Singapore Airlines has a secret agenda.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Keeping The Enema Bandit in line
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two things that Sunfish hates in life. Qantas and Sydney. I remember on a previous thread how Sunfish stated how he would be flying on his holidays with Virgin over Qantas. Someone posed the question to him as to whom he would fly with if the Qantas fare was cheaper than Virgin. Sunfish avoided answering the question. So I'll aske the question again. Sunfish, if the Qantas airfare was cheaper than Virgin's, who would you fly with? Now go back to your aero club Sunfish. (After you've answered the question.)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southern Hemisphere
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF Production
Qantas produces nothing and exports nothing.It is a provider of a service: transport.How is it possible to globalize a service?.Every airline on the planet except SQ, KLM and Emirates have a domestic backyard to defend.Fifth Freedom rights are like gold.SQ is cherry picking ..pure and simple.All its profit from entering the Oz/Us market goes where?Singapore.In real terms it is cheaper to fly to the states than it has ever been...just look at the loads.A few years ago the route was bleeding red.Where was SQ then?.An opportunisitc island state trying to punch above its weight.Qantas and Virgin are right to protest.Open skies exists as an idea and nothing else.No open skies in Europe,no open skies in Asia,no open skies in the States.
Wait til the foreign ownership cap is lifted on QF.Who will be first on the share register...SQ
Sunfish my friend you are letting your emotion make you myopic.
Wait til the foreign ownership cap is lifted on QF.Who will be first on the share register...SQ
Sunfish my friend you are letting your emotion make you myopic.
In reverse order:
Butterfield asked "How is it possible to globalise a service?" Easy, where do you think the person on the end of the phone is when you call the Water company, or the Computer help desk, or When American Express rings you? Bombay or elsewhere in India!
It is entirely possible to globalise QF with heavy maint done in Asia somewhere and flight crew and cabin crew based in the regions they service. The only thing Australian will then be the brand name and maybe the wine and cheese they serve.
EBD, I LOVE competition! I'll fly VB by choice because I prefer their blue room to the QF lounges and I like their attitude of trying to put a bit of fun and maybe even humor back into flying.
Schnaus mate, did I say the car industry globalisation was a bad thing? Nope, it was a good thing! And finally after all the screaming and crying from the car companies about how the sky was falling, they straightened up, put their house in order and started producing cars that are competitive with the rest of the world. We export cars and engines now right? Try imagining that pre the Button plan!
And Schnaus, you and your mates screaming about these awful competitors sound exactly like the car companies at the time their protection started to be removed!
When QF gets some real competition, and can no longer hide behind the skirts of a Labor or Liberal Government, I'm sure that QF will make some hard decisions and compete right back!
Meanwhile we are stuck with plain dreary old Qantas that acts like a big fat protected Koala. Peeing on all us poor consumers from a great height.
As for the theoretical basis for economic rationalism, its there all right, including the bit about the rationality of buying cut price product.
If SQ wants to spend its money trying to drive QF out of business, good luck to them! All us consumers will benefit while they try, and if they do drive QF under and raise their prices again, why we just start another airline don't we?
To put it another way Schnaus baby, you have no more right to industry protection than I, or anyone else in Australia has!
Butterfield asked "How is it possible to globalise a service?" Easy, where do you think the person on the end of the phone is when you call the Water company, or the Computer help desk, or When American Express rings you? Bombay or elsewhere in India!
It is entirely possible to globalise QF with heavy maint done in Asia somewhere and flight crew and cabin crew based in the regions they service. The only thing Australian will then be the brand name and maybe the wine and cheese they serve.
EBD, I LOVE competition! I'll fly VB by choice because I prefer their blue room to the QF lounges and I like their attitude of trying to put a bit of fun and maybe even humor back into flying.
Schnaus mate, did I say the car industry globalisation was a bad thing? Nope, it was a good thing! And finally after all the screaming and crying from the car companies about how the sky was falling, they straightened up, put their house in order and started producing cars that are competitive with the rest of the world. We export cars and engines now right? Try imagining that pre the Button plan!
And Schnaus, you and your mates screaming about these awful competitors sound exactly like the car companies at the time their protection started to be removed!
When QF gets some real competition, and can no longer hide behind the skirts of a Labor or Liberal Government, I'm sure that QF will make some hard decisions and compete right back!
Meanwhile we are stuck with plain dreary old Qantas that acts like a big fat protected Koala. Peeing on all us poor consumers from a great height.
As for the theoretical basis for economic rationalism, its there all right, including the bit about the rationality of buying cut price product.
If SQ wants to spend its money trying to drive QF out of business, good luck to them! All us consumers will benefit while they try, and if they do drive QF under and raise their prices again, why we just start another airline don't we?
To put it another way Schnaus baby, you have no more right to industry protection than I, or anyone else in Australia has!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish,
I've wasted my time reading your anti-Qantas vitriol in the past. For a God of industry, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands to reply to bulletin boards.
Now you are saying you would rather see SQ cherry pick the Pacific for their own increased profits while Qantas goes broke.
You are saying that you would be happy to see 30,000 Australian jobs go down the tube, simply because you have an anti-Qantas bias. You are saying you want me to lose my job and my family to lose their sole source of income.
So I really hope you won't be offended when I tell you that I think you are an IDIOT and that you should:
GO AND STICK YOUR HEAD UP A DEAD BEAR'S BUM!
I've wasted my time reading your anti-Qantas vitriol in the past. For a God of industry, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands to reply to bulletin boards.
Now you are saying you would rather see SQ cherry pick the Pacific for their own increased profits while Qantas goes broke.
You are saying that you would be happy to see 30,000 Australian jobs go down the tube, simply because you have an anti-Qantas bias. You are saying you want me to lose my job and my family to lose their sole source of income.
So I really hope you won't be offended when I tell you that I think you are an IDIOT and that you should:
GO AND STICK YOUR HEAD UP A DEAD BEAR'S BUM!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: the real deal
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile......... let SIA sink along with other relics of the past.... for example, Ansett.
The world has changed and they need to change to survive. Singapore will be inconsequential soon as aircraft with longer legs become more and more prevalent, thus the ****s desperation to crack the aussie east coast scene.
They sat back and picked over carcasses in recent years with no concern, now it's good to see them squirm.
The world has changed and they need to change to survive. Singapore will be inconsequential soon as aircraft with longer legs become more and more prevalent, thus the ****s desperation to crack the aussie east coast scene.
They sat back and picked over carcasses in recent years with no concern, now it's good to see them squirm.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with Three Bars. Sunfish, you are an absolute idiot. I went through the trauma of losing my job at Ansett. I witnessed the depression that it caused, not to mention the suicides, family heartbreak, houses lost etc. Obviously you would rather people go through this sort of pain so you can get a cheap airfare. You selfish twit.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Queensland
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignorance is Bliss
Sunfish,
Don't even try and argue with them, they will only throw dirt and get personal.
They are only looking at the issue with blinkered vision and wouldn't know much about competition, protection, the theory of comparative advantage, trade theory etc.
Just as the old domestic 2 airline policy slowly changed it will happen eventually on a global scale slowly but surely, time will prove us right.
In the meantime of course Qantas will use the political process as much as possible to protect its position. I can understand that, natural thing to to. They just shouldn't be so blatantly hypocrtical about it. (Jet*??!!!)
So don't worry about the Schnaus's , titans etc. just let them wallow in their ignorance and hypocracy.
Don't even try and argue with them, they will only throw dirt and get personal.
They are only looking at the issue with blinkered vision and wouldn't know much about competition, protection, the theory of comparative advantage, trade theory etc.
Just as the old domestic 2 airline policy slowly changed it will happen eventually on a global scale slowly but surely, time will prove us right.
In the meantime of course Qantas will use the political process as much as possible to protect its position. I can understand that, natural thing to to. They just shouldn't be so blatantly hypocrtical about it. (Jet*??!!!)
So don't worry about the Schnaus's , titans etc. just let them wallow in their ignorance and hypocracy.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love this one..
Tell that to the farmers and miners who cannot get access to the US and EU markets due to tariff barriers. The Europeans and Yanks know full well how to protect their industries and livelihoods.
Then we get this gem..
The ONLY reason most of them can compete is due to a weak dollar. Otherwise they go under. But I guess that is ok in the Sunfish world.
So Qantas has the right to go set up a domestic operation in the EU?? Or even a unfettered International operation? The answer is of course No. The EU is not open to Australian companies, nor is the US. Nor is most of the world from an aviation standpoint. This BS that SQ should be allowed to cherry-pick QF routes as some sort of idealistic competitive nirvana serves only to service your deep anti-QF bias and hatred.
You have said on many occasions in this forum that you would love to see QF go down. People have long memories Sunfish. We know PRECISELY where you are coming from because you have told us.
Every farmer and miner is competing against farmers and miners elsewhere.
Then we get this gem..
2. If any of our local industries cannot compete, they go under. However we already know that most of them can compete very nicely thankyou
4. The opening of borders, especialy in Europe, and fifth freedom rights have already generated a massive increase in the amount of air travel through the use of low cost carriers.
You have said on many occasions in this forum that you would love to see QF go down. People have long memories Sunfish. We know PRECISELY where you are coming from because you have told us.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: the real deal
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least the Singaporeans are nice people....
The Singapore carrier appears to be turning its sights to Australia's domestic market.
Those pesky market rumours about Singapore Airlines buying a stake in Virgin Blue have resurfaced again.
The Asian carrier dismissed talk about its potential interest in January when Patrick launched its takeover for Virgin Blue.
But given signs Singapore Air's attempts to gain access to the Sydney-Los Angeles route could again be blocked by the Federal Government, there is now gossip the airline may want to turn its attention again to getting into the Australian domestic market.
Patrick Corp has declined to comment on the rumours, which have helped the company's share price rise 18c to $5.91 since Friday.
True or not, the talk appears to have been given some oxygen by the simple fact the airline is cashed up and might want to enter the domestic market by buying an established player rather than fighting for market share as a new entrant. It is now five years since the Singapore carrier attempted to buy half of Ansett.
Then too, Singapore Air could launch flights from Sydney to Los Angeles if it has a 51 per cent-owned Australian partner.
When it talked down the rumours in January, Singapore Air stressed it was no longer interested in investing in non-core businesses, highlighting the sale of its remaining 6.3 per cent stake in Air New Zealand as an example.
But maybe Virgin Blue could be treated as a business core for Singapore Air's expansion plans, particularly in the case of the carrier overcoming its disadvantage of not having a domestic air market to lean on. Yet one market watcher suggested the rumours could have been triggered by Qantas's increasingly desperate comments last week about Singapore Airlines' plans to dominate the region.
Let's hope they swing in the wind, instead. Maybe the gov't could block the purchase if it were to go ahead. Wouldn't be the first time they:
1. Blocked a sale.
2. Stood up for Qantas to the "detriment" of a smaller domestic Aussie player.
3. Stuck it to those slimy *****s to the north.
All you gentleman are proving is the old proverb "where you stand is where you sit".
Don't blame me for stating the bleedin obvious. Which is all I am doing.
Your arguments are as old as Adam Smith. It is called "Special pleading" in economic terms and your reliance on patriotism and a false concern for "Australian Jobs" is just rubbish. Translation : Its YOUR job you are worried about! But you try and dress it up in the national interest argument.
Economic rationalism is about 80% correct based on some economists views. Globalisation is also producing huge benefits for people around the globe, especially third world countries.
The fact that other countries protect some of their markets is not sufficient reason to abandon the concept of free trade. Its true our farmers have trouble accessing some protected markets, but in general the farmers and miners are commodity price takers and have been for years.
Translation: An Australian gold miner bases his operation on the international price of gold as established by the London Metals Exchange and so on. If he can make a profit at that price he produces. If he cannot he closes the mine. Same with agriculture except the issue with Europe is that their subsidies DEPRESS the price our farmers can get.
On the point of subsidies, there is strong economic argument that if someone is stupid enough to sell to you below cost, then you are stupid not to buy it and invest the money saved elsewhere.
Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger trying to tell you what has been going on in the Australian economy these last twenty years.
To put it another way: NO ONE in australia is complaining about globalisation except you lot! So please try to grow up and start imagining what QF might be like in a globalised world. Goodness knows even your management is trying to do that.
Don't blame me for stating the bleedin obvious. Which is all I am doing.
Your arguments are as old as Adam Smith. It is called "Special pleading" in economic terms and your reliance on patriotism and a false concern for "Australian Jobs" is just rubbish. Translation : Its YOUR job you are worried about! But you try and dress it up in the national interest argument.
Economic rationalism is about 80% correct based on some economists views. Globalisation is also producing huge benefits for people around the globe, especially third world countries.
The fact that other countries protect some of their markets is not sufficient reason to abandon the concept of free trade. Its true our farmers have trouble accessing some protected markets, but in general the farmers and miners are commodity price takers and have been for years.
Translation: An Australian gold miner bases his operation on the international price of gold as established by the London Metals Exchange and so on. If he can make a profit at that price he produces. If he cannot he closes the mine. Same with agriculture except the issue with Europe is that their subsidies DEPRESS the price our farmers can get.
On the point of subsidies, there is strong economic argument that if someone is stupid enough to sell to you below cost, then you are stupid not to buy it and invest the money saved elsewhere.
Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger trying to tell you what has been going on in the Australian economy these last twenty years.
To put it another way: NO ONE in australia is complaining about globalisation except you lot! So please try to grow up and start imagining what QF might be like in a globalised world. Goodness knows even your management is trying to do that.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Zer Gut Ya?
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas' cabinet co-pilot
By Katharine Murphy
June 15, 2005
QANTAS has won a new ally in John Howard's cabinet, with Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane declaring he is not sure whether Singapore Airlines should win access to the lucrative aviation route between Australia and the US.
"The most desirable outcome would be to have Singapore Airlines on the route without damage to Qantas, but I am not sure if we can do that," Mr Macfarlane said.
"This is a very difficult and complex decision," he said.
His comments came as the Howard Government shelved a decision about whether or not to allow Singapore Airlines to fly the Pacific route while it conducts a broad-ranging review of aviation policy.
A sub-grouping of cabinet comprised of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, the Treasurer Peter Costello, and the Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer are conducting the review which will determine Qantas's future.
The Government is likely to lift the current foreign ownership restrictions governing Qantas and work out a means of providing support to ensure that Australian aviation jobs and skills remain onshore. Labor's industry spokesman Stephen Smith has indicated Labor would offer bipartisan support if the Government wanted to allow a single foreign airline to gain a bigger stake in Qantas, provided the overall level of foreign investment did not go above 49 per cent.
Qantas and Singapore Airlines have mounted a lobbying effort with politicians in Canberra over the last six months. Singapore Airlines representatives were in Canberra again yesterday.
Cabinet is divided on the issue, with some senior ministers believing Qantas should face competition on the Pacific route and others cautious that additional competition could jeopardise the national carrier.
Mr Macfarlane was a strong supporter of Singapore Airlines because their addition to the route could lift US tourist numbers, which have stagnated. But while he would like to see the tourism market rebound and Singapore Airlines play a role in increasing the cross-Pacific traffic, Mr Macfarlane is now concerned that additional competition could harm Qantas. "We need to look at options which give us maximum tourism penetration from the US, but I think we need to recognise that Qantas faces challenges. The global aviation market is really tough," he said.
"Qantas needs to develop the critical mass to allow it to get scale to compete in the global industry."
His comments follow a debate in the Coalition partyroom yesterday over Qantas's future, with some backbenchers backing Singapore Airlines and others strongly backing Qantas's position to lock SIA out of the Pacific route.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy, Scumfish et al.....
By Katharine Murphy
June 15, 2005
QANTAS has won a new ally in John Howard's cabinet, with Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane declaring he is not sure whether Singapore Airlines should win access to the lucrative aviation route between Australia and the US.
"The most desirable outcome would be to have Singapore Airlines on the route without damage to Qantas, but I am not sure if we can do that," Mr Macfarlane said.
"This is a very difficult and complex decision," he said.
His comments came as the Howard Government shelved a decision about whether or not to allow Singapore Airlines to fly the Pacific route while it conducts a broad-ranging review of aviation policy.
A sub-grouping of cabinet comprised of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, the Treasurer Peter Costello, and the Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer are conducting the review which will determine Qantas's future.
The Government is likely to lift the current foreign ownership restrictions governing Qantas and work out a means of providing support to ensure that Australian aviation jobs and skills remain onshore. Labor's industry spokesman Stephen Smith has indicated Labor would offer bipartisan support if the Government wanted to allow a single foreign airline to gain a bigger stake in Qantas, provided the overall level of foreign investment did not go above 49 per cent.
Qantas and Singapore Airlines have mounted a lobbying effort with politicians in Canberra over the last six months. Singapore Airlines representatives were in Canberra again yesterday.
Cabinet is divided on the issue, with some senior ministers believing Qantas should face competition on the Pacific route and others cautious that additional competition could jeopardise the national carrier.
Mr Macfarlane was a strong supporter of Singapore Airlines because their addition to the route could lift US tourist numbers, which have stagnated. But while he would like to see the tourism market rebound and Singapore Airlines play a role in increasing the cross-Pacific traffic, Mr Macfarlane is now concerned that additional competition could harm Qantas. "We need to look at options which give us maximum tourism penetration from the US, but I think we need to recognise that Qantas faces challenges. The global aviation market is really tough," he said.
"Qantas needs to develop the critical mass to allow it to get scale to compete in the global industry."
His comments follow a debate in the Coalition partyroom yesterday over Qantas's future, with some backbenchers backing Singapore Airlines and others strongly backing Qantas's position to lock SIA out of the Pacific route.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy, Scumfish et al.....
Since when did an Australian Cabinet Minister care if overseas competition could "hurt" Australian Industry????????
Oh Right! This is Qantas we are talking about! Pardon me! Its a national icon! We wouldn't want to "Hurt" Qantas would we?
But wait! There's more! We are going to relax foriegn ownership provisions! So thats great! We are protecting a national icon, that won't really be "national" anymore, sort of.
As for Qantas getting "critical mass" to compete, what has this Cabinet been smoking? QF has had thirty years to get "critical mass". Furthermore, you would need ten Sydney Airports to hold enough aircraft for QF to have "Critical Mass"!
Here comes another sh***y deal. Oh sorry Mr. Packer, sorry Mr. Kennedy, I'm sure the ACCC will leave you alone! How high do you want us to jump this time??
Oh Right! This is Qantas we are talking about! Pardon me! Its a national icon! We wouldn't want to "Hurt" Qantas would we?
But wait! There's more! We are going to relax foriegn ownership provisions! So thats great! We are protecting a national icon, that won't really be "national" anymore, sort of.
As for Qantas getting "critical mass" to compete, what has this Cabinet been smoking? QF has had thirty years to get "critical mass". Furthermore, you would need ten Sydney Airports to hold enough aircraft for QF to have "Critical Mass"!
Here comes another sh***y deal. Oh sorry Mr. Packer, sorry Mr. Kennedy, I'm sure the ACCC will leave you alone! How high do you want us to jump this time??
I'll be happy for Singapore Airlines (or any other QF competitor) to fly fifth freedom routes when one of two things happen.
Either:
the Australian government relaxes, tightens or otherwise aligns with Singapore the laws governing corporate tax rates, equal opportunity employment, competition regulation, retrenchment/dismissal, workplace harassment, superannuation, occupational health and safety, foreign ownership, union membership choice, crew training requirements & standards, fleet depreciation, outsourcing, transfer of business, route access etc
OR
the Singapore government does the same with Australia!
That, in my view, is when true market forces could set pay and price.
Companies can lobby all they like but until the meddling and over-regulating government factors which keep the table tilted against certain aspects of profitability in global businesses (ie airlines in this case) are evened, there cannot be the magical 'level field'. Companies like Qantas will be obliged to slash to the lowest possible denominator if they don't win the odd decision like this. They're doing it anyway! Costs are the enemy to the bean-counters and I'm sure that even SQ, if they thought they could base in, say, the Congo for cost-base minimisation and still retain 'flag-carrier' status in Singapore, would seriously consider doing it!
Either:
the Australian government relaxes, tightens or otherwise aligns with Singapore the laws governing corporate tax rates, equal opportunity employment, competition regulation, retrenchment/dismissal, workplace harassment, superannuation, occupational health and safety, foreign ownership, union membership choice, crew training requirements & standards, fleet depreciation, outsourcing, transfer of business, route access etc
OR
the Singapore government does the same with Australia!
That, in my view, is when true market forces could set pay and price.
Companies can lobby all they like but until the meddling and over-regulating government factors which keep the table tilted against certain aspects of profitability in global businesses (ie airlines in this case) are evened, there cannot be the magical 'level field'. Companies like Qantas will be obliged to slash to the lowest possible denominator if they don't win the odd decision like this. They're doing it anyway! Costs are the enemy to the bean-counters and I'm sure that even SQ, if they thought they could base in, say, the Congo for cost-base minimisation and still retain 'flag-carrier' status in Singapore, would seriously consider doing it!
....So...what did happen in 89?