“Too Big to Taxi?” – Is it Time to Break Up Qantas?

 

Let’s stop pretending Qantas is just a well-run airline. It’s not. 

It’s a state-protected cartel masquerading as a national icon, and it’s time someone said so — plainly and without genuflecting to the ghost of Alan Joyce. Oh yes and should we be talking about that horrendous data leak? Despicable behaviour.

Right now, Qantas Group — including its loyal attack pawn Jetstar — commands the air like a medieval baron controls trade routes. Not just with pricing power, but with institutionalized privilege that chokes new entrants, stalls innovation, and ensures that real competition is left to die quietly on the tarmac.

Let me explain and give a little colour.

Jetstar vs Virgin: A “Competition” In Name Only

Jetstar doesn’t just compete — it crushes. It’s the terminator of Australia’s low-cost aviation. When Bonza collapsed in 2024, Jetstar barely blinked. When Tigerair folded in 2020, Qantas actually bragged. Meanwhile, Virgin Australia, once a vibrant mid-tier competitor, was brought to its knees during COVID and only narrowly avoided death via a US buyout from Bain Capital (who did very nicely thank you).

Today, Australia’s domestic market is effectively a two-horse race: Qantas/Jetstar and a bruised but recovering Virgin. Together, they carry 94–95% of passengers. That’s not a market. That’s an oligopoly with press releases.

And if you’re a traveller? You’re footing the bill. The ACCC itself reported a 22.6% increase in airfares compared to pre-pandemic levels — and yet it seems strangely unwilling to confront the beast it helped fatten. And go check. The price to fly in Oz is one of the highest costs in the world. Indeed the prime trunk route is among the top 10 revenue earners on the planet.

Sydney Slots: Qantas’s House Always Wins

Let’s talk about Sydney Airport. For years, Qantas and Virgin literally ran the slot allocation system. They were the judges, jury, and executioners for who gets to fly and when. And wouldn’t you know it? They just happened to gobble up all the peak-time slots, leaving crumbs for challengers.

Even after the government finally brought in independent management (ACL UK) in 2025, the damage was done. The old slot hoarding practices had already kneecapped Bonza and blocked Rex from meaningful expansion on major trunk routes. 

The solution - Western Sydney still has only a handful of airlines committed. Last time I checked that did not include the incumbents at SYD. 

You can paint it any way you want but the obviousness of the situation is that Qantas used the system to entrench its dominance and weaponized Sydney’s constraints to shut out competition. 

Where Was the ACCC? Hint: Holding a Wet Noodle

The ACCC (Australia's competition "watch dog" deserves more than criticism. It deserves a formal inquiry.

For years, it’s watched the domestic aviation market collapse into a stitched-up duopoly and offered little more than toothless press releases. In 2023, it even praised Qantas for “strong results” while noting fare increases and “limited competition.”

Where was the watchdog when Bonza was being slowly suffocated by an inability to access slots or secure fuel contracts at competitive rates? When Jetstar kept growing unimpeded? When Qantas was making billions in profit off the back of a hollowed-out market?

The regulator also declined to investigate any bad activity at Bonza which was altogether rather fishy.

Incompetence is one explanation. Regulatory capture is another. Those profits are obscene.

Government Picks Winners: The Case of Rex

And then there’s Rex Airlines. A regional workhorse now being publicly cuddled by the government. Direct investment and operational flexibility make Rex look increasingly like a state-sponsored favorite — even as other airlines bleed out without a lifeline.

This isn’t just favoritism. It raises a brutal question: Was the government’s selective support part of the reason Bonza failed?

Bonza’s U.S.-backed owners had flaws, sure. They launched aggressively into the territory. But without equitable slot access, meaningful government support, or regulatory advocacy, their demise was not a surprise — it was a foregone conclusion. 

Break Up the Qantas Group? Yes. And More.

So what to do? Is it time for some better consumer thinking? Yup

Let’s be clear. The call to break up Qantas is not radical — it’s overdue.

Jetstar should be spun off, and slot allocation should be re-audited under public scrutiny. We need strict limits on market concentration by route. Western Sydney Airport must be a proving ground for real new entrants, not a second playground for the duopoly.

We also need the ACCC to grow a spine — or be replaced.

Final Thought

Qantas may have painted a kangaroo on its tail, but its playbook is pure corporate monopolist. It thrives on barriers, privileges, and inertia. As a consumer, you’re not flying the flag. You’re paying the price. The unions too have some responsibility, they have been enabled to get paid industry leading salaries to keep them quiet.

It’s time to stop treating Qantas like royalty and start treating it like what it is: too big to taxi, too arrogant to compete, and too protected to fail.

Suggested Reading:

• Visual Approach: The Jetstar-Virgin Dogfight

• Sydney Slot War: Demand Rises

• Bonza’s Collapse and Government Inaction – AviationA2Z

• Rex Airlines Receives Government Funding

• The Guardian: Australia’s Uncompetitive Skies

---

Drone Warfare: Welcome to the Sky’s New Arms Race — And It’s Not What You Think

Ah, drones. For most of us, the word still conjures up images of sleek, multi-million-dollar killing machines operated by top-secret military units, high above distant deserts. Maybe you picture something like the RQ-4 Global Hawk — a quarter-billion-dollar marvel that can stare at entire countries without breaking a sweat. Watch it strut its stuff. Expensive? Sure. Exclusive? Not anymore.

Because here’s the thing: the drone game has changed — and changed dramatically. The real action today isn’t about giant UAVs with price tags that could fund small nations. It’s about cheap, mass-produced, often disposable drones that are turning battlefields — and neighborhoods — into high-tech swarms. And where there are drones, there’s an arms race. But not the one you’ve been sold in defense brochures.

Who Needs a Fighter Jet When You Can Buy a Swarm?

Take a look at the Russia-Ukraine war. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), this conflict has become “the most drone-saturated war in history” (CSIS source). Forget $200 million drones. We’re talking about quadcopters that cost less than your kid’s gaming console, modified to drop grenades, or cheap fixed-wing UAVs assembled for a few hundred bucks that can spot targets, act as decoys, or even crash themselves into tanks.

Both sides are burning through these things at mind-blowing rates — thousands of drones lost each month. It’s not about having one amazing drone. It’s about how many you can afford to lose.

In other words: welcome to warfare by attrition, aerial edition.

And Then There’s Your Neighbor’s $60K Toy

But it’s not just the military. Let’s zoom in (no pun intended) on the civilian world. Maybe your neighbor decides that what their backyard really needs is a Leica BLK2FLY — a flying 3D laser scanner that will set them back a cool €60,000. Feast your eyes. What could possibly go wrong? After all, they’re just mapping the garden… or maybe peeking a little too far over your fence.

The truth is, advanced drones — once the domain of militaries and deep-pocketed corporations — are now within reach of anyone with a budget and a curious streak. And that’s where the fun really begins.

Countermeasures: When the Prey Shoots Back

What happens when you’re on the receiving end? Whether you’re a small country, a sensitive facility, or, yes, even a Mexican cartel, the question isn’t if someone will try to spy on you or bomb you with a drone. It’s when.

So what’s the defense? Enter the booming world of anti-drone tech — or as the cool kids (and military contractors) call it, counter-UAS.

And no, it’s not all billion-dollar missile systems. In fact, some of the most fascinating developments are coming from places you might not expect. Case in point: Skyfend, a Chinese company quietly supplying Mexican cartels with anti-drone gear (source). Yes, you read that correctly: cartels are investing in portable jammers, GPS spoofers, and detection systems to take down police or rival drones. Crime, it turns out, does pay — at least enough to buy high-end electronic warfare toys.

At the national level? Everyone’s scrambling to layer their defenses: radar, acoustic sensors, optical tracking, and AI to tell friend from foe. And if you think that sounds complicated, it’s because it is. The race isn’t just for better drones anymore — it’s for better anti-drones, better counter-countermeasures, and better ways to stay one step ahead in this sky-bound game of cat and mouse.

The Real Arms Race Isn’t Hardware — It’s Ingenuity

What should you take away from this? For one, the drone age is here, and it’s messy. The narrative of high-tech superpowers dominating with a handful of mega-drones? That’s yesterday’s story. Today’s reality is asymmetric, fast-moving, and disturbingly cheap. It’s about who can adapt faster, not who spends more.

And don’t think this is limited to the battlefield. The tools, the tactics, and the innovations are bleeding into civilian life, security, infrastructure protection — even local law enforcement. For every drone that soars, someone’s building (or buying) the means to bring it down.

So, What Now?

The next time you see a drone overhead — whether it’s mapping a construction site, filming a wedding, or who-knows-what — remember: there’s a good chance someone’s already thought about how to stop it. And probably someone else thinking about how to stop that.

We are living in a time where the sky is no longer neutral space. It’s contested, surveilled, and — increasingly — weaponized. The arms race above us isn’t slowing down. It’s accelerating. And if you’re not watching it closely, well… someone’s probably watching you.

Want to Go Deeper?

• CSIS: Russia-Ukraine Drone War

• Skyfend and Mexican Cartels

• Global Hawk in action

• Leica BLK2FLY

---

📣 Final thought: The drone arms race isn’t coming. It’s here. And it’s no longer about who has the most money — it’s about who can out-think, out-hack, and out-build the other guy.

The Fine Art of Persuasion (From a Deeply Flawed Human)

Of late, I have been frustrated by my inability to get people (you know, humans!) to see what I see. And what, to me, is inescapable logic. So I have been thinking a lot about persuasion.

We all do it. We all need it. We live in an age where persuasion seems less like an art and more like a contact sport. Everyone’s trying to score points, dominate, win. But what if persuasion — true persuasion — isn’t about winning at all? Oh where did that come from? I must have been at the mushrooms — but bear with me.

The Arrogance Trap

If you know me, you know I’ve spent much of my life trying to be one of the smartest people in the room. Not because I want to crush the other person’s argument or dazzle them into submission. Quite the opposite: I want to learn. I want to understand. I want to get to the best answer, and I figured the best way to do that was to arm myself with as much information as possible.

Remember my progression: data → information → knowledge → power.

But here’s the kicker — when you do that, you risk coming across as, well… an arrogant know-it-all. (I can almost hear the chorus of people who’ve wanted to say that to me but bit their tongues.) And this is where the fine art of persuasion starts to crack if you’re not careful. Because persuasion isn’t just about having the sharpest argument or the most bulletproof data.

It’s about connection. And connection requires humility. But I have to be careful. I want to share what I know sooner. I want people to have the full picture — just like I do. That is where I can lose the plot.

Humility: The Missing Ingredient

It’s not just about intellectual humility — the willingness to admit you might be wrong, or that someone else might have a better idea. It’s also about moral humility: recognizing that in these charged times, the person on the other side of the argument is probably not evil or stupid.

They’re just human. Like you. Like me. That’s why I do something that surprises people. I watch/listen to Fox News for an hour every week. Do I enjoy it? No. In fact, most of the time it drives me up the wall. But I do it because I need that perspective. (Plus, the ads are really revealing.)  need to understand what others believe — not so I can tear it down, but so I can find the places where we can meet, where we can both be our best selves.

The Ongoing Struggle

It’s not easy. I fail at it constantly. My ego gets in the way. My temper flares (I know — probably from my father). My need to be “right” sometimes eclipses my desire — and obligation — to be kind. But I’m working on it.

And if I can offer any insight, it’s this: Persuasion starts not with winning hearts or minds, but with opening your own.

And walking with the dog really does help. She is a superb listener.

The Goal

I want to help others be their best selves — not by overpowering them with facts or logic, but by walking alongside them as we figure out what being the best moral humans really means. That’s my goal. I stumble. I fall. But I keep trying. And maybe, just maybe, that’s where the true art of persuasion begins.

Thank you for reading. And thanks in advance for helping me be that better person.

Boeing vs Airbus et al Overall Market Outlook Historic Comparison.

THIS IS THE EXPANDED VERSION OF THE LINKED IN POST ON THE TOPIC OF COMPARING THE CMO AND THE GMF FROM BOEING AND AIRBUS RESPECTIVELY 

Analysis Summary

• Both Boeing and Airbus forecasts from ∼10 years ago slightly underestimated demand, often due to unforeseen growth—especially after global events or emerging-market acceleration.

• Boeing’s conservatism produces ~10–15% lower demand forecasts in volume, but its aircraft sizing predictions are accurate.

• Airbus’s multi-flow, model-based approach yields forecasts tightly aligned with Boeing’s in CAGR and delivery breakdown (slightly lower in volume).

• By the decade in, both maintained credibility: Boeing emphasizes “industry standard,” Airbus continues using refined modeling.

High-Level Comparisons

Aspect	Boeing	Airbus	Embraer
Forecast Period	2025–2044 (20 years)	2025–2044 (20 years)	2025–2044 (20 years), sub‑150 seats only
Total Aircraft	43,600 demand estimate	43,420 total new passenger & freighter	10,500 regional jets/turboprops
Annual Growth	~3.1%–3.7% fleet growth CAGR	3.6% passenger traffic growth	Focused on regional connectivity
Geographic Drivers	China & S/SE Asia for growth	Urbanization, global middle class, GDP	N. America + Asia-Pacific regional markets
Segment Focus	Single-aisle (33,300+), wid EB	Single, widebody, freighter mix	Small jets (<150 seats) and turboprops

Similarity: All three projects expect strong growth driven by global GDP, expanding middle classes, and emerging markets. Each aligns on the next 20‑year horizon.

Differing Emphases:

• Boeing highlights single-aisle dominance but trimmed its estimates slightly—43,600 vs last year’s 43,975—reflecting cautious tone  .

• Airbus anchors its growth projections more strongly in demographic and GDP drivers, estimating 43,420 new deliveries—specifying ~34,250 single-aisles, 9,170 wide‑bodies  .

• Embraer zeros in on the regional, sub‑150 seat market—10,500 jets/turboprops—and stresses connectivity, flexibility and environmental priorities  .

Unique Highlights & Quirky Anomalies

Boeing

• Refined Forecast: Trimmed traffic growth from 4.7% to 4.2%, global GDP from 2.6% to 2.3%, reflecting turbulence in trade and supply chains  .

• Production Bottlenecks: Persistent shortage of 1,500–2,000 aircraft in delivery backlog due to post‑COVID production issues  .

• Emerging Market Rebound: Resumption of deliveries to China (formerly 10% backlog) expected June 2025  .

• Share Impact: Short-term stock drag after Air India 787 crash, yet long-term outlook supports aerospace suppliers like GE Aerospace  .

Airbus

• Precise Mix: Breaks down demand to ~34,250 single aisles, 9,170 widebodies in next 20 years  .

• Driver-Centric: Frames growth through lenses of +2.5% GDP, +1.2 bn urban population, +1.5 bn middle class  .

• Regional Insight: Noted 4.1% traffic growth in Africa and requirement for ~15,000 pilots, 20,000 technicians, and 24,000 cabin crew in Africa alone  .

• Services Market: Predicts aircraft services will double by 2041, driven by digital, remote, and environmental demands  .

                Quirky takeaway: “Crew crunch in Africa: Airbus sees massive support-hiring as a strategic opportunity.”

Embraer

• Smaller Scale: Sole focus on 10,500 sub-150 seat jets & turboprops—broken down into 8,720 jets and 1,780 turboprops  .

• Connectivity Edge: Emphasizes role of regional jets in high‑frequency routes and environmental flexibility  .

• Regional Growth Split: Asia Pacific leads jet deliveries, North America leads turboprops, and jet share will be 39% Asia Pacific by 2044  .

• Turboprop Market: Embraer anticipates 2,260 turboprops demand for its next-generation turboprop series—an in-house focus on E‑Freighter and TPNG lines  .

• Paris Airshow Momentum: Reinforced demand via SkyWest order (60 E175), Lithuanian defense KC‑390 selection and cargo freighter push  .

Here’s a refined analysis of how accurate the 10‑year‑ago market outlooks from Boeing and Airbus have been:

---

Boeing’s Forecast Accuracy

• 2000–2009 Retrospective: Boeing noted that its early-2000s forecasts for 2009 traffic and aircraft demand were conservative, underestimating actual market demand by 10–15%, though their segmentation (by aircraft size) was “admirably accurate”  .

• 2012–2011 Fleet Comparisons: Independent visual comparisons suggest Boeing’s published fleet forecasts tracked closely with real-world growth trends through 2011, showing solid qualitative performance .

• Reaffirmed Accuracy: By 2019–2020, Boeing emphasized their forecast’s reliability, calling it an enduring industry standard for combining structural and market dynamics  .

Takeaway: Boeing’s forecasts tend to underestimate demand slightly, erring on the side of conservatism—typically 10–15% low in aggregate volume—but get market segmentation (e.g. single- vs wide-body share) spot-on.

 Airbus’s Forecast Accuracy

• GMF 2015 vs Actual Data: Airbus forecasted ~32,600 new aircraft deliveries from 2015–2034 (22,900 single-aisle; ~8,100 twin-aisle; ~1,550 very large) and a 4.6% annual RPK growth  .

• Both Airbus and Boeing used comparable growth methodologies; one EU analysis projected Boeing would forecast ~15% more fleet growth than Airbus’s ~4.6% CAGR over the 20-year period—close alignment on methodology but slight volume difference  .

• Airbus employs multi-model methodologies across ~70 traffic flows to improve validity  .

Takeaway: Airbus forecasts have been similarly slightly conservative, but align closely with Boeing on annual RPK growth rates (~4.6–4.9%) and overall fleet expansion. Their multi-model, flow-level modeling approach helps refine their estimates.

Big Tech Squares off in Court. Sam and Jony vs Sundar. The Strange case of the EYE-OH

 I love a nice juicy lawsuit to brighten my day. So here is this one.

The case brought by IYO, Inc (a little known spin out from Google). against IO Products, OpenAI, Sam Altman, and Jony Ive revolves around trademark infringement and unfair competition, centered on the alleged misappropriation of IYO’s brand, technology, and market positioning. 

So having read through it - I thought it would be fun to take it apart. And in TRUE Professor Sabena style let's see if there are not a few morsels of fun in here.

BUT... back to the basics. 

SYNTHESIS OF ACCUSATIONS

1. Trademark Infringement and Brand Confusion

• IYO alleges it holds both common law and registered rights to the “IYO” trademark (pronounced “EYE-OH”), used for a voice-controlled, ear-worn computing device called the IYO ONE.

• OpenAI and Ive’s new venture is called “IO”, pronounced identically and operating in a directly competing product space (screenless, AI-powered, natural language interface hardware).

• The complaint cites reverse confusion as a central issue: the public might mistakenly believe IYO is copying IO, when it’s allegedly the other way around.

2. Prior Knowledge and Bad Faith

• Multiple meetings and exchanges occurred between IYO and OpenAI/LoveFrom from 2022 to early 2025.

  • IYO pitched its vision, tech, and roadmap to Sam Altman and others.

  • LoveFrom and Apollo Projects (Altman’s fund) declined investment but allegedly monitored IYO’s progress.

  • Several individuals tied to IO, including its co-founder and team members, pre-ordered IYO’s products and participated in fittings.

• IYO claims that OpenAI and Ive’s team had direct access to proprietary demos and discussions, and that the timing and naming of IO’s launch was done with full awareness of IYO’s existence.

3. Market Harm and Disruption

• The complaint details substantial damage to IYO’s capital raising, manufacturing momentum, and public identity post-OpenAI’s announcement on May 21, 2025.

  • Investors backed off.

  • Market confusion allegedly ensued.

  • OpenAI’s scale threatens to “swamp” IYO’s brand equity.

4. Refusal to Rectify

• IYO’s repeated requests for resolution or name changes were rebuffed.

• Sam Altman allegedly said OpenAI would sue IYO to force it to change its name.

• OpenAI’s lawyers allegedly claimed IO was not using the mark “in commerce” — a position IYO calls absurd given the $6.5B press blitz.

WHERE THE CLAIMS MAY HAVE MERIT

Strong Points:

• Trademark Similarity and Phonetic Identity: “IO” vs. “IYO” is nearly indistinguishable when spoken. Both target identical markets with similar user experiences and product functions.

• Prior Interactions and Knowledge: There’s detailed documentation showing meetings, demos, and shared materials between IYO and the defendants.

• Timing: IO’s incorporation and pre-launch timeline postdates IYO’s trademark use, TED talk, and viral marketing.

• Registered Trademark: IYO holds a valid, active U.S. trademark registration (Reg. No. 7,409,119) filed in 2021 and registered in 2024, covering nearly identical goods.

CHALLENGES FOR IYO’S CASE

Potential Weaknesses:

• Enforceability of the Mark on Phonetic Similarity Alone: Courts vary in how strictly they treat homophones without identical spelling, especially in tech.

• Descriptive/Generic Challenges: “IO” could argue the name is derived from computing convention (I/O = input/output) — which may weaken distinctiveness.

• Scale Imbalance and Market Entry Timing: IYO’s product isn’t yet widely released; IO hasn’t (publicly) commercialized either. This could affect assessments of “actual confusion” in the market.

• No NDA or Explicit IP Restrictions?: While IP was allegedly discussed, there’s no mention in the complaint of formal NDAs or license terms — which may limit enforceability of “shared ideas” unless trade secrets were clearly marked.

Particularly Quirky or Notable Points

• Altman’s email stating “thanks but I’m working on something competitive (called io…)” is devastatingly candid and likely to play a major role.

• IO employees ordering IYO’s products under fake email domains and asking for design files raises the specter of willful misconduct.

• The founder’s phone being “blown up” after the IO launch — while anecdotal — adds a compelling narrative of market disruption.

Final Assessment

This complaint is factually rich, well-documented, and potentially meritorious, especially on:

• Reverse confusion

• Trademark infringement

• Bad faith conduct

• Reputational harm

If IYO can prove actual confusion, consumer misidentification, and improper access to confidential product insights, it stands a strong chance of prevailing or securing a favorable settlement — particularly under Lanham Act §43(a) https://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1125.html and California UCL §17200.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Unfair_Competition_Law 

Summary

And my assessment?

Tech & AI Focus

• #AIHardware

• #NaturalLanguageInterface

• #VoiceFirst

• #WearableTech

• #FutureOfComputing

• #GenerativeAI

• #StartupVsBigTech

Legal & IP Focus

• #TrademarkInfringement

• #IPRights

• #LanhamAct

• #ReverseConfusion

• #UnfairCompetition

• #BrandProtection

My fun with the Cable Company StupidCXTrick #10

 This is a true story. Some license has been taken to address keeping the identities private.

Me: Let me dial Cable company

Cable Company: Your call may be monitored or observed for quality assurance, customer service,  ….

Me…(and any other asinine reason you can thing of….)

Cable: (…continuing) for faster service go to our website at www.cablereallysucks.com. Where you will find all the information you need….

Cable… stupid music

Cable (From the Philippines). Welcome to CableSux Co. We are really glad you have chosen us.

Me: I want your $55 dollar deal.

Cable: I am so sorry you are not eligible for that. But I can provide you with a $75 deal and discount that for $55 for 1 year.

Me: ????

Cable: Shall we proceed?

Me: Oh I guess so better than the other cable company www.cablefleecesitscustomersafter12months.com

Cable. OK – we will show up in 5 days and you can count on us being there.

Me: that sounds great.

Cable: Please fill out this form so we can transfer service.

Me: I will do that right away.

4 days pass.

Cable: (From USA) Hello and this is a recorded line to provide you with superior service…

Me: Hello

Cable: Well since you didn't fill out the form we cannot install tomorrow.

Me: I did.

Cable: Well that is not the information in front of me.

Me: Well can I send you a copy as proof?

Cable: No we cant take emails….

Me.. Oh FFS….

Cable: But I can give you a number to call to verify.

Me: If I call that number will that speed the process.

Cable: No

Me: is there anything I can do to escalate the process and get the install done tomorrow (Day 5)

Cable: No

Me: OK… I have no choice then.

Cable: No

 

2 Hours later

 

Cable: (From USA) Hello and this is a recorded line to provide you with superior service…

Me: What now?

Cable: Good news we are scheduling your installation for tomorrow.

Me: Wow!

Cable: Yes as scheduled.

Me: Are you sure (recounts horror story so far).

Cable: No I have you scheduled for tomorrow they will be there from 0800-1200. Can you confirm you will be there?

Me: Yes.

Cable: Then it is confirmed.

Me: Is there anything else I have to do?

Cable: No you are all set.

Me: (Grateful but skeptical) Thanks goodbye.

 

Next morning (1 hour before install is due)

 

Cable: via text. Confirm that you will be there.

Me: Huh? I already confirmed so I should not have to do anything

 

1 hour later

 

Cable: via text. Confirm that you will be there.

Me: via text: Confirm

 

4 hour pass – crickets

 

8 Hours pass – crickets

 

Me; Hello Cable Co? Did you forget me?

Cable: Hello this is Freda (from the Philippines) This is a recorded line for superior customer service.

Me: Why no installer showed up?

Cable: I am terribly sorry but our process says we cannot install without the verification which we only got from you yesterday.

Me: You are fecking kidding me…

Cable: No – but I can now schedule you for 5 days from now.

Me: So your screw up means I have to wait??? Please escalate

Cable: Let me see what I can do… can you hold please for 2 mins. And how is the weather is Western Washington today?

Me: let’s just deal with the problem of Cable co and get this resolved

 

7 mins pass

 

Freda: yes I can get you scheduled 5 days from today. Can I do that?

Me: Do I have a choice?

Freda: I am so happy to help you. I can confirm this is now scheduled. Have I resolved everything for you?

Me: No

Freda: But we have agreed everything

Me: I still don't have service.

Freda: OK is that all?

Me: Let’s run through your notes describing all the things that Cable co has failed to do.

Freda (nervous and sheepish) recites all the problems

Me: Good please escalate this and then we can discuss whether I proceed or not. I can cancel before 30 days without any penalty or charge.

Freda: Yes Mr Timothy. Thank you for letting me resolve this for you… er… I mean help you.

Me: I think we are done here. Please confirm again I have nothing to do before next week 0800-1200?

Freda: yes I confirm. And thank you for calling Cablesux.com

 

2 mins pass

Cable: Automated text. Your rescheduled call is not Tuesday 0800-1200

Me: Now ask me if I believe you!!!!

But fret no more...

Are We Really Free to Call Over Wi-Fi? Or Is the Gate Still Guarded?

This is the expanded version of my post on Linked in. 

Here’s a question worth asking: Why is it still so hard to use a third-party Wi-Fi calling app on your phone? I love Whatsapp and Signal. I use them all the time. In certain places I use Lime and WeChat. Enter a small company VoIP-Pal. 

VoIP-Pal, a company with a long history of litigation but no real product success, has launched fresh antitrust lawsuits against Apple, Google, Samsung, and the usual telecom suspects—AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. The claim? That Big Tech and Big Telco are quietly colluding to kill off independent Wi-Fi calling apps. But wait you say isn’t VoIP like ubiquitous? VoIP was originally from Bell Labs in the 1980s. The first commercial product was released by VocalTec Communications in 1995. 

NOTE: really interesting side story on the inventor of VoIP) - Dr Marian Croak check out her story.

Now before we file this under “patent troll drama,” let’s unpack both sides.

If VoIP-Pal is right:

• Apple and Google may be exercising classic gatekeeper behavior by rejecting legitimate apps.

• Telecoms may be applying behind-the-scenes pressure to preserve their control of voice services.

• Consumers in poor coverage areas — think rural zones, hospitals, or even basements — are left without alternatives that could serve them better.

But if VoIP-Pal is just trolling for a payout:

• They’ve sued everyone under the sun (Apple, Amazon, Twitter) without ever shipping anything.

• Their patents may be too vague to defend — the kind that describe an idea, not an innovation.

• This could be another fishing expedition for settlement money, not real market impact.

Here’s where it gets interesting. If they win, app stores might finally be forced open to serious third-party Wi-Fi calling tools. That’s a win for competition and consumer choice.

If they lose? Maybe nothing changes. Or maybe we just accept that app store policy and carrier collusion are baked into the system now.

So my question… is this a legitimate case of anticompetitive behavior? Or just one more lawsuit trying to extract rent from deep pockets?

#WiFiCalling #Telecom #BigTech #PatentLaw #Antitrust #VoiceTech #AppStores #Innovation

VoIP-Pal Patents

From their portfolio listings  , VoIP‑Pal highlights several core U.S. patents, most notably:

• US 8,542,815 (B2) – “Producing routing messages for Voice over IP communications”

• US 8,774,378 (B2)

• US 9,137,385 (B2)

• US 9,179,005 (B2)

• US 9,537,762 (B2)

• US 9,813,330 (B2)

• US 9,826,002 (B2)

• US 9,948,549 (B2)

• US 9,813,330 and US 9,826,002 were both asserted in its mid‑2024 filings 

• They also hold US 10,218,606, which is central to newer suits 

So, patents commonly mentioned in their cases: ’815, ’005, ’762, ’330, ’002, ’549, and ’606.

Significant Lawsuits

1. Patent-Infringement Actions

• Western District of Texas (Waco) cases (mid‑2024 / early‑2025):

  Asserted ’762, ’330, ’002, ’549 against Apple, Amazon, Twitter, AT&T, Verizon, Google, Samsung, etc. 

2. Antitrust/Class-Action Lawsuit

• Filed June 2024 against Apple, Google, Samsung, AT&T, Verizon, T‑Mobile—claiming coordinated block of third‑party Wi‑Fi calling apps 

3. Earlier Apple Suits (2016–2020)

• Asserted ’815 & ’005 in a 2016 Nevada suit, stayed, then later invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in N. California (Judge Koh) 

• In 2018, filed a second suit with ’762, ’330, ’002, ’549; again invalidated in California 

4. Declaratory-Judgment Action by Apple (2021)

• Apple filed in Northern District of California seeking judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of ’234 and ’721 patents after VoIP‑Pal attempted to sue in Waco 

 

 

Response to Christian Watts

On Linkedin Christian posted a question:

OK - we're 2.5 years in to AI.
We're 20 years, in if you want to pretend you've been using AI meaningfully before ChatGPT launched.

I'm looking for help from the community for a Phocuswright session and for an article.
What are the best ACTUAL, live use cases of AI in travel so far. As-in cases that are launched / live / in-use / interesting / useful to share with others in travel.
Please add link / tag (tag yourself if you must) / add a quick snippet of what it is / what it does.
Thanks in advance...

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7337470150876504064/ 

My response?

OH Christian... this is very cruel. You know that we are getting close. A neat way for you to be lazy but is this a call to reality?

So, we’re nearly 3 years into the "popular phase" of AI in just about everything. And Travel is no exception, yet… we’re still mostly in the what I would call the "Sniffware" phase, nowhere near any mass deployment. The term “AI” is now so elastic that it risks losing all value. That said, there are glimmers of true utility—mostly in narrow applications, and often deep in the plumbing rather than front-of-house. I have 3 potential areas and here are the ones I think are worth watching - for now:

A) Customer Interaction — The Chatbot Wasteland

Most GenAI bots in travel are still glorified FAQ wrappers with little context or transaction depth. (I personally delight in breaking them). But Replyr.ai, one of the Global Startup Showcase contenders, is starting to push into more meaningful ground with real-time, transactional intelligence layered on top of existing systems. Still early, but promising. I think this is where we will see some of the easiest variations.

B) Agentic AI — The Dream Gets a Demo

Most “AI agents” in travel are still vaporware, but the Azure AI Travel Agent demo from Microsoft: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/massimobonanni_introducing-azure-ai-travel-agents-a-flagship-activity-7334220453462310912-gRwC] is the closest I’ve seen to an integrated, multi-modal assistant that could (eventually) stitch together flights, hotels, and ground into a coherent flow. Still very early stage, but a live working example worth tracking. Despite the hype around OperatorAI nothing deployed as yet.

C) Live AI in the Wild — Hopper’s Pricing Tools

Unlike most, Hopper has deployed AI in production for quite some time. Their Price Freeze, Price Drop, and Best Price Guarantees are underpinned by machine learning models that evaluate pricing volatility and risk, then wrap them in fintech-like upsell services. It’s not flashy, but it’s working—and generating revenue.

So, no “best-in-class” AI in travel yet, but a few contenders in specific areas. Most real value is still buried in optimization and prediction, not in chatbots or “AI agents.” The next year will determine whether any of this breaks out of the lab.

If you were to ask me a different question as to where I think we can be.. I will say that is a very different question and I am deep into that now. 

 

Cheers

Timothy

Gatekeepers at the Gate: Why GDSs and OTAs Deserve Scrutiny — But So Might Airlines

---

The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/legislation_en just scored a win for hotel suppliers and competition advocates alike. With Booking.com officially designated as a “gatekeeper”, the travel giant was forced to scrap rate parity clauses across the European Economic Area. That means hotels can now — finally — offer lower prices on their own websites without triggering retaliation or delisting. Progress? Absolutely. But let’s not stop there.

It’s time to ask a bigger, more uncomfortable question. Why are we still tolerating full content clauses from Global Distribution Systems (GDSs)? OK they are going away with NDC but that will take some time. But, while we’re at it, why should OTAs get a free pass when they impose similar “most-favoured” conditions across multiple verticals — from flights to tours?

 

Full Content Clauses: The Original Digital Parity Trap

For decades, GDSs like Amadeus, Sabre, and Travelport (through its various brands) have relied on Full Content Agreements (FCAs) that force airlines to provide identical fares and availability across all channels — or risk losing access to massive corporate and agency markets. It’s the same parity logic that Booking.com was using. The difference? The GDSs are still getting away with it, albeit less and less via EDIFACT and the results of the AA vs Sabre Lawsuit. https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/Sabre-US-Airways-verdict

IMHO This setup:

• Disincentivizes innovation in airline distribution.
• Stifles competition from direct channels and NDC-based players.
• Keeps pricing power in the hands of intermediaries.

So what gives?

The DMA’s Big Omission

The DMA was supposed to curb the power of digital “gatekeepers” — platforms that control access between businesses and users. That’s exactly what the GDSs do. They sit between airlines and sellers (corporate agencies, OTAs, TMCs) and control access to content, availability, and in many cases, the right to be seen.

Yet so far, no GDS has been designated a gatekeeper.

This is not just an oversight — it’s a regulatory blind spot. If Booking.com’s control of hotel visibility and rate parity triggers gatekeeper status, the GDSs’ lock on airline fare content should do the same. All OTAs, especially those selling flights, packages, and activities, are similarly ripe for review.

Airlines May Be Next — And That’s the Twist

But before airlines start celebrating the possible demise of full content clauses, here’s the caveat:

Airlines themselves may also qualify as gatekeepers — if they wield disproportionate control over how fares are shown or priced across channels.

That’s right. The same control airlines want to reclaim under NDC and Offer-Order models may be legally indistinguishable from platform dominance in the DMA’s eyes. If an airline requires exclusive pricing on its own site, blocks API access, or penalizes third-party sellers for discounting, it may be acting like a gatekeeper itself.

The irony is rich: the supplier, long shackled by parity clauses, could now become the next target of the same rules it cheered.

Where Do We Go From Here?

What’s needed is regulatory consistency:

1. Apply gatekeeper scrutiny to GDSs and OTAs, especially in air distribution, where they control visibility, access, and commission structures.
2. Hold airlines to a reasonable standard — protect their right to differentiate, but avoid allowing anti-competitive exclusivity.
3. Update the DMA and national competition policies to address the vertical integration of content, distribution, and pricing in travel ecosystems.

Final Thought

Gatekeeping isn’t just a tech giant problem. It’s a specific travel industry problem. And if the EU is serious about unlocking competition, it needs to widen its lens — beyond social media and app stores — and focus squarely on the entrenched infrastructure of travel commerce.

Because as long as full content clauses remain untouched, we’re still living in the past.

Please feel free to let me know what you think.