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.

 

[Mattg]

From this article:

“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,” wrote Mr Wallace.

Um, doesn't Jetstar (100% owned by Qantas) use foreign cabin crew on pretty much all its long-haul flights out of Australia? I believe many of them are based in Thailand and their pay and conditions are substantially less than Australian-based crew.

Not to mention Jetconnect, Qantas' UK cabin crew base, etc. as others have already pointed out.

 

[drron]

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.

But the QF objection mentions both pilots and crew.
The Qantas group certainly uses foreign based cabin crew.
So the flights would be OK with QF if the had VA pilots and Qatari cabin crew.
Or would using QR pilots who live in Australia be OK with QF?

 

[SYD]

Not to mention Jetconnect,

They’re basically a labour hire company now and TBH probably not wildly different to new hires to QF in Oz?

Maybe 20 odd years ago the IR and legacy conditions were wildly different but probably not so much now.

Yeah, JQ and AY (wetlease) crews are different but possibly not wildly more than QR, EK and EY etc

 

[henrus]

They’re basically a labour hire company now and TBH probably not wildly different to new hires to QF in Oz?

They even have a swish website to match:

Home | Jetconnect

www.jetconnect.co.nz

 

[jrfsp]

From this article:



Um, doesn't Jetstar (100% owned by Qantas) use foreign cabin crew on pretty much all its long-haul flights out of Australia? I believe many of them are based in Thailand and their pay and conditions are substantially less than Australian-based crew.

Not to mention Jetconnect, Qantas' UK cabin crew base, etc. as others have already pointed out.

What about “take home pay” rather than advertised pay ? Income tax of flat 10%, there are plenty of expat flight crew in the gulf so pay and conditions can’t be that bad

They’re basically a labour hire company now and TBH probably not wildly different to new hires to QF in Oz?

Maybe 20 odd years ago the IR and legacy conditions were wildly different but probably not so much now.

Yeah, JQ and AY (wetlease) crews are different but possibly not wildly more than QR, EK and EY etc

Jetconnect (flight crew) salary is significantly less than AU based crew (not like NZ has a lower cost of living either, if anything it’s worse)

 

[SYD]

Jetconnect (flight crew) salary is significantly less than AU based crew (not like NZ has a lower cost of living either, if anything it’s worse)

Not so sure these days? Presumably no one gets bought into QFi now on the legacy agreements? Maybe allowances are different?

But yes, having just been in NZ for a week recently, it’s not exactly “cheap” to visit. But not wildly different to Oz (but certainly better than PER)…

 

[justinbrett]

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

I think you’re smart enough to work out they mean crew working as Qatari residents.

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

ECAC has been an arm of ICAO until 2020 and is now independent. It’s effectively a mini ICAO for Europe, so I’d say it’s more powerful than a single jurisdiction.

But here is some of what the EU has to say about wet leasing:
REGULATION (EC) No 1008/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

(8) In order to avoid excessive recourse to lease agreements of aircraft registered in third countries, especially wet lease, these possibilities should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances, such as a lack of adequate aircraft on the Community market, and they should be strictly limited in
time and fulfil safety standards equivalent to the safety rules of Community and national legislation.

 

[RooFlyer]

I think you’re smart enough to work out they mean crew working as Qatari residents.

I’m smart enough to realise that Qantas writes a formal letter to someone like ACCC they should write what they mean, not something else. And when they give a reference to support a statement, the statement should reflect what the reference says, not something else.

“Qatari” does not mean 'crew working as Qatari residents' (or even Qatari residents working as crew ) It means 'of Qatar'. International airline crew for a particular national airline can be residents of anywhere and that’s covered in what the reference actually said.I think many Qantas crew are residents of countries other than Australia.

Further, if Qantas was smart enough, they would’ve reference the EU situation you mention rather than referencing ECAC recommendations and implying some sort of jurisdictional decision there.

Its a sloppy and carelessly written letter and worthy of the name 'amateur' especially when you consider the recipient would be well aware of Qantas' past behaviour in relation to employment laws and the hiring foreign pilots and cabin crew.