Rex threatens to ban Tasmanian mayor for criticising airline’s price gouging

[Quickstatus]

Rex is chronically full of cough

A well known orthopaedic surgeon who commutes regularly between SYD and DBO says ZL is always late.

 

[anat0l]

A well known orthopaedic surgeon who commutes regularly between SYD and DBO says ZL is always late.

Regional flights are on average less on time compared to mainline flights. QantasLink's record is worse than Qantas mainline.

That said, it also depends on how often, how much late and how many flights per day service that centre (including whether there are any other airline options).

 

[RooFlyer]

An airline threatening to place a person on the same no-fly list mainly reserved for terrorists and violent criminals,

Well, you'd hope that terrorists and violent criminals have been put on a 'no freedom' list by the authorities, before they get anywhere near booking a flight. Osama Bin Laden rocks up at the boarding gate with his boarding pass and is told "I'm sorry Mr Bin Laden, we aren't letting you fly with Qantas today - try the Virgin counter, over there".

In Australia, no-fly or banned lists are usually reserved for punters who abuse staff, break the rules on FF programs, need the attention of the AFP on-board etc. You should know this.

This is a major revelation of national significance

Its stuff like this that reinforce my view that its all a big (quite sophisticated) leg pull. I admire the effort to do it.

 

[burmans]

All airlines, including QF, price gouge due to just and unjust factors. But this thread isn’t about price gouging, it’s about the response from Rex.

I think it’s time for you to face up to the fact that nobody should be banned from flying an airline because they criticised their prices in public. And even the AFR agrees.

I’m not aware of QF having made such threats to people in their 103-year history.

Dunno why you keep going on about the AFR agreeing. They are entitled to have an opinion but that’s all it is and they are but one party.

As for QF, yes they probably are more subtle in their threats.

 

[Quickstatus]

This sets a dangerous precedent for any Australian with a platform

You really want to set a moral standard for airline behaviour?
Be careful what you wish for..
This 'dangerous precedent' is a bit overblowk IMO. As far as I can see its some chest beating on both sides.
A Dangerous precedent to me is an airline who appears to have the ear of government and outsized leverage far in excess of what is reasonable and who seems to think it can risk rolling the dice with corporate illegality.

same no-fly list mainly reserved for terrorists and violent criminals,

People have been on no fly lists for a lot less.

Since it's foreign-owned Rex that is in question, it's business as usual, right?

At least it didn't break any laws that I can think of.

national carrier

Who is this national carrier you speak of.

 

[anat0l]

A Dangerous precedent to me is an airline any very large company who appears to have the ear of government and outsized leverage far in excess of what is reasonable and who seems to think it can risk rolling the dice with corporate illegality.

Fixed for you.

And the precedent has been here since near time immemorial. It has barely let up since the era of cronyism and hit squads.

 

[RSVKanga]

Dunno why you keep going on about the AFR agreeing. They are entitled to have an opinion but that’s all it is and they are but one party.

To give you context if you’re unaware, the AFR was the publication that consistently penned, in my opinion, belligerent and provocative over-the-top commentary against Qantas (and the Australian Government) while promoting and protecting the interests of QF rival Qatar Airways and the Qatar Government, as well as foreign-owned Virgin Australia last year. QF banned the AFR from its lounges and Wi-Fi in May 2023 with the ban lifted shortly after Hudson took over.

So It’s great that even they have admitted that Rex’s actions have dwarfed QF when it comes it a new low in Australian aviation. To have such an anti-QF publication admit that QF’s behaviour is better than that of its foreign-owned competitors really reflects on the severity and significance of this issue which should not be dismissed or underestimated.

appears to have the ear of government

Unsure why this is an issue. Qantas was designated by the government to carry the Australian flag on their aircraft, so no wonder there are frequent communications between the airline and the government. QF is one two privatised corporations with national significance and importance, the other being Telstra, and it warrants a special relationship with the government, whether people like it or not.

This 'dangerous precedent' is a bit overblowk IMO. As far as I can see it’s some chest beating on both sides.

Anyone who lives in a regional monopoly Rex city/town and has a platform (eg member of Parliament, council or local journalist) is now effectively silenced from complaining about Rex’s prices or they face a ban on potentially the only flights available out of their cities/towns. How un-Australian is that?

 

[Quickstatus]

the AFR was the publication that consistently penned, in my opinion, belligerent and provocative over-the-top commentary against Qantas

In your opinion maybe, but in my opinion, it brought to my attention the outsized (and in my view dangerous). influence Qantas has with Government especially in the context of government and son of a prime minister holding chairman lounge memberships.

You don't think that interests such as CL memberships are at the very least problematic and at worst dangerous for overall governance at all levels?

AFR is just a newspaper. It publishes whatever opinion it wants. It is no more important or authoritative than anyone else. That one column by one journalist in one newspaper writes about an airline in a certain way does not mean that another column by a different journalist in the same newspaper cannot write in a completely different way about the same airline. And if they do, it does not give that newspaper any more or less credibility or authority,

when it comes it a new low in Australian aviation

New low?. A stoush with a local mayor?.
A new low is when the High Court of Australia in a 7-0 decision smacked down Qantas for its illegal sacking of workers, then compounded by Qantas then admitting guilt when the ACCC took it to court.
Covid credits?

Qantas was designated by the government to carry the Australian flag on their aircraft,

Nationalised back in 1993. Since then it's been sold by the Govt. What does the Flag actually do?. Did it stop any of the corporate misconduct.

it warrants a special relationship with the government

Really?. What does the Qantas Sale Act say about that...

Anyone who lives in a regional monopoly Rex city/town and has a platform (eg member of Parliament, council or local journalist) is now effectively silenced

Blackie is apparently now toning down his rhetoric not because of Rex, but because several other stakeholders have coming out in support of Rex including other King island councillors, businesses, chamber of commerce. Dont forget this is not the first time Rex has had disagreements with some in King Island Council. The last time something similar blew up was in 2018 which resulted in KI council issuing an apology to Rex. KI council also has a history of making it difficult for Rex to do business when it increased airport fees.

Maybe also read what to local paper has to say. It's not all that flattering for Blackie. There is as I understand it no requirements for Rex to operate to King Island. It's not exactly a profitable business and so it must be galling for Rex for a mayor to attack it.

(See here also why I think it is a marginal business)

 

[RooFlyer]

TL;DR. Mayor of very small town serviced by Rex goes over the top in criticising Rex for gouging, when he mistook fares for direct flight for fares for indirect flights (>twice distance). Small airline Rex overreacts by threatening Mayor with ban.

Declared a National crisis by someone on AFF.

Up-shot: Nobody cares.

 

[RSVKanga]

You don't think that interests such as CL memberships are at the very least problematic and at worst dangerous for overall governance at all levels?

No.

It's been happening for decades. It's Australian corporate norm to reward individuals who represent our country or serve our population.

Also, Virgin Australia has an exact equivalent of the CL called 'Beyond'. So, if you really think CL memberships are a concern, then surely you think VA Beyond memberships "are at the very least problematic and at worst dangerous for overall governance at all levels", right........right? Rex isn't far behind when it comes to influence on governance as well.

Blackie is apparently now toning down his rhetoric not because of Rex, but because several other stakeholders have coming out in support of Rex including other King island councillors, businesses, chamber of commerce.

It doesn't matter whether the parties have calmed down or not. The initial threat from Rex was extraordinary and now every local mayor or regional MP will inevitably fear calling out future price gouging activities.

 

[Quickstatus]

The/your/my ABC:

 

[drron]

Of course both QF and VA have agreed with Rex in the past on airport charges. And note that has been and issue at King Island for a long time.

Alan Joyce & Paul Scurrah

'The Great Australian Monopoly: Where nobody wins but the airports'

www.npc.org.au

And of course QF doesn't have to threaten Mayors because it just goes to the most relevant member of the Chairman's lounge and works things out.