Indeed, only you do have to bear in mind that it works both ways, and if Canada blocks out EK and EY, the UAE will block out ACA, meaning a lose lose for both countries, with neither airline able to make a profit, but a gain for those in the middle of the two... :ireland-flag:

 

Regards,

Ró.

Should have taken the Canadian stance instead as a deal with Emirates is a deal with the devil:

 

http://en.wikipedia....viation_dispute

 

Reality is this is two oil producing nations in a competitive squabble. Canada has more oil then any Middle Eastern Nation so this is competition between nations.

 

I don't know what Aussies excuse is....LOL

 

Many European countries have resisted (and still do) the expansion of the large middle east airlines and their requests for landing slots all around Europe. But, with Australia at the far end of the so-called "Kangaroo routes" and the Middle East hubs right in the middle, Qantas management (and the Australian government) have decided that a business war was not the way to go. It seems very wise to me (but it's only me) since a hub system midway between Australia and Europe (whether it is in China or the middle East) is unavoidable at this time. If you can't beat them, join them !

 

Bruno

It's all very well to blame the unions for "not realizing that the times have changed" but remember that unions are people too. Put yourself in the position of the middle-aged worker with a mortgage, kids in college, saving for retirement, and a lifestyle he'd like to maintain. Now the CEO comes out and says "Well mates, the stockholders are not getting as big a dividend as they'd like and my bonus package isn't getting any bigger, so I'm going to have to cut your wages." How many do you think are going to jump up and say "Heck yes, please cut my bloated salary"? I'm not saying I have an answer, just saying I think it's human nature to want to hang on to what you've got as long as you can.

It's all very well to blame the unions for "not realizing that the times have changed" but remember that unions are people too. Put yourself in the position of the middle-aged worker with a mortgage, kids in college, saving for retirement, and a lifestyle he'd like to maintain. Now the CEO comes out and says "Well mates, the stockholders are not getting as big a dividend as they'd like and my bonus package isn't getting any bigger, so I'm going to have to cut your wages." How many do you think are going to jump up and say "Heck yes, please cut my bloated salary"? I'm not saying I have an answer, just saying I think it's human nature to want to hang on to what you've got as long as you can.

Of course that is correct, it does take courage to cut your own salary to help the business survive, and no one wants their salary cut or their hours increased.

IMHO, if they take a pay cut they should be offered profit sharing instead, it's actually a really good system.

And FWIW, I don't have a problem with CEO's taking a massive bonus if they get the job done right, it is a hard job and they do have to give up a lot, and if they fail they're kicked out and unlikely to find another job of similar standing... I have a problem if they take a bonus when a company isn't doing well, but when it's turning a profit I see no reason they shouldn't get one...

Of course that is correct, it does take courage to cut your own salary to help the business survive, and no one wants their salary cut or their hours increased.

IMHO, if they take a pay cut they should be offered profit sharing instead, it's actually a really good system.

And FWIW, I don't have a problem with CEO's taking a massive bonus if they get the job done right, it is a hard job and they do have to give up a lot, and if they fail they're kicked out and unlikely to find another job of similar standing... I have a problem if they take a bonus when a company isn't doing well, but when it's turning a profit I see no reason they shouldn't get one...

 

Therein lies the rub. Many CEOs seem to get massive bonuses even when the rest of the company is forced to take a pay-cut, and they receive huge severance packages regardless of their performance, after which they get a cushy job on a board of directors (or two, or three) somewhere.

Like you I think getting a large salary for a highly responsible job is fine, but the other side of that coin is that you should be held to account for your performance. One can also question in some cases whether the amount of extra value they add to the company compared to 'normal' employees is really proportional to the difference in salary, but that's another matter.

japascoe makes a good point about ceo compensation and severance packages and their disconnect from performance or merit. Another thing about ceo pay is that some Fortune 500 companies rank their status by how much they pay their ceo. When I worked for a well-known airframe manufacturer they brought in a new ceo and his compensation had nothing to do with what he as an executive brought to the company, but was determined by what a company of their status should pay a ceo.

 

While with the same company, while they were posting record profits, managment came to the union at contract time and insisted that we take a cut in benefits so the company could "remain competative" while the ceo, who made 5,000 times our average salary, took a "much deserved" bonus based on the company's performance. When we ended up striking the company painted us in the media as "greedy b*stards" for making unreasonable demands, when in fact all we wanted was a continuation of the existing contract. We eventually got what we wanted and the company is still thriving, so apparently we didn't ruin their competativness.

Regarding the Queers And Nutters Tasman Air Service long hauls, fencer's article is correct. Their major problem is the middle eastern hubs and what that offers the travelling public. Living in NZ, the same applies - I can board a flight in NZ with Emirates, and arrive in the UK, 30 minutes from my family home town (and all that with minimal transfer issues PLUS 1200 channels of entertainment enroute).

 

I thus avoid the USA, then London, then a lengthy car journey to round it off.

 

As much as I would prefer to support Air New Zealand (or even Qantas for that matter), they cannot offer the same door to door service that I as a regular long distance traveller has come to expect.

<br />I thus avoid the USA, then London, then a lengthy car journey to round it off.<br />

 

The biggest problem route ANZ1 is that it has to stop over in KLAX, considered the worst airport in the western world by many. This route is the shortest route to England but people prefer to stop over in Hong Kong, Shanghai or Dubai over KLAX as it is a more pleasurable passenger experience.

 

KLAX has lost its ways and no longer compares to these other airports for passengers in transit. This is also an economic loss.

One of the problems Qantas faces is that the unions, particularly the three largest representing Qantas employees, continue to live by enlarge in a world long gone. Like all ful service legacy airlines, in days gone by, they could offer conditions of employment that they were able to pay for due to limited competition and they could charge accordingly. Such things as pension schemes that in todays world are unaffordable and hence BA's several billion pounds hole in their scheme and similar problems with American airlines pension schemes. Also working practices affect the number of staff required per flight and adds to the cost base but bizaarly the unions don't insist on the same practices for other airlines in Australia. If you compare airfares between Qantas and other airlines in direct competition on international routes, you will usually see that Qantas is the most expensive. The fact that Qantas still made a large loss on their international services is telling but seems to have been ignored by the unions. They also seem to forget that for the airline to invest in the toys they like to play with, the company needs to make a profit. Qantas tends to buy its aircraft through cash flow rather than leasing.

 

Another issue is permitted routes into Europe. The EU has only allowed Qantas limited access to European destinations. They currently fly to London and Frankfurt. Previously they have flown to Rome and Paris. Due to EU restrictions, they were only allowed to fly to Paris 4 days a week. Limited access restricted their ability to complete with Asian and Middle Eastern airlines who are able to fly to more destinations. During the competition between the A350 and B787, the EU said to Qantas, if you order the A350 we will increase the number of destinations and frequencies in Europe. The current situation where you fly to London on Qantas and then back track to other European destinations makes it a long trip and more expensive. With code shares, you can currently fly Qantas to Singapore (I think) and then fly Air France to Paris or fly Qantas to HK and then Cathay Pacific to Rome. The proposed agreement between Emirates and Qantas will be great for Qantas customers. It will also give Qantas the ability to consolidate and then expand from a position of financial strength. An interesting point, Qantas is one of the few airlines in the world with an investment grade credit rating.

 

Management haven't always made the right decisions and given the benefit of hindsight probably would have done things differently. Overall the Qantas product is a good one and they have invested millions in product development and delivery. But at the end of the day, you need to fill the plane with fare paying passengers that at the very least cover costs.

During the competition between the A350 and B787, the EU said to Qantas, if you order the A350 we will increase the number of destinations and frequencies in Europe.

Do you seriously imagine the EU meddling in a negociation between a carrier and a manufacturer? Right in the middle of the WTO Boeing-Airbus dispute? In any case, attribution of landing rights in specific countries is not handled by the EU. The problem for Qantas is not limited landing rights in Europe, it's a problem with the location of the new world hubs in the Middle East and China (besides the other problems that all legacy carriers face with unions, fuel costs, low cost carriers and the poor economy)

 

With code shares, you can currently fly Qantas to Singapore (I think) and then fly Air France to Paris or fly Qantas to HK and then Cathay Pacific to Rome.

 

For your information, Qantas has recently announced the cancellation of its previous business agreements with both BA and Air France.

 

Having said that, I don't disagree with the rest of your post.

 

Bruno

Bruno

 

For ypur information, the former CEO of Qantas confirmed after the announcement that they had selected the B787, that the EU had made the offer. And yes the EU does interfere with negotiations. BA buying A320 series aircraft is a case in point.

 

You will note I said you can CURRENTLY fly. The Emirates deal does not take affect until April 2013, subject to regulatory approval.

Bruno

 

For ypur information, the former CEO of Qantas confirmed after the announcement that they had selected the B787, that the EU had made the offer. And yes the EU does interfere with negotiations. BA buying A320 series aircraft is a case in point.

 

Hi Graig,

 

The EU doesn't sell Airbuses. EADS and airbus do, period. So it may have been a figure of speed, although I am guessing there was probably also a good amount of lobbying going on at all levels, including maybe also the EU.

 

Difficult to evaluate the influence or politics but I am sure most carriers, as indeed most businesses, resent any outside interference in their choices.

 

Regarding BA, they "inherited" their first Airbuses when they bought out another British company (I believe it was British Caledonian). They decided later-on to buy Airbuses rather than B737s to renew their single-aisle fleet but, not beeing an insider, I can't comment on why they made this choice. As the Airbus wings are made in England, I would suspect that if there was any outside influence, it was more British than EU but I don't really know. Remember howerver that BA was fully privatized at the time....

 

In any case, pls also remember that quite a few US airlines have chosen Airbuses, and I am sure their boards didn't give a damn about the EU commission. But having said that, EADS's decision to start manufacturing in the US in the future is not (only) due to the dollar/euro parity.

 

Finally, not so long ago, Air France a longtime Boeing customer for long range aircraft, decided on a split Boeing-Airbus buy (B787-A350) and yes, a few politicians (French, not EU), made statements to the effect that AF-KLM should buy only Airbuses. Once again, not beeing an insider, I can't comment on why AF-KLM decided on this split but I wouldn't be surprised if, as most large companies, they were influenced by factors like : risk reduction, delivery schedule, and, of course, the different capabilities of the different ac families.

 

You will note I said you can CURRENTLY fly. The Emirates deal does not take affect until April 2013, subject to regulatory approval.

Duly noted. :smile:

Regards,

Bruno

. The EU has only allowed Qantas limited access to European destinations. They currently fly to London and Frankfurt.

 

Really? Flights between the Uk and Australia are governed by an agreement between the two governments concerning air services which came into force on 2nd March 2012.

 

http://www.fco.gov.u...012AustraliaAir