"Exploiting Asian Markets" - Irish Suicide.
You never make an investment where you have no control. This Japanese venture is effectively controlled by the Japanese, but Qantas is carrying all the risk 
FAIL
Just like Jetstar and Vietnam
Singapore is smater - note that their investment in Australia is 100% Singapore owned. Do you think they would have run Tiger with say Australians owning the controlling interest
Rather see $200M profits than the losses this Irish Suicide in Asia will create
FAIL Just like Jetstar and Vietnam
Singapore is smater - note that their investment in Australia is 100% Singapore owned. Do you think they would have run Tiger with say Australians owning the controlling interest
Rather see $200M profits than the losses this Irish Suicide in Asia will create
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Country NSW Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, could not agree more. Lots and lots of experience in Asia myself and family connections as well. Your always an outsider if your white and always will be, you need to have been there for at least a century to even be tolerated. As for the view of others that this is some sort of racist or exenphobic rant, give us all a break, China and Japan are the two most xenophobic countries on earth, ask any non Chinese even of Asian descent who live there.
Not content with being skinned in Vietnam (Who knows how many bribes and backhanders they had to dish out to extract the aussie executives there and to keep the Jetstar JV going) they now propose to go into partnership with JAL and Mitsubishi in Japan. Last I heard JAL was for the knackers yard financially and nobody wanted any part of it least of all the Japanese Banks who are also knackered. The Japanese Government has just had it's credit rating down graded yet again, so once again, the smart and nimble Asian entrepreneurs have suckered a business from a country with a AAA rating to invest in a country that is not. They will bleed Qantas dry and then cannabilise the remains. JAL must love Qantas, lots of nice new airbuses courtesy of the Aussies.
Well done guys, you have just sold the jobs and futures of many fine and hardworking Aussie aviators down the tube. FFS!
As for DS view is there anyway to shut this goose up!
Not content with being skinned in Vietnam (Who knows how many bribes and backhanders they had to dish out to extract the aussie executives there and to keep the Jetstar JV going) they now propose to go into partnership with JAL and Mitsubishi in Japan. Last I heard JAL was for the knackers yard financially and nobody wanted any part of it least of all the Japanese Banks who are also knackered. The Japanese Government has just had it's credit rating down graded yet again, so once again, the smart and nimble Asian entrepreneurs have suckered a business from a country with a AAA rating to invest in a country that is not. They will bleed Qantas dry and then cannabilise the remains. JAL must love Qantas, lots of nice new airbuses courtesy of the Aussies.
Well done guys, you have just sold the jobs and futures of many fine and hardworking Aussie aviators down the tube. FFS!
As for DS view is there anyway to shut this goose up!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Singapore is smater - note that their investment in Australia is 100% Singapore owned. Do you think they would have run Tiger with say Australians owning the controlling interest
Tiger Airways to raise $126m to buy aircraft, strengthen balance sheet | The Australian
TIGER Airways plans to raise $S158.6 million ($126m) in a rights issue to fund aircraft purchases and strengthen its balance sheet as the budget carrier recovers from loss of business in Australia, where it was grounded for six weeks on safety concerns.
The airline plans to offer one rights share for every two shares held by its investors, totalling 273.4 million new shares at S58 cents apiece, it said in a statement last night.
Tiger's shareholders -- Singapore Airlines and Temasek Holdings, which collectively own 40.2 per cent of the carrier -- will subscribe to the rights issue. They have also committed to underwrite 90 per cent of the sale, according to the statement.
The airline plans to offer one rights share for every two shares held by its investors, totalling 273.4 million new shares at S58 cents apiece, it said in a statement last night.
Tiger's shareholders -- Singapore Airlines and Temasek Holdings, which collectively own 40.2 per cent of the carrier -- will subscribe to the rights issue. They have also committed to underwrite 90 per cent of the sale, according to the statement.
SIA has messed up twice in the relatively benign operating environment of Australia. The first mistake cost them $400 mil in 2001, and the second one cost them $130 mil last week. In 2001, Qantas lobbied like crazy to the federal govt to keep SIA out of ANZ-AN. Qantas also lobbied like crazy to keep SIA out of SYD-LAX - just like MAS will do in Malaysia, CX in will do in HKG and all the Chinese airlines will do in China if they were confronted by such foreign competition.
In return, Singapore has gifted Qantas a sham set-up in Jetstar Asia, and all the valuable rights ex SIN which the QF Group now has access to, despite SIA's displeasure. No other country one earth would be as kind (or one would say dumb) as Singapore.
SIA have also gotten into trouble with potential acquisitions in India, China and Taiwan, which always seemed to have been approved, then in the last minute local interests always overturned the decisions, always unexpectedly.
QF has always used its influence with politicians and members of the establishment to get exactly what it wants in Australia. It may be a bit more colourful in emerging Asia, but the basic principles are the same - powerful and established local companies everywhere will do everything within their influence to protect their home turf.
This is why I have repeatedly said that if Alan Joyce and Co are going to march into Asia and do what SIA has failed repeatedly to do, then SIA should hire AJ as its next CEO to replace the current one when his term ends in 4-5 years.
You mean so smart that the previous SIA management just allowed the Brit management they hired in Tiger to run amok in Australia, not doing anything whatsoever to control them, until the grounding disaster blew up in their faces?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: goulburn
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And let us not forget that contracts and legal obligations means nothing. They are risking not just the capital but also the livelihood of every expat employee who is domiciled in country as the Vietnamese just taught them PLUS whatever it takes to actually get out of the place when it all turns to ****e.
Don't kid yourself either that any claimed expertise will save the day.
The strategy is nothing more than a gamble based on false assumptions and deceptions of the most obvious kind.
Smartest guys on the planet for sure.
Don't kid yourself either that any claimed expertise will save the day.
The strategy is nothing more than a gamble based on false assumptions and deceptions of the most obvious kind.
Smartest guys on the planet for sure.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow!!!
I'm gonna have to disagree with pretty much everything!
Who am I? I am an Englishman that has lived all his life in Asia and have watched it change in many ways.
First point, it is sad to see people loose their jobs in ANY country. But, then again Qantas is not placed well to compete with the rise of Asian and Middle East carriers. You are an island that sits on the edge of a continent/anywhere and that continent can do things cheaper and well. Plus you don't get the benefit of attracting the transit Market by being on the edge.
There is not the luxury of a large population to pledge loyalty to the airline. The taxes are insane and the cost of legacy contracts crippling.
If Qantas was in the position of say BA, then there would deffinately be a case for a fight on their own turf. However, Qantas doesn't have an abundance of routes in which it competes with airlines that have the same fancial costs of running an airline in a More Economically Developed Country.
Why did Qantas do so well before... Monopoly, it had always been said that airfares in Oz were ridiculous because of this and it was true. Now regulation has allowed for more competion and that cash cow is long gone and the real world is biting.
Jetstar Asia is a good call! Singapore is a major hub, low tax, well educated work force and yes that Asian market is growing fast. Hence the full Jetstar Asia planes... Which tends to equate to profit! No?
What about the local investors and repatriating of profits?
Local investor, yes there is one to hold the majority, however do you think Qantas can really be that dump not to have this investor sign a contract to act only as a silent shareholder? The 51% is to protect Singapore pride. He would have also signed agreeing to reinvest any dividends back into the company in return for a set finical reward.
Now about repatriating of profit. Singapore is doing its upmost to maintain its imagine of a free market. Imagine if the government hindered the movement of these profits back to Oz? Banks and fancial institutions, whom have gigantic funds base here, would take scare. Therefore the loss of business for Singapore would far out weigh the benefit of holding onto only a hundred million or so.
Protectionism is an Australian word. Why is Emirates and Ethihad being told they can't fly certain direct routes? Apparently they have enough flights, according the government. What about the Opposition's move block imports of NZ apples, EVEN after the World Trade Organisation has ruled a trade block would be illegal?!
In essence, Qantas will always be around, but not as it was! The world and the rules have changed and management are taking unpopular decisions, because the other option is far more disastrous... No Qantas all together... That would be a very sad day!
Change is never popular, accept what is reality. Because history is littered with numerous companies that didn't adapt to a changing world. The good times are gone and it sucks... Look at car maker Rover in the UK did great then sat on its hind sure that things would get better... Bust!
One name... Swissair!????
I'm gonna have to disagree with pretty much everything!
Who am I? I am an Englishman that has lived all his life in Asia and have watched it change in many ways.
First point, it is sad to see people loose their jobs in ANY country. But, then again Qantas is not placed well to compete with the rise of Asian and Middle East carriers. You are an island that sits on the edge of a continent/anywhere and that continent can do things cheaper and well. Plus you don't get the benefit of attracting the transit Market by being on the edge.
There is not the luxury of a large population to pledge loyalty to the airline. The taxes are insane and the cost of legacy contracts crippling.
If Qantas was in the position of say BA, then there would deffinately be a case for a fight on their own turf. However, Qantas doesn't have an abundance of routes in which it competes with airlines that have the same fancial costs of running an airline in a More Economically Developed Country.
Why did Qantas do so well before... Monopoly, it had always been said that airfares in Oz were ridiculous because of this and it was true. Now regulation has allowed for more competion and that cash cow is long gone and the real world is biting.
Jetstar Asia is a good call! Singapore is a major hub, low tax, well educated work force and yes that Asian market is growing fast. Hence the full Jetstar Asia planes... Which tends to equate to profit! No?
What about the local investors and repatriating of profits?
Local investor, yes there is one to hold the majority, however do you think Qantas can really be that dump not to have this investor sign a contract to act only as a silent shareholder? The 51% is to protect Singapore pride. He would have also signed agreeing to reinvest any dividends back into the company in return for a set finical reward.
Now about repatriating of profit. Singapore is doing its upmost to maintain its imagine of a free market. Imagine if the government hindered the movement of these profits back to Oz? Banks and fancial institutions, whom have gigantic funds base here, would take scare. Therefore the loss of business for Singapore would far out weigh the benefit of holding onto only a hundred million or so.
Protectionism is an Australian word. Why is Emirates and Ethihad being told they can't fly certain direct routes? Apparently they have enough flights, according the government. What about the Opposition's move block imports of NZ apples, EVEN after the World Trade Organisation has ruled a trade block would be illegal?!
In essence, Qantas will always be around, but not as it was! The world and the rules have changed and management are taking unpopular decisions, because the other option is far more disastrous... No Qantas all together... That would be a very sad day!
Change is never popular, accept what is reality. Because history is littered with numerous companies that didn't adapt to a changing world. The good times are gone and it sucks... Look at car maker Rover in the UK did great then sat on its hind sure that things would get better... Bust!
One name... Swissair!????
Last edited by Touch'n'oops; 29th Aug 2011 at 09:31. Reason: For some reason spell check likes spelling Qantas with an extra 'a'. Fixed!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mate, where do you start?
First : the name is QANTAS!
Second : there is a large tie-up with BA, perhaps to QFs detriment at times.
Third : monopoly, yep - like many airlines in-out of home country.
Fourth : Jetstar Asia - profit? - I don't think so!!
Fifth : Yes we do think management is that "dump"???
control is important.
Sixth : change is inevitable, this direction is simply the WRONG changes!
First : the name is QANTAS!
Second : there is a large tie-up with BA, perhaps to QFs detriment at times.
Third : monopoly, yep - like many airlines in-out of home country.
Fourth : Jetstar Asia - profit? - I don't think so!!
Fifth : Yes we do think management is that "dump"???
control is important.
Sixth : change is inevitable, this direction is simply the WRONG changes!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: With Ratty and Mole
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas Monopoly
Qantas didnt have a domestic network until it and TAA/Australian merged.
The domestic market was a duopoly between Ansett and TAA.
Qantas never had a monopoly on international traffic in and out of Australia...it still doesn't
Air France
Alitalia
KLM
Olympic
BOAC/BA
Have all flown into Australia at one time.Now there are thirty odd carriers flying in and out of OZ
The domestic market was a duopoly between Ansett and TAA.
Qantas never had a monopoly on international traffic in and out of Australia...it still doesn't
Air France
Alitalia
KLM
Olympic
BOAC/BA
Have all flown into Australia at one time.Now there are thirty odd carriers flying in and out of OZ
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First: You're right QANTAS doesn't have the extra 'a', but spellcheck thinks it does. Sorry.
Second: The tie up between BA and QF. I agree that it can't that beneficial to QF.
Third: The Monopoly I was referring to was only domestic. Even a Duopoly is never good. e.g. The SQ and MI duopoly charging a bloody fortune to fly between SIN and KUL a number of years ago. QF and Ansett had that till QF decided to price out Ansett. The same was tried with Virgin Australia, but failed. You cannot deny that QF did not profit hugely from earlier domestic operations.
One thing is clear, loss making Qantas International can't compete with other carriers except on the Kangaroo route and West Coast USA, which in these cases they are vying for business against carriers with similar cost structures.
Fourth: I have seen nothing at Jetstar Asia to suggest we are a suffering business. I would be inclined to agree with you if it wasn't for full planes and when I try to book to fly with Jetstar (Not eligible for staff travel yet.), tickets are not considered rock bottom.
Fifth: You're not supposed to love them.
Sixth: Let's have some constructive ideas. So far, all I have heard is "no you can't". What about generating some ideas that the "dumb buggers" in management have missed.
Second: The tie up between BA and QF. I agree that it can't that beneficial to QF.
Third: The Monopoly I was referring to was only domestic. Even a Duopoly is never good. e.g. The SQ and MI duopoly charging a bloody fortune to fly between SIN and KUL a number of years ago. QF and Ansett had that till QF decided to price out Ansett. The same was tried with Virgin Australia, but failed. You cannot deny that QF did not profit hugely from earlier domestic operations.
One thing is clear, loss making Qantas International can't compete with other carriers except on the Kangaroo route and West Coast USA, which in these cases they are vying for business against carriers with similar cost structures.
Fourth: I have seen nothing at Jetstar Asia to suggest we are a suffering business. I would be inclined to agree with you if it wasn't for full planes and when I try to book to fly with Jetstar (Not eligible for staff travel yet.), tickets are not considered rock bottom.
Fifth: You're not supposed to love them.
Sixth: Let's have some constructive ideas. So far, all I have heard is "no you can't". What about generating some ideas that the "dumb buggers" in management have missed.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Constructive ideas :
Buy some 777s to replace most 744s, keep the 9 newest [as currently planned] for Dallas, South Africa and South America. [4 engine routes] Use 380s where loads are high enough.
Re-think configs on all aircraft [380 first is a fantastic product and money spinner, but it does need more Y class seats too!]
Put 787s in Qantas colours for domestic to replace 767s.
Qantas domestic is making money, a lot of that is 767 and A330 on longhaul award so pilot costs are not everything!
Stop pulling out of ports that are just profitable but not daily and expand to a daily service, travel agents like daily services! Profits will come!
Use 330s to service thinner routes, link all ports : eg BNE/PER - BKK/KUL.
I am glad Jetstar Asia is flying full, but at low yield you need to be!
I can remember Athens in the old days - 105% load factor to break even!
I just flew home from Shanghai with 90 pax - so much for Asia saving us!
Buy some 777s to replace most 744s, keep the 9 newest [as currently planned] for Dallas, South Africa and South America. [4 engine routes] Use 380s where loads are high enough.
Re-think configs on all aircraft [380 first is a fantastic product and money spinner, but it does need more Y class seats too!]
Put 787s in Qantas colours for domestic to replace 767s.
Qantas domestic is making money, a lot of that is 767 and A330 on longhaul award so pilot costs are not everything!
Stop pulling out of ports that are just profitable but not daily and expand to a daily service, travel agents like daily services! Profits will come!
Use 330s to service thinner routes, link all ports : eg BNE/PER - BKK/KUL.
I am glad Jetstar Asia is flying full, but at low yield you need to be!
I can remember Athens in the old days - 105% load factor to break even!
I just flew home from Shanghai with 90 pax - so much for Asia saving us!
Touch'n'...
"One thing is clear, loss making Qantas International..."
That, sir, is the one big assertion so many players are taking at face value just because QF 'managers' said it.
Look a little further at the many threads raising reasonable questions which management seem unwilling or unable to answer in simple and direct language. There is some basis in fact for those questions. MP Nick Xenophon, Ben Sandilands (Crikey.com), the associations representing the long-term employees, and others who also want QF to be successful are all skeptical of the figures.
That's not to say they aren't open to change, flexibility and compromise. But they are fed up with evidently deceptive and/or expedient manipulation of company results from a management who've overseen many other factors harming the brand/business, and who continue to "talk it down".
That, sir, is the one big assertion so many players are taking at face value just because QF 'managers' said it.
Look a little further at the many threads raising reasonable questions which management seem unwilling or unable to answer in simple and direct language. There is some basis in fact for those questions. MP Nick Xenophon, Ben Sandilands (Crikey.com), the associations representing the long-term employees, and others who also want QF to be successful are all skeptical of the figures.
That's not to say they aren't open to change, flexibility and compromise. But they are fed up with evidently deceptive and/or expedient manipulation of company results from a management who've overseen many other factors harming the brand/business, and who continue to "talk it down".
Let's have some constructive ideas.
Our union negotiators have sat opposite thie rmanagement counterparts and asked what LH pilots have to do to secure a long-term future. Their questions have been met by blank stares. They do NOT WANT to negotiate a future for us. They want to DESTROY mainline longhaul. This is the crux of the industrial situation and the reason why longhaul pilots have NOTHING to lose. This IS the endgame NOW!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GUARD, I believe this is exactly what management wants the pilots to do, it will allow them to throw their hands up and use it as justification to shut down the longhaul operation.
The longer this continues, revelations adverse to management's agenda surface, and will continue to surface. More time for inquiries, more time for scrutiny, more questions to answer. Political, public & journalistic sentiment & commentary is running very strongly against management. Journalists are questioning the ad campaign, and can see through the deliberate "Trashing" of the brand by management and not the pilots. Pilots do not want to see the brand trashed, but clearly management do, for their own nefarious ends.
Time is not on managements side. Force them to make the moves, force them to sack pilots & engineers, don't hand them a licence to shut the place down on a platter. This is a marathon, not a sprint, patience.
The longer this continues, revelations adverse to management's agenda surface, and will continue to surface. More time for inquiries, more time for scrutiny, more questions to answer. Political, public & journalistic sentiment & commentary is running very strongly against management. Journalists are questioning the ad campaign, and can see through the deliberate "Trashing" of the brand by management and not the pilots. Pilots do not want to see the brand trashed, but clearly management do, for their own nefarious ends.
Time is not on managements side. Force them to make the moves, force them to sack pilots & engineers, don't hand them a licence to shut the place down on a platter. This is a marathon, not a sprint, patience.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Public Support & pressure Company by ALL other means
breakfast burrito - You are absolutely correct!!!
To go on strike would play right into Management's hands and we would lose all the hard earned public support we have and give the company a free kick. Mostly we need to keep hammering away to get the real truth out there?
Letters and calls to politicians, support the Journo's telling the truth and pressure to the lazy corrupt ones to do something inspirational like "report the truth, not the spin"
It's so frustrating and demoralizing but we all must keep pushing hard?
To go on strike would play right into Management's hands and we would lose all the hard earned public support we have and give the company a free kick. Mostly we need to keep hammering away to get the real truth out there?
Letters and calls to politicians, support the Journo's telling the truth and pressure to the lazy corrupt ones to do something inspirational like "report the truth, not the spin"
It's so frustrating and demoralizing but we all must keep pushing hard?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 121.5
Age: 59
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Breakfast B,
Fair point. Normally I'm very measured But just felt that the current approach is a little bit akin to trying to force an ex-lover to love you.
I think the campaign is going well and the behaviour of management is telling.
Lets hope it ends well.
GUARD
Fair point. Normally I'm very measured But just felt that the current approach is a little bit akin to trying to force an ex-lover to love you.
I think the campaign is going well and the behaviour of management is telling.
Lets hope it ends well.
GUARD
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetsbest:
If Qantas International wasn't making a loss and domestic operations is holding it's own. Then why would QF management want to shutdown a profitable side of the business? Shareholders would not appreciate the cut in dividends.
Tankengine:
You're are right about the fleet upgrades. However, I believe the 787s are heading to Jetstar so destinations like England can be reached from Singapore and the 330 will be handed back so 767s can be replaced?!
The closing of profitable routes may simply be down to the inability to justify such great expenditure and investment of assets on a route that gives a very small profit margin. It's like investing $1,000,000 and getting $100 in profit, still profit, but not worth the investment.
I still believe Jetstar is a good move by Qantas, but as a string to its bow not a solution to its problems. In the same way GO airlines was for BA, till the idiots sold it for just £100M then to have it sold on for £375M a year later!
I was in an airline a number of years ago when management turned round, laid its cards on the table to the union and asked what could be done to save money. That worked well as we pilots knew where could save money within our body. Shame none of that is happening with Qantas.
Guess it is a case of a CEO thinking he can save the day by himself! I.e. Tony Davis thinking he was being sent to Tiger Australia to turn it around, only to find himself fired within a month. He also did a mighty s*** job at Singapore based Tiger, but was totally unaware.
If Qantas International wasn't making a loss and domestic operations is holding it's own. Then why would QF management want to shutdown a profitable side of the business? Shareholders would not appreciate the cut in dividends.
Tankengine:
You're are right about the fleet upgrades. However, I believe the 787s are heading to Jetstar so destinations like England can be reached from Singapore and the 330 will be handed back so 767s can be replaced?!
The closing of profitable routes may simply be down to the inability to justify such great expenditure and investment of assets on a route that gives a very small profit margin. It's like investing $1,000,000 and getting $100 in profit, still profit, but not worth the investment.
I still believe Jetstar is a good move by Qantas, but as a string to its bow not a solution to its problems. In the same way GO airlines was for BA, till the idiots sold it for just £100M then to have it sold on for £375M a year later!
I was in an airline a number of years ago when management turned round, laid its cards on the table to the union and asked what could be done to save money. That worked well as we pilots knew where could save money within our body. Shame none of that is happening with Qantas.
Guess it is a case of a CEO thinking he can save the day by himself! I.e. Tony Davis thinking he was being sent to Tiger Australia to turn it around, only to find himself fired within a month. He also did a mighty s*** job at Singapore based Tiger, but was totally unaware.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But......isn't the reason we pay obscenely bloated executive remuneration in Oz so we get only the very very bestest CEOs in the whole wide world? Alan Joyce must therefore clearly know what the best solutions are for Qantas, even if they fly in the face of what every other premium airline is doing.
Apparently the other day, during his regular teleconference with the troops who can fire off questions, John Borghetti, in response to a question of whether they could accelerate the rollout of their business products to compete with Qantas, stated "don't worry - while Alan Joyce is in charge of Qantas, we have nothing to fear". Or something to that effect.
Even if only half true, it's deadly accurate!
Apparently the other day, during his regular teleconference with the troops who can fire off questions, John Borghetti, in response to a question of whether they could accelerate the rollout of their business products to compete with Qantas, stated "don't worry - while Alan Joyce is in charge of Qantas, we have nothing to fear". Or something to that effect.
Even if only half true, it's deadly accurate!