Jet Star HK?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet Star HK?
Gone pretty quiet. Strange, given the amount QF claims to be bleeding elsewhere. If/when HKJS does end up with an AOC it will he interesting to find out whether there truly has been a "floor" set for terms and conditions in this industry. That is, if the latest rumours floating around prove to be true regarding the terms & conditions for future new joiners.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East of 26L
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gave up on them a long time ago, every single one of my friends who had joined has resigned.
One year ago almost to the day I signed a decent contract which was then cancelled, and all I've had is a letter stating they'll re-issue contracts soon. I've heard the annual bonus and joining bonus have been cut, I've also heard they've taken away the 75 minimum hours monthly guarantee. Without those guarantees and bonus' the pay reaaaaally sucks, especially if you've a family to consider.
Shame, but see ya JSHK.
One year ago almost to the day I signed a decent contract which was then cancelled, and all I've had is a letter stating they'll re-issue contracts soon. I've heard the annual bonus and joining bonus have been cut, I've also heard they've taken away the 75 minimum hours monthly guarantee. Without those guarantees and bonus' the pay reaaaaally sucks, especially if you've a family to consider.
Shame, but see ya JSHK.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: on the move
Age: 54
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big article in the SCMP today about Hk Jetstar. With Qantas loosing so much money you would think they would try and sell it to a Hong Kong local.....but then what local company would want to invest in a airline.
won't happen in a hurry...
Hong Kong says it won't process new airlines' applications as Jetstar waits
Jetstar planned to start service at year-end but had not been granted a licence.
Hong Kong would not process any applications to start airlines in the city pending the completion of a review of its criteria for designating local carriers, the Transport and Housing Bureau said.
While airlines must be incorporated in the city and have their principal place of business in Hong Kong to be considered local under the law, and the government considers shareholding structure, these are not the only determining factors, according to a statement on the government's website on Tuesday.
It did not say what additional elements would be considered.
Jetstar Hong Kong, a low-cost carrier owned by Qantas Airways and China Eastern Airlines, had secured a local investor and planned to start service at year-end but had not been granted a licence despite having been set up for more than a year, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reported on Tuesday, citing China Eastern chief economist Shan Chuanbo.
A further delay would protect the interests of local airlines such as Cathay Pacific Airways.
Jetstar had a "positive and ongoing dialogue with the regulator" and was aware of the review, the company said in a statement yesterday. It was "confident" of getting approvals before the end of this year.
"I am disappointed, but not surprised, to see the government stalling on the licensing of new airlines," David Webb, the founder of local governance watchdog Webb-site.com said in an e-mail.
In its statement, the Transport and Housing Bureau said the government would not "provide any recommendations to an investor who is interested in setting up an airline in Hong Kong".
"It is an airline's own commercial decisions to make," it added.
Jetstar planned to start service at year-end but had not been granted a licence.
Hong Kong would not process any applications to start airlines in the city pending the completion of a review of its criteria for designating local carriers, the Transport and Housing Bureau said.
While airlines must be incorporated in the city and have their principal place of business in Hong Kong to be considered local under the law, and the government considers shareholding structure, these are not the only determining factors, according to a statement on the government's website on Tuesday.
It did not say what additional elements would be considered.
Jetstar Hong Kong, a low-cost carrier owned by Qantas Airways and China Eastern Airlines, had secured a local investor and planned to start service at year-end but had not been granted a licence despite having been set up for more than a year, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reported on Tuesday, citing China Eastern chief economist Shan Chuanbo.
A further delay would protect the interests of local airlines such as Cathay Pacific Airways.
Jetstar had a "positive and ongoing dialogue with the regulator" and was aware of the review, the company said in a statement yesterday. It was "confident" of getting approvals before the end of this year.
"I am disappointed, but not surprised, to see the government stalling on the licensing of new airlines," David Webb, the founder of local governance watchdog Webb-site.com said in an e-mail.
In its statement, the Transport and Housing Bureau said the government would not "provide any recommendations to an investor who is interested in setting up an airline in Hong Kong".
"It is an airline's own commercial decisions to make," it added.
and the comment...
No reason to give Jetstar a home in Hong Kong
Andrew Pyne says to comply with the Basic Law, authorities would be right to deny Jetstar a home base in Hong Kong. And, with other low-cost carriers already operating here, consumers wouldn't lose out
More than one year after the project was first mooted, the debate over whether low-cost airline Jetstar should be able to secure designation as a Hong Kong carrier rumbles on. This issue defies easy analysis; indeed, for the layman, the arguments around whether an airline meets the criteria for local incorporation may seem the 21st-century equivalent of the medieval debates on how many angels could sit on the head of a pin. But at its core are some important issues for Hong Kong.
The key question is whether the Hong Kong public risks missing out on the consumer benefits that low-cost carriers bring to the market if Jetstar's attempts to base in Hong Kong are thwarted.
If the official position towards Jetstar's application did represent a barrier to low-cost airlines operating in Hong Kong, this would indeed be a legitimate cause of concern. But this is not the case. Low-cost carriers are already well represented in Hong Kong: the percentage share of aircraft movements at the Hong Kong International Airport now held by the low-cost sector has increased from virtually zero five years ago to over 12 per cent today. It may still be relatively low by European or Southeast Asian standards but it is broadly in line with the picture through North Asia as a whole, where the low-cost carrier revolution is still in its early stages.
In total, there are some 15 low-cost carriers now operating at the Hong Kong airport, a score that compares well with major international airports globally. And, last year, Hong Kong Express was relaunched as the city's first home-grown low-cost airline.
It can still be argued that the cost structure at Hong Kong airport - without its own terminal for low-cost carriers - militates to some extent against low-cost airline operations here. To be fair, the airport authority has to focus on making a return on the huge public investment sunk into developing airport facilities; there is therefore a natural inclination on its part to want to allocate scarce slots to wide- bodied aircraft - A380s or Boeing 777s, for example, with their 350 to 500 passengers a flight - rather than, say, the 180 passengers from a low-cost Boeing 737 or A320 flight.
Nonetheless, the only major short-haul market that remains relatively unpenetrated by low-cost airlines from Hong Kong is mainland China - here, the issues relate more to the Chinese regulatory regime than to Hong Kong. No doubt the low-cost revolution will come to China, but the timing will be set by Beijing, not Hong Kong. So whether Jetstar receives designation to base part of its fleet here is largely beside the (economic) point: low-cost aviation has a well-established and growing presence in the market already.
Ironically, low-cost carriers flying from cheaper base airports than Hong Kong have more, not fewer, opportunities to drive cost advantage over full-service airlines like Cathay Pacific than if they were actually based here.
To suggest that, as a matter of aviation policy, Hong Kong needs another "home-based" low-cost airline is a throwback to the thinking of the 1960s when each and every newly independent state set out to create its own flag-carrying airline, regardless of economic logic.
But this is not purely an economic argument; it is also an issue of regulation. In an ideal world, the market would decide which airlines operated from where; but aviation remains a highly regulated sector. The crux of the matter is that Hong Kong's criteria for deciding whether airlines can base here is almost unique: in nearly every other jurisdiction, airlines are allowed to operate as home airlines only if and when they are controlled by nationals of that country. This is a regime that has endured more or less intact since 1945.
Since Hong Kong has no nationals of its own, that regime could not be applied here. So in the late 1980s, the alternative - and arguably more liberal - notion of "principal place of business" was introduced. In other words, if an airline wanted to qualify for a share of Hong Kong's traffic rights, it had to demonstrate that Hong Kong was truly its main base of operations - not a secondary hub to a headquarters located somewhere else.
Therefore, what works for Jetstar and other regional airline groups, in border-hopping through Asia, and in partnership with local shareholders holding 50 per cent or more of joint-venture equity, will not work here.
It has been suggested that Cathay Pacific has adopted a "dog in the manger" position in this debate by arguing that "principal place of business" is all about control, not ownership. I would suggest that this is not so much Cathay's position as it is the long-standing position of the Hong Kong authorities themselves. Indeed, without evaluating where real control lies, how else could they reasonably decide whether Hong Kong really is the "principal place of business" for an airline?
The whole value to Jetstar, and its parent Qantas, of "border hopping" is that it provides a high degree of operational and commercial integration through its business units - while allowing the airline to access the traffic rights of other countries and jurisdictions. There is nothing at all wrong with this strategy - provided that it complies with local laws and regulations. In the Hong Kong case, it clearly doesn't.
Why, ultimately, is it important that we uphold these Basic Law provisions on aviation? As someone heavily involved with the arrangements made in the 1990s for a successful transfer of sovereignty in 1997, I recall that a key driver was the need to provide assurances to those who had invested in Hong Kong, or were contemplating investment here, that there would be reasonable policy continuity through and beyond 1997: hence the Basic Law.
It is reasonable to expect policy to evolve; less reasonable to contemplate abrupt changes of policy direction. In this instance, a decision to allow Jetstar to operate from Hong Kong would in turn open the gates to virtually any other international carrier moving in, incorporating a local subsidiary and then taking a slice of Hong Kong's air traffic rights.
There will be those who would suggest that this would be positive: but even they would surely have to accept that it represents a dramatic discontinuity with the past - and with a policy that has elevated Hong Kong into its current position as the No 1 aviation hub in the Asia-Pacific region.
Andrew Pyne is senior partner of Concuros, an Ireland-based aviation consultancy. He previously served in the Hong Kong government pre-1997 as principal assistant secretary for economic services. He has held the position of CEO at two low-cost carriers, Viva Macau and Avianova (Russia)
Andrew Pyne says to comply with the Basic Law, authorities would be right to deny Jetstar a home base in Hong Kong. And, with other low-cost carriers already operating here, consumers wouldn't lose out
More than one year after the project was first mooted, the debate over whether low-cost airline Jetstar should be able to secure designation as a Hong Kong carrier rumbles on. This issue defies easy analysis; indeed, for the layman, the arguments around whether an airline meets the criteria for local incorporation may seem the 21st-century equivalent of the medieval debates on how many angels could sit on the head of a pin. But at its core are some important issues for Hong Kong.
The key question is whether the Hong Kong public risks missing out on the consumer benefits that low-cost carriers bring to the market if Jetstar's attempts to base in Hong Kong are thwarted.
If the official position towards Jetstar's application did represent a barrier to low-cost airlines operating in Hong Kong, this would indeed be a legitimate cause of concern. But this is not the case. Low-cost carriers are already well represented in Hong Kong: the percentage share of aircraft movements at the Hong Kong International Airport now held by the low-cost sector has increased from virtually zero five years ago to over 12 per cent today. It may still be relatively low by European or Southeast Asian standards but it is broadly in line with the picture through North Asia as a whole, where the low-cost carrier revolution is still in its early stages.
In total, there are some 15 low-cost carriers now operating at the Hong Kong airport, a score that compares well with major international airports globally. And, last year, Hong Kong Express was relaunched as the city's first home-grown low-cost airline.
It can still be argued that the cost structure at Hong Kong airport - without its own terminal for low-cost carriers - militates to some extent against low-cost airline operations here. To be fair, the airport authority has to focus on making a return on the huge public investment sunk into developing airport facilities; there is therefore a natural inclination on its part to want to allocate scarce slots to wide- bodied aircraft - A380s or Boeing 777s, for example, with their 350 to 500 passengers a flight - rather than, say, the 180 passengers from a low-cost Boeing 737 or A320 flight.
Nonetheless, the only major short-haul market that remains relatively unpenetrated by low-cost airlines from Hong Kong is mainland China - here, the issues relate more to the Chinese regulatory regime than to Hong Kong. No doubt the low-cost revolution will come to China, but the timing will be set by Beijing, not Hong Kong. So whether Jetstar receives designation to base part of its fleet here is largely beside the (economic) point: low-cost aviation has a well-established and growing presence in the market already.
Ironically, low-cost carriers flying from cheaper base airports than Hong Kong have more, not fewer, opportunities to drive cost advantage over full-service airlines like Cathay Pacific than if they were actually based here.
To suggest that, as a matter of aviation policy, Hong Kong needs another "home-based" low-cost airline is a throwback to the thinking of the 1960s when each and every newly independent state set out to create its own flag-carrying airline, regardless of economic logic.
But this is not purely an economic argument; it is also an issue of regulation. In an ideal world, the market would decide which airlines operated from where; but aviation remains a highly regulated sector. The crux of the matter is that Hong Kong's criteria for deciding whether airlines can base here is almost unique: in nearly every other jurisdiction, airlines are allowed to operate as home airlines only if and when they are controlled by nationals of that country. This is a regime that has endured more or less intact since 1945.
Since Hong Kong has no nationals of its own, that regime could not be applied here. So in the late 1980s, the alternative - and arguably more liberal - notion of "principal place of business" was introduced. In other words, if an airline wanted to qualify for a share of Hong Kong's traffic rights, it had to demonstrate that Hong Kong was truly its main base of operations - not a secondary hub to a headquarters located somewhere else.
Therefore, what works for Jetstar and other regional airline groups, in border-hopping through Asia, and in partnership with local shareholders holding 50 per cent or more of joint-venture equity, will not work here.
It has been suggested that Cathay Pacific has adopted a "dog in the manger" position in this debate by arguing that "principal place of business" is all about control, not ownership. I would suggest that this is not so much Cathay's position as it is the long-standing position of the Hong Kong authorities themselves. Indeed, without evaluating where real control lies, how else could they reasonably decide whether Hong Kong really is the "principal place of business" for an airline?
The whole value to Jetstar, and its parent Qantas, of "border hopping" is that it provides a high degree of operational and commercial integration through its business units - while allowing the airline to access the traffic rights of other countries and jurisdictions. There is nothing at all wrong with this strategy - provided that it complies with local laws and regulations. In the Hong Kong case, it clearly doesn't.
Why, ultimately, is it important that we uphold these Basic Law provisions on aviation? As someone heavily involved with the arrangements made in the 1990s for a successful transfer of sovereignty in 1997, I recall that a key driver was the need to provide assurances to those who had invested in Hong Kong, or were contemplating investment here, that there would be reasonable policy continuity through and beyond 1997: hence the Basic Law.
It is reasonable to expect policy to evolve; less reasonable to contemplate abrupt changes of policy direction. In this instance, a decision to allow Jetstar to operate from Hong Kong would in turn open the gates to virtually any other international carrier moving in, incorporating a local subsidiary and then taking a slice of Hong Kong's air traffic rights.
There will be those who would suggest that this would be positive: but even they would surely have to accept that it represents a dramatic discontinuity with the past - and with a policy that has elevated Hong Kong into its current position as the No 1 aviation hub in the Asia-Pacific region.
Andrew Pyne is senior partner of Concuros, an Ireland-based aviation consultancy. He previously served in the Hong Kong government pre-1997 as principal assistant secretary for economic services. He has held the position of CEO at two low-cost carriers, Viva Macau and Avianova (Russia)
I believe they have already sold 3 of their idle aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: On land
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a pilot body in HKG do we want to have a bigger bunch of incompetent idiots operating out of CLK, we already have plenty of incompetents operating into the place.
Ask CAD FOI what their opinion is of the TRE/IRE candidates they have checked.
Perhaps this could be an additional reason.
Ask CAD FOI what their opinion is of the TRE/IRE candidates they have checked.
Perhaps this could be an additional reason.
Great post Titan;
Yes, his post was rather shameful. But I'm trying to get my head around your last sentence. You seem smarter than that.
Chaac, do yourself a favor buddy and take another read of your rather silly post...
Yes, his post was rather shameful. But I'm trying to get my head around your last sentence. You seem smarter than that.
Chaac, do yourself a favor buddy and take another read of your rather silly post...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the road
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would indeed be ironic if Pornstar ended up with, according to Sphincter boy, the best "Checkies" only to employ some of the worst pilots (who else would work on the rumored pay and conditions). How would anyone pass?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't you a bit sensitive, Titan? For an adult I mean.
Is this what QF has been reduced to? A failed international that runs around setting up Euro-style A320 operations around Asia. A low fare dumpster which offers ****e conditions to its passengers and employees. All for some teenie, tiny yield that evaporates every time the airline hits a speed bump. I think real adults might have "bigger stuff" to do with their time and capital.
Off to study for my next check...
Is this what QF has been reduced to? A failed international that runs around setting up Euro-style A320 operations around Asia. A low fare dumpster which offers ****e conditions to its passengers and employees. All for some teenie, tiny yield that evaporates every time the airline hits a speed bump. I think real adults might have "bigger stuff" to do with their time and capital.
Off to study for my next check...
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a reasonable assumption that the standard will be low because the package is so dismal. That is a not a stretch to a "think"ing man. If it turns out to be untrue, then the author should dedact the charge. Neither has been proven to be the case yet, as a JSHK airplane is yet to operate from CLK. Please refrain from telling stories about excellent standards in the sim. Those mean nothing.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: hong kong
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No there isn't. Because the problem with these scum sucking pond life bottom feeder carriers is that everyone has to lower their conditions etc to match their abysmal standards of remuneration and conditions. Just to stay profitable. Professional abilities notwithstanding ( and have a listen to some of the exchanges and standards of RT in the HK FIR alone if you have any doubts about that) these outfits have f@cked over the industry in general, undermine our profession, and bring very little to the travelling public other than the certain knowledge that you will be treated like sh&t.
LCC's are full of former "legacy carrier" pilots who have suffered at the hand of the fickleness of aviation.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming the operation gets up and running someday, let's just wait and see what we are dealing with. If it sounds a lot like HKA on the radio, we'll have our answer. In the meantime, let's reserve judgement.
They're here
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ex Hong Kong
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reserve your judgement
The commercial viability of JHK is unknown. Their flying operations remain to be seen. The provenance of their check and training staff is excellent. The success of their ATLA application is yet to be resolved. The attractiveness of the CoS will be tested, in due course, by the labor market. Customer acceptance of their product is yet to be explored. Availability of slots at CLK is not yet ascertained.
Of all the questions one can pose about JHK - I think the only one that is unimpeachable at the present time is the calibre of their training and checking staff.
Therefore, I suggest that correspondents here reserve their judgement of their colleagues. By all means comment on, and question, the merits of JHK as a commercial operation. But don't pour scorn on high calibre colleagues.
Of all the questions one can pose about JHK - I think the only one that is unimpeachable at the present time is the calibre of their training and checking staff.
Therefore, I suggest that correspondents here reserve their judgement of their colleagues. By all means comment on, and question, the merits of JHK as a commercial operation. But don't pour scorn on high calibre colleagues.