MERGED: Alan's still not happy......
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not possible under the QSA.
Labor and Greens will not support a change so it will not be amended.
Government debt guarantee the most likely outcome."
Labor and Greens will not support a change so it will not be amended.
Government debt guarantee the most likely outcome."
Labor and the greens may not support it now, but if the Government refuse to use any more tax payers money to prop up a bad investment, and EK want it, the Government should call their bluff and NOT provide any tax payer money or guarantee of, guess what, I reckon the Labor party and the greens would back down.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Armidale
Age: 65
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now you see the true game. Does Clifford work for Qantas or does he work for Kohlberg, Kravis and Roberts(KKR)?Last time we looked he was a Senior Advisor to KKR. Why is Mr Meaney on the board? His background is with Texas Pacific Group(TPG) architects of the APA bid and have recently destroyed Swissair. They have been patience but the brand has been too strong for them to kill it. Remember what these people did in the United States, RJR Nabisco, Eastern airlines to name two. The "Assets went private and the Debt went public". Lobby Mr Abbott to hold his ground and not give in. These people need to be brought to account! We need to pull the chain and get rid of this vermin and get people in to grow the business.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
QF already has 4 Internationally configured 332's. They could do Per-Jnb easily range wise but not direct.
Great Circle Mapper
Great Circle Mapper
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting but sad quote from the press, NOT my words, but I think it backs up my theory that Emirates will become the new owners of the Flying Kangaroo. 
Brace for some previously unthinkable “solutions” or “remedies” from Qantas. But don’t worry too much — Qantas means less for the future of Australia with every passing day.
QF already has 4 Internationally configured 332's. They could do Per-Jnb easily range wise but not direct.
Also, the A332 capacity is significantly less and the B744 services have been experiencing very high load factors so it's not the aircraft type to consider as a replacement. The way the loads have been steadily increasing, the aircraft that might be considered is the A380 but as we all know, QF aren't taking delivery of any more of those.
short flights long nights
So if 6 more 747s leave the fleet, how many aircraft will International have left?
So if 6 more 747s leave the fleet, how many aircraft will International have left?
The B767's are planned to be all retired by next year (replaced in the domestic operation by a combination of B738's & the return of JQ A332's. The remainder of the QF A332's are all domestic.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are 12x 333's, once the stolen generation have returned they will all feature an identical interior which allows operational flexibility for domestic and int ops. So potentially 15+ 332's to be used on int ops.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
So if 6 more 747s leave the fleet, how many aircraft will International have left?
12 x A388's, 9 x B744, 13 x A333 & 4 A332.
The B767's are planned to be all retired by next year (replaced in the domestic operation by a combination of B738's & the return of JQ A332's. The remainder of the QF A332's are all domestic.
So if 6 more 747s leave the fleet, how many aircraft will International have left?
12 x A388's, 9 x B744, 13 x A333 & 4 A332.
The B767's are planned to be all retired by next year (replaced in the domestic operation by a combination of B738's & the return of JQ A332's. The remainder of the QF A332's are all domestic.
There are 12x 333's, once the stolen generation have returned they will all feature an identical interior which allows operational flexibility for domestic and int ops. So potentially 15+ 332's to be used on int ops.
There are a total of 30 A330 aircraft, currently 20 with QF and 10 with JQ
The current plan is 12 x A388, 9 X B744, 10 X A333 for the International network, however I believe the International AOC will also hold the 20 domestic A332
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think the real question is do the
returning JQ A330s replace the total ASK from
QF 747s (apart from the 9/10 continuing) and the QF767s.
plus the (8 I believe) additional 738s less some 734s (albeit countered by 717s)
otherwise we are looking at domestic or international route cuts
Other options in the mix are
the two A380s (#13/#14) that were deferred to 2016/17
the 50 787-9 options that can be activated from 2016
Whilst not an easy equation, primarily depends on how long some of the 747s and 767s hold on for
returning JQ A330s replace the total ASK from
QF 747s (apart from the 9/10 continuing) and the QF767s.
plus the (8 I believe) additional 738s less some 734s (albeit countered by 717s)
otherwise we are looking at domestic or international route cuts
Other options in the mix are
the two A380s (#13/#14) that were deferred to 2016/17
the 50 787-9 options that can be activated from 2016
Whilst not an easy equation, primarily depends on how long some of the 747s and 767s hold on for
MOA, there are only 5 more B738's to be delivered & wrt A380 #13 & 14, the word "deferred" was only used so that Airbus wouldn't have to explain why a launch customer has cancelled orders - QF won't be taking any more A380 deliveries. The 50 B787 purchase rights haven't been upgraded to "Option" status yet.
Silverado, thanks, I stand corrected - there are only 10 A333's.
Silverado, thanks, I stand corrected - there are only 10 A333's.
...and in any event, the headline metric isn't ASKs...that's a metric that the CEO has abandoned. And the board. Its yesterday's thinking, just like those pathetic 777s.
Seriously though, the real metric that is on everyone's* mind is APS...
Available pilot seats.
*everyone who actually clings to the notion that this once great airline can do a Phoenix of course cares about ASKs and the related costs apportioned thereto. But I think that it will be a little while yet before we get a CEO who will lead in the direction we point him.
The irony of that last statement isn't lost on me. But it does fit.
Seriously though, the real metric that is on everyone's* mind is APS...
Available pilot seats.
*everyone who actually clings to the notion that this once great airline can do a Phoenix of course cares about ASKs and the related costs apportioned thereto. But I think that it will be a little while yet before we get a CEO who will lead in the direction we point him.
The irony of that last statement isn't lost on me. But it does fit.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting but sad quote from the press, NOT my words, but I think it backs up my theory that Emirates will become the new owners of the Flying Kangaroo. 
Quote:
Brace for some previously unthinkable “solutions” or “remedies” from Qantas. But don’t worry too much — Qantas means less for the future of Australia with every passing day.
Quote:
Brace for some previously unthinkable “solutions” or “remedies” from Qantas. But don’t worry too much — Qantas means less for the future of Australia with every passing day.
Going by the Oz press the past 24 hours, it appears that they are softening us up for the final phase of LC & AJs plan... destroy Qantas International as wel know it today...
Give Qantas a chance by lifting restrictions on foreign ownership
QANTAS is more than the Victa motor mower, Hills Hoist and Peters Ice Cream phenomena, where the brand lives on under new owners. The Qantas brand is a big deal to Australia. Its loss would cause heartburn for the Abbott government. Can Australians understand an economy without national symbols of production, as well as "national" ownership? The challenge for the Abbott government is different to that faced by the Hawke and Keating governments. Their task was to sell government assets into private hands. What was not so apparent then is becoming more so. As with Holden (assuming the brand fades), what will the Australian industrial landscape look like without familiar brands as well as Australian ownership?
In the late 1980s senator John Button, then industry minister in the Hawke government, walked into an ALP centre-left caucus meeting, my then home team, at Parliament House, Canberra, and asked the question, "What is the government doing owning an airline?"
His question related to government ownership of Trans Australia Airlines. We did not have a convincing answer. The same questions about other government assets had been asked elsewhere in the party and in the electorate. There were no convincing answers, just the special pleading of government workers and their union ringmasters in protected jobs.
So commenced a long line of privatisations in the Australian economy, including Telstra, Commonwealth Bank and, incidentally Commonwealth Serum Laboratory (CSL), the privatisation of which I was proud to initiate. TAA (as Australian Airlines) was rolled into Qantas, and Qantas was sold, conditionally. The government held out on foreign ownership.
It was a long time ago, and yet, governments, in the main state governments, still hang on to assets that would not pass the "what is the government doing owning?" test. Clearly, voters are still anxious about losing the family silver. They are unsure about the distinction between ownership and wealth. Public ownership, or Australian private ownership, does not ensure wealth. When the chief executive of CSL explained what he wanted and why - access to capital to expand the business - and that government would not help out in his timeframe, the answer seemed clear: sell. It is now one of Australia's greatest companies.
The motivation for selling assets then was no more glorious than now, which is to pay off debt. No matter, so long as assets are sold into markets where competition is assured, the economy, that is to say, consumers and taxpayers, gain. Workers follow consumers, not the other way around. When workers demand work and government do their bidding, trouble abounds.
Too many Australian goods and services have been preserved for workers, not consumers. The same was true for Holden, it does not matter that Holden may have faced "unfair" competition from abroad, other nations' subsidies for their producers is a windfall for Australian consumers. Australia is not in danger of running out of things to do; as long as we pay our way, all will be well. Paying our way is most likely when Australians chase the highest rewards for what they do in the marketplace, not cabinet, or even the Australian stock exchange.
There are a number of ways government can help Qantas. The Qantas Sale Act 1992 required certain provisions in Qantas's articles of association. These impose restrictions on the ownership of shares in Qantas to prevent "foreign persons" having more than 49 per cent (mirrored in the Air Navigation Act 1920), foreign airlines having more than 35 per cent, and any one foreign person having more than 25 per cent.
Three other matters will cause disquiet. The articles prohibit Qantas from conducting international services under a name other than "Qantas"; the head office must always be located in Australia; and the facilities - for example, for the maintenance and housing of aircraft, catering, flight operations, training and administration - located in Australia must represent the principal operational centre for Qantas.
The longevity of the Qantas brand depends on its market worthiness and customer loyalty, not ownership. Ownership is not so important in the scheme of things. The moment Qantas was floated Australians ceased to own it, collectively. Restrictions on ownership and those on operational matters, but also including the brand name, must be removed. None can guarantee Qantas survival, either as an airline or as a brand, but they can remove some impediments to trying.
Australians have a strong attachment to Qantas as a national symbol, but they fly by price. If the Abbott government is to remove the remaining conditions over the ownership of Qantas, as it surely must, one day, the brand too may disappear.
The Qantas privatisation was a halfway house. The Abbott government must complete the task, but explain to Australians that Australian brands may no longer play a part in the nation's success
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
QANTAS is more than the Victa motor mower, Hills Hoist and Peters Ice Cream phenomena, where the brand lives on under new owners. The Qantas brand is a big deal to Australia. Its loss would cause heartburn for the Abbott government. Can Australians understand an economy without national symbols of production, as well as "national" ownership? The challenge for the Abbott government is different to that faced by the Hawke and Keating governments. Their task was to sell government assets into private hands. What was not so apparent then is becoming more so. As with Holden (assuming the brand fades), what will the Australian industrial landscape look like without familiar brands as well as Australian ownership?
In the late 1980s senator John Button, then industry minister in the Hawke government, walked into an ALP centre-left caucus meeting, my then home team, at Parliament House, Canberra, and asked the question, "What is the government doing owning an airline?"
His question related to government ownership of Trans Australia Airlines. We did not have a convincing answer. The same questions about other government assets had been asked elsewhere in the party and in the electorate. There were no convincing answers, just the special pleading of government workers and their union ringmasters in protected jobs.
So commenced a long line of privatisations in the Australian economy, including Telstra, Commonwealth Bank and, incidentally Commonwealth Serum Laboratory (CSL), the privatisation of which I was proud to initiate. TAA (as Australian Airlines) was rolled into Qantas, and Qantas was sold, conditionally. The government held out on foreign ownership.
It was a long time ago, and yet, governments, in the main state governments, still hang on to assets that would not pass the "what is the government doing owning?" test. Clearly, voters are still anxious about losing the family silver. They are unsure about the distinction between ownership and wealth. Public ownership, or Australian private ownership, does not ensure wealth. When the chief executive of CSL explained what he wanted and why - access to capital to expand the business - and that government would not help out in his timeframe, the answer seemed clear: sell. It is now one of Australia's greatest companies.
The motivation for selling assets then was no more glorious than now, which is to pay off debt. No matter, so long as assets are sold into markets where competition is assured, the economy, that is to say, consumers and taxpayers, gain. Workers follow consumers, not the other way around. When workers demand work and government do their bidding, trouble abounds.
Too many Australian goods and services have been preserved for workers, not consumers. The same was true for Holden, it does not matter that Holden may have faced "unfair" competition from abroad, other nations' subsidies for their producers is a windfall for Australian consumers. Australia is not in danger of running out of things to do; as long as we pay our way, all will be well. Paying our way is most likely when Australians chase the highest rewards for what they do in the marketplace, not cabinet, or even the Australian stock exchange.
There are a number of ways government can help Qantas. The Qantas Sale Act 1992 required certain provisions in Qantas's articles of association. These impose restrictions on the ownership of shares in Qantas to prevent "foreign persons" having more than 49 per cent (mirrored in the Air Navigation Act 1920), foreign airlines having more than 35 per cent, and any one foreign person having more than 25 per cent.
Three other matters will cause disquiet. The articles prohibit Qantas from conducting international services under a name other than "Qantas"; the head office must always be located in Australia; and the facilities - for example, for the maintenance and housing of aircraft, catering, flight operations, training and administration - located in Australia must represent the principal operational centre for Qantas.
The longevity of the Qantas brand depends on its market worthiness and customer loyalty, not ownership. Ownership is not so important in the scheme of things. The moment Qantas was floated Australians ceased to own it, collectively. Restrictions on ownership and those on operational matters, but also including the brand name, must be removed. None can guarantee Qantas survival, either as an airline or as a brand, but they can remove some impediments to trying.
Australians have a strong attachment to Qantas as a national symbol, but they fly by price. If the Abbott government is to remove the remaining conditions over the ownership of Qantas, as it surely must, one day, the brand too may disappear.
The Qantas privatisation was a halfway house. The Abbott government must complete the task, but explain to Australians that Australian brands may no longer play a part in the nation's success
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Odd as it sounds, these corporate shocks come at a serendipitous moment. They provide a much-needed wake-up call to officials in Canberra and corporate executives alike to act decisively to raise the nation's competitiveness. Qantas is not a unique story. Like Japan Airlines, for example, the company has long been spoiled by its monopoly status and government support. Let's face it: airlines tend to be a pretty bad business, and Qantas dined out too long on its rarefied status and never evolved to survive globally. (An ironic factoid: In 1935, Qantas' first international flight took off from Darwin, a city named in honour of Mr Evolution himself.)
In many ways, the same could be said of Australia's entire economy, particularly as China begins to slow down. Thanks largely to China's demand for its vast stores of iron ore, copper and coal, Australia grew complacent. Economists call it ''Dutch disease'', whereby the benefits of exporting natural resources lead to the neglect and atrophy of other industries.
The nation's business culture also has depended too long on its distance from global markets to limit outside competition.
In many ways, the same could be said of Australia's entire economy, particularly as China begins to slow down. Thanks largely to China's demand for its vast stores of iron ore, copper and coal, Australia grew complacent. Economists call it ''Dutch disease'', whereby the benefits of exporting natural resources lead to the neglect and atrophy of other industries.
The nation's business culture also has depended too long on its distance from global markets to limit outside competition.
The Liberal government don't have the talent to see through what Joyce's ultimate goal is for Q International, ie, sell it off to a foreign owner or close it down.. Both sides of politics in Canberra have never really understood aviation in this country, they only know about nice lounges and upgrades for family and friends.
So I guess that means "Brace for some previously unthinkable “solutions” or “remedies” from Qantas"
Call me a tinfoil hat wearer, but after the last industrial dispute and the absolute lies and tripe that passed as journalism, I am not suprised at stories such as above. Journalism these days is nothing more then a corporate mouthpiece and in this case to soften public opinion so as to enact a 'solution' that Joe Public will see as palatable.
If the QSA is in effect and Qantas is making money would their be appetite to repeal it ? No.
Dump capacity and run planes empty, all of a sudden there's a crisis that needs a 'solution'. 1000 jobs for window dressing and the QSA repeal for the real end game. It's a wonder how some out there can sleep at night.
If the QSA is in effect and Qantas is making money would their be appetite to repeal it ? No.
Dump capacity and run planes empty, all of a sudden there's a crisis that needs a 'solution'. 1000 jobs for window dressing and the QSA repeal for the real end game. It's a wonder how some out there can sleep at night.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Journalism just a PR exercise?
Simon Santow reported this story on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 18:46:00
MARK COLVIN: Just how much of the news you consume is actually public relations masquerading as journalism? Researchers at a journalism school in Sydney say it's more than half and rising.
The team from the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at Sydney's University of Technology looked at more than 2,000 stories across 10 newspapers over five days.
So is it just lazy journalism or a fact of life as newsrooms have resources stripped and increasing demands placed on them?
Simon Santow reports.
SIMON SANTOW: Looking at 10 different reporter rounds, from business to police, investigative journalist Wendy Bacon from Sydney's University of Technology set out to test just how dependent reporters had become on public relations.
WENDY BACON: We found that over 50 per cent was generated by public relations. Now on some of those stories there had been some work done by journalists. But often pretty much they were just straight PR.
SIMON SANTOW: Now when you say straight PR, does that mean that verbatim or basically the angle was adopted holus bolus by the reporter?
WENDY BACON: Oh look it does vary within the study but to some, we certainly had plenty of cases where it's holus bolus PR. In fact we have cases where press releases come out for example from the police department and actually will have a bar line on it.
SIMON SANTOW: The journalism educator says the results didn't really shock. And she warns that the influence of PR cannot be reduced to a simple question: is this piece of journalism based on a written media release?
WENDY BACON: If a story had a straight promotional tone without any questioning or sign of questioning from a journalist we did code that public relations or promotions driven.
SIMON SANTOW: Colleague Sasha Pavey puts some of the practice down to lazy journalism and some down to the growing strength of the PR industry.
SASHA PAVEY: These are professionals who often worked as journalists at some point. They're very savvy. They're on top of the news agenda. And we've spoken to many journalists who have corroborated you know this testimony from PR people that their role is now encroaching on journalism's territory.
You know they're finding the background. They're no longer simply the go-between, between source and journalist. They often are the source of information. They provide the quotes. They provide the bones of the story.
SIMON SANTOW: In the world of public relations there's surprise too at the findings - in this case that more of the news isn't PR driven.
NICOLAS TURNER: In my view it's probably a bit higher than the 55 per cent that Crikey and the ACIJ found. There's a lot of information that goes from government, both departmental and political arms, from consultancies and from business out into the media.
SIMON SANTOW: Nick Turner is the deputy president of the Public Relations Institute of Australia. He says the hand of PR isn't always a simple handout.
NICOLAS TURNER: They prompt further analysis by the reporters that receive them in terms of perhaps interviewing the person that's quoted in the release or seeking an alternative view.
SIMON SANTOW: But from a public relations perspective essentially if the angle is in the press release and it's repeated again in the story it's essentially the same angle, is that in effect feeding the news agenda or setting it?
NICOLAS TURNER: I suppose there are a whole range of levels to look at. As a former journalist I know that when we write media materials we try to find an angle that's palatable for the media. So rather than actually it's really a case of trying to help out I suppose.
The occasions of late where we put out a media release and it's run verbatim or it's run as we've provided it are few and far between. I think though it's a case of pointing the media in the right direction.
SIMON SANTOW: When the research was put to Australia's major newspaper editors the response was mixed. Some interpreted the findings as an attack on the integrity of their journalists. Others conceded that reporters had become outnumbered by PR operatives.
Wendy Bacon from UTS:
WENDY BACON: I think that there is a lot of sensitivity and I think that that's because every journalist knows and editors know that we don't want it to be like this. I mean the whole basis for journalism and the whole basis for our claim for example to confidential sources, access to information, is that we are supposed to be independent, not compliant.
So it's an incredibly sensitive issue and nobody wants to say they're the one who publish the press release.
MARK COLVIN: Wendy Bacon from the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism ending Simon Santow's report. For more on this we will have extended interviews on the PM website later this evening.
Simon Santow reported this story on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 18:46:00
MARK COLVIN: Just how much of the news you consume is actually public relations masquerading as journalism? Researchers at a journalism school in Sydney say it's more than half and rising.
The team from the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at Sydney's University of Technology looked at more than 2,000 stories across 10 newspapers over five days.
So is it just lazy journalism or a fact of life as newsrooms have resources stripped and increasing demands placed on them?
Simon Santow reports.
SIMON SANTOW: Looking at 10 different reporter rounds, from business to police, investigative journalist Wendy Bacon from Sydney's University of Technology set out to test just how dependent reporters had become on public relations.
WENDY BACON: We found that over 50 per cent was generated by public relations. Now on some of those stories there had been some work done by journalists. But often pretty much they were just straight PR.
SIMON SANTOW: Now when you say straight PR, does that mean that verbatim or basically the angle was adopted holus bolus by the reporter?
WENDY BACON: Oh look it does vary within the study but to some, we certainly had plenty of cases where it's holus bolus PR. In fact we have cases where press releases come out for example from the police department and actually will have a bar line on it.
SIMON SANTOW: The journalism educator says the results didn't really shock. And she warns that the influence of PR cannot be reduced to a simple question: is this piece of journalism based on a written media release?
WENDY BACON: If a story had a straight promotional tone without any questioning or sign of questioning from a journalist we did code that public relations or promotions driven.
SIMON SANTOW: Colleague Sasha Pavey puts some of the practice down to lazy journalism and some down to the growing strength of the PR industry.
SASHA PAVEY: These are professionals who often worked as journalists at some point. They're very savvy. They're on top of the news agenda. And we've spoken to many journalists who have corroborated you know this testimony from PR people that their role is now encroaching on journalism's territory.
You know they're finding the background. They're no longer simply the go-between, between source and journalist. They often are the source of information. They provide the quotes. They provide the bones of the story.
SIMON SANTOW: In the world of public relations there's surprise too at the findings - in this case that more of the news isn't PR driven.
NICOLAS TURNER: In my view it's probably a bit higher than the 55 per cent that Crikey and the ACIJ found. There's a lot of information that goes from government, both departmental and political arms, from consultancies and from business out into the media.
SIMON SANTOW: Nick Turner is the deputy president of the Public Relations Institute of Australia. He says the hand of PR isn't always a simple handout.
NICOLAS TURNER: They prompt further analysis by the reporters that receive them in terms of perhaps interviewing the person that's quoted in the release or seeking an alternative view.
SIMON SANTOW: But from a public relations perspective essentially if the angle is in the press release and it's repeated again in the story it's essentially the same angle, is that in effect feeding the news agenda or setting it?
NICOLAS TURNER: I suppose there are a whole range of levels to look at. As a former journalist I know that when we write media materials we try to find an angle that's palatable for the media. So rather than actually it's really a case of trying to help out I suppose.
The occasions of late where we put out a media release and it's run verbatim or it's run as we've provided it are few and far between. I think though it's a case of pointing the media in the right direction.
SIMON SANTOW: When the research was put to Australia's major newspaper editors the response was mixed. Some interpreted the findings as an attack on the integrity of their journalists. Others conceded that reporters had become outnumbered by PR operatives.
Wendy Bacon from UTS:
WENDY BACON: I think that there is a lot of sensitivity and I think that that's because every journalist knows and editors know that we don't want it to be like this. I mean the whole basis for journalism and the whole basis for our claim for example to confidential sources, access to information, is that we are supposed to be independent, not compliant.
So it's an incredibly sensitive issue and nobody wants to say they're the one who publish the press release.
MARK COLVIN: Wendy Bacon from the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism ending Simon Santow's report. For more on this we will have extended interviews on the PM website later this evening.
This whole event has been a massive PR exercise in order to provide a plausible justification for an outcome that they had already pre-determined. The use of "black box" financial accounting in order to justify why Qantas International must be reduced to a rump.
Barely mentioned anywhere in the MSN is any of the Asian Jetstar franchises and their financial performance.
You can go to Crikey and see the PR spinners at work in the comments section of Plane Talking, continuously dragging the arguments back to the alleged inefficiencies of the frontline employees, rather than the question the enormous drain from running a dozen or so subsidiaries in multiple jurisdictions management bloat and poor decision making.
Make no mistake, we are now down the pointy end of the extortion, where there will be a moment of genuine crises (entirely engineered), and a political choice for the government and the new Senate. The object of all this is to maximise the pain and pressure on the Senate to accede to a commercial entities wish. If that wish is granted, immense wealth will be transferred to a small coterie of connected individuals, and fc#k the rest.
This is entirely a manufactured political crisis aimed at a specific end.
FYSTI:
Never was a truer word spoken - and this business model was taken direct from the Russian Kleptocracy.
To wit: "It's broken", "its worthless!", "Government cannot do anything right"..and then whole chunks of publicly owned infrastructure and public goods are quietly sold to a private cartel at a fraction of their value. Qantas has gone by a slightly different route - from government ownership to public company and now to become a "private" entity.
Would it surprise anyone to know that the Port Augusta to Darwin rail line was sold to the U.S. Carlyle group for peppercorns? Is it a surprise that Tony ******* Abbot wants to sell medibank private, Australia Post and anything else he can parcel up? This is the strategy kings used to finance their wars - the sale of government monoplolies and the fortunes and the huge country estates of some of the English upper class were bult on such activities. The saddets part is that the Labor Party is composed to a man of equally corrupt individuals who will do exactly the same. Someone remind me, how many former politicians does James Packer employ? How about the Macquarie group?
To put it another way anything Government owned that is potentially profitable is a takeover target.
This whole event has been a massive PR exercise in order to provide a plausible justification for an outcome that they had already pre-determined. The use of "black box" financial accounting in order to justify why Qantas International must be reduced to a rump.
Barely mentioned anywhere in the MSN is any of the Asian Jetstar franchises and their financial performance.
You can go to Crikey and see the PR spinners at work in the comments section of Plane Talking, continuously dragging the arguments back to the alleged inefficiencies of the frontline employees, rather than the question the enormous drain from running a dozen or so subsidiaries in multiple jurisdictions management bloat and poor decision making.
Make no mistake, we are now down the pointy end of the extortion, where there will be a moment of genuine crises (entirely engineered), and a political choice for the government and the new Senate. The object of all this is to maximise the pain and pressure on the Senate to accede to a commercial entities wish. If that wish is granted, immense wealth will be transferred to a small coterie of connected individuals, and fc#k the rest.
This is entirely a manufactured political crisis aimed at a specific end.
Barely mentioned anywhere in the MSN is any of the Asian Jetstar franchises and their financial performance.
You can go to Crikey and see the PR spinners at work in the comments section of Plane Talking, continuously dragging the arguments back to the alleged inefficiencies of the frontline employees, rather than the question the enormous drain from running a dozen or so subsidiaries in multiple jurisdictions management bloat and poor decision making.
Make no mistake, we are now down the pointy end of the extortion, where there will be a moment of genuine crises (entirely engineered), and a political choice for the government and the new Senate. The object of all this is to maximise the pain and pressure on the Senate to accede to a commercial entities wish. If that wish is granted, immense wealth will be transferred to a small coterie of connected individuals, and fc#k the rest.
This is entirely a manufactured political crisis aimed at a specific end.
To wit: "It's broken", "its worthless!", "Government cannot do anything right"..and then whole chunks of publicly owned infrastructure and public goods are quietly sold to a private cartel at a fraction of their value. Qantas has gone by a slightly different route - from government ownership to public company and now to become a "private" entity.
Would it surprise anyone to know that the Port Augusta to Darwin rail line was sold to the U.S. Carlyle group for peppercorns? Is it a surprise that Tony ******* Abbot wants to sell medibank private, Australia Post and anything else he can parcel up? This is the strategy kings used to finance their wars - the sale of government monoplolies and the fortunes and the huge country estates of some of the English upper class were bult on such activities. The saddets part is that the Labor Party is composed to a man of equally corrupt individuals who will do exactly the same. Someone remind me, how many former politicians does James Packer employ? How about the Macquarie group?
To put it another way anything Government owned that is potentially profitable is a takeover target.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fliegensville, Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
"Port Augusta to Darwin rail line was sold to the U.S. Carlyle group for peppercorns? Is it a surprise that Tony ******* Abbot wants to sell medibank private, Australia Post and anything else he can parcel up?"
"the saddets part is that the Labor Party is composed to a man of equally corrupt individuals who will do exactly the same. Someone remind me, how many former politicians does James Packer employ? How about the Macquarie group?"
Yep!....There's not really a lot of diff between the two
....probably why the watermelons gained some traction 
"the saddets part is that the Labor Party is composed to a man of equally corrupt individuals who will do exactly the same. Someone remind me, how many former politicians does James Packer employ? How about the Macquarie group?"
Yep!....There's not really a lot of diff between the two
....probably why the watermelons gained some traction