Fair enough point 404, but freight is mostly subload, sell as many seats as possible and top up with freight. If the demand for freight capacity is tight, then you begin to see more dedicated freighters. Not many airlines would put on an extra passenger service based on freight would they? You are right though, it is a variable in the equation though not the complete explanation.
Regardless, I would still say the central argument is that UAE, Singapore etc think Australia should just open the flood gates and this is being pushed under the guise of insufficient capacity.
No doubt complete free rights would benefit EK, SQ, CX etc. as they are from hub ports and can fly onto to many other places from their base. But QF cannot and Australia is basically an end point. What is the use of 50 QF flights a week to DXB if you have no real onrights beyond?
No wonder QF lobby like buggery to protect access. To not would be suicide.
So why should the gov't "protect" QF. Well, like it or loathe it, QF is an Australian icon and employs more Australians in Australia than EK, SQ, CX etc combined. The world playing field is not even. It costs more to keep jobs in Australia. I don't think anyone would like to see aircraft cleaners in Australia being paid the same as UAE. Nor do we want to see all the jobs sent offshore.
The hard bit is just how much. Keep QF on its toes, allow enough access to support tourism etc, but still limit capacity so that "reasonable" profits can be made and sustained.
Last edited by murgatroid; 22nd Sep 2006 at 04:01.