Branson's new Aussie flight plan
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Branson's New Aussie flight plan
Thurs "The Australian"
Branson's new flight plan
By Steve Creedy
January 20, 2005
BRITISH entrepreneur Richard Branson will set up another locally based airline to fly across the Pacific if plans by Virgin Blue to fly the route do not proceed.
At the launch of the A380 in Toulouse, France, Sir Richard said he was keenly interested in flying the route and was prepared to set up a 51 per cent owned Australian company with separate institutional shareholders if necessary.
"If we can work it with Virgin Blue, that will be great," he said.
"If the board of Virgin Blue decides just to keep it to short haul (flying), then we'll be looking for other Australian partners.
"We are trying to bring it to a head over the next couple of months but we definitely want to fly the Australian-Pacific routes."
Sir Richard's comments came as Qantas announced it would dedicate its first four 501-seat A380s to its US services when it began flying the aircraft in the second half of next year. This comes in the wake of an announcement from Singapore Airlines chief executive Chew Choong Seng, who said he would like to fly the giant planes between Sydney and Los Angeles.
Qantas has ordered 12 A380s, with options for 10 more, and said the first dozen planes would allow the airline to fly at least 17 weekly services between Melbourne and Sydney and Los Angeles and 14 to London via Bangkok, Hong Kong and Singapore.
The A380 services would be bolstered by the use of long-range Boeing 747s.
The decision not to use the A380s initially on the highly competitive kangaroo route surprised observers, given that Singapore has nominated London-Singapore-Sydney as its launch route and expects to start the service by the end of June 2006.
But Qantas executives said high yields and strong demand on US routes made it the best place to start flying the giant plane.
Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon denied he was making the move to head off plans by Singapore Airlines to fly to Los Angeles.
"Our business case has always shown that the best place for us to deploy the aircraft was the US, and the second best place was the UK over the kangaroo route," Mr Dixon said.
"It's a good competitive advantage for us, although it means for a period we'll be flying long-range 747s against Singapore and, by the sounds of it, half the world on the kangaroo route, but I think we can get over this."
Qantas argues Singapore should not be allowed to pick up passengers in Australia and fly them to the US until it can get similar rights out of Singapore.
Mr Chew said he supported the dropping of all restrictions on flying from either country.
"We are all for opening everything up so that it's a level playing field all round – may the best person win because our belief is that competition is good for the consumer," he said.
"At the moment the Pacific route is rather under-served and we would like to be in position to offer the travellers between America and Australia a different-priced service option on the route," Mr Chew said.
"After all, we're not looking for overnight access, although ideally that is the endgame, but we believe we can add to the competition in the marketplace."
Mr Chew said he was not surprised Qantas had chosen to deploy its first A380s on US routes as it was no secret that there was little competition on the route and yields were high.
"Therefore a combination of lower costs and very high fares is natural for anybody who wants to deploy," he said.
When challenged to say what the fares should be on the route he stopped short of committing Singapore to cheaper tickets, saying only that the airline would remain competitive and prices would be determined by supply and demand.
He believed the potential to develop tourism and business traffic from the US to Australia was tremendous and suggested that originating traffic in the US would be at least 60 per cent.
Asked about complaints from Qantas that SIA was hurting Jetstar Asia by undercutting its low launch prices, Mr Chew pointed to Jetstar's pricing on Australian domestic routes and asked: "So who is calling the kettle black?"
Qantas chief financial officer Peter Gregg had earlier said that the Singaporean low-cost start-up faced a level of competition "you might not experience in Australia because the laws wouldn't let it happen".
But Mr Chew said: "We are not controlling what Jetstar Asia is offering beyond Singapore. For Jetstar Asia to complain that we are competitive, vis-a-vis them, is a bit ironic."
The Australian
===========================================
Branson's new flight plan
By Steve Creedy
January 20, 2005
BRITISH entrepreneur Richard Branson will set up another locally based airline to fly across the Pacific if plans by Virgin Blue to fly the route do not proceed.
At the launch of the A380 in Toulouse, France, Sir Richard said he was keenly interested in flying the route and was prepared to set up a 51 per cent owned Australian company with separate institutional shareholders if necessary.
"If we can work it with Virgin Blue, that will be great," he said.
"If the board of Virgin Blue decides just to keep it to short haul (flying), then we'll be looking for other Australian partners.
"We are trying to bring it to a head over the next couple of months but we definitely want to fly the Australian-Pacific routes."
Sir Richard's comments came as Qantas announced it would dedicate its first four 501-seat A380s to its US services when it began flying the aircraft in the second half of next year. This comes in the wake of an announcement from Singapore Airlines chief executive Chew Choong Seng, who said he would like to fly the giant planes between Sydney and Los Angeles.
Qantas has ordered 12 A380s, with options for 10 more, and said the first dozen planes would allow the airline to fly at least 17 weekly services between Melbourne and Sydney and Los Angeles and 14 to London via Bangkok, Hong Kong and Singapore.
The A380 services would be bolstered by the use of long-range Boeing 747s.
The decision not to use the A380s initially on the highly competitive kangaroo route surprised observers, given that Singapore has nominated London-Singapore-Sydney as its launch route and expects to start the service by the end of June 2006.
But Qantas executives said high yields and strong demand on US routes made it the best place to start flying the giant plane.
Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon denied he was making the move to head off plans by Singapore Airlines to fly to Los Angeles.
"Our business case has always shown that the best place for us to deploy the aircraft was the US, and the second best place was the UK over the kangaroo route," Mr Dixon said.
"It's a good competitive advantage for us, although it means for a period we'll be flying long-range 747s against Singapore and, by the sounds of it, half the world on the kangaroo route, but I think we can get over this."
Qantas argues Singapore should not be allowed to pick up passengers in Australia and fly them to the US until it can get similar rights out of Singapore.
Mr Chew said he supported the dropping of all restrictions on flying from either country.
"We are all for opening everything up so that it's a level playing field all round – may the best person win because our belief is that competition is good for the consumer," he said.
"At the moment the Pacific route is rather under-served and we would like to be in position to offer the travellers between America and Australia a different-priced service option on the route," Mr Chew said.
"After all, we're not looking for overnight access, although ideally that is the endgame, but we believe we can add to the competition in the marketplace."
Mr Chew said he was not surprised Qantas had chosen to deploy its first A380s on US routes as it was no secret that there was little competition on the route and yields were high.
"Therefore a combination of lower costs and very high fares is natural for anybody who wants to deploy," he said.
When challenged to say what the fares should be on the route he stopped short of committing Singapore to cheaper tickets, saying only that the airline would remain competitive and prices would be determined by supply and demand.
He believed the potential to develop tourism and business traffic from the US to Australia was tremendous and suggested that originating traffic in the US would be at least 60 per cent.
Asked about complaints from Qantas that SIA was hurting Jetstar Asia by undercutting its low launch prices, Mr Chew pointed to Jetstar's pricing on Australian domestic routes and asked: "So who is calling the kettle black?"
Qantas chief financial officer Peter Gregg had earlier said that the Singaporean low-cost start-up faced a level of competition "you might not experience in Australia because the laws wouldn't let it happen".
But Mr Chew said: "We are not controlling what Jetstar Asia is offering beyond Singapore. For Jetstar Asia to complain that we are competitive, vis-a-vis them, is a bit ironic."
The Australian
===========================================
Last edited by Wirraway; 19th Jan 2005 at 16:17.
Mr Chew said he supported the dropping of all restrictions on flying from either country.
there seems to be a lot of bleating from the Singaporeans about gaining rights to fly from Australia onwards, but as yet I haven't seen anyone define any benefits for Australia from the deal.
Anyone...?
Cheaper Flights,
More Frequencies,
Better US Connections via Star,
Better Cabin Configuration,
Better Inflight Service,
Younger and FAR friendlier flight attendants.
Enough reason?
More Frequencies,
Better US Connections via Star,
Better Cabin Configuration,
Better Inflight Service,
Younger and FAR friendlier flight attendants.
Enough reason?
What rights do airlines from Australia gain by having an 'open skies' agreement with Singapore? Especially given that Singapore has a population that is tiny compared to Australia, is a tiny island in size and has very little tourist value.
I'm guessing that the Singaporeans have realised that the time is coming soon when airlines on the way to Europe from the Pacific (& vice versa) will no longer have to stop in Singapore, and are thus trying to 'grab' as many other routes as they possibly can - what other justification do they have for operating Aust-USa, given that they already operate flights direct from Singapore to the USA...?
Better looking flight attendants wasn't really what I was after - maybe something at a slightly higher level...
What makes you think that the airfares will be cheaper if SQ start operating the route? They have laready begun to downplay this concept in initial media interviews, and surely if the route is so under capacity at the moment, they would be foolish to offer cheap seats...?
As a counter point, how much are those benefits listed worth to you...?
Flights no cheaper
oz jobs going overseas
profits going overseas
for what gain - so SQ can continue to make record profits...?
I'm guessing that the Singaporeans have realised that the time is coming soon when airlines on the way to Europe from the Pacific (& vice versa) will no longer have to stop in Singapore, and are thus trying to 'grab' as many other routes as they possibly can - what other justification do they have for operating Aust-USa, given that they already operate flights direct from Singapore to the USA...?
Better looking flight attendants wasn't really what I was after - maybe something at a slightly higher level...
What makes you think that the airfares will be cheaper if SQ start operating the route? They have laready begun to downplay this concept in initial media interviews, and surely if the route is so under capacity at the moment, they would be foolish to offer cheap seats...?
As a counter point, how much are those benefits listed worth to you...?
Flights no cheaper
oz jobs going overseas
profits going overseas
for what gain - so SQ can continue to make record profits...?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If SQ are currently making record profits, based on they're current routes, doesn't this suggest that there is potential for QF to pick up unused capacity on these routes? Although of small size, Singapore is still a vital business destination.
If the pacific route is still under capacity, there probably wouldn't be much movement in prices on the SYD-LAX route. However, don't you think that both airlines would have incentive to lower prices if they are not experiencing the current loads?
As to your question about the other benefits:
"Flights no cheaper
oz jobs going overseas
profits going overseas"
Isn't this in line with QF current plan to move jobs to Asia? They should be proud to support this.
If the pacific route is still under capacity, there probably wouldn't be much movement in prices on the SYD-LAX route. However, don't you think that both airlines would have incentive to lower prices if they are not experiencing the current loads?
As to your question about the other benefits:
"Flights no cheaper
oz jobs going overseas
profits going overseas"
Isn't this in line with QF current plan to move jobs to Asia? They should be proud to support this.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hail the great A380....
Direct flights between Singapore and London and Melbourne to Los Angeles. Sounds innovative...I don't think.
I can only imagine the airport fun in BKK when a plane load of 800 people in transit try to move through.
Seems to me that it will just be the same old ride in a bigger plane packed with more passengers.
Surely, the A380 could be made long range enough to do Melbourne or Sydney to London direct and Melbourne to New York or Chicago non stop?
I just don't see much benefit to passengers or much incentive to fly on it myself. It hardly a great leap forward for anyone else but the airlines hoping to save 12% on thier operating costs.
Bars and shops and cafes in the sky....yeah right!!
Am I missing something here with this new plane??
HH
Direct flights between Singapore and London and Melbourne to Los Angeles. Sounds innovative...I don't think.
I can only imagine the airport fun in BKK when a plane load of 800 people in transit try to move through.
Seems to me that it will just be the same old ride in a bigger plane packed with more passengers.
Surely, the A380 could be made long range enough to do Melbourne or Sydney to London direct and Melbourne to New York or Chicago non stop?
I just don't see much benefit to passengers or much incentive to fly on it myself. It hardly a great leap forward for anyone else but the airlines hoping to save 12% on thier operating costs.
Bars and shops and cafes in the sky....yeah right!!
Am I missing something here with this new plane??
HH
Join Date: May 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But back to the other topic at hand on this thread......
As we have all been saying for a while, weather Singapore fly Oz - Us direct or not Virgin pacific/blue is not far away. Once again with all the other pressures/challanges that Q are facing, it will be very very interesting to see how they fare when one of their most profitable (and govenment protected) routes is finally opened up. (Cant stop Virgin PAcific when they're 51% Oz owned).
The profits from this route (and the kanga) is what has helped Q subsidise the current onslaught on the domestic front. We all here know how happy the corperate Pax are with Q service on this route and how much they want more options. Can you imagine the Q bottom line on this route WHEN it happens not with just Virgin PAacific but if Singapore start also.........Me thinks the Q shares wont be so happy.
As we have all been saying for a while, weather Singapore fly Oz - Us direct or not Virgin pacific/blue is not far away. Once again with all the other pressures/challanges that Q are facing, it will be very very interesting to see how they fare when one of their most profitable (and govenment protected) routes is finally opened up. (Cant stop Virgin PAcific when they're 51% Oz owned).
The profits from this route (and the kanga) is what has helped Q subsidise the current onslaught on the domestic front. We all here know how happy the corperate Pax are with Q service on this route and how much they want more options. Can you imagine the Q bottom line on this route WHEN it happens not with just Virgin PAacific but if Singapore start also.........Me thinks the Q shares wont be so happy.
Last edited by PureRisk; 20th Jan 2005 at 03:15.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Selling more of the farm?
At the current rate, there will be little left for the enxt generation of Australians - your kids and mine! We all know that Qantas leaves much to be desired but that is NOt the point - why should we tolerate giving air traffic rights away to foreigners for little or no return?
Should SQ gain trans Pacific rights, what will they do for Australia? Very little. If Branson manages to get an Ausytalian airline up and running, my guess is that he will simply share the profits - or indeed losses - with Qantas and United. There are a few very short periods during the year when capacity is constarined byt by and large, everyone on the route has plenty of unsold seats most of the time.
New carriers will not grow the market except at the cost of yield. Good yields generally means profit, low yields equate to losses. Neither QF nor SQ nor anyone else want to see a blood bath, but that will happen if SQ gets its way. How many US carriers have been seen off the route by QF and UA (and before them Pan Am)? Northwest, Continenatal, and American ) The times have not changed all that much.
Should SQ gain trans Pacific rights, what will they do for Australia? Very little. If Branson manages to get an Ausytalian airline up and running, my guess is that he will simply share the profits - or indeed losses - with Qantas and United. There are a few very short periods during the year when capacity is constarined byt by and large, everyone on the route has plenty of unsold seats most of the time.
New carriers will not grow the market except at the cost of yield. Good yields generally means profit, low yields equate to losses. Neither QF nor SQ nor anyone else want to see a blood bath, but that will happen if SQ gets its way. How many US carriers have been seen off the route by QF and UA (and before them Pan Am)? Northwest, Continenatal, and American ) The times have not changed all that much.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fri "Mebourne Age"
Branson willing to fly solo across Pacific
By Fleur Leyden
January 21, 2005
Aviation analysts have given the thumbs up to plans by Virgin Atlantic chief Richard Branson to set up a locally based airline to fly the lucrative Australian-Pacific routes, with or without the help of Virgin Blue.
At the launch of the Airbus A380 in France on Tuesday, Sir Richard said he was interested in flying the route with Virgin Blue. But he did not rule out establishing a 51 per cent-owned Australian company with separate institutional shareholders if Virgin Blue did not come on board.
Analysts said Sir Richard's plan made sense because the route across the Pacific is one of the world's most profitable.
Qantas and United Airlines are at present the main players servicing the routes between the US and Australia.
"Virgin would be looking to link up all its other businesses or airlines around the world, and that would make it the only truly global airline," said one analyst.
Just who Sir Richard would take as a partner in the absence of Virgin Blue is unclear.
==========================================
Branson willing to fly solo across Pacific
By Fleur Leyden
January 21, 2005
Aviation analysts have given the thumbs up to plans by Virgin Atlantic chief Richard Branson to set up a locally based airline to fly the lucrative Australian-Pacific routes, with or without the help of Virgin Blue.
At the launch of the Airbus A380 in France on Tuesday, Sir Richard said he was interested in flying the route with Virgin Blue. But he did not rule out establishing a 51 per cent-owned Australian company with separate institutional shareholders if Virgin Blue did not come on board.
Analysts said Sir Richard's plan made sense because the route across the Pacific is one of the world's most profitable.
Qantas and United Airlines are at present the main players servicing the routes between the US and Australia.
"Virgin would be looking to link up all its other businesses or airlines around the world, and that would make it the only truly global airline," said one analyst.
Just who Sir Richard would take as a partner in the absence of Virgin Blue is unclear.
==========================================
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Johhny U, you ask, "What rights do airlines from Australia gain by having an 'open skies' agreement with Singapore?", but according to the article it states, "Qantas argues Singapore should not be allowed to pick up passengers in Australia and fly them to the US until it can get similar rights out of Singapore."
So obviously your own company has the answer you're looking for.
Don, your comments, "There are a few very short periods during the year when capacity is constarined byt by and large, everyone on the route has plenty of unsold seats most of the time.
New carriers will not grow the market except at the cost of yield.", seem grossly at odds with those made by Dixon of QF when he stated,
"Our business case has always shown that the best place for us to deploy the aircraft was the US", and also with SQ's Mr Chew....
"At the moment the Pacific route is rather under-served...it was no secret that there was little competition on the route and yields were high".
Do YOU know something neither of these men don't??
So obviously your own company has the answer you're looking for.
Don, your comments, "There are a few very short periods during the year when capacity is constarined byt by and large, everyone on the route has plenty of unsold seats most of the time.
New carriers will not grow the market except at the cost of yield.", seem grossly at odds with those made by Dixon of QF when he stated,
"Our business case has always shown that the best place for us to deploy the aircraft was the US", and also with SQ's Mr Chew....
"At the moment the Pacific route is rather under-served...it was no secret that there was little competition on the route and yields were high".
Do YOU know something neither of these men don't??
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin,
Who knows what these guys know or don't know? Would you think that they are really telling it 'as it is' when one is defending a part of his patch with the other seeking to expand his patch into that of the other? Truth is always a casulaty of war, in whatever form war takes place. To take Dixon's comment first, why don't they suspend operations to J'burg or London or Frankfurt or Hong Kong in order to get them onto the route "that's best to deploy aircraft"? If his statement is correct, then he can't be that serious about making the best money he can for his shareholders.
Mr Chew said ' "At the moment the Pacific route is rather under-served...it was no secret that there was little competition on the route and yields were high". How does he define Air New Zealand, Air Canada, Air Pacific and Hawaiian who all operate on the Pacific? I believe they will be joined by Air Tahiti Niue in a few months. And then we have the likes of Philippines, Eva Air, China Airlines, Asiana, Korean and some others who are active players in the Australia-Nth American market . Who says there's no competition?
As posted in another thread, the latest stats on the Dept of Transport website are for September 2004. Inbound to Oz, QF had a load factor of 70.1% with UAL having a reported load factor of 78.8%. Outbound, the numbers are 74.9% and 84.5% respectively. Can anyone say that capacity is constrained?
I don't hold a brief for Qantas, but I do want to see Australia and its interests protected. Too much has already been given away for little or no return. What value for example does Gulf or Emirates add to Australian society? Since they began their unfettered operations, has there been any significant increase in the numbers of Middle East tourists travelling to Australia? They, like SQ and some other parasites, are interested solely in the business they can carry between Australia and the UK and Europe. Call me protectionist if you wish but I want a future for my children and my children's children. The way the country is going, there will be nothing left for Australians except to bow and scrape to foreign masters. Think about it, and do so without the thought processes of Pauline Hanson, or not being xenophobic.
Who knows what these guys know or don't know? Would you think that they are really telling it 'as it is' when one is defending a part of his patch with the other seeking to expand his patch into that of the other? Truth is always a casulaty of war, in whatever form war takes place. To take Dixon's comment first, why don't they suspend operations to J'burg or London or Frankfurt or Hong Kong in order to get them onto the route "that's best to deploy aircraft"? If his statement is correct, then he can't be that serious about making the best money he can for his shareholders.
Mr Chew said ' "At the moment the Pacific route is rather under-served...it was no secret that there was little competition on the route and yields were high". How does he define Air New Zealand, Air Canada, Air Pacific and Hawaiian who all operate on the Pacific? I believe they will be joined by Air Tahiti Niue in a few months. And then we have the likes of Philippines, Eva Air, China Airlines, Asiana, Korean and some others who are active players in the Australia-Nth American market . Who says there's no competition?
As posted in another thread, the latest stats on the Dept of Transport website are for September 2004. Inbound to Oz, QF had a load factor of 70.1% with UAL having a reported load factor of 78.8%. Outbound, the numbers are 74.9% and 84.5% respectively. Can anyone say that capacity is constrained?
I don't hold a brief for Qantas, but I do want to see Australia and its interests protected. Too much has already been given away for little or no return. What value for example does Gulf or Emirates add to Australian society? Since they began their unfettered operations, has there been any significant increase in the numbers of Middle East tourists travelling to Australia? They, like SQ and some other parasites, are interested solely in the business they can carry between Australia and the UK and Europe. Call me protectionist if you wish but I want a future for my children and my children's children. The way the country is going, there will be nothing left for Australians except to bow and scrape to foreign masters. Think about it, and do so without the thought processes of Pauline Hanson, or not being xenophobic.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don,
I agree with you about protecting the interests of Australia. However, with the QANTAS chairman pushing for increased foreign ownership and the CEO talking about moving jobs overseas, is protecting QANTAS' interest protecting Australia's?
If QANTAS has no interest in ensuring that its growth helps Australia, why should the Australian people be concerned in helping maintain QANTAS?
I agree with you about protecting the interests of Australia. However, with the QANTAS chairman pushing for increased foreign ownership and the CEO talking about moving jobs overseas, is protecting QANTAS' interest protecting Australia's?
If QANTAS has no interest in ensuring that its growth helps Australia, why should the Australian people be concerned in helping maintain QANTAS?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BS,
Appreciate what you are saying which is hard to refute we need to think long term. We all need to be very careful of these pr!cks (MJ and GD) as they have a short term focus so that they can achieve their short term targets and thus 'earn' their large bonuses. They will be gone by the time the damage is done as a result of their greed.
What to do about this is the dilemma as all small shareholders are essentially without voice. Does the Board and Qantas's major shareholders have a long term vision for the company. if they have, its pretty well hidden. Do they suffer tunnell vision and myopia? British Airways didn't hang around for long, did they?
I am doing my bit by writing to politicians in the hope that they do care about the nation's future and will add their weight to meaningfully support the cries of many who are saying 'enough is enough'. I encourage others to do likewise. If enough speak up, the the pollies may listen and discover that there's some sense in what we are saying. Even if Qantas does export more jobs off-shore, or sells more to foreign interests, we need to do all we can to protect what is left, and to not ignore the 30,000 plus Australiands and their families who are relying on Qantas for the meal tickets. Some are not worth helping but the majority are good, hard working decent people who need all the support we can lend.
Appreciate what you are saying which is hard to refute we need to think long term. We all need to be very careful of these pr!cks (MJ and GD) as they have a short term focus so that they can achieve their short term targets and thus 'earn' their large bonuses. They will be gone by the time the damage is done as a result of their greed.
What to do about this is the dilemma as all small shareholders are essentially without voice. Does the Board and Qantas's major shareholders have a long term vision for the company. if they have, its pretty well hidden. Do they suffer tunnell vision and myopia? British Airways didn't hang around for long, did they?
I am doing my bit by writing to politicians in the hope that they do care about the nation's future and will add their weight to meaningfully support the cries of many who are saying 'enough is enough'. I encourage others to do likewise. If enough speak up, the the pollies may listen and discover that there's some sense in what we are saying. Even if Qantas does export more jobs off-shore, or sells more to foreign interests, we need to do all we can to protect what is left, and to not ignore the 30,000 plus Australiands and their families who are relying on Qantas for the meal tickets. Some are not worth helping but the majority are good, hard working decent people who need all the support we can lend.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If QANTAS has no interest in ensuring that its growth helps Australia, why should the Australian people be concerned in helping maintain QANTAS?
Please DO NOT confuse the actions of QF management with the attitudes of QF staff. We too, have strong views about where the company seems to be heading at present, but if the Australian public let QF die (as you seem to be advocating) who will be hurt? The CEO? The management team? They will have their money in the bank by now thnaks to those very generous self-appointed and self-regulated bonus packages.
The ones who would be hurt most would be the QF workers who find even CPI increases in EBAs very difficult to negotiate these days without having to give up T&Cs.
From www.smh.com.au
By Frank Walker
January 23, 2005
The Sun-Herald
Qantas's role as Australia's national airline will dwindle over the next five years as it joins more international partnerships and domestic routes are taken over by cut-price airlines, aviation experts predict.
Governments are also drastically changing attitudes to supporting flag-carrier airlines, allowing more competition to give travellers better access and increase tourism.
The Australian Government has signalled it will soon allow Singapore Airlines to fly the lucrative Sydney-Los Angeles route in competition with Qantas.
Transport Minister John Anderson said Singapore Airlines' request to fly across the Pacific out of Sydney was "not unreasonable", and the Government would look seriously at some access.
In return, Qantas hopes to set up its cut-price airline Jetstar to fly the internal Asian market, using Singapore as a base.
The shifts in the airline business come on top of Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon's shock declaration that Qantas could not be "all-Australian" and that the airline would have to source more of its people, services and products overseas.
"Governments are now considering what is best for the economic big picture, bringing in more tourists and allowing more competition so that Qantas can expand overseas," said Peter Harbison, managing director of the Centre for Asia-Pacific Aviation.
"Qantas is very profitable in the domestic market, but it will grow only 3 to 4 per cent a year. But the Asian internal market will grow more than 10 per cent and Qantas has to be in it."
Mr Harbison said huge planes such as the Airbus A380, carrying more than 500 passengers, would force Qantas to be involved in more partnerships with other airlines to fill them.
Doug Nancarrow, editor of Aircraft And Aerospace magazine, said the Qantas offshoot Jetstar could end up taking over most of the domestic flights.
"Jetstar could become the primary domestic airline with Qantas running the premium routes of Sydney-Melbourne-Brisbane," he said.
DJ737
By Frank Walker
January 23, 2005
The Sun-Herald
Qantas's role as Australia's national airline will dwindle over the next five years as it joins more international partnerships and domestic routes are taken over by cut-price airlines, aviation experts predict.
Governments are also drastically changing attitudes to supporting flag-carrier airlines, allowing more competition to give travellers better access and increase tourism.
The Australian Government has signalled it will soon allow Singapore Airlines to fly the lucrative Sydney-Los Angeles route in competition with Qantas.
Transport Minister John Anderson said Singapore Airlines' request to fly across the Pacific out of Sydney was "not unreasonable", and the Government would look seriously at some access.
In return, Qantas hopes to set up its cut-price airline Jetstar to fly the internal Asian market, using Singapore as a base.
The shifts in the airline business come on top of Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon's shock declaration that Qantas could not be "all-Australian" and that the airline would have to source more of its people, services and products overseas.
"Governments are now considering what is best for the economic big picture, bringing in more tourists and allowing more competition so that Qantas can expand overseas," said Peter Harbison, managing director of the Centre for Asia-Pacific Aviation.
"Qantas is very profitable in the domestic market, but it will grow only 3 to 4 per cent a year. But the Asian internal market will grow more than 10 per cent and Qantas has to be in it."
Mr Harbison said huge planes such as the Airbus A380, carrying more than 500 passengers, would force Qantas to be involved in more partnerships with other airlines to fill them.
Doug Nancarrow, editor of Aircraft And Aerospace magazine, said the Qantas offshoot Jetstar could end up taking over most of the domestic flights.
"Jetstar could become the primary domestic airline with Qantas running the premium routes of Sydney-Melbourne-Brisbane," he said.
DJ737
Good work Frank.
Try: www.jetstarasia.com
Another triumph of aviation journalism in Australia.
In return, Qantas hopes to set up its cut-price airline Jetstar to fly the internal Asian market, using Singapore as a base.
Another triumph of aviation journalism in Australia.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don Esson/Threebars
Thanks to both of you for replying. Please let me clarify my position. I would support the government protecting QF SYD-LAX route, IF they get an agreement from QF to ensure if continues to remain an Australian flag carrier. Which means it will keep its jobs in Australia where ever possible (ie. when they are making 600 million+ profits) and not attempt to screw its employees.
I believe that QF employees at the front line are primarily proud of working for QF and provide a good service. However, management decisions are policys are killing the company, and its image. QF management continue to layoff staff, claim poor when it comes to EBA negotiations and plan to move its workforce to foreign countries. And then they want us to help protect their cash cow services from competition. I can't help but feel like saying "f*** you".
I would like to think that the federal government would say "okay, we'll keep em out, but you keep those jobs in Australia". I just can't see it happening. I think I'll take up Don's plan of writing to some pollys.
Thanks to both of you for replying. Please let me clarify my position. I would support the government protecting QF SYD-LAX route, IF they get an agreement from QF to ensure if continues to remain an Australian flag carrier. Which means it will keep its jobs in Australia where ever possible (ie. when they are making 600 million+ profits) and not attempt to screw its employees.
I believe that QF employees at the front line are primarily proud of working for QF and provide a good service. However, management decisions are policys are killing the company, and its image. QF management continue to layoff staff, claim poor when it comes to EBA negotiations and plan to move its workforce to foreign countries. And then they want us to help protect their cash cow services from competition. I can't help but feel like saying "f*** you".
I would like to think that the federal government would say "okay, we'll keep em out, but you keep those jobs in Australia". I just can't see it happening. I think I'll take up Don's plan of writing to some pollys.
