Quoting zeke (Reply 134): The only ASA I am aware of that has such as restriction with Australia is the USA, and Guam is the only proposed destination. It would be an easy 4 hr hop from CNS. |
So you're saying that
QF/JQ/VA would be able to set up Ops in Hong Kong and operate unlimited flights to China, if Australia and Hong Kong had an Open Skies Agreement ?
Quoting zeke (Reply 134): Even more incentive then for Australia to get unlimited beyond rights, for the same in return. |
Or is it now "Beyond Rights" where the flights need to originate terminate in Australia.
The problem with unlimited beyond rights from Hong Kong, is that Australian airlines don't need them. The only modern market they would like them to is China and Australia is moving more and more to direct services to China. Hong Kong as a transit point to China will wane as the Chinese airlines grow and their product improves.
Quoting zeke (Reply 134): As for foreign airlines operating domestic sectors, have a look at Europe and South America. |
Europe is a "Single Market" to airlines based there, airlines from out side Europe can't operate domestic sectors, or if they do, it is without traffic rights. Which airlines operate domestic services in South America in a country other than the one they are from ?
Quoting zeke (Reply 134): Hang on, you mean the structure that Jetstar HKG would not be allowed in Australia ?
Pot calling the kettle black. |
Far from it, the ownership structure that Jetstar Hong Kong was presenting, would not only be above requirements for a Domestic Airline, but would also allow it to operate International flights as an Australian carrier. There was 51% local ownership, 24.5% Qantas and 24.5% China Eastern. I haven't read the report, but does it state anywhere that the ownership structure did not meet local laws ?
Quoting zeke (Reply 134): Not true, otherwise QF could not sell BNE-HKG-LHR. |
Ummm, last time I checked
BNE (Brisbane) was still in Australia.
Quoting zeke (Reply 134): I was not the only person who had that opinion. |
The only other person I could see dismissing the CAPA report was "Kashmon" and his views are far from balanced. Most have called it a "Balanced Report".
The article doesn't give a total figure for losses, just the 11.1 billion yen for last financial year (doesn't specify who's or which financial year, assume Australian). So it would be the 2013-14 financial year, a loss of 11.1 billion Yen, works out at about $9.7 million a month. However, since then Jetstar Japan has opened up a second base in Osaka and aircraft utilisation has increased substantially. We should have a better idea how it is performing in the next couple of months when Qantas reports it's financials for 2014-15 and somebody wades through it to get the Jetstar figures.
Quoting zeke (Reply 134): If you they were to present a balanced report, they could have started that CX owns as much of Air China as Air China owns of CX. |
Ok. mentioning the
CX holding in
CA would've made it "more" balanced. Pretty sure it was mentioned only to show that
CX has a large share portion held by a Chinese airline, just as Jetstar Hong Kong does..... or would have.
Quoting zeke (Reply 134):
CX employs over 1000 Australian pilots, there has always been a strong desire from that demographic for their families to grow up around extended family and attend Australian schools. They are employed in Australia, and pay tax like any other Australian, get long service leave etc. The airline has bases in other countries as well for the same reason.
This is very different to the way those Australian pilots employed under contract with other airlines based in Australia, they pay no income tax in Australia, and the employer pays no payroll tax as they have a certificate issued by a country with a double taxation agreement with Australia. |
Are you trying to say that
CX does this out of the goodness of it's collective heart ?
CX does it because it's cheaper and easier for it to do it.
So
CX offer similar remuneration to it's British based pilots ? Americans ? Canadians ? Because it's also cheaper for
CX than having them in Hong Kong.
Those Australian pilots if they weren't based in Australia and still wanted to work for
CX would be based wherever
CX wanted them. You make it sound like
CX are making special exemptions for Australian pilots (and Australia), they do it because it suits the
CX business model and is cheaper and more affective for them. Everyone of those pilots would be working elsewhere and dealing with whatever their employer gave them. It is their choice to accept the
CX terms because it suits them as well. I'd work for a bit less and stay in my home country, rather than be based in certain places around the world. Please tell me you're not trying to imply that
CX are doing this just to be nice to their Australian pilots ?
As for ground staff, many airlines have ground staff in foreign countries, as long as it remains cost effective. As soon as it isn't, it will get out sourced and half of the original staff will end up doing the same jobs for less, just working for the agent.
CX don't handle their cargo in Australia, it is done by an agent company (Toll Dnata ?). Mechanics are the same, as the volume of work justifies their own staff that's great, as soon as it is no longer cost effective, it will be out sourced. The mechanics working for
CX would only be doing the smaller line jobs, anything heavy will get passed onto (QF etc) and the
CX mechanic sign off on it, as long as they are qualified too of course.
Quoting zeke (Reply 106): Now you are just clutching at straws, you have just made an allegation that the government here is corrupt. Well done. |
Forgot about this little gem last time. I'm not implying that anyone in Public Office in Hong Kong at present is corrupt, possible yes, but far less likely than during Colonial rule. However, if you are trying to suggest that there has never been "favours" done previously, you are being naïve to the extreme.