SIA misses out on SY-LA
Join Date: May 2005
Location: feet on the ground
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sunfish
nothing personal, but lets face it since QF has been a private company some ten years ago there is little protection. as you would know sq,cp,ek and others have almost unlimited access to oz. so do most european and Us airlines. there are other competitors who have the opportunity to compete on the US sectors but choose not to do so. going back to sq they also had the opportunity to invest long term into oz but choose not to do so. qantas can compete on a wage level with most carries but not with taxrates, depriciation etc.as i said cherry picking is the name of the game
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
qcc2, mate it is called the real world. The customers want SIA. Why, because the big Q cannot provide what they want. You can hide from competition for only so long. When it comes, the Q will wilt and die.
Any airline that cannot command its home market is dead!
Any airline that cannot command its home market is dead!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Lagrange you miss qcc2's point. SQ have Fifth Freedom rigts across the Tasman, but they don't take them up because they wouldn't make money on them.
I go back to my earlier point - if there was sooooooo much money to be made across the Pacific using first-world business models, then why wouldn't the first-world airlines who ALREADY HAVE TRAFFIC RIGHTS ON THE ROUTE be using them?
The only way a non-first-world carrier can make a buck on the route is by employing its lower cost base.
And that might be competition, but it's UNFAIR competition.
Take away the subsidies and equalise the tax and then I suggest qcc2, myself and others would be all for it.
And what the blazes do they want the rights for anyway??!! Because they see it as easy money. It'd be like United deciding to operate to Jo'burg out of Sydney. No actually that'd be more logical as it'd just be an extension... let's see... it'd be like UA deciding they wanted to go to HK or Tokyo out of Sydney. No logic to it, aside from wanting to rip someone else off.
Real competition would be great as it would lower prices. But they want in, so they can charge the same (or not that much lower) fares and just make $$$. Their directors have a duty to do just that in that they have a duty to maximise returns to shareholders. You can bang on about 'better for the punter' all you like but that's the commercial reality.
There is an avenue available to SIA and that is to set up an operation under an Australian AOC; they're competent enough, they'd get it and there is a clear precedent to an Australian-incorporated airline being 100% owned by offshore interests (my, didn't that work well... ). But that would jack the costs up to a first-world level, thus taking away their advantage. And that says it all.
I go back to my earlier point - if there was sooooooo much money to be made across the Pacific using first-world business models, then why wouldn't the first-world airlines who ALREADY HAVE TRAFFIC RIGHTS ON THE ROUTE be using them?
The only way a non-first-world carrier can make a buck on the route is by employing its lower cost base.
And that might be competition, but it's UNFAIR competition.
Take away the subsidies and equalise the tax and then I suggest qcc2, myself and others would be all for it.
And what the blazes do they want the rights for anyway??!! Because they see it as easy money. It'd be like United deciding to operate to Jo'burg out of Sydney. No actually that'd be more logical as it'd just be an extension... let's see... it'd be like UA deciding they wanted to go to HK or Tokyo out of Sydney. No logic to it, aside from wanting to rip someone else off.
Real competition would be great as it would lower prices. But they want in, so they can charge the same (or not that much lower) fares and just make $$$. Their directors have a duty to do just that in that they have a duty to maximise returns to shareholders. You can bang on about 'better for the punter' all you like but that's the commercial reality.
There is an avenue available to SIA and that is to set up an operation under an Australian AOC; they're competent enough, they'd get it and there is a clear precedent to an Australian-incorporated airline being 100% owned by offshore interests (my, didn't that work well... ). But that would jack the costs up to a first-world level, thus taking away their advantage. And that says it all.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Taildragger67
It'd be like United deciding to operate to Jo'burg out of Sydney. No actually that'd be more logical as it'd just be an extension... let's see... it'd be like UA deciding they wanted to go to HK or Tokyo out of Sydney. No logic to it, aside from wanting to rip someone else off..
Although United operate RTW via HKG I very much doubt whether they'd apply for SYD or MEL - HKG rights due to the above.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: feet on the ground
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sunfish
around 65% of the home market is going to put qf out of business? interesting economics, wouldn't you agree. sq competes already on many sectors out of oz. result some 7/8% of the outbound / inbound market, i think that says it all for your comment customers want sq.
read this little beauty. this should help you sleep well tonight.
Free Flow: An airline deregulator has second thoughts
By Don Phillips International Herald Tribune
The U.S. Congress would have killed airline deregulation a quarter-century ago if lawmakers had known the effect it would have on employees, taxpayers and smaller cities, according to a man who helped make the bill into law.
Tom Allison, then the chief counsel to the Senate Commerce Committee, said the movement to allow open competition and remove restrictions on where airlines could fly, now spreading through Europe and Asia, would prove to be the right move over time. But it has produced so much disruption and expense, he said, that no member of Congress would have dared vote for it back in 1980 if they had had a clear view of the future. And he said he wished Congress had added significant human and financial protections to the law.
Allison, now a semiretired attorney living in Seattle, contacted the International Herald Tribune after reading a Free Flow column about Jeffrey Shane, a top Transportation Department official who is shepherding a series of regulatory changes designed to open U.S. and European skies to much greater airline competition. At the same time, European airlines would be allowed to invest significantly in U.S. airlines without some of the current restrictions.
Allison and Shane worked together on the U.S. deregulation bill in 1979 and 1980, shortly after Allison left his position as a Senate staff member to take up a job in President Jimmy Carter's administration as general counsel for the Transportation Department. Shane was then assistant general counsel for international affairs.
Allison said that he had a great deal of respect for Shane and that they both worked hard in 1979 and 1980 to shepherd deregulation through Congress, but he said, "I don't think Congress would have passed deregulation if they had known what would happen."
The public now sees the effects mainly as lower airfares between big cities, but it fails to understand some of the serious human and other costs of deregulation, he said.
"I had no idea these things would occur," Allison said.
Airline employees in particular have suffered because of deregulation, he said. In many cases, salaries have been cut and retirement benefits slashed, he said, and unemployment has risen in the industry even as the frequency of service increases.
Passengers may think they received a bargain with deregulation, and fares have stayed relatively low on many routes between major cities around the world, he said. But many small cities have lost air service entirely, and the cost of flying to medium-size cities is much higher than it used to be, he said.
"It's cheaper to fly to Paris than to Missoula," Montana, he said.
Despite all the freedom, airlines are also in terrible financial condition, and many are in bankruptcy or just emerging from bankruptcy, he said. At the same time, passengers suffer from a loss of service quality, he added.
"It's not as nice as it used to be," he said.
One thing that many people overlook, including politicians, is the massive shift of airline pension debt to the public, he said. Years ago, the United States set up the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation to guarantee that pensions would be paid even if a company went bankrupt or went out of business.
The original expectation was that this government body would pay out a relatively small amount of money and that a lot of that money would be made up by seizing the assets of bankrupt companies.
But apparently, no one counted on the dumping of billions of dollars in pension obligations by major transportation companies. U.S. transportation companies may go bankrupt under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy law, which does not result in a shutdown but instead protects the company from creditors while the company reorganizes. Thus, transportation company pensions may be dumped on the government with no real way to recoup federal costs.
"A private cost is shifted to a public cost," he said.
Allison said he would never go back to the days of strict regulation, but if he could do it over he would add more safeguards for workers and the public.
"I don't think you could go back," he said. "Once you scramble the egg, it's scrambled."
read this little beauty. this should help you sleep well tonight.
Free Flow: An airline deregulator has second thoughts
By Don Phillips International Herald Tribune
The U.S. Congress would have killed airline deregulation a quarter-century ago if lawmakers had known the effect it would have on employees, taxpayers and smaller cities, according to a man who helped make the bill into law.
Tom Allison, then the chief counsel to the Senate Commerce Committee, said the movement to allow open competition and remove restrictions on where airlines could fly, now spreading through Europe and Asia, would prove to be the right move over time. But it has produced so much disruption and expense, he said, that no member of Congress would have dared vote for it back in 1980 if they had had a clear view of the future. And he said he wished Congress had added significant human and financial protections to the law.
Allison, now a semiretired attorney living in Seattle, contacted the International Herald Tribune after reading a Free Flow column about Jeffrey Shane, a top Transportation Department official who is shepherding a series of regulatory changes designed to open U.S. and European skies to much greater airline competition. At the same time, European airlines would be allowed to invest significantly in U.S. airlines without some of the current restrictions.
Allison and Shane worked together on the U.S. deregulation bill in 1979 and 1980, shortly after Allison left his position as a Senate staff member to take up a job in President Jimmy Carter's administration as general counsel for the Transportation Department. Shane was then assistant general counsel for international affairs.
Allison said that he had a great deal of respect for Shane and that they both worked hard in 1979 and 1980 to shepherd deregulation through Congress, but he said, "I don't think Congress would have passed deregulation if they had known what would happen."
The public now sees the effects mainly as lower airfares between big cities, but it fails to understand some of the serious human and other costs of deregulation, he said.
"I had no idea these things would occur," Allison said.
Airline employees in particular have suffered because of deregulation, he said. In many cases, salaries have been cut and retirement benefits slashed, he said, and unemployment has risen in the industry even as the frequency of service increases.
Passengers may think they received a bargain with deregulation, and fares have stayed relatively low on many routes between major cities around the world, he said. But many small cities have lost air service entirely, and the cost of flying to medium-size cities is much higher than it used to be, he said.
"It's cheaper to fly to Paris than to Missoula," Montana, he said.
Despite all the freedom, airlines are also in terrible financial condition, and many are in bankruptcy or just emerging from bankruptcy, he said. At the same time, passengers suffer from a loss of service quality, he added.
"It's not as nice as it used to be," he said.
One thing that many people overlook, including politicians, is the massive shift of airline pension debt to the public, he said. Years ago, the United States set up the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation to guarantee that pensions would be paid even if a company went bankrupt or went out of business.
The original expectation was that this government body would pay out a relatively small amount of money and that a lot of that money would be made up by seizing the assets of bankrupt companies.
But apparently, no one counted on the dumping of billions of dollars in pension obligations by major transportation companies. U.S. transportation companies may go bankrupt under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy law, which does not result in a shutdown but instead protects the company from creditors while the company reorganizes. Thus, transportation company pensions may be dumped on the government with no real way to recoup federal costs.
"A private cost is shifted to a public cost," he said.
Allison said he would never go back to the days of strict regulation, but if he could do it over he would add more safeguards for workers and the public.
"I don't think you could go back," he said. "Once you scramble the egg, it's scrambled."
Gcc, I have never said customers want SQ, EK etc. What customers want is competition. - Real competition, not with one party with one arm tied behind its back.
The one concession that the government should have made to Qantas in return for letting in SQ and all comers is the removal of the 49% cap on foriegn ownership. This would have allowed you access to cheaper capital and debt so that you can get your weighted average cost of capital and debt servicing costs down to something like your competitors.
The one concession that the government should have made to Qantas in return for letting in SQ and all comers is the removal of the 49% cap on foriegn ownership. This would have allowed you access to cheaper capital and debt so that you can get your weighted average cost of capital and debt servicing costs down to something like your competitors.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Animalclub...
ok bad example. A better one might be UA deciding they wanted to operate SYD-EZE.
My point is that SQ want in simply to milk someone else's profitable route when there's no other logical reason for them to be there - it'd not be on their way to anywhere. How about they ante up that QF can muscle in on their most profitable sector? How about a couple of Rat tails doing SIN-KUL or SIN-NRT runs all day?
Anyway the decision's been made. Now we can all get some sleep.
ok bad example. A better one might be UA deciding they wanted to operate SYD-EZE.
My point is that SQ want in simply to milk someone else's profitable route when there's no other logical reason for them to be there - it'd not be on their way to anywhere. How about they ante up that QF can muscle in on their most profitable sector? How about a couple of Rat tails doing SIN-KUL or SIN-NRT runs all day?
Anyway the decision's been made. Now we can all get some sleep.
