View Full Version : Open Skies for Singapore & Australia ?

10th Dec 2002, 20:17
S'pore, Australia to explore open-skies pact

Talks come amid competition concerns over Qantas' plan to take 22.5% of Air NZ

(SINGAPORE) Singaporean and Australian aviation officials will meet here today for an 'informal discussion' looking into an open-skies agreement between both countries.

A Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) spokesman confirmed to The Business Times that its representatives will resume informal talks on the removal of all restrictions on the two countries' respective flag carriers, Singapore Airlines (SIA) and Qantas Airways, between the two destinations.

The liberalisation topic was last discussed in September 2000, but has reignited in the wake of competition concerns arising from the latest proposal by Qantas to take a 22.5 per cent equity stake in Air New Zealand (ANZ).

An open skies arrangement would open up whole new markets for SIA, including direct connections between Australian cities and the US and Europe - competing with Qantas. It could also open up some of Australia's domestic market - a A$10 billion (S$9.9 billion) industry SIA has been eyeing for years, but which is monopolised by Qantas.

Not surprisingly, Qantas holds serious reservations over the prospect and is likely to resist the Canberra-backed push, the Australian Financial Review reported.

Citing unnamed Qantas sources, AFR said the airline believed Singapore would benefit most from an open skies arrangement, and argued that its planned NZ$550 million (S$489 million) equity partnership and alliance with ANZ should not be linked to the bilateral agreement.

In support of the Qantas-ANZ link, the airlines issued a joint submission to regulators in Australia and New Zealand on Monday claiming enormous direct and indirect economic benefits and minimal anti-competitive fallout from their proposed tie-up, but authorities have so far remained sceptical.

SIA has made clear its intentions to expand into Australia for years, but was set back by the erosion of its 25 per cent stake in ANZ last year.

The New Zealand government took control of its national carrier after the collapse of ANZ's subsidiary, Australia's second largest domestic carrier, Ansett.

Ansett's demise left SIA with less than 5 per cent of a whittled-down ANZ, and Qantas with the lion's share of Australia's A$10 billion domestic aviation market, now competing only with newcomer Virgin Blue.

The Business Times-Singapore

10th Dec 2002, 23:42
It would be a lopsided arrangement. The only thing Singapore is interested in is SIA. The welfare of Australia or its people and industry would be the last thought in their minds.
Perhaps QF or VB can likewise expand into Singapore’s domestic market and set up a domestic service catering to the business and holiday market between Changi and Paya Lebar and give SBS some real competition.

11th Dec 2002, 02:04
From your post one could be mistaken for thinking that QF or Branson actually do care about Aust and its people etc.

I know that no one could be silly enough to believe that, maybe its just the way i am reading it.


11th Dec 2002, 03:44
A Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) spokesman confirmed to The Business Times that its representatives will resume informal talks on the removal of all restrictions on the two countries' respective flag carriers, Singapore Airlines (SIA) and Qantas Airways, between the two destinations.

Lopsided or what!!
An open skies arrangement would open up whole new markets for SIA, including direct connections between Australian cities and the US and Europe - competing with Qantas. It could also open up some of Australia's domestic market - a A$10 billion (S$9.9 billion) industry SIA has been eyeing for years, but which is monopolised by Qantas.

I’m sure QF are quivering with barely concealed excitement to get access to their Changi/Seletar route.
I’d love to know what they have put on the table in trade???

And of course United wouldn't have any lesson for us either, oh and BTW me mate Torres and I are putting together a prospectus to buy UA, we are just organising another Cook Islands account for the proceeds ooops sorry:D subscriptons :cool:

I'm not surprised QF are pushing against this absolutely amazing folly. I don’t know what the brain dead pollies in Canberra are smoking or even why we have this rush towards a Free Trade agreement with this country.
Maybe they are worried about their "complimentary" First Class ugrades when they travel on their "fact finding" missions.
The only thing that will be free will be the freedom for the current family run oligarchy to play whatever games they feel will be necessary to advance their interests over ours.
We already host their Air Force, why don’t we just give em the keys to Canberra and let em get on with it.
How many Aussies are aware that one of their most senior “Union” (read another arm of the family firm aligned with the only “party” allowed) officials has been given 30 days to recant his membership of the opposition party or be sacked. Seems like he must have trod on someone’s corns :rolleyes:
When he drew the executive’s opinion to the fact that there is nothing in the rules that forbade this democratic right, he was pointed to a 20-year-old ‘motion’ that “disallowed” membership of opposing political parties. This in a City barely the size of Melbourne that calls itself a Republic but then so did the USSR.
Oh and the “opposition” is allowed to be so long as they don’t ask any hard questions. Family and friends wax rich on defamation proceeds from those silly enough to exercise even the simplest of democratic rights. A lot like our Iraqi friend Hussein’s recent “re-election” and if that doesn’t work you simply tell the electorate that if an opposition candidate does get up in their borough not to expect any Govt funds or approvals for anything, if not an active removal of same. Cute hey.
The difference is I can discuss that here; there I would either be in gaol as a dissident or in the courts defending a libel case.
And they have the gall to criticise our culture and human rights performance.

11th Dec 2002, 09:16
I thought QF operated a few services that had 5th freedom rights out of Singapore? Can't believe all those 767 flights only came to SIN to refuel!;)

Buster Hyman
11th Dec 2002, 10:27
This is about as valuable to Oz as an open skies agreement with the Hutt River Province would be!:rolleyes:

11th Dec 2002, 10:29
BlueEagle is that like all those flights Singapore Airlines has from SYD,Mel,BNE,PER,ADL to LHR,FRA,CDG,ARN,CIA,ATH,IST,DXB,BOM,BKK.....just to name a few!:D

11th Dec 2002, 22:11
Let them in.
Its surely better to have 2 or 3 smaller aircraft going to Perth than 1 A330 ie 2 pilot positions or up to 6.
You Qantas guys will suffer if SQ doesnt come here domsetically , QF will operate widebody Aircraft everywhere you could even see A380 flights to Perth the fleet could shrink by 20 or 30 aircraft and still Carry the same amount of people.
Unless your a QF Captain Already then you had better be happy to stay an F/O for a long long time , those poor AN guys...:o

13th Dec 2002, 03:02

You misunderstand an open skies agreement. There will not be any need for a SQ Domestic. No jobs for Aussies! Actually, there will be little in it for us at all.

Same goes for Virgin Atlantic operating HK to Australia. Pommy/Singa airline offering few employment opportunities for Australian citizens, compared to the former Ansett International.

You must agree gaunty? HK-Australian should be a VB route and not a foreign owned entity!

frank Borman
13th Dec 2002, 04:12
How bout we all stop pontificating, especially Gaunty, and sit back and watch what happens. Who gives a flog what happens at the end of the day. The fact of the matter is, there will be about three to five big alliances in the next five years, probably operating in a worldwide open skies agreement. So stop your anti Singaporean rubbish, coz there aint nothing you can do about it. If they start flying Australia to West Coast USA, so what, if they start flying domestic Oz, so what, if they don't do either, so what.

What I do find interesting is the bleating from Geoff Dixon about how unfair it would be to Qantas. When everything is going your way Geoff, your all smug, the slightest hint of an outside threat and you and the female slug off sider you have quickly pick up the phone and bleat to your mates John Howard, Max Moore-Wilton and John Andersen.

13th Dec 2002, 05:22

I agree absolutely.

frank Borman

First post eh, so who mght you be seeing as how you have taken the trouble to register today for this thread.

You might not have, but the last time I checked, we were allowed to have a point of view and articulate it publicaly in this Country, unlike the citizens of Singapore.

I say again there is absolutely NOTHING to be gained by an Open Skies agreement with Singapore. I have made some suggestions as to why perhaps you might be able to rise out of your lethargy and make a case otherwise.
Just give us something a little more constructive than so what, if they don't do either, so what. or butt out.

Your nic suggests much about your attitude, against which BTW we went to war.
Your comments about Geoff Dixon are out of line, he is doing precisely what he is paid for, as is Mr Huttner or any body else who does the same.
Your reference to his offsider is just plain offensive.

Buster Hyman
13th Dec 2002, 08:13
There you go Frank! 1 post & you've got Gaunty upset. I think it took me a lot longer! ;)

Your idea about alliances maybe 1-2 years too late. STAR is beginning to crumble, Oneworld hasn't set the world on fire & the others, well, we hardly see any of them down here.

If you want to sit back & watch what happens, then fine, do so. Sell your computer & buy the paper, remember, the only interaction you'll get there is the crossword & the TV guide. As for the rest of us, we'll be speculating as much as we damn well like, thank you very much!:)

13th Dec 2002, 10:58
December 13, 2002
Air & Land Transport News

Open skies pact could aid Qantas-Air NZ tie-up
Aussie watchdog more likely to agree if pact is signed.

(SYDNEY) Australia's competition watchdog said yesterday it would be more receptive to a proposed alliance between Qantas and Air New Zealand if the Australian government signed an open skies pact with Singapore.
Singapore and Australian officials advanced plans for an open skies agreement during informal talks in Singapore on Wednesday.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said an open skies deal with Singapore would affect the competitive environment surrounding the Qantas-Air New Zealand proposal.

'A more competitive environment of course is more conducive to us having no difficulties with the arrangement,' commissioner Ross Jones told AFP.
'If the commission thought there were some acceptable arrangements between Qantas and Air NZ, one of the crucial issues would be the ability of someone else to come in and compete on the routes where they dominate.
'That competition may not come domestically. In an open skies agreement there may well be carriers from other countries that can provide the competition.'
Last month, the airlines proposed an alliance in which Qantas would take a 22.5 per cent stake in Air NZ, creating a monopoly on the Tasman route between the two countries and opening a network of routes using Qantas' existing deal with British Airways. Mr Jones said it could take up to six months for the commission to make a decision.
Lending government support to a link-up, Australian Transport Minister John Anderson said the airline industry would consolidate into three to five dominant airline groups over the next 10 years.
'We must have one of those airline groups in this region because we are located far from the major trunk routes,' he said.
This week's move by US carrier United Airlines to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection is also relevant to an open skies agreement and the Qantas-Air NZ deal. Mr Jones said the commission would seek United's opinion on the proposal.
'We are working on the assumption that while United has gone into Chapter 11, United will continue to fly in the Pacific and United will be a competitor,' he said, adding that if United ceased to be a player, 'that was a totally different circumstance'.
Airline analysts have said that in the absence of United, Qantas and Air NZ would be handed a monopoly on the Pacific route.
It is the second time in two years Singapore and Australia have explored an open-skies agreement, with the first round of talks in September 2000 stalled by disagreements.
If adopted, Singapore Airlines and Qantas will have unrestricted access between the two countries and beyond, eliminating restrictions on the number of flights and prices charged. - AFP
Feedback <javascript:myOpenWin('/fdbkdisclaimer/0,4490,66638,00.html?', '')>

13th Dec 2002, 20:55
Frank Borman

If Singapore were to come into this country and start a third airline they would have to be welcomed. Even Dixon and Moore- Wilton could not have the goal posts moved that much considering the originally, foreign owned Virgin Blue precedent.


Singapore is our most capable and reliable ally in South East Asia. So treacherous has New Zealand been as a shirker of defence capability and obligations, it could be argued that Singapore our closest ally in the region. What do you fear? They have a permament American air/naval presence and have proved capable in the War On Terror.

On the battlefield or in joint ops I would have our troops briefed on "Face Saving" and it's ramifications!

Open Skies

We are in the strong position, not Singapore, not AirNZ and not anybody else. Government must realise this and any open sky arrangements should suit us!

Who could forget when the Kiwis tried it on a few years ago, only to have their cherry picking aspirations quashed by Keating.

There was nothing in it for Australia then and there may not be anything in it now.

13th Dec 2002, 22:46
Gaunty. Now it all makes sense! QF jumped the gun in basing the B742 at Longreach for the LRE – SIN - LHR direct service?

Now, let me think why the Singapore Air Force is based at Oakey……?

13th Dec 2002, 22:59
Originally posted by captainahab.
From your post one could be mistaken for thinking that QF or Branson actually do care about Aust and its people etc.

Thats a little rough on QF considering the efforts that they have made in the last fifteen months or so. 50,000 AN passengers carried for free on the network when AN fell over. LOTS of empty aircraft going to Bali to evacuate whoever wanted a seat home, donating a Jumbo to a museum in LRE.

Nah, you're right. QF doesn't give a stuff about Australia and it's people! :rolleyes:

As for open skies, geez we like giving away all the best stuff in Australia don't we!

14th Dec 2002, 00:40

Damn right that was expected of Qantas.

You are a critical part of this nation's infrastructure.

The goalposts have been moved continuosly by politicians to aide your adaption to an ever changing industry. Payback time is when this country needs you!

Don't confuse corporate good manners with sincerity either!

Boeing Belly
14th Dec 2002, 02:08
Keg, in reference to your statement about giving away all the best stuff in Australia, am I to assume that you don't think the Government should lift the foreign ownership restrictions on Qantas?

14th Dec 2002, 02:28

Again agreed, we 've gotta stop this, three times in one week.:D

Boeing Belly

Dunno about Keg but for me you're damn tootin right they shouldn't, same goes for Telstra and it's too late for the Commonwealth Bank.

Following the "leader" with so called worlds best practise in regard to non Government ownership of absolutely vital infrastructure is, for this country a crock of you know what.
Most pollies just don't have the brains to work it out or the guts to follow it through.

Heck and whilst we are at it, why don't we sell our Defense Forces as well, I always did have a hankering to have my own Air Force.

And don't get me started on the State Government divestment of our utilities and their transport infrastructure.

frank Borman
19th Dec 2002, 05:11
Thank god I check this seldom.

Buster - chill out, I'm ex AN regional as you are ex AN? one point I forgot to mention in all this is that it seems alot of folks seem get their hopes up in SQ starting here when plainly it looks as though they won't. I happened to sit next to a Singaporean CAA official at a course some weeks ago. the indication from that person was that SQ don't trust the federal government. Don't shoot me people, I'm just relaying what I was told.

Gaunty, wake up, I personally find you and your moronic comments boring. You have an opinion on everything and as soon as someone has a different slant than you, you shoot them down. You call me offensive for pointing out the slug that works for QF, I think you'll find alot of QF employees that feel the same. Your the one who could come across as offensive, would you care to qualify your racist views on SQ and the Singaporeans in general?

Fact is, SQ are an extremely successful airline, whether you like it or not. They choose to run their airline as they wish, if it does not conform to your way of thinking tough bickies. If they do start here and form an alliance with Virgin - FANTASTIC!! look at the hundreds of jobs that will become, and even be kept, even for new regional feeders like REX and Alliance. I know one half of VB wants an alliance with SQ and they have made that very public.

Finally, dont patronise me as to the war my friend. I come from a distinguished military family, including a grandfather who was a last surviving ANZAC. If I want to go to the War Memorial to gain knowledge and debate war with a pugnacious person like you, I would probably be a Pprune addict like you. Fortunately I aint.

As to the reference you made about my nic? obviously you have no regard for a person who commanded one of the most successfull Apollo missions. A great acheivement for the world in general.

Buster Hyman
19th Dec 2002, 11:12
:cool: :cool: :cool:

I'm cool thanks Frank. I would've used a different smilie if I was otherwise...

Never mind the Singaporeans not trusting the Fed Pollies, none of us do either!:rolleyes:

19th Dec 2002, 13:55

Here's some more boring moronic comments for your edification, supposing that in your apathy towards what happens around you, you are able to distinguish between them and reality.

I may well have an opinion on many matters, but I always put them clearly and honestly, I am always prepared to defend them, do so without rancour and I do not recall having to resort to terms like "moron" even "slug", or being personally offensive to make a point.

This Forum is supposed to be about exchanging views and getting to the bottom of matters of interest, humbug, intelectual laziness doesn't usually last the distance.

BTW I personally don't care if the whole of QF feel that way, name calling is, nonetheless, a pretty weak mode of expression. Most children usually grow out of it by Year 9 or so.

You called the "racist" card my friend, pretty slick and cogent argument eh, but I suspect that you might think your "challenge" passes for intelligent and intellectual discussion, there is, actually, a difference if you took time out from your terminal ennui, to find out what it is. :rolleyes:

I do not need to "qualify" a view, simply put it, whether you agree or not is your prerogative, as is whether you are able to, or interested in putting up an alternative argument in rebuttal, beyond the usual intelectually lazy and bankrupt slur.
If it so boring and too hard simply ignore it.

You may also have a difficulty with the knowledge that the venerable LKY himself, refers to his fellow countrymen as 'Chinamen', 'Indians' and 'Malays', makes a level headed and pragmatic differentiation between each of them and Australians as well as having a very keen understanding of their cultural differences. Which is also one of the reasons for his stunning successes in controlling his Island State.
So of course that makes him, in your view, a racist as well.
You are my friend suffering from what Frank Devine, the well respected Australian journalist has come to call Coercive Sanction as the correct definition for what most lazy thinkers call Political Correctness.

SQ; you may be dissapointed to learn I have much more than a passing knowledge of how they came to be where they are and why they are trapped in their present paradigm. Succesful yes, but as all businesses eventually find out, getting there may be hard but staying there is many many orders of magnitude harder.
You eventually have to form alliances, to do so there has to be mutual respect and trust. They have yet, much to learn about both.

You are right, they don't trust our Government because they don't/can't trust themselves. If there is a Government they could and should trust it is an Australian one, especially the current one. You have to know what trust is, to be able to give it at a national level and that requires a level of National maturity that may not yet exist.

Have you gone to sleep yet.

Touch a nerve about 'war' did I.
I must admit I did "mistake" your 'nic' for the "Martin" version as your demeanour in the post was similar to his and not one that I would have attributed to the very fine and eponymous "frank" version.

Hmmm, if you feel that it is necessary to have a "my family is more distinguished than yours" contest.
Try this;
I also come from a very undistinguished military family with Anzacs, Diggers and Air Force scattered about, difference is they wish to remain undistinguished, having the view that they, like the vast majority of them, did what was necessary and got on with the rest of their lives without fanfare or attention.
Unless I had done likewise, I could not bask in the reflection of their glory or even felt it was necessary to mention it.
It was their achievement not mine, I am proud of them yes, but it was their sacrifice, to which I cannot make any personal claim.
I found out recently, quite by chance, of some fairly serious "commendations" awarded to my father and some close friends, that he, or his close friends, had not found necessary to mention, never, ever, not once in the 56 years that I have known them all.

But then you wont be checking this post or will you.

Either way, put up constructive intelligent and intelectually rigorous argument in debate or shut up. And that's as offensive as I've ever been in a post, it must be catching.:rolleyes:

Now this moron is going off to have that glass of wine.

frank Borman
19th Dec 2002, 20:28
You go and have that wine *****. I really do think you need it.

He may be a pain in the you know where sometimes, and anyone who has been around for a bit won't have too much trouble guessing who he may or may not be, but he has chosen to use an anonymous title and as such he is entitled to the same anonymity as you have chosen to use.
You would do well to respect that.
We dont use names around here without the express permission of the user, the penalty for which is 8 points.