QF/JQ Comparison to Regional Mainline/Low Cost Subsidiary Airlines

[Justin L]

There has been much discussion on other threads, and the articles attached, on the QF/JQ setup and whether JQ is "killing" QF.

I thought I would start this thread to see if anyone can shed some informed discussion on how the QF/JQ setup (i.e. JQ being a wholly owned subsidiary of QF, but operated separately) is similar or different to similar regional airlines such as Singapore Airlines/Silk Air and Cathay Pacific/Dragonair.

On the surface of it, the mainline carrier focuses on the trunks routes, while the low cost subsidiary focuses on secondary/regional/leisure routes - similar to QF/JQ.

However, are Silk Air and Dragonair merely lower cost subsidiary full service airlines, rather than LCCs, making their comparison more akin to QF and the now defunct AO, and say JL and the now defunct JO (JALways)?

Are Silk Air and Dragonair successful under their parent, and if so how is this different to the AO and JO failures? Is it management, or is that they are operating from city-states and therefore purely international? Or something else?

I am interested in other members' constructive thoughts.

[Ash W]

I think it is debatebale weather AO was a failure for Qantas. I think you will find it served it's role well, but with the introduction of Jetstar on international routes it became redundant rather than a failure.

With your other list of airlines you seem to have forgotten Tiger which was set-up by and is partially owned by Singapore Airlines. Though clearly the difference between Silk and Tiger is Silk is the regional (narrow body) carrier for Singapore Airlines, whereas Tiger is their LCC. You will see routes given to Tiger that have not worked for Silk in much the same way as Qantas gives Jetstar routes that don't work too well for them.

[Justin L]

Ash,

Thanks for your comments. I hear what you are saying re AO. Yes, they probably became redundant following JQ's introduction onto international routes, rather than a failure. Although AO was predominantly hubbed out of CNS with several destinations (TPE, F'UK, CTS from CNS and BKI from SYD come to mind) never taken over by JQ international (maybe just poor performing routes or not the best utilization of aircraft - similar to JNB, HKT and NAN for VA?). CNS for JQ only became a later addition with flights to NRT/KIX/NGO and DRW-SIN (or is CNS-DRW-SIN still operated by 3K for JQ?).

Re Tiger (TR), while partially owned by SQ, I don't really consider the SQ/TR relationship the same as QF/JQ or SQ/Silk, as QF/JQ codeshare/interline with each other on international connections as do SQ/Silk. But yes, you are right that SQ can use TR to give non-performing Silk routes to, so there is definitely an overall structure there to consider for sure.

[Nils Kenny]

Singapore Airlines and Tiger in Fact have a Common owner. Singapore Airlines do not in Fact own Tiger and in Fact they put Silk Air or themselves to compete with Tiger. I know after having spoken to Crew from Singapore and Silk they work together in that Silk Air is just Low density short haul. The crew all with Silk all fly out of Singapore and Return to Singapore and do not Overnight anywhere.

[Ash W]

Not quite Nils. Singapore Airlines and Tiger do NOT have a common owner, think you must be thiking of Jetstar Asia, which like Singapore Airlines has Temasek Holdings as shareholders. (Tamasek has about 22% and Qantas 44%)

When it comes to Tiger, Tiger is owned by a company called Tiger Airways Holding which is 32% owned by Singapore Airlines themselves. They are also the largest shareholder.

Silk Air however is a 100% owned subsidiary of Singapore Airlines.

Your right that Singapore created Silk Air etc, there is however a clear link between Singapore and Tiger in both ownership and to a lesser extent route sharing. As mentioned before there have been routes that Singapore/Silk have given to Tiger.