Al Baker Is Leaving QR

[drron]

Sounds like he’s undoing a few of his predecessor‘s decisions - many never made a lot of sense eg he was never a fan of First class - period.

Perhaps the changes at the top of QR and QF might open the door to new negotiations?

I don’t think so. If anything the situation has worsened since the new CEO of QR took over in November last year.

 

[anat0l]

Sounds like he’s undoing a few of his predecessor‘s decisions - many never made a lot of sense eg he was never a fan of First class - period.

There are several successful carriers out there who don't have F; it wasn't unreasonable to think QR were going down that path. After all, they were proposing a J product that essentially rivalled most F around the world. So not entirely convinced that that was, in and of itself, a decision that lacked sense.

It may be surprising to me because judging by the quality of QR F service I got recently, you'd think no further investment was forthcoming for it. (No, it wasn't that it was bad...)

Perhaps the changes at the top of QR and QF might open the door to new negotiations?

Yeah, no. Maybe the CEOs are on better terms than the previous ones, but the QR/VA tie up is too attractive.

 

[RSVKanga]

I like what the new guy is doing, especially that he sees Australia as an area for growth .

It’s an area for growth, but it won’t be an area for growth. Polls continue to show that the ALP will comfortably retain government next year, and there are competition and geopolitical issues surrounding QR in Australia, which is why the government approved TK’s massive expansion into Australia as an alternative to QR. TK will replace QR as the ME airline with the second largest market share in Australia soon.

Perhaps the changes at the top of QR and QF might open the door to new negotiations?

Nope. QR’s provocative partnership with VA has guaranteed QF and QR to be at war with each other for the foreseeable future. As people have mentioned above, the situation between the two airlines has worsened since VH took over at QF and BMAM took over at QR.

In fact, since the start of this year we’ve seen QF (oneworld) domestic connections in Australia completely disappear from the QR website in favour of VA on many domestic routes. They’ve also played a part in the removal of QF options from oneworld’s own website when it comes to QR connections, meaning oneworld is instructing consumers to fly on VA.

I expect the next move would be QF FFs being denied entry into QR’s lounges even though it’s meant to happen on paper as part of the oneworld convention.

 

[SYD]

Nope. QR’s provocative partnership with VA has guaranteed QF and QR to be at war with each other for the foreseeable future.

My comment was tongue in check…

I expect the next move would be QF FFs being denied entry into QR’s lounges

Not happening…

 

[RooFlyer]

It’s an area for growth, but it won’t be an area for growth. Polls continue to show that the ALP will comfortably retain government next year, and there are competition and geopolitical issues surrounding QR in Australia, which is why the government approved TK’s massive expansion into Australia as an alternative to QR. TK will replace QR as the ME airline with the second largest market share in Australia soon.


Nope. QR’s provocative partnership with VA has guaranteed QF and QR to be at war with each other for the foreseeable future. As people have mentioned above, the situation between the two airlines has worsened since VH took over at QF and BMAM took over at QR. I expect the next move would be QF FFs being denied entry into QR’s lounges even though it’s meant to happen on paper as part of the oneworld convention.

Wow. So many definitive, authoritative, no-room-for-doubt statements. Wonder where you get your info from

I expect the next move would be QF FFs being denied entry into QR’s lounges even though it’s meant to happen on paper as part of the oneworld convention.

Not happening…

Actually, it is. QR's Al Safwa First lounge only for QR elites and First pax (with $250/bottle wine being served, probably just as well). But this situation is not unique - BA restricts entry to LHR's Concord Room similarly, and I think AA with its ?Chelsea lounge at JFK. Not so much of a convention as a 'like to have'.
______

Anyone grizzling about a OneWorld airline aligning with a non-world carrier in preference to a OW partner, needs to recall some history. Remember what Al Baker said in an interview a year or so ago. They very much wanted to strengthen their connections with Qantas, but Qantas decided to provocatively renew their alliance with non-Oneworld Emirates (gasp!). So then QR decided to align with Virgin. What goes around, comes around ...

 

[RSVKanga]

but Qantas decided to provocatively renew their alliance with non-Oneworld Emirates (gasp!).

You’re not aware that QF-EK started in 2012, whereas QR only entered OW in 2014? QR knew that there was going to be problems for them in Australia yet still proceeded with OW membership.

 

[RooFlyer]

You’re not aware that QF-EK started in 2012, whereas QR only entered OW in 2014, knowing that there was going to be problems for them in Australia?

Note that I referred to the renewal of the QF-EK partnership (in 2021).

 

[RSVKanga]

Anyone grizzling about a OneWorld airline aligning with a non-world carrier in preference to a OW partner, needs to recall some history

Again, in 2012 when the QF-EK partnership started, neither QR or EK were oneworld airlines, so your point is more of twisting the truth rather than a genuine counter argument.

 

[anat0l]

Actually, it is. QR's Al Safwa First lounge only for QR elites and First pax (with $250/bottle wine being served, probably just as well). But this situation is not unique - BA restricts entry to LHR's Concord Room similarly, and I think AA with its ?Chelsea lounge at JFK. Not so much of a convention as a 'like to have'.

I read @RSVKanga 's remark to mean QF being denied access to all QR lounges (perhaps being sent to another third party lounge in its place).

oneworld elites didn't have access to certain QR lounges as it was (unless they fit the class of travel criteria), which, as you say, is similar to BA's CCR (or one could even argue QF's domestic Business lounges).

Of course, @RSVKanga 's remark may well have been tongue in cheek, too (alluding to basically a mutual persona non grata relationship).

 

[RSVKanga]

Note that I referred to the renewal of the QF-EK partnership (in 2021).

And what’s wrong with renewing an already established and popular business partnership that existed before QR barged into OW?

 

[serfty]

You’re not aware that QF-EK started in 2012, whereas QR only entered OW in 2014, knowing that there was going to be problems for them in Australia?

That reinforces @RooFlyer 's point.

QF/EK alliance began when there was no ME carrier in *O. It was initially a ten year agreement

Now it has been renewed - this time there IS a ME carrier in *O.

 

[RooFlyer]

Again, in 2012 when the QF-EK partnership started, neither QR or EK were oneworld airlines, so your point is more of twisting the truth rather than a genuine counter argument.

Sorry, that's just bizarre.

You complained how QR had 'provocatively' partnered with VA. I pointed out that QF decided to renew its partnership in 2021 with (still) non-OW EK rather than enhancing with QR, who by that time was in Oneworld. So Qantas actively continued its relationship with as non-OW airline over a OW one. Your complaint about QR and VA is completely null and void. Just accept that Qantas renewed a partnership with a non-OW airline, and later QR did just the same, and move on.

And what’s wrong with renewing an already established and popular business partnership that existed before QR barged into OW?

Dunno about popular. Have you seen the monstrous carrier charges that EK charge, including on QF code share and Award tickets? How popular is that, I wonder?

Still keen to know where you get your info to make so many absolutely 'certain' statements, such as in post 23.

 

[anat0l]

Dunno about popular. Have you seen the monstrous carrier charges that EK charge, including on QF code share and Award tickets? How popular is that, I wonder?

That significant increase was well after establishing the QF-EK agreement.

Probably not popular change at all (and EK members themselves and any other partners are likely not buzzed about it either). They must be still filling those planes, though, so someone's coughing up.

Not too terribly different to QR and EY charges that are levied on VA redemptions, but obviously not to the same degree as EK.

So it really just leaves the question of how much overall commercial benefit the QF-EK partnership has brought, especially when QF's Kangaroo route strategy has changed (or evolved) significantly since the birth of the partnership. In a same way it remains to be seen how QR-VA will also go (although VA is not a longhaul airline... yet?)

 

[jase05]

TK will replace QR as the ME airline with the second largest market share in Australia soon.

Oh, really?
Considering TK at this stage has zero interest in markets such as ADL, PER and even BNE for the time being I think QR are safe for a while yet. I don’t see TK having more than 1-2 daily’s from MEL and SYD for the immediate future.

 

[SYD]

And what’s wrong with renewing an already established and popular business partnership that existed before QR barged into OW?

They actually came close to entering a new QF/QR partnership in lieu of EK but that collapsed. The article doesn’t elaborate why QF didn‘t follow through…

The Qantas-Qatar showdown was years in the making

The key players in the dispute that captured the Senate’s attention this week – from Anthony Albanese to Qatar Airways boss Akbar Al Baker – have long histories.

www.afr.com

 

[RSVKanga]

You complained how QR had 'provocatively' partnered with VA. I pointed out that QF decided to renew its partnership in 2021 with (still) non-OW EK rather than enhancing with QR, who by that time was in Oneworld. So Qantas actively continued its relationship with as non-OW airline over a OW one. Your complaint about QR and VA is completely null and void. Just accept that Qantas renewed a partnership with a non-OW airline, and later QR did just the same, and move on.

See, you're twisting the truth because you don't respect the fact that the situation between QF and QR is a two-way road, but not a two-lane road. One direction of the road (QF) has only one lane, while the other direction has six lanes (QR).

You don't understand that QF and QR operate on completely different business models based on their completely different geographical circumstances, business structure, fleet size and revenue stream. QR, with their VA partnership, have hit QF where it hurts them the most since Australian domestic flights account for 60-70% of Qantas' overall revenue, and Qatar's unnecessary partnership with VA takes consumers off a sector of QF that produces the vast majority of its revenue (Qantas Domestic and QantasLink).

For QR, the Australian market is really a drop in the ocean for them when it comes to source of revenue as they have over 170 other markets and destinations in over 85 other countries apart from Australia, so the QF-EK partnership does not hit QR where it hurts despite people like you hyping it up as a massive financial threat to QR when it's so insignificant from their perspective (even if it was a threat they still get infinite supply of oil funds ). For QR, Australia is viewed as an isolated island with a small population (it is) but for QF, the Australian market is the lifeblood of their enterprise and is adversely impacted by decisions that only impact the Australian domestic and international traveller market. So when you compare QF-EK to VA-QR, the former is far less provocative from a business perspective. It's only 'provocative' on paper and then hyped up by the Australian-based QR lobbyists when the circumstances facing QF and QR are nowhere near to scale.

 

[RooFlyer]

See, you're twisting the truth because you don't respect the fact that the situation between QF and QR is a two-way road, but not a two-lane road. One direction of the road (QF) has only one lane, while the other direction has six lanes (QR).

What on earth???? (To put it politely)

You don't understand that QF and QR operate on completely different business models based on their completely different geographical circumstances, business structure, fleet size and revenue stream. QR, with their VA partnership, have hit QF where it hurts them the most since Australian domestic flights account for 60-70% of Qantas' overall revenue, and Qatar's unnecessary partnership with VA takes consumers off a sector of QF that produces the vast majority of its revenue (Qantas Domestic and QantasLink).

And the problem is?

For QR, the Australian market is really a drop in the ocean for them when it comes to source of revenue as they have over 170 other markets and destinations in over 85 other countries apart from Australia, so the QF-EK partnership does not hit QR where it hurts despite people like you hyping it up as a massive financial threat to QR when it's so insignificant from their perspective (even if it was a threat they still get infinite supply of oil funds ). For QR, Australia is viewed as an isolated island with a small population (it is) but for QF, the Australian market is the lifeblood of their enterprise and is adversely impacted by decisions that only impact the Australian domestic and international traveller market. So when you compare QF-EK to VA-QR, the former is far less provocative from a business perspective. It's only 'provocative' on paper and then hyped up by the Australian-based QR lobbyists when the circumstances facing QF and QR are nowhere near to scale.

I tried, I really tried, but I have no idea what point is being made here.

I have often thought you do a lovely subtle leg-pull, what with all the conspiracies you raise in various threads, the 'QR lobbyists' bits and so on. But the complete lack of indicates that you are probably serious and the argument seems to boil down to 'commercial competition for Qantas is bad, full stop'. Qantas would agree with you (passing strange). But for the rest if us, its or

I think we've explored this aspect enough, so I'll leave you to bang the drum for Qantas if they wish.

 

[drron]

But the QF pushers fail to understand that QR had 2 choices for a domestic Australian partner. So they tried QF first and QF turned them down.
So QR turned to their second choice VA which they had every right to do and the only sensible business choice. So if it hurts QF so be it. QF brought it on themselves. A classic example of a business own goal.

 

[elanshin]

None of us are privy to any of the real discussions and negotiations behind closed doors. For all we know QR could've put in ridiculous negotiations (or QF did) and thus things don't work out.

It's the way it is and unless one party decides to start a he said she said (which no business in their right mind would as it has no benefits to anyone) there's no way of knowing what has happened besides whatever is there at face value.

Often times there's a lot more going on behind the scenes from ranging all the way from godlike strategic masterstrokes to "i dont like that guy" pettiness and everything in between.

 

[pangwen]

TK will replace QR as the ME airline with the second largest market share in Australia soon.

Depends on what you mean by "soon". Given TK:
- only have one-stop flights (via SIN) to Melbourne at the moment,
- is only planning to do the same for Sydney by the end of this year
- is intending to introduce non-stop flights for these two in 2026 (two years from now), and
- has recently been quoted in media as saying "it’s focused on Melbourne and Sydney with no plans for Brisbane or Perth."

I can't see how they would overtake QR in *at least* the next two years, unless QR decide to massively reduce their (non-stop) frequencies to Australia in the meantime. I personally wouldn't call a 3+ year timeframe "soon", but I guess that's a subjective term.