Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:55 am

Quoting EK413 (Reply 48):
Quoting 747m8te (Reply 39):
So whats your point?

Sarcasm look it up in the dictionary...

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 today's Senate hearings, behind the let's have AJ for lunch sets of questions.

Jus can your list be reconciled with the Qantas act? That might be (YET) another thread mind you.

This is not a problem that Virgin has, unless SRB is in the habit of writing restrictive acts - very unlikely!!
 
victrola
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:31 pm

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:34 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 13):

Yes, letting Emirates in so much is free trade. But maybe its "too free".

What an evil thing those Emirates people are doing! Imagine, how dare they operate a successful efficient airline! Instead of complaining about competition, other airlines might want to try and learn something from Emirates success.
 
The Coachman
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 9:57 pm

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:40 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 41):
Air New Zealand was effectively renationalised several years ago.

Yes, because it destroyed Ansett and essentially destroyed itself in the process requiring the NZ government to step in.

Quoting koruman (Reply 45):
Qantas' inept management has for too long had only the huge 747 for long-haul flights, and then chose only to augment it with........the A380. Consequently they only really service London, Sydney and Los Angeles properly.

Yes, but routes like CDG were restricted by frequency restrictions imposed by the French government. If anything, the purchase should have been the 346 in order to make JNB and SCL/EZE non-restricted. Commonality with the 332/333 and 380 would have been additionally beneficial.

Quoting koruman (Reply 41):
with a superior product

Questionable. Particularly in W and Y. QF is installing the 380 product on the 744 in short order so the difference is not particularly marked. I note that you hesitate to compare the NZ 77W product with the QF 380 product...

Oh that's right, 10-abreast in a 77W in Y, with plans for the 772 to go 10-abreast Y as well. Yes, definitely superior...

Quoting koruman (Reply 41):
superior range of North American gateways

What, like 1 more?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5770
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:55 pm

One of the things I have learned in 60 years on this planet is that ALL governments (and government agencies) are fundamentally incapable of efficiency. It is patently obvious why; government agencies operate on appropriations, not profits from selling goods or services. They are not subject to competition, which is the only thing in the known universe that will drive efficiency. Everybody in authority over anything almost always desires to increase his authority; and that usually involves getting a bigger budget and more subordinates; in private business it is necessary to justify the bigger budget and more subordinates by showing bigger profits. In government, however, it is merely necessary to convince the legislators to give you the money; efficiency never enters the equation. The legislators are also subject to pressure from other groups (read unions) that have their own agendas, which are never efficiency or profits, but usually creating more jobs. So the idea of renationalizing Qantas is simply a recipe for throwing millions and millions of Australian taxpayers' money down a rathole, and probably ending up with an airline in much worse shape. We've been down this road before, and it leads nowhere.
 
smi0006
Posts: 2962
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:49 am

Quoting slider (Reply 11):
Governments have no business running airlines, period
Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
Terrible idea. We've seen what happens when airlines become fiefs of the government: you get Alitalia, Olympic, etc.

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 that isn't government owned?

I don't think Re-nationalizing Qantas is the right thing to do, but how can competing against government owned airlines be considered a fair free market either?

Fascinating discussion with no simply or easy answer, if there is an answer at all!
 
User avatar
jetfuel
Posts: 1079
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:27 pm

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:07 am

SQ is a subsidiary of Singapore government investment and holding company Temasek Holdings, which effectively means the Government holds 54.5% of voting stock.

There's no reason Qantas couldn't be 51% Government owned as a means of protecting Qantas from the some of the insane Qantas board decisions. Especially the selling of QF a few years ago to a equity bid which would have most likely been the death of the airline

I am all for it remaining a commercial enterprise run as a corporation but the Australian people having a final say
 
smi0006
Posts: 2962
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:41 am

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 55):
SQ is a subsidiary of Singapore government investment and holding company Temasek Holdings, which effectively means the Government holds 54.5% of voting stock.

There's no reason Qantas couldn't be 51% Government owned as a means of protecting Qantas from the some of the insane Qantas board decisions. Especially the selling of QF a few years ago to a equity bid which would have most likely been the death of the airline

Is this the way NZ is run?
 
User avatar
jetfuel
Posts: 1079
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:27 pm

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:02 am

Quoting smi0006 (Reply 56):
Is this the way NZ is run?

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 % holding now I am not certain of. But the airline has gone on from strength to strength.

Countries like New Zealand and Australia need airline ambassadors.
 
docpepz
Posts: 1706
Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 8:20 pm

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:30 am

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 Airlines Ltd. (SIA), the world’s second-largest carrier by market value, posted a 49 percent drop in second-quarter profit because of higher fuel costs and rising competition from discount carriers.
Net income fell to S$194 million ($153 million) in the three months ended Sept. 30 from S$380 million a year earlier, the Singapore-based airline said in a statement yesterday. That compares with the S$177 million median of three analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg News.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...rjumbo-growth-outpaces-demand.html

Nov. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Emirates, the world’s biggest airline by international traffic, said first-half profit tumbled 76 percent as fuel costs surged and it added widebody planes faster than demand increased, depressing occupancy levels.

Net income in the six months ended Sept. 30 declined to 827 million dirhams ($225 million) from 3.39 billion dirhams a year earlier, the Dubai-based company said in a statement today.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:56 am

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 57):
Countries like New Zealand and Australia need airline ambassadors.

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 a week on long haul:

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/air-...tic-despite-1m-week-losses-4367504

Air NZ boss optimistic despite $1m a week losses

In fact, conditions were so poor in the second half that Air New Zeland's long-haul operations were losing $1 million a week."


Virgin Australia is now turning a profit on its few international routes, but only after dropping the money losers such as JNB and within NZ.

mariner
 
User avatar
jetfuel
Posts: 1079
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:27 pm

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:28 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 59):
A lot of people don't believe that Qantas can be losing money on international but Air New Zealand is presently losing $1 million a week on long haul:

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 international sector. Like wise Qantas' international ops were subjected to the same issues. Its not as bad as some are trying to pretend
 
JMM99
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:56 pm

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:34 am

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.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 am

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 60):
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 international sector. Like wise Qantas' international ops were subjected to the same issues. Its not as bad as some are trying to pretend

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 cyclones - and the global economy in the dunny and the price of fuel being right up there - see Emirates and Singapore.

And who is to say that there won't be tsunami and earthquakes and other catastrophes next year? Europe is teetering on the brink of financial chaos. Check out how the G20 just ended.

Now - I don't think it is all gloom and doom at all. The world will go on and people will still fly, but I do believe it will be a different economic environment.

I'm not sure what the answer is for Air New Zealand (and no one here does) - only that there is an answer. In the case of Qantas, I think Australia has to decide if it wants Qantas to be a competitive, independent airline or if it wants it to be a national icon, an ambassador, with job security for all.

Either is fine by me. But if it is to be the first then I think the government should get out of the way. If it is to be the second then I think it has to be supported (limit the access of foreign competition, eg) and probably subsidized.

I do not believe Qantas can be both and any attempts to make it both will end in tears.

mariner
 
JMM99
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:56 pm

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:26 am

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 it would close it down fast. It would have to, it would be a huge money pit, with people being paid whether they actually did anything or not.

Even better still get the Greek govt to run it. They really know how to stuff things up, better than any other country.

[Edited 2011-11-04 22:27:49]
 
infinit
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:12 am

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 6:35 am

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 20):
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??

Exactly. my sentiments after reading the many pro-protectionism posts here. Sure, close up the Australian aviation industry to protect QF. Who loses out? The Australians.

I think what QF really needs is its planned subsidiary in Singapore. SQ won't be pleased but the Singapore government will very easily allow it I suspect. They've never protected SQ at the expense of Changi's hub status.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 6):
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...

Sorry to quote you as an example but I think there is just way too much irrational nationalism from many Australians. which I find rather peculiary... I hardly know any Singaporeans who rally behind SQ this way.. QF needs an Asian subsidiary because that's really where the action is- rather than the millions it is losing currently on international flights, they just cannot be competitive so far South.

I didn't do an econometric model of this but I'm confident that the SIN (or KUL) based arm would be a lot more profitable than going the protectionism way and letting EK/SQ/TG etc fly only a few times a week, like some here have suggested.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 7:03 am

Quoting The Coachman (Reply 52):
Yes, because it destroyed Ansett and essentially destroyed itself in the process requiring the NZ government to step in.

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 destroying itself and should the arbitrator not have myopia, maybe the beloved Jetstar as well.

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 57):
Countries like New Zealand and Australia need airline ambassadors.

They do as you could see from the angst over the Dicko attempt to sell QF out from under us all. What nobody seems to have done is to try to reconcile that need with its costs.

GoUK used to "fix" this problem with a golden share. I think that system went, and you could wonder if it had still been in place if GoUK might have taken sufficient interest in BP to have made the Macondo event a bit less likely????
 
User avatar
jetfuel
Posts: 1079
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:27 pm

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 7:13 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 65):
Quoting jetfuel (Reply 57):
Countries like New Zealand and Australia need airline ambassadors.

They do as you could see from the angst over the Dicko attempt to sell QF out from under us all. What nobody seems to have done is to try to reconcile that need with its costs.

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 profit! THE Australian tourism industry is worth $100 billion. Look at what they have done in Dubai and its tied closely with Emirates.

If QF was a Government entity and losing say $100m a year (and there's no reason it should with a proper fleet mix) that would still be a small price to pay in the interest of Australian tourism.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 7:27 am

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 66):
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 profit! THE Australian tourism industry is worth $100 billion. Look at what they have done in Dubai and its tied closely with Emirates.

Just checked your age Jetfuel, to make sure you were not of the generation that had actually experienced efficient government owned enterprises. And no you are not. So maybe there is hope in that case.

There is absolutely no reason why a government owned enterprise cannot be structured in such a way as to be a much sounder organization than one that is run by a board that take notice mostly of institutions that have no long term interest in the fate of the companies they invest in. Sometimes not beyond a few minutes and seldom beyond the next reporting season.

Back to BP. Its halcyon days were when they were half government owned. And the record since then???!!!!!

Average time a share sold over the ASX is held is 20 minutes. And that system is good for a company? State ownership has to be really really bad to be worse than being the hostage of our current financial markets. OK state ownership can be bad, but not per se. It can be structured in a way to make it competitive.

After the various frolics with QF (and Telstra one might add), it is hardly a great ad for private ownership.

Qantas was gifted TAA. And what did it try to do? Sell the whole thing. And to a bunch of cowboys, no not only the Texan kind, the local Allco kind too.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 10:02 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 67):
OK state ownership can be bad, but not per se. It can be structured in a way to make it competitive.

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 - without considerable government ancillary protection, tariffs, or in the case of airlines, restricted bilaterals, etc.

There may be some, of course, but not many.

mariner
 
User avatar
jetfuel
Posts: 1079
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:27 pm

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 10:07 am

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 the board selling Qantas down the drain in the failed buyout. Reality is I am looking to protect Qantas. Those that think it's not worth protecting have no place in Australia
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:21 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 68):
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 - without considerable government ancillary protection, tariffs, or in the case of airlines, restricted bilaterals, etc.

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 out of business??? UK coal mines, railways .........

As an example, when killed off, both Millom and Consett (nationalized) steel plants were profitable especially the spray steel process at Millom.

BTW how much have electricity prices fallen in Victoria since they were Jeffed? SECV was not a bad example.
 
StarAC17
Posts: 4395
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:47 am

Quoting slider (Reply 11):
Governments have no business running airlines, period.

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 it is the government that provides the funding that allows an airline to operate. Also the airlines have to adhere to many government mandated regulations that have been put in place often at the cost of human lives.

Also how many completely private airlines are soundly profitable in the long term?? If you want to invest your money somewhere do not put it in airlines, esp long term.

IMO even EK is expanding too fast to be sustainable in the long term it just seems like an airline bubble. I just don't see how EK's business model brings long term success especially with increased gulf competition. Maybe it will because stranger things have happened.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 53):
They are not subject to competition, which is the only thing in the known universe that will drive efficiency.

Define efficiency? is that a company that maximizes profit, or the company that decides what is in the best interest of it's citizens.

Also consider that US health care costs are about double what it is in other industrialized countries and you achieve much inferior outcomes relative to them. One of the biggest arguments against a public option in the US healthcare system was that it didn't need to make a profit and therefore had a competitive advantage because it could charge less. If I lived in the US I would wonder what the heck would be wrong with that because I would save money with the government option.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 67):
There is absolutely no reason why a government owned enterprise cannot be structured in such a way as to be a much sounder organization than one that is run by a board that take notice mostly of institutions that have no long term interest in the fate of the companies they invest in. Sometimes not beyond a few minutes and seldom beyond the next reporting season.

Darn tootin' Alan!!

If Australia had what you proposed then the taxpayers (aka voters) just need to pay more attention and when they are unhappy show that could show at the polling station if a government program isn't working for them as it currently functions.

In the current situation basically no Aussies have any control over the fact that the current board of QF wants to turn it into JQ. They only care about those shareholders and not what aviation services are best for Australia.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 67):
Average time a share sold over the ASX is held is 20 minutes. And that system is good for a company?

It's not it usually leads to very unsustainable decisions.

Many are critical about what Canada does regarding EK (I am a Canadian despite the flag) but I do theorize that the Canadian government understands that letting EK will letting EK have unlimited access to Canada will lead to a decrease in competition in the long run and our aviation policy dictates that.
 
dkramer7
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:06 am

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:28 pm

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 55):
Fascinating discussion with no simply or easy answer, if there is an answer at all!
Quoting smi0006 (Reply 54):
Fascinating discussion with no simply or easy answer, if there is an answer at all!

Thanks!


I'll take that as a complement!
 
dkramer7
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:06 am

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:39 pm

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 55):
SQ is a subsidiary of Singapore government investment and holding company Temasek Holdings, which effectively means the Government holds 54.5% of voting stock.

There's no reason Qantas couldn't be 51% Government owned as a means of protecting Qantas from the some of the insane Qantas board decisions. Especially the selling of QF a few years ago to a equity bid which would have most likely been the death of the airline

I am all for it remaining a commercial enterprise run as a corporation but the Australian people having a final say

This is more what I was thinking of when I posted
 
User avatar
jetfuel
Posts: 1079
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:27 pm

The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:10 pm

Quoting dkramer7 (Reply 73):
Quoting jetfuel (Reply 55):
SQ is a subsidiary of Singapore government investment and holding company Temasek Holdings, which effectively means the Government holds 54.5% of voting stock.

There's no reason Qantas couldn't be 51% Government owned as a means of protecting Qantas from the some of the insane Qantas board decisions. Especially the selling of QF a few years ago to a equity bid which would have most likely been the death of the airline

I am all for it remaining a commercial enterprise run as a corporation but the Australian people having a final say

This is more what I was thinking of when I posted

Great, I am so glad we have all decided on the solution....    Unfortunately it wont happen until after it goes down the gurgle hole
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5770
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:54 pm

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 71):
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 53):
They are not subject to competition, which is the only thing in the known universe that will drive efficiency.

Define efficiency? is that a company that maximizes profit, or the company that decides what is in the best interest of it's citizens.

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 encourages people to invest in a business. The business in turn must produce a product that people want to pay for. If they don't the business goes bust. If the government then decides to prop up that business what it means is that they have decided to take from every citizen at the point of a gun money that those citizens otherwise could find things that they would rather spend it on. Sometimes temporary bailouts (as in Lockheed and Chrysler) have proved to be beneficial, as the companies were then able to get on their feet and repay the government, but I look at them with great skepticism. In the case of Qantas I do not see that outcome; if the government gets involved now they will have grabbed on to a tar baby. It is not necessary for national survival to have an international carrier; there is still domestic flying to be done that can only be done (by most countries' laws) by a domestic airline. If Qantas goes away and Virgin Australia (or some other carrier, or the remnants of Qantas) takes over domestic Australian flying, Australia will survive and the taxpayers will not be fleeced.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:41 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 70):
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 out of business??? UK coal mines, railways .........

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 (or more efficient). It would be what it is - the protection of Qantas from market forces.

From a purely customer service perspective, the glory days Australian civil aviation were the latter days of the Two Airline policy.

The attendant downside was that fares were exorbitant.

The first time I went to the Kimberleys, there was only MMA (Ansett) and there was only their (so-called) First Class. 5 abreast on the F28 doesn't strike me as First Class, but we got a meal. IIRC, TAA flew to Port Hedland, but otherwise didn't serve the area.

No question that on MEL-SYD, on Ansett and TAA, service was as good as it gets, in both classes - but it wasn't cheap.

Both airlines bought exactly the same aircraft types for their fleet and matched schedules on many routes almost to the minute and I recall the first time Ansett went rogue. TAA went for the A300, which was extraordinarily comfortable then. Ansett went for the 767 and took out full page ads saying "Catch a Boeing - not a Bus."

That was then, this is now and the genie of the LCC's - low fares - is out of the bottle. I wouldn't know how to put it back.

mariner.
 
radicaldudejom
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:37 pm

RE: The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 7:31 pm

Does the quality of anything ever improve when taken over by the government?
 
slinky09
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:03 pm

RE: The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 7:36 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
It's just free trade, not an atrocity.

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 apply to US airlines, many would be dead in the water. I applaud the Aussies for having free trade. Just as we do here.
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4821
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

RE: The Re-nationalization Of Qantas?

Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:54 am

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 5):
Practically all governments are bancrupt due to low taxation

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, correct?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 747classic, A350OZ, aga, Baidu [Spider], bigb, EdmFlyBoi, FluidFlow, kaneporta1, MrHMSH, NZ801, qf789, sirtoby, Tartarus, wrcairline, xyzzy01, Yflyer and 155 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos