Northern Australia could be opened to foreign airlines

[dr dre]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/27657467/northern-australia-could-be-opened-to-foreign-airlines/

[swh]

Its a good idea, with the retirement of the 767 from QF, DRW could do with more under floor freight capacity.

[BNEA320]

would it effect any existing commercial flights at all within OZ ?


Ok maybe DPS/TSV could be operated by an Indonesian carrier with stop in DRW & then they could sell DRW/TSV, as well as DPS/DRW & DPS/TSV.


or maybe some Asian low costs (eg. Air Asia X, Scoot, Cebu Pacific) might fly Asia/DRW/CNS.

What other flights would be effected ?


Some FIFO, eg. a foreign carrier could carry FIFO pax ex DRW to some mining towns, but are there any runways that service mines that could take widebodies ?


or A320's/B739's ?


Only ports north of tropic of Capricorn.

[Ejector]

Maybe AirAsia could do the Cape routes :ok:

[BNEA320]

maybe Indonesians will get 457 visas & work in the mines & do FIFO out of Indonesia flying in on Lion Air via DRW ?

[B772]

Years ago when BOAC/British Airways operated MEL-DRW-HKG-BKK etc etc to LHR it usually carried MEL-DRW domestic freight. The requirement being the freight had to be lodged by AN or TN.

[F.Nose]

Its a good idea, with the retirement of the 767 from QF, DRW could do with more under floor freight capacity.

Its a good idea to allow foreign airlines to fly Australian domestic......Are you kidding me??

What other country in the world allows this?

The lunatics have taken over the asylum!

[BNEA320]

we're talking all flights north of tropic of Capricorn.


eg. CNS/TSV or CNS/DRW or DRW/BME huge routes just like golden triangle(NOT).


The U.S. allows QF to fly LAX/JFK/LAX everyday, currently using a 744. Apparently never ever full (QF can't "sell" the sector except to people with a QF ticket in or out of the U.S. - but am told allowed to carry local freight)


A few foreign carriers are permitted to fly eg. CX YVR/JFK which is almost domestic.

[porch monkey]

Yeah, lets just keep giving **** away for nothing in return. :ugh::ugh:

[ANCDU]

Swh, I believe Jetstar are taking out a lot of freight underfloor on their BOC flights, don't know if it has taken up the slack of the 767 departure though.

And this is a crazy idea, thin edge of the wedge, for the first time in a long time I actually agree with QANTAS management!! Can't believe I just said that.

[Connaught]

its an affront to sovereignty, NO real country allows a foreign operator to conduct point to point travel within its borders, it would be like Emirates going Sydney direct to London for example

soon Garuda will have a base in Broome servicing the entire north, so much for the like of Rex, Air North and all other operators up there struggling to eek out a market

might as well put a for sale sign up on the lawn at parliament in Canberra FFS

wake up retards; a great many countries have marginal remote routes that need to be government subsidized for companies to operate to them, i mean would anyone here continue to do anything, let alone fly an airplane to a remote location if i was guaranteed to lose money every time

[1a sound asleep]

Its all over the press.

The recent Harper Review of competition policy recommended that air cabotage restrictions should be removed for all air cargo as well as passenger services to specific geographic areas, based on a permit system.

A government green paper on Northern Australia also raised the issue in the context of possibly cheaper travel for remote communities.

Bold plan to slash fares may take off for air travellers from Cairns | Cairns Post (http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/bold-plan-to-slash-fares-may-take-off-for-air-travellers-from-cairns/story-fnjpusyw-1227344153794)

[deadcut]

No doubt this will promote a positive reply from the travelers.

From the Cairns post facebook page one lady says:

"Can I got to Peru direct from cairns please instead of having to go to Sydney. It's an international airport for Christ sake. What a joke."

:D

[neville_nobody]

Can anyone imagine Asian LCC carriers sorting themselves on a CTAF or in Class G?

[Fruet Mich]

its an affront to sovereignty, NO real country allows a foreign operator to conduct point to point travel within its borders, it would be like Emirates going Sydney direct to London for example

Just like China airlines flying AKL-BNE and AKL-SYD?
Or like Emirates flying AKL-BNE/SYD/MEL and CHC-SYD?

I'm afraid these governments are not concerned with sovereignty these days, more concerned with free trade agreements.

[swh]

What other country in the world allows this?

Lots do, all of Europe, South America.

Eighth freedom (consecutive cabotage)
The unofficial eighth freedom is the right to carry passengers or cargo between two or more points in one foreign country and is also known as cabotage.[6]:31 It is extremely rare outside Europe. The main example is the European Union, which has granted such rights to all its member states. Other examples include the Single Aviation Market (SAM) established between Australia and New Zealand in 1996; the 2001 Protocol to the Multilateral Agreement on the Liberalization of International Air Transportation (MALIAT) between Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore; United Airlines "island hopper" route, from Guam to Honolulu, able to transport passengers within the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, although the countries involved are closely associated with the United States, the flag of United. Such rights have usually granted only where the domestic air network is very underdeveloped. A notable instance was Pan Am's authority to fly between Frankfurt and West Berlin from the 1950s to 1980s, although political circumstances, not the state of the domestic air network, dictated this - only airlines of the Allied Powers of France, the United Kingdom and the United States had the right to land aircraft in West Berlin.[citation needed][23] In 2005, the United Kingdom and New Zealand concluded an agreement granting unlimited cabotage rights.[24] Given the distance between the two countries, the agreement can be seen as reflecting a political principle rather than an expectation that these rights will be taken up in the near future. New Zealand had exchanged eighth-freedom rights with Ireland in 1999.

its an affront to sovereignty, NO real country allows a foreign operator to conduct point to point travel within its borders, it would be like Emirates going Sydney direct to London for example

You mean like EK going from Milan to New York ?

Self interest, at the expense of Australian lives and jobs, is alive in this idea. Besides all that, those carriers that would want to take advantage of this come from countries that hate our guts.

It is already costing Australian jobs. When you can fly a person or freight cheaper to Europe than to DRW or PER, it is costing the government and employers already a lot of money.

They had FIFO people coming in from South Africa cheaper to Port Headland than from the east coast.

[neville_nobody]

Lots do, all of Europe, South America

That's not really reflective of what is happening here, in that you have to be a member of that group to be able to fly in that region. EK or EY cannot turn up and start flying internally all over Europe next week in its aircraft.

What is being proposed in Australia would be like QF opening a base in London or Santiago and flying internally with feed from it's international flights. Try that on in Europe and see how much they believe in a 'free market'.

Second to all this is the onerous regulatory environment that we operate under in Australia. That is a cost to the business that all these international operators won't have to deal with. A simple example would be FA ratios. An Australian operator in a A320 would have to fly with 4 FA's as minimum, where as a US registered operator would only need 3.

The Australian government don't know if they are Arthur or Martha. On one hand they regulate Australian Businesses into oblivion then in the next sentence allow anyone anywhere in the world with none of the regulatory burdens that we have carte blanche.

Then you have the whole issue of foreign companies bypassing taxation and foreign depreciation laws and compulsory super etc etc etc.....

[swh]

EK or EY cannot turn up and start flying internally all over Europe next week in its aircraft.

neville_nobody,

Many airlines operate internal flights in Europe, eg LAN operates Madrid to Frankfurt. It is less common these days for tag flights as aircraft have the legs to do direct, however the history is there and still goes on today.

Qantas many moons ago used to operate Athens to Belgrade, Athens to Rome, Athens to Paris, Vienna to Frankfurt to Amsterdam. San Francisco to Vancouver. They even used to operate Darwin to Bangkok.

Cathay had for years operated Adelaide to Melbourne, and Cairns to Brisbane.

[BNEA320]

CX can't sell domestic legs in isolation.


But the point here is, only for flight above tropic of Capricorn(toc), which probably limits all flights to ROC, (if north of TOC), MKY, TSV, CNS. DRW, BME.


Who would want to fly internationally into one of these ports via another of these ports ?


Maybe some Indo carrier from DPS to ROC, MKY or BME once a week in a B737 or A320 via DRW, where they could also sell the domestic leg in isolation.


Don't think there would be much demand except if they did FIFO flights DRW/some port in WA that could handle that size of aircraft.


Not talking anything south of TOC.


FYI
have flown on a NH 744 & a PX 763 on a BNE/SYD sector on a Ansett/Qantas ff ticket, but don't think this type of thing happens anymore.

[neville_nobody]

Many airlines operate internal flights in Europe, eg LAN operates Madrid to Frankfurt. It is less common these days for tag flights as aircraft have the legs to do direct, however the history is there and still goes on today.

I think you will find these countries have reciprocal rights. Just because LAN has permission does not mean anybody can do it. As I said EK can't just fly around Europe as they please.

What the Australian government is doing is allowing unregulated foreign carriers to operate domestically in Australia without any reciprocation for Australian airlines.

At the end of the day BNEA320 is right where are they going to fly domestically anyway?

[swh]

Just because LAN has permission does not mean anybody can do it. As I said EK can't just fly around Europe as they please.

As I demonstrated, Qantas had already done it in the past. you need to apply for it, but you need to apply for any route. Qantas had also in the past operated domestic legs in Asia (not recently).

Off the top my head, tags that Emirates do include SIN-BNE, BKK-HKG, MXP-JFK, MLE-CMB.

Many European and Asian airlines have done tags in Australia, Thai also was operating BNE-SYD-BKK not that long ago.

without any reciprocation for Australian airlines

The access Qantas was given in the past, and the Asian Jetstar franchise controlled in Australia makes that hypocritical.

Airlines in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and Hong Kong are not allowed to operate flights beyond Australia, however Australian carriers are from their countries.

At the end of the day BNEA320 is right where are they going to fly domestically anyway?

The logical places would be BNE/SYD/MEL/ADL/PER, however there needs to be a business case for the additional expense to stop.

[F.Nose]

Many European and Asian airlines have done tags in Australia, Thai also was operating BNE-SYD-BKK not that long ago.



Maybe but they were carrying passengers BNE-BKK not letting them off in SYD.

As for the argument "its only north of the tropic of Capricorn'. This is 2015 not 1942 and the Germans/Japanese lost the war. North of the tropic of Capricorn is thankfully still part of Australia. Australian airlines are under enough pressure without this b*llsh*t.

[BNEA320]

Quote:
At the end of the day BNEA320 is right where are they going to fly domestically anyway? The logical places would be BNE/SYD/MEL/ADL/PER, however there needs to be a business case for the additional expense to stop.


Last time I looked BNE, SYD, MEL, ADL & PER were all south of Tropic of Capricorn so don't apply.

[ANCPER]

SWH,

I think you'll find that Thai doing BNE_SYD_BKK means they can through carry the BNE pax to BKK, just as CX does/did ADL/MEL/HKG as well as BNE/CNS/HKG. It's not approval carry pax just between the domestic ports. I doubt QF is carrying domestic pax LAX/JFK.

Many airlines have had approval to do similar over the yrs.

[PoppaJo]

Depends on each carriers terms and conditions.

In regards to QF's LAX-JFK, if booked as a "multi city" trip, you can have the domestic bit as a stopover. I did MEL-LAX, stayed in California for a few days, then continued the LAX-JFK-LAX portion of my trip. Alot cheaper than booking the transcon separately, cheapest was $450 return on Virgin America, Qantas fare was only $1300 right through.

[Derfred]

No, it depends on the rules of the land.

You can fly transcon on QF because it's a tag sector of your international flight. But someone else can't buy the transcon separately on QF. They have to go to an American carrier. That's the whole point.

[ANCPER]

Yeah, but you're not a US national. You are on an international flight stopping over in NYC, not an American national buying a domestic ticket LAX_JFK!

What is being proposed here is allowing a foreign carrier to stop over in the north, pick DOM pax up and carry them to another port in Oz. I doubt there'll be that much interest in this unless there is some other carrot involved.

[BNEA320]

it could help open some very thin routes, eg.


DPS/DRW/MKY (once a week ?)


DPS/DRW/HTI (once a week ?)


DPS/DRW/PPP (once a week ?)


DPS/DRW/ROK (is ROK airport in the tropics or just south ?)


+ add extra services to


DPS/CNS with stop in DRW


+ DPS/DRW or DPS/BME or DPS/PHE with extension that could be an RPT flight but carry some FIFO's.


all carrying freight & be able to sell OZ domestic sectors. Some people on this forum are getting all exited about nothing.


Probably would only effect FIFO operators with routes solely north of tropic of Capricorn & into ports that could handle a B737 or A320.

[Australopithecus]

And not to put to fine a point on it, that would leave which carriers to leap into these marginal routes with insufficient frequency to support advertising, ground staff, training, etc.?

This is an ill-concieved scheme that ignores all of the basic rules of both government and the marketplace.

[BNEA320]

it's probably more about freight than passengers.


We need to ship a lot of foodstuffs to indo & rest of Asia.

[BNEA320]

with TT now looking at AKL, where would they fly from in OZ ? TSV ?


Doubt if VA/NZ want them competing directly.


Or maybe they might take over some of the thinner routes ?


Will the alliance allow that ?


Mean TT is 100% owned by VA now.

[neville_nobody]

Dr John Hewson has gone one step further today calling for any international airline to fly domestically anywhere in Australia.

Not really a balanced playing field if you look at the cost involved with running a foreign airline vs an Australian one. How does an Australian airline compete with a ME carrier who doesn't pay tax? Or with Singapore with low taxes and favourable depreciation scheduling?

Not to mention the regulatory costs involved for an Australian Airline with CASA vs what foreign airlines go through?

Domestic air travel: an opportunity that is just flying past us | afr.com (http://www.afr.com/opinion/domestic-air-travel-an-opportunity-that-is-just-flying-past-us-20150525-gh90b9)

The Harper review of competition law and regulation has given the Abbott government another chance to reboot its drive for higher productivity and economic efficiency across Australia – something now becoming a vital national priority. Harper lays out a series of reforms that at no fiscal cost can drive incomes and jobs in these dying days of the mining investment boom. Done quickly, many of the benefits from reform can even start flowing in time for the election.

Take Harper's recommendation to cut the red tape that stops foreign airlines from carrying passengers and cargo domestically. Even though our large and sparsely populated economy suffers under the tyranny of distance, we ban competition that could help set it free. We risk missing out on benefiting from the boom in Asian air travel as their incomes rise and costs plummet. By the end of this decade forecasts suggest we might be receiving 9 million tourists a year, but that is out of nearly 700 million visitors to the entire Asia Pacific region.

The ban means foreign airlines must travel with empty seats and cargo holds between Australian cities – or not fly at all. This capacity could be offered very cheaply, particularly on routes where most flight costs are covered by international passengers.

The ban hurts regional areas more than major cities, since they already face limited competition, resulting in poor service at high cost. A recent Productivity Commission report found that most international visitors don't leave major cities. Indeed, the numbers going to tropical Queensland fell 20 per cent between 2006 and 2014. A recent parliamentary committee recommended allowing foreign planes that fly overhead between Perth and Singapore to stop at Christmas Island for business. Similar arguments apply to northern airports, where major foreign airlines would be much more likely to drop by on their southern routes if they were allowed to do domestic trade.

Some market participants argue that the demand is not there, particularly since many tourists don't want the inconvenience of international security and customs on a domestic trip. But then, you don't need the ban: just let the market decide.

Nor can safety or security justify the ban. These planes already fly to our major cities. Few Australians would be concerned about getting on a cheap Singapore Airlines flight from Melbourne to Sydney. Most outrageously, foreign airlines are already allowed to transport their own passengers domestically following a stopover. So while someone on an international ticket can spend time in Perth and get a cheap ticket to Melbourne, a domestic tourist can't. Similarly, Hong Kong restaurants benefit from cheap Cairns seafood that Brisbane restaurants can't, because there is a ban on the foreign airline unloading on the domestic stopover.

The ban can be relaxed, such as when Ansett collapsed, suggesting reform could be done without risking the Senate.

Things will eventually change. Europe deregulated in the late 1990s, leading to a boom in low-cost air travel and tourism. Our ASEAN neighbours are looking at doing the same. It's just a question of when, not if, we too will change. With Qantas back to profitability, the current regulatory framework increasingly looks like a farce. And just like comedy, timing is the secret of good government.

John Hewson, an economist, was federal leader of the Liberal Party of Australia from 1990 to 1994.

[porch monkey]

"With Qantas back to profitability". And there you have it. These F@ckwits see no further than that. What about the other participants in the domestic aviation industry? Who collectively employ more people than QF for a start. Yeah, I know, let's just sell the place off and kick back with our millions. :rolleyes:

[Tuner 2]

The AIPA submission on this issue is very thorough and well thought out - http://www.aipa.org.au/sites/default/files/aipa_letter_to_treasury_re_final_report_-_may_2015.pdf
:D

[27/09]

John Hewson, an economist, was federal leader of the Liberal Party of Australia from 1990 to 1994.

How about we get some cheaper foreign economists instead of the local expensive under worked plonkers who have no real business sense and no corporate conscience.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

A lot of this seems to be coming from an ideological push by certain individuals in the Government (eg Andrew Robb and Joe Hockey). Fair enough, but if we're going to be ideologically pure, let's extend it to government as well. Surely there are other countries which are better-governed than Australia, and other countries whose politicians are much cheaper than ours - none of those generous superannuation entitlements, travel and accommodation allowances, and so on. So as well as domestic aviation, let's outsource our goverment overseas as well. I'm sure Andrew and Joe won't mind a bit. :ok:

[neville_nobody]

Worth pointing out that Hewson is a member of the Trilateral Commission so I would suggest that he is not really interested in National Sovereignty issues on this matter. They are a globalist organisation so I would suggest that is the position he is coming from. Free trade, open borders, no impediments to business.

But of course this doesn't apply to higher echelons of business or government where we have to pay big money to get the 'best people available'.

[ozziekiwi]

Well here is another one out of CNS starting December

Philippine Airlines launches Manila-Cairns-Auckland flights - Australian Business Traveller (http://www.ausbt.com.au/philippine-airlines-launches-manila-cairns-auckland-flights)

Hasn't it already been opened up far and wide ?? I bet this is not the last either !!:uhoh:

[Derfred]

Yes, in fact why don't we just close all productive business in Australia, outsource all the work to Asia, and we can all become highly paid global economists. After all, economists contribute far more to a successful economy than those pesky unionised workers.

We would have 10 million fly-in fly-out workers from Asia on $5/week working in our coffee shops, our farms, and our boutique tailor shops making suits an economist would be proud to wear.

With 15 million economists in the country, we would become the global economic powerhouse. We would solve all the economic problems in the world. Australia, the go-to place for quality economic advice. After a short time we would surely then collectively agree (with John Hewson as PM) that we would be better off outsourcing all our economist labour to Asia, and then we could all retire as wealthy retired economists.

The Air Asia Australia A380s would be packed full of retired economists in and out of Hamilton Island 20 times per day. The golf courses full of retired economists with their Filipino caddys.

What a clever country we would be.

[EXEK1996]

I am with Derfred on this one.

.......sounds like DXB inc.....:D:D

[spleener]

Nice idea Derfred. I was going to suggest the golf caddies be restricted to Filipinas. But, upon reflection, you may have been correct anyway...

[Wunwing]

One of the reasons cabotage didnt work on previous attempts is the stupidity of injecting domestic pax into the woefully inadequate international terminals along with the need for passports etc.

However (and I notice that Ben S also has suggested this), the sheer hypocrisy of the Minister and his minions in loading the whole industry with the plethora of Australia only Aviation regs in the name of safety and then saying its OK for our domestic pax to travel on carriers who dont have to work under a similar safety regeme.

To me its a choice Minister, get rid of our Regs or dont let carriers operate here domestically who dont fall under those regs. And yes I know that International carriers flying purely International also dont fall under most of the regs but they are here because of current treaties, cabotage carriers are not covered under current treaties.

Wunwing

[BNEA320]

flew few times on Qantas ff tix, BNE/SYD on PX 763 & also NH 744 BNE/SYD on an Ansett ff ticket.


Any Kiwi airline can fly domestically in Australia, AFAIK without having to deal with CASA at all.

[Derfred]

Incorrect, idiot.