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

[BuzzBox]

There was I would guess at least a decade there with NO QF international sectors departing Perth.

Bullsh@t! 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

[Arthur D]

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]

Originally Posted by BuzzBox

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]

DFO is coming along nicely though and Costco soon .... meanwhile T1 Bay 56A/B are standoff.

[topend3]

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]

Originally Posted by Ex FSO GRIFFO

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?

Originally Posted by Awol57

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Keg]

Originally Posted by topend3

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 !

I was at a presentation the other day that showed some of the international routes they are considering for PER. More to PER than the 9/10 to LHR. Of course it needs to be a decent connection for both pax and aircraft utilisation.

[topend3]

Great Keg hope I’m wrong then!

[Keg]

Originally Posted by BuzzBox

Keg said:

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

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

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

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

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

[maggot]

They just want it to be as seamless as possible

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

[BuzzBox]

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

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

[neville_nobody]

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

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

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

[Keg]

Originally Posted by BuzzBox

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

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

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

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

​​​​​​​Great job PAC.

[Icarus2001]

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

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

This is NOT a MEL- PER- JNB service- or SYD or BNE.

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

[Keg]

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

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

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

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

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

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

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