Qatar Airways to acquire 25% of Virgin Australia

[justinbrett]

I'd suspect the decision on the partnership/wetlease is going to be delayed based on wet leasing staff issues rather than the VFF partnerships, QF and various unnamed staff in their submissions highlight an indefinite date with no plan of transition to Australian crew.

This could possibly end like the infamous Regional/Indonesia capacity application earlier in the year.

I think there’s certainly more opposition to it than some here thought.

However it doesn’t rule out VA dumping the controversial parts like exclusivity and potentially committing to a dry lease at a certain point.

QF doesn’t have any pilots based outside of Australia as far as I’m aware.

 

[HS-TQE]

I think there’s certainly more opposition to it than some here thought.

However it doesn’t rule out VA dumping the controversial parts like exclusivity and potentially committing to a dry lease at a certain point.

QF doesn’t have any pilots based outside of Australia as far as I’m aware.

Apart from many JQ Australia-Asia services operated by foreign crews, PER-LHR are operated by UK crews IIRC.

 

[justinbrett]

Apart from many JQ Australia-Asia services operated by foreign crews, PER-LHR are operated by UK crews IIRC.

I thought it was just cabin crew, not pilots.

 

[jase05]

However it doesn’t rule out VA dumping the controversial parts like exclusivity and potentially committing to a dry lease at a certain point.

Maybe they should have just kept status quo until they had the keys and then tear up the other partnerships

 

[Digicola]

Maybe they should have just kept status quo until they had the keys and then tear up the other partnerships

Ok but don’t forget to say that it was due to overwhelming customer feedback, otherwise we might be tricked into believing it isn’t an enhancement

 

[henrus]

Based on what everyone here has said, the report and the submissions I'd really like to see the deal approved but with 3 main conditions:
1. It doesn't come at the detriment of existing partners (QR forcing SQ codeshare network to shrink and removing VS/EY) - many of those on here noted this and so did the airport submissions.
2. The wet lease needs to convert to a dry lease within a fixed timeframe (I think 2-3 years is very acceptable) - almost every submission notes this including QFs.
3. Some sort of goal for the end of the 5 years (if approved) that they'd need to demonstrate to be considered for renewal. There is a lot of we're going to add more to other airports, add more frequency etc but I'm skeptical of any of those comments.

I thought it was just cabin crew, not pilots.

That is correct.

 

[jrfsp]

I think there’s certainly more opposition to it than some here thought.

However it doesn’t rule out VA dumping the controversial parts like exclusivity and potentially committing to a dry lease at a certain point.

QF doesn’t have any pilots based outside of Australia as far as I’m aware.

I think there are NZ hired flight crew ?

 

[henrus]

I think there are NZ hired flight crew ?

Ah yes Jetconnect!

 

[HS-TQE]

Jetconnect would still have 737 crew iirc. Although Jetconnect FAs can and have regularly worked widebody services (e.g BNE-LAX)

 

[jase05]

It doesn't come at the detriment of existing partners (QR forcing SQ codeshare network to shrink and removing VS/EY) - many of those on here noted this and so did the airport submissions.

Yeah, they probably could have left that off for now and work out something later. Even if they kept EY and the others they could offer half status credits or something on EY/SQ etc and then let the frequent flyers make up their mind. Or they could simply tear up any partnerships in a few months time. You can’t force someone to be partners, always a way out

 

[justinbrett]

Yeah, they probably could have left that off for now and work out something later. Even if they kept EY and the others they could offer half status credits or something on EY/SQ etc and then let the frequent flyers make up their mind. Or they could simply tear up any partnerships in a few months time. You can’t force someone to be partners, always a way out

Yeah that’s the silly thing about it. They could have said nothing and just done it anyway.

I can only think they thought it would help their application, which furthers my belief the submission was written by amateurs.

 

[RooFlyer]

Speaking of being written by amateurs.

More from the Qantas letter:

As already raised in public statements by various union officials1, the proposed wet lease enables Virgin Australia to schedule services crewed entirely with Qatari pilots and crew, whose pay and conditions are substantially less than Australian-based crew.

Ref 1 links to:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/qantas-pilots-union-says-qatarvirgin-deal-a-sham-arrangement-which-wont-benefit-australians/news-story/bdf8cc883c7549e350a85a719ce702b3

Where there is no reference to 'Qatari' (meaning Qatar nationality) pilots and crew - merely

The proposed “wet lease” deal due to begin in mid 2025 would result in Virgin selling tickets on flights to Doha operated by Qatar Airways’ aircraft and crew.

"Qatar Airways' crew" could be of any nationality - even Australian.

Then:

Other jurisdictions have already recognised this loophole and recommend conditions be put on wet leases to ensure they’re not misused. This includes setting time limits, ensuring they represent only a small proportion of the lessee’s fleet and are not being used to avoid local policy or regulations.2

Ref 2 links to

https://www.ecac-ceac.org/images/documents/ECAC-Recommandation_21-1_1997.pdf

Which describes the recommendations from ECAC. There is nothing there saying other jurisdictions have recognised this loophole. The ECAC is not a 'jurisdiction'.

Really.

This, with the hypocrisy re employing Australian pilots and crew should se this letter laughed out of consideration.