Media Bias Against VB?
Thread Starter
One ball, my beef with Qantas is that it is run exclusively for the benefit of NSW in general and Sydney in particular. In addition it has operated as an effective monopoly for fifty years and conspired with various governments to maintain that situation.
I also suspect its business practices are corrupt since one of its former Directors is under investigation, but I have no proof. I have also said before that "bad things" always seem to happen to its competitors.
Looks like VB is no exception. VB's troubles will stop when they appoint a few more Sydney based Directors, settle themselves in a subserviant position and stop attacking Qantas market share. I've seen this before in another industry.
It is now receiving some competition and it amuses me to see some of the Qantas fat cats screaming like stuck pigs.
I also suspect its business practices are corrupt since one of its former Directors is under investigation, but I have no proof. I have also said before that "bad things" always seem to happen to its competitors.
Looks like VB is no exception. VB's troubles will stop when they appoint a few more Sydney based Directors, settle themselves in a subserviant position and stop attacking Qantas market share. I've seen this before in another industry.
It is now receiving some competition and it amuses me to see some of the Qantas fat cats screaming like stuck pigs.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wowser
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas is ... run exclusively for the benefit of NSW in general and Sydney in particular.
I'm going to find something good to read in the Book Repository.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, I just cannot work you out, my friend.
Qantas has been based in Sydney since the 1930's. Yes, so it is "Sydney - centric". But thats just geography. Qantas has bases for it's crew all over - and employs people all over. So what if it is HQ'd in Sydney. Where would YOU have it based? Dubbo? You just do not make sense.
Furthermore, which particular "Qantas fat cat" is "screaming like a stuck pig", and exactly what are they screaming about?
You really are losing any shred of credibility.
Qantas has been based in Sydney since the 1930's. Yes, so it is "Sydney - centric". But thats just geography. Qantas has bases for it's crew all over - and employs people all over. So what if it is HQ'd in Sydney. Where would YOU have it based? Dubbo? You just do not make sense.
Furthermore, which particular "Qantas fat cat" is "screaming like a stuck pig", and exactly what are they screaming about?
You really are losing any shred of credibility.
Evertonian
Fair call LocoBloko...Note to self: Remember to book next trip with EWL!
Whiskery & TIMMEEE Don't you guys realise that you lose all credibility when you refer to that rabble of a footy team?
Whiskery & TIMMEEE Don't you guys realise that you lose all credibility when you refer to that rabble of a footy team?
Pinky
Sure hope your first bottle better than the second!
Whiskery
That an international airline of such repute, would sponsor a football club of which the majority of the members haven't been South of the Yarra ( thank christ for property prices ), a baffling mystery.
Collingwood supporters more Virgin Blue Collar clientel!
Sunfish
Virgin Blue has gotten away with murder with the press. I personally, welcome the awakening!
Sure hope your first bottle better than the second!
Whiskery
That an international airline of such repute, would sponsor a football club of which the majority of the members haven't been South of the Yarra ( thank christ for property prices ), a baffling mystery.
Collingwood supporters more Virgin Blue Collar clientel!
Sunfish
Virgin Blue has gotten away with murder with the press. I personally, welcome the awakening!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: perth
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree Buster I have been losing the plot for a while.
Despite the jokes I make about it all, I do have the utmost respect for Branson and Co. It is easy to slag them however in the end they did bring 3000 odd jobs to the table when a lot of people needed them when Ansett when bust.
A lot of the stale management in traditional coompanies dont like Branson but in the end thats the famous Ozzie "tall poopy" thing isnt it.
Best thing is, despite eveything said it would really eat them up at night that such a genuine easy going (abeit publicitiy loving person) has done so well. Someone who is worth a billion odd pounds has obviously done something very very right.
Despite the jokes I make about it all, I do have the utmost respect for Branson and Co. It is easy to slag them however in the end they did bring 3000 odd jobs to the table when a lot of people needed them when Ansett when bust.
A lot of the stale management in traditional coompanies dont like Branson but in the end thats the famous Ozzie "tall poopy" thing isnt it.
Best thing is, despite eveything said it would really eat them up at night that such a genuine easy going (abeit publicitiy loving person) has done so well. Someone who is worth a billion odd pounds has obviously done something very very right.
Thread Starter
Cacky, in 1979 when Ansett went wide bodied overseas airlines were pleading with us to provide a 747 TFC facility in Melbourne so that they could avoid the obligatory three hour stop in Sydney.
I pushed that argument very strongly and was told to shut up because no one was going to be allowed to interfere with Qantas's monopoly position. It was put to me that "Abeles will have our *** if we challenged Qantas's monopoly of this activity.
As a result of this, a great deal of overseas new investment in the IT industry and in merchant banking went to Sydney - because it was seen to be three hours closer to the rest of the world than Melbourne.
To put it another way, you are an investment banker having to decide where to put your Australian operation. You have just taken the red eye from New York and joined a Qantas flight from the coast. You arrive in Sydney and are told there willl be a wait in the transit lounge while your plane is either serviced, cleaned and reloaded etc.
Where do you decide to base your business?
I've said this before on this forum and nobody has contradicted me.
Furthermore, go to Qantas's American website and try booking flights from the States to Melbourne, or other state capitals without visiting Sydney inbound or outbound. State Governments have been screaming about this for years.
You want a stat dec?
I pushed that argument very strongly and was told to shut up because no one was going to be allowed to interfere with Qantas's monopoly position. It was put to me that "Abeles will have our *** if we challenged Qantas's monopoly of this activity.
As a result of this, a great deal of overseas new investment in the IT industry and in merchant banking went to Sydney - because it was seen to be three hours closer to the rest of the world than Melbourne.
To put it another way, you are an investment banker having to decide where to put your Australian operation. You have just taken the red eye from New York and joined a Qantas flight from the coast. You arrive in Sydney and are told there willl be a wait in the transit lounge while your plane is either serviced, cleaned and reloaded etc.
Where do you decide to base your business?
I've said this before on this forum and nobody has contradicted me.
Furthermore, go to Qantas's American website and try booking flights from the States to Melbourne, or other state capitals without visiting Sydney inbound or outbound. State Governments have been screaming about this for years.
You want a stat dec?
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Furthermore, go to Qantas's American website and try booking flights from the States to Melbourne, or other state capitals without visiting Sydney inbound or outbound.
Cheers, HH.
PS: It would be ludicrous to expect an airline to fly to any other "state capitals", whilst bypassing the east coast!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't QF scream when Air Niugini flew from Cairns to Honolulu and Townsville to Singapore. Every international QF pax had to go via SYD to get to anywhere on the East Coast.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The fact that the collusion (i.e. "co-operaration" on fares, scheduling and capacity) between QF and BA has the approval of the ACCC does not make it any less collusion.
All things being equal when you have dominant players such as these two, in priviledged positions (e.g. their slots and gates at each end of the SYD-LHR route) you'll get fewer seats and higher costs than would otherwise be the case. The ACCC has thus far felt that this was not too unacceptable. But it is still collusion, unless we're all happier with a nicer word that means the same thing.
But....the "Qantas has 37 competitors" line has long passed its used by date. On domestic routes, anyone of us could raise some money, buy an old 737-300 and start services within 6 months against VB. Only need an AOC. No other permission required.
But is that true on any (or at least most) international routes? If indeed QF are that competitive then open up the skies SYD-LAX or if they don't like that, leave the SYD routes and allow everyone else free access in and out of Australia from every other capital.
A few years ago, 1985 I think, the Bureau of Transport Economics (or whatever it was called then) produced a draft report which found that the net deadening effect of Qantas' monopoly position was so great that Australia (i.e. consumers and the toursim industry) would be better off in total if it were abolished and a true "Open Skies" policy established. That draft never did get published in that form...QF lawyers made sure it got a substantial re-write...but the truth of the anti-consumer effect of monopoly which was true then, remains true now.
No-one seriously would want QF to fall over. They're not going to, most probably at least. But lets remember that the industry world wide was built by weird egomanic mavericks like Reg Ansett, Branson, Laker, Howard Hughes, Juan Trippe etc etc. People who dreamed and argued and harangued and probably lied and cheated too, to get their own way. Competition means taking on the top end of town and that, if there is one big lesson from deregulation, is what builds change and jobs.
I don't work for VB, never will. But I fly on them a lot and am very glad they're there. If some Sydney journos have had too much free booze on QF to look outside the window and see the real world being rebuilt daily by visionaries, however flawed, then that's their loss. The public can see, and as Emirates has shown internationally, and VB domestically, will vote with their feet.
All things being equal when you have dominant players such as these two, in priviledged positions (e.g. their slots and gates at each end of the SYD-LHR route) you'll get fewer seats and higher costs than would otherwise be the case. The ACCC has thus far felt that this was not too unacceptable. But it is still collusion, unless we're all happier with a nicer word that means the same thing.
But....the "Qantas has 37 competitors" line has long passed its used by date. On domestic routes, anyone of us could raise some money, buy an old 737-300 and start services within 6 months against VB. Only need an AOC. No other permission required.
But is that true on any (or at least most) international routes? If indeed QF are that competitive then open up the skies SYD-LAX or if they don't like that, leave the SYD routes and allow everyone else free access in and out of Australia from every other capital.
A few years ago, 1985 I think, the Bureau of Transport Economics (or whatever it was called then) produced a draft report which found that the net deadening effect of Qantas' monopoly position was so great that Australia (i.e. consumers and the toursim industry) would be better off in total if it were abolished and a true "Open Skies" policy established. That draft never did get published in that form...QF lawyers made sure it got a substantial re-write...but the truth of the anti-consumer effect of monopoly which was true then, remains true now.
No-one seriously would want QF to fall over. They're not going to, most probably at least. But lets remember that the industry world wide was built by weird egomanic mavericks like Reg Ansett, Branson, Laker, Howard Hughes, Juan Trippe etc etc. People who dreamed and argued and harangued and probably lied and cheated too, to get their own way. Competition means taking on the top end of town and that, if there is one big lesson from deregulation, is what builds change and jobs.
I don't work for VB, never will. But I fly on them a lot and am very glad they're there. If some Sydney journos have had too much free booze on QF to look outside the window and see the real world being rebuilt daily by visionaries, however flawed, then that's their loss. The public can see, and as Emirates has shown internationally, and VB domestically, will vote with their feet.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish
"my beef with Qantas is it is run exclusively for NSW, Sydney in particular"
Why is it that Melbournites have had such a chip on their shoulders for the last 20 years with my weaner is bigger than your weaner stuff.
People in Sydney actually find it a bit funny as well as sad.
Sunfish, I will let you in on a little secret - they are both traffic congested, over priced $hitholes.
"my beef with Qantas is it is run exclusively for NSW, Sydney in particular"
Why is it that Melbournites have had such a chip on their shoulders for the last 20 years with my weaner is bigger than your weaner stuff.
People in Sydney actually find it a bit funny as well as sad.
Sunfish, I will let you in on a little secret - they are both traffic congested, over priced $hitholes.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TIMMEEEEE.
A pretty lame-duck way of adding an extra letter and pretending you are myself.
Woomera - is this acceptable behaviour to add an extra letter to a username in order to defame and twist someone elses words????'
Perhaps if I were to call myself Woomerra and proclaim that anything goes on this forum you wouldnt look too kindly upon this practice???
TIMMEEEE (4 e's).
A pretty lame-duck way of adding an extra letter and pretending you are myself.
Woomera - is this acceptable behaviour to add an extra letter to a username in order to defame and twist someone elses words????'
Perhaps if I were to call myself Woomerra and proclaim that anything goes on this forum you wouldnt look too kindly upon this practice???
TIMMEEEE (4 e's).
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish? It is 2004, you are 25 years behind the times.
Ansett no longer exists.
Sydney is the biggest city in Oz. It was in 1979, too. And for quite a while before that. Maybe 200+ years?
It should hardly be a surprise that much of our trading, both domestic and international occurs there. I really dont think that this has occurred simply because Qantas makes it difficult for people to get there (although, I have a few problems with your line of reasoning there, too), and if you do believe this, well, here comes the funny farm methinks.
Your argument holds no credibility. I seriously believe that your dislike of Qantas has clouded your judgement. This is akin to asking a Ford fan what he thinks of Holden's. "They are sh1t, mate" he'll tell you every time, without any solid basis.
You can write as many stat dec's as you like, your judgement won't be any more objective for it.
Ansett no longer exists.
Sydney is the biggest city in Oz. It was in 1979, too. And for quite a while before that. Maybe 200+ years?
It should hardly be a surprise that much of our trading, both domestic and international occurs there. I really dont think that this has occurred simply because Qantas makes it difficult for people to get there (although, I have a few problems with your line of reasoning there, too), and if you do believe this, well, here comes the funny farm methinks.
Your argument holds no credibility. I seriously believe that your dislike of Qantas has clouded your judgement. This is akin to asking a Ford fan what he thinks of Holden's. "They are sh1t, mate" he'll tell you every time, without any solid basis.
You can write as many stat dec's as you like, your judgement won't be any more objective for it.
Thread Starter
Boney and Cacky, it is serious, because it seriously influences the final Australian destination of overseas investment. This translates into investment, growth and jobs.
Its a real concern and when companies benchmark different locations for factories and offices it is one of the things they consider very seriously. Don't take my word for it, I only worked in the field of investment attraction in the mid 90's. Go and look at KPMG's (or whoever) has done the latest annual surveys.
The Kennett Government took this pretty seriously although the current Labor Mob probably doesn't have a clue.
Its a real concern and when companies benchmark different locations for factories and offices it is one of the things they consider very seriously. Don't take my word for it, I only worked in the field of investment attraction in the mid 90's. Go and look at KPMG's (or whoever) has done the latest annual surveys.
The Kennett Government took this pretty seriously although the current Labor Mob probably doesn't have a clue.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betcha the Tassie Government is seriously p1ssed that Qantas don't have direct Hobart LA flights, too. Must be affecting their development!
Sorry Sunny, I think you live in an alternate reality.
BTW, wasn't this thread about media bias against VB? Of which there is none.....
Sorry Sunny, I think you live in an alternate reality.
BTW, wasn't this thread about media bias against VB? Of which there is none.....
Thread Starter
Cactus, it seems your economic illiteracy is showing.
And yes, perhaps there will one day be a direct Los Angeles Hobart flight.
You are the one with the alternate reality Cactus. Qantas is a disaster waiting to happen, and when it does, thanks to its Sydney centric policies, no one will give a flying F**K
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04089/290216.stm
And from the PA study of Air New Zealands options commissioned by the NZ treasury.
"Tourism:
l Indirect flights with multiple stops or lay-overs to the ultimate destination create the
opportunity for tourists to spend their money elsewhere other than New Zealand.
"More Reasons
Corporate decisions to locate manufacturing and services operations globally weigh the
availability of direct air service links heavily.
l Successful regional economic development programs hinge on the transparency of
transportation arrangements, both passenger and freight.
l Trend is accelerated by increasing reliance on global sourcing, total logistics and
affordable information and communication system capability."
And from here:
http://www.hamburg-aviation-conferen...el_Barrett.pdf
'Airports and Communities in a Deregulated Market.
Sean D. Barrett,
Economics Department,
Trinity College,
Dublin.
Paper to Hamburg Aviation Conference,
February 20, 2004.'
i quote:
"Before deregulation airlines in Europe concentrated on hub airports. The role of
nonhub airports was to feed the hubs. Noncompeting airlines used hubs as points of
interlining, capacity sharing and price collusion.
Through the grandfather rights system the host national airline gained control of slot
allocation at hub airports which were typically allocated to airlines in order of seniority.
New entrants were typically excluded. The economic rents earned by gaining control
over hub airports were capitalised in the scarcity value of slots."
"DEREGULATED MARKETS.
In Europe’s first major deregulation, the Dublin-London route, fares fell by 55% on the
first day, May 23 1986 from £208IR to £94.99IR. In addition to airline competition there
was airport competition first from Luton and later from Stansted. More than half the
passengers on the Dublin-London air route, now the busiest in Europe and the second
busiest in the world, does not now use Heathrow, the previous monopoly hub.
Repeatedly the case studies show ready transfers of market share to new airports served
by new low cost airlines in Europe. Some of the transfers have been dramatic such as
Stansted which was built as a full-cost airport but avoided by the incumbent airlines"
"The fare savings were obviously the major initial attraction which drew passengers to
the new airports. Then passengers began to like small airports because of short walking
times, quicker check-in, less confusion and better punctuality. Passengers liked the new
airports’ simplicity by contrast with large airports with lengthy walking times, delays at
check-in and security desks and delays caused by waiting for connecting flights. Any
margin of extra glamour in hub airport shopping malls over off-airport shopping in the
past has been long eroded by development of shopping plazas in most cities and towns.
Any so-called glamour of hub airports probably ended forty years ago."
"The general rule of thumb for estimating the development effects of airports on the
surrounding economies is one thousand jobs per million passengers and about the same in
secondary job impacts. These estimates are derived from Graham’s summary of
employment impact studies at twenty-four airports, seventeen in Europe and seven in
North America."
And yes, perhaps there will one day be a direct Los Angeles Hobart flight.
You are the one with the alternate reality Cactus. Qantas is a disaster waiting to happen, and when it does, thanks to its Sydney centric policies, no one will give a flying F**K
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04089/290216.stm
And from the PA study of Air New Zealands options commissioned by the NZ treasury.
"Tourism:
l Indirect flights with multiple stops or lay-overs to the ultimate destination create the
opportunity for tourists to spend their money elsewhere other than New Zealand.
"More Reasons
Corporate decisions to locate manufacturing and services operations globally weigh the
availability of direct air service links heavily.
l Successful regional economic development programs hinge on the transparency of
transportation arrangements, both passenger and freight.
l Trend is accelerated by increasing reliance on global sourcing, total logistics and
affordable information and communication system capability."
And from here:
http://www.hamburg-aviation-conferen...el_Barrett.pdf
'Airports and Communities in a Deregulated Market.
Sean D. Barrett,
Economics Department,
Trinity College,
Dublin.
Paper to Hamburg Aviation Conference,
February 20, 2004.'
i quote:
"Before deregulation airlines in Europe concentrated on hub airports. The role of
nonhub airports was to feed the hubs. Noncompeting airlines used hubs as points of
interlining, capacity sharing and price collusion.
Through the grandfather rights system the host national airline gained control of slot
allocation at hub airports which were typically allocated to airlines in order of seniority.
New entrants were typically excluded. The economic rents earned by gaining control
over hub airports were capitalised in the scarcity value of slots."
"DEREGULATED MARKETS.
In Europe’s first major deregulation, the Dublin-London route, fares fell by 55% on the
first day, May 23 1986 from £208IR to £94.99IR. In addition to airline competition there
was airport competition first from Luton and later from Stansted. More than half the
passengers on the Dublin-London air route, now the busiest in Europe and the second
busiest in the world, does not now use Heathrow, the previous monopoly hub.
Repeatedly the case studies show ready transfers of market share to new airports served
by new low cost airlines in Europe. Some of the transfers have been dramatic such as
Stansted which was built as a full-cost airport but avoided by the incumbent airlines"
"The fare savings were obviously the major initial attraction which drew passengers to
the new airports. Then passengers began to like small airports because of short walking
times, quicker check-in, less confusion and better punctuality. Passengers liked the new
airports’ simplicity by contrast with large airports with lengthy walking times, delays at
check-in and security desks and delays caused by waiting for connecting flights. Any
margin of extra glamour in hub airport shopping malls over off-airport shopping in the
past has been long eroded by development of shopping plazas in most cities and towns.
Any so-called glamour of hub airports probably ended forty years ago."
"The general rule of thumb for estimating the development effects of airports on the
surrounding economies is one thousand jobs per million passengers and about the same in
secondary job impacts. These estimates are derived from Graham’s summary of
employment impact studies at twenty-four airports, seventeen in Europe and seven in
North America."
Last edited by Sunfish; 13th Dec 2004 at 19:21.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas is a disaster waiting to happen, and when it does, thanks to its Sydney centric policies, no one will give a flying F**K
Sunny? May I politely suggest that you share this tripe with someone who cares?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, you are correct in saying that it does affect investment.
Not a heavy driver myself but I would say one reason would be the extra fuel from say, the United States of Aggression to Melb would mean less frieght up lift etc.
The other thing is Sydney has been promoted as the gateway to Australia for the last 20 years by many different sectors of business and government. I believe this is one reason that the place is just becoming so over crowded. Sydney may live to regret the subtle self promotion.
Potential immigrants just remember the pretty pictures of the Opera House/The Coat hangar across the creek they have seen while growing up and when they move out here it is a case of "that's where I WANT to live". Latest figures show 20,000 a year are leaving but the population is still growing at a thousand a week. That is, people living here are realising there is not much actual REAL quality of life here but thousands from rural Australia and overseas are still coming.
This is why the Real Estate is such a rip off. The only reason yours truly has been here for a couple of years is because of a decent job although I plan to one of the runners in the new year.
Sorry to get off the topic but I do find it interesting to state the media is anti VB. Every single time there is a "huge" annoucement, the media is there. I remember when VB first started up, RB would often announce the SAME thing twice in the one month and the media, being the bunch of morons they are, fell for it every time.
RB knows the media and most of the general public are brain dead and uses all of it to his business advantage.
And that my friends is why he has millions of dollars and half of us on this forum are wondering how to pay the rent next week. Good luck to him.
Such is life!
Not a heavy driver myself but I would say one reason would be the extra fuel from say, the United States of Aggression to Melb would mean less frieght up lift etc.
The other thing is Sydney has been promoted as the gateway to Australia for the last 20 years by many different sectors of business and government. I believe this is one reason that the place is just becoming so over crowded. Sydney may live to regret the subtle self promotion.
Potential immigrants just remember the pretty pictures of the Opera House/The Coat hangar across the creek they have seen while growing up and when they move out here it is a case of "that's where I WANT to live". Latest figures show 20,000 a year are leaving but the population is still growing at a thousand a week. That is, people living here are realising there is not much actual REAL quality of life here but thousands from rural Australia and overseas are still coming.
This is why the Real Estate is such a rip off. The only reason yours truly has been here for a couple of years is because of a decent job although I plan to one of the runners in the new year.
Sorry to get off the topic but I do find it interesting to state the media is anti VB. Every single time there is a "huge" annoucement, the media is there. I remember when VB first started up, RB would often announce the SAME thing twice in the one month and the media, being the bunch of morons they are, fell for it every time.
RB knows the media and most of the general public are brain dead and uses all of it to his business advantage.
And that my friends is why he has millions of dollars and half of us on this forum are wondering how to pay the rent next week. Good luck to him.
Such is life!
Last edited by Boney; 14th Dec 2004 at 03:19.
Thread Starter
Boney I guess you are right. As for Cactus, I guess you have never worked for Government have you? State Governments will kill for more international direct flights only QF hasn't provided them in the past and probably won't in future.
Here is a hint, if you want to see off emirates, why dont you provide extra direct flight capacity to Melbourne at Emirate prices and service levels?
Here is a hint, if you want to see off emirates, why dont you provide extra direct flight capacity to Melbourne at Emirate prices and service levels?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, I will very proudly tell you that I have not worked for Government. And I don't particularly care whether or not local, state or federal governments "want" services, or whether it affects "investment". Nor does Qantas, and nor should it.
I'll let you in on something here, Sunfish. Call it Airline Economics and Management 101 if you like.
Qantas does not exist as a "charity" carrier. It exists to make a profit, pure and simple. Long gone are the days where the airline was government sponsored. They sold it, remember? Now there are shareholders who have a right to expect a return for their investment.
Not only that, there are employees, who expect to be secure in their jobs. There are creditors, who expect to be paid. And the list goes on.
Then, along comes Sunfish, who in his dated expectations, desires that Qantas provide route structures which suit the minority, and arguably, will ensure the demise of the airline, because that particular route is not economically sustainable.
Sunfish, you simply cannot suggest that Qantas open up routes "willy nilly" to suit every last person, because the airline will go broke quick smart. You cannot suggest that the airline is a "disaster waiting to happen" - your words - just because the airline doesn't have a timetable to suit your (and your local governments) exclusive needs. Your government should be attracting investment, not expecting Qantas to do it for them.
What you ask for is the tail wagging the dog.
You obviously hail from Melbourne, and you have a "small mans syndrome". Me? I dont live in Sydney or Melbourne, and I probably have other psychological deficiencies. But I can see the errors in your thinking.
I'll let you in on something here, Sunfish. Call it Airline Economics and Management 101 if you like.
Qantas does not exist as a "charity" carrier. It exists to make a profit, pure and simple. Long gone are the days where the airline was government sponsored. They sold it, remember? Now there are shareholders who have a right to expect a return for their investment.
Not only that, there are employees, who expect to be secure in their jobs. There are creditors, who expect to be paid. And the list goes on.
Then, along comes Sunfish, who in his dated expectations, desires that Qantas provide route structures which suit the minority, and arguably, will ensure the demise of the airline, because that particular route is not economically sustainable.
Sunfish, you simply cannot suggest that Qantas open up routes "willy nilly" to suit every last person, because the airline will go broke quick smart. You cannot suggest that the airline is a "disaster waiting to happen" - your words - just because the airline doesn't have a timetable to suit your (and your local governments) exclusive needs. Your government should be attracting investment, not expecting Qantas to do it for them.
What you ask for is the tail wagging the dog.
You obviously hail from Melbourne, and you have a "small mans syndrome". Me? I dont live in Sydney or Melbourne, and I probably have other psychological deficiencies. But I can see the errors in your thinking.
