SIA misses out on SY-LA
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been away for a while and somehow lost the plot re: Sunfish and Scumfish. Who is who? One of them sounds like being abusive under Woomera's recent edicts.
That aside, this was a monumental piece of flawed public policy. Let's ban US movies and of course CNN. And the BBC. And Macdonalds. And Ferraris. And Evian water. Fact is that most countries have some natural advantage or another, whether it be their own tax system, oil, a large domestic economy give economies of scale, weather or some such. Wine acreage here and training at publicly funded universities have given us a wonderful competitive wine export business. Imagine if that were stopped as being unfair?
On what possible grounds do we selectively deny Australian consumers access to a product simply because it comes at a lower price? As I understand the theory and prcatice of international trade, that's the whole point. I live and work overseas and would be really annoyed if the locals said I should leave here simply because I got trained in Australia years ago when it was easier and cheaper and therefore I am an unfair competitor.
Qantas ruthlessly outsource everything they can and I understand that. But you can't buy on a world market yet operate in a protected market. That way is hypocrisy, unvarnished. And the public suffer. And, tho economics be the dismal science, it is true that more competition in the end means more jobs for Australia as a whole.
When will we learn? If we're really concerned to protect Qantas (why on earth/) why not suggest to SIA that, as with Defence contracts, we require say a 40% offset in local investment or employment if we give you access.
That aside, this was a monumental piece of flawed public policy. Let's ban US movies and of course CNN. And the BBC. And Macdonalds. And Ferraris. And Evian water. Fact is that most countries have some natural advantage or another, whether it be their own tax system, oil, a large domestic economy give economies of scale, weather or some such. Wine acreage here and training at publicly funded universities have given us a wonderful competitive wine export business. Imagine if that were stopped as being unfair?
On what possible grounds do we selectively deny Australian consumers access to a product simply because it comes at a lower price? As I understand the theory and prcatice of international trade, that's the whole point. I live and work overseas and would be really annoyed if the locals said I should leave here simply because I got trained in Australia years ago when it was easier and cheaper and therefore I am an unfair competitor.
Qantas ruthlessly outsource everything they can and I understand that. But you can't buy on a world market yet operate in a protected market. That way is hypocrisy, unvarnished. And the public suffer. And, tho economics be the dismal science, it is true that more competition in the end means more jobs for Australia as a whole.
When will we learn? If we're really concerned to protect Qantas (why on earth/) why not suggest to SIA that, as with Defence contracts, we require say a 40% offset in local investment or employment if we give you access.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the way of bilateral rights. Bilateral rights are part of the national estate in the current setup of the world aviation market.
Singapore has no natural right to that route so why should we cede it to them without offset?
Should we hand over portions of our mineral wealth because Singapore reckons it can dig it up more efficiently? Well lets just give it to them, then.
Should we let Singaporean tourist operators on to the Great Barrier Reef, using Singaporean workers because Singaporean workers are cheaper? Think of the benefits for tourists from the lower rates these operators would charge....!!!
QF goes to Johannesburg. So does SQ and probably very profitably. How far do you think QF would get if it demanded access to the SIN-JNB route on the basis of improving Singapore tourism? That is what is happening here... pure cherry picking.
Until there is true "open skies" world wide; then bilateral rights remain part of a nations' intrinsic wealth. Give them away for nothing??? What planet are you on?
Singapore has no natural right to that route so why should we cede it to them without offset?
Should we hand over portions of our mineral wealth because Singapore reckons it can dig it up more efficiently? Well lets just give it to them, then.
Should we let Singaporean tourist operators on to the Great Barrier Reef, using Singaporean workers because Singaporean workers are cheaper? Think of the benefits for tourists from the lower rates these operators would charge....!!!
QF goes to Johannesburg. So does SQ and probably very profitably. How far do you think QF would get if it demanded access to the SIN-JNB route on the basis of improving Singapore tourism? That is what is happening here... pure cherry picking.
Until there is true "open skies" world wide; then bilateral rights remain part of a nations' intrinsic wealth. Give them away for nothing??? What planet are you on?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Numbskull...well said,it certainly sounds good.
But like most simple easy to understand little bits of bar room rhetoric it is simply wrong. Waiting til the rest of the world is perfect til we do something would, if followed in all the worlds where Australian exporters work, cost us our entire future.
But like most simple easy to understand little bits of bar room rhetoric it is simply wrong. Waiting til the rest of the world is perfect til we do something would, if followed in all the worlds where Australian exporters work, cost us our entire future.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't be so theoretical "019360"
Nothing is black and white, the world is not perfect and neither is Australia.
Mr Borg makes some valid points and it is not bar room rhetoric nor is it "simply wrong"
Lets be brutally honest here. Singapore is a natural stopover for many routes. With the introduction of new aircraft that can easily overfly Singapore, it is looking at ways to ensure the ongoing profitability and survival of its own national carrier and its own economy. It does not particularly care about the Australian economy or the Australian tourist unless it affects them. They can see an opportunity to make a quick buck and open new profitable routes easily and that is all that this is about.
Free market is a great idea in theory but it simply doesn't exist in practice. I'm sure you can think of many examples yourself without me having to quote them.
Nothing is black and white, the world is not perfect and neither is Australia.
Mr Borg makes some valid points and it is not bar room rhetoric nor is it "simply wrong"
Lets be brutally honest here. Singapore is a natural stopover for many routes. With the introduction of new aircraft that can easily overfly Singapore, it is looking at ways to ensure the ongoing profitability and survival of its own national carrier and its own economy. It does not particularly care about the Australian economy or the Australian tourist unless it affects them. They can see an opportunity to make a quick buck and open new profitable routes easily and that is all that this is about.
Free market is a great idea in theory but it simply doesn't exist in practice. I'm sure you can think of many examples yourself without me having to quote them.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mercantilism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mercantilism is the economic theory holding that the prosperity of a nation depends upon its supply of capital, and that the global volume of trade is "unchangeable." The amount of capital, represented by bullion (amount of precious metal) held by the state, is best increased through a positive balance of trade with other nations, with large exports and low imports. Mercantilism suggests that the ruling government should advance these goals by playing a protectionist role in the economy, by encouraging exports and discouraging imports, especially through the use of tariffs. The economic policy based upon these ideas is often called the mercantile system.
Mercantilism was the dominant school of economics throughout the early modern period (from the 16th to the 18th century, which roughly corresponded to the emergence of the nation-state). Domestically, this led to some of the first instances of significant government intervention and control over the economy, and it was during this period that much of the modern capitalist system was established. Internationally, mercantilism encouraged the many European wars of the period, and fueled European imperialism, as the European powers fought over "available markets". Belief in mercantilism began to fade in the late 18th century, as the arguments of Adam Smith, and the other classical economists won out. Today, mercantilism as a whole is rejected by all serious economists, though some elements are looked upon favorably.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mercantilism is the economic theory holding that the prosperity of a nation depends upon its supply of capital, and that the global volume of trade is "unchangeable." The amount of capital, represented by bullion (amount of precious metal) held by the state, is best increased through a positive balance of trade with other nations, with large exports and low imports. Mercantilism suggests that the ruling government should advance these goals by playing a protectionist role in the economy, by encouraging exports and discouraging imports, especially through the use of tariffs. The economic policy based upon these ideas is often called the mercantile system.
Mercantilism was the dominant school of economics throughout the early modern period (from the 16th to the 18th century, which roughly corresponded to the emergence of the nation-state). Domestically, this led to some of the first instances of significant government intervention and control over the economy, and it was during this period that much of the modern capitalist system was established. Internationally, mercantilism encouraged the many European wars of the period, and fueled European imperialism, as the European powers fought over "available markets". Belief in mercantilism began to fade in the late 18th century, as the arguments of Adam Smith, and the other classical economists won out. Today, mercantilism as a whole is rejected by all serious economists, though some elements are looked upon favorably.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most people outside the industry just think that it is QF and UA who fly to the US (most of these people probably also think of only LAX).
There are a lot of other airlines that also fly to the US. ANZ flys to HNL,LAX and SFO I think. I think that they also used to go to LHR from LAX (I could be wrong). Air Tahiti also flys to the US (JFK not sure about anywhere else), as does FJ (HNL,LAX and also on to YVR). Air Canada also flys to HNL (LAX soon I think) on the way to Canada.
So as you see there are a lot of ways already to get across the pacific to North America. Sure QF and UA have a monoply at the moment, but that is on the direct flights between Australia and the US. NZ also used to fly direct from SYD but no longer do.
On the US side of the pacific, don't their airlines have equal rights as UA to fly to/from Australia?
If you look at airlines in the US that could fly here, there is DL, CO, NW and AA who all have the equipment to fly here. For some reason they don't.
So if you look at all this there is no reason for SQ to be allowed on the route. There is enough competition or potential competition there already. Perhaps our government should lobby the US government or airlines to get them to increase competition from their end.
I'm sorry but until I see SQ asking to fly PER-DPS or DRW-DPS then they are just cherry picking pure and simple. So by doing this they may say they are doing for the customers to have cheaper flights, but it is only for them to make more money.
P.S I forgot that Hawaiian also flies from SYD to HNL.
There are a lot of other airlines that also fly to the US. ANZ flys to HNL,LAX and SFO I think. I think that they also used to go to LHR from LAX (I could be wrong). Air Tahiti also flys to the US (JFK not sure about anywhere else), as does FJ (HNL,LAX and also on to YVR). Air Canada also flys to HNL (LAX soon I think) on the way to Canada.
So as you see there are a lot of ways already to get across the pacific to North America. Sure QF and UA have a monoply at the moment, but that is on the direct flights between Australia and the US. NZ also used to fly direct from SYD but no longer do.
On the US side of the pacific, don't their airlines have equal rights as UA to fly to/from Australia?
If you look at airlines in the US that could fly here, there is DL, CO, NW and AA who all have the equipment to fly here. For some reason they don't.
So if you look at all this there is no reason for SQ to be allowed on the route. There is enough competition or potential competition there already. Perhaps our government should lobby the US government or airlines to get them to increase competition from their end.
I'm sorry but until I see SQ asking to fly PER-DPS or DRW-DPS then they are just cherry picking pure and simple. So by doing this they may say they are doing for the customers to have cheaper flights, but it is only for them to make more money.
P.S I forgot that Hawaiian also flies from SYD to HNL.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those arguing for SQ to fly Aus-US claim that it will be a boost for the Oz economy and create new jobs. Sounds good....in theory. So far I have not seen any concrete evidence of this. Exactly how many jobs would be created? Exactly how much of a boost to the economy will there be? Quoting economic textbooks is one thing. Show me some hard evidence that allowing SQ to operate the route will make any difference. If there is this huge unfilled demand for the trans-pacific route, why don't other US airlines think it is worth flying?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confoutre because the returns aren't there? Both American Airlines and Continental Airlines used to fly the route (going back to the early '70's) and both decided that they could better utilise their aircraft elsewhere.
I knew the economics of the route in those days - I don't know them now - but the returns look as if they've improved.
I knew the economics of the route in those days - I don't know them now - but the returns look as if they've improved.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Away
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with TCOB. Well put together old son! Giving SQ rights across the Pacific pond doesn't make sense, for Australia at least. It sure would be good for Singapore, though.
Conversely, isn't it amazing how many people read Management books these days, then rush to a terminal and spout off about economic theory!
Sunfish mate, you're a genius.
Conversely, isn't it amazing how many people read Management books these days, then rush to a terminal and spout off about economic theory!
Sunfish mate, you're a genius.
Good point Rammel
So Animalclub... If the economics have improved then Continental, American, Northwest, Air Canada (through its CP/Canadian Airlines history) and Air NZ will imminently return to the Aust/trans-Pac route to get back on the gravy-train won't they? Maybe even others with the automatic rights. And what about Virgin and J*? Of course, if this is really about cherry picking for Singair, then the 'lack of competition' argument will be continuously brought to the fore while the bilaterally entitled airlines make purely financial decisions. It would appear that they're not exactly rushing to get onto the transpac goldmine train.
I've seen enough marketing 'SPIN' from my own company to know what spin is! There's nothing personal in spin; eveyone has an angle... ALWAYS. It's all about perception generation &/or management, and Singair's is very transparent I think.
So Animalclub... If the economics have improved then Continental, American, Northwest, Air Canada (through its CP/Canadian Airlines history) and Air NZ will imminently return to the Aust/trans-Pac route to get back on the gravy-train won't they? Maybe even others with the automatic rights. And what about Virgin and J*? Of course, if this is really about cherry picking for Singair, then the 'lack of competition' argument will be continuously brought to the fore while the bilaterally entitled airlines make purely financial decisions. It would appear that they're not exactly rushing to get onto the transpac goldmine train.
I've seen enough marketing 'SPIN' from my own company to know what spin is! There's nothing personal in spin; eveyone has an angle... ALWAYS. It's all about perception generation &/or management, and Singair's is very transparent I think.
I'm sorry possums but you are all wrong. There is heaps of evidence in dozens of markets, that free trade benefits everybody - except of course those that benefit from a closed market.
Economics 101 strongly suggests that any job losses suffered by Qantas if SIA was allowed in would be more than offset by the jobs created - here as well as in Singapore. there is plenty of research and evidence to back this up.
The economic consequences of SIA being awarded access to the American routes would be:
1. A reduced passenger price on this route.
2. An increased capacity.
3. Reduced margins for Qantas (offset in part by increased volume through lower prices).
4. Increase economic activity through more inbound tourism from the US as well as activity by Australians accessing the US.
The net result will be a higher GDP for Australia. More jobs for Australians, even if they are not Qantas jobs.
Please give up. The research has been done. Qantas is no special case. You are simply showing economic illiteracy by arguing otherwise. Its rather like me, a dumb PPL trying to tell you how to fly a B747!. There is no basis in fact for you to argue that QF should be protected (except that defence case which none of you have raised). I will not make the final comment because I don't wish to be banned by the woomeri as "anti Qantas".
Economics 101 strongly suggests that any job losses suffered by Qantas if SIA was allowed in would be more than offset by the jobs created - here as well as in Singapore. there is plenty of research and evidence to back this up.
The economic consequences of SIA being awarded access to the American routes would be:
1. A reduced passenger price on this route.
2. An increased capacity.
3. Reduced margins for Qantas (offset in part by increased volume through lower prices).
4. Increase economic activity through more inbound tourism from the US as well as activity by Australians accessing the US.
The net result will be a higher GDP for Australia. More jobs for Australians, even if they are not Qantas jobs.
Please give up. The research has been done. Qantas is no special case. You are simply showing economic illiteracy by arguing otherwise. Its rather like me, a dumb PPL trying to tell you how to fly a B747!. There is no basis in fact for you to argue that QF should be protected (except that defence case which none of you have raised). I will not make the final comment because I don't wish to be banned by the woomeri as "anti Qantas".
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dame Edna (sunfish),
"any job losses suffered by Qantas if SIA was allowed in would be more than offset by the jobs created - here as well as in Singapore."
Can you explain how job losses in qantas can be offset by jobs created in Singapore ?
in other words exactly how do jobs created in Singapore make up for Australian jobs lost here ?????
I'm sure the Australians would love to know.
"any job losses suffered by Qantas if SIA was allowed in would be more than offset by the jobs created - here as well as in Singapore."
Can you explain how job losses in qantas can be offset by jobs created in Singapore ?
in other words exactly how do jobs created in Singapore make up for Australian jobs lost here ?????
I'm sure the Australians would love to know.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orstralya
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Economics 101 strongly suggests that any job losses suffered by Qantas if SIA was allowed in would be more than offset by the jobs created - here as well as in Singapore. there is plenty of research and evidence to back this up."
Yes, well that all sounds fine in economic theory. However, in reality Sunfish, the people who's "Qantas Jobs" are about to be pissed up against the wall probably won't thank you for it.
Do you really think that a 50 year old LAME is going to be able to obtain comparable employment after the vast majority of his industry (the only one for which he holds any qualifications for by the way) has been flushed down the globalisation toilet.
Why is it that this country is the only one willing to shoot itself in the foot with all this nonsense. America may spout free trade and globalisation all the time but, at least the U.S. politicians realise that they are responsible first and foremost to their constituents. Hence one of the most protected workforces on the planet.
Globalisation only works if every country plays by the same set of rules. Obviously that's never going to happen so, why piss all our heavy industry and manufacturing capabilities away?
Yes, well that all sounds fine in economic theory. However, in reality Sunfish, the people who's "Qantas Jobs" are about to be pissed up against the wall probably won't thank you for it.
Do you really think that a 50 year old LAME is going to be able to obtain comparable employment after the vast majority of his industry (the only one for which he holds any qualifications for by the way) has been flushed down the globalisation toilet.
Why is it that this country is the only one willing to shoot itself in the foot with all this nonsense. America may spout free trade and globalisation all the time but, at least the U.S. politicians realise that they are responsible first and foremost to their constituents. Hence one of the most protected workforces on the planet.
Globalisation only works if every country plays by the same set of rules. Obviously that's never going to happen so, why piss all our heavy industry and manufacturing capabilities away?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, well that all sounds fine in economic theory. However, in reality Sunfish, the people who's "Qantas Jobs" are about to be pissed up against the wall probably won't thank you for it.
Do you really think that a 50 year old LAME is going to be able to obtain comparable employment after the vast majority of his industry (the only one for which he holds any qualifications for by the way) has been flushed down the globalisation toilet.
Do you really think that a 50 year old LAME is going to be able to obtain comparable employment after the vast majority of his industry (the only one for which he holds any qualifications for by the way) has been flushed down the globalisation toilet.
Evertonian
It's all very well saying that job losses will be offset by growth in other areas but, what price will it eventually cost the country if a highly skilled (specialised) employee loses their job and the offset is a new waiter in Port Douglas?
The math might be fine, but the social aspect sucks!
The math might be fine, but the social aspect sucks!
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should anybody lose their jobs if they allow SQ on the SYD/LA sector? As the equipment is the same (747-400), the only way SQ can compete is cabin service and I'm sorry to have to say, it is superior to QF
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by HotDog
Why should anybody lose their jobs if they allow SQ on the SYD/LA sector? As the equipment is the same (747-400), the only way SQ can compete is cabin service and I'm sorry to have to say, it is superior to QF
As far as jobs go, when all is said and done, Dixon will do as he pleases, regardless of the decision. He simply made threats to Heavy Maintenance in order to persuade the government against allowing Singapore in.
Now that the government has done as Dixon wishes…… NOTHING has changed for QF engineering staff. Our jobs are under just as much threat as before Little Johnny & Co.s’ decision.