Qatar denied extra capacity into Australia

[Quickstatus]

Obvious to all

But not obvious to all is that I think King wanted for this to be resolved behind the scenes and for Qatar to settle the lawsuit.

In hindsight King would have been better served by stating the real reason rather than the ridiculous reasons she gave - when pressed to give an answer.

Ma and Pa flyers

In other words the best fare of the day flyers.
What % of Qantas group revenue comes from BFOD?.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Provided Qantas acts within the bounds of the law, it's the government of the day that ultimately makes the decision and is to be held to account.

Except that even when they don't act within the bounds of the law, they are arrogant beyond belief. See Goyder's comments that the court said the commercial decisions were sound to sack the ramp staff so that somehow justified it. I had to read it several times such was my disbelief that he said that.

The rot set in long ago, spread, and it is rotten to the absolute core.

 

[PineappleSkip]

It might as well as the Pub already believes that all Qantas cares about are the executives in 10 Bourke St, it's bottom line and the elite and everyone else can go to hell.

Mmm, would have been better for them if they’d been a bit more upfront at the Committee and looked a little less shifty. It all smacks of complicity in the stonewall construction.

The go to hell philosophy is something they can take given their market dominance, claims this article. It takes a scenic tour of Qantas’ lamentable Senate performance, the ACCC allegations, and airport slots.

Even if Qantas is fined hundreds of millions it is likely to continue to take us for granted.

 

[Stone]

I can’t believe how often the “court found we had sound commercial reasons to sack our staff illegally” line keeps getting repeated. It was clearly crafted by a PR hack, but who are they appealing to.

I have sound commercial reasons to not pay tax. Is that a valid reason not to?

They just don’t get it, and while ever they keep demonstrating it, the politicians and media will keep whacking them with a big stick. It’s quite the pile on at the moment.

 

[Pushka]

But not obvious to all is that I think King wanted for this to be resolved behind the scenes and for Qatar to settle the lawsuit.

In hindsight King would have been better served by stating the real reason rather than the ridiculous reasons she gave - when pressed to give an answer.


In other words the best fare of the day flyers.
What % of Qantas group revenue comes from BFOD?.

Because like a few things on the go right now, there's an arrogance creeping in (being nice) that such things can be done without question.

 

[MARTINE]

https://www.qatarairways.com/en-WW/228993-qatar-airways-commemorates-collaboration-with-fifa-at-the-fifa-women-s-world-cup-australia-new-zealand-2023-final

And yet… when it suits

Whatever happens lets hope the lawsuit settles quickly
…but politics is never black and white (or consistent)

 

[Quickstatus]

market dominance,

That's the root cause of all these issues.
Open skies please.

 

[VPS]

https://www.qatarairways.com/en-WW/228993-qatar-airways-commemorates-collaboration-with-fifa-at-the-fifa-women-s-world-cup-australia-new-zealand-2023-final

And yet… when it suits

Whatever happens lets hope the lawsuit settles quickly
…but politics is never black and white (or consistent)

the link doesn't work

 

[MARTINE]

the link doesn't work

It was the press release about FIFA womens world cup in Aus/NZ

 

[oz_mark]

the link doesn't work

Looks like the forum munched the link a bit

https://www.qatarairways.com/press-releases/en-WW/228993-qatar-airways-commemorates-collaboration-with-fifa-at-the-fifa-women-s-world-cup-australia-new-zealand-2023-final

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

That's the root cause of all these issues.
Open skies please.

Yes, for all the bluster about Australia having such a competitive aviation industry, when it comes to international flights, that's hardly the case.

Australia has open skies agreements with just 7 countries. The US has over 100. Singapore 60. Even rather protectionist Canada, so often cited as being similar to Australia in many ways, has 24.

Under ‘open skies’, the market would decide how often airlines fly into Australia

www.unsw.edu.au

Just imagine: if we'd had such an agreement already with Qatar, none of this would be happening. I can't imagine anyone who might wish that were the case right now more than Albo, except maybe Minister King.

 

[dajop]

Yes, for all the bluster about Australia having such a competitive aviation industry, when it comes to international flights, that's hardly the case.

Also, whilst in theory, domestic aviation is more competitive than many markets (in that foreigners can set up domestic airlines), in practice it doesn't work out all that competitive. Can you imagine a situation in the US, that American was allowed to own Southwest? Effectively that is what happens in Australia. #1 has what 40% market share, #2 carrier 30% and #3 25%, and it is totally OK for #1 to own #3. Mind you it isn't unique to the airline industry.

 

[Sprucegoose]

<redacted>

It's certainly not the start Ms Hudson had wished for in the top job, I dare say. Maybe she ought to revoke a CL invitation for the newly admitted student to at least demonstrate an absence of favour.

I wish the CEO all the best as she clears the build-up earwax accumulated while being on the previous executive team and gets down to business in her new role. Active listening and keeping the mind focused will be the order of the day.

 

[dajop]

It's certainly not the start Ms Hudson had wished for in the top job, I dare say. Maybe she ought to revoke a CL invitation for the newly admitted student to at least demonstrate an absence of favour.

I understood the "newly" admitted student, was admitted as the +1 of that person, because at that time the person was single (divorcee). Given they now have a +1 and have had for some time, that would suggest the admission is not terribly new?

 

[Sprucegoose]

I understood the "newly" admitted student, was being admitted as the +1 of that person, because at that time they were single (divorcee). Given they now have a +1 and have had for some time, that would suggest the admission is not terribly new.

That may well be the case, if so, it was not explained that way, nor refuted. I have relied on media reports at my disposal.

Optics are everything when the air thins out.

 

[dajop]

Optics are everything when the air thins out.

And this is the problem with the modern post-truth world. Facts are irrelevant, sadly. Media reporting all depends on which particular barrow your proprietor or if you proprietor is hands off or the public, the individual reporter, wishes to push.

It is all quite sickening really, how much BS is out there.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

And this is the problem with the modern post-truth world. Facts are irrelevant, sadly. Media reporting all depends on which particular barrow your proprietor or if you proprietor is hands off or the public, the individual reporter, wishes to push.

It is all quite sickening really, how much BS is out there.

Not disagreeing in principle, except to add the caveat that optics often do matter and legitimately so. Our political and corporate structures are designed in ways that, when exploited, wrongdoers can easily hide, obfuscate and "not recall" the relevant facts and thus proof of the wrongdoing, even when it's obvious to all and sundry what's really gone on.

In Australia we tend to call this the "pub test," and safe to say the QR decision hasn't passed it.

 

[odysseus]

Also, whilst in theory, domestic aviation is more competitive than many markets (in that foreigners can set up domestic airlines), in practice it doesn't work out all that competitive. Can you imagine a situation in the US, that American was allowed to own Southwest? Effectively that is what happens in Australia. #1 has what 40% market share, #2 carrier 30% and #3 25%, and it is totally OK for #1 to own #3. Mind you it isn't unique to the airline industry.

Not really a good example, or comparison. Since no 3 was set up by number 1 (as they are entitled to, and is the same in the US). Whereas Southwest is and has always been an independent company, so takeover laws would come into effect in that scenario, which don't apply with your first.

And it's extremely rare for a subsidiary to be forced to be split out from the parent by the government, and hasn't happened in the US airline industry either.

 

[ethernet]

I can't recall. Could QF adding the 'Yes' campaign be related to undocumented lobbying pressure - a quid pro quo? All executives are supposed to use their diary as a log for big decisions and directives. But like Victoria's decision to use private security guards - nobody knew anything. The list extends to ambassador appointments, and plum jobs. If fact based decision making is 'Too Hard' and you scuttle 'transparency' See The Briefing Note: ‘Proposed Options’ Section

 

[TheRealTMA]

I can't recall. Could QF adding the 'Yes' campaign be related to undocumented lobbying pressure - a quid pro quo? All executives are supposed to use their diary as a log for big decisions and directives. But like Victoria's decision to use private security guards - nobody knew anything. The list extends to ambassador appointments, and plum jobs. If fact based decision making is 'Too Hard' and you scuttle 'transparency' See The Briefing Note: ‘Proposed Options’ Section

Most unlikely. I don’t see it a a quid pro quo but just responsible corporate behaviour and with the majority of other Australian corporations.