Qatar denied extra capacity into Australia

[Pushka]

From Theage - Melbourne Airport calls for open-skies approach amid Qatar saga

Go to 12 foot ladder to view without paywall - 12ft – Hop any paywall

An excerpt from the article that captured my interest;

“Qatar’s application was supported by the bulk of the industry and – according to industry sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity – the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Austrade, various airport owners and all state governments.

King has not said why Qatar was rejected but has said the additional flights were not in the “national interest” and would have resulted in fewer jobs for Australians. This justification has been questioned by most of the tourism and aviation sector, which has accused the government of a lack of transparency.”

So DFAT, Austrade and “various state governments” don’t want to lose their precious Chairman’s Lounge entitlement. We get it, but they’ve proven this to the public for many many years despite public outcry. So why stop now. It’s a sad indictment on Politicians and society to see our taxpayer funds being abused so flagrantly

EDIT: Airport Owners interest which I mistakenly understood which “must fly” rightfully corrected me on.

Today it was stated on the radio announcement, take it as it is, that Qantas had lobbied against it because they did not want increased competition.

 

[RooFlyer]

I get the impression that most of the population are only just now learning of the concept of bilateral caps and opposing it on principle, even though they've been in place for almost a century

I suggest that most of the population couldn’t give a rat’s bottom about bilateral caps - they just want more competitors in the market, to their travelling benefit.

You can try to muddy the waters with all that sort of stuff, but the plain fact is that QR applied for more capacity in and out of Australia as they were entitled to do ( ie apply for) and the Australian government knocked them back, and haven’t been able to give a clear and consistent reason for doing so.

The Ministers various ‘explanations’ are probably the most risible part of the whole thing.

 

[jrfsp]

I wonder if QR will look at bringing on any more A380 capacity into oz, perhaps the terminating MEL or BNE flights.

There will be a big reduction in capacity when they retire the A380 if no additional rights are are secured.

 

[33kft]

Qantas had lobbied against it because they did not want increased competition.

Would any airline be dumb enough to make a written submission with this as their reasoning? I suspect someone is conflating motivation with justification here.

 

[justinbrett]

I suggest that most of the population couldn’t give a rat’s bottom about bilateral caps - they just want more competitors in the market, to their travelling benefit.

And that's my point - foreign competition has always been regulated - in international aviation - but plenty of other sectors too. Fact of life. It's not always in the interest of the consumer (think of Australian car manufacturing back when we had it). I'm not promoting that idea, but I accept it is a fact of the world we live in.

You can try to muddy the waters with all that sort of stuff, but the plain fact is that QR applied for more capacity in and out of Australia as they were entitled to do ( ie apply for) and the Australian government knocked them back, and haven’t been able to give a clear and consistent reason for doing so.

Well, the QAT government applied; and it's not muddying the waters, it's stating things as they are. You can take a chose to take a simplistic view of the situation if you want, but that's not how things are. I think it's quite possible the government has given them the reason, but neither government wants to make it public.

The Ministers various ‘explanations’ are probably the most risible part of the whole thing.

To be fair to her, she has never said "the reason is [x]". She's always been vague and thrown around possible hypothetical factors, but if you listen to her words (rather than media commentary) it has been the usual political ramblings that don't actually answer a question. From what I've read the decision didn't come from her anyway.

 

[RooFlyer]

All this muttering about higher forces at play. It would make a great novel.

You/we can speculate/hint/allude to The unseen hands at play but at the end of the day government is supposed to serve the national interest.

The covert interests we would want to protect - Australians at risk within Qatar, a trade deal where we are selling them stuff or they are buying stuff from us, a military deal - none would be advanced by us pi**ing off the Qataris. Flip it around - who are the Qatari enemies who we would be sucking up to by pi**ing of the Qataris? Saudis?

 

[justinbrett]

All this muttering about higher forces at play. It would make a great novel.

You/we can speculate/hint/allude to The unseen hands at play but at the end of the day government is supposed to serve the national interest.

Weren't you the one saying not to take government statements at face value?

Flip it around - who are the Qatari enemies who we would be sucking up to by pi**ing of the Qataris? Saudis?

UAE.

 

[Pushka]

Would any airline be dumb enough to make a written submission with this as their reasoning? I suspect someone is conflating motivation with justification here.

Why assume it was written. More decisions are made through discussion that what is written.

 

[stm1sydney]

Would any airline be dumb enough to make a written submission with this as their reasoning? I suspect someone is conflating motivation with justification here.

Of course Qantas would not submit in writing that they oppose the QAT application because they want less competition, even though that is clearly their motivation. They would have rolled out some tame economist to do up a model that shows less Australian employment (on the (incorrect) assumption of a zero sum game where QR just takes pax from QF instead of increasing the overall pie), as well as trotting out some made-up "climate change" argument.

 

[Gold Member]

This is the world we live in.

Thanks for the heads up, I wasn’t aware how reality worked.

But since you repeatedly make this assertion to explain the government’s and Qantas actions, do you think it is right or wrong? Your defence of and lack of criticism for either suggests you support this “world we live in”.

 

[justinbrett]

Thanks for the heads up, I wasn’t aware how reality worked.

But since you repeatedly make this assertion to explain the government’s and Qantas actions, do you think it is right or wrong? Your defence of and lack of criticism for either suggests you support this “world we live in”.

Or more that I try to abide by the AFF rule on political posts

AFF is primarily a travel/aviation website. Political posts are therefore not permitted unless they relate directly to travel or aviation. Furthermore, any such post needs to be factual with no subjective commentary.

Broadly speaking though, I can't think of a developed economy that has completely free trade. Even the agreements labelled as such will have carve outs for protected industries. So to not support this "world we live in" would be a theoretical untested construct that no, I probably wouldn't support rushing in to. I do think it's far more complex than what is best for the consumer.

 

[RooFlyer]

UAE.

... who are allied with the Saudis - recall the joint aerial boycott of QR a few years ago. I'm trying to think of which entities in Australia are allied with Emirati ones.

AFF is primarily a travel/aviation website. Political posts are therefore not permitted unless they relate directly to travel or aviation. Furthermore, any such post needs to be factual with no subjective commentary.

I believe there is some distinction made between 'government' and 'politics'. As in, the Australian government's decision on QR landing rights Vs a particular party's view on the matter.

 

[justinbrett]

... who are allied with the Saudis - recall the joint aerial boycott of QR a few years ago. I'm trying to think of which entities in Australia are allied with Emirati ones.

Yes, I posted about this earlier (possibly a different thread). We are definitely team UAE. Military is a big one.

I believe there is some distinction made between 'government' and 'politics'. As in, the Australian government's decision on QR landing rights Vs a particular party's view on the matter.

I've never seen more edited & deleted posts than in this thread (and related threads). It's a fine line. I play conservatively (in the literal, not political sense )

 

[RooFlyer]

Yes, I posted about this earlier (possibly a different thread). We are definitely team UAE. Military is a big one.

You may have missed the local ally I was thinking of

 

[justinbrett]

You may have missed the local ally I was thinking of

I get this is a forum about airline travel but once again, for the thousandth time, there's more to life than airlines.

 

[Chicken]

ABC radio Sydney just had this discussion on air. Didn't even know about this.

I'm not a fan of Qatar, but to say protecting Australian interest is BS. Qantas took nearly $900m in Jobseeker, and they did nothing for Aussies during lock down, while Singapore was running daily service and they didn't really overbook meaning they were running their flights half full with half the revenue, probably at a loss.

So, I have sent the below. Feel free to recycle.

[email protected]

To The Hon Catherine King MP,

I just heard on ABC radio Sydney, that you made a speech in parliament, that your government rejected Qatar's request to increase the number of services, in order to protect Australian interest.

As an Australian citizen, I would like to enquire on how would rejecting this request serve the interests of Australia.

Qantas took nearly $900 million from Australian tax payers during COVID in the form of Jobkeeper, but they did nothing for Australians during border closure. Singapore Airlines was the airline which was flying into Australia daily, half empty, probably running at a loss, but brought Australians back home.

I am unable to work out any reasonable explanation on the points you made in your speech.

I would like to receive an explanation on this matter.

 

[Pushka]

ABC radio Sydney just had this discussion on air. Didn't even know about this.

I'm not a fan of Qatar, but to say protecting Australian interest is BS. Qantas took nearly $900m in Jobseeker, and they did nothing for Aussies during lock down, while Singapore was running daily service and they didn't really overbook meaning they were running their flights half full with half the revenue, probably at a loss.

So, I have sent the below. Feel free to recycle.

[email protected]

To The Hon Catherine King MP,

I just heard on ABC radio Sydney, that you made a speech in parliament, that your government rejected Qatar's request to increase the number of services, in order to protect Australian interest.

As an Australian citizen, I would like to enquire on how would rejecting this request serve the interests of Australia.

Qantas took nearly $900 million from Australian tax payers during COVID in the form of Jobkeeper, but they did nothing for Australians during border closure. Singapore Airlines was the airline which was flying into Australia daily, half empty, probably running at a loss, but brought Australians back home.

I am unable to work out any reasonable explanation on the points you made in your speech.

I would like to receive an explanation on this matter.

And Qatar were sending regular flights into Adelaide to assist our exports (we had the China Wine, Seafood hit as well ) and to repatriate Aussies and assist others in departing. Flights were less than half full. But they still came and went. Qantas? Crickets.

 

[SYD]

ABC radio Sydney just had this discussion on air. Didn't even know about this.

I'm not a fan of Qatar, but to say protecting Australian interest is BS. Qantas took nearly $900m in Jobseeker, and they did nothing for Aussies during lock down, while Singapore was running daily service and they didn't really overbook meaning they were running their flights half full with half the revenue, probably at a loss.

So, I have sent the below. Feel free to recycle.

[email protected]

To The Hon Catherine King MP,

I just heard on ABC radio Sydney, that you made a speech in parliament, that your government rejected Qatar's request to increase the number of services, in order to protect Australian interest.

As an Australian citizen, I would like to enquire on how would rejecting this request serve the interests of Australia.

Qantas took nearly $900 million from Australian tax payers during COVID in the form of Jobkeeper, but they did nothing for Australians during border closure. Singapore Airlines was the airline which was flying into Australia daily, half empty, probably running at a loss, but brought Australians back home.

I am unable to work out any reasonable explanation on the points you made in your speech.

I would like to receive an explanation on this matter.

You may have considered substituting Qatar for SQ given the context.

Re: QF, they did operate repatriation flights. Beyond that, it was extremely difficult to do much else given they were governed by the Federal and State rules on Oz citizens (their primary customer base) being banned from leaving the country, and the crazy interstate border closures (the most populous state population effectively prevented from flying - not good times for an airline.

VA did buggerall also being totally distracted by their own meltdown and therefore totally incapable of doing anything on the international front…. They still haven’t return to long-haul international ops and may never will.

 

[exLXCXFF]

Is there a thread about how this impacts TK? Or have people written about it in this thread?

 

[Chicken]

You may have considered substituting Qatar for SQ given the context.

Ah, too late, I already sent the e-mail. Good point.
I'm sure they get what I'm saying, I'm sure they know I'm talking about them protecting QF.