QANTAS being taken over by Macquarie Bank..

[SeatBackForward]

You have a good point there! If Macquarie Bank purchases QF then they want to make it difficult for other carriers to use their airport. Don't we have a law against something like that happening? Like the media ownership laws!

The ACCC is meant to.

And Macquarie Bank wins the contract!

As I said earlier, we should call this country "Macquarie Corp"

 

[oz_mark]

The ACCC is meant to.



As I said earlier, we should call this country "Macquarie Corp"

On the plus side, they don't seem to have infiltrated Perth to any great extent.

 

[SeatBackForward]

On the plus side, they don't seem to have infiltrated Perth to any great extent.

Its not just Macquaire bank, but its many and varied subsiduaries, and the % shareholdings that these subsiduaries own in other companies. They are a very powerful bank even internationally, which is remarkable given how puny Australia is in a Global economic sense.

 

[simongr]

The ACCC is meant to.

And we all know how effective the ACCC is at tackling the big issues...

 

[NM]

Well some people have made a lot of money out the process so far. The QF share price closed at $5.00 today, up from around $4.35 last week. So with over 60M shares traded, that is some good profit for some ex-investors.

 

[ric_melb]

As a shareholder and frequent flyer the proposed takeover can only concern me.

The takeover seems to be opportunistic at a time when Qantas is rebounding from the effects of high fuel prices.

As a shareholder any offer will cost me some 50 cents in capital gains tax, therefore any offer must be at a substantial premium to allow for this and future prospects.

As a frequent flyer I worry about the security of my points, given that the potential offer will be highly leveraged.

Much to think about, but the rise in the Qantas share price is not the good news some portray.

 

[JohnK]

Much to think about. This cannot be good. How does that saying go? "Short term gains, long term losses!"

I still maintain my original stance on the matter. A corporation that owns the biggest airport in Australia should not even be allowed to think about a takeover of Australia's flagship, national, airline.

Those wimps that call themselves the government and the bigger wimps called ACCC should have squashed all rumours today. Without any investigation whatsoever.

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

I am not 100% familiar with competition law in Australia, but how it works in NZ the equivalent of ACCC would not be able to quash a deal without first seeking information on proposed terms (eg whether Macquarie would be willing to provide certain guarantees to the other airlines that use any airport they have an interest in, or divestiture of assets).

 

[drron]

And of course...if married with another airline or two...what happens with our QFF scheme...and acrued points???

Depending on the partner airlines this could lead to a positive...or negative enhancement:?: :?:

To quote a much maligned queenslander-"please explain"
How can enhancement of a FF scheme and positive appear in the one sentence unless you are referring to the airlines bottom line?
If this deal succeeds the real suckers will be those lining up when the new entity refloats loaded up with debt.As an investment banker acquaintance said to me a few days ago -it is getting harder to take the punters money from them but it will never be impossible.
Methinks the tolling of the bell cant be too far away.

 

[pacblue]

It won't happen.

How do they do it without contravening the Qantas Sale Act ?.

Virgin will scream conflict of interest. How can the owner of the airport also own the flag carrier ?

The unions won't lie down and watch them take over Qantas and then sell off the maintenance and ancillary's - catering, freight etc.

The pollies won't like it. In many ways Qantas is a protected species because of its "image" as an australian icon. Dixon has begged for the QF Sale Act to be repealed - the government has continually said no.

TX PAC may have grabbed Continental and turned it around, but Qantas 'aint a basket case - and this just won't come off.

 

[simongr]

I agree with your point on airport/airline ownership but for that to scupper the deal it needs someone to complain and someone to do something about it - the second will be sadly lacking.

Re the unions - not sure how they will scupper the deal. Yes they might complain when maintenance is sent overseas and they might go on strike in the interim. They will find like the miners in the UK in the 80's that going on strike will just accelerate job losses.

The problem with the pollies not liking is that its the Libs who have compete power at the moment and they will probably be ok with the deal. i think MacBank have stated that this is in line with ownership requirements - I dont think they would waste any time and money unless they thought that they could get away with this.

 

[Tooner]

i think MacBank have stated that this is in line with ownership requirements - I dont think they would waste any time and money unless they thought that they could get away with this.

My read is like yours simongr; Big Mac have carefully structured this to meet the Sales Act requirements, and have consulted the ACCC already on the airport. Having Allco onboard also helps (given the number of leases they have arranged for Qantas).

Interesting to see speculation that the FF program woould be moved to a trust a la Air Canada - anyone know how that works?

 

[NM]

I still maintain my original stance on the matter. A corporation that owns the biggest airport in Australia should not even be allowed to think about a takeover of Australia's flagship, national, airline.

The operating model has worked well for EK as they have grown to be a large and successful airline with the same entity owning the airline and their main hub airport.

 

[serfty]

The operating model has worked well for EK ...

Yes, but while not exactly a hobby for the EK owners, those facilities are financed by the petro-dollar and the need to make large profits is not so apparent.

 

[Altair]

Yes, but while not exactly a hobby for the EK owners, those facilities are financed by the petro-dollar and the need to make large profits is not so apparent.

Not quite true. Dubai does not have much in terms of oil. They have crafted themselves to be the finance/investment centre of the Middle East and the city they are building is to attract more money. The petro-dollars are just coming into their finance operations and they do need to invest in profitable enterprises to increase their wealth. And please no one say that EK gets their fuel for free, that is absurd, but they do not pay tax....

 

[serfty]

Not quite true. Dubai does not have much in terms of oil. They have crafted themselves to be the finance/investment centre of the Middle East and the city they are building is to attract more money. The petro-dollars are just coming into their finance operations and they do need to invest in profitable enterprises to increase their wealth. And please no say the EK gets their fuel for free, that is absurd, but they do not pay tax....

Never indicated they get their fuel for free, not did I post they do not have to make profits.

Petro-Dollars do exist within Dubai and are important. Within the UAE, Abu Dhabi was the poorest emirate until 1962 when oil was found there, soon becoming the wealthiest. Dubai had concerned its economy with ensuring it maintained the region's busiest trading post. This it did with success and financial future was ensured when, in 1966, substantial deposits of its own oil were located. The other Emirates did not find so much oil and are often subsidised by the wealthier emirates.

 

[Altair]

Never indicated they get their fuel for free, not did I post they do not have to make profits.

Sorry I did not mean that you said that they get their fuel for free. I have heard from many people when discussing Emirates about how they get their fuel for free which is not true. I did not want someone to say that here, I have edited my original post. EK have many benefits by being based in DBX but any airline based there would get same. Other Gulf carriers eg. GA have not been as successful as EK so there is more to their success than location.

 

[JohnK]

The operating model has worked well for EK as they have grown to be a large and successful airline with the same entity owning the airline and their main hub airport.

Of course you are right but I am also questioning Macquarie's intentions in the QF takeover. My guess is that Macquarie's intention is not to run a successful airport and airline like the owners of EK.

Just my opinion but I think Macquarie's intentions would be to divide up QF as much as possible making money on the sale of assets & services and then re-floating the airline with significant debt attached. I think the government & ACCC should see this madness and put a stop to it before it gets off the ground. I don't bet very often but I am willing to bet that QF remains Australian owned without any Macquarie Bank involvement.

 

[simongr]

Other Gulf carriers eg. GA have not been as successful as EK so there is more to their success than location.

Having flown GA I can understand why they arent successful

@JohnK - What has honour got to with anything in business? The Board have a legal obligation to maximise the returns to the shareholders. If MacBank bought QF and belived that splitting and refloating was the way to maximise a return to the shareholders then they MUST do that - otherwise they are in breach of their legal obligations.

You might be right though that this wont go ahead - but if it does - we have to accept that MacBank must only act in the interests of the shareholders. Now that is open to interpretation because annoying customers and destroying a customer base would have a -ve effect on the profits and shareholder returns. But they have no obligation to us or their staff or the people of australia. this is a business not a govt agency.

S

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

Altair - I presume you mean GF Gulf Air, not GA Garuda Indonesia?