Qantas Sale Act?
 

Any bush lawyers understand how Jetstar is able to operate internationally and not breach the sale act?
I know they have recently added the tag "A Qantas Group Airline" but I don't believe this is part of their registered buisness name.
If the situation is in breach of the sales act then who would be responsible and what action should follow?

I'll have a crack... Qantas has not changed it's name. Jetstar is a separate company wholly owned by Qantas, the Act only applies to Qantas, not any wholly owned subsidiaries.
http://www.casa.gov.au/casadata/aoc/...num_results=10

If thats true Icarus then if Qantas wishes to get around any requirement in the Sale act, then all it has to do is create a subsidiary.

Is that the intent of the law?

I think the lawyers will have their day on this one.

If JetStar is a separate entity ,does that not then mean that JetStar "international" pilots are automatically covered by AIPA as per a High Court decision a few years ago? :confused:
Can't have it both ways, icarus old bean!

Slater & Gordon
 

So if it was found that the act has been broken, may it then be possible to mount a class action against those responsible for the loss of income and stress we have suffered as a result?

Max,

Would it make any difference if they were covered by AIPA. Whilst we expected the ARG to have taken some time to settle in, how long is enough?
It's time one would think for some runs on the board for the members.

Have they gone the same way as previous AIPA Com's?

It seams the members are screaming in a vacuum, no one hears them.

How can it be that no one in government or opposition has picked up on or been made aware of this clear breach of the sales act? :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

I’m no expert on Australian corporations law, but I would think:

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
ACN 009 661 901
Registration Date: 18 January 1934.

Is complying with the extract you quote from the QANTAS SALE ACT 1992.

I think you’d be pulling a long bow to suggest that a separate autonomous company, with it’s own independent Board and Management - albeit wholly owned by Qantas - was legally in breach of the Act.

Morally perhaps, but I doubt legally in breach of the Act. And Courts don’t deal with morals where companies are concerned.

Jetstar as a company cannot be in breach of the Act, only Qantas can.

The questions would be;

1. Is Jetstar truly an autonomous company, and,

2. Has Qantas created Jetstar to circumvent the Qantas Sale Act?

1. Yes.

2. Probably.

Have any laws been broken: I doubt it!

Question one is a gray area and the most important.

Is Jetstar truly autonomous? Consider the announcement of the 787. Who announced they were buying them? Qantas management.

Who decides to which airline they are going? Qantas management.

Who did Boeing deal with when they bought the aircraft? Qantas management.

Did Boeing give Qantas the Qantas price or the Jetstar price? Most probably the Qantas price?

Does Jetstar get the Qantas price for fuel or the Jetstar price for fuel? Answer, the Qantas price.

Jetstar doesn't scratch itself without referring to Qantas senior management with regard to routes flown. Jetstar is not like a OneWorld airline like Cathay or BA where they compete on the same routes. Part of Jetstars charter is that it never competes directly with Qantas.

Doesn't sound like an autonomous company to me.

JetStar
 

what it also means is that Qantas or APA can sell off Jetstar anytime without breaching any of the laws as Jetstar is considered a separate company...
Will APA sell off loss making ventures?
You only have to look at their history of company aquistions, thats all they do....segmentate the business and sell off the parts they think are not profitable...

S.1 of the Qantas Sale Act 1992 defines 'Qantas' as Qantas Airways Limited.

'Qantas subsidiary' gets a specific mention so any s.7 restrictions on the operations of Qantas (as defined in s.1) do not apply to any subsidiary companies owned by Qantas.

As a result, whilst it might not be within the spirit of the Act, Jetstar and its operations are not prohibited by the Act and are therefore not illegal with respect to the Act. :{

The smart b:mad:s...

Gameplan
 

So now the gameplan becomes obvious.
1. Grow the j* subsidiary rapidly.
2. Block SQ for another 2 to 3 years across the pacific,
3. sell j* to SQ or EK.
4. j* sale profit $$$ ---> mac, allco, tpg, onex et al
5. Sell mainline back to public.

Simple.
The crucial bit here is that j* can gain utilise "Qantas Group" international rights, without being subject to the Qantas sale act.
See the QF IASC variation HERE
Regulatory arbitrage.

You forgot point 4A: include a no-competition clause in the JQ sale agreement.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/christ...405501026.html

Word is that AIPA are acting.

Anyone know when this might get to court or will it be like the tx of buisness case, just go's on and on, lawyer after lawyer.

I'd fear if something does not occur soon then it's going to be irrelevant as APA takes over and Qantas goes the way of Ansett.:\

Clever
 

Freddy K
I think you are right.
That seems to be why Air NZ bought Ansett. Despite the supposed trans Tasman agreement the only way Air NZ could get operating in Australia was to buy Ansett. And they paid lots for it.
This sort of thing may happen again.

Yea, verily. We live in the land of the underarm bowlers.

Back to the courtroom?
 

Always sad when one of our resident management wannabe's feels the need to post but realises they are sounding like a broken record eh Hugh?... or is it Lucius... or Wayne?

TCOB you are off the mark with the management wannabe / Wayne dig. Plenty of pilots disagree with the direction of ‘NEW’ APIA. The attacks against Jetstar are not achieving anything other than building up resentment between Mainline and Jetstar.

GD: So Chris, how is our plan progressing with the pilot body?
CM: Great, pilots have evolved into little groups, either attacking each other or ignoring each other. There is no positive talk going on, only more attacks and court action. They are either so distracted or worn out from continual dysfunction that they have lost sight of the big picture.
GD: OK, time to move into overdrive with operation shaft.

All this talk of using the Qantas sale act to limit the bleeding to Jetstar ignores the fact that we happily operated Australian Airlines for years over international routes. A dangerous precedent one would think. So while we are in the business of sticking it to the Jetstar international pilots, how about providing a ready supply of swords for the Australian Airlines pilots to fall on.