Qatar denied extra capacity into Australia

[justinbrett]

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?

Considering when QF partnered with EK, QR wasn't in oneworld. They joined six months after.

I'm guessing their beef is with EK, not QF, but has now been extended to QF because of the EK deal.

 

[SYD]

Considering when QF partnered with EK, QR wasn't in oneworld. They joined six months after.

I'm guessing their beef is with EK, not QF, but has now been extended to QF because of the EK deal.

QR was nowhere in Oz either. Maybe MEL only. Where as EK was eating everyone’s lunch. Can’t beat them - join them. Especially after EY dumped the more limited arrangement with QF in favour of VA1.

 

[Chicken]

Just ask Bolt

Andrew Bolt actually summarized the transport minister clearly in this instance.

The <referendum> mentioned is just their thing, they had always held grudges against QF for flying rainbow flag then now Voice to parliament. Basically, if you are a corporate or business person and you are against a view from the fringe, then you are on their radar. So that's that.

I am just glad that Barnaby Joyce is still alive. I thought he lost the will to live when he posted a bizarre message on Christmas 2019.
(- Barnaby Joyce films seriously bizarre Christmas message for Australia
- his original Christmas message)

 

[RooFlyer]

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

Well, yes, but it’s hardly semantics. It’s just a different opinion expressed. I think to say they just put in a ‘submission’ was a bit disingenuous. For me to say they actively opposed it is just stating the pretty obvious thing that they actively did something about it by putting in a paper opposing it ( in contrast to, say, passively corporately just not liking it).

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

Actually, I loathe the guy. He’s written some things about some ( non public figures) people I am close to. But I do enjoy him skewering Qantas and Alan Joyce.

 

[justinbrett]

Well, yes, but it’s hardly semantics. It’s just a different opinion expressed. I think to say they just put in a ‘submission’ was a bit disingenuous. For me to say they actively opposed it is just stating the pretty obvious thing that they actively did something about it by putting in a paper opposing it ( in contrast to, say, passively corporately just not liking it).

You're in a tangle I think. I didn't say they passively opposed it, I said they put in a submission. That has the same meaning you are taking from actively opposing it (ie, "did something about it by putting in a paper opposing it)". Dig up.

Actually, I loathe the guy. He’s written some things about some ( non public figures) people I am close to. But I do enjoy him skewering Qantas and Alan Joyce.

Yes, says a lot.

 

[RooFlyer]

You're in a tangle I think. I didn't say they passively opposed it,

<redacted> clearly I wrote ‘passively’ just then; I put your ‘submission’ description in quotes.

Cite me accurately please. <redacted>

 

[justinbrett]

I'll rephrase:

Qantas didn’t just put a ‘submission’ in, they actively opposed the application.

I think to say they just put in a ‘submission’ was a bit disingenuous. For me to say they actively opposed it is just stating the pretty obvious thing that they actively did something about it by putting in a paper opposing it ( in contrast to, say, passively corporately just not liking it).

What is the difference between putting in a submission, and "actively did something about it by putting in a paper opposing it".

(Leaving aside they were invited by the government to do so)

 

[serfty]

[moderator had]

​

Thread seems to have run its course. If you have any further constructive input, please report this post asking for it to be unlocked.​

​

[/moderator hat]

 

[serfty]

[moderator had]

​

Thread seems to have run its course. If you have any further constructive input, please report this post asking for it to be unlocked.​

​

[/moderator hat]

Reopening by request.

Please remember to be civil and avoid sided/ partisan political comment.

 

[RooFlyer]

I can't find a direct report, but the Senate looks to have had some sort of 'enquiry' which included the government decision to deny Qatar (government ... airline) further capacity into Australia.

Report in the Oz on-line Shots fired in dogfight over Qatar air ban For the paywall: 12ft – Hop any paywall

Some quotes:

Former competition tsar Rod Sims and Virgin Australia have joined a growing chorus of concern over the Albanese government’s decision to deny Qatar Airways more flights into the country, as criticism mounts in the absence of a clear explanation for the move.

The rejection last month of the Qatar Airways bid confounded the tourism and travel industry which had been crying out for more international airline capacity to put downward pressure on high airfares.

While Qantas supported the government’s position on Monday, Virgin Australia’s chief of sustainability and corporate affairs, Christian Bennett, told a Senate inquiry that the Qatar Airways decision was “deeply regrettable” and designed to favour the national carrier.

Transport Minister Catherine King has said additional flights by Qatar Airways would not be in the national interest. Her office refused to elaborate any further, leaving it to Qantas to defend the move, adding to the perception the airline and Canberra were too close for comfort.

As for Virgin "they would say that, wouldn't they" (ditto Qantas). But Rod Sims' opinion should carry some weight.

 

[Himeno]

Considering when QF partnered with EK, QR wasn't in oneworld. They joined six months after.

I'm guessing their beef is with EK, not QF, but has now been extended to QF because of the EK deal.

I believe that the QR beef with QF came about over the EK tie up.
While the QF/EK partnership started before QR joined oneworld, the announcement about QR joining came before QF and EK started discussions for the partnership.
QF could easily have started a partnership with QR instead of EK in addition to the basic oneworld requirements with discussions about such a partnership happening during the alliance joining process, which was at the same time that QF was talking to EK.

 

[justinbrett]

I believe that the QR beef with QF came about over the EK tie up.
While the QF/EK partnership started before QR joined oneworld, the announcement about QR joining came before QF and EK started discussions for the partnership.
QF could easily have started a partnership with QR instead of EK in addition to the basic oneworld requirements with discussions about such a partnership happening during the alliance joining process, which was at the same time that QF was talking to EK.

The public announcement of QF/EK was first - on 6/9/12 vs the QR announcement on 8/10/12.

I guess it's hard for anyone to know when QF started talking to EK - as that would have had a long leadtime as well.

Imagine it occurred after the proposed merger between QF & BA was blocked. IIRC there was then talk of a QF/MH merger but that didn't last long.

I guess QR didn't have as much to offer, and DOH is a hard sell as a destination / stopover. IIRC, Qatar was quite protective of other oneworld airlines flying to DOH until recently. And if Qatar wasn't going to offer Australia 5th freedrom rights that deal was dead in the water.

In the mean time, Australia wanted lots of things from UAE at that specific time so I guess things fell into place in terms of the treaty.

I can't find a direct report, but the Senate looks to have had some sort of 'enquiry' which included the government decision to deny Qatar (government ... airline) further capacity into Australia.

I believe it's a Select Committee into the cost of living crisis. They are looking at transport costs at the moment. AJ is to be interviewed later. It's not specific to the Qatar decision, it's airfare prices in general.

SMH has a story as well.

QF:

“The current debate on traffic rights completely distorts the broader dynamics in the market at the moment, and how competitive it is,” Wallace said. “We understand people always want cheaper fares, but that will come in a sustainable way from the recovery that is already in full swing.”

Wallace also rejected allegations Qantas has influenced the cost of international airfares.

“This is a highly competitive market that Qantas has an 18 per cent share of,” Wallace said. “The idea we are setting prices for the market as a whole is false. There are international routes we’d like to add and places we’d like to fly more to but can’t because we don’t have the traffic rights. Fiji is just one example where further expansion by Qantas has been declined,” Wallace said

Virgin bemoans ‘regrettable’ Qatar decision as Qantas warns saga is overblown

A senate inquiry has heard Virgin Australia was collateral damage after Qatar Airways’ attempt to increase flights to Australia was rejected.

www.smh.com.au

 

[stm1sydney]

More coverage today (in the Oz):

"A key business group has weighed into the debate over the government’s decision to block Qatar Airways from operating more flights into Australia, saying the move would cost the tourism industry an estimated $788m a year.
In a letter to Transport Minister Catherine King, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry tourism chair John Hart said more international flights would help operators rebuild after years of crippling Covid-19 restrictions.

He said the growth of Australian tourism was a function of inbound and outbound air capacity, and any limitations on capacity stunted growth not only through seat numbers but fare competitiveness.

Qantas opposed Qatar’s application for more flights, which appeared to have helped sway the government’s decision."

So it is clear that Qantas is engaging in active opposition.

 

[Must...Fly!]

So it is clear that Qantas is engaging in active opposition.

I think only a fool would think they weren't lobbying/actively making representations in/to Canberra. The question is ultimately what their arguments were against, and what role if any they had in the government deciding against granting Qatar ability to operate more flights.

 

[justinbrett]

So it is clear that Qantas is engaging in active opposition.

Stating the bleeding obvious. Of course they are opposing it. Any airline would if given the chance. VA and Rex oppose lots of things too.

Flight Centre CEO put it best:

It's obviously a government decision. If you're Qantas or Emirates you're just doing what's good for the business. It's the government who actually has to make the decisions on this so it's definitely a government issue. From what we've heard in the industry, this has probably come from the top, from the PM, to make this decision about Qatar. And sure it benefits Qantas and perhaps Emirates but it's not their fault, they do their lobbying and they run their business. It's really a government decision and it's the government that needs to stand up and tell us what their rationale was because we just haven't heard anything sensible yet.

Also good reporting from AFR today (not Joe Aston) - seems they've finally figured out VA have a CL equivilent and most MPs are members of it as well!

What exactly is the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge, and how do you join?

There’s much more to the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge than just free canapes and champagne. Here’s how to become a member and what’s on offer once you’re inside.

www.afr.com

 

[bam71]

This does seem to be getting a LOT of attention and traction. I dare say Minister King was not expecting anyone to ask her department “why” QR were not allowed in, hence the many nonsensical explanations provided so far. If this pressure keeps up they’ll need to either give a good damn reason as to why QR were not allowed in, or reverse their decision.

 

[Must...Fly!]

This does seem to be getting a LOT of attention and traction. I dare say Minister King was not expecting anyone to ask her department “why” QR were not allowed in, hence the many nonsensical explanations provided so far. If this pressure keeps up they’ll need to either give a good damn reason as to why QR were not allowed in, or reverse their decision.

Agree, my read is that the decision was taken at a very high level (backed up by the post just made by @justinbrett) and the minister/cabinet/PM were not expecting much if any scrutiny. They've since been caught with their pants down, so to speak, scrambling for answers to questions they did not expect. They need to get their house in order.

 

[RooFlyer]

Good to see VA still getting a run here although I’m not quite sure what the relevance is to QR been denied extra capacity by the government.

 

[muppet]

With these claims of tourism losses, is there any data or evidence that can back this up?

Demand for international travel seems to be largely FROM Australia, hence QR wanting to cash in on our high fares. If QR could demonstrate it brought in more tourists than it funnelled out, then maybe there’s a case.

For example, in June there were 1.014m australian resident departures and 542,000 short term foreign international arrivals.

i.e for every tourist arriving, 2 Aussies are taking their money overseas…. surely tourism operators would prefer those tourists to spend here.

 

[justinbrett]

This does seem to be getting a LOT of attention and traction. I dare say Minister King was not expecting anyone to ask her department “why” QR were not allowed in, hence the many nonsensical explanations provided so far. If this pressure keeps up they’ll need to either give a good damn reason as to why QR were not allowed in, or reverse their decision.

Which is why I don't personally think it is about QF. This has gone on for so long, with attacks on all sides - the political skin lost is far more than if it just said they wanted to protect QF.

Good to see VA still getting a run here although I’m not quite sure what the relevance is to QR been denied extra capacity by the government.

About as much relevance as all the references to the CL in this thread.