Qatar denied extra capacity into Australia

[Sprucegoose]

And this is the problem with the modern post-truth world. Facts are irrelevant, sadly. Media reporting all depends on which particular barrow your proprietor or if you proprietor is hands off or the public, the individual reporter, wishes to push.

It is all quite sickening really, how much BS is out there.

I agree with you dajop, however, it is incumbent upon the storyteller to clearly present timely and reasonable facts. The absence of facts can lead to nefarious constructions being applied and the media will be consumed while public interest in the matter is maintained.

The importance of actions being seen to be done is actually derived from highly ethical principles.

As an example, you will recall that old maxim that justice should be seen to be done. When “seen” is understood in the sense of “observed”, the maxim is easily defended: open court proceedings protect against arbitrary and partial decisions.

The optics here are no different.

In the absence of a transparent process capable of logical understanding, a casual observer may well conclude that Qantas promoted the 'Yes' position, despite not having a vote, and the government, in turn, blocked those pesky Qataris (who flew to AUS more than QF during the pandemic and incidentally require more slots to enable the switch to more fuel-efficient aircraft - alleviating climate change concerns and obtaining better alignment with the Governments climate change goals), and AJ just so happens to throw in a CL tag for the boy, as he is a good bloke and a long-standing supporter for underprivileged students.

You can see how easy it is for a sloppily managed process to be construed as too cute by half. A totally transparent process, on the other hand, would include publishing the government rejection of Qatar's application for additional landing slots based on current and understood transport and economic policy in a timely manner. This would also align with the government's plea when in opposition for greater transparency in government, along with measures that reduce the cost of living (increased competition and more jobs), which includes transport costs. Job done, nothing to see here chaps.

I am not suggesting the above actually happened, however, when I was at the pub the other night I met a mate who swears these events took place in a highly orchestrated order. If that was the case the 'public' onus of proof has clearly reversed.......at least down the pub!

I am back in the pub tomorrow night, and if there is an update to the above, I will revert and advise.

Go Fitzroy.

 

[Danger]

I can’t believe how often the “court found we had sound commercial reasons to sack our staff illegally” line keeps getting repeated. It was clearly crafted by a PR hack, but who are they appealing to.

I have sound commercial reasons to not pay tax. Is that a valid reason not to?

They just don’t get it, and while ever they keep demonstrating it, the politicians and media will keep whacking them with a big stick. It’s quite the pile on at the moment.

I recall hearing that part of the case rested on whether or not Qantas had a sound commercial reason for the sackings, rather than, for example, sacking to avoid strikes. I think the court found Qantas did have a sound commercial reason, but didn't succeed on the second limb, whatever that was. That's why the line is regularly trotted out.

I can't recall. Could QF adding the 'Yes' campaign be related to undocumented lobbying pressure - a quid pro quo? All executives are supposed to use their diary as a log for big decisions and directives. But like Victoria's decision to use private security guards - nobody knew anything. The list extends to ambassador appointments, and plum jobs. If fact based decision making is 'Too Hard' and you scuttle 'transparency' See The Briefing Note: ‘Proposed Options’ Section

Qantas was always going to support the voice.

 

[OATEK]

Qantas has warned the Albanese government against a review of the Qatar Airways’ decision to deny the airline more flights into Australia, in its long awaited submission to the Senate inquiry into bilateral air rights.
The nine-page submission was lodged on Wednesday, a week after Qantas executives appeared before a public hearing where chief executive Vanessa Hudson was admonished for not providing a written statement.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/qantas-warns-government-not-to-review-qatar-airways-decision-on-28-extra-flights-a-week/news-story/12b720e1f86e595807fe25d1d1f7bae8

 

[RooFlyer]

Get this, from the above article, from Qantas's statement:

“It is our view that a critical hallmark of a robust democracy is the ability of parties to convey their perspective on issues to the government and opposition without hesitation, and particularly without fear of (lawful and appropriate) confidential disclosures being disclosed inadvertently or deliberately,” Qantas said, in response to pressure from the Senate Committee to reveal all about its discussions with Minister King and the Prime Minister.

Or, they might have said (my additions in italics):

“It is our view that a critical hallmark of a robust democracy is the ability of parties to convey their perspective on issues to the government and opposition without hesitation, and particularly in the cosy atmosphere of the Chairman's Lounge, where no pesky reporters or plebs in general can know who we are talking to, or what is being said.” Qantas said, in response to pressure from the Senate Committee to reveal all about its discussions with Minister King and the Prime Minister.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

Qantas has warned the Albanese government against a review of the Qatar Airways’ decision to deny the airline more flights into Australia, in its long awaited submission to the Senate inquiry into bilateral air rights.
The nine-page submission was lodged on Wednesday, a week after Qantas executives appeared before a public hearing where chief executive Vanessa Hudson was admonished for not providing a written statement.

"warned" seems a tad melodramatic but the summary of the submission itself is rather telling. Much of it is rather irrelevant vis-à-vis the QR decision, but the parts that are relevant aren't particularly compelling, and they seem to have dropped or significantly toned down the "state of the market" justification they cited as key to their recommendation for objecting QR's request, likely given that it has, by their own admission, changed. My two favourites thus far:

In terms of inbound tourism, Qatar Airways carries a disproportionately high number of outbound Australian-based passengers,” said the Qantas submission.

In other words, Qantas is saying that more of Qatar's passengers originate in Australia than overseas, so all this hoo-ha about bringing in more tourists is, in Qantas' submission, "overstated." No bother that more flights might bring down fares for tourists, and definitely no bother that the net result is Australians themselves are still paying more for airfare.

I'd also suggest it's always risky business when the dominant player claims that a competitor with far less market share is "disproportionately" represented in the market such that they shouldn't be allowed to try to grow their share in other direction... fancy a mirror?

Yet also:

“Qantas is the largest private investor in marketing Australia to the world”

Well that settles it, folks! Close the skies!

----

Is this really the best they could do? Perhaps. Was it wise to reiterate their objection to QR's request rather than just respond to the questions on notice and leave their opinion at the door given the market has changed? Reasonable minds can differ. Ultimately, though, what I find damning about this submission is that if this is the best Qantas could come up with formally (and hey, all power to them for throwing whatever they can at it; it's certainly their prerogative however strong or weak their arguments), then big YIKES that this is the side the government took.

Please explain, Minister.

 

[PineappleSkip]

The submissions to the committee are all published, and you can download Qantas submission from this link.

I started to add quotes and commentary to this post but gave up in disgust. Read it for yourself (9 pages) There's plenty of self serving braggadocio, dancing around the issues the committee is exploring, and a lot of peripheral points.

I am not anti Qantas, I have too much invested in points and status to do anything but despair at what they have become, but this guff makes me doubt their promises to reform. They would do well to beef up their government relations team rather than delegate the work to their empty spin department.

cheers skip

 

[anat0l]

Whatever guff Qantas are putting up, it'll be up to the government to take whatever action they see is fit (or not so).

Qantas made a submission. We can be disgusted by it, but let it be clear that they are not the decision maker (barring some stupid move that the government delegates or outsources its decision making to Qantas).

In one sense, perhaps no one can blame Qantas for standing up for their shareholders, proposing a zealous if misguided argument for the good of the company.

The irony of creating a system of competition is that the objective of all competitors is to act in such a way that aims to destroy the competition. The regulator would be responsible for ensuring competition continues, not the competitors. It's like a boxing match that attracts a huge crowd - everyone wants to see the bloodiest, fiercest fight between the belligerents - broken teeth and blood - who are all aiming to knock the daylights out of their rivals.... all fun so long as the fighters, ironically, do not die (the role of the referee, not the fighters).

 

[TheRealTMA]

People are getting a bit carried away with this. Qantas being a public company are perfectly entitled to put forward whatever spiel and arguments they wish. Of course they would complain about potential competition, but they don’t make the decisions.

 

[DC3]

People are getting a bit carried away with this. Qantas being a public company are perfectly entitled to put forward whatever spiel and arguments they wish. Of course they would complain about potential competition, but they don’t make the decisions.

Yes. Lots of AFF huffing and puffing over this

 

[anat0l]

People are getting a bit carried away with this. Qantas being a public company are perfectly entitled to put forward whatever spiel and arguments they wish. Of course they would complain about potential competition, but they don’t make the decisions.

The right to an opinion brings with it the right of others to criticise it (even if a bit heavily).

Where there might be some who are getting carried away is the actual influence that QF have had on the government's decision. There seems to be a somewhat fallacious belief that QF had such a strong (lobbying) influence on the government that they practically made the decision themselves (and the government was basically a lackey who so just happens to have the power).

To compound this, as usual people will tend to ostracise those on the losing team. Given that the government's decision was not popular (to say the least) and the resulting fallout, anyone who seemed to agree with the government's decision was ripe for attack. (And of course a classic tactic when your rivals are caught in such fire is to jump on the winning team's side and throw in likewise criticism of your own, hence Qantas' rivals and the government opposition)

 

[Himeno]

To compound this, as usual people will tend to ostracise those on the losing team. Given that the government's decision was not popular (to say the least) and the resulting fallout, anyone who seemed to agree with the government's decision was ripe for attack. (And of course a classic tactic when your rivals are caught in such fire is to jump on the winning team's side and throw in likewise criticism of your own, hence Qantas' rivals and the government opposition)

The media started it with their intense desire to attack anything and everything Qantas.
The general public got into it because they believe the insane claims that 21 extra weekly flights from DOH = 40% lower international airfares.

Neither the media, nor the general public, understand what they are talking about and just compound the problem.

 

[Must...Fly!]

The general public got into it because

While the media started it, I firmly believe that the opinion of the general public of Qantas is so pervasively low that you only needed a spark to light the fire. And the government provided a grenade.

 

[Pushka]

Yes. Ultimately the buck stops with the Government who made the decision.

 

[MooTime]

The general public got into it because they believe the insane claims that 21 extra weekly flights from DOH = 40% lower international airfares.

The media was only reporting the true fact that the 40% figure as it was said by the VA CEO. I don't believe anybody actually believed it, a silly comment really.

Fair game imo for QF to request the gov to hold back on QR.
How would this play out if the Doha airport incident never occurred?
QF would no doubt still object it, but the outcome may be different.

 

[Himeno]

The media was only reporting the true fact that the 40% figure as it was said by the VA CEO. I don't believe anybody actually believed it, a silly comment really.

Fair game imo for QF to request the gov to hold back on QR.
How would this play out if the Doha airport incident never occurred?
QF would no doubt still object it, but the outcome may be different.

It's not that the incident happened, it's that there is a court case about it that the Qataris are trying to get out of.
Without that, there is one less thing for the AU gov to use in negotiations for the extra slots.

 

[RooFlyer]

They would do well to beef up their government relations team

I think the Chairmans lounge does pretty well as it is

There seems to be a somewhat fallacious belief that QF had such a strong (lobbying) influence on the government that they practically made the decision themselves (and the government was basically a lackey who so just happens to have the power).

You say it’s a somewhat fallacious belief, but even Qantas have claimed publicly that the government did as they asked. Might be braggadocio, but it’s not hard to make the conclusion based on what's out there, rather than it being fallacious.

Neither the media, nor the general public, understand what they are talking about and just compound the problem.

Condescending, much?

 

[CaptJCool]

Minister linked Qatar Airways decision to treatment of Australian women at Doha airport, FoI reveals

Exclusive: federal government coordinated letters to the women and Qatari officials when they formally rejected the request for extra routes

www.theguardian.com

As the letter dates showed,
Mathematics is the winner

 

[RooFlyer]

No surprises there - just as I said way up thread. It’s just been a matter of extracting the real reason from the Minister.

 

[Pushka]

No surprises there - just as I said way up thread. It’s just been a matter of extracting the real reason from the Minister.

Then all flights should have been scrapped.

 

[Lynda2475]

Then all flights should have been scrapped

I'd have no problem with that