Qatar denied extra capacity into Australia

[MooTime]

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?

Yes that can't be good image for QR, actually terrible if the media link it & print it. This may hurt them big time. IMO of course.

 

[eastwest101]

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.

Yes but normal governments would actually use their Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in dealing with other governments, from some of the reading of the report it looks like DFAT was completely out of the loop in any decision making or even consultation.

What you are saying is that governments are unaccountable to anybody. Not sure that's going to fly. Australian governments are accountable to the parliment, courts and the voters at the very least surely?

If the Qatari Government and/or the Airline was such a national security security concern, then why are they flying here at all, and why did various ministers say that QR were welcome to fly to other cities such as Gold Coast/Cairns/Darwin etc but not to Sydney/Melbourne or Brisbane? Or do security concerns only relate to some Australian cities and not others?

If the Federal Government want to have a human rights as a condition to entry to the Australian market, thats fine, be open about it and they had better start withdrawing air-rights for airlines from Hong Kong, mainland China, UAE, Abu Dubai, Vietnam and arguably India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Fiji, PNG, Thailand and Singapore? Where would you like them to draw the line?

Its the number of specious, illogical, inconsistent and varying excuses that the government has offered that makes them such an obvious target of ridicule in this particular decision. Nealy all would agree that the actions at Doha Airport in 2020 are worth criticism, and Qantas and other interested parties in the aviation industry are able to lobby and put forward their own views but the minister sure has made a mess of it, and is not beyond criticism, last time I checked all people in the country are relitively free to question government decisions.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Yes that can't be good image for QR, actually terrible if the media link it & print it. This may hurt them big time. IMO of course.

It is no secret. QR were not suddenly blockaded from certain Arab neighbours a few years back for no reason. But that didn't really change things in the long run, did it. The state of Qatar still provides support, funding and some form of safe haven for all sorts of characters most of us would consider as unsavoury.

 

[Lynda2475]

What you are saying is that governments are unaccountable to anybody

Never said any such thing, just that not accountable to a foreign government whose fundamental values are so misaligned with most Australians.

I've said it before I am quite happy to not have them fly here at all.

I don't believe prices will come down since they are expensive and sends the wrong message re their terrible assault of women and them supporting terrorist organisations like hamas.

 

[OATEK]

Yes but normal governments would actually use their Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in dealing with other governments, from some of the reading of the report it looks like DFAT was completely out of the loop in any decision making or even consultation.

What you are saying is that governments are unaccountable to anybody. Not sure that's going to fly. Australian governments are accountable to the parliment, courts and the voters at the very least surely?

If the Qatari Government and/or the Airline was such a national security security concern, then why are they flying here at all, and why did various ministers say that QR were welcome to fly to other cities such as Gold Coast/Cairns/Darwin etc but not to Sydney/Melbourne or Brisbane? Or do security concerns only relate to some Australian cities and not others?

If the Federal Government want to have a human rights as a condition to entry to the Australian market, thats fine, be open about it and they had better start withdrawing air-rights for airlines from Hong Kong, mainland China, UAE, Abu Dubai, Vietnam and arguably India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Fiji, PNG, Thailand and Singapore? Where would you like them to draw the line?

Its the number of specious, illogical, inconsistent and varying excuses that the government has offered that makes them such an obvious target of ridicule in this particular decision. Nealy all would agree that the actions at Doha Airport in 2020 are worth criticism, and Qantas and other interested parties in the aviation industry are able to lobby and put forward their own views but the minister sure has made a mess of it, and is not beyond criticism, last time I checked all people in the country are relitively free to question government decisions.

1. The existing agreement allowed QR to fly to OOL, CNS & DRW, and the Govt merely re-iterated that QR had this right.

2. There is no indication that the Govt wants to apply human rights conditions to incoming carriers - just that they want QATAR/QR to settle one case in the Australian courts.

 

[eastwest101]

It is no secret. QR were not suddenly blockaded from certain Arab neighbours a few years back for no reason. But that didn't really change things in the long run, did it. The state of Qatar still provides support, funding and some form of safe haven for all sorts of characters most of us would consider as unsavoury.

Yes - in 2017 banned from overflying from the shining lights and bastions of democracy and human rights that the countries of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Bahrain are famous for....

Many media outlets have also reported on people within Qatar and the UAE (among others) more in the past than presently financing of Hamas/ISIS and the Taliban, better get EK and EY out of our skies as well then if we are going to be consistent.

 

[Must...Fly!]

countries of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Bahrain

Several of which have or are in the slow process of normalising relations with Israel. Meanwhile Qatar doesn't see things the same way.

It is an interesting part of the world.

 

[dajop]

Several of which have or are in the slow process of normalising relations with Israel.

Probably goes without saying, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Probably goes without saying, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

More or less.

Except you can actually sit down and talk with one of them.

I won't lie it does make me consider whether even thinking about going to Qatar for a grand prix for example is a good idea. But I guess middle eastern rivalries is thankfully something I don't really have to worry about in the day to day.

 

[RooFlyer]

I won't lie it does make me consider whether even thinking about going to Qatar for a grand prix for example is a good idea. But I guess middle eastern rivalries is thankfully something I don't really have to worry about in the day to day.

Agree - but one time it did give me pause was when I was flying Doha north to Baku, across Iranian airspace, and the Iranians were firing the occasional missile west across to someone. I had to think Qatar and Iran - there ARE allies, aren't they?

 

[TheRealTMA]

It is no secret. QR were not suddenly blockaded from certain Arab neighbours a few years back for no reason. But that didn't really change things in the long run, did it. The state of Qatar still provides support, funding and some form of safe haven for all sorts of characters most of us would consider as unsavoury.

I suggest that was caused by them being the major base for coalition forces in strikes against Arab countries in the ME.

 

[Must...Fly!]

I suggest that was caused by them being the major base for coalition forces in strikes against Arab countries in the ME.

That's...an interesting take.

I think you suggest entirely wrongly.

 

[Himeno]

I suggest that was caused by them being the major base for coalition forces in strikes against Arab countries in the ME.

The QR blockade was about the Qatari support for Iran, alleged support of extremest groups and comments about the Saudi's by Al Jazeera (another organization fully owned by the Qatari government).

 

[Danger]

Promising (from The Oz on-line)

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”.

Rights? As in the things Qantas passengers largely don't have when their flights are cancelled and rescheduled for the following day? Or when their luggage doesn't arrive for three weeks? Or when they're downgraded from J to Y on a long haul and get $50 as a "goodwill gesture"?

 

[Danger]

I can't image it'll be long before this thread is removed from the GDS, so to speak, given how far and wide we now seem to have gone, so I'll get it now while I can.

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?

Not quite. The Washington Post reports:

Qatar works with Hamas to provide humanitarian assistance to civilians in the Gaza Strip, but it does not directly support the group.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/09/hamas-israel-war-explainer/

 

[Human]

Not quite. The Washington Post reports:

I really hope you're right. Thinking about it, the $1.8billion quoted won't buy very many weapons, but it'll provide a helluva lot of humanitarian assistance. So that may provide some evidence that what the Post says about the nature of Qatar's assistance is correct.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Sydney Morning Herald
Another article on Friday from Fairfax regarding the inquiry and an interview with one of the women assaulted at DOH.

“Anna said the women agreed with the dissenting report from government senators Tony Sheldon and Linda White, who defended King’s decision as being in the national interest, particularly in light of the women’s 2020 experience.

Sheldon said Coalition senators should take heed of the experience of two Qatar Airways cabin crew, whose deportation in June was facilitated by the airline after police allegedly questioned them about their sexuality. Homosexual relations are illegal in Qatar.”

 

[dajop]

I suppose the real question is, if those slots weren't given to Qatar who else would they be given to? If these slots were to be created out of thin air, then in theory that is a net increase in the supply of air traffic. If, on the other hand, these slots have to be taken from another international carrier, then yes it would be questionable.

Aren't slots and traffic rights are different things altogether? Qatar needs both traffic rights to the country (or in this case additional traffic rights to the 4 major international airports in Australia) and slots to a specific airport. It is theoretically possible that Qatar obtain traffic rights for their additional 28 services, but might not be able to secure an additional landing slot at the desired time at SYD, and thus could not add a service to SYD (although SYD is no LHR, so in practice, they'd be fine).

 

[Himeno]

Aren't slots and traffic rights are different things altogether? Qatar needs both traffic rights to the country (or in this case additional traffic rights to the 4 major international airports in Australia) and slots to a specific airport.

Yes, that it right. They need traffic rights from the national government of the country they wish to fly to and airport slots from the airport they wish to land at.
There is no limit to the amount of traffic rights a government can give. The government in question will give another nation as many flights as they are comfortable giving. Airport slots however are limited. The amount of slots at a given airport can change based on amount of runways, operating hours (eg curfews), amount of gates/stands, etc.

 

[RooFlyer]

Slot management at Sydney Airport

Slot Management at Sydney Airport is governed by the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 (the Act). The Act and associated legislative instruments set out a framework for the long-term management of demand at the Airport. The Act establishes a regime intended to control the scheduled movement times of airlines so that no more than 80 runway movements occur in any hour. The movement limit is an essential element of noise sharing and achieving balance between the efficient use of the airport and broader environmental impacts.

...

Day to day administration of the Slot Scheme is undertaken by Airport Coordination Australia (ACA). Guidance on the criteria for obtaining a slot should be sought from ACA as soon as a requirement for a slot is known.

It is the responsibility of all aircraft operators at Sydney Airport to make themselves aware of the legislative requirements applicable to them.

Airport Co-ordination Australia :

To monitor our business processes, we have a board of directors. The board consists of members representing Qantas Airways, Virgin Australia Airlines, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia and Sydney Airport. The ACA board also has an independent Chairman.

AFR report ‘Completely independent’: flight slots decider denies hoarding claims

The competition watchdog’s former chief Rod Sims says it is “outrageous” that Qantas and Virgin Australia have substantial shareholdings in the company that ultimately polices which airlines take off and land at Sydney Airport, even though it claims to make independent decisions.

...

According to documents lodged with the corporate regulator, Qantas owns a 41 per cent shareholding in ACA, and the airline’s finance and strategy boss Reed Tanger is on the ACA board. Virgin, meanwhile, has a 35 per cent stake in the company, and its head of network management, Matthew Yarrow, is on the board.