Qantas / Emirates tie up (Partnership inc. Codeshare, Status)

[Danger]

Looks like schedules will be loaded "shortly". The release also revisions to the Singapore timetable.

About Qantas - Media Room - Media Releases - Kangaroo Route prepares to hop via Middle East

 

[futaris]

Yes, but the routes are still via Singapore at the moment, until they secure landing rights...

 

[cmon0005]

Also it mentions FRA will be extended til October 2013 rather than ceasing in April 2013.

Safe approach? or signs that the schedule is behind?

 

[Awesom Andy]

EDIT: contents removed. See this thread instead:
http://www.australianfrequentflyer....ement/qantas-keep-fra-till-october-43793.html

 

[anat0l]

Well, mentioned in the Qantas press release but described in more detail on the ACCC website was this:

Qantas and Emirates withdraw application for interim authorisation

Quite interesting approach (not really sure what the ramifications of the action are, though withdrawal of an application seems to show a bit of a retreat to me). I have a feeling, along with the extension of FRA services, that the full QF/EK alliance, if approved at all, will be in force later than April 2013.

 

[oz_mark]

Quite interesting approach (not really sure what the ramifications of the action are, though withdrawal of an application seems to show a bit of a retreat to me). I have a feeling, along with the extension of FRA services, that the full QF/EK alliance, if approved at all, will be in force later than April 2013.

They've probably studied things a bit more, and decided that fighting the objections is to much of a distraction (and may hold up the final authorisation). Anyway, as we saw today, there's a whole lot of things they can do without the authorisation anyway.

 

[anat0l]

They've probably studied things a bit more, and decided that fighting the objections is to much of a distraction (and may hold up the final authorisation).

If they had a good solid case to start with, then why would they not be in a position to address the objections without much trouble?

Anyway, as we saw today, there's a whole lot of things they can do without the authorisation anyway.

True, but those things need approval in and of itself in other ways. For example, applying for traffic rights.

 

[oz_mark]

If they had a good solid case to start with, then why would they not be in a position to address the objections without much trouble?

I guess they've decided they don't need for now, and should just concentrate on the main game.

True, but those things need approval in and of itself in other ways. For example, applying for traffic rights.

Would be a bit surprised if it were a problem.

 

[Awesom Andy]

Only the partnership/relationship needs to be approved, so, in the end, QF is still allowed to change their schedule, and fly via DXB without authorisation. They only thing they won't have is the codeshare.

 

[NM]

Perhaps they have withdrawn the application with the intention of updating it and resubmitting so they can address any of the concerns that have already been raised by others?

 

[yohy?!]

Perhaps they have withdrawn the application with the intention of updating it and resubmitting so they can address any of the concerns that have already been raised by others?

though would they really be willing to reroute via DXB with no possibility of feeder flights to EU? seems more likely they will just keep everything at SIN

 

[markis10]

What can I say - watch this space :evil:

 

[NM]

though would they really be willing to reroute via DXB with no possibility of feeder flights to EU? seems more likely they will just keep everything at SIN

I was not meaning to imply any intention to change the overall plans. Just to re-word the submission to address the concerns raised by others/competitors more clearly to try to make the whole process more streamlined. Now they know some of the arguments to be used against them, they may want to re-word the submission somewhat.

 

[JessicaTam]

I was not meaning to imply any intention to change the overall plans. Just to re-word the submission to address the concerns raised by others/competitors more clearly to try to make the whole process more streamlined. Now they know some of the arguments to be used against them, they may want to re-word the submission somewhat.

Is that more likely to be approved than just addressing the concerns as part of the consultation process?

 

[NM]

Is that more likely to be approved than just addressing the concerns as part of the consultation process?

who knows??? I am just throwing up a possible reason for the withdrawal.

 

[tm.smile]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Qantas only withdrawn interim approval, hoping that full approval is given sooner and won't impact on the April 1 start date?

 

[flychrisfly]

It is a little strange that you can't book flights from Sydney to Dubai on qantas.com now...

 

[oz_mark]

It is a little strange that you can't book flights from Sydney to Dubai on qantas.com now...

They've only just applied for traffic rights to carry passengers to Dubai. It'll come in due course.

 

[flychrisfly]

They've only just applied for traffic rights to carry passengers to Dubai. It'll come in due course.

I'm sure you're right but it's also weird that flights to London from April 2013 show as stopping in Dubai!

 

[ajw373]

I'm sure you're right but it's also weird that flights to London from April 2013 show as stopping in Dubai!

No it's not weird. From April they are flying SYD/MEL to LHR via Dubai. However until they get the rights to carry passengers to/from Dubai as a standalone destination they cannot sell seats to/from Dubai. What is odd though is they have transit rights for passengers to stop over in Dubai (so long as they continue on to DXB, SYD or MEL), but no idea how you book that if you cannot choose Dubai as a destination.