Qatar denied extra capacity into Australia

[FlyingKangaroo]

The question of course remains why she didn't simply cite this reason unapologetically from the outset and stick it it.

Was it because she was subsequently given advice that doing so could land the government in hot water for accidentally setting a precedent going forward that human rights issues were material to such decisions?

Was it because she simply panicked in the moment when asked the first time if this factored into the decision and thoughtlessly said it hadn't?

Was it something else?

Regardless, the next thing we all knew she was out there going even further to actively encourage Qatar to fly more into the likes of Gold Coast, Darwin, Adelaide, etc. That of course was just a brief political attempt to minimise the whole thing, but it certainly undermined the excuse that now appears to be the most important one.

Amateur hour all around.

 

[Tiki]

The people who are anti-QR should remember that award seats are limited between Australia and Europe. For every passenger who takes a seat on QR, that is one less person competing for award seats on your favourite airlines. Let the market decide!

I only can afford to redeem in Y but even then I find much better availability on VA (from Flybuys) on QR than any other airline eastbound.

 

[Pushka]

I'd have no problem with that

Of course you wouldnt but not really the point here.

 

[RooFlyer]

Promising (from The Oz on-line)

A federal government department has taken the first steps towards overturning the Qatar Airways’ decision, revealing they will hold discussions about the current air services agreement.

The department of infrastructure, transport, regional development. communications and the arts received a request from the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA) in late August to review the decision, made by Transport Minister Catherine King.

but of course, meddling, meddling ....

In its submission to the Senate inquiry, Qantas said “airlines and other parties do not have ‘rights’ that can be properly appealed in this context”.

“Granting them would put Australia out of step with other jurisdictions in an environment where reciprocity is critical,” the submission said.

“In analogous fields such as trade or taxation, there are no appeal provisions in respect of other government-to-government agreements.”

 

[drron]

Promising (from The Oz on-line)



but of course, meddling, meddling ....

I wonder if anyone from the Government will tell QF that certainly airlines don't have a right of appeal but Governments do.
So if the decision is overturned then QF should just accept it because they believe they have no right of appeal

 

[OATEK]

Then all flights should have been scrapped.

Not sure in my mind that scrapping existing is a logical progression. Stick vs carrot?

 

[Pushka]

Not sure in my mind that scrapping existing is a logical progression. Stick vs carrot?

If the decision is based on an event perceived to be the fault of the airline in question, then how is 'banning them a little bit' sending the appropriate message?

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

Qantas is not a party to the matter. Of course they don't have a right to appeal a decision they're not a party to.

These bilateral agreements are just that: agreements made between governments. The governments of Qatar and Australia can revisit them whenever they like. It could just as easily be characterised as a new request to re-assess than as an "appeal."

Again, I really don't know why QF continues to push/refresh their opposition so hard. It's their prerogative to do so and they're entitled to, but it really strikes me as a net-negative given everything going on and the fact that by their own admission. the market has changed materially since their original submission to government opposing Qatar's request (the state of the market at the time being the core reason they cite for their initial opposition).

 

[Ric]

Excuse my asking and please do not press the flame on button, but wasn't the whole operation done by the Qatari Government Security/Police etc forces and nothing to do with Qatar airways? Much like Federal Police marching into a Qantas/Virgin plane and dragging passengers out?

As I read it, Qatar's fault is that they did not do "recovery" efforts well or none at all?

Serious query and not in any way defending Qatar Airways. Just trying to understand the whole issue.

 

[Lynda2475]

Excuse my asking and please do not press the flame on button, but wasn't the whole operation done by the Qatari Government Security/Police etc forces and nothing to do with Qatar airways? Much like Federal Police marching into a Qantas/Virgin plane and dragging passengers out?

No the assaults were committed by security and medical employees of wholly QR owned sunbsidiary at the airport. Of course the Qatari Govenrment also 100% owns QR.

<redacted>

As I read it, Qatar's fault is that they did not do "recovery" efforts well or none at all?

Serious query and not in any way defending Qatar Airways. Just trying to understand the whole issue.

No rather than admitting fault, genuinely apologizing, seeking to settle with the victims and putting in place guarantees that such event will never happen again, they are instead trying to have proceedings quashed. Vile company all round.

 

[OATEK]

If the decision is based on an event perceived to be the fault of the airline in question, then how is 'banning them a little bit' sending the appropriate message?

I know you think we are probably going around in circles, but QR were not "banned", and were never going to be banned. The AU gov just wanted them to accept some liability for what happened, and decided that not approving additional flights might do the trick. The case goes on, and despite the talk today of the DoT chatting to QATAR, I suspect nothing will be resolved until there is movement of the legal case. Just my view, not claiming any actual knowledge.

 

[RooFlyer]

but wasn't the whole operation done by the Qatari Government Security/Police etc forces and nothing to do with Qatar airways? Much like Federal Police marching into a Qantas/Virgin plane and dragging passengers out?

Not quite. The argument is that QR and the airport are all owned by the Qatari government, or an organ of it. So the airline shares responsibility for the incident.

Sort of like pre privatisation, Qantas and Sydney Airport (all airports) were all owned by the Commonwealth Government, so your car vandalised in a car park would be to Qantas' shame (and no, I'm not equating the 2 events).

 

[Quickstatus]

The question of course remains why she didn't simply cite this reason unapologetically from the outset and stick it it.

As I said before upthread.
I think (speculate) the Minister wanted the Qataris to settle the pending lawsuit with the women. A quid pro quo behind the scenes - settle the lawsuit and Ill look favourably on extra flights. It all blew up in her face because of the juxtaposition of the Qantas fiasco (plural) and the Qantas dudding and charging customers what it wants.

 

[PineappleSkip]

As the letter dates showed,
Mathematics is the winner

I read that Guardian article and thought that they were drawing a long bow there. It's not a basis for the conclusion that there was only one reason for the decision. Sending a latter to Qatar and then a letter to the victims of the Doha incident (yes it was outrageous) isn't inconsistent with the claim that there were other factors in the decision, or even that this was the key factor.

It's routine for a decision to be proposed or drafted by a Department and letters advising of the decision to be drafted to key stakeholders. It's also required that when a Minister or Department makes a decison impacting on any foreign government that DFAT should be consulted/involved - indeed it's a requirement if a department or agency has so much as a meeting with a counterpart agency from another Government.

I think (speculate) the Minister wanted the Qataris to settle the pending lawsuit with the women.

The lawsuit itself of course is another reason for DFAT involvement. I have no doubt you're right about the Minister's desire, but of course it takes two parties to tango their way to a settlement.

 

[jakeseven7]

Yes. Lots of AFF huffing and puffing over this

To be fair only about 3 members really not the whole AFF community

 

[SCM]

Select Committee on Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements

On 5 September 2023, the Senate resolved that the Select Committee on Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements be established. The committee welcomes submissions to this inquiry. The closing date for submissions is Monday, 18 September 2023 The committee is to pres

www.aph.gov.au

>The committee is to present a final report by 9 October 2023.

Well, where is it?

 

[CaptJCool]

Select Committee on Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements

On 5 September 2023, the Senate resolved that the Select Committee on Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements be established. The committee welcomes submissions to this inquiry. The closing date for submissions is Monday, 18 September 2023 The committee is to pres

www.aph.gov.au

>The committee is to present a final report by 9 October 2023.

Well, where is it?

HERE

Report

Report

www.aph.gov.au

 

[eastwest101]

Well a large document. Timeline of events from page 12 but from pages 24 onwards there is a discussion of the dozen or so reasons given by various Federal ministers as to why the extra capacity was not granted to Qatar, and its interesting that none of these reasons were supplied to Qatar Airlines of the Government of Qatar before the decision was eventually made public. Its actually an interesting read in to how many other government departments were either kept out of the loop (e.g. DFAT, Treasury Dept of PM&C).

If nothing else - later on in the report there is an interesting discussion about what exactly is in the "national interest" and why there isn't even any definitions or agreement about whether commercial/competition/capacity/cost-benefit/effects on trade and freight was considered. Some examples are the weightings given to the benefits of inbound tourism for instance.

Nearly all the people who gave evidence seemed to be in favour of more transparency around air-services negotiations and agreements with only two exceptions - the Federal Government and Qantas.

A huge range of other issues in the aviation industry discussed from Page 64 onward, including broader competition policy, consumer protections, slots, airport ownership, regional security screening etc that many people here would be familiar with and unrelated to the recent Qatar Airlines decision.

 

[Lynda2475]

none of these reasons were supplied to Qatar Airlines of the Government of Qatar before the decision was eventually made public

And the government is under no obligation to supply their internal reasoning to a foreign government (especially one that is far from an ally) nor their wholly owned airline. They are only required to give a response which could be yes, yes with conditions or no.

Governments rarely give detailed reasoning to external parties. If you have ever bid for govenrment work, if unsuccessful you can ask why, but usually wont get any real reason other than "the company we awarded the work to was a better fit" vague; they certainly arent going to share their internal scoring or minutes on reviewing your proposal.

 

[Human]

So I've learned in recent days that the Qatar government, owner of Qatar Airways, is a major financial backer of Hamas. In recent days Qatar has also stated its strong support for Hamas and that it believes that Israel is to blame for Hamas' invasion. Whether or not Qatar's support for Hamas was a factor in the original decision, surely the Australian government has to include that into the mix now?