PDA

View Full Version : PERTH: It's All Going To Happen...


Pages : [1] 2

Capn Bloggs
25th Nov 2010, 02:43
Perth Airport to get $500m facelift - The West Australian (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/8385434/perth-airport-to-get-500m-facelift/)

Fokkers, Fokkers, everywhere!

Chadzat
25th Nov 2010, 03:04
Its back to the future!

Xeptu
25th Nov 2010, 04:36
Great to see that YPPH is getting it's long overdue upgrade. It might not necessarily be a good thing for XR though. This plan puts QF and XR on opposite sides of the airport. That will make QQ more attractive to the Mining FIFO industry.

Chadzat
25th Nov 2010, 05:11
Xeptu- you make it sound like the pax will have to travel to another city to catch a connecting QF flight. Im sure there will be more regular transfers than there are now between Intl and domestic. But then this is WAC we are talking about....:hmm:

The Green Goblin
25th Nov 2010, 06:28
You can chock in as many terminals as you like, without extra runways and taxi ways, it will still be chaos as usual :ugh:

Mr.Buzzy
25th Nov 2010, 08:22
Tremendous!
Can we have another dozen SIDS and STARS as well? :ugh:

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hempy
25th Nov 2010, 09:09
No, you can have 1 STAR......with 183 different transitions....:ugh:

Reeltime
25th Nov 2010, 09:18
'183 transitions'...none of which connect to an approach!

Yeah thats the Perth I know and don't love...not to mention ground and clearance delivery sharing a frequency....Hicksville! :rolleyes:

Capn Bloggs
25th Nov 2010, 09:38
'183 transitions'...none of which connect to an approach!
Every transition I fly connects to an approach, unless you are seriously complaining about the visual approaches onto 03 and 06?

Skynews
25th Nov 2010, 10:57
8-10 year it says, it probably won't be finished on schedule, these things normally aren't.

The mining boom will be over, and until then Perth will be a bigger shit fight than it is now, with all the planed works.

flightfocus
25th Nov 2010, 11:08
Are the car parking operators thinking about aviation??? Surely it is a misprint. :ugh:

As mentioned previously W.A.C are about 5 years behind the demand curve. You can blame ATC for the delays but they can only work with the infrastructure given to them. At the end of the day there has been NOTHING done to improve the efficiency of the aerodrome.

Chopping down trees and building car parks are not helping. Chopping down trees and building supermarket warehouses has not helped. Realignment of the perimeter fence has not helped. Even building the of stand parking has done nothing except increase the conflicting tows.

W.A.C needs to pull its finger out and get on with it - NOW:mad:

Ex FSO GRIFFO
25th Nov 2010, 12:16
Re...

'Fokkers, Fokkers, everywhere!'.......I thought MOST of dem vere Boings...!!:}:}

flyingfox
25th Nov 2010, 14:49
This plan looks like more rubbish! (Not that GT would notice!) No aero-bridges, single story facility, walk for miles layout, no multi-story parking, wrong side of airport. (I'm sure WAC have great plans for the real estate on the 'old' domestic terminal site which is far more convenient to the city for the business travellers and most of Perths residents from just about everywhere.) The WA Gov. shouldn't fall for this plan! Once again WAC show that they don't run the airport for aviation or the passengers! The proposition that there is not enough room for development on the western side of the airport is complete rot. (Start with multi story parking.) Face the fact that the international terminal was designed and positioned by bureaucrats who got it wrong. Why continue with a dud plan? It should be demolished. If a second runway is ever built, the problem of accessibility will just get worse. (A bit like railway stations in the middle of the freeway!) It is time that WAC started serving the industry that the airport was designed for. Our idiot politicians sold out for a few quick dollars. These 'owners' are there for real estate!

sled_driver71
26th Nov 2010, 00:23
Ohhhh. im gonna miss parking 2kms away in the 'short term' car park , then catching a bus to the terminal, then walking thru legoland to catch another bus to the aircraft, then waiting at the holding point for 30 mins + to depart!

cart_elevator
26th Nov 2010, 04:33
Umm dont really know that much about the real estate etc at Perth Airport, but why would they put the regional terminal next to the international terminal rather than the domestic one? Surely most regional punters connect to domestic flights rather than international ones (particularly the mine workers). Seems very odd.

And I love their picture of the new international terminal, complete with a QF A380 parked there... as if QF would ever fly the A380 to Perth, they can barely fill an A330 to/from there !!

Normasars
26th Nov 2010, 04:42
CE

You are obviously on different QF 330s to me then. The ones I am on are packed to the gunwhales, as are the 76's, to and from PH

aviator's_anonymous
26th Nov 2010, 05:21
lets just hope that WAC get the regional terminal right as compared to Adelaide where the regional boarding area is a mess, especially for arriving passengers

Juice Rider
26th Nov 2010, 07:12
LOL GT says "It will make Perth one of the nation's best airports "
Bound to be BS then

Icarus2001
26th Nov 2010, 08:29
Face the fact that the international terminal was designed and positioned by bureaucrats who got it wrong...If a second runway is ever built, the problem of accessibility will just get worse

Sorry I disgaree. Putting the international on a green field site was a good move. The semi circular design was all the rage but is now out of favour. What WAC have done and are doing is criminal.

The original parallel runway to 03/21 was to be the same length as the existing. Now have a look here...Perth Airport : Master Plan (http://www.perthairport.com/default.aspx?MenuID=344)

As to TERMINAL WA, that was put on hold for the GFC. What a mistake. It could be READY NOW for use and would have been BUILT CHEAPER during the slow down as trades and materials were cheaper.

FOUR DOLLARS to rent a baggage trolley at the domestic airport.

Ted Nugent
26th Nov 2010, 08:42
Have I missed something? I can't see where QF domestic fits into this grand plan, they talk about, VB, intrastate, and common user terminals, blah blah blah, but no QF!

If they did this right, every jet service would be served via airbridge, under one roof, good work WAC!:ugh:

Normasars
26th Nov 2010, 09:21
Ted,

QF are staying put. Having just spent a truckload on their existing facilities, they are not moving.

Mr. Hat
29th Nov 2010, 02:57
LOL GT says "It will make Perth one of the nation's best airports "
Bound to be BS then

Infomercial man! Interesting to see the computer generated image in the West Australian with only one livery in it. What a coincidence!

Had a quick look at the master plan. Couldn't really work out who was where. So as I understand it QF stay where they are, VB go over to international and Alliance, Skywest and the rest are Terminal GA? Can any one post a plan view pic. I must have missed it.

The key is to make sure there are enough cheap gravel car parks and room for non aviation businesses. What we don't want is investment in anything related to aviation. Oh and for the crew car park to be in another suburb..perhaps on the otherside of the tonkin for a small fee!

Ted Nugent
29th Nov 2010, 03:32
Oh and for the crew car park to be in another suburb..perhaps on the otherside of the tonkin for a small fee!

The current crew car park at the international terminal is rumored to close soon making way for terminal WA infrastructure. Apparently new staff car park to be located at or near the new long term (under construction) on Horrie Miller Drive and bus to the terminal :{

neville_nobody
29th Nov 2010, 04:15
From the Master Plan

It is considered unlikely that any of the runway developments will be required during the 20 year planning period of this Master Plan 2009

Yet the same document forecasts more than doubling of passenger numbers both international and domestic in the same time frame with only a 50% increase in aircraft movements. :hmm:

Given that the airport runs on slot times today, has a master plan that forecasts growth, how on earth can they say that a parallel runway is not required is beyond me.

piston broke again
29th Nov 2010, 04:23
Haven't all the industrial buildings on the eastern side of horrie miller already taken over the land of the future parallel runway anyway?

Start again Perth, don't make the same mistakes as Sydney. Build a new airport down south with train line access off the mandurah railway. 4 runways (2 x 2). But I suppose considering the government can't even commit to a new football stadium (it's been what 5 years now?), this would only be a pipe dream. Wouldn't be any airspace issues with Pearce though...

Mr. Hat
29th Nov 2010, 04:42
Airports with no rail link:

Melbourne
Perth
Adelaide
Dawin
Hobart
Canberra

Airport with rail link but closes before the last flight:

Brisbane

Suppose for a city obsessed with busways at least it has a rail link...

Airport with private rail link that costs about $1 per meter travelled:

Sydney

Any other takers?

piston broke again
29th Nov 2010, 05:03
You got it...definitely 3rd world when it comes to aviation infrastructure.
Maybe 2.5 world.

flyingfox
29th Nov 2010, 11:52
The land for the second runway is to the east of the new industrial strip.

Capn Bloggs
29th Nov 2010, 12:07
There might be a few noisy neighbours on the east side...

http://i521.photobucket.com/albums/w334/capnbloggs/ypph.gif

halas
29th Nov 2010, 14:55
Close Pierce and move it to "Nowhere" where it belongs.
Open a second parallel runway 03R / 21L.
Add ILS's that can be intercepted from within 20 miles from either runway and either end.
All the SID's & STAR's could be simplified.
Congestion issues relieved.
Keep 06 / 24 for those extra windy days.

The international terminal extended as it was originally intended, as a semi circle, and include the domestics within.

Look at Brisbane on how a well-thought-out-concept turned into a dog's dinner. It's turned into a replica hospital in planning.
Their only redeeming feature is the train line connecting the domestic and international terminals and on to the city and Gold Coast.

OK, and a train line at Perth :ok:

halas

MrWooby
29th Nov 2010, 18:44
Halas, the train line between International and domestic in Brisbane is a joke. Have you ever caught it, most good airports have an automated train shuttle that leaves very few minutes. Brisbane's aiport treminal link leaves every 30 minutes. I used to laugh at Qantas's PA's stating for transfer to the other terminal use the train, sure, use it but you proabably be late for your flight. What Brisbane needs is for the city link train to operate to the Domestic and International terminal as it currently does, the other line between the terminals for a dedicated 1 or 2 cariage train that runs between the terminals every few minutes. Also by having the elevated train running right up the centre of the airport, they are unable to have 2 parallel long runways. From memory the new airport plan is for a short parallel runway located at the north western end on the airport, but the train line restricts any east west taxiway to join the parallel runways to one located north of the domestic terminal. A really poorly thought out airport. Look at all the new airports being built around the world, mainly 2 x parallel 4000m runways with a terminal in the middle. Australian airports are a joke.

flyingfox
30th Nov 2010, 15:14
The speech given by Don Randall MP in June 2010 alludes to WAC reneging on a second runway. The problems at Perth should be fixed now! Where is our sleepy State Government who should be applying the blow-torch?
Don Randall MP - Newsroom (http://www.donrandallmp.com/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=823)

halas
30th Nov 2010, 15:45
Yes Mr Wooby,
I have used the train there. Indeed, l used to work there. Also in YPPH.

Operate to both now from outside the country. So still in touch with the out of touch.

As l said YBBN is a dog's dinner for the implementation of what the original designers had in mind.
I think Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen would be turning in his grave on how BNE has turned out. It was his baby. I managed to get there for the opening of the new airport in '87 to see the All American Thunderbirds perform their only Australian display.
The model of the full concept was there, and it was a near full circle terminal that incorporated all flights, both domestic and international, along with parallel runways on either side of the terminal. Sound familiar?

Perth is using a cheap option of a shed with covered walk-ways to meet their clients demands. Those clients are the travelling public.
They must think that they can get away with it.
After all, how many international terminals have two full flights of stairs between the departure hall and the air-bridge?
They have been getting away with it for years!

halas

dizzylizzy
1st Dec 2010, 00:34
Get the owners of Schipol airport in and ask them to start again in Perth please.

pilotdude09
1st Dec 2010, 12:14
C'mon guys this is WA!!! :eek:

Can't expect a decent solution, 5 years ago the mining boom started really ramping up and instead of fixing the problem they have allowed it to get to what it is today....a joke!

Qantas was forced to spend money, the improvements were good but they are only good for now, no forethought was included. Lets build for today's needs and it's exactly what WAC is doing, building for today not 10 years time.

I work for a mining company and after out little 'pep talk' today the industry isn't slowing down for the next 20 years.

In terms of Terminal WA? WTF??? I don't understand that logic maybe skippers, alliance, network etc could go there for all the middle of nowhere mines, towns and charters but XR? Wheres all their A320's going to go? :E

The international, XR, QF and DJ should all be integrated into the one terminal and lets face it WA should realistically have a world class airport but no we have a bunch of morons building a farce of an airport that isn't making it any better and infact will make it more difficult for FIFO and Domestic and International transfers and a hell of a lot more confusing.

The original plan when old mate Alan Carpenter was in government and was to have one big combined operation and the existing domestic was to be turned into freight.........but guess things have changed in those 3 years. That was when WAC and Qantas were pretty much forced into promising/doing something due to the congestion and outcry by the public.

Makes me angry that WAC and the WA Government had a great opportunity to provide WA with a great world class airport.......Perth will remain a bottle neck and poor cousin to every other airport including Adelaide :uhoh:

Bit off topic but a classic example of WA airports is Karratha........lets put all 800k passengers though the airport that was built for 90's passenger numbers which were under 100k......finally upgrading to something that is at least usable but not acceptable for 5+ years down the track (whole raft of issues, I wont start! :mad:) But we got our nice new shiny long runway :D Now they are charging residents to bloody park in the carpark because all the companys leave their cars there for weeks on end and take all the parking up and it's going to be just expensive if not worst than Perth airport :mad::mad::mad: No bus link, play the lotto as to whether a $50 o/w taxi will show up or take the $25 o/w shuttle to the airport 10km away from town if they aren't booked by all the fifo guys!


Rant over (sorry bout the off topic bit but makes me wild)..........WA and airports don't work well together! :cool:

Rail link? with a Liberal government you will never see any such thing to Perth Airport and now with the new joke i mean Airport, you'd have to have a even longer bit of track one for QF and one for the rest, makes it even less viable.

Ahhhhh time for a nice cold beer me thinks!

ga_trojan
1st Dec 2010, 12:40
Perth won't be the poor cousin it will just be like every other airport in the country. Sydney and Melbourne are no better.
However given the amount of money generated by WA mining it is disappointing that they can't build a decent airport with some of the money that comes out of that industry.

topend3
1st Dec 2010, 13:42
Wheres all their A320's going to go?

what 2 of them? you should get a job in airports seeing as you are such an expert...

Now they are charging residents to bloody park in the carpark because all the companys leave their cars there for weeks on end and take all the parking up and it's going to be just expensive if not worst than Perth airport

whats your solution?

pilotdude09
1st Dec 2010, 20:40
GA Trojan, Yeah I agree with Melbourne, bit of a shambles but Sydney has improved a heap in the last few years, the International terminal has come a long way from what it was.

what 2 of them? you should get a job in airports seeing as you are such an expert...

That was a dig at XR.......

whats your solution?

Well not charge the residents who actually live here to park or at least offer a reduced rate or residents card or something to that effect or offer 2 weeks free parking if you display or have a residents card....plenty of ideas out there! I was at the airport the other day and company vehicles out numbered normal vehicles by far and no one can deny that they are the reason that everyone is now going to be charged because certain companies were known to be parking at the airport to save on storage costs on vehicles. Here's a good story.....Rio had a vehicle parked there for 9 months that got forgotten about, know one knew it was there until someone seen the dust building up over the months and found out it had been there for 9 months.

There's a lot of angry people up here, we pay horrific rates ($900 more than my other house in Perth) and cost of living is horrendous, anyone with a 100k+ job it's no worries but what about the very people that keep this town running? Great building them accommodation in town but they still get screwed over in another way. To be honest I can't remember what the parking rates were but I know the bloke in the paper last week reckoned it's cheaper to drive and park in Hedland for a 2 week trip!

There's plenty of solutions, but it's whether the shire is prepared to do anything for the very people who live in this town.

Also hope they are putting somewhere for trolley returns in the next stage! must of been 20 trolleys in the carpark.

Engineer_aus
2nd Dec 2010, 12:11
Perth airport is a Joke now, 10 years time it will still be a joke. Nothing will change. Look at the apron there now, lovely painted up apron with 2 Ozjet 737's looking good. Oh and to point out another little fact, who designs a whole new apron without hydrant refueling? It takes at least a minimum of 45-60 mins to refuel a tanker do the paperwork, testing etc!

ga_trojan
2nd Dec 2010, 23:48
bit of a shambles but Sydney has improved a heap in the last few years

Yes Sydney's International Terminal is very nice however as an airport it is a joke. I fear Perth will make the same mistake as Sydney in that they will spend all the money on the Terminals then nothing on infrastructure. I guess it works in their favour if most flights are delayed as people will have more time to shop.

This is what happens when you privatise airports and they stop being seen as a infrastructure and as a way of making money.

flyingfox
3rd Dec 2010, 23:50
Another great example of WAC not spending money on infrastructure is the intersection of Fauntleroy Ave. and Valentine Rd. (Bungana Ave.) This intersection can be a major holdup for people using the services of mining carriers along Valentine Road. At busy periods the traffic chaos here is laughable. The stream of private cars and taxis leaving the terminals cop the worst of it, with cars backed up for 600 metres waiting to leave the airport. With just a stopsign and a busy Fauntleroy Ave. the escape rate is low. A simple round-about could greatly assist the problem. Any action from WAC after years of this problem? Course not!! The issue of turning arrows where Fauntleroy Ave. meets Great Eastern Highway could be addressed by WAC in conjunction with Main Roads. Any action from WAC? Course not! They don't give a stuff. Only real estate deals get any attention from them without Government intervention. The occurrence of a head on collision of vehicles driven by desperate drivers looking for a gap in the oncomming traffic is only a matter of time. No doubt the announcement of the new terminal being ready in a few years time will be the excuse for further 'no action'. I note aviation 'expert' journo GT doesn't ever write articles about congestion at the airport. He just issues the PR press releases for WAC. The only infrastructure WAC has built along Valentine Rd. is cash-cow parking areas.

Hornet306
5th Dec 2010, 04:06
I was talking to an airport engineer recently and he thought that Taxiway "C" could be converted into a parallel runway for F100/Bae146 and below aircraft without too much trouble. Surely that would solve the 2,2,3 minute landing limitation and ease departure queues?

Capn Bloggs
23rd Nov 2012, 05:38
Third runway is five years away
Geoffrey Thomas Aviation Editor, The West Australian November 23, 2012, 4:57 am

Perth Airport has assured the State Government that it is working towards having a third runway operational by late 2017 to future-proof the State's economic development.

Treasurer and Transport Minister Troy Buswell said yesterday he had a constructive meeting with airport chairman David Crawford and chief executive Brad Geatches about building a third runway.

"We now have a timeline and clear performance checkpoints for us to monitor the progress of this runway," Mr Buswell said.

Mr Geatches agreed that the meeting had been constructive.

"Perth Airport is proceeding on a path of design and consultation that would, subject to agreements and approvals, see the third runway delivered by the end of 2017, at the earliest," Mr Geatches said.

Last month, Mr Buswell warned that if the airport did not fast-track the additional runway, the State's development would be impeded.

Over the past five years, passenger numbers through Perth Airport have grown 40 per cent to 12.6 million last year.

Plane movements climbed at a similar rate.

In its 2009 master plan the airport said it did not need to build a third - and second parallel - runway until 2029. "This is a significant bringing-forward of its plans," Mr Buswell said.

But Mr Buswell warned that as part of the process, it was essential that the airport and Airservices Australia adopt every measure available to reduce the area impacted by plane noise. Some estimates suggest that a reduction of 30 to 40 per cent or better of the area affected by noise can be achieved by adopting world best practices.

"This is extremely important and everything should be done to cut the noise," said Mr Buswell.

He said the airport would have concluded preliminary negotiations on the project with airlines by April. It would then spend $60 million on a two-year regulatory approval process that would include the environmental impact.

If approvals were received, construction would start in 2015 after approval from the airlines.

Last week Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said he had made it known to Perth Airport that there was a need for more runway capacity.

BuzzBox
23rd Nov 2012, 06:09
I note that Geatches' "we can build the third runway in five years" has now changed to "third runway delivered at the end of 2017, AT THE EARLIEST".

Frankly, I'll run naked down St George's Tce if they get the damn thing built in less than ten years.

h.o.t.a.s.
23rd Nov 2012, 06:42
Well, whenever it's built it wont be anything like one of those flash new Irish runways Melbourne is getting:

"The east-west runway will be 3 kilometres long, 60 kilometres wide and 2 kilometres south of the current east-west runway."


Baillieu backs third runway - Yahoo!7 News (http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/15439084/baillieu-backs-third-runway/)

Nautilus Blue
23rd Nov 2012, 06:54
"Perth Airport is proceeding on a path of design and consultation that would, subject to agreements and approvals, see the third runway delivered by the end of 2017, at the earliest," Mr Geatches said.


Escape clause inserted as part of the basic design concept I see.

Chimbu chuckles
23rd Nov 2012, 06:57
$60 million on a 2 year regulatory/environment approval process?

How do these fckwits say that with a straight face?:mad:

flyingfox
23rd Nov 2012, 07:17
The need is now, not five years away. Start building the [email protected]@$* thing!

ShiteRider
23rd Nov 2012, 10:26
Can't wait to see the magic that WAC makes when they take over the Departure Management Program. That will be living the dream....

Capn Bloggs
22nd Mar 2013, 07:51
Glossy aviation liftout in The West today.

The market seems to have re-balanced. Only one QF jet in sight, lots of Virgin and Skywest 737s! :eek:

Can't see a long thin "road" to the east of the terminal... :{

http://i521.photobucket.com/albums/w334/capnbloggs/ypph2014_zps100027b5.jpg

compressor stall
22nd Mar 2013, 08:48
I think that's because QF domestic is staying on the other side for now.

And yes, one terminal might be great but another runway would be even better.

ramius315
24th Mar 2013, 06:42
A nice EK A380 though. :)

tecman
24th Mar 2013, 13:33
You can always guarantee that EK get the best press in the West Australian. Doesn't matter whether it's GT mouthing the industry press releases or Scourfield the travel writer accentuating the positive. EK are OK, but I notice the 'informative' West never gets round to highlighting the chaos that is Dubai airport, nor highlighting its limitations for business travellers wanting something as simple as a shower at the lounge. It's Hicksville stuff.

scandistralian
24th Mar 2013, 17:33
@Tecman..... Dubai Chaotic + Hicksville?!?! With no showers??!! Have you ever been to Dubai before? Seriously...:ugh::ugh::ugh:

@380. Perth a Redneck Hicksville?! Take it easy big fella...

tecman
24th Mar 2013, 22:38
Err..yes, my point was that the uncritical, small town breathlessness from the West Australian was reminiscent of Hicksville.

I travel frequently, and often via Dubai. Dubai airport, with the crazy inbound security for transiting pax, plus the hoards mixing it in narrow, unorganized thoroughfares is indeed chaos. The EK lounges are big, always full, generally OK and the few showers they have are often partly out of action. And it's little better in the first class lounge, where I sometimes end up.

Sorry, SQ, MH and CX do it much better at their respective home bases.

Perth doesn't rate any positive points on my travel scale, I'm afraid.

BuzzBox
25th Mar 2013, 08:01
I've been to Perth airport too and ... I think they're doing alright.

Hmm, you obviously haven't arrived at the PER Int terminal at 6.30am when 4-5 flights arrive within 30 minutes. The CIQ and baggage claim facilities are totally inadequate and the arrivals area is completely gridlocked. But hey, it's all about to get better, allegedly.

Capn Bloggs
25th Mar 2013, 12:54
Better to work on the mentality of the inbred locals who could do with some driving lessons and pointers on road courtesy.
Yeh, stop trying to push in! :E

RENURPP
26th Mar 2013, 00:06
Better to work on the mentality of the inbred locals that pretty much covers it.
:D:D
:p:p
:E:E

Chronic Snoozer
29th Mar 2013, 08:08
$500mil upgrade? Will that cut it? Trouble is the government will only throw just enough money at the embarrassment that is a Perth airport arrival. By the time its done it'll be overloaded again in 10 years.

That brochure insert in the West looks like a small mid-western airport in the US. Kinda like the Perth mentality. FFS the Tonkin Hwy needs to be fixed before anything....

Pontius
29th Mar 2013, 09:02
FFS the Tonkin Hwy needs to be fixed before anything....

How can you say such a thing and malign such great design? Why, only the other day I saw nearly 6 car drivers managing to squeeze themselves into the right-hand lane at the traffic lights to turn into the international terminal road. Of course, the 7th car etc had to remain in the outer lane of the Tonkin Highway and block all the traffic behind them but think about it, 6!! cars able to turn without blocking the road. Now THAT is good design :ok:

Skystar320
31st Mar 2013, 09:18
Trouble is the government will only throw just enough money at the embarrassment

Its not owned by the Government

Chronic Snoozer
31st Mar 2013, 13:29
Its not owned by the Government

Yeah, sorry about that. Its embarrassing.:cool:

RodH
31st Mar 2013, 21:06
Before all of you really complain too much about Perth's terminal you should go as a passenger to and from Cairns Airport.
It is a bloody shambles and an utter disgrace.
I have never seen such a disfunctional Terminal in all of my many years flying and travelling.
Sure Perth is not too flash but it's one hell of a lot better that Cairns.
That does not excuse the authorities from improving Perth but at least you know you are far from the worst International Airport/ Domestic Airport in Australia.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

airdualbleedfault
23rd May 2013, 14:49
I think young Geoffrey has certain alliances/agendas

AU-501
24th May 2013, 04:55
500 mil spend, yeah right.

This will be one project that will probably go UNDER-budget.

I started work at the "field" circa 1980 and had seen changes to the current plan going from that time until 1984, then terminating with the current mess (plan) unchanged from 1988 until the present time. Actually thats not true, there was the much celebrated (though invisible and unused) $2.3 million smokers shed installed last year somewhere.

late and under budget

topend3
24th May 2013, 14:51
Sorry to add some facts to the debate...https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BUILDINGROADS/PROJECTS/URBANPROJECTS/Pages/GatewayWA.aspx

jarden
24th May 2013, 15:28
RodH,

What do you have against Cairns airport?
I use it frequently and have no issues with it both terminals are quick to get to gate area and screening lines are fairly short and when exiting both have a taxi line 100m from the door. Its a hassle free airport now the refurb is all done.

Buttscratcher
25th May 2013, 13:12
Oh?
So it's now quick and hassle-free to transfer from domestic to an international connection then?

Charlie Foxtrot India
25th May 2013, 14:39
It is owned by the federal government but is leased to Perth Airport P/L. Albanese is the landlord...complain to him and you will get a nice letter from someone saying the Minister has asked them to reply on his behalf :ugh:

TIMA9X
28th May 2013, 16:00
Qantas to lift investment in WA - Alan Joyce


e_7gYfo-720

breakfastburrito
28th May 2013, 22:46
TIMA9x, I guess Alan didn't receive the Ross Garnaut memo on China & the future of the resources boom from the day before the announcement.

The Ross Garnaut Peter Jonson podcast is here (http://content.lecture.unimelb.edu.au:8080/ess/echo/presentation/403b0b51-d4b4-45c9-8a1d-b837dfa738c7/media.mp3) (accompanying chartpack: Monetary Policy Ross Garnaut Uni Melb 240513v1.pdf (http://www.scribd.com/doc/143851845/Monetary-Policy-Ross-Garnaut-Uni-Melb-240513v1-pdf) - chart 19 Tourism is interesting, and shows the massive decline for inbound tourism over the last 10 years).

Interesting contrast between the two views on the future, and only one can be right.

Capn Bloggs
29th May 2013, 01:44
From The West, 28 May:

http://i521.photobucket.com/albums/w334/capnbloggs/QFBoomTheWest28May2013_zps8f557cf0.jpg (http://s521.photobucket.com/user/capnbloggs/media/QFBoomTheWest28May2013_zps8f557cf0.jpg.html)

Icarus2001
29th May 2013, 02:02
I notice that Big Al talked about "resource contracts" mmmmm.

How much work are the Network F100s doing at the moment?

markis10
29th May 2013, 08:43
Its not owned by the Government

Actually Perth airport is owned by the Government, they just leased it for 50 years :eek:.

Icarus2001
29th May 2013, 09:16
99 years actually. Never let the facts spoil a good story.

CFI told you above...

Here it is again...

FAQs (http://www.perthairport.com.au/AboutUs/CorporateInformation/FAQs.aspx)

Sue Ridgepipe
30th May 2013, 10:23
Did someone forget to tell the Irishman that the mining boom is over?:ugh:
The mining boom is over (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/the-mining-boom-is-over-20130530-2ndu9.html)

ranmar850
30th May 2013, 23:15
It never ceases to amaze me how people fail to see the difference between construction (of minesites) and actual mining. It all just gets lumped into one big bucket. You can't keep building new stuff forever, but, when the mines are all operational, guess what? They still employ a lot of people. Not as many as that short construction phase, but that's the nature of construction. Even down to the social implications-- a lot of the criticism thrown at "miners" re behaviour on flights, in camps, etc, is down to construction workers, building minesites. There is a world of difference between construction camps and established mine camps, believe me.
Anyway, back on topic. When the building is done, the mines operate. They still put a lot of bums on aircraft seats. And will continue to do so. A more accurate description would be "THE CURRENT CONSTRUCTION BOOM IS NEARING ITS END":ugh:

cynphil
31st May 2013, 02:47
I recently read an article that said a certain gas plant required 3000 workers to build it but once they start producing gas it only takes 30 workers per shift to run it!!!!I think in anyone's terms that is a big difference in manning levels between the construction and operational phases!!!

ranmar850
31st May 2013, 04:16
Yes, that is one valid example, but I can give another equally valid one. Around a thousand people, maybe, were employed during the construction of the mine I work on. Although not all at the same time. Now the mine is working, we have ( at last count) nearly 800 full time employees. All being flown in and out, either 9/5 or 2/1. And the multiplier effect--a significant proportion of those people don't live in Perth. So they have to be flown TO Perth, either from the WA regions (my case) , or from other parts of Australia. And then, some of those who have to join a flight at the capital city of their state, actually do a regional flight within their state to get to the capital city. Do you see what I am getting at?
The projected life of this mine is another 25 years, barring further discoveries within the lease, or available nearby, with extended infrastructure. Oil and gas do not tend to be big direct employers in the production phase, more technology-intensive. But those 30 people need a lot in the way of support industry, particularly if the site is offshore.

The high point of the construction phase may be past, now we will settle into a production phase(but the capex won't stop dead, believe me.)

ANCPER
1st Jun 2013, 11:45
Maybe you should get your facts right as well.

Gorgon: construction finishes in 2-3 yrs requirement for 4 a/c will fall to 1.5.

Wheatstone: when it's finished will face similar falls. Operations require around only 1/3 of the number of workers as the construction phase.

unseen
1st Jun 2013, 14:48
ANCPER

Who says your "facts" are better than ranmar's?

ranmar850
1st Jun 2013, 22:44
ANCPER--I did acknowledge that oil and gas required lower levels of manning, and it is the CONSTRUCTION phases of those projects that require high levels of manning. But support industries for oil and gas, particularly offshore facilities, add manning, which you do not seem to be taking into account. Iron Ore is the big employer in WA mining, bums on aircraft seats, as a sizeable proportion of the workforce is FIFO, and will continue to be so. There often seems to be a lot of anti-mining sentiment on this forum:confused: How many pilot jobs in Skywest/Virgin, Network, Alliance and Skippers wouldn't exist if there were no FIFO charters? Let alone the Interstate/Intrastate RPT capacity used as well? Your perspective may be a little different if you were watching around A$10 million worth of product leave your site on trains every day.:ok:

kellykelpie
2nd Jun 2013, 02:48
I hear Qantas is opening an A330 Pilot base in Perth...

gaunty
4th Jun 2013, 14:08
Having been through umpteen construction production cycles since the first big one last century in 66, as night follows day, construction = busy chaos, production = significant reduction in traffic.
FIFO which is charter category goes away and is replaced by the higher standard Airline/RPT.

Capn Bloggs
16th Aug 2013, 06:11
From The West today:


Geoffrey Thomas, Aviation Editor, The West Australian

Perth Airport set a record for passenger numbers last month when 1.24 million people took to the skies, indicating economic conditions are on the rise again.

The record is a 17 per cent jump on the previous month and almost 5 per cent above the same month last year. Plane movements, at 13,265, were the second highest on record.

Airline traffic is the leading economic indicator of the health of an economy and just as WA remained resilient in the global financial crisis of 2008-09, it appears the State's economy has shrugged off the Australian downturn.

The figures do not include all passengers using the Skippers Aviation, Maroomba Airlines, Cobham and Network Aviation terminals which could number 80,000 travellers month.

Perth Airport has enjoyed an extraordinary growth average of 9 per cent a year since 1960.

The resurgence of passenger traffic underscores the need for a third runway to meet business generated not only by the resources sector, but also the continued heavy demand for holiday travel interstate and overseas.

Last month, Perth Airport announced fast-tracked negotiations with airlines over the third runway, which will cost about $480 million.

Commenting on a fall in passenger traffic in the first half of this year, airport chief executive Brad Geatches said the "growth rates do not alter Perth Airport's redevelopment plans".

"Our view is that the third runway project should proceed without delay," he said.

"For long lead infrastructure, it is necessary to look through the cycle to ensure capacity is available when it is needed."

A final proposal on a runway parallel to the main one should be presented to airlines within two months. The airport has two runways that cross and cannot be used simultaneously, though they are used alternately in the right wind conditions.

A third parallel runway would virtually eliminate delays and future-proof the airport, Mr Geatches said.

In the interim, Perth Airport is implementing recommendations from a report by Britain's air traffic control provider.

These changes combined with improvements by Airservices Australia will make traffic flows and runway throughput more efficient.

Last year, Airservices said that only a 50 per cent increase in runway capacity would solve the airport's peak needs.

The airport is virtually at peak capacity between 5.15am and 7am Monday to Thursday.

The third runway project should proceed without delay." Perth Airport chief executive Brad Geatches

:D

flyingfox
17th Aug 2013, 06:38
WAC has changed their tune! Always claimed it wasn't necessary for an extra runway. They must be after someone elses money! Why not start with a shorter version of the proposed parallel runway which is suitable for turboprops or medium weight jets. Must have ILS approaches though. Perth fails completely when clouds arrive.

zanzibar
19th Aug 2013, 03:39
FULL use of the two runways they've got would be a good place to start!!!!!

Keg
19th Aug 2013, 04:05
For the umpteenth time, the issue causing the most significant delays for Perth isn't runway capacity, it's airspace capacity.

That said, a parallel would at least assist in sequencing departing traffic to minimise the delays caused by the airspace capacity issues.

Nautilus Blue
19th Aug 2013, 07:51
the issue causing the most significant delays for Perth isn't runway capacity, it's airspace capacity

For departures yes. Departure rates are throttled during peaks because the TWR can fire them faster than we can deal with. By sorting the departures into a more efficient order leaving the aprons the departure capacity could be raised tomorrow.

For arrivals it is a question of runway capacity because we can process/stream aircraft faster than the TWR can land them. For example 03 ILS's arrival rate is about 17/hour. At that rate approach will only have about 4 aircraft on frequency at time.

Without sorting the departures, parallel runways would probably make departures worse because often the aircraft on the left runway would need to turn right and vice versa.

Transition Layer
19th Aug 2013, 08:27
Anyone know what the story is with the pavement failure on 06/24?

Capn Bloggs
19th Aug 2013, 08:28
It's all happening on Thursday: the whinger with the super-sensitive hearing has just condemned the environment to an extra 20kg of fuel burn for every Julim Star arrival onto 03; 4 extra track miles so we can fly over his house at 10,000ft at Idle instead of 9000ft...

OverRun
23rd Aug 2013, 11:05
Anyone know what the story is with the pavement failure on 06/24?
NOTAM'd out for 3 months. It's re-build time - digging deep and replacing.

Led Zep
24th Aug 2013, 03:46
06/24 always seems to have failing pavement. Didn't they improve that end of it not so long ago? :\

ANCPER
2nd Sep 2013, 00:48
I see with GT's PR press release for WAC that the new rwy will be to the east of Horrie Miller and Coles/Wollies. That will be interesting. The residents of Forrestfield may object to having a rwy well within a km of their homes as well as the environmental concerns that will surface with the swamp to the northern end. Maybe that's what they want, a long unwinnable pseudo fight.

Comoman
2nd Sep 2013, 01:11
Flight delays to hit airport - The West Australian (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/18746743/flight-delays-to-hit-airport/)

HEALY
2nd Sep 2013, 01:15
Is that the swamp where the miniature green back sweet lip orange blooming frog lives? Best of luck getting that past the greenies.:ugh:

Anulus Filler
2nd Sep 2013, 01:44
The residents of Forrestfield may object to having a rwy well within a km of their homes

It might drown out the sounds of the burn outs, screaming and shootings.

RU/16
2nd Sep 2013, 02:08
Could the damage be due to the A330s landing on 24 coming to a screaming halt to get off at twyA for QF or J for VA. It seems they may save further damage to get them all to roll to the end or land on 03/21.

Capn Bloggs
2nd Sep 2013, 02:10
Could the damage be due to the A330s landing on 24 coming to a screaming halt to get off at twyA for QF or J for VA.
I've noticed that. I can't generally do that even in my kiddie car.

Perhaps they don't have many pax on board?

Icarus2001
2nd Sep 2013, 02:53
http://www.aviationwa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/20130525_Perth_Airport_aerial_view_Ian_Moy_1.jpg

The residents of Forrestfield may object to having a rwy well within a km of their homes

I will be surprised if they didn't. Every single issue, minority interest group will come out of the woodwork with action groups, websites, rallies, t shirts and hats but when the dust settles, after they all realise that it is FEDERAL land and a third runway has been planned for at least forty years it will go ahead. The same reason that the brickworks could not be stopped by state regulators. The same reason that Jandakot has the spud shed and Harvey Norman wanted to open there before trading laws were changed. Federal land and federal jurisdiction with only a nod to state concerns.

People in Forrestfield also have the marshalling yards between them and the airport.

Anyway, the ANEP contours would show little "side" noise surely?

Icarus2001
2nd Sep 2013, 02:58
http://www.perthairport.com.au/Files/2010_ANEI.pdf

Here it is.

airdualbleedfault
2nd Sep 2013, 07:07
With the utmost respect to the oxygen thieves at Air noServices Australia, what exactly is an ANEI? EG In relation to decibels?
Also I wonder how the residents of say, North Welshpool, feel about having no aircraft noise when around 25 bugsmashers would fly over them at 1000', in 2 hours of a morning?

ReadMyACARS
2nd Sep 2013, 08:14
The residents of Forrestfield may object to having a rwy well within a km of their homes

Those of us living on the Redcliffe side of the runway are about 1500m from the centreline and no one complains about the noise. Given the predominantly easterly wind in Perth, folks in Forrestfield will notice it even less.

OverRun
2nd Sep 2013, 11:44
Could the damage be due to the A330s landing on 24 coming to a screaming halt to get off at twyA for QF or J for VA. It seems they may save further damage to get them all to roll to the end or land on 03/21.

Hi RU/16,
Not braking in this case. The problem is structural and weakness down through the depth, exacerbated by the increase in traffic on 06/24 over the last 10 years. Plus planning ahead to cope with the expected traffic on the runway over the next 20-30 years.

03/21 is a lot stronger.

The heavy braking issue would manifest itself in surfacing damage (not the case here). The “roll-through” is very popular at regional airports where an old runway designed for the DC-3/F27 has had its ends beefed up to let today’s 737s/F100s turn around; the pavement load is a lot less when rolling along in a straight line at 25 knots than when turning (and again this is not the case here).

gaunty
2nd Sep 2013, 15:25
The whole private ownership thing is a fraud and a national disgrace.

Pigs might fly, but the Feds need to take them all back

Not holding my breath for the fourth runway.

Icarus2001
3rd Sep 2013, 03:20
Given the predominantly easterly wind in Perth, folks in Forrestfield will notice it even less.
http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chxl=0:|N|NNE|NE|ENE|E|ESE|SE|SSE|S|SSW|SW|WSW|W|WNW|N W|NNW&chxr=1,0,11&chxt=x,y&chs=340x340&cht=r&chco=FFFFFF&chds=0,11&chd=t:3,6,5,8,9,5,3,3,4,7,11,11,8,5,3,2,3&chdl=%C2%A9+windfinder.com&chdlp=t&chls=0,4,0&chm=B,FF000082,0,0,0&chtt=Wind+dir.+distribution+Perth%20Airport+all+year&chts=676767,12.5

Not holding my breath for the fourth runway. I would settle for a third runway, or are you getting nostalgic for whiskey to be reinstated as a runway?

gaunty
3rd Sep 2013, 13:12
Done Whiskey would for a lo I the corporates and smaller FIFO. :ok:

flyingfox
4th Sep 2013, 08:05
The swamp in question is actually the last stand for the short-necked western swamp turtle. Since the Swan Coastal Plains were drained to increase the land available for urban and agricultural uses, most of the lakes and ephemeral swamps have disappeared. The paperbark trees still standing on the remaining uncleared airport land are vanishing remnants of those wetter times. 'Swamp' is by it's nature a misleading term which may suggest 'slimy mud holes' to some viewers. In fact the swamps were filled with crystal clear water and many fish and animals. The permanent lakes were much larger and deeper than today. We've lost so many native animals, reptiles, birds, marsupials etc. that it is probably not unreasonable that provision is made to continuing protection of these turtles/tortoises. Federal airports used to be amazing wildlife refuges with their remnant native vegetation remaining mainly intact. The bushland with it's 'soft' textures also provided considerable mitigation for aircraft noise. Since privatisation this land has been a source of riches for the airport companies who mainly see aviation as a side kick to property development. I'm sure the second runway, the turtle thingys and even the rumoured 'sweet lipped froggies' should be able to reach a working relationship!

ANCPER
4th Sep 2013, 11:24
How do you think the rwy will fit in if stuck further sth re a/c access etc, otherwise I would have thought the swamp is long gone.

Are you the same FF @ MB?

Capn Bloggs
4th Sep 2013, 13:40
Federal airports used to be amazing wildlife refuges with their remnant native vegetation remaining mainly intact.
Including swans in the middle of the terminal. :ok:

gordonfvckingramsay
5th Sep 2013, 00:29
Lets not forget the very same "green" outlook on life being used as a reason not to make use of the perfectly functional (and no doubt expensive) HIAL on 03; Trees obscuring the lights, can't cut down trees due to the impact to the wildlife.

So the most remote capital city airport in the world now has a single runway, HIAL on one end only, CAT1 ILS's, alternates that fill up whenever 3 or 4 jets divert and no sign of any improvement in sight.

Plenty of car spots though, and most of them making it easy to "find 30" :ugh:

Welcome to the third world......

ANCPER
5th Sep 2013, 07:11
Welcome to Australia, the capital of rent seeking ticket clippers!:{

sunnySA
5th Sep 2013, 09:49
For those capable and interested, here is your chance to make a difference. Sorry, blatant advert.

Aviation Relations Manager Western Australia
Department:Airport Relations
Work type:Full time permanent

The Organisation
Airservices is a government-owned corporation providing safe and environmentally sound air traffic control management and related airside services to the aviation industry. In a region covering 11 per cent of the world's surface, we manage air traffic operations for around 75 million passengers on more than three million flights every year.

Our vision is connecting the Australian Aviation industry to deliver world best industry performance. To align with our vision we recruit people who demonstrate our values - excellence, inclusion, cohesion and initiative which drives our positive organisational culture.

Corporate and Industry Affairs enhances the corporation's reputation in the aviation industry by proactively collaborating, sharing information, resolving issues and fostering support with aviation stakeholders to achieve our vision.

Airservices is currently recruiting a Senior Manager for the role of Aviation Relations Manager (Western Australia). The role of Aviation Relations Manager entails proactively developing and maintaining Airservices relationships with airlines, airports, local government and related industries in Western Australia to enhance Airservices reputation, support the provision of Air Traffic Control and Rescue Fire Fighting services while ensuring that Airservices meets its legislated obligations under the Airports Act and Airspace Protection regulations.

The Role
The Aviation Relations Manager represents Airservices in Western Australia as the point of contact for aviation customers and stakeholders which include: major and regional airports and airlines, local councils, local and State Government agencies, and other aviation related organisations. Responsibilities include:


Developing and maintaining collaborative information sharing with stakeholders to support service delivery, capability and infrastructure planning;
Manage issues raised by stakeholders to provide timely responses;
Represent Airservices at specific aviation related forums, meetings or conferences;
Proactively manage Airservices obligations under the Airports Act;
Develop high level reports and briefs for Executive staff; and
Plan and manage high level forums and meetings between Airservices senior staff and aviation stakeholders.


The Person
We are seeking a highly motivated and skilled individual with a high level of professional integrity and demonstrated ability.

To be successful in this role you will need:

Experience in developing and maintaining strategic relationships at an executive/senior management level with a diverse range of aviation related stakeholders;
Ability to write and present high quality information briefs and reports suitable for executive level readers;
Significant experience in the aviation industry, such as management or senior roles in airline or airport operations, or as an air traffic control operator; and
A sound understanding of the airport approval process for development activity and airport planning requirements.
It is desirable that the candidate holds a degree or other qualification in aviation, airport operations or other relevant aviation qualifications.


Should you require any further information please contact Andrew Sparrow by phone at 02 6268 5121 or by email [email protected]

To apply for this position please lodge an application online attaching your CV and a cover letter outlining your skills and experience and how they relate to this role.

Applications close 11pm, Wednesday 18th September 2013.

http://careers.airservicesaustralia.com/jobDetails.asp?sJobIDs=494152&lWorkTypeID=&lLocationID=&lCategoryID=&stp=AW&sLanguage=en (http://http://careers.airservicesaustralia.com/jobDetails.asp?sJobIDs=494152&lWorkTypeID=&lLocationID=&lCategoryID=&stp=AW&sLanguage=en)

Nautilus Blue
7th Sep 2013, 07:44
Ability to write and present high quality information briefs and reports suitable for executive level readers;

Is that big letters/little words, or "only what they want to hear"?;)

I would think the main qualification for the job would be the ability to sit through meetings without screaming "It's about runways, stupid!"

flyingfox
7th Sep 2013, 15:15
I still think the parallel runway should be only of the 2000 meter category to cater for regional types, rather than a full duplicate runway. As mentioned, airspace issues are a major problem. If Pearce airspace is kept low enough for permanent overfly by approaching aircraft, life would be easier. Pearce really needs to be shut down. And the trees surrounding the 03 HIAL need to be pruned or the lights raised.
BLOGGS - Maybe a new pond for swans and tortoises could be a feature of future terminal buildings! I do wonder though whether the swans might not eat the tortoises?
ANCPER - I don't know where exactly the tortoise swamp is. Near the southern end somewhere. I'm not the [email protected]

BuzzBox
7th Sep 2013, 21:57
Pearce really needs to be shut down.

Whilst I appreciate the airspace problems caused by Pearce, I doubt it's going to be closed any time soon, given the size of the RAAF/RSAF training operation. Where do you propose they go? It would take a huge amount of money to upgrade Learmonth for the task, something that's not likely to happen in the current budget environment. Further, closing Pearce would severely limit the air support options for other defence units based in the Perth area.

airdualbleedfault
8th Sep 2013, 04:40
And Icarus, add to that Perth is the only airport in the world I've flown into that actually goes out of its way to make a runway with tailwind the duty runway, and you would have 21 as the most used runway I would think.

WRT Pearce, I could never understand why they couldn't fly at low level (as RAAF pilots like to do) up north or down south. No, much better to have commercial aircraft flying 1000s of extra miles so that a handful of single engine light aircraft, most of which are not even our own, are not inconvenienced. Joint user airports the world over don't have half the hassles of Perth /Pearce

flyingfox
8th Sep 2013, 08:21
The Peace traffic should fly low level out to a reasonable distance to clear Perth Apt airspace.
Meanwhile start building new facilities up at Gin Gin and eventually move away from Bulls Brook. It's all about planning!

Nautilus Blue
8th Sep 2013, 10:27
add to that Perth is the only airport in the world I've flown into that actually goes out of its way to make a runway with tailwind the duty runway, and you would have 21 as the most used runway I would think

I'm not a tower controller but my understanding is its the criteria are the same at all Australian controlled airports, possibly except SY. Runways are ordered in terms of noise abatement preference. If the the RWY is dry and the downwind 5 knots or less (or maybe less than 5 knots?) on the preferred runway has to be used. For PH in descending order its 21 and/or 24, then 03 then 06.

Re PEA airspace, F150 over the aerodrome does seem a little greedy. However the only proposed movement with regard to their airspace I've heard in years was they wanted more (higher around Bindoon).

airdualbleedfault
9th Sep 2013, 13:24
Quite correct Nautilus, but the noise abatement in Perth is political, a bit like the reason back around 2004, RW06 mysteriously became unsuitable as a regular landing runway and to my knowledge, 24 has never been used for departures except in extreme weather.
Everybody in Perth is subject to aircraft noise equally, it's just that some folk are a lot more equal than others ;)

Nautilus Blue
10th Sep 2013, 05:00
I get the impression that the rationale is arriving aircraft are noisier than departing aircraft, and more people live west and south of the airport than north and east.

06 landings are no great loss, they require more track miles unless inbound through WAVES, which is usually only intl heavies. 24 departures wold save a few miles if outbound through GURAK or WAVES but not much, especially when you look at how convoluted the GURAK SIDs are.

halas
10th Sep 2013, 06:16
Move PEA to Garden Is. They can have all the airspace they want to the SW.

halas

flyingfox
11th Sep 2013, 16:17
Today after some wandering ducks were herded off runway 03, one of our witty Perth Tower lads cleared a QF for takeoff with the proviso, "caution drake turbulence".

airdualbleedfault
16th Sep 2013, 07:06
Nautilus, with respect, all arrivals from KA, PD, and BRM to name a few were usually on RW06, and this isn't about a few extra track miles, it's about 5-20 min delays, which I should add are on top of the 5-45 min COBT delays.
Regarding 24 departures, GURAK SID is only convoluted when the RAAF are open for business and even then it is very rare to do the full procedure, once again I am sure most operators would happily accept a few extra miles over COBT delays followed by 20 mins taxi.

B767MAD
16th Sep 2013, 09:57
flyingfox ,

Today after some wandering ducks were herded off runway 03, one of our witty Perth Tower lads cleared a QF for takeoff with the proviso, "caution drake turbulence".

Perhaps the same controller who when asked two weeks ago on a foggy tuesday morning their position in the queue " you're in the far queue" ..

givemewings
16th Sep 2013, 21:59
" you're in the far queue"

Exactly what one long-time CC out of Melbourne used to say on boarding widebodies when people ignored his "good morning" :E

Nautilus Blue
17th Sep 2013, 04:31
Nautilus, with respect, all arrivals from KA, PD, and BRM to name a few were usually on RW06, and this isn't about a few extra track miles, it's about 5-20 min delays, which I should add are on top of the 5-45 min COBT delays.
Regarding 24 departures, GURAK SID is only convoluted when the RAAF are open for business and even then it is very rare to do the full procedure, once again I am sure most operators would happily accept a few extra miles over COBT delays followed by 20 mins taxi.

When GURAK was an inbound route for 03/06 yes. PEA/WAARP shut that down. If you look at the current STARS you will see using 03 and 06 for arrivals would be of no benefit. Now, if we had a "down the coast" inbound route through R155/160, that would be completely different. Traffic from the north inbound GEL JNB WAVES for 06 interleaved with traffic from the east on 03. Less track miles AND higher arrival rate.

Using 24 and 21 for departures in theory would increase departure rate, but how much effect would that have on arrivals? In practice, it wouldn't actually increase departure rates anyway. Departure rates are throttled because TWR can fire aircraft off one RWY faster than we can deal with them, primarily because they are not sorted in any way (eg Dash-8D launched 3 miles behind a F50 on the same SID :ugh:) Ideally you would have all GURAK departures off 24 to turn right, and all others off 21 to turn left (I don't know if that would create taxi issues) but if the departures weren't sorted it wouldn't really help.

myshoutcaptain
31st Oct 2013, 23:36
AIP SUP H113/13 indicates preferred exits for runway occupancy. If this publication is issued by Air Services to help improve the flow is there no accountability to Perth Airport to build appropriate high speed exits.

Townsville Refueller via the Hobart Refueller has advised there is talk of a Staff Car Park being built .. is there any further info?. Are the days of squeezing onto the bandaid solution bus with pax coming to an end?.

Fred Gassit
1st Nov 2013, 01:23
Just nudge a few of the muddaboiks out the way, only a short walk to the terminal than.

Normasars
1st Nov 2013, 09:09
From what I hear, the construction of RETs will start imminently. No joke:ok:

Icarus2001
1st Nov 2013, 09:30
Perth Airport is also committed to building high-speed taxiways off the airport's main and secondary cross runways.Article in the West Australian by aviation expert GT, Dec 31 2009.

Yawn.

airdualbleedfault
1st Nov 2013, 10:21
No, it's true, Perth airport is committed to building high speed exits............ just as soon as they can find someone else to pay for them

RATpin
1st Nov 2013, 11:18
Spot on bleed fault, apparently the Cat 2/3 approach capability is dependant on a lotto win.

Capn Bloggs
3rd Nov 2013, 23:07
From The West today:
Congestion drives need for runway
Geoffrey Thomas Aviation Editor, The West Australian
November 4, 2013, 5:22 am

Perth Airport has all but committed to building another runway to handle record growth that delivered a thumping $267 million profit in the past financial year.

At its annual stakeholder event, Perth Airport chief executive Brad Geatches said a business case for a runway would be presented to the board next year.

"We have determined that we need a third runway by the end of the decade to cater for the increasing demand," he said.

In his review to shareholders, Perth Airport chairman David Crawford said "there was an emerging consensus among aviation industry stakeholders that investment in the third runway should be brought forward".

Mr Geatches put the cost of the runway at $400 million - well down from original estimates of $900 million touted two years ago.

Perth Airport's cross-runways are at capacity almost 70 per cent of the time from Tuesday to Thursday from 5am to 9pm.

Delays for landing are extensive, particularly during wet weather. The congestion requires many planes to be held on the ground at the originating airport, with ground delays of at least 30 minutes not uncommon.

At the stakeholder event on Thursday night, Mr Crawford said the airport's $750 million investment in terminal infrastructure was fully committed, with four major terminal projects completed or under way.

T2 opened this year and the first stage of the upgrade of T1 - the international terminal - would open this month.

The Virgin Australia domestic pier will open about August.

Last year, the airport recorded a 7.8 per cent jump in international passengers and an 8.3 per cent rise in domestic passengers.

The growth has outpaced all other Australian airports for the past seven years.

These numbers, along with significant increases in cargo and charter operations, drove a 30 per cent increase in aeronautical charges to $162 million.

Icarus2001
5th Nov 2013, 01:58
Mr Geatches put the cost of the runway at $400 million - well down from original estimates of $900 million touted two years ago.

Did he explain why he gave such an outrageous cost estimate two years ago?

A huge reversal from Geatches. Only two years ago he said that the runway was not needed until after 2025.

So if they commit to the build next year, it could be operational by 2018 I would have thought, possibly 2019 with "slippage".

Did anyone ask him why the new taxiways off 03/21 are at 90 degrees?

myshoutcaptain
20th Nov 2013, 11:07
I can't help myself ... but I just enjoy perth airport so much.

The new international arrivals ... outstanding .. more customs desks (although still unstaffed however I was told at the coffee shop on day one it was fully stocked). More smart gates - great work although NZ and UK citizens can also use so no help really in Perth. Duty free has changed hands to JR and is all new.

But my favourite - all this good work (it really is) still boils down to one customs staff member to direct you out the front door or to quarantine ... the backlog begins - and still no crew lane. It's like building a new taxiway , but at 90 degrees to the main runway.:ugh:

Boomerang
20th Nov 2013, 12:27
I hear you MSC, and to add insult to injury, the staff discount for duty free grog has dropped from 20% to 15%! ;-)

ranmar850
20th Nov 2013, 23:57
Is it my imagination, but as regular SLF through here, has on-time performance improved in the latter half of this year? We are just not copping all the delays we had under the previous traffic control regime--early days didn't seem to improve things at all, working more smoothly now? On a side note, I enjoy telling fellow travellers leaving the Pilbara end what time we are likely to be loading--they don't know what COBT on the whiteboard behind the counter means;)

flying.monkeyz
21st Nov 2013, 01:20
I just hope they fix this walking-down-the-steps-to-board-the-plane crap at the International Terminal.

Normasars
21st Nov 2013, 05:21
Bit precious perhaps?

After all, PH is the bogan capitol of the world!!

Capn Bloggs
22nd Nov 2013, 09:17
Cheaper third runway and now this! :D

Airport lifts on-time rankings

Geoffrey Thomas Aviation Editor, The West Australian November 22, 2013, 6:23 am

Perth Airport leapt to the top of the on-time performance rankings for Australia's capital city airports in October, as Tiger Airways and Jetstar struggled.

In a remarkable turnaround, the airport's on-time arrival efficiency has jumped from one of the worst capital city airports in August to the best, with 82 per cent of flights arriving on time.

Departures were also the best, at 86.3 per cent on time.

Tiger and Jetstar's performance was well below the average, with only 53.5 per cent and 55.2 per cent of flights respectively leaving on time. The two airlines' arrival performances in Perth were slightly better.

The data compiled by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics covers domestic routes with an average of 8000 or more passengers a month over the previous six months and where two or more airlines operated in competition.

It does not cover fly-in, fly-out routes.

The data showed Qantas and QantasLink had the best on-time performance in the country and to and from Perth.

More than 90 per cent of Qantas flights and 93 per cent of QantasLink flights left on time. Although 89.8 per cent of Virgin Australia's flights left on time, only 70 per cent arrived on time.

Perth Airport dominated the best performing routes, with seven of the top 10 for departures and arrivals involving Perth.

The performance is significant given the cross runway is closed for repairs. Also, from Tuesday to Thursday the airport is at or near capacity for 65 per cent of the time between 5am and 9pm.

In March, Perth introduced a schedule co-ordination system and the departure performance improved significantly.

Perth Airport chief executive Brad Geatches said he was pleased with the October report.

"We acknowledge improved weather in October contributed to these results along with the impact of the schedule co-ordination system, which has helped operational efficiency," he said.

RATpin
22nd Nov 2013, 10:21
Yep,and still no indication of when/if they will install CAT 2/3 capability to the second most remote aerodrome on the planet.:ugh:

Capn Bloggs
26th Nov 2013, 23:54
Airport finds what goes around comes around
The West Australian
Geoffrey Thomas, Aviation Editor The West Australian
November 20, 2013, 10:30 am

Airport finds what goes around comes around Perth Airport is experiencing a higher than usual go-around rate due to the very strong easterly winds and the closure for repairs of the cross runway.

According to air traffic controllers, the missed approach or go-around rate for Perth, which is the highest of any capital city, has increased significantly because of the runway closure for repairs.

The airport was forced to close runway 06/24 – which runs north-east/south-west - for repairs in August and it will not reopen till March.

Pilots perform a missed approach if their plane is unstable because of strong cross winds or severe turbulence and wind shear.

In summer, the airport is sometimes impacted by strong winds off the Darling Range, which acts a little like a rock in a stream, and the wind tumbles off the hills, creating wind shear.

Pilots are also forced to perform missed approaches if the plane ahead of them doesn’t exit the runway quickly enough.

To see a video of a missed approach in Perth click here:

Airline Ratings (http://www.airlineratings.com/news/166/missed-approaches)

Perth Airport does not have any high speed taxiways and pilots sometimes must bring their planes almost to a stop before turning off the runway.

However a report conducted by British air traffic controller NATS found that some locals pilots were too slow to get off the runway.

The airport and Airservices, Australia’s air traffic control provider, are working on a number of initiatives to increase the efficiency of the runways.

For the passengers a missed approach can be dramatic with the pilot applying maximum power – often greater than take-off power to exit the area.

The procedures and route for a missed approach are briefed prior to the approach to land so everyone knows exactly what to do.

Air traffic control then vectors the pilots to a fresh approach.

Sometimes the pilots are too busy with air traffic control to advise passengers of the reason for the missed approach.

Nautilus Blue
27th Nov 2013, 00:44
Would it be fair to say that on top of everything else, the long RWY at PH is not in an optimal direction?

OverRun
27th Nov 2013, 02:01
The direction of the long RWY [03-21] is not too bad from the terrain perspective, but the airport really needs the 06-24 cross runway as well for the strong morning easterlies and strong afternoon westerlies. The terrain advantage of 03-21 is that the approaches are over flat land, whereas 06-24 points at the Perth Hills.

The wind roses below show the pattern. The dark brown colour - not doubt chosen by the meteorologist to represent the pucker factor - are winds in excess of 30 kph (16.7 knots); the length of the dark brown is proportional to the percent of time that it is at that strength and direction.

3pm summer is not too bad, but 9am/3pm winter and 9am summer show why the cross-wind on 03-21 can be a problem.

http://profemery.info/009021-9amWinter.jpg

http://profemery.info/009021-3pmWinter.jpg

http://profemery.info/009021-9amSummer.jpg

http://profemery.info/009021-3pmSummer.jpg

myshoutcaptain
27th Nov 2013, 02:34
I can confirm the 20% discount is still applied at JR Duty Free.

New duty free has a tiled floor - 24 hr security on hand , once you step onto the tiles you cannot step back onto the carpet. Issued with a aus red asic I am told that I had to go the long way around to fetch something I had left in the aircraft ie through customs , security again.:mad::ugh::\ are you $^*#&%@ serious!

Nautilus Blue
27th Nov 2013, 04:33
OverRun - thanks for that, very interesting.

Capn Bloggs
3rd Feb 2014, 23:09
Pearce proposed as relief airport
EXCLUSIVE Geoffrey Thomas Aviation Editor, The West Australian,
February 4, 2014, 2:40 am

The Defence Department is considering letting airlines use RAAF Base Pearce at Bullsbrook as an alternative airport to Perth to ease midweek congestion.

Sources in Sydney and Canberra say senior executives of at least two Perth Airport-based airlines visited Pearce late last year to inspect the base's facilities.

Perth Airport is overstretched with almost 70 per cent of its landing slots filled.

At critical times - between 5am and 9pm from Tuesday to Thursday - there are no free landing slots or very few.

But a Defence spokesman denied the report, saying there were no plans to turn Pearce into a commercial airport.

One airline executive told "The West Australian" the Pearce option "was very interesting because of its proximity to the northern suburbs".

Another said the proposal was fascinating because of congestion at Perth Airport.

Perth Airport is currently working with Qantas and Virgin Australia - its two biggest customers - on a business plan for a second parallel runway.

The airport has two runways but they cross and cannot be used concurrently, only alternatively and then only in certain wind conditions.

The State Government has pressed the airport to fast-track another runway since late 2012, when it promised a go-ahead by April last year.

Perth Airport has spent the past nine months refining a plan for the runway with air traffic controller Airservices Australia and airlines, with a final business plan expected to be agreed soon.

But it will be at least four years before the runway is operational because a two-year environment study is needed. And pressure continues to mount on the airport's infrastructure despite the mining slowdown.

For the six months to December 31 last year, passenger numbers through Perth increased 2 per cent to 7.12 million, with a record 400,290 using the international terminal in December.

There are now four peak periods at the airport midweek - early morning, late morning, early afternoon and late afternoon-evening - when it cannot handle any more landings and limited departures.

Changing take-off times to off-peak is not possible for airlines that support resources companies because of the need for their planes to get two rotations a day to mine sites.

Last year, it was estimated congestion at Perth Airport was costing airlines $24 million in wasted fuel and related costs.

Perth Airport has experienced extraordinary passenger growth - an average of 9 per cent a year since 1963.

This is about twice the world average.

ranmar850
4th Feb 2014, 03:31
But it will be at least four years before the runway is operational because a two-year environment study is needed.


TWO YEARS for an environmental study:eek:

airdualbleedfault
4th Feb 2014, 04:43
But a Defence spokesman denied the report, saying there were no plans to turn Pearce into a commercial airport.

No, much better to leave it as an under utilised, tax payer funded military airport, probably used more by Singapore than Australia. How typically WA.

Move all the bugsmashers to Pearce, build a decent rail line that starts at least somewhere around the CBD, problem solvered.

But no, this is WA, we'll keep putting bandaids on the existing one (worst airport in Australia) .

Capn Bloggs
4th Feb 2014, 04:47
I consider using Pearce is the bandaid. Can you imagine the traffic going up the GN highway? Put in a third runway and be done with it.

Nautilus Blue
5th Feb 2014, 07:49
Problem is all the PEA STAR's track over PH, so its a bandaid without the sticky bit.

Capn Bloggs
5th Feb 2014, 08:01
all the PEA STAR's track over PH
all the PH STAR's track over PEA? ;)

Capn Bloggs
21st Jun 2014, 05:55
Systems Upgrade Should Beat Airport Fog
Thw West Australian, 21 June 2014

Geoffrey Thomas, Aviation Editor

Perth Airport will significantly upgrade its aircraft instrument landing system over the next 12 months, which should almost eliminate delays caused by fog. Yesterday, the airport confirmed to The Weekend West that talks with airlines and Airservices Australia were at an advanced stage. The announcement came after a day of chaos at the airport, with the travel plans of thousands disrupted when fog blanketed Perth Airport for more than six hours.

About 45 flights were delayed or diverted, some as far as Adelaide, because of customs and immigration requirements, setting in motion knock-on delays of at least 24 hours for many passengers.

The fog started rolling in at 9.30pm on Thursday and lifted about 5.20am yesterday.

Perth Airport has a CAT 1 instrument landing system. Under CAT 1, pilots must be able to see the runway from a height of 61m with forward visibility of 800m. The CAT 3b system to be installed reduces that visibility height to just 15m and forward visibility to only 75m, almost eliminating diversions.

Most international and many domestic aircraft are capable of CAT3b operations, if the airport is equipped.

Going Nowhere
21st Jun 2014, 06:59
Most international and many domestic aircraft are capable of CAT3b operations, if the airport is equipped.

Sort of goes without saying, doesn't it?

Once it's equipped, it's capable... :ugh:

Icarus2001
24th Jun 2014, 09:58
Master Plan 2014 (http://www.perthairport.com.au/master-plan.aspx)

The page is there with a link, which does not work, how funny.

PS The NEW master plan this week, not like the other pretender master plans of previous times.;)

This one seems to work

http://www.perthairport.com.au/Libraries/Master_Plan_2014_Documents/WAC1139_Perth_Airport_Masterplan_2014_Web_Secure_FINAL_20061 4.sflb.ashx

JandakotJoe
24th Jun 2014, 10:25
They should build a completely new airport well to the south (before all the land is built on) with independent parallel runways, less weather impact, freeway access already in place, optimal runway direction ahead of time.

They (WA) can afford it.

Leave YPPH for FIFO, GA and private.

Virtually There
12th Nov 2014, 02:47
Anyone heard any rumours about the WA government looking for TWO new airport sites? Possibly one for regional flights, another for international. Not sure where YPPH and YPJT fit into the scheme of things, especially with the new runway plan at JT.

Icarus2001
12th Nov 2014, 09:57
Like this rumour reported on the ABC?
WA Government appeals to private sector in search for new Perth airport sites - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-11/wa-government-looking-for-sites-for-new-airports-perth/5883904)

Virtually There
14th Nov 2014, 09:48
That's the one. I'd heard earlier in the day it was going to be reported (I wasn't sure if it was true or not) hence asking if anyone else had heard. Looks like it's a long way off.

onetrack
15th Nov 2014, 11:53
I don't understand why the Defence Dept is so precious about Pearce? If Darwin can be a combined civilian/military airport, why not Pearce??

As regards the comment about "the amount of traffic going up the Gt Northern Hwy" - doesn't this commenter know that Tonkin Hwy is going to be extended to Muchea? - and then, later on, to Bindoon?
The Tonkin Hwy-Muchea link is the most important section of the Perth-Darwin Hwy (now known as NorthLink WA) that is yet to be installed.

This 37km extension of Tonkin Hwy will cut off the exasperating drive up the Gt Northern Hwy to Bullsbrook/Pearce/Muchea, and provide a major section of 4-lane freeway to the North from Perth.

The construction of this section of the Perth-Darwin Hwy was already supposed to have started - but Federal penny-pinching saw the previously-allocated funding withdrawn, and the project put back a couple of years.
It's still on the cards, and it has a great deal of priority in planning. Construction of the link is now proposed to start in 2016.

Once this freeway link is installed, it's only a small step to connect Pearce airbase to this freeway - and thence the city.

Perth-Darwin Hwy extension to Muchea and Bindoon (https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BuildingRoads/Projects/CompletedProjects/2014/Pages/perthDarwin.aspx)

NorthLink WA project (https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BuildingRoads/Projects/UrbanProjects/Pages/NorthlinkWA.aspx)

NorthLink WA Newsletter - Sept 2014 (https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/Documents/Project%20Update%20Sept%20V7.RCN-D14%5E23508968.PDF)

Icarus2001
16th Nov 2014, 03:01
I don't understand why the Defence Dept is so precious about Pearce? If Darwin can be a combined civilian/military airport, why not Pearce??

Because they are allowed to be by their political masters. Every time a new defence minister tries to wield some authority over defence it ends badly for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Fitzgibbon

Not only Darwin. Townsville is joint user and so is Richmond to a lesser degree. Air traffic is traffic, all can be managed. As for "special military requirements" that is what training areas and PRDs are for.

V24
16th Nov 2014, 03:23
Because Pearce is a training base. Up to 6 pc9s/pc21s and the odd hawk in the circuit. How about sending them to Jandakot and mixing it was with some 152s/172s?!

The Green Goblin
16th Nov 2014, 05:19
How about sending them to gin gin for circuit training?

BuzzBox
16th Nov 2014, 05:34
How about sending them to gin gin for circuit training?

Gin Gin is already used for circuit training because there simply isn't enough capacity at Pearce. Pearce is an extremely busy training base, with the RAAF's 2FTS and 79SQN and the RSAF's 130 Squadron all carrying out continuous circuit training, instrument approach training, departures & arrivals to & from the training areas, together with movements by other visiting military aircraft. With all due respect, I would suggest that's a very different traffic situation to Darwin or Townsville, and not compatible with RPT.

The experience at Williamtown has shown that once RPT operations are allowed to start, there is immense pressure for the number of movements to increase, to the detriment of the RAAF's operations and capability. Ultimately, that costs taxpayers big bucks. I can't see RPT operations being allowed at Pearce unless the whole training machine is moved elsewhere, but where to and who pays?

The Green Goblin
16th Nov 2014, 05:39
Build another runway at gin gin then.

V24
16th Nov 2014, 05:45
It's still a training base. Mixing solo students returning from the area and RPT aircraft isn't the safest idea...

I don't really see how poor planning by the state government should become the military's problem.

Fred Gassit
16th Nov 2014, 05:57
Is it State govt or the bunch leasing the airport?
Agree about Pearce, it's about the busiest circuit I've seen, squeezing RPT in there would suck more than Perth does already.

Icarus2001
16th Nov 2014, 09:44
Learmonth is an ideal place to move most of the Pearce training operations.

I can hear the screams now. The brass want to live in the northern suburbs and have a leisurely thirty minute drive to work.

Put them in Learmonth. Inject some federal funds into Exmouth as support infrastructure and create regional jobs.

Also puts the military on our Northern border where they should be.

Pearce can then be joint user. Gingin also has expansion possibilities.

PS The Singapore air farce are using capacity no?

Going Boeing
16th Nov 2014, 10:04
Icarus, out of whose budget is the $3 billion cost of moving all the infrastructure to Learmonth coming from?

The Singaporean air Force pay a lot of money to use the facilities so they would have to be consulted extensively.

Williamtown is a very good example of the major issues that occur when civilian traffic is allowed to operate from busy RAAF bases.

Chronic Snoozer
16th Nov 2014, 11:16
One of the most beneficial aspects of a military base and military ATC is the lack of 'positive' control. This allows flexibility in training which cannot be replicated in civil controlled zones. I've worked in both and it is quite a difference.

The notion of Gin Gin having a second runway is all well and good, but what time frame are we looking at here? Would probably end up being another Badgery's Creek. Pearce does have one parallel runway however I doubt RPT would enjoy the procedures in place for its use!

It may surprise some but within the military it is very rarely the case that facilities are installed on the basis of where the 'brass' want to live. (Why is that difficult to imagine?) As far as the Perth northern suburbs go are we talking Mt Hawthorn or Alkimos? When Pearce was built no doubt it was waaaaaay out in the sticks at the time.

The cost of working out of Learmonth is not just the move there. The ongoing fixed costs would be quite high, remote localities usually are, logistics far more difficult however great fishing and diving.

I don't understand why the Defence Dept is so precious about Pearce? If Darwin can be a combined civilian/military airport, why not Pearce?? A little research on how these bases work and you will have answered your own questions. Its not a question of being precious, its a question of protecting what you have. More traffic, more constraints, less flexibility (which is the key to airpower). I don't think anyone was particularly enamoured by the decision to allow the RSAF to train there back in the 90s. I can see the advantages for them but for the RAAF?

Icarus2001
16th Nov 2014, 12:07
Icarus, out of whose budget is the $3 billion cost of moving all the infrastructure to Learmonth coming from?Well if you can show me some rough figures to illustrate how you came up with that figure I will engage with you.

The ongoing fixed costs would be quite high, remote localities usually are, logistics far more difficult however great fishing and diving.Some would say Perth is isolated as well ;)

What would you say the base contingent would be? 250 people? 400 people? How many lived permanently at the Harold Holt Base at Exmouth?

Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Communication_Station_Harold_E._Holt)

Given that the RAAF owns a few transport aircraft then supplies should not pose a problem. Exmouth has supermarkets and is supplied ex Perth so all the systems are in place.

Agreed that Pearce WAS remote. Now the "planners" need to think fifty years ahead. The problem is that they think about as far as the next election.

I don't think anyone was particularly enamoured by the decision to allow the RSAF to train there back in the 90s. I can see the advantages for them but for the RAAF?

$

Chronic Snoozer
16th Nov 2014, 15:19
$ mate go to consolidated revenue, NOT the RAAF.

BuzzBox
16th Nov 2014, 22:20
Exmouth has supermarkets and is supplied ex Perth so all the systems are in place.

Right, so that's it then. The only thing that's required to support a RAAF base is a supermarket. Exmouth has one, so therefore 'all systems are in place'. Dream on...

What about the huge investment in infrastructure that would be required to bring Learmonth up to a suitable standard to support high intensity training operations? At a minimum, that would include new apron areas, hangars & maintenance buildings, taxiways, fuel facilities, ATC facilities (including radar), an ILS for IF training, classroom & briefing facilities, accommodation and mess facilities, operations & admin buildings, air movements facilities to support visiting aircraft, etc, etc...

Not saying it can't be done, but the initial investment and ongoing support costs would make it a VERY expensive exercise. Further, is it a wise move to put a major training facility 'up north' where it would be far more vulnerable in the event of a conflict?

Capn Bloggs
17th Nov 2014, 01:57
What about the huge investment in infrastructure that would be required to bring Learmonth up to a suitable standard to support high intensity training operations? At a minimum, that would include new apron areas, hangars & maintenance buildings, taxiways, fuel facilities, ATC facilities (including radar), an ILS for IF training, classroom & briefing facilities, accommodation and mess facilities, operations & admin buildings, air movements facilities to support visiting aircraft, etc, etc...
Wot you on about, Buzz? All that stuff is already there in spades, and has been since I was zooming around there in 1983... OK, no ILS but...

Mind you, the RAAF refuses to fix/pay for the AFRU, which has now been U/S for 18 months, so you're probably right... :{

BuzzBox
17th Nov 2014, 03:51
All that stuff is already there in spades, and has been since I was zooming around there in 1983...

Ever had a close look Cap'n? It's a 'bare base' - the stuff that's there is very basic and only intended to support short term deployments. It would not support a full time operation of 50-plus aircraft. Most of it has been there since the 1970s, if not earlier, and is probably riddled with asbestos. I'm guessing they'd have to pull the whole lot down and start again...

Nautilus Blue
17th Nov 2014, 03:54
Pearce is an extremely busy training base, with the RAAF's 2FTS and 79SQN and the RSAF's 130 Squadron all carrying out continuous circuit training, instrument approach training, departures & arrivals to & from the training areas, together with movements by other visiting military aircraft.

Plus the squadrons of stealth aircraft (and the very occasional PC9 or Hawk) that use the areas of the coast :p

If PEA was moved a replacement for the LNX areas would have to be found as well. If only PEA and JT were reversed, and PH R24 was long enough for LAHSO.

Actually better yet, if only WA's capital was about halfway up the coast. Hindsight is a powerful planning tool!

OverRun
17th Nov 2014, 05:28
Sounds like a timeous and good move by the WA government to go looking for new Perth airport sites. Multi-airport systems are an inevitable feature of major metropolitan regions, and Perth is heading towards becoming one of those. Securing the possibilities of future development by landbanking sites for new airports is good airport planning. Landbanking or securing land for the possible future development of a facility is a major way of implementing long-term development plans for a new airport at a reasonable cost. Buy the land well in advance when it is cheap. It is also a form of insurance which protects against the risk of needing a new airport site and not being to find one - particularly when the new site needs to be a couple of thousand hectares of vacant and reasonably flat land (as a guide, MEL is 2369 ha, and PER is 2105 ha).

The traffic threshold which seems to justify an effective multi-airport system is around 14 million originating pax per year for the metropolitan region. PER currently is 14 million pax per year, which is approximately 7 million originating pax. The current forecast is for 24 million by 2019 (which is 12 million originating pax and thus getting close to the threshold. Yes of course, forecasts go up and down and Perth in particular is proving very hard to forecast. But given that it will take at least 5 years to organize the landbanking (feasibility studies, engineering, environmental, public consultation etc), then now is about the right time to get it all started.

The Banjo
17th Nov 2014, 06:26
Close PEA, hand it over to Macquarie Bank for a song, and build a greenfields base in a regional centre. Dubbo-mentioned before as a Richmond replacement. Now there is a thought!!! Hand over RIC to Macquarie as well, have a combined PEA/RIC at Rocky or Temora or Ballarat or Dubbo* (put Margaret River/Busselton into the final contenders to give the half wit, hairy armpit green /curfew twits angina....) After all, WA wants to leave the Federation anyway...now there's a thought! Charge WA user pays for defence to protect the oil/gas fields AND the woggall (otherwise known as the Rainbow Serpent) from the yellow peril and the CFMEU. Teach them a lesson for arguing about their GST cut.

The consultants and political lobbyists will be salivating like a kiwi in a sheep paddock.....

* Select a location that has: a sensitive eco-system, rare frog, flower or spider, underground water that is at risk of contamination, ancient rock art, sacred sites that won't be known until the location is selected, trees that greenies live in or has planning approval for residential real estate in the flight splays.

Capn Bloggs
13th Feb 2018, 23:02
Fog lights seal Perth landing
The West Australian, 14Feb18

Upgrades at the airport help avoid Adelaide diversion, saving fuel and time, reports Geoffrey Thomas


Perth Airport is delighted to announce the arrival of a 500-passenger super jumbo in zero visibility.

That will be the announcement from June when the airport’s virtually fog-proof $36 million airfield lighting system upgrade gets the final tick from the aviation regulator.

There will be no costly — not to mention inconvenient — weather diversions to Adelaide for international flights or planes unable to take-off .

Over the past two years the airport has been upgraded to what is called CAT III-B airfield lighting and control capability, with infrastructure and navigational aid upgrades by Airservices Australia.

According to Perth Airport chief executive Kevin Brown the project has been “a complex logistical and planning exercise to deliver in a ‘live’ airfield environment where we are managing up to 400 flight movements per day” .

“We needed to divide the airfield into 90 different segments and then co-ordinate these extensive works around our daily operating needs,” Mr Brown said.

“Our team has installed almost 4000 new lights and laid down almost 700km of cabling — rooughly enough cabling to stretch from Perth to Esperance.

“When we first switched on the lights for a trial late last year it was like watching Perth’s biggest Christmas tree light up.”

There have been three phases to the upgrade.

The first was the installation and commissioning on August 26, 2016, of transmissometers reducing the “runway visual range” for pilots from 800m to 550m.

That is how far ahead a pilot can see in fog.

The installation of CAT III-B airfield ground lighting has been completed and dramatically reduces the runway visual range for departures to just 125m from last month and then to 75m from June, when the Airservices navigational aids are approved by Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

For arrivals, the pilot’s decision height above the ground — to continue the landing — was reduced from 60m to just 30m from last month and will be further reduced to 15m from June.

For planes so equipped, such as the Airbus A380, A350 and A330, and Boeing 777, 787 and 737, the system allows for fully automatic landings without a decision height being applicable.

Pilots must also be endorsed for CAT III-B operations.

The third phase in support of the Perth Airport upgrade is the work by Airservices to its instrument landing system on runway 21 — the main north--to-south runway — which will give the airport industry best practice of full CAT III-B capability.

The CAT III-B instrument landing system only needs to be on one runway because fog in this part of the world is associated with still conditions.

The upgrade is also a major advance in airfield safety, with a new stop system on all taxiways entering the runway.

The major benefit for the passengers is they will arrive in Perth not Adelaide.

For the airlines, diversions have cost up to $500,000, with the dislocation of planes, accommodation for passengers and their onward travel costs, and subsequent ferry flight of the original plane back to its home port while empty all adding up.

The other benefit will be a reduction in the fuel needed depending on the airline’s operational policy.

If Perth has fog forecast, most international flights will carry enough fuel to divert to Adelaide.

With the auto-land capability in fog the risk of needing to divert is almost zero so an airline can, and will, in most cases, carry just enough fuel to divert to Learmonth, near Exmouth.

Mr Brown said investment had been “heavily focused on delivering efficiencies for the airlines and improving the passenger experience” .

“The airlines gain from having a more efficient runway giving them significant benefits in terms of running to schedule ,” he said.

“For the passengers, it means a better experience from the reduced risk of delays due to fog.

“Given the relative isolation of Perth, this standard of lighting is an absolute ‘must have’ .”

The real winner is the WA economy because this project delivers benefits to tourism, business travel, exporters, freight carriers and even the education sector.

“This project underpins the reliability of the movement of passengers and freight in and out of Perth Airport,” Mr Brown said.

Snakecharma
14th Feb 2018, 00:23
If we didnt think GT knew nothing then this article seals the deal and proves he knows nothing.

maggot
14th Feb 2018, 00:46
The LEDs sure are purdy

Icarus2001
14th Feb 2018, 01:15
There will be no costly — not to mention inconvenient — weather diversions to Adelaide for international flights or planes unable to take-off .

So nothing stopping take off in fog then GT?

CaptCloudbuster
14th Feb 2018, 01:54
For suitably equipped aircraft 75m good to go:ok:

For an “aviation expert” there were sure a lot of technical inaccuracies in that article :}

Chris2303
14th Feb 2018, 04:33
It's not called the State of Wait Awhile for nothing

Goat Whisperer
14th Feb 2018, 08:19
At least he understands that those flights will still need an alternate, and he's right, they may use YPLM instead of YPAD.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
14th Feb 2018, 12:15
There will be no costly — not to mention inconvenient — weather diversions to Adelaide for international flights or planes unable to take-off .
Wow, that must have been inconvenient! Imagine having to taxy from Perth to Adelaide for a departure because it was too foggy to take off in Perth, especially when the new lights only go as far as Esperance!

willadvise
15th Feb 2018, 04:21
At least he understands that those flights will still need an alternate, and he's right, they may use YPLM instead of YPAD.
Most, if not all, non Australian carriers will continue to hold YPAD as they do now because of the lack of fire services at YPLM.

BuzzBox
15th Feb 2018, 10:14
Any updates on Ascent Aviation and its bid to upgrade Cunderdin as a wide-body alternate for Perth?

bolthead
16th Feb 2018, 01:28
I have it on good authority Buzzbox, that it has been placed in the 'Too Hard' file.

Have you ever seen one of those sheepdog competitions where the poor dog, no matter how good it is, gets a few really cranky sheep, and just can't get them all in the one pen?

Capn Bloggs
16th Feb 2018, 05:02
Forget the cranky sheep, Bolthead, trying to set up Cunderdin as a Cat 3 international alternate would be as easy as a kelpie trying to herd cats!

maggot
16th Feb 2018, 05:23
Doesn't need to be cat anything
Just strong, long with a nice apron
Happy friday

Capn Bloggs
19th Feb 2018, 23:18
From The West Australian, 19 Feb 2018Cunderdin strip still in alternative airport mix
Geoffrey Thomas

Despite the upgrade to Perth Airport’s fog-beating autoland system, the proposed redevelopment of Cunderdin Aerodrome as a nearby alternative airport remains on track and is essential to maximising airlines’ safety options and fuel savings.

According to Ascent Aviation’s managing director Benjamin Reid, Perth’s autoland upgrade does not dilute the importance of upgrading Cunderdin.

Ascent is proposing multimillion-dollar improvements of Cunderdin airport, a plan which has received bipartisan support from the major political parties.

The company is working with several major international airlines on the business case for the project.

Cunderdin is 160km east of Perth but is little more than 15 minutes flying time from the city and is not adversely affected by the weather at Perth Airport.

While the Perth Airport upgrade will eliminate the need for diversion to Adelaide for most international airlines, planes still need to carry fuel for an alternative, and the most suitable for most aircraft is Learmonth — a 90-minute flight.

“There is no level of sophistication in airport infrastructure that guarantees an aircraft’s safe landing , which is why airlines will continue to carry extra fuel reserves to Perth even with the new CAT IIIB Instrument Landing System,” Mr Reid said.

And on days when Perth Airport weather is forecast below minimum landing requirements, there are a few international airlines that opt to carry enough fuel for two alternative airports, he added.

“For the Boeing 777-300 ER, the two nominated alternates might be Learmonth and Adelaide, but for the Airbus A380, the two would be Adelaide and Melbourne, as Learmonth is not rated for the aircraft,” Mr Reid said. “The Cunderdin upgrade will be A380-rated .”

An autoland system does not help in extremely windy conditions and Perth Airport has been affected by high winds rolling off the Darling Range in summer.

Manufacturers stipulate maximum crosswinds for aircraft and if the winds exceed those they must divert.

The Perth autoland upgrade and the Cunderdin alternative combination would enable airlines to carry the lowest safe level of additional fuel leading to significant cost savings.

One of the keys to the viability of Cunderdin is that while it is close to Perth, its weather is sufficiently different to make it viable.

HEALY
20th Feb 2018, 04:27
In reality Cunderdin just becomes a tick in the box for alternate planning, if for whatever reason a heavy was to go there majority of those off a long haul wont have the duty to return to Perth, then you have customs, Fuel, and 400 pax which would probably be bused back to Perth as you dont have the luxury of other airlines to get them back.

So how does Ascent make money out of this? Do airlines pay for the priviledge of using YCUN as a nominated alternate given they save on fuel uplift? Im sure you would rarely get a heavy landing their to nab some landing fees.

As for xwinds in Perth they can occur at any time day or night so what RFF facilities will be in place in YCUN for this possible scenario?

Capn Bloggs
8th Mar 2018, 11:50
From Perth Now, 8th March 2018:


Council to cull 100 Australian White Ibis birds due to Perth Airport flight fears

Rob Scott | PerthNow
March 8, 2018 6:38PM

Around 100 pest birds that experts say pose a risk to planes and passengers flying in and out of Perth Airport will be culled, the local council has confirmed.

The number of master scavengers Australian White Ibis, commonly referred to as bin chickens or tip turkeys, at the Red Hill Waste Management Facility has increased so dramatically that the East Metropolitan Regional Council has been forced to take action.

Nearby residents have been told to expect gunshots from Monday, as a program to thin the numbers of pest birds gets under way.

In a letter addressed to residents, the council said the Ibis “can carry and transmit disease … and most importantly they pose an imminent threat to planes from bird strikes”.

“The Ibis represents a very serious problem, simply because it's a very large bird,” aviation expert Geoffrey Thomas said.

“Bird strikes can and do bring down planes.

“A 747 pilot told me his aircraft encountered an Ibis on take-off from Sydney and the vibrations from the engine, it took out an engine, were so severe that he could not read the instruments.”

According to Australian Transport Safety Bureau figures, there were 135 bird strikes at Perth Airport between 2015 and 2017.

The Red Hill facility, where the Ibis population is growing, is within the flight path of Perth Airport planes.

The culling program will be staggered during the year by a contractor.

The first round of the cull is due to start on Monday.

theozguru
9th Mar 2018, 08:03
I heard a rumor the other day that QF is going to base their new recruit school at YCUN and compete with China Southern and Singapore. Looks like WA is the training state.

Icarus2001
9th Mar 2018, 09:55
Is CSWAFC up and running again?

Capn Bloggs
10th Mar 2018, 07:16
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/weather/perth-weather-100kmh-wind-gusts-forecast-metro-and-south-west-areas-ng-b88770304z

Better brush the dust off those Rotto 09 NDB charts you eastern lot... ;) :ok:

Ex FSO GRIFFO
10th Mar 2018, 23:39
Is Taxyway 'W' not avbl...?

cheers :=:uh oh:

Capn Bloggs
11th Mar 2018, 00:22
11 was made redundant! :ok:

Ex FSO GRIFFO
11th Mar 2018, 01:14
Yeah Cap'n,

I was at that RAPAC meeting when this was agreed to by the various interested parties, and quite frankly, I was surprised, but it was 'required' for parking etc. and 'nobody uses it anymore', anyway.....

Or words to that effect....

Nobody even mentioned the 'Dreaded Easterlies'.....

Cheers :ok:

Capn Bloggs
4th May 2018, 07:39
From The West 3May2018:Qantas Suspends WA Hub’s Growth EXCLUSIVE
Geoffrey Thomas

Qantas has suspended growth of its western hub because Perth Airport refuses to allow it to use its new T3 international wing for its proposed South Africa service. Speaking yesterday to analysts, Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce said that “the concept of a western hub is a great one, it has great viability , we just need a co-operative airport to help expand it” . “We’re obviously keeping Perth-London going but we’re suspending all other growth options until we have resolution on that (Perth-Johannesburg ) issue,” he said.

Qantas wants to operate a four times-weekly seasonal service between Perth and Johannesburg, to start in December from its new T3 international precinct where as Perth Airport wants the airline to use T1 — the main innternational terminal on the other side of the airport. Qantas argues it wants passengers from around WA and Australia to connect seamlessly with the proposed flight.

In late 2016, the State Government brokered a deal between the airport and Qantas when it tipped in $14 million to establish the international wing at the T3/ T4 complex where all the airline’s domestic flights operate. That deal gave the green light for the Perth-to-London nonstop service and also included the proposed Paris and Frankfurt or Berlin nonstops , the airline’s doubledaily Singapore and seasonal Auckland flights.

A Perth Airport spokesman said yesterday “we remain happy to talk to Qantas about getting the part-time Johannesburg flights going as soon as possible through T1 international , where 18 other international carriers operate” . “Perth Airport and the State needs to keep its focus firmly on developing new direct service routes to the growth areas of Asia,” he said. “With more than four billion people on our doorstep in the Asian region, Tokyo, Shanghai and Mumbai offer enormous opportunities for WA. “This is why we will need to expand T1 international and why it is crucial to the State’s future economic prosperity. “We will deliver the tourism sector and the economy a greater return by prioritising the development of new routes, as opposed to the, at best, marginal benefits of adding limited additional flights to existing routes on a seasonal basis.” However, industry observers say that during the proposed expansion of T1, the airport will lose at least two gates and may struggle to handle more Qantas flights. Tourism Minister Paul Papalia said the Government was “continuing to position Western Australia as the western gateway to Australia by pursuing direct flights from our key markets, which include China, Japan, India and Europe” .

-JLS-
4th May 2018, 08:21
How on earth have they survived having operations in separate terminals in Sydney all this time? Nobody wants/needs to connect seamlessly there?

If the future grand super plan involves everything being over near T1 between the parallel runways (probably complete in 2070 at this rate...), I can see why Perth Airport would be reluctant to keep pouring money in to expanding the terminals on the western side just to give Alan a free marketing boost.

Chris2303
4th May 2018, 08:38
I find it sad that the Qantas bashing is overlooking one major thing.

The customer is always right!

QF is the customer and Perth Airport needs to understand that

Derfred
4th May 2018, 08:51
Why do they need to expand it? It currently sees, what, 4 international movements per day? Or did they not build it big enough for a 747?

Keg
4th May 2018, 09:54
The don’t need to expand it. The PER- JNB- PER flights wouldn’t require an expansion of the T3/4 international facilitities and would operate at different times to the current 9/10 Services. PER Airport has said ‘nyet’ to doing that and insisted the JNB Aservice be operated out of T1.

That simply isnt feasible. I’ve been delayed for an hour ex T1 waiting for an aeroplane to be towed across from T4. It stuffs the efficiencies for the fleet. It’d be similar waiting for the 330to be towed across from T1 to T4 to operate further east.

Derfred
4th May 2018, 15:08
So PER airport are simply being a bunch of jerks.

Qantas spent millions on the terminal, the WA government threw millions in as well, only because they thought it was worth it to the state economy, PER airport contributed nothing, and now they are saying Qantas can’t use it while it’s idle, for no other reason than “because we say so”.

Meanwhile, no infrastructure is being built on the airport.

Only in Australia. What a great idea it was to privatise our airports.

Derfred
4th May 2018, 15:40
As an aside, the previous posters complaining that additional Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) charges are being footed by the taxpayer for the additonal international terminal, I call BS on that. As far as I am aware, CIQ costs are paid for by the airline.

The only people who get tax-payer funded CIQ are the illegal boat people.

Icarus2001
4th May 2018, 15:46
As far as I am aware, CIQ costs are paid for by the airline.

True that the passengers pay the processing fee to the airline who then pay the Feds but who do you think paid for the set up and capital works?

Barnett explains $14 million public funding for Perth-London flights (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/barnett-explains-14-million-public-funding-for-perthlondon-flights-20161212-gt97yx.html)

Derfred
4th May 2018, 16:48
Umm, Qantas paid for it, assisted by a one-off payment by the Govt of $14M, who stated they hope to gain over $30M per annum for the deal. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me if the costs and returns are accurate.

PER airport did not contribute one cent, as far as I know, and are now acting like 3yo children with an iPhone.

If I had an idle $14M that I could invest for an annual $30M return, I surely would, unless I didn’t trust the projections.

So what do we have here? A private monopoly airport holding a private airline to ransom? Pretty much. But if you want a return from the WA Govt money that was put into this, what is the desired outcome?

Dee Vee
5th May 2018, 00:48
Umm, Qantas paid for it, assisted by a one-off payment by the Govt of $14M, who stated they hope to gain over $30M per annum for the deal. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me if the costs and returns are accurate.

PER airport did not contribute one cent, as far as I know, and are now acting like 3yo children with an iPhone.

You must be reading a different article than me, the article above says the $14m is government funding for additional staff in the domestic terminal to handle international services, i.e. "immigration, customs, quarantine services"

the $30m "return" is an unrelated and unmeasurable economic benefit to Perth city as additional tourists are predicted to have a stopover.

sounds like nothing more than some under the table slush funds to stop Qantas having a tantrum.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
5th May 2018, 02:03
Dee Vee has it. Discussed somewhat at the end of this https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/606917-perth-london.html. QF will funnel pax through PER as basically a tech stop. WA Govt will believe tourism dollars will fall from heaven. Sadly mistaken I reckon.

Icarus2001
5th May 2018, 02:10
If that is what occurs. My gut feeling is there are a lot more WA pax on there than transit from the East coast. It would be really interesting to know.
For me, living in the East, why would I fly to Perth which gives me a one stop to the UK when I have other choices that are one stop with a better balance better sector length to stretch my legs? Also a great deal cheaper.

Beer Baron
5th May 2018, 02:52
Doesn’t this comment sound odd coming from an operator of an airport:
Perth Airport and the State needs to keep its focus firmly on developing new direct service routes to the growth areas of Asia,” “We will deliver the tourism sector and the economy a greater return by prioritising the development of new routes, as opposed to the, at best, marginal benefits of adding limited additional flights to existing routes on a seasonal basis.”

Surely developing routes and assessing their viability is the job of airlines. Perth Airport manage a monopoly service for Western Australia, they shouldn’t be turning away new services when they can easily accomodate then.
It seem to me to be a gross abuse of market power to prioritise one airline over another.

neville_nobody
5th May 2018, 04:32
Which is what happens with a monopoly.

Derfred
5th May 2018, 04:52
You must be reading a different article than me, the article above says the $14m is government funding for additional staff in the domestic terminal to handle international services, i.e. "immigration, customs, quarantine services"


No it doesn't. It says the WA government is paying for the CIQ facilities, that's the $14M. That's a capital investment in the terminal, not the staff. The staff are paid by the Federal Government, who in turn are paid by Qantas through passenger movement charges.

the $30m "return" is an unrelated and unmeasurable economic benefit to Perth city as additional tourists are predicted to have a stopover.

... which is how just about all government spending is justified, so what's your point?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
5th May 2018, 06:36
Surely developing routes and assessing their viability is the job of airlines.
It also the job of Airports, who have business units devoted to cultivating, encouraging, and enticing airlines to commence, maintain, or increase services to their airport. They are not turning away new services, QF are. 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.

Icarus2001
5th May 2018, 08:43
QF are just trying to scoop the cream off the top by only flying seasonally. Joyce is just going the petulant child routine again.

I think this is what it boils down to. There is an international terminal, USE IT. Asking even businesses like duty free shops to set up on the domestic side for six flights a week, talk about arrogant.

Imagine cruise ship companies dictating where they could CIQ clear there pax on arrival in Australia. Oh you want to use Exmouth? Sure. You guarantee us 85,000 pax a year and we will build a CIQ facility otherwise use one that exists.

This is the same petulant Alan that desperately needed federal money and the QSA scrapped to help QF survive. Oh and RED Q.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-to-ground-asian-based-red-q-airline-before-it-launches

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/taxpayers-must-pay-the-price-to-keep-qantas-says-joe-hockey-20131128-2ybgm.html (https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-to-ground-asian-based-red-q-airline-before-it-launches)

Beer Baron
5th May 2018, 09:00
It also the job of Airports, who have business units devoted to cultivating, encouraging, and enticing airlines to commence, maintain, or increase services to their airport. They are not turning away new services, QF are. 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.
You are ignoring the fact that travel IS a seasonal industry. Seasonal services to meet seasonal demand are nothing new.

Qantas have flown seasonal services SYD-Vancouver during the ski season. Sydney airport doesn’t make their life difficult because they are not flying all year round or to protect Air Canada.

Equally, Air Canada fly seasonally MEL-Vancouver and Melbourne airport don’t make their operation more difficult to protect Qantas who bring them more business or because it’s not a year-round service.

You are are quite right that airports try to entice airlines to operate into their port but this is a case of talking down a new operation and making it more difficult.

Icarus2001
5th May 2018, 10:09
Sydney airport doesn’t make their life difficult because they are not flying all year round Yes but they probably would if QF asked to operate from the domestic terminal.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
5th May 2018, 10:43
They are not asking, they are demanding, or they take their bat and ball and go home.

Beer Baron
5th May 2018, 10:56
Yes but they probably would if QF asked to operate from the domestic terminal.
Even if they had already spent millions of dollars building international CIQ and security infrastructure in that terminal for that very purpose?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
5th May 2018, 11:00
Right at this moment, QF bring PER no international business. QF has withdrawn all its international flying across to T3. PER is now having to spend the same money on reduced use of their own asset, while suffering a reduction in their income. Why wouldn't they resist further reductions, and instead try to increase or restore utilisation.
Also, if PER (4.5M) was getting the International pax numbers that SYD (15.5M) & MEL (10M) were getting, they might not be so worried if QF poached a few off them, but I imagine that QF pax would make up a fair percentage of those 4.5M.

Capn Bloggs
5th May 2018, 13:43
Also, if PER (4.5M) was getting the International pax numbers that SYD (15.5M) & MEL (10M) were getting, they might not be so worried if QF poached a few off them, but I imagine that QF pax would make up a fair percentage of those 4.5M.
Let's not get carried away. Up until PER-LHR started, AFAIK, the only international QF flights from Perth were a couple of 737s a day to Singapore and seasonal A330s to NZ.

The West, 5 May 18:

Saffers Fly Into A Rage Over Fares

Perth’s Saffer community is wondering what Perth Airport chief Kevin Brown has against them. Is he a cricket fanatic still smarting from the humiliations of the recent Test series, a colleague of the Bull’s from the other side of the Indian Ocean fumed? No, it’s simply too much to expect a monopoly international airport operator to have much understanding of the concept of competition.

After suffering for years under price gouging by South African Airways on the highest-convenience direct route, especially over the prime Christmas period, expats’ hopes they wouldn’t have to remortgage the house to visit family this year have been dashed. Perth Airport has taken an obstinate stance on facilitating Qantas’ proposed four-times-a-week seasonal service between Perth and Johannesburg to start in Deceember from the new T3 international. Last week Brown said he was happy to work with Qantas if it used the main T1 international terminal, but “the Perth-to-Johannesburg route is not a new route and is already well serviced with a year-round daily flight by South African Airways from T1 international” . This is the same “service” that gouges locals a whopping $2500- $3000 to fly Perth-Johannesburg return anytime within three weeks of Christmas, while often charging South African tourists as little as $1100 for the opposite routing.

There are of course alternatives if you don’t mind wasting a day both ways, but pricing shows the other Asian airlines simply raise their prices to within $200 or $300 of SAA’s extortionate prices over peak periods. An airport spokesman suggested Qantas needed to “keep its focus” on developing Asian connections to bring in foreign revenue, ignoring the $1000- $1500 a seat unnecessarily flowing into SAA and other airline coffers because there is no real competition on the direct route. No wonder Qantas sees a market gap.

flyingfox
5th May 2018, 14:55
The original plan for the Perth International terminal to be built east of the runway was pre privitisation. It is already a nightmare to use. Clogged roads, to far from the city centre etc. Qantas know that most business passengers want quick city access. T3 is the best location and you can guarantee that QF want their entire operation in one place. If that means two international terminals then that's what will happen. T3 will eventually be known simply as " The Qantas Terminal." As much as PAC wants the T3 site for more lucrative real estate projects, my bet is that Qantas will win the war. Give up PAC!
Build some high rise carpark and get more real estate by reclaiming those vast acreages of parking asphalt (The parking charges are already enough to cover the cost of building gold plated, high rise towers with free valet service, car wash and polish thrown in too!)

Capn Bloggs
6th May 2018, 00:57
The original plan for the Perth International terminal to be built east of the runway was pre privitisation. It is already a nightmare to use. It is already a nightmare to use. Clogged roads, to far from the city centre etc. Qantas know that most business passengers want quick city access.
To be fair, thanks to Colin, the new interchange makes getting to either the east or west terminals about the same, time-wise, and pretty quick. The quick zip-down Brearley Ave to T3/T4 has been blocked off while the underground train station is built (although there is a certain amount of pushback to the permanent closure; watch this space).

Keg
6th May 2018, 01:13
Right at this moment, QF bring PER no international business. QF has withdrawn all its international flying across to T3. PER is now having to spend the same money on reduced use of their own asset, while suffering a reduction in their income. Why wouldn't they resist further reductions, and instead try to increase or restore utilisation.

Where are PAC suffering a reduction in their income? If QF operate additional services to/from Jo'burg that would suggest an increase in PAC income? Sure, the international terminal won't get an increase but the airport will still get additional passenger charges and so on.

Qantas want to expand their international foot print in PER in the short term. Currently the terminal structure of T1 and the connections is not fit for purpose. PAC have no plans to remedy that in the short or medium term. Instead of seeing the possibility of increased revenue through the airport in total by allowing QF to utilise the facilities they already have PAC are instead turning away business and telling an airline to 'develop Asian routes'. Yeah. That'll work!

Interestingly I suspect QF are quite seriously looking to 'develop Asian routes' if they could be confident they could streamline the connections. Don't reckon much will happen whilst PAC approach the issue they way they have thus far.

Ex FSO GRIFFO
6th May 2018, 01:21
When is an underground airport train station, not an airport train station?

When its built at just under 1 Km from the nearest terminal...T3 / T4.

Imagine hauling baggage that far....
1 - In Summer when its 40C in the waterbag, or
2 - In Winter its cold and raining.....

And further, ALL of the roads into and out of YPPH will now be routed by the one highway entrance, Tonkin Hwy.
One breakdown / accident and that will spell 'rooted'.

Oh Dear........

Cheers


And yes Cap'n, you may well be departing 'half full' one day, as your pax are still on the h'way.

Similar has happened before.......

BuzzBox
6th May 2018, 02:23
Currently the terminal structure of T1 and the connections is not fit for purpose. PAC have no plans to remedy that in the short or medium term.

I guess that depends on your definition of 'medium term'. I understand PAC is desperate to get moving on the new pier at the eastern end of T1, to be followed by the development of a new terminal for QF next to T1. Their 'plan' is to have that completed by 2025. I suspect that PAC believes their business case for making that happen will be undermined if they allow QF to keep pushing their international services across to T3/T4. That would then slow down PAC's plans to consolidate all the terminals within the Central Precinct.

When is an underground airport train station, not an airport train station? When its built at just under 1 Km from the nearest terminal...T3 / T4.

In the short term perhaps, but Redcliffe Station is intended to serve the wider Redcliffe area, not just T3/T4. Why build a train station at T3/T4 when the plan is to move everything over to the Central Precinct within the next ten years? The Airport Central Station is located in the heart of the Central Precinct and will serve all the terminals once everything is consolidated on that side of the airport.

ExtraShot
6th May 2018, 02:33
. Qantas want to expand their international foot print in PER in the short term. Currently the terminal structure of T1 and the connections is not fit for purpose. PAC have no plans to remedy that in the short or medium term. Instead of seeing the possibility of increased revenue through the airport in total by allowing QF to utilise the facilities they already have PAC are instead turning away business and telling an airline to 'develop Asian routes'. Yeah. That'll work!

Exactly. Offer to remedy the situation by a certain date, get Qantas to agree to it, and in the mean time let Qantas do as they please form the facility on the Western Side so they have the strongest network to bring over once it’s complete.

Maggie Island
6th May 2018, 02:46
When is an underground airport train station, not an airport train station?

When its built at just under 1 Km from the nearest terminal...T3 / T4.

Imagine hauling baggage that far....
1 - In Summer when its 40C in the waterbag, or
2 - In Winter its cold and raining.....

And further, ALL of the roads into and out of YPPH will now be routed by the one highway entrance, Tonkin Hwy.


Pretty sure the station will feature a shuttle bus, ala long term parking. Also Second St and Fauntleroy Av (my go to) will continue to provide alternate access to the T3/4 precinct.

WingNut60
6th May 2018, 03:02
Are you a QANTAS employee per chance?

It is already a nightmare to use. Clogged roads, too far from the city centre etc.
Slightly closer. No discernible difference in traffic density.Gt Eastern Hwy vs Leach Hwy / Orrong Rd.

Distance from city centre is an additional 3 km to T1 - not sure why or if that qualifies for 'too far'.
Only relevant if you actually want to go to the city centre and not everyone wants to go to there - maybe 20%?
For me, T3 is an additional 3km.

Qantas know that most business passengers want quick city access.
Probably correct.
So that accounts for the 20 people sitting up the front.
Oh, and the crew of course. Maybe what is really needed is an airport Hilton.

T3 is the best location
That's a tad subjective.... unless you're just speaking for QANTAS.
And, apparently, only then because the state government funded the international facilities at T3.

....and you can guarantee that QF want their entire operation in one place. If that means two international terminals then that's what will happen. T3 will eventually be known simply as " The Qantas Terminal." As much as PAC wants the T3 site for more lucrative real estate projects, my bet is that Qantas will win the war. Give up PAC!
And they probably will.

WingNut60
6th May 2018, 03:15
And further, ALL of the roads into and out of YPPH will now be routed by the one highway entrance, Tonkin Hwy.
One breakdown / accident and that will spell 'rooted'.


Coming out from Dunreath onto Tonkin you can turn right and onto Gt Eastern Hwy or left onto Leach Hwy.
That's one Hwy but two options.
Redundancy.

Similar options from T1 - in fact more options.

Do any of you guys live in Perth? Have ever been there?
Airport access is not a problem and has not been a problem for some time.

The push back' regarding closure of Brearly Ave is mainly from local residents and maybe QANTAS.

Transition Layer
6th May 2018, 04:25
Exactly. Offer to remedy the situation by a certain date, get Qantas to agree to it, and in the mean time let Qantas do as they please form the facility on the Western Side so they have the strongest network to bring over once it’s complete.
:D Spot on

Traffic_Is_Er_Was...

Have you been through T1 in Perth lately? The Virgin domestic stuff is very nice indeed but the International section is pretty depressing. You have to carry your bags down 2 flights of stairs from the gate to the aircraft...what other first world country would design something as stupid as that? QF Lounge facilities also very basic. Apart from the obvious issue of connections, it’s no wonder Qantas pushed and will continue to push for T3 expansion.

I have have no doubt Qantas will jump at the chance to move into a new facility on the T1 side but only when it can support their domestic AND international movements. Until then, they should be allowed to do as they please on the other side. PAPL should get over it and move on, and get cracking on the T1 infrastructure (including new runway and taxiways!).

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
6th May 2018, 07:40
More pax going through the International means PA have more leverage to negotiate better retail contracts within the Terminal ie make more money per pax. Pax in T1 will be spending their money in the QF universe, PA will see none of it. Not being privy to whatever commercial deal PA have with QF, but you would think that it would be difficult to levy much of a passenger charge for pax that don't use your facilities ie PA lose money. Yes aircraft charges etc will still apply, but PA get that whatever terminal the aircraft goes to. It will be more difficult to finance T1 if you keep lettting new services operate elsewhere. PA would want an iron-clad guarantee that QF would move across before they spend a cent. Even then I'd be pretty wary, especially if QF had a few years to settle in to their T3 routine. QF do not do change very well. PA can see themselves getting painted into a corner not of their own making. They can thank the WA government for that. Perhaps Joyce will ground the airline if he does not get what he wants? He's got form.
(T1) QF Lounge facilities also very basic
Who's fault is that? They obviously didn't care too much about their existing international pax then.

QF want the "seamless" concept to work, because they are trying desperately to hide the fact that it is 5 hrs and 2 time zones from civilization before most of their customer base can use the "Western Hub".

Icarus2001
6th May 2018, 08:38
They obviously didn't care too much about their existing international pax then.

Too right. Until about two maybe three years ago there were NO QF international destinations from Perth. I don't mean code share I mean a QF airframe flying a QF route.

BuzzBox
6th May 2018, 09:02
Until about two maybe three years ago there were NO QF international destinations from Perth.

That's not quite true. Some years ago, QF had a bunch of international destinations out of PER, but competition and the DXB experiment killed them all off. As I recall, they flew to JNB, HRE, DPS, CGK, SIN, KUL, BKK, HKG (via SIN) & NRT. Any others?

Icarus2001
6th May 2018, 09:43
That is correct, USED to. There was I would guess at least a decade there with NO QF international sectors departing Perth.

Quick quiz, how many carriers service Perth - Bangkok? One. Thai Airways

What about Kuala Lumpur? Three, all based in KL.

QF just pulled out, crying we cannot compete, their costs are so low, blah blah blah

Ex FSO GRIFFO
6th May 2018, 10:43
Ha Ha Ha Wingnut.....
What part of 'Tonkin H'way' didnya get?

Goin' IN or a comin' OUT....what's the Last / First road.. ?
Hint....Begins with the letter 'T'....

One 'organised' blockage or just an unfortunate accident, and it could be chaos, very quickly.

Luckily, us 'locals' do know about 'Fauntleroy'....is it still open?

Re your 'Redundancy'.....Oi know ALL about THAT!!

Thanks Dick...........Cheeerrrsss...

Awol57
6th May 2018, 11:07
Fauntleroy and Gorgan roads are both still open. Tonkin Hwy is just the major access point

BuzzBox
6th May 2018, 11:08
There was I would guess at least a decade there with NO QF international sectors departing Perth.

[email protected]! There has definitely been a long term decline in the number of QF international flights out of PER, but they only stopped operating to SIN in 2014 and HKG in 2013 (as I recall). The SIN flights only stopped for about 12 months.

Qantas: Farewell Perth, thanks for the loyalty ? opinion | Australian Aviation (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/05/qantas-farewell-perth-thanks-for-the-loyalty/)

angryrat
6th May 2018, 11:14
I don’t get why some on here feel sorry for PA, or feel it’s necessary to berate QF for wanting a world standard transfer from Domestic to International for their pax. I see we are comparing bus transfers to SYD and BNE while the reality is we should be comparing it to SIN, HKG and DXB where you don’t go leaving the terminal area. I hear it in everyday life where we all complain about our nationwide third world infrastructure, yet here we have people arguing that QF should accept third world infrastructure.

To to top it off, I see those who argue for PA saying, poor old PA aren’t able to maximise revenue. Oh cry me a river! Last time I looked, PA were doing just fine making $172m profit on $515m revenue. That’s a whopping 34c in every dollar of charges that get passed onto pax that is pure profit for PA.

Arthur D
6th May 2018, 11:21
Well said Angry!

Perth airport are putting customers and the state economy second to their strategic agenda.

Thats is what you get when Government creates monopolies.

Keg
6th May 2018, 11:34
I guess that depends on your definition of 'medium term'. I understand PAC is desperate to get moving on the new pier at the eastern end of T1, to be followed by the development of a new terminal for QF next to T1. Their 'plan' is to have that completed by 2025. I suspect that PAC believes their business case for making that happen will be undermined if they allow QF to keep pushing their international services across to T3/T4. That would then slow down PAC's plans to consolidate all the terminals within the Central Precinct.

So Qantas needs to put up with sub optimal outcome for at least the next six years. Yep. I’d call that solidly medium term and getting close to ‘long term’.

Qantas would be insane to NOT make the move to the expanded T1combined precinct if it provided them with better facilities than what they currently have access to at T3/ T4. The reality is that those facilities do not currently exist at T1 and it’s ludicrous for PAC to expect QF to accept a sub standard outcome for the next 6 years. Things like taking an hour to get the aeroplane between the terminals (in addition to the normal transit issues) is enough to kill a business case.

GoldCoastTobacconist
6th May 2018, 12:33
DFO is coming along nicely though and Costco soon .... meanwhile T1 Bay 56A/B are standoff.

topend3
6th May 2018, 13:42
Can see by 2025 QF services out of Perth will have been wound up by then when they get a frame capable of going SYD and MEL to Europe direct !

WingNut60
6th May 2018, 13:53
Ha Ha Ha Wingnut.....
What part of 'Tonkin H'way' didnya get?

One 'organised' blockage or just an unfortunate accident, and it could be chaos, very quickly.


I really have no idea now what you're on about.
Access out through Dunreath is a piece of cake; in fact, you can even get back onto Brearly if you really want to.

Previously all traffic was out onto the Gt Eastern Hwy, either by way of Brearly or Fauntleroy.
Now you can get out onto either Gt Eastern Hwy or Tonkin and you can turn either way on Tonkin to get into town.
I can guarantee you that I would not be trapped by an organised blockage (what is that anyway).


Luckily, us 'locals' do know about 'Fauntleroy'....is it still open?

Certainly is. But you can't backtrack from the terminals to get onto it.
You need to go via a couple of roundabouts. Connects down where the Midland Tech Annexe and the Winjeel used to be, at the other end of Dunreath.



Thanks Dick...........Cheeerrrsss...

Are you by any chance confusing me with Dick from Nyaman / Heavilift?

Fauntleroy and Gorgan roads are both still open. Tonkin Hwy is just the major access point

Grogan and Horrie Miller and the T1 / T2 extension from Leach Hwy.

givemewings
6th May 2018, 14:31
Until about two maybe three years ago there were NO QF international destinations from Perth

I must have been dreaming then when I operated SIN/DPS/CGK/HKG/NRT as late as 2010 then....

As for T1, the '2 flights of stairs' on departure is the same setup it was when I was 10 years old... which was in the 90s. It literally hasn't changed structurally since, just new carpet (that still smells)

A least for departures they upped their game with the ramps but boarding is very slow especially with a full A380 going back to DXB

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
6th May 2018, 14:57
or feel it’s necessary to berate QF for wanting a world standard transfer from Domestic to International for their pax. I see we are comparing bus transfers to SYD and BNE while the reality is we should be comparing it to SIN, HKG and DXB where you don’t go leaving the terminal area.
Ok, apples with apples, how many domestic to international transfers take place in SIN, HKG or DXB? International to international transfers or transits occur in the same terminal in Australia. JQ used to run their MEL-BNE-DPS or -HNL (and reverse) service through BNE International. QF could have done that in PER. The process is well established for handling Domestic components of International legs. That would have provided the seamless transfer they deemed so necessary. It would have prevented the towing of the aircraft between terminals. But QF didn't want that and held their breath until they turned blue and panicked the WA Government into donating $14M of taxpayers money to QF to give them what they wanted, rather than saying it can all be done for next to nothing using existing infrastructure.
Can see by 2025 QF services out of Perth will have been wound up by then when they get a frame capable of going SYD and MEL to Europe direct !
Forgot about Project Sunrise! Bye bye PER.

BuzzBox
6th May 2018, 23:27
Keg said:
I’d call that solidly medium term and getting close to ‘long term’.

Like I said, it depends on your definition; I'd call it 'medium term', given the airport's 20 year planning horizon. So your comment that PAC has no plans to remedy the T1 problem "in the short or medium term" is, by your own admission, not correct. That said, there is clearly a conflict between Qantas' short term plans/dreams and the longer term development of the airport. What's the solution? Should PAC pander to Qantas and potentially screw up its own plans, or is there a compromise that suits both parties? Why can't Qantas process its domestic passengers through T1, as it did when JNB flights operated through PER in the past?