Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 4:00 am

Quoting Archer (Reply 26):
I'm not sure it is relevant but my wife and I flew JetStar from Sydney to Honolulu last month. The ticket had us
on Qantas TO SYD. The tickets cost $4,000+ round trip.
Quoting Archer (Reply 44):
It was a code share on qantas as QF 283 but not US although I bought it on a Qantas ticket.
Looks like they won't give me any miles.
Quoting travelhound (Reply 41):
This is a franchise agreement! Jetstar Hong Kong has always been a franchise. In real terms you would not expect a franchise agreement to say anything less. The agreement would not only protect Jetstar/QANTAS, but the other Jetstar franchises who all rely on the Jetstar product.

In a reflection of what I saw when I watched 'The Interview" at the movies last night, there is a terrific 'irony" in this thread.

Travelhound as always articulates the Qantas group position with intelligence and eloquence. His message is basically this:

"Of course Jetstar Hong Kong cannot make its own decisions about fleet, configuration, route network or pricing. Those decisions must be made in Australia to protect the interests of Qantas and Jetstar. It's only a franchise.."

But Archer points out that those decisions in practice often tarnish the reputation of both Qantas and Jetstar anyway.

But Travelhound's point is, of course, the reason why we have had to wait so long for this process to reach its conclusion.

Is an airline in Hong Kong subject to the same nationality requirements as a fast food joint? Can a foreign carrier masquerade itself by standing beneath a flag of convenience?

I was going to say "wrap itself up inside a flag of convenience" but Jetstar Hong Kong hasn't even made that modicum of an effort to carry off the Hong Kong deception - it is masquerading in plain sight in a livery identical to Jetstar Australia.
 
TruemanQLD
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:09 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 5:12 am

Quoting jacobchoi (Reply 49):

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-31483185

Just to show the dissatisfaction held by a majority of the general populace.

So because, apparently, the majority of the population doesn't like Chinese tourist, HKG should then shut off all tourism with China or only allow the wealthy in that can afford to fly Dragonair? These views belong in the 1950's.

HKG is where it is today because of free trade and open markets, it can't then turn around and run from it when it doesn't suit it. If Australia hadn't opened its air market so considerably, Qantas would have a significantly larger presence than it does today BUT Australians would not get the benefit of cheap travel that EK/SQ/EY and CX(!!!) have brought to the market and, in turn, the economic benefit this has brought to the country due to tourism and trade.

Prefer to protect local jobs like Canada? That is fine, but CX runs ~10x daily flights into Oz taking thousands of passengers all over the world. If JQ HKG fails, the Oz Government should look at reducing CX allocation.
 
User avatar
thekorean
Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:05 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 5:14 am

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 51):

Jetstae Hong Kong shouldn't matter to Australian government.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:14 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 41):
It's a very narrow argument!

But, in light of local law, it's an entirely valid one. The jimmying of Jestar Asia's ownership structure in Singapore to ostensibly comply with local laws is fairly well known.

Define it as "narrow" all you like. If you don't control your pricing (revenue), your purchasing (costs), your fleet, your marketing directly, you're not really in control now, are you?

That QF Group thought they could get away with it, and they get pulled up on it, is hardly the fault of a government applying the law. Didn't Jetstar actually ask for additional time a few months back so they could comply? This is not bureaucracy gone mad, convenient though it is to claim that.
 
Kashmon
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:08 am

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:42 am

Quoting chrisp390 (Reply 46):
Quoting chrisp390 (Reply 46):

HKG is way more capitalist...

low tax more fifth freedom rights etc

so until Australia allows overseas carriers to fly anywhere internationally like JQ is demanding of HKG

Australia is still a protectionist ant competitive leftist economy...

funny how
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:21 am

Quoting Kashmon (Reply 54):
more fifth freedom rights etc

More fifth freedom rights you say. Lets look at that with some numbers using todays schedule as a representation then.

From Hong Kong you have the following carriers making use of HKG as a stopover point today:

Air India - HKG-ICN - 788
China Airlines - HKG-CGK - A333
Emirates - HKG- BKK - A388
Singapore Airlines - HKG - SFO - 77W
United Airlines - HKG - SIN / SGN - 777 / 738

From just SYD today you have the following airlines making use of local traffic rights:

British Airways - SYD-SIN - 77W
China Airlines - SYD-AKL - A333
Emirates - SYD - AKL / CHC / BKK - A388 / 77W / 77W
LAN Airlines - SYD - AKL - A343

Seems like a 6 all tie before we go counting the total number of seats. And thats without including MEL and BNE into the mix.

Quoting Kashmon (Reply 54):
Australia is still a protectionist ant competitive leftist economy...

LOL Thanks for the laugh. I do find your trolling of this website amusing.
 
User avatar
thekorean
Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:05 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:28 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 55):

Also HKG-ICN on ET
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8415
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:00 am

Quoting thekorean (Reply 56):

Great. And his point still stands: there is significantly more fifth freedom through Australia than HKSAR. He completely missed anything ex MEL or BNE.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:39 am

It is an error for posters to compare Jetstar Hong Kong with the deregulated domestic market in Australia.

Because every single route that Jetstar Hong Kong wishes to fly is an international route. There is no domestic network proposed at all.
 
wowpeter
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:15 am

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:46 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 55):
Quoting Kashmon (Reply 54):
more fifth freedom rights etc

More fifth freedom rights you say. Lets look at that with some numbers using todays schedule as a representation then.

From Hong Kong you have the following carriers making use of HKG as a stopover point today:

Air India - HKG-ICN - 788
China Airlines - HKG-CGK - A333
Emirates - HKG- BKK - A388
Singapore Airlines - HKG - SFO - 77W
United Airlines - HKG - SIN / SGN - 777 / 738

From just SYD today you have the following airlines making use of local traffic rights:

British Airways - SYD-SIN - 77W
China Airlines - SYD-AKL - A333
Emirates - SYD - AKL / CHC / BKK - A388 / 77W / 77W
LAN Airlines - SYD - AKL - A343

Seems like a 6 all tie before we go counting the total number of seats. And thats without including MEL and BNE into the mix.

Quoting Kashmon (Reply 54):
Australia is still a protectionist ant competitive leftist economy...

LOL Thanks for the laugh. I do find your trolling of this website amusing.

I think you missed quite a lot of other flights with fifth freedom rights from HK:

Delta - HKG to NRT
United - HKG to NRT
China Airlines - HKG to BKK
Air Macau - HKG to Beijing
Thai Airways - HKG to ICN

Quoting chrisp390 (Reply 46):

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 45):

Given somewhere like Australia allows 100% foreign ownership I find it funny HK tries to say it is so capitalist and free market since clearly it is not.


Only for domestic flying... If let say CX want to fly from Sydney to Auckland or Sydney to somewhere in South America, they can't, any international route require majority Australian ownership. No different than what HK is asking for really, an airline that is ultimately control and managed in HKG and not a puppet of an overseas entity.


The whole concept of franchise with a centralize booking done with a website hosted by Jetstar Australia in Melbourne, that on its own, already show that Jetstar Hong Kong have no control over its inventory... If you have company that can't even control what they are selling then what does it say about where it real management lies? Definitely not in HKG.
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:16 am

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 51):
So because, apparently, the majority of the population doesn't like Chinese tourist, HKG should then shut off all tourism with China or only allow the wealthy in that can afford to fly Dragonair? These views belong in the 1950's.

Er, yes.

Try getting a tourist visa to visit Australia if you are a citizen of Afghanistan or Iran or Libya. Not going to happen.

Hong Kong is a bit different due to the 1997 handover, but by and large in areas in which you exert sovereignty you can decide who gets in and who can operate businesses.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5839
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 10:14 am

Quoting thekorean (Reply 20):

Quoting travelhound (Reply 19):

I am just more skeptical about this, seems like Qantas is McDonalding airline industry in Asia.

Whatever does this mean?
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
jacobchoi
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:32 am

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 10:57 am

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 51):

Exactly why it should not be approved. Using JQ HK as a bargaining chip for the Australian government strengthens the point that it is Australian... And secondly, I think CX opening DUS will bring far greater economic benefit than JQ to BKK or TPE.

And besides. It is not as if KA is not offering fanfares and HX and HK express is non existent.

[Edited 2015-02-16 03:10:48]
 
User avatar
Groover158
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:43 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 10:57 am

Quoting jacobchoi (Reply 22):
The Australian sense of entitlement does not apply in HKG, ...


You think?

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 23):
...the general HK populace are with disrespectful uncivilised mainland Chinese tourists? I imagine lower prices will bring more of them to defacate on our streets and all sorts of rowdy behaviour? It is absolutely disgusting. Secondly, I always think that having a Jetstar brand cheapens the airport - it doesn't fit into such a marvellous airport ...Just because their operating environment is in shambles does not mean that it should pollute their friend's one well. ...
 
jacobchoi
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:32 am

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 11:05 am

Quoting wowpeter (Reply 59):

RJ and KQ to BKK

As for EK in Australia, it is because Qantas is so weak it asks EK to fight their battles in the trans tasman market, it carries the QF code and so it is not an apples to apples comparison.
 
qf002
Posts: 3677
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 11:31 am

Not that I particularly want to get involved in this thread...

Quoting jacobchoi (Reply 62):
Exactly why it should not be approved. Using JQ HK as a bargaining chip for the Australian government strengthens the point that it is Australian... And secondly, I think CX opening DUS will bring far greater economic benefit than JQ to BKK or TPE.

JM is not Australian. The only link to Australia is the 33% that QF owns. To suggest otherwise is silly (that's not directed at you or anybody else personally). This isn't a petty issue, it's a basic business one.

I personally see the issue of control as being a simple exercise in outsourcing. JM comes to the conclusion that they want to set up this airline but don't want to have to invest in complicated operational structures or big teams of people to manage the business so they decide to have another company complete all of those functions on their behalf.

Where that other company is based irrelevant, so long as it is the local HK board that officially makes the decision to outsource those functions to that company.

Quoting jacobchoi (Reply 64):
As for EK in Australia, it is because Qantas is so weak it asks EK to fight their battles in the trans tasman market, it carries the QF code and so it is not an apples to apples comparison.

  

EK was a fierce competitor for QF across the Tasman for almost a decade before they jumped into bed together.
 
LJ
Posts: 5350
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:45 pm

Quoting qf002 (Reply 65):
Where that other company is based irrelevant, so long as it is the local HK board that officially makes the decision to outsource those functions to that company.

Not correct if the requirement is that a HK based entity has effective control over the airline and that the HK directors are merely acting as puppets for the foreign company. Thus, if it is proven that the HK board cannot make decisions independently (which includes outsourcing it to a foreign company), it should not give the AOC to Jetstar HK. In Europe we see the same discussion is going on where the EU is investigating if EY has effective control despite a EU board of directors and merely a minority shareholding. The same issue arose in India when EY wanted to purchase a stake in 9W, which was blocked initially as effective control was determined by EY over 9W.

To be honest, I don't understand what why the concept of "domestic effective contol" seems so strange to some on this board as it's a global situation especially in aviation but also other lines of business. I don't know exactly how the HK governement defines "effective control" but I doubt that a HK board alone is enough to satisfy the HK regulators that HK entities have effective control over the airline (in Europe the definiton is that one must be able to act like a regular company and thus be able to make decisions on purchases and which routes to fly themselves.

BTW Maybe Jetstar should ask EY hw they do it as EY seems to be the king in not being declared to have effective control over an airline, but still be able to influence it.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 4:26 pm

Quoting timtam (Reply 43):
Who said anything about corruption? Its called negotiation and its not underhanded. Even the almighty civil servant does not live in a bubble 

You did with this comment "The deal will already have been done behind closed doors and that is why the public hearing has now occurred."

The public hearing is to gather facts from the public to be considered along with the application, for a decision to be made afterwards. You said the decision had already been made behind closed doors and then they had the public hearing. That is corruption.

Quoting timtam (Reply 43):
You dont make a lot of sense. There is nothing illegal about it.

Exactly, because what you said is not true.

Quoting timtam (Reply 43):
But all decisions of a material nature are made by the Board and not the CEO. It is the Board that controls the company, not the CEO. The CEO is appointed by the Board.

Who appoints the board on a company that is listed on the HKEX ?

From the CX corporate governance code

"Day-to-day management of the Company’s businesses is delegated to the Chief Executive. Matters reserved for the Board are those affecting the Company’s overall strategic policies, finances and shareholders. These include: financial statements, dividend policy, significant changes in accounting policy, the annual operating budgets, material contracts, major financing arrangements, major investments, risk management strategy and treasury policies."

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 45):
Anyone can come and setup a domestic carrier in Australia. Virgin started off as 100% foreign owned as did Tigerair while Virgin currently is majority owned by foreign airlines. So if you want "fair" you can't get much fairer than that.

Jetstar HKG is not a domestic carrier. The Australian government would not allow the corporate structure to operate international flights, nor does the government of Singapore, Vietnam, or Japan.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 45):
That statement is so ironic its almost funny given Hong Kongs sense of entitlement in being granted more traffic rights while giving up nothing.

Where is the evidence that HKG would not give unlimited access to the Australian market for unlimited access to the HKG market ?

Australia is not interested in the HKG market, it is interested in what is beyond it, and wants HKG to grant things which it cannot do, like access not China from HKG. That has to come from mainland china under the basic law.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 45):
you've got to wonder why it is a deal with HK seems to be so hard.

Because it is being misrepresented, HKG would sign an open skies agreement tomorrow. If Australia wants unlimited access to market beyond HKG, HKG would grant the same for the same rights from Australia. Australia wants to protect those markets.

Quoting chrisp390 (Reply 46):
Given somewhere like Australia allows 100% foreign ownership I find it funny HK tries to say it is so capitalist and free market since clearly it is not.

Australia does not allow 100% of international carriers, has to be 51% Australian owned.

Quoting chrisp390 (Reply 48):
I would be interested to see how HK responds as well as Cathay Pacific if Emirates decided to launch 6x daily A380 services to HK. I can't imagine them not putting up a fight over that.

Bring it on, it would be an efficient use of 6 slots.

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 51):
So because, apparently, the majority of the population doesn't like Chinese tourist, HKG should then shut off all tourism with China or only allow the wealthy in that can afford to fly Dragonair? These views belong in the 1950's.

The issues with Chinese tourists has been growing over the years, and the sentiment is not just in HKG. As the middle class has grown, more people are traveling, however they do not know how to travel. It has go so bad that the government brought in laws on how their nationals are to behave overseas, and now has drawn up guidelines on how to behave. http://www.ibtimes.com/chinas-guidel...ers-these-25-pearls-wisdom-1414236

If you would recall a Chinese tourist not long ago poured hot soup over a flight attendant when he was not seated next to his girlfriend, that person was charged on return to china under their tourism laws.

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 51):
Prefer to protect local jobs like Canada? That is fine, but CX runs ~10x daily flights into Oz taking thousands of passengers all over the world. If JQ HKG fails, the Oz Government should look at reducing CX allocation.

CX is the second largest employer of international pilots in Australia after Qantas. CX employs pilots in Australia, by an Australian subsidiary, the employees pay tax in Australia, and the company pays tax in Australia. CX also employs pilots in Canada, and they pay tax in Canada, likewise in Europe and the US. CX also employs more mechanics in Australia than it does in HKG, and serve a number of airlines.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 58):

It is an error for posters to compare Jetstar Hong Kong with the deregulated domestic market in Australia.

Because every single route that Jetstar Hong Kong wishes to fly is an international route. There is no domestic network proposed at all.

Correct.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:28 pm

Quoting LJ (Reply 66):
To be honest, I don't understand what why the concept of "domestic effective contol" seems so strange to some on this board as it's a global situation especially in aviation but also other lines of business.

...and this is why they have an application process!

There would literally be hundreds of different types of operating models for an airline. The Jetstar Hong Kong model would be just one of them!

If we critiqued each of the different Jetstar franchises we would probably find differences in their operating structures. Each would have been modified to satisfy the laws / requirements of the state they operate in.

I'd suggest the yard stick for "domestic effective control" will end up being the experience of existing companies operating in Hong Kong where "domestic effective control" is required. This isn't a term recognised by law.

Quoting zeke (Reply 67):
Australia does not allow 100% of international carriers, has to be 51% Australian owned.

...and Hong Kong have similar requirements.

The point of the topic is not tit for tat point scoring. It is about the validity of the Jetstar Hong Kong application and the ability of the Hong Kong government to process an application.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:58 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 67):
Jetstar HKG is not a domestic carrier. The Australian government would not allow the corporate structure to operate international flights, nor does the government of Singapore, Vietnam, or Japan.

Arguably it is right now if you look at the structure of Virgin International........

Quoting zeke (Reply 67):
Where is the evidence that HKG would not give unlimited access to the Australian market for unlimited access to the HKG market ?

Australia is not interested in the HKG market, it is interested in what is beyond it, and wants HKG to grant things which it cannot do, like access not China from HKG. That has to come from mainland china under the basic law.

Australia isn't anywhere near the caps on current services to HKG. And while CX is that, in itself, is not a sufficient enough reason to expand a cap on flights. The equation is simple, Hong Kong wants something which is more flying rights and Australia wants something in return. Since we aren't anywhere near using the frequencies currently available Hong Kong has to come up with something else. That something else is what is holding up negotiations. And there are actually plenty of "something elses" Hong Kong could come up with such as allowing increased codeshare rights, relaxing the provisions which limit the number of local people that can be picked up on existing beyond rights etc. Access to China via Hong Kong, thanks to the new China AIr Services Agreement, is now almost irrelevant with QF able to get virtually whatever it needs through PVG and CAN.

Quoting zeke (Reply 67):
Because it is being misrepresented, HKG would sign an open skies agreement tomorrow. If Australia wants unlimited access to market beyond HKG, HKG would grant the same for the same rights from Australia. Australia wants to protect those markets.

You mean Hong Kong wants to protect those markets. If they weren't interested in protecting those markets why not grant Singapore more beyond frequencies so the can increase US service?

Quoting zeke (Reply 67):
Jetstar HKG is not a domestic carrier. The Australian government would not allow the corporate structure to operate international flights, nor does the government of Singapore, Vietnam, or Japan.

You were the one who said "if you want fairness and competition start in your own backyard". It's not my fault we virtually lead the world in domestic airline deregulation.
 
lutfi
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:26 am

Singapore does have more beyond rights from HK to US than they use. There was a SQ flight to LAS for a while
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:15 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 69):
Arguably it is right now if you look at the structure of Virgin International........

Virgin International is a majority owed and controlled Australian company, Virgin domestic, which is a different airline, different AOC is not.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 69):
Australia isn't anywhere near the caps on current services to HKG. And while CX is that, in itself, is not a sufficient enough reason to expand a cap on flights.

Nor was Australia near its caps with Singapore UAE or China when they were expanded. The converse should also be true, because Australia carriers are not competitive, is not a sufficient enough reason to restrict services.

HKG would be more than willing to have an open skies agreement with Australia.

The air services agreement between HKG and Australia does not have a cap on flight to and from Australia. That cap is not set by the agreement, it is set by another Australian government department.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 69):
The equation is simple, Hong Kong wants something which is more flying rights and Australia wants something in return.

And they are more than willing to give them open skies.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 69):
You mean Hong Kong wants to protect those markets. If they weren't interested in protecting those markets why not grant Singapore more beyond frequencies so the can increase US service?

Singapore and HKG have had open skies for a long time, SIN-HKG-SIN was one of the first routes Jetstar in Singapore started. Today there would be the best part of twenty services a day between SIN and HKG.

Singapore has more rights, but when was Singapore part of Australia ?

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 69):
You were the one who said "if you want fairness and competition start in your own backyard". It's not my fault we virtually lead the world in domestic airline deregulation.

Australia is not the leader by a long way, it had protected domestic market for a long time, and even a two airline policy. Australia has not deregulated anything which was not been the international standard for the best part of 70 years. There has never been an international standard for the amount of ownership or control for a domestic carrier, Article 1 of the Chicago convention always gave complete and exclusive sovereignty over airspace above its territory, there has been for international carriers.

In accordance with the International Air Services Transit Agreement, each contracting State reserves the right to withhold or revoke a certificate or permit to an air transport enterprise of another State in any case where it is not satisfied that substantial ownership and effective control are vested in nationals of a contracting State. What this means is that if Jetstar is determined by other countries are not satisfied that substantial ownership and effective control is in HKG, they can revoke all HKG airlines, not just the offending one.

That was the crux of the CX objection, there is more than enough public evidence from Qantas to show that that substantial ownership and effective control does not rest within the HKG shelf company, and that puts all air service agreements HKG has at risk. If HKG cannot regulate what is a HKG international airline, countries on the other side of that agreement can, and withdraw the air service agreement.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Bluebird191
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:51 am

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:27 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 71):
Virgin Intenational is a majority owned and controlled Austalian company

Any international airline based in here in Australia needs to be 100% Australian owned - that's part of the reason why both VA and QF split their domestic and international operations with both being intergrated and seen to be the same airline. Domestic airlines can be 100% foreign owned, but if those domestic airlines want to start flying internationally then it's a different kettle of fish with the need for full local ownership. The other reason for splitting the operations was to attract foreign investment into the airline, which has worked very well with VA but not with QF so far - the Qantas Sale Act limits foreign ownership in QF Domestic to 49%.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:33 am

Quoting Bluebird191 (Reply 72):
Any international airline based in here in Australia needs to be 100% Australian owned

51%, majority owned, not 100%
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
timtam
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:02 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Tue Feb 17, 2015 3:36 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 67):
Quoting timtam (Reply 43):
Who said anything about corruption? Its called negotiation and its not underhanded. Even the almighty civil servant does not live in a bubble

You did with this comment "The deal will already have been done behind closed doors and that is why the public hearing has now occurred."

The public hearing is to gather facts from the public to be considered along with the application, for a decision to be made afterwards. You said the decision had already been made behind closed doors and then they had the public hearing. That is corruption.

LOL, Zeke I am sure your not that naive.

Do you really think they are conducting the public hearing without already knowing the answer?

Do you think they have sat on their hands for the 2 year delay in conducting the public hearing?

The public hearing is a mere formality. They have to follow the process to prevent legal challenges.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Tue Feb 17, 2015 3:58 am

Quoting timtam (Reply 74):
LOL, Zeke I am sure your not that naive.

Do you really think they are conducting the public hearing without already knowing the answer?

Do you think they have sat on their hands for the 2 year delay in conducting the public hearing?

The public hearing is a mere formality. They have to follow the process to prevent legal challenges.

I am not naive at all, as I previously said any HKG civil servant would take your comments are being highly offensive. This is the process used to evaluate new applications, tell me how the decision can have already been made behind closed doors as you have claimed (without evidence) given the checks and balanced in the approved process depicted below without corruption.

Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:37 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 71):
Virgin International is a majority owed and controlled Australian company, Virgin domestic, which is a different airline, different AOC is not.

Really. List the Names of the shareholders of Virgin International if you are so sure of that.

Quoting zeke (Reply 71):
Nor was Australia near its caps with Singapore UAE or China when they were expanded.

Ah but each served a purpose. For Singapore we have Open Skies and SQ has always been considered the de-facto national carrier after QF by many Australians. Not only that but Australia enjoys significant beyond rights and local pickup rights out of SIN and a blind eye being turned to 3K's structure. We're not getting any of that out of HKG.

UAE - EK and to a lesser extent EY and QR have helped our tourism industry grow significantly and made air travel, especially international air travel, vastly less expensive and more competitive. Through DXB Australia also enjoys significant beyond rights and local pickup rights. We're not getting that out of HKG.

China - need I say more about the boom in Chinese tourism. Chinese tourists & investors = $$$, that is why the Chinese airlines have just secured such a large increase in capacity. Who needs a funnel through HKG when we can let the Chinese Airlines fly them from the source?

There were strategic and economic reasons for all 3 of these agreements whereas there is no such reason for an agreement with Hong Kong.

Quoting zeke (Reply 71):
The air services agreement between HKG and Australia does not have a cap on flight to and from Australia. That cap is not set by the agreement, it is set by another Australian government department.

That is an entirely factually incorrect assertion which I proved incorrect last time you said it. The cap is a legally agreed cap between the Government of Hong Kong and the Government of Australia which was put in place over a decade ago. I posted links to it last time we argued over this and if it was a unilateral cap then Hong Kong would be entitled to take retaliatory action over it. They haven't, and they won't, because the cap was mutually agreed to.

Quoting zeke (Reply 71):
And they are more than willing to give them open skies.

Australia has more than enough frequencies for our airlines so Open Skies doesn't give us anything. What else do you have?

Quoting zeke (Reply 71):
Singapore and HKG have had open skies for a long time, SIN-HKG-SIN was one of the first routes Jetstar in Singapore started. Today there would be the best part of twenty services a day between SIN and HKG.

Singapore has more rights, but when was Singapore part of Australia

You'll notice I said "beyond frequencies". SQ is restricted in flying onwards out of HKG to North America, for example, which it would do more if it was allowed to. But the Hong Kong Government isn't interested in granting any more rights. I wonder why that is? Maybe because CX doesn't have any use for more rights out of SIN so the trade wouldn't be of equal value? Gee that sounds familiar..................

Quoting zeke (Reply 71):
Australia is not the leader by a long way

Name 1 country that allows a foreigner to own 100% of a domestic airline outside of Australia or New Zealand?
 
User avatar
thekorean
Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:05 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:55 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 76):

EU countries?
 
B-HOP
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 8:09 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:30 pm

Legal things aside, it is the bigger picture, what we want not just as an airport but economy, the so call "benefit" for another extra NRT or another PEK, PVG, TPE vs potential tapping into new growth, e.g upcoming new economies in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, India and Vietnam, especially from secondary cities, look closely to demography of QZ8501 might give you a hint. If we really did those well we would not have to worry about "trolley (Samsonite) brigade in N.T and KCR. Instead some of those cities mentioned above have more flights per day than sailings to our outlying island (apart from Cheung Chau). Whilst we worry about visitor figure for May Day week and National Day week figures, our friend from Singapore have managed to attract visitors from secondary cities of those developing economies to fill the USS/Garden By the Bay etc whilst we still daydreaming about cross border daytrippers spending on our high street, property owner in Sheung Shui must thank for that policy for the last decade. Don't get me wrong, CY Leung is one hell of leader who has vision, but his hand were tide before he came to the office. Australia receive tremendous benefit from Asian low cost like D7/TZ or ME3 without them, I would not have visited Sydney twice over he last two years, all I say is the long term benefit has to be taken into account too, it is time to move on from "we worth a premium when you meet us". It is time to open our eyes and see we are surrounded by low cost carriers or we more concern about whether we could move to half hour shuttle for peak hour for PVG, with the 1/5 of the fleet grounded in flow control.

Kev
Live life to max!!!
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:11 am

Quoting thekorean (Reply 77):
EU countries?

The EU is, for all intents and purposes, a single aviation entity and that is definitely they way it is going with air rights negotiations. (Which is why Australia has found it impossible to get more frequencies into places like France) So their "domestic" airlines can be pan European as long as they're owned by a "European".
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Jetstar Hong Kong Launch

Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:49 pm

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 76):

My comments regarding the virgin international were entirely correct, you can review the information statement from the ASX on the shareholding structure. It makes particular mention of how the international operation is 51% Australian owned.

The market access between SIN and HKG is one that is equatable, there is open skies between, and equivalent beyond right.

The market access between Australia and HKG is not equatable, it is significantly in the Australian favor, HKG carriers have no beyond rights (and for the sake of clarity, beyond rights I am referring to schedule passengers flights, not charter or freight). At the time the air service agreement was negotiated, Qantas was government owned. If Australian carriers are not able to be competitive, protecting the market is not helping.

HKG is an important strategic partner with Australia, this is reflected in the comments made by the Australian Consulate General Hong Kong. HKG is one of the largest trading and banking hubs in Asia, and the Asian headquarters of many Australian companies. It is beyond belief that you try and belittle its importance, when at the same time Qantas is trying so hard to setup a sham airline here. The actions be Qantas speaks volume of the real importance of HKG to Australian interests.

HKG carriers have also helped make the Australian market more competitive, HKG airport has well over 100 airlines operating into it, is the largest international freight airport in the world. The airport also sees millions of passengers also transit via sea and land. Despite what you say, the mainland Chinese airlines are operating out of large hubs like HKG to Australia, they just do it via different hubs.

The actual air service agreement between Australian and HKG as it is hosted on the Australian government website does not set a limit between the countries, the limit for the numbers being operated into Australia are set by Canberra. HKG would be more than happy to delete Note 1 from Sections 1 & 2 from the Annex of the Air Services Agreement. It would give Australian carriers unlimited beyond rights from HKG, and HKG carriers unlimited beyond rights from Australia, as well as open skies between. Australia is not interested in equal market access, much like you have presented in this thread, the only agreement they are interested in an extension of the unbalanced market access.

Europe has already been mentioned as being more liberal than Austral, Soth America also is LATAM, Avianca, Copa, Gol, Azul.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

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