QANTAS being taken over by Macquarie Bank..

[simongr]

Does it need Fed approval? If the deal is appropriately structured can the Feds block it on this basis? Frankly I would be keen not to see the govt changing the law to interfere in business deals just because a ill-informed few polls on Today Tonight think QF must be Australian owned.

There was I thinking that this was a Liberal govt... Why dont we just nationalise primary industry...

 

[Evan]

I dont think it really needs approval as such, but they must meet the requirements that have been placed on it for years about % Australian owned and a minimum number of board members being Australians.
But lets be honest thats not really difficult, just find some puppets.

E

 

[serfty]

Does it need Fed approval? If the deal is appropriately structured can the Feds block it on this basis? Frankly I would be keen not to see the govt changing the law to interfere in business deals just because a ill-informed few polls on Today Tonight think QF must be Australian owned. ...

Actually, it could possibly be blocked by the Federal Government using either of two pieces of existing legislation.

I posted this here back on 20th December, but I will re-iterate:

The specific Qantas Sale Act and FATA, the long-standing Foreign Takeovers Act that applies generally. ...

...But if Texas Pacific and Onex are associated, why not the 'other foreign'? Because if they are, the 'one' foreigner has 39 per cent, even of the reduced voting interest, and that would breach the Sale Act.

If so the takeover would be illegal and could not take place because it could not be 'approved'.

 

[simongr]

But lets be honest thats not really difficult, just find some puppets.

E

For the levels of personal risk involved with being a board member nowadays - especially in a business that could kill 400 customers in one incident - the puppets may not be so easy to find...

 

[Yada Yada]

There is no reference in the article that says anything about saving Qantas, but explicitly states that they are investing in a carrier that doesn't need to be rescued but is one where they see potential to expand over the next 5 years .

I was simply explaining the reference to "saving QF" in JohnK's post. He was saying that QF does not need saving, which as you have just reiterated is what the artlice also says.

There was I thinking that this was a Liberal govt... Why dont we just nationalise primary industry...

Heh heh... don't expect the Federal Government to stick to its philosophy if the polls are showing that the people don't like it. :mrgreen:

 

[codash1099]

Does it need Fed approval? If the deal is appropriately structured can the Feds block it on this basis? Frankly I would be keen not to see the govt changing the law to interfere in business deals just because a ill-informed few polls on Today Tonight think QF must be Australian owned.

There was I thinking that this was a Liberal govt... Why dont we just nationalise primary industry...

There is always that broad category of "national interest" which was used by the Feds to block the takeover of Woodside by Shell some time back. Not exact parallels I admit but a clever Treasurer can always find something if he's so inclined.

 

[serfty]

... but a clever Treasurer can always find something if he's so inclined.

He would not have to look hard; it's already there, please see my post #243 above.

(indeed there may already be a conflict with existing legislation.)

 

[simongr]

I dont think anyone is disagreeing if the deal does not meet the requirements that it can be blocked serfty. Also - if the deal can be deemed to be out of order it can be blocked by interpretation of rules. My interest is if the treasurer has rights to simply block the deal without claiming natonal interest...

 

[JohnK]

I may have missed some posts but I think this is the first reference I see to saviour/saving QF.

I don't think I mentioned AFF members anywhere in the post.

It has generally being portrayed by the QF board, the media and people (some of them have posted in this thread) supporting the takeover bid that without this offer QF as public company will not survive. I am sorry if you have not read this anywhere.

 

[JohnK]

Does it need Fed approval? If the deal is appropriately structured can the Feds block it on this basis?

Woodside bring back any memories. Costello took 6 months to make the decision.

Frankly I would be keen not to see the govt changing the law to interfere in business deals just because a ill-informed few polls on Today Tonight think QF must be Australian owned.

And you are well informed of what is going to happen if and when APA takes over.

The majority of people are against this deal, the majority of the media are against this deal the majority of business analysts are against this deal.

Anyone that is for this deal is well informed, while the majority against the deal are ill-informed!

 

[Dave Noble]

And you are well informed of what is going to happen if and when APA takes over.

I doubt that you are either

The majority of people are against this deal, the majority of the media are against this deal the majority of business analysts are against this deal.

I didn't realise that a referendum had been held that could make the assertion that the majority of all are against it; just that there are some vocal about it

Until it happens, none of those predicting doom or gloom can *know* what is going to happen, nor can those taking a wait and see approach. Maybe it will be a positive result or maybe it will be negative , but I doubt that they are purchasing it as a way of putting it out of business.

There is no need to assume that any change will cause the sky to fall in

Dave

 

[codash1099]

I doubt that you are either



I didn't realise that a referendum had been held that could make the assertion that the majority of all are against it; just that there are some vocal about it

Until it happens, none of those predicting doom or gloom can *know* what is going to happen, nor can those taking a wait and see approach. Maybe it will be a positive result or maybe it will be negative , but I doubt that they are purchasing it as a way of putting it out of business.

There is no need to assume that any change will cause the sky to fall in

Dave

Well the reaction of the media is obvious and there have been a number of polls indicating the general public's opposition. While neither amount to a "referendum" they do provide a reasonable indication of thinking.

That being the case, any false notions being circulated could easily be put to bed by a well worded statement of broad intentions from APA.

 

[JohnK]

That being the case, any false notions being circulated could easily be put to bed by a well worded statement of broad intentions from APA.

They won't do that because then they would be lying. Any statement released by APA today will have no meaning tomorrow!

 

[JohnK]

I doubt that you are either

That is irrelevant in this debate.

Labelling the people that are against this deal as ill-informed is a foolish statement.

 

[Dave Noble]

That is irrelevant in this debate.

Labelling the people that are against this deal as ill-informed is a foolish statement.

Labelling those that do not know the facts of what will happen should it go through, but insist that it will be bad as ill informed, doesn't seem foolish

By your post above you indicate that their intentions have not been made public, yet insist that even if they did they would lie

Dave

 

[Altair]

This thread is getting a little too heated and very long.
What we should do is summarise what the facts are, unfortunately I do not have the time to cross reference these with statements or articles.
1/ Before the official announcement from APA QF denied that they had been approached regardless of the rumours. (ASX announcment)
2/ Dixon made some conciliatory moves to the Unions regarding the future (The Australian article)
3/ APA make first offer, including a 1% QF managment stake, and QF Board reject it. (ASX announcments)
4/ QAN share price drops indicating market does not expect a higher offer and that under current ownership structure that QAN is not valued at the offer price.
5/ Revised APA offer increased price by 10 cents, drop break fee condition, which QF board accepts. (ASX announcements)
6/ Analyst begin to issue what they think APA will do to unlock the value and gain stated returns. (various articles)
7/ APA announce the proposed debt structure that will bring QF in line with other airlines debt level. No mention that this new debt will be used to return money to APA or if it will be used to fund fleet renewal/expansion. (ASX announcements and articles)
8/ APA state that they will not sell off QF units, but does that include Jetstar and there is no definite timeframe. Qantas Frequent Flyer not to currently change.
9/ Federal government, looking at public opinion:?: , announces they will look at deal and potential restrictions. But has APA not gone to great lengths to comply with all legal restrictions:?: .
10/ Opinion poll show Australian public against this but also show that they do not know it is currently 48% foreigned owned or that it is in fact not government owned. (Morgan Poll)

Ok getting too long but what is definite for me.
A/ QF did not need rescuing but under current ownership and legal restrictions it cannot be the most efficient airline on the globe.
B/ APA plan to increase QF debt and hope to sell off QF in a number of years once they have obtained their ROI. That is APA plan to make money off this then dump QF back on the market where it will still be limited by the Qnatas Sales Act.
C/ There is not enough information, nor do I believe there will be, to claim what QF will be in the future either in APA hands or still ASX listed. Analyst remarks are based on precedents and standard LBO procedures.

Please feel free to add or refute the above.

 

[Tooner]

There is not enough information, nor do I believe there will be, to claim what QF will be in the future either in APA hands or still ASX listed. Analyst remarks are based on precedents and standard LBO procedures.

Good summary - as Donald Rumsfield would say, there are many known knowns, some known unknowns, and too many unknown unknowns.

 

[QF WP]

The Moderators are taking particular interest in this thread, given the tone of some of the posts.

We have made a decision that this debate has gone as far as it can, with the information that is currently available. In order not to have it turn into a slanging match between members who may have opposing views, we will close the thread until there is any further release of information.

This will give people an opportunity to consider the views held by others in this discussion.

 

[QF WP]

The man whose fledgling airline was bankrolled by one of the private equity firms now stalking Qantas says breaking union power is the key to running a profitable carrier...

 

[QF WP]

Qantas unions met yesterday with the private equity investors seeking to buy the airline for $11.1 billion to put their case for binding commitments to protect jobs and working conditions if the acquisition is successful...