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

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

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

[Capn Bloggs]

Biffo Round 2...

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-]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Derfred]

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]

Originally Posted by Derfred

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]

Dee Vee has it. Discussed somewhat at the end of this Perth to London. 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]

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]

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]

Which is what happens with a monopoly.

[Derfred]

Originally Posted by Dee Vee

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]

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]

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

[Beer Baron]

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]

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.