Government protectionism defends QANTAS (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15577027%5E23349,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15575262%5E23349,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15616724%5E23349,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15621871%5E23349,00.html

Long string of articles, but to summarise:

In the last week or so the government has deferred the decision on whether to open the Sydney to Los Angeles route to overseas competition, specifically it is Singapore Airlines that wishes the change to be introduced. QANTAS argues that a such a change would mean a loss of jobs, and it has specifically made sure to employ Australians wherever possible. Singapore Airlines argues that their addition to the market would mean lower fares and increased US tourist numbers.

Should we be allowing for an open sky, or do the interests of the national carrier take first priority?

 

[transcendent]

Since Qantas is our ONLY major international airline I'd say we look after our own. It's not about job losses, it's about protecting our only airline since the collapse of Ansett Australia.

 

[Serius]

no, fuck those singapore airlines off, all that will mean is foreign buisinesses dominating the market, like what we are seeing in your local supermarket, it will mean a loss of jobs and will probably fuck up our ecconomy. look after our own interests i say, we dont need more tourists and we definetly dont need to save a few dollars in exchange for an australian Quantas

this opinion should transfer to all aspects of consumerism, everyone should buy bega cheese and dicksmith products

 

[spin spin sugar]

i agree, in this case, protecting qantas should be the priority. in other cases i would be less likely to agree. but all those jobs = a fairly persuasive argument

 

[jm1234567890]

Quantas, plz.

.

 

[neo o]

Governments traditionally protect vital national assets i.e. the media, the national carrier, weapons manufacture (in the US) etc.

I see nothing wrong with it, though not on the basis of "saving jobs". What IS important is that we maintain a viable national carrier rather than opening our routes to foreign airlines - especially those owned by foreign governments. Besides, if we're playing tit for tat here, the government of Singapore hasn't opened up any viable routes for QANTAS in Asia.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yea, most of the time i'm against protectionism but since Qantas is our only carrier we need to keep them around....

 

[mr_shittles]

Even from a free trade point of view, the Singapore goverment has refused to provide Qantas with unrestricted access to all European routes in the interests of protecting SIA. Until the Singapore government is fair dinkum about and open skies policy (ie. unrestricted use of Singaporean routes and privatising the national carrier), Australia shouldn't make any compromises.

The Singapore govt. has also failed to secure rights for Qantas offshoot Jetstar Asia to fly to key Asian destinations in Indonesia and China.

I'm really disappointed that the govt. "delayed" the final decision. They should have rejected it outright and told SIA and the Singapore govt. accordingly.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well if we existed in a situation with total free trade between both singapore and australia i'd probably support it.

 

[loquasagacious]

A national carrier is strageically important, however I very much doubt that some competition would send quantus bankrupt.

Oh and if it did cause job losses then they were dead wood anyway ie Qantus has an inefficient workforce.

 

[withoutaface]

My opinion is that we should be lobbying the Singaporean government to pass a similar bill to enable QANTAS to fly out from Singapore to various other locations, and pass our bill at the same time as they pass theirs.

 

[mr_shittles]

My opinion is that we should be lobbying the Singaporean government to pass a similar bill to enable QANTAS to fly out from Singapore to various other locations, and pass our bill at the same time as they pass theirs.

Qantas has been doing that, and the Singapore Government's response is:

1. Jetstar Asia cant fly to the lucrative major cities in China or Indonesia because a suitible bilateral agreemant has not been reached yet withj either countries with respect to "low cost carriers"

2. Providing greater access to European cities would require the Singapore Government to reduce SIA's existing quotas to those cities. The Government is unwilling to do that.

The only way consumers will win is if both Australia and Singapore open up their routes. And just a note on Qantas . . . it is one of the most profitable carriers in the world with some of the mosyt profitable air routes in the world. The chances of a well managed airline in such a strong position going belly up is pretty low.

However, if Qantas does go belly up for any reason, the Australian Government can either:
1. Reintroduce a more protectionist policy and allow it to regain its feet
2. Bail out the airline and then make a massive profit from the bailout

When Air NZ went into financial difficulty with the Ansett collapse, the NZ government took option 2. The bailed out the airline by issuing shares to themselves at a few cents. Needless to say, they made a few hundred million dollars in the process.

So really, there's no issue in terms of Qantas' viability being affected by more competition and Australia probably wont be worse off. The real issue is the Sigaporeans' refusal to have an open skies policy themselves. Thier approach has been fairly hypocritical.

 

[Iron]

I'd say it will be a nice starting point for the eventual merge. It would make the ACCC happier.