Singapore Airlines has a secret agenda.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
.....but isn't that the way it's ALWAYS been, Jetsbest?
The only difference now, is that QANTAS is not Government backed.
You f----wit, Buster!!
The Tianamin Square massacre, of course! ......how soon we forget!
The only difference now, is that QANTAS is not Government backed.
You f----wit, Buster!!
The Tianamin Square massacre, of course! ......how soon we forget!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: the real deal
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GOOD NEWS
Singapore Airlines' drive to unlock Qantas's near-stranglehold on the lucrative trans-Pacific route was put on indefinite hold by Canberra yesterday after months of heated debate.
"The Government feels the time is not right," a spokesman for Federal Transport Minister John Anderson said.
He said both Qantas and the Singapore government had been informed of the deferral late last week, and refused to say when the Government would revisit the issue.
A media report on Saturday said Singapore's bid would be denied for the time being, but on Sunday the Prime Minister's office insisted that a final decision could be weeks away. The confusion has raised questions about the Government's handling of this sensitive diplomatic issue.
Mr Anderson's office informed the media of the deferral yesterday, but by late afternoon the Singapore Ministry of Transport said it had not received official notice. "We await a favourable response from the Australian Government," the Singapore Ministry of Transport said.
Australian officials also failed to formally notify Singapore Air of their decision, forcing airline executives to resort to phoning Mr Anderson's office for confirmation.
The deferral yesterday marked the third time since 2003 that a decision on trans-Pacific route access was placed on hold, despite a free trade agreement between the two countries being signed early last year.
The issue had divided the Federal Cabinet and many observers had expected Singapore Air to be granted at least limited access to the route after the latest round of negotiations.
But Qantas, which would lose an estimated $45 million in pre-tax profit if Singapore Air were allowed access to the Sydney-LA route, lobbied heavily in Canberra to maintain its duopoly with United Airlines and welcomed yesterday's announcement.
Qantas had warned that up to 3000 jobs could be lost if Singapore Air entered the route and argued an agreement was fair only if Singapore allowed Qantas reciprocal access to European routes.
In contrast, Singapore Air issued a 50-page report which estimated that extra route capacity would bring in an additional $126 million in tourist spending. The report also noted that fares on the Sydney-LA route were on average 17 per cent pricier per kilometre than tickets on the highly competitive Sydney-Asia-London route.
But last night Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon said it was "ludicrous" for Singapore Air to suggest Sydney-LA was one of the most protected air routes, noting Air New Zealand and any US or Australian carrier were allowed access. He said several US carriers in the past had cut Pacific flights after losing money.
But even if there is room for a third player on the Sydney-LA route, as Singapore Air has suggested, most leading US carriers are now near-bankrupt and lack the financial capability needed to expand Pacific operations.
Qantas controls 66 per cent of capacity on the route, but analysts expect it to face competition from Virgin Blue on the route within the next two to three years.
And Singapore Airline's vice-president for public affairs, Stephen Forshaw, said his airline would continue to press its case with the Federal Government and the Australian public, noting that yesterday's announcement was "not a rejection but another delay". -They just don't listen....
Take the hint fellas and FLAG OFF. Go take over something else if you want to solve ya national small-weenie syndrome problem.
"The Government feels the time is not right," a spokesman for Federal Transport Minister John Anderson said.
He said both Qantas and the Singapore government had been informed of the deferral late last week, and refused to say when the Government would revisit the issue.
A media report on Saturday said Singapore's bid would be denied for the time being, but on Sunday the Prime Minister's office insisted that a final decision could be weeks away. The confusion has raised questions about the Government's handling of this sensitive diplomatic issue.
Mr Anderson's office informed the media of the deferral yesterday, but by late afternoon the Singapore Ministry of Transport said it had not received official notice. "We await a favourable response from the Australian Government," the Singapore Ministry of Transport said.
Australian officials also failed to formally notify Singapore Air of their decision, forcing airline executives to resort to phoning Mr Anderson's office for confirmation.
The deferral yesterday marked the third time since 2003 that a decision on trans-Pacific route access was placed on hold, despite a free trade agreement between the two countries being signed early last year.
The issue had divided the Federal Cabinet and many observers had expected Singapore Air to be granted at least limited access to the route after the latest round of negotiations.
But Qantas, which would lose an estimated $45 million in pre-tax profit if Singapore Air were allowed access to the Sydney-LA route, lobbied heavily in Canberra to maintain its duopoly with United Airlines and welcomed yesterday's announcement.
Qantas had warned that up to 3000 jobs could be lost if Singapore Air entered the route and argued an agreement was fair only if Singapore allowed Qantas reciprocal access to European routes.
In contrast, Singapore Air issued a 50-page report which estimated that extra route capacity would bring in an additional $126 million in tourist spending. The report also noted that fares on the Sydney-LA route were on average 17 per cent pricier per kilometre than tickets on the highly competitive Sydney-Asia-London route.
But last night Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon said it was "ludicrous" for Singapore Air to suggest Sydney-LA was one of the most protected air routes, noting Air New Zealand and any US or Australian carrier were allowed access. He said several US carriers in the past had cut Pacific flights after losing money.
But even if there is room for a third player on the Sydney-LA route, as Singapore Air has suggested, most leading US carriers are now near-bankrupt and lack the financial capability needed to expand Pacific operations.
Qantas controls 66 per cent of capacity on the route, but analysts expect it to face competition from Virgin Blue on the route within the next two to three years.
And Singapore Airline's vice-president for public affairs, Stephen Forshaw, said his airline would continue to press its case with the Federal Government and the Australian public, noting that yesterday's announcement was "not a rejection but another delay". -They just don't listen....
Take the hint fellas and FLAG OFF. Go take over something else if you want to solve ya national small-weenie syndrome problem.
Labby, I don't think there is any airline that is truly globalised. It's the markets that are becoming globalised.
What this means is that the prices of goods and services need to be internationally competitive, and free trade must exist. Although we have a long way to go and there are plenty of impediments and special pleaders - European Farmers, American steelworkers and so on.
The benefits of this approach to trade and economics are proven both theoretically and in practice.
Australia has been one of the leading lights in both pushing for free trade as well as opening up our own markets.
I grew up in Australia in the 50's and 60's. While everybody had a job, the cost of consumer goods, houses and cars, let alone industrial inputs, was stratospheric thanks to a comprehensive system of tariffs designed to "protect" the economy.
You youngsters would have no idea. Cars cost twice what they sold for overseas, as did just about everything else, including clothes.
It became manifestly obvious in the 70's that tariff protection did not "protect" jobs, it cost the community heaps and destroyed the international competitiveness of the Australian industries that had the potential to compete.
The classic example was the car industry. Ford and GM made heaps of profits which were sent back to the states making and selling third world standard vehicles for twice what they were worth.
They screamed a lot louder than QF does when their tariffs started getting cut.
However, today we are exporting cars - even to the U.S., and GM even has an international design team here!
The Australian economy is successful today because we opened it up to foriegn competition and we will continue to benefit from this wise decision.
We are rated the most "open" economy in the world - except when it comes to QbloodyF!
So what would happen if we did throw the skies wide open to SIA and anyone else?
My guess is that after the QF Board picked itself up off the floor, the first thing it would do is start asking for fifth freedom rights to every country it could.
We would then see an absolute explosion in International tourism numbers, as the likes of VB, Ryanair and all start competing and eventually pushing "Australia for $300" fares.
QF International would lose some of its economy passengers but then gain through opening new routes under fifth freedom rights itself.
My guess would be QF domestic and Jetstar and VB demand would explode due to increased tourism.
We would get more international investement here which means more jobs, and our own companies would be able to increase their exports taking advantage of cheaper air transport costs and the exposure of international tourists to Australian products.
Would your jobs be at stake? I don't think so. Free trade stimulates demand and demand creates jobs. My guess is that SIA and other carriers are not going to subsidise Australian routes for very long once they have enough market share to be viable. It would however mean that QF would have to be internationally competitve in its costing and pricing, but how far off the mark is QF these days? I suspect from reading Pprune that most of the fat is in management anyway.
I rail at QF because it is holding back the Australian economy, and has done for many, many years.
What this means is that the prices of goods and services need to be internationally competitive, and free trade must exist. Although we have a long way to go and there are plenty of impediments and special pleaders - European Farmers, American steelworkers and so on.
The benefits of this approach to trade and economics are proven both theoretically and in practice.
Australia has been one of the leading lights in both pushing for free trade as well as opening up our own markets.
I grew up in Australia in the 50's and 60's. While everybody had a job, the cost of consumer goods, houses and cars, let alone industrial inputs, was stratospheric thanks to a comprehensive system of tariffs designed to "protect" the economy.
You youngsters would have no idea. Cars cost twice what they sold for overseas, as did just about everything else, including clothes.
It became manifestly obvious in the 70's that tariff protection did not "protect" jobs, it cost the community heaps and destroyed the international competitiveness of the Australian industries that had the potential to compete.
The classic example was the car industry. Ford and GM made heaps of profits which were sent back to the states making and selling third world standard vehicles for twice what they were worth.
They screamed a lot louder than QF does when their tariffs started getting cut.
However, today we are exporting cars - even to the U.S., and GM even has an international design team here!
The Australian economy is successful today because we opened it up to foriegn competition and we will continue to benefit from this wise decision.
We are rated the most "open" economy in the world - except when it comes to QbloodyF!
So what would happen if we did throw the skies wide open to SIA and anyone else?
My guess is that after the QF Board picked itself up off the floor, the first thing it would do is start asking for fifth freedom rights to every country it could.
We would then see an absolute explosion in International tourism numbers, as the likes of VB, Ryanair and all start competing and eventually pushing "Australia for $300" fares.
QF International would lose some of its economy passengers but then gain through opening new routes under fifth freedom rights itself.
My guess would be QF domestic and Jetstar and VB demand would explode due to increased tourism.
We would get more international investement here which means more jobs, and our own companies would be able to increase their exports taking advantage of cheaper air transport costs and the exposure of international tourists to Australian products.
Would your jobs be at stake? I don't think so. Free trade stimulates demand and demand creates jobs. My guess is that SIA and other carriers are not going to subsidise Australian routes for very long once they have enough market share to be viable. It would however mean that QF would have to be internationally competitve in its costing and pricing, but how far off the mark is QF these days? I suspect from reading Pprune that most of the fat is in management anyway.
I rail at QF because it is holding back the Australian economy, and has done for many, many years.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dununda
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Really
Sunfish ..a small workforce(9Million) and an appalling lack of investment in infrastructure(coupled with a very large land mass) is what holds back the Australian economy.Market forces have seen a great number of airlines withdraw from Australia because they can`t turn a profit.Qantas doesn`t determine fare prices...market forces do.It is a volatile industry which is capital intensive and subject to oil prices,war and disease etc.
One company holding back Australia`s development is a bit over the top.
One company holding back Australia`s development is a bit over the top.
Last edited by surfside6; 16th Jun 2005 at 00:10.
Stop making Sense
Sunfish
Stop making sense.
A truly liberal aviation market can only be a good thing for the 19,970,000 Australians who aren't Qantas employees.
After a sharp correction Qantas will survive and lift its game to be a bigger and better airline without the shackles of Government protectionism and foreign ownership laws. And if it can't - who wants it!
Stop making sense.
A truly liberal aviation market can only be a good thing for the 19,970,000 Australians who aren't Qantas employees.
After a sharp correction Qantas will survive and lift its game to be a bigger and better airline without the shackles of Government protectionism and foreign ownership laws. And if it can't - who wants it!
