WA Intrastate Air Services Review
Thread Starter
WA Intrastate Air Services Review
Towns fear losing air services : thewest.com.au
A story by journalist KM in the West Australian newspaper (link above) has once again taken up the cudgel for Skywest Airlines in spelling out an opinionated version of what may happen if that airlines' monopoly on coastal routes of WA is not preserved. Once again an opinion piece in the West is being passed off as a news and journalism. The article is factually incorrect by the suggestion that the monopoly routes only extend northwards from Esperance to Geraldton and makes no mention of the route to Exmouth (Learmonth) which is also one of the routes which Skywest enjoys for itself. I have heard that certain exploration and production companies using Learmonth are paying through the nose for the tickets they are forced to buy from Skywest and that they may in fact be propping up the whole Skywest RPT network. The monopoly provided on this route prevents those companies from chartering aircraft for their own use, and they are not happy. A real journalist would know all these aspects and report them in his articles. Why doesn't KM do so? If Skywest could not be contacted for comment, it would likely be a first time. This is sloppy work for a journalist and the industry in WA deserves better.
A story by journalist KM in the West Australian newspaper (link above) has once again taken up the cudgel for Skywest Airlines in spelling out an opinionated version of what may happen if that airlines' monopoly on coastal routes of WA is not preserved. Once again an opinion piece in the West is being passed off as a news and journalism. The article is factually incorrect by the suggestion that the monopoly routes only extend northwards from Esperance to Geraldton and makes no mention of the route to Exmouth (Learmonth) which is also one of the routes which Skywest enjoys for itself. I have heard that certain exploration and production companies using Learmonth are paying through the nose for the tickets they are forced to buy from Skywest and that they may in fact be propping up the whole Skywest RPT network. The monopoly provided on this route prevents those companies from chartering aircraft for their own use, and they are not happy. A real journalist would know all these aspects and report them in his articles. Why doesn't KM do so? If Skywest could not be contacted for comment, it would likely be a first time. This is sloppy work for a journalist and the industry in WA deserves better.
Last edited by flyingfox; 21st Apr 2009 at 10:34. Reason: Attribution
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In Transit
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like Skywest are trying to force the Intrastate review outcome with the new government by using GT and scaring local communities. I thought GT would have been smarter than this.
It was interesting to read the articles on deregulation in the states and the Austrailian domestic market the week before, buttering everyone up for this weeks stupidity. I guess that those at SkyWest are a little worried about competition...... And PD can see the writing on the wall and is bailing.
It was interesting to read the articles on deregulation in the states and the Austrailian domestic market the week before, buttering everyone up for this weeks stupidity. I guess that those at SkyWest are a little worried about competition...... And PD can see the writing on the wall and is bailing.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: west australia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard that journos sometimes purposely report some detail incorrectly (the northern routes in this case) in order to make it appear that the piece is not just a regurgitation of comments direct from the subject (ie in this case, Skywest).
Several years ago, this journo wrote nothing but scathing, derogatory reports on NJS. NJS then took a very deliberate strategy to butter him up, tickets, dinners etc. This worked a treat and NJS started to get great press, and the crap press moved to Skywest and others "non-NJS". (Anyone who has been at NJS for some time will clearly remmeber this - It was a considered a coup for HD)
Then guess what, someone left NJS and moved to Skywest, and then lo and behold, NJS starts getting crap coverage again and Skywest gets the glowing reports.
It is so very blatant. What was that scandal with the east coast radio guys, "cash for comments"? I'm not suggesting this is cash, but certainly it is "perks for comments".
Several years ago, this journo wrote nothing but scathing, derogatory reports on NJS. NJS then took a very deliberate strategy to butter him up, tickets, dinners etc. This worked a treat and NJS started to get great press, and the crap press moved to Skywest and others "non-NJS". (Anyone who has been at NJS for some time will clearly remmeber this - It was a considered a coup for HD)
Then guess what, someone left NJS and moved to Skywest, and then lo and behold, NJS starts getting crap coverage again and Skywest gets the glowing reports.
It is so very blatant. What was that scandal with the east coast radio guys, "cash for comments"? I'm not suggesting this is cash, but certainly it is "perks for comments".
Flying fox, I went to the link you posted, it appears, (unless Im mistaken), that the article was not written by GT but Kim Macdonald.
Personalities and company politics aside, what do people think, should the W.A. market remain partially regulated, or should it become wholly deregulated?
Personalities and company politics aside, what do people think, should the W.A. market remain partially regulated, or should it become wholly deregulated?
As has been played out on the world financial markets complete deregulation and free markets do not work.
WA is a big place with a sparse population that requires a reasonable standard of airservice to support the mining, pastoral and tourism industries. Is it not better for one operator to monopolise some of these routes and make a reasonable buck rather than multiple cutting each others financial throats?
WA is a big place with a sparse population that requires a reasonable standard of airservice to support the mining, pastoral and tourism industries. Is it not better for one operator to monopolise some of these routes and make a reasonable buck rather than multiple cutting each others financial throats?
flyingfox : bias and lies
i am quite open about my slant/view's on aviation but flyingfox your stated comments take the cake : your post start's with a lie and then bend's/twist's and distort's the truth !
you can't even get the journo correct and your other statement's are either false or half-truth's !
let's hear who you represent and where you get your supposed facts from !
cheers
mustard
you can't even get the journo correct and your other statement's are either false or half-truth's !
let's hear who you represent and where you get your supposed facts from !
cheers
mustard
Thread Starter
Humble Pie.
I stand corrected in attributing this article to GT. His was the accompanying article about 'Open Skies' in WA on the same aviation page. I appologize for the incorrect attribution. However, I stand by my other remarks and now have a second WAN journalist to watch for poor reporting.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm strongly for status quo - partially regulated. The current operation ensures good and reasonable sized aircraft to a number of towns that would otherwise only justify something small (and infrequent).
There is a good lesson from NSW about full deregulation and how to destroy your intra-state air service. Not a pretty story. The difference is that NSW is (a) small and (b) has a train service to many country towns. WA is (a) large, and (b) has no train service except to Kalgoorlie [7 hours trip] and Bunbury [too close to fly to]. The collapse of intrastate services in WA would be a much more serious problem than in NSW.
I liken this to a farmer's co-operative. If a group of farmers get together, they can buy a flour mill or a bulk handling facility, and run it as a co-op for all their benefit. Same for aircraft. If a group of towns get together, they can buy a large comfortable aircraft and run it as a co-op for all their benefit. In this case, it is the WA Gov'n that is forcing the "co-op" as a regulated single operator but it is still to everyone's benefit.
And before anyone jumps in about the F50 not being good and reasonable sized, I'll stake my years of experience of flying the QueenAir to Esperance (unpressurised, piston, no toilet), the Metro to Albany (nasty), the Chieftain to Monkey Mia . . .etc etc. Give me the F50 pressurised, turbo-prop, 4 abreast seats, toilet, hosties, meal, coffee and cold beer any day. And the current operator fares are reasonably priced.
I've got no connection to the present or any operator, but I'm going to be one of the people that suffer if deregulation goes ahead.
There is a good lesson from NSW about full deregulation and how to destroy your intra-state air service. Not a pretty story. The difference is that NSW is (a) small and (b) has a train service to many country towns. WA is (a) large, and (b) has no train service except to Kalgoorlie [7 hours trip] and Bunbury [too close to fly to]. The collapse of intrastate services in WA would be a much more serious problem than in NSW.
I liken this to a farmer's co-operative. If a group of farmers get together, they can buy a flour mill or a bulk handling facility, and run it as a co-op for all their benefit. Same for aircraft. If a group of towns get together, they can buy a large comfortable aircraft and run it as a co-op for all their benefit. In this case, it is the WA Gov'n that is forcing the "co-op" as a regulated single operator but it is still to everyone's benefit.
And before anyone jumps in about the F50 not being good and reasonable sized, I'll stake my years of experience of flying the QueenAir to Esperance (unpressurised, piston, no toilet), the Metro to Albany (nasty), the Chieftain to Monkey Mia . . .etc etc. Give me the F50 pressurised, turbo-prop, 4 abreast seats, toilet, hosties, meal, coffee and cold beer any day. And the current operator fares are reasonably priced.
I've got no connection to the present or any operator, but I'm going to be one of the people that suffer if deregulation goes ahead.
Thread Starter
I don't think full deregulation will work either. However the layout of the routes and the opportunity for the 'Coastal Towns' routes to change hands at the end of each regulated period needs to be available to keep the incumbent/s on their toes and focused. Mixing the routes on RPT/charter, jet/turboprop, regulated/unregulated, tourist/industry grounds needs contrivance of great cleverness if the needs of the predominant users is to be served. History has shown that local operators who reach too far will inevitably ignore the needs of their original clients. Their aircraft mix will move to types not suited to their initial task and for which the regulation was created. This is not necessarily acceptable to the mining industry, RPT users or other aviation operators. This is a big state and the needs of industry and private passengers can be quite different.
In regard to my original post regarding a certain journalist, I believe we may now have a situation of the ventriloquist and a ventriloquists doll. To see what I mean, have a look at the newspaper page in question regarding it's layout and content. Only time will tell but the situation needs watching. In WA there is still only one newspaper outlet of any substance which is covering State aviation issues to the public. Good, unbiased reporting is desperately needed. Keep them honest here on Pprune by drawing attention to biased and misleading articles.
In regard to my original post regarding a certain journalist, I believe we may now have a situation of the ventriloquist and a ventriloquists doll. To see what I mean, have a look at the newspaper page in question regarding it's layout and content. Only time will tell but the situation needs watching. In WA there is still only one newspaper outlet of any substance which is covering State aviation issues to the public. Good, unbiased reporting is desperately needed. Keep them honest here on Pprune by drawing attention to biased and misleading articles.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be interesting: With Skyairworld crying they wanted deregulation in WA then went Tango Uniform means that hopefully they should sit up and see...
Fair enough - limit competetion, but give more routes out to different companies
Fair enough - limit competetion, but give more routes out to different companies
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deregulation would have definitely not helped Sky or the WA community. Was just another CEO furfy to be honest. Depending on the route it can work either way with regulation or not. Each route should be taken on it's own merit.
( still )
prior to the current arrangement i am not sure kalbarri was on a regular RPT service. If it can't sustain 200 pax per month it's debatable whether it can sustain a regular air service of this type. Maybe the locals have to drive to Geraldton, happens in many other towns...
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AUS
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regulation
Why would deregulation hurt WA?
In the pre regulated environment Kalbarri, Shark bay and others all had services. In fact some towns had better servcies than now, its just that they have forgotten.
If the routes are to thin to support competition then if any did try someone would fail and the other would be OK.
Since when did we elect a governement to pick who is going to win?
If the RPT operators in WA were restricted to only RPT flights I woudn't mind so much but by both regulated companies have significant charter contracts.
So you cant have it both ways....either regulate and stick to RPT or compete for charter contracts and loose protection!
In the pre regulated environment Kalbarri, Shark bay and others all had services. In fact some towns had better servcies than now, its just that they have forgotten.
If the routes are to thin to support competition then if any did try someone would fail and the other would be OK.
Since when did we elect a governement to pick who is going to win?
If the RPT operators in WA were restricted to only RPT flights I woudn't mind so much but by both regulated companies have significant charter contracts.
So you cant have it both ways....either regulate and stick to RPT or compete for charter contracts and loose protection!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: XR Land
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetpipe does not make sense.
As i've stated before on this website these RPT contracts are just like any other contract. Wether it be for a mining contract a coastal survellance contract or any other contract, as long as a fair and equitable tender process is adhered too then the winner shouldn't be restricted to RPT alone. The best tender on the day wins the contract.
Should NJ be restricted from tendering for mining contracts because they've got the coastwatch contract? NO
Should Network be prevented from tendering for any other mining contracts because they've got the Nifty contract? NO
In fact the RPT contracts are a less attractive prospect because of the inherent risks of RPT and the fact they are not subsidised. Skywest or whoever wins takes all the risk.
Anyone can tender for the RPT networks and at the end of the day the most competative tender will win.
Cheers
As i've stated before on this website these RPT contracts are just like any other contract. Wether it be for a mining contract a coastal survellance contract or any other contract, as long as a fair and equitable tender process is adhered too then the winner shouldn't be restricted to RPT alone. The best tender on the day wins the contract.
Should NJ be restricted from tendering for mining contracts because they've got the coastwatch contract? NO
Should Network be prevented from tendering for any other mining contracts because they've got the Nifty contract? NO
In fact the RPT contracts are a less attractive prospect because of the inherent risks of RPT and the fact they are not subsidised. Skywest or whoever wins takes all the risk.
Anyone can tender for the RPT networks and at the end of the day the most competative tender will win.
Cheers