QF sale Poll
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Skylab
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day it comes down to branding....what value do you put on a brand like QF? And do you lose the support of that brand if it falls into the wrong hands and is percieved by the public as but a stingy vehicle for a lot of already wealthy airline executives to get even wealthier and a means of allot of loyal airline employees getting burnt.
Time will tell.
Time will tell.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NSW,Australia
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair Balance
Much Ado,
I think your questions are a little off balance.
In essence you have 1 positive and 2 negative responces to choose from.
May I suggest you strart again (poll 2) and ask if If it is good for the shareholders as well.
You may find a different spread of replies.
I think your questions are a little off balance.
In essence you have 1 positive and 2 negative responces to choose from.
May I suggest you strart again (poll 2) and ask if If it is good for the shareholders as well.
You may find a different spread of replies.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Perth
Age: 57
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sydney-LA route to stay closed for most
SYDNEY — Australia again ruled out opening up Qantas' coveted trans-Pacific route, quashing rumours that rival carriers might gain access once the "Flying Kangaroo" is taken over by a private equity group. Transport Minister Mark Vaile said the flag-carrier's lucrative Sydney-to-Los Angeles route would remain off limits for several years to airlines other than Qantas and Australian discount flyer Virgin Blue.
"It would be a number of years before we revisit that," Mr Vaile told The Australian newspaper.
His comments followed speculation that Canberra might revise its Feb 2006 decision to bar rival carriers from the route after the Qantas board last month accepted an A$11-billion ($13.2-billion) takeover bid.
Qantas earns as much as 20 per cent of its profits from the trans-Pacific route and the government cited it as a "key national asset".
Singapore Airlines has campaigned for more than a decade for access while the Singapore government pressed for an "open skies" deal as part of the free trade agreement that the two countries signed in 2003.
Mr Vaile said that he was committed to allowing Virgin Blue to launch flights to the United States from the middle of 2008 without extra competition. — AFP
=============================================
Comments?
"It would be a number of years before we revisit that," Mr Vaile told The Australian newspaper.
His comments followed speculation that Canberra might revise its Feb 2006 decision to bar rival carriers from the route after the Qantas board last month accepted an A$11-billion ($13.2-billion) takeover bid.
Qantas earns as much as 20 per cent of its profits from the trans-Pacific route and the government cited it as a "key national asset".
Singapore Airlines has campaigned for more than a decade for access while the Singapore government pressed for an "open skies" deal as part of the free trade agreement that the two countries signed in 2003.
Mr Vaile said that he was committed to allowing Virgin Blue to launch flights to the United States from the middle of 2008 without extra competition. — AFP
=============================================
Comments?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt cynical as QF shareholders own QF I dissagree...if you think it's good for shareholders vore yes...it seems we are told often enough that they are the only group who count.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NSW,Australia
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
balance
not just ask the first 2 Q's and leave the 3rd.out.
As I said it is a question of balance..!!
The 3rd question invites predjudices.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I Dunno
I really don't. Is it a good thing? I'm not around much of the time to hear whats being sprouted in the press 
so much of my understanding of the situation is gathered from what I read here. Are fellow Ppruners capable of putting down their thoughts, both for and against, in point form so that minows like myself can make a remotely accurate voting decision. Just a thought.
D
so much of my understanding of the situation is gathered from what I read here. Are fellow Ppruners capable of putting down their thoughts, both for and against, in point form so that minows like myself can make a remotely accurate voting decision. Just a thought. D
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pete, first post in a long time ( possibly ever ) that has'nt involved a derogatory comment about Porn* ......ointment and therapy working ? or just upped the alchohol intake?
PS I voted the 3rd option
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notwithstanding the limitations imposed by the question I voted "no".
Why is the takeover not a good thing for Q and Aust?
Q - Q is the shareholders of Q Ltd. They are being offered $ now for a company which the Equity Funds expect and require a return on capital of > 15%. According to GD the business plan he and his team have developed and are presently undertaking has been embraced by the Equity Fund group and will be carried out. If the plan is to be carried out anyway and will deliver the capital returns required then shareholders would get a better return for their invested funds if they did not sell. But, the Equity Funds are replacing $11b share capital with $8b borrowd funds and $3b capital on which interest has to be paid. Accordingly, if the business plan is so good to satisfy the Funds then the offer is not good enough for s/h as it deprives them of the future growth. If the business plan is not as good as thought then drastic measures will be taken to achieve the required return. This would also not be good for Q.
Aust - Aust will only get a benefit if the special privileges presently enjoyed by Q are withdrawn. Minister Vaile has announced that this will not happen. Accordingly, no tangible benefit can be seen to accrue to Aust.
Accordingly, my answer is - NO
Why is the takeover not a good thing for Q and Aust?
Q - Q is the shareholders of Q Ltd. They are being offered $ now for a company which the Equity Funds expect and require a return on capital of > 15%. According to GD the business plan he and his team have developed and are presently undertaking has been embraced by the Equity Fund group and will be carried out. If the plan is to be carried out anyway and will deliver the capital returns required then shareholders would get a better return for their invested funds if they did not sell. But, the Equity Funds are replacing $11b share capital with $8b borrowd funds and $3b capital on which interest has to be paid. Accordingly, if the business plan is so good to satisfy the Funds then the offer is not good enough for s/h as it deprives them of the future growth. If the business plan is not as good as thought then drastic measures will be taken to achieve the required return. This would also not be good for Q.
Aust - Aust will only get a benefit if the special privileges presently enjoyed by Q are withdrawn. Minister Vaile has announced that this will not happen. Accordingly, no tangible benefit can be seen to accrue to Aust.
Accordingly, my answer is - NO
I vote to sell it... There is then a good chance that the new owners will break it and then without the perpetual QF Lobbying, we can open the skies and stop Qantas destroying jobs and economic growth outside Sydney.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Skylab
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well actually linguist..one of the hidden points in that is that one of the reason's why QF is going the way it is, is because of you lot....you wouldn't recognise that though.....would you? with your rose coloured Jetstar goggles on......
You want to hope the new owners don't sell you mob...with no mothership QF to bludge off, you may fall back to reality.
You want to hope the new owners don't sell you mob...with no mothership QF to bludge off, you may fall back to reality.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Special treatment?
Are we about to get back to reality? Qantas has had govt guaranteed loans, and all sorts of "special treatment". Casa appears to be a subsidiary of Qantas.
We have to decide whether we are going to keep giving preferential treatment to one airline group, or whether free trading will be permitted.
If the "special treatment" option is continued, it will be done at the expense of other aviation groups, and the general public. Just like GA.
The management are being well rewarded for a sucessful sale. There are some assets that can be stripped here. It happened to Ansett. A short term profit is achieveable for the management and the purchasers, and a further sale is likely soon.
We had better get used to it, and learn how to handle it. There is much more coming.
We have to decide whether we are going to keep giving preferential treatment to one airline group, or whether free trading will be permitted.
If the "special treatment" option is continued, it will be done at the expense of other aviation groups, and the general public. Just like GA.
The management are being well rewarded for a sucessful sale. There are some assets that can be stripped here. It happened to Ansett. A short term profit is achieveable for the management and the purchasers, and a further sale is likely soon.
We had better get used to it, and learn how to handle it. There is much more coming.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz (30% of the time)
Age: 62
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"They don't think it (the takeover) is going to go ahead,'' he said.
Ah well, more cheap shares being snaffled up by APA. They're going to pay $5.60 for mine.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jack red,
Whether or not the takeover goes ahead and whatever the rumour is on the day ,it is interesting that a large group like the capitol group would sell 110 million shares at 5.29 and risk 30c a share. Groups like these only sell when they believe that there is no more money to be made.
Like all stock market moves this is a gamble and at the end of the day you might not get 5.60 for yours but that is the gamble you take.Capitol group's information led them to believe it is not worth taking.
Whether or not the takeover goes ahead and whatever the rumour is on the day ,it is interesting that a large group like the capitol group would sell 110 million shares at 5.29 and risk 30c a share. Groups like these only sell when they believe that there is no more money to be made.
Like all stock market moves this is a gamble and at the end of the day you might not get 5.60 for yours but that is the gamble you take.Capitol group's information led them to believe it is not worth taking.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz (30% of the time)
Age: 62
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..........and that's 110 million shares that may have been bought by APA for less than the $5.60 offered. Unless APA can secure enough shares on the market under that offer to buy out the Company, I will get $5.60 a share.