Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

commercial flights into Cooma ?

Wikiposts
Search
Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

commercial flights into Cooma ?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 1st Apr 2015, 23:01
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
commercial flights into Cooma ?

News this week that massive Vail Resorts in USA(Vail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge, Keystone, Park City & many more ski resorts) are buying Perisher, the biggest ski area in southern hemisphere for AUD$176.6 million from Packer.


Since Brindabella fell over in Dec 2013, there have been no commercial flights into Cooma(OOM).


At same time QF & VA have reduced weekend capacity into CBR.


So surely, new owners will be looking to make it easier for people to get to Perisher & not just talking about people from Sydney basin.


Australian ski resorts seem to have been suffering, while in New Zealand, especially to Queenstown, flights have been booming.


There is now a Perisher season pass for something like AUD$750 for an adult & less for youth & kids, which also includes unlimited skiing at all of their US resorts, except US holidays & limited to 10 days maximum at Vail/Beaver Creek.


There has been some talk of reviving flights into OOM from SYD & elsewhere.


Many years ago Air NSW(Ansett) used to fly regularly SYD/OOM/SYD using a 68 seater F28-4000 & think it was many times a day Fri-Sun in winter & at least daily rest of year. They also did a Sun service BNE/OOM/BNE in winter only using same aircraft.


Vail Resorts is so big, they underwrite flights into Vail airport & not talking small jets, but rather A319's & B752's, many times a day.


So surely, there must be a carrier who would want to operate flights into OOM, especially if Vail Resorts, were to underwrite the flights, evenif not completely.
BNEA320 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2015, 23:20
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BNE, Australia
Posts: 311
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Another opportunity for Jetgo perhaps
chuboy is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2015, 23:47
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
stupidly, all of Jetgo aircraft have MTOW of exactly 20t or more, so require full security.


If MTOW was even 1kg less on the 20t aircraft, they wouldn't.


CASA will not budge on this apparently.


Similarly with Virgins & Alliances F50, which come in around 20,800 kgs, whereas a Dash 8-300 comes in about 19,800 kgs.
BNEA320 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 00:00
  #4 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 78
Posts: 1,480
Received 19 Likes on 14 Posts
Back in the 80s we changed MTOW in the C550 AFM to 5700kg so that we could operate into ALAs.

Any reason why an amendment to the AFM reducing the MTOW to 19999kg could not be done.

I know it would come with a operational penalty. The loss of revenue may not however outweigh the cost of the extra security.
601 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 00:06
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
was told the aircraft manufacturer would have to "recertify" aircraft at new MTOW (basically too hard).


In Jetgo's case, the means Embraer. Not sure if that means aircraft would actually have to go back to Brazil, but would be surprised.




Was also told that both VA & Alliance have been trying to get their F50's a dispensation from CASA, for years without success.


Crazy that a 50 seater Dash 8-300 needs no security, but a 50 seater F50 does.


+ look at the fight Rex has been having at DBO because QF now flies in, with a Dash 8-400 which is over 20t, but Rex's Saab aren't, but council is charging Rex for security, even though they don't need it or want it.


Might not sound like a lot of $$$ but over a year, it adds up.
BNEA320 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 00:54
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,289
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why not have the security for RPT jet and nothing for turbo prop. The weight break is crazy especially when two different types of aircraft with same number of pax but because they are different weights, one needs security and one doesn't.

Then again you guys have always done it better than the rest of the world.
27/09 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 01:56
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There's also the commercial viability of any such route to question. Comparing skiing in the US and here in Mr Keating's @rse end of the world is like apples to mouse poop. Ski magazine in the US has an annual 'Top 100' issue, ie Top 100 resorts for snow, for off-piste, for terrain, for accessibility, etc across all resorts in Nth America.

Australia has, what 8 ski fields in total? With the exception of Mt Hotham, how many of these are anywhere NEAR an airport? The nearest airport to Perisher, Cooma, is still 77km from the resort.

Vail is 50km from the nearest airport, Eagle County. Beaver Creek resort is closer. Go the same distance from Eagle County Airport that Perisher is from Cooma, you've also a bunch of other resorts.

Within 25km of Truckee Airport there are several resorts. Ditto Lake Tahoe Airport. Snowbird, Alta, Brighton, Park City, Canyons, etc are all within 50km of SLC. Etc etc etc across every part of the US that has skiing.

Whilst the acquisition of Perisher might make commercial sense for a ski resort like Vail, I can't see anyone trying again to make Cooma a viable destination for skiers and snowboarders.

But then again, we've seen sillier things, haven't we?
Like This - Do That is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 01:59
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
it's not the price sensitive market that wants convenience.


Cooma apparently made money for Brindabella, but was only for little less than 3 months of the year & have to find something for aircraft to do rest of year, which is probably why QF dropped MHU (ie make more doing year round to some other ports)
BNEA320 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.