BA - QF merger?

[Capt Claret]

Round 2:

BA & QF in advanced merger talks.

British Airways 'in merger talks' with Qantas

Posted 44 minutes ago
Updated 18 minutes ago


The merger would reportedly create an $8 billion global carrier. (ABC News: Giulio Saggin, file photo)

Related Story: Oppn voices concern over Qantas ownership proposals
British Airways (BA) has confirmed reports that it is exploring a potential merger with rival Qantas.

"In response to recent media speculation, British Airways Plc confirms that it is exploring a potential merger with Qantas Airways Limited via a dual-listed company structure," BA said in a statement.

Qantas says it will make a statement on the merger talks later this morning.

Shortly before BA's announcement there were reports the two airlines were in advanced merger talks to create an $8 billion global carrier.

The two airlines would each retain their names and branding under the agreement, an Australian Financial Review report said.

Ownership concerns
The Federal Opposition yesterday expressed concern by Government moves to relax ownership restrictions on Qantas.

The Government's aviation green paper released yesterday proposed lifting the 25 per cent limit on individual foreign ownership and the 35 per cent limit on ownership by a foreign airline.

But it does recommend maintaining the 51 per cent Australian ownership provision for the national carrier.

Meanwhile, BA has confirmed merger talks with Spanish airline Iberia are continuing.

In July, BA and Iberia announced they were holding merger talks to create the world's third largest airline in terms of income.

The aviation sector is seeking consolidation as airlines fight for survival having been crippled by record high oil prices and as the world faces a deep recession.

And on R&N, http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/353248-british-airways-merger-talks-qantas-merged.html

[DUXNUTZ]

What's this cr@p about the rat seeking to merge with BA?

I understand the the world economy is in recession, but surely with all the record profits shouldn't the Q be in a pretty solid position???

Someone seems solid on destroying a once world leading airline. :ugh:

Qantas and BA in merger talks - Breaking News - World - Breaking News (http://news.smh.com.au/world/qantas-and-ba-in-merger-talks-20081203-6pwy.html)

[Sunfish]

I can't think of a better outcome. The worlds two most over managed airlines, each with a toxic corporate culture and disengaged staff. Both have Irish CEO's with not much of a reputation and Boards headed by people with no airline experience (BA's Chairman is an ex Tobacco company man, what does that say about him?)

The only thing that doesn't match is that QF hasn't botched an entry into service of a major terminal like BA did (T5.)

Still both have similar corporate strategies, trade on their brand name built up over decades and make sure you have your hands wrapped firmly around the privates of the Government of the day so that you can quickly squeeze them if anyone brings up the idea of more competition.

Between them they can dominate the Kangaroo route, and Qantas already dominates the trans pacific route, and the transport Minister is a true son of NSW. Now watch them build a second Sydney airport Thirty miles from town, route all domestic travel through it, and continue to make Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide less accessible to international travellers.

:yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk: :yuk::yuk::yuk:

[employes perspective]

if the merger goes ahead it might be a good time to stick another level or two of management in:},and once done,one more level just to oversee this new level,OH WHERE WILL IT ALL END(might also be a good time for GEOFF to give himself another 7 million in super ,as he now oversees another and extra 5 or 6 levels of management )oh thats right Geoff gone,doesn't matter we will top his super up anyway,after all he is now a consultant for us

[Buster Hyman]

The Spirit of Britannia???

G-EAOU!!!

[BeerMan]

Are there any other examples of "dual listed company" airlines?

Would be interested to look at any other examples to understand what this would mean operationally... would SOP's be merged, or would each airline still operate under their own historical SOP's? Would pilot terms and conditions be merged? Would this result in QANTAS pilots losing their jobs?

Or is it simply a financial arrangement with each company still operating pretty much business as usual?

[umop-ap!sdn]

Can anyone that was at ansett tell us how this works?

[Going Boeing]

The important thing for Qantas is to do a very thorough "Due Diligence". As we know Rod Eddington sold all of Ansetts assets (at the behest of his employer, News Corp) to make the books look better and Air NZ walked in with their cash but failed to do an in-depth Due Diligence process - we know the outcome of that.

Eddington then moved on to BA, so it would be interesting to know what he did with the books while he was there. He also was involved with Allco and the APA bid for Qantas. Any company that he has been involved with - BUYER BEWARE.

[priapism]

yeah, what you do is lobby your hardest to stop a merge by your major domestic competitor with a large cashed up respected Asian based worldwide carrier.
When you have stopped that you make billions in profit by screwing your staff and largely captive market.
Then , when you are faced with reduced profits and increased competition ,you lobby like mad to create the type of merger that you successfully prevented your old competitor from doing.

That's business. I guess it will result in an even larger payout for G.D when he retires , less service for the punters and more job losses for the Q.F and B.A workers.

[Capt Kremin]

I see this as having little effect on QF pilots UNLESS the regulators are persuaded to allow QF and BA pilots to fly each others AC to and from Europe. That would be a huge productivity gain for both airlines.
Does BA have any 787's on order? Because QF sure does! AIPA better have a plan ready to go.

[regitaekilthgiwt]

Surely there has to be an easier way to get 777s? :ugh:

On a brighter note, staff travel might improve :}

[Torres]

Are there any other examples of "dual listed company" airlines?

Not dissimilar is the algamation of Air France and KLM, one of the world's most successful airline amalgamations, which allows both airlines to operate autonomously, whilst both achieve economy of scale.

From an economic and rights perspective, amalgamation of QF and BA makes sense and would be very attractive to share holders and staff, although expect some rationalisation in non operational areas.

And before all the uninformed hand wringing starts, read up on the very successful AF - KL amalgamation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France-KLM) into two autonomous carriers.

Don't be surprised if Air New Zealand does not also join the QF - BA discussions.

I wonder if the various Virgin airlines around the world may not be next?

[twiggs]

Anyone fancy a London basing on BA T & C's?
I'm sure there would be a flood of BA staff wanting an Oz basing.
For cabin crew this would have to be far preferable to the present QF LHR base T & C's.
How about for pilots?

[Skystar320]

The only thing that doesn't match is that QF hasn't botched an entry into service of a major terminal like BA did (T5.)

Why do people blame BA, it was the BAA that had majority of the problem's...... that caused this

[Rich-Fine-Green]

As a frequent passenger, I would not like to see the merger go ahead.

I was recently shunted onto a BA flight that had a QF codeshare;

Not since I flew with UA to SFO have I seen such a disinterested cabin crew - and that was in BA Business Class!.

[Wod]

Ansett had the wrong buyer


Guess that would be Peter Abeles.

The thing I find interesting is that this proposal is a merger of equals - similar sized operations with similar market value.

The much-reviled GD certainly did some things well, time was when QF was a fraction of BA..

[Teal]

From today's edition of crikey.com.au

Aviation Green Paper stuck in a timewarp Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:

The Government's Aviation Green Paper (http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=8538580c-a48a-4c28-8752-9a0555036d15&rid=70ac6a9f-9f82-4748-a87c-e55bbfe757f1) made a minimal splash in today's media. If not for the Qantas-British Airways anti-competitive plot, the paper might have been reduced to what it meant for Sydney Airport. Perhaps it's the subject matter. Warren Truss gave a press conference in response yesterday afternoon with minimal turnout.

It should also be noted that the Green Paper shows the Government continues its approach of taking policy development seriously, through a formalised Green/White Paper process. This sort of thing doesn't mean much for voters, but it continues to demonstrate how, in many areas, this Government is demonstrably better than its predecessor.
The lack of media interest is a pity, because the Paper is one of the more outright protectionist documents that has emanated from an Australian Government for some years. Qantas' David Epstein, who committed not to undertake lobbying activities for his new employer for twelve months, needn't be too worried. Based on the Green Paper, Anthony Albanese is intent on keeping the aviation sector as the most anti-competitively regulated industry in the country along with the broadcasting sector.
Many Australian industries have a strong tendency to consolidation and oligopoly. Normally the role of government is to prevent that through the Trade Practices Act and the ACCC. In aviation, the role of government is quite the reverse -- to stymie competition in the interests of the domestic sector and one company in particular.

The mooted BA-Qantas merger deal shows that even with extensive government protection, too much consolidation is never enough. A Qantas-BA merger would be emblematic of the mindset of so many Australian companies: forget about innovation, quality products and service and building brand loyalty -- just eliminate competitors, exploit regulation and rentseek.
"The Government is committed to pursuing the liberalisation of international aviation to benefit consumers and to provide Australia’s airlines with the opportunity to compete effectively with their global rivals," says the Paper (http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=a52a0558-3301-43f7-8125-ad0aa33df140&rid=70ac6a9f-9f82-4748-a87c-e55bbfe757f1). The "and" is critical, because on international routes the interests of consumers come way below the desire to "provide Australia’s airlines with the opportunity to compete effectively."

But what's fascinating about the paper is how it trots out the same clumsy protectionist arguments that you can see demolished in Year 11 Economics textbooks.
"...liberalisation needs to be balanced with what is in the nation’s interest, as our aviation industry competes in an environment where not all countries apply the same rules."
That is, because other countries protect their aviation industries, we should too. Our farmers and manufacturers would love to see that logic extended to them. One of the few competitive rights Australia does have is access to the trans-Pacific route between Australia and the United States. The Australian Government has made it clear that it has no immediate plans for additional third country access to the route at this time to allow V Australia a reasonable opportunity to establish its operations.
So Singapore Airlines, which wants to compete on the trans-Pacific route, will continue to be prevented from offering competition on the route, until some indefinite point in the future. That's called the "infant industry" argument, and the classic response is "infant industries never grow up." The Paper offers no indicators of how "a reasonable opportunity" will be assessed or who will assess it.

Oddly enough, this cosseting is not applied to the aviation cargo sector, where the Paper supports "fully open arrangements". Plainly there's some distinction between flying passengers and flying cargo that means normal economics doesn't apply.

Aviation policy exists within a timewarp -- government thinking is hopelessly hamstrung, sounding like something from the 1960s. There's even a proposal for local production and investment requirements to blackmail foreign airlines into exchanging investment for access to international routes: The Government will maintain the legal requirement for majority Australian ownership of Australia’s international airlines, including Qantas, to ensure a strong, Australian-based aviation industry continues into the future. It may, however, be timely to consider whether the additional ownership restrictions currently imposed on Qantas remain appropriate. The Government will consider removing the intermediate caps under the Qantas Sale Act of 25 per cent on individual foreign airlines and 35 per cent on aggregate foreign airline interests.
Well, that’s a start, but we’re still wedded to this obsession with a national flag carrier. At a time when international capital is becoming harder to access, we're still placing irrational nationalistic obstacles in the way of foreign investors. Ownership of Qantas could be assessed under the "national interest" provisions of the FATA like most other sectors.

While the Coalition had a brief flirtation with aviation liberalisation under John Anderson, it never amounted to much, and Mark Vaile reverted to type as the Minister for Qantas. Albanese is following a bipartisan tradition. For the Coalition, it was always the trade-off between regional services and protecting Qantas, which warned that it would not operate on "unprofitable" regional routes if foreign competitors were allowed to compete on lucrative international routes, where regulation ensured Qantas could gouge travellers. For Labor, it's the heavy union presence in the Qantas workforce to be protected. Either way, international travellers and the tourism industry are the victims of the racket.
It's been nearly a decade since the Productivity Commission considered international aviation. It’s time it was again asked to apply its forensic gaze to how much aviation protectionism is costing Australia and whether the claimed benefits actually exist. But unlike the Bracks automotive and TCF reviews, there is no formal role for the PC in the Green Paper.

And if international aviation issues are stuck in a timewarp, when it comes to a second Sydney Airport, it's Groundhog Day. The Paper proposes to "initiate a process" to identify a second Sydney airport. To the extent this upsets the gouging monopolists who currently run KSA, that’s a good thing, but we’ve all been through this process before and we know that the politician has not yet been born who will build an airport close enough to Sydney to actually make a difference. The 2020 Aviation Green Paper will doubtless make exactly the same announcement about looking for where to put the new airport.

[lowerlobe]

originally posted by Twiggs...Anyone fancy a London basing on BA T & C's?
I'm sure there would be a flood of BA staff wanting an Oz basing.
For cabin crew this would have to be far preferable to the present QF LHR base T & C's.
How about for pilots?
Just like the office to try and put a positive spin on this...

Twiggs,either the London base is working financially or it's not...

If it's doing it's job and saving money by giving crew lower pay and conditions why on earth would any management want to get rid of it by giving crew more money and conditions to be based in LHR....

Or the base as we suspect is not saving money for the company.In that case why would the company want to spend or lose any more money by basing crew on better pay and conditions?

If you look at any deal you have to ask yourself what is the benefit of the deal and who exactly are the beneficiaries of the deal...

Firstly,this is a takeover offer not a merger.The larger of the two organisations will eventually take over and that is where we should be looking..

Who definitely wins...

Management and Board members who are kept on...

Who potentially loses out of the deal..

Australians....
Staff....
Shareholders....
The Customer....

[Teal]

More from crikey...including a hysterical (as in "wildly uncontrolled") comparison to World War 1.

Qantas throws a match into bonfire of the airlines

Ben Sandilands writes:

The bonfires of airline consolidation are well and truly burning around the world today after the match was thrown by Qantas.
The QF+BA "merger of equals" discussion, which sources credit to former Qantas CEO Geoff Dixon, is to consolidation what the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was to world peace in 1914.

It’s on.

Airlines with an arsenal of cash or rich backers are trying to seize the opportunities to get bigger by taking out the weak, either in pincer movements like a Qantas/British Airways combination, or by just driving them into a wall, like Lufthansa’s decision last week to start an Italian subsidiary, because Alitalia is such a basket case it isn’t worth buying.

BA has been struggling with efforts to merge with Iberia, especially since the Spanish made it clear they would be on top giving the orders, and with yet another limp-wristed effort to do a merger with American Airlines, which is itself in dire financial straits and put largely off limits by US restrictions on meaningful foreign equity in its airlines.

The UK media, which usually indulges in BA baiting, has lurched into indignation about a Spanish takeover of a forgiven national icon, especially after the Spanish took control of London Heathrow airport and succeeded in making it even more abominable than was thought humanly possible.

It is too early to know whether Qantas exerting influence over BA will lead to similar vilification. But until QF came along with a proposition that appeared even remotely possible, BA was looking flat footed in the consolidation race where Air France KLM and Lufthansa were miles ahead of them.

Lately it has been Lufthansa doing most of the running, mopping up control of struggling UK carrier bmi, buying a minimal stake in Jetblue, the US equivalent to Virgin Blue, and cornering a number of struggling smaller European carriers.

Richard Branson’s overtures to Lufthansa have been ignored.
However, the biggest blaze in monetary and strategic terms is in the Middle East, where Emirates is feeling the heat from Abu Dhabi, which sees getting control of the aggressively expanding carrier as part payment for bailing out the suddenly deflated Dubai economy.

Abu Dhabi has its own carrier, Etihad. A merger in any form with Emirates has devastating negative potential for Singapore Airlines and its hub at Changi Airport. Dubai is well and truly on the way to becoming the world’s leading super hub.

It can connect any city on earth non-stop, and is building a massive maintenance and overhaul aviation city as well. The announced investments in new fleet that will be deployed exclusively on Australian routes by Emirates and Etihad exceed the A380s on order by Qantas and Singapore Airlines.

Having spurned Qantas overtures to merge in the past, Singapore Airlines and Changi are under siege, not just by a QF+BA tie up, but super hub Dubai. Its investment at a seat in the table in future consolidation in Australia is as pathetic 5 jet narrow body fleet flown by its loss making Tiger Airways subsidiary.

The poor investment record of Singapore Airlines is discussed in more detail along with other aspects of any QF+BA merger in Plane Talking (http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=9353688c-7a2f-4f7a-b0ab-1cc795de2f22&rid=70ac6a9f-9f82-4748-a87c-e55bbfe757f1).
It is clear that Singapore Airlines, Virgin Blue, Air New Zealand and other SE Asian players with strong market shares and brands will be compelled to consider all options in the coming months.

[Aiation Professiona]

Stephen Bartholomeusz
Airlines plot a difficult course






There are two key questions raised by the confirmation that Qantas and British Airways are exploring a potential dual listed company merger. The first is whether it can be done. The second is whether it should be done.

The first question is quite complex, given that there are several layers of complexity that would have to be negotiated before a merger, even a dual listed company (DLC) merger could be consummated.

Airlines, particularly international carriers, carry their national flags. They are closely regulated by their governments and their routes are negotiated on a bilateral, government-to-government basis.

To protect their national carrier status and those bilateral access arrangements governments generally legislate shareholding restrictions to ensure they remain majority owned and controlled by their home market. In Qantas’ case there has been a 49 per cent ceiling on foreign ownership, with sub-ceilings in the form of a 25 per cent limit on the shareholdings of individual airlines and a 35 per cent cap on the aggregate holdings of foreign airlines.

Yesterday’s green paper on aviation policy flagged the removal of the sub-ceilings but the 49 per cent overall limit on foreign ownership will remain.

Even if it were removed, however, it is unlikely a true merger could be executed without massive risk because of the bilaterals. Qantas and BA could lose access to routes if they lost their national carrier status – if their "Australianness" or "Britishness" were seen to be diluted.

If they can structure their way around that problem they would still confront the probability that other carriers and their governments will attempt to exploit the merger to their own advantage.

It would not be a surprise, for instance, if the US not only sought an open skies agreement with Australia in exchange for leaving the existing bilaterals in place but again sought so-called "fifth freedom" rights – the ability to fly, not only to Australia but through Australia to third-country destinations – on behalf of its carriers.

If it could be done – and DLCs are very complex structures and the governance arrangements for a Qantas/BA DLC would be further complicated because of the need to protect the bilaterals – the remaining question would be whether it should be done.

BA may no longer have a shareholding in Qantas – BA had a cornerstone shareholding in Qantas for just over a decade, before the need to reduce a threatening debt burden led it to sell in 2004 – but the carriers do have a joint services agreement (JSA) on the "Kangaroo" route between Australia and the UK.

That agreement allows them to coordinate their scheduling, marketing, sales, freight, customer services and pricing on the route. The arrangement has competition policy authorisation.

Thus, the core conventional synergies from a merger are already available through the JSA.

The airlines are complementary. BA is very strong in Europe, on the transatlantic routes and in the Middle East. Qantas dominates Australasia, and routes between Australia and Europe and Australia and the US. It is also very strong within the wider Asia Pacific region.

A merger would give them global network coverage, although exploiting that with different brands and products could be quite difficult.

Both have opted for the Airbus A380s as their core long haul product and have reasonably complementary fleet strategies, which might proffer some cost synergies in the engineering and maintenance areas.

Ultimately, however, a merger would be driven by strategic issues rather than by simple synergies.

Former Qantas chief executive, Geoff Dixon, has argued for years that the industry has to consolidate and would eventually find a way through the maze of obstacles, including the bilaterals. He foresaw a future in which there would be a handful of global mega-carriers.

Qantas has tried for years to negotiate a merger or an alliance supported by cross-shareholdings with regional carriers including Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines and, it is suggested, quite recently with Cathay Pacific. So far it has been unable to do the deal that would create a dominant regional player.

In an era of major consolidation – and the financial crisis and the creeping spread of open skies agreements in the northern hemisphere – Qantas’ status as arguably the world’s strongest airline would be irrelevant. It would ultimately be stranded as a small end-of-the-line carrier.

The negotiations with BA, initiated by Qantas, are clearly a way for Qantas to try to exploit its strength while it can. This moment, with the global industry under severe pressure as a result of the crisis, the impact of high jet fuel prices and the global economic slowdown, probably provides it with the best leverage it has ever had.

A merged group would have scale, a far more comprehensive and strong global network, access to two capital markets and some ability to finesse its deployment of capacity across the larger network. It would also have the third low-cost carrier brand in Jetstar to expand onto routes that don’t make sense for the parent brands.

It would be well-placed, particularly if it subsequently brought one of the North American carriers, and perhaps a mainland European group, into the structure, to create the kind of mega carrier Dixon envisaged.

The complexities of merging the two carriers, the involvements of governments, the inevitable opportunism from rival carriers, the potential for a third party to gate-crash the discussions and the "social issues" that are elevated in a DLC and would be intense in a merger of two national carriers/icons means there is no certainty that the discussions will lead to a deal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Kohler
A British leg for Qantas


Now we know one of the reasons Leigh Clifford was chosen to be chairman of Qantas: the former CEO of Rio Tinto knows all about dual listed companies.

It won’t be impossible to create a DLC between Qantas and British Airways, but it will be complicated – especially since it’s likely that three airlines will be involved, not two (BA is still in merger talks with Spain’s Iberia), and therefore three governments. Leigh Clifford’s experience with DLCs will be crucial.

It seems talks between Qantas and BA have been going on for some time, although in truth they have probably never stopped.

BA sold its remaining 18 per cent shareholding in Qantas in 2004 but they have continued to run a joint venture on the 'kangaroo route' between London and Australia, and code share generally through the Oneworld alliance.

The revelation that they are now discussing a DLC comes just a day after the Australian government released a green paper on aviation policy, in which it aired the possibility of dropping the 25 per cent restriction on individual foreign shareholdings in Qantas and simply allowing any foreign ownership up to 49 per cent.

But ironically that could be a problem for Qantas and BA, not a benefit; in fact there would be good cause for them to finalise any deal before the Green Paper turns White, and then becomes law.

A DLC doesn’t rely on cross-shareholdings, just co-operation between two boards and approval by shareholders. Opening up Qantas to 49 per cent foreign ownership might encourage another airline to spoil the party and look to initiate some consolidation of its own with Qantas.

The Rio Tinto DLC structure that Leigh Clifford understands so well is now 13 years old and clearly works very well indeed.

It was modelled on the structure of Royal Dutch Shell, which is similar but different. The two companies remain distinct legal entities with their own shareholders and annual meetings but the boards of directors and management teams are the same. Accounts are drawn up for the whole group and one dividend is declared for both companies.

With airlines, however, the governments are effectively partners in the deal. Airspace and safety regulations are, and would probably remain, different. That means the two parts of the DLC could not be identical: each would have to comply with its own local regulations.

But this is simply a difference of degree – the two ends of the other DLCs, Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and Brambles, have also been subject to a variety of different corporate laws and regulations.

The potential merger between BA and Iberia adds a complication that will no doubt extend the negotiations between the airlines and the various government officials well into 2009 and probably beyond. In fact the BHP bid for Rio could look like a picnic compared to this.

That said, a merger between BA and Qantas, however arranged, makes a lot of sense, and always has. They are almost exactly the same size in every respect and know each other well.

An important addition to the mix this time around is that Qantas has a successful discount airline – Jetstar – which did not exist when BA was a major shareholder in Qantas previously.
Jetstar would become a third airline in the DLC, making it effectively a TLC (triple listed company). Iberia would make it a QLC if that merger went ahead, which could hold the whole thing up till next century as they explain it to Spanish aviation officials.

BA is struggling with the competition from European discount carriers, including Qantas CEO Alan Joyce’s old employer Aer Lingus, which is now 30 per cent owned by BA’s nemesis, Ryanair.

No doubt there would be healthy competition between Joyce and BA’s CEO Willie Walsh to be head of the group, but bringing a quality discount carrier management team into BA is probably a big factor driving the renewed talks between the two boards.

[packrat]

How many times have QF and BA gotten into bed with each other?
How many times has QF found BA to be a dud bash?
They swap executives..they swap planes...they trade in incompetence.
BA's unions are much tougher than QFs.
BAs staff have a lot more to lose than QF...we have already lost a lot.
Where are the synergies?
Whose going to be on top?
Australian Airlines Execs threw out the Qantas Guys.
Who is going to get thrown out this time.?
It does not sit well with Australians to have POMs Or Kiwis calling the shots.
Qants Cabin Services is full of women from the UK or NZ.
All of them incompetent.If they were any good they would have job in their own countries......we tend to end up with the failures or third stringers.
Mark Hassle is back inthe UK trying to do to BA service what he did to QF's.
So far its MH 0...Unions 4

[Mstr Caution]

So Mark Ferguson (Nine National news) declares the meger could spell the end of the flying kangaroo.......... Hasn't that been happening already over the last 4 years or so?

[QFinsider]

caveat emptor....

Have a close look at the liabilities side and it isn't such sweet deal...
Mind the stooges thought APA was the high water mark of deals...

49% limit, big deal Anthony..
It is a takeover and the reason Dixon has been stating it is "inevitable" is becuase the clowns in Canberra signed it over months ago...Just like APA the treasurer saw "no problems" as it was a done deal before "the world's greatest treasurer" opened his mouth........

Bogetti was his usual smug self on 2UE, and to paraphrase him he stated Qf would comply with the conditions inposed by Anthony...errr the Minister of Transport..

Ought be good for a 10% pop on the markets and that after all is all that matters.

[Ka.Boom]

Buy 2 thousand QF and BA shares now.
Wait a month and flog them.
A Merry Christmas profit

[Takan Inchovit]

And ... shall we call the result of the new unification, POMTAS?

[teresa green]

I cannot see them keeping two different brands for ever, eventually one will come under the flag of the other, it might be well down the track, but it is inevitable. Merge with the kiwis ok, but the POMS! With their attitude of "be reasonable, do it my way" and the Australian attitude of "get nicked" the marriage is on the rocks before it even made the honeymoon suite. Ever since the first World War, Australians and the English have been like oil to water, they take great delight in belting the crap out of each other on any playing field they can find, and I cannot think it will change in the future. Its a blood sport. JC, just when we thought it was safe to go back in the water, after Dixon had gone, we did not expect his last little surprise. Caveat Emptor is all I can say, and interesting to note on a poll conducted by Channel 9 re the "merging" 21,000 said yes, 52,000 no. Prepare yourselves for some more unpleasant surprises I think, we are entering round 2 of the destruction of the Rat.

[Buster Hyman]

I see this thread's been edited to within an inch of its life!:rolleyes:

(And I'd say this post wont be far behind it...):hmm:

[Artificial Horizon]

Arrrgggghhhhhhhh:} I'm a KIWI working at BA with POMMIES now being merged with OZZIES:}:}:}:}:}:yuk::yuk::yuk::E:E:E:E

What the hell am I going to do:eek::eek:

[argusmoon]

BA and Qantas need two other partners.
An Asian Carrier and an American Carrier.
It will be interesting to see who puts their hand up.
American and JAL (or Cathay) would make a nice fit.
Although JALs balance sheet might rule it out.

[employes perspective]

artifiacl hoizon maybe you should get your wallet out and shout everyone a drink

[CYRILJGROOVE]

The Nigel VS The Warren
It's a toss off who will win!

[QF411]

Excuse my ignorance, but what could this merger mean for pilots in QF and future recruitment?

[QFinsider]

Not a peep at the AGM either...

Given the incredible difficulty in reconciling the share register during the APA fiasco shouldn't the foreign investment cap be lower than 49% in order to ensure that the Sale Act is not breached? Fools

[Cravenmorehead]

I think a QF BA merger although maybe not the best outcome is a necessity to ward off the growing threat that a cashed up Emirates and goverment owned Singapore Airlines pose.
Scale of economies, oil hedging power etc etc.
It will be perhaps one of the biggest, if not the biggest Airline in the world.
Not sure if this will be a good or bad thing for aviation in the region???
But I suppose we have to accept change as the world moves on. Do our best and see if we can work it to our advantage somehow.

[RedTBar]

Buster,yeah my post was deleted and I don't know why.
If the mods could pm me and let me know why?

Anyway,like most people here and tv aviation experts(sic) agree that it doesn't look like a good idea for Australia and QF either.
Like I said in my post which was deleted,If GD tells us this is a good idea then thats enough for me to thinks it's not.
Is it true that this idea was not brought up at the AGM?
On tv this morning they said that BA's costs were higher than QF's.So where exactly does this help QF?
Is BA interested in QF's cashflow like the takeover group was or is this another way of getting rid of some competition on the UK/Aust runs?
Either way I can't see a reason to let BA take over QF.
I wonder were this would leave J* if it went ahead?

A few years ago one of the Japanese car firms wanted to buy BMW because they wanted to add prestige to their business.The German government stopped it and it's about time an Australian government put a stop to everything we have being sold off.
QF is doing very well and has lower costs than a huge airline like BA so like the saying goes "Whats in it for QF and us"?
Unless the poms agree to QF taking over BA and calling the shots I don't think this is worth looking at.

If it does go ahead I bet GD comes out of retirement and gets a spot on the new mega airline with the excuse of his wealth of experience:yuk:

[Carnage Matey!]

BMW's a private company so the German government couldn't stop it being sold had the owners been willing to sell. Now if you were talking about French protectionism that would be another matter!

I just dropped in here from the northern hemisphere to see what the Dunnunda view was and it's certainly been an eye-opener; more nationalistic jingoism than solid arguments. Qantas probably does have lower costs than BA, but thats probably in no small part to outsourcing maintenance and cabin crew and the creation of Jetstar.

I just spotted the following quotes from AIPAs Capt Barry Jackson:

Qantas pilots warned today that British Airways should not be allowed to gain control of a merged Qantas if our traditionally high professional standards are to be maintained and called for the Government to maintain the protections of the Qantas Sale Act.

As the Australian public would expect, Australian pilots will stand up to defend those traditionally high professional standards,"said Captain Jackson

Who'ya fooling with those statements guys? Now if you'd all start practicing saying your new callsign, "the Speedbird" and ditch that "on climb/descent" nonsense you'll find it's not so bad. See you in Narita for the punch up!:}

[Capt Kremin]

Nice wind up, Carnage. The statement referred to possible slashing of training costs and had nothing to do with BA standards, as much as you guys would like to make that an issue.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

If you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing!

"Nothing" :ok:

[teresa green]

Artificial horizon, you are going to have to get yourself sorted before the next Rugby World Cup! To all you Nigels reading this forum, it is nothing personal you understand, it is just that most Australians from birth, have a inbuilt horror of being dictated to by another country, (especially the UK) we let you win the cricket occasionally, (we would prefer not to mention a certain Rugby Cup), and perhaps you should stop sending your racehorses over to get the big one in Melbourne (its not working) and in aviation matters perhaps you keep your debt ridden motley mob over there, and we will keep our debt ridden motley mob over here. Yours in Cricket. Just heard the latest news on ABC, everybody stop. BA has given us the flick, no doubt recognizing we are impossible to deal with, totally irreverent (though we are nothing like the days when at Speedbird House in Karachi where the two crews thought nothing of belting the sh%t out of each other on occasions) we are now courting Cathy Pacific (well at least it has the rugby sevens) and lives in our neck of the woods. Things becoming more interesting by the day.

[Skystar320]

A letter came out today saying the potential new name for the would be merged British Airways - Qantas


BRITAS

[teresa green]

Perhaps another S on that Skystar.

[Hoofharted]

Hmmmmmmm

Boutique US investment bank Greenhill and Macquarie Group are understood to be advising Qantas. Macquarie was part of the Airline Partners Australia consortium alongside Texas Pacific, Allco Finance and Onex Corporation, which launched a bid for Qantas in December 2006.

The bid failed after failing to achieve shareholder support.

You would think "once bitten twice shy" oh well............another Allco-pop debacle.

[RedTBar]

Boutique US investment bank Greenhill and Macquarie Group are understood to be advising Qantas
I would like to know how much that consultancy is costing.

[Aiation Professiona]

Stephen Bartholomeusz
Qantas' missing link


An interesting insight into the potential ambition of British Airways and Qantas as they pursue their proposed dual-listed company merger was provided by comments overnight by BA’s treasurer, who said it was possible that a simultaneous merger with Spain’s Iberia and an alliance with American Airlines could all be consummated.
While Iberia isn’t so sure, with its chief executive Fernando Conte saying it would be too complex to pursue a tripartite merger, BA’s George Stinnes said the deals weren’t alternatives and could all happen if regulators allowed them to. BA is trying to negotiate and get anti-trust clearance for a relationship with American that is very similar to the joint services agreement it has with Qantas on the Kangaroo route.
BA, Qantas and Iberia are, along with American, three of the key members of the Oneworld alliance. The other important members of the alliance are Cathay Pacific and Japan Airlines. Qantas is said to have held talks with Cathay but it is more focused on its ambitions and interests in China.
If a three-way merger of BA, Qantas and Iberia could be executed, it would effectively represent the partial corporatisation of the Oneworld alliance.
The alliances – the other big ones are Star and SkyTeam – are an attempt by the carriers to gain some revenue and cost synergies in circumstances where government involvement in the industry and the plethora of bilateral agreements that underpin their access to routes has frustrated more conventional mergers.
There has long been talk in the industry of the alliances being the first step towards real consolidation. The Air France/KLM merger and Northwest/Delta mergers have already started that process within the SkyTeam alliance. The discussions between BA/Qantas and Iberia are a logical response to the consolidation starting to occur around them.
The combination of BA’s northern hemisphere and transatlantic routes, Iberia’s European and South American networks and Qantas’ presence in the Pacific would be quite powerful.
There would, however, still be a missing link if the strategy were to create a truly global network with common direction, management and, effectively, ownership. As it stands, if the deals on the table were done, there would be a strong northern hemisphere network connected to a strong southern hemisphere network – but without a hub presence in Asia, where the long-term growth prospects are exciting.
Qantas has spent years trying to negotiate a tie-up with one of the Asian carriers – Singapore, Cathay and Malaysia – but so far has failed. While it is gradually building a low-cost carrier network in the region, ideally it would like to own or have an interest in one of the Asian hub carriers.
Malaysia, which has an affiliation with Air France /KLM, would provide a good and increasingly well-run Asian hub carrier if the mergers were successful and the new enlarged group wanted to start filling in the gaps in a global vision.
The other aspect of the mergers – if they happen – would be the potential to expand Jetstar into a global low-cost carrier long-haul brand.
At the short-haul end of the market, the low-cost carrier segment is over-crowded and is already starting to experience some rationalisation and consolidation as the weak players disappear and the stronger players, like Ryanair (which is trying to acquire Aer Lingus), seek to take advantage of the industry pressures and expand.
Creating a global low-cost carrier brand without legacy cost structures and at arm's length from their core brands could, as Qantas has demonstrated in its own operations, provide enormous flexibility, enhanced focus and probably better profitability for BA and Qantas and, if it joined them, Iberia.
Jetstar could, along with Virgin, become the closest thing to a truly global brand the industry has. There would be practical and political obstacles to any fundamental rationalisation of the parent brands and their product offerings. Jetstar, however, could be the vehicle through which real synergies could be realised.

[lowerlobe]

When thinking about this suggested merger/takeover I wonder if it is more of an issue of ego rather than a necessity....

We all know who keeps telling us that it is something that not only should be done but has to be done.The same person also told us that the APA takeover offer was a good one...

However,I keep thinking of a small owner of a corner general store that runs a very tight ship.He dreams of the power of bulk purchases and economies of scale.....Then he is told about a large supermarket chain wanting to come to town and buying him out but they want him to run the new larger store....

Is this a case of someone wanting to play on a larger stage rather than it being a better outcome for everyone else?

[Buster Hyman]

When thinking about this suggested merger/takeover I wonder if it is more of an issue of ego rather than a necessity....
I could tell you some stories there Lobee, but the post would be deleted again...:rolleyes:

[teresa green]

Advisors from the MAC bank? You mean the bank thats just about to fire 300? The same one that went in with Allco (who has gone broke) to buy the Rat with paper money? If that is not giving the fox the key to the hen house I don't know what is.:ugh:

[Aiation Professiona]

Alan Kohler
Qantas? BA humbug


Two days after Qantas and British Airways were forced by a leak to confess they were talking about a merger, I think we can safely rule one out.

It’s clear that the Australian government will not allow Qantas to be foreign owned. The only prospect of a proper merger is if the British economy gets so bad that no one cares who owns BA and Qantas can simply acquire it. This is distinctly possible.

But a dual listed company structure, which is what they said they were talking about, would be pointless.

About the only things that could be truly merged would the boards of directors, which might actually be quite worthwhile, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in board fees. Excellent idea.

Apart from that the brands would remain separate and distinct; each airline would have to have its own management, probably with Willie Walsh and Alan Joyce remaining in their existing jobs; they couldn’t merge their hubs (Sydney and Heathrow) because they are too far away from each other, and there is no need for a merger for them to share maintenance and other activities.

Meanwhile, the head of Spain’s Iberia, Fernando Conte, whom BA has been double dating, has popped up at a Aviation Club lunch in London in a huff, telling his erstwhile suitor to choose: him or me, you cad.

He revealed that he had only been told that BA was flirting with Qantas one hour before the announcement. He agreed with all the analysts that a threesome would be far too complicated, and demanded a meeting with his BA counterpart, Willie Walsh, as soon as possible. The paint will blister.

The only way all this makes any sense is if Willie Walsh and BA chairman Martin Broughton, along with their counterparts at Qantas, Alan Joyce and Leigh Clifford, really want to try to turn the Oneworld codeshare alliance into some kind of massive global merged company.

As well as talking to Iberia, BA has also been talking to American Airlines about a closer relationship, while Qantas has long flirted with Cathay and has lately been talking to Malaysian Airlines (which is not a member of Oneworld).

But getting all the governments to agree to full mergers of their national carriers would be more complicated than the Doha round of GATT. That failed, and so will Oneworld Inc.

Spending time discussing a DLC between and Qantas and BA is nothing but a distraction to management and a waste of money on lawyers.

If the Qantas board believes that the company has no future on its own as an international airline, stuck with a hub at the end of the earth, then it should be clear about that and tell the government that it’s crunch time.

http://bspecc.iguana2.com/bspectator/stock/QAN (http://asx.businessspectator.com.au/?M=stock-quote&Code=QAN)

[lowerlobe]

BMW's a private company so the German government couldn't stop it being sold had the owners been willing to sell. Now if you were talking about French protectionism that would be another matter!
actually,no Carnage Matey!......Most countries have a regulatory body that has to approve takeovers....

[27/09]

A letter came out today saying the potential new name for the would be merged British Airways - Qantas


BRITAS

Do you mean BRITAS as in The Britas Empire.

The Brittas Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brittas_Empire)

Might be a very appropriate name.

[Blip]

Kinda reminds me of the Roman Empire. Eventually it got too big, too complex, too hard to govern, and involved too many people and cultures.

[teresa green]

A year ago, the Australian public would be outraged. Yet another go of flogging of their beloved Roo to another bunch of outsiders, now they are to tired, to worried about their jobs and super and where it is all going to end, to give a Ratz, they could merge it with Zimbabwe Airlines for all they cared at the moment, and of course the QF board are very aware of this, and like the duck on the pond, not much movement above water, but paddling like buggery underneath, in case the public awakes from its slumber, and starts getting restless. It seems our Kevvy though, is not so keen, probably aware that politically it is not real smart, especially when the public finally wake up and the accusations and wailing start. Do we really need to go in with a airline that is riddled with debt, with a country that has always had the habit of talking at us, instead of to us, one would think if it is really the only way out, surely it would be better to join in with our Kiwi cousins adding a Asia carrier, to the trifecta, sharing routes to Asia and beyond, and then fanning out to cover the world. I am only a dumb retired driver, and know nothing about airline routes, other than to fly them, but with the very well documented, antagonistic attitude the two nations share, it does not make for a happy marriage.

[hoss]

so does this mean QF are getting 777's?

;)

[Obie]

I believe the decision has already been made to call the merged airlines...

"Pompous"

[blow.n.gasket]

This wouldn't be a "leak" to take the spot light away from where the real action is happening would it?

[teresa green]

Well the Govt. made it pretty plain today, that the rules re merging are going to very tough. Albanese on the ABC today, stated that the Airline needs to be always available to call to war, (as a troop carrier etc,) that it needs to be available to get Australians out of war zones, natural disasters etc and he is not interested in ringing some CEO overseas for permission to use as such. He also made it quite plain, that the airline MUST be run from Australian soil, that the CEO must be Austalian, and also the majority of staff be Austalian citizens. (I was hoping he would also say that the A/C must be serviced by Australian engineers but alas not). He stated that us being a island nation, it needs to have its own national carrier, for all the reasons above. I imagine BA is going to find most of this unattractive, in fact most will, and perhaps the govt might have to nationalise the airline to a degree again. I personally have no time for the labor party, but have to say they have won me over here.:D

[QF22]

Heard from a reliable source today that QF are still pursuing a joint venture with MAS, and not just Engineering.

[mrs nomer]

Before any marriage takes place, BA will have to find billions of dollars to pay out the pension funds that are currently in existence. They are for the most part seriously underfunded.

How can they do this and still think they can bring net equity to a merger deal with Qantas.:confused:

Surely it's just not possible ?

[Going Boeing]

Bloomberg has been reporting that QF & BA execs arre in HKG dicussing the details of the merger. Now that it's in the open, progress may be a bit faster - I hope not as I don't see many positives for QF.

[Gingerbread]

Don't worry GB, unless at least two of the following three stakeholder groups; government, shareholders and the unions, come to see merit in any proposed Qantas - BA merger and openly come out and support it, the scepticism created by the APA stuff up is probably enough to see it off.:hmm:

[Sunfish]

I can think of no better way of helping to destroy the Australian economy than by giving QF and BA any more power to tax air transport than they already have.

[mrpaxing]

with mrs nomer,the pension liabilities of BA are a major factor. they owe billions and the yearly bill keeps getting higher. my source tells me Sir Rod is on a lifelong pension from BA north of 100 000.00, thats pounds not $. sounds good on paper but in reality its a financial negative for QFin the longterm.:sad:

[Carnage Matey!]

The BA pension fund deficit currently stands at GBP 1.9Bn. That's with the stock market on it's arse. The £1.9Bn doesn't have to be paid out all at once, more like over the next 50+ years. The deficit is itself only a problem because of changes to EU accounting rules that force companies to quantify their exposure at the present time rather than taking a long term view of the liabilities.

[lowerlobe]

In 2006 the scheme had reported a deficit of £2.1bn, which BA described at the time as a threat to the existence of the airline.

It's a possibility we may have to ask the company to make higher contribution, but it is too early to say
John Birch, BA pensions
But after a year of fraught negotiations and threatened industrial action, a deal was struck.
Staff would either work for longer, or pay higher pension contributions for service after April 2007.
In return, BA agreed to pay £850m into the fund as a special deficit payment, and to make further contributions of £131m in each year to 2016 - a move that reduced the pension black-hole.
But this year, following a mini-valuation, the scheme cut its estimate for how much its investments were likely to earn in the future.
"Clearly we haven't made any progress over the year as we would have expected as against the 10-year recovery plan," said John Birch, managing director of BA pensions.
Carnage Matey....
Why would any Australian or QF employee want to join another airline who's successive leadership has allowed such a huge debt to accumulate?
Your suggestion that the deficit is only a problem because of EU accounting laws is at odds with BA's own assessment of the situation...

Even with an injection of £850m the deficit is only slightly less than it was in 2006 and is only going to get worse with the current stock market problems.

[Led Zeppelin]

There was a figure floating around of BA's net worth being 1.85 billlion GBP.

Does anyone know if that includes the pension fund liability or not ? If it doesn't, the company (BA) brings nothing to the table.

The pension fund liability would have to be quarantined from any merger deal.

[StallBoy]

Does this mean that Qf flights will only be hours late leaving now.:ok:
At least with a star each they can become a two star airline:eek:

"Pompous" does it for me too, both failed airlines but at least I have never been late flying BA.

[lowerlobe]

both failed airlines but at least I have never been late flying BA.
I'm no fan of QF management but how do you come to that conclusion and by what standards is QF a failed airline?

[RedTBar]

The pension fund liability would have to be quarantined from any merger deal.
Jumping into bed with someone with a bad dose of 'debt' is bad enough but think about our flying for a bit.
What if the deal gets the green light and QF only fly's to BKK,SIN or HKG and BA takes over from there?

Will this be the end of us flying to London and Frankfurt?
We used to fly to Paris,Rome Athens,Manchester,Belgrade
Will QF just be looking at Asia and the Pacific from now on if this idea gets the nod.
I bet the boys on the top floor would like this idea so they don't have to buy as many aircraft and we can just fly around our area and meet up with BA aircraft in Asia and the US.
The more I think about what might happen the more I don't like the sound of it.

[Gingerbread]

Assuming any equity exchange between BA and QF is somehow based on the net tangible assets of both companies, the DB superannuation liabilities of both BA and Qantas should be taken into account.

If they are not, adversely affected shareholders aren’t likely to agree, or are they? :cool:

[RedTBar]

the DB superannuation liabilities of both BA and Qantas should be taken into account.
Mate,if I'm going to buy a car I want to know if any money is owed on it.

But I also want to know if buying the car is a good idea or not for what it does for me.I'm waiting for someone to talk about it's merits and what is good for us if this deal gets the greenlight.

[Capt Kremin]

It doesn't make commercial sense to send a 747 load of passengers to BKK, HKG or SIN from either OZ or the UK in the hope that a BA or QF 747 will be there waiting to take them on to their destination. There are too many variables to be able to deliver that consistently.
What does make commercial sense is to persuade the regulators to allow cabin crew and pilots to operate each others jets, if that can actually be done. (Big unanswered questions there.)
The other possbility is that BA and QF form a greenfields co-branded worldwide airline with the 787's on order (139 of them over both airlines). In which case they will try to keep BALPA and AIPA out of it, or play one off against the other.

[Carnage Matey!]

Why would any Australian or QF employee want to join another airline who's successive leadership has allowed such a huge debt to accumulate?

Thats not actually what happened. The deficit built in a slow but manageable with successive UK chancellors stripping tax benefits from share dividends that contributed a significant amount of income, then ballooned almost overnight with Gordon Browns smash and grab raid on the funds combined with the almost simulaneous introduction of the new FRS 17 accounting rules.
BA's mananagement certainly weren't negligent in their running of the scheme and the schemes overall position is similar to the vast majority of other DB schemes in the UK. In other words, it would only take a few Aussie politicians to shift the goalposts and Qantas (along with many other Australian companies) could find themselves in a similar position.

Your suggestion that the deficit is only a problem because of EU accounting laws is at odds with BA's own assessment of the situation...

When did you last hear an airline say "Times are great, no need for savings!"? Despite the 'threat to BA's existence' and the 'inaccessibility of finance' caused by the pension deficit the management still managed to line up some competitive finance deals for a whole fleet of new aircraft. In other words, it's in BAs interest to overstate the problem and use it as a cosh to beat their staff with.

Even with an injection of £850m the deficit is only slightly less than it was in 2006 and is only going to get worse with the current stock market problems.

Do you think we'll still be at the bottom of a bear market in ten years time? If BA is such a bad company how come it made £1Bn profit last year?

[Sunfish]

If BA is such a bad company how come it made £1Bn profit last year?

Perhaps because, like Qantas, it is good at rent seeking?

[mrs nomer]

The £1.9Bn doesn't have to be paid out all at once, more like over the next 50+ years.....

In the normal course of BA's day to day business, that is correct.

The problem arises when the company is sold. The fund then becomes part of the assets and liabilities. It has a "net value" (positive or negative), just the same as the aircraft and other assets or liabilities that are part of the BA group.

My understanding is that the reported BA valuation of GBP 1.85 billion does not include the fully funded pension liability.

[kotoyebe]

I'm waiting for someone to talk about it's merits and what is good for us if this deal gets the greenlight.

I agree. All we have had are words like "synergy" and "inevitable". Show us some real information that shows that it is good for the customer, staff, shareholders and ultimately, Australia.

[lowerlobe]

Carnage Matey!...You can blame whoever you like for BA's position but the reality is that BA has a higher cost base than QF and owes a lot of money.

At this point I can't see any real and valid reason for a takeover...sorry merger.
Do you think we'll still be at the bottom of a bear market in ten years time?
Carnage....Who knows?

But if you remember more than a few people running QF told us the APA bid was the bees knees.....then only after it didn't go through did we find out about the amount of debt that one of the takeover partners had....

It seems as though the only people who like this idea are BA and a few at the top of QF....I wonder why?

If BA and QF want to save money with something like aircraft purchases they can go into Boeing or Airbus together and strike a deal.They don't have to merge for that to happen.

[speedbirdhouse]

Quote-
"It seems as though the only people who like this idea are BA and a few at the top of QF...."

______________

LL,

don't forget the bum sucking parasitic law/brokerage firms and the massive fees they leverage for acting as advisors in such matters.

All without any conflict of interest of course:ugh:

Michael Pascoe on just who benefits from mergers and takeovers (http://business.smh.com.au/business/mergers-are-for-suckers-20081209-6uiu.html)

[packrat]

This merger will not happen.
A merger between Qantas and Iberian would make more sense.
Give BA the flick and a little way down the road look for an Asian Carrier to buddy up with.
JAL would be a nice fit...but there are hurdles there as well

[Led Zeppelin]

This from Joyce yesterday:

QF's Joyce: 'No guarantee' of BA merger, no three-way union
Tuesday December 9, 2008

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce warned that there is "no guarantee" of any deal with British Airways and there will be no three-way combination including oneworld partner and BA merger target Iberia.

In his first public speech since taking over as CEO, Joyce told attendees at the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce luncheon in Sydney yesterday that there are "a number of significant matters that still need to be resolved, including agreeing on an appropriate merger ratio and resolving issues around BA's pension fund and the broader economic outlook."

He claimed that the potential tie-up would give Qantas "global scale," allowing it to "grow and enhance" its services and "deliver significant revenue and cost synergies." But the carrier does not need BA, he added. "Qantas comes to these negotiations from a position of strength. We will only proceed with this transaction if we are assured that it will maximize value for Qantas shareholders."

The new CEO also moved to allay Australian concerns regarding foreign influence at QF. "There's been a bit of fear and loathing about what participating in global consolidation might mean for Qantas. What I can say to all Australians is this: Whatever happens, Qantas will remain majority Australian-owned. The vast majority of our employees will always be Australian, and Australia will remain our headquarters."

[QFinsider]

Naturally QF management can be taken at their word.

Rather similar to politicians in that you know they are telling a lie when their mouth is open.

[RedTBar]

It doesn't make commercial sense to send a 747 load of passengers to BKK, HKG or SIN from either OZ or the UK in the hope that a BA or QF 747 will be there waiting to take them on to their destination. There are too many variables to be able to deliver that consistently.
Capt Kremin,it looks like you don't work for the same airline as us because since when did a lot of their decisions make commercial sense.
In his first public speech since taking over as CEO, Joyce told attendees at the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce luncheon in Sydney yesterday"
Does this sound kosher to you?
I said in another thread that AJ is either a good thing or he is smarter than GD and we will see more spin than in a cricket match with Shane Warne.
He claimed that the potential tie-up would give Qantas "global scale," allowing it to "grow and enhance" its services and "deliver significant revenue and cost synergies." But the carrier does not need BA, he added. "Qantas comes to these negotiations from a position of strength. We will only proceed with this transaction if we are assured that it will maximize value for Qantas shareholders."
it looks like he is learning all the spin words and phrases from his advisors.

[Teal]

http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/essendonfc/withorwithoutthesynergy.jpg

[Hardworker]

When have Qf Board members done anything for the shareholders, more likely they will want a bigger pay rise if this merger goes ahead for no reason, they are so over paid as it is now, from the CEO to the director of engineering...

[HZ123]

Much of what you QF guys state apply equally to our erstwhile group of General Managers / Directors. A number have sought further private medical cover in the hope of having the 'first' seats removed from their backsides.