Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Qantas Airways splits in two

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 22, 2012, 12:05 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wellington
Programs: QFWP (LTSG), NZ (Jade), TG ROP (Forgotten), OZ (Silver), AA (Cardboard), EK (Lowest of the Low)
Posts: 4,669
Originally Posted by Mwenenzi
No VA was done to get around air service agreements which state the ownership requirements for airlines to access international air traffic rights, and to allow the domestic operation to increase it access to foreign investment.
The Qantas Sale Act prohibits QF from doing this and they have wanted ammend the Act to allow this to occur, and other restrictions only applied to them, so that the playing field could be more level.
Blackcloud is offline  
Old May 22, 2012, 12:39 am
  #17  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: QFF
Posts: 5,304
Originally Posted by Blackcloud
The Qantas Sale Act prohibits QF from doing this and they have wanted ammend the Act to allow this to occur, and other restrictions only applied to them, so that the playing field could be more level.
Qantas Sale Amendment (Still Call Australia Home) Bill 2011 Second Reading debate speeches:
Xenophon, Sen Nick: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...b623%2F0000%22
Sterle, Sen Glenn: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...b623%2F0000%22
Joyce, Sen Barnaby: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...b623%2F0000%22
Ludlam, Sen Scott: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...b623%2F0000%22
Edwards, Sen Sean: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...b623%2F0000%22
Himeno is offline  
Old May 22, 2012, 12:55 am
  #18  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Programs: QFF WP (LTG), VA SG
Posts: 113
Here's an interesting article on this change from the former chief economist at Qantas:

http://www.theage.com.au/business/hi...522-1z2jr.html
Josh43 is offline  
Old May 22, 2012, 2:07 am
  #19  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 155
Tony Webber is a rent-a-quote these days - he has as much creditibility as anyone who has ever worked for the airline in thier life.

Trust Xenophon to have a whinge.........
VHOEJ is offline  
Old May 22, 2012, 5:30 am
  #20  
uxb
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: JFK, DCA, BUR, YVR
Programs: AC, AS, BA, DL, HH (D), MR (T/LTP), UA (*S), UScAAre (PLT/1,87MM), WN
Posts: 5,207
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
Are we allowed to say this on FT?
Can't speculate because that is against the rules. Suffice it to say that I didn't actually say the word.
uxb is offline  
Old May 22, 2012, 7:57 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK. BAEC AAdvantage
Programs: Mucci Des Oeufs Brouilles et des Canards
Posts: 3,671
Have they formed a holding company that stradles the two? Qantas Airline Group perhaps? Another opportunity for execs to earn nice bundle perhaps...
dddc is offline  
Old May 22, 2012, 8:54 am
  #22  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Programs: QF Platinum & Lifetime Gold
Posts: 1,340
Interesting suggestion from one of the readers of the article for QF to abandon the BA joint arrangement in favour of an arrangement with a Middle Eastern carrier, to enable better access to cities in Europe.

Up until relatively recently QF had a codeshare with Etihad, but I believe it was mainly for passengers heading to the Middle East. It was a lost opportunity for QF not to have expanded the Etihad arrangement further to allow one-stop hopping into Europe via Abu Dhabi instead of SIN/BKK/HKG (or now just SIN). Until something along these lines eventuates I guess we will be heading for our European destinations via LHR when travelling to Europe on QF.
QF Lad is offline  
Old May 22, 2012, 11:02 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nashvegas
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by dddc
Have they formed a holding company that stradles the two? Qantas Airline Group perhaps?
The announcement was that they would separate Domestic and International into separate businesses, not separate companies. There is no reason that cannot be done under a single corporate umbrella. Having them report their results separately is commonly done as segment reporting. The consolidated results still roll up, but it gives investors clarity into how the [supposedly different] segments are performing on a standalone basis. Maybe they will separate them into different companies, but I don't think they need to right now.

Personally I think the aim is to show how International loses money as a way of laying the groundwork for some initiative(s) to build standalone profitability in International operations, rather than having Domestic support International and mask its problems. Whether that is fare hikes, partnerships, spin-off and investment, who knows. You can imagine, though, that they can better go cap-in-hand to the government looking for more flexibility if they can show that International loses money. Risk of losing an Australian icon. Public service. Competition. Blah, blah, blah.

I agree with Og, this is all deja vu for those of us old enough to remember TAA.
eamus is offline  
Old May 22, 2012, 5:49 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SYD
Programs: QF Platinum (LTG), OW Emerald, Accor Platinum; Hyatt Explorist.
Posts: 2,165
Originally Posted by QF Lad
Interesting suggestion from one of the readers of the article for QF to abandon the BA joint arrangement in favour of an arrangement with a Middle Eastern carrier, to enable better access to cities in Europe.

Up until relatively recently QF had a codeshare with Etihad, but I believe it was mainly for passengers heading to the Middle East. It was a lost opportunity for QF not to have expanded the Etihad arrangement further to allow one-stop hopping into Europe via Abu Dhabi instead of SIN/BKK/HKG (or now just SIN). Until something along these lines eventuates I guess we will be heading for our European destinations via LHR when travelling to Europe on QF.
I agree totally. I used this EY codeshare to BEY, BAH, RUH, DXB, AUH and DOH a few times and it was excellent. Left me high and dry with only QF/RJ to the region which is fiddly and RJ, while good, not up to EY standards at all. Only plus with RJ is a potential stop-over in HKG and/or BKK if you have the time.

I heard Emirates mentioned today as a potential partner.....the most overrated carrier Ive ever come accross. It would certainly knock EY/VA partnership(& Mr Borghetti) out of the water. That said, there are rumours EY and EK will eventually merge as AUH keps bailing out DXB.....who knows....interesting times.

CJ

Last edited by Cedar Jet; May 22, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Cedar Jet is offline  
Old May 22, 2012, 7:08 pm
  #25  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: RSE
Programs: AA Exp|VA Platinum
Posts: 15,504
Originally Posted by eamus
Personally I think the aim is to show how International loses money as a way of laying the groundwork for some initiative(s) to build standalone profitability in International operations, rather than having Domestic support International and mask its problems. Whether that is fare hikes, partnerships, spin-off and investment, who knows. You can imagine, though, that they can better go cap-in-hand to the government looking for more flexibility if they can show that International loses money. Risk of losing an Australian icon. Public service. Competition. Blah, blah, blah.
This is exactly what I thought. There's no other reason for needing to do it.
bensyd is offline  
Old May 23, 2012, 11:49 am
  #26  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Francisco/Sydney
Programs: UA 1K/MM, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Something, IHG Gold, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 8,154
If they are looking to brand them differently, I'd suggest the following :

"Qantas" for the International brand
"Ansett" for the Domestic brand

I'm getting the strangest form of Deja Vu right now for some reason...
docbert is offline  
Old May 23, 2012, 4:40 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SYD
Programs: UA*1K, BA Gold, SPG Platinum
Posts: 245
I'm sure Virgin Australia considered rebranding as "Ansett" on quite a serious level....

Qantas will never rebrand, even if the ownership of Qantas domestic & int'l splinters.
flyGreg is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.