Qantas Abandons Haneda Slots - Unused

[justinbrett]

The exit of QF in this slot can only improve or maintain NH/JL loads

QF never entered, so there won't be any change to the current loads.

This (and the previous thread) was a long winded discussion about nothing changing.

 

[Himeno]

It's not a difference of opinion. It's the misunderstanding of the peculiarnes of the Haneda arrangement that people have and the general misunderstanding of how slots actually work.

You often say things, then never provide anything to support what you say. You repeatedly post "rumours" and never post how you came across these "rumours".
All I see is you trying to create content and drive traffic to your blog (which you then use as "proof" of what you're saying when it's just what you claimed without any proof)

If you want to claim "misunderstanding" about something, then post proof that there is a "misunderstanding", that isn't just a link back to your blog.

 

[evanb]

You often say things, then never provide anything to support what you say. You repeatedly post "rumours" and never post how you came across these "rumours".
All I see is you trying to create content and drive traffic to your blog (which you then use as "proof" of what you're saying when it's just what you claimed without any proof)

If you want to claim "misunderstanding" about something, then post proof that there is a "misunderstanding", that isn't just a link back to your blog.

That's a pretty rancid and disgusting comment. Yes, I occasionally share what I've heard from colleagues and when doing so I explicitly indicate when it's something that's unsubstantiated or been shared as a rumour (let's call it water cooler talk). I work in the industry and have an extensive array of contacts that I speak to regularly. I think it's important to contextualise when it's something I'm not directly involved in. I take care to ensure it's not misconstrued as fact or even my opinion. At times, I've even indicated when I'm unsure of it's veracity. Should I not share them? I'm seeking your advice here since you're obviously not happy about it.

I do think that's a whole lot better than making factual claims when it's nothing more than rumour or opinion. Yes, you often speak as if you are stating fact rather than sharing opinion. And those factual statements are almost sometimes laughably wrong.

The problem with your argument here is that you're suggesting the onus is on me to post proof that you're wrong rather than you actually providing support for your argument being correct. Generally the onus is on the person advancing the argument to provide the support or else we're left with Brandolini's law (i.e. the bullshit asymmetry principle).

The irony of this all is that I was agreeing with your assessment of the mechanism regarding the 3rd Haneda frequency, i.e. that it would take NH/JL to want to change it. I was simply underlining that it's a low probability of occurring, but that it's the risk that QF are taking by withdrawing. The risk isn't high, but it's not zero either. Obviously QF have assessed that it's so unlikely that they don't mind taking it - but that's just my opinion. But knowing NH and JL's insatiably appetite for the US, who knows what they might do ...

But yes, people have misunderstood the difference between allocations and slots. For example, over the last several months people have claimed that Qantas have the 3rd slot. No, they had the right to apply for a 3rd slot, but they didn't. But since we're demanding "proof", here's the excerpt from the HND NS25 slot report showing clearly that QF only held 2 slots, despite holding 3 frequency allocations or rights to apply:


But more to "proof" and "misunderstanding". Earlier you stated that "The original night slot was allocated to Australia for 1.5 years before Qantas took it up for operations starting end July 2015". We can look directly at the HND slot reports to test this!

Here's NS15 show their slot when they started in July 2016 (they're in alphabetical order with QF always neatly between PR and QR):


And here's NW14/15, with no QF showing between PR and QR where it should be. So clearly they didn't have a slot:

And NS14 the same again:


So yes, there's proof they didn't hold slots 1.5 years before they began in July 2015. That's the point to "misunderstanding" and the difference between frequency allocations and the right to apply for the slot, and actually holding slots. So yes, you've misunderstood it and when I've previously pointed it out you've brushed it off.

And as to the blog, I'm not sure what point you're making. Yes, I have a blog. This is well-known and not something I hide. I do it for fun and I don't spend much time marketing it or driving traffic. Yes, I've occasionally shared a link to something that's pertinent to ongoing discussions, but that's rather a rarity. I just looked it up and I've posted 4 links the whole year, out of several hundred posts I've made. That doesn't sound like I'm doing a very good job of driving traffic to my free blog with no ads. It sounds like a bloody waste of time mechanism of marketing something that I don't really market. What's more common is that others have posted links to those blogs. Am I not to engage on a topic because someone has posted a link?