View Poll Results: Should SQ be granted "open skies" to the Australian market
Yes
110
46.22%
No
122
51.26%
Undecided
6
2.52%
Voters: 238. This poll is closed
Should SQ be granted "open skies" to the Australian market
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EWL .Thanks Pal, may just have to take you up on that one. Used to overnight in DPO with Southern and would be keen to hit the haunts again.
All the best.
Cornholeyo, so long as our government encourages goods such as sugar and oranges to be imported and services such as Telstra to be farmed off then why shouldnt the Aussie public expect every other industry to be equally as competitive. I detest it equally but the sooner we wake up and look at the bigger picture ie. stop blaming pilots ie. each other; for the sad state of affairs the better.
Oh and Im not so sure if the "national carrier" sing song holds much water at the present.
bbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzz
All the best.
Cornholeyo, so long as our government encourages goods such as sugar and oranges to be imported and services such as Telstra to be farmed off then why shouldnt the Aussie public expect every other industry to be equally as competitive. I detest it equally but the sooner we wake up and look at the bigger picture ie. stop blaming pilots ie. each other; for the sad state of affairs the better.
Oh and Im not so sure if the "national carrier" sing song holds much water at the present.
bbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzz
Last edited by Mr.Buzzy; 16th Feb 2005 at 12:08.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Anywhere I lay my hat...
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just do what has been done in the past.
Agree to it and say its all go, then, at the 11th hour, get the Dep. PM (read Minister for Qantas) to send a fax to them saying,....
NAH! Go away! We don't want to play anymore.
Just watch history repeat itself.
Agree to it and say its all go, then, at the 11th hour, get the Dep. PM (read Minister for Qantas) to send a fax to them saying,....
NAH! Go away! We don't want to play anymore.
Just watch history repeat itself.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: lapbandland
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQ is a government controlled and run enterprise, it's the
biggest employer in Singapore.
No airline can compete with a government agency in the same
business.
Wake up Australia, we have sold all our major mining groups
overseas, even Vegemite is gone, leave our airline be.
Singapore has nothing to offer Australia compared to Pacific
rights.
Open skies means the end of all competition when Govt.
agencies are involved.
The Australian government is stupidly following it's policy of
free markets, competing against the singapore government is
NOT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
IDIOTS!!
biggest employer in Singapore.
No airline can compete with a government agency in the same
business.
Wake up Australia, we have sold all our major mining groups
overseas, even Vegemite is gone, leave our airline be.
Singapore has nothing to offer Australia compared to Pacific
rights.
Open skies means the end of all competition when Govt.
agencies are involved.
The Australian government is stupidly following it's policy of
free markets, competing against the singapore government is
NOT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
IDIOTS!!
Yes Boofta you are right its not a level playing field. Take it from me that there is serious economic argument that if someone wants to give us something for less than the cost of production, it makes sense for us to take it and reallocate our resources (people, money) to something more profitable.
To put it another way, if SQ sells us travel at a loss to them, it is a NETT GAIN for the Australian economy and a LOSS to Singapore.
To put it another way Boofta, the car companies screamed blue murder that the sky was falling when we dismantled industry protection - the same stuff some of you are pushing.
Are Australian cars still being built? Yes. Are they better built and designed then before? Yes. Are they cheaper than before? Yes.
By arguing against change you are actually making things worse for yourselves. QF is a bloody dinosaur in many ways and it MUST change. The LONGER you put it off the WORSE will be the adjustment when we all get sick and tired of high fares crappy schedules and rotten service.
Legacy Airline? Yes. I agree with Dixon on that one, but I disagree about his proposed solution which is stupid.
To put it another way, if SQ sells us travel at a loss to them, it is a NETT GAIN for the Australian economy and a LOSS to Singapore.
To put it another way Boofta, the car companies screamed blue murder that the sky was falling when we dismantled industry protection - the same stuff some of you are pushing.
Are Australian cars still being built? Yes. Are they better built and designed then before? Yes. Are they cheaper than before? Yes.
By arguing against change you are actually making things worse for yourselves. QF is a bloody dinosaur in many ways and it MUST change. The LONGER you put it off the WORSE will be the adjustment when we all get sick and tired of high fares crappy schedules and rotten service.
Legacy Airline? Yes. I agree with Dixon on that one, but I disagree about his proposed solution which is stupid.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US air route may open within year
February 17, 2005
From: AAP
SINGAPORE Airlines (SIA) could be flying the lucrative Australia-US route within a year, Singapore Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong said in comments reported today following talks with his Australian counterpart.
Yeo told reporters upon his return to Singapore on Wednesday that he had put forward the timeframe during "positive and friendly" negotiations this week with Australian Transport Minister John Anderson in Canberra.
"What I asked for is the first trans-Pacific flight by SIA should take place in about 12 months time," Yeo said, according to the Today newspaper.
Anderson, Yeo said, had "taken note" of this request and that he expected both countries to determine an exact timeframe by the middle of this year.
Yeo said Anderson had confirmed the time was right to address the thorny issue of SIA securing access to the Australia-US route following a partial "open skies" agreement that was inked in 2003.
"He appreciated the fact that there was a commitment made in September 2003 that we will proceed onto this last issue when the aviation industry has stabilised," Yeo said, according to local radio bulletins on Thursday.
"And indeed he recognised the fact that it has not just stabilised but the airlines concerned are actually doing very well."
In the 2003 agreement, Australian national carrier Qantas was granted unrestricted rights to fly into Singapore's Changi airport and onwards, giving the airline greater access to Europe.
Qantas, however, successfully lobbied the Australian government to deny SIA similar access to fly from Australia to the United States, which is one of the Australian carrier's most luctrative routes.
Qantas argued then that the travel slump following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) crisis meant it should not have to face increased competition from SIA.
Qantas announced on Thursday a 28 percent increase in first-half profits to a record 458.4 million dollars (359.7 million US).
==============================================
Intersting that it states "In the 2003 agreement, Australian national carrier Qantas was granted unrestricted rights to fly into Singapore's Changi airport and onwards, giving the airline greater access to Europe." Is this correct? surely it's up to the government of the next country to say yes or no then?
As for the rights, this may help in the discussion:
Air Freedom Rights : In 1944 an International Convention was held in Chicago to map out the frame work for all future bi-lateral and multi-lateral (i.e., between two or between many different countries) air agreements. Traditionally, and preserved in this convention, an airline needs the approval of the governments of the various countries involved before it can fly in or out of country, or even across the country without landing.
The 1944 Chicago Convention has been extended somewhat since that time, and currently there are generally considered to be Eight different freedoms. These days, it seems the "fifth freedom" rights are most in the news as airlines seek to expand their rout systems and become more global in scope.
Please note that although these provisions are called " freedom " , they are not automatically granted to an airline as a right. They are privilages , not rights.
The exchange of commercial air rights is determined by bi-lateral negotiations. The Air Freedom Rights is divided into categories as follows:
First Freedom The right to fly across another country without landing.( maybe called transit freedom )
Second Freedom The right to land in another country for purposes other than carrying passengers, such as re-fueling or maintenance. (usually first and second freedoms are considered as temporary flight, not a schedule flight ).
Third Freedom The right to land in another country from their own country for purpose of commercial services.
Fourth Freedom The right to fly from another country to their own country for purpose of commercial services.
Third and Fourth Freedoms They stand together as the basis for commercial services, providing the rights to load and unload passengers, mail and cargo in another country.
Fifth Freedom Sometimes refered to as " beyond right" . This freedom enables airlines to carry passengers to one country, and then fly on to another country (rather than back to their own).This freedom divided into two categories:
Intermediate Fifth Freedom Type is the right to carries from the third country to second country.
Beyond Fifth Freedom Type is the right to carries from second country to the third country.
Sixth Freedom Not formally part of the original convention, this refers to a state's right to carry traffic between two other countries via an airport in its own territory.
Seventh Freedom Also an unofficial extension, this covers the right to operate stand-alone services between two other countries.
Eighth Freedom Another unofficial extension of the treaty, this is sometimes also refered to as " cabotage " rights. This refers to the carriage of passengers and cargo within the borders of another country
From: AAP
SINGAPORE Airlines (SIA) could be flying the lucrative Australia-US route within a year, Singapore Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong said in comments reported today following talks with his Australian counterpart.
Yeo told reporters upon his return to Singapore on Wednesday that he had put forward the timeframe during "positive and friendly" negotiations this week with Australian Transport Minister John Anderson in Canberra.
"What I asked for is the first trans-Pacific flight by SIA should take place in about 12 months time," Yeo said, according to the Today newspaper.
Anderson, Yeo said, had "taken note" of this request and that he expected both countries to determine an exact timeframe by the middle of this year.
Yeo said Anderson had confirmed the time was right to address the thorny issue of SIA securing access to the Australia-US route following a partial "open skies" agreement that was inked in 2003.
"He appreciated the fact that there was a commitment made in September 2003 that we will proceed onto this last issue when the aviation industry has stabilised," Yeo said, according to local radio bulletins on Thursday.
"And indeed he recognised the fact that it has not just stabilised but the airlines concerned are actually doing very well."
In the 2003 agreement, Australian national carrier Qantas was granted unrestricted rights to fly into Singapore's Changi airport and onwards, giving the airline greater access to Europe.
Qantas, however, successfully lobbied the Australian government to deny SIA similar access to fly from Australia to the United States, which is one of the Australian carrier's most luctrative routes.
Qantas argued then that the travel slump following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) crisis meant it should not have to face increased competition from SIA.
Qantas announced on Thursday a 28 percent increase in first-half profits to a record 458.4 million dollars (359.7 million US).
==============================================
Intersting that it states "In the 2003 agreement, Australian national carrier Qantas was granted unrestricted rights to fly into Singapore's Changi airport and onwards, giving the airline greater access to Europe." Is this correct? surely it's up to the government of the next country to say yes or no then?
As for the rights, this may help in the discussion:
Air Freedom Rights : In 1944 an International Convention was held in Chicago to map out the frame work for all future bi-lateral and multi-lateral (i.e., between two or between many different countries) air agreements. Traditionally, and preserved in this convention, an airline needs the approval of the governments of the various countries involved before it can fly in or out of country, or even across the country without landing.
The 1944 Chicago Convention has been extended somewhat since that time, and currently there are generally considered to be Eight different freedoms. These days, it seems the "fifth freedom" rights are most in the news as airlines seek to expand their rout systems and become more global in scope.
Please note that although these provisions are called " freedom " , they are not automatically granted to an airline as a right. They are privilages , not rights.
The exchange of commercial air rights is determined by bi-lateral negotiations. The Air Freedom Rights is divided into categories as follows:
First Freedom The right to fly across another country without landing.( maybe called transit freedom )
Second Freedom The right to land in another country for purposes other than carrying passengers, such as re-fueling or maintenance. (usually first and second freedoms are considered as temporary flight, not a schedule flight ).
Third Freedom The right to land in another country from their own country for purpose of commercial services.
Fourth Freedom The right to fly from another country to their own country for purpose of commercial services.
Third and Fourth Freedoms They stand together as the basis for commercial services, providing the rights to load and unload passengers, mail and cargo in another country.
Fifth Freedom Sometimes refered to as " beyond right" . This freedom enables airlines to carry passengers to one country, and then fly on to another country (rather than back to their own).This freedom divided into two categories:
Intermediate Fifth Freedom Type is the right to carries from the third country to second country.
Beyond Fifth Freedom Type is the right to carries from second country to the third country.
Sixth Freedom Not formally part of the original convention, this refers to a state's right to carry traffic between two other countries via an airport in its own territory.
Seventh Freedom Also an unofficial extension, this covers the right to operate stand-alone services between two other countries.
Eighth Freedom Another unofficial extension of the treaty, this is sometimes also refered to as " cabotage " rights. This refers to the carriage of passengers and cargo within the borders of another country
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cornholeyo
Yes - I am most certainly pushing my own barrow in regards to wanting more competition on the full service market, and I personally prefer to fly QF where financially viable and am a member of QF Club.
An airline that forces me to charge fee for service on some international routes now, and all domestic from 01 July is not engendering loyalty from or offering reward to Australian supporters.
I have numerous awards from QF for sales levels in my office, but will not blindly wipe my nose just because the Great White Rat tells me I should.
What I hope is that the blow ins from overseas and the millions of dollars Australian Agents are placing on the foreign side of the code share on the same aeroplane for an extra 2% commission (it does add up VERY quickly) will remind the Aussie icon that respect and support is not automatic. They show some, we return it.
AA UA SA and NZ are all peeing themselves with glee at the moment, and AY must be trying to figure out where all the revenue on their code share SYD BKK is coming from. LA would be the same on the SYD SCL leg as well.
We are now up to around $250,000 diverted in my little office alone. It is called survival, and for one I will not adopt a plan that I am told I have to have when there are alternatives that cost my client less, and provide the same service.
The day I believe anything that comes from the former TN mmbers of QF upper management will be a dark day in the morning.
Best regards
EWL
Yes - I am most certainly pushing my own barrow in regards to wanting more competition on the full service market, and I personally prefer to fly QF where financially viable and am a member of QF Club.
An airline that forces me to charge fee for service on some international routes now, and all domestic from 01 July is not engendering loyalty from or offering reward to Australian supporters.
I have numerous awards from QF for sales levels in my office, but will not blindly wipe my nose just because the Great White Rat tells me I should.
What I hope is that the blow ins from overseas and the millions of dollars Australian Agents are placing on the foreign side of the code share on the same aeroplane for an extra 2% commission (it does add up VERY quickly) will remind the Aussie icon that respect and support is not automatic. They show some, we return it.
AA UA SA and NZ are all peeing themselves with glee at the moment, and AY must be trying to figure out where all the revenue on their code share SYD BKK is coming from. LA would be the same on the SYD SCL leg as well.
We are now up to around $250,000 diverted in my little office alone. It is called survival, and for one I will not adopt a plan that I am told I have to have when there are alternatives that cost my client less, and provide the same service.
The day I believe anything that comes from the former TN mmbers of QF upper management will be a dark day in the morning.
Best regards
EWL
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: lapbandland
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Sunfish
What makes you think SQ will be providing anything below the
cost of production.
SQ does not carry debt. because their government underights
their loans, it's not run like any normal business.
If you perceive some advantage to Ozzy consumers, yourself
included, have a good look at airfares on the net.
You might be surprised at the relative fares, SQ charges more
than most.
QF has been trimmed of some ancient work practices and is
making a decent profit.
Taking your argument to its unholy conclusion means we sit
and watch the country stop doing anything, because it can
be bought cheaply overseas.
No I don't work for QF, but another competing asian carrier
that runs profitably even at double QF salaries.
What makes you think SQ will be providing anything below the
cost of production.
SQ does not carry debt. because their government underights
their loans, it's not run like any normal business.
If you perceive some advantage to Ozzy consumers, yourself
included, have a good look at airfares on the net.
You might be surprised at the relative fares, SQ charges more
than most.
QF has been trimmed of some ancient work practices and is
making a decent profit.
Taking your argument to its unholy conclusion means we sit
and watch the country stop doing anything, because it can
be bought cheaply overseas.
No I don't work for QF, but another competing asian carrier
that runs profitably even at double QF salaries.
Should SQ get approval to get 5th freedom rights beyond Australia, whether it be in 12 months, phased in or whatever, then expect Emirates, Cathay and Virgin Atlantic to line up.
Singapore is an island and has no domestic traffic and have encouraged airlines to come in for the benefit of the economy. Emirates and the UAE works the same way and Hong Kong is slowly heading that way.
The EU support this happening, but are reluctant to give unfettered capacity to UK and some European airports. At the moment all the capacity on the Kanga route has been used up and if you want more be prepared to pay big bucks for slots at LHR in particular.
Singapore has nothing to lose, as do Emirates, but QF have nothing to gain but a lot to lose. Competition will be good, but there will be losers.
Roll on the likes of B777-200LR. Straight through, no stops.
Singapore is an island and has no domestic traffic and have encouraged airlines to come in for the benefit of the economy. Emirates and the UAE works the same way and Hong Kong is slowly heading that way.
The EU support this happening, but are reluctant to give unfettered capacity to UK and some European airports. At the moment all the capacity on the Kanga route has been used up and if you want more be prepared to pay big bucks for slots at LHR in particular.
Singapore has nothing to lose, as do Emirates, but QF have nothing to gain but a lot to lose. Competition will be good, but there will be losers.
Roll on the likes of B777-200LR. Straight through, no stops.
Boof, with great respect, SQ would be paying less for its debt (ie.interest charges) than QF because of SQ's government gaurantee. These interest payments are the cost of its debt capital.
Dixon was saying yesterday that QF does not earn enough to provide a decent return on capital, but I wonder if he was talking actual capital (ie shareholders funds) or investment (shareholders funds plus borrowings).
I have a sense that QF's appeal to Australians is gradually declining, and if it isn't SQ that gets open skies it is going to be someone else.
Dixon was saying yesterday that QF does not earn enough to provide a decent return on capital, but I wonder if he was talking actual capital (ie shareholders funds) or investment (shareholders funds plus borrowings).
I have a sense that QF's appeal to Australians is gradually declining, and if it isn't SQ that gets open skies it is going to be someone else.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Queensland
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OPEN THE SKIES
FORGET WHO OWNS WHAT AND DIXON SHOULD STOP HIS BLEATING !
IT'S ALRIGHT FOR HIM, HE WANTS TO FIGHT VIRGIN ON DOMESTIC TERRITORY AND CREATES QF MARK 2 I.E. JETS* THEN SOBS AND CRIES WHEN HE THINKS HE WILL FACE SOME "UNFAIR" COMPETITION ON THE PACIFIC ROUTE.
LET'S GET RID OF THE COSY DUOPOLY AND OPEN IT UP, DIXON SHOULD KNOW HOW TO RUN A COMPETITIVE AIRLINE NOW, HE HAS BEEN IN THE POSITION LONG ENOUGH.
DIXON AND HIS COHORTS NEED TO STOP BEING HYPOCRITICAL AND IMPROVE THE SERVICE ON QANTAS. THEN THEY MIGHT FIND THAT PEOPLE WILL STILL FLY WITH THEM DESPITE THE COMPETITION.
IT'S ALRIGHT FOR HIM, HE WANTS TO FIGHT VIRGIN ON DOMESTIC TERRITORY AND CREATES QF MARK 2 I.E. JETS* THEN SOBS AND CRIES WHEN HE THINKS HE WILL FACE SOME "UNFAIR" COMPETITION ON THE PACIFIC ROUTE.
LET'S GET RID OF THE COSY DUOPOLY AND OPEN IT UP, DIXON SHOULD KNOW HOW TO RUN A COMPETITIVE AIRLINE NOW, HE HAS BEEN IN THE POSITION LONG ENOUGH.
DIXON AND HIS COHORTS NEED TO STOP BEING HYPOCRITICAL AND IMPROVE THE SERVICE ON QANTAS. THEN THEY MIGHT FIND THAT PEOPLE WILL STILL FLY WITH THEM DESPITE THE COMPETITION.
Last edited by hadagutful; 18th Feb 2005 at 10:39.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: PERTH
Age: 77
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why wouldnt we want SQ to operate internally in Australia.Apart from simply protecting the QF staff Anderson and cohorts are holding back much of the Australian economy which would benifit from proper competition.QF look like turning a cosy duopoly into a virtual monopoly which makes a mockery of the system.More tourists arriving and spending money helps the wider economy and the sooner we get over the third world type thinking that every country must have and at all cost protect a national carrier the better.We can all see that Dixon is turning QF into a conglomerate of airlines to lower company costs but unless a major operator is allowed to stack up against QF we will all continue to pay for QF shareholders dividends and unrealistic staff conditions.
Singapore is a place where airport guards tote machine guns and democracy means voting only for 'approved' candidates. The opposition is either crushed by the state or outlawed. Singaporean people genearally have to do what they are told; not what they want. The 'Singaporean state' medels in business and select people often hold commercial power due to Govt. patronage. Is this the sort of business we want as part owners of our own national estate?
Singapore has nothing to offer Australian aviation companies in return for the priveledge of skimming fine profits from our domestic market into their own corporate coffers. 'Buying Australia' piece by piece would suit them fine as they are kind of short on space. Their last big buy here was probably Optus, which now feeds their economy and adds to their future 'purchasing power'. (We all know how 'Monopoly' works!) And from a pilots' point of view, Singapore Airlines crews know how 'caring' their management can be.
We already have an assault on our local aviation market from the taxless and oil rich UAE; another state sponsored enterprise.
In a few years Australia will have aircraft which can 'hub' from Darwin to all the countries of Europe. Singapore knows this and that they will become less relevant except for their natural 'to / from' traffic. It is now or never for them to find a 'domestic' market to operate in. Their own internal distances obviously don't call for much aviationactivity. It is all international from Singapore.
With new ultra long range aircraft types becoming available, opportunities will arise for Australian entrepeneurs to set up operations which service distant markets without the 'politics' of offshore hubs in foreign countries. However they won't even get to the starters blocks if Singapore Airlines or other foreign airlines have already snatched the Australian internal market as their own; especially ones which are 'state' sponsored.
Wake up! Lets be a bit patient and not 'sell the farm' too early in this time of change. 'Australians' can do this better in the medium and long terms. The lobbies that bleat for instant deregulation on the basis of 'competition' aren't worrying about our futures.
Lobby your nearest politician hard now against this short sighted proposal.
Singapore has nothing to offer Australian aviation companies in return for the priveledge of skimming fine profits from our domestic market into their own corporate coffers. 'Buying Australia' piece by piece would suit them fine as they are kind of short on space. Their last big buy here was probably Optus, which now feeds their economy and adds to their future 'purchasing power'. (We all know how 'Monopoly' works!) And from a pilots' point of view, Singapore Airlines crews know how 'caring' their management can be.
We already have an assault on our local aviation market from the taxless and oil rich UAE; another state sponsored enterprise.
In a few years Australia will have aircraft which can 'hub' from Darwin to all the countries of Europe. Singapore knows this and that they will become less relevant except for their natural 'to / from' traffic. It is now or never for them to find a 'domestic' market to operate in. Their own internal distances obviously don't call for much aviationactivity. It is all international from Singapore.
With new ultra long range aircraft types becoming available, opportunities will arise for Australian entrepeneurs to set up operations which service distant markets without the 'politics' of offshore hubs in foreign countries. However they won't even get to the starters blocks if Singapore Airlines or other foreign airlines have already snatched the Australian internal market as their own; especially ones which are 'state' sponsored.
Wake up! Lets be a bit patient and not 'sell the farm' too early in this time of change. 'Australians' can do this better in the medium and long terms. The lobbies that bleat for instant deregulation on the basis of 'competition' aren't worrying about our futures.
Lobby your nearest politician hard now against this short sighted proposal.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Harbour City
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LET'S GET RID OF THE COSY DUOPOLY AND OPEN IT UP, DIXON SHOULD KNOW HOW TO RUN A COMPETITIVE AIRLINE NOW, HE HAS BEEN IN THE POSITION LONG ENOUGH.
Mr Dixon nows how to run a airline thats why we are doing so well right now. But try to run the airline against SQ who dont have the same debt ratio as us because they are goverment backed and we are competing in on diferent levels. Compare apples to apples and then try posting again loser.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't remember this kind of uproar when PanAm had "beyond rights" from SYD to HKG... PA812 LAX HNL NAN or NOU SYD HKG. PA811 was the reverse.
Look what happened to PanAm.
Look what happened to PanAm.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Right now the poll is tied, 66 say Yes 66 say no, 2.22 percent say undecided, but peronsally, i think SQ should go to hell. Support the local economy, SQ and QF were the most profitable airlines last year, the difference between their profits was minimal, give SQ access and they will roar in front, with the lead. Those decision makers in Canberra should feel the same way!
Daniel
Daniel
There is another perspective that few have mentioned in this and many other posts. I'll stick my head out and draw the flack
Domestically, Australia has long had a duopoly - with TAA and Ansett. Then Compass Mark I arrived and the duopoly became a triopoly. Compass Mark I failed because, many believe, fares were being sold at less than what it cost to operate the aricraft.
Along came Compass Mark II which fell to a similar fate. TAA morphed into Qantas then re-emerged as Jetstar. Meanwhile Virgin Blue started up and Ansett failed and we were back to a duopoly.
During the 80's and 90's nobody can deny there was competition in the Australian domestic market. What did that competition bring? If nothing else it brought a HUGE increase in the numbers of people travelling. That huge increase was brought about by the ridiculouly low fares on offer. People believed flying was affordable so they flew - often.
Now what has all this competition done for Pilots? It has created, I believe a massive increase in the number of Airline Pilots employed by the major airlines. Does anyone have any figures on this? Just how many pilots were employed by major airlines in 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000? I am sure that number has increased dramatically.
Now these pilots and other crew contribute directly to the cost of operating each and every sector. Whether that cost is $60,000, $120,000 or $180,000 per annum per person is not critical when SQ is not competing in our Domestic market.
However, if you allow SQ to compete domestically or internationally and thier pilots are earning less, and their taxation regime on company profits is less that Australia's, then the level playing field tilts.
I can understand Airline Management wanting to reduce operating costs - of which salaries are a major part. I can understand trying to reduce training costs by trying to have pilots fund their own endorsements. After all it is the lower fares that have attracted the increase in passenger numbers - but the operating cost has remained a fairly finite amount.
So the conundum is - raise the fares = lower passenger numbers = less pilots needed. Or, keep the low fares and see passenger numbers continue to increase but at the same time aggressively try to cuts costs = same or more pilots needed.
To allow an overseas player into our domestic market is a bit like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank!
Cheers
Domestically, Australia has long had a duopoly - with TAA and Ansett. Then Compass Mark I arrived and the duopoly became a triopoly. Compass Mark I failed because, many believe, fares were being sold at less than what it cost to operate the aricraft.
Along came Compass Mark II which fell to a similar fate. TAA morphed into Qantas then re-emerged as Jetstar. Meanwhile Virgin Blue started up and Ansett failed and we were back to a duopoly.
During the 80's and 90's nobody can deny there was competition in the Australian domestic market. What did that competition bring? If nothing else it brought a HUGE increase in the numbers of people travelling. That huge increase was brought about by the ridiculouly low fares on offer. People believed flying was affordable so they flew - often.
Now what has all this competition done for Pilots? It has created, I believe a massive increase in the number of Airline Pilots employed by the major airlines. Does anyone have any figures on this? Just how many pilots were employed by major airlines in 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000? I am sure that number has increased dramatically.
Now these pilots and other crew contribute directly to the cost of operating each and every sector. Whether that cost is $60,000, $120,000 or $180,000 per annum per person is not critical when SQ is not competing in our Domestic market.
However, if you allow SQ to compete domestically or internationally and thier pilots are earning less, and their taxation regime on company profits is less that Australia's, then the level playing field tilts.
I can understand Airline Management wanting to reduce operating costs - of which salaries are a major part. I can understand trying to reduce training costs by trying to have pilots fund their own endorsements. After all it is the lower fares that have attracted the increase in passenger numbers - but the operating cost has remained a fairly finite amount.
So the conundum is - raise the fares = lower passenger numbers = less pilots needed. Or, keep the low fares and see passenger numbers continue to increase but at the same time aggressively try to cuts costs = same or more pilots needed.
To allow an overseas player into our domestic market is a bit like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank!
Cheers