Qatar denied extra capacity into Australia

[RooFlyer]

With what aircraft?
QRs active fleet is fully utilized. In order to rapidly increase service to Australia, they would have to cut service elsewhere.

Not many airlines have aircraft just lying around waiting for a new route to open, so adjusting routes is a pretty common strategy when they do.

But in addition, plenty of Airlines source planes from other airlines to start or adjust new routes. Think of Qantas and Finnair.

So quite possible and not just hyperbole.

 

[dajop]

With what aircraft?

I guess they could "add" a "new" service to MEL and even save aircraft time. Terminate one of their DOH-ADL services (the one that goes via MEL) and replace it with a DOH-MEL service. N ever underestimate the power of PR spin. As a bonus instead of spending 13 hrs "on the ground" in Australia, the aircraft need only spend 1.5-2 hrs.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

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.

Neither of us is privy to QR's internal fleet utilisation and management plans. However, I'd put a few dollars on the table that if given the capacity, QR would use it.

Do we really think if awarded these slots, QR would simply leave them on the table for future use? Would they really invest themselves in this issue simply to be hyperbolic and take a stab at QF?

Personally, I highly doubt QF is important enough to consume that much of QR's time.

 

[Lynda2475]

Do we really think if awarded these slots, QR would simply leave them on the table for future use?

They would however, likely cancel other unpopular services like the ones to ADL via MEL meaning overall no more capacity.

And the big elephant int he room QR is already one of the most expensive airlines, so would extra flights have any meaningful effect of air prices? Maybe wth their direct competitors like Etihad or Emerites but not for those who fly via Aisa where there is already plenty of competition.

QFs exit from DBX and move to SIN shows that commercially, there is a larger market for flights via Asia than the ME.

 

[dajop]

QFs exit from DBX and move to SIN shows that commercially, there is a larger market for flights via Asia than the ME.

I think it's not as straightforward as that. I'd say there's a larger market for flights to Asia than the ME. The QF SIN flights support much more than Europe traffic, whereas QF's DXB flights were largely about Europe traffic (and limited feed onto EK's ME/N Africa network).

 

[RooFlyer]

And the big elephant int he room QR is already one of the most expensive airlines,

Nonesense. You have said many times that you would never fly them so I doubt you’ve ever looked at their prices, certainly not regularly. I have, (like any airline, I find their prices rise and fall from time to time ), and there’s also been discussion of relative prices up thread ( prices not extracted by me) and Qatar was about in the middle of the mainline Airlines. The debate about the Middle East airlines is usually that they’re cheap and State subsidised. Never that they are one of the more expensive options.

 

[stm1sydney]

so would extra flights have any meaningful effect of air prices?

Who knows? Why don't we try it and find out?

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

They would however, likely cancel other unpopular services like the ones to ADL via MEL meaning overall no more capacity.

I was not aware that you were privy to this information. Are you a QR employee? Or is this just a hunch you've presented just because? In reality, of course, if QR saw no value flying nonstop to places like ADL, they simply wouldn't. No one's forcing them to.

And the big elephant int he room QR is already one of the most expensive airlines, so would extra flights have any meaningful effect of air prices? Maybe wth their direct competitors like Etihad or Emerites but not for those who fly via Aisa where there is already plenty of competition.

Irrelevant, of course, even if true -- and in my experience, it isn't. "We denied QR more flights because we think QR is too expensive." That'd be an even weaker excuse for the "national interest" than the attempts wheeled out thus far.

QFs exit from DBX and move to SIN shows that commercially, there is a larger market for flights via Asia than the ME.

Emirates flies a very busy schedule between Dubai and Australia each day, including on A380s. Perhaps QF's decision to redirect their flights via Singapore has more to do with Emirates doing the brunt of the work of the joint venture the two carriers have to/from Europe, thus freeing up QF to offer an additional option via Singapore. As we all know, it's not as if QF has many spare aircraft lying around to fly direct to both cities.

---
TL/DR - none of this is relevant to QR's request, nor to the "national interest" excuse to deny that request.

 

[dajop]

I was not aware that you were privy to this information. Are you a QR employee? Or is this just a hunch you've presented just because? In reality, of course, if QR saw no value flying nonstop to places like ADL, they simply wouldn't. No one's forcing them to.

Um, I don't think anyone suggesting they'd stop the non-stop service to ADL. But I think you don't have to be an insider to pretty much guarantee that if they are granted additional frequencies between MEL/PER/SYD/BNE and DOH, that they will discontinue the MEL-ADL-MEL legs of the current DOH-ADL service via MEL which has a 5 hour layover in MEL at the back of the clock, and that solely exists to facilitate a second daily MEL service within the current Australia/Qatar Air Services Agreement.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

Um, I don't think anyone suggesting they'd stop the non-stop service to ADL. But I think you don't have to be an insider to pretty much guarantee that if they are granted additional frequencies between MEL/PER/SYD/BNE and DOH, that they will discontinue the MEL-ADL-MEL legs of the current DOH-ADL service via MEL which has a 5 hour layover in MEL at the back of the clock, and that solely exists to facilitate a second daily MEL service within the current Australia/Qatar Air Services Agreement.

It was suggested above that there won't be a net-increase in capacity. Certainly the MEL-ADL tag would go, but that hardly leaves a net deficit in capacity (even for ADL, as virtually no one in ADL uses that tag flight anyway). So where's the lost capacity coming from such that it's a wash?

What would be interesting is whether doing away with the MEL-ADL tag would see QR increase to 3 flights to MEL daily or not. Even if not, it's still a 21-flight-per-week increase on the table nationally.

 

[Lynda2475]

In reality, of course, if QR saw no value flying nonstop to places like ADL, they simply wouldn't.

Wasnt talking about the non-stop rather the unpopular one via MEL that requires hours in MEL at a time when no lounges or shops are open. They clearly only do this because they cant fly more direct flights to SYD and MEL; because if someone really wanted to fly DOH-ADL they would just take the direct flight and not opt to be locked in MEL over night.

You need only look at the questions here on AFF and elsewhere, where most who have booked this route are really want to leave in MEL and not continue on to ADL. We know many are doing HLO to leave in MEL; and haven't seen reports QR banning people for this hidden city ticketing hack because they know if they do they will have fewer bookings.

You can guarantee if they were allowed extra flights to SYD/MEL they would cancel the DOH-MEL-ADL redeploying that aircraft so no net increase in seats as same number of flights, but easier for them to sell DOH-MEL/SYD than DOH-MEL-ADL, given there is already a DOH-ADL.

TL/DR - none of this is relevant to QR's request, nor to the "national interest" excuse to deny that request.

Naive to think protecting QF who do not even compete on ME routes was the whole reasoning for the decision. It is well understood a certain unresolved criminal matter where QR (and wholly QR owned subsidiaries) are the accused is a major factor; not to mention bilateral agreements we have with other carriers in the region.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

None of this is relevant to the decision of allowing QR more flights into Australia except the suggestion of the pending court case. However, that excuse also falls flat given the government just a few weeks ago smugly declared that QR not only could but should fly more to Hobart, Gold Coast.... wherever. "We can't let you fly into SYD/MEL/BNE/PER due to a pending criminal case but by gosh, we'd love it if you flew to Broome!" Really?

Even if the rest were relevant, it'd be an own goal: "We're denying you these flights because you already have some of them anyway." Huh? Particularly given one of the excuses was "emissions," it seems particularly silly to say a DOH-MEL-ADL is fine but a simple DOH-MEL is not.

The decision was made. QR and others are rightly taking swipes at the Federal Government now to try to jostle them into reviewing and changing that decision. I doubt egos will allow that, but the fact remains that the decision has yet to be justified in any way that is objectively convincing, and the rest of this is just noise coupled with attempts to defend the government's decision within preferred narratives and positions.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

Naive to think protecting QF who do not even compete on ME routes was the whole reasoning for the decision.

QF does compete on ME routes, in the form of an unrestricted joint venture with Emirates. That arrangement makes the discussion about "Australian jobs" and "human rights" particularly galling. Say what you will about Qatar, and then you can copy and paste most of it to apply in kind to the UAE.

 

[Lynda2475]

LOL QF also sell QR seats; and QR sell QF seats.

I personally wouldn't fly QR or EK, but selling seats on a partner is not directly competing.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

LOL QF also sell QR seats; and QR sell QF seats.

I personally wouldn't fly QR or EK, but selling seats on a partner is not directly competing.

There's a big difference selling seats on another carrier and having a joint venture that allows the parties to work together to set pricing and split revenue.

 

[Must...Fly!]

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

The detail would be interesting but I am inclined to believe QR on this one, they have a big upper hand in public perception at the moment, I would argue the kind that money can't really buy at an organisational level. If they could rob Peter to pay Paul on this occasion they probably would.

Keep in mind we're approaching European winter, so wet leasing from another carrier and then re-deploying QR aircraft in to AU would be possible on a short term basis.

 

[Lynda2475]

they have a big upper hand in public perception at the moment

LOL a good deal of Aussies find their conduct appalling, and feel nothing but I'll will.

 

[Must...Fly!]

LOL a good deal of Aussies find their conduct appalling, and feel nothing but I'll will.

I would wager they have a higher public perception score (whatever the pro term is for that) than Qantas right now, and that's my point.

 

[RooFlyer]

that they will discontinue the MEL-ADL-MEL legs of the current DOH-ADL service via MEL which has a 5 hour layover in MEL at the back of the clock

Sure but the ADL-MEL-DOH bit has excellent timing. I just did it and had an excellent lunch in the QFlounge during the stop 🍽

 

[drron]

LOL a good deal of Aussies find their conduct appalling, and feel nothing but I'll will.

And I would think more Aussies currently find a lot of QF's conduct appalling as most Aussies probably don't think about QR very much at all.