QANTAS being taken over by Macquarie Bank..

[Takeshi]

I have a friend who works for Qantas, and works for one of its businesses that maybe sold off.
She has told me that the staff beleive that this consortium is just saying this to keep everyone happy including loyal staff who have ammased 100's of hours of unused sick leave, now if suddenly they said that they plan to sell-off some Qantas non-core departments, this unused sick leave would suddenly be used and used a lot, as any sell-off of a business the staff will lose all this.

You cannot believe this consortium, they will buy Qantas wait till everyones forgot about it, then start slashing, selling off, and sadly put many Australians lives at risk by sending maintenace to 3rd world countries.

Terry Mcran wrote a good artical this morning, and one section read that if something goes wrong with this huge debt, that Qantas will join Ansett in the Airline Graveyard, now that sent shivers up my spine.

Sadly the government can't see this, and they will let the Australian public down.

 

[simongr]

I have a friend who works for Qantas, and works for one of its businesses that maybe sold off.
She has told me that the staff beleive that this consortium is just saying this to keep everyone happy including loyal staff who have ammased 100's of hours of unused sick leave, now if suddenly they said that they plan to sell-off some Qantas non-core departments, this unused sick leave would suddenly be used and used a lot, as any sell-off of a business the staff will lose all this.

So your friend is saying that the staff are planning to commit fraud if the assets are sold off? I am not sure why because of a sell off they will lose this. The staff employment contracts may or may not change. In any sale of a business (depending on sale of shares or assets) the staff benefits are a key consideration. I am not sure of the specific employment contracts at QF but if sick days are an entitlement rather than a benefit then there will be a provision in accounts so when your friend defrauds the shareholders by taking sick leave when not sick it will be offset by a provision.

Hmm - so do I remember a comment earlier on in this thread about the execs holding the staff to ransom - seems like the staff are plannign the same. Sadly very short sighted here as any pseudo industrial action like this will only adversely impact the division your friend is in. I guess as they see their jobs go off shore they at least can think about having "gotten one over the bosses"

 

[QF WP]

An interesting twist to the saga:

One of Australia's most respected fund managers, Kerr Neilson, has urged the federal Government to allow Singapore Airlines to fly on the Pacific route if Airline Partners Australia is allowed to buy Qantas...

Kerr is one guy for whom I have the greatest respect (well, it has helped that he has made me more money than any other fund manager over my investment lifetime)

 

[NM]

Kerr is one guy for whom I have the greatest respect (well, it has helped that he has made me more money than any other fund manager over my investment lifetime)

And is he recommending buying SQ shares at this time?

 

[QF WP]

He doesn't tell ahead of time, but possibly looking at the arbitrage possibility with SQ and QAN shares...of course, bravoecho may know more

 

[mabunji]

......You cannot believe this consortium, they will buy Qantas wait till everyones forgot about it, then start slashing, selling off, and sadly put many Australians lives at risk by sending maintenace to 3rd world countries.

Can someone please explain why outsourcing maintenance leads to Australian lives being put at risk ?. It seems to be the standard spin coming from engineering union officials, now it is being mentioned in this forum.

Qantas currently flys to 80 destinations in 39 countries. In most of these countries they rely on agents (typically the local carrier) to provide engineering support. If a Qantas planes suffers a heavy landing or a bird strike it is typically engineering staff from the local agent who evaluate if the plane has suffered damage / is safe to continue its flight.

Qantas do not ground the flight and wait for Qantas engineering staff to fly out from Australia to replace a burst tyre or investigate vibration from an engine - these tasks are mostly entrusted to local engineering staff (some of them '3rd world').

So the argument is that we will trust an engineer in a distant 3rd world country to inspect a Qantas plane following an adverse incident and clear the plane for flight, but we will not allow that same engineer to conduct routine maintenance ('Australian lives at risk') Hmmmm!!!!

Qantas engineering currently have procedures in place to evaluate the capability of external engineers at remote locations. Similarly, those Quality Assurance principles applied when outsourcing single aisle maintenance work to New Zealand, and in engaging Thai Airways to repair QF1 after its infamous overshooting of the runway in Bangkok several years ago.

Luthansa operate a maintenance facility out of Manila taking advantage of favourable labour rates. Clearly Qantas are capable of building a similar model in a low-cost country under existing or incoming management. Politically it may be unacceptable, and many readers of this forum may be uneasy at the loss of Australian jobs - this is a different argument to an emotive claim that Australian lives are at risk.

In order to maintain a Qantas plane you have to do the Holden Ute/VB/Meat Pie thing ?????. Whats the issue ?

 

[Evan]

I could believe that some maintenance tasks would be much better performed in low cost locations, over a reasonable number if years now i have come to expect if I train a person to do a job in some of these locations that the job is done well and completed exactly as instructed. Try getting that result in Australia sometimes, we just want to take a short cut if we can.

Watching that show tonight on nat geo about the DC-10 that lost an engine and all because some American maintenance staff took a short cut, are they 3rd world ???

And on the topic of staff strikes, taking sick leave when not sick etc, well i can tell you thats one of the quickest ways to make sure a company fails or outsources. Staff will have as much say as he company directors as to its future.

As Australians with our high labour cost we have to be doing it better than anybody else, and if we do it to a higher standard or better quality then people will be prepared to pay the premium price, do it only as well as a worker in India or China and they may as well get the job instead of us because they are 3 times cheaper.

Evan

 

[simongr]

You cannot believe this consortium, they will buy Qantas wait till everyones forgot about it, then start slashing, selling off, and sadly put many Australians lives at risk by sending maintenace to 3rd world countries.

Phew that's a relief only the australians will be killed when the plane crashes.

Its hyperbole of comments like the one quoted that make it easier for me to actually support the takeover. If we stop getting the rants of "It must be Aussie to be Qantas!!!" and "The world will end if those dirty money grabbing foreigners buy our beloeved icon" and actually get comments that are based in the real world facts of business, airline travel in the modern age and the legal obligations o directors to the shareholders then perhaps there can be a debate.

 

[Takeshi]

What do you define Qantas as in the National Interest ???

How will they view if this sale is in the National Interest ??
Anyone can tell me this ?

 

[Takeshi]

Can someone please explain why outsourcing maintenance leads to Australian lives being put at risk ?. It seems to be the standard spin coming from engineering union officials, now it is being mentioned in this forum.

Qantas currently flys to 80 destinations in 39 countries. In most of these countries they rely on agents (typically the local carrier) to provide engineering support. If a Qantas planes suffers a heavy landing or a bird strike it is typically engineering staff from the local agent who evaluate if the plane has suffered damage / is safe to continue its flight.

Qantas do not ground the flight and wait for Qantas engineering staff to fly out from Australia to replace a burst tyre or investigate vibration from an engine - these tasks are mostly entrusted to local engineering staff (some of them '3rd world').

So the argument is that we will trust an engineer in a distant 3rd world country to inspect a Qantas plane following an adverse incident and clear the plane for flight, but we will not allow that same engineer to conduct routine maintenance ('Australian lives at risk') Hmmmm!!!!

Qantas engineering currently have procedures in place to evaluate the capability of external engineers at remote locations. Similarly, those Quality Assurance principles applied when outsourcing single aisle maintenance work to New Zealand, and in engaging Thai Airways to repair QF1 after its infamous overshooting of the runway in Bangkok several years ago.

Luthansa operate a maintenance facility out of Manila taking advantage of favourable labour rates. Clearly Qantas are capable of building a similar model in a low-cost country under existing or incoming management. Politically it may be unacceptable, and many readers of this forum may be uneasy at the loss of Australian jobs - this is a different argument to an emotive claim that Australian lives are at risk.

In order to maintain a Qantas plane you have to do the Holden Ute/VB/Meat Pie thing ?????. Whats the issue ?

Good point I never looked at it this way.

 

[bravoecho1]

One thing that this corporate action has shown me (confirmed to me) is that Australians in general love to live in ignorant bliss.

The best example is the foreign ownership situation. Within reason, there has been no change in the amount of Qantas that is owned by foreign interests pre and post the takeover, however because the media has alerted the public that 47% of the consortium is not Australian, they are up in arms. Before APA come to the public view, the same people that are complaining about foreign ownership didn't care that QF was 49% owned by foreign interests in the past.

Give people a little bit of information and they are dangerous.

 

[bravoecho1]

He doesn't tell ahead of time, but possibly looking at the arbitrage possibility with SQ and QAN shares...of course, bravoecho may know more

Currently Kerr's Asia Fund has 2% of its assets invested in Singapore (as at Dec 06) but as Lindsay correctly pointed out, he doesn't show his hand in advance and you only know after the fact what he has done, unless he is moving a large amount of stock which is pretty hard to hide.

 

[simongr]

One thing that this corporate action has shown me (confirmed to me) is that Australians in general love to live in ignorant bliss.

The best example is the foreign ownership situation. Within reason, there has been no change in the amount of Qantas that is owned by foreign interests pre and post the takeover, however because the media has alerted the public that 47% of the consortium is not Australian, they are up in arms. Before APA come to the public view, the same people that are complaining about foreign ownership didn't care that QF was 49% owned by foreign interests in the past.

Give people a little bit of information and they are dangerous.

ALthough the full picture is how much of that 49% is held by connected parties - that is the main difference I think between the current foreign onwership and future foreign ownership.

 

[QF WP]

As the four Foreign Investment Review Board directors prepare to consider the $11 billion privatisation bid for Qantas, the company's own $6 billion Qantas employees superannuation fund says it will not tell its managers whether to accept the bid...

Interesting move...sitting on the fence with interest groups on either side - probably a sensible move

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

the company's own $6 billion Qantas employees superannuation fund says it will not tell its managers whether to accept the bid...

Interesting move...sitting on the fence with interest groups on either side - probably a sensible move

I would have thought difficult for the trustees to do support or oppose the deal. As trustees their first fiduciary duty is to get the best deal for the super fund, which normally means the best investment return. Assuming there is a material investment in QF shares, almost certainly the case but I haven't checked, this would argue for supporting the deal to lock in the premium offered. However politically the trustees can't be seen to support a deal which is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to put at risk Australian jobs (ie of their members).

 

[codash1099]

[FONT=&quot]AAP News[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]Jetstar could be foreign-owned: Costello[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thursday February 8, 2007[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]2:38 pm[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Treasurer Peter Costello says Jetstar is not protected from foreign ownership in the same way Qantas is because it was never the national airline.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"There's no Jetstar Sale Act because Jetstar was never a government airline, was never privatised, there was never any legislation required to privatise it and indeed (it) was never a national carrier," Mr Costello told reporters.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]His comments come after internal legal advice to the government was leaked, showing there was potential for private equity firm Airline Partners Australia (ASX: APA.ax) to hive off Jetstar if it is successful in its bid for Qantas.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However, Jetstar is protected by the Air Navigation Act.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The act says [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Australia[/FONT][FONT=&quot]'s international airlines, of which Jetstar is one, must not allow foreign interests to take more than a 49 per cent stake in the airline.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Transport Minister Mark Vaile has the power to, via the Federal Court, issue an injunction order if Jetstar's owners attempted to sell the airline to foreign owners.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ultimately, Mr Vaile has the power to cancel Jetstar's licence.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The concern about Jetstar comes because Qantas is currently subject to an $11 billion private equity takeover offer from APA - a consortium of Australian and North American private equity firms.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Labor, unions and some government members have voiced concern over the offer because of the level of international involvement in the bid.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The groups are worried if international private equity firms have a stake in the airline they will try to move maintenance jobs offshore.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However, APA says its bid is structured to keep the airline firmly in Australian hands.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The bid is now in the hands of the Foreign Investment Review Board after APA voluntarily submitted to the board's 30 day investigation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mr Costello, once the review is completed, has the power to attach conditions to the sale of the airline if he has concerns about the bid.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Source:By Peter Veness[/FONT]

 

[Shano]

Qantas goes private, sells of Jetstar and then re-instates the regional routes that it had previously switched to Jetstar. I'd like to see that

 

[Altair]

Qantas goes private, sells of Jetstar and then re-instates the regional routes that it had previously switched to Jetstar. I'd like to see that

Yeah I am sure a lot of QFFs would love to see that but I do not think it will happen as QF were not making a lot of money on those routes in the first place.
A separate JQ will damage QF mainline as they will undoubtably compete against DJ and QF on the major routes that QF has thankfully been at pains to avoid the competition with itself. The result....US like service? or the end of "full service" and a model similar to DJ?

 

[Takeshi]

Ahhhhhhhhhh its getting so complicated and so messy now.

Istill say it will not get the go ahead, wnna bet me ?? anyone

 

[simongr]

What has changed?