For Qantas the service is a welcome change from the continued advance to the rear. Just so you are to clear to what we are referring to, the (Australian Government) BITRE data set shows the passengers ex Australia for all carriers. You can count them up yourself, suffice to say what Qantas surrendered, the others enjoyed carrying, particularly Emirates.

A daily service of a 787 needs to operate successfully on this route given the limitations specified, 1,652 times to make up the loss of passengers Qantas dealt itself in the first year of the Emirates 'Alliance'.

Qantas confirmed it is in “discussion with Perth Airport about a seasonal service to South Africa” and is “keen to expand” its “western hub concept with new destinations” (The West, 24-Apr-2018). Qantas and Perth Airport are reportedly at an impasse over a planned Perth-Johannesburg service, with the carrier wanting to use its international T3 operation and the airport wanting the airline to use the existing T1 international terminal. Qantas reportedly intends to operate a four times weekly service from 07-Dec-2018 to Apr-2019, using A330-200 equipment. Qantas stated the integration of its domestic and international operations at Perth Airport’s T3 has been “very successful so far” for its service to London Heathrow.

Perhaps Perth would rather put their money into common user facilities that all carriers can use, thus maximising their ROI, rather than facilities that only one carrier can use, and will lie idle if said carrier changes it's mind in the future.

you mustn't be well advised to say a B787 is anywhere related to a B767, a lot has changed since the 767 friend🤖

Major Australian airports have long standardised on separate International and Domestic terminals, as far apart as they can be, on opposite sides of the runways, with journeys of maybe several miles between them, and with no efficient means of getting between the two. It's like airport master planners have never been told by the airlines about transfer passengers.

True, except ADL, MEL, BNE, DRW, and in the future, Perth. So I guess you are only referring to SYD.

Garbage Morno! It's 2.2km and there's a free bus every 10 minutes during the day! FFS...

But Qantas don't want to move. That's the problem Perth is having. QF want it all under their roof, with their branding etc. Fine. Trouble is, the more they spend on setting that up, the harder it is to get them out later. I would also imagine that Perth do not want a "Qantas Airport" being established on their airport. There's no money in that for them.

Probably because when just about all of the major ports were being designed, there were hardly any international pax into and out of anywhere but SYD. There were also only two domestic airlines flying, neither of which had an international arm, and who usually had a dedicated end each of a common domestic terminal, or their own terminal. There were also very strict regs on what types of operations could occur on aprons and in buildings gazetted for international operations. It was probably easier just to separate them.

The "inept Perth Airport Managment" haven't failed at anything. When negotiations began, QF had not committed to the PER-LHR service, let alone any others. QF were trying to sell a sh*t sandwich (5hrs to PER before your 17hr flight to LHR) to the rest of the country as A GOOD THING, so the illusion that it was all one seamless flight was a major deal. PER has an International Terminal, and QF were happy to use it before. When PER stuck to their guns about the expense of modifying the Domestic for 1 potential QF service (and no firm commitments to any others), QF played the "Ohh, think of the lost jobs and tourism" card which the WA Govt fell for hook, line and sinker. So QF get what they want, they've moved their other International services out of the existing International terminal across to their own, so now they are completely self contained. All this just for a promise to move over to the International in 2025. Of course PER aren't building another Terminal yet. Why would they? QF are sitting tight for another 7 years. And do you think they will move even then, especially if they have began other destinations? They will be too entrenched. QF9 is mainly Domestic pax MEL-PER, and that could have been accommodated at the international (like QF do at all the other airports). QF had a few transits, which the existing International could have dealt with easily. QF's issue is that most join in PER (ie locals, so the transfers are irrelevant), or have to go to PER on other QF services and transfer, and that's what they are trying to pretend isn't happening. QF could have had much the same outcome, and saved themselves and the WA tax payers millions. But it was the "Gamechanger" after all.

It's not called the "State of Wait Awhile" for nothing!

The SAA flights go through the International Terminal. PA makes money out of thòse pax (shopping, dining, retail leasing etc.) QF services will go through QF terminal. QF will make the money. PA will see very little of it. If QF squeeze SAA out, then PA will lose even more revenue. That's why they are happy with the current arrangement. By being forced to allow QF basically a stand alone International/Domestic operation, PA are now pretty much in direct competition with one of their tennants. PA is dead right, QF will funnel the East coast pax through, just like the LHR pax. Its not about PER at all. It's just a tech stop.

If PA owns the airport - wouldn't they then be leasing the entire terminal to QF? Qf might (if the PA lease doesn't stipulate otherwise) sublease internally to other tenants, but PA would surely have the controlling 'ground lease'? After all, it's their dirt!

There is obviously a deal to be done and I appreciate what you say Traffic, but it seems very odd to me that a win/win can't be worked out. Joyce's bully boy attitude might be the problem??

From a well placed connection:

The Perth London sector suffers from:

• Tour of Duty Constraints
• Curfew Constraints (EGLL)
• Alternate curfew constraints
• Departure constraints. Suggestive of payload limit in warmer temperatures.

Given these constraints and we await operational data highlighting what appears to be a substantial performance limit, one may ponder why the service commenced when it did?
Later in the year (northern winter) Alternates (due curfew) in the Northern hemisphere will be hard to come by with a scheduled arrival into EGLL at 0500. London weather being what it is, Weather related holding may necessitate an early diversion as the hard limit of Tour of duty (20 hours) requires a diversion. How will Qantas then position crew, given the curfews?

Lost in the spin it is easy to overlook that strategic planning and understanding operational limitations are requisite for network design. It appears that at Qantas, the tail wags the dog; Corporate drive it, Operations catch on late.
This service will be quietly and steadily be hubbed through Singapore, as schedule integrity is impeded in the Northern winter. All due 'customer feedback' of course.

If they took it to the max weight, the fuel burn would be more?

QF service is intended to be seasonal? So they push SAA out who operate year round. Who does PA make money off when both QF and SAA aren't flying to JNB? Of course they are trying to protect their long term interests.
How do you know they are not? Just because they are not moving dirt? They could just be waiting for the best time to pull the trigger.
The trouble with Airlines and Airports is that the airlines can change their minds for multiple reasons. Airports are stuck with with what was built before the airline changed its mind. Before you build anything, you need to make bloody sure that you are going to get the use you expect out of it. Look at Auckland. They built the infrastructure to cope with 3 A380's arriving within hour. They used it for a while, then out of the blue, EK changed their mind. Three A380's to none. What does AKL do with the infrastructure now? What if QF decide the B787 isn't really working for them out of PER and switch it elsewhere. Airlines are fickle beasts. They can do it easily, and they do it all the time. It's just a marketing decision. You can't unbuild a terminal.

Yes but the "chance" of a diversion does not help the alternate requirements. :cool:

Why should the long suffering tax payer have to fund TWO CIQ bases at Perth airport?

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/...speed-records/

"The Qantas Boeing 787-9 Perth to London nonstop service is smashing speed records, with some flights beating the schedule by up to an hour.

Monday’s QF10 flight time from London to Perth was just 15 hours 45 minutes — one hour faster than published as the pilots hooked up with a strong jet stream.

The average speed for the journey was 938km/h but just before the descent into Perth, the plane was flying at 1114km/h."

More

If you are going to do cat 3 because of wx, then arrivals/departure rates will fall dramatically due to extra separation required. so there will be delays.

This mornings arrivals (today SUNDAY 29 April)...

0450 BA032
0505 QF009
0505 BA016
0505 IB4750
0525 BA034
0525 IB4625
0525 BA074
0530 BA023
0530 US207
0530 AA6446
0530 BA056
0530 IB4727

These are the first listed and stopping at 0530.

Thanks IsDon. Is there still a 20 minute holding fuel requirement at EGLL?

In this particular case, there was already zero risk. They had the capacity and infrastructure already. QF just did not want to use it. So it has cost QF shareholders and WA tax payers between them 40 million(?) to duplicate existing facilities. Whilst you can't "unbuild" terminals, you want to maximise the utilization and return on what you do have, just as airlines do with their aircraft. PA understandably do not want to see that eroded any further.