Emirates Responds to Qantas
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Global Nomad
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates Responds to Qantas
Long cut and paste but it looks like Maurice is getting ready for a move down under, might have to deal with a few roos in the process.
Emirates slams ‘anti-competitive’ Qantas
(ITP Business Net, 14 Nov 05) by Rhys Jones
HITTING OUT: Emirates’ Flanagan has blasted Qantas for being an ‘anti-competitive’ airline. A top Emirates executive last week reignited the long-running feud between the Dubai-based carrier and Australian airline Qantas.
Maurice Flanagan, the vice-chairman and group president of Emirates, accused Qantas of being “one of the world’s most anti-competitive airlines” after the Sydney-based carrier objected strongly to Emirates’ bid to double its flights to Australia to 84 a week from 42.
Qantas chairwoman Margaret Jackson claims Emirates already has an unfair advantage over the Australian airline because it is government owned and its chairman is part of Dubai’s ruling family and head of the emirate’s civil aviation authority.
“To suggest that Emirates is competing on similar terms as commercially-run airlines like Qantas is fiction,” said Jackson. “As Qantas has observed before, life must be very simple when the airline, government and airport interests are all controlled by the same people,” she added.
However, Flanagan likened Qantas’ stand to its opposition over Singapore Airlines’ bid for access to the lucrative trans-Pacific route between Australia and the USA.
“Lately Qantas has tried to stop, at all costs, competition on one of the world’s most protected routes — Australia to the US — and now they want to stop further competition on arguably Australia’s most important routes to greater Europe, the Middle East and Africa,” said Flanagan. “Their calls for protection belong in another era. Qantas needs to accept that government protection is the most powerful subsidy of them all,” he added.
Flanagan said that Qantas faced medium-level competition on only one of its routes, to London Heathrow, and that as a result prices on the route were competitive.
“Everywhere else there is evidence Qantas is one of the world’s most anti-competitive airlines and customers are paying higher prices as a result,” said Flanagan. “When Qantas argues against competition, they are arguing for higher prices. It's time they were challenged,” he added.
Australia is Emirates’ third most profitable market after Dubai and Britain. The airline’s request for more flights comes as the Australian government reviews its overall transport policy. The result of the review, which is expected to see greater competition on routes to and from Australia, is likely to be released before the end of the year.
In another swipe at Emirates, Jackson said Qantas and other listed airlines would be more profitable and be able to invest more if they had the same “government-sponsored” benefits as the UAE flag-carrier. “No-one can be in any doubt that Emirates’ remarkable growth reflects the aggressive and coordinated strategies of its owners, the government of Dubai, to build a world-class hub to grow tourism and business,” she said.
In April, Emirates reported a profit of US$637 million for the year ending March 31, 2005, but expects higher fuel prices will have an impact on the 2006 result. By comparison, Qantas reported a profit in August of US$486 million for the year to June 30.
Look what VB did for domestic fares - and sadly conditions.
Interesting quote that last one.
Emirates slams ‘anti-competitive’ Qantas
(ITP Business Net, 14 Nov 05) by Rhys Jones
HITTING OUT: Emirates’ Flanagan has blasted Qantas for being an ‘anti-competitive’ airline. A top Emirates executive last week reignited the long-running feud between the Dubai-based carrier and Australian airline Qantas.
Maurice Flanagan, the vice-chairman and group president of Emirates, accused Qantas of being “one of the world’s most anti-competitive airlines” after the Sydney-based carrier objected strongly to Emirates’ bid to double its flights to Australia to 84 a week from 42.
Qantas chairwoman Margaret Jackson claims Emirates already has an unfair advantage over the Australian airline because it is government owned and its chairman is part of Dubai’s ruling family and head of the emirate’s civil aviation authority.
“To suggest that Emirates is competing on similar terms as commercially-run airlines like Qantas is fiction,” said Jackson. “As Qantas has observed before, life must be very simple when the airline, government and airport interests are all controlled by the same people,” she added.
However, Flanagan likened Qantas’ stand to its opposition over Singapore Airlines’ bid for access to the lucrative trans-Pacific route between Australia and the USA.
“Lately Qantas has tried to stop, at all costs, competition on one of the world’s most protected routes — Australia to the US — and now they want to stop further competition on arguably Australia’s most important routes to greater Europe, the Middle East and Africa,” said Flanagan. “Their calls for protection belong in another era. Qantas needs to accept that government protection is the most powerful subsidy of them all,” he added.
Flanagan said that Qantas faced medium-level competition on only one of its routes, to London Heathrow, and that as a result prices on the route were competitive.
“Everywhere else there is evidence Qantas is one of the world’s most anti-competitive airlines and customers are paying higher prices as a result,” said Flanagan. “When Qantas argues against competition, they are arguing for higher prices. It's time they were challenged,” he added.
Australia is Emirates’ third most profitable market after Dubai and Britain. The airline’s request for more flights comes as the Australian government reviews its overall transport policy. The result of the review, which is expected to see greater competition on routes to and from Australia, is likely to be released before the end of the year.
In another swipe at Emirates, Jackson said Qantas and other listed airlines would be more profitable and be able to invest more if they had the same “government-sponsored” benefits as the UAE flag-carrier. “No-one can be in any doubt that Emirates’ remarkable growth reflects the aggressive and coordinated strategies of its owners, the government of Dubai, to build a world-class hub to grow tourism and business,” she said.
In April, Emirates reported a profit of US$637 million for the year ending March 31, 2005, but expects higher fuel prices will have an impact on the 2006 result. By comparison, Qantas reported a profit in August of US$486 million for the year to June 30.
“When Qantas argues against competition, they are arguing for higher prices. It's time they were challenged,”
“Their calls for protection belong in another era. Qantas needs to accept that government protection is the most powerful subsidy of them all,”
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Real World (TRW)
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QANTAS' problem is its CEO and non-imaginative, greedy upper level management, imo.
The only initiative they can come up with for remaining competitive is to slash staff numbers and remuneration.
I can IMMEDIATELY think of 1 way to save QANTAS several million unnecessary dollars per year - get rid of GOD!
The only initiative they can come up with for remaining competitive is to slash staff numbers and remuneration.
I can IMMEDIATELY think of 1 way to save QANTAS several million unnecessary dollars per year - get rid of GOD!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from Ms Jackson cut from a Qantas press release:
"For example, most Australians probably do not realise that Qantas can only operate 28 passenger services per week between Australia and the UK. However, Emirates currently operates over 90 services per week between Dubai and the UK, giving it far greater opportunity to link the Australian and UK markets over its Dubai hub. Viewed in this light, Emirates' request to secure rights for 84 services per week between Australia and Dubai - double the number currently operated - is not only extravagant, but flies in the face of fair competition."
Perhaps this may put into perspective why Qantas wants to prevent Emirates from getting carte blanche access to the Aussie market.
I don't think anyone wants more than just a level playing field.
"For example, most Australians probably do not realise that Qantas can only operate 28 passenger services per week between Australia and the UK. However, Emirates currently operates over 90 services per week between Dubai and the UK, giving it far greater opportunity to link the Australian and UK markets over its Dubai hub. Viewed in this light, Emirates' request to secure rights for 84 services per week between Australia and Dubai - double the number currently operated - is not only extravagant, but flies in the face of fair competition."
Perhaps this may put into perspective why Qantas wants to prevent Emirates from getting carte blanche access to the Aussie market.
I don't think anyone wants more than just a level playing field.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 36 Sqn
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speedy.
You are correct of course, but what the Dame is conveniently fogetting to mention is that there is more than one port in Europe apart from EGLL.
QF has pulled out of Rome and Paris in the last three years and the word is that Frankfurt will go to JQ international almost immeadiately.
I agree with HI'er. This current board through its failure to expand the mainline business, and its hatred of its staff has put QF in a position where it is likely to be blasted out of the water by EK very, very soon
You are correct of course, but what the Dame is conveniently fogetting to mention is that there is more than one port in Europe apart from EGLL.
QF has pulled out of Rome and Paris in the last three years and the word is that Frankfurt will go to JQ international almost immeadiately.
I agree with HI'er. This current board through its failure to expand the mainline business, and its hatred of its staff has put QF in a position where it is likely to be blasted out of the water by EK very, very soon
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not the fault of Emirates if Qantas only has 28 flights to UK. I thought John Anderson went to Europe early in 2005 to gain better rights to Europe for Qantas.
It is not the fault of Emirates that Qantas has chosen to stop flying to Amsterdam, Rome, Athens, Vienna, Manchester because it suits to Qantas to service some of those cities with codeshares on BA.
If Qantas wants better access to the UK/Europe it is up to Australia to go and ask for those rights, and be prepared to let airlines from any part of Europe fly here. When European holiday airlines get hold of 787s, they may start flying from smaller European cities direct to Australian tourism destinations.
If Qantas is offended that Emirates is proposing to operate an A380 into Adelaide with 780 seats, then Qantas should get in first and beat them to it.
If Qantas is going to fight these battles by seeing who does the best job of lobbying the Australian Government, eventually they will lose.
If Qantas wants to serve some European cities with a Jetstar service they will have to offer nothing less than people already get in Tourist Class on Singapore Airlines or Emirates. Food and Drinks, In Flight Entertainment, Space, Internet access will all have to be the best.
It is not the fault of Emirates that Qantas has chosen to stop flying to Amsterdam, Rome, Athens, Vienna, Manchester because it suits to Qantas to service some of those cities with codeshares on BA.
If Qantas wants better access to the UK/Europe it is up to Australia to go and ask for those rights, and be prepared to let airlines from any part of Europe fly here. When European holiday airlines get hold of 787s, they may start flying from smaller European cities direct to Australian tourism destinations.
If Qantas is offended that Emirates is proposing to operate an A380 into Adelaide with 780 seats, then Qantas should get in first and beat them to it.
If Qantas is going to fight these battles by seeing who does the best job of lobbying the Australian Government, eventually they will lose.
If Qantas wants to serve some European cities with a Jetstar service they will have to offer nothing less than people already get in Tourist Class on Singapore Airlines or Emirates. Food and Drinks, In Flight Entertainment, Space, Internet access will all have to be the best.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: some dive
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes and why dont we just let them have the whole bloody country as well. The "Emirates Melbourne Cup", Emirates New Zealand" yacht race. Why not let the R##s have the "Emirates Birdsville Races", "Emirates SYD to HBA", Emirates State of Origin". How pathetic that we Australians are actually encouraging such raping of our own country by a Third World Airline that generates such absurd profits from the protected UAE "government" and blood and sweat from enslaved cheap laboured staff. Dixon and his henchmen look like choir boys compared to EK management and their shocking treament of staff and labour force. And to say that you all agree to this absurd push for EK to take over the Aussie market ahead of your own countries Airline is nothing but a disgrace.
Last edited by ratpoison; 16th Nov 2005 at 04:58.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: some dive
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desert Whine,
Thanks for the laugh mate. I was rolling around on the floor as your third statement sums it up beautifully. But as we all know, it's quite a bloody sad situation going on and everyone right up to our own brothers are bowing down to them
Thanks for the laugh mate. I was rolling around on the floor as your third statement sums it up beautifully. But as we all know, it's quite a bloody sad situation going on and everyone right up to our own brothers are bowing down to them
Last edited by Woomera; 17th Nov 2005 at 05:47.
You QF guys are the last vestige of the "old" Australian economy that was "protected" almost into extinction. If you cannot match the seat mile costs of your competition then you have no automatic right to survive.
Your management screams and cries exactly like vested interests everywhere. You are holding back the Australian economy and we would all be a lot better of if you just went away.
You have no idea how the limited choice of options for getting to and from Australia is affecting both investment and tourism, to the detriment of the entire Australian Economy.
We need much more capacity from as many destinations as possible so that getting to or from Australia from the rest of the world is easy, without having to book three months in advance, without having to change planes, either overseas or in Australia.
Your management screams and cries exactly like vested interests everywhere. You are holding back the Australian economy and we would all be a lot better of if you just went away.
You have no idea how the limited choice of options for getting to and from Australia is affecting both investment and tourism, to the detriment of the entire Australian Economy.
We need much more capacity from as many destinations as possible so that getting to or from Australia from the rest of the world is easy, without having to book three months in advance, without having to change planes, either overseas or in Australia.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Sunfish, can you tell us all that no other carriers ie. Singapore, Emirates etc. don't get any protection from their respective governments? Funny how QF can't access Europe in some cases as they don't have enough rights not just into Europe, but out of Singapore and other countries to get there. Maybe QF is also uncompetitive due to government policy here also - look at the taxation advantages other carriers have compared to ours, as well as foreign ownership restrictions etc.
But that wouldn't fit in with your burning desire to see the red rat die completely and put a further 36000 Australian people out of work. Sure, make QF suffer more competition, but only when the government also lets them play by the same rules as the other competitors. Can't blame the rat for seeking government protection when this country is already handicapping them in the global scheme of things, not to mention the advantages provided to other carriers by their own government policies.
But that wouldn't fit in with your burning desire to see the red rat die completely and put a further 36000 Australian people out of work. Sure, make QF suffer more competition, but only when the government also lets them play by the same rules as the other competitors. Can't blame the rat for seeking government protection when this country is already handicapping them in the global scheme of things, not to mention the advantages provided to other carriers by their own government policies.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Global Nomad
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid this is an A-typical response of the QF mentality.
"If you take our business, we'll die therefore you can't have it."
In the meantime, route options are restricted, fares held high for the 20 million Australians, tourism is restricted etc etc.
Emirates isn't here to restrict your business, they want to GROW the industry. In the Middle East, Etihad and Qatar are increasingly bigger players up here, yet still Emirates grows.
One World is QF's nemesis. Birdseed is the reason behind QF's ebbing network, not Emirates. The only thing stopping QF from flying SYD/DXB/FCO or AMS or MAN was that BA would see that as their turf, another anti-competitive alliance. Why doesn't NZ fly to FRA anymore, blame LH. What about UA from MEL/AKL yet EK is making money on the route.
Qantas is 25% larger than Emirates (for now) yet they couldn't or chose not to expand into a more global market, I suspect because of an anti-competitive alliance. Alliances do not serve the customer, they serve the shareholder.
It appears that Emirates has elected to avoid an alliance because of their restrictive nature.
"If you take our business, we'll die therefore you can't have it."
In the meantime, route options are restricted, fares held high for the 20 million Australians, tourism is restricted etc etc.
Emirates isn't here to restrict your business, they want to GROW the industry. In the Middle East, Etihad and Qatar are increasingly bigger players up here, yet still Emirates grows.
One World is QF's nemesis. Birdseed is the reason behind QF's ebbing network, not Emirates. The only thing stopping QF from flying SYD/DXB/FCO or AMS or MAN was that BA would see that as their turf, another anti-competitive alliance. Why doesn't NZ fly to FRA anymore, blame LH. What about UA from MEL/AKL yet EK is making money on the route.
Qantas is 25% larger than Emirates (for now) yet they couldn't or chose not to expand into a more global market, I suspect because of an anti-competitive alliance. Alliances do not serve the customer, they serve the shareholder.
It appears that Emirates has elected to avoid an alliance because of their restrictive nature.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i fully agree with you rat -
the rest of this post has been consigned to the rubbish bin where it belongs, or you can rephrase it politely , or we can ban you, take your pick W
the rest of this post has been consigned to the rubbish bin where it belongs, or you can rephrase it politely , or we can ban you, take your pick W
Last edited by Woomera; 17th Nov 2005 at 05:37.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Global Nomad
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An eloquent response, but given the tone of every other post I can't say I'm surprised.
You're an embarrasment to Australia, probably not even from there anyway.
Damn....people are going to wonder what he said now....wasn't pretty though.
You're an embarrasment to Australia, probably not even from there anyway.
Damn....people are going to wonder what he said now....wasn't pretty though.
So he landed with 700kg more than was required at the alternate.
Your point is?
What's this got to do with the subject anyway?
halas
ps SOF complained earlier about an AKL - SYD EK flight diverting to CBR and arriving with 3700kg of gas
Your point is?
What's this got to do with the subject anyway?
halas
ps SOF complained earlier about an AKL - SYD EK flight diverting to CBR and arriving with 3700kg of gas
