PERTH: It's All Going To Happen...

[topend3]

Great Keg hope I’m wrong then!

[Keg]

Keg said:

Why can't Qantas process its domestic passengers through T1, as it did when JNB flights operated through PER in the past?

This is NOT a MEL- PER- JNB service- or SYD or BNE. Additionally when they tag the JNB flight through to (say) SYD or MEL or BNE they then need to transfer the pax from the connecting regional services across to the international terminal for the 'domestic service'. Let's not add the confusion of lost passengers turning up to the domestic terminal for their 'domestic flight' to MEL.... which just happens to be departing from a different terminal to their previous domestic flight.

The point many seem to be missing is that the business case for international services ex PER to places like JNB, LHR (and other places that are on the drawing board) can be quite heavily dependent on a number of little things all coming together to make the case. Things like connections from regional or perhaps interstate ports such as ADL, DRW, BNE, etc. Make these connections difficult and it's tick in the cons column for the business case. Adding at least a 30 min connection for pax transferring terminals (probably closer to 45) or more than an hour if needing to changing an aeroplane can be enough to influence people's choice along the lines of what angryrat has pointed out. Club facilities in T4 are good enough to cope with the expanded services with virtually nil additional cost. The club facilities at T1 would require additional staff and resources. Another tick in the cons box.

I always thought the aim of an airport was to get as many pax through the doors as possible. It seems that's not PAC's aim.

So we can argue about semantics about medium term or long term. The reality is that PAC has no coherent plan for the the short term or medium term that will address what Qantas wants to try and achieve in the short to medium term. 2025 is off in the never- never in aviation terms.

[maggot]

They just want it to be as seamless as possible

Need that 240mins first though eh......

[BuzzBox]

The reality is that PAC has no coherent plan for the the short term or medium term that will address what Qantas wants to try and achieve in the short to medium term. 2025 is off in the never- never in aviation terms.

That's all well and good, but the airport doesn't exist solely for the benefit of Qantas. PAC needs to consider the short, medium and long term interests of the airport and ALL its users. If allowing Qantas to become firmly entrenched on the western side conflicts with PAC's medium to long term plans, then surely they are within their rights to act accordingly. That might mean short term pain for Qantas, but a better long term outcome once all operations are consolidated in the central precinct.

[neville_nobody]

the reality is that PAC has no coherent plan for the the short term or medium term that will address what Qantas wants to try and achieve in the short to medium term.

They have a plan, it is in the airport master plan, it's just that implementing it will cost big dollars and start affecting bonuses.So the can just keeps being kicked down the road and they just keep on jacking up the forecast figures in their annual reports but don't actually do any thing to facilitate this. This is the same airport that a few years back denied that it needed an extra runway despite every flight departing late. At the time they were stating that it was the operators fault because everyone wanted to depart at the same time and that operators should change their schedules to fit into the airport. A similar thing happened in Brisbane who were basically embarrassed into building a runway after asking the airlines to pay them to build it

The issue is not privatisation per se it is the fact that all these airports have been gifted monopolies. If someone came along and build a competing airport on the outskirts of Perth I'm sure that you will start seeing things change at YPPH

[Keg]

That's all well and good, but the airport doesn't exist solely for the benefit of Qantas. PAC needs to consider the short, medium and long term interests of the airport and ALL its users. If allowing Qantas to become firmly entrenched on the western side conflicts with PAC's medium to long term plans, then surely they are within their rights to act accordingly. That might mean short term pain for Qantas, but a better long term outcome once all operations are consolidated in the central precinct.

It’s not short term pain. It’s the next freaking 6 years. It also means less passengers through Perth airport for the next 6 years until their facilities are up to standard.

Again, if what PAC was offering Qantas was better to what they currently have QF would be insane not to move. Heck, even equal to what QF currently have would at least be an argument worth having. The reality is that PAC can’t come up with a solution that meets QF’s needs and as a result wil miss out on putting more people through the airport. IE they are willingly foregoing revenue- and potentially quite a bit of it.

So yeah, PAC need to manage it for short, medium, long term. How’s their short term looking for their biggest client? Stuffed. How’s the medium term looking for their biggest client? Stuffed. How’s the long term looking? Well, who would really know given that PAC are yet to turn soil on the second runway or the combined facility.

​​​​​​​Great job PAC.

[Icarus2001]

Agreed Keg. I think the famous quote from Tony the mad monk Abbott about Syria is apt for this situation. This is not about good guys and bad guys, this is about bad guys and bad guys. I think QF and Perth Airport are both behaving badly and trying to leverage their position. The state government got conned in the middle as well.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

This is NOT a MEL- PER- JNB service- or SYD or BNE.
QF9 is MEL- PER-LHR. If you are ex MEL it would have been seamless at T1 in PER. For PER originators T1 would have been expected, and usual. That other joiners would have had to transfer Terminals, like they do in every other airport in Australia (and a lot of other places), does not make this unique. But QF could not have avoided DXB without convincing east coast patrons that sitting in an aircraft for 5hrs BEFORE you even leave the country was A GOOD THING.
If QF offered a flight to JNB tomorrow from T1, and it was cheaper than SAA, it would be patronised by people from WA and the east coast (who would have had to change terminals anyway and expected nothing else) because, as is lamented on many, many threads here, people buy on price (see Bloggs #224). The facilities at T1 would not sway them if it was cheaper. QF are either planning to be not much, if at all, cheaper ( note: plan is to operate seasonally so can charge highest fares), or this is part of a longer end game. I reckon the latter is why PA is nervous.
Joyce's business case is how do I get myself out of the cluster f#%k decision I made to partner with EK? It's all about the rows at the front. QF couldn't give a rats about the great unwashed down the back. Ask internally about how much QF pay EK for lounge access in DXB.

[Keg]

That still doesn’t solve the issue of the aeroplane doing BNE- PER as a domestic service and then needing to transfer terminals.

MEL- PER- LHR works because it’s how people are getting from MEL to LHR. Anecdotal evidence suggests 20-30 seats only are for domestic pax- 10- 15%. BNE- PER- JNB won’t work because that’s not really how BNE or MEL people get to Jo’burg. Depending on the day, the aeroplane for JNB may come from MEL or SYD or BNE as well so that further complicates the issue.

Of course the WA government and QF having built these fantastic facilities in T4 for international services, PAC don’t want to see them used at times of the day when they’re not otherwise being utilised? That makes a lot of sense doesn’t it.

So lots of naysayers saying to QF ‘suck it up’, no one putting much thought into how to utilise the existing facilities in a way that is win/ win for both airline and PAC. How typically Australian.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

That still doesn’t solve the issue of the aeroplane doing BNE- PER as a domestic service and then needing to transfer terminals.
A330 arrives in BNE QF Dom from SYD tomorrow then gets towed to BNE Intl to operate BNE-SIN shortly after. Qantas tows aircraft to/from Intl / Dom / Intl at BNE just about every day of the week. That's their scheduling choices. I imagine much the same happens in SYD. But they can't do that in PER?
It's a pity the WA govt didn't see the need to chip in and build "fantastic facilities" in the other terminal for all the rest of their taxpayers international travel needs.

[cessnapete]

Historically, why are there separate International and Domestic terminals at Oz airports when internationally most airports combine the two? Towing aircraft on a turnaround between sectors seems a bit ineficient.
Remember landing at Bne when new Int. Terminal opened. Felt as though we were taxing into town! And if another 747 coming the other way, long delay waiting to enter Terminal link, as no parallel taxiway for access.

[Icarus2001]

http://www.lastpixel.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/EXT_MP_Terminals_v03_1280x905.jpg

This looks great but they need to get cracking on it.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

There wasn't a need to tow aircraft between terminals until the day one airline took over another and had both International and Domestic ops (and started using the same aircraft for both). Since then it has become more widespread, but the terminals were already built.

[Beer Baron]

Qantas tows aircraft to/from Intl / Dom / Intl at BNE just about every day of the week. That's their scheduling choices. I imagine much the same happens in SYD. But they can't do that in PER?
The point is, in Perth THERE IS NO NEED TO!!!
The facilities are there, the airline wants to use them, passengers would benefit from the convenience, but Perth Airport won’t let them.

Your only argument for why they should force this annoyance on Qantas passengers is so Perth Airport can make even larger profits from the travelling public.

Is this the Professional Airport Owners Rumour Network?

[CaptCloudbuster]

Maybe the WA government think that a $14m outlay is peanuts,

$14 million is peanuts. The BILLIONS WASTED by the Coalition recently highlighted in the “Royalties for Regions” inquiry (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-21/langoulant-report-on-how-royalties-for-regions-left-budget-hole/9467622) demonstrates that plainly.

[Capn Bloggs]

This looks great but they need to get cracking on it.
Woo Hoo! Bring it ON! Or, 500 bays, here we come... :{

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

A330 arrives in BNE QF Dom from SYD tomorrow then gets towed to BNE Intl to operate BNE-SIN shortly after. Qantas tows aircraft to/from Intl / Dom / Intl at BNE just about every day of the week. That's their scheduling choices. I imagine much the same happens in SYD. But they can't do that in PER?


Well, it’s a practice which is routinely causing large delays in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Particularly Sydney, where, like Perth, the jet has to be towed across an active runway. You can argue that it’s a result of scheduling or fleet choices, but I can still see why they’d like to avoid it if they can.

[Keg]

Yep. And they’ve had to build in longer transit times to cover it. And sometimes it means their are routes they’d like to fly but can’t... so they don’t... like the decision they’ve now made about PER- JNB... to the detriment of Perth residents, probably ADL and DRW residents, and ironically probably PAC revenue and profit.

[Derfred]

That other joiners would have had to transfer Terminals, like they do in every other airport in Australia (and a lot of other places), does not make this unique.

Well, actually no. There are only other 2 airports in the country that do this: SYD and BNE.

All other international airports use the same or adjacent (walking distance) terminals. MEL, ADL, DRW, OOL, CNS, CBR, (AVV, KTA... :) )

[WingNut60]

I'm interested to know which entity will have to compensate the numerous businesses that have been allowed to set up shop on the eastern side of current T1 and which will have to relocate to make way for all this.
That would include QANTAS Freight and QANTAS catering, and numerous others.

[Icarus2001]

which will have to relocate to make way for all this. Not sure there will be too much of that. Most leases granted on that side had the master plan in mind anyway.

http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Perth-Airport-new-runway-site.jpg

[WingNut60]

Not sure there will be too much of that. Most leases granted on that side had the master plan in mind anyway.



We'll have to wait and see I suppose.
But while your map shows the airside fence, the previous artists impression seems to indicate complete redevelopment east of Horrie Miller Drive down as far as Grogan Rd to the south.

And no matter what the leases say, I can't see the likes of TOLL, QANTAS and DHL walking away to another location without putting their hand out first.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Well, actually no. There are only other 2 airports in the country that do this: SYD and BNE.

All other international airports use the same or adjacent (walking distance) terminals. MEL, ADL, DRW, OOL, CNS, CBR, (AVV, KTA... :) )
You are correct, although what I meant was to move out of the Domestic airline of choice branded area of arrival, and into a separate, segregated common user facility, whether it be in the same building or another. I didn't phrase it very well.

[Derfred]

OK.

What the Federal Government decided, over 25 years ago, according to it’s mantra, was that airlines and airports should be privately and commercially operated.

They did this either because they conceeded they weren’t capable of doing it themselves, or that Australians would be better off that way. Either way, they’ve done it, and that’s what we have now.

The difference between privatisation of airports and airlines is that they gave the former a monopoly, and they gave the latter nothing - in fact they went out of their way to encourage competition against Australian owned or operated airlines, with zero concessions against the lower costs of foreign airline competition.

Each is now required to conduct it’s business in accordance with shareholder (or sole owner) returns.

No-one would disagree that airlines struggle to survive, particularly Australian ones. Australian airports, on the other hand, do not.

Qantas came up with an idea to streamline operations through it’s existing terminal, which would improve the experience for passengers, and help make it viable for their business. PA told them to get lost. But QF were prepared to spend money on it, and it was only through WA Govt pressure and a small amount of State funding that PA conceeded to it (or were required to conceed - I don’t know).

Now they want to add another flight that wasn’t included in the original written agreement, and PA are telling them to get lost again.

Don’t for one minute think that PA is “thinking of the children” here. They are behaving just how we are accustomed to how monopoly companies behave. They simply don’t see a dollar in it for them so they are saying “no” just because they can.

The only way a private monopoly can exist effectively for the people is through stringent regulation.

Perhaps the Govt needs to step in and pull in the reins a little bit.

[Derfred]

The Saffer pax will still come and go, just on SAA, as they do now. QF are just trying to scoop the cream off the top by only flying seasonally. Joyce is just going the petulant child routine again.

The Saffer pax are complaining about the exhorbitant costs of SAA “in season”. SAA can charge that because there are insufficient seats to meet demand “in season” so they can charge what they like.

Yet you begrudge another airline stepping in to meet demand “in season”. You obviously don’t have family in SA. What are you calling for, fully regulated international routes in/out of Aus?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Nah Fred........They did it for the M O N E Y.............Just like 'they' did with Telstra...and with ......

They did it by selling properties / facilities OWNED by US, paid for by US, and then had the 'arse' to try and tell us that it would be to OUR benefit and cost US LESS.....

"Privatisation" is just like castor oil.... you know....Its GOOD for YOU!!!

And, it has the SAME EFFECT....!!!!

Wait till you get your electricity bill.....

No Cheers...NOPE...NONE at ALL!!!
Bah Humbug

[Derfred]

Agree totally.

But as I said, for whatever reason it was done, we are left with the result.

Now we are left with monopoly airports undermining sensible plans by Aussie airlines for no reason other than it doesn’t suit their monopoly business plan.

And we have Aussies here on this forum attempting to defend it.

Only in Australia...

[Global Aviator]

At least Perth is getting a public train to the airport. What will the ticket price be though?

Does it go to the QF side or just the new side?

Airports in Aus..... all about the money, from car park revenue and beyond.

[WingNut60]

At least Perth is getting a public train to the airport. What will the ticket price be though?

Does it go to the QF side or just the new side?

Airports in Aus..... all about the money, from car park revenue and beyond.



Smart-@rs3d answer - It depends where you get on!

Perth - Forrestfield : 2 zones $4.70 full fare.
Same by bus.

Redcliffe station is about 1 km from T3/T4
Airport station is about 350 metres from T1

And that raises an interesting point, the bus, I mean.
For those staying at the motel strip along Gt Eastern Hwy, the bus or a taxi is still their best bet.
Very popular with Asean visitors - close to the Casino.

[IsDon]

Smart-@rs3d answer - It depends where you get on!

Perth - Forrestfield : 2 zones $4.70 full fare.
Same by bus.



What about the “Airport Station Fee”?

in Sydney it’s $14.30 above the cost of your ticket.

Once again, private monopoly owners attempting to price gouge the public. What they didn’t figure on, in Sydney anyway, was that people would refuse to pay such an over the top amount. Why would you?

if you’re traveling to the airport, you’re probably not alone. $28.60 plus the cost of the ticket from your home station goes a long way toward making a taxi fare reasonable.

This greedy logic resulted in the original consortium going broke, I believe, as nobody used the airport stations.

Now, the stations are virtually deserted. The only users are those that arrived at the station for the first time, and haven’t yet realised how much it’s going to cost them to actually enter the terminals. Or those that are going the other way and haven’t thought of a better option, yet. They will next time though.

I sincerely hope Perth, and Melbourne, aren’t gouged in this way by their new train systems. I know, tell him he’s dreaming.

[NumptyAussie]

[QUOTE=WingNut60;10142022]Smart-@rs3d answer - It depends where you get on!

Perth - Forrestfield : 2 zones $4.70 full fare.


Who really wants to get onto a suburban train (up to 10 stops) with luggage?

[WingNut60]

What about the “Airport Station Fee”?
In Sydney it’s $14.30 above the cost of your ticket.

Who really wants to get onto a suburban train (up to 10 stops) with luggage?

Not me for one.
Though I might catch the train one station to Forrestfield to get picked up, rather than have the missus rack up some horrendous parking fee for arriving too early (like 30 minutes early) or if the flight is delayed.

I really can't imagine that train to the airport getting much use at all.
Maybe backpackers heading for Bali and the FiFo crews - next to no luggage.
But not of they have to pay $15 to get off the train.

I am well accustomed to using the train in Tokyo, KL and, occasionally, Bangkok.
But that's a whole different ball game and a whole different level of service.

[Icarus2001]

Newsflash: The Forrestfield rail line will not go to or through Forrestfield. Worst named rail line in Australia.

[WingNut60]

Newsflash: The Forrestfield rail line will not go to or through Forrestfield. Worst named rail line in Australia.



Officially the terminal station, next to Dundas Rd, is in North Forrestfield, even if people from High Wycombe disagree.

Much the same naming conflict occurred over the T3/T4 station - Redcliffe or Belmont.

[WingNut60]

Whoops, what happened to that last post (#287? - temporary) on platform access fees?

From my snooping it seems that those fees are in fact levied by Airport Link Company who, in turn, pay the NSW Govt something approaching AUD $1.5M per week in "train service fees".
Am I right in guessing that those fees are only levied for passengers catching the train from the airport?
If a levy like that is imposed in Perth then the train is going to be very short of passengers.

[Icarus2001]

Officially the terminal station, next to Dundas Rd, is in North Forrestfield, even if people from High Wycombe disagree. There is no such suburb as North Forrestfield, there is a Forrestfield and High Wycombe.

This map shows the "Forrestfield" station on Dundas Road between Berkshire Road and Maida Vale road.

Anything North of Berkshire road on Dundas Road would be High Wycombe.

https://profile.id.com.au/kalamunda/about

https://www.trenchless-australasia.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/01/PTA-Forrestfield-Airport-Link-Overall-Alignment-Plan.png

My only doubt is if my map sources are wrong because the gummint have moved the station?

So as I said, it neither goes through or terminates in Forrestfield.

Your turn.

[BuzzBox]

There is no such suburb as North Forrestfield, there is a Forrestfield and High Wycombe.

Incorrect. There's a new area called Forrestfield North:

In 2014, the State Government confirmed the Forrestfield-Airport Link project, inclusive of a new rail line to Perth Airport and a train station in Forrestfield North near High Wycombe. With the proposed development of a new rail line and train station, the City and key State Government Agencies including the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) identified the need to redefine the potential land uses surrounding the future station, focussing on mixed use development incorporating retail, commercial and higher density residential.

City of Kalamunda - Forrestfield NORTH (http://www.kalamunda.wa.gov.au/Services/Planning/Major-Projects/Forrestfield-NORTH)

[Icarus2001]

Yes but is it a gazetted suburb or an area of the suburb known as Forrestfield? Which suburb is the station in again?

The name was all about buying votes with the unwashed that live in Forrestfield. Like Ellenbrook...

[BuzzBox]

It’s in the Forrestfield North precinct, next to the Forrestfield marshaling yards. They decided to call it ‘Forrestfield’. So what?

[Icarus2001]

Have you ever flown to the "London" airport known as Stanstead? Or the "Barcelona" airport known as Girona? Or the Paris airport known as Beauvais?

They decided to call it ‘Forrestfield’. So what?It does not go there or through there. Why not call it the promised Ellenbrook line?

[WingNut60]

Yes but is it a gazetted suburb or an area of the suburb known as Forrestfield? Which suburb is the station in again?

The name was all about buying votes with the unwashed that live in Forrestfield. Like Ellenbrook...

I didn't just dream this up. However it seems that my dyslexia kicked in - it is officially Forrestfield North.
It is to be developed as a residential precinct, whatever that may be. It lies within the suburb of Forrestfield but is not a suburb itself.
But then, apparently, nor is High Wycombe or Maida Vale.

Our disagreement may be around the definition of suburbs.
As I see it, the northern boundary of the suburb of Forrestfield is Margaret Rd, north of Kalamunda Road and lies in the locality (not suburb) of High Wycombe.
The new station is well within the northern boundary of the suburb of Forrestfield but only just inside the western boundary between the suburb of Forrestfield and the suburb of Belmont.

Have a look at Suburb maps (https://profile.id.com.au/wapl/about?WebID=300)

[BuzzBox]

Some people like to get their knickers in a twist over the most ridiculous things.

[Icarus2001]

Have a look at Suburb maps (https://profile.id.com.au/wapl/about?WebID=300)

That would be Census data and Electoral.

Have a look at this map...

https://profile.id.com.au/kalamunda/about (https://profile.id.com.au/kalamunda/about)

Some people like to get their knickers in a twist over the most ridiculous things. I don't wear knickers. At least we are exchanging views and discussing something, what are you doing?

[WingNut60]

That would be Census data and Electoral.

Have a look at this map...

https://profile.id.com.au/kalamunda/about (https://profile.id.com.au/kalamunda/about)

I don't wear knickers. At least we are exchanging views and discussing something, what are you doing?

Yes, maybe I didn't drill down far enough.
Still looking.

[NumptyAussie]

Yes, maybe I didn't drill down far enough.
Still looking.

Talking of drills, did they not have to stop the tunneling work under the airport due to subsidence? (See what I did there?)

[WingNut60]

Talking of drills, did they not have to stop the tunneling work under the airport due to subsidence? (See what I did there?)

Apparently resolved - Perth Airport link tunnelling work resumes after two-month hiatus (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-17/perth-airport-rail-link-tunnel-boring-resumes/9669062)

What irks me is that ALL press releases only ever mention "scheduled completion in 2020".
A date, or even a month, is never mentioned.
Effectively, what they are saying in terms of a milestone on a critical path, is that completion is scheduled for 23:59:59 on 31 December 2020.

I know that projects like this can and will encounter delays, but there is an actual scheduled completion date, even if it changes from time to time.
And there will definitely be, in the commercial contract, contingencies for unforeseen delays as well as bonuses for early completion.
You can bet that both the project managers and the government will be self-promoting with "under time and under budget" if the opportunity arises.

But how is the public to know what the real achievement is.if they never reveal the schedule.
They are all still gun-shy following the Children's Hospital fiasco.

[Capn Bloggs]

ABC News, 17 May 2018:Perth Airport's third runway clears hurdle, sparks immediate Noongar backlashBy Jacob Kagi (http://www.abc.net.au/news/jacob-kagi/4421098)Updated yesterday at 6:15pmThu 17 May 2018, 6:15pmhttp://www.abc.net.au/news/image/8186456-3x2-700x467.jpg (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-17/jetstar-plane-perth-airport/9773158) Perth Airport's expansion plans have cleared a major hurdle, putting a decades-old proposal for a third runway a step closer to reality.

But Aboriginal Affairs Minister Ben Wyatt's decision to grant Aboriginal heritage approval for the runway sparked an immediate backlash, with Noongar groups angry about the impact on a nearby sacred site.

The new airstrip, which is unlikely to be operational for about a decade and still has some hurdles to clear before it can proceed, will be constructed in part on Munday Swamp and will run parallel to the existing main runway.

Munday Swamp is an ancient turtle-fishing site deemed to be of high cultural importance to the Noongar community.http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/9748900-3x2-340x227.jpg (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-17/wa-treasurer-ben-wyatt-delivers-the-2018-budget-speech/9773166)

Mr Wyatt pointed to the need for a third airport runway, pointing to passenger demand, but conceded his decision would anger some in the Noongar community.

"I appreciate the hurt my decision today may cause a number of Noongar people," Mr Wyatt said.

"I take no pleasure in this announcement."

"However my ministerial responsibility to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage must take into account the broader interests of the whole state of Western Australia."

The decision sparked an immediate backlash from some campaigners, with the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council "deeply disappointed" with Mr Wyatt's decision.

"The proposed new runway would destroy the cultural, historical and spiritual significance of the Munday Swamp, which is already acknowledged as being sacred to the Whadjuk Noongar People," the council said."http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/9772430-3x2-700x467.jpg (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-17/director-of-the-rottnest-island-deaths-group-aboriginal-corpora/9773164)

Iva Hayward-Jackson, a director of the Rottnest Island Deaths Group Aboriginal Corporation, said he was angry and disappointed with the decision.

"It is damaging to our spirit, to our culture, to our sacred land and our sacred waterways," he said.

"This is a sacred area that is ancient ... there are 30,000-plus years of Aboriginal heritage and culture at that particular site."

Perth Airport said the parallel runway, to be built to the south-east of existing airport infrastructure, was needed to cater for an expected surge in demand.http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/9772544-3x2-700x467.jpg (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-17/perth-airports-proposed-new-runway/9773162)

The airport is predicting it will see 35 million passenger movements by 2045, up from 13.6 million currently.

"Two distinct flight paths are much safer, it allows for much more frequency of flights taking off and landing," Perth Airport chief executive Kevin Brown said.

"In our region there is a lot of opportunity and we want to make sure we are providing that full opportunity."

Mr Brown said everything possible had been done to minimise the impact on Munday Swamp, including shifting the proposed runway further away from that site than initial plans had proposed.

"Ninety per cent of the swamp will be protected for future generations," he said.

The airport's expansion plans will see Qantas shift its operations to the 'Airport Central' precinct, near the international terminal, by 2025.