Quoting Baroque (Reply 249): Which IFSD for the A380s (or the 747s for that matter) occurred after leaving an Australian landing

These were the IFSDs that occured after the local MX removed oil pipes in order to do the boroscope inspections required by RR after the QF32 incident. The failures were caused by the local LAMEs unable to follow the RR instructions for replacement after inspection - not part of a normal maintence check so it was easy to find the cause. The instructions had to be re-written, strange how SQ had the same instructions from RR, yet they didn't have any issues that I am aware of. I can tell you just how frustrating that was to Airbus

Quoting Baroque (Reply 249): Question. Do you not want high quality mx on QF planes when they land in ports outside Australia

I am wondering, can you explain why MX if not in Australia is automatically not high quality? Pay is not automatically a determination of quality as I note above.


What about LH Technic? Are you suggesting they are not high quality? And who can forget that gold statement from the LAME union spokeman suggesting LH Technic aren't qualified to work on the A380 because LH don't have any A380s, and the C checks should have been done by QF LAMEs...

Do you think its acceptable for 2 LAMEs to sit in a cockpit, and refuse to sign off on a manufacturers rep to download maintenance data, because all they want to do is talk about the weekends sport? Told to come back 2 hours later...

Quoting Qfflyer (Reply 250): Quoting Baroque (Reply 249): Question. Do you not want high quality mx on QF planes when they land in ports outside Australia I am wondering, can you explain why MX if not in Australia is automatically not high quality? Pay is not automatically a determination of quality as I note above.

No, pay is not automatically a guide. But you are avoiding the question "are an unusually large (or higher, or whatever) number of IFSDs after leaving overseas ports compared with Australian ports.

Quoting Qfflyer (Reply 250): Quoting Baroque (Reply 249): Which IFSD for the A380s (or the 747s for that matter) occurred after leaving an Australian landing These were the IFSDs that occured after the local MX removed oil pipes in order to do the boroscope inspections required by RR after the QF32 incident.

And where did these IFSDs occur. On the leg after service. Or on a later leg?

You may have a point, but without data set out the way it is in Hansard, or with a longer explanation that local QF stuffed up their mx procedures, how can I tell? Do you know that a later stage of service was not at fault?

Slight digression, this is one of the cardinal rules for this sort of exercise, try to avoid divided responsibility. If you do not avoid this, each of the separate parties will spend most of their time pointing accusingly at the next stage.

Which, on the surface of it, seems to be pretty close to the system designed by QF.

Tell me I am wrong, I would love to be.

Quoting Qfflyer (Reply 250): The instructions had to be re-written, strange how SQ had the same instructions from RR, yet they didn't have any issues that I am aware of. I can tell you just how frustrating that was to Airbus

Instructions re-writtem by whom, RR?
If other carriers had no problems with the instructions I assume the OEM would not do a re-write, unless there was an interpretation issue in terms of the instructions being in different languages and the headers / pointers on the pictures / diagrams being inconsistent between them.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 245): Pilots union are going to challenge the FWA ruling on the grounds that the protected industrial action they were taking did not delay any passengers or cause Qantas any harm and that by grounding the airline and forcing FWA to act Qantas (and FWA by their actions) infringed their collective bargaining rights.

From the outside looking in, is there claim of no delays correct?

Quoting par13del (Reply 252): Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 245): Pilots union are going to challenge the FWA ruling on the grounds that the protected industrial action they were taking did not delay any passengers or cause Qantas any harm and that by grounding the airline and forcing FWA to act Qantas (and FWA by their actions) infringed their collective bargaining rights. From the outside looking in, is there claim of no delays correct?

I am unable to give evidence about the time needed to select red ties nor on the time taken to put them on. As for the announcements. They AFAICR are read by the co-pilot after landing while they are taxiing in after the normal post-landing announcements. So it seems fairly safe to say no delays there.

Those pilots are cunning chaps. On the face of it, they have Qantas banged to rights for over-reaction.

Beware the enemy who keeps his cool.

No refusals to fly AFAIK, no objections to rosters. Just the ties and announcements. No doubt the announcements got up AJs nose, but the pax would not have known about the red ties if we had not been told. The announcements were made in a neutral tone, no hassling, just a statement. I am sure the wording must be available somewhere. If you had not flown QF before, you could even have supposed it was a normal company announcement.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 251): are an unusually large (or higher, or whatever) number of IFSDs after leaving overseas ports compared with Australian ports

This may be the case, but IFSDs out of o/s ports may not be directly related to o/s maintenance, just as a failure out of Australia doesn't automatically mean fault of local MX

Quoting Baroque (Reply 251): And where did these IFSDs occur. On the leg after service. Or on a later leg

Legs after the service. .

Quoting Baroque (Reply 251): You may have a point, but without data set out the way it is in Hansard, or with a longer explanation that local QF stuffed up their mx procedures, how can I tell? Do you know that a later stage of service was not at fault?

However as I noted due to nature of these failures it was easy to prove the cause. Its ok if you don't believe me, I am not going reveal where I get this information from, but it isn't from any Qantas person.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 251): Slight digression, this is one of the cardinal rules for this sort of exercise, try to avoid divided responsibility. If you do not avoid this, each of the separate parties will spend most of their time pointing accusingly at the next stage.

I can't disagree with that, but i do disagree with the claims that o/s MX is inferior when used as a basis for pay claims.
Whether it is or not in fact I am not arguing.

We seem to be arguing two different points. You seem to be trying to demonstrate that A-based engineers are making unreasonable claims.

I don't know whether they are or not.

What I am interested in is do the IFSDs have a different pattern leaving overseas stops compared with Australian stops?

AFAI can tell, you have not demonstrated any IFSDs after leaving Australian stops????? Not really sure what you have said.

By contrast there are documented IFSDs after stops outside Australia.

Question one. Is this a significant pattern? Are differences significant? Could be yes, could be no. I would like to know which.

Question two. What does this tell us? This too may not be obvious, but it is a question that needs to be asked and so far one has to wonder if QF has asked either of those questions.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 255): By contrast there are documented IFSDs after stops outside Australia

But really what has that got to do with anything unless it is proven to relate to immediate MX at that port?
I don't understand how you relate an IFSD after stopover at foreign port, to poor offshore maintenance. How do you know it wasn't a failure related to MX in Australia, that only showed after foreign port stopover, and didn't require inspection at that stopover?
It seems IFSDs are more frequent from o/s ports, but if you look at a standard Kangaroo route, only 1 of 4 legs would relate to A MX, and hence naturally you will have more o/s "issues".

Must introduce you to a gentleman called Occam, he had a razor. Or the law of parsimony. That should appeal to QF management.

If IFSD after overseas stops : IFSD after leaving Aus normalized for the numbers of each type of departure differs markedly then what would be your explanation.

Cunning Aus maintenance folk with crafty incorrect repairs that fall off after say 12 hours but are undetectable before that?

Any other offers?

I am talking about patterns of breakdown. Is there a pattern or not? If you want to find extravagant explanations for something of which I am not even sure, go right ahead. Seems you could be destroying your own case before you even have to make it.

Concerning the maintenance rate.... we have to be careful to have a proper view of the data.

Here in the US a number of years ago a TV station did an investigative report concerning the "unacceptable" amount of problems on NW aircraft after being maintained at the Duluth NW facility.... This story became headline news for a week in the twin cities.

Fortunately the State of Minnesota has a press accountability board; and NW appealed the story to that board with the claim that it presented a false image. When compared to other maintenance facilities that the Duluth facility had a lower than average rate of problems than for the rest of the industry. NW won, and the TV station and the reporters were cited for presenting a biased and unfactual story (and the news director lost their job, etc). The followup story after the press accountability board even included a 60 Minutes segment....

I'd like to see some basic statistics that normalize the Qanta data and compare it to the rest of the industry.

I sure wish more states and the US itself had more press accountability boards.

Have a great day,

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 258): Concerning the maintenance rate.... we have to be careful to have a proper view of the data.

Agreed and so far we don't even have the data. It APPEARS from what is reported in Hansard that IFSD are more common after leaving overseas ports than Aus, but as you say, the rates.

CASA is supposed to be looking at it and one can only assume they will do as you suggest. And there are other airlines in SE Asia with similar engines so that should help comparative stats.

I see that Captain de Crespigny's position is causing Ben Sandilands to do intellectual acrobatics to try and justify his previous diatribes.

He can't attack the Captain, so he has to find another way.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk.../the-row-about-qantas-loses-focus/

"The row about Qantas loses focus

... Nor is Captain de Crespigny alone in saying Qantas should do more in Asia, which on its own, is not a controversial opinion."

Ol' Ben gets there, of course. The start of the article sounds quite reasonable, but by the end it is standard Sandilands Qantas/Joyce bash.

 

mariner

Quoting mariner (Reply 260):

Funny enough the Ben Sandlind articles give me hope that the QANTAS strategy is finding traction. If we went back six months his blog would have canned the Asian plan. Now he is conceding the plan has merit. I wonder what he will be writing in a years time?

Quoting mariner (Reply 260): He can't attack the Captain, so he has to find another way. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk.../the-row-about-qantas-loses-focus/ "The row about Qantas loses focus ... Nor is Captain de Crespigny alone in saying Qantas should do more in Asia, which on its own, is not a controversial opinion." Ol' Ben gets there, of course. The start of the article sounds quite reasonable, but by the end it is standard Sandilands Qantas/Joyce bash.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 261): Funny enough the Ben Sandlind articles give me hope that the QANTAS strategy is finding traction. If we went back six months his blog would have canned the Asian plan. Now he is conceding the plan has merit. I wonder what he will be writing in a years time?

If you want the Qantas Asia plans canned try the SMH today.

Identifying Asia as a high-growth market for air travel is a no-brainer. Choice of location, partners and market entry is the hard part. Are Joyce's plans for Asia the best strategy? I'm not so sure. One thing that makes me suspicious is the sheer volume of his blarney. To hear him duck and weave about his $2 million package increase you'd almost think he'd had a pay cut.

The strategy, outlined three months ago in a document called Building a Stronger Qantas, includes the two initiatives that are causing angst about jobs being moved offshore: a new ''premium'' airline, preferably based in Singapore but alternatively in Kuala Lumpur, and a new low-cost carrier based in Japan.

The Singapore airline, maybe named ''RedQ'', would be a premium, full-service airline using up to 11 of the popular regional planes, the A320. Will it get the approval of Singapore's leaders, still smarting from the rejection of a Singapore-Australia stock exchange merger and the continuing refusal of ''beyond'' rights, from Australia across the Pacific, for Singapore Airlines?

Then, would Singaporeans seriously allow Qantas to muscle into the highly profitable business-class highways between Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan? Competition will be intense: Singapore Airlines plans its own premium feeder airline, Scoot, and Malaysia's low-cost pioneer, AirAsia's Tony Fernandes, another one.

The new airline in Japan, meanwhile, will be called Jetstar Japan, and have as local partners Japan Airlines and Mitsubishi Corporation. Qantas says it will be the first ''true'' low-cost carrier in Japan, with huge prospects for expanding domestic air travel. This is true enough: Japan has recently deregulated fares, prefectural governments are opening up smaller airports, and the public is switching from travel agents to online bookings - coming closer to the Jetstar model.

What Qantas doesn't mention is that the more nimble of the big Japanese carriers, All Nippon Airways, is establishing two new low-cost airlines: Peach from a hub at Kansai (Osaka-Kyoto) airport, and a joint venture with Fernandes called AirAsia Japan operating from Tokyo's main airport, Narita, head-to-head with Jetstar Japan.

It will be a race for market share and profits may be the main sacrifice. It also has to be asked if Qantas still has the deep expertise on Asia it once had. Its network of regional offices was shut down at the time of its privatisation. Only one or two remain of the bright young executives who were rotated around Asian capitals, coming face-to-face with local travellers, agents, freight shippers, financial systems, regulators and politicians.

Jetstar is even thinner on Asian savvy. Its senior management's style on recent Asian missions is understood to have left local expat executives cringing. Some aviation sources wonder how Jetstar manages to meet the Japanese regulation requiring all incoming aircraft to have at least four Japanese speakers in their flight crew. Its inbound flights dump bewildered Japanese tourists in places like the Gold Coast airport, with little assistance.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/societ...-20111111-1nbaf.html#ixzz1dT5VN4DO

How many of those points are contentious?

I missed this at the time, but someone HAS noticed that the signs at the Airport were less than truthful:

LAST Sunday, the noticeboards in Australia's airports advised that Qantas services had been grounded ''due to industrial action''. What they did not say is that the industrial action was being taken not by the company's employees, but by Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, supported by the company's board.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...-20111104-1mzz8.html#ixzz1dT63ncyI

Quoting Baroque (Reply 262): If you want the Qantas Asia plans canned try the SMH today.

Thanks, but yes - I read that. Beset with "if's" and "buts" I thought.  

mariner

Quoting Baroque (Reply 262): Competition will be intense: Singapore Airlines plans its own premium feeder airline, Scoot

The SMH didn't do much research did they? Scoot is not going to be a premium carrier!!!

Quoting mariner (Reply 263): Quoting Baroque (Reply 262): If you want the Qantas Asia plans canned try the SMH today. Thanks, but yes - I read that. Beset with "if's" and "buts" I thought

It appears that with Government assistance (which is where the PM might have cause to be annoyed) QF has been in negotiations for some time in Asia. But is Hamish even half right in saying that QF has lost a large part of its Asian expertise?

And along a different line, I still do not hear a clear reason why the Vietnamese experience cannot happen again.

I suppose it is a different industry, but another* Aus miner seems just to have had its Indonesian mine lifted from under it. Before that there was the dairy debacle. Any reason to suppose with laws just a bit less defined than they are here that Asia is a great place to gamble your airline? Aside from growth. But heck, consumption of milk has also grown in Indonesia but has that lessened the loss on that investment?

*For those with a grim sense of humour, the first major one to be lifted was Kaltimprima.
http://www.riotinto.com/media/18435_media_releases_3347.asp
Suffice to say, that transaction was close to daylight robbery. Mind you, nobody was all that sure who was robbing whom. Wonder who headed Rio at that time.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 265): It appears that with Government assistance (which is where the PM might have cause to be annoyed) QF has been in negotiations for some time in Asia. But is Hamish even half right in saying that QF has lost a large part of its Asian expertise?

Well (i) if the PM does anything that could be seen as disadvantageous to Qantas, that could backfire and there's a school of thought which thinks that she should be v. grateful to Mr. Joyce. (ii) I don't know what experience Qantas has in Asia - I don't work for Qantas and I'm not in Asia - but Jetstar Asia seems to be doing okay.

As to the rights on - say - Singapore, I would assume there would have to be a trade-off. That's usually how it works. Singapore gets SYD-LAX? I dunno - it hasn't happened yet.

There are a lot of assumptions being made here. Why would Mr. Joyce - or any CEO, even one you like - lay out the specifics of this until it was a done deal?

He could do anything. Penang's nice.  

Quoting Baroque (Reply 265): And along a different line, I still do not hear a clear reason why the Vietnamese experience cannot happen again.

No one can give you a clear reason, nor any guarantees. Any airline start-up has considerable risk attached to it.

But you either think Qantas should go into Asia or you don't. If you don't then this discussion is pointless.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 265): I suppose it is a different industry, but another* Aus miner seems just to have had its Indonesian mine lifted from under it.

A different industry - in a different country from any I have heard discussed in connection with Qantas.

Perhaps Big Red Herring could be the name of an airline there.

Quoting deconz (Reply 264): The SMH didn't do much research did they? Scoot is not going to be a premium carrier!!!

It is also unfortunate that the writer advocates - for Japan - the exact premium carrier strategy that Qantas plans to use use in, perhaps, Singapore.

I don't see how they can both be wrong.

mariner

[Edited 2011-11-11 23:05:19]

Quoting Baroque (Reply 262): Identifying Asia as a high-growth market for air travel is a no-brainer. Choice of location, partners and market entry is the hard part. Building a Stronger Qantas, includes the two initiatives that are causing angst about jobs being moved offshore: a new ''premium'' airline, preferably based in Singapore but alternatively in Kuala Lumpur, and a new low-cost carrier based in Japan. The Singapore airline, maybe named ''RedQ'', would be a premium, full-service airline using up to 11 of the popular regional planes, the A320. Will it get the approval of Singapore's leaders, still smarting from the rejection of a Singapore-Australia stock exchange merger and the continuing refusal of ''beyond'' rights, from Australia across the Pacific, for Singapore Airlines? Then, would Singaporeans seriously allow Qantas to muscle into the highly profitable business-class highways between Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan? Competition will be intense: Singapore Airlines plans its own premium feeder airline, Scoot, and Malaysia's low-cost pioneer, AirAsia's Tony Fernandes, another one. The new airline in Japan, meanwhile, will be called Jetstar Japan, and have as local partners Japan Airlines and Mitsubishi Corporation. Qantas says it will be the first ''true'' low-cost carrier in Japan, with huge prospects for expanding domestic air travel. This is true enough: Japan has recently deregulated fares, prefectural governments are opening up smaller airports, and the public is switching from travel agents to online bookings - coming closer to the Jetstar model. What Qantas doesn't mention is that the more nimble of the big Japanese carriers, All Nippon Airways, is establishing two new low-cost airlines: Peach from a hub at Kansai (Osaka-Kyoto) airport, and a joint venture with Fernandes called AirAsia Japan operating from Tokyo's main airport, Narita, head-to-head with Jetstar Japan.

I do not have confidence that Qantas group management is capable of an accurate and astute assessment of market opportunities in Asia, and I think that increasingly dogma and ignorance are combining to lead to half-baked plans, like so many Australian investments in Asia (such as Jetstar Vietnam and every Telstra investment in Asia).

One of my four jobs involves training up and coming youngsters in my field. And I emphasise to them the need for precision and rigour in their assessment. I haven't heard any of either from Joyce at al when talking about Asia, which surprises me as two senior Qantas executives spent considerable jail time in Vietnam recently.

So what is the purpose of "Red Q"? Is it to feed into onward services to Europe and Australia or is it to act as a stand-alone Asian carrier with a comprehensive network? If it is the latter, why is it going to have lie-flat beds?

Is it targeting southeast Asian or Chinese customers? If it is the latter, why isn't the hub in northeast Asia instead of southeast Asia?

And above all, the key question is this. How is Red Q going to convince high-yielding Asian travellers to abandon Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific to fly with it?

Until a clearer picture emerges, I will view Red Q as just another poorly conceived and badly executed waste of Australian investment in Asia.

Quoting mariner (Reply 266): As to the rights on - say - Singapore, I would assume there would have to be a trade-off. That's usually how it works. Singapore gets SYD-LAX? I dunno - it hasn't happened yet.

So you are saying that the Australian government should make concessions to an Asian nation in order to give Qantas the opportunity to channel its capital into investment in Asia instead of Australia?

Do you really think that they would do that after being misled and embarrassed by Qantas management in the lockout saga? This government wouldn't cross the road to pi** on Alan Joyce if he was on fire.

Quoting koruman (Reply 267): So you are saying that the Australian government should make concessions to an Asian nation in order to give Qantas the opportunity to channel its capital into investment in Asia instead of Australia?

Nope. I've no idea what will happen. But if they are asking for concessions from an Asian nation, I would expect Australia to give some concessions in return.

The Australian company BHP Billiton invests - and earns - all over the world. It would be a very much poorer company if it did not.

Quoting koruman (Reply 267): Do you really think that they would do that after being misled and embarrassed by Qantas management in the lockout saga? This government wouldn't cross the road to pi** on Alan Joyce if he was on fire.

I think that pays little attention to the realities of politics.

mariner

Quoting mariner (Reply 268): But if they are asking for concessions from an Asian nation, I would expect Australia to give some concessions in return.

Except that there is no suggestion here that the benefits would be for the Qantas Australia which is subject to the Qantas Sales Act.

It is quite clear that this would be a subsidiary which would almost certainly be spun off from Qantas for a profit if successful.

I see no reason for the Australian government to lift a finger to help Red Q, or for that matter to come to its rescue when it inevitably fails like all Telstra's Asian ventures.

In contrast with Mr Joyce, Mr Borghetti plays the game with the federal government and is viewed as an exemplary corporate citizen and it is now he and Virgin Australia who are viewed by Labor as the de facto flag carriers.

The government would not intercede with the government of Singapore or anywhere else on Qantas' behalf now unless Borghetti expressed no objection. And given that Singapore Airlines is a partner of Virgin Australia and that Borghetti's airline flies SYD-LAX, he is hardly going to agree.

Quoting koruman (Reply 269): Except that there is no suggestion here that the benefits would be for the Qantas Australia which is subject to the Qantas Sales Act.

They have to function under the Qantas Sales Act. That is the guarantee.

Quoting koruman (Reply 269): It is quite clear that this would be a subsidiary which would almost certainly be spun off from Qantas for a profit if successful.

I don't know why they would spin it off, but if it brings a big bunch of money home for the Qantas Group, I don't see a problem.

Quoting koruman (Reply 269): I see no reason for the Australian government to lift a finger to help Red Q, or for that matter to come to its rescue when it inevitably fails like all Telstra's Asian ventures.

The Government cut Qantas loose to swim - or sink - in the open market. It did so for a big bunch of money and for the drug-like rush of ill-considered Thatcherite privatization. Somewhat shockingly - to me - it was a Labor government did this.

If a Labor government is now unhappy with what it hath wrought and with what Qantas is doing it should protect Qantas from the open market. If that means re-nationalization, hey, I'm an old Leftie, I don't mind.

Quoting koruman (Reply 269): In contrast with Mr Joyce, Mr Borghetti plays the game with the federal government and is viewed as an exemplary corporate citizen and it is now he and Virgin Australia who are viewed by Labor as the de facto flag carriers.

If you say so. I think Virgin Australia has yet to prove its case.

Quoting koruman (Reply 269): The government would not intercede with the government of Singapore or anywhere else on Qantas' behalf now unless Borghetti expressed no objection. And given that Singapore Airlines is a partner of Virgin Australia and that Borghetti's airline flies SYD-LAX, he is hardly going to agree.

Once again, I disagree, for reasons I have previously given.

mariner

[Edited 2011-11-12 02:45:45]

Quoting koruman (Reply 269): Except that there is no suggestion here that the benefits would be for the Qantas Australia which is subject to the Qantas Sales Act. It is quite clear that this would be a subsidiary which would almost certainly be spun off from Qantas for a profit if successful.

I'm unsure how RedQ will be subject to the Qantas Sale Act - but even if they do want to spin it off for a profit - good for them. They're a business, they should be allowed to invest in new businesses, build them up and sell them off if there's a good offer. Nevertheless, if its a big money-spinner they'll want to hang on to it I would imagine.

Quoting koruman (Reply 269): I see no reason for the Australian government to lift a finger to help Red Q, or for that matter to come to its rescue when it inevitably fails like all Telstra's Asian ventures.

I'm not sure why you keep comparing this to Telstra's ventures - they have about as much in common as chalk and cheese. Qantas has had significant operations out of SIN, HKG and Japan for many years, so you'd expect them to have some knowledge of Asian market conditions.

Quoting koruman (Reply 269): In contrast with Mr Joyce, Mr Borghetti plays the game with the federal government and is viewed as an exemplary corporate citizen and it is now he and Virgin Australia who are viewed by Labor as the de facto flag carriers.

Do you have some proof of this, or is it just your opinion? Maybe a quote from a Labor minister. I know the Govt. is unhappy about the way Qantas handled the grounding, but with Qantas' regional & international network, I think it would still be seen as the main player in town.

Quoting mariner (Reply 266): Well (i) if the PM does anything that could be seen as disadvantageous to Qantas, that could backfire and there's a school of thought which thinks that she should be v. grateful to Mr. Joyce.

Lets not pretend that Qantas was trying to he helpful to the PM, she owes Qantas nothing and Joyce knows it hence the amount of shutupitude he has displayed of late.

I think that Sandilands point is that in these bilateral / open skies type agreements the other countries flag carrier will inevitably gain some concessions to operate into or possibly within Australia, its a nonsense to claim otherwise and this can't be laid at the PM's door its called reciprocal agreements, so QF foray into Asia may have unintended consequences closer to home; its a great irony that these discussions are at a government level and carried out by the very people that Joyce tried to screw over ie the Federal Government. You couldn't make it up but with the joined up thinking I would expect from a CEO he should have worked it out, Is the board of QF expecting any favours from Gillard? Short answer is yes! Which just makes this even funnier.

Sandilands also cautions against the minority status the Qantas will have in these airlines Jetstar have been done over by the government of Vietnam already, that investment is now beyond the control of the Qantas board.

BTW have you noticed that over the past couple of weeks the Gillard government has gotten an upgrade from "hated" to merely "very unpopular" this is significant, a lot of the 99% (haha) are looking around at The genius that is Alan Joyce's shenanigans and are not swallowing the talking points that his actions were good or successful or desirable, members of the press are also breaking ranks, it is possible that we will look back at this as a turning point.

Quoting mariner (Reply 268): The Australian company BHP Billiton invests - and earns - all over the world. It would be a very much poorer company if it did not.

And pays those profits back to most of the world, BHP is barely 25% Australian owned these days.

Quoting cam747 (Reply 271): I'm unsure how RedQ will be subject to the Qantas Sale Act

I agree, my understanding "RedQ" would be like JetStar Asia, Japan and Vietnam in that they will be majority locally owned. I assume that QF will negotiation management rights etc, so it is an investment where they would receive a profit distribution back to QF as a shareholder (something QF hasn't been doing for its shareholders lately!)

Quoting mariner (Reply 266): in a different country

You think that ASEAN countries do not talk to each other? The world is divided into short noses and long noses when push comes to shove.

Quoting koruman (Reply 267): I do not have confidence that Qantas group management is capable of an accurate and astute assessment of market opportunities in Asia, and I think that increasingly dogma and ignorance are combining to lead to half-baked plans, like so many Australian investments in Asia (such as Jetstar Vietnam and every Telstra investment in Asia).

Wish I thought you were wrong.

Not sure where the concept of GoA not having been helpful to QF Asia plans, there is evidence it has been doing its best.

BV has a point in suggesting that JG going from most hated status to just unpopular has a bit to do with AJ, although it could also be some other chickens coming home to roost (or are they rabbits?).

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 272): so QF foray into Asia may have unintended consequences closer to home; its a great irony that these discussions are at a government level and carried out by the very people that Joyce tried to screw over ie the Federal Government.

I think that is one (mind you of a number) why JG was genuinely furious at the grounding. It would be strange if the GoA had not been doing its little best for QF for quite a while and then - WHAM right between the eyes, in the middle of CHOGM, just in case nobody noticed.

A neighbour of ours travelled back from Cairns that night, he is not entirely sure they left after the grounding, but nothing was said although the plane did take off before sked dep time and the arrival announcement struck him as odd, not half as odd as the deserted luggage hall and not a soul in sight in the rest of the terminal. It was only when he got home and turned on the TV he found that QF was grounded.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 274): I think that is one (mind you of a number) why JG was genuinely furious at the grounding. It would be strange if the GoA had not been doing its little best for QF for quite a while and then - WHAM right between the eyes, in the middle of CHOGM, just in case nobody noticed.

Yep, subtle that.

As you say I Imagine that the PM, FM and transport ministers have been very active on Qantas behalf trying to finesse the international legal niceties of amending aviation agreements with are in effect bilateral treaties then Whammo! They go and strand 100's of fed gov workers and 31 of the PM's closest PM's in Perth.

Dear PM,

Thanks for all your help with our Asian ventures.

Love

Alan xx

BTW We're grounding Qantas in 2 hours, at 5.00pm, hope that this doesn't cause you any inconvenience


The only thing missing was mooning the Queen.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 275): They go and strand 100's of fed gov workers and 31 of the PM's closest PM's in Perth.

Best part is the 1000 journos they stranded in Perth at CHOGM. Just a proportion of those will have been discombobulated I imagine. You would think a QF spinmeister might have spotted a few of the problems of doing THAT and doing it THEN.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 272): Lets not pretend that Qantas was trying to he helpful to the PM, she owes Qantas nothing and Joyce knows it hence the amount of shutupitude he has displayed of late.

Who is pretending that?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 272): I think that Sandilands point is that in these bilateral / open skies type agreements the other countries flag carrier will inevitably gain some concessions to operate into or possibly within Australia, its a nonsense to claim otherwise and this can't be laid at the PM's door its called reciprocal agreements, so QF foray into Asia may have unintended consequences closer to home; its a great irony that these discussions are at a government level and carried out by the very people that Joyce tried to screw over ie the Federal Government.

Since the one thing we all seem to be agreed on is that bilaterals are negotiated at government level, I don't think that is Sandilands point at all.

Previous governments and now Minister Albanese have pursued a relentless policy of open skies - and has lectured the US on how much better his version is - with little regard to the effect this must have on Qantas.

http://www.centreforaviation.com/ana...-liberalisation-really-means-30065

"Although very relaxed in its bilateral liberalism, Australia does not possess the most liberal policy internationally, but as a relatively small and geographically isolated nation, its overall model appears to work very effectively in the consumer interest. For example, Middle East airlines are granted pretty much unlimited access – a definitive contrast with Canada for example, whose protectionism of its flag carrier seeks to keep any potential competition at bay and which persists in strenuous limits on foreign ownership."

Simple cause and effect. Qantas has been expected to cope - however it could.

And it was the then (Labor) government action that led directly to Air NZ buying Ansett and thus to the downfall of both airlines:

"And, finally, Minister Albanese noted the open skies relationship with near neighbour New Zealand: “The creation of the Single Aviation Market between Australia and New Zealand demonstrates what is possible. Not only can Australian and New Zealand airlines fly between the two countries as often as they want to, and beyond the two countries as often as they want to, then can also fly anywhere they want within the two countries, including providing domestic services in the other country."

That may be true now - but it wasn't true then. Despite the vaunted SAM and the agreements, the Australian government reneged on the deal and would not allow Air NZ to fly domestically within Australia - thus Ansett.

mariner

[Edited 2011-11-12 10:27:28]

There was a fascinating discussion on ABC NewsRadio this morning.

The argument put forward was that Labor planned to introduce the Carbon Tax to bring back onboard the left-flank of the party which defected to the Greens at the last election. And that while they knew that the Opposition would pound them until its introduction next June, they also factored in that they have ensured so many offsets to it that virtually no individuals would be worse off under it, which they expect to give them a 10% electoral bounce next June when the public sees that the sky has not fallen in.

And they believe that now that Qantas has restored Industrial Relations to the political agenda, they can go to town on it and win the election convincingly. And leave settling scores until they have a majority in parliament.

If that is the case - and it is a big "if - Qantas and Alan Joyce could yet end up regretting alienating this government. Because right now they are one of the biggest scores that this government would seek to settle.

Quoting koruman (Reply 278): right now they are one of the biggest scores that this government would seek to settle.

Oh I dunno! On the list, but not close to the top - YET!  

The arbitration phase of the FWA may cause QF about as much grief as it causes the unions and Gillard can just sit back as mention umpires, and the press will be sure to mention who appointed most of the umpires.

If AJ wished to keep control, he would have been far better keeping it away from FWA and doing what most say he should have done, direct negotiations with the other parties. OK the unions may be a pack of b*****s, but AJ has not made a very good case on that, and has certainly left them with quite a bit of ammunition that has been effective in a dirty fight.

I think we had some poll results earlier, so this is Hartcher's take on a H/Nielsen poll

QANTAS has emerged as the chief villain after the dispute that momentarily paralysed the nation, with a new poll showing more voters disapproving of its actions than those of any other key player.

The latest Herald/Nielsen poll finds 60 per cent of voters disapproved of the decision by Qantas two weeks ago to ground its entire domestic and international fleet as a tactic to force an end to a long-running dispute with three unions.

Only 36 per cent of those surveyed agreed with the measure that left thousands stranded at home and abroad.
Advertisement: Story continues below

The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who moved to terminate the dispute by referring it immediately to Fair Work Australia for resolution, was not rewarded in the court of public opinion. The poll found only 40 per cent approved of her handling of the dispute while 46 per cent disapproved.

Labor and Greens voters were far more supportive of Ms Gillard's actions than were Coalition voters. Vice versa, Coalition voters were more supportive of the action by Qantas than were Labor and Greens voters.

The unions also found themselves on the wrong side of public opinion with 49 per cent disapproving of the industrial action they took in their dispute with Qantas. Only 41 per cent approved of union action.

The poll of 1400 voters was taken from Thursday night to Saturday night, a fortnight after Qantas grounded its fleet. Since then, Qantas has embarked on a public relations offensive, offering every inconvenienced passenger a full flight plus reimbursement for costs incurred for being grounded.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/publi...-20111113-1ndtr.html#ixzz1db8BdkhK

[Edited 2011-11-13 07:19:17]

Today's polls in the Fairfax media really show how badly Joyce and Clifford have misjudged the situation with their actions.

60% of the population still blames Qantas management for the lockout. That constitutes about the worst brand damage imaginable - I cannot remember a similiar figure for a mass-market enterprise in Australia. And if 60% blame Qantas two weeks after the event, you can bet your life that the Labor electoral machine will keep this issue burning as the election approaches.

And when translated into political implications, the 40% who don't blame Qantas are the 40% who are nailed-on voters for the Opposition anyway, so they have no impact on the outcome of the next election at all. The floating voters now appear to blame Qantas management by a margin almost as wide as Labor voters.

But the news for a Qantas management which chose to burn its bridges with government is much, much worse than that. The government has narrowed the gap in opinion polls by 4%, which is bad enough. And the PM has now seen her own approval ratings surge by 6% and catch up with the Leader of the Opposition.

I agree with mariner - Alan Joyce certainly took an adventurous approach. But it could not really have backfired any more spectacularly than it now is.

Quoting koruman (Reply 281): 60% of the population still blames Qantas management for the lockout.

I'm not sure who else they could possibly "blame." It was an action by Qantas management.

mariner

Quoting koruman (Reply 281): Today's polls in the Fairfax media really show how badly Joyce and Clifford have misjudged the situation with their actions.

LOL All it proves is that the Unions mis-judged their men and under-estimated Leigh Cliffords and Alan Joyces resolve. If only Geoff Dixon and Margaret Jackson had had the same spine to stand up to them last time!

Quoting koruman (Reply 281): 60% of the population still blames Qantas management for the lockout. That constitutes about the worst brand damage imaginable - I cannot remember a similiar figure for a mass-market enterprise in Australia. And if 60% blame Qantas two weeks after the event, you can bet your life that the Labor electoral machine will keep this issue burning as the election approaches.

Of course they do, Qantas has been saying loud and clear that they are responsible for the lockout of their workers. The public is repeating what QF press has been saying. You can't remember similar brand damage being done? How about when Ansett had to ground it's 767's due to faulty maintenance? How about the CASA grounding of Tiger Airways? What about when the BA Cabin Crew went on strike last year? I'd say the first 2 represent far more serious brand damage than the 3rd one which is more equivalent to what has been happening at Qantas. As for the Labor electoral machine, they have bigger fish to fry than Qantas if they're going to get this government re-elected.

Quoting koruman (Reply 281): And when translated into political implications, the 40% who don't blame Qantas are the 40% who are nailed-on voters for the Opposition anyway, so they have no impact on the outcome of the next election at all. The floating voters now appear to blame Qantas management by a margin almost as wide as Labor voters.

How can you even possibly justify that conclusion. It's like saying the other 40% who are die hard Labor and Greens Voters have absolutely no impact on the next election when that is patently false. Just look at the NSW State Election and at all of the previous safe Labor seats in industrial and working class areas which are now Liberal. Look at how John Howard lost his own seat, an always Liberal held seat, to Labor in 2007. Neither party can take anything for granted and the good thing is that it opens up debate on IR and how the Rudd/Gillard Governments have not only undone workchoices but also a portion of the Keating Governments work as well.

Quoting koruman (Reply 281): But the news for a Qantas management which chose to burn its bridges with government is much, much worse than that. The government has narrowed the gap in opinion polls by 4%, which is bad enough. And the PM has now seen her own approval ratings surge by 6% and catch up with the Leader of the Opposition.

The Government has no choice but to use Qantas, and it's network, in order to get around. Yes they have other choices as well but when you're the biggest and most extensive in a market then you have something which is not easily replicated, never mind the cost. So the Government and Qantas will eventually kiss and make up if they haven't already and all our politicians and public servants will continue to use the Qantas Club, Chairmans lounge etc etc

Quoting koruman (Reply 281): I agree with mariner - Alan Joyce certainly took an adventurous approach. But it could not really have backfired any more spectacularly than it now is.

I disagree. What Qantas has now is certainty that if it can't reach the deal it wants then Fair Work Australia will arbitrate the matter. There is no way on earth that Fair Work Australia will put job security clauses into a contract so what's more likely to happen is that they will take the elements that QF and the Unions agree to, which is essentially everything else, and make that the contract.

From my read I also think the pilots have a good chance in the Federal Court of over-turning the order for them to cease industrial action which is probably a just outcome for them.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 283): If only Geoff Dixon and Margaret Jackson had had the same spine to stand up to them last time!

Yeah the very same people that tried to sell QF to private equity before the GFC. QF would not exist if those two had had their way... but thanks for the good example keep em coming!  

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 284): Yeah the very same people that tried to sell QF to private equity before the GFC. QF would not exist if those two had had their way... but thanks for the good example keep em coming!

I never understood what the objections were to the takeover bid - other than, perhaps, it slightly undervalued Qantas - at the time.

From the The Age at the time:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/busine...07/02/05/1170524026217.html?page=2

"Conditions that protect both Qantas' position as the national carrier and the valuable bilateral rights the Government negotiates for it — majority Australian ownership and control and the location of its head office and operational centre — are uncontroversial and indeed critical to Qantas' viability and the economics of the buy-out. Self-interest, in this instance, provides insurance for the national interest."

But then, I have spent my working life in the most brutal free market. I'm not scared of it.

mariner

[Edited 2011-11-13 18:16:10]

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 284): Yeah the very same people that tried to sell QF to private equity before the GFC. QF would not exist if those two had had their way... but thanks for the good example keep em coming!

What's your point? As Mariner states, the only thing wrong with the Private Equity bid was that at the end of the day it arguably under-valued Qantas.

And I would argue that QF would exist today if those 2 had had their way but it would exist in a different form and without these Union troubles since it would have had an Ansett style collapse, Deed of Company Arrangement and complete Corporate and Capital Re-structure. That new entity would also not be the subject of the Qantas Sale Act, which applies to this Qantas entity, having acquired the assets and branding name of Qantas without the liabilities.

There are many ways that hypothetical could have ended, some of them good, some of them bad.

Quoting mariner (Reply 285): I never understood what the objections were to the takeover bid - other than, perhaps, it slightly undervalued Qantas - at the time.

It was set up so that Dixon and co could each walk away with tens of millions in their back pockets. Qantas was to take on BILLIONS of dollars of debt, sell pretty much all its assets, be striped and that money then plundered from the company and sent to the private equity firm. Even without the GFC it would have caused the company to face ruinous interest on its new debt and would not have allowed to to purchase (or lease) new aircraft basically turning it into a shell or shadow of itself to then be sold on or back to the government.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 286): And I would argue that QF would exist today if those 2 had had their way

Very doubtful. Without government help it would be history. Even with government help it would not be the same airline it was...
In many ways it is becoming clearer that AJ (and LC etc) are just doing almost exactly the same thing but in a sneakier way. Instead of selling Qantas to private equity, they are doing it by stealth... ie transferring its assets effectively to JQ, setting up a new Asia airline and nipping away at Qantas... (the death by a thousand cuts AJ quotes actually sounds more accurate about himself). The end result is that JQ, Jetstar Asia, Jetstar Japan, Qantas Asia can all be sold off (with no restrictions from the Qantas Sales Act), from there that money is simply paid out as a special dividend (AJ and co will of course get an extra multi-million dollar bonus from the profits of such a sale). That just leaves Qantas all alone with little cash on hand, old assets (or leased assets...conveniently from Geoff Dixon), and a small market share internationally. They can sell Qantas domestic off to private equity (no restriction there as its the international side of things that are restricted by the Qantas Sales Act). From there they just walk away as the airline is worthless (debts, no assets etc) and leave it up to the taxpayer by way of government to pick up the pieces.
That is my theory on what is going on in AJ mind.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 287): It was set up so that Dixon and co could each walk away with tens of millions in their back pockets.

It's the way private equity works. You may not like it - I don't particularly like it - but it isn't illegal and it can happen to almost any publicly traded company.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 287): Qantas was to take on BILLIONS of dollars of debt, sell pretty much all its assets, be striped and that money then plundered from the company and sent to the private equity firm. Even without the GFC it would have caused the company to face ruinous interest on its new debt and would not have allowed to to purchase (or lease) new aircraft basically turning it into a shell or shadow of itself to then be sold on or back to the government.

The GFC changes everything, of course, but leveraged buy-outs are not at all uncommon, although less so in this present financial climate.

As to debt, again, I don't particularly like it - I don't like any debt - but a number of airlines function very well with high debt - and order aircraft.

I didn't like what happened to Air New Zealand soon after privatization, but the villain was privatization, not the financiers who were following the rules of the game as defined by the previous owners.

(Similarly, it was a freakin' fantasy to imagine that NZ Rail could provide good service and function as a for profit company).

We come back to my essential point - if Australians want Qantas protected from the vagaries of the free market, take it off the market.

mariner

Anyone who wonders what would have happened to Qantas if the private equity bid had proceeded should look up what Messrs Hicks and Gillett did to Liverpool FC in the UK.

But the beauty of what Joyce and Clifford have done is that the government now won't lift a finger to save Qantas, any more than it did for Ansett.

I largely agree with zkpilot's analysis, as follows:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 287): Instead of selling Qantas to private equity, they are doing it by stealth... ie transferring its assets effectively to JQ, setting up a new Asia airline and nipping away at Qantas... (the death by a thousand cuts AJ quotes actually sounds more accurate about himself). The end result is that JQ, Jetstar Asia, Jetstar Japan, Qantas Asia can all be sold off (with no restrictions from the Qantas Sales Act), from there that money is simply paid out as a special dividend (AJ and co will of course get an extra multi-million dollar bonus from the profits of such a sale). That just leaves Qantas all alone with little cash on hand, old assets (or leased assets...conveniently from Geoff Dixon), and a small market share internationally. They can sell Qantas domestic off to private equity (no restriction there as its the international side of things that are restricted by the Qantas Sales Act). From there they just walk away as the airline is worthless (debts, no assets etc) and leave it up to the taxpayer by way of government to pick up the pieces.

The difference is that I don't think that Jetstar is actually economically viable, let alone the mindless Asian money-pits. Jetstar currently is a parasite leeching off Qantas' blood, from the new aircraft to the "freight" payments to the premium international traffic nourished by the Qantas frequent flyer program.

I think that Jetstar will be sold off, as will every Jetstar franchise but that, like with the British Airways offshoot Go they will be massively disappointed by the return on investment.

And we will then be left with a Qantas with around the same market share as Virgin Australia, with a fleet of clapped out aircraft plus A380s. And when that fails, which it will, we know that a Coalition government wouldn't rescue it any more than it did Ansett. And nor will a Labor government after the lockout.

So if there is a Qantas in the air a decade from now I suspect that it will be after Virgin Australia has purchased its name from the administrators.

Quoting koruman (Reply 281): Today's polls in the Fairfax media really show how badly Joyce and Clifford have misjudged the situation with their actions.

Prolly, but this is a bit of a timeless test and certainly not a 50 overs effort. Certainly a bad start and personally I would be surprised if QF gets much back with its post grounding PR, but then I never did understand why PR ever works!!

Quoting sydscott (Reply 283): Qantas has been saying loud and clear that they are responsible for the lockout of their workers.

Not 100% true, those notices in the airports did their best to put the responsibility on the unions - "DUE TO INDUSTRIAL ACTION" is code for unions I would think.

As to QF post that sale, it would have gone the way of Ansett but quicker. Bankrupt within months, well not Dixon and co but the airline.

I suppose we could have done a deal to make SQ the national airline.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 290): "DUE TO INDUSTRIAL ACTION" is code for unions I would think.

Not in my mind - nor, I imagine, any court of law. What else can a lock-out possibly be but an industrial action - by management?

mariner

Quoting Baroque (Reply 290): Not 100% true, those notices in the airports did their best to put the responsibility on the unions - "DUE TO INDUSTRIAL ACTION" is code for unions I would think.

but such 'industrial action' can be initiated by either side. However, I accept that many folk (incorrectly) associate the term with Union activity.

Quoting koruman (Reply 289): So if there is a Qantas in the air a decade from now I suspect that it will be after Virgin Australia has purchased its name from the administrators.

Wish I could disagree with you "k", please send razor blades!!!!

Quoting deconz (Reply 292): but such 'industrial action' can be initiated by either side. However, I accept that many folk (incorrectly) associate the term with Union activity.

What Mariner says is true but it is a bit like a Charles Waterstreet argument, milud, and I am pretty sure that you are right deconz. And I am pretty confident the wording was chosen with that aim in mind.

Quoting mariner (Reply 285): I never understood what the objections were to the takeover bid - other than, perhaps, it slightly undervalued Qantas - at the time.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 286): What's your point? As Mariner states, the only thing wrong with the Private Equity bid was that at the end of the day it arguably under-valued Qantas.

As well as undervaluing the company the terms of the offer also unreasonably enriched the management and venture capitalists at the expense of the shareholders. It was a rort financed by debt that would have pulled Qantas under during the GFC. Their were also conflict of interest issues for Mac Bank who sat on the board as well as being part of the bid, they stood to be treated differently from other shareholders which may have been illegal.

Geoff Dixon and the senior managers stood to make $610 million from the sale at the bid price (5.5% of the airline).. Say that slowly Six.hundred.and.ten.million.dollars... simply from being in post. It was fund managed theft.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/arti...49.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap5

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 287): ie transferring its assets effectively to JQ

The only assets that have been transferred to JQ are a handful of A332's and some Indonesia rights. JQ took over from AO when it ceased operating and QF bought the 763's back to the domestic market while the rest is expansion. Sure QF gave up places like OOL but I think you'll see them return at some point on the domestic front as the need for a full service picks up.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 287): setting up a new Asia airline and nipping away at Qantas

What exactly has JQ Asia taken over from Qantas other than a handful of intra-asian flying and narrowbody Indonesia flying from PER?

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 287): The end result is that JQ, Jetstar Asia, Jetstar Japan, Qantas Asia can all be sold off (with no restrictions from the Qantas Sales Act),

Or they can be used as profit centres and valuable feeders to an expanded QF and Oneworld alliance network in South East Asia.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 287): That just leaves Qantas all alone with little cash on hand, old assets (or leased assets...conveniently from Geoff Dixon), and a small market share internationally.

Qantas mainline still has 16% to 17% market share internationally and that's from a basic core route network. I'd also remind you that QF mainline domestic and the regional carrier are both highly profitable, cash positive and, when the 787's finally start arriving, a modern fleet. Sure it's not the glory days but it's hardly doom and gloom if that's all we're left with.

Quoting koruman (Reply 289): And we will then be left with a Qantas with around the same market share as Virgin Australia, with a fleet of clapped out aircraft plus A380s

I'd hardly call the A330's, A380's and 738's clapped out and old considering they are all less than 10 years old!

Quoting Baroque (Reply 290): As to QF post that sale, it would have gone the way of Ansett but quicker. Bankrupt within months, well not Dixon and co but the airline.

I don't necessarily think so. The funding vehicle, that is to say the ultimate owner, would have gone broke but it would have been left up to Creditors to either sell the Company for a loss or attempt to re-structure the debt into equity. Given the strength of the QF brand name I would guess that they would have chosen the equity conversion option and quietly allowed QF to trade away while sucking up all the cash. We then would have seen QF and JQ separated and sold off separately as an end game. The same as what has happened to Centro in other words.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 290): I suppose we could have done a deal to make SQ the national airline

We tried that but Air New Zealand got in the way. If SQ had managed to get AN it would have been a very different Australian Aviation landscape we'd be dealing with now!

Quoting Baroque (Reply 293): And I am pretty confident the wording was chosen with that aim in mind.

Of course it was. The baggage handlers had made it abundantly clear after the AGM that would be doing their best to interrupt the airlines operations. QF chose to act first. So the airline was closed due to industrial action from both sides.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 295): I don't necessarily think so. The funding vehicle, that is to say the ultimate owner, would have gone broke but it would have been left up to Creditors to either sell the Company for a loss or attempt to re-structure the debt into equity. Given the strength of the QF brand name I would guess that they would have chosen the equity conversion option and quietly allowed QF to trade away while sucking up all the cash.

But do you think it was acceptable to (whatever word you want) allow/invite that sort of a fate and at the same time allow the loss of the capital reserves of QF? Centro seems a first grade mess at present. I would not be wanting to fly a Centro run airline at present.

I guess a better solution would have been for GoA to remain a major holder in the privatised QF. That would have got the capital off its books, but been handy for issues such as traffic rights.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 294): As well as undervaluing the company the terms of the offer also unreasonably enriched the management and venture capitalists at the expense of the shareholders. It was a rort financed by debt that would have pulled Qantas under during the GFC.

I can't do much more than shrug and repeat myself. Leveraged buy-outs are not illegal and terms like "unreasonable" and "rort" are highly subjective.

I think the $600 million plus Rupert Murdoch got for 50% of the severely under-capitalized Ansett was unreasonable and may have been a rort, but few objected to it.

That's the market and there is a very simple solution.

mariner

Quoting koruman (Reply 281): I agree with mariner - Alan Joyce certainly took an adventurous approach. But it could not really have backfired any more spectacularly than it now is.

Beat me too it:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 283): I disagree. What Qantas has now is certainty that if it can't reach the deal it wants then Fair Work Australia will arbitrate the matter. There is no way on earth that Fair Work Australia will put job security clauses into a contract so what's more likely to happen is that they will take the elements that QF and the Unions agree to, which is essentially everything else, and make that the contract.

While this might not be the best PR for QF, was grounding the airline ever going to be popular? They might have been able to reduce the effect, but it was always going to be big. Basically, AJ and management have decided that a bad PR for a month or two (people forget quickly, whether you like it or not) than have 12 months of bad PR (sure, you can say that people would blame the unions, but they would still blame QF for not giving in). Ultimately, whether AJ plan was right or wrong is up to you, but he has definitely 'won' what he was trying to achieve.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 287): In many ways it is becoming clearer that AJ (and LC etc) are just doing almost exactly the same thing but in a sneakier way. Instead of selling Qantas to private equity, they are doing it by stealth... ie transferring its assets effectively to JQ, setting up a new Asia airline and nipping away at Qantas... (the death by a thousand cuts AJ quotes actually sounds more accurate about himself). The end result is that JQ, Jetstar Asia, Jetstar Japan, Qantas Asia can all be sold off (with no restrictions from the Qantas Sales Act), from there that money is simply paid out as a special dividend (AJ and co will of course get an extra multi-million dollar bonus from the profits of such a sale). That just leaves Qantas all alone with little cash on hand, old assets (or leased assets...conveniently from Geoff Dixon), and a small market share internationally. They can sell Qantas domestic off to private equity (no restriction there as its the international side of things that are restricted by the Qantas Sales Act). From there they just walk away as the airline is worthless (debts, no assets etc) and leave it up to the taxpayer by way of government to pick up the pieces. That is my theory on what is going on in AJ mind.

Oh please, that is so beyond ridiculous. Yes, QF is setting up QFAsia to boost profits, as it did with JQ, JQAsia and soon to be JQ Japan, however, this will only boost the QF group on the whole. QF International doesnt have to be unprofitable, sure maybe only a few core roots will be operated, but something obviously isnt working at the moment, so it has to be fixed. Even then, however, I cant see routes such as NRT/LHR/SIN/LAX/DFW/PVG going, and I would expect PEK to be back soon (and lets not forget trans tasman flying).

AJ hasnt come into this to destroy QF, but to rebuild it and make it (and its subsidiaries) more profitable. Destroying QF isnt how that would be occur.

This thread will be locked for further contributions. Please take note that posts added after the thread lock, will be removed for housekeeping purposes only. Should you wish to continue to contribute to this topic, please feel free to so in part 4 which can be found here:

Qantas Grounds Entire Airline Part 4


Enjoy the site!

Regards

SA7700