Qantas v Qatar Airways: Protectionism? That’s not going to fly

Date of publication on LinkedIn: 14th April 2025 @ 18.10

LinkedIn post link: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qantas-v-qatar-airways-protectionism-thats-going-fly-sunil-chadda-qfkme

In 2023, Australian Transport Minister, Catherine King defended her decision to reject Qatar Airways request for extra capacity to fly 21 extra flights each week into Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

It was reported that she provided numerous different reasons for doing so.

The former Head of the Competition watchdog, Rod Sims, criticised the government’s decision, saying that allowing the Qatar flights would have improved competition in a highly concentrated market.

The boss of Virgin Australia said it would have also forced down ticket prices.

Shadow Transport Minister, Bridget McKenzie, accused the government of ‘running protection’ for Qantas, saying the government was deliberately keeping the cost of flying ‘artificially high,’ during a cost of living crisis.

Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, told the Australian Financial Review that Qatar was blocked because cheaper fares could be ‘unsustainable for the existing Australian-based carrier’, and the government wanted to ensure Qantas' viability.

Former Qantas Chief, Alan Joyce, advised he cautioned the government against granting the request in October 2022.

Given the diversity of what has been said, we consider whether the reasons provided were consistent or whether the claim of ‘protectionism’ is valid.

To help us to review and analyse what was said, we consider the main events in date order.

The below was reported in the Australian Financial Review on 7th September 2023 by Myriam Robin.

10th July 2023

Catherine King sent a letter to Australian women taking action against Qatar Airways after being forcibly removed from an aeroplane and intimately examined, without explanation or their consent, at Doha airport in 2020. In it, King wrote, ‘Your experience remains in my thoughts’ and that, ‘The Australian government is not considering additional bilateral air rights with Qatar’.

The priority is for King to acknowledge that the women’s experience ‘remains’ in her thoughts. A lengthy and ongoing thought. Might this influence any decision when considering Qatar Airways request for extra capacity?

King advises that which the Australian government is not doing, ‘considering any additional bilateral air rights with Qatar.’ This is sensitive and likely truthful.

18th July 2023

The decision to halt Qatar’s expansion was first revealed by The Australian Financial Review Daily Newspaper on July 18, 2023.

26th July 2023

Speaking to the Sydney Morning Herald, Catherine King said that she, ‘wouldn’t link the decision not to continue to engage with Qatar [with the strip-searching]’. Adding, ‘I want more capacity for people to be able to enjoy travel, but equally I want to be able to decarbonise the transport sector, aviation has a role to play in that as well, so there’s a mix of things I look at’.

The fact that she ‘wouldn’t link the decision to the strip searching’ is not to say that the decision isn’t linked to the strip searching. As King doesn’t say this, we can’t say it for her. She doesn’t say that it isn’t linked, only that she wouldn’t link it. She allows for the allegation to stand and for others to think differently, which is unexpected. There is every likelihood that this could have influenced the decision.

Two negatives can cancel each other out and make a positive.

This statement can be both deceptive and truthful at the same time. Truthful, in that which she wouldn’t link, but potentially deceptive in that she doesn’t say she hasn’t linked it. King posits something which may not accurately reflect her actual knowledge. Wouldn’t she link it because she already has done?

We would be mindful of this moving forward.

Catherine King has a need to deflect from the issue of ‘not linking’ to ‘wanting more capacity for people to be able to enjoy travel’ with priority being given to wanting to ‘decarbonise the transport sector’. She doesn’t advise how. Rather it is noted as being part of the ‘mix of things’ she looks at.

It appears to be a Catch-22 situation yet with priority given to decarbonisation.

The shortest answer is the best. If the above were the reason, she could have simply said, ‘the government has decided not to continue to engage with Qatar as part of our desire to decarbonise the transport sector.’.

She doesn’t. We would be mindful of this moving forward.

9th August 2023

During question time, King said, ‘The government has determined that agreeing to the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority request for additional services is not in our national interest, and we will always consider the need to ensure that there are long-term, well-paid, secure jobs by Australians in the aviation sector when we are making these decisions’.

King does not say why it is not in the National Interest. This is offset by the need to add that the government, ‘will always consider the need to ensure that there are long term, well paid, secure jobs by Australians in the aviation sector.’ That the two are closely aligned can rightly lead to questions about protectionism.

15th August 2023

It was reported that the first major utterance of the concept of the ‘National Interest’ was in King’s deliberations on 9th August 2023. When asked about it, she wouldn’t say any more, commenting, ‘I’m not going to comment any further than that.’ when invited to do so.

Catherine King’s comments are often sensitive, frequently speaking in the negative. In the above example, she could have said, ‘I have already given my answer’, highlighting the positive aspect of speech.

28th August 2023

The Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, said, ‘Having a national airline that occasionally posts a profit is not a bad news story’, in light of Qantas’ AUD2.5 billion profit. ‘It’s actually a good news story,’ linking the decision to a strategy, ‘that doesn’t destroy the aviation industry over the medium and long term’.

His use of the word ‘actually’ compared two thoughts, that of bad and good news, the former being what he said first. This could be because he is mindful of the sensitivity of the situation at hand.

Jones introduces the words, ‘destroy the aviation industry’ which he links to time, that being ‘mid to long term’ which aligns with Catherine Kings need, ‘to ensure long term, well paid and secure jobs by Australians’.

When asked about the above, Jones said his comments had been, ‘misconstrued’ to suggest that the government was acting to protect Qantas, before adding ‘I made the completely uncontroversial statement that the Australian government wants to ensure our airline industry is viable and competitive, that it's delivering good services to customers’.

We note the priority of what needs to be ensured:

1. Our airline industry is viable

2. Competitive

3. Delivering good services to customers

Customers are last on the list. We would question whether ‘good services’ is the same as ‘value for money’ – ‘A viable airline industry requires a profitable airline industry’.

In Jones’ words, a viable airline industry requires a profitable airline industry. It is implied that ‘airline industry’ applies to more than one, yet would the ‘airline industry’ no longer be profitable should Qatar Airways be granted extra capacity for flights?

‘We can drive prices down, but if we drive them down to a level where it’s actually unsustainable to run an airline, instead of having two carriers, we will design our markets in a way which will make it unsustainable for the existing Australian based carrier’.

Jones notes that whilst they can drive prices down, it could reach a point where not the prices become unsustainable, but running an ‘airline’ becomes unsustainable.

The airline which is unsustainable to run will be the existing Australian based carrier. ‘Unsustainable’ is a sensitive word to Stephen Jones.

Later that same day Catherine King said she ‘wouldn’t have used the same words that Stephen did.’

We would question what she would have said. She continues to say in the negative what she wouldn’t do, what is not and what she isn’t going to do as opposed to simply saying what she would do or say. It becomes a pattern that when Catherine King speaks in the negative, information is being withheld. This is not necessarily nefarious, but is sensitive and can create an image of lacking confidence, whereas speaking in the positive can create confidence.

31st August 2023

Jones told Sky News his ‘completely misconstrued’ comments were less about Qantas’ huge profit but its sheer continued existence. ‘I’m not saying profit’s high. The airline industry, all of the operators, need to be viable. We have seen in our history when they are not’.

We would question what Stephen Jones is thinking about when he says, ‘not saying profit’s high’ having previously said, ‘Having a national airline that occasionally posts a profit is not a bad news story’, in light of Qantas’ AUD2.5 billion profit. ‘It’s actually a good news story.’

AUD2.5 billion profit is not high. How much profit does an airline require to ensure it is sustainable, competitive and that there are long-term, well-paid, secure jobs by Australians?

September 6th, 2023

Treasurer Jim Chalmers told Sky News that the ‘National Interest’ was ‘for the Transport Minister to assess’.

Jim Chalmers deflects from the issue, which is likely a wise move. We note that he doesn’t speak in the negative.

Thursday 7th Sept 2023

Transport Minister Catherine King told a press conference that the strip-searching of women at Doha Airport in October 2020 was a factor in the decision for why the government knocked back Qatar’s bid to fly into Australia’s major capitals more often.

We noted that King was unable to say previously that the decision not to grant Qatar Airways was not linked with the strip searching. This is the reason why.

King then has to explain the reason for why it was part of the decision saying, ‘Certainly, for context, this is the only airline that has had something like that happen, and so I can’t say that I wasn’t aware of it, but certainly it wasn’t the only factor – it was a factor’.

King again reverts to the double negative which is a longer way of saying that she did know about it. The shortest answer is the best. If Catherine King can be deceptive in the negative, we would do well to listen and ask questions.

Here we would ask what other factors were involved in the decision-making process?

King at the same time added that Qatar Airways, ‘should be flying here into Canberra airport … They could fly into Darwin … into Adelaide … into Cairns, and they could fly into the Gold Coast … they are choosing not to do so’.

We note that on 26th July, she said, ‘equally I want to be able to decarbonise the transport sector, aviation has a role to play in that as well, so there’s a mix of things I look at’.

We would question why she would be willing to allow Qatar Airways extra capacity for flights to cities which they have not asked to fly to? Is it because they are less profitable and might help to make an ‘existing Australian based carrier’ more profitable and sustainable thus trumping the want of being able to decarbonise the transport sector? This was a point we questioned earlier.

The claim of ‘running protection’ for Qantas is well founded.

In his own words, Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones says, ‘the Australian government wants to ensure our airline industry is viable and competitive, that it's delivering good services to customers’.

When someone speaks, we would do well to listen. When they speak in the negative, we would do well to consider what exactly ‘wasn’t said’, or ‘didn’t happen’ and ask questions accordingly.

References 1. https://www.afr.com/rear-window/six-ways-catherine-king-has-tried-to-justify-her-qatar-decision-20230907-p5e2qt 2. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/09/the-saga-of-qatar-airways-qantas-and-catherine-kings-decision-explained-

Cover Photo: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=qatar+airways&t=newext&atb=v321-1&ia=images&iax=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fimgproc.airliners.net%2Fphotos%2Fairliners%2F3%2F1%2F3%2F6139313.jpg%3Fv%3Dv499d2c4a9de Photo Credit: airliners.net

All blog subjects are identified, validated and written by the DDL Team. See www.ddlltd.com for more on Deception Detection Lab Ltd.

If you have any Earnings Calls Q&A sessions that you would like us to look at, then please get in touch. We are happy to give you a blog credit or else publish anonymously, if you would prefer.