Yep, that's fine as long as they base their aircraft and crews in Aus.

level playing field ?????? No such thing
 

The only country advocating and really meaning free trade is the Australia government…All other governments support and protect their country and business.

What are you talking about when you refer to more seats,more aircraft,more crew and more maintenance…Where on earth do you think those jobs will come from…in one word Singapore ,not Australia.

Do you think for one moment that SIA would hire Australian cabin crew or buy aircraft from an Australian company or maintain them in Australia.The profit generated would go straight back to Singapore.

As I said to Scumfish,how would you like you job or business to be threatened by an overseas business that had an inherently lower cost base and tax benefits not available to you??????

So we buy your theory of the world and Australian business goes out the window because of unfair competition and all of us are out of jobs .So then who has enough money to buy cheap tickets or washing machines let alone pay a mortgage off?????

The only ones in Australia left with jobs will be the ones on the company boards..I’m all for competition but does Singapore let QF fly through Singapore to any destination…NO..

Does QF enjoy the same tax breaks and cost base some of these other airlines have ..NO

Competition by your definition is not really competition at all it is a one sided free for all

Globalisation is part of the new world order. Jobs come and go, you have to accept that fact. Qantas will just have to adapt to competition and if jobs are lost then so be it. Other jobs will eventuate due to the stimulation of the Australian economy that would follow SIA's entry on to the Pacific Route. Anybody who has studied management would realise that if there is no competition then the economy starts to become stifled.

shhh... don't mention education Scumfish :p Everyone knows tertiary education is a waste of time and doesn't apply to the "Real World" :E

What does "Open Skies" mean?

From what I can find it is not a free for all where any carrier can fly into or out of any country.

All my looking (I hesitate to us the words research or even search) indicates that "open skies" is an agreement between two countries regarding flights operating between the said two countries without restriction on the number of carriers or the type of equipment.

Does this mean that if there is an "open skies" agreement between say Singapore and USA that a flight originating in Singapore for USA can operate via say Australia if the Australian Government agrees? Or does the US government have to agree to the Aus-USA bit too?

I see that USA and Australia have an "open skies" agreement for Cargo only - not passenger.

Geoff Dixon will be smiling while he pulls on his black cape and sharpens the blade. Assuming Virgin takes about 2 years to get a Pacific route up and running, Mr Dixon has until then to slash, burn, rape and pillage pilot conditions. Good luck because I'm sure he's not going to waste any time getting started. Two years is not long to carry out the changes.

Skinny Dog
 

Don't think you've done your homework, have you Skinny Dog?

Skinny Dog said:
"There is very little, or no benefit to Australia in granting open skies to SIA, unless QF or any other Australian operator is offered open skies through Singapore to European destinations, which Singapore cannot offer !"

Not only can Singapore offer traffic rights to other carriers to Europe, they most certainly do, QANTAS in particular.

Problem is QANTAS only go to London and Frankfurt these days but you can book to both these destinations, out of Singapore on QF and you used to be able to book to Rome or Athens too!

What about QF31 SIN/LHR and QF5 SIN/FRA.:confused:

Hot Dog,
I meant that in context to SIA wanting the SYD/LAX runs what are they offering Qantas in addition to what already exists ?

SIA has not offered any other through flights to make up for the SYD/LAX..therefore what is in this for QF ?

"Anybody who has studied management would realise that if there is no competition then the economy starts to become stifled."

Scumfish..the operative word here is "competition" and you don't have to have studied management to know that competition is a good thing but FAIR competition not a one sided contest..you did not answer my question about you facing competition from someone who has an advantage that you do not?

You don't allow a heavy weight boxer to fight against a middle weight ..but I suppose you think that is fair as well

Its all very well suggesting SQ can offer this or that out of Sin but in a very few years Sin will NOT be required as a tech stop...which is effectively what it is now most of the time...so in the very near future SQs overtures become meaningless...but they still have their rights across the Pacific to the west coast.

Personally I am sick to death of the Oz Guvmint selling off the furniture in a disgracefull display of total idealogical subservience to economic theory.

The way Oz is going we, as a nation, will be stripped of relatively well paid careers and then what will the Govt do for tax revenue....when we are a nation of min wage, semi skilled grunt labour?

You only have to look to the US to see the long term economic aims of this Govt and the social results of unfettered market control of EVERYTHING.

What the economic rationalists seem to ignore is that living on this planet is a human experience...not a mathematical equation.

Lower Lobe, in response to your question, I would use my superior management skills to solve any problems where I would see my company disadvantaged. I would have a casualised workforce and bring in cheap overseas labour and reap the profits. This would give me extreme flexibility. Remember, it's all about economic rationalistation. There are always going to be losers.

Scumfish,
The first part of your name is extremely pertinent but it does not take superior management skills to operate with no regard to others just an ego but this is the “ME” generation so you should fit in very well.

However using slave labour is not the only thing against you as far as costs go,you might have to move offshore...

Why not apply to SIA for a job,they would appreciate someone with your attitude but then again you might have to move to Sydney.

Lowerlobe. compared to the trans pacific from Sydney to LA, there is nothing SQ can offer in return. QF code sharing with BA does not need anything more from Singapore. Qantas do have a virtual monopoly on this route, you can't really call United service a competition, even though Qantas service is not what it used to be. Yes, Singapore Airlines would have presented a real and worrying competion to Qantas but as Little Johnny has come to the party, it might even satisfy the heavy maintenance brigade at last.

Quite a loss for Qld and Brisbane. With capacity at close to peak in SYD I assume SIA would have been operating out of BNE, which also has the room for expansion.

Qantas v Singapore Airlines (Age online poll)
Is the government right to deny Singapore Airlines access to US route?

Yes - 42%

No - 58%

QF better start selling it to the punters...

If there is enough of a market then Virgin Blue can start up a service from BNE or MEL or both or other ports for that matter and then the profits and emplyment can stay in Australia...and we can all be happy

You could turn that poll around if you leaked the extent of surreptitious, intelligence opertions by Singaporians against Australian military and economic interests.

A nation of sly, control freaks- a friendship at a distance is all that is needed and warranted. Well done Mr Howard.

While we are all discussing the effect of arrangements on the LAX-SYD sector, and the 'trade-off' to QF if SQ were given access (what will QF get in return), there is another issue.

Given that JetStar Asia (and JetStar Domestic) are seeking to increase their presence in Asia (out of Singapore particularly), will we now se more 'difficulties' for the 'Star brigade in sectors out of Changi.

That could alter Geoff's strategy / growth just a little.

Plainmaker

Doesn't Tomasek (company owned or major shareholder of Singapore government) own half of jet star asia ?

(Excuse spelling of Tomasek if not correct)

A shame they own our Defence Communications satellite :eek: