QantasAirways From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1272 posts, RR: 3 Posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2030 times:
Please read this article which appeared in the Courier Mail this morning. You can get the article for proof of authenticity at
It basically says that Qantas may launch a low cost international airline to strike back at the strengthened Singapore Airlines/Air New Zealand alliance.
It will use Australian registered jets and will service routes that QF doesn't serve at a low cost such as Seoul and China from a low cost base such as Bangkok.
Qantas may launch no-frills airline
Geoff Easdown and Chris Milne
QANTAS is almost certain to proceed with plans for a new, no-frills offshore airline in a bid to strike back at a strengthened alliance between the Air New Zealand-Ansett group and Singapore Airlines.
The Australian flag carrier, which saw its share price plunge yesterday on competition concerns, would use the proposed budget carrier to exploit regional and Asian markets in which it can no longer afford to operate.
Qantas needs to add to its strategic arsenal after Singapore Airlines announced that it had secured a deal to increase its stake in Air New Zealand by injecting substantial cash into the reserves of the troubled carrier.
Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon, in Canberra for a scheduled board meeting, yesterday attacked Singapore's plans to raise its Air NZ stake as a bid for regional dominance.
It is understood the Air New Zealand situation was discussed extensively during the board meeting.
Airline sources, including several Qantas officials, pointed to remarks Mr Dixon made to the Australian Institute of Company Directors in Sydney last week.
In that speech Mr Dixon said: "We are also looking at starting a new, low-cost international airline to fly to markets from which Qantas, in its current form, is unable to generate an acceptable return."
These markets are believed to include China and Seoul, from which Qantas withdrew services. A Qantas-funded budget airline using Australian registered jets and operating from a low-cost base in Asia, such as Bangkok, is seen by analysts as a plausible next move by the Australian carrier in any aviation poker game.
It would enable the proposed Qantas subsidiary to compete on the same terms as Ansett International, should Ansett benefit from a substantial cash injection from SIA via Air NZ.
Markets in both Australia and New Zealand reacted cautiously to the proposed SIA-AirNZ partnership. Shares in both Qantas and Air NZ took a battering.
Qantas shares, which had risen from a recent low of $2.43 to as high as $3.58 on hopes of an Air NZ deal, tumbled 28c before closing down 18c at $3.23. The fall wiped $235 million from its market value.
Air NZ, which will make a placement at $NZ1.31 a share to SIA, saw its Australian-traded shares lose 22c to $1.06. But the Kiwi carrier will have to overcome "significant and sensitive" regulatory issues on both sides of the Tasman to win approval.
Mr Dixon said Qantas would continue to lobby hard against the proposed SIA share placement in Air NZ and Ansett with political and regulatory authorities on both sides of the Tasman.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard said yesterday he would seek to ensure Qantas's legitimate interests were protected amid the current turbulence in the Australasian airline industry.
Air NZ boss Gary Toomey and acting chairman Dr Jim Farmer yesterday revealed that their plans to climb back to prosperity involved a major rights issue and a significant expansion of SIA's holding. It is believed the SIA stake could increase to as much as 49 per cent of the Kiwi flag carrier.
They said the rights issue, for an unspecified amount, was planned for later this year.
An angry Mr Dixon said Qantas felt the proposed SIA-Air NZ deal would give Singapore undue influence in the region.
"Issues raised by the plan transcend commercial considerations and go to the heart of competitive and regulatory issues," said Mr Dixon."It would be unprecedented for the Singapore Government to control its own airline, SIA, as well as Air NZ, Ansett Australia and Ansett International.
"This would not happen in any other part of the world. "
Star_member From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 185 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1918 times:
a total smoke screen. it is much more difficult to make money with no frills. also note the patriotic australians in this forum, QF is only interested in making money and exploiting cheaper foreign labour, not the travelling australian public or their workers. and people on this forum talk about the business practices of sia, look at qf. training staff in manila to break strikes is another example.
Wirraway From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1899 times:
I would not dismiss this from happening by a long shot,
Dixon was also on about this at a business breakfast
last week in Sydney as well as their board meeting in
Canberra on Tuesday, last week he stated QF wanted
to reduce the Australian staff from it's current 94%
down to 80%, nowhere was it reported what type of
aircraft would be utilised. As well as China and Seoul
also Vancouver and Tahiti were mentioned, Dixon also
said this "airline" would not have the flying kangaroo
on the tail.
The cost of QF flight attendants is so over the top, that
it becomes prohibitive. Analyists think the idea is
feasible, remember these are routes QF no longer fly.
Jupiter2 From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 802 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1855 times:
What they mean by low cost is lower labour costs and a low frills all economy service. Base and obtain most of your cabin crew from lower cost Asian countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, Phillipines etc, provide a basic service only onboard, cram as many seats as will go comfortably into a 763 for example and your costs will come down significantly.
It would be aimed at the tourist going on package deals who lets face it don't care who they fly with, as long as it is safe, efficeint and CHEAP.
Everything else gets contracted out, maintenance, food etc, most likely the most expensive item will be the pilots, who even them will be on a lower contract than the main carrier with incentives of being promoted to the big brother.
Tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1253 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1846 times:
Whilst I think it may be a good idea, history suggests that high quality full service airlines struggle when they try to produce a no-frills offshoot. The cultures are different as are the priorities. One needs to look no further than QF's step-parent's BA experience with Go to see how these things can end up a bit of a mess. Besides the low Australian dollar has meant that on a global basis our costs of crew and maintenance are now very competitive.
Docpepz From Singapore, joined May 2001, 1954 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1841 times:
When a friend flew QF from Mel to Sin, for the 7h 30 min flight, there was only ONE meal. Seat pitch was tiny, and there were no PTVs. Isn't that already no-frills? I mean, isn't Qantas ALREADY a no-frills airline? I can't see them making it any more 'no-frills'
Dalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1836 times:
I shouldn't even really reply to that rubbish. QF is a premium carrier. There are 2 meals served on the SIN-MEL sector,seat pitch is 32"(the same as SQ,MH,TG...),and PTVs are being introduced now. There is no way that QF could be considered a low-frills airline.
The proposed new airline will fill a niche on routes the mainstream carrier can't make money. It is a different airline with a different purpose.
Wake up you ignorant goose!!!
Wirraway From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1838 times:
To add a bit further to Jupiter2,s post, just checked
the Boeing site and a 767-300 carries 218 in 2 class
configuration and 269-351 in one class.
Philippine Airlines are paying their F/As around
14-16 thousand pesos a month this works out
at A$518-592 per month vs a QF F/A on about
A$5,250 a month, I would think these flights would
mainly be point to point and would not worry about
freedom rights, also because this is still an Australian
airline with Australian registered aircraft, if Dixon felt
inclined he could pick domestic pax up here in Aussie
as they return from OSeas the same as you can pick
Ansett flight 903 from BNE-SYD as it returns from
Japan or HK daily, not to mention if he decided to
fly the Tasman, but lets take him at his word and fly
to the destinations he has mentioned and you can begin to get an idea of the savings, He could even go and
hire the ex Impulse ground crew for when the aircraft
are in Aust, maintain them overseas at cheaper costs,
hire the pilots by a contract firm and his starting to
do real damage to someone.
Wirraway From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1819 times:
This airline would not belong to Oneworld, it would be a
seperate airline altogether from Qantas even though
its owned by them, I surppose an example would be
Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Blue, Sia and Silk Air, I'm sure
there are others as well, of course ANZ/SIA could pull
the same idea if they so desired.
PerthGloryfan From Australia, joined Oct 2000, 751 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1791 times:
I'd like to see some real details of this concept.
Firstly, Australians don't seem to be keen followers of the European "IT" charter type operators. There's not that many desperate people who every summer want to pack themselves into flying tubes and leave their sad grey lives for 2 weeks in Ibiza or the Carribean.
We're already well serviced to Denpasar, Phuket or Fiji for those wanting a Club Med type vacation.
Secondly, if this "no frills" service is to be for vacationers going to places currently not served by QF where will they be going? China perhaps, Vietnam maybe, but Korea, with all due respect, business yes, package tourists, I don't think so. Perhaps to some Pacific islands - maybe Mauritius. But these travellers would be either pack-backers or complete tour packages - which requires the necessary infrastructure at the destination. So where, not already served by QF are these places?
Thirdly, please explain how an airline based, which presumably means the subsidiary company is registered there, in say, BKK can have an Australian AOC so it can have the traffic rights to say, Sydney - Ho Chi Minh City?
I won't say that it won't happen, but it all seems a lot of bluster to me at this point.
Oh, and Dalecary us Aussies are supposed to have a sense of humour you know
Wirraway From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1761 times:
As I understand it this "airline" would be Australian
registered and therefore allowed to fly to various
ports around the world, don't forget it is owned by
Qantas an Australian registered company, another
area for this "airline" would be South America, so
long as they don't try to fly QF routes, which would
get the QF unions offside and put QF staff at risk I
can not see a problem.
PerthGloryfan From Australia, joined Oct 2000, 751 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1739 times:
Okay, so this "no frills" effort may be a wholly owned QF subsidiary incorporated in Australia.
It still has to be granted an AOC by the CAA/CASA whoever - which should not be a problem if QF is seen to be a cashed up "fit and proper" proprietor.
But it then has to apply to the Australian International Air-something-or-other Commission for the right to offer seats on the routes it wants to fly.
And so this still begs the question - where are these routes that hundreds of Aussies want to fly for cheap fares and cheap service that are not already available and want to do so in enough numbers so it is profitable for even a no-frills airline?
If it's VFR as well as tours maybe Greece and India are candidates, given that QF regularly gets blasted in the local aviation press for no longer serving these susposedly profitable markets.
Well, I guess it'll all come out soon, but will it be before the NZ/SQ/AN chaos is resolved or after?
QantasAirways From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1272 posts, RR: 3 Reply 20, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1726 times:
This post really has filled up.
Anyway, I have no idea how this could damage SQ at all, apart from stealing any of its customers who are forced to fly for eg. SYD-SIN-Shanghai (SHA) as Qantas do not fly that route direct. If QF were to fly that route at a low cost, then I think they would get some customers.
I am interested in Qantas getting back at SIA, but I dont want there to be a no-frills airline introduced. I still want Qantas to have its own (ONE) identity as one big carrier with great service and the works. I cant see Qantas splitting its company all over the place and creating a big mess.
I do not support this low-cost carrier... even though when the A330's arrive, they could use their 762's and replace them with 763's.
Travel From Australia, joined May 2001, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1688 times:
I cannot see a new QF no frills airline being a threat to the SIA group nor Ansett International expecially once AN expand. How much can an airline downgrade their standards in service etc. Personally I think it's complete nonsense.
QF is a good airline and there are other ways of making money. I dont know how it can benifet by establishing a low cost international airline...