SQ battles Qantas

[SQ_fanatic]

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/...cument&src=rss

I'm on for competition!

[SilverChris]

I think Changi is more interested in strengthening its hub status than protecting SQ.

[SQ_fanatic]

From what I understand, it sounds as if the govt wants to protect SQ, which I find quite amusing.

A tit for a tad? After all SQ wasn't granted the Kangaroo route...
Yeah but I agree with you, SilverChris!

[qantas_flyer]

A tit for a tad? After all SQ wasn't granted the Kangaroo route...
Yeah but I agree with you, SilverChris!

Do you mean SIA was not granted the pacific route?

I for one wish Qantas would worry about itself a little more instead of all these overseas ventures. Having said this, it is because of these Qantas misfortunes I have given a lot of my business to Air New Zealand and Singapore Airlines.

[Megatop]

I think the biggest hurdle will be their own unions.

[RHG]

I think Changi is more interested in strengthening its hub status than protecting SQ.

various governmental public statements including from Lee kwan yew when he was active in cabinet clearly stated that the changi issue and the profit interests of SIA are considered seperately. One is government run and operated, the other is a public listed company and considered as a "safe heaven" stock. The issue of accounting control and operating policies are altogether entirely seperate issues.

Historically, there is a pattern that the administration has always been appreciative of competition provided it leads to better quality and increased productivity. Protectionism is rarely the agenda due to the wider economic considerations.

If Qantas asia is to be incorporated in SIN, i would be curious to know who the sin shareholder is.

[kelvgoh]

If Qantas asia is to be incorporated in SIN, i would be curious to know who the sin shareholder is.

The shareholder does not need to be Singaporean or Singaporean-incorporated company. So no worries there.

[KFly]

From the article linked by the OP:

"SA plans to lobby its government to block the deal, determined to be the sole carrier operating out of Changi Airport."

Sole carrier? The last I checked, SQ + MI now only contribute about 40% of the traffic in/out of SIN. Poorly worded IMO.

SIA will be letting her shareholders down if she keeps quiet about increased competition. Especially when having to share traffic rights with locally registered competition, ie Qantas Asia.

[Megatop]

Deleted

[Megatop]

Deleted

[CarbonMan]

Transport union puts its case on Qantas
Tony Sheldon
October 27, 2011....We still live in a democracy, not an Asian dictatorship.

Tony Sheldon is federal secretary of the Transport Workers Union

Ouch.

[viraj735]

Transport union puts its case on Qantas
Tony Sheldon
October 27, 2011
Beneath the millions of dollars spent on advertising, the 'exclusives' about death threats replete with racist, menacing language just ready to drop onto a front page, the 'heavy-petting' of federal politicians and Qantas management's self-congratulation for shedding staff when demand is growing, lurks an as yet unexposed core of mismanagement.

We still live in a democracy, not an Asian dictatorship.

Pot calling the kettle black?

Ouch.

My thoughts exactly.

[mr_botak]

Really, quite honestly, I hope this thing kills QANTAS and it is broken up restructured into a couple of lean well run companies. It seems the only way forward.

[SQ228]

Alternately, QF could save $5m a year by sending that nasty, self-interested CEO back home to work for Ryan Airlines where he belongs. In Australia, we used to have a full-service airline of equal quality to SQ that we could be proud of.

Thanks to him and the last overpaid CEO, when flying domestic we now have a choice between a budget airline that serves muffins and other budget airlines that don't. It's the people who work for an airline that earn it a good reputation, not CEOs who destroy share prices and staff morale but still get to walk off with a huge sack of money.

[crazycrab955]

This doesn't involve industrial relations, but poor selection of aircraft, diversions from popular routes to ones the allocated aircraft barely have enough fuel to reach – see Dallas. It's a story for another day.

As an aside, this is really quite spot on. I could never fathom why Qantas killed the very successful SYD-SFO nonstop in favour of flying to the armpit of America, Dallas. Other than providing a linkage for oil executives (in which case QF should've chosen Houston), it made absolutely no sense. I suppose to link up with AA's hub city? AA has enough of a presence in SFO (and LAX) to suffice.

Inexplicable decisions like this one means that QF management really has no clue.