PERTH: It's All Going To Happen...
Historically, why are there separate International and Domestic terminals at Oz airports when internationally most airports combine the two? Towing aircraft on a turnaround between sectors seems a bit ineficient.
Remember landing at Bne when new Int. Terminal opened. Felt as though we were taxing into town! And if another 747 coming the other way, long delay waiting to enter Terminal link, as no parallel taxiway for access.
Remember landing at Bne when new Int. Terminal opened. Felt as though we were taxing into town! And if another 747 coming the other way, long delay waiting to enter Terminal link, as no parallel taxiway for access.
There wasn't a need to tow aircraft between terminals until the day one airline took over another and had both International and Domestic ops (and started using the same aircraft for both). Since then it has become more widespread, but the terminals were already built.
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?
The facilities are there, the airline wants to use them, passengers would benefit from the convenience, but Perth Airport won’t let them.
Your only argument for why they should force this annoyance on Qantas passengers is so Perth Airport can make even larger profits from the travelling public.
Is this the Professional Airport Owners Rumour Network?
Last edited by Beer Baron; 7th May 2018 at 10:58.
$14 million is peanuts. The BILLIONS WASTED by the Coalition recently highlighted in the “Royalties for Regions” inquiry demonstrates that plainly.
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?
Nunc est bibendum
Yep. And they’ve had to build in longer transit times to cover it. And sometimes it means their are routes they’d like to fly but can’t... so they don’t... like the decision they’ve now made about PER- JNB... to the detriment of Perth residents, probably ADL and DRW residents, and ironically probably PAC revenue and profit.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All other international airports use the same or adjacent (walking distance) terminals. MEL, ADL, DRW, OOL, CNS, CBR, (AVV, KTA...
)
I'm interested to know which entity will have to compensate the numerous businesses that have been allowed to set up shop on the eastern side of current T1 and which will have to relocate to make way for all this.
That would include QANTAS Freight and QANTAS catering, and numerous others.
That would include QANTAS Freight and QANTAS catering, and numerous others.
which will have to relocate to make way for all this.
But while your map shows the airside fence, the previous artists impression seems to indicate complete redevelopment east of Horrie Miller Drive down as far as Grogan Rd to the south.
And no matter what the leases say, I can't see the likes of TOLL, QANTAS and DHL walking away to another location without putting their hand out first.
You are correct, although what I meant was to move out of the Domestic airline of choice branded area of arrival, and into a separate, segregated common user facility, whether it be in the same building or another. I didn't phrase it very well.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK.
What the Federal Government decided, over 25 years ago, according to it’s mantra, was that airlines and airports should be privately and commercially operated.
They did this either because they conceeded they weren’t capable of doing it themselves, or that Australians would be better off that way. Either way, they’ve done it, and that’s what we have now.
The difference between privatisation of airports and airlines is that they gave the former a monopoly, and they gave the latter nothing - in fact they went out of their way to encourage competition against Australian owned or operated airlines, with zero concessions against the lower costs of foreign airline competition.
Each is now required to conduct it’s business in accordance with shareholder (or sole owner) returns.
No-one would disagree that airlines struggle to survive, particularly Australian ones. Australian airports, on the other hand, do not.
Qantas came up with an idea to streamline operations through it’s existing terminal, which would improve the experience for passengers, and help make it viable for their business. PA told them to get lost. But QF were prepared to spend money on it, and it was only through WA Govt pressure and a small amount of State funding that PA conceeded to it (or were required to conceed - I don’t know).
Now they want to add another flight that wasn’t included in the original written agreement, and PA are telling them to get lost again.
Don’t for one minute think that PA is “thinking of the children” here. They are behaving just how we are accustomed to how monopoly companies behave. They simply don’t see a dollar in it for them so they are saying “no” just because they can.
The only way a private monopoly can exist effectively for the people is through stringent regulation.
Perhaps the Govt needs to step in and pull in the reins a little bit.
What the Federal Government decided, over 25 years ago, according to it’s mantra, was that airlines and airports should be privately and commercially operated.
They did this either because they conceeded they weren’t capable of doing it themselves, or that Australians would be better off that way. Either way, they’ve done it, and that’s what we have now.
The difference between privatisation of airports and airlines is that they gave the former a monopoly, and they gave the latter nothing - in fact they went out of their way to encourage competition against Australian owned or operated airlines, with zero concessions against the lower costs of foreign airline competition.
Each is now required to conduct it’s business in accordance with shareholder (or sole owner) returns.
No-one would disagree that airlines struggle to survive, particularly Australian ones. Australian airports, on the other hand, do not.
Qantas came up with an idea to streamline operations through it’s existing terminal, which would improve the experience for passengers, and help make it viable for their business. PA told them to get lost. But QF were prepared to spend money on it, and it was only through WA Govt pressure and a small amount of State funding that PA conceeded to it (or were required to conceed - I don’t know).
Now they want to add another flight that wasn’t included in the original written agreement, and PA are telling them to get lost again.
Don’t for one minute think that PA is “thinking of the children” here. They are behaving just how we are accustomed to how monopoly companies behave. They simply don’t see a dollar in it for them so they are saying “no” just because they can.
The only way a private monopoly can exist effectively for the people is through stringent regulation.
Perhaps the Govt needs to step in and pull in the reins a little bit.
Last edited by Derfred; 8th May 2018 at 12:28.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet you begrudge another airline stepping in to meet demand “in season”. You obviously don’t have family in SA. What are you calling for, fully regulated international routes in/out of Aus?
Last edited by Derfred; 8th May 2018 at 14:17.
Nah Fred........They did it for the M O N E Y.............Just like 'they' did with Telstra...and with ......
They did it by selling properties / facilities OWNED by US, paid for by US, and then had the 'arse' to try and tell us that it would be to OUR benefit and cost US LESS.....
"Privatisation" is just like castor oil.... you know....Its GOOD for YOU!!!
And, it has the SAME EFFECT....!!!!
Wait till you get your electricity bill.....
No Cheers...NOPE...NONE at ALL!!!
Bah Humbug
They did it by selling properties / facilities OWNED by US, paid for by US, and then had the 'arse' to try and tell us that it would be to OUR benefit and cost US LESS.....
"Privatisation" is just like castor oil.... you know....Its GOOD for YOU!!!
And, it has the SAME EFFECT....!!!!
Wait till you get your electricity bill.....
No Cheers...NOPE...NONE at ALL!!!
Bah Humbug
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree totally.
But as I said, for whatever reason it was done, we are left with the result.
Now we are left with monopoly airports undermining sensible plans by Aussie airlines for no reason other than it doesn’t suit their monopoly business plan.
And we have Aussies here on this forum attempting to defend it.
Only in Australia...
But as I said, for whatever reason it was done, we are left with the result.
Now we are left with monopoly airports undermining sensible plans by Aussie airlines for no reason other than it doesn’t suit their monopoly business plan.
And we have Aussies here on this forum attempting to defend it.
Only in Australia...
At least Perth is getting a public train to the airport. What will the ticket price be though?
Does it go to the QF side or just the new side?
Airports in Aus..... all about the money, from car park revenue and beyond.
Does it go to the QF side or just the new side?
Airports in Aus..... all about the money, from car park revenue and beyond.
Perth - Forrestfield : 2 zones $4.70 full fare.
Same by bus.
Redcliffe station is about 1 km from T3/T4
Airport station is about 350 metres from T1
And that raises an interesting point, the bus, I mean.
For those staying at the motel strip along Gt Eastern Hwy, the bus or a taxi is still their best bet.
Very popular with Asean visitors - close to the Casino.
Last edited by WingNut60; 9th May 2018 at 11:10.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in Sydney it’s $14.30 above the cost of your ticket.
Once again, private monopoly owners attempting to price gouge the public. What they didn’t figure on, in Sydney anyway, was that people would refuse to pay such an over the top amount. Why would you?
if you’re traveling to the airport, you’re probably not alone. $28.60 plus the cost of the ticket from your home station goes a long way toward making a taxi fare reasonable.
This greedy logic resulted in the original consortium going broke, I believe, as nobody used the airport stations.
Now, the stations are virtually deserted. The only users are those that arrived at the station for the first time, and haven’t yet realised how much it’s going to cost them to actually enter the terminals. Or those that are going the other way and haven’t thought of a better option, yet. They will next time though.
I sincerely hope Perth, and Melbourne, aren’t gouged in this way by their new train systems. I know, tell him he’s dreaming.