The Qantas Sale Act
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: All over
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Qantas Sale Act
There has been a few theories that the intent of the now laughable and nonetheless concerning antics being employed by management levels at the Qantas Group are being executed in an effort to bypass the Qantas Sale Act.
I wonder if someone with some knowledge on the limitations of the Act could make comment on exactly how plausible this theory is and in turn explain what parameters exist to be considered exempt from the Act. I imagine the wording may well be grey and could be twisted a little to show the airline has no future than to be privatised and restructured - but can someone explain the specifics of it?
I had previously not considered it likely, yet something is just not right with the intent of the people at all senior levels in that organisation...
There are areas of the group that must be simply miserable to work in and other areas that may well not be too far off...
Brave new world heh...
Forgetabowdit
I wonder if someone with some knowledge on the limitations of the Act could make comment on exactly how plausible this theory is and in turn explain what parameters exist to be considered exempt from the Act. I imagine the wording may well be grey and could be twisted a little to show the airline has no future than to be privatised and restructured - but can someone explain the specifics of it?
I had previously not considered it likely, yet something is just not right with the intent of the people at all senior levels in that organisation...
There are areas of the group that must be simply miserable to work in and other areas that may well not be too far off...
Brave new world heh...
Forgetabowdit
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: With Ratty and Mole
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This: By Sunfish
They are trying to destroy Qantas and get the sale act rescinded.
When that happens they will take Qantas private.
After that watch the airline stage a "simply amazing" turnaround, but of course since it will then be a private company, you won't get to find out.....
If you want to understand how business works in this country, look no further than Crown (Packer) today hiring Karl Bitar, former secretary of the Labor party.
When that happens they will take Qantas private.
After that watch the airline stage a "simply amazing" turnaround, but of course since it will then be a private company, you won't get to find out.....
If you want to understand how business works in this country, look no further than Crown (Packer) today hiring Karl Bitar, former secretary of the Labor party.
I have kept all my company allocated shares.If Q is taken private am I able to keep them?
I was so against the buyout of QF when it was on the cards. Seeing the mess its in I wish they had given me the $7 shares, let the thing go belly up and collapse. The Govt could have used the $$$ they got from the initial share sale and started Qantas II.
I blame Dixon for 95% of the woes. Mainly keeping to an old 744 fleet and not following the likes of SQ and EK to a modern efficient flexible fleet. Instead he pretended QF was making money, when in reality those profits should have gone to buying 777's and writing off old fleet
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that the last time management tried to take QANTAS private the whole thing foundered because an institutional shareholder didn't buy the bovine excreta being spread by said management. QANTAS is not owned by management, they need those institutional shareholders to support them. Normally they do but it is not guaranteed.
I have no doubt that the present management wants to circumvent the intent of the QANTAS Sale Act hence the promotion of JetStar to the detriment of mainline but it is another thing to do that with a view to privatise the company. For one, there are serious criminal sanctions for duding your shareholders by driving down the share price in order to make a purchase offer by a private equity company more agreeable.
I have no doubt that the present management wants to circumvent the intent of the QANTAS Sale Act hence the promotion of JetStar to the detriment of mainline but it is another thing to do that with a view to privatise the company. For one, there are serious criminal sanctions for duding your shareholders by driving down the share price in order to make a purchase offer by a private equity company more agreeable.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: here
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no doubt that the present management wants to circumvent the intent of the QANTAS Sale Act hence the promotion of JetStar to the detriment of mainline but it is another thing to do that with a view to privatise the company. For one, there are serious criminal sanctions for duding your shareholders by driving down the share price in order to make a purchase offer by a private equity company more agreeable.
Also, look at the last APA bid.. was there any recrimination when that all fell in a heap? Even with the seeming conflict of interest all of the board and exco got away with that scott free.. Not even a slap on the wrist and we got to give GD $11M for the privilege!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1me, I understand your point and admit that I haven't looked at the freight case and who said what etc., however, it would be very difficult for a ceo and board to say they had no part in corporate strategy decisions.
The last attempt to privatise QANTAS was open and above board. That there was an element of conflict of interest was there for everyone to see and it was one of the reasons that an institutional shareholder decided to vote against the sale.
Should QANTAS be so stupid as to try and drive down the mainline to privatise it then it won't just be the shareholders up in arms. While many here continue to argue that QANTAS is deliberately destroying its mainline to favour JetStar, I have always thought that it was managements aim to wind back the mainline to only those destinations that can support a full-service airline, that is, where there is a large percentage of pax who are prepared to pay full-fare or business. JetStar was to pick up the discount pax, the tourist destinations, both in Australia and overseas.
The last attempt to privatise QANTAS was open and above board. That there was an element of conflict of interest was there for everyone to see and it was one of the reasons that an institutional shareholder decided to vote against the sale.
Should QANTAS be so stupid as to try and drive down the mainline to privatise it then it won't just be the shareholders up in arms. While many here continue to argue that QANTAS is deliberately destroying its mainline to favour JetStar, I have always thought that it was managements aim to wind back the mainline to only those destinations that can support a full-service airline, that is, where there is a large percentage of pax who are prepared to pay full-fare or business. JetStar was to pick up the discount pax, the tourist destinations, both in Australia and overseas.
Plovett, I disagree that the attempt to take QF private was above board although I'm absolutely sure it was technically legal.
The reason that the proposal did not get up was that it stank to high heaven which put off some institutional investors and one American corporate raider who had got wind of what was planned and bought about 5% (from memory) of the company who was too greedy; holding out for an hour too long in an attempt to get a better deal for himself.
The raiders almost got to the 50%+ compulsory acquisition mark.
The entire strategy revolved around an attempt to portray Qantas as a broken down wreck of an airline that a few kind hearted billionaires, assisted by a caring and sharing Qantas Board and senior management, would charitably purchase from the long suffering shareholders.
What do we see today? Exactly the same gloom and doom talk that destroys shareholder value.
Qantas makes a profit when other airlines do not precisely because it dominates the Australian Domestic and international markets. It has extremely strong leverage with Government, at the state level because air transport links are a major factor in economic growth, and at a Federal level because of its iconic status and defence implications.
Qantas goes to great lengths to disguise its profitability - it avoids telling outright lies by talking about making an acceptable return on capital without explaining just what that figure is or exactly who it has to be "acceptable" to - perhaps the tea lady perchance?
Furthermore there is no disinterested forensic aviation accounting or auditing capability in Australia that is able to give an unbiased and accurate opinion on Qantas. The capacity simply doesn't exist, nor do the regulators have it. I asked the ACCC about that during Compass I or II and was told that if a complaint was ever made they might be able to form an opinion "in about Six months" when we all knew that Six weeks would be too long for Compass to survive the predatory pricing assault.
For example, is there any auditor or accountant in Australia who is prepared to argue on detailed technical grounds whether a specific Boeing derived aircraft modification to a Qantas aircraft is a business expense (for example compliance with an AD) or something that merely improves service life (which would be a capital expense). Little devices like these were used to hide Ansett's profitability for years, at least until Eddington gutted it.
Qantas feeds regulators, employees and the public bullshyte every day, because they know they can get away with it.
The sad part is that all this wouldn't matter if they were making dog food instead of allegedly providing safe air transportation.
Correction: I guess it would matter to dogs.
The reason that the proposal did not get up was that it stank to high heaven which put off some institutional investors and one American corporate raider who had got wind of what was planned and bought about 5% (from memory) of the company who was too greedy; holding out for an hour too long in an attempt to get a better deal for himself.
The raiders almost got to the 50%+ compulsory acquisition mark.
The entire strategy revolved around an attempt to portray Qantas as a broken down wreck of an airline that a few kind hearted billionaires, assisted by a caring and sharing Qantas Board and senior management, would charitably purchase from the long suffering shareholders.
What do we see today? Exactly the same gloom and doom talk that destroys shareholder value.
Qantas makes a profit when other airlines do not precisely because it dominates the Australian Domestic and international markets. It has extremely strong leverage with Government, at the state level because air transport links are a major factor in economic growth, and at a Federal level because of its iconic status and defence implications.
Qantas goes to great lengths to disguise its profitability - it avoids telling outright lies by talking about making an acceptable return on capital without explaining just what that figure is or exactly who it has to be "acceptable" to - perhaps the tea lady perchance?
Furthermore there is no disinterested forensic aviation accounting or auditing capability in Australia that is able to give an unbiased and accurate opinion on Qantas. The capacity simply doesn't exist, nor do the regulators have it. I asked the ACCC about that during Compass I or II and was told that if a complaint was ever made they might be able to form an opinion "in about Six months" when we all knew that Six weeks would be too long for Compass to survive the predatory pricing assault.
For example, is there any auditor or accountant in Australia who is prepared to argue on detailed technical grounds whether a specific Boeing derived aircraft modification to a Qantas aircraft is a business expense (for example compliance with an AD) or something that merely improves service life (which would be a capital expense). Little devices like these were used to hide Ansett's profitability for years, at least until Eddington gutted it.
Qantas feeds regulators, employees and the public bullshyte every day, because they know they can get away with it.
The sad part is that all this wouldn't matter if they were making dog food instead of allegedly providing safe air transportation.
Correction: I guess it would matter to dogs.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plovett, I disagree that the attempt to take QF private was above board although I'm absolutely sure it was technically legal.
Almost anything can be "legal" with a sufficiently expensive bunch of lawyers to defend it.
Let's face it - who else has $300 Million and the motivation to fight it? Certainly not the Government - the politicians including the opposition looked at it, didn't like it, but said they couldn't definitively argue that it was against the Sale Act.
It clearly was against the intent of the Sale Act - it was a foreign takeover structured so that it didn't look like a foreign takeover. Exactly what the Sale Act was designed to prevent. But $300 Million buys a lot of lawyers. Somehow they found a way around the wording of the Sale Act.
By the way, who was ever held accountable for that waste of money?
Marg fell on the sword, however i think it was Dixon that set up the deal.
They must have been stuffing cash in accounting hollow logs for years beforehand. I wonder how much is still there?
I think Packer might raid Qantas if the share price goes low enough, get rid of the Board and Senior management and start again...
Toll or Lindsay Fox might look at it again too.
They must have been stuffing cash in accounting hollow logs for years beforehand. I wonder how much is still there?
I think Packer might raid Qantas if the share price goes low enough, get rid of the Board and Senior management and start again...
Toll or Lindsay Fox might look at it again too.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think Packer might raid Qantas if the share price goes low enough, get rid of the Board and Senior management and start again...
Amendment to Qantas Act 2011 Registered 25 Aug 2011
Qantas Sale Amendment (Still Call Australia Home) Bill 2011
After paragraph 7(1)(h)
Insert:
(ha) require that Qantas ensure that, of the facilities, taken in aggregate, which are used by Qantas subsidiaries and any associated entities in the provision of scheduled international air transport services, the facilities located in Australia, when compared with those located in any other country, must represent the principal operational centre for the subsidiary or associated entity; and
(hb) require that the majority of heavy maintenance of aircraft and the majority of flight operations and training conducted by, or on behalf of, Qantas is conducted in Australia; and
(hc) require that the majority of heavy maintenance of aircraft and the majority of flight operations and training conducted by, or on behalf of, Qantas subsidiaries and any associated entities is conducted in Australia; and
4 After paragraph 7(1)(i)
Insert:
(ia) require that at least one of the directors of Qantas has a minimum of 5 years’ professional flight operations experience; and
(ib) require that at least one of the directors of Qantas has a minimum of 5 years’ aircraft engineering experience; and
5 Subsection 10(1)
After “application of the Minister,”, insert “100 shareholder members or shareholder members who hold at least 5% of the shares in Qantas,”.
6 Subsection 10(2)
After “application of the Minister,”, insert “100 shareholder members or shareholder members who hold at least 5% of the shares in Qantas,”.
After paragraph 7(1)(h)
Insert:
(ha) require that Qantas ensure that, of the facilities, taken in aggregate, which are used by Qantas subsidiaries and any associated entities in the provision of scheduled international air transport services, the facilities located in Australia, when compared with those located in any other country, must represent the principal operational centre for the subsidiary or associated entity; and
(hb) require that the majority of heavy maintenance of aircraft and the majority of flight operations and training conducted by, or on behalf of, Qantas is conducted in Australia; and
(hc) require that the majority of heavy maintenance of aircraft and the majority of flight operations and training conducted by, or on behalf of, Qantas subsidiaries and any associated entities is conducted in Australia; and
4 After paragraph 7(1)(i)
Insert:
(ia) require that at least one of the directors of Qantas has a minimum of 5 years’ professional flight operations experience; and
(ib) require that at least one of the directors of Qantas has a minimum of 5 years’ aircraft engineering experience; and
5 Subsection 10(1)
After “application of the Minister,”, insert “100 shareholder members or shareholder members who hold at least 5% of the shares in Qantas,”.
6 Subsection 10(2)
After “application of the Minister,”, insert “100 shareholder members or shareholder members who hold at least 5% of the shares in Qantas,”.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like this bit.
(ia) require that at least one of the directors of Qantas has a minimum of 5 years’ professional flight operations experience; and
(ib) require that at least one of the directors of Qantas has a minimum of 5 years’ aircraft engineering experience; and
(ib) require that at least one of the directors of Qantas has a minimum of 5 years’ aircraft engineering experience; and
Its worth pushing this issue hard again now that there is plenty of anger and dismay with Qantas in both sides of the Government. Push the senate enquiry and you may find this has more chance
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what your looking for Fisher.
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...-act-case.html
Its spilt milk, and excruciatingly painful to think what could have been.
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...-act-case.html
Its spilt milk, and excruciatingly painful to think what could have been.