A J Wish List.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: blue earth
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A J Wish List.
Aviationweek.com 5th August
Qantas To Avoid Mergers For 10 years, Says CEO
Qantas, once an enthusiastic supporter of airline consolidation, won't merge with another carrier for at least 10 years, predicts CEO Alan Joyce.
"It's going to take a lot longer than we originally thought," says Joyce. "It's still the way the industry will go, but I'm not sure it's going to be in the next few years. It's going to be 10 years-plus."
Joyce also says airlines -- presumably Qantas' competitors -- may give up flying within Australia and between Australia and the United States.
The Australian domestic market is contested by Qantas, Virgin Blue and Tiger Airways, the latter part owned by Singapore Airlines. Qantas also runs a subsidiary budget carrier, Jetstar. Virgin Blue, using the V Australia brand, and Delta have entered the transpacific market, competing with Qantas and United.
Qantas and British Airways tried but failed to negotiate a merger last year. Joyce says Qantas learned from the experience that such combinations are hard to achieve.
"It's going to take a lot longer than we originally thought," says Joyce. "It's still the way the industry will go, but I'm not sure it's going to be in the next few years. It's going to be 10 years-plus."
Joyce also says airlines -- presumably Qantas' competitors -- may give up flying within Australia and between Australia and the United States.
The Australian domestic market is contested by Qantas, Virgin Blue and Tiger Airways, the latter part owned by Singapore Airlines. Qantas also runs a subsidiary budget carrier, Jetstar. Virgin Blue, using the V Australia brand, and Delta have entered the transpacific market, competing with Qantas and United.
Qantas and British Airways tried but failed to negotiate a merger last year. Joyce says Qantas learned from the experience that such combinations are hard to achieve.
Last edited by Cool banana; 7th Aug 2009 at 16:41.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dont you mean "mis" management??
have heard an interesting rumour that the Melbourne Long Haul base is looking very shaky.... Same discontent issues as the perth base before it was closed..
Apparently an exercise has been done on working out whether it would be better to have crew on A380 in melbourne and everything else on 747 done by Sydney....
Watch this space
have heard an interesting rumour that the Melbourne Long Haul base is looking very shaky.... Same discontent issues as the perth base before it was closed..
Apparently an exercise has been done on working out whether it would be better to have crew on A380 in melbourne and everything else on 747 done by Sydney....
Watch this space
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SMH headline:
Probably means that Australia the Roo will go the same way as Air Canada
The Canadian government is simultaneously bailing out its flag carrier and blocking entry by foreign airlines – on the basis that they are “instruments of government policy”. Air Canada is far from safe, even with the bailout. But there is a special irony here. The government justifies its action as a matter of “national interest”. As the legacy airline industry looks for a future, this begs the question of whether that future should focus more on the economic importance of airlines, rather than their financial well-being.
Only two choices.
Joyce rules out Qantas Merger
The Canadian government is simultaneously bailing out its flag carrier and blocking entry by foreign airlines – on the basis that they are “instruments of government policy”. Air Canada is far from safe, even with the bailout. But there is a special irony here. The government justifies its action as a matter of “national interest”. As the legacy airline industry looks for a future, this begs the question of whether that future should focus more on the economic importance of airlines, rather than their financial well-being.
National legacy airlines should be owned and operated by the people ie the Government. They should not be about making a profit but rather being a strategic national asset.
They are an essential part of transport infrastructure and an important part of commerce. They should be treated as such and not be operated by the many for the few IE GD's golden parachute.
How can you justify multi million dollar corporate salaries while dishing out pay cuts and freezes to the ones who make the company tick over?
Take back the airports into government hands, buy back into Qantas get the 777, boot out the greedy penny pinching mismanagement and appoint passionate aviation folk to put "our" airline back to what it does best. Flying!
Not going to happen
They are an essential part of transport infrastructure and an important part of commerce. They should be treated as such and not be operated by the many for the few IE GD's golden parachute.
How can you justify multi million dollar corporate salaries while dishing out pay cuts and freezes to the ones who make the company tick over?
Take back the airports into government hands, buy back into Qantas get the 777, boot out the greedy penny pinching mismanagement and appoint passionate aviation folk to put "our" airline back to what it does best. Flying!
Not going to happen
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent comment Green Goblin, sadly won't happen of course, but another point to consider is the use of civilian aircraft in protection of the country and its waters/ borders, it becomes increasingly difficult to do this when the airline is owned by Joe Bloggs, though my understanding is that the govt arrangement with QF is that its aircraft and crews can be seconded at any given moment in the case of War, Invasion, or acts of GOD, floods, fires etc, when a large nbr of civilians are at risk, eg: DRW etc. This will always have to be maintained as our Armed Forces are simply not large enough to do the job themselves, which in itself will always be in the govts favour to keep QF flying no matter what, unless the job is handed over to JQ (well it would be cheaper)!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTF is a Dugon? Anyhow, your graph doesn't mean all that much. One of the big differences between 2001 and 2009 will also be the replacement of narrowbodies with wide bodies. Simply, more people, less aircraft. You will also find that some of the narrow bodies now go to more regional airports, rather than expensive and congested primaries. A more honest comparison is total passengers, not movements.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: HKG
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly Monkey, you need to get off the porch.
As per the chart below, in excess of two million less seats were on offer in Jul-09 compared to Jul-01.
LAX total seats per month: Jul-2001 to Jul-2009
LAX total seats per month: Jul-2001 to Jul-2009
For all of QFs faults you can not fault them in a time of crisis. They are there with an aircraft willing to take any ticket from any airline.eg Bali or asian tsunami. And there are others. This is why we need a legacy airline. I can't remember any LCC helping out in a time of need.
cropduster, there's a slight difference - when DJ did it, it was under charter from the Federal Government. There have been many occasions when QF funded the operation themselves.
