Qatar denied extra capacity into Australia

[UP4014]

Only 10%? Wasn't the media throwing numbers of 40% around a few weeks back?

Yes I guess they are starting to ask for the numbers behind the numbers and guess what, all tip and no ice berg with apologies to Paul Keating.

 

[justinbrett]

Only 10%? Wasn't the media throwing numbers of 40% around a few weeks back?

It wasn’t the media it was VA’s CEO. One of her deputies bumped it down to 20% the next day.

 

[evanb]

It wasn’t the media it was VA’s CEO. One of her deputies bumped it down to 20% the next day.

Indeed, I was inelegantly pointing to how the media just report it at face value, no matter how implausible they sound. No questions as to what it means and how the figure was estimated.

 

[RooFlyer]

With that sort of mafs, must be News limited.

It was the Flight Centre CEO' number.

Only 10%? Wasn't the media throwing numbers of 40% around a few weeks back?

That was Virgin.

Yes I guess they are starting to ask for the numbers behind the numbers and guess what, all tip and no ice berg with apologies to Paul Keating.

The media report what people say. Sometimes they interrogate it, sometimes not. Irrespective, I discounted what VA said but give credence to the Flight Centre guy.

Percentages are merely indicative in any scenario - fact is, more capacity, more competition, better for consumers.

 

[jrfsp]

Productivity Commission says unlimited open skies will lower airfares

The Commonwealth economic advisory body is calling on the government to give international airlines unlimited access to Australia, saying the move would immediately deliver better options to passengers.

www.smh.com.au

Now the productivity commission arguing for open skies
Why should passengers pay the price for bi laterally treaty's

 

[dajop]

Now the productivity commission arguing for open skies
Why should passengers pay the price for bi laterally treaty's

It’s in the country’s interest to protect its home carriers that’s why no open skies with everyone. In times of crisis it’s important to have a national carrier or two who can be there and provide essential services to/from the country and support national citizens. Oh wait ……

 

[anat0l]

It’s in the country’s interest to protect its home carriers

Is it really?

Qantas isn't even government owned.

 

[cosi]

Is it really?

Qantas isn't even government owned.

What about the effect the decision has on the inbound tourism industry.

 

[Cossie]

It’s in the country’s interest to protect its home carriers that’s why no open skies with everyone. In times of crisis it’s important to have a national carrier or two who can be there and provide essential services to/from the country and support national citizens. Oh wait ……

Is it really?

Qantas isn't even government owned.

Oh wait ……

Tongue in cheek, perhaps?

 

[dajop]

Tongue in cheek, perhaps?

Firmly. Thought the “oh wait …” might have been a giveaway …

 

[Lynda2475]

Re price reduction during the hearing it was stated giving Qatar extra capacity might bring down prices 7-10% to EU (via ME) and to ME itself. Nothing re across the board reductions.

<redacted>

Other ME airlines have unused capacity, clearly Emirates and Etihad dont see enough business case to use their unused slots. The demand to fly via Aisa seems much stronger.

 

[anat0l]

Firmly. Thought the “oh wait …” might have been a giveaway …

Well, maybe so.

So what you're saying is that there is no interest whatsoever for national governments to protect home carriers. Which from a standpoint in Australia is probably valid as, once again, there are no government-owned airlines.

Why do such bilateral controls exist around the world anyway, then? Not every sky is open, even between fully liberal capitalist economies.

I guess the only real control we will have (or need to have) after fully liberated open skies is enough service slots at airports (SYD in particular as it is already subject to a curfew and movement restrictions).

 

[anat0l]

Re price reduction during the hearing it was stated giving Qatar extra capacity might bring down prices 7-10% to EU (via ME) and to ME itself. Nothing re across the board reductions.

The yardsticks in the media seem to be based on EU travel, particularly London. Seems to be the most popular destination or the one that can have the largest impact (e.g. paying $1500 rt to Asia is expensive, but much more is $2500-$3000 rt to Europe).

No doubt people will extrapolate the concept, though.

<redacted>

Other ME airlines have unused capacity, clearly Emirates and Etihad dont see enough business case to use their unused slots. The demand to fly via Aisa seems much stronger.

EK (and EY?) have some Asian operations from Australia (operating fifth freedom). Not sure if they see a business case in trying to increase those, but surprising that EK and EY don't see much case in increasing Australia <-> ME or beyond operations as they must be charging equally high fares with full aircraft as all other players, including QR and QF.

 

[evanb]

Re price reduction during the hearing it was stated giving Qatar extra capacity might bring down prices 7-10% to EU (via ME) and to ME itself. Nothing re across the board reductions.

<redacted>

Other ME airlines have unused capacity, clearly Emirates and Etihad dont see enough business case to use their unused slots. The demand to fly via Aisa seems much stronger.

EK would love to increase capacity. It's not about not seeing a business case, but rather them lacking the capacity. They have a huge number of aircraft still parked, but they don't have the crew to fly them. Also, as network carriers, it isn't just about more flights to/from Australia, but they need the network feed and need to increase capacity across the network simultaneously.

As to prices, anyone trying to guess price impacts is having a good laugh. Having spent my career working on revenue management, it's functionally impossible to guess price impacts given the dynamic nature of pricing in a time limited market with significant price discrimination. Even if one knew all the parameters of a single airline (say QR) you can't predict those prices without having a very good understanding of competitors pricing strategies and capacity.

You'll note how airlines rarely put specific numbers on pricing in submissions to IASC and ACCC because of the uncertainty.

 

[Himeno]

You'll note how airlines rarely put specific numbers on pricing in submissions to IASC and ACCC because of the uncertainty.

They might in fact put pricing/cost estimates into their submissions, just not the public version that is released.
Both IASC and ACCC take confidential versions of company submissions, they are however required to also provide a redacted/public version of the same submission.

As many on this thread have said, it appears to be pointless to base this decision on giving weight to this incident, lest we reframe how we do business with other countries.

I don't know if that means that we should forget about the incident, human rights have no bearing on business or simply those women should have just put up with it (their country, their rules).... but it seems time and money forgives all sins.

The incident, or rather, the court case about the incident, and Qatar's attempts to get out of the case, is likely a factor in the decision. It will no doubt be on a short list of things the AU Gov wants from Qatar. If the Qatari government addressed the points on the list of Australia's "requests", it would be likely that the question of more capacity for the air service agreement would be reopened.

 

[evanb]

They might in fact put pricing/cost estimates into their submissions, just not the public version that is released.
Both IASC and ACCC take confidential versions of company submissions, they are however required to also provide a redacted/public version of the same submission.

Not quite. Yes, the submissions include confidential data, usually historic data though, and rarely price data. They rarely (actually never, but I can't vouch for every one) will make price projections in the submissions.

Again, they generally can't project prices because they're dynamic. Furthermore, they don't necessarily sell seats for the same price. I could have a flight flying today and yet the exact same flight tomorrow with the same pax can sell for entirely different prices.

 

[PineappleSkip]

Thanks but please don't. That subject has had the thread shut down twice already, and has its own thread now.

[moderator hat]

Removed Off topic content from this thread.
​

[/moderator hat]

 

[Michenny]

Let Them In .

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

Nice little shot over the bow from QR today (headline from the Australian Business Review). If this is picked up broadly and makes its way back into the news cycle, it'll be interesting to see what comes next, especially with AJ off overseas and not attending the Senate Inquiry (however relevant one thinks his attendance is, the public optics will be bad regardless):

 

[Himeno]

Nice little shot over the bow from QR today (headline from the Australian Business Review). If this is picked up broadly and makes its way back into the news cycle, it'll be interesting to see what comes next, especially with AJ off overseas and not attending the Senate Inquiry (however relevant one thinks his attendance is, the public optics will be bad regardless):
View attachment 345705

With what aircraft?
QRs active fleet is fully utilized. In order to rapidly increase service to Australia, they would have to cut service elsewhere.
They have 10 widebodies (2 A380, 8 A350) still in storage, but the clock is ticking to get the work needed on those done to bring them back into service "by christmas".
It doesn't appear that they have anything new coming until 2026.

This sort of statement from QR just seems like more hyperbole.