QANTAS747 From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 210 posts, RR: 0 Posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1574 times:
QANTAS have tried to put a stake in for ANZ and I want to ask you what you think of the proposal.
James Strong has said if this doesn't happen both airlines will have a slim chance in the future.
Some think that this is to stop SQ, AN and ANZ merging. I don't really care if this is the point because if that goes ahead that will be one massive airline to compete with and so QF may go out of business.
Please post your thoughts on this forum.
Brissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1460 times:
As a QF shareholder I really hope they do not go ahead with this, but personally I hope they do this. It would be a major cock-up.
As I have stated previously, SQ couldn't give a fat rat's clackers about NZ. What SQ wants is access to the Aussie domestic market. This means AN. The only reason SQ is interested in NZ is for AN.
If QF gets this share of NZ, NZ will have to sell off AN to the highest bidder. This would be SQ, which could buy AN from NZ for less than AU$1 billion, coz they would hold the trump card, so to speak.
What makes me wonder is what does QF expect to gain out of buying NZ. Access to the huge Kiwi domestic market? Access to the UK via LAX (wait, aren't QF starting this themselves)? Access to Rarotonga? Access to a fleet which is going to need to be renewed in the next couple of years?
If SQ/NZ/AN were to tie up....there is no way that QF would go out of business. Singapore Airlines is not the be and end all of airlines. Don't forget that BA own's 25% and I own, oh about, 1/100 millionth, and we would not let this happen.
So c'mon QF....for your shareholders drop this stupid plan.....and for me personally....please go ahead with it (I hear that AN will be renamed soon, and I really do not want it to become Ensutt Ustrulia) and I would rather see SQ in Australia than the Kiwis (shit...they can't even play cricket....let alone be trusted to run on of our airlines).
Brissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1445 times:
I have to wholeheartedly agree with you on the point of the issue getting tired. But you have to agree, just as one thinks, the issue is over and done with, QF come along and throw another log on the fire.
SQ must be sitting back with absolute delight, watching the shananigans going on here. They will be getting AN one way or the other way. Hip-pip....Hooray.....finally AN will have some major money behind it, fleet and route expansions can't be to far off.
Something, one of you guys may be able to answer. AN is now codesharing with SQ on flights to LHR and FRA. Just recently it was announced that codeshares with SQ to ZRH would also begin. Anyone know how often, and from when this is effective?
Brissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1443 times:
I know what you are saying. BUT. the NZ president has absolutely no say in this matter. It is clearly a matter for the Brierley Investments board to decide. Although, with the Singapore Ministry of Finance and Temasek Holdings having a place on this board, one would suspect that their preferences would lay with SQ.
B727-200 From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1051 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1436 times:
As I put in an earlier post, BIL have committed themselves to the NZ acquisition of AN, this I know has been confirmed - they have even got the full backing on this by a show of hands at a shareholders meeting yesterday.
Regardless of what QF throws at BIL, one would think that BIL are not going through all this with NZ/AN, just to have a chunk of NZ sold to QF and have the ACCC come in and tell NZ they have to ditch AN. BIL are a smart company, and smart companies do not waste valuable time and resources on issues that are going to show no return, especially when they could be dedicating this resource to something else (OK, lets watch this statement come back and bite me on the butt).