Virgin 3.1
That's not a proper interpretation of the Treasurer's powers under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975, the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Impositions Act 2015 and their associated regulations. Airlines fall under the heading of 'sensitive businesses' which means that the Treasurer's approval is required for any transaction involving any foreign investor acquiring a 'substantial interest' (20 per cent or more) of any Australian-registered airline that is valued above $275 million.
Just because approval was given for a US-based company to acquire 100 per cent of a sensitive business that doesn't obviate the requirement for subsequent acquisitions to have to be approved.
Just because approval was given for a US-based company to acquire 100 per cent of a sensitive business that doesn't obviate the requirement for subsequent acquisitions to have to be approved.
Well done Mr Costello - one investor saved the transaction from going through and APA itself collapsed months later.
Costello is from the same shower of ****e that sold the Port of Darwin under a 99 year lease to a Chinese company with links to the CCP - didn't even tell the yanks who use the port as part of joint defense arrangements.
So, I won't be holding my breath waiting for the actual national interest to be served, more likely personal interest - the 'Minister' that approved the DRW Port sale now allegedly draws a salary of $800K PA from the company that bought it.
I’m guessing a Chinese carrier with very deep pockets will buy Virgin when it’s for sale and QF group will become the underdog .
There will be no way to stop the sale as it’s already foreign owned .
I’m really disappointed at the money given to both Airlines , why doesn’t the government demands a share of equity in each at least for the future fund !
There will be no way to stop the sale as it’s already foreign owned .
I’m really disappointed at the money given to both Airlines , why doesn’t the government demands a share of equity in each at least for the future fund !
That's him!!!!!!! "In Amsterdam, they have a bike track alongside a river. In Australia there'd be a fences and signs and warning lables. Not in Amsterdam, they trust people. Hey, if you're wet, you're in the wrong bit!!!!"
True, but it's only as strong as the imbecile who is the Treasurer - Mr 'All tip and no iceberg' Costello blithely approved of the sale to APA of Qantas - even after journalists had pinned down APA and they'd reluctantly admitted that their plan for Qantas included emptying its bank accounts and stripping it of assets, loading it to the ceiling and beyond with debt then hoping that it trades its way out before flogging it off (if it still existed).
What was most assuredly part of the public record were the details of the legally enforceable Deed of Undertaking provided by APA that:
- Foreign majority ownership of Qantas would not occur.
- Foreign control of Qantas would not occur.
- A majority of directors of Qantas must be Australian citizens.
- Qantas must remain based in Australia.
- A guaranteed capital investment program of $10 billion over the next five years would occur.
- Qantas facilities for the provision of scheduled services, maintenance, housing of aircraft, catering, flight operations, training and administration must be located in Australia.
- Qantas and Jetstar would expand internationally and within Australia.
- The Qantas Group would offer an integrated network of international, domestic and regional air transport services
- The Qantas Group will support regional capacity growth and regional network improvement.
- Maintenance, repair and overhaul operations will continue with a view to building on existing capabilities for wide and narrow bodied maintenance to create an onshore globally competitive in house maintenance repair and overhaul operation.
- Qantas would continue its Frequent Flyer Programme with no loss of frequent flyer points.
I can't find any reporting consistent with that assertion, perhaps you have a reference for that. I'd be fascinated to hear who these 'journalists' were who allegedly managed to extract such damming admissions from APA ostensibly before FIRB approval had even been recommended. Surely they won Walkleys for that sort of journalistic prowess.
What was most assuredly part of the public record were the details of the legally enforceable Deed of Undertaking provided by APA that:
APA was a consortium put together such that it complied with the ownership requirements spelled out in the Qantas Sales Act 1992 with the sole purpose of acquiring Qantas. When their bid to acquire Qantas failed there was no reason to maintain the consortium.
What was most assuredly part of the public record were the details of the legally enforceable Deed of Undertaking provided by APA that:
- Foreign majority ownership of Qantas would not occur.
- Foreign control of Qantas would not occur.
- A majority of directors of Qantas must be Australian citizens.
- Qantas must remain based in Australia.
- A guaranteed capital investment program of $10 billion over the next five years would occur.
- Qantas facilities for the provision of scheduled services, maintenance, housing of aircraft, catering, flight operations, training and administration must be located in Australia.
- Qantas and Jetstar would expand internationally and within Australia.
- The Qantas Group would offer an integrated network of international, domestic and regional air transport services
- The Qantas Group will support regional capacity growth and regional network improvement.
- Maintenance, repair and overhaul operations will continue with a view to building on existing capabilities for wide and narrow bodied maintenance to create an onshore globally competitive in house maintenance repair and overhaul operation.
- Qantas would continue its Frequent Flyer Programme with no loss of frequent flyer points.
APA was a consortium put together such that it complied with the ownership requirements spelled out in the Qantas Sales Act 1992 with the sole purpose of acquiring Qantas. When their bid to acquire Qantas failed there was no reason to maintain the consortium.
I can't find any reporting consistent with that assertion, perhaps you have a reference for that. I'd be fascinated to hear who these 'journalists' were who allegedly managed to extract such damming admissions from APA ostensibly before FIRB approval had even been recommended. Surely they won Walkleys for that sort of journalistic prowess.
What was most assuredly part of the public record were the details of the legally enforceable Deed of Undertaking provided by APA that:
APA was a consortium put together such that it complied with the ownership requirements spelled out in the Qantas Sales Act 1992 with the sole purpose of acquiring Qantas. When their bid to acquire Qantas failed there was no reason to maintain the consortium.
What was most assuredly part of the public record were the details of the legally enforceable Deed of Undertaking provided by APA that:
- Foreign majority ownership of Qantas would not occur.
- Foreign control of Qantas would not occur.
- A majority of directors of Qantas must be Australian citizens.
- Qantas must remain based in Australia.
- A guaranteed capital investment program of $10 billion over the next five years would occur.
- Qantas facilities for the provision of scheduled services, maintenance, housing of aircraft, catering, flight operations, training and administration must be located in Australia.
- Qantas and Jetstar would expand internationally and within Australia.
- The Qantas Group would offer an integrated network of international, domestic and regional air transport services
- The Qantas Group will support regional capacity growth and regional network improvement.
- Maintenance, repair and overhaul operations will continue with a view to building on existing capabilities for wide and narrow bodied maintenance to create an onshore globally competitive in house maintenance repair and overhaul operation.
- Qantas would continue its Frequent Flyer Programme with no loss of frequent flyer points.
APA was a consortium put together such that it complied with the ownership requirements spelled out in the Qantas Sales Act 1992 with the sole purpose of acquiring Qantas. When their bid to acquire Qantas failed there was no reason to maintain the consortium.
You must have sourced some of your material from the media or journalists because you referred to the "Qantas SALES Act" - I remember journalists incessantly getting this wrong at the time - it's the 'Qantas Sale Act 1992 (Cwth)'.
The reporting at the time said the company had collapsed. You can mince the words any way you like, there was NOTHING beneficial in that bid for Qantas or Australia. Seriously, 'must remain in Australian hands', yeh, by some orchestrated manipulation of shareholding like VA International, Ansett International, et al. A tiny percentage of the equity in Ansett was assigned to a shelf company called 'Ansett International' so that it technically 'complied' with the 'rules'. I don't see AN International still flying after NZ cut the AN subsidiary loose.......
You must have sourced some of your material from the media or journalists because you referred to the "Qantas SALES Act" - I remember journalists incessantly getting this wrong at the time - it's the 'Qantas Sale Act 1992 (Cwth)'.
You must have sourced some of your material from the media or journalists because you referred to the "Qantas SALES Act" - I remember journalists incessantly getting this wrong at the time - it's the 'Qantas Sale Act 1992 (Cwth)'.
You can argue till the cows come home about whether the APA buyout of Qantas would have been good, bad, neutral, better, worse or indifferent. On the basis that Qantas's subsequent management has been pilloried almost incessantly since then it's probably not difficult to make an argument that APA couldn't have been worse. The truth of the matter is that we'll never know.
As was noted by many at the time, though, the restrictions of the Deed of Undertaking went well beyond anything binding the then current management of the airline and the $10 billion in investment went beyond anything the airline was then capable of.
So no reference to that journalistic scoop you were wailing on Costello about, an irrelevant reference to Virgin and Ansett International and pointing out a spelling mistake on my part (you're quite correct, it's Sale (singular) not Sales).
You can argue till the cows come home about whether the APA buyout of Qantas would have been good, bad, neutral, better, worse or indifferent. On the basis that Qantas's subsequent management has been pilloried almost incessantly since then it's probably not difficult to make an argument that APA couldn't have been worse. The truth of the matter is that we'll never know.
As was noted by many at the time, though, the restrictions of the Deed of Undertaking went well beyond anything binding the then current management of the airline and the $10 billion in investment went beyond anything the airline was then capable of.
You can argue till the cows come home about whether the APA buyout of Qantas would have been good, bad, neutral, better, worse or indifferent. On the basis that Qantas's subsequent management has been pilloried almost incessantly since then it's probably not difficult to make an argument that APA couldn't have been worse. The truth of the matter is that we'll never know.
As was noted by many at the time, though, the restrictions of the Deed of Undertaking went well beyond anything binding the then current management of the airline and the $10 billion in investment went beyond anything the airline was then capable of.
Looking at just a smattering of LNP trade agreements and other 'rules and regulations' they've created over the years, most have turned out to have holes you could drive a truck through. I mean, this is the same treasurer who, against all advice, sold the Commonwealth's entire gold reserves almost and here we are 20 years later and those reserves are worth substantially more in real dollar terms except they belong to someone else now. Great job Pete and John.
We've seen piss-weak 'regulators' created by the LNP and just recently in Victoria, the Casino regulator set up by Kennett has turned out to be a lame-duck, despite all the rules and regulations passed at the time (and yes, subsequent governments of both colours share responsibility for not fixing it) but it all leads me to be suspect that any 'Deed', enthusiastically endorsed as extensive by the LNP-fawning press is likely to have had the same weak-willed enforcement.
Just one example of this would be the free trade agreement signed with Thailand by the current government. It was supposedly a 'free trade' agreement and thus allowed Thai built cars to be imported in Australia but what they didn't tell you was there were multiple clauses that effectively allowed tariffs to be applied to Holden cars exported to Thailand (when I lived there, there was often Statesmans and Commodores on display in shopping centres as 'luxury' vehicles).
I heard the reports with my own ears about APA - I may not be able to find them but they did exist. It is obvious the Board at the time endorsed the offer because it was 'compelling' and 'represented a premium over the traded price' - don't recall any mention of enthusiastic endorsement of the plans for QF.
As for now, I see airlines all over the world folding in this crisis and Qantas isn't one of them so the current management can't be THAT bad.
I might add, as opposed to extensive pages on this forum 6-7 years ago lauding what a genius and a saviour JB was, along with the cronies he brought with him to VA, constant waving of the flag about he was going to take the fight to Qantas and take its market.
Yeh, all the same things were said about him and his acumen that were said about APA in some quarters - well, we know how JB's tenure ended and the affect it had on VA ultimately.
But we agree on one thing, we will never know because it didn't happen. However, the evidence of such takeovers around the world are smattered with very few successes and mostly disaster. Often even the disasters are not entirely evident because of someone coming in later and having to put it all back together.
Sure, why not? In the absence of any corroboration at all we'll just accept that journalists (plural) were somehow able to get APA to admit, at a precarious stage of the acquisition process in advance of securing a recommendation for FIRB approval, that they planned to asset strip Qantas and essentially contravene parts of the Deed of Undertaking that underpinned the acquisition; then not only the Treasurer but also the entire membership of the Foreign Investment Review Board chose to ignore that; said journalists (plural) then amazingly either failed to attend the Costello/Vaile press conference on 7 March 2007 at which FIRB approval was announced or remained silent and none of their colleagues even bothered to pursue that line of questioning; and Qantas as we know it was saved only by happenstance. For sure, that was all a thing.
Further, in what's got to be close to a record for the most thread drift in the least posts, we get to the LNP knowing nothing about regulation or trade.
Let's set out on that perilously long and somewhat challenging journey to get back on topic - and the original question of whether FIRB approval for a Chinese investor to acquire Virgin from Bain is likely.
Unless Chairman Dan, of sign me up for CCP Belt and Road Initiative fame, makes it to the Federal Treasury benches the likelihood of that happening is essentially zero. It simply is not going to happen under a Coalition government given the current and foreseeable relationship with China.
Further, in what's got to be close to a record for the most thread drift in the least posts, we get to the LNP knowing nothing about regulation or trade.
Let's set out on that perilously long and somewhat challenging journey to get back on topic - and the original question of whether FIRB approval for a Chinese investor to acquire Virgin from Bain is likely.
Unless Chairman Dan, of sign me up for CCP Belt and Road Initiative fame, makes it to the Federal Treasury benches the likelihood of that happening is essentially zero. It simply is not going to happen under a Coalition government given the current and foreseeable relationship with China.
Last edited by MickG0105; 10th Jul 2021 at 05:03. Reason: Tidy up
Unless Chairman Dan, of sign me up for CCP Belt and Road Initiative fame, makes it to the Federal Treasury benches the likelihood of that happening is essentially zero. It simply is not going to happen under a Coalition government given the current and foreseeable relationship with China.
I heard a rumour the A330 in Perth is going to be scrapped for parts?
Apparently can’t be repaired (gear) due Airbus won’t allow a ferry and the Airport not allowing it to be fixed on its land after they have already stuffed the apron trying to fix it.
Apparently can’t be repaired (gear) due Airbus won’t allow a ferry and the Airport not allowing it to be fixed on its land after they have already stuffed the apron trying to fix it.
i can’t imagine anyone wanting to jack a A330 on a stand open to the elements and there’s no hangar in PER that can accommodate it.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those of us in the back of the class who haven't been paying attention, what is the story with this one? Sounds interesting...
I saw it in Perth just the other day as it was my first time there since COVID.
It sparked my curiosity. However the captain was adamant it was going back to the lessor very soon as it’s been getting some work done over at T1/T2 on the odd day here and there
It sparked my curiosity. However the captain was adamant it was going back to the lessor very soon as it’s been getting some work done over at T1/T2 on the odd day here and there
