Lion’s huge jet orders expose weak Australian airline laws
Lion Air has been making references about a possible Australian venture for around seven years, dating back to a time when few in this country took it or for that matter the Indonesia aviation market seriously.
Lion Air’s huge Airbus order, placed 18 months after its huge Boeing order, exposes a weakness in the foreign ownership rules for Australian domestic airlines.
Australia allows 100% foreign shareholder equity in such carriers, such as Tiger Airways Australia (currently 100% Singapore owned) and Virgin Blue when it was set up late in 1999 (and began service in 2000), which was almost 100% owned by UK venture capitalist Richard Branson.
But no-one thought to provide for the quid pro quo so that while a giant enterprise like Indonesia’s Lion Air can own 100% of an Australian domestic carrier, investors in this country cannot own 100% of a carrier in our northern neighbour, which is rapidly emerging as a highly attractive and very large aviation market.
Lion Air has been making references about a possible Australian venture for around seven years, dating back to a time when few in this country took it or for that matter the Indonesia aviation market seriously.
However its co-founder and chief executive Rusdi Kirana did mention Australia once more, in passing, at the ceremonial signing of the order for 234 assorted A320 family single aisle jets at the Elysée Palace in Paris, an event that might make even the very thick take Lion Air seriously.
The order worth a notional $24 billion if Lion Air paid the list price, (which it didn’t) is said to have been larger than the October 2011 order for 230 assorted Boeing single aisle 737s after discounts.
It is more likely than not that we will see Lions v Tigers played out in Australia in due course, not necessarily Tiger Australia of course, which may not last long enough to be devoured.
Both the Qantas and Virgin Australia groups would be acutely aware of Lion’s ambitions, and acutely attuned to any sign that either is even exchanging raised eyebrows with Lion, since the biggest problems both Australian aviation groups face in Asia are scale, connections and capital.
Lion Air doesn’t need to cooperate with either group, it has the mass and it seems, the money, to do what it likes, if it is allowed to.
With the Boeing and now Airbus orders Lion Air appears to be playing a more patient and thoughtful game than the headline figures suggest. Its orders stretch out to 2026, and are understood to provide for orderly growth paced by retiring and replacing existing jets before they enter the more costly maintenance and overhaul cycles that affect aging high pressurisation cycle airframes.
At present Lion Air on the Boeing side has future deliveries booked for 201 new technology engined 737 MAX series airlines, 113 current technology 737-900s, 11 737-800s and five Dreamliner 787-8s. On the Airbus side it has orders for 60 current engine technology A320s, 109 new engine option A320NEOs, and 65 A321NEOs.
The Lion Air order is also a reminder that airlines that see a need for greatly increased capacity in the current and next decade simply cannot source sufficient jets on a timely basis from one manufacturer.
The Lion situation has been cited as evidence that China for example has no option but to pursue its own design and build jet projects, such as the COMAC c919, which is a 160-ish passenger single aisle jet if it is to modernise and expand its own domestic capacity, and compete against the established giants Airbus and Boeing.












Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
Ben… you are certainly correct when you say that AU laws in relation to domestic airline ownership (and just about anything else, for that matter…but let’s not go there now) are short-sighted. Remember that back in the ’90s, Paul Keating gave the Kiwis in the form of Air NZ – carte-blanche to fly ex Australia to anywhere they wanted (which they did with gusto for a while), in return for our airlines – meaning just QF for all practical purposes at the time) could fly anywhere they wanted, ex NZ. Trouble is that he forgot about geography, meaning that Air NZ had ready access to anywhere in Asia, Japan & USA, whilst QF just had, well, LAX seeing as Sth America wasn’t on anybody’s radar in those days.
But having said that, I really wouldn’t get too excited about Lion. We’ve seen and heard it all before, most recently from Tiger. Their parent also had very deep pockets, and they were also going to wipe the floor with Qantas, Jetstar & Virgin. But they came up against some of Australia’s commercial realities, namely:
a) the best way to make a small fortune here, is to start with a large one (unless you are in the business of digging up rocks or shuffling all that compulsory superannuation moolah around).
b) with a miniscule ready market compared to S.E.Asia, an airline cannot make money from hauling students and backpackers around on weekends, or grandparents on twice yearly trips to visit their kids/grandkids.
c) and business travelers here i) expect better than the kind of service Lion would be likely to offer (or which Tiger now offer), ii) are wedded to their freq. flyer status credits with QF or VA, iii) expect frequency, flexibility & reliability
and finally, keeping point b) in mind…
d) with our excessively high labour and other on-costs, they cannot make any money charging the sort of fares they want to charge, whilst at the same time meeting the regulatory standards expected by the authorities here in terms of safety, maintainence, duty hours etc etc.
Everyone is ordering….except Tiger.
Why should an airline be only Australian owned for domestic operations?
What is important is that the company whoever owns it meets Australian standards.
Starting with CASA approvals. Which would be well beyond the safety and technical standards of the present Lion Air. If there was to be a Lion Air Australia it will be run by Australian law and rules.
(Louie’s message was garbled in transmission, but I hope this has been correctly edited.)
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.