SIA misses out on SY-LA
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guys, before you get too worked up about things, take a look around the threads on pprune. You may see that there are certain members whose primary reason for posting is to stir people up.
Different threads, competently different subjects, same old people getting their kicks out of deliberately “poking” people on a touchy issue.
Getting angry, swearing at them and calling them offensive/abusive names simply gets you banned by moderators (who seem to be biased). The Stirrers objectives are achieved.
Different threads, competently different subjects, same old people getting their kicks out of deliberately “poking” people on a touchy issue.
Getting angry, swearing at them and calling them offensive/abusive names simply gets you banned by moderators (who seem to be biased). The Stirrers objectives are achieved.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes BHMvictim, we are glad you now see certain posts in the same manner we do. Thanks for the support. 
We have been tempted to close this thread, not because the topic is unworthy of debate, but simply because the debate from some users has become non existent! PPRuNe Dunnunda certainly has a small cadre of "rent a crowd" which inevitably stifles worthwhile debate by the majority.
Sunny Woomera
We have been tempted to close this thread, not because the topic is unworthy of debate, but simply because the debate from some users has become non existent! PPRuNe Dunnunda certainly has a small cadre of "rent a crowd" which inevitably stifles worthwhile debate by the majority.
Sunny Woomera
Evertonian
Yes, but it can be educational Moonshine W! Spent just a short time surfing to find some ABS stats. Learnt a few other things along the way...
We'll just wait for some opposing facts now....
....
.....
We'll just wait for some opposing facts now....
.... .....
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The company I work for doesn't outsource anything.They figure that if there's a buck to be made in maintenance or catering or reservations then they'll make it, not hand profits to someone else. Qantas could choose that route if they really wanted and I'll bet they would have the unions with them if they wanted.
But it is competition that stirs the collective management soul....not sloth or duopoly. I keep thinking that all of us know of those cosy "two airline" days....yet the grey hairs I see each morning remind me that was 20 years (ish) ago. It was truly horrible,stifling and anti-consumer....yet at the time so many senior people thought it right, as do many people in the "protect QF" brigade now. They were wrong then, they're wrong now.
But it is competition that stirs the collective management soul....not sloth or duopoly. I keep thinking that all of us know of those cosy "two airline" days....yet the grey hairs I see each morning remind me that was 20 years (ish) ago. It was truly horrible,stifling and anti-consumer....yet at the time so many senior people thought it right, as do many people in the "protect QF" brigade now. They were wrong then, they're wrong now.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Just dropping in from a page or two back discussing competition...
Like Keg says, bring it on; generally, we all benefit; but it has to be wide and remove pricing power from just one or two at the detriment of others.
However if there are all these supernormal profits to be made (as SQ and EK appear to argue), then why aren't some of the four other carriers (NW, CO, AA, NZ and I think AC also have fifth-freedom from the US under their open skies agreement (and their upcoming 777 service will not be from the US)) who actually have existing traffic rights on the route, using them? OK, at least one (AA) may have alliance restrictions, but that's a commercial decision on their own part to give up their capacity to an alliance partner - precisely because they don't think they can turn a quid on the route on their own. There might even be others that I'm not aware of (DL? US?). CO don't even come to Oz as part of their Micronesia network out of Guam.
Indeed doing it within an alliance framework would be the cheapest way as you can tap into an existing infrastructure.
In a wider sense, there is competition across the Pacific - Hawaiian, Air Canada, Air Pacific, Air Tahiti Nui and Air NZ will all sell you SYD-LAX tickets, but you'll have to connect. (Going to NY, Lan and Aero Argie are just as viable alternatives as, say, Korean or JAL are to London.) In that sense, it's little different to the London run - two dominant carriers (which are even in closer cahoots than what's on the Pacific run) and a few others doing a one-stop connect. If SIA are peeved about not being allowed onto the Pac run, then the corollary is that they should oppose anyone else operating to Sydney who might be able to offer a connection to London but they're strangely quiet. Indeed it seems that SIA are only interested in the LAX run, rather than wider USA or they'd be aggressively offering connections to NY on their SIN-NYC directs, where Cathay, Malaysian, JAL, Korean and Asiana are already also competing for Australian-origin business. So to say that SQ are interested in bringing in lots of US-origin business is a spurious argument as there are loads of one-stops from the East Coast (and some middle-America cities) available.
All the competition arguments are fine, but when there is a company which has lower ULCs and tax wanting to jump in, there is only one reason: to make money for their shareholders (read the Singapore government via Temasek). In fact that is their duty. If you want competition, fine - open it up full-tilt - 10 or so alternatives, so that none have monopolist pricing power. Letting only one or two in, who have deep (government-backed) pockets will lead to capacity dumping to get the price down and then it becomes a war of attrition. Lower fares in the short term, but then when you've all lost your jobs as the Rat can no longer play the game, up they'll go again, higher than before.
Can't happen?
History suggests it can. In the Australian context, that history is called 'Compass' and given the protagonists in that stoush, one can see why the Rat is understandably paranoid about someone with lower costs and taxes, a less transparent cost structure and more explicit government backing, getting on the route.
AUD 12k J/C to LAX against AUD 9k to London? Because that's what the market to the US will bear. If people didn't pay it, QF and UA wouldn't be able to charge it.
Like Keg says, bring it on; generally, we all benefit; but it has to be wide and remove pricing power from just one or two at the detriment of others.
However if there are all these supernormal profits to be made (as SQ and EK appear to argue), then why aren't some of the four other carriers (NW, CO, AA, NZ and I think AC also have fifth-freedom from the US under their open skies agreement (and their upcoming 777 service will not be from the US)) who actually have existing traffic rights on the route, using them? OK, at least one (AA) may have alliance restrictions, but that's a commercial decision on their own part to give up their capacity to an alliance partner - precisely because they don't think they can turn a quid on the route on their own. There might even be others that I'm not aware of (DL? US?). CO don't even come to Oz as part of their Micronesia network out of Guam.
Indeed doing it within an alliance framework would be the cheapest way as you can tap into an existing infrastructure.
In a wider sense, there is competition across the Pacific - Hawaiian, Air Canada, Air Pacific, Air Tahiti Nui and Air NZ will all sell you SYD-LAX tickets, but you'll have to connect. (Going to NY, Lan and Aero Argie are just as viable alternatives as, say, Korean or JAL are to London.) In that sense, it's little different to the London run - two dominant carriers (which are even in closer cahoots than what's on the Pacific run) and a few others doing a one-stop connect. If SIA are peeved about not being allowed onto the Pac run, then the corollary is that they should oppose anyone else operating to Sydney who might be able to offer a connection to London but they're strangely quiet. Indeed it seems that SIA are only interested in the LAX run, rather than wider USA or they'd be aggressively offering connections to NY on their SIN-NYC directs, where Cathay, Malaysian, JAL, Korean and Asiana are already also competing for Australian-origin business. So to say that SQ are interested in bringing in lots of US-origin business is a spurious argument as there are loads of one-stops from the East Coast (and some middle-America cities) available.
All the competition arguments are fine, but when there is a company which has lower ULCs and tax wanting to jump in, there is only one reason: to make money for their shareholders (read the Singapore government via Temasek). In fact that is their duty. If you want competition, fine - open it up full-tilt - 10 or so alternatives, so that none have monopolist pricing power. Letting only one or two in, who have deep (government-backed) pockets will lead to capacity dumping to get the price down and then it becomes a war of attrition. Lower fares in the short term, but then when you've all lost your jobs as the Rat can no longer play the game, up they'll go again, higher than before.
Can't happen?
History suggests it can. In the Australian context, that history is called 'Compass' and given the protagonists in that stoush, one can see why the Rat is understandably paranoid about someone with lower costs and taxes, a less transparent cost structure and more explicit government backing, getting on the route.
AUD 12k J/C to LAX against AUD 9k to London? Because that's what the market to the US will bear. If people didn't pay it, QF and UA wouldn't be able to charge it.
It seems my efforts here are regarded as misguided by the Woomeri. So I will cease them. If you want to understand why it is that I say your arguments against free trade are pointless and twenty years out of date, please go here and start reading. The entire world is working towards free trade and has been for at least 20 years.
http://www.wto.org/
Its general agreement on trade in services already covers aircraft maintenance, marketing and reservations systems. Liberalisation of air traffic rights is not covered by this, but its definitely on the agenda.
If you want to know what the real debate is, its about how to open markets to free trade without creating large scale economic chaos from job losses and restructuring.
http://www.wto.org/
Its general agreement on trade in services already covers aircraft maintenance, marketing and reservations systems. Liberalisation of air traffic rights is not covered by this, but its definitely on the agenda.
If you want to know what the real debate is, its about how to open markets to free trade without creating large scale economic chaos from job losses and restructuring.
Last edited by Sunfish; 28th Feb 2006 at 20:30.
Nunc est bibendum
Originally Posted by Sunfish
If you want to know what the real debate is, its about how to open markets to free trade without creating large scale economic chaos from job losses and restructuring.
This' free trade' that you keep talking about in the aviation industry would cause a massive hit to the Australian economy and probably result in the replacment of a lot of highly skilled, highly paid jobs with lots of significantly lower paid, lower skilled jobs in the service industry. 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Keg
Whaddya think the rest of us have been saying Sunfish? This' free trade' that you keep talking about in the aviation industry would cause a massive hit to the Australian economy and probably result in the replacment of a lot of highly skilled, highly paid jobs with lots of significantly lower paid, lower skilled jobs in the service industry.
This' free trade' that you keep talking about in the aviation industry would cause a massive hit to the Australian economy and probably result in the replacment of a lot of highly skilled, highly paid jobs with lots of significantly lower paid, lower skilled jobs in the service industry. Lower pay is not synonymous with lower skill. You need to look no farther than the aviation industry to see that this is not the case. The guys that peddle 737s and A320s for Ryanair and Ezyjet are lower paid than their brothers at BA but as they all hold the same Govt issued licences, are the former any less skilled than the latter? Just to broaden the matter, next time you ask about a book at Borders or CD at the HMV shop or buy a cup of caffein at your favorite coffeee shop, also ask the service person his ir her educational and training levels. These guys aren't paid much but their education and traning, and by default, their skillls will amaze you. They are just unfortunate that they haven't had some of the breaks that the better paid in our midst have had.
Evertonian
They are just unfortunate that they haven't had some of the breaks that the better paid in our midst have had.
I think Keg's lower skill reference is not a sleight on the individual, rather a reference to the job types that will be replacing the higher skilled ones.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the lessons that US deregulation showed was that the entry into the market by new competitors was what stimulated change. PanAm TWA and Eastern all at times had as much a claim as does Qantas now to be supported in some way....but the bottomline was that they were dinosaurs and died. Net high level airline employment has grown enormously despite that. This whole issue of contestable marklets is so well proved empirically that it makes Darwin's Theory of Evolution look very dodgy. Just think to yourself about how the world would be if Microsoft didn't have Apple and Linux nipping at its heels.
And in any case, if SIA put on a daily 777-200LR or -300ER on the SYD_LAX route.....how would that shrink jobs at Qantas? They wouldn't stop operating on the route would they? If SIA operated modern equipment like the 777 compared to the inefficient 744....overall costs on the route would fall and traffic would rise. It may well be that Singapore's entry wouldn't affect QF traffic much at all...certainly can't see how it would cost a single job. Please tell me?
Entrenched interests (that would include unions like AIPA and QF management and shareholders) have always had good emotive arguments to protect privilege. To allow those arguments to make their way into public policy-making is a vote for less employment and slower growth.
And in any case, if SIA put on a daily 777-200LR or -300ER on the SYD_LAX route.....how would that shrink jobs at Qantas? They wouldn't stop operating on the route would they? If SIA operated modern equipment like the 777 compared to the inefficient 744....overall costs on the route would fall and traffic would rise. It may well be that Singapore's entry wouldn't affect QF traffic much at all...certainly can't see how it would cost a single job. Please tell me?
Entrenched interests (that would include unions like AIPA and QF management and shareholders) have always had good emotive arguments to protect privilege. To allow those arguments to make their way into public policy-making is a vote for less employment and slower growth.
"This' free trade' that you keep talking about in the aviation industry would cause a massive hit to the Australian economy and probably result in the replacment of a lot of highly skilled, highly paid jobs with lots of significantly lower paid, lower skilled jobs in the service industry."
Keg, with the greatest of respect, you are micturating into the wind. The rest of the Australian economy has already gone through this transformation with the exception of a few agricultural products...and the airline industry.
Your arguments are exactly the same as the Car industry made.
I personally worked with the Australian tooling industry when they thought they had the same problem - their bogy was not SIA, it was "Chinese Tooling Manufacturers". Today the Australian tooling industry is bigger and healthier than ever and last I looked you could nt' find a young toolmaker skilled on CNC machines for under $80,000 per year.
Qantas will survive the entry of SIA and a whole lot of other airlines into the Australian market and furthermore it will be bigger, better, more competitive and more profitable as a result. You all say there are a stack of things that need changing at Qantas, God knows I say the same thing. Please understand that protection is really about refusing to change, or changing too slowly.
Please go away and read about the Button plan, by which the car industry was forced to lift its game.
Keg, with the greatest of respect, you are micturating into the wind. The rest of the Australian economy has already gone through this transformation with the exception of a few agricultural products...and the airline industry.
Your arguments are exactly the same as the Car industry made.
I personally worked with the Australian tooling industry when they thought they had the same problem - their bogy was not SIA, it was "Chinese Tooling Manufacturers". Today the Australian tooling industry is bigger and healthier than ever and last I looked you could nt' find a young toolmaker skilled on CNC machines for under $80,000 per year.
Qantas will survive the entry of SIA and a whole lot of other airlines into the Australian market and furthermore it will be bigger, better, more competitive and more profitable as a result. You all say there are a stack of things that need changing at Qantas, God knows I say the same thing. Please understand that protection is really about refusing to change, or changing too slowly.
Please go away and read about the Button plan, by which the car industry was forced to lift its game.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sunfish
".....Keg, with the greatest of respect, you are micturating into the wind. The rest of the Australian economy has already gone through this transformation with the exception of a few agricultural products...and the airline industry......"
The AIPA Certified Agreement is based on an award that has its genesis in a long and tawdry strike by Qantas pilots in 1966. Many of the conditions still enjoyed by Qantas pilots have gradually been taken from ground staff over the years - probably as they don't have the muscle to instanttly disrupt the airline. That aside, this current Agreement is so blody complex that one almost needs to be a Rhodes scholar to read it let alone make sense of it - when dowloaded from the AIRC( or whatever its now called), its size is 2.4Mb!!! Compare that to the simplicity of the VB and Jet* agreements. AIPA and its supporters don't like the thought but many of their T's and C's are so far out of date it ain't funny and are such that Qantas could not readily take on the likes of SIA on the Pacific.
Longhaul Cabin Crew also work to basic terms and conditions that are up to 30 plus years old. Qantas was able to partially overcome theese outdated conditions by introducing bases in Auckland, Bangkok and London but much still needs to be done.
Unless and until both of these work groups agree to modern working practices and terms of employment, the airline industry, from Qantas's perspective, will remain pretty much stuck in the rut in which it's been for years. Only after transformation of crew terms and conditions will Qantas be able to take on the world as the unions presently has one of Qantas's arms tied tightly behind its back.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said BA,
And its not just the employees who could be "set free" from the past....I'll bet QF could run 50 777s for the daily cost or running 35 (ish) 747-400s.That's a lot more jobs. And I understand that most QF drivers and crews only see "other" airlines from their crew bus and out the windows of a Hilton somewhere. But the truth is that there are dozens of modern carriers out there, with good and growing records....who will slowly squeeze Qantas out of its markets if it does not get into the 21st Century....and so the "do nothing-rely on protection"strategy for QF simply delays the inevitable.
And its not just the employees who could be "set free" from the past....I'll bet QF could run 50 777s for the daily cost or running 35 (ish) 747-400s.That's a lot more jobs. And I understand that most QF drivers and crews only see "other" airlines from their crew bus and out the windows of a Hilton somewhere. But the truth is that there are dozens of modern carriers out there, with good and growing records....who will slowly squeeze Qantas out of its markets if it does not get into the 21st Century....and so the "do nothing-rely on protection"strategy for QF simply delays the inevitable.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Sunfish,
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the Australian airline industry had been deregulated; the fact that there are only two major carriers is more a factor of start-up economics and the limited size of local-market demand rather than policy.
BA Lert,
Are you sure that FR and Ezy techies are lower-paid than BA on similar types? This gets are regular airing on the main R&N.
And as for Auckland crew - those who fly Australian-flagged aircraft and then proceed to slag off everything Australian in the galley?
I return to my earlier post: there are already several airlines which have existing traffic rights across the Pacific. If there were all these great profits to be had, they'd be using them. Add in all the not-that-inconvenient connections and SQ's argument begins to spring a few leaks. They are not in business to be nice to the Australian tourism industry; they exist to make money and they simply see the Pacific as a cash-cow.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the Australian airline industry had been deregulated; the fact that there are only two major carriers is more a factor of start-up economics and the limited size of local-market demand rather than policy.
BA Lert,
Are you sure that FR and Ezy techies are lower-paid than BA on similar types? This gets are regular airing on the main R&N.
And as for Auckland crew - those who fly Australian-flagged aircraft and then proceed to slag off everything Australian in the galley?
I return to my earlier post: there are already several airlines which have existing traffic rights across the Pacific. If there were all these great profits to be had, they'd be using them. Add in all the not-that-inconvenient connections and SQ's argument begins to spring a few leaks. They are not in business to be nice to the Australian tourism industry; they exist to make money and they simply see the Pacific as a cash-cow.
Last edited by Taildragger67; 1st Mar 2006 at 14:02.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA Lert,
i'd be very gratefull if you would take the time to list the SPECIFICS of the "outdated" terms and conditions that Longhaul CC enjoy.
You make reference to the conditions of our offshore based crew as the "ideal"-
No increase pay beyond the basic even if they go from 190 hours to 249 hours worked per roster.
15 Days off out of 56 as a minimum.
Less than $1000 NZD per fortnight as a wage..............
You might be interested to hear that 30% of their base resigned last year.
"Ideal ?"
i'd be very gratefull if you would take the time to list the SPECIFICS of the "outdated" terms and conditions that Longhaul CC enjoy.
You make reference to the conditions of our offshore based crew as the "ideal"-
No increase pay beyond the basic even if they go from 190 hours to 249 hours worked per roster.
15 Days off out of 56 as a minimum.
Less than $1000 NZD per fortnight as a wage..............
You might be interested to hear that 30% of their base resigned last year.
"Ideal ?"
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Taildragger67
Sunfish,
SQ's argument begins to spring a few leaks. They are not in business to be nice to the Australian tourism industry; they exist to make money and they simply see the Pacific as a cash-cow.
SQ's argument begins to spring a few leaks. They are not in business to be nice to the Australian tourism industry; they exist to make money and they simply see the Pacific as a cash-cow.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOT TAKING THE BAIT
speedbirdhouse: I won't accept your challenge for very obvious reasons. You know and I know, in fact we all know, that there's a lot of inefficiencies and 'fat' in many of your work practices and terms and conditions of employment. That's the very raison d'etre for the off-shore bases. I do not say that these bases are ideal as I think we would all prefer that Qantas's entire cabin crew establishment be based in Oz; because of cost and inflexibility, it does not seem to be possible. You cite '15 days off in 56 days". Surely you mean 15 days at home every 56 days (and presumably this count excludes day of arrival and day of departure)?. Don't the slip days upline count as rest days? Let's get real - it really isn't as arduous as you suggest - try being a seven day shift worker at the Jet Base. And is the alleged attrition rate due to the way those at the off-shore bases are treated by a minority of Oz based 'colleagues?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Queensland
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest, can anyone out there tell me what proportion of SQs flights/passengers/revenues etc are derived from its current operations out of Australia? Or if not, does anyone know where I might look to find it. Thanks
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALert,
tell us about the "obvious reasons" if backing up your broad bull**** statement is so difficult, will you...........
You might be interested to consider that a full time 9-5er will over a 56 day period have 8 weekends off not including flexi-days [if applicable].
Do you consider that our KIWI based FA have less than an earthling in the way off days at home???
How much difficulty do you think these people have developing and maintaining relationships, having families and lives outside work?
Perhaps you don't think they are entitled to such "luxuries" in the race for profitability?
Have you considered how much time at home after every trip is spent managing and recoverying from the effects of jetlag???
Leaving in droves because of the way Australian based FA's treat them?
You are a toad.
Oh BTW.
Do you think that its appropriate for our pilots to have similar "ideal ,time at home" conditions
tell us about the "obvious reasons" if backing up your broad bull**** statement is so difficult, will you...........
You might be interested to consider that a full time 9-5er will over a 56 day period have 8 weekends off not including flexi-days [if applicable].
Do you consider that our KIWI based FA have less than an earthling in the way off days at home???
How much difficulty do you think these people have developing and maintaining relationships, having families and lives outside work?
Perhaps you don't think they are entitled to such "luxuries" in the race for profitability?
Have you considered how much time at home after every trip is spent managing and recoverying from the effects of jetlag???
Leaving in droves because of the way Australian based FA's treat them?
You are a toad.
Oh BTW.
Do you think that its appropriate for our pilots to have similar "ideal ,time at home" conditions