SIA re-incorporates fuel surcharge in base fare

sia-silkairSingapore Airlines (SIA) announced that fuel surcharges will from the end of March be incorporated in the base airfares. The policy, which also covers insurance surcharges, will apply to SilkAir as well.

As the global pressure to protect consumer rights mounts, aviation authorities are exhorting airlines to publish full fares so as not to mislead consumers and make it difficult for them to compare prices and arrive at an informed decision. Some airlines have been fined for misleading customers stating only the base fares. SIA said it is already advertising the full fares.

Virgin Australia was among the first very few airlines to announce it would not show the fuel surcharge as a separate cost but build it into the airfare way back in January 2015, at a time when the cost of oil was falling and there was public demand for airlines to similarly reduce the fuel surcharge. (See A conscionable call as oil price plummets: Will airlines reduce airfares? Jan 26, 2015)

The full surcharge was introduced as a way to pass on the cost to the consumer in the wake of rising oil prices, and falling fuel prices have made it quite unnecessary, even cumbersome. One wonders if this, having come a full circle, will change yet again when fuel prices rebound.

Advertisements

Chinese conglomerates beat SIA in Virgin Australia acquisition

Courtesy GETTY IMAGES

Courtesy GETTY IMAGES

IN a separate article I wrote about Singapore Airlines’ interest in taking up Air New Zealand’s stake in Virgin Australia, its concern being that “if it did not step into the void left by Air NZ, it might op[en the door to a competitor” (What price for SIA in its pursuit of a Virgin bride? TODAY, Apr 27, 2016), I mentioned the likelihood of Chinese carriers making that move. And so it has come to pass.

The HNA Aviation Group which owns China’s fast growing Hainan Airlines (the fourth largest in the country) was the first to move in, acquiring 13 per cent of Virgin Australia with plans to increasing its stake to almost 20 per cent. Virgin chief executive John Borghetti welcome the acquisition as “a big coup” that “sets us up for very, very good growth going forward in that very lucrative inbound but also outbound, traffic between Australia and China.”

Indeed, there has been a healthy growth in traffic between Australia and China in recent years. According to Mr Borghetti, more than one million Chinese travelers visited Australia in 2015 and this number is expected to grow to 1.5 million by 2020. Clearly HNA sees the potential and the opportunity could not have come a better time.

Now a second Chinese conglomerate Nanshan Group hopes to reap the benefit of increased tourism in Australia. The firm has bought a 20-per-cent stake in Virgin Australia from Air New Zealand. Air NZ chairman Tony Carter said: “We believe Nanshan Group will be a very strong, positive and complimentary shareholder for Virgin Australia. The sale will allow Air New Zealand to focus on its own growth opportunities, while still continuing its long-standing alliance with Virgin Australia on the trans-Tasman network.”

Both HNA Aviation Group and Nanshan Group will now join SIA and Etihad Airways as co-partners in the Australian carrier. While Etihad has not expressed any interest in buying off Air NZ, SIA appears once again to have lost the lead in a game that started out as the Singapore carrier’s to play.

Another Virgin on the rocks

Courtesy Virgin Australia

Courtesy Virgin Australia

THE name Virgin is ringing in the air. Following on the heels of Alaska Airlines paying US$2.6 billion for Virgin America, wrenching the bid from rival JetBlue Airways, Singapore Airlines (SIA) announced it has increased its stake in Virgin Australia form 22.91 per cent to 23.11 per cent at a cost of A$3.18 million (US$2.39 million). SIA has approval from Australia’s Foreign Investment Review Board to increase its stake to 25.9 per cent.

Air New Zealand, the largest shareholder of Virgin Australia with a stake of 25.89 per cent, said it was considering an exit to focus on other growth areas. If SIA takes up its full allotment, it will be a larger partner than Etihad Airways, which owns about 24 per cent of the Australian carrier. The Virgin Group holds only a stake of about 10 per cent. There is speculation that SIA is poised to go higher, subject to approval from the relevant Australian authorities.

History repeats itself. SIA’s relationship with the Virgin Group goes as far back as 1999 when the Singapore carrier made headline news buying 49 per cent of Virgin Atlantic at a cost of £600m (US$844 million). What then appeared to be a coup turned out not be a lemon, which after years of lacklustre performance, was sold to Delta Airlines at a hefty loss in 2014 for £224m.

Yet the circumstances today might be a little different. SIA feels more pressured to secure its Australian market against national carrier Qantas. Together with the other partners, SIA is a contributor to an A$425 million loan to Virgin Australia to keep it above waters. While Virgin’s trans-Pacific flights to the US would accomplish a dream long in the making for SIA, it is not as imperative as it was then when it had hoped Virgin Atlantic would augment its trans-Atlantic foray into the US east coast. It could be worse if Air New Zealand’s stake in the Australian carrier falls into the hands of competing rivals that may threaten SIA’s wider market beyond Australia.

SIA paid dearly for the increases take in Virgin Australia at 46.72 cents per share which is well above the current price of 35.5 cents. So it is said that Alaska Airlines too paid a high price to take over Virgin America, which will enlarge Alaska’s west coast market and give it access to the east coast. Virgin chief Richard Branson proudly admitted: “They paid a high price for a great brand.” Indeed, Virgin America, voted consistently as the country’s best airlines in the past four years, could add to Alaska which itself is known for providing consistently good service at reasonable fares. Somehow Virgin Australia has tried hard but with not as much success as expected to bite off Qantas’ 80 per cent market share. How much more can SIA contribute, noting the struggle of erstwhile Tigerair Australia?

SIA and Virgin are reputable brand names. While there is a chance that they can build on each other’s strength, there is no guarantee that the chemistry will work twice as well.

Which Asian airlines might be interested to buy into Virgin America?

Photo courtesy Virgin America

Photo courtesy Virgin America

UP for sale, Virgin America has some suitors lining up. It has received takeover bids from JetBlue Airways Corp and Alaska Air Group Inc. In this era of the mega carriers (consider the mergers of United Airlines and Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines, and American Airlines and USAir), a tie-up with another carrier strengthen Virgin’s competitive ability. And while it is almost certain that the merger would be with another American carrier, with analysts placing bets on JetBlue as the best fit, apparently some unidentified Asian carriers have also expressed interest. Still, be that as a remote possibility, one cannot help but be curious and speculate who the likely candidates might be.

Two big names come to mind immediately because of their successes, networks and financial capability, namely Cathay Pacific Airways and Singapore Airlines. Both airlines are keen on expanding their US market. Cathay flies to Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco while Singapore Airlines (SIA) operates to Houston, Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco. Both airlines have codeshare access to several other destinations. Cathay’s codeshare partners include Alaska Airlines and American Airlines while SIA already codeshares with Virgin and with JetBlue.

So it looks like SIA more than Cathay would be favoured on relationships alone. Since foreign ownership rules governing US airlines require the bid to be submitted jointly with a US partner. It would be convenient for SIA to join hands with JetBlue. Of course, Cathay may partner Alaska Airways, but historically Cathay is not quite interested in equity participation. Although it has a 20.3% stake in Air China and 49% in Air China Cargo, that could be a matter of expedience to secure its market in the growing China mainland market.

SIA on the other hand, limited by a hinterland market, tried in its early years to grow through acquisitions. In 1999, it bought 49% of Virgin Atlantic and subsequently 25% of Air New Zealand. Although both buys subsequently proved to be lemons, resulting in heavy losses, the misstep might be less strategic than circumstantial. Unfortunately that has hurt SIA deeply more psychologically than financially as the airline became more cautious about such moves. In subsequent years it failed in its seemingly reluctant bid for a stake in China Eastern Airlines, and the SIA Group was plagued by the poor decisions of its budget subsidiary Tigerair in joint ventures in Indonesia and the Philippines. In Oct 2012 SIA bought a 10% stake in Virgin Australia, joining tow other foreign partners namely Air New Zealand and Etihad Airways. In much the same way that Cathay needed to secure its market in China partnering with Air China, SIA needed to secure its Australian market against the competition by Qantas. Six months after, SIA increased its stake to 19.9%.

But is SIA even interested in a stake in Virgin when its codeshare partnership with JetBlue already places it in an advantageous position to benefit from a JetBlue takeover of Virgin? Would a bid jointly with an Asian partner jeopardise JetBlue’s chances if the powers that be preferred an all-American merger a la the big three of United, Delta and American?

Besides Cathay and SIA, one should not ignore the voracious appetite of the China carriers in the national trend to acquire foreign assets. And why must it be premised on full-service carriers that are already serving destinations in the US? What about a budget carrier with dreams of new frontiers? Maverick AirAsia chief Tony Fernandes who models himself after Virgin guru Richard Branson and who had been where others were hesitant, even afraid, to go may yet surprise with an expression of interest even if it is no more than just that. He is one of the few airline chiefs who, like Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary and Qantas’ Alan Joyce, understood what an opportune good dose of publicity could do.

All this, of course, is speculative. Asian carriers are likely to be less concerned this time than when the mergers of the American big three took place. Together with Southwest Airlines, the big three control 80% of the American market. Virgin and its alleged interested parties JetBlue and Alaska are all largely domestic carriers. Even if Southwest throws in a bid (but for its size that may not pass the antitrust law as easily), it is still the same scenario. SIA’s connections with JetBlue and Virgin will continue to stand it in good stead, but if it’s Alaska that carries the day, then it is Cathay that stands to benefit from the new, extended connection. Or does it really matter when there are already subset agreements across partnership lines that allow you to fly an airline of one alliance and connect on another in a rival group? That’s how complex today’s aviation has become.

As the price of crude oil plummets, fuel surcharge holds sway

fuel-priceAs the price of crude oil continues to plunge to record lows and all indications are that it is likely to remain low, the burning question on the air traveller’s lips must that which asks if and when airlines in good conscience would pass the savings back to their customers. In 2008, the price was as high as close to US$140 per barrel; today it has collapsed to US$30.

That situation has persisted long enough for the airlines to make the move, and it appears it is not likely to happen, not any time soon if at all. Giving back is so hard, indeed. The fuel surcharge was implemented, the argument being that the volatility of the oil price is something beyond an airline’s control. So much for understanding that it must be a cost of doing business! It is ludicrous to assert that because of that, the cost should be taken out to be borne by the customer. What other costs are not borne by the traveller as part of the fare?

Sure, the public can choose not to fly. But it is not as straightforward as that. In truth, the authorities too are neither keen to see the major airlines floundering. The repercussion can be widespread. Consider how some governments had very quickly doled out rescue packages to save a national airline on the brink of collapse.

The airlines know they are in a position of strength, supported by an international body that constantly warns about unprecedented losses when there should be more attention focussed on efficiency. In good conscience, it is only fair that when airlines pass on rising fuel costs to their customers, that they should similarly reduce the surcharge when the price of fuel falls. They are all too ready to cite the familiar and over-used counter arguments that even as the price of crude oil falls, they have not benefitted since they have already paid up too much in the past, that they have only passed on a modicum of the actual cost to their customers, and that they have suffered heavy hedging losses. So they took a bad gamble and the customers have to pay for their mistake. What, when they benefit from hedging gains?

Last year American carriers reported better than expected profits, largely attributed to the low fuel price and increased demand on the back of an improved economy, but none saw it reasonable to pass on the savings or part of it back to their customers as they rewarded their shareholders handsomely and argued that surpluses would be reinvested in their product in the interest of the customer.

Today there is the temptation to use the gain arising from the fuel surcharge to make up for the high costs in other areas of doing business. Take, for example, Air Canada, suffering from the fall in value of the Canadian dollar which results in reduced revenue vis-à-vis the high cost of foreign expenses. In fact, airlines can congratulate themselves on the clever implementation of the fuel surcharge model, which has led to a slew of other surcharges that are so ambiguously nomenclature that the consumers are nonetheless any wiser of what they are paying for over and above the fare. These ranged from so-called government levies to other operating requirements that airlines do not deem to be theirs to bear.

The good thing is that some governments recognize the prickly issue and have cautioned airlines to play fair with the customer and not misrepresent the cost of an airline ticket. As far as the air traveller is concerned, it is the bottom-line fare that matters, whatever the components. And as the fuel price keeps heading downward, there is no better time than now to do away with the fuel surcharge and other similar surcharges. Australian flag carrier Qantas and rival Virgin Australia have already moved in that direction. Of course, the consumer must expect a higher fare price when the cost of doing business, whether from a rising fuel price or other expenses, increases. Perhaps airlines fear losing the surcharge protection when in an open competitive environment, there will be pressure on them to improve efficiency and productivity.

What conclusions can you draw in an airlines survey?

SIA courtesy SIA

WE continue to be fascinated by rankings of the world`s best airlines, although the results of most surveys – take away some bias here and there – are quite predictable and almost similar across the board. The winners by and large boast excellent cabin service, great food, comprehensive in-flight entertainment and innumerable choices, more generous legroom than what their competitors offer, and frills such as complimentary champagne and brand name overnight kit. It is all about creature comforts. And the impressions are understandably almost always skewed by the luxuries of the upper classes.

Traveller magazine Conde Nast has just posted its list of the world’s best airlines, surveyed among some 128,000 readers. Of course this is not the definitive list of excellence to the detail, in the same way that no other list can be as definitive without considering factors such as the type of respondents involved, the scope of the survey and the criteria adopted, but there are nevertheless interesting conclusions to be drawn from them. So often it is more interesting to look at the omissions.

Long haul can impress or disappoint

Singapore Airlines (SIA) is a perennial favorite of Conde Nast readers, ranking top for 27 of 28 years. It is hardly surprising, which to be saying it seems even redundant. The airline has long earned the reputation as one of the world’s best airlines, and is frequently celebrated in other surveys as well. It was ranked second after Qatar Airways in the last Skytrax survey. It is hard to find a match that depicts consistency in excellence. The real clincher seems to be in its long haul operations – such flights that are likely to elicit the flaks when passengers are apt to become more stressed and demanding. Here is where SIA is able to make the difference by a well-trained crew that anticipates a passenger’s needs, always mindful the passenger’s comfort first and foremost in the service.

All the airlines in Conde Nast’s top ten are long haul operators, with the exception of Porter Airlines which is more a city shuttle that flies between Toronto in Canada and US destinations such as Boston, Charleston and Myrtle Beach.

While the long haul impresses, it can also take apart an airline’s reputation, which explains why some airlines are inundated with complaints about being handled like a can of sardines. Interestingly, the Conde Nast list of best American carriers is made up of short-haul operators to the exclusion of the big three of United Airlines, American Airlines and Delta Air Lines. Virgin America is ranked first followed by JetBlue, Hawaiian Airlines, Southwest Airlines and Alaska Airlines.

Dominance by Asian and Gulf Carriers

Again, it is not surprising that Conde Nast’s top ten ranks are dominated by Asian and Gulf carriers, which together were placed in not only in the top three ranks but also seven of the top ten positions. The Gulf big three of Emirates Airlines, Qatar Airways and Etihad Airways were second, third and fifth respectively. Qatar was tops in the earlier Skytrax survey, ahead of Emirates (5th) and Etihad (6th). Other Asian airlines in the Conde Nast list are Japan Airlines (6th), Korean Air (7th) and Cathay Pacific (10th). Both SIA and Cathay were also ranked among Skytrax’s top ten airlines.

Dominance by Asian and Gulf carriers means the stark exclusion of airlines of other regions. Only one European airline – Virgin Atlantic – was listed, and in fourth placing. One asks: Where are British Airways, Air France and Lufthansa although going further down the list you will find Swiss International Air Lines (17th) and Finnair (20th)?

That and the marked absence of US carriers demonstrate the superior service culture of Asian and Gulf carriers and their growing popularity that continue to put pressure on their rivals in the competition. The US big recently accused the Gulf big three of unfair competition supported by state subsidies. In truth, North American airlines are not inefficient, but they lack the soft pampering touches of their competitors. There is a host of pertinent questions. Can US carriers be as friendly or, to go one further, do better? And, ultimately, do they even see the need?

Luxury improves image

Etihad boasts the “residence” suite that comes with a bedroom, private bath with shower and lounge. That is for now the forerunner in the race for the ultimate luxury in the air, leaps ahead of SIA’s first class suites and all the other airlines’ flat bed allures. There are also the extras: Etihad provides a concierge service that will make a dinner reservation for you when you land, and some airlines offer door-to-airport limousine services. The slant towards premium classes is to be expected, for that is what makes news even as the perks are limited to a smaller but more lucrative market of the travelling population. If there is one airline that seems to be doing much more for coach than many others, it is Air New Zealand, which offers “Skycouch” in economy – seats that can be converted into a lie-flat double bed – but then again, this is limited to only three seats in the cabin, reminiscent of the days when EVA designates a small number of seats as the ill-defined premium economy before the subclass takes on an identity of its own today.

Comparison is the crux

In any survey, the crux is the comparison, particularly when they are all said to be providing good cabin service and excellent food amongst the creature comforts. The Conde Nast survey again surfaces the rivalry between SIA and Cathay Pacific in the top ten, favoring the former. Interestingly, Japan Airlines (6th) is ranked ahead of All Nippon Airways (11th), and Korean Air (7th) ahead of Asiana Airlines. That indicates a reversal of order that has been the reading of many past surveys, and may well portend how the competition may be trending.

In the case of Gulf carriers, the ranking rivalry among Emirates, Qatar and Etihad is very much a close call going by several international surveys. At the same time, we cannot ignore the inclusion of Turkish Airlines in Conde Nast’s top 20. Turkish was fourth in the Skytrax survey.

In the close rivalry between Qantas (15th) and Virgin Australia (19th), the former continues to enjoy an advantage over the latter.

What else matters? All the hype about going green as the world becomes increasingly conscious of the impact of climate change? That Korean Air prepares its food from humanely raised and organically grown produce. That El Al offers an iPad rental program. That Virgin Atlantic has a stand-up bar. That Qantas offers Select on Q-Eat that allows you to pre-order your meal. That Air New Zealand makes its safety presentation more entertaining than others. That British Airways allows you to log on to a movie as soon as you board and stay with it until the aircraft is docked at the gate on arrival. The list goes on. And one wonders.

This article was first published in Aspire Aviation.

Qantas’ Asianisation thrust

Courtesy Getty Images

Courtesy Getty Images

Qantas is adding more flights between Australia and Hong Kong as well as Manila. From October 26, there will be four weekly services between Sydney and Hong Kong added to the current daily services from Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Services between Sydney and Manila will increase from four to five weekly services, commencing early December to last until late March next year.

This is nothing quite surprising. It may even be said to be expected in response to increasing demand from travellers. But moving resources across the network to meet demands may not be as simple as it seems; it’s not as if there are spare aircraft sitting on the tarmac waiting to be assigned. But Qantas seems to have found a formula to work round the complications, or so it seems, particularly when it comes to seasonal demands.

Qantas International Gareth Evans said: “We’re pleased to add to the seasonal services we’re set to operate to Asia later this year, with the fifth weekly Manila flight again representing the dynamic nature of our network, which has the flexibility to offer our customers more flights during peak seasons.”

This apparently has been made possible by the airline’s continued focus on more efficient use of aircraft across its fleet. And the agility, one may add, in making adjustment to the schedule. To be not only reactive but also proactive ahead of change and the competition, so as to stay lean and mean

That aside, the operations in the last few years demonstrate Qantas’ increased focus on Asia. The airline has earlier announced an additional 140 services to Singapore, Jakarta (Indonesia), and Wellington and Christchurch (New Zealand) over the summer holiday.

Services between Perth and Singapore will be daily, competing directly with Singapore Airlines (SIA)’s four flights daily. It was only in June this year that Qantas resumed direct services between the two cities, operating five times a week. Mr Evans said: “Our customers told us they missed us.” So that forebodes well for Qantas, which is also looking beyond Singapore with connections on partner airlines to destinations such as Koh Samui and Phuket in Thailand, and even Tokyo in Japan, which testifies to the continuing importance of Singapore as a transfer hub. For travellers arriving from Singapore, Qantas will be offering direct onward services from Perth to Auckland from October to April 2016, the third year in a row that it is doing this.

Qantas executive manager international sales Stephen Thompson said: “A key part of our strategy is listening to and responding to our customers’ needs and developing an agile and flexible network which offers more options during peak periods.”

Good work there, and one then asks: What after that? There is a possibility that a temporary operation may become permanent, subject to regulatory approval, particularly if you believe in the industry wisdom that capacity creates demand or as a way to gain approval when demand justifies the case. Yet when you consider the short duration of the fifth weekly service between Sydney and Jakarta – from 2 December to 10 January 2016 – you may be persuaded to believe that Qantas is unlikely to sit its aircraft idle. Qantas has also announced additional services to Bali, a popular destination for Australian holiday travellers – four additional weekly during December this year and January next year, making a total of 33 return services between Sydney and Bali, adding to 65 services per week by Jetstar from Australia. Operating across the northern and southern hemispheres has given it a geographical advantage; it means catering to different peak seasons.

The transformation program that Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce said was the reason for the airline’s dramatic turnaround in profitability had identified Asia as its best bet for growth and expansion. (See Qantas is Asia Pacific’s new star performer, 27 Aug 2017). Australian politicians have long debated the toss of aligning their country with Asia (instead of Europe), at least economically. While the proposal to set up an Asia-based premium carrier never took off, that did not stop Qantas from expanding its reach into the Asian hinterland by other means.

No foreign carrier calling at Singapore more than Qantas has taken advantage of Singapore’s strategic location at the crossroads of international routes. For years until 2013, Singapore has been an important hub for Qantas flights. Although the airline has since shifted its hub for the kangaroo route to Dubai, in an alliance with Emirate Airlines, it continues to retain, even growing, the Singapore hub for connections to the rest of Asia, a strategy that Virgin Australia tries to replicate in a three-way tie-up with SIA and Air China.

However, the game continues to shift. In recent years, Qantas has been introducing more direct services between Asian and Australian destinations. This makes sense particularly when these destinations become tourist attractions in their own right and attract more traffic to justify direct routings. China for one has become Australia’s biggest inbound tourism market, projected to contribute up to A$9 billion (US$6.4 billion) annually to the Australian economy by 2020. Chinese carriers too have increased their frequencies to Australia.

In this connection, Qantas has strengthened its alliance with major Chinese carriers such as China Southern and China Eastern Airlines to deliver expanded services, better departure and arrival schedules, shorter transit times, increased frequent flyer benefits and a wider range of onward connections within China and Australia. Commencing April last year, customers on both Qantas and China Southern could travel on each other’s flights to the four destinations of Xiamen, Kunming, Fuzhou and Urumqi within China, connecting at Guangzhou, from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, and on the Qantas Domestic network as well as on services between Sydney and Auckland.

More recently, a codeshare agreement with China Eastern not only further increases capacity between the two countries but also maximises Qantas’ presence within China. Mr Joyce said:
“We cannot fly to every destination in China. However, our deepened relationship with China Eastern supports our successful strategy to work with key partners around the world to offer the most comprehensive network and world class travel experiences for our customers.”

Being visible helps; Chinese travellers voted Qantas as having the “Best Cabin Crew” in the 2014 iDEAL Shanghai Awards, judged by more than 100,000 people in Shanghai across all categories, and evaluated by a jury of reporters, columnists and lifestyle writers.

Underscoring how partnerships are at the core of the Qantas strategy in Asia, the airline announced in Mar last year a codeshare agreement with Bangkok Airways which will significantly improve travel options for its customers travelling across South East Asia. Customers will be able to fly from Bangkok and Singapore to six new destinations including Ko Samui, Chiang Mai and Phuket. (See Air New Zealand poised for growth, Sep 10, 2015)

Qantas’ Asianisation thrust is not confined to the operations of the parent airline alone. The budget brand of Jetstar adds to its reach across the region, as can be seen in the set up of the Jetstar Group’s ventures in different locations – Jetstar Airways (Australia and New Zealand), Jetstar Asia Airways (Singapore), Jetstar Pacific Airlines (Vietnam), and Jetstar Japan. The only setback it experienced so far was the Hong Kong Air Transport Licensing Authority (ATLA)’s rejection of its application for Jetstar Hong Kong’s low-cost alternative at the doorstep of the large China hinterland, a move that met with strong objection from Hong Kong based carriers led by Cathay Pacific. (See The real battle behind Jetstar HK’s rejection, Jun 30, 2015)

Optimistically, however, Jetstar Hong Kong’s rejection may be compensated by the increased flights by Qantas between Sydney and Hong Kong. While stating the obvious that “customers travelling from Sydney will have the choice of double daily flights to Hong Kong on peak days of the week for business travel,” Mr Evans hinted that “we’ll look at expanding beyond that if the opportunity is available.”

Hong Kong will have more to be concerned about. As in the case of Singapore which has thrived as a transfer hub, more direct flights between Australian and Chinese destinations do not spell good news for it.

For an airline like Qantas based in a far corner of the world, it is blessed that geography has not deprived it of opportunities in other parts of the world. The ATLA’s rejection aside, while Mr Joyce prided himself as the master of a transformation program that has driven the airline’s dramatic recovery, Qantas too has much to be thankful for the largely liberal skies that loom over Asia. Something for Australia to consider when called upon to open its doors to foreign carriers that wish to mount transpacific operations from its ports to the Americas.

This article was first published in Aspire Aviation.