|
SIA misses out on SY-LA
Sad luck, Sunfish!!!
AUSTRALIA'S new aviation policy is set to reject Singapore Airlines' bid to fly Qantas's most lucrative route, from Sydney to Los Angeles. The policy, which is expected to be considered by federal cabinet tomorrow, could deeply divide ministers and backbenchers. Although Singapore Airlines is poised to miss out on the Sydney to Los Angeles route, Qantas is expected to face more competition from other airlines, including budget carrier Virgin Blue. This could lead to lower prices for air travellers on popular domestic routes and possibly some international ones. One option being considered is to relax the rules limiting foreign ownership in the carrier to 49 per cent to allow a merger with another airline. The Prime Minister, John Howard, believes Qantas and Singapore Airlines should one day merge into a giant new airline. The Government is divided over the policy. A number of backbenchers are worried about the impact on Qantas of allowing Singapore Airlines to fly between Sydney and Los Angeles. Government backbenchers Bruce Baird and Warren Entsch have lobbied Mr Howard on aviation policy changes, arguing that jobs at Qantas as well as routes in rural areas would be lost if the carrier was put under intense competitive pressure. Backbenchers also argue that Qantas is not competing on a level playing field because Singapore Airlines enjoys lower tax rates than Qantas. But other Coalition backbenchers, including West Australians Geoff Prosser and Michael Keenan, have pushed for Qantas to face greater competition on the Sydney to Los Angeles route as well as within Australia, arguing that it would lower air fares for Australians. Mr Baird has argued that many of Qantas's 38,000 jobs could move to Singapore if the island's airline was allowed to operate the Australia-US west coast route. But the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, Fran Bailey, believes Australian tourism would be boosted if there were more airlines flying between Australia and the US All of a sudden the gov't is worried about jobs in aviation??? WTF??? What about Ansett? What about LAMEs' work being farmed off to the Chinese? And as if they really care if the ugg-boot crowd can get a cheaper air-fare. But then as if I do either..... :p |
How many of our devoted politicians own Qantas shares?
What am I saying - I'm sure they are putting the best interests of the country and their constituents ahead of their own. |
If I was a politician, there would be only two issues:
It's over to you, QANTAS. |
So, whilst I know they'll deny it, hanging Van Nguyen may have tipped the balance against SQ. Perhaps sending more QF jobs offshore will tip it back again...:hmm:
Patience Grasshopper....:suspect: |
do they care
do you really think the goverment cares if the trade between lax and syd is opened up to sia lets just refresh ansett went out.the goverment loved virgin coming in sweetheart deals and all,werent they an aussie icon too,also the polies couldnt give a stuff more tourists more tax dollars and more jobs on tne bad side 3000 job cuts but millions more $ per year.the punters dont care they love the no frills no class sit next to a redneck for 49 dollar fares just ask the once beautful hamilton island jetset crowd there cheering (not) about yobbos in thongs i myself hate the box lunch and what australian airline makes you buy piss before four oclock sacrilage i say ,how many of the goverment never workrd a day in there life baclbenchs fly no frills really we fund there j class trips so do they care? no and no and let me think no
|
A fatted calf to the man who can read aloud that last post without passing out from lack of oxygen!:eek:
|
It's about time a few folks who post here get out and have a good look at the rest of the World!:uhoh:
The ONLY [that's a word meaning uniquely singular] country in the World I can think of in my 38th year of international flying that would even dream of giving away the traffic rights of its own carriers is; you guessed it - AUSTRALIA!:eek: We are blessed with a Government that at every chance [bar one] has grasped the nettle to go along with opening up trade to the World, no matter what the cost to our Industry. Be it GATT or whatever, we've been in there first to "drop our daks in Pitt St" for the World to have a go! Try to do what SIA are pulling anywhere else and see how you get on? Not past the first post. Note also that I make the point here about "Australian carriers". Watch what happens if Qantas [for one] loses its 51% Ozzie ownership; bilaterals will fall like a pack of cards. Whether or not the World should have bilaterals in this day & age is another matter, but if that's the playing field, let's keep it level. As to the export of Oz jobs to overseas to keep QF going [??:confused: ], that's a side issue of no mean importance and not the subject of this rant. My point is that throwing away your traffic rights to third parties is plain stupid!:yuk: Enough for one day. G'day ;) |
You people don't realise that this is bad news for Australia. We have to look at economic rationalistaion and globalisation. There are no borders these days and the sooner you lot recognise this, the better off the Australian economy will be. SIA would have created many more jobs in Australia, even at the expense of Qantas....:uhoh:
|
The world economy is all about supply and demand these days. Everybody has to learn to adjust, it's a fact of life. By creating all of the extra jobs that SIA could have done, would have done wonders for the economy. It's a shame the government has taken this decision as I have just signed up in SIA's frequent flyer program and was looking forward to buying cheaper tickets with them as I've always wanted to go to Disneyland.
|
While I am no supporter of Qantas, the alternative proposed by SIA and the idiot total free market gurus, just defies belief. Trade albeit in goods or services should be bilateral not unilateral. SIA and the government are a bunch of wingers, they sprout open skies yet QF cannot fly through Singapore to most European destinations. 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 !
Giving open skies to the likes of SIA is just outsourcing the last vestiges of the once proud Australian industry to Singapore. The only thing Singapore outsources is rational and free thinking for its people. Canberra now should get on with encouraging competition from the likes of VB or any other Oz carrier that may be willing to give it a go and or North American carriers, not SIA. :yuk: |
gee im so good
Originally Posted by The_Cutest_of_Borg
A fatted calf to the man who can read aloud that last post without passing out from lack of oxygen!:eek:
And PPRuNe isn't about the language you post! You have been warned!!! No further warnings!! :mad: Woomera |
[quote=chemical alli]maybe ill order the wrong nut or bolt next time i fix your big plane
Alli, I'm more than a little concerned that as you are obviously sipping from those chemical containers in your stores, you have probably already ordered the wrong nut or bolt or even many of them. Have you considered taking up another career? Journalism perhaps.:D |
methyl ethyl ketone rocks
your not wrong i fly higher than anyone sniffffffffffff
|
Happy happy, joy joy. Australia loses again. I knew it was never going to happen because QF is run by for the benefit of the Sydney push, all of whom are one big corrupt happy family.
|
The sooner Qantas gets away from its Sydney roots the better for this nation as a whole. It also means that I may have a better chance of using my frequent flyer points and getting cheaper airfares.
|
Scumfish has just established that he/she does not live in Sydney and does not really care for Australian jobs but is only interested in his frequent flyer points with SIA.
I wonder if the government were to allow a foreign company which has various tax and other financial advantages to enter Australia and compete with his business ,then would scumfish be as happy with that arrangement. Of course he would …..unfair competition is fine because we are one big happy world without borders….that is unless an Australian company wants to trade or do business overseas and is a threat to that country and their business and population. Wake up scumfish,the only government that thinks the world is all rosy and fair is the Australian government,that is why we export technology that we have developed to China and other parts of the world because the only plans our egotistical politicians have is to be players on the world stage. The beauty of this forum is that we are able and indeed allowed to discuss this very thing but if we were in Singapore you would find out what their concept of free press and other individual freedoms are like. |
Hey Sunfish,
You sure are on Pprune alot, if you joined in August 2004 and have posted 1369 times thats 3 posts per day! You must be up for a record there boy |
The argument about free trade is long finished and the results are well and truly on the side of the free traders. All Australians will suffer as a result of this decision because experience has conclusively shown that protection costs more jobs than it protects.
Has it crossed anyone's mind that an increase in passenger numbers will require more seats and hence more flights - that means more crew, more aircraft and more maintenance jobs. It would even mean that SIA would have to hire more pilots - creating more jobs. Qantas would also pick up additional pax - meaning more flights, more crew etc.etc., and might actually maintain profitability. Then of course those increased passenger numbers would include a signifigant number of inbound US Tourists, which would creat demand for domestic QF flights, more aircraft, more crew etc. etc. It's not theory anymore guys. Were any of you out of short pants when industry protection started getting phased out? All the pundits said the sky would fall in. It didn't. Look at the economy today. The longer QF puts off taking the tough decisions about supporting an open skies policy, the harder its going to fall when the walls come tumbling down. |
Nah, I think some things are just too Australian to give up! Screw Singapore, they can go somewhere out of Asia to fly to/from. Leave Australian premium routes to Australian based companies.
|
Perhaps we could re-phrase the thread Virgin Gains ?
As mentioned on another thread, now that SIA has been locked out, Virgin will accelerate its plans to fly the US routes. So this could create a multitude of new opportunities from top to bottom. Bring it on. |
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! |
Originally Posted by lowerlobe
I’m all for competition but does Singapore let QF fly through Singapore to any destination…NO..
|
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
|
Originally Posted by Buster Hyman
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... 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) |
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:09. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.