MERGED: Qantas ...was it blackmail?

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by The Bullwinkle

If my memory serves me correctly, didn’t QANTAS themselves use similar tactics by parking tugs etc behind “Compass” aircraft in an effort to destroy their competition? Can’t have it both ways!


Maybe if the bean counters weren’t determining fuel policy these days, there’d be less “unexpected landings”.

I was around at the time and I think that's a stretch... FYI Qantas was one of the few that dealt with Compass and charged reasonable prices for things like stairs and pushback... TAA/Australian may have perpetuated stuff like this, a company that no longer exists because it was taken over by Qantas.

I think the dirty tricks were limited basically to Ansett and Australian being required to provide two gates to the new entrant so both provided gates that were nearly a km apart at the end of separate concourses.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by Dee Vee

I'm pretty sure there was no emergency, Just Qantas deciding to divert there due to bad weather and no planning on their part.

this is the crux of the matter.

I seriously doubt that, diverting is a major decision and not taken lightly. The airports that have been privatised all have form in this area so regardless of what people think of Qantas or any other airline, this is BS and the airports should be re-nationalised or regulated within an inch of their lives. They are still located on Commonwealth land and Commonwealth Law applies due the country's obligations as a Contracting State.

[Ken Borough]

Originally Posted by AerialPerspective

I seriously doubt that, diverting is a major decision and not taken lightly. The airports that have been privatised all have form in this area so regardless of what people think of Qantas or any other airline, this is BS and the airports should be re-nationalised or regulated within an inch of their lives. They are still located on Commonwealth land and Commonwealth Law applies due the country's obligations as a Contracting State.

A report was given at the most recent IATA AGM in Sydney about airport privatisation. It didn't regard privatised airports at all well. Surprisingly, only a literal handful of countries have ventured down the privatisation path, Australia being one. A summary of the report can be found here:

http://www.iata.org/publications/eco...ary-report.pdf

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Fundamental mistake in the second section:

Without airports, airlines have no business. Without airlines, the airports have no business.

Without airlines, the airports still have a business. That's why they try to diversify so much so that they are not so heavily reliant on the fickle airline industry. If it all came to an end, the airports still have the land to develop.

only a literal handful of countries have ventured down the privatisation path

Yes, third world backwaters like the UK, Germany, The Netherlands, France, several other European countries, South Africa, Japan, the large South American airports, the large Indian airports etc. In fact most of the large airports in the world, with the exception of the US (where some are considering it, and almost all are run as for-profit businesses).