Qatar in talks to take up to 20pc stake in Virgin

[simmomelb]

No

Makes 2 of us, and yes, I was born here.

And I have 2 close friends that work for QF.

 

[seritonin]

No need to get QR more slots when it can just put planes in VA livery and create new flights to DOH under the VA brand.

They don't even need to do this. QR can fly it on behalf of VA with its crew etc. I just don't see a business sense for VA 'metal' to be in long haul international game again.

There is precedent already. QF292 operated by AY and last time I checked AY is 55% owned by the government.

 

[justinbrett]

Damn those Finns abusing our capacity regulations

 

[aus_flyer]

Qantas is a national carrier in name, not practice. It gouges travellers at every opportunity, it abandoned Australians during covid (thanks to Qatar for bringing more Australians home) and mostly acts in its own interests rather than that of Australians.

And it’s free to do all these things. Because it’s a private company. So let’s bring on some more competition.

 

[SeaWolf]

so would you not be embarrassed if your country doesn’t have a national carrier

The USA doesn't have a so-called 'national carrier'. Doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

 

[dajop]

. A very good example of this is them not being able to successfully fly their LAX-JFK-LAX service which actually had loads that were much larger than QR’s MEL-ADL-MEL flight.

I wouldn’t consider this a great comparison. For a start comparing a 1 hr to a 5.5 hr flight . Not to mention the more onerous LAX transfer. And the rejigging of QF’s whole approach to LAX and JFK (with respect to both timings of some flights into LAX such as MEL and BNE flights and JFK routing via AKL instead).

And the LAX-JFK was never used just to get another frequency on the SYD-LAX route.

 

[RSVKanga]

The USA doesn't have a so-called 'national carrier'. Doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

Maybe because it’s hard to pick an airline to designate as national carrier because they have three large premium airlines of similar size and network that are all proudly majority American-owned. Australia cannot sustain more than one long haul premium carrier, and all domestic competitors to QF are foreign-owned. It’s a completely different situation in Australia, so please stop trying to convey that the situation is the same.

 

[SeaWolf]

Australia cannot sustain more than one long haul premium carrier,

That's highly questionable.

Post automatically merged: Saturday at 1:53 PM

It’s a completely different situation in Australia,

That's simply false.

 

[justinbrett]

I assume you’re an Australian citizen, so would you not be embarrassed if your country doesn’t have a national carrier

It’s not a matter of embarrassment, it’s a matter of utility. A major economy like ours needs a locally based international airline. One the government can charter in times of crisis. Sure we can try to use foreign airlines to charter, but sometimes you can only rely on your own. The first covid charter was out of Wuhan and carried out by Qantas.

The whole IASC system is designed to ensure Australian airlines remain strong and I just don’t believe we’d ever be in a situation where we didn’t have a national carrier. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s Qantas, but an airline that looks very much like the current Qantas.

The Kiwis have already demonstrated this by renationalising Air NZ.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Australia cannot sustain more than one long haul premium carrier

Qantas is not in the top 5 long haul premium carriers by capacity that operates in Australia.

If Australia cannot sustain more than one long haul premium carrier, what does that say about Qantas?

 

[Quickstatus]

because they have three large premium airlines of similar size and network

Because they are not allowed to be dominant.
Imagine an Australia where QF is not allowed to have >50% of the market.

 

[MARTINE]

Yeah it's all getting a little tiring, talk about flogging a dead horse.

Yes
Its like when I was a medical student over 40 years ago and would watch Days of our Lives for about 15mins during swot vac as my brain had liquefied. Turn it on 40 years later and could probably see the same storylines without skipping a beat.

As I understand it RSV-

1. (QR/its gvt/their petro$$) are evil and have a global unfair advantage in aviation as opposed to many of the benevolent billionaires (one started Virgin ironically)
2. You wish (1) were banished from Australia forever wherever and whatever they fund
3. Its un-Australian to not care about the need for a national carrier (QF) and not fly QF
4.QF must be supported to be prosperous and give us pride on the world stage

Its your opinion and its respected. There are baselines assumptions to ensuring the above
…Now I suggest you lobby to get the federal govt buy it back to make all of the above happen
It could be called UNCLE (United National Carrier Levy (for) Everyone)

 

[RSVKanga]

Imagine an Australia where QF is not allowed to have >50% of the market.

But that would be an assault on capitalism, right? Why not let the market decide!

Unlike international aviation, Australia's domestic aviation industry is an free and fair market, and the market forces are in favour of Qantas/Jetstar over the foreign-owned VA and Rex. Attempts to start/run more airlines domestically have failed. So be it.

Although the domestic aviation industry will cease to be a free and fair market when QR, owned by a non-capitalist autocracy with unlimited oil wealth, buys into VA and gives them an unfair advantage.

Post automatically merged: Saturday at 2:55 PM

1. (QR/its gvt/their petro$$) are evil and have a global unfair advantage in aviation as opposed to many of the benevolent billionaires (one started Virgin ironically)
2. You wish (1) were banished from Australia forever wherever and whatever they fund
3. Its un-Australian to not care about the need for a national carrier (QF) and not fly QF
4.QF must be supported to be prosperous and give us pride on the world stage

Agreed!

 

[SeaWolf]

1. (QR/its gvt/their petro$$) are evil and have a global unfair advantage in aviation as opposed to many of the benevolent billionaires (one started Virgin ironically)
2. You wish (1) were banished from Australia forever wherever and whatever they fund
3. Its un-Australian to not care about the need for a national carrier (QF) and not fly QF
4.QF must be supported to be prosperous and give us pride on the world stage

5. Rebrand as Aeroflot Australia.

 

[jase05]

Why not let the market decide!

Absolutely
People can choose to fly a world class airline or one that offers 3 star service at 5 star prices.
QF will always be number 1 in this country and that won’t change. They will always be the dominant player in the domestic market and have the added bonus of controlling freight in this country which makes huge profits and something which VA can never capture even with the backing of QR

 

[Quickstatus]

But that would be an assault on capitalism, right? Why not let the market decide!

You referred to the land of the free where there are robust antitrust laws preventing market dominance.

Yes! we can let the market decide - in which case everything you have said so far is moot.

 

[RSVKanga]

Yes we can let the market decide - in which case everything you have said so far is moot.

Did you even read my post?

I think I've made it quite clear that the international aviation market is not a free-for-all while Australia's domestic aviation industry is at present a free and fair market. A lot of governments, including ours, routinely intervene in international aviation to protect and defend their local private and government-owned national carriers against competition that is against their national interest.

Did you even read the rest what the post said? Letting the market decide only applies to markets that are free and fair in capitalist economies. I said a current example of that is Australia's domestic aviation industry. That is until the non-capitalist autocratic oil rich Qatar buys a stake in VA, making the domestic market in Australia lose its state of being free and fair.

 

[jase05]

That is until the non-capitalist autocratic oil rich Qatar buys a stake in VA.

What part of a minority share do you not understand?
The way you carry on you must think they are having 100% total control.
And that’s even if this goes ahead.

 

[SeaWolf]

Did you even read my post?

National carrier, the national carrier, our national carrier, flag carrier, something something something, national carrier.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Quickstatus]

Did you even read my post?

They were your comments. The Don market is hardly free and fair in my view. Fair and free is where no airline can have more than 50% of the market (as a minimum condition). So either have free market conditions or not. If not then the "national carrier" should not be market dominant. In which case it's not the national carrier