Qantas Sale Act?
Thread Starter
Qantas Sale Act?
Any bush lawyers understand how Jetstar is able to operate internationally and not breach the sale act?
I know they have recently added the tag "A Qantas Group Airline" but I don't believe this is part of their registered buisness name.
If the situation is in breach of the sales act then who would be responsible and what action should follow?
QANTAS SALE ACT 1992 No. 196, 1992 - SECT 7 Qantas' articles of association to include certain provisions
7.(1) The articles of association of Qantas ....snip......
(e) prohibit Qantas from taking any action to bring about a change of its
company name to a name that does not include the expression "Qantas"; and
(f) prohibit Qantas from conducting scheduled international air transport
passenger services under a name other than:
(i) its company name; or
(ii) a registered business name that includes the expression "Qantas";
7.(1) The articles of association of Qantas ....snip......
(e) prohibit Qantas from taking any action to bring about a change of its
company name to a name that does not include the expression "Qantas"; and
(f) prohibit Qantas from conducting scheduled international air transport
passenger services under a name other than:
(i) its company name; or
(ii) a registered business name that includes the expression "Qantas";
If the situation is in breach of the sales act then who would be responsible and what action should follow?
I'll have a crack... Qantas has not changed it's name. Jetstar is a separate company wholly owned by Qantas, the Act only applies to Qantas, not any wholly owned subsidiaries.
http://www.casa.gov.au/casadata/aoc/...num_results=10
http://www.casa.gov.au/casadata/aoc/...num_results=10
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If thats true Icarus then if Qantas wishes to get around any requirement in the Sale act, then all it has to do is create a subsidiary.
Is that the intent of the law?
I think the lawyers will have their day on this one.
Is that the intent of the law?
I think the lawyers will have their day on this one.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: airside
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If JetStar is a separate entity ,does that not then mean that JetStar "international" pilots are automatically covered by AIPA as per a High Court decision a few years ago? 
Can't have it both ways, icarus old bean!
Can't have it both ways, icarus old bean!
Thread Starter
Slater & Gordon
So if it was found that the act has been broken, may it then be possible to mount a class action against those responsible for the loss of income and stress we have suffered as a result?
Thread Starter
Max,
Would it make any difference if they were covered by AIPA. Whilst we expected the ARG to have taken some time to settle in, how long is enough?
It's time one would think for some runs on the board for the members.
Have they gone the same way as previous AIPA Com's?
It seams the members are screaming in a vacuum, no one hears them.
How can it be that no one in government or opposition has picked up on or been made aware of this clear breach of the sales act?
Would it make any difference if they were covered by AIPA. Whilst we expected the ARG to have taken some time to settle in, how long is enough?
It's time one would think for some runs on the board for the members.
Have they gone the same way as previous AIPA Com's?
It seams the members are screaming in a vacuum, no one hears them.
How can it be that no one in government or opposition has picked up on or been made aware of this clear breach of the sales act?
I’m no expert on Australian corporations law, but I would think:
QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
ACN 009 661 901
Registration Date: 18 January 1934.
Is complying with the extract you quote from the QANTAS SALE ACT 1992.
I think you’d be pulling a long bow to suggest that a separate autonomous company, with it’s own independent Board and Management - albeit wholly owned by Qantas - was legally in breach of the Act.
Morally perhaps, but I doubt legally in breach of the Act. And Courts don’t deal with morals where companies are concerned.
QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
ACN 009 661 901
Registration Date: 18 January 1934.
Is complying with the extract you quote from the QANTAS SALE ACT 1992.
I think you’d be pulling a long bow to suggest that a separate autonomous company, with it’s own independent Board and Management - albeit wholly owned by Qantas - was legally in breach of the Act.
Morally perhaps, but I doubt legally in breach of the Act. And Courts don’t deal with morals where companies are concerned.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetstar as a company cannot be in breach of the Act, only Qantas can.
The questions would be;
1. Is Jetstar truly an autonomous company, and,
2. Has Qantas created Jetstar to circumvent the Qantas Sale Act?
The questions would be;
1. Is Jetstar truly an autonomous company, and,
2. Has Qantas created Jetstar to circumvent the Qantas Sale Act?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question one is a gray area and the most important.
Is Jetstar truly autonomous? Consider the announcement of the 787. Who announced they were buying them? Qantas management.
Who decides to which airline they are going? Qantas management.
Who did Boeing deal with when they bought the aircraft? Qantas management.
Did Boeing give Qantas the Qantas price or the Jetstar price? Most probably the Qantas price?
Does Jetstar get the Qantas price for fuel or the Jetstar price for fuel? Answer, the Qantas price.
Jetstar doesn't scratch itself without referring to Qantas senior management with regard to routes flown. Jetstar is not like a OneWorld airline like Cathay or BA where they compete on the same routes. Part of Jetstars charter is that it never competes directly with Qantas.
Doesn't sound like an autonomous company to me.
Is Jetstar truly autonomous? Consider the announcement of the 787. Who announced they were buying them? Qantas management.
Who decides to which airline they are going? Qantas management.
Who did Boeing deal with when they bought the aircraft? Qantas management.
Did Boeing give Qantas the Qantas price or the Jetstar price? Most probably the Qantas price?
Does Jetstar get the Qantas price for fuel or the Jetstar price for fuel? Answer, the Qantas price.
Jetstar doesn't scratch itself without referring to Qantas senior management with regard to routes flown. Jetstar is not like a OneWorld airline like Cathay or BA where they compete on the same routes. Part of Jetstars charter is that it never competes directly with Qantas.
Doesn't sound like an autonomous company to me.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Snakepit Sydney
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JetStar
what it also means is that Qantas or APA can sell off Jetstar anytime without breaching any of the laws as Jetstar is considered a separate company...
Will APA sell off loss making ventures?
You only have to look at their history of company aquistions, thats all they do....segmentate the business and sell off the parts they think are not profitable...
Will APA sell off loss making ventures?
You only have to look at their history of company aquistions, thats all they do....segmentate the business and sell off the parts they think are not profitable...
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
S.1 of the Qantas Sale Act 1992 defines 'Qantas' as Qantas Airways Limited.
'Qantas subsidiary' gets a specific mention so any s.7 restrictions on the operations of Qantas (as defined in s.1) do not apply to any subsidiary companies owned by Qantas.
As a result, whilst it might not be within the spirit of the Act, Jetstar and its operations are not prohibited by the Act and are therefore not illegal with respect to the Act.
The smart b
s...
'Qantas subsidiary' gets a specific mention so any s.7 restrictions on the operations of Qantas (as defined in s.1) do not apply to any subsidiary companies owned by Qantas.
As a result, whilst it might not be within the spirit of the Act, Jetstar and its operations are not prohibited by the Act and are therefore not illegal with respect to the Act.
The smart b
s...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Out of the furnace...
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gameplan
So now the gameplan becomes obvious.
1. Grow the j* subsidiary rapidly.
2. Block SQ for another 2 to 3 years across the pacific,
3. sell j* to SQ or EK.
4. j* sale profit $$$ ---> mac, allco, tpg, onex et al
5. Sell mainline back to public.
Simple.
The crucial bit here is that j* can gain utilise "Qantas Group" international rights, without being subject to the Qantas sale act.
See the QF IASC variation HERE
Regulatory arbitrage.
1. Grow the j* subsidiary rapidly.
2. Block SQ for another 2 to 3 years across the pacific,
3. sell j* to SQ or EK.
4. j* sale profit $$$ ---> mac, allco, tpg, onex et al
5. Sell mainline back to public.
Simple.
The crucial bit here is that j* can gain utilise "Qantas Group" international rights, without being subject to the Qantas sale act.
See the QF IASC variation HERE
Regulatory arbitrage.
Last edited by freddyKrueger; 15th Feb 2007 at 21:25. Reason: Added IASC bit
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Perth
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Anyone know when this might get to court or will it be like the tx of buisness case, just go's on and on, lawyer after lawyer.
I'd fear if something does not occur soon then it's going to be irrelevant as APA takes over and Qantas goes the way of Ansett.
I'd fear if something does not occur soon then it's going to be irrelevant as APA takes over and Qantas goes the way of Ansett.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clever
Freddy K
I think you are right.
That seems to be why Air NZ bought Ansett. Despite the supposed trans Tasman agreement the only way Air NZ could get operating in Australia was to buy Ansett. And they paid lots for it.
This sort of thing may happen again.
Yea, verily. We live in the land of the underarm bowlers.
I think you are right.
That seems to be why Air NZ bought Ansett. Despite the supposed trans Tasman agreement the only way Air NZ could get operating in Australia was to buy Ansett. And they paid lots for it.
This sort of thing may happen again.
Yea, verily. We live in the land of the underarm bowlers.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Earth
Age: 54
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the courtroom?
So it’s of to the courts again, spend our union subs for more attacks on Jetstar, while at the same time trying to get more of the Jetstar pilots to join AIPA.I fear our esteemed leader is going around and around in circles so fast his head is about to disappear up his own arse.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always sad when one of our resident management wannabe's feels the need to post but realises they are sounding like a broken record eh Hugh?... or is it Lucius... or Wayne?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Earth
Age: 54
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCOB you are off the mark with the management wannabe / Wayne dig. Plenty of pilots disagree with the direction of ‘NEW’ APIA. The attacks against Jetstar are not achieving anything other than building up resentment between Mainline and Jetstar.
GD: So Chris, how is our plan progressing with the pilot body?
CM: Great, pilots have evolved into little groups, either attacking each other or ignoring each other. There is no positive talk going on, only more attacks and court action. They are either so distracted or worn out from continual dysfunction that they have lost sight of the big picture.
GD: OK, time to move into overdrive with operation shaft.
All this talk of using the Qantas sale act to limit the bleeding to Jetstar ignores the fact that we happily operated Australian Airlines for years over international routes. A dangerous precedent one would think. So while we are in the business of sticking it to the Jetstar international pilots, how about providing a ready supply of swords for the Australian Airlines pilots to fall on.
GD: So Chris, how is our plan progressing with the pilot body?
CM: Great, pilots have evolved into little groups, either attacking each other or ignoring each other. There is no positive talk going on, only more attacks and court action. They are either so distracted or worn out from continual dysfunction that they have lost sight of the big picture.
GD: OK, time to move into overdrive with operation shaft.
All this talk of using the Qantas sale act to limit the bleeding to Jetstar ignores the fact that we happily operated Australian Airlines for years over international routes. A dangerous precedent one would think. So while we are in the business of sticking it to the Jetstar international pilots, how about providing a ready supply of swords for the Australian Airlines pilots to fall on.