Antskip From Australia, joined Jan 2006, 883 posts, RR: 6 Posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3923 times:
NZ and QF have admitted that their proposed "code-share" on the Tasman is to be far more than that. "Air New Zealand and Qantas have admitted to Australia's competition watchdog that they will effectively operate as a joint business on the Tasman if their proposed code share agreement is allowed, a newspaper reported today. Opponents of the deal, including Wellington International Airport, argue it goes far beyond normal code arrangements and is more like a cartel or merger. Responding to queries from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about why joint fare setting was so important, Air New Zealand and Qantas replied that the agreement provided for the two to jointly determine which routes would be served, how often and the capacity to be made available on each route, the New Zealand Herald reported". http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3754300a13,00.html
Antskip From Australia, joined Jan 2006, 883 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3826 times:
Quoting VHVXB (Reply 4): which one out NZ and QF fly Christchurch-Coolangatta??
JQ flies the route on behalf of QF. In the Tasman "code-share" proposal, JQ is assumed as being represented by QF.
As reported in the Australian newspaper today, "QF was committed to making JQ work in the long term and had structured its strategy around the two brands: JQ and QF". http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...ory/0,20867,20008177-23349,00.html
SpinalTap From New Zealand, joined Mar 2005, 440 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3769 times:
Quoting Antskip (Reply 5): Quoting VHVXB (Reply 4):
which one out NZ and QF fly Christchurch-Coolangatta??
JQ flies the route on behalf of QF. In the Tasman "code-share" proposal, JQ is assumed as being represented by QF.
As reported in the Australian newspaper today, "QF was committed to making JQ work in the long term and had structured its strategy around the two brands: JQ and QF". http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au....html
SJ (Freedom Air) operate this route as well on NZ's behalf.
"I get what they call a stipend, a stipend is like money but its such as small amount they don't really call it money"
Alaskaqantas From New Zealand, joined Dec 2005, 900 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3684 times:
what about the interior?
would they have to have a few specific airplanes that all have the same interior on both cariers? would would the NZ and QF still have their own seats?
what would the livery look like?
this?
anyways they've been talking about this for a while... I wonder if it'll actually happen, and if so what will happen with the service/seats/livery.?.?.?
~cheers-
~~Kyle H.
to some people the sky is the limit, to aviation enthusiasts, its home!
VHVXB From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 5517 posts, RR: 20 Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3669 times:
Quoting Antskip (Reply 5): JQ flies the route on behalf of QF. In the Tasman "code-share" proposal, JQ is assumed as being represented by QF.
As reported in the Australian newspaper today, "QF was committed to making JQ work in the long term and had structured its strategy around the two brands: JQ and QF". http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au....html
Quoting SA7700 (Reply 6): Jetstar operate this route, with a QF codeshare.
Rgds
SA7700
Quoting SpinalTap (Reply 7): SJ (Freedom Air) operate this route as well on NZ's behalf.
Ahh ok. So I gather that JQ and Freedom Air are also part of this Codesharing agreement that NZ and QF want to push through to their regulatory bodies. At first I only thought it was only a deal between NZ and QF
RichardJF From New Zealand, joined Mar 2001, 792 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3479 times:
Such a move would be disasterous for NZ. It is based on highly flawed assumptions almost certainly widely held inside NZ about QF's intentions.
Both QF and Toll are quite correctly trying shaft NZ. However competing across the SAM is easy for NZ but requires slightly unconventional strategies.
Aerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2410 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3375 times:
So this pretty much concedes that just about everything critics have levelled at this plan is true. Where's the NZ fan club now to defend what now amounts to the indefensible?
Quoting RichardJF (Reply 11): Both QF and Toll are quite correctly trying shaft NZ. However competing across the SAM is easy for NZ but requires slightly unconventional strategies.
I don't often agree with/understand you RichardJF, but in this instance, I think you're bang on. Australian businesses such as these haven't got to where they are today by being nice.
RichardJF From New Zealand, joined Mar 2001, 792 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3369 times:
The competition issues probably aren't that problematic because of the likely replacement of QF with DJ on NZ domestic. With the LiveTV and FF scheme and the tie in with EK's Tasman and likely beyond AKL ops DJ will in fact become a far stronger player on the Tasman making the whole exercise pointless for NZ. Unfortunately all this works nicely for QF, only one loser here. DJ could use 737's on lower capacity routes during middle of the day similar to Coffs Harbour strategy.
Flyjetstar From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3256 times:
Quoting Aerokiwi (Reply 12): So this pretty much concedes that just about everything critics have levelled at this plan is true. Where's the NZ fan club now to defend what now amounts to the indefensible?
Having been over this many, many, many times with you Aerokiwi in particular, I'm still in the pro camp. Nothing in this article nor the one that appeared in the Herald this last week was a surprise to me and to be honest I don't have a problem with it. Maybe crazy but I'm willing to give it a go.
Please don't flame me for it. I think differently to you and that's OK. In time one of us will probably be proved right and one wrong and when that happens I'll get back to you!
RichardJF From New Zealand, joined Mar 2001, 792 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3217 times:
For Ryanair, Southwest or Virgin Blue for that matter they are simple business models where the CASM is hugely important. In NZ's case in the SAM it's a matter of the strength of your position versus QF and DJ which leads to NZ's viability and ability to extract profits over time. Just because everyone in NZ's management team thinks the same way it doesn't mean their right, it just means they think the same way. When aggressively competing across the SAM is the least risky strategy why not just compete.
NZ8800 From New Zealand, joined May 2006, 425 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3063 times:
I'm part of the pro NZ camp but I'm not really sure about this one, I don't trust QF as far as I could throw them. NZ depends on the Tasman far more than QF does, as far as I can see. They are much stronger than NZ is.
That said, to me, the main thing is that NZ keeps on flying, and in this day and age, that's no mean feat for any carrier. IF this is what needs to happen for NZ to survive, then they should go for it; before QF get any more feet in the door. Better the devil you know...
MDZWTA ~ Mobile Disaster Zone When Travelling Abroad
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3075 posts, RR: 10 Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2950 times:
New Zeland... Qantas and Australia love you dearly, how can you all speak of us in this manner?
V2fix From New Zealand, joined Mar 2003, 368 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2919 times:
This is a really tough one to call - and emotional too if you are a Kiwi.
I dont think I would trust the 'flying rat' as far as I could chuck Mr Dixon. I think Air NZ is a better run airline now days and has taken the harsh steps required to keep itself profitable and flying.
I think Qantas has much more to do - and is being protected by the Aussie government from competition until it sorts itself out. Once a lean mean flying machine I think it will become difficult for the Aussies preventing SQ and EK from flying more sectors from them.
The Tasman has been and always will be a blood bath. And in todays aviation market I think the only other option available to Air NZ will be to cut capacity by reducing flights. But I agree with NZ8800 that the tasman flights are more important to Air NZ than Qantas.
The threat is that QF will enter the NZ internal market, probably using JetStar, in an extremely agreesive way, undercutting (subsidising) their flights against Air NZ. I do wonder whether the same intent is still there my QF as they have many battles to flight (v SQ v EK) to maintaine their long haul premuim position.
While Air NZ can codeshare with QF maybe they can lock down the QF threat ? (real or not). Ultimately if it keeps NZ flying it will be a good thing.
Can any of the people who work for Air NZ talk about how the code share has been explained/positioned to them ? After all, it will ultimatley result in less Air NZ Tasman sectors being flown ?
VHVXB From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 5517 posts, RR: 20 Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2820 times:
Quoting V2fix (Reply 20): The threat is that QF will enter the NZ internal market, probably using JetStar, in an extremely agreesive way, undercutting (subsidising) their flights against Air NZ.
Yeah QF is already doing this with Jet Connect I think
Quoting V2fix (Reply 20): While Air NZ can codeshare with QF maybe they can lock down the QF threat ? (real or not). Ultimately if it keeps NZ flying it will be a good thing.
Threat of what??
Quoting V2fix (Reply 20): Can any of the people who work for Air NZ talk about how the code share has been explained/positioned to them ? After all, it will ultimatley result in less Air NZ Tasman sectors being flown ?
Aerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 735 posts, RR: 3 Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2749 times:
I personally believe the best outcome for both Oz and NZ carriers would be to decline the codeshare agreement, and for the governments to try and reinstate the SAM agreement making tasman services a domestic flight.... this would reduce the taxes placed on the fares, making the flights even more affordable and would stop foreign registered airlines from flying the route as they would be cabotage (of sorts). Leaving the market for only NZ and Oz based carriers to compete.
Antskip From Australia, joined Jan 2006, 883 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2597 times:
Quoting Aerohottie (Reply 22): or the governments to try and reinstate the SAM agreement making tasman services a domestic flight.
The SAM agreement is already in place. However, as I read it, it does not make the Tasman route a "domestic' one, though it allows domestic services in each country to fly the Tasman. It's real honesty, at least on the part of the Australian govt, was brought into question when it torpedoed NZ's right to fly within Australia as a domestic airline- hence the Ansett debacle. Even if SAM was properly implemented as it is, "domestic" still means just that: within the "home" of a country-within its borders. Unless New Zealand and Australia become one country, the flight between them can never be "domestic", only inter-national. NZ and QF try hard to make out it is "domestic", but they can't redefine political reality. There are two borders to cross on the Tasman route, one to get out, one to get in.
25 SunriseValley: My view has been for sometime, and I have espoused it before on this list, that Qf and NZ should put the necessary assets into a new company to run th
26 Zkpilot: Yes less NZ and for that matter QF metal being flown across the Tasman. However in terms of passenger sectors available to each carrier there will be
27 Mariner: Okay, I have a very simple brain. If they are flying at a loss because there are too many seats - why not reduce capacity, reduce the number of seats
28 NZ8800: It could be noted that US Airways and United now have a lot of codeshares; and this is part of what has rescued them - no need to duplicate metal (on
29 SunriseValley: I am referring to the NZ BNE/MEL-AKL 747 flights to feed NZ2, 6 and 8 and the QF MEL-AKL flight to provide an a/c for their AKL-LAX flight.
30 777ER: NZ would loose heaps of Tasman flight and what has been said previously, NZ and QF are basically the only airlines. NZ would operate the route using
31 Axio: I think the US market is very different to the trans-tasman one. Even if the main airlines were considered combined by their alliances (DL,NW,CO - AA
32 Antskip: The thought of making Australia and New Zealand one aviation market might seem attractive at the moment to NZ and QF, ridding themselves of EK and ot
33 SunriseValley: Could you elaborate on this please. Are you alluding to the fact that the trans-Tasman feeds are desirable to NZ for its North America service and it
34 Mariner: Sory, but they had the codeshare before United's Chapter 11. It is certainly true that the US/HP merger "saved" US Airways - but United is not part o
35 Antskip: A "domestic"-style Australia-New Zealand air market would have no effect on the U.S.-Australasia air market, as it stands. That is already heavily pr
36 1Des1: What I don't understand about NZ is why don't they roll out SJ into a product like JQ? Roll out SJ on all of the trans-tasman routes that are marginal
37 Zkpilot: Yes I know that, but what about those flights are you talking about? Taking the large a/c off those routes, or putting more on or what?
38 ZKNBX: What you should say, ZKpilot, is in terms o the individual airlines' seat offering, there will be an increase in available passenger sectors, but NOT
39 SunriseValley: I am saying that they would be maintained . Whether they could be added to would be a question that would need to be addressed as part of the agreeme
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Jan 2006, 883 posts, 
From South Africa, joined May 2004, 1500 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Sep 2005, 1653 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3075 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
