Qantas foreign ownership

Remove this Banner Ad

qantas and car manufacturers can't compete when kia hyundai etc are given heavy subsidies. government needs to make a choice whether its job is to improve citizen lives or make theoretical decisions as though its a business. its not a business. i can't believe how many people are celebrating jobs exported overseas. it is the funniest thing i have ever seen. spent many years in the UK where people in Midlands are still waiting for these magical jobs that were meant to appear after decimated manufacturing.

all i can say is god help Australia over next decade or so. mining boom has made people dumb.
 
Power Raid said:
Release foreign ownership restrictions, shift the high costs to a low cost environment, replace the fleet with new efficient aircraft, by doing so increases the size of the balance sheet but reduces costs per flight, then top up with overseas equity and simultaneously refinance with cheap debt.

but none if this can happen without the first step.
Click to expand...

I don't like being rude or even impolite on this forum, but I fear that with my reply to your post it may be unavoidable.

What you are proposing is beyond just plain stupid and short-sighted, it is butt-*******ly stupid and short-sighted.

Foreign investment won't be some random investor looking for a return, it will mean a foreign airline. Probably state-backed. They will see QANTAS as a tool to use in boosting their own tourism industry and will turn QANTAS against us. It will become a tool to lure Aussies to holiday abroad through cheap airfares going in that direction, and discourage tourism to Australia through expensive fares going the opposite way. Tourism is supposed to be one of the great hopes for a million future jobs in this this country. Now that we have public policy to abandon manufacturing, value-adding to agricultural produce and developing renewable energy there's not a lot of options left. Now we seem to be going down the policy path that will lead to the long-term decline of our own tourism industry, just through blindly following market ideology.

How about we recognise the role of airlines in promoting the health of the tourism industry far beyond the economics of running the airline in it's own right. We give QANTAS a government guarantee for their debts so they can secure the funding to restructure and re-equip. Seems like a better idea to me.
 
Admiral Byng said:
I don't like being rude or even impolite on this forum, but I fear that with my reply to your post it may be unavoidable.

What you are proposing is beyond just plain stupid and short-sighted, it is butt-*******ly stupid and short-sighted.

Foreign investment won't be some random investor looking for a return, it will mean a foreign airline. Probably state-backed. They will see QANTAS as a tool to use in boosting their own tourism industry and will turn QANTAS against us. It will become a tool to lure Aussies to holiday abroad through cheap airfares going in that direction, and discourage tourism to Australia through expensive fares going the opposite way. Tourism is supposed to be one of the great hopes for a million future jobs in this this country. Now that we have public policy to abandon manufacturing, value-adding to agricultural produce and developing renewable energy there's not a lot of options left. Now we seem to be going down the policy path that will lead to the long-term decline of our own tourism industry, just through blindly following market ideology.

How about we recognise the role of airlines in promoting the health of the tourism industry far beyond the economics of running the airline in it's own right. We give QANTAS a government guarantee for their debts so they can secure the funding to restructure and re-equip. Seems like a better idea to me.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, Qantas International is now virtually non existent. A move to the sort of structure you suggest will happen (which may well be true, albeit unlikely) isn't actually going to mean Australians are worse off. Qantas don't offer cheap flights to inbound tourists now, because the locations where the vast bulk of tourists come from Qantas don't fly there. You live in Perth as well so you'll probably know that as of May, Qantas International will not have one flight into Perth from outside Australia. Not one. So if some foreign airline comes in and subsidises cheap flights on Qantas out of the country, then bring it on. It's better than the no flights we will have very shortly.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Admiral Byng said:
I don't like being rude or even impolite on this forum, but I fear that with my reply to your post it may be unavoidable.

What you are proposing is beyond just plain stupid and short-sighted, it is butt-*******ly stupid and short-sighted.

Foreign investment won't be some random investor looking for a return, it will mean a foreign airline. Probably state-backed. They will see QANTAS as a tool to use in boosting their own tourism industry and will turn QANTAS against us. It will become a tool to lure Aussies to holiday abroad through cheap airfares going in that direction, and discourage tourism to Australia through expensive fares going the opposite way. Tourism is supposed to be one of the great hopes for a million future jobs in this this country. Now that we have public policy to abandon manufacturing, value-adding to agricultural produce and developing renewable energy there's not a lot of options left. Now we seem to be going down the policy path that will lead to the long-term decline of our own tourism industry, just through blindly following market ideology.

How about we recognise the role of airlines in promoting the health of the tourism industry far beyond the economics of running the airline in it's own right. We give QANTAS a government guarantee for their debts so they can secure the funding to restructure and re-equip. Seems like a better idea to me.
Click to expand...

no offence taken and hear your point.

I have taken an interest in airlines as a business partner has discussed many a war story of when he was engaged to save Ansett, my fiancé's family's ownership in a discount airline and assessing the finance of a new airport in Australia. Through this process I have had an insight in what it takes to be competitive.

Your argument is based on the concept QANTAS is and should be a state enterprise, used for promoting and subsidising Australia's tourist industry and associated businesses. Surely you acknowledge that has no benefit for QANTAS and as such is not QANTAS' mandate.

If the government wants this, they should buy this back from shareholders.


In the case of foreign investment, yes there would be other airlines interested but this would be an issue for QANTAS and FIRB. So even if the foreign investment rules were relaxed, this does not mean any foreigner can invest as QANTAS still has to accept the investor and the government can still veto the investment through the FIRB process.

Personally, if I were on QANTAS' board I would prefer a financial investor over a strategic investor. Unless that strategic investor was a aviation engineering firm, an airport infrastructure fund or an oil company which could align the interests of the airline with the investor.
 
Admiral Byng said:
They will see QANTAS as a tool to use in boosting their own tourism industry and will turn QANTAS against us. It will become a tool to lure Aussies to holiday abroad through cheap airfares going in that direction, and discourage tourism to Australia through expensive fares going the opposite way.
Click to expand...

I can't see how this can really happen unless Qantas want to start flying around empty planes.

In any event, they are not the only game in town. 30% of seats into Sydney are Qantas, 70% are seats of airlines trying to cut Qantas's lunch. They would love for Qantas to throw away their marketshare. Probably make for a more competitive industry.
 
Admiral Byng said:
How about we recognise the role of airlines in promoting the health of the tourism industry far beyond the economics of running the airline in it's own right. We give QANTAS a government guarantee for their debts so they can secure the funding to restructure and re-equip. Seems like a better idea to me.
Click to expand...
Does Virgin get a debt guarantee as well? Or does the government give assistance to one private company over another?

Otherwise it's like them saying they're going to look out for Woolworths and do nothing for Coles (except making their life harder by assisting their main competitor)
 
DrKrieger said:
Does Virgin get a debt guarantee as well? Or does the government give assistance to one private company over another?

Otherwise it's like them saying they're going to look out for Woolworths and do nothing for Coles (except making their life harder by assisting their main competitor)
Click to expand...

We should give one to Emirates, Garuda and Emirates for their services to Australia
 
Qantas situation is way above my [ay grade.

But I am impressed that the government since December ordered due diligence from two different investment banks plus an accounting firm, plus from Depts of Treasury and Infrastructure.

This is exactly the course any of the Hawke governments would have put in process to deal with this issue in a proper considered way.

All recommended Qantas solution and government accepted their advice - as a Hawke Labor government would most certainly done.

Boring - true - but good governance? oh yes.

Phil Coorey has story in AFR: http://www.afr.com/p/national/coalition_and_qantas_at_war_ONJuN48Kp3NemVcIsm1eRP
 
DrKrieger said:
Otherwise it's like them saying they're going to look out for Woolworths and do nothing for Coles (except making their life harder by assisting their main competitor)
Click to expand...
Not quite a fair analogy, unless Coles was backed and part-owned by foreign governments.

I'm in favour of removing some of the restrictions from Qantas, but to be honest I'm not sure how they compete long term on their international routes with government-backed competitors, especially considering many Australians seem to think whining about Qantas' service is a national sport.
 
Mofra said:
Not quite a fair analogy, unless Coles was backed and part-owned by foreign governments.

I'm in favour of removing some of the restrictions from Qantas, but to be honest I'm not sure how they compete long term on their international routes with government-backed competitors, especially considering many Australians seem to think whining about Qantas' service is a national sport.
Click to expand...

a small part of the debate is access to a larger pool of capital but a big part of the argument to release to foreign ownership shackles is reducing operating cost. This is includes shifting maintenance offshore and other high cost and inflexible departments.

That is why the debate is such a hot potato as it will lead to Australian job loses. So the debate really is; do we allow some job loses to save 90% of jobs or do we let the company fail and have 100% job loses because we don't like reform and we don't like the CEO?


So the analogy doesn't need foreign ownership, it is about workplace relations where one has 1950 style EBA, earn 50 to 500% than their peers, sabotage the airlines operations and are unhappy with their employer vs the other has a flexible workforce who are happy with their employer. I should emphasise the employer is at fault for thinking just handing out higher pay = happiness. They should never have opened the door to the unions; the relationship between the employee and employer should have been direct to ensure proper communication and workers being aligned with the company not some union thug stirring discontent.
 
Last edited:
Hockey and Joyce had a chat about the carbon tax and lo and behold Joyce comes out in the press to say that the carbon tax had affected Qantas but that's not all.... it was the fault of a "lowly staff member" that put out the press release that omitted to tell us that.

What a typical word to use "lowly" from our caring friends - the superior Libs. No wonder they want to change the Discrimination Act.
 
Maggie5 said:
Hockey and Joyce had a chat about the carbon tax and lo and behold Joyce comes out in the press to say that the carbon tax had affected Qantas but that's not all.... it was the fault of a "lowly staff member" that put out the press release that omitted to tell us that.

What a typical word to use "lowly" from our caring friends - the superior Libs. No wonder they want to change the Discrimination Act.
Click to expand...
Wasn't aware Joyce was a LNP MP
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

$100m might be enough for Alan Joyce to put in his pocket as an end of year bonus.

If there is one good thing that was to come out of this Qantas stuff up that would be the head of Joyce himself on a plate as well as those that put him into his position, three times in one week he changed tack in regards to the price on carbon being a major factor in Qantas going broke.
 
Maggie5 said:
Neither was I, what's your point?

Also correction, not "lowly", but "low level" person. That's low.
Click to expand...
Agreed, that's hugely poor form. Thought you were saying Joyce used the term, then said it was typical LNP, which only really works if hockey said it.

noddy said:
$100m might be enough for Alan Joyce to put in his pocket as an end of year bonus.

If there is one good thing that was to come out of this Qantas stuff up that would be the head of Joyce himself on a plate as well as those that put him into his position, three times in one week he changed tack in regards to the price on carbon being a major factor in Qantas going broke.
Click to expand...
We can only hope. Clifford is still behind him publicly though :(

In saying that Clifford has been there for the decade long downfall of the flying roo(Dixon as well), so hopefully people remember that at the agm.
 
Commando said:
Airfares are dollar for dollar the cheapest they have ever been, they won't be in a decade
Click to expand...

In 1988 when we only had QANTAS and Ansett it cost me $959 for a return flight from Perth to Melbourne. At the time I could have flown from Perth to NZ for $600 with accommodation and car hire for 2 weeks or I could have flown to Thailand or Bali with 3 weeks of 5 star accommodation.

26 years later, I've gone on the same flight just this last weekend. it cost me $500 return and I've flown it in the last year for $400 return with Virgin, I could've flown QANTAS for not much more. I'm earning a hell of a lot more these days too. To me it highlights two things, the massive gouging that went on before deregulation and the unsustainability of the current cut throat setup.

They need it to be school holidays every week and there to be a long weekend every week so they can triple or quadruple their prices.

I fly Virgin now because I believe their service is a lot better.
 
Maggie5 said:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tax-bill-has-been-covered-by-ticket-surcharge

A little clarification on affect of carbon tax and it's non affect on Qantas.

Good old Tone, three/four word slogan.
Carbon tax, Labour, Unions. Really getting monotonous and boring.
Click to expand...

The author of that article can not be fair dinkum. Are they genuinely suggesting that it had no impact because Qantas raised it's prices?

Any cost increases imposed on any business that force price rises is obviously going to impact demand. That's what happens when you increase price. You reduce demand. And a reduction in demand isn't going to impact on the business? WTF?

Honestly, the intellectual capacity of some people that dip their toe into this debate is staggeringly low.....may as well get Schapelle Corby to write an article about it.
 
Rob said:
The author of that article can not be fair dinkum. Are they genuinely suggesting that it had no impact because Qantas raised it's prices?

Any cost increases imposed on any business that force price rises is obviously going to impact demand. That's what happens when you increase price. You reduce demand. And a reduction in demand isn't going to impact on the business? WTF?

Honestly, the intellectual capacity of some people that dip their toe into this debate is staggeringly low.....may as well get Schapelle Corby to write an article about it.
Click to expand...
Is that you Schapelle?
 
Cap said:
Lets face it, this is a manouvre by the Liberals to try and push labor into a position where they either agree, or Libs can claim they killed Qantas.

Personally, I don't really see the big deal in Qantas being owned by who ever, its a bloody airline.
Click to expand...

Indeed it's a classic case of wedge politics in its purest form.
 
1962850_314976488627462_1892810485_n.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Aristotle Pickett
Australian politician ‘sold out’ to foreign regime after being recruited by spies, Asio boss says
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
211
Views
6K
Rob R
R

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top