Qantas Sale Act?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They use what they already have in Jetstar. Except it won't be called Jetstar International and it won't be able to be sold off holus bolus to the highest international bidder.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: airside
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keith Myath wrote:
Hypocrisy on a grand scale
Mud skipper wrote:
Quote:
There is no hypocrisy about this, this is what we pay AIPA for, defending it's members jobs.
No hypocrisy other than the fact that there are Jetstar Pilots who are members of APIA (some admittedly are on LWOP from Q, but most are not), and AIPA is actively trying to recruit more Jetstar pilots. This is too stupid for words, Join up fellas, and we will use your hard earned to f
you over.
Keg wrote:
Quote:
Hugh, interesting diversion you've taken by stating that this is about QF pilots vs J* pilots. I don't see it anything of the sort.
Really, well standing on the other side of the fence that is exactly how it looks. Hugh is on the money. AIPA (QF pilots) is taking Qantas to court to try to shut down Jetstar Int. (JQ Int. in breach of the Qantas Sale Act). How is that NOT QF pilots against JQ pilots. JQ pilots may not be respondents to the court action but we are directly affected by the outcome. Do you consider us as collateral damage should you be successful?
Mud Skipper wrote:
Quote:
Could not agree with you more. Along those lines I think, should AIPA be successful with this court action, we'll need to ensure the company looks after any Jetstar pilots disadvantaged by possibly winding back of their international operations.
How do you propose to ‘ensure the company looks after any Jetstar pilots……’
Last time I checked Australian Airlines Wet Leasing did not have Qantas in its name. How are the hundreds of AOWL pilots faring with their necks also on the line. Are you sharing Mud skippers’ sentiments regarding AIPA:
Quote:
Best of luck IAN WOODS & Co, thank you AIPA for championing Qantas pilots.
Or do you have a slightly bitter taste in your mouth knowing that you are funding this little adventure.
_
_
_
_
_
Sorry Keith,
Just ask the exTAA boys and girls what happened when Qantas and the old Australian Airlines merged.
I don't think too many pilots were too disadvantaged by the Y list.
As for AoWL pilots they came from Qantas ranks to start with and are covered by a LOA to return. Not the same as you are trying to suggest.
I think AIPA has proved it's bonafides enough to suggest that your post has a touch of paranoia to it.
Yes I know it's hard to believe ,but don't believe everything management tells you, and definitely don't trust anything from people on a union (or should that be psudo-union for the JPC), who have management aspirations.
Hypocrisy on a grand scale
Mud skipper wrote:
Quote:
There is no hypocrisy about this, this is what we pay AIPA for, defending it's members jobs.
No hypocrisy other than the fact that there are Jetstar Pilots who are members of APIA (some admittedly are on LWOP from Q, but most are not), and AIPA is actively trying to recruit more Jetstar pilots. This is too stupid for words, Join up fellas, and we will use your hard earned to f
you over.Keg wrote:
Quote:
Hugh, interesting diversion you've taken by stating that this is about QF pilots vs J* pilots. I don't see it anything of the sort.
Really, well standing on the other side of the fence that is exactly how it looks. Hugh is on the money. AIPA (QF pilots) is taking Qantas to court to try to shut down Jetstar Int. (JQ Int. in breach of the Qantas Sale Act). How is that NOT QF pilots against JQ pilots. JQ pilots may not be respondents to the court action but we are directly affected by the outcome. Do you consider us as collateral damage should you be successful?
Mud Skipper wrote:
Quote:
Could not agree with you more. Along those lines I think, should AIPA be successful with this court action, we'll need to ensure the company looks after any Jetstar pilots disadvantaged by possibly winding back of their international operations.
How do you propose to ‘ensure the company looks after any Jetstar pilots……’
Last time I checked Australian Airlines Wet Leasing did not have Qantas in its name. How are the hundreds of AOWL pilots faring with their necks also on the line. Are you sharing Mud skippers’ sentiments regarding AIPA:
Quote:
Best of luck IAN WOODS & Co, thank you AIPA for championing Qantas pilots.
Or do you have a slightly bitter taste in your mouth knowing that you are funding this little adventure.
_
_
_
_
_
Sorry Keith,
Just ask the exTAA boys and girls what happened when Qantas and the old Australian Airlines merged.
I don't think too many pilots were too disadvantaged by the Y list.
As for AoWL pilots they came from Qantas ranks to start with and are covered by a LOA to return. Not the same as you are trying to suggest.
I think AIPA has proved it's bonafides enough to suggest that your post has a touch of paranoia to it.
Yes I know it's hard to believe ,but don't believe everything management tells you, and definitely don't trust anything from people on a union (or should that be psudo-union for the JPC), who have management aspirations.
Thread Starter
Max,
Keiths post doesn't have a touch of paranoia to it, it's just that old faithful greed and self interest. Whilst the rest of us have waited our turns he wants it now regardless of the cost to others or the industry.
Regarding the Y list, I think you'll hear arguments of some disadvantage untill the cows come home but it's probably a good direction to look in.
Should the bulk of JetStar pilots become members of AIPA I suggest they would be far better of than the JPC. Increased/more balanced representation would ensure Keith's concerns of hypocrasy are unfounded and they might have half a chance of better T&C's abet at the possible cost of explosive expansion currently experienced.
----------------------------
Keith,
A new user name to flame on, whats wrong with your regular name?
Come on join AIPA before the pimps kick you out, don't expect any T&C increase if APA is allowed to sell you off, they will make Virgin look like utopia.
Keiths post doesn't have a touch of paranoia to it, it's just that old faithful greed and self interest. Whilst the rest of us have waited our turns he wants it now regardless of the cost to others or the industry.
Regarding the Y list, I think you'll hear arguments of some disadvantage untill the cows come home but it's probably a good direction to look in.
Should the bulk of JetStar pilots become members of AIPA I suggest they would be far better of than the JPC. Increased/more balanced representation would ensure Keith's concerns of hypocrasy are unfounded and they might have half a chance of better T&C's abet at the possible cost of explosive expansion currently experienced.
----------------------------
Keith,
A new user name to flame on, whats wrong with your regular name?
Come on join AIPA before the pimps kick you out, don't expect any T&C increase if APA is allowed to sell you off, they will make Virgin look like utopia.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LL, no, but that is not the issue here.
Let's have no misunderstanding. Ever since the Government refused to amend the Sale Act back in '02, Dixon has been trying to find ways around it.
Jetstar, if not covered by the Act, is that way. It also performs several other useful functions like internal competition and supplying a potential management motza on a scale hitherto undreamed.
If the Federal Court Judge comes down on the side of Dixon, then the flood gates are open. The Sale Act is meaningless. Mainline will be used as a cash cow on a few highly profitable routes to service the interest bill, while J* int is grown at it's expense, and then the big payoff will occur in 3-5 years. Mainline will still exist, but it will have shrunk and been gutted of anything worthwhile. It will be re-listed for whatever they can get, but the money will have been made by the sale of Jetstar.
I don't know how J* pilots view all this. I suspect they have mixed feelings. They see the opportunities opening up for them but the knowledge that they may be owned in the medium term by Singair or EK must give some pause.
Either way it will be interesting to see if the APA bid goes ahead with this ruling still pending. If it does then maybe I am wrong. But I doubt it. I suspect we will see some sort of announcement soon about a delay in the takeover. If that is so then it can be reasonably assumed that they will be waiting for their exit strategy to be cleared.
Let's have no misunderstanding. Ever since the Government refused to amend the Sale Act back in '02, Dixon has been trying to find ways around it.
Jetstar, if not covered by the Act, is that way. It also performs several other useful functions like internal competition and supplying a potential management motza on a scale hitherto undreamed.
If the Federal Court Judge comes down on the side of Dixon, then the flood gates are open. The Sale Act is meaningless. Mainline will be used as a cash cow on a few highly profitable routes to service the interest bill, while J* int is grown at it's expense, and then the big payoff will occur in 3-5 years. Mainline will still exist, but it will have shrunk and been gutted of anything worthwhile. It will be re-listed for whatever they can get, but the money will have been made by the sale of Jetstar.
I don't know how J* pilots view all this. I suspect they have mixed feelings. They see the opportunities opening up for them but the knowledge that they may be owned in the medium term by Singair or EK must give some pause.
Either way it will be interesting to see if the APA bid goes ahead with this ruling still pending. If it does then maybe I am wrong. But I doubt it. I suspect we will see some sort of announcement soon about a delay in the takeover. If that is so then it can be reasonably assumed that they will be waiting for their exit strategy to be cleared.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Skylab
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really think that SQ are going to want to own Jetstar? when they can get access to Australia via Tiger Airways or even VB?...
Virgin Blue could be a target for an equity buyout by Singapore Airlines, according to the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation. Speaking to ATWOnline, CAPA Executive Chairman Peter Harbison said, "Virgin Blue's 62% owner, Australia's transport giant Toll Holdings, has again refused to rule out the possibility of liquidating its interest in the airline beyond the end of the current financial year to June 2007." He added that "this is near to an effective signal to the equity markets that Virgin Blue is up for bids."
Some analysts believe Toll indeed is ready to sell down. The deal would be complex, but Harbison suggests it can be done. He floats the following factors and influences: Toll appears to be a willing seller; Tiger Airways, 49% owned by SIA, has announced plans to enter the Australian market (ATWOnline, Feb. 12); SIA continues to be interested in the higher-yield end of the Australian domestic market, and Richard Branson has expressed interest in increasing his 25% stake in Virgin Blue.
Virgin Blue could be a target for an equity buyout by Singapore Airlines, according to the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation. Speaking to ATWOnline, CAPA Executive Chairman Peter Harbison said, "Virgin Blue's 62% owner, Australia's transport giant Toll Holdings, has again refused to rule out the possibility of liquidating its interest in the airline beyond the end of the current financial year to June 2007." He added that "this is near to an effective signal to the equity markets that Virgin Blue is up for bids."
Some analysts believe Toll indeed is ready to sell down. The deal would be complex, but Harbison suggests it can be done. He floats the following factors and influences: Toll appears to be a willing seller; Tiger Airways, 49% owned by SIA, has announced plans to enter the Australian market (ATWOnline, Feb. 12); SIA continues to be interested in the higher-yield end of the Australian domestic market, and Richard Branson has expressed interest in increasing his 25% stake in Virgin Blue.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Out of the furnace...
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really think that SQ are going to want to own Jetstar? when they can get access to Australia via Tiger Airways or even VB?...
However, the point is, the dixon plan has created a market where there previously wasn't one.
Put yourself in SQ shoes, will they let sit back & let EK buy j*? Perhaps they need to buy it as a defensive play. They need to at least to make sure that whoever bought it paid top dollar.
EK & SQ won't be the only bidders either.
Thread Starter
Killing Kangaroos
Do you really think that SQ are going to want to own Jetstar? when they can get access to Australia via Tiger Airways or even VB?...
How long would it take to build Tiger with both Jetstar, VB and to a lesser extent Qantas fighting you in the same limited, low cost, market? Years and many many dollars.
At the same time you are offered Jetstar at a reasonable price which includes lots of the capacity taken away from Qantas. You are straight into the market with one less competitor and a disenfranchised and dysfunctional Qantas which is left a stripped basket case which will take years to rebuild if it can be saved at all.
History has proven tigers don't survive in Australia, lets hope Kangaroos are more resiliant.
Thread Starter
CoB, did you mean something like this;http://theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...rom=public_rss
No mention of the Sales Act challenge and the complications it imposes but interesting article all the same. I particularly liked the bit 'the extension was routine', so why set dates if you routinly change then?
Qantas deadline extended
* Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
* March 01, 2007
AIRLINE Partners Australia has extended the deadline for its $11.1 billion bid for Qantas until April3, as problems facing the deal mount.
The extension comes as major investors baulk at accepting the private equity bid for Qantas and are demanding more information on the airline's strategy before reaching a decision.
Qantas shares dropped 4c to $5.15 yesterday - 45c below the bid price - as the failure to convince the shareholders fuelled further doubts that it would succeed in its current form. Analysts said factors such as the share market reaction to China and predictions that fuel prices would not fall further might also have added to shareholder nervousness.
But at least two investors, UBS Global Asset Management and Melbourne-based Balanced Equity Management, have expressed doubts that the $5.60 per share offer values Qantas fairly and remain unconvinced that they should accept.
UBS has more than 6 per cent and BEM owns around 4 per cent, meaning they could thwart the requirement by APA that it needs to acquire at least 90 per cent of the airline's shares to proceed with the deal. It is understood the investors believe prospects for the airline have improved since the bid was launched in December and have asked for more information to form a better view on its long-term outlook.
There have been several developments since the bid was announced, but negatives such as the announcement by Singapore-backed Tiger Airways that it plans to start domestic Australian operations have been outweighed by two profit upgrades. Qantas now expects net profit to be up by 40 per cent in the current financial year.
But APA said it had made the bid price final and it could not now legally change it.
Yesterday's filing to the Australian Securities Exchange said the offer remained subject to the original conditions.
A letter to shareholders urged them to accept the offer as soon as possible and noted that it had been found fair and reasonable by an independent expert as well nine independent directors of Qantas.
An APA spokesman said the extension was routine given that investigations by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Foreign Investment Review Board had yet to report.
He said investors were waiting for government approval before accepting the deal and not enough of them had yet done so.
A third notice filed yesterday by APA said the consortium now had a relevant interest of 6.09 per cent of the bid class securities in Qantas.
The FIRB is required to give its response to Peter Costello by March 7, but the Treasurer initially has up to 10 days to consider it and can further extend the period if he desires.
The bid is expected to face its regulatory first test as early as today, with the ACCC poised to rule on whether the dual ownership of Qantas and Sydney Airport by Macquarie Bank raises competition issues.
* Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
* March 01, 2007
AIRLINE Partners Australia has extended the deadline for its $11.1 billion bid for Qantas until April3, as problems facing the deal mount.
The extension comes as major investors baulk at accepting the private equity bid for Qantas and are demanding more information on the airline's strategy before reaching a decision.
Qantas shares dropped 4c to $5.15 yesterday - 45c below the bid price - as the failure to convince the shareholders fuelled further doubts that it would succeed in its current form. Analysts said factors such as the share market reaction to China and predictions that fuel prices would not fall further might also have added to shareholder nervousness.
But at least two investors, UBS Global Asset Management and Melbourne-based Balanced Equity Management, have expressed doubts that the $5.60 per share offer values Qantas fairly and remain unconvinced that they should accept.
UBS has more than 6 per cent and BEM owns around 4 per cent, meaning they could thwart the requirement by APA that it needs to acquire at least 90 per cent of the airline's shares to proceed with the deal. It is understood the investors believe prospects for the airline have improved since the bid was launched in December and have asked for more information to form a better view on its long-term outlook.
There have been several developments since the bid was announced, but negatives such as the announcement by Singapore-backed Tiger Airways that it plans to start domestic Australian operations have been outweighed by two profit upgrades. Qantas now expects net profit to be up by 40 per cent in the current financial year.
But APA said it had made the bid price final and it could not now legally change it.
Yesterday's filing to the Australian Securities Exchange said the offer remained subject to the original conditions.
A letter to shareholders urged them to accept the offer as soon as possible and noted that it had been found fair and reasonable by an independent expert as well nine independent directors of Qantas.
An APA spokesman said the extension was routine given that investigations by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Foreign Investment Review Board had yet to report.
He said investors were waiting for government approval before accepting the deal and not enough of them had yet done so.
A third notice filed yesterday by APA said the consortium now had a relevant interest of 6.09 per cent of the bid class securities in Qantas.
The FIRB is required to give its response to Peter Costello by March 7, but the Treasurer initially has up to 10 days to consider it and can further extend the period if he desires.
The bid is expected to face its regulatory first test as early as today, with the ACCC poised to rule on whether the dual ownership of Qantas and Sydney Airport by Macquarie Bank raises competition issues.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Darth is not going to be happy with this news....I hope he hasn't gone out and bought too much on his credit cards thinking about the little corporate bonus offered to push the YES vote 
Thread Starter
Mrs Mannering
Not just Darth, I hear it suggested Mrs Mannering has four and a half million reasons to feel upset. Not a bad wicket for someone not even close to the top 100 seniority.
A horse called self interest!
Mud Skipper Wrote:
Mud, are you telling me that self-interest has nothing to do with the action APIA is taking against Qantas?
As for this little personal attack
When did I get personal? So the high and mighty ‘have waited our turns’ and now I (and all J* pilots by association) want a turn regardless to the cost to the industry... Here we go again, another Qantas pilot pontificating to all those around on how it must be. Did you enjoy your rapid promotion after the demise of Ansett? Mate, life has taught me the hard way that what you currently take for granted can be spirited away in a flash. Pull your head in and welcome to my reality.
Now that I have vented my spleen, I believe we were talking about the Qantas Sale Act. Not to many J* pilots want the sale to proceed either. But at the same time they don’t want to see jobs evaporate at the expense of stopping the sale. A bit of communication from AIPA could have gone along way before finding out on the TV that AIPA are trying to stop J* Int. from operating. Now I know that the intention is to make it comply with the Qantas Sale Act but if in doing so means shutting it down then I don’t think too many Qantas pilots would be too unhappy.
Here’s a tip, if you find a horse called self-interest, back it every time.
Keiths post doesn't have a touch of paranoia to it, it's just that old faithful greed and self interest.
As for this little personal attack
Whilst the rest of us have waited our turns he wants it now regardless of the cost to others or the industry
Now that I have vented my spleen, I believe we were talking about the Qantas Sale Act. Not to many J* pilots want the sale to proceed either. But at the same time they don’t want to see jobs evaporate at the expense of stopping the sale. A bit of communication from AIPA could have gone along way before finding out on the TV that AIPA are trying to stop J* Int. from operating. Now I know that the intention is to make it comply with the Qantas Sale Act but if in doing so means shutting it down then I don’t think too many Qantas pilots would be too unhappy.
Here’s a tip, if you find a horse called self-interest, back it every time.
Last edited by Keith Myath; 1st Mar 2007 at 03:40. Reason: edited out calling Mud Skipper a prick
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Perth
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIPA must have gotten up managements nose judging by the response for Borghetti this week.
While most of it can be dismissed as fluff, Borghetti makes the interesting claim that the AIPA's claim that standards have not been lowered is something that AIPA has "not one scintilla of evidence for."
How is this for a scintilla? QF pilots are required to do four licence renewals a year while Jetstar pilots only do two. The QF command course lasts for five months. The Jetstar course lasts six weeks.
This is no slur on the jetstar pilots, just a statement of fact. Lower standards.
The rest of Borghettis letter is in a similiar vein. Unsubstantiated BS.
No wonder pilots use these missives from the corporate raiders masquerading as management in this company in the smallest room in the house, where they belong!
While most of it can be dismissed as fluff, Borghetti makes the interesting claim that the AIPA's claim that standards have not been lowered is something that AIPA has "not one scintilla of evidence for."
How is this for a scintilla? QF pilots are required to do four licence renewals a year while Jetstar pilots only do two. The QF command course lasts for five months. The Jetstar course lasts six weeks.
This is no slur on the jetstar pilots, just a statement of fact. Lower standards.
The rest of Borghettis letter is in a similiar vein. Unsubstantiated BS.
No wonder pilots use these missives from the corporate raiders masquerading as management in this company in the smallest room in the house, where they belong!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Derek
Luke resigned over differences with the management, so I don't think he will be wondering what his monetary reward may have been.
A man of principle deserving of respect.
N
Mrs Mannerings predecessor will be bleeding. If he hadn't been pushed he would be in line.
A man of principle deserving of respect.
N
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would you sell Jetstar?
There seems to be an overwhelming assumption around these forums that the whole point of building up J* is to flog it off to EK / SQ / Tiger etc (including international rights if you believe some posters).
Can someone explain to me (from a business strategy perspective) why on earth you would do that at this point?
Take yourselves out of the equation for a minute (hard for most pilots I know, but..
The entire point of setting up J* was not to drive down your pay and conditions (although that was required to achieve the cost reductions sought). It was a classic marketing squeeze play to defend market share. To do nothing and simply continue with the "legacy" QF, same cost structure etc - would have caused huge loss of share to VB. So what to do? Dominate the top of the market with QF. Defend your high-yield business market with everything you've got. Squeeze VB from the top.
Meanwhile, set up the leanest LCC you can, and try and take market share from VB down below - squeeze them at the bottom as well!
J* is one of the few (if not the only) successful LCC spinoffs from a mainline carrier that we've yet seen. Jury's still out on its long-term future, but it's certainly contained VB in a way that would simply have been impossible otherwise.
So again, why on earth would you sell J*in the near future? Sure, raise some cash - but then go back to being the same legacy airline at the top of the market, with the same higher cost structure and the same declining share and yields that you had in the first place. Meanwhile, sell off your best defence against the predators to one of them?
Don't think so.
There seems to be an overwhelming assumption around these forums that the whole point of building up J* is to flog it off to EK / SQ / Tiger etc (including international rights if you believe some posters).
Can someone explain to me (from a business strategy perspective) why on earth you would do that at this point?
Take yourselves out of the equation for a minute (hard for most pilots I know, but..
The entire point of setting up J* was not to drive down your pay and conditions (although that was required to achieve the cost reductions sought). It was a classic marketing squeeze play to defend market share. To do nothing and simply continue with the "legacy" QF, same cost structure etc - would have caused huge loss of share to VB. So what to do? Dominate the top of the market with QF. Defend your high-yield business market with everything you've got. Squeeze VB from the top.
Meanwhile, set up the leanest LCC you can, and try and take market share from VB down below - squeeze them at the bottom as well!
J* is one of the few (if not the only) successful LCC spinoffs from a mainline carrier that we've yet seen. Jury's still out on its long-term future, but it's certainly contained VB in a way that would simply have been impossible otherwise.
So again, why on earth would you sell J*in the near future? Sure, raise some cash - but then go back to being the same legacy airline at the top of the market, with the same higher cost structure and the same declining share and yields that you had in the first place. Meanwhile, sell off your best defence against the predators to one of them?
Don't think so.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"EARTH TO SWINGWING, EARTH TO SWINGWING, PLEASE ADVISE WHICH PLANET YOU ARE ON"
Get real mate ,why do you think they would flog off JetStar?
MONEY
and lots and lots of it ,all to the executives and the "big end of town" that cooked up this scheme.
And guess what they won't give a tinkers cuss about the carnage they leave behind .They will be long gone by then.
How else is Geoff going to afford his $25 Million dollar ,1 km beach front mansion in Cairns?
Get real mate ,why do you think they would flog off JetStar?
MONEY
and lots and lots of it ,all to the executives and the "big end of town" that cooked up this scheme.
And guess what they won't give a tinkers cuss about the carnage they leave behind .They will be long gone by then.
How else is Geoff going to afford his $25 Million dollar ,1 km beach front mansion in Cairns?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"J* is one of the few (if not the only) successful LCC spinoffs from a mainline carrier that we've yet seen."
Despite the accountant retoric, I'm not convinced J* is profitable. Darth has effectively admitted (in response to a question at a staff briefing) that QF mainline is subsidising it.
And therein lies the problem.
N
Despite the accountant retoric, I'm not convinced J* is profitable. Darth has effectively admitted (in response to a question at a staff briefing) that QF mainline is subsidising it.
And therein lies the problem.
N
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gasket boy,
Someone's been watching too many Michael Moore films and reading too many Socialist Worker newspapers I think.
Do you think GD can't already afford a $25m house if he wants one? Have you considered that (perhaps unlike yourself) business executives MIGHT occasionally look further ahead than their next paycheck? Why would GD donate his bonuses from the APA takeover to charity if a Port Douglas retirement was all he cared about? Why would he sign on for another 5 years of copping daily abuse from people like you?
This "big end of town" that you're so worked up about are the people that put up the capital that finances lots of the things that get built and done in this country. It might surprise you to hear that their prime concern is not always and only personal greed.
Of course everyone wants to make profit - if you don't, you'll go out of business pronto (and BTW people like you lose their jobs when that happens). If companies do well enough then yes, individuals make money - sometimes lots of it - but to assert that decisions as large and critical as setting up as J* are made by individuals on the basis of how much cash they might personally make at some unspecified future time is just arrant nonsense.
I ask again - what sort of market share and profit would QF be making now (vis a vis Virgin) if everyone at QF had just sat back and left the low cost field to them?
Noip - you raise a valid point, but I'd argue that accounting or book profits are not the yardstick by which people measure the success or failure of J*. It's a defensive strategy move designed to stop the competition from eating away more of QANTAS Group profits than can be stopped. It's almost analogous to a "loss leader" manufactured product if you will. See my previous post - J* is about a squeeze play to hurt the competition and preserve market share - not a large profit engine in its own right (at least not immediately).
Someone's been watching too many Michael Moore films and reading too many Socialist Worker newspapers I think.
Do you think GD can't already afford a $25m house if he wants one? Have you considered that (perhaps unlike yourself) business executives MIGHT occasionally look further ahead than their next paycheck? Why would GD donate his bonuses from the APA takeover to charity if a Port Douglas retirement was all he cared about? Why would he sign on for another 5 years of copping daily abuse from people like you?
This "big end of town" that you're so worked up about are the people that put up the capital that finances lots of the things that get built and done in this country. It might surprise you to hear that their prime concern is not always and only personal greed.
Of course everyone wants to make profit - if you don't, you'll go out of business pronto (and BTW people like you lose their jobs when that happens). If companies do well enough then yes, individuals make money - sometimes lots of it - but to assert that decisions as large and critical as setting up as J* are made by individuals on the basis of how much cash they might personally make at some unspecified future time is just arrant nonsense.
I ask again - what sort of market share and profit would QF be making now (vis a vis Virgin) if everyone at QF had just sat back and left the low cost field to them?
Noip - you raise a valid point, but I'd argue that accounting or book profits are not the yardstick by which people measure the success or failure of J*. It's a defensive strategy move designed to stop the competition from eating away more of QANTAS Group profits than can be stopped. It's almost analogous to a "loss leader" manufactured product if you will. See my previous post - J* is about a squeeze play to hurt the competition and preserve market share - not a large profit engine in its own right (at least not immediately).
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Out of the furnace...
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But is it the right question?
Swinging, yes its does seem counter intuitive, however there is a logic.
Start by asking yourself the question:
"Is it inevitable that Singapore Airlines and or Emirates will be given Beyond Fifth Freedom Rights by the Australian government?"
If the answer has a medium to high probability of being yes then there is strong case to profit from the their entry, as opposed to doing nothing and watching your market share decline without any corresponding financial benefit.
Think of j* as a hedge. If SQ/EK are given rights at least qf/apa get something to offset the loss of market share.
Start by asking yourself the question:
"Is it inevitable that Singapore Airlines and or Emirates will be given Beyond Fifth Freedom Rights by the Australian government?"
If the answer has a medium to high probability of being yes then there is strong case to profit from the their entry, as opposed to doing nothing and watching your market share decline without any corresponding financial benefit.
Think of j* as a hedge. If SQ/EK are given rights at least qf/apa get something to offset the loss of market share.