Jizz,

I hope you are right, but 2000 pilots seems like a bit of a stretch when there are not even that many CX pilots based in Hong Kong. Also, who's going to pay all those mortgages, certainly not 120K per month. If they add schooling to the mix 120K might look attractive to some expat FOs lower on the seniority list and perhaps some LEPs, but you'd have to crazy to jump at that from a CX captain's seat or even being close.

Cpt. Underpants

You are a funny guy :ok:

JIzzMonkey

I have a question for you . Do you think there is as an honest and respectable Airline Company in existence today ? If you are convinced of such then you are dillusional !

Where's Algol gone?
 

How's your cold wind going?

Stanley Ho buys 1/3 of JM
 

10:41am: Bloomberg reports that Qantas and China Eastern Airline’s Hong Kong budget airline venture sold a stake in their airline to a company founded by billionaire Stanley Ho, which will help pave the way for an operating license.
The low-cost carrier, called Jetstar Hong Kong, sold a 33.3 per cent stake to Shun Tak Holdings, Sydney-based Qantas said in a statement today.
Qantas and China Eastern will hold 33.3 per cent each, according to the statement. The total capitalisation of Jetstar Hong Kong remains unchanged at $US198 million.
With the addition of the partner, Qantas group cut its initial planned equity investment to $US66 million from up to $US99 million. China Eastern and Shun Tak will also contribute up to $US66 million each, the statement said.


Read more: http://http://www.smh.com.au/busines...#ixzz2VOY6C4RM

Cathay lets fly at Jetstar's Hong Kong plan
Looks like CX is really !!!! scared about the impending arrival of Crapstar to the HK skies?

Being scared straight from the heart? Its time folks.


A better economy for the city or allow a monopoly? What do you think will the government choose? Locals have spoken!

CX is a public company listed on the Hong Kong Exchange, the largest shareholder is Swire Pacific which is also listed on the HK exchange. Seems to be a HK company as far as I can see. Try to not look to deep, you might find an airline in Oz who's foreign ownership has been questioned a number of times.

CX is using the argument that their head office is in Australia and not HK. Talking with people who have applied for work with JQ, they have been told that it will be done out of Australia!

All the Executive Directors at Swire Pacific are employees of John Swire and Sons Ltd. John Swire & Sons Ltd. head office is listed as Swire House, 59 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6AJ, England. Seems to have worked out all right so far.

Actually they are employees of John Swire and Sons (HK) Ltd, head office in Pacific Place HK...

Strewth

You do realise that if Cathay Pacific tried to set up an international airline in Australia they would be blocked by the Australian government because of the requirement for 51% ownership by Australians. Hong Kong has the same 51% ownership rule. Hong Kong isn’t China and China Eastern’s partnership doesn’t count as Hong Kong ownership period and Shun Tak Holding is only a minority shareholding. Unless Qantas changes the structure of their proposed "franchise" they, I’m afraid are in for a hiding to nowhere. A shelf company majority owned by foreign companies just won’t cut it. They are going to find out the hard way though how business is conducted in this city.

You also seem to have a very short memory because it was only a few short years ago that Singapore Airlines wanted to operate 5th freedom flights from Australia to the USA. Qantas were squawking like stuffed pigs and lobbied the Federal Government to block them.

Regarding the directors of John Swire & Sons (HK) Ltd, you do realise that it is a very common practice for directors of a company to be directors of multiple companies. !!!!!, most of QF’s board of directors are directors of multiple companies. Swire Pacific, not John Swire & Sons (HK) Ltd is the largest shareholder in CX. Swire Pacific which is a publically listed company on the HKSE is 44% owned by John Swire & Sons Ltd with the majority of shareholders being local Hong Kong investors.

To say the Hong Kong SAR Government is pissed off with Qantas would be an understatement. You don’t get things done in this town without including the government in your planning. To ambush the government with megaphone tactics, i.e. mass media releases before even discussing your plans with them was a major, major foe par.

Swire Fast Facts 2012

Strewth

Get a life. CX is a HK listed company and has been for many many years. As such it meets all the local requirements of directors and executives.

Jetstar Japan may be a better place to focus. BTW ..any of you guys with bus hours and approaching retirement...Japan beckons..paid holiday in a country with great food and golf. The salary ain't too bad either ..as long as you don't get claustrophobic in a 320.

Strewth

Qantas doesn’t want to set up a domestic operation in Hong Kong so you point is mute. All flights to and from Hong Kong are international flights requiring the Hong Kong government to negotiate on behalf of all Hong Kong airlines the rights to operate these flights, including to mainland China. Domestic flights in Australia don’t require the Australian government doing any negotiation on behalf of the airlines that operate domestically.

Just because Hong Kong doesn’t have a domestic aviation market because of its physical size at 62km x 45km, doesn’t give Qantas the right to try and use it against them to have the law changed to suite their own financial reasons. If Qantas want to set up a Jetstar franchise here it has to be 51% locally owned period just like any Australian airline that wants to operate internationally out of Australia has to be 51% Australian owned. And for the record Virgin Australia was broken up into two companies to comply with this law. Virgin Australia (International) is 51% locally owned.

Yes Cathay and or Swire could set up a domestic airline in Australia. Again this is a direct result of Australia’s physical size which supports a domestic aviation market. Whether they want too though is another matter. They do though have about 300 pilots based in Australia that are willing and able to fly those planes if it was ever to happened. This would severely affect the profitability of Qantas’s cash cow domestic operations potentially pushing the whole group into a loss making situation that is terminal.

I hate "mute" points.

They are so moot.

Try 180 pilots.

Fr8r H8tr

Whoops. In a way though I would like to hit the mute button on this whole topic.

744frt

So it is. If they opened the bases up though I'm sure that they would be inundated by Aussies wanting to take up a base.

I think our little friend Strewth should have a read of the Hong Kong Basic Law. Article 128 would be a good starting point.




Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

Strewth
What has capacity rights between Australia and Hong Kong got to do with Jetstar Hong Kong? It is irrelevant to the debate at hand and a distraction by you along with most of your arguments. If Qantas find it hard to fill aircraft then that’s their problem. Cathay certainly doesn’t and could easily fill additional flights if capacity was increased.
I suggest you read Article 135 again and think about it. Article 135 has nothing to do with it.
CX has already stated it has no problem with competition from LCC or any other airline. It already competes with 107 airlines in the Hong Kong market including 17 LCC’s. The only thing that will slow down much more competition is the capacity of HKIA.
That is only because of the late take up of LCC in Asia. Your 30% figure is greatly distorted by the percentage of pax using LCC in Europe and North America. The reason only seventeen LCC’s operate into HKIA is because of the cost of operating here. The reason LCC’s are so successful in Europe and North America is that they generally operate into secondary airports. I won’t even get started about the propensity of secondary airport owners in Europe to pay the LCC’s to operate there.
All air services agreements involving HK carriers and mainland carriers operating between HKSAR and PRC is done in consultation with the HKSAR government as per Article 131. The reality is that most air services agreements for HKSAR carriers are negotiated under Article 133, this includes between HKSAR and Australia.
Jetstar Hong Kong is 66.6% owned by foreign airlines, i.e. 33.3% by Qantas and 33.3% by China Eastern. By its own admission Jetstar Hong Kong is a franchise airline of Jetstar and controlled by Jetstar and Qantas in Australia. Please enlighten me how this business model complies with Hong Kong’s Basic Law. The business model proposed clearly indicates that its principle place of business is in Australia where control will be centred. I also seem to recall the Australian regulator CASA grounding Tiger Airways Australian franchise because control was in Singapore with the parent company rather than in Australia. Pretty hypocritical of Qantas to try and do the same thing in Hong Kong which was clearly unacceptable in Australia.

Jetstar HK will definitely launch, its just the matter of time. Wait and see.

I beg to differ Soul Planet.

Only if they have KFC on the menu, surely? :E

STP

Strewth

This was written by Andrew Pyne in Crikey.com in March last year. It’s still 100% relevant now as it involves the exact issue we are talking about.

Jetstar Hong Kong, and some flag carrier issues

And this today in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Jetstar Hong Kong runs into more turbulence

The reality is that the precedent has already been set in Hong Kong since the Basic Law became the constitution of the HKSAR in 1997. The formation of Hong Kong Airlines in 2006 from the old CR Airways was structured specifically to comply with the Basic Law. Hainan Airlines through its holding company Grand China Air bought a 45% share in Hong Kong Airlines with the remaining 55% being bought by Hong Kong businessman Mung Kin Keung.

Jetstar HK has got almost a thousand employees and is still currently hiring. They even recently started simulation experiences for local students. You think the Ho empire will let this pass so easily? Don't forget he is the most powerful man in Macau. What about this combined with Aussie and China? Sorry but i have to go with - Jetstar HK will definitely launch.

Soul Planet,

With all due respect to Stanley Ho, he is just as compelled as everyone else to the Hong Kong constitution, the Basic Law.

Whether Jetstar Hong Kong gets up is dependent on their flexibility to change their business structure. Even Mr Orchard's quote in the SMH who by the way is an investment banker not an aviation expert, has said that.

My guess is that any further dilution of Qantas's share in this joint venture will probably make it unviable for them.

It ain't gunna happen..........:D

strewth,

Hong Kong will do what is in the best interest of Hong Kong not Australia. I don't see the HKSAR government changing the law to suite Qantas in the same way I don't see the Australian government changing airline ownership laws there to allow foreign carriers to own a majority in an Australian international airline.


Soul Planet
One could counter that by asking whether the Air China Group and the Hainan Airlines Group will let this pass so easily? There are some very powerful forces on the mainland that want to see this fail, fact.

Don't forget he is the most powerful man in Macau.

But Jetstar is trying to set up in Hong Kong.

Stanley Ho is also 91 years old, in poor health, and beset with serious family and succession issues. When he goes, Shun Tak will exit stage left.

Ho-Hum(bug)

To be quite frank, their so called jetstar hong kong project team is no match for the swire boys. They will definitely get their aoc sooner or later. The real question goes to how much beef do they hv against the swire empire. Forget hka, they are funded by corrupted money.

Last month on SCMP:

Jetstar is expected to have a big impact on Hong Kong Airlines and Hong Kong Express, as it aims to operate regional routes within five hours of Hong Kong, overlapping with their services.


.

Soul planet

Your post has nothing to do with the what we are talking about, ie whether Qantas's application for Jetstar Hong Kong is in compliance with the Basic Law?

For the record Oasis was 100% Hong Kong owned, set up by Hong Kong citizens Raymond & Priscilla Lee.

TryStar Airways
 

I heard CX will be launching TryStar Airways as a LCC competitor.

Apparently they will be seeking ex-TriStar legend pilots to man the low cost carrier offshoot, on a two-year only contract between the ages of 65-67, local terms only (A320 rating (payable over 12 monthly instalments taken out of salary) included in package!)

How many takers?

Fresh from the terrified kit,

Yes, indeeeeeed! :D

Soul planet

It goes to show your level of research into the topic at hand if you have only just discovered that quote. Your twisted interpretation of it also shows your opinion is clouded by your understandable hatred of CX management. I suggest you look at it from a point of view of law, i.e. the Basic Law.

MFM?
 

So you have an airport and a government that is protective of the flag carrier ans so called 5-star "national champion".

And 20 mins away you have a completely underused airport with no visa probs at Macau. The monopoly ends in 2019, and the bridge will be up. It just needs the Macau government to show some will to broaden the aviation market.

Viva Macau and Max were created to boost the weak performance of Air Macau. So the writing is on the wall. Macau wants more air travel.

My money's on nothing in HK, and at least one LCC in Macau in 2019.... Jetstar or Air Asia? We'll just have to wait...

Arrowhead

You may be correct as there’s no provision in the Macau Basic Law regarding airline ownership. Air Macau after all is 51% owned by CNAC. I have my doubts though whether Macau will become a viable low cost airport to Hong Kong as the inconvenience and cost of road transport will be a major problem. Once the bridge is finished the cheapest method to travel from Macau Airport to downtown Hong Kong will probably still be by ferry, not by bus. If the HKSAR and the Macau SAR had decided to put in a rail crossing with the new bridge my point of view would be different.

History Lesson Needed
 

Few of the posts are written by anyone who was in HK when Dragonair went to the HK Government (ALTA) to get their license in the 80's.

Cathay paid for a London based QC (Queens Counsel) to stand up in the hearings to argue their case and tried to say there was no market and therefore no need for Dragonair and a license should be denied.

How short-sighted and plane(!) wrong they were. No visions no courage to face competition, running scared. They said Kai Tak had no room, no airspace, no parking..... sounds familiar? And of course they had to buy Dragonair in the end.

CX you need to appreciate any LLC is not a threat but enhances travel options.

Singapore Airlines didn't suffer, they went from strength to strength and Chagi rose to the occasion expanding facilities and now is about to add the 3rd runway and Terminal 4 while HK debates, ponders, waffles and thinks and does nothing. Its 2022 before the 3rd runway in CLK - at the earliest.

Lets get on an live up to the Asia's World City brand or risk fast becoming just another a China village:)

PS Cathay who owns your shares????

No, not true...they bought a struggling, bankrupt, poorly managed 3 narrow bodied aircraft operation from an inept owner (Ho), and transformed it into a real player.

They traded Dragonair to CNAC just before the handover in order to prevent the State Owned behemoth from swamping HKG post 1997.

They bought it back at a significant premium when CNAC were ordered to divest themselves of their airline interests...

Just the facts, m'aam, just the facts.

Just the facts, Underpants?
 

Even by the standards of a rumor network Underpants excels himself in terms of inaccuracy. Dragonair did not "buy" Dragonair in 1990 - they took a 40% controlling interest on condition that CX provided critical management services.

The "bankrupt" bit is almost correct - although was not legally declared. There were 5 aircraft at the time not 3. I am unsure who "Ho" is, but there was no shareholder of that name - Sir Y K Pau's shipping empire were the principal shareholder with a significant holding by founder K P Chao's Novel.

The reason for the move had more to do with "real politik" than fear of competition. Serving Taiwan (Taipei was then the most profitable route in the world on a per seat mile basis) and PRC was becoming increasingly difficult. KA became the China Feeder and CX gave up PEK and SHA.

The change of control to CNAC with Cathay left with only a minority shareholding was again driven by politics but the eventual "purchase" by CX of 100% of KA was part of a complex realignment with share cross holdings by CX and AC.

I am intrigued by CNAC not being allowed to hold airline shares - presumably that would be CNAC HK?

All that, of course, is totally irrelevant to the thread about Jetstar! Forgive the side track.

@exitfirstright

I am not 100% familiar with the dragon air application back in the 80s, but by saying Singapore Airline going strength to strength after Jetstar Asia launch show a clear lack of understand of the situation. Jetstar Asia had made no major profit since launch (balance budget), and their aggressive pricing is there to kill Singapore Airline most profitable routes within Southeast Asia, which is exactly what they have done. Now Singapore Airline without profitable Asian route to support their long haul operations (long haul are often subsidized by profitable regional flight, this also hold true for Qantas in Australia and also for CX in Hong Kong), Singapore Airline have been struggling for the last 4-5 years. If you look at SQ long haul pricing, they can not longer undercut Qantas or Cathay without losing massive amount of money on their long haul routes. Right now if you look at SQ, they are a broken airline, they are trying to start Scoot, but from what I hear, that is not profitable. So if you talk to most analysis right now, they will all rate SQ below CX in future prospect based on challenging marketing environment. And this have always been Qantas plan all along from day one with regards to Jetstar Asia, there have been a few article written about it over the years with regards to CX and SQ pricing and Australian routes, etc... So Qantas plan for Jetstar Asia is not to there to make money, as long as it break even, Qantas is happy, Qantas want to use Jetstar to kill off SQ and CX home market so that CX and SQ can't afford to offer undercut pricing against Qantas long haul. So should HK government allow this to happen? Even Singapore government have deny Jetstar Asia growth and Sin Gov is Part Jetstar Asia shareholders (Deny Jetstar Asia operating A330, the only thing that allow SQ to still remotely compete with Jetstar Asia). So shall HK follow the same mistake that Singapore had made (and realize that they had made)? I sure hope not.

And that sir, is the most correct post so far...

888