SIA misses out on SY-LA
Originally Posted by Sunfish
Gentlemen, please stop demonstrating your lack of knowledge of economics. The verdict that free trade was better than protectionism was passed at least twenty years ago. Thets what the world trade organisation talks each year are about - opening up markets.
What do you think you would be paying for telephone calls if Optus and Vodaphone were not at Telstra's throat?
What do you think you would be paying for cars without the flood of cheap imports?
Industry protection is called "rent seeking behaviour" it appears to protect your jobs but it actually protects inefficient managers while penalising the rest of the economy that is internationally competitive.
You want examples - look no further than the car industry, computers and telecommunications.
Furthermore, your international competitors in aviation are doing just that - competing with each other. They get better at what they do day by day through competition. So what does QF do? Well if its not competing, but sitting on its fat @ss, then it isn't improving at the same rate as its competitors is it?
What that means is that it is not "protecting pilots jobs" at all! When the government does finally remove your industry protection, the adjustment is going to be all the more painful because the "gap" between your performance and your competitors is widening all the time.
Please don't shoot the messenger, its just the economic facts of life these days and aviation is no exception. It's nothing personal.
Those of you who wish to argue this point are like the flat earth society. All around the world everyone is trying to open markets and advance the cause of free trade.
What do you think you would be paying for telephone calls if Optus and Vodaphone were not at Telstra's throat?
What do you think you would be paying for cars without the flood of cheap imports?
Industry protection is called "rent seeking behaviour" it appears to protect your jobs but it actually protects inefficient managers while penalising the rest of the economy that is internationally competitive.
You want examples - look no further than the car industry, computers and telecommunications.
Furthermore, your international competitors in aviation are doing just that - competing with each other. They get better at what they do day by day through competition. So what does QF do? Well if its not competing, but sitting on its fat @ss, then it isn't improving at the same rate as its competitors is it?
What that means is that it is not "protecting pilots jobs" at all! When the government does finally remove your industry protection, the adjustment is going to be all the more painful because the "gap" between your performance and your competitors is widening all the time.
Please don't shoot the messenger, its just the economic facts of life these days and aviation is no exception. It's nothing personal.
Those of you who wish to argue this point are like the flat earth society. All around the world everyone is trying to open markets and advance the cause of free trade.
Rubbish Sunfish.
The issue here is SQ. Not protectionism. In the case of SQ, jobs will move off shore. In the case of Australian born competition, jobs are created and your economic models tested!
Another issue is labour taxation in this country. I would go as far to say, Australian industry has very high efficiency and productivity. And, if you take out the huge levels of personal taxation, are incredibly cheap by world standards.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pass-A-Frozo
The lack of competition on the Qantas-dominated Australia-US route is costing Australia up to $126 million in lost tourist revenue a year, a study commissioned by Singapore Airlines found.
I didn't say that military pilots are not professional; I was one myself so I know the standards. Having been in the RAAF I also know that no matter what the category description, you can end up in virtually any job that doesn't require degree qualifications to fill. I believe you are living proof of that at the moment.
When I was in the RAAF I actually thought a lot like yourself. Unions were for left-wing ratbags. Now I see them as an absolutely essential counter-balance to out of control "market forces" that seek to benefit only one class of person, the shareholder and the CEO's they pander to.
PAF you claim that when you eventually leave the RAAF you will work for what you are worth. No union for you... I hope you are a shareholder of the Johnson and Johnson company because you will be in need of their products fairly rapidly.
You said that my call to unify was a call to strike. You are only showing your naivety. Unifying is the only way that pilots can stem the tide of the feral abacus's. (abacai?) I never mentioned anything about striking and would only ever suggest it as a last resort. The fact is that you don't need to strike.
Airline company's and QF in particular have stated they intend to use the current laws to lever maximum advantage. I suggest that the law, the CAO's that protect the flight crews ultimate responsibility for the operation they are engaged in, are the ones that can be used to make the point.
You probably don't even know what I am talking about and that is the reason I say that RAAF pilots should stick to the military forums in matters such as these.
RAAF pilots never:
*have to be concerned about the economics of a fuel order.
*have schedule pressures (With the exception of the VIP squadron, hardly a "military" operation.)
*have to go cap in hand to their employer to gain a wage rise.
*have to worry about being undercut by someone for their next flying job.
*have to pay for their endorsements. (unless you count ROSO.)
* have their employer start up another operation with the SPECIFIC AIM of reducing their salaries.
You'll find out how the real world operates, as I did, in good order. Maybe we can see how quickly you change you views.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Sunfish is wrong on one point........the verdict on free trade was actually passed about 200 years ago! Protecting your "home"markets against foreigners is a tax on every consumer and a total disincentive to QF management to finally get it right.
How come,for example, they are the only major carrier in the world without the 777 or 340-500/600? Yes, I studied economics and I would love to see the ratio of dollars of fuel cost per occupied seat or per seat/mile on the 744 dinosaur laden QF compared with EVERY other major top 20 carrier in the world.
And if the SYD-LAX route is not being currently served so well (fares, services, frequency) then why not? There shouldn't be anything SIA can offer that QF isn't already doing......ummm...should there?
Beoing wouldn't have produced the 787 (want to fly that!) if Airbus hadn't been nipping at their heels. Vice versa too with the A350. That is what its all about. Study some history gentlemen.....protection destroys jobs. FACT!
How come,for example, they are the only major carrier in the world without the 777 or 340-500/600? Yes, I studied economics and I would love to see the ratio of dollars of fuel cost per occupied seat or per seat/mile on the 744 dinosaur laden QF compared with EVERY other major top 20 carrier in the world.
And if the SYD-LAX route is not being currently served so well (fares, services, frequency) then why not? There shouldn't be anything SIA can offer that QF isn't already doing......ummm...should there?
Beoing wouldn't have produced the 787 (want to fly that!) if Airbus hadn't been nipping at their heels. Vice versa too with the A350. That is what its all about. Study some history gentlemen.....protection destroys jobs. FACT!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jetsbest
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?
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?
Just a small point. We (Australian Government) appear to let anyone operate across the Tasman. To use the arguments put forward in this thread (and I do not disagree with the majority of posters) why did we allow foreign carriers operate over these routes? If left to Australian and NZ carriers would things improve or be as good for the PASSENGER as well as the ANZ airlines?
Grandpa Aerotart
Perhaps all you pro globalisation freaks might like to read some of the stuff on www.globalresearch.ca
It's a giant con designed to transfer maximum wealth into the hands of the few at the expense of the other 98% of the people on the planet.,,,and the charge is being led by US multinationals.
Particularly interesting is The Globalisation of Poverty by Chossodovsky
The faint moans of his daughter's cello practice barely break the hush of Michel Chossudovsky's household.
The kitchen, bathed in winter light, is gleaming. It is here, at a well-worn wooden table, that the University of Ottawa economics professor wants to talk.
The sunken-leather sofas of the living room -- with its gallery of African masks, Peruvian pottery, Chinese teapots and other treasures from some of the 100 countries he has visited --would be "too comfortable."
Stiff-backed chairs do feel more appropriate for the subject at hand: How poverty is increasing around the world and how this is not by accident, but by the design of a small, powerful banking and business elite at whose behest the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have provoked "economic and social collapse" in many countries.
The discussion is about widespread complacency toward what Mr. Chossudovsky calls a global financial crisis -- in which private speculators wield more power than governments over central bank coffers -- that may swerve into a crash far worse than the Dirty Thirties, jeopardizing pension and retirement savings funds.
It is about how so many people, expert and layman alike, accept a dominant "neo-liberal" economic dogma which makes suffering and sacrifice -- from unemployment and social service cuts in Ontario to mass destitution in Russia -- seem inevitable, if not justifiable and acceptable.
"Absurdity," he says. "I have difficulty in understanding why the dismantling or closing down of productive assets -- hospitals and schools -- could constitute the key to prosperity. But that is what is actually being conveyed. The official mainstream economic agenda is that you have to close down, downsize, lay off, and that is the key to prosperity."
Mr. Chossudovsky, a 52-year-old author who has learned to speak 10 languages and writes in three (English, French and Spanish), has persisted for three decades with an increasingly unfashionable perspective on world events.
It keeps him on the margins of mainstream commentary in Canada but wins praise from such equally anti-establishment social theorists as American Noam Chomsky.
He agrees to being described as having a leftist perspective, but emphasizes that he is not allied with any political party, including socialists, at home or abroad.
"One doesn't know who the socialists are any more because the socialists are all in favour of the neo-liberal agenda," he says. "If you look at socialists in Europe, what are they doing? They're adopting austerity measures. I wouldn't want to put a political label on myself because the neo-liberal consensus is supported by right-wing and left-wing parties alike, including the New Democratic Party."
Raised in Geneva, Switzerland, Mr. Chossudovsky followed in his father's footsteps by becoming an economist. But his father, a Russian emigre, made a career as a United Nations diplomat, while Mr. Chossudovsky put his economics training to use as a teacher and analyst. He came to the University of Ottawa in 1968, attracted by the promise of a bilingual lifestyle.
It was as a young visiting professor at the Catholic University in Santiago, Chile, that Mr. Chossudovsky's interest in "economic repression" was first pricked.
Augusto Pinochet's military junta, which overthrew Salvador Allende in 1973, quadrupled the price of bread and introduced other measures that would now be referred to as "a structural adjustment program."
Mr. Chossudovsky set out, with a doctor, to study the malnourishment resulting from the bread price hike. He wound up with a paper that held the Pinochet regime responsible not only for conventional forms of political repression but for "economic repression" that impoverished three-quarters of Chile's population.
Since then he has documented the purposeful impoverishment of people in dozens of countries. His latest book, the Globalization of Poverty, contains case studies of the collapse of economies and social structures in Somalia, Rwanda, Vietnam, India, Brazil, Peru, Russia and the former Yugoslavia. In some of these countries, IMF/World Bank intervention preceded violent conflict.
He refers often to "the hidden agenda" of the big banking and financial organizations. They orchestrate collapses, he says, by demanding payment of debt service charges and then lending money to cover the charges but only on condition the recipient country impose such measures as austerity, privatization and currency devaluation. The impact is usually destructive: mass shutdowns, huge unemployment, a wipeout of savings and pensions and purchasing power, a loss of social services.
Such economic shock therapy, he says, has pushed Russia, for one, "back to the medieval era," impoverishing millions of people, deepening the country's foreign debt, driving more than half the country's industrial plants into bankruptcy and allowing organized crime to flourish in the banking, real estate and other sectors of the economy.
Mr. Chossudovsky generally condemns "the criminalization" of the global economy in which increasingly large amounts of drug money and other illegally obtained funds are deposited in the world's 55 offshore havens, escaping taxation. The funds are laundered through an international banking system in which capital movement is easier than ever owing to the revolution in digital communications.
"This critical drain of billions of dollars in capital flight dramatically reduces state tax revenues, paralyses social programs, drives up budget deficits and spurs the accumulation of large public debts," he writes.
An end to offshore tax havens is one of the few solutions Chossudovsky advocates. He also says the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and commercial banks should not be allowed to "pillage" the central banks of troubled countries.
He is much stronger on description than prescription. But his descriptions alone constitute a defiance of mainstream economic scholarship in which "critical analysis is strongly discouraged."
It has not, however, stopped him from teaching for 30 years at U of O and as a visiting professor in several other countries, as well as publishing several books, the latest appearing in nine languages. And while the mainstream media in Canada do not publish his commentary, he is published frequently in Le Monde Diplomatique and smaller magazines that don't have investors or business advertisers.
It's a giant con designed to transfer maximum wealth into the hands of the few at the expense of the other 98% of the people on the planet.,,,and the charge is being led by US multinationals.
Particularly interesting is The Globalisation of Poverty by Chossodovsky
The faint moans of his daughter's cello practice barely break the hush of Michel Chossudovsky's household.
The kitchen, bathed in winter light, is gleaming. It is here, at a well-worn wooden table, that the University of Ottawa economics professor wants to talk.
The sunken-leather sofas of the living room -- with its gallery of African masks, Peruvian pottery, Chinese teapots and other treasures from some of the 100 countries he has visited --would be "too comfortable."
Stiff-backed chairs do feel more appropriate for the subject at hand: How poverty is increasing around the world and how this is not by accident, but by the design of a small, powerful banking and business elite at whose behest the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have provoked "economic and social collapse" in many countries.
The discussion is about widespread complacency toward what Mr. Chossudovsky calls a global financial crisis -- in which private speculators wield more power than governments over central bank coffers -- that may swerve into a crash far worse than the Dirty Thirties, jeopardizing pension and retirement savings funds.
It is about how so many people, expert and layman alike, accept a dominant "neo-liberal" economic dogma which makes suffering and sacrifice -- from unemployment and social service cuts in Ontario to mass destitution in Russia -- seem inevitable, if not justifiable and acceptable.
"Absurdity," he says. "I have difficulty in understanding why the dismantling or closing down of productive assets -- hospitals and schools -- could constitute the key to prosperity. But that is what is actually being conveyed. The official mainstream economic agenda is that you have to close down, downsize, lay off, and that is the key to prosperity."
Mr. Chossudovsky, a 52-year-old author who has learned to speak 10 languages and writes in three (English, French and Spanish), has persisted for three decades with an increasingly unfashionable perspective on world events.
It keeps him on the margins of mainstream commentary in Canada but wins praise from such equally anti-establishment social theorists as American Noam Chomsky.
He agrees to being described as having a leftist perspective, but emphasizes that he is not allied with any political party, including socialists, at home or abroad.
"One doesn't know who the socialists are any more because the socialists are all in favour of the neo-liberal agenda," he says. "If you look at socialists in Europe, what are they doing? They're adopting austerity measures. I wouldn't want to put a political label on myself because the neo-liberal consensus is supported by right-wing and left-wing parties alike, including the New Democratic Party."
Raised in Geneva, Switzerland, Mr. Chossudovsky followed in his father's footsteps by becoming an economist. But his father, a Russian emigre, made a career as a United Nations diplomat, while Mr. Chossudovsky put his economics training to use as a teacher and analyst. He came to the University of Ottawa in 1968, attracted by the promise of a bilingual lifestyle.
It was as a young visiting professor at the Catholic University in Santiago, Chile, that Mr. Chossudovsky's interest in "economic repression" was first pricked.
Augusto Pinochet's military junta, which overthrew Salvador Allende in 1973, quadrupled the price of bread and introduced other measures that would now be referred to as "a structural adjustment program."
Mr. Chossudovsky set out, with a doctor, to study the malnourishment resulting from the bread price hike. He wound up with a paper that held the Pinochet regime responsible not only for conventional forms of political repression but for "economic repression" that impoverished three-quarters of Chile's population.
Since then he has documented the purposeful impoverishment of people in dozens of countries. His latest book, the Globalization of Poverty, contains case studies of the collapse of economies and social structures in Somalia, Rwanda, Vietnam, India, Brazil, Peru, Russia and the former Yugoslavia. In some of these countries, IMF/World Bank intervention preceded violent conflict.
He refers often to "the hidden agenda" of the big banking and financial organizations. They orchestrate collapses, he says, by demanding payment of debt service charges and then lending money to cover the charges but only on condition the recipient country impose such measures as austerity, privatization and currency devaluation. The impact is usually destructive: mass shutdowns, huge unemployment, a wipeout of savings and pensions and purchasing power, a loss of social services.
Such economic shock therapy, he says, has pushed Russia, for one, "back to the medieval era," impoverishing millions of people, deepening the country's foreign debt, driving more than half the country's industrial plants into bankruptcy and allowing organized crime to flourish in the banking, real estate and other sectors of the economy.
Mr. Chossudovsky generally condemns "the criminalization" of the global economy in which increasingly large amounts of drug money and other illegally obtained funds are deposited in the world's 55 offshore havens, escaping taxation. The funds are laundered through an international banking system in which capital movement is easier than ever owing to the revolution in digital communications.
"This critical drain of billions of dollars in capital flight dramatically reduces state tax revenues, paralyses social programs, drives up budget deficits and spurs the accumulation of large public debts," he writes.
An end to offshore tax havens is one of the few solutions Chossudovsky advocates. He also says the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and commercial banks should not be allowed to "pillage" the central banks of troubled countries.
He is much stronger on description than prescription. But his descriptions alone constitute a defiance of mainstream economic scholarship in which "critical analysis is strongly discouraged."
It has not, however, stopped him from teaching for 30 years at U of O and as a visiting professor in several other countries, as well as publishing several books, the latest appearing in nine languages. And while the mainstream media in Canada do not publish his commentary, he is published frequently in Le Monde Diplomatique and smaller magazines that don't have investors or business advertisers.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Borg:
I didn't present these figures or this article as being my own viewpoint? People wanted some figures to discuss and I provided some from a news article?? Hence why I pasted the entire article and it's source - as I do with other newspaper articles. I agree with some of it's content but I've not made mention of what parts.
Perhaps if you do some research you can find some information on market deregulation, globalisation and the net effects on national economies. (I'd suggest personally from something more mainstream)
As for your other "comments" regarding the military. I'll await some guidance from Woomera on how I can answer those. Several of the points you present I'll address if given the chance. However they relate more to points I'd make on your military service so I'll leave it at that till those on high speak!
As for your piece on unions - I'm not sure I can respond without taking Woomera offside. However I'll say one thing. You said
How do you expect me to respond. If I say anything, all you do is say that "You've never worked for a major airline, and you're only someone who sometimes flies planes", and "I'm not interested in economics". I can't answer you if you don't want to talk economics because the answer lies in the field of economics. I thought the issue here was the economic effects of opening up an air route to competition? I'm quite happy to discuss the issue at hand - if given the chance! I thought that was the idea, to debate the issue rather than just dismiss my comments because you don't like my current form of employment.
Doesn't your logic that military pilots should only stay in the Military forum mean you should stick to threads that talk about say "work cycles down final" or "crosswind landing techniques" , and not post in threads that discuss globalisation, macroeconomic reform, and protectionism?? (leaving that to people who have an education in economics?) I don't believe that should be the case and I'm sure you'd agree!
I disagree with your logic personally.
[Edited for to early AM grammer / spelling
]
We asked for proof, not propaganda
Perhaps if you do some research you can find some information on market deregulation, globalisation and the net effects on national economies. (I'd suggest personally from something more mainstream)
As for your other "comments" regarding the military. I'll await some guidance from Woomera on how I can answer those. Several of the points you present I'll address if given the chance. However they relate more to points I'd make on your military service so I'll leave it at that till those on high speak!
As for your piece on unions - I'm not sure I can respond without taking Woomera offside. However I'll say one thing. You said
how would letting SIA operate SYD-LA benefit Australian pilots? Oh that's right, you don't make you living as one do you? Neither incidentally does P-A-F, being a General Duties officer. Definition, an officer whos duties sometimes include flying aeroplanes.
Do you like picking fights with pilots who have more to be concerned about than trading esoteric economic points with amateurs?
Do you like picking fights with pilots who have more to be concerned about than trading esoteric economic points with amateurs?
Doesn't your logic that military pilots should only stay in the Military forum mean you should stick to threads that talk about say "work cycles down final" or "crosswind landing techniques" , and not post in threads that discuss globalisation, macroeconomic reform, and protectionism?? (leaving that to people who have an education in economics?) I don't believe that should be the case and I'm sure you'd agree!
I disagree with your logic personally.
[Edited for to early AM grammer / spelling
]
Last edited by Pass-A-Frozo; 27th Feb 2006 at 17:06.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I originally joined PPRuNE so I could chat with other pilots and keep up to date with what's going on in our world. I did not join so that I can be told by some plonker that my job is bad for the economy and we would be better off having some Singaporean doing it. It's a waste of my time and I don't think I'll be back. So I'd like to take this opportunity to pass on my greetings to those who want to export my job overseas - go fcuk yourselves! Au revoir.......
confoutre
Joined February 16, 2006; 16 posts. Didn't stay long did you?
And incase you were tempted to return, I made your departure rather permanent!
Sunshine Woomera
confoutre
Joined February 16, 2006; 16 posts. Didn't stay long did you?
And incase you were tempted to return, I made your departure rather permanent!
Sunshine Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 27th Feb 2006 at 21:59.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: home with mum and the kids
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all the Free and Open market protagonists.
Singapore Airlines receives a massive competitive advantage against Qantas through its ability to secure greater reciprocal rights into Foreign Countries, rights which Qantas is unable to secure. I did not see any offer from the Singaporeans to trade off Landing slots in Heathrow or Paris in return for Syd - Lax. Is it fair competition that Qantas cannot get more than 3 slots a week into Paris whilst Singapore operates daily? Qantas has stated Paris (I am using this as an example) was uneconomical due to the lack of frequency.
Or consider Emirates, who not only enjoy the above mentioned advantages, but also a massive Government subsidy in the form of ZERO income tax. Net salaries for Emirates pilots are similar to Qantas, however the Australian government imposes a massive cost to Qantas in the form of income taxes for its employees, effectively increasing its wage bill by 35 - 40%!
The modern free world economic management is one of 'managing the market' through Fiscal and Interest rate intervention.. The Great depression proved that the market mechanisms of Supply and Demand alone are simply not enough.
Similarly, an unrestricted market would allow for the Monopolist, Oligopolistic etc. In that case Virgin Blue would have been history years ago and Jetstar would be unnecessary.
So bring on the free market I say, but a real free market with no interference whatsoever, then sit back and watch the chaos.
Singapore Airlines receives a massive competitive advantage against Qantas through its ability to secure greater reciprocal rights into Foreign Countries, rights which Qantas is unable to secure. I did not see any offer from the Singaporeans to trade off Landing slots in Heathrow or Paris in return for Syd - Lax. Is it fair competition that Qantas cannot get more than 3 slots a week into Paris whilst Singapore operates daily? Qantas has stated Paris (I am using this as an example) was uneconomical due to the lack of frequency.
Or consider Emirates, who not only enjoy the above mentioned advantages, but also a massive Government subsidy in the form of ZERO income tax. Net salaries for Emirates pilots are similar to Qantas, however the Australian government imposes a massive cost to Qantas in the form of income taxes for its employees, effectively increasing its wage bill by 35 - 40%!
The modern free world economic management is one of 'managing the market' through Fiscal and Interest rate intervention.. The Great depression proved that the market mechanisms of Supply and Demand alone are simply not enough.
Similarly, an unrestricted market would allow for the Monopolist, Oligopolistic etc. In that case Virgin Blue would have been history years ago and Jetstar would be unnecessary.
So bring on the free market I say, but a real free market with no interference whatsoever, then sit back and watch the chaos.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Whinery
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Net salaries for Emirates pilots are similar to Qantas
Net salaries for Emirates pilots are similar to Qantas, however the Australian government imposes a massive cost to Qantas in the form of income taxes for its employees, effectively increasing its wage bill by 35 - 40%
Income Tax doesn't increase the wage bill, it decreases the cash-in-hand (net) amount for the employee.
Emirates, who not only enjoy the above mentioned advantages, but also a massive Government subsidy in the form of ZERO income tax
Get ys facts straight. If you want to hear why EK is doing so well, I can give you an almost endless list of the advantages they enjoy.
They do NOT pay the same net value as Qantas pilots are paid, exept maybe the 737 guys.
Or would it be the DASH drivers.....??
I'm afraid some of you are demonstrating that old saw "Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit".
You care not one whit for Australian jobs, you simply care for your own, which is perfectly understandable. I expect that the pilots among you will avert your eyes and stand primly on the sidelines if QF's heavy maintenance is outsourced to China, as long as you are not affected.
It would be great if VB could start a Pacific run, but the logistics of doing so might be prohibitively expensive.
Woomera could we please lock this thread? Its going nowhere in particular.
You care not one whit for Australian jobs, you simply care for your own, which is perfectly understandable. I expect that the pilots among you will avert your eyes and stand primly on the sidelines if QF's heavy maintenance is outsourced to China, as long as you are not affected.
It would be great if VB could start a Pacific run, but the logistics of doing so might be prohibitively expensive.
Woomera could we please lock this thread? Its going nowhere in particular.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No! Don't lock it! It might not be winning proponents on either side to cross the fence, but it is enjoyable when someone takes a discussion so personally they take their bat and ball, deposits a four letter word in the place of rational debate and heads off to his or her bunker to fight off the big, bad globalisation hoardes and joust at windmills.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sunfish
It would be great if VB could start a Pacific run, but the logistics of doing so might be prohibitively expensive.
.
.
Gee, Sunfish, maybe that's why Qantas finds it tough and doesn't need SIA (or anyone else for that matter) to muddy the water??
Reality bites??
Originally Posted by Sunfish
I'm afraid some of you are demonstrating that old saw "Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit".
You care not one whit for Australian jobs, you simply care for your own, which is perfectly understandable. I expect that the pilots among you will avert your eyes and stand primly on the sidelines if QF's heavy maintenance is outsourced to China, as long as you are not affected.
It would be great if VB could start a Pacific run, but the logistics of doing so might be prohibitively expensive.
Woomera could we please lock this thread? Its going nowhere in particular.
You care not one whit for Australian jobs, you simply care for your own, which is perfectly understandable. I expect that the pilots among you will avert your eyes and stand primly on the sidelines if QF's heavy maintenance is outsourced to China, as long as you are not affected.
It would be great if VB could start a Pacific run, but the logistics of doing so might be prohibitively expensive.
Woomera could we please lock this thread? Its going nowhere in particular.
I am far removed from your old saw. But despite my interests being unaffected, the surrendering of Australian jobs to Singaporean business, traitorous. And the nature of the Singaporian business practices, should leave no doubt that aviation jobs will be sent offshore.
Do you really believe SQ will have an Australian ( who has every right ) as a "Singapore Girl" ? Or do you believe they will wish to be burdened with high Australian taxation and employ locally?
Desert Whine
You are deluded by the Arab bread you take- there are significant benefits in EK not having to pay wages crippled with high Australian taxation rates.
Would you fly for EK if you had to pay 50% tax? No. Well that means EK pays a lot less than QF to attract skilled labour!
Herin is the REAL ISSUES facing Australia. Taxation reform to make efficient labour and business practices competitive in a heavily subsidised world!
Frozo
Hope you ain't taken the ugly road there mate.
Gnadenburg, you are forgetting that Australian jobs will also be created if SIA was allowed in by the increase in economic activity, granted Qantas may shed jobs (or they may not), but the key to understanding free trade is that removing protection creates more jobs than are lost from the formerly protected industries and a certain mathematician (whose name escapes me) won a Nobel prize for proving it theoretically.
To put it another way, why do you think unemployment is at a record low in Australia after 15 years of prying open the Australian economy?
None of you can say free trade has failed. You are all basking in what it has delivered. Cheap cars, electronics, food, clothes and consumer goods. Have any of you any idea what it was like growing up in Australia in the 1960's and marvelling at the quality of American cars, homes, clothes and consumer goods compared to what was available in good old protected Australia? You guys have no idea what you are talking about.
Maybe Qantas should use the Koala as its logo. Protected, slow moving, sleepy and high on gum leaves.
To put it another way, why do you think unemployment is at a record low in Australia after 15 years of prying open the Australian economy?
None of you can say free trade has failed. You are all basking in what it has delivered. Cheap cars, electronics, food, clothes and consumer goods. Have any of you any idea what it was like growing up in Australia in the 1960's and marvelling at the quality of American cars, homes, clothes and consumer goods compared to what was available in good old protected Australia? You guys have no idea what you are talking about.
Maybe Qantas should use the Koala as its logo. Protected, slow moving, sleepy and high on gum leaves.
Sunfish
I don't promote protectionism. The issue here is SQ, or EK for that matter, flying the Pacific. As opposed to promoting Australian business in doing similar. The politicians know this, and I assume, that is why they are holding out to enable a Virgin start up. There will be more Australian jobs.
I don't promote protectionism. The issue here is SQ, or EK for that matter, flying the Pacific. As opposed to promoting Australian business in doing similar. The politicians know this, and I assume, that is why they are holding out to enable a Virgin start up. There will be more Australian jobs.
Nunc est bibendum
Sunfish, all things being equal, I don't think any of us are worried about 'competition'. In fact, bring it on. If we had equal taxation rates (both company and personal) and the ability to write off aircraft over three years instead of 30 then the QF dividend would have been much more significant, the airline probably would have expanded much more significantly over the last bunch of years and the outlook would be for many more services and thus creating the jobs you're talking about.
The reality is, 'all things' sure as hell ain't equal- from access rights to everything else. In fact, SQ could quite easily predatory price QF right off the LAX route- i'm not sure that the ACCCs reach would get through the border control at Changi let alone into the internal workings of SQ. That would leave us....precisely where we are now with one major carrier on the pacific. The difference is, now the profits and the jobs go to Singaporeans and not Aussies. What a great future that would be!
The reality is, 'all things' sure as hell ain't equal- from access rights to everything else. In fact, SQ could quite easily predatory price QF right off the LAX route- i'm not sure that the ACCCs reach would get through the border control at Changi let alone into the internal workings of SQ. That would leave us....precisely where we are now with one major carrier on the pacific. The difference is, now the profits and the jobs go to Singaporeans and not Aussies. What a great future that would be!
Last edited by Keg; 28th Feb 2006 at 06:11.
Evertonian
Unemployment at a record low...that's great news if you've got a full time job!
The increase in part-time employment over the last decade has occurred at a time of significant underlying changes in the economy and in society more generally. Some of these changes have affected the demand for part-time labour while others have influenced the supply.
The increase in demand for part-time labour is often associated with restructuring within Australia’s economy, and in particular the relative growth in service industries, the deregulation of the workplace and the introduction of new technologies.
The demand for part-time labour is concentrated in a small number of industries. In August 2001, 50% of part-time workers were employed in just three service industries: Retail trade, Health and community services, and Property and business services. These same industries accounted for only 31% of full-time employment.
Industries with higher proportions of part-time employment have accounted for most of the growth in total employment over the last decade. Those with smaller proportions of part-time employment have increased their total employment levels only slowly, or not at all. There were eight industry divisions in which part-time employment accounted for 20% or more of total employment in August 2001. These industries accounted for 79% (2.0 million) of the total part-time employment of 2.6 million, although they only accounted for just over half (52%) of full-time employment. Except for Agriculture, all of the industries belong to the service sector.
The increase in part-time employment over the last decade has occurred at a time of significant underlying changes in the economy and in society more generally. Some of these changes have affected the demand for part-time labour while others have influenced the supply.
The increase in demand for part-time labour is often associated with restructuring within Australia’s economy, and in particular the relative growth in service industries, the deregulation of the workplace and the introduction of new technologies.
The demand for part-time labour is concentrated in a small number of industries. In August 2001, 50% of part-time workers were employed in just three service industries: Retail trade, Health and community services, and Property and business services. These same industries accounted for only 31% of full-time employment.
Industries with higher proportions of part-time employment have accounted for most of the growth in total employment over the last decade. Those with smaller proportions of part-time employment have increased their total employment levels only slowly, or not at all. There were eight industry divisions in which part-time employment accounted for 20% or more of total employment in August 2001. These industries accounted for 79% (2.0 million) of the total part-time employment of 2.6 million, although they only accounted for just over half (52%) of full-time employment. Except for Agriculture, all of the industries belong to the service sector.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Buster,
There is employment ....and there is employment.
Part time work when it constitutes the main income source is full of holes- shorter term, lower pay rates (after consideration of full time benefits and conditions), engenders lower levels of job satisfaction, loyalty, long term commitment.
Worse still is the nature of that work. Its primarily in the service sector. How assured of a solid economic future is a nation of waiters. (No offence to all those waiting to help pay the rent).
There is employment ....and there is employment.
Part time work when it constitutes the main income source is full of holes- shorter term, lower pay rates (after consideration of full time benefits and conditions), engenders lower levels of job satisfaction, loyalty, long term commitment.
Worse still is the nature of that work. Its primarily in the service sector. How assured of a solid economic future is a nation of waiters. (No offence to all those waiting to help pay the rent).
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic but as employment is being discussed, don't forget that you're not unemployed in Australia unless you work for pay for less than one (yes, one) hour per week.
How do the politicians and fat cats in Canberra get away with it???
How do the politicians and fat cats in Canberra get away with it???