MERGED: Alan's still not happy......
I just typed "Alan Joyce" into google because I wanted to see how much he earns.
Interestingly, the drop down menu of other search suggestions provided "former qantas CEO" as an alternative. It seems google can even predict the future.
Interestingly, the drop down menu of other search suggestions provided "former qantas CEO" as an alternative. It seems google can even predict the future.
Oh, and google said he earns around 5.1 million annually plus got $1.7m in share gifts.
If it's any consolation, by the time he is finished the shares will be worthless.
If it's any consolation, by the time he is finished the shares will be worthless.
A good summary as to why a free-marketeer like Hockey is all for shutting down an investment deal like GrainCorp and pumping government money into Qantas:
Graincorp Qantas Telstra foreign investment decisions | Crikey
Graincorp Qantas Telstra foreign investment decisions | Crikey
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still believe that Qantas will fade, Jetstar rebranded as Qantas. It will be done by a knew CEO blaming the last one together with government inaction etc, etc.
The rebranding will be seen as the only option to save the brand. Government will allow it "in the national interest".
The rebranding will be seen as the only option to save the brand. Government will allow it "in the national interest".
I dont want to see Qantas fail - I have many friends working in the Qantas Group and wouldn't wish that on them (along with the remainder 30000 strong workforce). It is clear however that in order for Qantas to succeed they are going to have to concede market share. Period. This company doesn't own the Australian sky and the travelling public doesn't need to be paying astronomical prices on routes where there isn't any competition (as has been the case in the past).
I am also getting fed up of hearing that Qantas is iconic and must be around for the national interests and security of Australia. Before 1946 the government didn't own Qantas. This didn't stop the government utilising the airline during world war two to move pax/troops around and fly supplies. So hypothetically if Qantas was no longer around, why couldn't the government utilise any other airline in exactly the same way? Virgin Australia would be more than capable and willing to help out. So would any other airline that would no doubt start up to fill the void left by Qantas in this hypothetical scenario. Additionally, whats to stop the government buying/investing in a stake with another airline, other than Qantas, and making them the national carrier?
For now, I along with everyone else on the this forum, am sick and tired of the Alan Joyce show. He is a weasel without any integrity who has single handedly inflicted severe damage to what once was a great airline to work for. Reminds me of the kid on the play ground who carries on until someone stronger stands up to little Alan and then he goes running to the teacher saying he is getting bullied.
I am also getting fed up of hearing that Qantas is iconic and must be around for the national interests and security of Australia. Before 1946 the government didn't own Qantas. This didn't stop the government utilising the airline during world war two to move pax/troops around and fly supplies. So hypothetically if Qantas was no longer around, why couldn't the government utilise any other airline in exactly the same way? Virgin Australia would be more than capable and willing to help out. So would any other airline that would no doubt start up to fill the void left by Qantas in this hypothetical scenario. Additionally, whats to stop the government buying/investing in a stake with another airline, other than Qantas, and making them the national carrier?
For now, I along with everyone else on the this forum, am sick and tired of the Alan Joyce show. He is a weasel without any integrity who has single handedly inflicted severe damage to what once was a great airline to work for. Reminds me of the kid on the play ground who carries on until someone stronger stands up to little Alan and then he goes running to the teacher saying he is getting bullied.
tech-line
I find it strange you use Air New Zealand as an example. You may have forgotten but NZ was bailed out by the NZ government in 2002 to the tune of $885M. It consisted of a $300M loan by way of convertible preference shares at $0.24 - $0.27 each and a $585M investment. Once complete the government had a 82% stake in the national carrier. They have only just sold 20% of their shares for $1.65 each netting $365M for the NZ tax payer on top of the $840M in dividends in the last 11 years but at the same time retaining a 53% controlling interest in the national carrier.
ANZ delayed with 787 they got money from Boeing they spent it on the aircraft they spent it on the people and the service.
767's got winglets, better IFE and 320's got IFE you don't hear them crying oh it's not my fault! They have had competition in NZ for years they stayed mobile
767's got winglets, better IFE and 320's got IFE you don't hear them crying oh it's not my fault! They have had competition in NZ for years they stayed mobile
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air NZ, while govt owned, operates on the same cost-profit base as any other public company. You can buy shares in it on Monday morning, if you want to. If you buy enough, you'll get a seat on the board. The NZ govt does not intervene in Air NZ policies and activities.*
It seems from recent press releases that many people think "government owned" is the same thing as "supported by government handouts and policies". In the case of Air NZ, that isn't true. The government is simply a shareholder in a public company.
* Exception 1: the NZ government re-floated the airline after the Ansett debacle. That fiasco was conducted under the leadership of a private equity owner, much like the consortium under Geoff Dixon that tried and failed to take over Qantas in recent times.
Exception 2: Air NZ carried Australian troops to the middle east in 2007, at a time when NZ government's policy was not to support that war. The Labour PM, Helen Clark, publicly stated that the airline should not be bidding for these war contracts. This intervention hindered, rather than helped, the airline.
It seems from recent press releases that many people think "government owned" is the same thing as "supported by government handouts and policies". In the case of Air NZ, that isn't true. The government is simply a shareholder in a public company.
* Exception 1: the NZ government re-floated the airline after the Ansett debacle. That fiasco was conducted under the leadership of a private equity owner, much like the consortium under Geoff Dixon that tried and failed to take over Qantas in recent times.
Exception 2: Air NZ carried Australian troops to the middle east in 2007, at a time when NZ government's policy was not to support that war. The Labour PM, Helen Clark, publicly stated that the airline should not be bidding for these war contracts. This intervention hindered, rather than helped, the airline.
Oktas8
Anyone who thinks that QF will be renationalised by the Federal Government are delusional. If the federal government helps Qantas it will be in the form of an equity stake in the airline similar to Air New Zealand bailout in 2002 and the US governments bailout of their car industry in 2008. Abbot and Hockey are already on the record as saying the Federal Government are not in the business of owning and running an airline and have no intention of going down this path.
Without the Labor Party’s and Greens support changing the Qantas Sales Act of 1992 is dead in the water.
There are really only five options available to the Federal government. They are:
1. Renationalisation. Abbot and Hockey have essentially ruled this out. It also goes against everything the LNP stand for.
2. Changing the Qantas Sales Act. There is no support within the Labor Party or the Greens so won’t get through the Senate before the 1st July 2014. The public would also most likely not support it either. There is also a chance that Australia’s international air services agreements could be put at risk if it was to be changed. AJ has also come out not in support of it.
3. Straight up bail out. A huge cost to the tax payer with no return. Rewards QF for bad behaviour. Abbot and Hockey have indicated they aren’t in favour of this route either.
4. Bail out involving an equity stake. Potentially could result in a good return for the government and the tax payer and would most likely garner support from within the LNP and Labor. Hockey has indicated support for this route.
5. Do nothing and potentially let Qantas go broke. Political suicide.
So looking at these five options available to the Federal government, which do you think they will choose?
Anyone who thinks that QF will be renationalised by the Federal Government are delusional. If the federal government helps Qantas it will be in the form of an equity stake in the airline similar to Air New Zealand bailout in 2002 and the US governments bailout of their car industry in 2008. Abbot and Hockey are already on the record as saying the Federal Government are not in the business of owning and running an airline and have no intention of going down this path.
Without the Labor Party’s and Greens support changing the Qantas Sales Act of 1992 is dead in the water.
There are really only five options available to the Federal government. They are:
1. Renationalisation. Abbot and Hockey have essentially ruled this out. It also goes against everything the LNP stand for.
2. Changing the Qantas Sales Act. There is no support within the Labor Party or the Greens so won’t get through the Senate before the 1st July 2014. The public would also most likely not support it either. There is also a chance that Australia’s international air services agreements could be put at risk if it was to be changed. AJ has also come out not in support of it.
3. Straight up bail out. A huge cost to the tax payer with no return. Rewards QF for bad behaviour. Abbot and Hockey have indicated they aren’t in favour of this route either.
4. Bail out involving an equity stake. Potentially could result in a good return for the government and the tax payer and would most likely garner support from within the LNP and Labor. Hockey has indicated support for this route.
5. Do nothing and potentially let Qantas go broke. Political suicide.
So looking at these five options available to the Federal government, which do you think they will choose?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: under a rock
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am glad someone brought up ANZ is government owned and had a bail out.
What I was trying to point out is/was that ANZ has learned from their mistakes they have progressed evolved into a very strong company/ entity!
They also now own 20+% of Australia's second airline, who is doing well.
They used the sorry we stuffed up money from Boeing to further ANZ not something else.
What did QF use it for?
How many years of profit from QF is actually from the QF flying?
How come when QF showed a profit because of Boeing no one was jumping up and down saying why are we doing so bad that our flying is not making any money?
AJ and predecessor Dixon what have they learned what have they achieved?
How can someone say I will maintain 65% of all flying in Australia and no one says that is predatory?
I will put 2 a/c on each route that VA puts! Is this not just showing QF and AJ do not care about yields? He does not care about QF mainline making money!
When QF shows the real books of J* and there operating margins and the gift of no competition I will believe.
Oh almost forgot J* now has a real competitor in Tiger with a REAL manager I wonder when AJ will start to complain about them!
Oh those dirty tactics with those dirty foreign owned government airlines.
Woe is me maybe he is just getting us all ready for that!
Happiest memory of QF for me was selling my shares at a price no one will ever see again! Thank you Dixon!
What I was trying to point out is/was that ANZ has learned from their mistakes they have progressed evolved into a very strong company/ entity!
They also now own 20+% of Australia's second airline, who is doing well.
They used the sorry we stuffed up money from Boeing to further ANZ not something else.
What did QF use it for?
How many years of profit from QF is actually from the QF flying?
How come when QF showed a profit because of Boeing no one was jumping up and down saying why are we doing so bad that our flying is not making any money?
AJ and predecessor Dixon what have they learned what have they achieved?
How can someone say I will maintain 65% of all flying in Australia and no one says that is predatory?
I will put 2 a/c on each route that VA puts! Is this not just showing QF and AJ do not care about yields? He does not care about QF mainline making money!
When QF shows the real books of J* and there operating margins and the gift of no competition I will believe.
Oh almost forgot J* now has a real competitor in Tiger with a REAL manager I wonder when AJ will start to complain about them!
Oh those dirty tactics with those dirty foreign owned government airlines.
Woe is me maybe he is just getting us all ready for that!
Happiest memory of QF for me was selling my shares at a price no one will ever see again! Thank you Dixon!
Now we have that foreign airline VA CEO bleating that they should have Oz Govt guarantees... Well they do have effective govt ones from Singapore, ANZ and Etihad owners.
AJ did not write the QF sales act. The Gummit did. Now they need to fix it...
AJ did not write the QF sales act. The Gummit did. Now they need to fix it...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lemel,
Qantas has been bleeding international market shares for years, shrinking routes particularly outside of SYD/MEL. Pax carried is slightly better thanks to upgauging to A380. Any more shrinking and there won't be a Qantas Internationally.
Domestically the Qantas line in the sand is group share - ie Qantas plus Jetstar. When Compass 2 then Ansett went in quick succession, Qantas share was probably at 80%. Since then Virgin and Tiger have grown, but so has Jetstar - far more so than Tiger. When Qantas>> Virgin and Jetstar>> Tiger, the line in the sand sounds reasonable. Market share is not something you give up easily, its very hard to get back.
Qantas has been bleeding international market shares for years, shrinking routes particularly outside of SYD/MEL. Pax carried is slightly better thanks to upgauging to A380. Any more shrinking and there won't be a Qantas Internationally.
Domestically the Qantas line in the sand is group share - ie Qantas plus Jetstar. When Compass 2 then Ansett went in quick succession, Qantas share was probably at 80%. Since then Virgin and Tiger have grown, but so has Jetstar - far more so than Tiger. When Qantas>> Virgin and Jetstar>> Tiger, the line in the sand sounds reasonable. Market share is not something you give up easily, its very hard to get back.
Moa999,
I'll tell you how not to lose international market share. The first thing you don't do is give away all of your flying to Emirates for free.
As far as domestic is concerned, yes the 65% line in the sand is reasonable, if it can be achieved. Clearly putting on 2 aircraft for every 1 Virgin puts on a route is not the way to do it if AJ then starts complaining that they are losing money. In this instance it is most certainly unreasonable to maintain 65% market share. AJ might not like it, but it is clear that they cant afford to maintain their 65% market share and therefore will lose it , not "give it up" as you put it.
The fact is VA are raising capital to run their business as they see fit within the law. As JB pointed out in his media release, Qantas has also raised capital in the past, to be precise they have raised something in the order of $1.2 billion in 10 years. Did you hear any other airline crying about it to the politicians?
The only reason why Qantas have lifted their game of late is because they have been forced to by Virgin. To compete with Virgin they have upgraded all of their clapped out 767's offering new cabins, their customer service has improved, the staff are finally getting new uniforms (which look very similar to Virgin's) and airfare prices across all segments (both long & short haul business/economy, regional and low cost) have reduced. This is fantastic news for the traveling public.
AJ is asking for a level playing field with Virgin? Is he f*&cking kidding? Qantas has never had a level playing field in the last 20 years (or more), the only difference is that it was tilted in their favour. They are always favoured and looked after by the government. I believe that the government will come to their rescue and inject money into Qantas within the next few weeks.
Under Qantas's current management, I have no doubt that if there was "a level playing field", Virgin would come out on top.
P.s. Like I have said in my previous post, I don't want Qantas or any other airline to collapse, its just the tactics that are used by Qantas's current management when they don't get things their way that I despise. From shutting down the airline and locking out their workers to lobbying Canberra to block Virgin's capital raising.
I'll tell you how not to lose international market share. The first thing you don't do is give away all of your flying to Emirates for free.
As far as domestic is concerned, yes the 65% line in the sand is reasonable, if it can be achieved. Clearly putting on 2 aircraft for every 1 Virgin puts on a route is not the way to do it if AJ then starts complaining that they are losing money. In this instance it is most certainly unreasonable to maintain 65% market share. AJ might not like it, but it is clear that they cant afford to maintain their 65% market share and therefore will lose it , not "give it up" as you put it.
The fact is VA are raising capital to run their business as they see fit within the law. As JB pointed out in his media release, Qantas has also raised capital in the past, to be precise they have raised something in the order of $1.2 billion in 10 years. Did you hear any other airline crying about it to the politicians?
The only reason why Qantas have lifted their game of late is because they have been forced to by Virgin. To compete with Virgin they have upgraded all of their clapped out 767's offering new cabins, their customer service has improved, the staff are finally getting new uniforms (which look very similar to Virgin's) and airfare prices across all segments (both long & short haul business/economy, regional and low cost) have reduced. This is fantastic news for the traveling public.
AJ is asking for a level playing field with Virgin? Is he f*&cking kidding? Qantas has never had a level playing field in the last 20 years (or more), the only difference is that it was tilted in their favour. They are always favoured and looked after by the government. I believe that the government will come to their rescue and inject money into Qantas within the next few weeks.
Under Qantas's current management, I have no doubt that if there was "a level playing field", Virgin would come out on top.
P.s. Like I have said in my previous post, I don't want Qantas or any other airline to collapse, its just the tactics that are used by Qantas's current management when they don't get things their way that I despise. From shutting down the airline and locking out their workers to lobbying Canberra to block Virgin's capital raising.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBM-Legend, I think that you did not grasp what I said earlier. Air NZ at least (cannot comment on SQ or Emirates) do not have a govt guarantee. Anyone who thinks that the NZ govt will extend a cash lifeline to VA if the VA share price falls, simply does not understand NZ politics.
Cheers, O8
Cheers, O8
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The market share mantra goes all the way back to the Ansett - TAA days & I find it amazing that airline management in Australia are still using it as a measure of success.
The measure of a successful business is profitability, not market share.
IMHO, market share is mainly about ego. (mine's bigger than yours & all that)
The measure of a successful business is profitability, not market share.
IMHO, market share is mainly about ego. (mine's bigger than yours & all that)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 41,000'
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting on the bolt report this morning - Peter Costello came out and said Qantas cried foul when the government was approached by Ansett regarding a bailout - Can't have it both ways qantas! Interesting viewing.
How long will this go on?
Can't help but think of the parallels with BA, around 2000.
Industrial relations at British Airways - setting a new course?
Ayling survived 4 years with a similar mantra to Joyce.
The penny must be getting close to the inevitable drop.
Can't help but think of the parallels with BA, around 2000.
Industrial relations at British Airways - setting a new course?
Ayling survived 4 years with a similar mantra to Joyce.
The penny must be getting close to the inevitable drop.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its all getting very un Australian at Qantas . Taking work of Australian workers and giving it to foriegners . Foreign CEO , giving routes to competition when the going gets tough , fighting dirty only to run to the gvt when same tactics being used against them . Going into other people's places and telling them how its going to happen .
But they still proudly carry the Australian flag ?
But they still proudly carry the Australian flag ?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.afr.com/p/business/sunday/qantas_lobbies_against_sham_virgin_dWERo3DoDzSwrBUjc10yUN[/URL]
Qantas lobbies against ‘sham’ Virgin structure
NABILA AHMED
Qantas Airways chief executive Alan Joyce, who is seeking government assistance to shore up the airline’s credit rating, is pushing Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to revoke the international flying rights of rival Virgin Australia Holdings.
In a letter obtained by the Nine Network’s Financial Review Sunday, Mr Joyce describes Virgin as a “newly minted sovereign-owned airline” and says it has “the ability to do great harm to not only Qantas but severely disrupt Australia’s critical national infrastructure and aviation policy”.
Virgin last year split its domestic and international operations which has allowed for four foreign investors to control 73 per cent of the listed company but to keep its international business majority Australian owned with a separate board to comply with the Air Navigation Act.
The board of Virgin’s international operation is chaired by HSBC Australia and Stockland chairman Graham Bradley and Business Council of Australia president Tony Shepherd and former government minister Lindsay Tanner are also directors.
Qantas argues the two Virgin operations are linked through service and loan agreements. Mr Joyce claims Virgin’s domestic arm effectively controls the international business. Qantas has described the Virgin international structure as a “sham”.
Qantas is not allowed to complete a similar structure due to the Qantas Sale Act.
But it is unclear whether revoking Virgin’s international flying rights would have a material effect on boosting Qantas’s ailing domestic and international businesses.
In revenue terms, Virgin’s international business is only 1/5 the size of Qantas International. With the exception of Boeing 777s used on flights to the United States and Abu Dhabi, if Virgin halted its international operations the remainder of its planes could be put into the domestic market, where Qantas is already complaining of overcapacity.
Virgin flies the bulk of its international flights to short-haul destinations like New Zealand, Indonesia, Samoa, Fiji and Papua New Guinea.
Virgin’s international shareholders Air New Zealand, Singapore Airlines and Etihad Airways are more focused on using Virgin’s domestic business as a feeder to their own flights than on Virgin’s international business.
“The primary motive will be to damage Qantas in its domestic market so that it will be unable to support its international network,” Mr Joyce said of the goals of Virgin’s shareholders.
But if Virgin was forced to abandon the international market, the partner airlines might decide to boost their own capacity to Australia in a move that could further damage Qantas.
Mr Joyce is attacking Virgin on several fronts as federal government considers Qantas’ plea following bruising, 18-month battle with Virgin Australia over the domestic market. Options for the federal government include purchasing a stake in the national carrier, participating in a share placement, providing a debt guarantee or the extension of a debt facility.
Qantas is seeking a solution as urgently as possible ahead of the release of its half-year results in February.
John Sevior, the founder of boutique investment group Airlie Funds Management, told Financial Review Sunday that he did not think the government should use taxpayers’ money to prop up the airline, pointing out that as a stand-alone listed entity with a capital structure, Qantas had shareholders who could fund a capital raising.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott on Saturday said a number of proposals were being publicly debated and he wanted to see how it played out in a careful manner.
“The government doesn’t have to make a decision today or tomorrow or next week on this,” he told reporters.
A credit downgrade could have damaging implications for Qantas, which currently has a rating of BBB minus – the lowest investment grade rating. Qantas’s efforts to maintain 65 per cent market share domestically has put its rating at risk.
Qantas spent the past 18 months matching Virgin’s capacity and assuming in doing so it would send its smaller rival into a dire financial position. But now that Air NZ, Singapore and Etihad have put up funding, it is possible Virgin could outlast Qantas in this battle.
Qantas is expected to report a loss when it unveils interim results in February. Morgan Stanley has slashed its estimate to a $504 million underlying loss before tax from its previous forecast of a $73 million loss. Macquarie Equities is expecting a $440 million loss before tax.
More from Financial Review Sunday
Qantas lobbies against ‘sham’ Virgin structure
NABILA AHMED
Qantas Airways chief executive Alan Joyce, who is seeking government assistance to shore up the airline’s credit rating, is pushing Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to revoke the international flying rights of rival Virgin Australia Holdings.
In a letter obtained by the Nine Network’s Financial Review Sunday, Mr Joyce describes Virgin as a “newly minted sovereign-owned airline” and says it has “the ability to do great harm to not only Qantas but severely disrupt Australia’s critical national infrastructure and aviation policy”.
Virgin last year split its domestic and international operations which has allowed for four foreign investors to control 73 per cent of the listed company but to keep its international business majority Australian owned with a separate board to comply with the Air Navigation Act.
The board of Virgin’s international operation is chaired by HSBC Australia and Stockland chairman Graham Bradley and Business Council of Australia president Tony Shepherd and former government minister Lindsay Tanner are also directors.
Qantas argues the two Virgin operations are linked through service and loan agreements. Mr Joyce claims Virgin’s domestic arm effectively controls the international business. Qantas has described the Virgin international structure as a “sham”.
Qantas is not allowed to complete a similar structure due to the Qantas Sale Act.
But it is unclear whether revoking Virgin’s international flying rights would have a material effect on boosting Qantas’s ailing domestic and international businesses.
In revenue terms, Virgin’s international business is only 1/5 the size of Qantas International. With the exception of Boeing 777s used on flights to the United States and Abu Dhabi, if Virgin halted its international operations the remainder of its planes could be put into the domestic market, where Qantas is already complaining of overcapacity.
Virgin flies the bulk of its international flights to short-haul destinations like New Zealand, Indonesia, Samoa, Fiji and Papua New Guinea.
Virgin’s international shareholders Air New Zealand, Singapore Airlines and Etihad Airways are more focused on using Virgin’s domestic business as a feeder to their own flights than on Virgin’s international business.
“The primary motive will be to damage Qantas in its domestic market so that it will be unable to support its international network,” Mr Joyce said of the goals of Virgin’s shareholders.
But if Virgin was forced to abandon the international market, the partner airlines might decide to boost their own capacity to Australia in a move that could further damage Qantas.
Mr Joyce is attacking Virgin on several fronts as federal government considers Qantas’ plea following bruising, 18-month battle with Virgin Australia over the domestic market. Options for the federal government include purchasing a stake in the national carrier, participating in a share placement, providing a debt guarantee or the extension of a debt facility.
Qantas is seeking a solution as urgently as possible ahead of the release of its half-year results in February.
John Sevior, the founder of boutique investment group Airlie Funds Management, told Financial Review Sunday that he did not think the government should use taxpayers’ money to prop up the airline, pointing out that as a stand-alone listed entity with a capital structure, Qantas had shareholders who could fund a capital raising.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott on Saturday said a number of proposals were being publicly debated and he wanted to see how it played out in a careful manner.
“The government doesn’t have to make a decision today or tomorrow or next week on this,” he told reporters.
A credit downgrade could have damaging implications for Qantas, which currently has a rating of BBB minus – the lowest investment grade rating. Qantas’s efforts to maintain 65 per cent market share domestically has put its rating at risk.
Qantas spent the past 18 months matching Virgin’s capacity and assuming in doing so it would send its smaller rival into a dire financial position. But now that Air NZ, Singapore and Etihad have put up funding, it is possible Virgin could outlast Qantas in this battle.
Qantas is expected to report a loss when it unveils interim results in February. Morgan Stanley has slashed its estimate to a $504 million underlying loss before tax from its previous forecast of a $73 million loss. Macquarie Equities is expecting a $440 million loss before tax.
More from Financial Review Sunday
Last edited by S70IP; 1st Dec 2013 at 00:07. Reason: Article link