Jetstar HK
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: hkg
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetstar HK
Just saw this press release from the government, released this morning:
Air Transport Licensing Authority public inquiry
************************************************
The following is issued on behalf of the Air Transport Licensing Authority:
The Air Transport Licensing Authority will hold an inquiry commencing tomorrow (January 23) at 9.30am to consider an application by Jetstar Hong Kong Airways Limited to operate scheduled air services.
The inquiry will take place at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre at 38/F, Two Exchange Square, Central and is open to the public. Photography, video-recording or audio-recording of the inquiry proceedings are forbidden.
Ends/Thursday, January 22, 2015
Issued at HKT 09:30
Air Transport Licensing Authority public inquiry
************************************************
The following is issued on behalf of the Air Transport Licensing Authority:
The Air Transport Licensing Authority will hold an inquiry commencing tomorrow (January 23) at 9.30am to consider an application by Jetstar Hong Kong Airways Limited to operate scheduled air services.
The inquiry will take place at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre at 38/F, Two Exchange Square, Central and is open to the public. Photography, video-recording or audio-recording of the inquiry proceedings are forbidden.
Ends/Thursday, January 22, 2015
Issued at HKT 09:30
2 years and not a single passenger carried, wow AJ you are an airline genius
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: HK- A little bit of industrial China in every breath you take.
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could argue that he has been a passenger through this whole pathetic ordeal. Wont put a dent in his bonus though.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok but what has that got to do with Jokestar HK?
Here's a tip Jamie. When the article is about the 787 on a brand new route, don't be lazy and post a picture of an Ansett 767.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 42
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
romafly
I’m sorry but you’re wrong. This was a legal decision made by ATLA not the government based on its interpretation of Hong Kong’s “Basic Law”, i.e. its constitution. For it to be a political decision it would have to be made by the government and the legislators which it clearly wasn’t. Yes they can appeal the decision but the ruling by ATLA is pretty much straight to the point and in my opinion very hard to argue against.
Ummm. No they haven't. Not even once. All they've done is blow lots of hot air in the media pushing their incorrect interpretation of the Basic Law, Chapter V, Section 4.
I mean , this is a political decision , JHK can legally counteract.
As they already did few times before .
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The China Eastern Qantas dream of starting Hong Kong based LCC JHK ultimately failed over a year ago due to objections primarily from Cathay Pacific, essentially the PPOB argument determined by ATLA.
The perceived arrogance of the initial announcement by QF CEA drawing the ire of old China hands at Swire, it'd never get off the ground as it took decades to gain the requisite experience. Despite Qantas Airways founded in 1920 having operated to Hong Kong since 1949 the same year Mao Zedong established the People's Republic of China in Beijing, only a year after Butterfield & Swire purchased a 45% interest in Cathay Pacific Airways; but was this deliberate.
Blind Hong Kong Freddy could see where this was going however viewed from another perspective I can see a win and possibly prime motivation for doing so. QF CEA ultimately defined a grey area in the Hong Kong Basic Law, essentially shaping the battlefield, quite possibly to Cathay's future detriment on many levels in a case of sleeping dogs.
Laying bare the nature of business in Hong Kong, a decision many still believe was not in the interests of Hong Kong generally nor her travelling public. Whilst taking the political climate at the time and now into consideration it's hard not to see this being a factor accelerating the decline in the travelling publics view of Hong Kong's flag carrier Cathay Pacific. Ironic in that Cathay Pacific itself was founded on 24 September 1946 by Australian Sydney H. de Kantzow and American Roy C. Farrell.
With limited slot availability, delays, costs of business in HK, the financial case was not strong, the intangibles were. CEA gained proprietary material on LCC operations which makes it a tougher opponent to airlines in the region, Qantas got a top seat at the machinations, Qantas and CEA both gained powerful long term strategic allies.
Ultimate power lies in the hands of the state, viewed from Beijing and Canberra the deliberations by ATLA were out of step with the strategic objectives of both states. At the time Australia and China were reviewing air service agreements and have since lifted almost all restrictions between the states upon Australia's request severely damaging Cathay Pacific and Cathay Dragons business model. Worse still, given the US withdrawal from ratification of the TPP and President Xi Jinping defence of free trade at the recent Davos World Economic Form, potential exists for the Australia China open skies model to extend firstly to the UK and thence Europe. What affect the JHK decision had will never be known publicly however it'd be naive to think it had none.
Thirteen percent of Cathay Pacific's flights are to Australia, whilst utilising ninety six percent of available services according the Hong Kong Australia air services agreement based on 2011 figures. Qantas is no where close. The Australian government are unlikely to revise this agreement upwards as it is not in Australia's interest, more so since the recent China Australia air services agreement, potentially extending to other non aviation related interests, particularly given the startling differences in balances of trade with Hong Kong.
Combined with QF B787 orders and foreseeable operations to China, JHK would have been a cherry on the cake but CEA and Qantas got the cake. Hong Kong may have to do with the Prunus cerasus in the form of Cathay Pacific LCC, being the whole of the aircraft rather than the rear. I wonder if the Swire taipans had a do over they would be so vocal, choose the same course, alternatives and options were many, one a Qantas LCC JV, unfortunately more likely a case of old dogs and new tricks.
The perceived arrogance of the initial announcement by QF CEA drawing the ire of old China hands at Swire, it'd never get off the ground as it took decades to gain the requisite experience. Despite Qantas Airways founded in 1920 having operated to Hong Kong since 1949 the same year Mao Zedong established the People's Republic of China in Beijing, only a year after Butterfield & Swire purchased a 45% interest in Cathay Pacific Airways; but was this deliberate.
Blind Hong Kong Freddy could see where this was going however viewed from another perspective I can see a win and possibly prime motivation for doing so. QF CEA ultimately defined a grey area in the Hong Kong Basic Law, essentially shaping the battlefield, quite possibly to Cathay's future detriment on many levels in a case of sleeping dogs.
Laying bare the nature of business in Hong Kong, a decision many still believe was not in the interests of Hong Kong generally nor her travelling public. Whilst taking the political climate at the time and now into consideration it's hard not to see this being a factor accelerating the decline in the travelling publics view of Hong Kong's flag carrier Cathay Pacific. Ironic in that Cathay Pacific itself was founded on 24 September 1946 by Australian Sydney H. de Kantzow and American Roy C. Farrell.
With limited slot availability, delays, costs of business in HK, the financial case was not strong, the intangibles were. CEA gained proprietary material on LCC operations which makes it a tougher opponent to airlines in the region, Qantas got a top seat at the machinations, Qantas and CEA both gained powerful long term strategic allies.
Ultimate power lies in the hands of the state, viewed from Beijing and Canberra the deliberations by ATLA were out of step with the strategic objectives of both states. At the time Australia and China were reviewing air service agreements and have since lifted almost all restrictions between the states upon Australia's request severely damaging Cathay Pacific and Cathay Dragons business model. Worse still, given the US withdrawal from ratification of the TPP and President Xi Jinping defence of free trade at the recent Davos World Economic Form, potential exists for the Australia China open skies model to extend firstly to the UK and thence Europe. What affect the JHK decision had will never be known publicly however it'd be naive to think it had none.
Thirteen percent of Cathay Pacific's flights are to Australia, whilst utilising ninety six percent of available services according the Hong Kong Australia air services agreement based on 2011 figures. Qantas is no where close. The Australian government are unlikely to revise this agreement upwards as it is not in Australia's interest, more so since the recent China Australia air services agreement, potentially extending to other non aviation related interests, particularly given the startling differences in balances of trade with Hong Kong.
Combined with QF B787 orders and foreseeable operations to China, JHK would have been a cherry on the cake but CEA and Qantas got the cake. Hong Kong may have to do with the Prunus cerasus in the form of Cathay Pacific LCC, being the whole of the aircraft rather than the rear. I wonder if the Swire taipans had a do over they would be so vocal, choose the same course, alternatives and options were many, one a Qantas LCC JV, unfortunately more likely a case of old dogs and new tricks.
Last edited by Strewth; 27th Jan 2017 at 06:40.
Billionaire businesswoman Pansy Ho hopes to resurrect Jetstar Hong Kong after the budget airline’s failure to gain regulatory approval nearly two years ago.
Ms Ho, daughter of Hong Kong gaming billionaire Stanley Ho, said she hoped the airline would be able to fly. The timing was right, given increased airport infrastructure development in Hong Kong, Macau and Shenzhen, she said. “We have spent quite an amount of time and investment in trying to procure that opportunity,” Bangkok-based Ms Ho told The Australian.
Jetstar Hong Kong was *planned as a low-fare carrier, flying short-haul services within five hours of Hong Kong to Japan, South Korea and Southeast Asia.
Ms Ho was appointed chairman in 2013, as her company Shun Tak Holdings was an equal third shareholder in the budget carrier, which went through the licence application process that year. Other partners were Qantas and China Eastern.
“I think it might have been the wrong timing and I believe there might still be opportunities. Actually the partners have kept up communication,” Ms Ho said.
“We intend to (take) a close look in the future as to the overall development. If the opportunity presents itself, I think the three partners are keen to work together. We have to wait for something to happen but we have kept in contact.
“So I believe there will be opportunities about, simply because the whole region where we are operating out of is also evolving.”
Last year Jetstar chief executive Jayne Hrdlicka told The Australian she was still keen on a Jetstar Hong Kong operation but felt Jetstar had been “outplayed by Cathay” in its attempts to get rights to fly out of Hong Kong.
“We can fly into Hong Kong, but we can’t have an airline based in Hong Kong,” she said. “Everyone of our Asian competitor airlines flies into Hong Kong — from Japan, Vietnam and from Singapore — but we can’t be based in Hong Kong.”
She said it was a “quirk of the rules” that Jetstar was not allowed to be based there. “There are a deep-seated set of technical reasons why we are not allowed to fly based in Hong Kong.
“However, we would hope that over time, as the airport runway access improves, and they have more capacity, that we would be more successful.”
Asked if she had given up on having a Hong Kong base Ms Hrdlicka said: “You never say never in this business.”
She said “bringing Asia to its potential” would be an important part of Jetstar’s strategy for the next five years. But recently a Jetstar spokesman said: “We continue to believe there are significant opportunities for low-fare travel across the region, but we don’t have any plans to again look at establishing Jetstar Hong Kong.
“China Eastern Airlines and Shun Tak remain close partners of the Qantas Group.”
But Ms Ho said an initiative by the central government for a regional collaboration within the Guangdong Province would create a “really huge metropolitan area including Hong Kong, Macau and Shenzhen”. “I think that bay area of Guangdong development ... in terms of aviation ... must present oppor*tunities.”
Additional reporting: Glenda Korporaal
b.
Ms Ho, daughter of Hong Kong gaming billionaire Stanley Ho, said she hoped the airline would be able to fly. The timing was right, given increased airport infrastructure development in Hong Kong, Macau and Shenzhen, she said. “We have spent quite an amount of time and investment in trying to procure that opportunity,” Bangkok-based Ms Ho told The Australian.
Jetstar Hong Kong was *planned as a low-fare carrier, flying short-haul services within five hours of Hong Kong to Japan, South Korea and Southeast Asia.
Ms Ho was appointed chairman in 2013, as her company Shun Tak Holdings was an equal third shareholder in the budget carrier, which went through the licence application process that year. Other partners were Qantas and China Eastern.
“I think it might have been the wrong timing and I believe there might still be opportunities. Actually the partners have kept up communication,” Ms Ho said.
“We intend to (take) a close look in the future as to the overall development. If the opportunity presents itself, I think the three partners are keen to work together. We have to wait for something to happen but we have kept in contact.
“So I believe there will be opportunities about, simply because the whole region where we are operating out of is also evolving.”
Last year Jetstar chief executive Jayne Hrdlicka told The Australian she was still keen on a Jetstar Hong Kong operation but felt Jetstar had been “outplayed by Cathay” in its attempts to get rights to fly out of Hong Kong.
“We can fly into Hong Kong, but we can’t have an airline based in Hong Kong,” she said. “Everyone of our Asian competitor airlines flies into Hong Kong — from Japan, Vietnam and from Singapore — but we can’t be based in Hong Kong.”
She said it was a “quirk of the rules” that Jetstar was not allowed to be based there. “There are a deep-seated set of technical reasons why we are not allowed to fly based in Hong Kong.
“However, we would hope that over time, as the airport runway access improves, and they have more capacity, that we would be more successful.”
Asked if she had given up on having a Hong Kong base Ms Hrdlicka said: “You never say never in this business.”
She said “bringing Asia to its potential” would be an important part of Jetstar’s strategy for the next five years. But recently a Jetstar spokesman said: “We continue to believe there are significant opportunities for low-fare travel across the region, but we don’t have any plans to again look at establishing Jetstar Hong Kong.
“China Eastern Airlines and Shun Tak remain close partners of the Qantas Group.”
But Ms Ho said an initiative by the central government for a regional collaboration within the Guangdong Province would create a “really huge metropolitan area including Hong Kong, Macau and Shenzhen”. “I think that bay area of Guangdong development ... in terms of aviation ... must present oppor*tunities.”
Additional reporting: Glenda Korporaal
b.