Qatar denied extra capacity into Australia

[justinbrett]

My point was simply that until it is a treaty is has limited enforcement mechanisms internationally and that Australia would have little difficulty withdrawing. I have no doubt that they will not withdraw since it does not serve Australia's national interest. While they may have fundamental disagreements with Qatar, withdrawing from an agreement will result in a tit-for-tat escalation limiting any meaningful engagement that Australia may need or want with Qatar.

Post automatically merged: Oct 31, 2023

Indeed my point. The difference between the status quo and entry into force is that the typical reciprocal elements and enforcement mechanisms are non-binding. For example, if it were a treaty, it may have an arbitration mechanism to settle disputes.

We're not talking about the Geneva Convention here. These are simple treaties - and there's always withdrawal provisions for one party to terminate it without requiring approval from the other party (usually 12 months notice).

So I can certainly agree that Australia would have no trouble terminating agreement, if that is your point. However I would also apply that to any other ASA we have signed.

 

[Jacques Vert]

Any chance you guys could continue your discussion via a Private Message?

 

[stm1sydney]

At the end of the day, Australian consumers are still suffering from our government's shambolic process and its inability to explain why the application was refused. How many different possible reasons are Albo and King up to now?

 

[RooFlyer]

At the AFR infrastructure conference this week Minister King has added yet another reason for denying Qatar Airways further access into Australia. Quote is from the AFR online ( paywalled).

“What are the important elements of aviation [that] we as a nation need to make sure we have in times of emergency?” she mused in the Q&A session. “We’ve had to use that recently with evacuating people out of Israel and out of Gaza. What do we need as a nation to be able to hold on to?”

The minister is suggesting that allowing Qatar further access to one of Australian aviation’s most profitable and demanded routes might prevent Qantas being able to fly Australians home in emergencies. Somehow.

Story goes on

But what kind of crisis carrier is Qantas? As borders closed during the pandemic, it grounded its international fleet, while Qatar’s carrier kept flying near-empty planes to and from Australia, launched a new service to Brisbane, and operated many DFAT repatriation flights. Qantas only did the latter.

This we knew.

 

[stm1sydney]

That's now about 12 different reasons. None of them at all convincing. CL benefits continue to be enjoyed by decision-makers, however.

 

[CaptJCool]

If I was King ….

 

[evanb]

A little follow-up in light of the expansion of Vietnam and Turkey bilaterals last week:

Analytic Flying | Substack

Independent Objective Verifiable. Click to read Analytic Flying, a Substack publication with hundreds of subscribers.

analyticflying.com

 

[eastwest101]

A little follow-up in light of the expansion of Vietnam and Turkey bilaterals last week:

Analytic Flying | Substack

Independent Objective Verifiable. Click to read Analytic Flying, a Substack publication with hundreds of subscribers.

analyticflying.com

An anonymous blog, no publisher name, and I note on their blog that they say this:




But then make these claims: (my highlighting of text that seems more opinion than fact):



Pretty much all opinion with a few settled facts. And the last part there is still contestable as well, because from media reports earlier QR were negotiating with Federal Government officials and then everything went quiet once the Transport Minister went against departmental advice. Hardly a negotiation. The minister rolled out a series of spurious and contradictory reasons for the refusal and the Canberra media pack made it a political story.

Lots of opinion in that blog on the 18th Dec - and if all the contributors to this blog are anonymous, how are readers supposed to know if there is a conflict of interest? Just trust us?

 

[SCM]

Whoever maintains that website, please significantly increase the font size - and/or consider putting articles on medium.com

I am too skeptical of the analysis, the Qatar thing was very controversial for a combination of reasons, including sky-high international airfares and widespread discontentment with Qantas. Had those two issues not also been occurring at the time, it may have barely made the headlines - and I doubt this has anything to do with Qatar the airline or the government.

 

[clifford]

This is an interesting article that might provide a little more food for thought:

Qatar Airways Bans YouTuber For Negative Review

Qatar Airways has banned YouTube flight reviewer Josh Cahill for posting a negative review. Here's the backstory...

click.mlsend.com

 

[RooFlyer]

I wonder if that anonymous blog might have some Geoffrey Thomas fingerprints on it?

 

[Quickstatus]

This is an interesting article that might provide a little more food for thought:

A separate thread already discussing this

 

[evanb]

An anonymous blog, no publisher name, and I note on their blog that they say this:

View attachment 359169


But then make these claims: (my highlighting of text that seems more opinion than fact):

View attachment 359170

Pretty much all opinion with a few settled facts. And the last part there is still contestable as well, because from media reports earlier QR were negotiating with Federal Government officials and then everything went quiet once the Transport Minister went against departmental advice. Hardly a negotiation. The minister rolled out a series of spurious and contradictory reasons for the refusal and the Canberra media pack made it a political story.

Lots of opinion in that blog on the 18th Dec - and if all the contributors to this blog are anonymous, how are readers supposed to know if there is a conflict of interest? Just trust us?

No idea what the rant is about. Opinion means "a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge".

There is very limited opinion in the blog. What you seem to be referring to is the context setting in the introduction. It highlights the opinions of others as important context for the analysis (e.g., when speaking about the "pile-on" on Qantas - it's not the blogs opinion, but linking to "some commentators" described the coverage as a "pile-on" ... it's literally the words that the linked letter to the SMH used). Again, it's not drawing their own opinion, but highlighting the broader opinion as context.

The first paragraph doesn't draw opinion but summarises the previous analysis which considered the data regarding the claimed impact of the QR capacity versus the likely reality. Specifically, it draws on that analysis for the "established facts" with regards to QF's involvement and that the blame was squarely on King.

Ironically, you actually agree with something which is actually an opinion, i.e. that Qatar were negotiating directly with the Australian government, something which is rather unusual for BASAs. And yes, the Minister did roll around a range of spurious arguments, something which the two previous blogs (linked in these paragraphs actually followed in more detail).

The third highlighted text again links to a second/previous analysis. I'm not sure how this analysis was "opinion". It was a rather dry analysis of the data, highlighting that the major beneficiaries were likely SQ and EK, more so than QF. Furthermore, it did actually consider in more detail why QF and QR were going so hard at it!!

I'm happy for anyone to pick apart that analysis and the data. There is valid debate, but trying to claim that that is somehow opinion is just throwing around words to remove all meaning. In terms of COI? Same way we deal with it with anonymous posting on here. If you think there is one then show it, otherwise don't read or respond.

A few weeks back I got a message saying "Keep your biased endorsement for Qantas anchored here on your own website. You are not welcome on AFF." Yet, a few weeks later the blog publishing an analysis arguing that the QF-EK JV should not have been approved by the ACCC. Not sure Qantas would be endorsing that.

 

[evanb]

Whoever maintains that website, please significantly increase the font size - and/or consider putting articles on medium.com

I am too skeptical of the analysis, the Qatar thing was very controversial for a combination of reasons, including sky-high international airfares and widespread discontentment with Qantas. Had those two issues not also been occurring at the time, it may have barely made the headlines - and I doubt this has anything to do with Qatar the airline or the government.

QR (and VS) were running around with a bunch of PR agencies doing media outreach, feeding stories, while making exaggerated claims about the impact. Indeed, it would barely have made the headlines at other times. They were exploiting that it would to try and pump up public interest and outrage to try and bully/embarrass the government into giving them what they wanted.

It's an important point that they didn't get what they wanted, but Turkey and Vietnam did. Simply highlighting that maybe it wasn't the best approach.

 

[evanb]

An anonymous blog, no publisher name, and I note on their blog that they say this:

And FWIW, yes, people who work for airlines often get a lot of pushback for engaging on public forums. Some rather well-known pilots have gotten blocked from posting on forums and social media by their airlines, and it's even tougher for staff in operations, finance, revenue management, network management, etc given the proprietary nature of data they have access to. So yes, anonymity is important for people involved in the business to engage in a public forum. That said, all the data used is replicable and sourced. If you don't like the conclusions, then don't read it, or challenge those conclusions using the same or alternative data.

 

[SCM]

It's an important point that they didn't get what they wanted, but Turkey and Vietnam did. Simply highlighting that maybe it wasn't the best approach.

Maybe, at this point I think it's more to do with C. King having a personal bias against Qatar because of her gender, and mis-using her power to "punish" them.

 

[p--and--t]

Maybe, at this point I think it's more to do with C. King having a personal bias against Qatar because of her gender, and mis-using her power to "punish" them.

Whether it is correct or not, I have no idea. But multiple sources have said airlines don’t apply to in increase capacity with the destination country direct and rather the two countries negotiate a bilateral agreement.

If this is indeed the case then it would appear that QR sh… in its own nest by bypassing the process and attempting to bully their way.

Given the ego of the CEO of QR and his seeming grudge against the then CEO or QF it seems quite plausible that this was attempted while QF was on the nose in the media.

If QR was genuine in their need to increase seats and reduce fares then the simple way out surely would have been to upsize the airframes flying to the major ports providing more seats, more competition and reducing their costs allowing them to reduce fares in the short term while they allowed their government to negotiate a change to the agreement - or is that too simplistic.

Not sure it is ever a good move or results in a successful outcome to try and bully, corner and embarrass a politician in a foreign country in the media.

 

[oirets]

I am too skeptical of the analysis, the Qatar thing was very controversial for a combination of reasons, including sky-high international airfares and widespread discontentment with Qantas. Had those two issues not also been occurring at the time, it may have barely made the headlines - and I doubt this has anything to do with Qatar the airline or the government.

Even without the data, it seems plainly obvious to me that any decision regarding QR will likely impact its more direct competitors, that being EK, EY, SQ and the like (operating large-scale hub and spoke models) than QF.

The only long haul international route QF is even mildly competitive on is the MEL/SYD-LAX route, which QR would not have competed on anyway. QF prices to LHR are basically just rorting people who have loyalty to QF through being a road warrior for work.

Basically, to argue that additional QR flights would impact QF implies that there are currently people on QF who would consider taking QR instead - I find this hard to believe, given if they would take QR, they are likely already taking EK/EY/SQ and not QF.

People love to hate QF (and I have my fair share of reasons to be sympathetic to that view), but this view is overwhelmingly driven by their domestic operations which have nothing to do with QR.

 

[Spacetravel]

The only long haul international route QF is even mildly competitive on is the MEL/SYD-LAX route, which QR would not have competed on anyway. QF prices to LHR are basically just rorting people who have loyalty to QF through being a road warrior for work.

Basically, to argue that additional QR flights would impact QF implies that there are currently people on QF who would consider taking QR instead - I find this hard to believe, given if they would take QR, they are likely already taking EK/EY/SQ and not QF.

While I’d agree the other carriers also had something to lose with additional QR flights, they would have very well competed with Qantas on flights to LHR and to EU in general. QR are a oneworld partner (yes there is BA too but their product isn’t winning any awards) for someone who holds oneworld status but not rusted on to QF could easily pick QR, the other carriers (including EK) aren’t part of OW.

Forgive me if I am wrong but I thought it was already a fact that QR was blocked due to “national interest” (read between the lines Qantas)? Every other carrier on that list has no national interest to Aus.

 

[evanb]

While I’d agree the other carriers also had something to lose with additional QR flights, they would have very well competed with Qantas on flights to LHR and to EU in general. QR are a oneworld partner (yes there is BA too but their product isn’t winning any awards) for someone who holds oneworld status but not rusted on to QF could easily pick QR, the other carriers (including EK) aren’t part of OW.

Forgive me if I am wrong but I thought it was already a fact that QR was blocked due to “national interest” (read between the lines Qantas)? Every other carrier on that list has no national interest to Aus.

National sovereignty overrides this all. No country has a right to fly to another country. The two countries agree to provide certain rights in a reciprocal manner through an agreement. Qatar and Australia have an agreement in place with a limitation on the number of frequencies. If Qatar would like to expand that and Australia do not, it's Australia's sovereign decision to do so.

However, Australia is an open democracy, unlike Qatar. The government that makes that decision then has to defend it. They use vague constructs like the "national interest" to imply that they are weighted up various trade-offs in doing so. It's ultimately up to voters to assess that in the context of a near infinite number of other decisions that a government (or local member) makes.

While national interest can be defined as "the interest of a nation as a whole held to be an independent entity separate from the interests of subordinate areas or groups and also of other nations or supranational groups", for the most part, there isn't always an easy objective application, especially when what the outside party seeks is valuable to them and we potentially seek something valuable from them in return (e.g., Singapore open skies).

Blocking Qatar was a cough decision for the flying public, granting additional capacity to Turkey and Vietnam was good, possibly better or more important. It doesn't take away from the fact that Qatar didn't get their prize and acknowledging that the analysis shouldn't be limited to only one side.