Qatar denied extra capacity into Australia

[RSVKanga]

(ie Adelaide direct on QR, nothing on QF)

Unfortunately that’s the reality. South Australia can sustain middle eastern connectors but not Qantas international services anymore. NSW, Vic., Qld., and WA are the major states of this country and SYD, MEL, BNE and PER are the only airports QF can operate profitable long haul international services to and from.

The same question could apply to the UK. Why does British Airways only operate international flights out of England and not out of Wales and Northern Ireland? (Scotland has limited service). Heck, BA don’t even fly domestic services into Wales! Compared to that, the Qantas treatment of South Australia and the rest of the states and territories is basically sunshine and rainbows.

Or tried to

They indeed did. They flew into all sorts of destinations from the original epicentre of Wuhan to operating a record breaking nonstop repatriation flight from Buenos Aires to Brisbane. But are you suggesting that QF should have operated those flights on a regular basis without government support?

 

[eastwest101]

It’s not outrageous. Qatar leans more to being an adversary than a friend to Australia and the fact that you mentioned Qatar potentially threatening Australia with the LNG factor only solidifies the idea that they are more of a one-way adversary rather than a two-way partnership.

So using your logic anyone who is an export trade competitor or an "adversary" to Australia should be banned from flying here - so goodbye to all the following domiciled airlines: Qatar, Air New Zealand, South Africa, India, Oman, Canada, Singapore, PNG, all US airlines, Chile and Thai airlines.

And using your logic of banning airlines because of questionable human rights records see the end of airlines from Qatar, the UAE, Abu Dubai, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, all mainland Chinese Airlines, all airlines from Hong Kong, Vietnam, Fiji, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Phillippines, Sri Lanka, arguably the USA...

You are left with flying either Qantas, British Airways or maybe airlines from Japan/South Korea or Taiwan? will be keenly watching where your travels take you...

 

[RooFlyer]

Unfortunately that’s the reality. South Australia can sustain middle eastern connectors but not Qantas international services anymore.

We have to ask ourselves - why is this the case? Why aren't South Australians clamoring for a Qantas service so they can fly "the national carrier" over some dodgy, human-rights abusing carrier? Why doesn't Qantas enter the competitive market-place, like they do on many domestic routes where other carriers have popped up? Yes, one of the reasons is that the former CEO didn't bother ordering new planes until he was on the way out, so not enough aircraft, but the main reason is that QR provide such a superior service that it would be Qantas, not QR that would be driven out. I've flown both long haul recently - absolutely no contest.

But are you suggesting that QF should have operated those flights on a regular basis without government support?

No, but we've changed the subject a bit. QR operated their usual route service from Europe via DOH into Australia, so more Australians could get home. Qantas gave up, except when the government paid. Yes, QR was very expensive, but many benefited from the QR service, reducing pressure on the government-sponsored flights. It it wanted to, QF could have utilised its overseas based crew (and/or made special arrangements for new crew to be o/s based) and flown services, just like QR did. Instead, it stood everyone down, resulting in the complete sh$$-show that occurred when they tried to 're-start' international.

But as others have said, all of these issues have been hashed over a couple of cycles (ie before you joined the forum). I shall leave it there.

 

[RSVKanga]

So using your logic anyone who is an export trade competitor or an "adversary" to Australia should be banned from flying here - so goodbye to all the following domiciled airlines: Qatar, Air New Zealand, South Africa, India, Oman, Canada, Singapore, PNG, all US airlines, Chile and Thai airlines.

And using your logic of banning airlines because of questionable human rights records see the end of airlines from Qatar, the UAE, Abu Dubai, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, all mainland Chinese Airlines, all airlines from Hong Kong, Vietnam, Fiji, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Phillippines, Sri Lanka, arguably the USA...

I think you’re twisting the truth and going on a long tangent. I never said anything about human rights, I was talking about Qatar Airways’ treatment of our citzens during transit in Doha. Not talking about countries’ human rights records; I agree that we need to prioritise potential benefit over morals when it comes to airlines. That isn’t even my main point though. It was the fact that a poster mentioned that “Qatar has the ability to decimate our LNG industry if we don’t be nice to them” that shows that Qatar is an adversary to Australia which we could be forced to “satisfy”, not a partner.

 

[RSVKanga]

We have to ask ourselves - why is this the case? Why aren't South Australians clamoring for a Qantas service so they can fly "the national carrier" over some dodgy, human-rights abusing carrier? Why doesn't Qantas enter the competitive market-place, like they do on many domestic routes where other carriers have popped up? Yes, one of the reasons is that the former CEO didn't bother ordering new planes until he was on the way out, so not enough aircraft, but the main reason is that QR provide such a superior service that it would be Qantas, not QR that would be driven out. I've flown both long haul recently - absolutely no contest.

Did you even read about my paragraph on the UK? I say it again: Why does British Airways only operate international flights out of England and not out of Wales and Northern Ireland? (Scotland has limited service). Heck, BA don’t even fly domestic services into Wales! British Airways is the “National Carrier” of the UK and it’s a disgrace they don’t fly international (or even fly) out of Cardiff, Belfast and only fly one international flight out of Edinburgh! Compared to that, the Qantas treatment of South Australia and the rest of the states and territories is basically sunshine and rainbows.

 

[Pushka]

Are you aware that Australia had the strictest border closures in the world, whether it be state or federal? Qantas were barred from operating flights internationally AND domestically due to those restrictions and if they did they would have been in massive financial danger as the airline was a private company on a brink of collapse trying to minimise costs due to border closures. QR is a state owned corporation that could afford to fly into Australia despite the border hassles due to their significant economic advantage in the form of unlimited oil funds

Get real. We all know here what happened during Covid.

Please show me where the legislation states that Qantas was banned from flying internationally and domestically during Covid. My understanding is that cancellation of flights was an operational one and not one enforced by Government. Big difference.

However you try to rationalise your anti Qatar stance, or is it your pro Qantas one? both Liberal and Labor Governments in SA gladly accepted them during Covid and want them to increase services post Covid. There was much comment about the trade they were maintaining for us. The current Govt basically states Qantas Int have abandoned us. Go figure.

 

[RSVKanga]

The current Govt basically states Qantas Int have abandoned us.

I once again make reference to the UK example. England is the only country in the UK that meets the requirements for profitable long-haul international BA flights - and the same applies to Australia and it’s national carrier; NSW, VIC, QLD and WA are the only states in Australia that meet the requirements for profitable long-haul international flights from the national carrier. Unfortunately places like Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and South Australia a) aren’t big enough population wise and b) don’t have enough heavy corporate/leisure characteristics to sustain a BA/Qantas hub in their own right. I think Edinburgh has one BA international flight but that’s all there is.

Middle Eastern Airlines and other major carriers operate flights into Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and South Australia because they are connector airlines and those destinations perfectly suit their hub-and-spoke model, not the model of QF and BA.

 

[Pushka]

I once again make reference to the UK example. England is the only country in the UK that meets the requirements for profitable long-haul international BA flights - and the same applies to Australia and it’s national carrier; NSW, VIC, QLD and WA are the only states in Australia that meet the requirements for profitable long-haul international flights from the national carrier. Unfortunately places like Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and South Australia a) aren’t big enough population wise and b) don’t have enough heavy corporate/leisure characteristics to sustain a BA/Qantas hub in their own right. I think Edinburgh has one BA international flight but that’s all there is.

Middle Eastern Airlines and other major carriers operate flights into Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and South Australia because they are connector airlines and those destinations perfectly suit their hub-and-spoke model, not the model of QF and BA.

So, Qantas weren't banned from flying then during Covid as you stated. They chose not to.

I don't give a squat what happens in Britain. They at least do have a good train system and it's a much smaller country so comparisons are completely irrelevant and meaningless. You can travel by rail from northern UK to London in just a few hours. We've done it. So if that's your best rationale then well

 

[jase05]

I once again make reference to the UK example. England is the only country in the UK that meets the requirements for profitable long-haul international BA flights - and the same applies to Australia and it’s national carrier; NSW, VIC, QLD and WA are the only states in Australia that meet the requirements for profitable long-haul international flights from the national carrier. Unfortunately places like Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and South Australia a) aren’t big enough population wise and b) don’t have enough heavy corporate/leisure characteristics to sustain a BA/Qantas hub in their own right. I think Edinburgh has one BA international flight but that’s all there is.

Middle Eastern Airlines and other major carriers operate flights into Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and South Australia because they are connector airlines and those destinations perfectly suit their hub-and-spoke model, not the model of QF and BA.

I’m not fussed what BA do. I’m fussed what happens here in SA and QF abandoned us long ago and that’s fine if the numbers don’t stack up. Just don’t get upset or cry foul when we choose to fly with other carriers who will service us. At the moment we have two daily QR flights and almost 2 daily SQ flights which gets us out of trouble

 

[RSVKanga]

I don't give a squat what happens in Britain. They at least do have a good train system and it's a much smaller country so comparisons are completely irrelevant and meaningless. You can travel by rail from northern UK to London in just a few hours. We've done it. So if that's your best rationale then well

Alright, what about an example closer to home; New Zealand - they don’t have a “good” train system - if you want to get from say Christchurch to Auckland by land you’d have to drive for hours and take a ferry - no channel tunnel between north and south islands as well so it’s similar to Australia.

Adelaide and Christchurch face the same situation. Apart from a few Australian routes, AirNZ has 0 long haul destinations from Christchurch, New Zealand’s second largest city. It’s because CHC does not have a population, corporate or leisure characteristic that is heavy enough to satisfy an AirNZ long haul international hub despite major international airlines such as EK and AA tapping in to CHC with their daily flight. People can connect to Christchurch on AirNZ from their long haul network in Auckland. Adelaide is no different unfortunately. The best Adelaide can get from Qantas without serious government support are potential flights to NZ on the A220. What is the major corporate/financial significance of Adelaide? Adelaide’s tourism profile might be good locally (eg proximity to wineries) but it doesn’t stand a chance against Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth on the international stage.

 

[eastwest101]

I think you’re twisting the truth and going on a long tangent. I never said anything about human rights, I was talking about Qatar Airways’ treatment of our citzens during transit in Doha. Not talking about countries’ human rights records; I agree that we need to prioritise potential benefit over morals when it comes to airlines. That isn’t even my main point though. It was the fact that a poster mentioned that “Qatar has the ability to decimate our LNG industry if we don’t be nice to them” that shows that Qatar is an adversary to Australia which we could be forced to “satisfy”, not a partner.

You keep on flitting around between various specious arguments that have been thrown up before by the transport minister to explain the federal government decision:

1. If the airline QR is such a security risk then why are they still flying here?
2. if the treatment of passengers at DOH airport is the issue then it's a government-to-government matter unless you want to go down the path of trade sanctions a-la China's ban on Australian exports if that's the case then should have also banned all Hong Kong & Chinese airlines about Cheng Li and Yang Hengju for instance.
3. if "Petro dollars" are so bad then you'd better ban Emirates, Ethiad & several other airlines as well. As a matter of fact - if your objection is that state-run airlines aren't subject to the same economic realities as commercial airlines, then you will need to propose a ban on Emirates, Etihad, Air New Zealand and a whole bunch of other state-run or owned airlines as well.
4. If it is a protection racquet of a national species called Qantas decision then, again, better ban all competitor airlines, because Qantas isn't so good at competing with anyone except a depleted shell of an airline that is Virgin Australia and isn't too good at the basics of employment law, consumer law, operating to a schedule, fleet planning, offering a competitive product, but they have a really nice Chairman's Lounge I hear.
5. If it's solely a treatment of transit pax issue by overseas governments, then again -following your logic - you would be banning airlines from mainland China, Hong Kong, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesian, Fiji, Brunei, PNG, the UAE etc etc

The comments about Qatar Airlines and the Qatari Government being the sole beneficiaries of any increased bilateral ignores the reality of competition, and the laws of supply and demand. If you want to personally pay more in airfares and freight by moral posturing, then thats fine, but not everyone else does, and some people in Australia like Qatar Airlines employees and contractors in Australia, its customers who use its passenger services, and its freight customers might have a different view. As might the poor Australian tourism operators, who are still trying to rebuild their businesses after Covid.

 

[RSVKanga]

You keep on flitting around between various specious arguments that have been thrown up before by the transport minister to explain the federal government decision:

1. If the airline QR is such a security risk then why are they still flying here?
2. if the treatment of passengers at DOH airport is the issue then it's a government-to-government matter unless you want to go down the path of trade sanctions a-la China's ban on Australian exports if that's the case then should have also banned all Hong Kong & Chinese airlines about Cheng Li and Yang Hengju for instance.
3. if "Petro dollars" are so bad then you'd better ban Emirates, Ethiad & several other airlines as well. As a matter of fact - if your objection is that state-run airlines aren't subject to the same economic realities as commercial airlines, then you will need to propose a ban on Emirates, Etihad, Air New Zealand and a whole bunch of other state-run or owned airlines as well.
4. If it is a protection racquet of a national species called Qantas decision then, again, better ban all competitor airlines, because Qantas isn't so good at competing with anyone except a depleted shell of an airline that is Virgin Australia and isn't too good at the basics of employment law, consumer law, operating to a schedule, fleet planning, offering a competitive product

You keep vehemently exaggerating the “moral” points. I’ve said it before, Australia should put commercial interests ahead of morals when it comes to aviation, but the Qatar “moral” incident was directly related to Australian Citizens transiting in Doha Hamad Airport between Qatar Airways flights - not non aviation related “morals” such as alleged human rights abuses in Qatar on migrant workers - that’s an issue which I’m happy Australia doesn’t worry about from an aviation perspective.


Now to your points:

1. If the airline QR is such a security risk then why are they still flying here?

It’s not a security risk, I never said that. I just quoted another poster who said the country of Qatar could “decimate” Australia with the LNG factor if we don’t cater for their demands. It suggested a potential act of aggression and them being an adversary, I’m not sure what that LNG graph from that poster had to do with aviation, but here we are.

2. if the treatment of passengers at DOH airport is the issue then it's a government-to-government matter unless you want to go down the path of trade sanctions a-la China's ban on Australian exports if that's the case then should have also banned all Hong Kong & Chinese airlines about Cheng Li and Yang Hengju for instance.

What does Cheng Lei and Yang Hengjun have to do with the Australian-International aviation industry? The 2020 incident was directly related to Qatar Airways, Australia and the aviation industry. Cheng Lei and Yang Hengjun’s circumstances had nothing to do with aviation.

if "Petro dollars" are so bad then you'd better ban Emirates, Ethiad & several other airlines as well. As a matter of fact - if your objection is that state-run airlines aren't subject to the same economic realities as commercial airlines, then you will need to propose a ban on Emirates, Etihad, Air New Zealand and a whole bunch of other state-run or owned airlines as well.

Ban? A level playing field was what I advocated for in regards to this point, the ban was for the treatment of Australian citizens at Doha Airport by Qatar Airways and the QCAA, not for this. I however support restrictions on “Petro dollar” airlines that are competing against our national carrier because international aviation is not a free market and the Australian Government agrees. Did you know that there are restrictions on Australian airlines flying into EU destinations? Why should we allow that to happen while approve Qatar’s flights? A level playing field is necessary when these unlimited oil competitors come in - Emirates has the exception as they have significantly helped our national carrier return to profit in 2015 and they still have an extensive network partnership with Qantas. Virgin Australia shouldn’t be considered as much since they’re not a national carrier, are 95% foreign owned and don’t have any long haul aircraft or destinations and are not a full service airline.

If it is a protection racquet of a national species called Qantas decision then, again, better ban all competitor airlines, because Qantas isn't so good at competing with anyone except a depleted shell of an airline that is Virgin Australia and isn't too good at the basics of employment law, consumer law, operating to a schedule, fleet planning, offering a competitive product

Similar point to #3. See above.

The comments about Qatar Airlines and the Qatari Government being the sole beneficiaries of any increased bilateral ignores the reality of competition, and the laws of supply and demand.

Again, international aviation is not a free market. Supply and demand don’t really apply to an airline backed with unlimited oil funds which allow them to fly completely empty routes (such as the MEL-ADL flight) and offset the loss from oil. Qantas doesn’t have that ability.

 

[BAM1748]

You keep on flitting around between various specious arguments that have been thrown up before by the transport minister to explain the federal government decision:

1. If the airline QR is such a security risk then why are they still flying here?
2. if the treatment of passengers at DOH airport is the issue then it's a government-to-government matter unless you want to go down the path of trade sanctions a-la China's ban on Australian exports if that's the case then should have also banned all Hong Kong & Chinese airlines about Cheng Li and Yang Hengju for instance.
3. if "Petro dollars" are so bad then you'd better ban Emirates, Ethiad & several other airlines as well. As a matter of fact - if your objection is that state-run airlines aren't subject to the same economic realities as commercial airlines, then you will need to propose a ban on Emirates, Etihad, Air New Zealand and a whole bunch of other state-run or owned airlines as well.
4. If it is a protection racquet of a national species called Qantas decision then, again, better ban all competitor airlines, because Qantas isn't so good at competing with anyone except a depleted shell of an airline that is Virgin Australia and isn't too good at the basics of employment law, consumer law, operating to a schedule, fleet planning, offering a competitive product, but they have a really nice Chairman's Lounge I hear.
5. If it's solely a treatment of transit pax issue by overseas governments, then again -following your logic - you would be banning airlines from mainland China, Hong Kong, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesian, Fiji, Brunei, PNG, the UAE etc etc

The comments about Qatar Airlines and the Qatari Government being the sole beneficiaries of any increased bilateral ignores the reality of competition, and the laws of supply and demand. If you want to personally pay more in airfares and freight by moral posturing, then thats fine, but not everyone else does, and some people in Australia like Qatar Airlines employees and contractors in Australia, its customers who use its passenger services, and its freight customers might have a different view.

Or, if could be totally unrelated to air travel, ie Qatar housing Hamas leaders.

 

[Pushka]

Alright, what about an example closer to home; New Zealand - they don’t have a “good” train system - if you want to get from say Christchurch to Auckland by land you’d have to drive for hours and take a ferry - no channel tunnel between north and south islands as well so it’s similar to Australia.

Adelaide and Christchurch face the same situation. Apart from a few Australian routes, AirNZ has 0 long haul destinations from Christchurch, New Zealand’s second largest city. It’s because CHC does not have a population, corporate or leisure characteristic that is heavy enough to satisfy an AirNZ long haul international hub despite major international airlines such as EK and AA tapping in to CHC with their daily flight. People can connect to Christchurch on AirNZ from their long haul network in Auckland. Adelaide is no different unfortunately. The best Adelaide can get from Qantas without serious government support are potential flights to NZ on the A220. What is the major corporate/financial significance of Adelaide? Adelaide’s tourism profile might be good locally (eg proximity to wineries) but it doesn’t stand a chance against Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth on the international stage.

I don’t care about other countries period.

You said Qantas were legally prevented from flying. They weren’t.

Call their actions an economic decision by all means but other airlines (not talking about Qatar but other airlines) - make Adelaide work internationally but Qantas won’t.

 

[RooFlyer]

Or, if could be totally unrelated to air travel, ie Qatar housing Hamas leaders.

Yep, and China houses ... Chinese leaders, who, for the benefit of @RSVKanga have abused jailed and Australian citizens on specious grounds and we know what they do to their own ethnic minorities.

USA houses .., USA state leaders who continue to have the death penalty, including for children.

Australia houses ... Australian leaders who have been accused of all sorts of human rights abuses.

Best stick to aviation matters, eh?

What does Cheng Lei and Yang Hengjun have to do with the Australian-International aviation industry?

About the same as banging on about the state of aviation in the UK and NZ. But there we go.

Again, international aviation is not a free market. Supply and demand don’t really apply to an airline backed with unlimited oil funds which allow them to fly completely empty routes (such as the MEL-ADL flight) and offset the loss from oil. Qantas doesn’t have that ability.

I don't care. I am an aviation consumer. If the Qataris, Saudis, Emiratis , Turks, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all want to subsidise their airlines to give me a great experience at a reasonable price, I'm all for it! If Qantas can't compete, they should do something else. They aren't "the national carrier", just another ASX listed company, who, of course, got quite a serving of Federal money recently, and also have some good mates in Government - that's quite a lot of State aid, in kind, right there.

But then again .... do have a read through the thread - its all been said before. More than once. <yawn>

 

[BAM1748]

Yep, and China houses ... Chinese leaders, who, for the benefit of @RSVKanga have abused jailed and Australian citizens on specious grounds and we know what they do to their own ethnic minorities.

USA houses .., USA state leaders who continue to have the death penalty, including for children.

Australia houses ... Australian leaders who have been accused of all sorts of human rights abuses.

Best stick to aviation matters, eh?

My point is, the Govt refused, it may not be related to our guesses and opinions on AFF. They may be contributing factors, but not the whole story.

 

[drron]

Though NZ does have 2 direct flights from SYD to CHC and back per day.
Population Christchurch 381 thousand.
Population Adelaide 1.3 million.

 

[MARTINE]

I am confused lost (or stupid)

We all agree the assault that occurred was a crime - this is not being debated.

‘National carrier’ keeps getting mentioned (which is an airline based in Australia which must have 51% minimum Australian shareholders ie privately listed company aiming to make a profit - not a community service). It makes the kind of free market decisions private companies do ie ADL not profitable route so why service internationally?

OK


But…it is said commercial aviation is not a free market governed by supply and demand — when QR have unfair advantages that allow it to fly empty but QANTAS don’t (due to ‘unlimited oil funds’).

But ….Emirates are the exception helping said national carrier return to profit and due to its extensive network partnership with QF

I am genuinely trying to follow this discussion and hear other’s points of view but finding it challenging.

@RSVKanga - what are the three points explaining your view - not a specious request. I genuinely cannot reconcile.

 

[RSVKanga]

I am confused lost (or stupid)

We all agree the assault that occurred was a crime - this is not being debated.

‘National carrier’ keeps getting mentioned (which is an airline based in Australia which must have 51% minimum Australian shareholders ie privately listed company aiming to make a profit - not a community service). It makes the kind of free market decisions private companies do ie ADL not profitable route so why service internationally?

OK


But…it is said commercial aviation is not a free market governed by supply and demand — when QR have unfair advantages that allow it to fly empty but QANTAS don’t (due to ‘unlimited oil funds’).

But ….Emirates are the exception helping said national carrier return to profit and due to its extensive network partnership with QF

I am genuinely trying to follow this discussion and hear other’s points of view but finding it challenging.

@RSVKanga - what are the three points explaining your view - not a specious request. I genuinely cannot reconcile.

1. Qantas is the Australian-owned flag-carrier of Australia. It should be normal and routine practice for the federal government to protect and defend it against its competitors and re-establish level playing fields if necessary, as with what happened with the Qatar rejection

2. Qatar Airways has unprecedented access to infinite oil funds to a level where they can afford to pay crew and waste fuel for completely empty flights in Australia (MEL-ADL-MEL). Qantas could never. This shows the extent of what Qatar could do and it erases the idea of supply and demand.

3. Emirates, while also having unprecedented oil fund access, has however significantly contributed to the restoration of Qantas profits in 2015 when its international arm was failing at the start of last decade - and they still maintain extensive network and loyalty ties through their continued joint venture. Emirates, and the UAE, should be rewarded.


Also, Virgin Australia’s interests shouldn’t really be considered due to the following reasons

- They are 95% foreign owned; Australia doesn’t benefit from any positive performance from VA
- They are not a flag carrier of Australia
- They have no long haul aircraft
- They have a very limited international network, even their domestic network doesn’t make the cut; not many inland Australians destinations compared to Qantas
- They are not a full service carrier

 

[Daver6]

1. Qantas is the Australian-owned flag-carrier of Australia. It should be normal and routine practice for the federal government to protect and defend it against its competitors and re-establish level playing fields if necessary, as with what happened with the Qatar rejection

What a load of rubbish. QF is about as Australian owned as any other publicly listed company on the ASX. If you're going to apply that absurd logic to QF then it should apply to every company listed on the ASX. What do you do then about the foreign based companies listed on the ASX?