Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13756 posts, RR: 18 Posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5082 times:
Singapore Airlines Limited's new vice-president for the South West Pacific region - Paul Tan - has said that it is time for the Singaporean and Australian governments to resume open skies negotiations - in particular SYD - LAX.
He said that the aviation sector was approaching the normalcy that the Australian Minister for Transport (and arguably Qantas) referred to last year. "Things are better. Qantas has made a profit, we have turned around our losses in the first quarter to show a profit. I think most airlines are reporting better loads, so its good indicators that things are going well."
Last year, passenger growth to Australia on Singapore Airlines flights grew 12%. We have a pretty strong marketing outfit on the West Coast of the USA, in Los Angeles. We believe we can help bring in people to Australia."
Unsurprisingly, the Australian Minister’s spokesman disagreed. “We said we wanted more steadiness in the international aviation sector, and I don't think anybody really says that it's completely steady right now. We're only just (past) SARS and bird flu and a number of airlines are still in a very tricky position. A decision on that was made basically yesterday and you can't keep looking at these things every few months, it's a medium- to longer-term issue rather than a short-term issue."
Meanwhile, to take advantage of unrestricted landing access to Australian destinations, Singapore Airlines will increase flights. MEL services will increase thrice weekly to 19 a week in September 2004 – taking total flights between Singapore and Australia to 70 a week by OAG’s Airline of the Year 2004. The Airline will also celebrate 20 years of service to BNE and ADL.
Sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3657 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4861 times:
PVD - SQ is the 2nd biggest International uplifter out of Australia after Qantas and they would love to get on this route. A daily SQ service would be a huge thorn in QF's side and would be highly profitable for them. Not to mention that UAL could codeshare with them and when faced with a choice between UAL and SQ on the same route who are going to choose?????? NOT UAL!!!!!
The A340-500 direct service is targeting a different market than a SYD-LAX service would.
Nickofatlanta From Australia, joined May 2000, 1493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4799 times:
I think SQ should be allowed to fly this route. QF gets a lot out of SIN. Equal the equation. More importantly, from a consumers' point of view, bring more competition to the current duopoly of QF and UA transpacific from Aus to USA. There is a very good reason for why fares from North America to Australia are equal to or more than fares from Europe to Australia even though a flight from LHR-SYD is longer than from SYD-JFK!
Zonks From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 167 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4752 times:
The thing is, what would QF and other Australian carriers get out of this if SQ was allowed to operate Australia - US services? Yes, QF already gets a lot out of SIN, so SQ & CAAS don't really have much to bargain with. There is no way that CAAS would take back QF's fifth freedom rights from SIN. After QF could then move its operations to BKK or KUL, hitting CAAS where it matters most: in its wallet.
I think there is little to no incentive for Australian authorities to allow SQ to operate Australia - US services.
Qantasclub From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 757 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4742 times:
I say let it rip with decent competition: SQ would be great competitor on this route with QF-forget about UAL and ANZ-they will not survive on this route should SQ enter. Qantas will defend this route aggressively given that it represents a huge slice of their profits, and judging by US-OZ traffic lately, there seems to be alot more room for capacity.
Aviasian From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1490 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4707 times:
Zonks is spot-on in saying that SIA and CAAS has little to bargain with. After all, Qantas has already tonnes of rights to and through Singapore.
It is all about decency and addressing an inbalance that dates back all the way to the 1930s when Qantas Empire Airways was given beyond rights to Singapore. This tiny nation has never flinched at granting QEA and Qantas ever more rights . . .
When will Qantas EVER feel that it is steady enough for some real and fair competition? Never, I suspect. In the meantime, SIA can continue to see itself shut out of trans-Pacific via Australia and trans-Atlantic via London.
At the end of the day, Australian and British travellers will benefit from a greater choice of services - they could choose to boycott the new entrant out of sheer patriotism or other personal considerations.
Chrisrad From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 1095 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4472 times:
I would welcome SQ on a SYD-LAX, or even better MEL-LAX route. The competition between SQ AND QF no doubt would be a bonus to all travelers to the US. And in any case your airline is not so special anymore. In fact it is quite ordinary and when was Qantas ever special to begin with???
Welcome aboard Malaysia Airlines! Winner of Best Cabin Staff 2001,2002,2003,2004,2007,2009,2012
Easyjet From Australia, joined May 2001, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4450 times:
I agree with Chrisrad and Qantasclub. Competition is good for the consumer. Think of it, there is no real need to "protect" a route if an airline is capable of defending itself. Unless it's not capable of doing so, then perhaps it should improve itself by offering better service and price!!
Get a grip.....non of us owns Qantas Airways. Why get so agitated, spiteful and defensive?
FoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 3084 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4339 times:
Shenzhen, we have an Open Skies agreement with Australia, so theoretically any U.S. airline could fly there if they wanted to.
While this is obviously an issue for the Australians and Singaporeans to work out amongst themselves, I think most of us Americans would have no problem with SQ injecting some much-needed competition on the U.S.-Australia routes. And I can't imagine the U.S. government would object either. However, as others have pointed out, I see little incentive for the Australian government--which does have an interest in protecting its own carriers--to allow SQ to compete. Unless, of course, Singapore threatened to withdraw QF's rights between Singapore and Europe, but I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon...
Jupiter2 From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 1021 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4278 times:
If UA go under and no other carrier form the US picks up the route SQ may get the rights, otherwise I believe it will be a long time before it would happen.
The problem for SQ if the Singapore govt was to block QF's onward rights if it came to that, would be the retaliation from the Australian govt.
If QF was banned from the onward flights then you could bet that SQ would suffer worse than QF, simply because all that SQ would get would be reciprocal rights. QF would only serve SIN to what the market would actually require, maybe a 747 from SYD and MEL, a 767 from PER and BNE, no oncarriage rights at all. SQ would get the same, including the banning of carrying passengers beyond SIN. QF could always route their European flights through another Asian city, an inconvienence but no great loss, SQ on the other hand go from offering some 1200 seats a day from SYD to SIN to 400 and they have o be going to SIN, ouch.
So for everyone who believes that SIN has given away too much to the likes of Australia and the UK, please remember those all important oncarriage rights, they are what keeps SQ going.
Aaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4249 times:
I've heard suggestions that QF be given reciprocal rights to fly transpac from Singapore if SQ is given AUS - U. S. rights. Could this be a bone of contention as well? The Singaporean market would be insignificant (w/o 5th freedom rights) for QF vis-a-vis the AUS-U. S. market for SQ?
With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
767er From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4220 times:
I very much doubt NZ will re-enter SYD LAX in the immediate future. They just do not have the aircraft and what with no Star Alliance domestic carrier within Australia , it would not be worth their while.
Nickofatlanta From Australia, joined May 2000, 1493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4169 times:
Why do people get so patriotic about the airline industry? Just think, regularly, you consume / use stuff from multiple countries. You may:
- drink Coca-Cola (US company)
- bank with HSBC (UK company)
- stay at a Bass hotel (UK company)
- use an Optus cell phone (Singaporean company)
- buy medicine made by GlaxoSmithKline (UK company)
There are so many foreign companies operating in the Australian - and many other - economies and competing with domestic companies. I am all for foreign airlines being able to compete and provide choice for the consumer whether it be SQ from Aus to USA, VS from HKG to Aus or CX from LHR to JFK.
To say that QF is not stable is a joke. They are on of the most profitable airlines in the world - and in a time of supposed crisis!
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6285 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4106 times:
Gees what a mis informed thread! Taking the points in no particular order:
Fox Bravo - There is a US/Oz Open Skys agreement??? There IS NOT and wont be until you open your beef and sugar markets to competition. According to all press reports I have seen, Aviation is NOT even mentioned in the US/Oz Free Trade Agreement, just negotiated. The full text has not yet even been released, yet.
Aviasian (& others) - The current Oz - SIN bi lateral treaty is actually biased in SIN's favor, so SIN really, really has nothing to offer to get fifth freedom rights. I gather you think QF got the fifth freedom right for nothing? Don't you believe it! SIN got sixth freedom rights Oz - Europe, and I'll bet that's worth at least, if not more than QF's fifth freedom.
While I am in favor of compertation I am not in favor of it coming from a majority government owned, monopoly. To me that is basically unfair!
I am not convinced that SYD-LAX (or SFO/SEA/YVR/etc) service would be all that profitable to any new airline. It takes two B744's to operate a daily service and because of time windows there is not a lot of room for creative scheduling. In fact I think it would only be profitable to an airline that fits the description in the paragraph above.
If not why do we only have one US carrier? (HA does not count for this discussion, because they don't offer OZ-west coast, non stop services).
As I have said in other threads this is a loooong thin market, it is hard to make money on and unless you have to be in it, you can usually find easier ways to make money.
Qantasclub - DO NOT write off the Kiwis! NZ will be the last airline standing on the South Pacific, what ever happens! Why? Simple, they have no where else to go, it is their home turf, even more so than QF. We have seen that the NZ government will not let NZ go under, I don't think that will ever change for very good economic/stragic reasons.
KrisworldB777 From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 571 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4064 times:
Some interesting points have been raised above, some pertinent to the real argument and some not.
As any Australian knows, the government and most of the Australian regulatory bodies are keen to have increased competition with the objective of driving prices down and hence increasing the number of tourists into Australia. There is little doubt that Singapore Airlines will eventually get the rights, it is rather a case of when, not if. With Australia faced with the frightening predicament of having a Latham government by the year’s end, SIA could be getting the rights far sooner than many of you think.
I would remind you that Qantas isn’t overly concerned about competition from SIA on the route. Indeed they realise that fares and loads will fall, but this will mainly be seen up the back with the lower-yielding leisure passengers on their annual vacation. Of course they’ll fight against it until Dixon’s red face turns purple but in reality, as Dixon well knows, he’s just procrastinating which is actually working.
In today’s aviation world, it is exceptionally important not to underestimate the power of alliances, particularly on business travellers. Across the Pacific, you will find that the majority of high-yielding passengers rate their frequent flyer point accumulation as an important factor in their choice of airline and these are the important people when it comes to winning the bread and paying the bills. As long as there is no star alliance airline in Australia, Australian business travellers will continue to patronise Qantas. It is United Airlines that will be hurt, and badly too.
Whilst so many of you are quick to run to the aid of Singapore and claim injustice after injustice, remember that Qantas has been an instrumental factor in getting Changi going as a true air hub, bringing many billions of dollars into the economy. The Singapore Government, in line with their entrepreneurial genius, rightly saw Changi’s air-hub status as being a more important factor for the whole nation as well as shaping SIA into a global force, which they are.
The times ahead will no doubt be interesting. However, I’m always sceptical of the ACCC’s extraordinarily linear approach to business and the airline industry in particular. But alas, I think SIA’s presence on the route, provided frequencies are limited, won’t be a bad thing for Australia and for Americans alike.