Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth)-Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soar

[nlagalle]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

Given that it appears arguable that QF's lack of foresight (or poor planning) has contributed to this 'mess', perhaps it would be fair for the airport lessees to insist that QF pays, or at least makes a 75 per cent contribution.

As stated above QF's past track record in WA with international flights does not inspire much confidence that it has genuine commitment to this state (QFi).

I recall AJ not so long ago pleading with the then Federal Government for corporate welfare. Thank goodness wise heads in government prevailed.

Is it?? Or is it PER's poor planning on taking years to move all the operations to the other side of the airport?? I am pretty sure QF is stumping up some cash to make a hub in PER. But given they don't own the infrastructure there it's up to PER to come up with the goods

Don't think for a minute PER is actually organized and executed their plan on time.

actually AJ went to even the field with foreign investment and the sale act and IIRC correctly the sale act was relaxed. If the government wants to restrict who can invest in the Roo, then it should cough up for the shortfall..

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

If the government wants to restrict who can invest in the Roo, then it should cough up for the shortfall..

If shareholders want to buy into QF knowing the restrictions, should non-shareholder taxpayers bail them out?

 

[Pleb Status]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

Is it?? Or is it PER's poor planning on taking years to move all the operations to the other side of the airport?? I am pretty sure QF is stumping up some cash to make a hub in PER. But given they don't own the infrastructure there it's up to PER to come up with the goods

Don't think for a minute PER is actually organized and executed their plan on time.

actually AJ went to even the field with foreign investment and the sale act and IIRC correctly the sale act was relaxed. If the government wants to restrict who can invest in the Roo, then it should cough up for the shortfall..

If QF were willing to pay a commercial rate of return for the investment that they are requesting to be made by PER airport, there would be no issues here.

QF know that the business case for this flight is marginal at best and if fuel prices rise they will want the ability to pull the pin at any time. I would assume PER airport would want a 10-20 year commitment to spend $25M-$45M for infrastructure that no other airline can effectively use.

Operating costs will also be far higher as well having two areas of immigration and customs facilities.

 

[nlagalle]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

If shareholders want to buy into QF knowing the restrictions, should non-shareholder taxpayers bail them out?

It's got nothing to do with shareholders. Its got to do with allowing further investment from overseas entities.. And again, should a company that has a government imposed restriction (which can effectively curtail investments) not expect the government to throw in the missing cash?

 

[nlagalle]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

If QF were willing to pay a commercial rate of return for the investment that they are requesting to be made by PER airport, there would be no issues here.

QF know that the business case for this flight is marginal at best and if fuel prices rise they will want the ability to pull the pin at any time. I would assume PER airport would want a 10-20 year commitment to spend $25M-$45M for infrastructure that no other airline can effectively use.

Operating costs will also be far higher as well having two areas of immigration and customs facilities.

well neither you nor I know what they are paying or have offered either. But it makes sense for them to push to have it in the one terminal given the delays in being able to move over the other side (what is it 5 years at least - barring no delays).

And given the whole airport rebuild is going to cost billions - 25mil to do up the existing terminal (not sure how you blew it out to $45 million) is really spare change for them especially as they can't seem to build quickly there. So they are looking at 5 million per year if it's going to take at least that long to build the next terminal and expand the international one.

 

[Pleb Status]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

From The West Australian:

Perth risks losing a revolutionary non-stop air service from Perth to London because of a commercial impasse between Qantas and Perth Airport over a $25 million upgrade to Qantas facilities.

Qantas wants to consolidate its operations at the domestic terminal on the western side of the airport’s runways at terminals three and four.
With a groundbreaking new aircraft, the airline refuses to bus passengers across the tarmac. It wants efficient connections to the rest of its national network to make the service work and to beat similar connections through Singapore or Dubai.



https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/33209028/qantas-in-row-over-london-flights/#page1

well neither you nor I know what they are paying or have offered either. But it makes sense for them to push to have it in the one terminal given the delays in being able to move over the other side (what is it 5 years at least - barring no delays).

And given the whole airport rebuild is going to cost billions - 25mil to do up the existing terminal (not sure how you blew it out to $45 million) is really spare change for them especially as they can't seem to build quickly there. So they are looking at 5 million per year if it's going to take at least that long to build the next terminal and expand the international one.

From the source above -

[FONT=&amp]Senior Perth Airport management claim the cost will be closer to $45 million and are said not to be keen on the proposal because the expense cannot be justified for a daily flight of 236 passengers.

[/FONT]What's a lazy $5M pa amongst friends.... Considering QF can operate from T1 for $0 pa.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

It's got nothing to do with shareholders. Its got to do with allowing further investment from overseas entities.. And again, should a company that has a government imposed restriction (which can effectively curtail investments) not expect the government to throw in the missing cash?

If it's not shareholders who is it? They bought shares knowing of the restrictions, then want it changed, or government assistance. That doesn't seem fair.

 

[dajop]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

Of course the alternative is run some one existing SYD-PER and one MEL=PER service from intl terminals to T1 in PER, to connect to the PER-LHR service, using D stickers for rest of pax. Would cost a fortune in F lounge catering though .....

 

[nlagalle]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

If it's not shareholders who is it? They bought shares knowing of the restrictions, then want it changed, or government assistance. That doesn't seem fair.

Overseas investors cannot invest because of the restrictions. The issue is they cannot actually buy shares (at the time) because of the restrictions. They could in Virgin though. Is that a level playing field?

 

[nlagalle]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

From the source above -

[FONT=&amp]Senior Perth Airport management claim the cost will be closer to $45 million and are said not to be keen on the proposal because the expense cannot be justified for a daily flight of 236 passengers.

[/FONT]What's a lazy $5M pa amongst friends.... Considering QF can operate from T1 for $0 pa.

Given they'd operate more than one flight - why leave their existing flight(s) at T1. If PER airport management were organized the airport would have been all finished by now yet they want airlines to pay for the slow building of the new terminals? Let's also not forget the fact as already mentioned the lack of aerobridges. So would possibly end up on stand off bays. Whereas there are plenty on the other side

 

[Cool Cat Phil]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

Of course the alternative is run some one existing SYD-PER and one MEL=PER service from intl terminals to T1 in PER, to connect to the PER-LHR service, using D stickers for rest of pax. Would cost a fortune in F lounge catering though .....

Good point, QF could make the flights work this way. Only sell the spare seats for the domestic tag sectors for sale, close to the departure date.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

Overseas investors cannot invest because of the restrictions. The issue is they cannot actually buy shares (at the time) because of the restrictions. They could in Virgin though. Is that a level playing field?

I don't see this as about foreign investors. It's about domestic investors who bought a product knowing the restrictions that came with it. They bought what was on the box. Why should they get special treatment if they are unhappy with their purchase?

 

[nlagalle]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

I don't see this as about foreign investors. It's about domestic investors who bought a product knowing the restrictions that came with it. They bought what was on the box. Why should they get special treatment if they are unhappy with their purchase?

It's all about foreign investors. Not once were domestic investors. Why? Because they have a greater ability to inject investment cash. That was the whole point of having the sale act amended. It's been a sore point years.

Again it wasn't the shareholders going to the government, it was the company going to change the act to allow overseas investors to buy and invest

 

[exceladdict]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

As someone who lives in PER, the "all move to one terminal" is kind of a running joke that nobody thinks will ever happen.

If it was going to in the short term, why would QF have just built a new dom J lounge at the old one?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

It's all about foreign investors. Not once were domestic investors. Why? Because they have a greater ability to inject investment cash. That was the whole point of having the sale act amended. It's been a sore point years.

Again it wasn't the shareholders going to the government, it was the company going to change the act to allow overseas investors to buy and invest

I think we are at cross purposes. I know why the company wanted to change the Act, I know why they were claiming restrictions were unfair. however I don't believe they have any basis for doing so... they got exactly what they bought into. I don't see why the rest of us should bail out people who got exactly what they bought but then aren't happy with it.

 

[nlagalle]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

I think we are at cross purposes. I know why the company wanted to change the Act, I know why they were claiming restrictions were unfair. however I don't believe they have any basis for doing so... they got exactly what they bought into. I don't see why the rest of us should bail out people who got exactly what they bought but then aren't happy with it.

Why doesn't the company have a basis? If a competitor is allowed to yet the government prevents the other from increasing foreign investment, that is a restriction. If they are going to impose restrictions for who can invest, then they should be compensating the company for disallowing it.

Once again, this isn't about the SHAREHOLDERS! it's about the company increasing investment from overseas. I'm not sure why you keep thinking it's the shareholders who are disadvantaged?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

Why doesn't the company have a basis? If a competitor is allowed to yet the government prevents the other from increasing foreign investment, that is a restriction. If they are going to impose restrictions for who can invest, then they should be compensating the company for disallowing it.

Once again, this isn't about the SHAREHOLDERS! it's about the company increasing investment from overseas. I'm not sure why you keep thinking it's the shareholders who are disadvantaged?

The directors of the company have a duty to promote the company, sure, but the flow on effect is to the shareholders in the form of dividends and higher share prices. These shareholders bought their shares knowing there were restrictions. The restrictions against foreign ownership weren't kept secret, they were freely available. despite that, the shareholders decided to buy anyway. How can they then turn around and claim they are being unfairly treated? They got the exact bargain their paid for,

if the government simply rolled over it would have been unfair to the vast majority of the public who chose not to invest, possibly because of the restrictions in ownership.

 

[nlagalle]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

The directors of the company have a duty to promote the company, sure, but the flow on effect is to the shareholders in the form of dividends and higher share prices. These shareholders bought their shares knowing there were restrictions. The restrictions against foreign ownership weren't kept secret, they were freely available. despite that, the shareholders decided to buy anyway. How can they then turn around and claim they are being unfairly treated? They got the exact bargain their paid for,

if the government simply rolled over it would have been unfair to the vast majority of the public who chose not to invest, possibly because of the restrictions in ownership.

so in your book it is ok for Company A tro have restrictions on who can invest in it yet company B can have whatever it wants? so you are in favour of an unbalanced playing field then, because that is essentially what you are saying.

if the government imposes restrictions on a company that doesn't allow it to attract investment, then it is a restriction. therefore it should be either compensating for the restriction placed, or investing in it itself.

Once again, this has NOTHING to do with the local shareholders. I'm perplexed as to why you keep mentioning them. Where was any of that stated in the submission to alter the sale act?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

so in your book it is ok for Company A tro have restrictions on who can invest in it yet company B can have whatever it wants? so you are in favour of an unbalanced playing field then, because that is essentially what you are saying.

if the government imposes restrictions on a company that doesn't allow it to attract investment, then it is a restriction. therefore it should be either compensating for the restriction placed, or investing in it itself.

Once again, this has NOTHING to do with the local shareholders. I'm perplexed as to why you keep mentioning them. Where was any of that stated in the submission to alter the sale act?

i mention the shareholders because they are the ones who will potentially benefit - unfairly- if the restriction is lifted. Their choice to invest in a company with restrictions.

I dont think it is fair for a company to operate under restrictions or without a level playing field... in ordinary circumstances. But this is not an ordinary circumstance, it is an airline, with legislation laying it out that those are the terms and conditions of the sale.

if I buy a house in a green zone, should I be able to sue the government because I can't develop a high rise apartment block in that site? it's a restriction the government should comepensate me for?

 

[nlagalle]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth) -Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soa

i mention the shareholders because they are the ones who will potentially benefit - unfairly- if the restriction is lifted. Their choice to invest in a company with restrictions.

I dont think it is fair for a company to operate under restrictions or without a level playing field... in ordinary circumstances. But this is not an ordinary circumstance, it is an airline, with legislation laying it out that those are the terms and conditions of the sale.

if I buy a house in a green zone, should I be able to sue the government because I can't develop a high rise apartment block in that site? it's a restriction the government should comepensate me for?

unfairly? by the same token are does it also mean that its bad luck when a competitor enters the market with foreign investor with deep pockets who can pour a fair amount of cash into the company???

why isn't it an ordinary circumstance? Any other airline can set up and compete against Qantas without the same restrictions placed upon it in terms of who can invest in it.

At the end of the day they are both businesses, and therefore should be either competing on the same terms, or if a government imposes a restriction, it should be compensating for the limitations placed on the company. Once again this has nothing to do with the shareholders. It's to do with the business being able to access the same type of investors.

As to your analogy.. it would be more akin to you and a competitor both having blocks in the same street but because you were there first and bought it off the government you are not allowed to develop, but the newcomer can.