Qantas is not a global airline.

Qantas is not a global airline. An article in Businessweek, syndicated worldwide, about the A380 makes reference to the "few global airlines" that use the aircraft. Emirates, Air France, Lufthansa, British Airways and Korean Air rate a mention. Qantas doesn't. Does this follow from progressive abandonment of routes by QF in favour of alliances such as with EK. Whatever happened to "Australia's Round The World Airline".

Did they suggest it was an exhaustive list?

When has Businessweek been a barometer of globalness?

My point is not that this is an indisputably authoritative list, but that QF did not come to the author's mind when enumerating "global" carriers operating the A380 - despite QF having 12 in service, more than any other of the five carriers named save EK.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-18/how-the-airbus-a380-got-a-new-lease-on-life

Even if its true that its just that QF is a second tier airline now, what is your point? Let's all bash QF management for being incompetent?

The reality is that the two biggest determinant of success for an airline are completely out of its control - (1) geographical location, and (2) degree of government assistance through ownership or protectionistic policies. Even if Qantas was run by geniuses, I can't really conceive of them being any stronger than they are today given they are not owned by a state with lots of money to throw around (like EK or SQ) or are based in convenient hub locations (like CX or BA) or have a larger population. That's the reality; almost every successful airline has at least one of those factors. Compared to airlines that don't, such as all the US airlines, Air NZ, LAN, I think Qantas is doing ok, "global" or not.

Put SQ in the CX/BA category. They may be held by Temasek, but they are not bankrolled as a state carrier. It is a business, not an arm of the government. Lee Kuan Yew warned SQ many years ago that it would not be protected. It was inherited from the MSA split, and the Singaporean half was told to go out and make money - or pack up.

Whatever happened? 

IR landscape in australia... Foreign ownership and investment limitations... Historical Fleet choices.. fuel cost in OZ vs the middle eastern carries...Geographically Australia is a final destination not a hub... Sovereign support for middle eastern and other airlines all make life pretty tough for QF in a global market place

Despite being globally syndicated I doubt Businessweek would be at the forefront of aviation reporting and journalism. Try Aviation Week, Aspire Aviation or our friend Ben at Plane Talking

BusinessWeek, is a weekly business magazine published by Bloomberg L.P. It is currently headquartered in New York City.

BusinessWeek was first published in September 1929. The magazine provided information and opinions on what was happening in the business world at the time. Early sections of the magazine included marketing, labor, finance, management and Washington Outlook, which made BusinessWeek one of the first publications to cover national political issues that directly impacted the business world.

BusinessWeek was originally published to be a resource for business managers. However in the 1970s, the magazine shifted its strategy and added consumers outside of the business world.

Whatever.

Regardless of how you feel about QF, competition, or Australias place in the world......is anyone seriously saying that QF is a global airline? surely not. They may have been trying to move that way at one stage in their history but have been moving backwards for a long time in terms of being a global airline.

True... Depends on what is defined as "global" I guess. If you take it that Qantas flies to Asia, America, Europe (at least UK!), South America and Africa (at least to South Africal!) then I guess it is technically global...?

Technically that makes it more global then AF/LH & Korean!

It is an international airline. Frankly, in this modern day and age I'd say it's insane to expect a single carrier (anywhere, never mind one geographically anchored at the, err, rear end of the world) to be a "global" carrier. That's what alliances are for, at least until global behemoth airlines are regulatorily possible.

Emirates is about as close as it gets, and even then it has gaping holes.

We can never expect QANTAS to grow in the current market and compete against airlines that are supported by Governments or middle eastern royal families.

However we can support and expect QANTAS sustain their ability to supply a quality niche product, that will not suit everyone and when you can choose QANTAS you expect to pay a little more.

That said, the Australian public need to support QANTAS on all levels, unfortunately the Australian IR landscape has caused QANTAS to price itself out of the market, in a similar way to the motoring and manufacturing Industry (wages and conditions are too high to sustain a profitable business).

QANTAS need to keep their current International routes and stand out as a quality niche carrier of choice. That’s my 2 cents.

Exactly. Qantas needs the correct environment to do this, which is why they're quite rightly upset that Virgin Australia has much better access to capital and can get away with things like having a lower cost base. Somehow, VA manages to get away just fine with offshoring its Trans Tasman business, yet QF gets the heat over Jetconnect.

At the same time, they need to get their act together. VA is pushing hard into the business of building a competitive airline. QF needs to do the same thing (and please quit faffing about with Jetstar franchises in every little Whoop-Whoop), but to really push back they need the same advantages.

What I'd like to see is a level playing field so both sides can duke it out fairly - which I'd say benefits all parties.