Schipholjfk From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 579 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4146 times:
So much for free trade. It's interesting how countries like Australia, etc. continuously want everyone to open up their market yet, when it comes to their own market they are as nationalistic as it gets. To me it seems hypocritical. No wonder the next round of WTO trade talks are going no where. Let the strong survive... if Qantas is that good let it fight it out with SA.
Airtropolis From Singapore, joined Apr 2000, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4072 times:
Quoting Schipoljfk (reply 1):
"So much for free trade. It's interesting how countries like Australia, etc. continuously want everyone to open up their market yet, when it comes to their own market they are as nationalistic as it gets. To me it seems hypocritical. No wonder the next round of WTO trade talks are going no where. Let the strong survive... if Qantas is that good let it fight it out with SA."
I totally agree, despite what has been said about Qantas and its inherent disadvantages as a non-hub carrier and Singapore Airlines' supposed "cherry picking" of the lucrative Sydney-Los Angeles route, the main issue is ultimately about free trade. The fact that both Singapore and Australia have signed a free trade agreement means that the issue of open skies should not even be an item of dispute between the two governments. Australia's unwillingness to agree to an open skies agreement, only serves to make mockery of the FTA between the 2 countries.
Don't forget the USA in that list of countries. I do agree with your sentiment though. This decision was very predictable for our Government. Like all (conservative) Governments, they scream the free-trade mantra but again, like all (conservative) Governments, the moment someone takes them up on the offer, which just might effect some home town business negatively then the barriers go up. In fairness, it was reported in the media during the week that many in our Government wanted SQ to get permission. It will happen, it's just a matter of time.
Many here think SQ should get permission to fly AUS/USA. QF milk trans-pac flights for all they can get. The really worrying thing is what are Virgin doing?!!??!? They have said they support QF on the issue and want to start their own trans-pac flights but nothing has been said since. Hello Virgin... time is running out. I'm also surprised that no other US carrier has started flights. This is just speculation but surely they'd make more money on flights to/from Australia then on some other sectors.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8744 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4033 times:
While I love Australia (married to an Aussie, lived there 8 years and still do business there) I was disappointed to see this news. I felt that DQ would have bumped up travel to Australia a bit and mabey even moved QF to improve their product.
One interesting note in the article was the fact that there was 468,000 empty seats on the route through April. This is at a time when the airline business is improving? What is QF going to do to fill the 380s they plan on using on the route if there will be a million empty seats a year with only 744s flying?
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21890 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4018 times:
They do charge a pretty penny and it seems they charge more for non-Aussiees than for Aussies who are able to get various changeable fares and such for not much penalty. Could that have something to do with it?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Trolley Dolley From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3983 times:
What I read in the paper here in New Zealand today is that the decision has been put on hold as they are reviewing all options including the possible removal of the limit on foreign ownership of Australian airlines and the prospect of a totally open skies agreement. Re the issue of 5th right freedoms, the SIN routes have long operated as an historic hangover from the old days of the Kangaroo route. They don't have full access to all routes from SIN.
I am personally all for free competition, but so long as there is so much intervention by governments in all countries, I can't see it happening.
I don't see how the figure of 468,000 empty seats can be right if its just refering to SYD to LAX. That is 1282 seats per day on average- or about 3 jumbo jet loads. Did it break down which routes it was refering to, just the SYD-LAX nonstops, or was it Australia to USA, including services from BNE, MEL and SYD to SFO and LAX?
Schipholjfk From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 579 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3849 times:
Quoting B787 (Reply 4): Don't forget the USA in that list of countries.
Of course U.S. is guilty of it as well... however, when it comes to aviation U.S. is a private market (no govt. stakes in any airlines) and as of late, the U.S. has been signing open-skies agreements with several countries (ex: India). The point that I was trying to make is that commercial aviation seems like one of the last vestiges of "old" time government regulated industry in many parts of the world. It is amazing that that how U.S. Europe, Australia, etc push for free trade and support the tenants of World Trade Organization, yet we have NO comprehensive global open-skies agreement. That seems to run against the notion of today's free trade sentiments. While it is not surprising decision, but in this case it seems a bit hypocritical for the Australian govt to protect Qantas from SA's proposed routes to the U.S. via Australia. However, this is nothing compared to how British authorities protect BA at Heathrow... talk about being anti-free trade - Heathrow is the ultimate example!
Schipholjfk, I salute you! The entire argument for the A380 is bound up in questionable assumptions about "slot-constrained" airports like Heathrow, and yet, as you say, it's also about BA control and regulation of single-aisle aircraft which tie up the system. The reality is that London (Heathrow, Stansted, and Gatwick) have plenty of available slots if you scare off a few A320/B737's.
This Aussie issue comes down to this: will Australia allow additional competition to the US? If they do, there is absolutely no justification for the A380 at Qantas. Dixon will be toast if this plays out. Emirates and Singapore are looking down the same barrel.
Beno From Australia, joined Aug 2002, 428 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3795 times:
I think QF CFO Peter Gregg sums it up well regarding the treatment JQ Asia by the Singapore government. (JQ Asia is a Singapore registered company)
Quote: "We've done absolutely everything by the book up there (Singapore). Yet the countries Singapore has negotiated rights with have denied rights to a legitimate Singaporean-based carrier and there appears to be nothing they (Singapore Government) are prepared to do about it. Which is mightily amazing for a country demanding access on a route that they don't have a right to."
Schipholjfk From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 579 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3784 times:
Quoting Dhefty (Reply 9): The entire argument for the A380 is bound up in questionable assumptions about "slot-constrained" airports like Heathrow
Dhefty... you make a great point. I have not seen much debate about "slot-constrained" airports and the A380. One of the biggest arguments for the A380 is that it can carry more passengers to a slot-constrained airport like LHR. But what if the aviation business is truly reformed in the spirit of free-trade and we have a reasonable "open-skies" agreement between major flying nations of the world? How will some airlines justify A380 or similar large airliners? Personally, I still believe most of us prefer a choice of flights at different times of the day over a single flight to a destination packed with 400-500 people. Anyway, back to Qantas and Aussie govt. We all know the price of diamonds is artifically inflated by DeBeers cartel by maintaining a very tight control over acquisition as well as distribution of the stones themselves (interestingly DeBeers have no offices in the U.S. as their business is deemed monopolistic). It seems in the same way the Aussie govt is artificially propping Qantas by not allowing true competition and thus, keeping the cost of traveling between Australia and the U.S. artifically higher than it should be. Having said that where are the U.S. airlines? And what makes SQ think they can be successful on this route directly competing with Qantas?
DocPepz From Singapore, joined May 2001, 1971 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3715 times:
Regarding Jetstar Asia, it is China and Indonesia that didn't give them rights to fly there. Singapore has allocated the rights to them. Apparently China was unhappy that they decided to fly to TPE first, and China Eastern is trying to fend them off Shanghai for the time being.
Singapore's Minister for Transport went to Jakarta to ask the govt to reconsider the ban on foreign budget airlines flying there (to Jakarta, Bali, Surabaya and Medan), but Jakarta said they'd only review the ban in 6 months.
Before anyone says that "but look at Valuair they got access to China!" Remember that Valuair only got access to the second-tier cities of Chengdu and Xiamen, not Beijing and Guangzhou - and part of the condition was they are not allowed to undercut the Chinese airlines. If you look at Valuair's fares, they are on par with the Chinese airlines that fly those routes.
Basically, Asia has a highly regulated aviation scene. While Singapore is very open with their aviation policy, many countries around us are not. Before LCCs came into the scene, no one realised that China and Indonesia, both huge markets, would take steps to limit their access into their countries. That's why jetstar asia is feeling the pinch now.
It is important to remember that these issues are entirely not in the Singapore government's control - Singapore has allocated the rights to budget carriers to fly these routes but it is countries at the other end that are banning them from entering.
Same with QF and CDG - The Singapore government has given QF unlimited access from Singapore to Europe, but it is the French govt that limits QF's access from SIN - another issue entirely not in the hands of the SIN govt.
The Singapore government cannot lobby on behalf of QF, to the French govt, to seek more landing rights to CDG. This is an issue the Australian government has to address with their French counterparts.
PhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3667 times:
Quoting Beno (Reply 14): Thats the whole point if SQ do get SYD-LAX QF actually gets nothing in return
Not quite true. Look what QF has gotten. There was a quid pro quo understanding the unlimited authority QF has gotten out of SIN would be followed by a reciprocal agreement in the Australian markets.
To tie the inability of the Australian govt to secure rights with European countries to the issue of beyond rights from Australia makes no sense at all. For the Howard govt to defer the decision makes no sense at all.
Quoting Schipholjfk (Reply 11): And what makes SQ think they can be successful on this route directly competing with Qantas?
Hmmm, lets see, you have QF and UA on the route. QF is a great airline, great service, a formidable competitor. UA?
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3564 times:
This is disappointing. The Aussie government should not cave to protectionst sentiment. I think Singapore (as in the city-state) is justifiably pissed. I am sure Qantas would have had a much more difficult time with their European routes if they had to route their flights through Kuala Lumpur or someplace else instead.
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5546 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3547 times:
The way I read it is that QF need changes in the laws/regulations under which it operates to allow it to become more efficient and have lower costs before SQ is allowed to fly SYD/LAX.
No doubt there are many issues , one I would cite is the much higher depreciation rates in Singapore compared to Aus. This is a definite benefit to SQ. It allows them to write their fleet off quicker; it virtually eliminates costs relating to major maintenance because they turn their fleet over more frequently than QF.
Perhaps QF should change its registry to Singapore although I am sure the present legislation would not allow this !
Jupiter2 From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 974 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3520 times:
Most people here seem to forget that SQ has it absolutely fantastic out of Australia. SQ has full rights to carry 20 million Australians through Singapore to anywhere that SQ flies. That is access to at least 4 times the population of its home country, the only restriction at present is to fly through Singapore first, except to New Zealand which they choose not to do, wisely.
While QF has full rights to operate out of Singapore, a market small compared to the market in Australia, its access to markets beyond Singapore is covered by bilaterals between Australia and those countries. These bilaterals largely restrict the access of QF or any other Australian carrier for that matter to uplift out of Singapore to these 3rd countries.
While most of you say so what, what has this got to do between Australia and the U.S access for SQ, well the simple fact is what does Australia get in return ?? Sure some will say, extra tourists and revenue for the country, cheaper tickets, etc, but wouldn't we get the same thing if an Australian based carrier, or another U.S based carrier did the same thing ?? I personally am not a fan of Virgin Blue, but I would much rather see them fly the Pacific than SQ.
How about we have open skies between just Australia and Singapore for airlines from the two countries. That is no beyond rights at all, the passenger has to start and end their journey in the respective country, who would be most adversely affected by such a rule ???? Sure as hell won't be QF, they will simply route the European flights through another country, Malaysia, Thailand, who cares, as most of it is a hub and spoke operation and these countires could put limits on the number of onward seats sold and it probably would not make any differnence at all. In the end Australia is of much greater importance to SQ than Singapore is to QF.
As for open markets, people in the U.S should have a hard look at their own aviation industry before criticizing others. At least in this country anybody of any nationality with the right amount of cash can start an airline here, the only restrictions is obey the local laws, pay your taxes etc. Try doing that in the U.S.
I've had my say, I will be more than willing to argue with anybody till we are both black and blue in the face, but I am yet to see how allowing a foreign airline to operate this particular route is of benefit to the industry here, when the airline in question has fantastic access here already, and the country it is from can offer little in return. Let DJ have a go, as they have suggested they are studying, or CO,DL,NW, at least they are from the two countries concerned.
BCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3454 times:
Quoting Schipholjfk (Reply 8): this is nothing compared to how British authorities protect BA at Heathrow
Since it became a public limited company, BA has not been protected by the British authorities at LHR. They have to bid for any available slots at LHR, just like any other airline. It even competes with BD and VS on their home turf. FYI in percentage terms BA has fewer slots at LHR that AF does at CDG or LH does at FRA.
IMO the Australian Government was right not to allow SQ to operate on SYD-LAX. That privilege should be given to either US or Australian airlines only, unless the present carriers are failing in their duties, or charging unrealistic fares. You only have to look at what is happening in the Gulf with EK (and shortly Qatar) to realise why governments should be supportive of their country's airlines. Whilst it would probably not happen to QF, if SQ became a main carrier on the SYD-LAX route, the weaker (from a cash perspective) UA might feel the squeeze and then withdraw from the route. What would then stop SQ charging extortionate fares for Americans? Of course, they would have to compete with QF on fares, but allowing a foreign airline to operate on your home route is not comforting. If SQ is so keen to get on to SYD-LAX, then they should form an airline, incorporated in Australia using Australian resources.
As has already been pointed out SQ has a full right to carry 20 million Australians through Singapore to anywhere that SQ flies. That is access to at least 4 times the population of its home country.
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."