Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?  
User currently offlinedkramer7 From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 117 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9235 times:

With Qantas operating in a hostile world environment, and with the last few days event in particular, its seems QF and indeed many other airlines will struggle in the future.

It was close to 15 years ago that the government floated Qantas.

How do we think it would look if the government bought a share back? If it was a significant share they may be able to inject some cash into the business, or not....


what do we think?

79 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9221 times:

Quoting dkramer7 (Thread starter):
How do we think it would look if the government bought a share back? If it was a significant share they may be able to inject some cash into the business, or not....


what do we think?

Ain't going to happen...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently onlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8248 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9184 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Labor costs may have some problems at Qantas but the real issue is competition. The Australians should have taken the Canadian view, allowing Emirates only the seats for people flying to Dubal, EK can only fly 3 times weekly to Toronto. IT may be protectionism but Air Canada is no getting killed by 3 Emirates 777 daily to Dubai from YYZ.

Qantas is getting killed by all the huge planes from Qatar and Emirates flying to Aussie, why would the Government let this happen ? QF gets enough competition from the usual Asian airlines, SQ, Cathay and Thai, more is an atrocity. QF is getting it from both sides these days with Delta and Virgin Australia flying the LAX to Sydney route too. Canberra needs to decide if the flying Kangaroo will remain its "national" airline or new airlines will fill that role.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9083 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 2):
Canberra needs to decide if the flying Kangaroo will remain its "national" airline or new airlines will fill that role.

There is and its called Virgin Australia...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineTruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9042 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 3):
There is and its called Virgin Australia...

Please, DJ will never replace QF as the 'national airline'. While recent events of late have turned public opinion of QF a little sour, it will rebound and DJ has a long, long, long, long way to go before being even close to being able to call itself Australia's flag carrier.

Also, QF will not be taken back under government control, it would be dreadfully unpopular and a gigantic money bleeder for the government. Unless there was both party support for it, it wont happen. I agree with the previous post, however, regarding Canada. QF is at a massive disadvantage due to its geographical location (as is Canada) in the sense that so much of QF traffic is O&D and doesnt get the massive through traffic of SQ/EK/EY/MH etc. I think the government should look at these airlines and, in the benefit of keeping jobs in Australia, should restrict their flights to Australia. However, this would not happen as it would be dreadfully unpopular.

[Edited 2011-11-02 05:16:49]

User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4378 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8969 times:

This will not happen. Practically all governments are bancrupt due to low taxation and competition for the lowest taxation - they have to sell participations and will not purchase new ones.

I agree that the open welcome to EK and others damage QF a lot. Question is of course, if other parts of a very lonely situated country benefit from it, to yield a global benefit for the country - I cannot judge.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8970 times:

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 4):
Please, DJ will never replace QF as the 'national airline'.

At least the spirit is on a high note as upposed to QF...

Plus which QF are we referring to here... QF "The Spirit of New Zealand", QF "The Spirit of Singapore", RedQ We still call Singapore Home, wait JQ The Spirit of Japan...


EK413

[Edited 2011-11-02 05:33:12]


Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinelows From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 1104 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8804 times:

The political costs would be too high, and the Gillard government doesn't have the capital to do it. The Liberals/Nationals would never do it.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8775 times:

Quoting dkramer7 (Thread starter):
If it was a significant share they may be able to inject some cash into the business, or not....

A government buyback isn't really injecting cash...it's the government taking the money from Australian taxpayers then shunting it to Qantas. It would be a lot more efficient to just have Australians buy Qantas shares if that's really what's necessary.

Tom.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12270 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8471 times:

Quoting dkramer7 (Thread starter):
what do we think?

Terrible idea. We've seen what happens when airlines become fiefs of the government: you get Alitalia, Olympic, etc.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 2):
Labor costs may have some problems at Qantas but the real issue is competition. The Australians should have taken the Canadian view, allowing Emirates only the seats for people flying to Dubal, EK can only fly 3 times weekly to Toronto. IT may be protectionism but Air Canada is no getting killed by 3 Emirates 777 daily to Dubai from YYZ.

Qantas is getting killed by all the huge planes from Qatar and Emirates flying to Aussie, why would the Government let this happen ? QF gets enough competition from the usual Asian airlines, SQ, Cathay and Thai, more is an atrocity.

It's just free trade, not an atrocity.

Protectionism sounds good it but doesn't work in the long term. Right now AC is being propped up by all the extra $$$ that travelers to and from Canada have to pay because AC can't/won't re-organize itself to be more competitive.

Just a week ago I wanted to fly BOS-YVR but it was several hundred dollars cheaper to drive BOS-SEA, more than enough to pay for a rental car to drive the 2 hours to YVR. JetBlue got my fare instead of AC. I'm sure others wanting to fly to Canada consider first flying to the closest US airport or decide to ski in the US Rockies instead of the Canadian Rockies. It's just one example of where protectionism hurts AC in the long term.

In the big picture view, globalization has happened yet no one in the "developed" countries have figured out what to do about it. The "developed" countries have a higher standard of living but that's being undermined by people willing to for for a lot less money. Protectionism does not work in the long term, all it does is makes the eventual fall that much harder. The best defense is to make products that the rest of the world is willing to pay a premium for. As noted before, EK is not a low cost carrier, it's fares are pretty average. It excels by providing better connections and higher levels of service than its competitors do.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8435 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
I'm sure others wanting to fly to Canada consider first flying to the closest US airport or decide to ski in the US Rockies instead of the Canadian Rockies

And that's why WS and PD are stealing market share from AC by the day.   

But Tom hit the nail on the head. There would be little new cash. The transaction would be based purely on regulatory reasons, and then as soon as things got a little brighter, Qantas would be privatized again.  twocents 

[Edited 2011-11-02 10:32:39]


Flying refined.
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6774 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 8343 times:

Quoting dkramer7 (Thread starter):
what do we think?

Governments have no business running airlines, period.


User currently offline7673mech From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 8315 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Buy it back and subsidizing it?

User currently onlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8248 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8235 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 2):
Labor costs may have some problems at Qantas but the real issue is competition. The Australians should have taken the Canadian view, allowing Emirates only the seats for people flying to Dubal, EK can only fly 3 times weekly to Toronto. IT may be protectionism but Air Canada is no getting killed by 3 Emirates 777 daily to Dubai from YYZ.

Qantas is getting killed by all the huge planes from Qatar and Emirates flying to Aussie, why would the Government let this happen ? QF gets enough competition from the usual Asian airlines, SQ, Cathay and Thai, more is an atrocity.

It's just free trade, not an atrocity.

Yes, letting Emirates in so much is free trade. But maybe its "too free". Qantas is not dying because of the "Free Trade" Cathay and Singapore Airlines do in Australia, they carry plenty of F and J passengers via their hubs to far off destinations. Emirates and Qatar have taken "free Trade" to a level that kills the natives. Killing Qantas help no one. It kills good paying Australian jobs for Australians.

I wish Emirates would "kill jobs" in other countries via its "free trade". Let Emirates kill the airline industries in Brazil and Mexico and see how those countries react, they WILL not let it get to that point. Those two countries will limit Emirates "free Trade" to a certain level. That level will be equal or less then the European or USA airlines. I am aware EK now flies to Brazil and Buenos Aires.

Its time Australia put teh cabash on expansionist Emirates and its cousins, why does EK have to fly from Sydney to ALK ? It doesn't. IF EK needs to fly to New Zealand let them fly a 777LR nonstop from Dubai to AKL, if its too far too bad. Australia protects so many industries, why should it airline industry be sacrificed for wealthy petro states ?


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24958 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8177 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 7673mech (Reply 12):
Buy it back and subsidizing it?

That's what would have to happen.

Australia has to decide if it wants Qantas to be what it is - a commercial company competing in a (fairly) free market.

Or if it is to be what the unions and some politicians want - a national icon/jobs program.

I don't mind which they choose, but I don't see that it can be both, and as long as it is an independent company, I think the government - and the unions - should stop trying to run the airline.

There is a belief out there that Virgin Australia can do it better, but that airline last reported a loss of $50 million and only made it's international arm profitable by cutting routes, such as JNB and domestic NZ.

Qantas wants to cut routes to make it's international arm profitable again and everyone cries foul.

Weird.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8014 times:

Quoting dkramer7 (Thread starter):
what do we think?

What, because they're hitting a bump in the road? I think this situation, although kinda surprising, isn't as drastic as many think



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinetullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7951 times:

QF got into this situation largely through its own errors. It drove pax into the hands of competitors because it chose to serve a limited number of ports in continents such as Europe. Had it made better network and fleet decisions it could have served a number of European ports on a one-stop basis.

Likewise its Sydney-centricity made EK, SQ etc huge favorites in cities such as MEL, BNE etc. QF were criticised for years for its Sydney-centricity and did nothing. They deserve to suffer because of these mistakes particularly as they still refuse to address them.

QF, for years, made huge profits on Aust-LAX largely because it was protected from competition apart from a weakened UA. When DL and VA arrived with great product and more efficient aircraft, the profits evaporated and QF were caught short. It will get worse with QF now facing the prospect that SQ will enter Aust-USA as a quid-pro-quo for QF being able to set up an Asian subsidiary in SIN.



717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772,W,A310,320,321,332,333,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,S
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24958 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7940 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 16):
were caught short. It will get worse with QF now facing the prospect that SQ will enter Aust-USA as a quid-pro-quo for QF being able to set up an Asian subsidiary in SIN.

I don't think Qantas is the only one that will feel the pressure if Singapore is allowed to fly SYD-LAX.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24643 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7807 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 10):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
I'm sure others wanting to fly to Canada consider first flying to the closest US airport or decide to ski in the US Rockies instead of the Canadian Rockies

And that's why WS and PD are stealing market share from AC by the day.

I don't see any connection between your WS and PD comment and the post you quote which refers to passengers flying to/from US airports near the border and driving across the border. How does that relate to WS and PD?


User currently onlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8248 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7779 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 16):
Sydney-centricity made EK, SQ etc huge favorites in cities such as MEL, BNE etc. QF were criticised for years for its Sydney-centricity and did nothing. They deserve to suffer because of these mistakes particularly as they still refuse to address them.

All I here on this board is how Sydney centric Qantas is. IF you are crossing the Pacific to the USA Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney have flights to LAX.

From most Australian "Capitol"hts from cities QF has nonstops to Singapore with "one-Stop" flights to LHR. QF also has (had ) flights from Perth to Tokyo. Its makes sense some destinations are only reached via SYD but the big ones are available one stop in most cases.


User currently offlineshamrock604 From Ireland, joined Sep 2007, 4153 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7709 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 2):
Qantas is getting killed by all the huge planes from Qatar and Emirates flying to Aussie, why would the Government let this happen ?

Perhaps because they believe that the interests of the Australian Consumer and wider Australian economy are more important than the narrow interests of Qantas staff and Unions??



Flown EI,FR,RE,EIR,VE,SI,TLA,BA,BE,BD,VX,MON,AF,YS,WX,KL,SK,LH,OK,OS,LX,IB,LTU,HLX,4U,SU,CO,DL,UA,AC,PR,MH,SQ,QF, EY, EK
User currently offlinetullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7640 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 19):
From most Australian "Capitol"hts from cities QF has nonstops to Singapore with "one-Stop" flights to LHR. QF also has (had ) flights from Perth to Tokyo. Its makes sense some destinations are only reached via SYD but the big ones are available one stop in most cases.

Yes, they do have one stop to LHR but what if you want to go to somewhere else in Europe? QF will typically direct you onto an LHR bound flight which means you overfly your ultimate destination, you spend 4+ hours more travelling, you have to negotiate terminals at LHR to get a BA flight(Ugh!!!) and you pay more for the privilege. In contrast airlines such as EK, SQ etc can get you to about 16 cities in Europe with one stop. Some of this is as a result of geography of the Asian and ME airlines but some is a result of QF's lack of network and fleet planning that has meant they have nothing smaller than a 744 that can do 1 stop to Europe.

Sydney-centricity is an issue if your competitors don't make you go via it. SYD is a hassle to transfer through so most will actively avoid it where they can. EK, SQ etc offer this. QF could too but they offer poor services out of PER, ADL etc (bad timing, old 763s)so the competition with their 2 or 3 services a day and shiny new 777s and A330s become the airlines of choice.



717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772,W,A310,320,321,332,333,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,S
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7576 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
Just a week ago I wanted to fly BOS-YVR but it was several hundred dollars cheaper to drive BOS-SEA, more than enough to pay for a rental car to drive the 2 hours to YVR. JetBlue got my fare instead of AC. I'm sure others wanting to fly to Canada consider first flying to the closest US airport or decide to ski in the US Rockies instead of the Canadian Rockies. It's just one example of where protectionism hurts AC in the long term.

Low yield pax do that which is of little concern to the revenues of AC. They make a good portion of their money on the transborder routes with business travellers whom are high yield whom pay the premium fares.

Also there is nothing stopping any US or EU from competing with AC on any route they run as much as they want to, as Canada has open-skies agreements with both places. I would say bring on the likes of WN or B6 in the Canadian market and lets see the competition war begin.

My guess is though is that those airlines know they will be subject to the same taxes and fees that AC and WS pay that they probably won't be that much cheaper if cheaper at all.

Also if you want to talk about free trade issues why can't a route like BOS-YYZ-LAX on AC be allowed. Often that would be cheaper a lot of the time.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 2):

Labor costs may have some problems at Qantas but the real issue is competition. The Australians should have taken the Canadian view, allowing Emirates only the seats for people flying to Dubal, EK can only fly 3 times weekly to Toronto. IT may be protectionism but Air Canada is no getting killed by 3 Emirates 777 daily to Dubai from YYZ.

I don't know how many times I can say it, the restriction of EK in Canada is not about the protection of AC!! If the federal government really cared about AC they would drop a lot of regulations that AC is subject to.

It is about maintaining an international network through O&D and all of the international carriers serving Canada built up their networks over time. EK thought that they were special and deserved unlimited access right of the bat and the Canadian government said no.

In fact in negotiations the Canadian government has been a lot more generous to EK than other carriers actually offering them services to YVR and YYC calling EK's bluff when they asked for that. EK wants unlimited access to YYZ and nothing more.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
Protectionism sounds good it but doesn't work in the long term. Right now AC is being propped up by all the extra $$$ that travelers to and from Canada have to pay because AC can't/won't re-organize itself to be more competitive.

AC has plenty of competition on many of its routes and often has the best fare on a lot of them.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15692 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7439 times:

Quoting dkramer7 (Thread starter):
With Qantas operating in a hostile world environment, and with the last few days event in particular, its seems QF and indeed many other airlines will struggle in the future.

With a mess like that, they are already operating like a nationalized airline.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 2):
IT may be protectionism but Air Canada is no getting killed by 3 Emirates 777 daily to Dubai from YYZ.

Protectionism is like giving crack to the junkie. Setting up laws like that will only allow Qantas to get away with being screwed up, it won't fix them. The goal is for QF to be an efficient, competitive carrier and protectionist policies will not do a thing to further that aim, and won't do consumers any favors either.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineflylku From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7347 times:

Socialism never works. There is demand within and to Australia. If a private Qantas cannot do it well and efficiently other airlines will and customers will patronize those carriers. Everyone wins even if Qantas loses. That is why people have such are hard time grasping why free markets work better than the alternatives over the long term.


...are we there yet?
25 incitatus : What you call "Sydney-centricity" is a perfectly sound business strategy used by airlines all over the world. When an airline has dominance over a re
26 jupiter2 : Thank you for this comment, you said it perfectly. It is not as if the other cities don't have choices, but the majority of comments about air servic
27 tullamarine : Agree 100% On this basis I don't think QF can ever complain about competitors such as SQ, EK etc crowding them out of markets because, as even you ad
28 WestJet747 : The poster that I quoted suggested that flying to U.S. airports near the border and driving across to those destinations is cheaper than flying AC. W
29 StarAC17 : There was a time when WS was cheaper than AC but for most competing routes the fares are usually very similar to AC. WS has struggled in several ways
30 EK413 : Just like they will never build the 2nd 'Over due' Sydney International Airport... EK413
31 Lufthansa : Here is the thing. Why would they need to wear the political flak? Let's say Qantas fails (and that means the group as a whole, they can always just
32 YYCowboy : Canada deals its aviation cards differently than Australia. American fantasy has it that Air Canada is subsidised, rubbish. I waited for this situatio
33 kiwiandrew : Now that's a tricky one... DXB make a great song about being all open skies.. but for QF (or any other non-local carrier) to hub there ( or indeed fr
34 Post contains links mariner : It is actually about Asia - not "the Arabs." Asia used to be the place that Australians flew over to get to Europe. Not any more. China is now Austra
35 Lufthansa : Very true. Asia is still the best place for any Australian carrier to hub simply because of the other possibilities in the worlds fastest growing and
36 Lufthansa : And I might add I think what some of these unions just did was really stupid. If they hadn't been so militant, but perhaps embraced the idea that expa
37 Post contains links Baroque : FWIW I don't think that GoA should buy back into Qantas but it is rather amusing that all the cries for free market purity are going on while GM - tha
38 Post contains links mariner : It's going to be an interesting balancing act for the government. The unions hate the idea - outsourcing by stealth - but the government has to be in
39 747m8te : I'd ditch this country if that ever eventuated... agreed! So whats your point?, relative to QF, DJ is a very small airline with little international
40 Post contains images NTLDaz : Would have thought a little extreme. Virgin ain't that bad
41 koruman : Air New Zealand was effectively renationalised several years ago. And today it has a more modern and efficient fleet than Qantas, with a superior prod
42 jetfuel : Qantas has had inadequate funds to invest in Qantas future. Instead it has put most of its $ and energy into Jetstar. This is not what the Qantas sale
43 Lufthansa : And just how do you propose that carrier would have been able to compete with the frequencies SIA and EK have thanks to the fact they can feed their
44 Jetstar315 : In reply to jfk777 -"why does Emirates fly to NZ" - the answer is for several reasons: 1. It's cheaper for them to keep their aircraft in NZ for the d
45 koruman : Lufthansa misses the point. By his logic, how does Air New Zealand thrive on LAX-LHR? Qantas' inept management has for too long had only the huge 747
46 Lufthansa : Oh god Kuroman, for the last 15 years I have been saying QF should have ordered either the A340-300 or the 777-200ER. At the time, especially given wh
47 StarAC17 : The Arab carriers and the Asian ones advantage over QF in this regard, they can utilize the hub and spoke system far more efficiently, the geographic
48 EK413 : Sarcasm look it up in the dictionary... EK413
49 747m8te : Yes...could easily see that...but through that you were trying to have a dig at Qantas, when the competition Virgin Australia is doing the same!
50 Baroque : Here is one who got a good laugh from your "QF Spirit of ......" post, Reply 6. Very neat and sums up the dilemmas that I suppose were at the core of
51 victrola : What an evil thing those Emirates people are doing! Imagine, how dare they operate a successful efficient airline! Instead of complaining about compe
52 The Coachman : Yes, because it destroyed Ansett and essentially destroyed itself in the process requiring the NZ government to step in. Yes, but routes like CDG wer
53 SEPilot : One of the things I have learned in 60 years on this planet is that ALL governments (and government agencies) are fundamentally incapable of efficienc
54 smi0006 : You also get most of QF competitors to Asia and Europe: SQ, MH, TG, EY, EK, QR, CZ, NZ, CA, MU, have I forgotten anyone, or have I included anyone th
55 jetfuel : SQ is a subsidiary of Singapore government investment and holding company Temasek Holdings, which effectively means the Government holds 54.5% of voti
56 smi0006 : Is this the way NZ is run?
57 jetfuel : New Zealand government invested NZ$800+ million in the rescue plan and at the time the Government had about 76% of the airline. Exactly their % holdi
58 Post contains links Docpepz : It's not as if tough times don't affect the evil SIA and EK: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...-on-fuel-expenses-competition.html Singapore Airli
59 Post contains links mariner : But it costs money. A lot of people don't believe that Qantas can be losing money on international but Air New Zealand is presently losing $1 million
60 jetfuel : Hang on a minute. AIR NZ made a $75 million profit to June 30. The tsnaumi in japan and earthquakein NZ is responsible most of the stress in the inte
61 JMM99 : one sure way to kill off Qantas fast is for the govt to get involved. There's not one govt enterprise that would survive in the real world.
62 mariner : Yes it made a profit - while losing $1 million a week on long haul. Check the date on that link. And yes, there were tsunami and earthquakes and cycl
63 JMM99 : a nationalised QF would be equal to say Aeroflot at it's worst. Fares would be high service non-existent. As soon as a non-Labor govt got into power i
64 infinit : Exactly. my sentiments after reading the many pro-protectionism posts here. Sure, close up the Australian aviation industry to protect QF. Who loses
65 Baroque : That sentence could just about be reworded to cover the Joyce QF frolic of last Saturday. To destroy the unions case, QF might well have bid fair to
66 jetfuel : There's no reason a 51% owned Qantas still cant operate at a profit. Look at the mismanagement we have seen the last 5 years and it still tuns a prof
67 Baroque : Just checked your age Jetfuel, to make sure you were not of the generation that had actually experienced efficient government owned enterprises. And
68 mariner : I'm surely old enough to remember the glory days of nationalized industry and I don't remember too many I that I would regard as truly competitive -
69 jetfuel : I will concede that re-nationalisation is only a second option to amending the Qantas act. I am still angry that the act did nothing to stop Dixon and
70 Baroque : To be fair most of the comparisons you would be about to make would be of nationalized industries that barring the nationalization would have been ou
71 StarAC17 : Why not?? Governments run most other forms of mass transportation and their goal is to provide that service to the taxpayers. Also in most countries
72 dkramer7 : Thanks! I'll take that as a complement!
73 dkramer7 : This is more what I was thinking of when I posted
74 Post contains images jetfuel : Great, I am so glad we have all decided on the solution.... Unfortunately it wont happen until after it goes down the gurgle hole
75 SEPilot : Efficiency is simply getting maximum output for minimum input. In terms of a business, it usually means profit. And profit is not evil, it is what en
76 mariner : I don't object to Qantas being re-nationalized - I've been saying that since this hoo-haa began. But let's not pretend it would be more competitive (
77 RadicalDudeJOM : Does the quality of anything ever improve when taken over by the government?
78 slinky09 : I love it when Americans talk about free trade, in one of the most controlled and restricted economies in the world. If free trade was allowed to app
79 Pyrex : Yes, that is exactly the problem, I am sure. Apparently it is not enough for governments like yours and mine to spend 40+% of GDP, more is needed, co
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Qantas A380 Re-entry Into Service? posted Thu Dec 9 2010 18:18:26 by Thrust
Re: Qantas Wunala Dreaming posted Sat Apr 15 2006 22:06:20 by Access-Air
Qantas Grounds Entire Airline Pt. 3 posted Mon Oct 31 2011 04:42:28 by ManuCH
Qantas Grounds Entire Airline Pt. 2 posted Sat Oct 29 2011 11:30:17 by srbmod
Qantas Grounding - Virgin Australia Extra Capacity posted Sat Oct 29 2011 05:35:04 by planesailing
Qantas Grounds Entire Airline posted Fri Oct 28 2011 23:25:01 by PanAm_DC10
Is Qantas Finished? (not QF Group) posted Fri Oct 28 2011 16:40:39 by JMM99
Qantas A330 After B787 posted Tue Oct 25 2011 07:01:13 by dkramer7
Why Qantas Board Should Be Sacked posted Sat Oct 22 2011 05:27:23 by jetfuel
Qantas 2 More Aircraft Grounded posted Mon Oct 17 2011 23:31:41 by KiwiTEAL