Qatar denied extra capacity into Australia

[FlyingKangaroo]

It definitely appears this story has gotten its second wind in the media the last few days.

As has been suggested, I'd put my money on the government having wildly underestimated the backlash they'd get on this to the point they didn't even consider it necessary to come up with a meaningful justification (then again, there doesn't seem to be one) and are now completely caught off guard. Simple as that: nothing more, nothing less.

Still, the government's reaction has certainly been amateurish.

Is it because they assumed the average punter wouldn't notice, that the average punter would buy the rather tenuous excuses (perhaps... and I'd note that highlighting things like "human rights", "Australian jobs", and "national security" especially when referring to the Middle East to me feels a bit transparent and ick), or is this kind of "lobbying" so omnipresent between the public and private sector that they truly took for granted that the average punter wouldn't just see this as just another-day-another-game?

Regardless, as with most things, I suspect those responsible will remain hidden until this is out of the news cycle again, nothing will change, and around and around we go.

 

[SYD]

Still, the government's reaction has certainly been amateurish.

This….

 

[bam71]

Can I write to the Minister and explain I must prefer Q Suites to QF J?

 

[RooFlyer]

Can I write to the Minister and explain I must prefer Q Suites to QF J?

She may simply reply: ' that's not the way to allow Qantas to pay off its new jets'!!

 

[drron]

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.

2 flaws in your argument.
A. Those Aussies will return .
B. Australia isn;t the only country with pent up demand for OS travel. What you hear constantly on US. UK or Europea n travellers saying they would love to visit Australia and/ or NZ but the airfares are just too high. So the demand for inward tourism is certainly there but High airfares are an important reason for suppressing those numbers. More seats should lead to lower prices.
Though there is another reason why OS cruisers don't want to cruise in Australia and that is the Australian Governments still insist on OS citizens still requiring a Covid test to board an Australian cruise. As of May the only other countries requiring a test were Bermuda, Canada and Greece. I am sure Greece has since dropped it.

 

[muppet]

2 flaws in your argument.
A. Those Aussies will return .
B. Australia isn;t the only country with pent up demand for OS travel. What you hear constantly on US. UK or Europea n travellers saying they would love to visit Australia and/ or NZ but the airfares are just too high. So the demand for inward tourism is certainly there but High airfares are an important reason for suppressing those numbers. More seats should lead to lower prices.
Though there is another reason why OS cruisers don't want to cruise in Australia and that is the Australian Governments still insist on OS citizens still requiring a Covid test to board an Australian cruise. As of May the only other countries requiring a test were Bermuda, Canada and Greece. I am sure Greece has since dropped it.

A. Yeah sure, but they’re not inbound tourists - the claim being made is lost tourist dollars. They’ll return and go back to work.

B. I don’t disagree, I asked if there was any data or evidence to back up this claim.

 

[justinbrett]

Europea n travellers saying they would love to visit Australia and/ or NZ but the airfares are just too high.

A bit of a myth really. J tickets aside (that's not the market in concern); Aus-Europe tickets can easily be found sub A$2000, Aus-USA tickets sub US$1500. The reverse direction is a bit higher at the moment with the recent AUD decline (but obviously converts lower in USD/GBP).

Not dirt cheap but historically reasonable, especially given inflation in the last 5 years.

I would say if the AUD continues to drop, outbound tourists will fall sharply, especially to the US. While the exchange rate is good for others, there are major slowdowns in many developed economies including the UK & US, and the exchange rate can only do so much.

 

[Mattg]

A bit of a myth really. J tickets aside (that's not the market in concern); Aus-Europe tickets can easily be found sub A$2000

Not generally during peak periods when the folks in Europe have holidays, etc.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

All of these factors are relevant, but at the end of the day, the result is the same: costs to/from Australia are held artificially higher by the government.

The question is simple: is that really in the interest of the majority of Australians the government is elected to represent? If yes, prove it. If not, then don't do it.

 

[jakeseven7]

All of these factors are relevant, but at the end of the day, the result is the same: costs to/from Australia are held artificially higher by the government.

The question is simple: is that really in the interest of the majority of Australians the government is elected to represent? If yes, prove it. If not, then don't do it.

I appreciate your point but it’s overly simplistic, there are so many more considerations even beyond aviation for the government to consider.

 

[justinbrett]

Not generally during peak periods when the folks in Europe have holidays, etc.

But that's not new.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

I appreciate your point but it’s overly simplistic, there are so many more considerations even beyond aviation for the government to consider.

How so?

Governments engage in protectionist behaviour across almost every facet of the economy and really society at large. Reasonable people will sometimes differ and sometimes agree as to the utility, necessity and extent of each. The point is that generally one would at least expect a compelling argument from the decision makers to justify their decision, even if one fundamentally disagrees with it.

It's not the government's decision to deny Qatar extra capacity that's the issue; it's their inability to offer any sort of compelling justification as to why. Those who support the decision likely don't care. Safe to say, those who don't aren't impressed or satisfied.

Logic dictates that denying extra capacity into Australia will result in higher airfares. If the government is prepared to require its constituents to pay the literal price for that, they should be able to tell them why, especially, I would argue, if there are "many more considerations" involved that they could rely on.

 

[RooFlyer]

I appreciate your point but it’s overly simplistic, there are so many more considerations even beyond aviation for the government to consider.

Absolutely ! ‘Climate change’ was the clincher for me.

 

[Jstr]

I may not be looking hard enough, but I don't think are ANY 90k Euro tickets on the QR site, whatever the date of flying. I think I may have transferred my AmEx points a bit too quick. They have changed the goal posts and it has nothing to do with the summer Olympics next year.

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

The Flight Centre CEO's comment is correct and smart.

He knows very well that Qantas's lobbying isn't just limited to directly petitioning the government ministers - Qantas could, for example, be generating the narrative on Qatar's "human rights abuse" in order to indirectly pressure the government by drumming up support in the susceptible circles of society. But he also knows that all this talk blaming Qantas is futile because it shifts attention and pressure away from the government - who has the ultimate power to reverse this decision.

All antagonists to this bad decision should focus their pressure on the government to reverse it, rather than wasting energy blaming Qantas and let's the incompetent ministers slip away.

 

[TomVexille]

I haven't read every page of this, but has someone suggested that VA follow QFs lead and wet lease some planes and crew from QR to fly to DOH?

 

[justinbrett]

I haven't read every page of this, but has someone suggested that VA follow QFs lead and wet lease some planes and crew from QR to fly to DOH?

Yes. They can, but they wouldn't be able to fly any of the same routes as QR. So if QR gave up BNE and PER for example, VA could fly from BNE and PER, and QR could fly from SYD and MEL.

If they flew the same routes as QR, they wouldn't be able to codeshare unless they renegotiate the ACCC authorisation.

They'd also have to be approved by the ISAC to utilise the Australian capacity, so if it's a obviously a sham to get QR extra capacity, they can always block.

As others have said, all of this is quite unlikely. I don't think QR likes sharing.

 

[PineappleSkip]

has someone suggested that VA follow QFs lead and wet lease some planes and crew from QR to fly to DOH?

That would not be dissimilar to VA flying their own aircraft into AUH, which they were doing a decade ago when they had their tie up with EY. Except that I don't think the economics were very good for VA and the couple of flights I took on that route weren't very full. It didn't last very long IIRC.

I also see the QR/Qatar issue made the lead story on 730 tonight. Doesn't look like the issue is going away in a hurry, Minister.

Travellers dealing with sky-high airfares ask why government is blocking international carriers

 

[jakeseven7]

I haven't read every page of this, but has someone suggested that VA follow QFs lead and wet lease some planes and crew from QR to fly to DOH?

That’s hilarious on about 250 fronts

 

[I love to travel]

Can I write to the Minister and explain I must prefer Q Suites to QF J?

Pity the poor public servant that needs to write the draft response back to you.

 

[RooFlyer]

I also see the QR/Qatar issue made the lead story on 730 tonight. Doesn't look like the issue is going away in a hurry, Minister.

Travellers dealing with sky-high airfares ask why government is blocking international carriers

Thanks. Hadn't seen it before; Joe Aston and ABC on a unity ticket ... interesting!! Only funny thing I saw there was some 'expert' saying Qantas should be protected somewhat because we need a national carrier to step up in times of crisis. ...like pandemics

QR not commenting. I don't think they are going away soon - maybe hoping for /(anticipating?) a change in attitude to those opposing them after Alan Joyce departs?