Motorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3800 posts, RR: 8 Posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3536 times:
Personally, I don't think so and also hope it won't.
What do others think? Is Branson's Virgin and a possible Singapore Airlines link-up enough sustainable competition to warrant the region's two most dominant players formally wedding? And if they do, will it be good for the flying public, the two countries' identities, the crew, competition et al?
StarFlyer From Germany, joined Sep 2002, 987 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3452 times:
Can a merger of the two main competitors in a market be to the consumers advantage? I would hardly think so. Ultimately, they can cut out any competitor out through their market dominance. This is why there is no benefit to the flying public. It is not a question of Air NZ join Qantas or die. If they focus on the core markets and the successful Star Alliance co operations with the likes of UA, SQ, LH and BD.
I can only hope that the competition watchdogs in NZ and Australia view this in a similar way. The market share of the two airlines joint together would just be too big.
Just my two cents. Please share your opinion!
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3280 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3436 times:
NO NO NO NO.
Australians don't want to see Qantas gain anymore monopoly power(except the section of the gov..ummm a certain trasport minister) that are inbed with
for a QF....(think of the drink...not Qantas)
More importantly, New Zealanders hate the idea! They don't wanna loose
their airline, and the certainly reject any attempt by any australian organisation to dominate them. As for qantas....a lot of their arguenments
are bull and its been proven...Like new trans-tasman routes that can't be serviced by two carriers. Well, why doesn't ONE start flying them. Afterall,
Qantas flys lots of routes virgin doesn't fly (such as SYD-Townsville nonstop 717 service) but that doesn't deter them from entering those markets.
It's about trying to create a cartel....pure and simple....and Now we can't blame them for trying, but we don't have to give it the go ahead. Overall, most of the public in both countries DOES NOT support the move.....all i can say is, dream on white boy (QF), you may be the spirit of Australia but your not the pride of the pacific!
Motorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3800 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3398 times:
Looking back with 20/20 hind-sight, I wonder what the situation would've been like now, had the New Zealand and Australian regulatory bodies given the go ahead for a 49% investment by Singapore Airlines in the former Air NZ/Ansett Australasian airline?
Air NZ would never had to have divested (embarrassingly and financially devastatingly) itself of Ansett.
Ansett would have had a very strong international feed from two sides (Asia and the Pacific) from SQ and NZ, like Qantas does from its international arm.
Air NZ domestic would also have had the same advantage.
SQ and NZ would have had a great domestic feed from Oz (again like QF).
SQ and NZ were committed to growing AN International, so there'd have been another choice for Australians internationally with a seamless transition from AN domestic.
Capital would have been available for new aircraft, cabin retro-fits and other equipment that both AN and NZ needs/ed.
The NZ Govt. (aka NZ people) wouldn't then have had to rescue the floundering New Zealand flag-carrier.
Australian jobs would not have been lost (well not immediatley, but there'd have been more time to negotiate some sense with certain unions).
Australian confidence and national pride would not have been so dented with the loss of an Ozzy icon.
Qantas wouldn't have been handed the mega-monopoly it received on the somewhat bloodied silver platter.
There would have been a truly robust and competitive Australasian airline industry to, from and within Australia and New Zealand.
The flying public would have had more choice and quite possibly more consistently competitive prices.
NZ and AN would have had partnership advice and participation from the world's most consistent "Black Ink" airline.
The alliance (cemented by financial interdependence) would have worked with three very strong, quality focused, nationalistic brands without eroding any of each's independence or attributes.
Virgin Blue would still be successful and chipping away at the majors with a whole new product offering and ethos.
You know, I can't figure any negative ramifications that may have occurred. Actually, well SQ, like NZ would have found out just how badly AN had been run in previous administrations - and the Unions may still not have come to the party to help rescue their airline.
Question: Does anyone else think Rod Eddington got off far too lightly with the collapse of Ansett? Amazing how fast he jumped ship once he'd steered the course of a sale from News Corp.