Sing Air ponders domestic route
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: SE ASIA
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard Kranium
Would these ex AN guys on " the list " you refer to, be the same ones that rushed to the courts to prevent their ex colleagues from returning to their former jobs on the grounds that it would be unsafe for the two groups to coexist in the same cockpit?
Would these ex AN guys on " the list " you refer to, be the same ones that rushed to the courts to prevent their ex colleagues from returning to their former jobs on the grounds that it would be unsafe for the two groups to coexist in the same cockpit?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: GAFA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dehavilland,
True it does take a long time to add an aircraft to an AOC and I don't think they would use the Alliance AOC, but Alliance will be a big part of the operation. I was just trying to get people thinking outside the square.
True it does take a long time to add an aircraft to an AOC and I don't think they would use the Alliance AOC, but Alliance will be a big part of the operation. I was just trying to get people thinking outside the square.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From NZ Herald
Rival scoffs at Ansett talk
06.09.2002
By GREG ANSLEY Australia correspondent
CANBERRA - The Australian aviation industry yesterday remained sceptical of rumours that Singapore Airlines plans to resurrect failed Air NZ subsidiary Ansett.
Reports of a proposed new Ansett fleet of 24 Airbuses surfaced after Sydney Airports Corporation confirmed it had been in discussions with Singapore, and followed months of speculation that the airline intended to launch a domestic carrier in Australia.
Singapore had wanted to buy Ansett before the Air NZ takeover, and suffered heavily from the airline's collapse last year through its stake in Air NZ.
But Singapore remains a partner with Air NZ in the Star Alliance, and both carriers have been without an Australian alliance feeder since the disappearance of Ansett and the failure of several bids to put the airline back into the air.
Analysts have suggested that Singapore may be allowing rumours of a resurrected Ansett to circulate to keep its options open and to maintain pressure on Qantas and Virgin Blue.
Singapore is understood to be concerned that Qantas will succeed in winning a 25 per cent stake in Air NZ, creating a larger and more potent rival and possibly removing the New Zealand carrier from the Star Alliance.
But with the massive start-up costs involved in putting a large fleet of aircraft into operation, and the disastrous history of new airline ventures in Australia, analysts doubt that Singapore is seriously considering relaunching Ansett.
Virgin Blue yesterday dismissed the reports of a born-again Ansett.
Virgin Australia chief executive Brett Godfrey said Ansett's brand had been hammered by its collapse and it was unlikely that anyone would try to again fly under it.
Talk of 24 jets in the air soon was "irresponsible", and he challenged Singapore Airlines to confirm or deny the reports.
Singapore Airlines spokesman Innes Wilcox said the carrier was keeping the door open.
"Australia is obviously a market of interest to us because we have almost 70 services a week into Australia," he said."We obviously are keeping our options open."
06.09.2002
By GREG ANSLEY Australia correspondent
CANBERRA - The Australian aviation industry yesterday remained sceptical of rumours that Singapore Airlines plans to resurrect failed Air NZ subsidiary Ansett.
Reports of a proposed new Ansett fleet of 24 Airbuses surfaced after Sydney Airports Corporation confirmed it had been in discussions with Singapore, and followed months of speculation that the airline intended to launch a domestic carrier in Australia.
Singapore had wanted to buy Ansett before the Air NZ takeover, and suffered heavily from the airline's collapse last year through its stake in Air NZ.
But Singapore remains a partner with Air NZ in the Star Alliance, and both carriers have been without an Australian alliance feeder since the disappearance of Ansett and the failure of several bids to put the airline back into the air.
Analysts have suggested that Singapore may be allowing rumours of a resurrected Ansett to circulate to keep its options open and to maintain pressure on Qantas and Virgin Blue.
Singapore is understood to be concerned that Qantas will succeed in winning a 25 per cent stake in Air NZ, creating a larger and more potent rival and possibly removing the New Zealand carrier from the Star Alliance.
But with the massive start-up costs involved in putting a large fleet of aircraft into operation, and the disastrous history of new airline ventures in Australia, analysts doubt that Singapore is seriously considering relaunching Ansett.
Virgin Blue yesterday dismissed the reports of a born-again Ansett.
Virgin Australia chief executive Brett Godfrey said Ansett's brand had been hammered by its collapse and it was unlikely that anyone would try to again fly under it.
Talk of 24 jets in the air soon was "irresponsible", and he challenged Singapore Airlines to confirm or deny the reports.
Singapore Airlines spokesman Innes Wilcox said the carrier was keeping the door open.
"Australia is obviously a market of interest to us because we have almost 70 services a week into Australia," he said."We obviously are keeping our options open."
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ansett Australia
In January 2000, I was present at a meeting of Ansett management in Melbourne, to discuss a relaunch of the "Ansett Australia" brand, prior to the Sydney Olympic Games.
The scope of the project included a strategy to reduce costs and rationalise the route network.
The vision of the new network would have seen Ansett aircraft fly only SYD-MEL-BNE-PER and key ADL & CBR flights.
To my surprise, it was openly discussed that Virgin would service every "leisure" sector in strategic co-operation, from the Ansett terminals.
Later, the nature of these projects were changed, due to the purchase of Ansett by Air New Zealand.
The new entrant in Australian skies, began its life I believe, at that time.
The same format of operation has since been reflected by the TESNA bid and speculative SQ reports.
The scope of the project included a strategy to reduce costs and rationalise the route network.
The vision of the new network would have seen Ansett aircraft fly only SYD-MEL-BNE-PER and key ADL & CBR flights.
To my surprise, it was openly discussed that Virgin would service every "leisure" sector in strategic co-operation, from the Ansett terminals.
Later, the nature of these projects were changed, due to the purchase of Ansett by Air New Zealand.
The new entrant in Australian skies, began its life I believe, at that time.
The same format of operation has since been reflected by the TESNA bid and speculative SQ reports.
short flights long nights
Well I have to be short, otherwise Woomera will lock me.
All Iam saying RK is, AN used standards for its employment criteria, and as you say, "loyalty" was one of them. That was their right.
I believe it is also the right of any other airline to use their own standards. If airline ABC wants all pilots to have green hair, that is their right. Ansett decided that loyalty of a pilot was displayed by a certain group of actions, another airline may decide differently. I cant see a problem. We all know of people who missed out at ABC ( because their hair was pink), but got a job at XYZ.
There is more to employment than lots of hours in a log book, and dedication to a previous employer. As I said before, each airline has its own "make-up" ( not only in OZ, but world wide). That make up is influenced by many things, and as a new intake pilot (which regardless of how much experience a pilot has, he will always be), the company must decide if the new pilot will fit into its Company make-up and "culture".
If you do great, if not..well thats how it goes. A pilot may have fitted very well into the AN culture, but in the opinion of ZDB airlines, have no hope of fitting into theirs, thats the way it is.
Well its not short, so I guess I face a lock, I will post at my peril
All Iam saying RK is, AN used standards for its employment criteria, and as you say, "loyalty" was one of them. That was their right.
I believe it is also the right of any other airline to use their own standards. If airline ABC wants all pilots to have green hair, that is their right. Ansett decided that loyalty of a pilot was displayed by a certain group of actions, another airline may decide differently. I cant see a problem. We all know of people who missed out at ABC ( because their hair was pink), but got a job at XYZ.
There is more to employment than lots of hours in a log book, and dedication to a previous employer. As I said before, each airline has its own "make-up" ( not only in OZ, but world wide). That make up is influenced by many things, and as a new intake pilot (which regardless of how much experience a pilot has, he will always be), the company must decide if the new pilot will fit into its Company make-up and "culture".
If you do great, if not..well thats how it goes. A pilot may have fitted very well into the AN culture, but in the opinion of ZDB airlines, have no hope of fitting into theirs, thats the way it is.
Well its not short, so I guess I face a lock, I will post at my peril
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Singapore Airlines, Rex in talks
From correspondents in Singapore
September 07, 2002
SINGAPORE Airlines (SIA) is in talks with an Australian domestic airline, a Singapore report said today.
The report has fuelled speculation that the Singapore carrier is actively seeking a slice of Australian domestic travel.
Discussions on an "interline" agreement with SIA began about a fortnight ago, Armon Hicks, a spokesman for Australia's newest airline Regional Express (Rex), told the Straits Times.
The deal, if it goes through, would allow passengers landing at any of the five Australian cities now served by SIA to go on to 31 other destinations in the country without having to check in their bags again or make separate bookings.
An SIA spokesman treated the latest talk of an Australian venture the same as recent market rumours, saying the airline will "rule nothing in or out. We are leaving our options open with regards to the Australian domestic market".
Among various market rumours has been a suggestion that SIA was considering a proposal to revive Australia's collapsed Ansett airline.
Sydney Airports Corp Ltd spokesman Peter Gibbs told reporters that an SIA evaluation team had inspected the former Ansett terminal at Sydney Airport.
But Ansett lawyer Leon Zwier said this week there had been no discussion with Singapore Airlines.
"We're not sitting down to talks ... we're not doing deals with Ansett names or parts, although if they want to talk to us they would be welcome."
Ansett provided a feeder service for SIA passengers before its sensational collapse last year.
Since Ansett's demise, the Star Alliance group of airlines, including SIA, has lacked a presence in the Australian domestic market, which analysts estimate is costing the Singapore operation hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Analysts have put the total value of the Australian domestic airline market at nearly 10 billion Singapore dollars ($A10.6 billion).
Qantas has now picked up about 80 per cent of the Australian domestic market, with British tycoon Richard Branson's cut-price carrier Virgin Blue picking up the remainder.
Aviation analysts say that even if SIA seals an agreement with Rex it would not fill the vacuum left by Ansett, as Rex has only two per cent of the market and does not fly key routes such as Melbourne-Sydney.
Rex spokesman Hicks said the new carrier was also in talks with both Qantas and Virgin Blue.
September 07, 2002
SINGAPORE Airlines (SIA) is in talks with an Australian domestic airline, a Singapore report said today.
The report has fuelled speculation that the Singapore carrier is actively seeking a slice of Australian domestic travel.
Discussions on an "interline" agreement with SIA began about a fortnight ago, Armon Hicks, a spokesman for Australia's newest airline Regional Express (Rex), told the Straits Times.
The deal, if it goes through, would allow passengers landing at any of the five Australian cities now served by SIA to go on to 31 other destinations in the country without having to check in their bags again or make separate bookings.
An SIA spokesman treated the latest talk of an Australian venture the same as recent market rumours, saying the airline will "rule nothing in or out. We are leaving our options open with regards to the Australian domestic market".
Among various market rumours has been a suggestion that SIA was considering a proposal to revive Australia's collapsed Ansett airline.
Sydney Airports Corp Ltd spokesman Peter Gibbs told reporters that an SIA evaluation team had inspected the former Ansett terminal at Sydney Airport.
But Ansett lawyer Leon Zwier said this week there had been no discussion with Singapore Airlines.
"We're not sitting down to talks ... we're not doing deals with Ansett names or parts, although if they want to talk to us they would be welcome."
Ansett provided a feeder service for SIA passengers before its sensational collapse last year.
Since Ansett's demise, the Star Alliance group of airlines, including SIA, has lacked a presence in the Australian domestic market, which analysts estimate is costing the Singapore operation hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Analysts have put the total value of the Australian domestic airline market at nearly 10 billion Singapore dollars ($A10.6 billion).
Qantas has now picked up about 80 per cent of the Australian domestic market, with British tycoon Richard Branson's cut-price carrier Virgin Blue picking up the remainder.
Aviation analysts say that even if SIA seals an agreement with Rex it would not fill the vacuum left by Ansett, as Rex has only two per cent of the market and does not fly key routes such as Melbourne-Sydney.
Rex spokesman Hicks said the new carrier was also in talks with both Qantas and Virgin Blue.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: GAFA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From ABC online today.
Melbourne and Sydney duel over new airline
Melbourne and Sydney Airports have confirmed they are competing heavily against each other to convince Singapore Airlines to base a domestic airline in their ports.
Singapore Airlines has completed a detailed feasibility study into the viability of a third Australian domestic airline, and has held talks with both airports.
It is proposing a two class carrier to fill the niche between Virgin and Qantas, with regular flights between Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and possibly Adelaide or Perth.
Melbourne Airport's Chris Barlow has told ABC's Inside Business there is a lot of competition between the local airports to secure the much-talked-about airline.
"We're all in competition with each other," he said.
"I mean, I'm all the time trying to grab some traffic from Sydney and I'm sure in reverse that's what's happening as well.
"I'm sure any airline that wanted to start an operation in Australia, we here in Melbourne will be very keen to have them," he said
Melbourne and Sydney duel over new airline
Melbourne and Sydney Airports have confirmed they are competing heavily against each other to convince Singapore Airlines to base a domestic airline in their ports.
Singapore Airlines has completed a detailed feasibility study into the viability of a third Australian domestic airline, and has held talks with both airports.
It is proposing a two class carrier to fill the niche between Virgin and Qantas, with regular flights between Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and possibly Adelaide or Perth.
Melbourne Airport's Chris Barlow has told ABC's Inside Business there is a lot of competition between the local airports to secure the much-talked-about airline.
"We're all in competition with each other," he said.
"I mean, I'm all the time trying to grab some traffic from Sydney and I'm sure in reverse that's what's happening as well.
"I'm sure any airline that wanted to start an operation in Australia, we here in Melbourne will be very keen to have them," he said
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I know we are all mad.
I suppose this must be one of the "benefits" of "privatisation".
We get to fight amongst ourselves, or at least see who will bend over quicker and how deep they will cop it, so that a foreign owned entity can come and play merry hell within our domestic airline sector in a way that would be verboten in their own country.
What price a few jobs eh.
And all this is benefiting who???
Melbourne Airport's Chris Barlow has told ABC's Inside Business there is a lot of competition between the local airports to secure the much-talked-about airline.
"We're all in competition with each other," he said.
"I mean, I'm all the time trying to grab some traffic from Sydney and I'm sure in reverse that's what's happening as well.
"I'm sure any airline that wanted to start an operation in Australia, we here in Melbourne will be very keen to have them," he said
"We're all in competition with each other," he said.
"I mean, I'm all the time trying to grab some traffic from Sydney and I'm sure in reverse that's what's happening as well.
"I'm sure any airline that wanted to start an operation in Australia, we here in Melbourne will be very keen to have them," he said
We get to fight amongst ourselves, or at least see who will bend over quicker and how deep they will cop it, so that a foreign owned entity can come and play merry hell within our domestic airline sector in a way that would be verboten in their own country.
What price a few jobs eh.
And all this is benefiting who???
Gaunty
You turn coat.
When a foreign owned VB entered the market you thought it terrific for Australian aviation.
Your stance clearly anti-Singaporian,anti-Ansett but pro-Virgin Blue.
Only a Nazi could better use cheap nationalism as vindication for their own personal views.
You turn coat.
When a foreign owned VB entered the market you thought it terrific for Australian aviation.
Your stance clearly anti-Singaporian,anti-Ansett but pro-Virgin Blue.
Only a Nazi could better use cheap nationalism as vindication for their own personal views.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnadenburg
I still think VB was/is good for Australian aviation now and in the context of their entry to Oz aviation.
They came into the market way before AN went tits up and worked their plan which worked dragging AN and QF screaming into the real world with a fair structure and strategy that actually stimulated or increased the market as a whole.
As a result we now have travel opportunities of which we could only dream.
That was then this is now.
Notwithstanding that, I am, actually, a QF FF and only a sometime VB user.
SQ had the same opportunity but they chose to try and play a spoiling game in the process of which outsmarted themselves.
Anti Ansett where did you get that idea from, I used to be a huge fan of AN, with a wad of AN boarding pass stubs that would choke a horse, until the arrival of Mr Abeles and his retinue of thugs, notwithstanding their then superior service.
I did not fly them again (the clients choice) until about 9 months before their demise and was really truly shocked at how far down the ladder they had slid after his and Rods depredations.
After that flight, Easter and the end was no surprise at all.
The staff did not deserve the Tesna fiasco, or the union inspired ditching of the bona fide buyer in the first weeks.
One can only hope that one day it will all be aired in court and some people brought to justice, when the staff finally realise just how badly they got "handled".
AN got half the the very high, gauranteed and protected revenue for all those years and p!ssed it all up against the wall. Of course they could afford to be the best when they were gauranteed a profit.
So I'm not entitled to a personal view it appears, nationalist, you bet your a&se, you can call it cheap and you can even invoke the nazi spectre if you wish to diminish yourself and the argument, but personally, I'm sick and tired of Australia and Australians being defensive about our relations with our northern neighbours or anyone else for that matter in the cause of dollars.
I'll let you into a little secret but a few colleagues and I and a couple of other Oz companies actually helped put SQ on the map, way way back and fought a guerilla war with QF who were the IATA area Gorilla in the process. This allowed them to utilise their reciprocal landing rights more fully and add if I recall well over 50,000 seats per year out of Oz in their transition from B707 to B747. We did this by selling seats out of Oz to London return for getting close to half a Perth Sydney fare.
We made money, they made money and we all parted happilly.
This was Kangaroo Route revenue that QF would not believe existed until we showed em how and they came into the game. The revenue out of Australia always "belonged" to QF, but by the time they woke up SQ had a fairly good grip on a good part of it.
That was then this is now.
Australia is over represented in most areas of sport, finance, business, science you name it. We are also respected for calling a spade a spade.
Why then do we just sit and cop it, calmly discussing what would be in most self respecting countries, unthinkable, yet be mortally afraid that we should upset anyone.
I nearly puked when I read the self serving claptrap in the Singaporean article about the "cleverness" of the Singaporean investors deal in Rex.
If that is the best we can do with an important regional communication asset then we are really in trouble as a country.
I just happen to believe that SQ as an airline or culture has nothing of value to add to our national transport infrastucture, that will or cannot be provided by the natural growth of the incumbents.
I thought Blind Freddy could see that the last thing we need right now is another carrier repatriating transport profits overseas, and yes I include VB and QF, at a time when we desperately need it to rebuild our infrastructure.
I also happen to believe that our airline infrastructure is an essential part of the fabric of our national social structure (there goes that nazi again) and would resist any further sell down of QF for that reason.
Australia like the US is a big country, Australia unlike the US has a small widely dispersed population that nonetheless relies like the US on air services as the main form of communication.
That more than 2 thirds of it is or would be controlled by foreign entities is unthinkable.
Likewise Telstra and the Commonwealth Bank.
I seem to recall having to prove that I was British, in the days before we became Australian before I could be issued with an Australian pilot and Flt Radio Telephone Operators license, how prescient were they then given the approach of 9/11.
The US with all of its industrial and economic might guards its airline, systems, control and ownership as jealously as it guards its defence assets and its freedom.
I suspect they have good nationalistic reasons to so do.
I'd like to see you call them nazis, guilty of cheap nationalism as vindication, because this is so.
I'd like to see SQ or any non US entity try and set up a domestic operation there anytime soon.
Can anyone give me a good reason why they should be allowed too here.
If that makes me a nazi then I guess I must be.
I still think VB was/is good for Australian aviation now and in the context of their entry to Oz aviation.
They came into the market way before AN went tits up and worked their plan which worked dragging AN and QF screaming into the real world with a fair structure and strategy that actually stimulated or increased the market as a whole.
As a result we now have travel opportunities of which we could only dream.
That was then this is now.
Notwithstanding that, I am, actually, a QF FF and only a sometime VB user.
SQ had the same opportunity but they chose to try and play a spoiling game in the process of which outsmarted themselves.
Anti Ansett where did you get that idea from, I used to be a huge fan of AN, with a wad of AN boarding pass stubs that would choke a horse, until the arrival of Mr Abeles and his retinue of thugs, notwithstanding their then superior service.
I did not fly them again (the clients choice) until about 9 months before their demise and was really truly shocked at how far down the ladder they had slid after his and Rods depredations.
After that flight, Easter and the end was no surprise at all.
The staff did not deserve the Tesna fiasco, or the union inspired ditching of the bona fide buyer in the first weeks.
One can only hope that one day it will all be aired in court and some people brought to justice, when the staff finally realise just how badly they got "handled".
AN got half the the very high, gauranteed and protected revenue for all those years and p!ssed it all up against the wall. Of course they could afford to be the best when they were gauranteed a profit.
So I'm not entitled to a personal view it appears, nationalist, you bet your a&se, you can call it cheap and you can even invoke the nazi spectre if you wish to diminish yourself and the argument, but personally, I'm sick and tired of Australia and Australians being defensive about our relations with our northern neighbours or anyone else for that matter in the cause of dollars.
I'll let you into a little secret but a few colleagues and I and a couple of other Oz companies actually helped put SQ on the map, way way back and fought a guerilla war with QF who were the IATA area Gorilla in the process. This allowed them to utilise their reciprocal landing rights more fully and add if I recall well over 50,000 seats per year out of Oz in their transition from B707 to B747. We did this by selling seats out of Oz to London return for getting close to half a Perth Sydney fare.
We made money, they made money and we all parted happilly.
This was Kangaroo Route revenue that QF would not believe existed until we showed em how and they came into the game. The revenue out of Australia always "belonged" to QF, but by the time they woke up SQ had a fairly good grip on a good part of it.
That was then this is now.
Australia is over represented in most areas of sport, finance, business, science you name it. We are also respected for calling a spade a spade.
Why then do we just sit and cop it, calmly discussing what would be in most self respecting countries, unthinkable, yet be mortally afraid that we should upset anyone.
I nearly puked when I read the self serving claptrap in the Singaporean article about the "cleverness" of the Singaporean investors deal in Rex.
If that is the best we can do with an important regional communication asset then we are really in trouble as a country.
I just happen to believe that SQ as an airline or culture has nothing of value to add to our national transport infrastucture, that will or cannot be provided by the natural growth of the incumbents.
I thought Blind Freddy could see that the last thing we need right now is another carrier repatriating transport profits overseas, and yes I include VB and QF, at a time when we desperately need it to rebuild our infrastructure.
I also happen to believe that our airline infrastructure is an essential part of the fabric of our national social structure (there goes that nazi again) and would resist any further sell down of QF for that reason.
Australia like the US is a big country, Australia unlike the US has a small widely dispersed population that nonetheless relies like the US on air services as the main form of communication.
That more than 2 thirds of it is or would be controlled by foreign entities is unthinkable.
Likewise Telstra and the Commonwealth Bank.
I seem to recall having to prove that I was British, in the days before we became Australian before I could be issued with an Australian pilot and Flt Radio Telephone Operators license, how prescient were they then given the approach of 9/11.
The US with all of its industrial and economic might guards its airline, systems, control and ownership as jealously as it guards its defence assets and its freedom.
I suspect they have good nationalistic reasons to so do.
I'd like to see you call them nazis, guilty of cheap nationalism as vindication, because this is so.
I'd like to see SQ or any non US entity try and set up a domestic operation there anytime soon.
Can anyone give me a good reason why they should be allowed too here.
If that makes me a nazi then I guess I must be.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Sydney.
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With reference to all the speculation last week about SIA possibly reviving Ansett, this was part of an aricle in this morning's "Australian":
"A YEAR after the dramatic collapse of Ansett, the failed airline's administrators are wasting no opportunities to milk whatever money they can from the shell of the Australian airline."
AND
"They are even trying to sell the tainted Ansett brand name, although administrator Mark Korda said he had heard nothing from Singapore airlines, who were rumoured at one stage to be seeking to revive it."
Mark Korda seems to have sunk that rumour.
"A YEAR after the dramatic collapse of Ansett, the failed airline's administrators are wasting no opportunities to milk whatever money they can from the shell of the Australian airline."
AND
"They are even trying to sell the tainted Ansett brand name, although administrator Mark Korda said he had heard nothing from Singapore airlines, who were rumoured at one stage to be seeking to revive it."
Mark Korda seems to have sunk that rumour.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LA, Cal, USA
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two Marks are hardly likely to publicly canvas any options (either way) over the sale of Ansett related brands.
So I would not read anything into Korda's comments about a so called "lack of contact" with SIA.
So I would not read anything into Korda's comments about a so called "lack of contact" with SIA.
Appreciate the lengthy reply.
One good reason.
Because you can`t move the goalposts because they are Singaporian.
A British owned VirginBlue started here.Without any substantial investment in aviation infrastructure.
Agree with you the nation needs a strong airline,with a strong investment in infrastructure-enter QF.And in the national interest the goalposts get moved for QF.
Let VB and the third airline fight it out.No great loss if one falls over.QF will be protected.
Agree with your concerns over our northern neighbour.Disintegration on the Indonesian archipelego always a headache for us and Singapore.
Abdication of regional defence responsibilities by the New Zealanders and an over committed US has seen a natural alignment of us and the Singaporians.Explains their warplanes buzzing the beaches here last week.
Haven`t seen much of the British since the very fall of Singapore,so as unnerving as it is for you,a close economic and defence relationship between Singapore and Australia maybe the very key to regional security.
One good reason.
Because you can`t move the goalposts because they are Singaporian.
A British owned VirginBlue started here.Without any substantial investment in aviation infrastructure.
Agree with you the nation needs a strong airline,with a strong investment in infrastructure-enter QF.And in the national interest the goalposts get moved for QF.
Let VB and the third airline fight it out.No great loss if one falls over.QF will be protected.
Agree with your concerns over our northern neighbour.Disintegration on the Indonesian archipelego always a headache for us and Singapore.
Abdication of regional defence responsibilities by the New Zealanders and an over committed US has seen a natural alignment of us and the Singaporians.Explains their warplanes buzzing the beaches here last week.
Haven`t seen much of the British since the very fall of Singapore,so as unnerving as it is for you,a close economic and defence relationship between Singapore and Australia maybe the very key to regional security.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 9th Sep 2002 at 22:20.
