Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting cx828 (Thread starter): fend off rivals Qantas Airways |
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 2): It;s plausible certainly, but anyone could buy the shares, including a non Airline, The one thing I hope for VA is that they pull out of international services and let their partners operate with a VA codeshare. |
Quoting sq256 (Reply 4): After the drama with Jetstar HK, it's only a rumour and a garbage rumour at that. Even in the unlikely case of that happening, the Australian Government will probably move to block it in retaliation to the Jetstar HK drama. |
Quoting Francoflier (Reply 6): The stake would apparently be for 26%... |
Quoting sq256 (Reply 4): Even in the unlikely case of that happening, the Australian Government will probably move to block it in retaliation to the Jetstar HK drama. |
Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 3): CX and QF have never exactly been the best of buddies... |
Quoting CARST (Reply 9): I don't know of one OneWorld airline they are really working together with or with which they do extensive code-sharing. |
Quoting Francoflier (Reply 6): |
Quoting enzo011 (Reply 5): Can the government get involved in a private company selling it shares in an open market? |
Quoting mariner (Reply 13): In Australia, yes. Any investment at or above 20% by a foreign entity for an Australian company that is worth more than $252 million is reviewed by the FIRB - the Foreign Investment Review Board. https://firb.gov.au/investment/business/ "The Government screens foreign investment proposals to ensure they are not contrary to Australia’s national interest." |
Quoting enzo011 (Reply 14): Also, I guess the Australian Government would have a hard time not agreeing to the selling of the stake from one overseas company to another when they have approved previous similar shareholdings in the same company. |
Quoting hongkongflyer (Reply 15): Both QF and CX belong to oneWorld could be a strong reason for Aus Gov not approving the transaction as it means that oneWorld will have too much control of the domestic market and could lead to unfair competition. oneWorld is already too big in Australia. |
Quoting hongkongflyer (Reply 15): as it means that oneWorld will have too much control of the domestic market and could lead to unfair competition. |
Quoting enzo011 (Reply 14): Interesting, thanks. My question then is, if they pay $251 million for the shares it would not be under review? Just a question and not related to this case as I don't know how much the proposed stake would cost. |
Quoting mariner (Reply 18): Whoever buys the stake will have serious financial work to do at Virgin which has been a money pit for the present investors for the past six years. |
Quoting LandSweetLand (Reply 20): there's been quite a large upswing in the volume of VAH shares traded this month (since their Q3 trading update |
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 21): Speculators moving in ... ? |
Quoting sq256 (Reply 4): Even in the unlikely case of that happening, the Australian Government will probably move to block it in retaliation to the Jetstar HK drama. |
Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 25): I think there's another important question here (which I didn't see discussed anywhere, so apologies if it has been), which is whether the existing shareholders (SQ, EY, etc.) have to approve the purchaser of the NZ shares? |
Quoting hongkongflyer (Reply 15): Both QF and CX belong to oneWorld could be a strong reason for Aus Gov not approving the transaction as it means that oneWorld will have too much control of the domestic market and could lead to unfair competition. oneWorld is already too big in Australi |
Quoting timtam (Reply 23): QF would have a very strong argument on competitive grounds to seek the blocking of this by the Australian Government. |
Quoting timtam (Reply 23): But Jetstar HK was blocked and so any idea of CX buying VA is a dead duck. |
Quoting bill142 (Reply 24): As long FIRB views the purchase as being in our national interest, |
Quoting enzo011 (Reply 14): |
Quoting bill142 (Reply 24): |
Quoting timtam (Reply 28): |
Quoting zeke (Reply 31): The Jetstar business model in Asia and New Zealand is for all of the backend airline functions to be run out of Australia, the franchises never make any money, the money all flows into Qantas. Because the airlines do make money, the local economy does see the investment, that is transferred to Australia where the majority of the core airline functions are performed. |
Quoting zeke (Reply 31): |
Quoting zkncj (Reply 32): Jetstar New Zealand, isn't an franchise. Its simply just apart of Jetstar Australia and is apart of there AOC, there fleet is apart of the Australian fleet with VH regos. |
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 33): There was never a shred of proof presented that the Asian franchises are controlled by Melbourne and that all profits are transferred to the Australian entity. |
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 33): Throwing New Zealand into the mix with the Asian franchises is a massive misnomer intended to distract people from the glaring fallacies in your argument because, as you know, there is no such thing as Jetstar New Zealand. |
Quoting bill142 (Reply 24): Last I checked such tit-for-tat retaliation wasn't part of our foreign policy. |
Quoting zeke (Reply 35): Tell that to the pilots that Jetstar Australia employed on Jetstar NZ contracts working in Australia. |
Quoting zkncj (Reply 37): No different to NZ crew operating SYD/BNE-NLK (Domestic Flight) on there New Zealand Issued Contract. |
Quoting qf002 (Reply 38): It is not about mistakes QF may have made in their application, it's about what HK's laws do to prevent reciprocal access and investment. |
Quoting qf002 (Reply 38): Why should CX be allowed to have substantial influence and control over an international airline based here if QF can't in HK? |
Quoting zeke (Reply 35): |
Quoting zeke (Reply 39): It is very different, as those pilots are not based in Australia. The pilots employed on the NZ contracts working in Australia did not have the 500 hours to work in NZ. It was simply a way to pay them less than 60% of what other first officers were being paid in Australia. Jetstar were found guilty. |
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 40): What exactly is your argument? You can't claim that it's Jetstar hire crews in New Zealand on inferior contracts to their Australian colleagues because Qantas and Virgin Australia are doing the exact same thing. It doesn't indicate any form of intent on the part of Jetstar. Moreover those crew operate under the Australian AOC and CASA oversight and not NZCAA. That argument is therefore false prima face. |
Quoting zeke (Reply 27): Qantas simply could not demonstrate that their business model which had the backend airline operations being performed in Australia like the other franchises in Asia complied with the HKG law. |
Quoting 747m8te (Reply 41): CX are wise investors, I take this talk from the AFR with a grain of salt. |
Quoting zeke (Reply 39): It is doing to those countries aviation sectors what Google is doing in Australia. |
Quoting zeke (Reply 39): If CX follows the law when making the transaction, there is little anyone can do about it. CX could startup a 100% foreign own airline tomorrow and fly domestically, there is nothing the FIRB could say about it. CX could setup a 100% foreign owned airline in NZ tomorrow, and operate it domestically in Australia, nothing the FIRB could do about it. |
Quoting zeke (Reply 39): Air NZ is not an Australian entity, there would be no change the Australian involvement if CX were to obtain 19% initially, it would be one foreign investor replacing another. |
Quoting 747m8te (Reply 41): CX are wise investors, I take this talk from the AFR with a grain of salt. |
Quoting zeke (Reply 39): If CX follows the law when making the transaction, there is little anyone can do about it. CX could startup a 100% foreign own airline tomorrow and fly domestically, there is nothing the FIRB could say about it. |
Quoting zeke (Reply 39): CX could setup a 100% foreign owned airline in NZ tomorrow, and operate it domestically in Australia, nothing the FIRB could do about it. |
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 40): What exactly is your argument? |
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 40): You can't claim that it's Jetstar hire crews in New Zealand on inferior contracts to their Australian colleagues because Qantas and Virgin Australia are doing the exact same thing. |
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 40): It doesn't indicate any form of intent on the part of Jetstar. Moreover those crew operate under the Australian AOC and CASA oversight and not NZCAA. That argument is therefore false prima face. |
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 40): That is your prerogative, but you sidetrack thread after thread with unsubstantiated rumours in the pursuit if some blind ideological agenda. |
Quoting 747m8te (Reply 41): We get it, you hate Jetstar, but your rants on numerous posts are nothing but trolling to your agenda and not on topic. |
Quoting 747m8te (Reply 41): Jetstar New Zealand is not a franchise. |
Quoting 747m8te (Reply 41): What would CX need VA for? A loss making airline when CX make profits, CX are very careful in who they invest in and no doubt they would stand for an airline making mountains of losses. The only reason CX may be interested is to use VA to operate flights for them, for extra capacity/frequency between Australia and Hong Kong seeing as CX are at their limit with the bilateral. |
Quoting 747m8te (Reply 41): Very similar argument from an Australian perspective to that of Hong Kongs law from your opinion that QF didn't demonstrate the backend ops of Jetstar HK we not in Australia. |
Quoting qf002 (Reply 43): Why would two other major investors sign up and pour cash into the venture in the knowledge that any profits were just going to flow straight back to QF? |
Quoting Gemuser (Reply 44): Wrong, the FIRB could review and disapprove it if they judge the investment contrary to Australia's national interest [not saying it is, but that is a decision the FIRB makes] |
Quoting Gemuser (Reply 44): No it couldn't. Such a company would not be an NZ company if 100% owned by CX. |
Quoting zeke (Reply 45): Of course it could be, incorporated in NZ. |
Quoting zeke (Reply 45): No, the FIRB does not look at every foreign transaction in Australia, the key point to my statement is if they followed the law in doing the transaction. |
Quoting zeke (Reply 45): Of course it could be, incorporated in NZ. |
Quoting Gemuser (Reply 44): Wrong, the FIRB could review and disapprove it if they judge the investment contrary to Australia's national interest [not saying it is, but that is a decision the FIRB makes] |
Quoting zeke (Reply 45): The application was not blocked, the application failed to meet the legal requirements. They had every opportunity to address the issues that were non-compliant and resubmit. Qantas made the decision not to. |
Quoting mariner (Reply 46): |