Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Why don't we put Australia first ?

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Why don't we put Australia first ?

Old 1st May 2017, 09:34
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Sunny Coast
Posts: 391
Received 14 Likes on 12 Posts
Why don't we put Australia first ?

With QF struggling to maintain a presence on the Kangaroo Route, I ask one simple question
Why does the vast majority of Australian passengers heading to and from Europe end up on the ME3 and Asian carriers ?

Ancient 3rd and 4th freedom rights permit this, but we are now in 2017 folks
What gives the right for Asian and Middle East carriers to profit from people flying from (eg) Australia to UK or Australia to NZ

In the case of Australia to Europe, these flights are sold as direct, with a refueling stop or change of aircraft at a hub
As these are just hub and spoke flights the likes of the ME3 and Asian Carriers will always be able to do the flight at a cheaper price
It is not a level playing field....

There is however, a simple solution
1) A minimum stopover of 3 days required for any foreign carrier selling seats from Australia to Europe
2) Selling tickets from Australia to NZ only permitted for non Australian residents on foreign airlines

Point 1 allows genuine passengers who would like to visit multi destinations on a trip, the freedom to do so and legitimize the stop over, all be it at a cost
Point 2 stops foreign carriers utilizing aircraft that would otherwise sit in Australia waiting for a time schedule window for the return flight, to compete on a route they have no investment in and plundering Australian and New Zealand carriers passengers

Would this inhibit free trade and open skies ? YES, but so what....

It would however, give our airlines a fair go and create more jobs for Australia and New Zealand in the aviation industry
Deano969 is offline  
Old 1st May 2017, 09:55
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 1 Post
Though I appreciate your cander, you want to drive down the industry? At the end of the day it's supply and demand. If one were to impose your vision, we would drive down local demand and drive down local supply which in tern will costs jobs.

However, I agree with the sentiment. We should limit foreign carriers access and allow local carriers to pick up the slack. Open skies agreements are as stupid as they sound. The world is not a financially equal flying ground. But if we do that, expect the same in return.

Were the lucky country right....???
Bula is offline  
Old 1st May 2017, 09:55
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 1,913
Received 294 Likes on 123 Posts
What gives the right for Asian and Middle East carriers to profit from people flying from (eg) Australia to UK or Australia to NZ
Because they give passengers what they have been asking for, new aircraft, frequent schedules and some fantastic innovation in product development. Our main carrier is still flying antique 747s built in the early 90's! Qantas has not updated their A380s since incepted, have you seen the Etihad A380?

As Virgin has very limited scope Internationally, leaving one main carrier being Qantas, the simple reason is they have an absolute rubbish network and offering. Have a look at national carriers networks out of Adelaide and Perth, in fact don't bother because there is none.

A lot of reasons why Australians are flying the elites is due to poor management from current and previous executives of Qantas and Virgin Australia.

I would argue all these carriers landing on our shores are providing many more jobs locals compared to what Qantas and Virgin would ever offer.
PoppaJo is offline  
Old 1st May 2017, 09:56
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 56
Posts: 3,079
Received 441 Likes on 121 Posts
It would however, give our airlines a fair go and create more jobs for Australia and New Zealand in the aviation industry
It would be great for Qantas and AirNew Zealand but not for the vast majority of Australian and NZ citizens in that less people would travel to NZ and Aus resulting in more job losses than job creations.
Basically it would not be as good for the economy as the current set-up.
framer is offline  
Old 1st May 2017, 10:04
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 642
Received 19 Likes on 5 Posts
If only we had access to cheap labour from the 3rd world, a president who was also the CEO of QANTAS, CEO of Sydney Airport and head of CASA, then we might be able to get somewhere...

ruprecht is offline  
Old 1st May 2017, 10:16
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3,860
Likes: 0
Received 233 Likes on 99 Posts
It would however, give our airlines a fair go and create more jobs for Australia and New Zealand in the aviation industry
Qantas who still call Australia 51% home and who wanted foreign ownership restrictions lifted.

Virgin - Owned by Etihad, Hainan group & Singapore Airlines

How are they OUR airlines?
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 1st May 2017, 12:03
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Qantas is a peculiar beast.

Privatised to release 'efficiency', the idiots in Canberra belatedly realised 'national interest' and created the Qantas Sale Act 1992.

  • Qantas has to compete with third world airlines, 'open skies' privatised airports, seek capital and chase return whilst simultaneously keeping the 'majority of their facilities in aggregate in Australia'
  • As the QSA was something that QF rightly detest from a pure commercial perspective I remember former general Counsel Johnson, arguing vigorously that the JQ 'Asian pivot' was not in breach of the QSA as it applied ONLY to QF.
  • The control of various offshore entities, the huge capital QF must pay to step around the QSA is substantial, their onshore partners provide Principal Place of Business cover that is all, Qantas picks up the tab. Think Singapore, Vietnam, Japan and most definitely HK.
  • JQ was the way to step around IR, FWA, the QSA Penny wise and pound foolish, the role of JQ grew far further than originally envisaged, from providing leverage against Australian terms and conditions, managers got carried away conducting an IR war....Neither shareholders, employees or the nation won, but certain insiders and legal firms made substantial profit..
Politicians of all persuasions have sold out this country, globalisation destroying not only bottom end jobs, but gutting the middle class, we the populace exchanging a stable economy for cheap Chinese crap, TV's and cars. The politicians made sure that by importing 457 visa holders and lots of immigration that real wages fell for many years...


The irony for Qantas is that the jig is up, in trying to offshore the business, save a dollar they lost far more. They are not alone every corporate tried it. In a time where populist politics and 'national interest' raising its head, as the tide recedes we may just find out the emperor (Elaine) never had any clothes...
Tuck Mach is offline  
Old 1st May 2017, 21:43
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 161
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Deano969
With QF struggling to maintain a presence on the Kangaroo Route, I ask one simple question
Why does the vast majority of Australian passengers heading to and from Europe end up on the ME3 and Asian carriers ?
Have you flown Qantas long-haul down the back recently? I did it a couple of years ago; hours in an old and cramped 747 with an entertainment system that didn't work and a crew that didn't care.

Contrast that with any of the Asian and ME carriers and it is easy to see why "never again" was the main thought going through my mind afterwards.

I do, however, fly Air NZ long-haul if the price is right (or near right) - it is a great airline, with decent planes and fantastic crew. A shining example of how you can get it right.
James 1077 is offline  
Old 1st May 2017, 21:44
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 298
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The game was given away in 1999 when John Howard stated "Australian Airlines do not need protection because they are so efficient" and opened the floodgates and the ME carriers(highly subsidised, but will never admit it who also operate from airports that they own) grew and continue to grow. John Anderson was the Aviation Minister at the time and both him and Mark Vaile spent a lot of time with the Sheikhs on Dubai and Abu Dhabi Golf Courses. The ME carriers along with the Chinese will continue to dump capacity into Australia and the only protection we have across the Pacific is the US and Canadian Governments. In fact the Canadians use Australia as and example of how NOT to run their Aviation market.

The Terms the Australian Airservices Commission operate to is cheap airfares first and a sustainable industry last. Sydney Airport is the most expensive in the Asia/Pacific with charges 4 times more than Jakarta and 3 times more expensive than Singapore and double Hong Kong. Sydney is Qantas' home base! Qantas has offshored it's maintenance jobs to LA, London and Manila so again we see the dumbing down of the airline and the hiring of Mexicans! Sydney's Padstow TAFE has all but shut down as instead of training Engineers it trains Hortoculturists and Florists! No Large engines are maintained on shore any more so should the Korean rheteric turn into something serious we must rely on someone else to look after our Jet Engines. We have only two oil refineries so we need to bring our oil in from Asia. What a mess!

Just as Australia has done with manufacturing they have privatised the energy providers and priced our own manufacturers out of the market. For each Manufacturing job there are 5 for the economy and IATA tells us that for every aviation job there is 3 for the economy. You will never see Emirates or Etihad offshore their airline because they already employ slave labour imported from India and Bangladesh and the aviation industry keeps their own economy ticking along with Building and Retail etc. Maybe we need a Trump style revolution but I fear it is too late for the Australian Aviation industry. Politicians need to make sure they stand for "National Interest" instead as most of them at the moment and make sure to ensure "Personal Interest" as their number one priority.

The only solution would be to freeze all bilateral approvals for a period to allow Australian airlines to catch up and also provide incentives to invest is new and fuel efficient aircraft. That would require vision and a foresight that does not exist in our current crop of leaders.
busdriver007 is offline  
Old 1st May 2017, 23:41
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Deano969
With QF struggling to maintain a presence on the Kangaroo Route, I ask one simple question
Why does the vast majority of Australian passengers heading to and from Europe end up on the ME3 and Asian carriers ?

Ancient 3rd and 4th freedom rights permit this, but we are now in 2017 folks
What gives the right for Asian and Middle East carriers to profit from people flying from (eg) Australia to UK or Australia to NZ

In the case of Australia to Europe, these flights are sold as direct, with a refueling stop or change of aircraft at a hub
As these are just hub and spoke flights the likes of the ME3 and Asian Carriers will always be able to do the flight at a cheaper price
It is not a level playing field....

There is however, a simple solution
1) A minimum stopover of 3 days required for any foreign carrier selling seats from Australia to Europe
2) Selling tickets from Australia to NZ only permitted for non Australian residents on foreign airlines

Point 1 allows genuine passengers who would like to visit multi destinations on a trip, the freedom to do so and legitimize the stop over, all be it at a cost
Point 2 stops foreign carriers utilizing aircraft that would otherwise sit in Australia waiting for a time schedule window for the return flight, to compete on a route they have no investment in and plundering Australian and New Zealand carriers passengers

Would this inhibit free trade and open skies ? YES, but so what....

It would however, give our airlines a fair go and create more jobs for Australia and New Zealand in the aviation industry
OZ is bankrupt. We need all the tourists we can get.
BNEA320 is offline  
Old 1st May 2017, 23:42
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by James 1077
Have you flown Qantas long-haul down the back recently? I did it a couple of years ago; hours in an old and cramped 747 with an entertainment system that didn't work and a crew that didn't care.

Contrast that with any of the Asian and ME carriers and it is easy to see why "never again" was the main thought going through my mind afterwards.

I do, however, fly Air NZ long-haul if the price is right (or near right) - it is a great airline, with decent planes and fantastic crew. A shining example of how you can get it right.
don't understand why anyone going to North America who go via NZ. Fly south to head north ?
BNEA320 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2017, 00:41
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Earth
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 11 Posts
When your competitors fly into your major ports up to 4 times a day with superior product, and you try to compete with ONE A330 or 737, the choice is simple. Add to the mix grumpy old and tired girls being paid top dollar to give me attitude, I know where I'd rather spend my money.
unobtanium is offline  
Old 2nd May 2017, 01:25
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Doomagee
Age: 11
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Does a company have to be 100% Australian owned to be "ours"? Or does it just have to employ say 10,000 Australians?

Is a company "Australian" if owned by an Australian who sends all money overseas or in offshore accounts, contributing nothing to the economy.

Not pointing at anyone in particular but its an interesting question..
Berealgetreal is offline  
Old 2nd May 2017, 01:26
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Doomagee
Age: 11
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Lamborghini no longer owned by Italians, is it still Italian?
Berealgetreal is offline  
Old 2nd May 2017, 02:39
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 56
Posts: 3,079
Received 441 Likes on 121 Posts
To make the suggestion a bit "real".
What would happen to the bottom line of "Sydney Seaplanes" if the OP's suggestion was implemented?
Serious question.
framer is offline  
Old 2nd May 2017, 06:56
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Sunny Coast
Posts: 391
Received 14 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by Berealgetreal
Does a company have to be 100% Australian owned to be "ours"? Or does it just have to employ say 10,000 Australians?

Is a company "Australian" if owned by an Australian who sends all money overseas or in offshore accounts, contributing nothing to the economy.

Not pointing at anyone in particular but its an interesting question..
It would be nice if it were Australian owned
However
Based here
Employing local workforce for all facets of the business
Pays taxes here
No objection to profits going off shore as airlines don't make an awful lot anyhow
Government owned would be the ultimate....
Deano969 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2017, 07:04
  #17 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Sunny Coast
Posts: 391
Received 14 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by ruprecht
If only we had access to cheap labour from the 3rd world, a president who was also the CEO of QANTAS, CEO of Sydney Airport and head of CASA, then we might be able to get somewhere...

There is no such thing as cheap labor
There is exchange rate though
A Philippino earns $100.00-$150.00au per week, but on this pay can
Buy a house, a car, send kids to private school and still afford to holiday overseas
$1au buys about 36php, but the dollar for dollar is about 10-1

On that basis, if QF were to out source engineering work to the Philippines, the government could legislate a currency differential tax on the labor
For that matter, they could levy a similar tax on foreign carriers into and out of Australia to cover the labor differential
Then we would have a level playing field (and slightly higher air fares)
Net result, bring jobs back home....
Deano969 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2017, 07:43
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A government acting in the interest of the populace necessitates a change to the current political order. Status quo protection at all odds, a greater divide between rich and poor is the blueprint of both sides of parliament...Driven by ideological crap, captured by vested interest and in the case of Iranian Sam $1650 from a Chinese 'friend' it costs very little to capture parliament and most of them never saw a mirror they didn't instantly love...

Then again if elections ever really changed anything people would not be allowed to vote.
Tuck Mach is offline  
Old 2nd May 2017, 07:49
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Received 53 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by PoppaJo
Because they give passengers what they have been asking for, new aircraft, frequent schedules and some fantastic innovation in product development. Our main carrier is still flying antique 747s built in the early 90's! Qantas has not updated their A380s since incepted, have you seen the Etihad A380?

As Virgin has very limited scope Internationally, leaving one main carrier being Qantas, the simple reason is they have an absolute rubbish network and offering. Have a look at national carriers networks out of Adelaide and Perth, in fact don't bother because there is none.

A lot of reasons why Australians are flying the elites is due to poor management from current and previous executives of Qantas and Virgin Australia.

I would argue all these carriers landing on our shores are providing many more jobs locals compared to what Qantas and Virgin would ever offer.
There's just one thing wrong with what you say... Australia has galloped full speed down the 'globalisation' path, privatising things like airlines and making them beholden to the market.

Meanwhile, the similarly 'globalisation' chanting competition continue to maintain control of and let's face it, substantially fund through either direct cash or discounted everything, their national carriers... Gulf, Etihad, Emirates, Singapore Airlines (Temasek Holdings is a Govt. owned corporation that owns the majority, i.e. 90+% of SQ so issuing a few shares and saying it's private is BS), Malaysian, Garuda, Air NZ are ALL owned substatially or totally and benefit from sovereign interest rates like QF used to and in the case of the ME carriers, they have access to piddling fuel prices ex their main hubs.

The answer is that Qantas should have been merged with TN but NEVER should have been floated or not totally anyway. Similar concessions could have been extended to AN as well... everyone else is doing it is the problem and we're the only dick heads that lap up the BS mantra and then sit back and watch our OWN carriers get screwed.

Admittedly, the US carriers are all privately owned but they are coming off a base of 330,000,000 using their domestic networks, that's equivalent to every country in Europe nearly in market size.

There needs to be some sort of restrictions as we are going to end up with no carriers... and if anyone thinks for a nano-second that EK, EY, et al will keep flying here when the mood changes, they've got rocks in their head.

It's a concept Australia has never cottoned on to... we treat the ANZUS Alliance like it's some temple of god or something when the US are only in it for themselves and come up in a competition with somewhere else that is of value to them and watch them not live up to the agreement.

One would think we would have learned our lesson in the 80s when the US talked us down the free trade route and we dropped all our tariffs then what did the US do??? Subsidized their primary producers to the point that it was impossible for our farmers to compete.

It's all a crock. We look after ourselves, we engage with the world but on our rules... there has to be a fair exchange. Just like in the 80s... Australia let SQ have more frequencies and MH and CX, in return QF got access to fly the golden triangle without restrictions on local vs through load. Now we just give everything away and hope for the best. No wonder QF haven't invested in product, they actually HAVE to make a profit and don't get the concessions all these other carriers do.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 2nd May 2017, 07:54
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Received 53 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by Deano969
With QF struggling to maintain a presence on the Kangaroo Route, I ask one simple question
Why does the vast majority of Australian passengers heading to and from Europe end up on the ME3 and Asian carriers ?

Ancient 3rd and 4th freedom rights permit this, but we are now in 2017 folks
What gives the right for Asian and Middle East carriers to profit from people flying from (eg) Australia to UK or Australia to NZ

In the case of Australia to Europe, these flights are sold as direct, with a refueling stop or change of aircraft at a hub
As these are just hub and spoke flights the likes of the ME3 and Asian Carriers will always be able to do the flight at a cheaper price
It is not a level playing field....

There is however, a simple solution
1) A minimum stopover of 3 days required for any foreign carrier selling seats from Australia to Europe
2) Selling tickets from Australia to NZ only permitted for non Australian residents on foreign airlines

Point 1 allows genuine passengers who would like to visit multi destinations on a trip, the freedom to do so and legitimize the stop over, all be it at a cost
Point 2 stops foreign carriers utilizing aircraft that would otherwise sit in Australia waiting for a time schedule window for the return flight, to compete on a route they have no investment in and plundering Australian and New Zealand carriers passengers

Would this inhibit free trade and open skies ? YES, but so what....

It would however, give our airlines a fair go and create more jobs for Australia and New Zealand in the aviation industry
Couldn't agree more... how about when you fly to DXB you get handled by DNATA or not at all. Can you imagine the screams if it was made law that carriers could only be self-handled or handled by QF or VA.

We just let everyone walk all over us. It makes me sick. For goodness sake let's become a republic as quick as possible, maybe that will change the mindset to Australia first instead of living our entire existence dependent or subservient to others.
AerialPerspective is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.