United777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1648 posts, RR: 1 Posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 433 times:
Singapore Airlines has bought 50% of Ansett Australia and could plan to expand to Australian routes, also Singapore Airlines is planning to take stake in Thai Airways International and South African Airways.
Fly777ual From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4510 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 429 times:
It looks as if Singapore is going to come aboard the Star Alliance...hook ups with LH, TG, and Ansett. I believe that Ansett is going to look for a new long haul replacement a/c. The choices were between the A340 and 777...with Singapore playing a major role. What do you think the new aircraft is going to be?
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3075 posts, RR: 10 Reply 5, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 430 times:
Yes thats true. Singapore wants to be the next big 'mega carrier' I think i should update you about the meadium haul aircraft. The choice has already been made. It was to replace the 747-300s. The choice was between the A340 and 777, which rumors that either would be leased from SQ and the A340 was favoured. But, due to increased growth and new code-share agreements, Ansett will now lease PW powered 747-400s from singapore airlines. There just going to basically trade their 300s in for 400s. Its already in the schedule. The current 747-300s are leased from singapore airlines. As for the A330-200, i wouldn't be so sure. It would make sence given that Ansett has a large A320 fleet, but Ansett CEO, Rod Eddington, is the former CEO of Cathay Pacific. He ordered a large fleet of Rolls Royce powered aircraft and was very happy with them, so, he may well again choose RR. GE CF-680 engines are already in the fleet though, so it would only require miniumal training for engineering staff if GE is chosen. I doubt PW will be considered, but it might because SIA has a large fleet of PW engines. So the possiblities are many. The truth may be that they may not even order a 250-300 seat plain yet. The may just stick with boeing 767s. The do the job and are not old.
It would make more sence to look at reducing one type in the narrow body fleet. Choose between 737 family and the A320 family - not both like they do at the moment. This would be a much bigger cost saving. If they do pick the A330 though (which i suspect will happan eventually, just when is the big question) the writing is on the wall for the 737-300.
FedEx From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 427 times:
Does this mean Ansett will fly the B747's that Singapore
has to LAX? Possibley? Qantas now has a competitor.
Hey Will,G5 what are your feelings on this? I know
you two have to have some kind of reaction to this?
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3075 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 427 times:
This certainly gives ansett the potential to fly to LAX. South America was considered until QF started flights to Buenos Aries last year. Ansett's current international policy is to fly into asia. Their core business is domestic and they have no intentions of changing. I think it is highly unlikey ansett will start SYD-LAX service because Air NZ already fly that route - yes thats right, they fly non-stop between Syd and LA. This means that 2 star allience members fly the route - i doubt they will make it 3 star airlines. (UAL is the other) The only way i see that happaning is if Ansett took over from Air New Zealand. Remember, Air New Zealand own half of ansett, and now, Singapore owns the other half.
So what do i think, well, merge all three. I would prefer it called Ansett, but, it doesn't really matter. You would have a very big carrier with a hudge global route network. It would crush Qantas. Everywhere from
Beijing to JFK. Infact, it would be the largest airline in the Asia pacific region. If the got one more carrier in(such as All nippon airways) I think we would have the single most powerful airline outside the US. Come on guys, we work together, we can do great things.
V Jet From Australia, joined May 1999, 718 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 427 times:
I hardly think it will "crush" Qantas. which incidently already goes to Beijing and New York. Lets not forget how big the Oneworld alliance already is. I think it is disgusting that the Australian Federal Government can allow the total sale of Ansett to foreign carriers. I think a lot of people may stop supporting Ansett because they will think that their money is just going out of the country to the foreign owners. A sad day for Australian aviation.
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3075 posts, RR: 10 Reply 10, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 430 times:
I mega merger has the potential to crush Qantas. Most people you travel for business(which is the bulk of ansett clintee) don't care where the money goes. If they did they would by Australian built cars and not German ones, or japanese. Its not a sad day at all for ansett. It was already forgen owend too, because News ltd is not australian anymore, its american. So really, its is a great day because for the first time, the airline is totally committed to the airline business. Do you think News ltd would have more vision for the airline business than Singapore Airlines? I think not. Basically, if Qantas doesn't keep on its toes its going to sink. BA started installing inseat tv screens in economy, qantas foolishly rulled it out! On the kangaroo route, when the price is cheaper on singapore, and they have a more advanced and better product, a lot of people will choose singapore. British airways could see this and is doing somthing about it.(hence in PTVs) What does qantas do, install new seats. Well, it didn't include footrests in its new design, (unlike competing SIA, and AirNZ, and cathay) and doesn't have the hudge seat pitch Ansetts 743s have, (typically 36"-37" in economy) so, why should i fly Qantas. Half of Qantas is not Australian owned, so its not really all that Australian(hence the airline dropping the phrase 'Qantas - the Australian Airline' and reverting back to its previous 'Qantas - the spirit of Australia' which sounds better anyway) In almost every Qantas termainal, right beside the Qantas sign at check-in, you will see a British Airways sign. Even at domestic Airports that have no international service! I flew out of OOL in January, and i heard staff commenting on the sign(BA) saying they wonder how long it will take before that was the only sign in the termanal.
It is a great day, and it gives Ansett a chance. Remember before the Qantas and Australian Airlines merger- Australian was no more powerful than ansett. This is ansett's opertunity, the same opertunity Australian Airlines had and took!!!!!!
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3075 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 427 times:
Oh, Yes Qantas Flies to Beijing, but not JFK. That is and AA code share service. Code Share services don't count - they are not real!!!! The Qantas international network isn't good enough, it needs much more Europian destinations, London, Paris Frankfurt and Rome do not constitute Europe. Oneworld is powerful, but, STAR is even bigger V jet, even more powerful, even more everything. The British Airways stake in Qantas gave it a lot of Strength. Why can't Ansett have the same opertunity?
PS, the V-jets have been retired a very long time now.
V Jet From Australia, joined May 1999, 718 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 427 times:
For the record Qantas is not 50 percent foreign owned. BA has a 49 percent
shareholding. There is legislation in place to ensure that no more than 49 percent can be foreign owned. Yes the JFK flight is a codeshare with AA but it is sold for all intents and purposes as a QF flt. I believe QF does have traffic rights to fly to JFK in its own right if it wanted to. Obviously the amount of traffic that goes to JFK does not warrant this at this time. True Qantas did not go ahead with the installation of in seat video in economy class for very valid reasons at the time, i.e. the technology was not good enough and from what I have read in seat video may be great for passengers but can be a pain for the airline with breakdowns etc. As for serving more European cities well there has to be the traffic to sustain it. An airline that just starts serving new cities just to be able to say it goes there will soon be in trouble. Yes I am aware that the 707 V jets were retired a long time ago. So what.
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3075 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (14 years 2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 429 times:
1% difference - big deal. Well, i too read the Australian Aviation airticle that says that Qantas is not installing inseat TV screens for that reason, and i can tell you its rubbish. Qantas already has the system, it has personal tv screens in first and business class. And it works fine there. All they have to do is install it in economy, it works no difference for people who bought a cheaper ticket.
Your comments about airlines serving new cities serves no purpose, other than for Qantas to loose passengers to Singapore Airlines. And after they try it, it may be hard to win them back. Fact, more than half of the passengers that depart australia for europe every day do not want to go anywher near London. If you call up Qantas telephone sales, thats the first place they want to send you, especially if you leave from BNE and not SYD. I think the reason behind this is to feed BA europian flights. WEll, i don't want to fight the crowds at heathrow when i am not going to London. In order to establish a market, firstly you must provide a service. This is where Qantas must try harder. The really need a smaller longer haul aircraft. Such as the A340 for such routes. Instead, those passengers fly on singapore airlines or cathay to europe, and then, after they get a better product, they don't switch back when they fly on a route that qantas does offer. That is why Singapore airlines has done so well out of Australia. Right from the begginning, SIA offered things QF didn't.
Even continental airlines now offeres economy passengers inseat video screens in their 777s. I am sure that every person at Qantas considers their operation of higher quility than continental(although if they don't start proving it, they will be the only ones who think this) so what is Qantas real excuse. ATTN JAMES STRONG - improve or else move over!
FedEx From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (14 years 2 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 427 times:
I know this is big news and it sucks for both
the people of Australia and their airlines but
you two are going off on things that are partially
right and wrong. You both some how managed to
turn this into an argument, get over it guys and
lets talk about something else now.