Virgin Blue May Build New Sydney Passenger Terminal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin Blue May Build New Sydney Passenger Terminal
Bloomberg
Sat, 27 Jul 2002, 03:56pm EST
Virgin Blue May Build New Sydney Passenger Terminal, Financial Review Says
By Mathew Carr
Brisbane, July 27 (Bloomberg) -- Virgin Blue Airlines Pty., Australia's No. 2 airline, is prepared to build its own Sydney passenger terminal to resolve a dispute over access to the nation's biggest airport, the Australian Financial Review said.
Brisbane-based Virgin Blue, the only major domestic competitor of Qantas Airways Ltd., wants to use part of the domestic terminal previously used by failed Ansett Holdings Ltd. The terminal hasn't been used since plans to revive Ansett failed in February.
Sydney Airports Corp., which manages the airport, wants Virgin to use terminal management computers and software that's not appropriate for a budget airline, delaying negotiations on access, the newspaper reported. U.K. entrepreneur Richard Branson and Australia's Patrick Corp jointly own Virgin Blue.
"This is an expensive platform devised for large, international airlines,'' the report quoted David Huttner, Virgin Blue's head of commercial operations, as saying of Sydney Airports' preferred management system.
Huttner wasn't immediately available to comment.
Virgin Blue may lose one flight a day for each of its jets, if it's forced to the technology platform preferred by Sydney Airports, the executive was quoted as saying.
Huttner said the airline wanted to use a different technology platform for its operations. Sydney Airports declined to comment, the newspaper said.
Sat, 27 Jul 2002, 03:56pm EST
Virgin Blue May Build New Sydney Passenger Terminal, Financial Review Says
By Mathew Carr
Brisbane, July 27 (Bloomberg) -- Virgin Blue Airlines Pty., Australia's No. 2 airline, is prepared to build its own Sydney passenger terminal to resolve a dispute over access to the nation's biggest airport, the Australian Financial Review said.
Brisbane-based Virgin Blue, the only major domestic competitor of Qantas Airways Ltd., wants to use part of the domestic terminal previously used by failed Ansett Holdings Ltd. The terminal hasn't been used since plans to revive Ansett failed in February.
Sydney Airports Corp., which manages the airport, wants Virgin to use terminal management computers and software that's not appropriate for a budget airline, delaying negotiations on access, the newspaper reported. U.K. entrepreneur Richard Branson and Australia's Patrick Corp jointly own Virgin Blue.
"This is an expensive platform devised for large, international airlines,'' the report quoted David Huttner, Virgin Blue's head of commercial operations, as saying of Sydney Airports' preferred management system.
Huttner wasn't immediately available to comment.
Virgin Blue may lose one flight a day for each of its jets, if it's forced to the technology platform preferred by Sydney Airports, the executive was quoted as saying.
Huttner said the airline wanted to use a different technology platform for its operations. Sydney Airports declined to comment, the newspaper said.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloody Sydney airport!
Think they are gods gift to aviation!
Why doesn't VB just build their own airport and charge whatever they want! Might seem like crazy idea but think about the savings in the long term!
Sure they would have to deck it out with everything from terminals, runways, tower, staff etc but even so it would work to their advantage.
The airports around the world are turning into present day Nazi's by trying to squeeze every dollar out of anything they can!
Is that what happened in the US with 3 airports around NY? Or is it due to volume?
Something to think about........
Think they are gods gift to aviation!
Why doesn't VB just build their own airport and charge whatever they want! Might seem like crazy idea but think about the savings in the long term!
Sure they would have to deck it out with everything from terminals, runways, tower, staff etc but even so it would work to their advantage.
The airports around the world are turning into present day Nazi's by trying to squeeze every dollar out of anything they can!
Is that what happened in the US with 3 airports around NY? Or is it due to volume?
Something to think about........
Evertonian
Gee, do you think people are starting to see through the continual DJ smokescreens?
hmm...the only way DJ will build another airport for themsleves is if some government does it all for them. This is a company, in a very short period of time, has had everything handed to them on a platter. As soon as someone gives them a bill, out comes Bratt or one of the other goons, and the whingeing begins.
hmm...the only way DJ will build another airport for themsleves is if some government does it all for them. This is a company, in a very short period of time, has had everything handed to them on a platter. As soon as someone gives them a bill, out comes Bratt or one of the other goons, and the whingeing begins.
Buster, your letting your bitterness over the collapse of AN show through.
What exactly has VB had handed to them on a platter?
The gates - those gates that were guaranteed to new start carriers when the FAC was set up years ago?
The customers - or guests as they call them? Virgin didn't go out and grab them by the scruff of the neck and shove them on board the aeroplanes.
The AOC - don't think so... The AOC that FLEW were setting up was a gimme, far more so than the AOC that Virgin earned.
Virgin was in the right place at the right time with the right product for the marketplace. Good fortune had a lot to do with it, but so did hard work on the part of a lot of people.
With regard the whinging about costs - had AN done some whinging and made a stand about their costs they might still be here today.
If you were getting your car fixed and the one mechanic in town charged $1000 bucks to just check the oil, you would whinge - you'd probably even set up your own garage and employ a mechanic and do the same job for $500......
What exactly has VB had handed to them on a platter?
The gates - those gates that were guaranteed to new start carriers when the FAC was set up years ago?
The customers - or guests as they call them? Virgin didn't go out and grab them by the scruff of the neck and shove them on board the aeroplanes.
The AOC - don't think so... The AOC that FLEW were setting up was a gimme, far more so than the AOC that Virgin earned.
Virgin was in the right place at the right time with the right product for the marketplace. Good fortune had a lot to do with it, but so did hard work on the part of a lot of people.
With regard the whinging about costs - had AN done some whinging and made a stand about their costs they might still be here today.
If you were getting your car fixed and the one mechanic in town charged $1000 bucks to just check the oil, you would whinge - you'd probably even set up your own garage and employ a mechanic and do the same job for $500......
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oztraya
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Z - it's called business. Branson has been suspected of being a bit kooky at times but making money is what he starts things to do.
What is the industry rate by the way? Doesn't the market rate set the industry rate? All you legally have to be paid is the minimum wage although can't see that many people driving a 737 for $413.40 a week.
What is the industry rate by the way? Doesn't the market rate set the industry rate? All you legally have to be paid is the minimum wage although can't see that many people driving a 737 for $413.40 a week.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Over 'ere
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....gawd, not another of those tin sheds. Now how does building a brand new building equate to a dollar odd (wasn't it?) per pax.... and seeing as they are already bursting at the seams, how long can they go (whilst it is being built) without grinding to a traffic jam halt?
Evertonian
Does it show???
I'm sorry Dehav, I was under the mistaken impression that the QLD government gave them a helping hand to start up. I was also mistaken about other state governments trying to do the same.
I was also under the impression that, for example, the express terminals were built by the airport owners. I didn't realise DJ paid for them.
The customers, well, I guess waiting a year for a seat on QF doesn't appeal to everyone. I'm sure there are people that actually choose to fly DJ first time, every time. Again, someone told me that all the loyal AN pax decided to stop flying when AN collapsed. That's obviously wrong too!
Why would FLEW's AOC be difficult to obtain? We are talking about a "new" owner of an established airline at the time.
Very true.
About costs. Well that's a huge issue to simplify in one sentence. Remember, QF are paying roughly the same as AN on that one & they seem ok to me. I could be wrong on that too!
As for the mechanic, yes, Branson wouldn't pay the $1000. He'd get someone else to open a shop for him, pay for the service & then he'd complain about that too!
I was also under the impression that, for example, the express terminals were built by the airport owners. I didn't realise DJ paid for them.
The customers, well, I guess waiting a year for a seat on QF doesn't appeal to everyone. I'm sure there are people that actually choose to fly DJ first time, every time. Again, someone told me that all the loyal AN pax decided to stop flying when AN collapsed. That's obviously wrong too!
Why would FLEW's AOC be difficult to obtain? We are talking about a "new" owner of an established airline at the time.
Virgin was in the right place at the right time with the right product for the marketplace. Good fortune had a lot to do with it, but so did hard work on the part of a lot of people.
About costs. Well that's a huge issue to simplify in one sentence. Remember, QF are paying roughly the same as AN on that one & they seem ok to me. I could be wrong on that too!
As for the mechanic, yes, Branson wouldn't pay the $1000. He'd get someone else to open a shop for him, pay for the service & then he'd complain about that too!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to put a little history on this subject here's some stuff I came across a while ago.....read it and you'll see why under the dead hand of past governments, there aren't many, many more jobs in the domestic industry....if you add to this stuff the preferential treatment given QF over many many years you'll see why there aren't many many more jobs in the industry as a whole. This sort of "picking winners and damning new entrants" costs jobs, it doesn't save them!
Read on.....
In 1985 the Report to the Hawke government on Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation (known as the May Report) pointed to infrastructure as one of the key issues surrounding the success of deregulation.....
* Provision of land and terminal facilities is essential if new operators are to emerge. If (the Commonwealth) cannot provide these facilities, either at the same standard as that offered to Australian Airlines and Ansett Airlines or on a level acceptable to the new operator, then fair competition will not be possible.
*It is these services and facilities that pose a potential problem: conceivably, they could result in differential treatment between airlines
May Report, Volume 2 Page 233-40
Only a handful of months later in October 1987 Senator Gareth Evans (then Minister for Transport and Communications) announced the end of regulation in a paper entitled Domestic Aviation: a new direction for the 1990s....
* One of the key aspects of the debate on deregulation, especially in the US and Canada, has been the issue of access to airport facilities
*...it is essential to provide new entrants with the opportunity to gain access to terminal facilities if there is to be real competition
*...it will be open to the FAC to make provision at its airports for a range of alternative facilities-which could range from low cost no frills facilities to high standard facilities as a means of providing further scope for competition from new entrants...
*...the Government intends that, in the absence of other available access facilities, any leases negotiated or re-negotiated with the existing airlines make reasonable and adequate provision for access of other operators.....
Domestic Aviation, Page 6
And barely was the ink dry on Gareths grand vision (it would have been good if it had happened!) when in December 1987 the Hawke government renegotiated terminal leases with Ansett and Australian Airlines.....
*The long term leases were negotiated directly by the Government and handed to the new Federal Airports Corporation as a fait accompli
*The leases allocated to the airlines expansion land equivalent to 150% of their terminal areas with an eight year development window
*All the prime development space available for domestic terminals (except for Brisbane) was covered by the expansion land leases
*The leases effectively gave the major domestic carriers 30 year exclusive control over their current and future facilities and hence, in the absence of alternative terminals, exclusive control over access to the domestic air routes
I guess it would be nice to think that it was just because Gareth's mind was on other things but the whole job smashing strategy of protection was going long before and after he was Minister. If Branson, whatever his qualities are as a loveable rogue or not, can bust the monopoly then he'll be doing us all a big favour
Read on.....
In 1985 the Report to the Hawke government on Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation (known as the May Report) pointed to infrastructure as one of the key issues surrounding the success of deregulation.....
* Provision of land and terminal facilities is essential if new operators are to emerge. If (the Commonwealth) cannot provide these facilities, either at the same standard as that offered to Australian Airlines and Ansett Airlines or on a level acceptable to the new operator, then fair competition will not be possible.
*It is these services and facilities that pose a potential problem: conceivably, they could result in differential treatment between airlines
May Report, Volume 2 Page 233-40
Only a handful of months later in October 1987 Senator Gareth Evans (then Minister for Transport and Communications) announced the end of regulation in a paper entitled Domestic Aviation: a new direction for the 1990s....
* One of the key aspects of the debate on deregulation, especially in the US and Canada, has been the issue of access to airport facilities
*...it is essential to provide new entrants with the opportunity to gain access to terminal facilities if there is to be real competition
*...it will be open to the FAC to make provision at its airports for a range of alternative facilities-which could range from low cost no frills facilities to high standard facilities as a means of providing further scope for competition from new entrants...
*...the Government intends that, in the absence of other available access facilities, any leases negotiated or re-negotiated with the existing airlines make reasonable and adequate provision for access of other operators.....
Domestic Aviation, Page 6
And barely was the ink dry on Gareths grand vision (it would have been good if it had happened!) when in December 1987 the Hawke government renegotiated terminal leases with Ansett and Australian Airlines.....
*The long term leases were negotiated directly by the Government and handed to the new Federal Airports Corporation as a fait accompli
*The leases allocated to the airlines expansion land equivalent to 150% of their terminal areas with an eight year development window
*All the prime development space available for domestic terminals (except for Brisbane) was covered by the expansion land leases
*The leases effectively gave the major domestic carriers 30 year exclusive control over their current and future facilities and hence, in the absence of alternative terminals, exclusive control over access to the domestic air routes
I guess it would be nice to think that it was just because Gareth's mind was on other things but the whole job smashing strategy of protection was going long before and after he was Minister. If Branson, whatever his qualities are as a loveable rogue or not, can bust the monopoly then he'll be doing us all a big favour
G'day Buster,
Sorry to see that things are not on the up, but to answer a few points.
1. Gates. VOZ pays for the gates. I assume that the airport owners demanded a bond or surity of some kind. Regardless they are paying for the gates - the form may be different to what AN did in the past - ie stumped the cash up front, but the nett effect is the same.
2. The QLD gave VOZ payroll tax and other tax concessions as far as I am aware - my source being the press so you can guess how accurate that is! BUT they gave Australian Airlines the same deal if I am correct.
3. There were pax flying on VOZ before AN fell over. So there must be people willing to fly with Virgin of their own free will.
4. The FLEW AOC was not the AOC of an operating airline. FLEW were setting up a completely different AOC as the AOC that the administrator flew the Airbusses (or should that be Airbii) on was the original AN AOC. As there can be no transfer of AOC's between differrent corporate entities, a new AOC had to be issued. In order to comply with the regulations the applicant for a new AOC has to jump through a few hurdles.
For one the system of maintenance (I know that the certificate of approval for the maintenance is different) however the system of maintenance of the OLS AOC was quite obviously not working as it should. Neither were a number of other areas in the old AOC.
Had CASA done the proper assessment of the FLEW group as a new applicant you could not simply submit the existing systems and say here you go - it worked before it should work again - it just don't work like that - or shouldn't - hence the gimme statement.
5. Re costs. What is the return on investment for QF? And why the paranoia in QF management about costs? The reason is that QF DOES have a cost base similar to what AN had (agreed it is a little lower). The facts of the matter are that the amount of money invested in QF, if invested in a savings account at the Commonwealth Bank, would return a greater profit than running the airline. They would be better off selling all the aeroplanes and buying a block of flats!
Finally remember that the Government forgave TN its debts and effectively gave it to QF. It would have gone broke and closed its doors if that hadn't happened.
Remember that AN was the beneficiary of the two airline policy for YEARS where they couldn't go broke as they ran on a cost plus basis.
In the grand scheme of things, the incentives to DJ to set up shop pall into insignificance.
I understand that you are bitter, but don't think that DJ is the reason that AN fell over, cause it isn't.
Sorry to see that things are not on the up, but to answer a few points.
1. Gates. VOZ pays for the gates. I assume that the airport owners demanded a bond or surity of some kind. Regardless they are paying for the gates - the form may be different to what AN did in the past - ie stumped the cash up front, but the nett effect is the same.
2. The QLD gave VOZ payroll tax and other tax concessions as far as I am aware - my source being the press so you can guess how accurate that is! BUT they gave Australian Airlines the same deal if I am correct.
3. There were pax flying on VOZ before AN fell over. So there must be people willing to fly with Virgin of their own free will.
4. The FLEW AOC was not the AOC of an operating airline. FLEW were setting up a completely different AOC as the AOC that the administrator flew the Airbusses (or should that be Airbii) on was the original AN AOC. As there can be no transfer of AOC's between differrent corporate entities, a new AOC had to be issued. In order to comply with the regulations the applicant for a new AOC has to jump through a few hurdles.
For one the system of maintenance (I know that the certificate of approval for the maintenance is different) however the system of maintenance of the OLS AOC was quite obviously not working as it should. Neither were a number of other areas in the old AOC.
Had CASA done the proper assessment of the FLEW group as a new applicant you could not simply submit the existing systems and say here you go - it worked before it should work again - it just don't work like that - or shouldn't - hence the gimme statement.
5. Re costs. What is the return on investment for QF? And why the paranoia in QF management about costs? The reason is that QF DOES have a cost base similar to what AN had (agreed it is a little lower). The facts of the matter are that the amount of money invested in QF, if invested in a savings account at the Commonwealth Bank, would return a greater profit than running the airline. They would be better off selling all the aeroplanes and buying a block of flats!
Finally remember that the Government forgave TN its debts and effectively gave it to QF. It would have gone broke and closed its doors if that hadn't happened.
Remember that AN was the beneficiary of the two airline policy for YEARS where they couldn't go broke as they ran on a cost plus basis.
In the grand scheme of things, the incentives to DJ to set up shop pall into insignificance.
I understand that you are bitter, but don't think that DJ is the reason that AN fell over, cause it isn't.
Last edited by Dehavillanddriver; 28th Jul 2002 at 14:22.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAP
Virgin Blue to use ex-Ansett terminal in ACT
Virgin Blue has struck a deal with Canberra airport to use the former Ansett terminal facility, the discount airline said.
Virgin Blue said it expected to move its facilities from a common user space to the Ansett area within the next 10 days.
"This will be a great step forward for Virgin Blue and our guests as it means more space, more convenience and more room to grow," Virgin Blue chief operating officer Rob Sherrard said in a statement.
"With Virgin Blue making inroads into Qantas' former monopoly on federal government travel, larger and better quality facilities are needed for further growth in the ACT."
Under the new agreement, the former Ansett terminal will become a common user space with room for other airlines to coexist with Virgin Blue.
However, the airline will be allowed to install its own IT, departure and baggage control systems.
Mr Sherrard flagged Virgin Blue would consider further investment in the Canberra market if it were to win a bigger share of federal government travel.
İAAP 2002
Virgin Blue to use ex-Ansett terminal in ACT
Virgin Blue has struck a deal with Canberra airport to use the former Ansett terminal facility, the discount airline said.
Virgin Blue said it expected to move its facilities from a common user space to the Ansett area within the next 10 days.
"This will be a great step forward for Virgin Blue and our guests as it means more space, more convenience and more room to grow," Virgin Blue chief operating officer Rob Sherrard said in a statement.
"With Virgin Blue making inroads into Qantas' former monopoly on federal government travel, larger and better quality facilities are needed for further growth in the ACT."
Under the new agreement, the former Ansett terminal will become a common user space with room for other airlines to coexist with Virgin Blue.
However, the airline will be allowed to install its own IT, departure and baggage control systems.
Mr Sherrard flagged Virgin Blue would consider further investment in the Canberra market if it were to win a bigger share of federal government travel.
İAAP 2002
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anyone who has seen the baggage tracking system in the guts of Sydney Airport (as imperfect as it is), it is obvious that it needs a standardised barcoded bag tag which can be read by the scanners which control which gate the bag is delivered to - hence the standardised airport software systems, and farewell the manual BTs. DJ may be kicking and screaming as they are dragged into the mainstream of airport handling, but isn't that the market share space in which they want to be?
If you were inclined to bet the mortgage on DJ or Macquarie in this or any other similar scrap, what would your choice be? I'd put my money on the bank...
Cheers
If you were inclined to bet the mortgage on DJ or Macquarie in this or any other similar scrap, what would your choice be? I'd put my money on the bank...
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All intersting posts but stating that you are actually thinking of building a terminal for themselves..............imagine the red tape, stuff-ups,hurdles and paper work that would generate!
I would like to see someone do it and stick it to the owners of the old AN terminal but realistically speaking its very impractical.
A much more realistic and profitable approach would be to iron out any existing hassles with SACL or whoever,bite the bullet and move to the terminal.
Christopher Corrigan knows it would cost alot more long term but also the advantages he is more than aware of.
I dont really think the pax would mind paying a few extra dollars for easier access,better baggage handling and the occassional food store,store,newsagent,Mac D's and cafe's.
You get what you pay for after all.
A deal will be done, probably not to the 100% agreeance of Mr Corrigan or SACL but it will be sorted.
Lets face it everyone - paying AUD$5.3 billion for an airport is a serious business, but so is investing over $250 million in VB.
Both have businesses to run and an empty terminal with empty gates serves no party.
It's to the mutual advantage of both, almost symbiotic you might say.
I would like to see someone do it and stick it to the owners of the old AN terminal but realistically speaking its very impractical.
A much more realistic and profitable approach would be to iron out any existing hassles with SACL or whoever,bite the bullet and move to the terminal.
Christopher Corrigan knows it would cost alot more long term but also the advantages he is more than aware of.
I dont really think the pax would mind paying a few extra dollars for easier access,better baggage handling and the occassional food store,store,newsagent,Mac D's and cafe's.
You get what you pay for after all.
A deal will be done, probably not to the 100% agreeance of Mr Corrigan or SACL but it will be sorted.
Lets face it everyone - paying AUD$5.3 billion for an airport is a serious business, but so is investing over $250 million in VB.
Both have businesses to run and an empty terminal with empty gates serves no party.
It's to the mutual advantage of both, almost symbiotic you might say.
Evertonian
Devil-me-boy.
Things are "on the up" at my end. I'm still in the industry, working for an airline, but I know of many that are still in trouble.
As for your points;
1. Most of the current infrastructure at many Australian airports, have been built by An & QF/TN. It was the usual, you build it, but we own it, mentality of the time. That was my point about DJ. The FAC didn't pay for upgrades & new fingers in the QF & AN terminals in MEL, for example. It was the airlines, and if the lease was up, so was the buildings. Again, I'm happy to stand corrected if proven wrong, but that is the way I understand it.
2. I'm sure we could delve back many years and find many instances of Government support of the airlines, but the history of Ansett, is riddled with occasions where Reg fought tooth & nail against government to get a fair go. It would've been unheard of, back then, to have State Governments competing for their business.
3. I don't doubt that there are loyal DJ pax that love DJ & won't fly any other. I believe I conceded that point. There were also a considerable amount of AN GW & FF members, that would rarely have flown DJ, or QF for that matter. As you stated earlier, DJ didn't stuff them on the planes. There was a vacuum. Any airline with vacant seats was going to pick up pax. It could've been Aeroflot, or Laker, but it was DJ.
4. There's been plenty of discussion over the AOC's. I won't go back over that again, suffice to say that AN/FLEW had an existing infrastructure that had recently been "audited" by CASA et al. Why would they need 6 or so months to go over the AOC again? DJ was a complete new starter with nothing of prior history to compare with.
5. Costs. Well, yes, that's true. QF are bending over backwards to reduce them. Remember, DJ have lowered the bar with regard to costs. Quite rightly, QF are saying to it's staff, "Why are we paying so much more for you, when DJ are paying so much less?". DJ have set a lower standard of pay rates and we will all, ultimately, feel the affects of that.
Yes, costs were a significant factor to AN's demise, but the wages were negotiated in good faith with the Unions. But, again, this is a bigger issue than is worth discussing here.
Well, the two airline policy was designed, I believe, to stop the amount of airlines that were going to the wall in the early years. Interesting that once it's removed, it started up again!
Yes, AN & TN & QF, couldn't really go broke, but they also couldn't make huge profits & expand exponentially either. There was no chance for a rapid response & expansion as circumstances permitted, unlike how DJ is growing almost daily under todays conditions.
Don't start me on the TN debt cancellation either. It'd be nice if the Government did the same for the AN SEESA payment debt, and thus allowed AN staff to be priority creditors over them. Imagine how Brett & Dick would react if QF had some debt waived today!?
Now, to clarify. I am not bitter about DJ inheriting AN's mantle. I have never accused DJ of complicity in AN's demise. If DJ were not flying when AN fell over, then sure, perhaps AN would've gotten up again. But they were there & picked up the crumbs. Those crumbs include such things as terminals & some infrastructure that have been built up over many years. Remember, there are many ex TN staff that felt similarly when QF just took over everything they'd helped build up.
My only bitterness towards DJ is when they whinge about not getting a good deal on, say terminal access. Terminals that were built up over 65 years of service by AN. DJ had nothing to do with the fate of AN, we all know who did though.
Things are "on the up" at my end. I'm still in the industry, working for an airline, but I know of many that are still in trouble.As for your points;
1. Most of the current infrastructure at many Australian airports, have been built by An & QF/TN. It was the usual, you build it, but we own it, mentality of the time. That was my point about DJ. The FAC didn't pay for upgrades & new fingers in the QF & AN terminals in MEL, for example. It was the airlines, and if the lease was up, so was the buildings. Again, I'm happy to stand corrected if proven wrong, but that is the way I understand it.
2. I'm sure we could delve back many years and find many instances of Government support of the airlines, but the history of Ansett, is riddled with occasions where Reg fought tooth & nail against government to get a fair go. It would've been unheard of, back then, to have State Governments competing for their business.
3. I don't doubt that there are loyal DJ pax that love DJ & won't fly any other. I believe I conceded that point. There were also a considerable amount of AN GW & FF members, that would rarely have flown DJ, or QF for that matter. As you stated earlier, DJ didn't stuff them on the planes. There was a vacuum. Any airline with vacant seats was going to pick up pax. It could've been Aeroflot, or Laker, but it was DJ.
4. There's been plenty of discussion over the AOC's. I won't go back over that again, suffice to say that AN/FLEW had an existing infrastructure that had recently been "audited" by CASA et al. Why would they need 6 or so months to go over the AOC again? DJ was a complete new starter with nothing of prior history to compare with.
5. Costs. Well, yes, that's true. QF are bending over backwards to reduce them. Remember, DJ have lowered the bar with regard to costs. Quite rightly, QF are saying to it's staff, "Why are we paying so much more for you, when DJ are paying so much less?". DJ have set a lower standard of pay rates and we will all, ultimately, feel the affects of that.
Yes, costs were a significant factor to AN's demise, but the wages were negotiated in good faith with the Unions. But, again, this is a bigger issue than is worth discussing here.
Well, the two airline policy was designed, I believe, to stop the amount of airlines that were going to the wall in the early years. Interesting that once it's removed, it started up again!
Yes, AN & TN & QF, couldn't really go broke, but they also couldn't make huge profits & expand exponentially either. There was no chance for a rapid response & expansion as circumstances permitted, unlike how DJ is growing almost daily under todays conditions.
Don't start me on the TN debt cancellation either. It'd be nice if the Government did the same for the AN SEESA payment debt, and thus allowed AN staff to be priority creditors over them. Imagine how Brett & Dick would react if QF had some debt waived today!?
Now, to clarify. I am not bitter about DJ inheriting AN's mantle. I have never accused DJ of complicity in AN's demise. If DJ were not flying when AN fell over, then sure, perhaps AN would've gotten up again. But they were there & picked up the crumbs. Those crumbs include such things as terminals & some infrastructure that have been built up over many years. Remember, there are many ex TN staff that felt similarly when QF just took over everything they'd helped build up.
My only bitterness towards DJ is when they whinge about not getting a good deal on, say terminal access. Terminals that were built up over 65 years of service by AN. DJ had nothing to do with the fate of AN, we all know who did though.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Their loads are excellent (especially to BNE, now upgraded to 738) and knowing the deal they just signed to use to CBR terminal, they will lose out in a big way if they do not significantly increase service in the short/medium term. Look out for new DJ destinations ex CBR also.
