QANTASpower From Australia, joined Aug 2002, 516 posts, RR: 6 Posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2042 times:
Can I just say how absolutely disgusted I am with the sabotage of QF's retail capital raising by SIA. They have leaked to the media stories about starting a proposed third airline and have sent QF's shares below $4. This is well below the offer price of $4.20. This has undermined the retail capital raising. No one minds fair competition but this is way out of line.
Marara From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1993 times:
I would hardly call SIA a protected monopoly, SIA competes with product (mainly) SIN is one of the most open Airports in the world with many carriers competing against it on nearly all routes especially with neighbours such as MH, QF, TG, CX im sure the competition is intense. QF/BA even have their 'sub-hub' in SIN.
I like work: it fascinates me. I can sit and look at it for hours. Jerome K Jerome
QANTASpower From Australia, joined Aug 2002, 516 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1977 times:
And what about QF Marara. How many carriers compete with it on the European routes? Every single one of the Asian carriers because we in Australia are at the end of the line. Maybe you should sit back and have a think about how many carriers SIA for example compete with out of their home country with on say London flights with how many QF compete with. SIA compete with BA & QF for direct flights. QF on the the other hand has to compete with every single Asian & Middle Eastern carrier.
BBD From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 62 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1956 times:
I suspect that the scenario advanced by QANTASpower is probably closer to the real intentions of SQ than actually wanting to enter the market directly. Certainly their conduct to date, and, in particular, their comments on these rumours, has served to further fuel them and keep them going.
If this is, indeed, the case, then I think it comes under the "all is fair in love and war" category.
One can argue than QF used similar tactics towards SQ/NZ during the battle with AN, and are still using similar tactics against NZ in their campaign to convince of the benefits of QF taking a stakeholding in NZ.
Indeed, from my perception of Geoff Dixon, he could actually be enjoying the battle.
Tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1783 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1935 times:
Qantas are big boys and I'm sure they can cope. If investors think $4.20 is a good buy then they'll go for it. If not, QF will have to wait but given the institutional enthusiasm the other week, any shortfall could easily be made up via another institutional placement.
Who knows if SQ meant to inflict damage on QF? If they meant to, they should have acted a couple of weeks ago and lowered the book build price.
The Australian sharemarket has slipped over the past week and the continuing problems in the US economy means that QF's international ops will take even longer to come back. All these things are weighing on the share price. I somehow doubt the re-run of a story thats been around for 10 months is the only cause of the QF slump.
Tsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1875 times:
I juz re-read what QantasPower has said... Just wondering how a 2-3 month old rumour could sabotage Qantas? Perhaps we should say that Qantas is wanting to Sabotage Star Alliance by buying into Air NZ, and forcing ANZ out of Star?
Monopoly eh? Who has the Monopoly in Australia? Please, I dont mean any offence, but you do seem to be the Qantas version of Singapore_Air.
QANTASpower From Australia, joined Aug 2002, 516 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1863 times:
The rumour is old but for some reason SIA has been inflaming it over the past fews days. This is the major reason that the share price is now lower than the offer price. Why? Wouldn't it be in the interests of SIA to keep it very quite so QF & DJ would not be able to work on and respond to this threat.
Further QF is not a monopoly in AUS. DJ operates on the majority of the major routes. Similar domestic structures are evident in many countries such as Canada, France and Germany.
I don't want to come across as QF's No.1 fan however I am concerned as an Australian about QF being undermined by SIA via Govt regulation which allows them to enter this market. I don't think it is in the national interest to allow this to happen. SIA could very easily de-stabilise the industry here which is in no ones interest.
I have nothing against SIA however I do have concerns about Aust companies which are disadvantaged via Govt regulation which is at odds with other countries rules & regulations.
Aviasian From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1490 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1792 times:
It is hardly accurate to say that another airline's entry into the Australian market is in no one's interest . . . I am certain consumers will value having yet another choice, even if it is not no-frill and low-fare.
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1792 times:
"""Further QF is not a monopoly in AUS. DJ operates on the majority of the major routes. Similar domestic structures are evident in many countries such as Canada, France and Germany."""
Mate, what are you smoking? I think 85% of the domestic market which QF never had before is most definitely a monopoly.
"""I don't want to come across as QF's No.1 fan however I am concerned as an Australian about QF being undermined by SIA via Govt regulation which allows them to enter this market. I don't think it is in the national interest to allow this to happen. SIA could very easily de-stabilise the industry here which is in no ones interest."""
Welcome to the cut throat world and new era of Australian aviation. Every other sector industries has had to suffer it. The fact of the matter is that QF need some sort of competition to keep the standards reasonable. The two airline policy was cosy but it was always AN that were the innovaters and exceptionally so. No QF can pull whatever stunts they like.
National interest is out the window these days mate. In the ever changeing world we all have to be leaner and meaner. Unfortunately corporate and shareholder greed will rule the day.
You are QF's no#1 fan and I remember that from meeting you but the reality is that Geoffy D was more than happy to have to foreign investment cap reveiwed which would have allowed QF to be virtually foreign owned.
Do you not read the media?
Kick a clown, burn a clown, don't let them ruin your day.
Air Taiwan From Australia, joined Dec 1999, 1519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1765 times:
Qantas/ BA has 4 daily flights
SIA has 3 daily flights.
SIA has 6 daily flights
Thai has 7 daily flights
+ 5 daily flights from other airlines
SIA has 2 daily 747 and 1 daily 777 flight
QF/BA has 3 daily 747 flights
SIA protected? I don't think so.
Also, if Qantas can operate domestic New Zealand flights, why can't SIA operate domestic Australian flights? By all means the NZ market is much smaller than the Aust one. Is QF trying to "destablise" NZ's market?
And ask the general public, I'm sure they don't want monopoly and high fares + reduced service!
QantasPower, you must have a lot of shares in Qantas?
Beno From Australia, joined Aug 2002, 428 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1692 times:
I would like to share my views on government ownership of airlines some of you may agree and some may strongly disagree and I respect your opinion as you should respect mine. All airlines around the world should not have any intervention or help from governments, a lot of U.S airlines should be left to die or be taken over by stronger competitors. In the Asia/Pacific region Air New Zealand should have been left to sort out its own problems instead of taking a government had out because is not the N.Z tax payers fault that ANZ was in such a hurry to by an airline they could not afford or run.
And in response to a lot of comments about Qantas having a monopoly and having 85% of the Australian market. Since Ansett has gone never has QF abused its market power or risen fares to unfair levels. I can still fly SYD-MEL and SYD-BNE for $134 return so as far as I am concerned Qantas can continue to dominate if they keep offering these fares.
I also agree with QANTASpower about SQ spreading rumors about entering the domestic market, I think they are worried about QFs commitment to spend 13 billion to become the most powerful airline in Asia/Pacific.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13754 posts, RR: 18
Reply 23, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1614 times:
I did some research:
"Singapore Airlines may revive collapsed Australian airline Ansett as part of a push into the Australian aviation market, local media reported on Tuesday.
The Nine Network said a proposal to resurrect Ansett would be put to the Singapore Airlines board on September 11." - Reuters
"Reports of a proposed new Ansett fleet of 24 Airbuses surfaced after Sydney Airports Corporation confirmed it had been in discussions with Singapore, and followed months of speculation that the airline intended to launch a domestic carrier in Australia." - NZ Herald.
""For the whole of this calendar year I have considered SIA's arrival here to be somewhere between very likely and inevitable," said Harbison, who is managing director of the Centre for Asia-Pacific Aviation." - AFP / Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation.
""We believe their assessment was very serious and very measured," Gibbs told Sydney's Daily Telegraph." - AFP / Sydney Airport Corp. Ltd.
""We came away from these discussions with the belief that they were very serious about their analysis of starting a new airline in Australia."" - Asia Pulse / Peter Gibbs - Sydney Airport Corp. Ltd.