it can be done. He floats the following factors and influences: Toll appears to be a willing seller; Tiger Airways, 49% owned by SIA, has announced plans to enter the Australian market (ATWOnline, Feb. 12); SIA continues to be interested in the higher-yield end of the Australian domestic market, and Richard Branson has expressed interest in increasing his 25% stake in Virgin Blue.

[freddyKrueger]

Do you really think that SQ are going to want to own Jetstar? when they can get access to Australia via Tiger Airways or even VB?...Perhaps not, however this has been a long term strategy that predates the toll takeover of Patricks & Tigers existance.
However, the point is, the dixon plan has created a market where there previously wasn't one.
Put yourself in SQ shoes, will they let sit back & let EK buy j*? Perhaps they need to buy it as a defensive play. They need to at least to make sure that whoever bought it paid top dollar.
EK & SQ won't be the only bidders either.

[Mud Skipper]

Do you really think that SQ are going to want to own Jetstar? when they can get access to Australia via Tiger Airways or even VB?...

Yes

How long would it take to build Tiger with both Jetstar, VB and to a lesser extent Qantas fighting you in the same limited, low cost, market? Years and many many dollars.

At the same time you are offered Jetstar at a reasonable price which includes lots of the capacity taken away from Qantas. You are straight into the market with one less competitor and a disenfranchised and dysfunctional Qantas which is left a stripped basket case which will take years to rebuild if it can be saved at all.

History has proven tigers don't survive in Australia, lets hope Kangaroos are more resiliant.

[Mud Skipper]

CoB, did you mean something like this;http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21303696-23349,00.html?from=public_rss


Qantas deadline extended

* Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
* March 01, 2007

AIRLINE Partners Australia has extended the deadline for its $11.1 billion bid for Qantas until April3, as problems facing the deal mount.
The extension comes as major investors baulk at accepting the private equity bid for Qantas and are demanding more information on the airline's strategy before reaching a decision.

Qantas shares dropped 4c to $5.15 yesterday - 45c below the bid price - as the failure to convince the shareholders fuelled further doubts that it would succeed in its current form. Analysts said factors such as the share market reaction to China and predictions that fuel prices would not fall further might also have added to shareholder nervousness.

But at least two investors, UBS Global Asset Management and Melbourne-based Balanced Equity Management, have expressed doubts that the $5.60 per share offer values Qantas fairly and remain unconvinced that they should accept.

UBS has more than 6 per cent and BEM owns around 4 per cent, meaning they could thwart the requirement by APA that it needs to acquire at least 90 per cent of the airline's shares to proceed with the deal. It is understood the investors believe prospects for the airline have improved since the bid was launched in December and have asked for more information to form a better view on its long-term outlook.

There have been several developments since the bid was announced, but negatives such as the announcement by Singapore-backed Tiger Airways that it plans to start domestic Australian operations have been outweighed by two profit upgrades. Qantas now expects net profit to be up by 40 per cent in the current financial year.

But APA said it had made the bid price final and it could not now legally change it.

Yesterday's filing to the Australian Securities Exchange said the offer remained subject to the original conditions.

A letter to shareholders urged them to accept the offer as soon as possible and noted that it had been found fair and reasonable by an independent expert as well nine independent directors of Qantas.

An APA spokesman said the extension was routine given that investigations by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Foreign Investment Review Board had yet to report.

He said investors were waiting for government approval before accepting the deal and not enough of them had yet done so.

A third notice filed yesterday by APA said the consortium now had a relevant interest of 6.09 per cent of the bid class securities in Qantas.

The FIRB is required to give its response to Peter Costello by March 7, but the Treasurer initially has up to 10 days to consider it and can further extend the period if he desires.

The bid is expected to face its regulatory first test as early as today, with the ACCC poised to rule on whether the dual ownership of Qantas and Sydney Airport by Macquarie Bank raises competition issues.


No mention of the Sales Act challenge and the complications it imposes but interesting article all the same. I particularly liked the bit 'the extension was routine', so why set dates if you routinly change then?:rolleyes:

[lowerlobe]

Darth is not going to be happy with this news....I hope he hasn't gone out and bought too much on his credit cards thinking about the little corporate bonus offered to push the YES vote :E :E

[Mud Skipper]

Not just Darth, I hear it suggested Mrs Mannering has four and a half million reasons to feel upset. Not a bad wicket for someone not even close to the top 100 seniority.:\

[Keith Myath]

Mud Skipper Wrote:

Keiths post doesn't have a touch of paranoia to it, it's just that old faithful greed and self interest.


Mud, are you telling me that self-interest has nothing to do with the action APIA is taking against Qantas?

As for this little personal attack

Whilst the rest of us have waited our turns he wants it now regardless of the cost to others or the industry

When did I get personal? So the high and mighty ‘have waited our turns’ and now I (and all J* pilots by association) want a turn regardless to the cost to the industry... Here we go again, another Qantas pilot pontificating to all those around on how it must be. Did you enjoy your rapid promotion after the demise of Ansett? Mate, life has taught me the hard way that what you currently take for granted can be spirited away in a flash. Pull your head in and welcome to my reality.

Now that I have vented my spleen, I believe we were talking about the Qantas Sale Act. Not to many J* pilots want the sale to proceed either. But at the same time they don’t want to see jobs evaporate at the expense of stopping the sale. A bit of communication from AIPA could have gone along way before finding out on the TV that AIPA are trying to stop J* Int. from operating. Now I know that the intention is to make it comply with the Qantas Sale Act but if in doing so means shutting it down then I don’t think too many Qantas pilots would be too unhappy.


Here’s a tip, if you find a horse called self-interest, back it every time.:ok:

[Truckster]

AIPA must have gotten up managements nose judging by the response for Borghetti this week.

While most of it can be dismissed as fluff, Borghetti makes the interesting claim that the AIPA's claim that standards have not been lowered is something that AIPA has "not one scintilla of evidence for."

How is this for a scintilla? QF pilots are required to do four licence renewals a year while Jetstar pilots only do two. The QF command course lasts for five months. The Jetstar course lasts six weeks.

This is no slur on the jetstar pilots, just a statement of fact. Lower standards.

The rest of Borghettis letter is in a similiar vein. Unsubstantiated BS.

No wonder pilots use these missives from the corporate raiders masquerading as management in this company in the smallest room in the house, where they belong!:mad:

[noip]

Derek

Mrs Mannerings predecessor will be bleeding. If he hadn't been pushed he would be in line.

Luke resigned over differences with the management, so I don't think he will be wondering what his monetary reward may have been.

A man of principle deserving of respect.

N

[Mud Skipper]

Does anyone know where this issue stands, was a legal result handed down or is it still in the pipeline?

THKS:confused:

[Swingwing]

Why would you sell Jetstar?

There seems to be an overwhelming assumption around these forums that the whole point of building up J* is to flog it off to EK / SQ / Tiger etc (including international rights if you believe some posters).

Can someone explain to me (from a business strategy perspective) why on earth you would do that at this point?
Take yourselves out of the equation for a minute (hard for most pilots I know, but..;)

The entire point of setting up J* was not to drive down your pay and conditions (although that was required to achieve the cost reductions sought). It was a classic marketing squeeze play to defend market share. To do nothing and simply continue with the "legacy" QF, same cost structure etc - would have caused huge loss of share to VB. So what to do? Dominate the top of the market with QF. Defend your high-yield business market with everything you've got. Squeeze VB from the top.
Meanwhile, set up the leanest LCC you can, and try and take market share from VB down below - squeeze them at the bottom as well!

J* is one of the few (if not the only) successful LCC spinoffs from a mainline carrier that we've yet seen. Jury's still out on its long-term future, but it's certainly contained VB in a way that would simply have been impossible otherwise.

So again, why on earth would you sell J*in the near future? Sure, raise some cash - but then go back to being the same legacy airline at the top of the market, with the same higher cost structure and the same declining share and yields that you had in the first place. Meanwhile, sell off your best defence against the predators to one of them?

Don't think so.

[blow.n.gasket]

"EARTH TO SWINGWING, EARTH TO SWINGWING, PLEASE ADVISE WHICH PLANET YOU ARE ON"
Get real mate ,why do you think they would flog off JetStar?

MONEY
and lots and lots of it ,all to the executives and the "big end of town" that cooked up this scheme.
And guess what they won't give a tinkers cuss about the carnage they leave behind .They will be long gone by then.
How else is Geoff going to afford his $25 Million dollar ,1 km beach front mansion in Cairns?

[noip]

"J* is one of the few (if not the only) successful LCC spinoffs from a mainline carrier that we've yet seen."

Despite the accountant retoric, I'm not convinced J* is profitable. Darth has effectively admitted (in response to a question at a staff briefing) that QF mainline is subsidising it.

And therein lies the problem.

N

[Swingwing]

Gasket boy,

Someone's been watching too many Michael Moore films and reading too many Socialist Worker newspapers I think.
Do you think GD can't already afford a $25m house if he wants one? Have you considered that (perhaps unlike yourself) business executives MIGHT occasionally look further ahead than their next paycheck? Why would GD donate his bonuses from the APA takeover to charity if a Port Douglas retirement was all he cared about? Why would he sign on for another 5 years of copping daily abuse from people like you?
This "big end of town" that you're so worked up about are the people that put up the capital that finances lots of the things that get built and done in this country. It might surprise you to hear that their prime concern is not always and only personal greed.
Of course everyone wants to make profit - if you don't, you'll go out of business pronto (and BTW people like you lose their jobs when that happens). If companies do well enough then yes, individuals make money - sometimes lots of it - but to assert that decisions as large and critical as setting up as J* are made by individuals on the basis of how much cash they might personally make at some unspecified future time is just arrant nonsense.
I ask again - what sort of market share and profit would QF be making now (vis a vis Virgin) if everyone at QF had just sat back and left the low cost field to them?

Noip - you raise a valid point, but I'd argue that accounting or book profits are not the yardstick by which people measure the success or failure of J*. It's a defensive strategy move designed to stop the competition from eating away more of QANTAS Group profits than can be stopped. It's almost analogous to a "loss leader" manufactured product if you will. See my previous post - J* is about a squeeze play to hurt the competition and preserve market share - not a large profit engine in its own right (at least not immediately).

[freddyKrueger]

Swinging, yes its does seem counter intuitive, however there is a logic.
Start by asking yourself the question:
"Is it inevitable that Singapore Airlines and or Emirates will be given Beyond Fifth Freedom Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air#Fifth_freedom) by the Australian government?"
If the answer has a medium to high probability of being yes then there is strong case to profit from the their entry, as opposed to doing nothing and watching your market share decline without any corresponding financial benefit.
Think of j* as a hedge. If SQ/EK are given rights at least qf/apa get something to offset the loss of market share.

[noip]

Swingwing,


Your arguments sound good, however if management had developed the QF brand, defensive strategies would not be needed. Whilst I'd like to think otherwise, everything I've seen recently supports the premise that J* is merely a vehicle to line certain people's pockets. Nothing more.

What is even more upsetting, is that the short sightedness of current management thinking will mean that their aims will fail, and that we ( the people who want the airline to prosper ) will have to pick up the bits and put them back together again.

Why does Christopher Skase spring to mind?


N

[Keg]

Yeah, what he (noip) said! :ok:

[Swingwing]

Noip,

thanks for your views - glad some people are able to put them in a civilised manner.

if management had developed the QF brand, defensive strategies would not be needed.

If you really think that a bit more work on brand is all that would have been needed to see off VB, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Can't see it myself - but each to their own.

have a good weekend!

[noip]

Swingwing,

I was really referring to the WHOLE QF brand. Domestic QF fares are comparable to Virgin, so I don't see much difference there. Virgin seems to be after a differnent market to QF anyway - although the market is fluid ... (hey, I fly full fare Virgin rather than staff travel J*).

Internationally, management seem to have dropped the ball - QF have fewer destinations now than they did 10 years ago. There was a considerable 767 network that extended to Toronto (and the manager there was excited by the possibilities) until the 767s were withdrawn to fly groundhog stuff.

Whilst I'm not suggesting a Juan Tripp extravaganza, neither is concentrating on domestic Oz at the expense of international flying a good long term prospect.

It is just that operational staff at QF are dismayed with the concentration on short term goals at the expense of long term survival.

N

[Taildragger67]

There's something in that 'development' argument, IMHO. Noip mentions the YYZ trip on 767s... possibly not the sort of trip the aircraft was intended for, but how long did it last - 18, maybe 24 months? Now sure, if something's not turning a buck, have the good sense to pull out; but I seem to recall that, around the same time, lots of 'probes' were sent out and new routes set up, only to see them pulled not long after. EZE is another that pops into my mind. That is not the way to build a brand, a client base or a business.

So now, unless you want to go to London or Frankfurt, if you want pretty much any European destination you go with an Asian or sandpit carrier.

Coward St may as well have just written those guys cheques and been done with it.

[noip]

TD67,

YYZ lasted about 8 months over Summer and ended by the winter. It started because the Canadian code-share partner was unable to continue, which forced QF to fly the routes in it's own right. My understanding was the route was profitable (needed heavyweight 767 certification) however management withdrew in order to concentrate on domestic capacity. Let the customers eat cake .. er .. go to JFK.:ugh:

And therein lies our current quandry - it could be argued that QF long-haul has been castrated/neglected to expand the domestic operation. New international competition means that more cost cutting will no longer succeed simply because the other carriers go where the customer wants. I guess that is the intention of getting 787s - lets hope so. Better late than never I guess.:D

N

[blow.n.gasket]

Poor old Swingwing
The capitalist's champion.
No-one disputes the right to make money ,sport!
There are moral implications though!
We know we are in great hands though ,right, Geoff must be a moral Demigod, look how he's handled his sick wife ,washed his hands of his errant daughter, and the way he's looked after those two secretaries that found themselves in the family way ,of course no employee should feel as though they are in anyway worried by such a fine upstanding philanthropist.
I don't really care about Geoffs retirement/holiday batch,it is quite a bit more grand than his Balmoral Beach digs though.However you raise an interesting point, for guys like Geoff and most probably yourself ,after a time it's no longer about the money ,is it, it's "the Game" ,"the Power", "the Control", isn't it!
You'll stay as long as whatever your particular peccalillo's are being satisfied and then go onto the next challenge.
Fine, the sooner the better, most employees in Qantas would no doubt think.
Yes, no one disputes the argument reference JetStar as a defensive strategy. It all sounds very convincing, however, it ,JetStar ,that is, has grown a lot more than "just something to keep in your back pocket for a rainy day" ,hasn't it!, All those soon to be valuable orangestar issues. Go you good thing!
With regards to your quip about your champions generous donation, well time will tell just how generous, and just how much of a "donation" it really will be, just like that rainy day defensive stategy perchance?
Keep those snouts in the trough, us poor old proletariat are rooting for you ,NOT! :ok: