I just don't understand what "Angle of attack" is trying to say.


I suspect the reference to franchise only extends to the name. A "one world" group of their own, perhaps.
As far as as refined franchise model, neither Jetstar operation would qualify.
The changes in their business plans and the sometimes inept approaches to what one would expect to be well thoughtout and predetermined moves, stand as proof .
A classic example would be Jetstar Asia's decision to choose to fly to Taiwan and miss out on China. Heads should have rolled on that one.
Kind of like McDonalds deciding on a pensioner burger with a free "scratchie" instead of the kiddy meal with a Shrek. One is a reducing market and the other a ticket "Franchise Nirvana".
Suggest many people shooting from the hip with the QF "world's best " attitude.

BA have been franchising their brand for years... take a look at the domestic ops in South Africa, the regional ops in east Africa, GB Airways, Loganair... true they're losing BMed but that's due to a complete takeover of BMed (hence someone else (BMI) seeing value in the enterprise).

Not a new concept.

Taildragger67...
It's true that the marketing concept of a franchise is not a new one and as you said has been around for years.However,when you are going to invest your capital in a franchise the benefit to you is that you are investing in a known product.

You are simply an extension of that chain and people who buy your product know what they are getting.That could mean anything from Donuts to furniture.BA has been around for a long time as has QF but J* has not.

Lowerlobe,

True. A known brand can be important.

That said, it may be a way to grow a name and is often used as such. There are franchising shows around the country every year:
http://infosalons.com.au/infoforum/l...s/listing.html
... and I've certainly not heard of all of these:
http://infosalons.com.au/infoforum/l...s/listing.html

In this case, let's consider Indonesia. The Indon authorities, a few years ago, restricted incoming LCC flights on the grounds that locals couldn't compete; since then, a number of local operations have sprung up and there may be some concerns with respect to the local authorities' ability to properly oversee such a fast-growing industry.

So, along comes someone who would like to set up an operation using new aircraft etc. and reckons there's a market to be grabbed if they can promote safety, etc. So they approach an established organisation, which can advise on operations, training & admin, and can help with setting up, maintenance, safety standards, training & procurement, etc. - essentially, the costly backbone - but doesn't want to take on the financial risk itself.

So... the 'established' operation (however it was established itself) gets a presence in the market and can possibly help get its wider operations into the territory, all for little financial outlay and risk, whilst stipulating strong minimum standards and performing audits to confirm these are adhered to.

A franchise agreement...

Suddenly, you have lots of silver and orange airframes, flying around under bilateral agreements and so not requiring any fifth-freedom rights to be secured (important, given the lack of open-skies agreements).

It appears to me to be a lower-risk (at least in financial terms) and more regulator-frienly (in terms of traffic rights) way of getting a network (rather than hub-&-spoke) route system going.

ebt
Would be interested to know where you got this information about the Vietnamese Government choosing QF over Temasek for PA.
Temasek did DD for over 6 months and walked out. Air Asia also had a good look and left?
I think QF may be the only one in the game and there is a whole lot more to everything in Vietnam than what meets the eye-they will soon discover that.Allowing QF to buy into PA and operate how they like, would be the same as SIA moving into OZ without interference.
Is that a likely scenario-time will tell. :confused: