Blackcloud

Do not forget that when QF was in the process of being privatised the Australian government held talks with SQ, CX and BA on being the key trade shareholder. BA evidently was chosen because they were willing to take 25% stake while SQ was only prepared for 20%.
SQ was later encouraged to invest in NZ/AN and we saw how successful that investment was.

eamus

I may be misremembering, but I thought that SIA never invested in Ansett, and that some (led by Eddington) were of the opinion that that investment, had it been made, would have saved Ansett.

Globaliser

Wikipedia currently says:-

Blackcloud

Wikipedia currently says:
Singapore Airlines

Also for interest when Air New Zealand was privatised:

airnewzealand.co.nz

Globaliser

I dug out the bit that (I thought) was directly about SQ investing in AN, which was the subject of eamus' immediately preceding post.

Blackcloud

Yes I was having fun.
SQ at the time could not invest solely into AN as it was a merged entity.
During the troubles I believe there was an attempt to off-load AN to SQ but quite rightly after 9/11 etc and the trouble AN was in they turned it down.
I cannot recall the name of the book but it was about the rise and fall of Ansett, which impacted me when it collapsed.....all for the best now.

luftaom

it will be interesting to see what will happen with the timing of the JQ flights from Darwin and Cairns to Singapore.

If they bring the timing of the flights forward, it will make connections to Europe in Singapore really ordinary.

It is interesting that JQ have quietly introduced an additional DRW-SIN flight on some days.

Himeno

There are now 7 submissions on the ACCC site

Consumers' Federation of Australia: "thanks for asking for a submission, no comment"
QF: additional information
Jumpjet Airlines Limited: no
NZ: no to interim approval. reserved on final tieup
DIT: yes to interim approval, advising of main submission later
VA: no to interim approval, feels 10 year tie up is inappropriate, questions some details of QF/EK application, advising of main submission later
SQ: no to interim approval, advising of main submission later

VA, SQ and NZ say that interim approval isn't required for what QF/EK want to do prior to the final decision and are concerned that allowing interim approval would be uncompetitive and let a joint QF/EK team lock out other airlines at the IATA November slot negotiations.

FlyerTalker688786

I think SQ and NZ should not complian at all. As QF is going to withdrawn several services from Singapore and already ceased operation between Auckland and Los Angeles. Both SQ and NZ is the beneficial of the QF re-organising. Quite understand VA's reaction.

Globaliser

Is that so? Does SQ only operate between Australia and Singapore? Does SQ not on-carry any passengers to European and other destinations that will in the future be served by the EK/QF alliance via DXB?

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

pretty much the same for NZ. They had EK competing for flights to Europe, now they'll have QF/EK competing against them for a much stronger alliance.

I say this loosely... but in reality QF isn't that much bigger than NZ in terms of competing to Europe. EK into the mix is huge.

Awesom Andy

Still remember a few years ago when JQ used DRW as a hub, having the MEL-xDRW-SIN and SYD-xDRW-SGN flights meeting up in the middle, and the CNS-xDRW-SIN flight was somewhere in the mix as well. The arrival times in SIN also made it highly suitable for connecting flights to Europe, assuming you don't miss the connection in DRW in the first place.

It's a horrible way to travel AU-Asia though, especially with the 4am transit from Asia, but it was cheap, and it kinda worked, with promotion prices starting at circa $600. The QP also opened in the early morning, and usually wasn't crowded. It was basically, a warm shower, followed by tea/coffee, and waited for sunrise before getting onto the next flight. The immigration and customs procedures were done in DRW as well, which means I didn't have to worry about the queue in SYD/MEL.

Still, they gave up on that idea after starting JQ7/8 though. DRW is not a cheap airport to be in after all.

ThomasBne

Deleted.

Himeno

Keeping LHR-Asia BA codeshares?

anat0l

I haven't read each of the submissions yet (what the hell is Jumpjet's submission doing there? Did someone bribe them to put in a token 'no' submission?), but I don't see immediately why each of the airlines in question has an objection.

Admittedly, SQ, NZ and VA are all in alliance with each other (mainly rooted in VA in one, and for two of them, *A). NZ has a fair grip on its own market to Europe, especially sporting the via-USA route, and also has tie ups with VS and EY. Also, NZ's submission is pretty short.

SQ of course does well by itself (especially in Australia), and also has VS to help bolster capacity; behind SQ as well as its own effort and Star Alliance, the VA alliance has helped improved loads for both SQ and VA at least out of Australia to Asia, and undoubtedly beyond, especially with new codeshares coming up (e.g. AMS).

VA, oddly enough, I thought would have the least reasons to object, unless they are doing it from a predatory disposition / attitude, and that can't be right, or they are just putting in the token objection (just like QF did when VA applied for similar for their alliance with EY and then beyond that). They have the best low "personal" risk network through all of NZ, VS, EY and SQ (plus VA's few long haul destinations), and the figures seem to backup that this is working a treat. In fact, far from objecting, VA should be flattered that QF are now copying them (the leader is now being lead), except of course QF is only really focussing here on one partner (i.e. EK, cf. VA with more than just EY).

I did read one fleeting comment from VA's submission, which is concerned about QF's already dominant position in the market (even domestically) and the implications that EK could render that impregnable to the point of decreasing competition. This doesn't sound like the VA ethos at all, which is supposed to be growing and standing up to QF on both domestic and international fronts; yet it is complaining that it could be easily strangled. Seems incongruent to me.

I know I should read the submissions now, but I'm not seeing a real reason for objection from any of those parties (which admittedly are all in kahoots with each other - no objections yet from anyone independent of this group of main rivals), except purely for token or predatory reasons. I guess this was coming so it's good to see what are the threats to the alliance being approved.