air travel: aussies protectionism!

how can the aussies got the cheek to talk about free trade when they cornered the asia pacific route and blocked out everyone? come on oz, let's be fair and be a gentleman. don't live in your own world in the outbacks and only come back to civilisation when you need to. the world is watching you. and singapore must understand that the whole world is not playing fair and there is protectionism everywhere, in usa, europe and japan. so lets not strip our pants down and walk naked everywhere asking to be screwed, for free. we need to be careful about our financial institutions and job markets. we need some protection or one day we will be bought, lock stock and barrel. and even africa will not sell us a piece of wasteland for whatever price, for us to squat there.


Speedwing said...

Aussie govt will never allow SIA to fly from Sydney/Melbourne to USA. They need those routes for their own carrier Qantas. And why would they? They do not owe Singapore anything. On the other hand Changi is open to all who wants to land there because Changi needs the trffic to survive. That is the difference.

Singapore cannot afford to practise protectionism, because the survival of Singapore depends on an open market.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Actually the do "owe" S'pore a lot ;-)

There is a S'pore-Aust free trade agrrement (FTA) currently valid, and supposedly working.

And I've said this before: where is that BIG and FEARLESS sg.gov spirit in this case? S'pore is behaving like a MOUSE. Like CRAVEN COWARDS.

Aust refusal to allow OPEN competition along this route is PROTECTIONIST and sg.gov, if they can find their BALLS, has a clear-cut case against Aust, who IMO is violating the FTA.

Forget about "reasoning" with the au.gov. They are being pressured by Qantas CEO Dixon to be protectionist.

BUT REMEMBER THIS SINGAPORE: the main sticking-point over the deal is the belief that SIA is not truly PRIVATE, nor INDEPENDENT and is in actuality, a govt company. Qantas of course, is privately owned (by BA).

But the FTA, to my knowlege doesn't say anything about "govt companies". Aust gov thas one of the biggest govt companies - TELSTRA.

So... sg.gov, where art thou? How come you're not doing what you are so good: LAW SUIT!


**PS: As an anarchist, I do not believe in FTA. No state has the right to "mandate" free trade and determine the conditions. Free trade, strictly speaking, is always a voluntary arrangement between 2 parties.

Speedwing said...

Actually BA does not own Qantas, BA only has 17% share in Qantas.

redbean said...

exactly. take them to court. sue them till all the sheep come home. i strongly believe we have a case against qantas and the aussie govt.

give it to them, legally. this is what, yes, something we do best. show to the whole world that singapore will not be kicked around and will take this continent to task.

abao said...

but, arent we practicing protectionism to an extent also? isnt the air route for Sg to Kl restricted to a few aorlines only?

redbean said...

hi abao,

i am not too sure on this. i think the protectionism part is more on kl rather than singapore. if i am not wrong, we adopt the open sky policies. so we will allow anyone to fly here and we to fly the reverse route.

hey, qantas, you be careful or we reverse your rights to fly here too. haha, think we can't say this as the cross pacific route is different from singapore australia route which i think is two ways for both sia and qantas.

Anonymous said...

Singapore practises protectionism too! Singapore refuses to let AirAsia fly from Indonesia to Singapore. Singapore refuses to let airasia operate a bus service that picks up passengers from Singapore onto Johor's Senai Airport. ANd it's funny how they preach a thing yet practises another and what lame excuses Singapore can come up with against these unfair protectionistic treatment on a YOUNG BUDGET airline, not an airline like SIA.

Singapore allows Qantas to fly in and go onward to London or other destinations because she wants to suck up to Qantas in a bid to gain the lucrative route from Australia to USA. Anyway, Qantas will not lose out if Singapore doesnt offer Qantas route. I am pretty sure KLIA will welcome Qantas will open arms + red carpets. THat's just a taste of their own medicine.

Anonymous said...

With the long range aircraft, Qantas can afford not to land in Singapore. ANd anyway, Changi is not the only decent airport in the region. Bangkok's new airport, KLIA, Hong Kong's airport... these airports are not to be rivalled with. Perhaps I think you should broaden your horizon and seek to look at things from different perspectives instead of just reading the Straits Times everyday.

redbean said...

hi anonymous,

i have not read the straits times on this issue. i am not for 100% free market unless everyone is in for it. as it is, only singapore is talking about 100% free market on the international route scene.

i also agree that there could be some protecion on the budget airlines. this they must balance over the cost and benefits or it will come back and slap them on the face.

as for interstate coach services, it cuts both ways. i may be wrong, but i think both tourism boards have come to some agreements on this. singaporean coaches would love to send singaporeans and tourists all the way to genting and penang. the senai business would not be that important for the malaysian side to trade off the more numerous and lucrative genting route.

redbean said...

the long range aircraft could by pass singapore. in fact the existing fleet could also by pass changi. but changi is still an important transit point for passengers.

but if they could develop a new market in bangkok or klia, then it will be an option. but developing such a route depends on many factors.

not sure about the numbers. if sia thinks the numbers could justify a fight with qantas, they might do it. but if the numbers are not strong, then the fight will be from different angles. it is a commercial, legal as well as political contest.

Matilah_Singapura said...

EVERY Mother Cuntry engages in prtectionist practises. This has been going one since the begining of time.

The FACT bear in mind, is that singapore and Auatralia have a MUTUAL AGREEMENT to free trade.

Australia is simply in violation of the contract.

speedwing: I stand corrected.

Anonymous said...

Bear in mind that the mutual agreement did not include clauses that allow SIA to fly from Australia to USA, i.e. the Sydney - Los Angeles route. So Australia is not OBLIGED to give Singapore the route.

redbean said...

i did not read the agreement so unable to comment on that. presumably the free trade agreement shall open up the sky as well.

leave it to the legal people to find the way, if there is one.

Matilah_Singapura said...

To anonymous:

Yes, Australia is not obliged to give S'pore the business.

Australia, however took a pro-active step in preventing SIA from the deal. Qantas went to the federal govt for protection.

Therefore, I thnk there is a case fro Aust to answer.

Still not a bloody peep from the sg.gov. Ah. we might have to wait until after the funeral.

Anonymous said...


Check this out. It sucks that you guys out there have been subjected to lots of propaganda on the Straits Times and are not expose to different perspectives of the issue. It's even more pathetic that you guys read the Straits Times as though reading the bible since Singapore performed poorly in one of the survey of freedom of speech in Singapore.

Also, Singapore practises double standards. On one hard, she's trying hard to appease those "angmohs", on the other hand, a carrier from your neighbouring country is denied access to Changi... Sigh... Dont tell me that the sg.gov. still thinks that "angmohs" are in every bit superior than Asians??

Anonymous said...


Matilah_Singapura said...

To anonymous,

Yes, that is true. SIA is far from being the "holy perfect virgin". However, the issue of being "protectionist" by bullying a small Asian airline, as shameful as this is, has got nothing to do with A CONTRACT between states regarding free trade.

I admire Mr Fernandez for his BALLS, and salute him for his capability in servicing his market - and he does this well. I also appreciate that because he is small, he will be bullied by the national carriers of practically every cuntry.