Ben175 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 568 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 20 hours ago) and read 11545 times:
Quote: Perth Airport's annual passenger growth could quadruple to 40 million in the next 17 years - more than double the estimate by the airfield's owners - according to a State Government paper.
The WA State Aviation Strategy Issues Paper, which has just been released for comment, warns that "even that figure, which represents a growth of 7.7 per cent a year, is conservative given over the past five years passenger numbers have soared by 9.2 per cent a year".
Plane movements are also breaking records, increasing by 260 per cent since 1992 to 141,000 a year.
Those statistics are incredible! Reading this article made me think, what is next for PER?
QR touching down in July
EY "hinting" at service by the end of the year
NZ upgrading PER-AKL to a daily 772
SQ, MK and D7 all increasing frequency to SIN, MRU and KUL respectively
DJ increasing PER-SYD/MEL with more A330 coast-to-coast services
KQ expressing interest in serving PER from NBO with 787s by 2017
Massive continuous growth in the regional sector
Interest to fly to Perth from Lion Air, Batavia and even Silk Air
This leads me to question, what growth will we see in the next 5-10 years? Will we see direct to Europe eventually? What about services to the USA? Japan? China? India?
IndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2400 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 19 hours ago) and read 11480 times:
Umm.. I have a feeling that someone in govt has been having a good time in dreamland
Ok, PER is going very strongly currently, but it is also incredibly reliant on mining remaining a star performer over the medium term. Things are far too hard to predict day by day, let alone years down the track. It will need to diversify it's economy much more than it is today to really build a platform for future success.
The other point, Perth is still a limited market given it's isolation, even with a growing population. It likely lacks the base of the eastern states to sustain higher longer term growth.
In saying that though, I can still see it challenging BNE for 3rd position in regards to International pax in a few years time at this rate.
I would pencil in more NZ frequency growth and increased China service as the 2 immediate areas of focus at present. Add in the other Asian and Gulf carriers and it is likely to see capacity rises for several years to come.
Ben175 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 568 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 19 hours ago) and read 11350 times:
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 4): ^^ Would it be viable is another issue though. I strongly suspect not at this stage.
Apparently VA was very close to snapping up some 77L's to operate PER-LHR and SYD-JFK "non-stop" (though I don't think the latter route would be viable with even a 77L year-round) I think if they maintained the feed, PER-LHR would work (but severely impact SQ, MH, TG and even EK)
When VS ordered the 787, Branson said that the two first routes would be LHR-HNL and LHR-PER. However, lots of things have changed, and the 787 profile has also changed. Think the route is a bit too far for VS' upcoming 787-9s, at least without payload losses, etc.
Even Qatar seem to have upgraded the route without actually having started. They announced the route as an A330-200 route, but it will now start with the 777-200LR.
IndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2400 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 19 hours ago) and read 11291 times:
^^ Umm.. I severly doubt that VA had any serious plans to do so, sorry to say.
Since the move to develop partnerships, it's not even a consideration for them these days anyway.
The Asian/Gulf stop overs are very valuable for carriers, as it allows for significant feed from a network wide perspective. It's just as easy to fly from MEL/SYD/BNE through SIN/HKG/DXB to Europe than going via PER anyway.
ULH is a struggle at the best of times, as you need people to pay a substantial premium to fly the sector. The real issue is that many just won't pay it, leaving either a lower LF or a need to cut fares to generate pax demand, which leads to a non-viable route.
SA744 From South Africa, joined Nov 2005, 201 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (1 year 18 hours ago) and read 11053 times:
Im just interested to know what is the news on the QF/SA codeshare have they decided to call it a day and will SAA carry on flying the route or will QF take the route over. Will we maybe see the daily SYD-JNB flight become SYD-PER-JNB
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2549 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (1 year 15 hours ago) and read 10804 times:
The biggest issue with PER-LHR is that the market for these flights is on the East Coast. There might be a few pax in PER, but the simple fact that 90% of the population lives east of Perth removes any non-stop competitive advantage. The market for business travellers going to Europe is virtually non-existent in Perth, which has much closer ties to Asia.
Once the non-stop advantage to gone, there's not much left. The time saving would be minimal (ie 16-17 hours PER-LHR, plus 3-4 hours SYD-PER, plus 1-2 hours transit) and the operating costs would make it a very difficult route to sell when there are equally competitive alternatives via Asia and the ME, especially in Y. The market isn't there for all-J flights.
I don't see nonstop Australia-Europe until we start seeing orbital flights...
As for the future of PER -- the NEO/MAX will bring a lot of opportunities for expansion. PER is a pretty small market, so I struggle to see how much long existing growth can be sustained. Longer range NB's could potentially pave the way for a lot of growth further into Asia, which is Perth's trading region...
PITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (1 year 14 hours ago) and read 10655 times:
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 2): The other point, Perth is still a limited market given it's isolation, even with a growing population. It likely lacks the base of the eastern states to sustain higher longer term growth.
But its this isolation which gives it a high propensity for air travel. As long as its population continues to grow, which it will, then so will PER.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2180 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 hours ago) and read 9502 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting sweair (Reply 1): Would a 77L be able to do LHR-PER nonstop today?
LHR-PER is no sweat for the 77L. PER-LHR is, but it can still be done. Great Circle distance between PER-LHR is 7829nm. According to the payload/range chart, the 77L can fly approximately 7600nm with a full payload, so there'll definitely be some payload penalties on that route - especially when you take into account prevailing winds.
But as others have said, whether or not it's viable is a different story.
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2366 posts, RR: 18 Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 hours ago) and read 9427 times:
Quoting qf002 (Reply 12): The market for business travellers going to Europe is virtually non-existent in Perth, which has much closer ties to Asia.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. As an example, Rio's headquarters are in London and it's cash cow Iron Ore headquarters is in Perth. Along with all of the foreign funds managers that would start off their trips in PER I'd say there would be a steady stream of high yielding business pax that a direct service would be attractive to.
The USA I can't see. The range and the demand just isn't there. You will defintiely see increased service from China as the Chinese carriers build out their hubs just as the other Asian carriers have and add the Perth spoke. Japan I can't really see coming back unless Jetstar can be persuaded. India is interesting although without significant Indian Resource Investments I suspect traffic would be relatively low yielding. That along with AI not even being organised enough to serve SYD or MEL, let alone an even closer market makes me think India is longer term rather than shorter.
Infrastructure building and LOTS of it! New Terminals, expanded taxiways and runways, more aircraft parking bays etc etc etc. It's needed right now just to service what PER already has before we start taking growth into account!
BoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1003 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 hours ago) and read 9075 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 13): I rather do a stop on Australian soil after that hard long journey, the domestic flight will feel like a breeze
Yup me too.
Quoting PITrules (Reply 14): But its this isolation which gives it a high propensity for air travel. As long as its population continues to grow, which it will, then so will PER.
Absolutely, PER airport is basically used like a bus/ train station, if you are leaving Perth you are flying, there is no other practical means of transport.
Quoting qf002 (Reply 12): The biggest issue with PER-LHR is that the market for these flights is on the East Coast. There might be a few pax in PER, but the simple fact that 90% of the population lives east of Perth removes any non-stop competitive advantage. The market for business travellers going to Europe is virtually non-existent in Perth, which has much closer ties to Asia.
Yes, yes, the 10% of us that live in Perth are well used to this patronising Eastern states attitude. 10% is STILL 2 million people which is still a lot of people. I personally would pay a little bit extra to avoid a plane change in Asia. People fly with a lot of toys these days and a transpacific 14 hours or PER-LHR 17 hours wouldn't make a great deal of difference.
There is no incentive on airlines to fly this route non stop, QF could do it but are cutting investment and routes, VA well possibly, they did give SYD-JNB a go for a while but without much success. SQ, EK or EY really want to take traffic to their hubs. Until someone takes the punt on the route with a 77L we are not going to know how successful the route would be I really believe that it could be viable, the traffic definitely there costs as always is the problem.
The problem I see with Virgin Australia is that a PER-LHR undercuts their EY partnership, which has a hub almost right in line for that route. Don't think EY would be happy seeing VA fly over and past them.
But maybe EY will be happy enough servicing the other European destinations and allowing VA to fly PER-LHR. However, VA would first need the right aircraft, so this would be many years down the line at best.