Air protectionism alleged by airline

Press, 18 April 1981, Page 1

Air protectionism alleged by airline

By

LES BLOXHAM

Travel Editor

Government-backed policies . designed to protect Air New Zealand and Qantas from outside competition have been strongly criticised by the managing director of the Mount Cook Group, Mr P. 5. Phillips. . Describing protectionism as a major handicap to the future growth of tourism, Mr Phillips fired a succession of salvoes at the Australian and New Zealand Governments and their airlines in a.j unusually hard-hitting address at the annual Ansett travel writers’ seminar in Launceston, Tasmania.

Mr Phillips said he considered it incredible that the two Governments, while- vigorously battling protectionirt barriers imposed against their exports by other countries, should adopt those very same measures to protect their own aviation industry. Such a “typically blinkered political and bureaucratic” attitude aimed at protecting Qantas and Air New Zealand was doing nothing to- help tourism in either country, he said. Australia’s I.C.A.P. fare policy severely limited tourists who wanted to visit more than one country on a "circle Pacific” itinerary, he said. “The New Zealand Government continues to keep out competition from overseas airlines to protect . Air New Zealand’s privileged position on its

trans-Pacific routes. I am quite sure that Cathay Pacific and C.P., Air would fly to Auckland if only the Government would let them,” said Mr Phillips. “Laker in Britain would also give his back teeth to fly to Australia and New Zealand, but both Governments are preventing him from doing so. “Such attitudes, cannot fail therefore to make me feel a little pessimistic -about the growth prospects of tourism here oyer the next five years,” said Mr Phillips. Calling for a far larger degree of deregulation to allow other airlines access to Australia and New Zealand, Mr Phillips said: “If Air New Zealand and Qantas cannot survive under those conditions then perhaps we should have a very close look at their futures.” He emphasised that he was not suggesting the abandonment of either airline. “We must have them, but do they have to be Government owned?” he asked.

“Perhaps then we should be looking at reducing the scale of their operations or even at the merging of Air New Zealand with Qantas — a suggestion that will not make me very popular in New Zealand. But someone must find an answer: we simply can not close down on getting people into the area just to protect operations that are not successful. “As our two countries move closer together .economically, is the thought of

an Australasian international airline really so outrageous?” he asked. Mr Phillips also criticised airline management for giving in too easily to union demands. “The unions know very well that no matter what they claim in terms of better wages or improved conditions—featherbedding is a better word for it — the bill will eventually be paid by the taxpayer.” Referring to the New Zealand Government’s domestic aviation policy, Mr Phillips said it seemed to advocate total protection for Air New Zealand where the airline wanted it, and deregulation on those routes where it was impossible to make a profit.

He described as “strange” the fact that Air New Zealand was being left to decide how, when, and to whom it would delegate those routes.

Mr Phillips said he was' pleased to see the Christ-church-Hobart air link established, although he doubted the advisability of both Australian domestic carriers flying the route: "Perhaps one or both are trying to prove a ‘ point; that they are capable of operating out of Australia,” he said. “I know they would have preferred to fly to Christchurch from Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane had they been allowed and they would have had a good chance of making a satisfactory return on their investment.”