Originally Posted by irishguy28

Loss of face? No need to worry about such things. You know that Al Baker would pull QR out of oneworld in a flash if he wanted to. And if he wants to, then it would be a loss of face to keep QR in.

He certainly comes across as impetuous and hot-headed - but I am not sure that, in this instance, this is anything other than bluster. I don't see that pulling QR out of oneworld would hurt AA in any way, but rather would affect Qatar. But if, instead, alliance membership hasn't delivered the boon that Qatar expected - perhaps they are not getting as many transfer pax as they had projected - and if it looks like QR's continuation in oneworld is more onerous and costly than the benefits it provides - then such a cover would be an ideal way to flounce out of the alliance again.

(He's probably more annoyed at AA deepening their relationship with Etihad, than anything else stated so far in this thread. AA quietly removed all restrictions on their FFP members as regards earning miles on Etihad services last month, and AA has recently been deepening their codeshare relationship with EY too. Al Baker could - rightly, perhaps - expect such deals to be with Qatar rather than with Etihad).

All that said - I can't imagine this will come to anything. He probably said it just to cause a stir - though I am surprised at how much mileage this particular utterance has received.

Originally Posted by irishguy28

Why would they?

Etihad doesn't want or need to join an alliance. They have built their own virtual alliance - Etihad Airways Partners; and they partner with others as and when it makes sense (the Codeshare partners page on their website shows 37 codesharing partners; and it's not complete, because Aer Lingus (for one) is not listed on that page).

Etihad owns 29% of airberlin (oneworld) and 49% of Alitalia (Skyteam). They will continue to work with airlines from all alliances, and airlines that are unaligned, when it makes sense for Etihad to do so. They don't need to join any alliance to do this (in fact, joining an alliance may hamper their ability to work with partners outside of it). They won't be teaming up with any of these existing clubs...this strict "alliance" model is becoming outdated.

Originally Posted by Cofyknsult

That mistake did not only set Swissair back, it killed it.
The only difference is that EY has deeper (bottomless?) pockets, and that it may constitute a clever investment very much down the road if Etihad ever grows enough to connect all the dots. That is both unlikely and far away.

Originally Posted by Cofyknsult

a pure ego trip which did not increase revenue but was a prelude to disaster.

Originally Posted by CAPA

]Partner revenues are likely to surpass USD1 billion in 2014, but the more significant figure is 1H2014 partner revenue accounting for 23% of total passenger revenue. This too will grow as new partnerships – including major ones with Jet Airways and Alitalia – bed down. Putting planes into the sky is relatively easy; selling their seats is the challenge.

Originally Posted by Etihad

Organic growth was supported by codeshare and equity partnerships in the third quarter of 2014, delivering an estimated 1.1 million passengers onto Etihad Airways flights (+41 per cent year-on-year) and contributing revenue of US$352 million, which represented 27 per cent of the airline’s passenger revenue.

Originally Posted by Etihad

Partnership strategy delivers strong performance, with partnership revenues up 37.7 per cent to US$ 1.1 billion, representing 24 per cent of passenger revenues

Originally Posted by HB7

I would tend to agree with this.

Further, if you look at this holistically, the ME3 are increasing the amount of destinations they fly to virtually weekly. I think it is only a matter of time when they will virtually be able to fly anywhere - thus reducing the need for their partner airlines to continue the journey for passengers.

Originally Posted by irishguy28

I think Qatar, as a nation, has much bigger potential loss-of-face scenarios* in its immediate future than something as (relatively) trivial as what its flag carrier does or doesn't do in some industry "club" that most people have no interest in.

*the World Cup 2022 allocation process; and the spotlight that has been thrown on Qatar's preparations, being the foremost at the moment

Originally Posted by irishguy28

I think Qatar, as a nation, has much bigger potential loss-of-face scenarios* in its immediate future than something as (relatively) trivial as what its flag carrier does or doesn't do in some industry "club" that most people have no interest in.

*the World Cup 2022 allocation process; and the spotlight that has been thrown on Qatar's preparations, being the foremost at the moment

Originally Posted by Guava

Thanks for pointing that out. I have been quite disturbed for some time by the number of dead Indian and Nepalese workers in Qatar as a direct result of the construction projects for Qatar 2022. More than that, the generally unacceptable working and living condition of those foreign workers that is equivalent to modern slavery -- I find it unconscionable to fly QR as a result because one can't help but wonder if many of the ground based workers are also subject to similar treatment. Say my enjoyment of the nice newly opened DOH QR lounges comes at the cost of continuous mistreatment of workers - then I want no part of it, period. Of course, there is no report that QR is being accused of similar practice but knowing that such act is apparently legal if not tolerated in Qatar is very disturbing.

If they want to quit Oneworld, I'd say they should go right ahead. The brand of Qatar is badly damaged at the moment, being cited for outrageous and widespread human rights abuse is a major no no. OW will do just fine without QR, even just to avoid the appearance of association with Qatar is a plus.

Originally Posted by QatarA340

The numbers you hear on the dead 2022 workers are false! They are made up by the Washington Post in their viral graphic, in which is totally false and inaccurate. To date, there has not been any death in the venues for 2022. They just started building the staidums, and have not even finished the foundations yet!

They compared the deaths of ALL migrants (which are 80%) of the population from ALL reasons (old age, cancer, disease, sickness, accidents, road fatalities, ect...) to the number of deaths building stadiums.

This graphic has put a negative view of Qatar; which will take months to disbelieve.

Originally Posted by phol

That's because there is a lot more infrastructure required as part of the bid than just stadiums, and almost all Qatar's infrastructure construction at the moment is geared towards that.


As to the negative connotations for Qatar - who do you think is on the front of Barcelona's shirt? And who do you think will be the prominent sponsor if the 2022 World Cup goes ahead? The country needs no further bad PR at the moment, warranted or otherwise.

Originally Posted by QatarA340

The numbers you hear on the dead 2022 workers are false! They are made up by the Washington Post in their viral graphic, in which is totally false and inaccurate.

Originally Posted by ft101

They were first published 2 years ago in a report by the International Trades Union Confederation.

However, to agree in part with your post, they have been sensationalised somewhat.

On the other hand however, they only include nationals of Nepal and India. If you took in Bangladeshi, Egyptian, Philippino etc workers it may look even worse.

Just goes to show, you can make the statistics show anything you want.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33019838