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?

 

[Himeno]

HND Slot
1. Assigned by the Japanese government to other nations for airlines of that other nation to fly to HND during either the day or night slot period.
2. Runway slots, assigned to approved airlines to use a runway at a given time through the slot coordination process.

People are talking about 1. You're claiming they are wrong because you assume they are talking about 2.

Just like you're other claims that airline should do x, "because my blog said they can", despite the airport in question saying no.
You often post your option, then use something you posted on your blog, which you've made to look like news, to back it up and ignore anything that disproves that option while claiming everyone else is wrong.

 

[NSun]

Well its good news as the early morning flight HND-SYD is very useful as gets you back to Aus the same day, and is a rare Asia --> Aus day flight, so good to see its sticking around.

I'm happy about that too. I do hope we might see a few more Asia to Australia day flights if A321s and A220s start going on international routes.

Nonetheless, one has to wonder what Qantas would do if only HND eased its A380 restrictions.

 

[Quickstatus]

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

Yes, but if QF did use those extra slots it would likely dilute all the other existing loads

 

[justinbrett]

Yes, but if QF did use those extra slots it would likely dilute all the other existing loads

Not necessarily, it could have reduced fares and generated demand. Or a mix of the two.

Not happening now.

 

[markis10]

Kind of glad it’s all gone away, I like QF26 as it stands.

 

[evanb]

HND Slot
1. Assigned by the Japanese government to other nations for airlines of that other nation to fly to HND during either the day or night slot period.
2. Runway slots, assigned to approved airlines to use a runway at a given time through the slot coordination process.

People are talking about 1. You're claiming they are wrong because you assume they are talking about 2.

Point 1: They are not slots. None of the source documents and official documents speak of them as slots. The people involved in the process don't refer to them as slots. Just look at the IASC documents and it refers to daily frequencies. It's also not the day or night slot period. It's simply the night-time period. Haneda's own capacity declarations don't call it day or night slots, rather utilising a series of more granular "time zones". The terminology is specifically used to avoid confusion and because slots have specific definitions and regulatory environment. Ironically, Japan are more pedantic about this than other countries like the US who have used the terms interchangeably, much to the annoyance of other countries.

As many times as I've pointed this out, it's been ignored. You can't simply start making up your own meaning for words and then get upset when people point it out. There are good reasons to use precise terms in this case, just as this discussion shows. You keep asking for proof, so here's the language used. No mention of "slots". This is from IASC, but you'll see the same in the BASA and other official documents. Maybe you should follow your own advice and provide some evidence that isn't just someone's opinion or misreading.
As a humorous aside, in the IASC Japan case, a public submission that was incredibly important and influential (one that specifically got discussed in the decision and likely affected some thinking in the decision) did use the term slots when speaking of frequency allocations. The importance of the submission was such that IASC quoted directed from it to ensure that there was no confusion as to them using the term, such is the importance of not using them interchangably.

Just like you're other claims that airline should do x, "because my blog said they can", despite the airport in question saying no.
You often post your option, then use something you posted on your blog, which you've made to look like news, to back it up and ignore anything that disproves that option while claiming everyone else is wrong.

What claims have I made to say that airline should do X? I'm perplexed since I have actually don't know what you're talking about. If you're going to slander me, can you please actually point out what I've done wrong in your eyes?

My suspicion though i you're referring to the Haneda A380 which I openly state as speculation. I literally make no claim to its credibility, even openly stating that I was going on a wild goose chase for some fun! I don't claim it to be factual.

You've also made factual statements that aren't supported by evidence in this regard. For example, claiming that Haneda doesn't take A380 and saying the airport say no without any "proof". Here's the airport's capacity declaration telling us that A380 can be utilised as well as how and when. What it does state is that ops are only permitted between 6am and 11pm (just for further salt in the wound, you'll see it doesn't refer to that as daytime slot period or even daytime period). So maybe you should follow your own standard and show some "proof"

And I hardly claim everyone is always wrong. In the last 24 hours alone I've agreed with several posters, including yourself. I've not used a link from my blog as proof to support those positions. Other people have and that's up to them, not me.

The last few times I've posted any links it certainty wasn't to support my position, but rather to provide datapoints to discuss, they included:
1) A post which just showed the scheduling of the Finnair A330-300s for the next several months. I simply said people might find it interested/useful. It wasn't part of any debate.
2) A post showing the scheduling of the MEL-SIN routes to show why two daily flights were needed to connect to from QF1/2. I posted it because someone specifically asked the question. What should I have done, copied in the whole analysis with tables/figures?
3) A post with figures showing ABS data trends to two countries which was already being discussed.

And I've engaged in follow-up discussion on these topics. I try not to claim people are wrong over their interpretation or opinion. However, I have pushed back when people make factual statements to support a position, which are wrong. And as others might note, I tend to be quite agreeable and happy to admit when I'm wrong or have misinterpreted what someone says. Just yesterday, I apologised to Doddler because I misinterpreted what he said (and on reflection it was clear and I was being too hasty).