Sg/Au crash in open sky
-
Singapore urges Open Skies deal as part of FTA with Australia30 May 2006 CNA
2.Under FTA,it seems open skies deal as part of FTA.
SYDNEY : Singapore is pressing to incorporate a full "open skies" deal into a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) with Australia following Canberra's recent refusal to grant Singapore Airlines access to the lucrative Sydney-Los Angeles route.
Trade Minister Mark Vaile told The Australian Financial Review newspaper that Singapore wanted the open skies issue covered during a biannual review in coming months of the free trade pact originally signed in 2003.
Vaile said, however, that Australia was standing by its position that the two issues must be kept separate.
"It was deliberately left out of the the FTA because it's a separate negotiation conducted by transport departments," Vaile said.
"It's a stand-alone issue that we will continue to deal with on its merits by itself."
Vaile argued that Australia had already progressively opened up access for Singapore Airlines in Australia "at a fairly dramatic rate over the last six or seven years to the point where they just have enormous access".
The newspaper said Singapore's campaign had been given a boost by the release of a letter from former deputy prime minister John Anderson to Singapore in which he raised the possibility of a "state of the art open skies agreement" being reached in parallel with the free trade talks.
Prime Minister John Howard has been accused of favouring Australia's main airline, Qantas, by frustrating foreign companies' attempts to expand services to and onward from Australia.
The Financial Review said Qatar Airways, Vietnam Airlines and Cathay Pacific had all been rebuffed by the government in recent months when they sought broader access to Australia in recent months.
Howard's government in February rejected Singapore Airlines' request for access to the Australia-US route even though the Singapore bid was reportedly backed by several cabinet members, including the tourism, transport and foreign ministers. - AFP/ch
3.Outgoing Sg Transport Minister Yeo said in his last interview,
Article 22
Air Transport Services
4. Both Parties agree to review developments in the air transport
sector at the first review of this Agreement under Article 3 (Review) of
Chapter 17 (Final Provisions), or at any other time agreed
between the Parties, with a view to including these
developments in this Agreement.
5. While both Parties affirm their rights and obligations under
the Agreement between the Government of the
Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of
the Republic of Singapore relating to Air Services, signed
on 3 November 1967 and any subsequent amendments
thereto, both Parties agree to work towards an Open
Skies Air Services Agreement and to review that work
in accordance with the provisions of Article 22.4.
6. The Parties affirm, mutatis mutandis, their rights and obligations
under the GATS, including the Annex on Air Transport Services.
that Aussie so far had not given their official refusal of
Sydney--LA route request.This is not responsible.Is Aussie
distracted and thought thay have done so,like Gomez?
4.31.05.2006 news Minister Yeo expressed the same view.
5.
But the Singapore campaign may be assisted by the release of a letter - obtained by the Review under freedom of information laws - in which former deputy prime minister John Anderson wrote to Singapore in the lead-up to the original FTA talks saying he had asked his department to resume consultations, hoping it would lead to a "state of the art open skies agreement".
The Singapore Australia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA), signed in July 2003, is up for two-yearly review in coming months.
Singapore Airlines was excluded in February from the lucrative trans-Pacific route, reportedly in favour of Qantas and Virgin Blue.
Singaporean sources say the FTA review will be reliant on progress of the open skies issue. -
I don't see how Australia should sell out their national airline on what it deems as an advantageous route for itself.
Why should they outsource that route out to foreigners ? At least the Aussies are PROTECTING their VERY own Qantas' INTERESTS unlike our dear country who prefers foreign talents to their own Singaporeans. For that , I salute Australia for not giving into foreigners. AT LEAST THEY TAKE CARE OF THEIR OWN FIRST. -
Does protectionism work?
Perhaps Singaporeans can start a campaign to boycott Australian farm products in favour of New Zealand ones. The government cannot do it without contravening WTO rules but consumers can boycott products of any particular nation.
In the UK, citizens have managed to stop some banks from outsourcing call centres by moving their business elsewhere. Will Singaporeans do likewise or will Singaporeans go fro the cheapest goods and services? -
Protectionism of their own air route is fine. It is the only air route they have that gives Qantas an edge over the rest of the airline industry . Why should they sell out their own interests?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Does protectionism work?
Perhaps Singaporeans can start a campaign to boycott Australian farm products in favour of New Zealand ones. The government cannot do it without contravening WTO rules but consumers can boycott products of any particular nation.
In the UK, citizens have managed to stop some banks from outsourcing call centres by moving their business elsewhere. Will Singaporeans do likewise or will Singaporeans go fro the cheapest goods and services?
Singaporeans can chose to do whatever they want . Do you think many Singaporeans will pay for an heavily regulated australian farm product which cannot compete against the unregulated pesticide loaded but CHEAP china and brazilian products? Maybe the health conscious and well to do Singaporeans will but definitely not those who have to struggle against Foreign Talents . -
Australians lose out by having to pay higher prices for airfare...that the price they have to pay for protectionismOriginally posted by fymk:Protectionism of their own air route is fine. It is the only air route they have that gives Qantas an edge over the rest of the airline industry . Why should they sell out their own interests? -
Not really , they can opt to go for other airlines which does not use the route or they can take United Airlines since it takes that route and it is American ( which is fair enough since Qantas uses LAX too) . As far as I know, Australians will pay to support fellow aussie companies as long as it helps their economy. Protectionism and patriotism to their own ensures that Australians will have a job, especially the hardworkers, to pay for their air fares. Keeping the money in the country for the country is the key point.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Australians lose out by having to pay higher prices for airfare...that the price they have to pay for protectionism
I don't even mind a few cents more to buy a fresh australian product in Australia than pay cheaply for some crappy imported pesticide loaded product which will have a direct impact on my personal health. Heck I am an organic food supporter but that isn't the point.
Look at Singapore- protectionism is a key area they have to look into other than giving jobs to foreigners when singaporeans can do the job. I also note that protectionism can go both ways - look at our government and a particular stranglehold on power.
Well that is not the protectionism that works in Australia - protectionism of Australia is for the country , for its economy and for the people , not for the government diplomacy. -
Singaporeans should do that too. Australians have lots of raw materials, commodities, natural resources. We don't. That they are "protecting" the airspace for their own interests tells us all the more we should protect our own interests BECAUSE WE HAVE NOTHING AND WE SHOULD NOT LET OTHERS USE OUR AIRSPACE, OUR MARKETPLACE FOR THEIR OWN (NOT MUTUAL) BENEFIT AT OUR EXPENSE.
As far as I know, Australians will pay to support fellow aussie companies as long as it helps their economy. Protectionism and patriotism to their own ensures that Australians will have a job, especially the hardworkers, to pay for their air fares. Keeping the money in the country for the country is the key point.
We have nothing but people and who's going to provide them a living when we keep giving jobs and airspace rights away to foreigners who don't reciprocate?
Surely over time, we'll be so drained, depleted and poor coz the HAVE-foreigners now have MORE.
-
EXACTLY MY POINT!Originally posted by macjoe:Singaporeans should do that too. Australians have lots of raw materials, commodities, natural resources. We don't. That they are "protecting" the airspace for their own interests tells us all the more we should protect our own interests BECAUSE WE HAVE NOTHING AND WE SHOULD NOT LET OTHERS USE OUR AIRSPACE, OUR MARKETPLACE FOR THEIR OWN (NOT MUTUAL) BENEFIT AT OUR EXPENSE.
We have nothing but people and who's going to provide them a living when we keep giving jobs and airspace rights away to foreigners who don't reciprocate?
Surely over time, we'll be so drained, depleted and poor coz the HAVE-foreigners now have MORE.