Qatar denied extra capacity into Australia

[OATEK]

Sorry, since Qatar Airways is a 100% state organisation its really no distinction at all. One part of the Qatari state apparatus goes into bat for h the benefit of another branch. If we keep just using just Qatar or Qatari, then little meaning is lost in these discussions.

Not being able accept the difference between Government to Government treaty matters, and the airlines that benefit from them, is in my view to ignore reality. The decision made by the Australian government, and initially leaked from a third-party (the alleged victims of a QR flight in Doha) is to a request from the Government in Doha. A commercial entity, whether wholly or partly owned by a government, is just that - a commercial entity. I get that many are passionate about QR as a carrier, and would like greater access at lower prices even though QR is a premium airline. However there needs to be some recognition that the heading of this thread is misleading in that the actual decision was not to change a treaty, which has the knock-on effect of denying extra seats to QR. In other words first comes treaty, and then comes allocations to airlines.

 

[CaptJCool]

I’m waiting for Joel Aston to get stuck into that last interview.

I notice Ms King put a transcript of a previous Cairns radio interview on her web site

The Hon Catherine King MP

www.catherineking.com.au

I’ll keep checking back for a transcript of this last one, to check the AFR quotes.

Rear Window was in it again today


Transcript - Press Conference, Cairns
Here’s the transcript from the most recent Cairns interview

 

[Clayton]

How many flights and passengers per day does Qantas operate in the general direction of Qatar (ME, Europe, Africa)? Not many really. And has Qantas announced any expansion plans to those regions?

Its not as if Qatar is going to be the preferred airline for those travelling from America West Coast, Asia or South Pacific.

 

[jrfsp]

How many flights and passengers per day does Qantas operate in the general direction of Qatar (ME, Europe, Africa)? Not many really. And has Qantas announced any expansion plans to those regions?

Its not as if Qatar is going to be the preferred airline for those travelling from America West Coast, Asia or South Pacific.

Not huge numbers on QF metal, but lots on QF tickets on EK to Europe, Middle East, Africa etc.

From PER, QR is very competitive in Americas flying.

 

[stm1sydney]

Yeah, Joe Aston spot on:

Minister for Qantas Catherine King crashes on take-off

King is now offering the fourth different rationale for her Qatar Airways decision in as many weeks.

www.afr.com

And now we have an Australian cabinet minister making a protectionist trade ruling for the primary purpose of subsidising the long-delayed capex bill of a publicly traded company. I mean, what planet are we on here?

The idea that Qantas needs or deserves further government assistance is completely risible. And is this seriously how the federal government is conducting Australia’s trade policy with our international partners? A massive wealth transfer from Australian consumers to Qantas shareholders is now Albanese government policy.

Nothing King has said thus far is defensible. Absolutely nothing. She’s had four goes at this and she sounds more deranged each time.

They’re [customers are] being wrung dry by Qantas, and their local member is public official number one protecting the racket. Catherine King, Ballarat’s finest.

 

[Clayton]

Not huge numbers on QF metal, but lots on QF tickets on EK to Europe, Middle East, Africa etc.

From PER, QR is very competitive in Americas flying.

Good point as I hadn't really considered USA/Canada pax ex LAX, SFO, YVR, IAH even to voluntarily fly 8 hours across their continent to catch a 13hr+11hr flight, then potentially fly another 3-5 hrs across our continent instead of a Trans-Pacific route. However I will be disembarking a TATL cruise next year in Miami and am watching carefully for Qatar award patterns via DOH to our home in ADL.

Never mind our "national carrier" elects not to run any international routes ex ADL, and their erstwhile friend EK is showing no inclination to resume since 2020.

 

[dajop]

How many flights and passengers per day does Qantas operate in the general direction of Qatar (ME, Europe, Africa)? Not many really. And has Qantas announced any expansion plans to those regions?

Its not as if Qatar is going to be the preferred airline for those travelling from America West Coast, Asia or South Pacific.

Good question. Back of the envelope for December, about 5000 pax a week competing with QR (on SYD-LHR and PER-LHR flights). Makes up slightly under 10% of QF's medium-long haul network (i.e international excluding NZ, Bali and Fiji), and I think we all suspect QF have a huge "home carrier" advantage that commands premiums over many competitors. When project sunrise is delivered, that might add some more, although these should command a premium for being non-stop.

What the unknown is how much revenue they generate from EK, AF, AY and KL operated codeshares which do compete directly with QR.

 

[justinbrett]

Not huge numbers on QF metal, but lots on QF tickets on EK to Europe, Middle East, Africa etc.

The QF/EK ACCC application has the stats on market share. I wouldn't say lots.

For Australia - UK, QF has a good share of the market (far from majority though), at 36.4% - that includes all EK & other flights sold as QF. QR, EK. SQ all sit around 13-15%. I think these stats are a bit inflated, as the QF market share pre covid was more like 19-21%, these stats are from Jan-May 2022. The other stats all look similar pre/post covid apart from the QF UK market share.

For Australia - Europe, QF does terrible (including those EK/AF/KL/LH codeshares) - at 15.3%. QR has 21.6% and EK marketed (ie, non-QF tickets) has 21.5%. SQ is similar to QF at 15.4%.

https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/public-registers/documents/Application%20Received%20-%2007.11.22%20-%20PR%20VERSION%20-%20Qantas%20Emirates%20RS.pdf

If the European routes were so lucrative, enough for QF to be buying out the government, surely they'd be flying more than the two token flights a day. Compared to their North American long haul routes, this is a boutique market for them.

 

[RooFlyer]

If the European routes were so lucrative, enough for QF to be buying out the government, surely they'd be flying more than the two token flights a day. Compared to their North American long haul routes, this is a boutique market for them.

Surely? Do they have the aircraft and pilots etc to fly more than 2 'token' flights a day?

Do they have ambitions to increase that market share when they do have more aircraft etc? I'd bet that they do, and that will be much easier if the competition is constrained. Simples.

 

[justinbrett]

Surely? Do they have the aircraft and pilots etc to fly more than 2 'token' flights a day?

Yes they do - but instead have decided to allocate new aircraft to the US market (eg MEL-DFW, AKL-JFK) and others. You put your assets where you make the most money, and it seems decades of decisions at QF show that's not usually Europe.

Do they have ambitions to increase that market share when they do have more aircraft etc? I'd bet that they do, and that will be much easier if the competition is constrained. Simples.

There's talk sunrise will be over & above existing routes, as they do have four slot pairs in LHR. Whether that actually happens is anyone's guess - it will all depend on the numbers. But even with this increase, that's still only matching QR's current cap, let alone all the others.

Europe is not the money maker people think it is - look at NZ, they completely abandonded it. The North American market is much more lucrative, and in most cases can be done non stop, in shorter time, meaning more return for the asset.

 

[RooFlyer]

Europe is not the money maker people think it is - look at NZ, they completely abandonded it. The North American market is much more lucrative, and in most cases can be done non stop, in shorter time, meaning more return for the asset.

Ah! The effects of competition and capacity . Do we see a pattern here?

PS. If Europe is so ho-hum unimportant Qantas, why did they oppose Qatari Govt. application? Why should they care??

 

[justinbrett]

Ah! The effects of competition and capacity . Do we see a pattern here?

There's already plenty of competition in both markets. The AU/NZ/US market is open skies.

It's just the nature of the market - most flights to the UK will require 2 legs, and a flight from Australia to West Coast USA is a similar distance to SIN-LHR. Then you have the extra costs of the intermediate airport (second set of landing fees etc) not to mention the extra fuel.

PS. If Europe is so ho-hum unimportant Qantas, why did they oppose Qatari Govt. application? Why should they care??

QF (and VA for that matter) generally always put in a submission for these kinds of things. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. There's been a few that went VA's way as well.

 

[RooFlyer]

QF (and VA for that matter) generally always put in a submission for these kinds of things. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. There's been a few that went VA's way as well.

Ah yes, but we are not talking about VA are we, and Qantas didn’t just put a ‘submission’ in, they actively opposed the application. Why the dissembling?

Again, if it’s an unimportant market, where they have little obvious expansion ambitions, as you claim, why should Qantas have actively opposed it? QR is after all, a OneWorld ally ( ).

 

[justinbrett]

Ah yes, but we are not talking about VA are we, and Qantas didn’t just put a ‘submission’ in, they actively opposed the application. Why the dissembling?

Again, if it’s an unimportant market, where they have little obvious expansion ambitions, as you claim, why should Qantas have actively opposed it? QR is after all, a OneWorld ally ( ).

What's the difference between actively opposing it and opposing it?

QR went very public against QF when Qatar put the application in, slamming QF in the media (it was well reported). Some commentators said it was a ploy to divert attention from the legal action regarding the airport incident. From what I can see, QF have never commented publicly about QR's application, neither then nor now.

From reporting, it was the government that sought QF's opinion on the matter. I think any commercial entity, if given the chance, would put up an argument in order to limit a competitor. It's not like there's an application fee.

 

[RooFlyer]

What's the difference between actively opposing it and opposing it?

Beats me. Semantics?

QR went very public against QF when Qatar put the application in, slamming QF in the media (it was well reported). Some commentators said it was a ploy to divert attention from the legal action regarding the airport incident. From what I can see, QF have never commented publicly about QR's application, neither then nor now.

I haven't seen the Emiratis (as mentioned by you upthread in relation to ~'non aviation factors we don't know about'), publicly commenting either, but there you go.

From reporting, it was the government that sought QF's opinion on the matter. I think any commercial entity, if given the chance, would put up an argument in order to limit a competitor. It's not like there's an application fee.

Well hallelujah!

 

[justinbrett]

Beats me. Semantics?

So why are you trying to argue a difference?

I haven't seen the Emiratis (as mentioned by you upthread in relation to ~'non aviation factors we don't know about'), publicly commenting either, but there you go.

Why would they?

Well hallelujah!

I don't know what you mean by that - but nobody ever denied that QF put a case for the Qatar application to be denied. Of course they did. As I said, that's routine for airlines in this situation. What's up for debate is whether that was the sole deciding factor.

And we'll never know, so this thread will keep going on... and on.... and on... and on...

 

[RooFlyer]

So why are you trying to argue a difference?

Sorry? I only wrote “ actively opposing”. Someone else brought in the difference between that and simply ‘opposing’ . You appear to be arguing with yourself.

What's up for debate is whether that was the sole deciding factor.

It will be a pretty lonely debate. I don’t think anyone here ever thought that the Qantas opposition was the sole factor. In my post above, the DOH incident with women being invasively searched was the first reason I put forward.

 

[justinbrett]

Sorry? I only wrote “ actively opposing”. Someone else brought in the difference between that and simply ‘opposing’ . You appear to be arguing with yourself.

Who's playing semantics now? I said QF put in a submission (opposing) and you differentiated that to be "actively opposing"

It will be a pretty lonely debate. I don’t think anyone here ever thought that the Qantas opposition was the sole factor. In my post above, the DOH incident with women being invasively searched was the first reason I put forward.

Plenty of people here are suggesting it's the QF lobbying that got QR blocked. Some even going as far as saying it's "corruption". Some members have scalded me as defending QF for merely suggesting other factors might be at play. My memory might fail me but I think you had a part to play in at least some of that.

Your hero Joe Aston certainly implies it's all QF's fault.

 

[stump]

Just ask Bolt

<Redacted content that suggested Qatar may have been knocked back partly due to Qantas publicly and corporately aligning with Prime Ministerial wishes>

 

[OATEK]

QR is after all, a OneWorld ally ( ).

Glad you put in the laughing emoji - I was afraid you believed it for a moment!! Even though the key issue here is a government to government treaty, I don't suppose QR made any friends with their decision to not play friendly in the OW space, cutting out QF from reward flights. Chicken and egg might come in to play here, but how far back do we go to find the genesis?