Singapore Slings Off at Branson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Singapore Slings Off at Branson
Singapore slings off at Branson
Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
April 08, 2005
SINGAPORE Airlines has expressed surprise that Richard Branson and Virgin Blue would hide behind a "curtain of protectionism" by seeking to prevent it from flying between Australia and the US.
Virgin Blue has been talking to the federal Government about the possibility of starting trans-Pacific services to the US at the same time as Singapore is lobbying for access to the route.
The low-cost airline has told the Government it must decide between two Australian carriers on the route or allowing Singapore Airlines to fly it.
Sir Richard, whose Virgin Atlantic is 49 per cent owned by the Singaporean carrier, is understood to have expressed similar sentiments during a meeting in London earlier this year with Transport Minister John Anderson.
"I am surprised to hear that they would be seeking protection in any way," Singapore Airlines spokeswoman Samantha Stewart said yesterday. "I wouldn't have said any Virgin enterprise is one that wants to hide behind a curtain of protectionism. That seems a little bit anachronistic."
Sir Richard revealed in January that he was prepared to start a new international airline in Australia if Virgin Blue did not proceed with its trans-Pacific plan.
The entrepreneur was reported this week as saying he hoped the new airline, which would have to be 51 per cent Australian owned, would be launched by the end of the year. But during a visit to Sydney this week he said that any plans for a new carrier were contingent on a Virgin Blue decision. "We would not want to do it separately from them if they want to do it," he said.
"I think the Virgin Blue board (is) waiting for feedback from the Government. Do they want two Australian carriers doing the Pacific or do they want Singapore Airlines to come in and do it? And that's still undecided, I think, by the Government.
"I think Virgin Blue have written a letter to the Government about it."
The Virgin stance further complicates the already tough choice federal cabinet is tipped to make on the issue by mid-year.
Qantas has also lobbied hard against giving Singapore the US rights.
Ms Stewart said Virgin Group companies were not asking for protection in other markets they had entered and questioned why Virgin needed it in aviation.
She said Singapore would welcome competition from a Virgin airline in the Pacific and it was not in the interests of Australia or consumers to keep the US route protected.
"Really if we bring it back to basics, we're talking about the relationship between Australia and Singapore and it just doesn't make sense for aviation to sit outside the free trade agreement," she said.
A spokesman for Mr Anderson said yesterday that the minister's cabinet submission would take into account the position of Australian carriers as well as that of Singapore.
Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
April 08, 2005
SINGAPORE Airlines has expressed surprise that Richard Branson and Virgin Blue would hide behind a "curtain of protectionism" by seeking to prevent it from flying between Australia and the US.
Virgin Blue has been talking to the federal Government about the possibility of starting trans-Pacific services to the US at the same time as Singapore is lobbying for access to the route.
The low-cost airline has told the Government it must decide between two Australian carriers on the route or allowing Singapore Airlines to fly it.
Sir Richard, whose Virgin Atlantic is 49 per cent owned by the Singaporean carrier, is understood to have expressed similar sentiments during a meeting in London earlier this year with Transport Minister John Anderson.
"I am surprised to hear that they would be seeking protection in any way," Singapore Airlines spokeswoman Samantha Stewart said yesterday. "I wouldn't have said any Virgin enterprise is one that wants to hide behind a curtain of protectionism. That seems a little bit anachronistic."
Sir Richard revealed in January that he was prepared to start a new international airline in Australia if Virgin Blue did not proceed with its trans-Pacific plan.
The entrepreneur was reported this week as saying he hoped the new airline, which would have to be 51 per cent Australian owned, would be launched by the end of the year. But during a visit to Sydney this week he said that any plans for a new carrier were contingent on a Virgin Blue decision. "We would not want to do it separately from them if they want to do it," he said.
"I think the Virgin Blue board (is) waiting for feedback from the Government. Do they want two Australian carriers doing the Pacific or do they want Singapore Airlines to come in and do it? And that's still undecided, I think, by the Government.
"I think Virgin Blue have written a letter to the Government about it."
The Virgin stance further complicates the already tough choice federal cabinet is tipped to make on the issue by mid-year.
Qantas has also lobbied hard against giving Singapore the US rights.
Ms Stewart said Virgin Group companies were not asking for protection in other markets they had entered and questioned why Virgin needed it in aviation.
She said Singapore would welcome competition from a Virgin airline in the Pacific and it was not in the interests of Australia or consumers to keep the US route protected.
"Really if we bring it back to basics, we're talking about the relationship between Australia and Singapore and it just doesn't make sense for aviation to sit outside the free trade agreement," she said.
A spokesman for Mr Anderson said yesterday that the minister's cabinet submission would take into account the position of Australian carriers as well as that of Singapore.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me thinks good ol' Mr SQ will be buying a portion of QF and securing a seat on the board at the same time.
When very long range aircraft come into being and able to fly Sydney-London direct, this will really affect Singapore adversely both in terms of tourism as well as airport charges.
For those of you that are going to argue the point that " I wouldn't fly for that long, you gotta be mad.......I'd rather break the trip with a stopover" just remember that's what they argued about flying the Pacific between Australia and the USA when the B747 SP was commissioned.
Watch this space.
When very long range aircraft come into being and able to fly Sydney-London direct, this will really affect Singapore adversely both in terms of tourism as well as airport charges.
For those of you that are going to argue the point that " I wouldn't fly for that long, you gotta be mad.......I'd rather break the trip with a stopover" just remember that's what they argued about flying the Pacific between Australia and the USA when the B747 SP was commissioned.
Watch this space.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing that intrigues me is why didn't SQ buy into VB when they had the chance during the float. You would have thought they would have been in like a robbers dog. I wonder if they regret it now. Anyone else got any thoughts on this.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember when that idiot tore up the fake cheque on TV as a stunt?
The Singaporeans have long memories.
Thats why they have not shown any interest in VB and probably never will.
The Singaporeans have long memories.
Thats why they have not shown any interest in VB and probably never will.
