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

IFAM

Old 1st Oct 2020, 06:16
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 216
IFAM

International Freight Assistance Mechanism.
https://www.austrade.gov.au/ArticleD...edule.pdf.aspx
Have a look at how many of these contracts have been awarded to foreign government owned national or supported carriers and youíd have to wonder WTF is going on with the Federal Governmentís idiotic policy of dishing out money that leaves the shores of Australia for good during these difficult times. I find it galling to see the likes of Air New Zealand flying 787s between BNE and LAX loaded with freight yet Qantas aircraft sit on the ground in BNE with staff on job keeper.
United Airlines receiving many billions of dollars to stay afloat flying freight across the Pacific with an extension of the contract. Could you imagine this in reverse? No fĒ*k **g way. As usual this government sells out its people in the name of economic rationalism. Thanks SCOMO and friends for your support. How much tax have we paid as a collective pilot group? This is how you return the favour. Miserable pathetic spineless bureaucrats selling out to the lowest SUBSIDISED tender. What a joke.
Troo believer is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2020, 07:29
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: passing a cloud
Posts: 330
While it is galling i'll give you the way this has played out and it has nothing to do with any one airline.

Its not the government that's selling us out, its the government trying to help exporters an the hierarchy at the big Q with their head in the sand about it. Logistics pipelines have been reliant upon underbelly space and as time has progressed its now that QF flag out to Atlas their long haul freighters and there are only two 767 all cargo aircraft left in the country. The difference is between OpEx and CapEx on a balance sheet and no one in this county wants to commit to a contract long enough for an operator to spend the CapEx on getting a main deck freighter. This honestly is the crux of it, nobody in the higher levels is prepared to accept the responsibility for CapEx when the risk analysis cant see past 18 months.

I have contacts right now that that have tonnages available for transport in both directions 36T in the belly of 330 of 51T in a 787 would make a difference but Q are seeking a premium that is not achievable in the market.

Its also exporters that for years have been paying below market rates for years that cant get it through their head and freight forwarders who change 20T payloads hours before departure to save themselves $1200 on a 20T load that cost us the taxpayer $50k in subsidies.

The contracts are not below costs, the big Q is being very Linda Evangelista in this respect that theydon't get out of bed for less than$10,000a day an hour yet they have the most fuel efficient widebodies that have plenty of green time that could do the job at the cost of fuel/LLP's and enroutes......... but they wont, and thats with fuel at <$400 a ton.

So please dont blame the govt, they are trying to save the perishable exporters and help them get product to market, instead shine the light at the guys that are too busy trying to play one state govt off against the other so they can move their HQ. As Winston Churchill stated "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
TWOTBAGS is online now  
Old 1st Oct 2020, 07:55
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 216
Originally Posted by TWOTBAGS View Post
While it is galling i'll give you the way this has played out and it has nothing to do with any one airline.

Its not the government that's selling us out, its the government trying to help exporters an the hierarchy at the big Q with their head in the sand about it. Logistics pipelines have been reliant upon underbelly space and as time has progressed its now that QF flag out to Atlas their long haul freighters and there are only two 767 all cargo aircraft left in the country. The difference is between OpEx and CapEx on a balance sheet and no one in this county wants to commit to a contract long enough for an operator to spend the CapEx on getting a main deck freighter. This honestly is the crux of it, nobody in the higher levels is prepared to accept the responsibility for CapEx when the risk analysis cant see past 18 months.

I have contacts right now that that have tonnages available for transport in both directions 36T in the belly of 330 of 51T in a 787 would make a difference but Q are seeking a premium that is not achievable in the market.

Its also exporters that for years have been paying below market rates for years that cant get it through their head and freight forwarders who change 20T payloads hours before departure to save themselves $1200 on a 20T load that cost us the taxpayer $50k in subsidies.

The contracts are not below costs, the big Q is being very Linda Evangelista in this respect that theydon't get out of bed for less than$10,000a day an hour yet they have the most fuel efficient widebodies that have plenty of green time that could do the job at the cost of fuel/LLP's and enroutes......... but they wont, and thats with fuel at <$400 a ton.

So please dont blame the govt, they are trying to save the perishable exporters and help them get product to market, instead shine the light at the guys that are too busy trying to play one state govt off against the other so they can move their HQ. As Winston Churchill stated "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
You missed my point entirely.
The other airlines that win these contracts are being subsidised by their own governments so they can afford to under cut an airline such as Qantas that’s receiving SFA support. Do you honestly believe that the other players are losing their own money flying these contracts? Of course not. They’re being backed by their governments and by the fact that they don’t have stand down provisions in their respective terms and conditions so hence this distortion of costs goes against the likes of Qantas. Once again we’ve been conned and lay down on an uneven playing field full of bullshit.
Air New Zealand received a 900 million dollar government loan. What did our airlines get. Zip to support an International operation. What a joke.

Last edited by Troo believer; 1st Oct 2020 at 08:07.
Troo believer is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2020, 08:18
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
NZ Govt is subsidising Air NZ? Links please because aside from NZ's own national wage subsidies to all eligible NZ employers, its news to me. AirNZ has just drawn down on the 1st tranch of a very expensive Govt loan to stay afloat.

waren9 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2020, 09:23
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 216
Originally Posted by waren9 View Post
NZ Govt is subsidising Air NZ? Links please because aside from NZ's own national wage subsidies to all eligible NZ employers, its news to me. AirNZ has just drawn down on the 1st tranch of a very expensive Govt loan to stay afloat.
https://www.afr.com/companies/transp...0200320-p54c37
Air New Zealand can’t fail. The loan will be forgiven guaranteed.
Troo believer is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2020, 09:27
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Originally Posted by Troo believer View Post
Link to subsidies please. Not links to loans I already pointed to.
waren9 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2020, 11:08
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Outofoz
Posts: 678
AJ Pty Ltd has done well. Inflated prices so much that even the government knows they are getting ripped off. So hence that’s why Qf isn’t picking up the flights. Jobkeeper is the gift that keeps on giving to aj. Doesn’t have to lift a finger, subsidised reduction in company liabilities. Sco mo should cut it and see how well aj manages.
Canberra is subsidising Qantas quite handsomely and getting nothing in return.
hotnhigh is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2020, 12:01
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Prison Island (WA)
Posts: 1,360
Iíve asked the question before, and Iíll ask it again...

Isnít JobKeeper a Government subsidy? Without it, Qantas would have to either pay 100% of wages themselves, or make people redundant. If a QF Pilot flies one of these freight flights, and would usually earn say $8000/fortnight, it is only costing QF $6500 to pay that pilot. The wages have been subsidised in the order of 18.75%. But instead itís easier to keep aircraft on the ground and act as a conduit for Govt handouts
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2020, 14:32
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 941
Originally Posted by Transition Layer View Post
Iíve asked the question before, and Iíll ask it again...

Isnít JobKeeper a Government subsidy? Without it, Qantas would have to either pay 100% of wages themselves, or make people redundant.
Jobkeeper was announced 2 weeks after the stand downs were enacted. When Jobkeeper ceases in March next year it will have zero effect on whether or not employees will be continue to be stood down, and it will not be a trigger for full pay or redundancies. Thereís nothing in legislation or EBAs dictating this. For instance Dnata employees were stood down but were not eligible for Jobkeeper as Dnata is foreign owned.

I also believe the $1500 pfn is only for employees stood down for that period. So a QF pilot up for a fortnight earning money in that fortnight would receive zero government subsidy.
dr dre is online now  
Old 1st Oct 2020, 15:52
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 216
Originally Posted by waren9 View Post
Link to subsidies please. Not links to loans I already pointed to.
The loan is being under written by the Kiwi government. Go to the market and see how you go for the same amount of capital. If itís that expensive then find the money at a cheaper rate? Whatís that? Yep no we canít raise that capital independently. Therefore in effect itís a subsidy.

Troo believer is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2020, 19:55
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Originally Posted by Troo believer View Post
The loan is being under written by the Kiwi government. Go to the market and see how you go for the same amount of capital. If it’s that expensive then find the money at a cheaper rate? What’s that? Yep no we can’t raise that capital independently. Therefore in effect it’s a subsidy.
AirNZ will indeed be going to the market for capital raising. Any money that needs to be paid back is not a subsidy, regardless of where it came from. No Govt loan will ever be “forgiven” either. It may be converted to an increased shareholding as has happened before. Either way, I see no subsidising going on that would enable AirNZ to operate any more cheaply than it already does.

I can’t tell if you’re being deliberately obtuse or you have some sort of prejudice against that airline.

Last edited by waren9; 1st Oct 2020 at 20:33.
waren9 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2020, 20:45
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 216
Originally Posted by waren9 View Post
AirNZ will indeed be going to the market for capital raising. Any money that needs to be paid back is not a subsidy, regardless of where it come from. No Govt loan will ever be “forgiven” either. It may be converted to an increased shareholding as has happened before. Either way, I see no subsidising going on that would enable AirNZ to operate any more cheaply than it already does.

I can’t tell if you’re being deliberately ignorant or you have some sort of prejudice against that airline.
And this is where a market distortion occurs. Whether it’s AirNZ or the ME3, SingAir it’s all the same. Airlines backed or financed via their respective governments that otherwise would be broke. So the debt could be converted into an increased shareholding if they can’t repay the debt. That’s an implicit guarantee is it not. Didn’t happen to Virgin. It was subject to market forces unlike most airlines on the IFAM list yet our own government thinks that’s fair. It’s an outrage and has been way before Covid high lighted the disparity even more so.
Troo believer is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2020, 21:09
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: I'm a wanderer
Age: 40
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by waren9 View Post

I canít tell if youíre being deliberately obtuse or you have some sort of prejudice against that airline.
I think just someone who has been stood down since April and hasn't gone on to find anything else useful to do with their time. But yet will blame everyone else for the problems, rather than looking at themselves.

(Yes, I have been stood down since then too and no, I haven't received any government support either).
empacher48 is online now  
Old 1st Oct 2020, 21:26
  #14 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 216
[QUOTE=empacher48;10896506]I think just someone who has been stood down since April and hasn't gone on to find anything else useful to do with their time. But yet will blame everyone else for the problems, rather than looking at themselves.

(Yes, I have been stood down since then too and no, I haven't received any government support either).[/QUOTE
Yes and no likewise. Just sticking up for whatís fair and asking why the Australian Government supports foreign owned government subsidised and or backed airlines over their own.
Troo believer is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2020, 16:48
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NQLD
Age: 34
Posts: 147
Because itís not about supporting QF/VA. The entire point of IFAM is to get the exports to their destination. Without Singair/EK/Qatar/Etc feeding freight from Australian destinations into their wider network, those exports would rot in Australia.

Whether QF or VA should be receiving the money, is entirely missing the point. VA only flew to LAX. QF also had a relatively limited international network within Asia (compared to big freight carriers). As other posters have mentioned, cargo has not been a big part of Aus airline ops.

Sometimes itís about more than just ďsupport Aussie airlinesĒ.
aviation_enthus is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2020, 18:33
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 216
Originally Posted by aviation_enthus View Post
Because it’s not about supporting QF/VA. The entire point of IFAM is to get the exports to their destination. Without Singair/EK/Qatar/Etc feeding freight from Australian destinations into their wider network, those exports would rot in Australia.

Whether QF or VA should be receiving the money, is entirely missing the point. VA only flew to LAX. QF also had a relatively limited international network within Asia (compared to big freight carriers). As other posters have mentioned, cargo has not been a big part of Aus airline ops.

Sometimes it’s about more than just “support Aussie airlines”.
Just remember that just supporting some Aussie Airlines is not some individual entities but thousands of men and women that have lost their jobs, their ability to earn an income and in some cases their families too.
What have you given up? What have you lost?
Some of the airlines mentioned are using passenger aircraft for IFAM not just dedicated freighters. The federal government could kill two birds with one stone by supporting Aussie’s without a job and future whilst assisting with moving freight. Charity begins at home does it not?
Troo believer is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2020, 00:25
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 467
Because it’s not about supporting QF/VA. The entire point of IFAM is to get the exports to their destination.
You are quite right but that is also a very narrow view to take. Consider the multi-billion dollar submarine fleet the federal government is buying. They are spending billions more to build them in Australia in order to support Australian industry. The main goal is to get a fleet of new subs but the secondary benefit is to support the industry in Australia. The IFAM should be looked at in the same way.

In a circular economy the money that you put into Australian companies and employees gets recycled back to support many more Australian jobs, it has a multiplying effect. Once you send that money offshore it then does nothing for the country.
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2020, 02:22
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 93
It's possible that QF and VA were 'offered' work prior to the formal IFAM and either declined for whatever reason, or couldn't make the numbers stack up.
At the start of the pandemic QF did a number of charter/repatriation flights which obviously weren't farmed out to the highest bidder. (eg from Wuhan/Tokyo etc)
lc_461 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2020, 02:28
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 941
Originally Posted by Beer Baron View Post
Consider the multi-billion dollar submarine fleet the federal government is buying. They are spending billions more to build them in Australia in order to support Australian industry. The main goal is to get a fleet of new subs but the secondary benefit is to support the industry in Australia. The IFAM should be looked at in the same way.
The airline industry hasnít bribed and lobbied the government as effectively as the weapons manufacturing industry Iím afraid.
dr dre is online now  
Old 3rd Oct 2020, 03:39
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Outofoz
Posts: 678
AJ pty Ltd isn't interested. It doesn't fit the mantra!
Rather have fleets entirely grounded and use psychological warfare on staff, rather than attempt to keep it ticking it over.
https://australianaviation.com.au/20...-repatriation/
hotnhigh is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.