Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Australian Aviation Thread # 69  
User currently offlineQF175 From Portugal, joined Mar 2007, 701 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 19320 times:

G'day and welcome to the Australian Aviation Thread # 69. In the previous thread, the following points were discussed/raised:

* Qantas International operations - 787s and A330s
* Perth and Adelaide - International Qantas flights
* Tiger announces it will re-commence services to Alice Springs and Maroochydoore later in 2013
* Garuda Indonesia announces nonstop Perth - Jakarta flights from June
* Sydney Airport - Long term plans
* ACCC's concern over Virgin's plan to acquire 60% stake in Tiger Airways Australia
* Virgin Australia E190 Business Class installation
* Brisbane and Melbourne Airports - New services and capacity increases
* Malaysia Airlines to reportedly increase services to Perth
* Sydney Airport - diversions
* Jetstar announces daily Ayers Rock/Uluru services from June, replacing QF and its 737-800s
* Qantas confirms cancellation of its Canberra - Darwin service
* Virgin Australia - Fleet repainting
* Philippine Airlines reportedly close to announcing Brisbane/Darwin/Perth flights
* Singapore Airlines temporarily decreases BNE/MEL/SYD flights
* Air Pacific reveals A330 schedules, with Brisbane being first Australian port to receive the a/c
* Brisbane International Terminal - Minor redevelopment
* Air Canada signals Brisbane as a possible contender for services to Vancouver
* Increased Jetstar Perth - Singapore services from April
* Qantas/Emirates codeshare update
* Qantas 737-800 VH-VXG and new 'Bring it On' decal
* Virgin Australia confirms A330s for 2 of 3 BNE-PER weekday flights from May
* Virgin Australia announces Brisbane - Moranbah & Bundaberg from APR/MAY respectively
* Virgin Australia profit announcement for 1/2 year period ending 31DEC12
* Emirates confirms a second, daily A380 service for Sydney
* The first Sichuan Airlines Chengdu - Melbourne service touches down

Australian Aviation Thread # 68

201 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineQF175 From Portugal, joined Mar 2007, 701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 19320 times:

Ben175, you will no doubt be pleased that Philippine Airlines has finally confirmed Brisbane, Darwin and Perth services from June 2013.

BRISBANE
All services operate via Darwin with A320s

MNL/BNE 2205/0920+1 PR221 Mon/Wed/Sat
BNE/MNL 1010/1800 PR222 Tue/Thu/Sun

DARWIN
All services operate with A320s

MNL/DRW 2205/0400+1 PR221 Mon/Wed/Sat
MNL/DRW 2225/0420+1 PR219 Tue/Thu/Fri/Sat
DRW/MNL 1500/1800 PR220 Mon/Wed/Fri/Sun
DRW/MNL 1500/1800 PR222 Tue/Thu/Sun

PERTH
All services operate via Darwin with A320s

MNL/PER 2225/0750+1 Tue/Thu/Fri/Sun
PER/MNL 0850/1800 Mon/Wed/Fri/Sat

SOURCE - Philippine Airlines International Timetable

Fares are not yet bookable through Philippineairlines.com, however are available for booking via the likes of Zuji et al.


User currently offlineTruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1596 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 19251 times:

Question... who does AeroCare look after at Brisbane airport?

User currently offlineBen175 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 19181 times:

Quoting QF175 (Reply 1):
Ben175, you will no doubt be pleased that Philippine Airlines has finally confirmed Brisbane, Darwin and Perth services from June 2013.

Absolutely fantastic! So great to see yet another addition to PER, bringing an exotic new destination on the line. Hopefully the flights perform well and they can go direct eventually.


User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 19130 times:

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 2):

Question... who does AeroCare look after at Brisbane airport?

I believe Tiger Airways Australia, not sure who else (if any).

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 19124 times:

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 2):
who does AeroCare look after at Brisbane airport?
Quoting CXfirst (Reply 4):
I believe Tiger Airways Australia, not sure who else (if any).

Do they also look after Air Nuigini?


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25693 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 18998 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Having just read an article by Ben Sandilands - why do I do this to myself? - I'd like to pick up on the comments about the second Sydney airport from the previous thread.

The debate has been going on for as long as I have Australian memory - to the point where I've lost track of what the debate is all about.

I understand some of the debate is "political" - but why is it political? Most politicians are agreed it is a good idea (Sandilands says) but some are scared of a backlash. What backlash?

I understand that Sydney has enormous affection for its institutions, but surely Mascot won't close - or will it? And isn't this about financial benefit to massive Sydney? It can't be about money - can it?

I hesitate to invite opinions here because I suspect there may be some conflict, but it boils down to one thing in my mind - does Sydney need (or will it need in the foreseeable future) a second airport?

If it does, then - just do it. if it doesn't - why won't the issue go away?

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-01 14:40:57]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5012 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 18918 times:

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 4):
Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 2):

Question... who does AeroCare look after at Brisbane airport?

I believe Tiger Airways Australia, not sure who else (if any).

-CXfirst

JQ...?

Quoting mariner (Reply 6):
If it does, then - just do it. if it doesn't - why won't the issue go away?

The way I read the 2nd Sydney Airport discussion would be the fact politicians either win or lose votes...
I really don't see why the residents of western Sydney have a say where it should be built, just build it! Lets not forget people of the west keep on complaining they have no jobs but yet they don't favour a major piece of infrastructure which brings jobs to their door step...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 18870 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 6):
I understand some of the debate is "political" - but why is it political? Most politicians are agreed it is a good idea (Sandilands says) but some are scared of a backlash. What backlash?

Umm, increased noise for people that aren't currently experiencing significant aircraft noise.

There's also a lot of $ involved.


User currently offlinetullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 18810 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 7):

A second airport is a massive political issue in Sydney. The western suburbs of Sydney represent a population base of over 2m people. They are geographically distant from Mascot so the current airport t is not well sighted for them. These suburbs also represent a number of swinging electorates so whilst some will be attracted to the economic benefits attached to a new airport, there are a number who will not want the noise etc associated with a large curfew free airport.

There is also the politics of Mascot to consider. Sydney Airports Corp is wealthy and very well connected to both sides of politics they do not want to see their monopoly power eliminated so will constantly lobby against a second airport. There is also the issues like the curfew, and the fact the the current Minister for Aviation's electorate surrounds Mascot

Further complicating matters are the different cycles of state and federal parliaments . whilst both may agree it is a good idea, either one or other is adverse to risking making such a hot decision within sight of a election

Finally, there are other cities particularly Melbourne and Brisbane, who delight in the prevarication of Sydney. They will work against a large slice of federal funding going to Sydney to support the infrastructure required for a new airport as they know the longer a new airport is delayed, the more economic benefits flow to their cities.



717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772,W,310,320/1,332/3,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,SF3,AT
User currently offlineQF175 From Portugal, joined Mar 2007, 701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 18792 times:

VIRGIN AUSTRALIA

- 777-300ER VH-VOZ returned to Sydney today sporting the new Virgin livery. This aircraft is to be named Palm Beach and joins VH-VPD and VH-VPH which also feature the new livery
- Fares for Virgin Australia's new services to Bundaberg and Moranbah from Brisbane went on sale earlier today, with fares starting at $61 and $102 respectively (for a Saver Lite fare)
- Airline representatives met with the Cloncurry Mayor recently to discuss future mining projects in the region and the possibility of flights to/from Brisbane - Source

SHARP AIRLINES

- South-East Australian regional carrier Sharp Airlines has launched a new customer facing website - Click here to view the new website

TOOWOOMBA AIRPORT

- Flights from Toowoomba to Roma are looking more likely in the next few years with the QLD Government confirming that the route would not fall under the 'regulated air route' scheme - Source
- The construction of the new Wagners Airport at Toowoomba is well under way, with grading works for the 2.8km runway the current focus. Wellcamp Downs Stud is located directly on the site of the new runway and Elders has been tasked to auction the Stud's equipment and facilities, ranging from tractors to stables. The Airport is on track to open in July 2014 and will be capable of handling small to large jet aircraft - Source. The new Airport paves the way for jet services to Sydney and other ports, and will allow larger freighter aircraft to land at the Airport delivering mining and other equipment

KOREAN AIRLINES - MELBOURNE

- The Airline operated its last scheduled flight from Melbourne to Seoul (Incheon) today, with A330-200 HL7552 operating the final service. Korean Airlines commenced thrice-weekly flights to Melbourne on 22 October 2007

PERTH - T2 NOW OPEN

- The new $120 Domestic Terminal (T2) opened today and is home to Alliance Airlines and Skywest. It is the first terminal to be built at Perth Airport for 26 years. Tiger Airways will join Alliance and Skywest when it commences services from the terminal in May. Visit the Airport's dedicated website to view more information about T2.

REGIONAL EXPRESS - DUBBO

- The Airline has announced that it may leave Dubbo Airport after the Council and the REX failed to reach an agreement with Dubbo City Council regarding the introduction of security screening charges

Quote:
As we highlighted and explained in our Media Release, Dubbo City Council (DCC) has decided to charge every Rex passenger about $9 per departure for security screening charges that are not required by law. This levy will go towards subsidising QantasLink flights, which are required by law to be screened and which necessitated this new screening regime at Dubbo airport. Rex passengers will be subsidising QantasLink around $300,000 every year.

Continues...

Visit REX's dedicated 'Stop Screening Charges at Dubbo' page for further information - Click here


User currently offlineTruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1596 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 18591 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 7):
JQ...?

Would they wear JQ uniforms for such position? Or would they wear AeroCare uniforms?


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5012 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 18552 times:

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 11):

Quoting EK413 (Reply 7):
JQ...?

Would they wear JQ uniforms for such position? Or would they wear AeroCare uniforms?


From below the wing they wear Aero Care uniforms but above the wing don't quote me but I believe it's JQ staff...

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 9):

You have valid points and so does

Quoting thegeek (Reply 8):

... Unfortunately SYD is going to fall behind MEL & BNE if the government doesn't step in and make a decision concerning a 2nd Airport OR plan B which is review the current conditions at SYD...

EK413

[Edited 2013-03-01 23:35:41]


Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineZKOKQ From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 480 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 18520 times:

How much growth do we think BNE will see once the second runway is operational?

User currently offlineThe Coachman From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 18488 times:

My post on #68 was right near the end so I'll move it across.

Does anyone know the VA SYD-PER rotations get aircraft allocations? I've been keeping track of the various regos that run VA555 (since I'll be on that flight in a couple of weeks) in the vain hope that I can find out which aircraft will operate the flight on my date (prefer -XFC,-D, -E for product reasons obviously).



M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 18458 times:

Quoting ZKOKQ (Reply 13):
How much growth do we think BNE will see once the second runway is operational?

My personal opinion? None in the short term. Longer term it's a bit hard to tell. That would be like forecasting the price of oil 15 years into the future. Seems a significant risk.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 12):
... Unfortunately SYD is going to fall behind MEL & BNE if the government doesn't step in and make a decision concerning a 2nd Airport OR plan B which is review the current conditions at SYD...

I wonder if Richmond can be made a public/military facility, like Williamtown. An airport at Badgery's Creek with less capability than SYD would only be used by narrow aisle aircraft IMO anyway.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5012 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 18417 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 15):
I wonder if Richmond can be made a public/military facility, like Williamtown. An airport at Badgery's Creek with less capability than SYD would only be used by narrow aisle aircraft IMO anyway.

I believe Richmond (RCM) in the past has been discussed & considered as an option but once again you face the same problem Badgerys Creek bring with it... If the 2nd airport was to provide any relief then Bankstown (BWU) is a far better option considering the close proximity to the city...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8466 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 18381 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 15):
I wonder if Richmond can be made a public/military facility, like Williamtown. An airport at Badgery's Creek with less capability than SYD would only be used by narrow aisle aircraft IMO anyway.

Problem with this split use idea is that it will most likely become a while elephant like YMX. If anyone stumps up the cash for a new airport in SYD it has to be a replacement for the current airport and not a second airport as it has long been referred to. But the short sighted nature of our political parties outweighs the long term benefits posed buy building a new airport.


User currently offlineskyhawkmatthew From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 18284 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 16):
If the 2nd airport was to provide any relief then Bankstown (BWU) is a far better option considering the close proximity to the city...

Bankstown is really not an option. The runways are far too short and there's not nearly enough space or infrastructure for a full-on passenger operation. The circuit area is congested enough as it is with training aircraft and helicopter operations all over the place - not to mention there are already noise abatement restrictions in place with regard to the circuit training operations, let alone airline flights!

All that said, it was a pretty impressive sight seeing a Global Express hooking around base onto 29C the other day - don't know how feasible it'd be to have that size aircraft flowing in and out all day long though!



Qantas - The Spirit of Australia.
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5012 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 18226 times:

Quoting skyhawkmatthew (Reply 18):

I'm well aware Bankstown isn't suitable, there was a masterplan released with the main runway extended to handle A320/B737 aircraft type... If we are talking about a 2nd airport to provide relief then Bankstown would provide that relief allowing low cost carriers to relocate from Sydney Kingsford Smith...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineBen175 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 18109 times:

Quoting The Coachman (Reply 14):
Does anyone know the VA SYD-PER rotations get aircraft allocations? I've been keeping track of the various regos that run VA555 (since I'll be on that flight in a couple of weeks) in the vain hope that I can find out which aircraft will operate the flight on my date (prefer -XFC,-D, -E for product reasons obviously).

I think it's quite random, if anything. I have flown DJ569 SYD-PER twice on a Sunday night, one was with VH-XFD and the second VH-XFB.


User currently offlineallrite From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 2237 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 17675 times:

Former CEO of Qantas James Strong has passed away. He was serving as a director on the board of the airline.


Applying insanity to normality
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5943 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 17636 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 7):
I really don't see why the residents of western Sydney have a say where it should be built

Unfortunately Western Sydney is the geographic region that, almost singlehandedly, determines the outcome of elections, both Federal and NSW.

It is an incredibly "marginal" region, and - as the media noted recently with Julia's holiday there - whoever wins out west this year will almost certainly be PM.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 7):
people of the west keep on complaining they have no jobs but yet they don't favour a major piece of infrastructure which brings jobs

Good point. But don't let rational economic arguments get in the way of emotion 
Quoting Bill142 (Reply 17):
Problem with this split use idea is that it will most likely become a while elephant like YMX



I agree. Either that, or they will make Badgery Creek the one for international flights and have Mascot as the convient, city centre airport for domestic flights. See: HND/NRT, LIN/MXP, SHA/PVG, SDU/GIG - and note how useless those cities are for connecting hubs because operations are split over two airport.

MEL and BNE will be rubbing their hands with glee if they tried this!

In short: SYD would have to close. We should be aiming for HKG or BKK, not NRT or MXP. And certainly not YMX!

Quoting QF175 (Reply 10):
It is the first terminal to be built at Perth Airport for 26 years

Wow, if PER can't build a terminal in 26 years (how big was Perth then compared to today?!?) then we have no hope for a second airport in SYD within our grandchildren's lifetime...

Quoting QF175 (Reply 10):
The new Airport paves the way for jet services to Sydney and other ports, and will allow larger freighter aircraft to land at the Airport delivering mining and other equipment

I am really excited to see what the economic benefits of this airport will be for Toowoomba. The city has been living in the shadows for two long, it has a lot of potential and I think that this is the first step to realising it.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 17619 times:

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 17):
Problem with this split use idea is that it will most likely become a while elephant like YMX. If anyone stumps up the cash for a new airport in SYD it has to be a replacement for the current airport and not a second airport as it has long been referred to. But the short sighted nature of our political parties outweighs the long term benefits posed buy building a new airport.

If the 2nd airport has good transport links then I don't see it suffering the same fate as YMX. A heavy rail connection (whether to Badgery's Creek or Richmond) will improve its prospects as a 2nd airport. If a 2nd airport gets built I see Sydney ending up with a MXP/LIN situation with SYD offering short haul traffic and the 2nd airport doing long haul. Not the best situation but better than YUL/YMX.


User currently offlinetullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 17559 times:

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 23):
Problem with this split use idea is that it will most likely become a while elephant

Infrastructure needs to be considered as a long term investment which is probably why it's best done by government rather than private enterprise. Sydney is a city of nearly 6M people and it is continuing to grow, albeit a bit slower than Melbourne and Brisbane. The footprint of greater Sydney can really only grow west. It is blocked by the sea to the east and national parks to the north and south. A city of 6M+ can easily handle 2 airports. If you consider greater Brisbane and the Gold Coast as one urban grouping, which it is now, then it already has 2 airports. Likewise MEL has 2 (with a third being planned for the south east) and Avalon's growth is restricted by MEL being curfew-free. Badgery's Creek won't have this limitation.

Look overseas and you will see most major cities have 2+ airports, NYC has 4 (when Teteboro is included), Washington has 2 with another 2 within an hour or so, Paris, Tokyo, Houston and Dallas have 2 whilst London has 5.

Badgery's Creek would probably start slowly but quickly gain critical mass via freight and back of clock operations. Realistically, even if it was given the go-ahead today, it is still probably 10 years from operation. How chaotic will SYD be by then!!!



717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772,W,310,320/1,332/3,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,SF3,AT
User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 17736 times:

Quoting The Coachman (Reply 14):

My post on #68 was right near the end so I'll move it across.

Does anyone know the VA SYD-PER rotations get aircraft allocations? I've been keeping track of the various regos that run VA555 (since I'll be on that flight in a couple of weeks) in the vain hope that I can find out which aircraft will operate the flight on my date (prefer -XFC,-D, -E for product reasons obviously).


The entire fleet is rotated throughout the routes. The rotation happens at night. VA691, VA572 and VA697 all come at night. Two go back as VA696 and VA573, while one overnights at PER. I've seen all combinations of turnarounds. Any of the three can stay overnight.

Apart from that 2 planes fly between PER and SYD, while 3 do the MEL route. But even knowing which airplane flies overnight does not mean you'll know which does VA555, as I've seen the plane flying overnight land and immediately turn around to do the early ex-SYD departure, and I've also seen it land and stay a while, while the plane that overnighted in SYD do the early departure.

Things will change when the 6th airbus comes and BNE starts up.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 17627 times:

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 17):
Problem with this split use idea is that it will most likely become a while elephant like YMX.

Well clearly public use of Richmond would not at all be like YMX, which is kept open by heavy freighters using it. It would be more like Avalon, but much closer to a large population base.

As for being a white elephant, only the terminals and access facilities need to be new, runways and towers are already there and the RAAF can be paid out for their use. Major issue I see is that the distance between the runway and the road alongside is pretty short and putting the facilities on the north side of the field is an ugly option too. To put the terminals etc on the south side of the field may require the road to be relocated and the railway line buried.

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 17):
If anyone stumps up the cash for a new airport in SYD it has to be a replacement
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 22):
In short: SYD would have to close.

To both of you, say what? There is no way SYD would close, nor should it have to. The proposed airport at Badgerys Creek never had long enough runways AFAIK nor should a perfectly capable facility at SYD close for a new option.

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 24):
valon's growth is restricted by MEL being curfew-free. Badgery's Creek won't have this limitation.

Who said Badgery's Creek Airport would be curfew free? I can't see that being a reality at all.


User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 17888 times:

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 9):
There is also the politics of Mascot to consider. Sydney Airports Corp is wealthy and very well connected to both sides of politics they do not want to see their monopoly power eliminated so will constantly lobby against a second airport. There is also the issues like the curfew, and the fact the the current Minister for Aviation's electorate surrounds Mascot

Not really. The owners of SYD have the first right of refusal to build and operate the second airport. So no Government money necessarily has to flow into that. Also, with the potential major roads going to Badgerys Creek, they're mostly already privately owned tollways so you could easily, again, ask the private sector to expand on the existing infrastructure which they currently own to build the roadways. So the private sector could foot a substantial amount of the bill for a new Sydney Airport.

I think the key point is that the second airport cannot be an overflow or competing airport, it has to be a replacement airport. A city the size of Sydney doesn't need two International Airports where one large, proper facility can be used.

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 9):
They will work against a large slice of federal funding going to Sydney to support the infrastructure required for a new airport as they know the longer a new airport is delayed, the more economic benefits flow to their cities.

Again not really. Both MEL and BNE have embarked on major infrastructure spending based on Sydney's toll road concept and public/private partnerships. When it comes to Sydney, having the number of marginal seats is more what will work against a new airport however smart approach designs, noise mitigation and the economic development that will occur will far outweigh any of these. A smart politician would point out the number of businesses, jobs and people that will move from the areas surrounding SYD to the West should a new Airport be build to replace the airport in Mascot.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 26):
To both of you, say what? There is no way SYD would close, nor should it have to.

In order to get a return on investment, Sydney Airport should close. It's too close to housing and would be an awesome site for urban consolidation and an expansion of container shipping in Botany Bay.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 26):
The proposed airport at Badgerys Creek never had long enough runways AFAIK nor should a perfectly capable facility at SYD close for a new option.

The proposed airport at Badgerys Creek should be built with Runways long enough for all purposes. Train lines should be extended to it for both passenger and freight to allow for seamless connections on both. The good thing is that Badgerys has enough room to properly execute all of its missions, SYD does not.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 26):
Who said Badgery's Creek Airport would be curfew free? I can't see that being a reality at all.

On this I agree. Badgerys will probably keep a curfew however having an increased number of runways and more room for flight operations will allow for more aircraft movements. The most important thing for Badgerys is that it can't be slot controlled. It needs to be a facility without an artificial cap on its movements for the hours that it is open.


User currently offlinetullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 17810 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 27):
The owners of SYD have the first right of refusal to build and operate the second airport. So no Government money necessarily has to flow into that

Whilst they have the first right of refusal, they have no incentive to exercise these rights and a huge incentive to participate solely with aim of slowing down the whole process. They currently get monopoly pricing on a fully utilised facility. They have zero incentive to build a 2nd airport to compete with themselves. The first right of refusal is yet another roadblock to sensible decision making on this whole topic.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 27):
Both MEL and BNE have embarked on major infrastructure spending based on Sydney's toll road concept and public/private partnerships

I think the first major public-private partnership may have actually been Melbourne's Citylink project created under Jeff Kennett. Unfortunately Brisbane seems to have copied Sydney in creating toll roads that miss their targets massively and go broke. Citylink didn't go broke basically because the government forced users onto it by making alternative routes harder to use through removal of clearways etc.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 27):
It's too close to housing and would be an awesome site for urban consolidation and an expansion of container shipping in Botany Bay.

You're right but no one could afford to pay Sydney Airports out so it won't happen. The state government is already broke and has a huge infrastructure backlog and any Federal Government that proposed to direct such a huge amount into NSW would be destroyed in the other states.



717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772,W,310,320/1,332/3,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,SF3,AT
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 17790 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 27):
The proposed airport at Badgerys Creek should be built with Runways long enough for all purposes. Train lines should be extended to it for both passenger and freight to allow for seamless connections on both. The good thing is that Badgerys has enough room to properly execute all of its missions, SYD does not.

3 or more runways, one of which is at least 3.25km long! Is the land available at Badgery's Creek big enough for that?

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 28):
You're right but no one could afford to pay Sydney Airports out so it won't happen.

Probably correct. How long is their management right for, or is it indefinite?


User currently offlinetullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 17756 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 29):
How long is their management right for, or is it indefinite?

99 year lease so they lose their management rights in 2101!!!



717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772,W,310,320/1,332/3,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,SF3,AT
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 17672 times:

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 28):
Whilst they have the first right of refusal, they have no incentive to exercise these rights and a huge incentive to participate solely with aim of slowing down the whole process. They currently get monopoly pricing on a fully utilised facility. They have zero incentive to build a 2nd airport to compete with themselves. The first right of refusal is yet another roadblock to sensible decision making on this whole topic.

Actually they don't. The first right of refusal is for a set period which I think is only a couple of years. After that the Government is free to build a new airport or have someone else build it.

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 28):
You're right but no one could afford to pay Sydney Airports out so it won't happen. The state government is already broke and has a huge infrastructure backlog and any Federal Government that proposed to direct such a huge amount into NSW would be destroyed in the other states.

No-one needs to buy SYD out. The land SYD sits on is Commonwealth Govt land so the Govt could negotiate a settlement on Sydney Airport that in return for closing the airport, the Government will convert the lease into a freehold title with the Government holding a percentage of a joint property company to develop and sell the land. It could be done where it's in SYD' interest to develop the land to recover its lease investment and to make a profit.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 29):
3 or more runways, one of which is at least 3.25km long! Is the land available at Badgery's
Creek big enough for that?

There is plenty of land available around it. The real question is which way they will point and how many people the noise will effect.

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 30):
99 year lease so they lose their management rights in 2101!!!

Again, that's not an unsolveable challenge. With the right incentive in relation to development, SYD owners could be enticed to do what is best for Sydney. It's only a question of how much money they will get to keep once the development is all done.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 17620 times:

SYD isn't enough of a basket case to justify throwing billions of dollars at closing it as far as I can see. It's actually a very convenient location for many people so a huge number would be inconvenienced by its closing, as well as businesspeople mostly needing to travel further to do business.

Sorry, the case for closing SYD isn't satisfactory as far as I am concerned.


User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 17570 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 32):
SYD isn't enough of a basket case to justify throwing billions of dollars at closing it as far as I can see.

But that's the thing, you won't throw billions of dollars at it. In the end, if handled properly, it should actually make money.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 32):
It's actually a very convenient location for many people so a huge number would be inconvenienced by its closing, as well as businesspeople mostly needing to travel further to do business.

The business people argument is entirely false. There are plenty of examples of large airports built in the same vicinity as Badgerys Creek is to the Sydney CBD where business hasn't been affected. Sure people from the Eastern suburbs and CBD will have to travel more, but moving the airport will actually encourage a substantial number of businesses to relocate out West which will drive employment and economic outcomes in Western Sydney.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 32):
Sorry, the case for closing SYD isn't satisfactory as far as I am concerned.

I disagree. The case couldn't be better for closing and moving Sydney Airport to a site where it can grow in future to meet Sydneys aviation requirements. Such a move would create thousands of jobs, would result in a regeneration of the Western Sydney economy, reduce delays across the Eastern seaboard and would result in a large regneration project in what is a prime site near the Sydney CBD. It can only be good for Sydney, the problem is the politicians have sat on their hands for too long and are now too frightened to actually do anything.

This is also an interesting read as well;

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi..._nine_future_use_badgery_creek.pdf


User currently offlineshnoob940 From Australia, joined Sep 2008, 188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 17516 times:

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but is D7 going 2x daily on the KUL-SYD return rotation? (D7220/221?)

cheers
gibbo



A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A388 733 734 735 737 738 739 743 744 762 763 773 788 E170 E190 Q400
User currently offlinetullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 17470 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 31):
Actually they don't. The first right of refusal is for a set period which I think is only a couple of years. After that the Government is free to build a new airport or have someone else build it.

You're right, hence SACL will do everything to prevent anyone making a firm decision. Why do you think they keep talking about there being plenty of capacity for growth at Mascot? It suits their long-term interests and makes it so the politicians don't have to make a decision even though Blind Freddie can see the airport is already maxxed out.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 31):
With the right incentive in relation to development, SYD owners could be enticed to do what is best for Sydney

I think they are more interested in their own shareholders. It's unlikely the interests of Sydney and SACL shareholders coincide.



717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772,W,310,320/1,332/3,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,SF3,AT
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 17161 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 32):
Quoting sydscott (Reply 33):
The business people argument is entirely false. There are plenty of examples of large airports built in the same vicinity as Badgerys Creek is to the Sydney CBD where business hasn't been affected

The difference being that the population generally isn't as dependant on air travel in most of those examples. There are plenty of other examples where multiple airports in a city cater for different needs, which is the model I think we should be aiming towards.

Build a brand new airport that is capable of handling all long haul international, most cargo and part of the domestic traffic, and use this airport as the principal vessel for growth moving forward.

Then chop up the existing airport to create a new single runway 'Sydney City' style airport, extending the existing third runway inland a little bit and building a brand new terminal area to the north (ie accessed straight off the end of Southern Cross Drive). Some space can be used to grow the shipping/container operation, and the rest ofnthe area (particularly to the south and west) can be turned into public, residential and industrial areas. The amount of demand for new developments in that area is very high, so the land would probably generate a decent return.

The city airport would be restricted to domestic and limited Tasman routes, and would probably be NB-only/heavily slot restricted. Local residents would see a massive benefit, and a business/government oriented airport is easy to operate within the existing curfew/movement cap.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5943 posts, RR: 5
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 16812 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 36):
Build a brand new airport that is capable of handling all long haul international, most cargo and part of the domestic traffic, and use this airport as the principal vessel for growth moving forward
Quoting qf002 (Reply 36):
Then chop up the existing airport to create a new single runway 'Sydney City' style airport

And I'll say it again. We end up with Haneda or Linate. Those cities are useless hubs. People flying CBR-SYD-HKG or ADL-SYD-LAX will go through BNE or MEL because of the better domestic-international connecting opportunities, so the big loser here is SYD and the NSW economy.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineMikey86 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 16662 times:

Was the Air Canada announcement just speculation via a press release along with AC touting services to MEL? Does anyone have a reliable source that this would definitely come to fruition?


mikey86 - Greenslopes, Queensland
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 16635 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 37):
And I'll say it again. We end up with Haneda or Linate. Those cities are useless hubs. People flying CBR-SYD-HKG or ADL-SYD-LAX will go through BNE or MEL because of the better domestic-international connecting opportunities, so the big loser here is SYD and the NSW economy.

But if we did it right, we could end up with an LCY, LGA, DCA etc.

The trick would be to find the balance between domestic services at the new airport and the existing one. There are so many flights connecting our major centres that it would be very easy to split operations.

I'm just not confident that the transport links will be there to make the commute work from the city and anywhere outside the west. It's going to equally harmful to the economy if the new airport isn't able to cater to the needs of those who rely on it for their business.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5943 posts, RR: 5
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 16486 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 39):
But if we did it right, we could end up with an LCY, LGA, DCA etc.

The trick would be to find the balance between domestic services at the new airport and the existing one.

Right, I think I understand what you're saying. If we take DCA and LGA, then we can actually add the likes of HND as well as being "good" regional city airports.

The problem comes from the inherently inefficient nature of this sort of operation. LGA is another good example of this, DL are desperately trying to "win New York" but the split JFK-LGA operation makes this harder to achieve. EWR, despite being less convenient to most of Manhattan, is the only airport that can truly serve this purpose because it is all under one roof.

DCA works, like LCY, because it very conveniently serves an incredibly high yielding market. There is the DC Metro or DLR+Underground straight to the airplane door, and having flown into both they really are a delight. You can be in the city centre 15 minutes after stepping off the plane.

SYD does, to a degree, offer this sort of convenience. After all, Domestic to Central is only 12 mins IIRC. However, in order to make SYD the "premium" city centre airport and stop airlines flying there rather than SYD#2 you would have to severely slot constrain it. See DCA-IAD. Arguably Washington is a model we can follow. That means having a large, hub-capable airport far out in the sprawling suburbs (NoVA or Western Sydney) that has a large population catchment, but not so convenient to the city centre. Build it big, make it a hub, and have flights from that airport to the entire globe. Then have a highly restricted airport for the inbound city-centric traffic. By restricting the other airport, not all O&D can be handled at DCA/SYD meaning that there is sufficient domestic flying at SYD#2 to support the international network.

You need to slot constrain it to make airlines fly there rather than IAD/SYD#2. When you allow a free for all, but keep long haul excluded, you get the dysfunction at Milan, where one of the reasons AZ don't have an MXP hub is because there isn't enough traffic to support Euro routes out of MXP.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 39):
I'm just not confident that the transport links will be there to make the commute work from the city and anywhere outside the west.

I appreciate that much, we are after all talking about Australia, and NSW in particular. If we were doing it "properly" we would build a super-fast rail link to the city that connects the airport in under 30 minutes (see HKG), and maybe extend it to reach Newcastle and Canberra in an hour, but that sort of common sense thinking will never fly here   



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 16471 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 40):
but that sort of common sense thinking will never fly here

Of course it will, it's just a telephone call to Macquarie Bank away from reality......................


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25693 posts, RR: 85
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 16437 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 40):
You need to slot constrain it to make airlines fly there rather than IAD/SYD#2.

The perimeter rule (2000 km) at DCA helps, although there are some (Congress mandated) beyond perimeter exemptions. Generally, if you want to fly long-haul (even transcons) it's IAD, as at LGA (perimeter) it's JFK or EWR.

Curiously, the perimeter rule at LGA is relaxed on Saturdays and few have been able to make regular "beyond perimeter" flights work, not even to the Caribbean (say), even in winter (busiest season) and on Saturday (busiest day). There is a market, there are some charter flights (LGA-PUJ e.g.), but no scheduled service.

Still, your plan for SYD and SYD2 works for me.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5943 posts, RR: 5
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 16421 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 42):
The perimeter rule (2000 km) at DCA helps

I agree, but I didn't bring it up as I think that SYD1-PER makes sense. After all, having open access from DCA and LGA to, say, SFO, LAX, SEA, DEN would be a major leg-up to the corporate travel market.

Having limited slots available should be sufficient to "force" some traffic to SYD2, while allowing the market to determine where to fly. Rather than "use up" their slot portfolio on routes such LGA-ROA or DCA-FAY, as DL@LGA and US@DCA have done, I personally believe that the airlines should be able to fly wherever they feel that they can best maximise their limited resources.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25693 posts, RR: 85
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 16397 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 43):
I agree, but I didn't bring it up as I think that SYD1-PER makes sense.

Agreed again, but it is why I used the well-run DCA - which has beyond perimeter exemptions allowing a few transcons - as the primary example.

The management of the slots at (perimeter restricted) LGA has been a cock-up.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16218 times:

I think that Sydney Airport could easily be a superb international and domestic airport, with a western Sydney secondary airport for the LCC market (Tiger, Jetstar, Scoot, Air Asia etc).

The problem at Sydney - like most Australian airports - isn't so much capacity as the stupid separation of international and domestic, which leads me to avoid it like the plague for my international travel.

In contrast, Melbourne co-locates the two nicely.

There seem to be a lot of Qantas hangars at SYD between international and domestic which get in the way of having two adjoining terminals. I've got four Business Class long-haul trips scheduled over the next few months, and three route from Queensland via Auckland and the other via Abu Dhabi. That could have been Sydney's business (especially as OOL suits me far better than BNE) but I will not do the terminal change there, under any circumstances.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 16066 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 40):

Agree with everything you say.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 40):
I appreciate that much, we are after all talking about Australia, and NSW in particular. If we were doing it "properly" we would build a super-fast rail link to the city that connects the airport in under 30 minutes (see HKG), and maybe extend it to reach Newcastle and Canberra in an hour, but that sort of common sense thinking will never fly here

It's also about putting transport options in place for people outside the city. It's pretty straightforward for most people to get into the city, but the infrastructure to travel west is far less established.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 43):
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 43):
Having limited slots available should be sufficient to "force" some traffic to SYD2, while allowing the market to determine where to fly.

As long as SYD2 is the main international gateway, both QF and VA will be forced to maintain a decent number of flights to support connecting traffic. It would also be easy to charge higher handling fees at SYD1, which would push JQ/TT out to SYD2, and promote the new airport by offering identical fights at a slightly lower price (I think $5-10 would be sufficient to convince people choosing between the two).

Quoting koruman (Reply 45):
There seem to be a lot of Qantas hangars at SYD between international and domestic which get in the way of having two adjoining terminals

I think you'll find that it's the main runway that poses the biggest issue. The jet base is tucked away in the corner very nicely, to the extent that most people don't even seeit unless they are flying from on of the gates along the rear of terminal 3.

I do share the sentiment that the existing site could be a real world class airport, but creating such an airport would be a massive (and extremely expensive) task. There is very little that they could do to make major changes to the configuration of the airport now that General Holmes Dr and the M5 are where they are and the residential area surrounding the site comes right up to the airport.

And the additional political and social issues would continue to be present.

Quoting koruman (Reply 45):
I've got four Business Class long-haul trips scheduled over the next few months, and three route from Queensland via Auckland and the other via Abu Dhabi. That could have been Sydney's business (especially as OOL suits me far better than BNE) but I will not do the terminal change there, under any circumstances.

I doubt it, since that would mean (probably) flying QF, which you also hate with a passion. You've proclaimed before that you'll only fly across the Pacific with NZ (so you'd be flying straight into AKL anyway, avoiding SYD), and not many Queenslanders would be looking to fly via SYD when heading west.


User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 3029 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 15982 times:

Syd2 better hope its not the next Mirabel if it is not co-ordinated well. Getting the ops mix right will be vital, especially given the amount of stakeholders who have a stake in this.

The amount of investment needed will be considerable and some are right that other states will have a field day attacking large scale federal govt funds to this airport and other related infrastructure (ie. roads, rail).


User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 1004 posts, RR: 12
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 15912 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 31):
There is plenty of land available around it. The real question is which way they will point and how many people the noise will effect.

There are quite a few sensitive Ecosystems that make expanding Sydney Airport difficult. If you have a look at the environmental issues of extending the runways into Botany Bay many years ago that will give you an idea of he issues.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 33):
But that's the thing, you won't throw billions of dollars at it. In the end, if handled properly, it should actually make money.

I read feasibility studies about the re-development of Sydney Airport quite a few years ago where it was concluded redeveloping Sydney would cost some where in the region of three times more then developing a green field site.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 36):
There are plenty of other examples where multiple airports in a city cater for different needs

The business case for any airport is dependent upon multiple factors. For example expanding Sydney Airport or developing a second Sydney airport could be undermined by the further development of Darwin Airport for International operations. With the introduction of new long range and efficient aircraft the business case for developing Darwin Airport becomes stronger.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 15692 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 33):
But that's the thing, you won't throw billions of dollars at it. In the end, if handled properly, it should actually make money.

Do you have any reason to believe that would be the case?


User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 15519 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 49):
Do you have any reason to believe that would be the case?

That it would be handled properly? That depends on the Minister responsible. If it was Anthony Albanese, I'd give him buckleys chance.


User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 15294 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 45):
There seem to be a lot of Qantas hangars at SYD between international and domestic which get in the way of having two adjoining terminals.

Actually it's the main north-south runway which separates the domestic and international terminals, that you'll find is the big obstacle.

There was a suggestion put out a while ago that suggested that QF and it's partners would take over the existing domestic terminals and VA and it's partners would take over the international terminal, that would address the domestic --> international (and vice versa) transfer issue. Not sure what became of that suggestion though.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 48):
The business case for any airport is dependent upon multiple factors. For example expanding Sydney Airport or developing a second Sydney airport could be undermined by the further development of Darwin Airport for International operations. With the introduction of new long range and efficient aircraft the business case for developing Darwin Airport becomes stronger.

Not sure why Darwin impacts SYD ? It's not as if Darwin is feeding significant traffic into SYD.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 48):
There are quite a few sensitive Ecosystems that make expanding Sydney Airport difficult. If you have a look at the environmental issues of extending the runways into Botany Bay many years ago that will give you an idea of he issues.

I don't think sydscott was referring to expanding SYD, but rather what directions the runways at Badgery's creek would run in. sydscott's suggestion is that you develop Badgery's Creek from scratch and redevelop the existing site at Botany Bay into Housing/Container Terminals. I think the housing option would yield alot more $$$ selling it to developers rather than developing it for container/port purposes.

[Edited 2013-03-06 03:04:05]


319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 14971 times:

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, QF is considering buying used 744F's. It states that QF's deal with 5Y is soon ending and one of the options is to purchase aircraft and run the flights as part of Express Freighters Australia.

Qantas mulls buying 747 freighters

I don't understand why QF would be doing this, they already got burned by sticking with the 744 for too long when fuel prices went up. Won't this end up in the same situation?


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4865 posts, RR: 10
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 14919 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 45):

The problem at Sydney - like most Australian airports - isn't so much capacity as the stupid separation of international and domestic, which leads me to avoid it like the plague for my international travel.

In contrast, Melbourne co-locates the two nicely.

There seem to be a lot of Qantas hangars at SYD between international and domestic which get in the way of having two adjoining terminals. I've got four Business Class long-haul trips scheduled over the next few months, and three route from Queensland via Auckland and the other via Abu Dhabi. That could have been Sydney's business (especially as OOL suits me far better than BNE) but I will not do the terminal change there, under any circumstances.

Simple solution is to push the main runway out into the harbour alongside the other one (ending at the intersection with the cross runway. That whole area then becomes available for terminal space.

PER is eventually moving domestic ops over to where the Intl terminal is.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineBen175 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 14271 times:

Last night (March 7) QF 71 PER-SIN was delayed nearly five hours, and was operated by VH-EBP, a domestic configured 332! Does anyone know what happened here? I know for sure if I was in J I would be hugely annoyed at the product downgrade.

User currently offlineFlyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 567 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 14170 times:

Had a quick flick through Australian Avaition last night in the Newsagency, they had a story on Melbourne Airport and Avalon airport, they say Melbourne has been increasing in International pax nearly overtaking SYD how can that be when we dont have half the airlines that serve Sydney and with KE droping Melbourne on the 31st of March I am not sure of the numbers cause I just flicked through the article. I am probley wrong but I took it as there are more international pax flying into Melbourne than Sydney and Brisbane is not far behind. Considering we dont get Delta, China Airlines, BA, Virgin Alantic, Hawian, Aircalin, OZ, and Air Canada, I find it a bit hard to understand.

User currently offlinetullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 14135 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 53):
Simple solution is to push the main runway out into the harbour alongside the other one (ending at the intersection with the cross runway. That whole area then becomes available for terminal space.

Apart from the massive environmental issues of extending the runway further into Botany Bay, this doesn't overcome the other issues at SYD such as the curfew and the mandated cap of 85 movements per hour. This would therefore not solve the underlying issues at SYD.



717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772,W,310,320/1,332/3,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,SF3,AT
User currently offlineTN486 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 941 posts, RR: 2
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 14037 times:

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 55):
Had a quick flick through Australian Avaition last night in the Newsagency, they had a story on Melbourne Airport and Avalon airport, they say Melbourne has been increasing in International pax nearly overtaking SYD how can that be when we dont have half the airlines that serve Sydney and with KE droping Melbo

There is a lot of statistics in this article, and although MEL is showing higher growth year on year compared to SYD and BNE, on completion of reading the article, i felt it was a well written PR piece, as it was a spiel for both Tulla and Avalon. I am an AA mag junkie, its probably worth reading in-depth instead of the "quick flick", although in todays instant communications world a lot of what is in the mag is 2nd hand news. The articles and photos are the mags strength I believe. cheers



remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back
User currently offlineDitzyboy From Australia, joined Feb 2008, 723 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 13946 times:

Quoting Ben175 (Reply 54):
Last night (March 7) QF 71 PER-SIN was delayed nearly five hours, and was operated by VH-EBP, a domestic configured 332! Does anyone know what happened here?

I cannot comment on this occasion, but it has happened before with domestic 332s on PER-SIN and even 73H on at least one occasion. I can say on the occasion the 73H was used J customers received monetary compensation, which I thought to be generous (but that is just my opinion).

As an aside, a 333 in domestic configuration was used on ADL-SIN in 2005, a domestic 763 (OGx series) was used on PER-HKG a couple of times and a ZXx series was used for a PER-NRT rotation some time ago. I am sure there is other examples - they are some of which I have knowledge.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5943 posts, RR: 5
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13804 times:

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 55):
Melbourne has been increasing in International pax nearly overtaking SYD

Interesting, although I'm not sure I buy it. I thought that BNE was the second largest international airport, handling more international arrivals than MEL.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5012 posts, RR: 4
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13809 times:

I stumbled across this article from the SMH...

Qantas planes sold to Iran

US investigators foiled a sophisticated plot to funnel three jumbo jets originally owned by Qantas to Iran, in defiance of strict trade sanctions.
Qantas sold the passenger jets to a company in the Middle East, which hatched the plan to send the jumbos to Iran.
The planes were shifted between related companies in the United Arab Emirates and the west African country of Gambia over 16 months.
One of the jets - previously named the City of Tamworth - ended up in Iran in March last year, before US authorities intervened to prevent the other two 747s joining it there.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/qanta...-20130308-2fr2q.html#ixzz2MzGpOBbu

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5943 posts, RR: 5
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13760 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 60):

I stumbled across this article from the SMH...

Qantas planes sold to Iran

I believe that there was a thread on this last year on here, with some [US] posters accusing Qantas of supporting the Iranian Govt etc etc

The reality, of course, is that QF sold their aircraft to the highest bidder and didn't have any inclination where they might end up. And what's more, I can't think of anything that would obligate them to conduct enquiries as to what the new owner planned to do with the aircraft in 2 years time. And even if they had asked they would probably been told something like run Hajj charter from Pakistan to Jeddah.

I honestly don't see how QF are even being implicated in this.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 3029 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13599 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 59):
Interesting, although I'm not sure I buy it. I thought that BNE was the second largest international airport, handling more international arrivals than MEL.

Data can be cut in many ways, but in overall numbers, MEL is over 2 million international pax per year larger than BNE. Including OOL, MEL is still around 1.6 million pax higher.

Looking at Dec '12 data for example on the bitre site, the following data is found:

MEL
Inbound 302K
Outbound 356K

BNE
Inbound 200K
Outbound 219K

OOL
Inbound 39K
Oubound 49K

As for how many are non-Australian passport holder travelers that's harder to pinpoint, but overall in total numbers terms, there's a significant gap at this stage.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5012 posts, RR: 4
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13590 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 61):
I honestly don't see how QF are even being implicated in this.

I totally agree... That was my reaction to the article...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineZKOKQ From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 480 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13488 times:

I hope someone here is able to grab shots of the A380 doing a circuit over Sydney city on Monday around 1pm, tribute for James Strong..

User currently offlineBris86 From Australia, joined Jul 2010, 1 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13300 times:

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 2):

BNE = Tiger Airways and Aeropelican. Also look after charter flights with Skywest.


User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 4
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13282 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 53):
PER is eventually moving domestic ops over to where the Intl terminal is.

I just recently moved to Darwin from the US, so I'm not all up on the Aussie aviation scene. Is there a plan to build a parallel runway at PER on the east side of the field, one which will allow for simultaneous operations? I had a look at Google Earth and it looks like they could build one maybe 2500 meters long between Grogan Rd and Kalamunda Rd. This would allow all passenger operations to take place between the two runways with a full terminal buildout. Does not look like much development on that side of the field.

This would allow the west side to be developed for air freight and other commercial ventures. Thanks to all..


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13224 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 50):
That it would be handled properly?

No, I was actually referring to this part:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 33):
it should actually make money.

Is there actually a reason to think there is a non-zero possibility of this, even with perfect management, which also doesn't exist.

I'm not saying that there isn't, but have you seen any actual analysis supporting your original proposition?

[Edited 2013-03-09 01:30:15]

User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5012 posts, RR: 4
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13220 times:

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 66):
I just recently moved to Darwin from the US, so I'm not all up on the Aussie aviation scene. Is there a plan to build a parallel runway at PER on the east side of the field, one which will allow for simultaneous operations? I had a look at Google Earth and it looks like they could build one maybe 2500 meters long between Grogan Rd and Kalamunda Rd. This would allow all passenger operations to take place between the two runways with a full terminal buildout. Does not look like much development on that side of the field.

Welcome OZ & A.Net...

There are plans to build a parrallel runway but not for a very long time... The airport operators have no plans on building & EIS the runway until 2029... Even with the clear evidence at hand the operators are too stubborn...

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1496636&page=29

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13207 times:

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 66):
I just recently moved to Darwin from the US

Welcome to Australia.

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 66):
Is there a plan to build a parallel runway at PER on the east side of the field, one which will allow for simultaneous operations?

This is part of the long (long) term plan for development at PER. A copy of the Master Plan (16.5MB) can be downloaded from

http://www.perthairport.com.au/AboutUs/MasterPlan.aspx

The airport owners have been under a lot of pressure to bring forward construction but the earliest that they have suggested that it could be commenced by is 2017 if suitable funding could be found (and allowing for the usual environmental studies,etc). At present, part of the land is leased to the RAC Driver Training Centre. So far they have been dragging their heals, suggesting that it could be done sooner than later if the airlines were to provide the funding.

[Edited 2013-03-09 01:10:15]

User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 4
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13165 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 69):
This is part of the long (long) term plan for development at PER. A copy of the Master Plan (16.5MB) can be downloaded from

http://www.perthairport.com.au/AboutUs/MasterPlan.aspx

The airport owners have been under a lot of pressure to bring forward construction but the earliest that they have suggested that it could be commenced by is 2017 if suitable funding could be found (and allowing for the usual environmental studies,etc). At present, part of the land is leased to the RAC Driver Training Centre. So far they have been dragging their heals, suggesting that it could be done sooner than later if the airlines were to provide the funding.

Thanks for the link. I found what I was looking for here on page 61:

http://www.perthairport.com.au/Libra...-_FINAL_MDP_-_Dec_2011_1.sflb.ashx

Very ambitious project to say the least, I can see why it will take so long to get this completed. But with the growth that seems to be happening at Perth it needs to be done. It looks to be a complete build out on the eastern side in conjuction with the new parallel runway. Looks like they have extended the cross-wind runway as well.


User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 13119 times:

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 70):
Very ambitious project to say the least, I can see why it will take so long to get this completed. But with the growth that seems to be happening at Perth it needs to be done. It looks to be a complete build out on the eastern side in conjuction with the new parallel runway. Looks like they have extended the cross-wind runway as well.

PER does need it. Mornings are slot-constrained, and really for a city the size of PER, we shouldn't have a slot constrained airport at any time!

Morning On-Time Performance at PER is quite bad, simply because planes are held on ground longer just to get clearance.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5012 posts, RR: 4
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 13036 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 69):

Thanks for sharing the link... Ambitious, I hope the expansion work is done sooner than later...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 4
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 13030 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 72):
Thanks for sharing the link... Ambitious, I hope the expansion work is done sooner than later...

Agreed. I was reading somewhere that Qantas' leases in their domestic terminal expire in 2018 or somewhere thereabouts, so if the optimistic 2017 date of the new runway holds true maybe at the same time they will be working on the proposed eastern side of T1. I would guess that would be earmarked for QF.

I will be making my first trip to Perth in three weeks over Easter Weekend on Virgin from DRW, looking forward to seeing what all the fuss is about..  


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5012 posts, RR: 4
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 12952 times:

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 73):
Agreed. I was reading somewhere that Qantas' leases in their domestic terminal expire in 2018 or somewhere thereabouts, so if the optimistic 2017 date of the new runway holds true maybe at the same time they will be working on the proposed eastern side of T1. I would guess that would be earmarked for QF.

I believe there are no plans for QF to move anytime soon... They have completed expanding the lounge with seating for 100+ which occupies the concourse area... Once VA move to their new pier QF will have the domestic terminal all to them selves to play around with & occupy...
I believe the QF/EK alliance is going to be a headache with domestic transfers...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 12956 times:

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 73):
at the same time they will be working on the proposed eastern side of T1

At this stage, the new Terminal 2 (Terminal WA) has been opened and accommodates Alliance Airlines and Skywest, with. Tiger Airways moving in May 2013. The next phase is construction of a Domestic Pier at Terminal 1 concurrent with improvements to the International area, including an expanded check-in hall, an increased border and security screening area and a refurbished and spacious departure area with all the usual opportunities for duty free shopping and dining. The Domestic Pier will become the base for Virgin and is expected to be ready by mid-2014.

When Virgin move, Terminal 4 will be upgraded and made available for Qantas, so that Qantas, Jetstar, QantasLink and Network Aviation will operate from a single precinct that includes Terminals 3 and 4. At this stage there is no definite date for Qantas joining everyone else at the consolidated passenger precinct.


User currently offlineFlyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 567 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 12949 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 59):
Interesting, although I'm not sure I buy it. I thought that BNE was the second largest international airport, handling more international arrivals than MEL.

Yeah I have heard that to, I just wonder how they get these figures when there are airlines that serve SYD that Melbourne and Brisbane dont have fly in.


User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 12962 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 75):
When Virgin move, Terminal 4 will be upgraded and made available for Qantas, so that Qantas, Jetstar, QantasLink and Network Aviation will operate from a single precinct that includes Terminals 3 and 4. At this stage there is no definite date for Qantas joining everyone else at the consolidated passenger precinct.

I read a while back, that soon after T2 opened, but before Virgin moved out, that Qantas was either going to move Jetstar or Qantaslink (or part thereof) to T3, and then expand further when Virgin moved completely out. Is this going to happen? I do believe there is space for Jetstar at T3, especially after Tiger moves, and while I wouldn't move Qantaslink check-in away from Qantas, Jetstar could be moved quite easily. Think this would also improve the experience with more aerobridge use for instance.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 12767 times:

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 71):
PER does need it. Mornings are slot-constrained, and really for a city the size of PER, we shouldn't have a slot constrained airport at any time!

On paper, it seems counter intuitive that PER would need an airport bigger or at least as big as MEL in terms of runway capacity. Why is it so?


User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 3029 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12728 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 78):
On paper, it seems counter intuitive that PER would need an airport bigger or at least as big as MEL in terms of runway capacity. Why is it so?

Smaller planes requiring more flight movements I would say.

MEL is generally A320/737 size and above, with limited regional ops, whereas PER operates more flights with smaller aircraft due to the FIFO ops.

Given the volitile nature of mining booms and busts, who knows what will be needed in the coming years though.


User currently offlineBen175 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12751 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 78):

On paper, it seems counter intuitive that PER would need an airport bigger or at least as big as MEL in terms of runway capacity. Why is it so?

PER has a highly lucrative FIFO market that sees 6am-8am skyrocket in terms of aircraft movements. Yes, there are periods during the day (2am-5am and 11am-2pm) where there's less activity, sometimes none for long periods, but there's times during the morning where the lineup for takeoff looks like a scene from JFK or Heathrow!


User currently offlineeaglefarm4 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12740 times:

BNE currently is the airport with the most problems due to only 1 runway and up to 700 movements a day on weekdays which is a lot more than Perth.

User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12700 times:

I wonder if there could be any consolidation of flights onto bigger planes or moving the smaller planes to Jandakot?

Quoting eaglefarm4 (Reply 81):
BNE currently is the airport with the most problems due to only 1 runway and up to 700 movements a day on weekdays which is a lot more than Perth.

The second runway only handled IIRC 23 movements per day. I surmise the thing was that it handled some small planes which require very large spacing and that is what is putting the delays out.

The second runway will re-open later this month.

The question I'd ask does cross-runway ops like MEL (one runway takeoffs and one runway landings have a significantly greater capacity than a single runway? How much?


User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 83, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 12601 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 82):

I wonder if there could be any consolidation of flights onto bigger planes or moving the smaller planes to Jandakot?

Why should they move to Jandakot, when there is space for another runway? Runways do cost a lot of money, but Jandakot would probably need some work done to it to handle some of the FIFO operations (which also costs), plus it does impact on passenger experience if anyone happens to be transferring to an interstate flight.

I don't think a 3rd runway even has to be all that big. A runway that can handle at maximum a 737 would be sufficient to ease congestion in the mornings. Even a runway that handles just planes upto 717/F100 would do the job.

As for MEL v PER comparison. PER is relatively quiet most of the day, apart from that early morning 5:30-9:00 period. However, that period is part of the lucrative FIFO operation which delivers workers to remote work sites which are a huge part of the economy. Having passengers arrive late does make an impact, and I would hazard a guess that some of the mining companies would like to have more flights around the 06:00 time slot (rather than towards 08:00), but airlines cannot accommodate that due to the slot restriction.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 12530 times:

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 83):
Why should they move to Jandakot, when there is space for another runway? Runways do cost a lot of money, but Jandakot would probably need some work done to it to handle some of the FIFO operations (which also costs), plus it does impact on passenger experience if anyone happens to be transferring to an interstate flight.

Seems a very expensive project for which mainly a few FIFO flyers will benefit. Perhaps the cost should be transferred to them. Slot controlling the airport seems a reasonable compromise. Not sure how it's divvied up though. What if the FIFO flyers drop off as the minerals boom subsides or housing in the mining areas increases?


User currently offlineAirvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 85, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 12538 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 82):

The question I'd ask does cross-runway ops like MEL (one runway takeoffs and one runway landings have a significantly greater capacity than a single runway? How much?


The world wide average for single runway ops is about 40 movements per hour.

When SYD used the configuration 16D 16/07A ( prior to the third runway) the record movement rate (iirc) was 56 ( that was in VMC conditions.)


User currently offlineeaglefarm4 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 86, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 12481 times:

Since BNE has gone to single runways ops the record of 57 on one runway in 1 hour was recorded and 719 in the day.

It is currently the 2nd busiest single runway airport in the world during weekdays, however the worst on time performance airport in Australia currently.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 87, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 12432 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 82):
moving the smaller planes to Jandakot?

On the surface, this may have some merit but bear in mind that not all FIFO workers are based in Perth; some fly in from interstate and getting from PER to JAD isn't the easiest. I am not sure whether companies like Skippers and Maroomba would wish to move, or that when Virgin acquire Skywest that their operations be split over two airports.

Jandakot is quite busy with many training flights (accounting for 70% of movements), both for fixed wing and rotary aircraft, as well the base for the RFDS, Fire and Emergency Services and Police Air Wing. The airport is also the base for several charter operators, including those providing services to agriculture, surveying, photography, tourism, scenic flights and mining.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 84):
Perhaps the cost should be transferred to them.

The operators of PER have already suggested that the mining companies look at changing their shift patterns or that the airlines stump up the money. The airlines say that they already do in the form of fees and charges. Charter flights currently account for some 40% of aircraft movements at PER, although mining related domestic passenger movements account for about 30% of all passengers.

As you say, what happens if the mining industry declines? Would the mining companies want to pay for an asset that would belong to somebody else that they (mining companies) no longer used?


User currently offlineBenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 88, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12199 times:

While there are many well argued views about a second Sydney Airport there are a few factuals to keep in mind.

The protected site is legally defined as a 24 hour airport.

It has been reduced to 1700 hectares, or about twice the size of the main airport.

This is why you will find references to a Nepean airport site in the joint state/federal study of a year ago. That site is what you would access if you shifted the existing Commonwealth owned site past its western boundary to farm land between it and the Nepean River. By such a shift, or amalgamation, you could have a much more ambitious airport, or one with far more room to grow than the two westerly to easterly runways envisaged in the late 90s for the Badgerys Creek site as it now exists.

The East Hills/Airport line is by amazing coincidence or clever intent, being extended into the SW Rail project, which at its furthest extent, in a train depot, is only a matter of a few kilometres from a logical site for an airport terminal at the existing site. The distance from Wolli Creek station to the Leppington station which is the current end of the projected line is only 33 kilometres by rail. No need for a fast train. The rail link to the airport should it ever happen, could also be extended northwards as a mostly surface permanent way to link to the western line. BC or Sydney West can be thus readily connected to the rail network with existing rolling stock, just as it can readily be accessed from spur roads to the M4, the M7, and for that matter the M7/M5 interchange.

The market catchment for Badgerys Creek is about two million people. An awful lot of congestion around the existing airport is caused by airport users driving from western Sydney to eastern Sydney.

In the mid naughties Brett Godfrey at Virgin Blue had some preliminary data crunching done on the post code addresses of people buying DJ tickets with credit cards. This caused him to tell me that if BC was open 'tomorrow' it would get 60 DJ flights a day, or about 30% of what it was punting through Sydney at that time. But that was seven years ago.

There is from my sources good support by some current international carriers at Sydney with multi daily timetables now to run at least one of them through Badgerys Creek, including midnight departures to cities in Asia. But SYD would remain incredibly important. As would the pricing tension between separately owned airports, if SACL doesn't exercise its right to build Sydney West.

If you want to see the blood drain from the face of anyone in SACL push the idea of shifting so called LCCs out of it to Badgerys Creek, or Canberra, or wherever. LCC passengers are the ones that don't disappear into lounges or use valet parking. They contribute serious money to SACL through the head count airport charges, the SACL run parking, and the SACL leased retail premises. It makes more from an 180 passenger A320 than it will ever make from a nice roomy two class 130 passenger A320 like Ansett used to fly and would fight to the last to hang on to the volume spending represented by low fare travellers.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 89, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 12174 times:

More posts please, Ben.

I only share a fraction of your opinions, but you're always fascinating to read.

So please, more!


User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 90, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 12175 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 84):
Seems a very expensive project for which mainly a few FIFO flyers will benefit.
Quoting CXfirst (Reply 83):
plus it does impact on passenger experience if anyone happens to be transferring to an interstate flight.

I just want to clarify. It really isn't just a few passengers. Although most come from the PER region, there are plenty of other passengers transferring to MEL, ADL, SYD, BNE and even further away. Working at the airport, I see these passengers each day. Jandakot doesn't work well for them.

Furthermore, Jandakot does need quite a bit of work to accommodate the amount of movements and passengers it would need to in order to relieve PER. Jandakot is also very busy, and there isn't much available apron space (if any). There would be significant amounts of work needed to get someone like Skippers down there, and I wouldn't be surprised if that even included works to the taxiways and runways as well.

Basically, what I am saying is that although Jandakot redevelopment could be cheaper (not sure if it would even be that), the added benefit of another runway at PER far outweighs the added benefit of developing Jandakot to take a significant amount of the early morning flights. And I haven't even gotten into the work needed on surrounding roads, etc.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineBenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 91, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 12039 times:

Thanks Koruman

My opinions are unimportant. The motive is to un-spin the flow of information in the MSN, or rather, to resist the message managers. I'm concerned that our children are growing up inside sheltered gardens where the walls are built from 'likes', the attention span is 300 words max, and reality is observed through a screen 600 pixels across. My time started when the age of the scheduled passenger liners was reaching its mid 20th century peak, and the Adelaide Steam Ship Company was of comparable scale as a means of interstate carriage than TAA and ANA combined in the post war years. The trip to NZ took more days on the Wanganella than it did hours in a Lockheed Electra, and began at 4
Walsh Bay with a brass band and streamers at the dock side.

But the present, and what comes after, is even more exciting and inspiring, even though it will at times be as rough as.


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5825 posts, RR: 6
Reply 92, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 12010 times:

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 91):
I'm concerned that our children are growing up inside sheltered gardens where the walls are built from 'likes', the attention span is 300 words max, and reality is observed through a screen 600 pixels across.

300 words! At work (a TAFE college) we have come to the conclusion is that it is 160 characters max for today's school leavers!

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25693 posts, RR: 85
Reply 93, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11979 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 91):
The motive is to un-spin the flow of information in the MSN, or rather, to resist the message managers. I'm concerned that our children are growing up inside sheltered gardens where the walls are built from 'likes', the attention span is 300 words max, and reality is observed through a screen 600 pixels across.

Fair enough, but from my perspective the spin cuts both ways, the naysayers can be as irrational or as prejudiced as the fans - we are all conditioned by our own past, our own agendas.

The young (or younger) have access to - and command of - information on an extraordinary scale and I see them questioning many of the precepts of the past, finding new and inventive ways to meet the challenges that, in many ways, we have created.

My time started with the flying boats - my first air journey was from Alexandria (when Rommel was knocking on the door) to South Africa - and while I agree that the present and the future is as exciting as anything I've known, it is those young, or younger, who will shape the future.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 92):
300 words! At work (a TAFE college) we have come to the conclusion is that it is 160 characters max for today's school leavers!

Hooray! I was schooled to believe that less if often more. In my business it has always been said that you can write a great idea on the back of a postage stamp.

In the case of Southwest Airlines, I believe the first route map was drawn on a folded paper napkin and that didn't work out too shabbily.  

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-10 14:10:00]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 94, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11883 times:

A small update from the IASC;

http://www.iasc.gov.au/applications/index.aspx

- The transfer of Qantas codeshare capacity on the Italian route from CX to EK, and the renewal of capacity QF applied for in September last year has still not been resolved. After Virgin applied for half of the codeshare capacity so they could start coding with SQ and EY, the route decision became contested. Various application and responses have been lodged but the IASC, 6 months later, have still not ruled on whether QF can keep all its current allotment or whether VA will get some. Last submission was late January so it'll be interesting to see when the IASC will rule.

- In another QF/EK puzzler, the IASC was permitted them to codeshare on Singapore, UK and UAE routes but have not yet premitted a codeshare on the Thailand route. I find that interesting because a decision on VA and EY codesharing on the Thailand route was quickly approved and there is a letter from the ACCC posted stating that they have no problem with an EK/QF codeshare between Australia and Thailand.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5943 posts, RR: 5
Reply 95, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 11782 times:

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 88):

Thanks for that Ben. I don't often see eye to eye with you, but your post is highly informative and makes a lot of sense.

From what you say surely the best option would be for SACL to get involved with Sydney West. If they don't, and it goes ahead anyway, I would be asking some heavy hitting questions if I were a shareholder.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 92):
At work (a TAFE college) we have come to the conclusion is that it is 160 characters max for today's school leavers!

*hangs head in shame*

As a university student this saddens me greatly. While mariner is right in that "we" have access to information that was inconceivable even a decade ago, and have the potential to use that in ways as of yet unthought of, it is somewhat concerning that writing and comprehension are dying out.

I've heard it said that CNN started this process. By providing 24 hour information, people became accustomed to knowing everything a minute ago, and CNN had to package information ("news") in a manner that is attractive and easily digestible to keep you watching 24 hours per day.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineTN486 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 941 posts, RR: 2
Reply 96, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 11732 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 93):
The young (or younger) have access to - and command of - information on an extraordinary scale and I see them questioning many of the precepts of the past, finding new and inventive ways to meet the challenges that, in many ways, we have created.

Totally agree with you.
As an aside, in my role as an Ageing Positively Ambassador (voluntary), I find the youth are very much in awe of the Mature Aged Citizen (MAC) and their worldly experiences, and respect them as such. However, on the other hand, the MAC seem generally to be at odds with the new generation and its ways (as were our forbearers with us).



remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11716 times:

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 88):
It has been reduced to 1700 hectares, or about twice the size of the main airport.

Thanks for your other facts, but this fact is largely irrelevant. SYD has an amazing use of its land area thanks to the runways in the bay. A more relevant comparison might be to other two runway airports such as LHR. IIRC, the runways proposed for Badgery's are 2600m - too short for a trans-pacific flight. The question is could a longer runway be included in the area reserved? At least that would handle 747 freighters then.


User currently offlineBenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 98, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11575 times:

The Geek,

My distinct impression was that the joint state/federal panel which studied the alternatives for a second Sydney basin airport leaked the 'Nepean' option a month before the report was tabled (and shot down by the minister within 30 minutes) 15 months ago as a way of correcting the error involved in downsizing the Badgerys Creek site. While the study is imprecise as to just what the dimensions and orientation of the Nepean option would be, it looks like it would be continuous with the BC site and allow anything to done there so it could be a four runway facility.

Just connecting the dots, it seems to me that the panel was keeping a Badgerys Creek stage one (existing site) and stage two (extended site) open.

No-one apart from SACL thinks that at even half the current growth rates for the next 20-30 years that the existing Sydney Airport will cope, not even if every flight was an A380 to go to the absurd extension of some of the comments made by its management.

However we could argue that it would cope because it would start to throttle the economic relevance of Sydney, and become a self fulfilling brake on expansion, which is also an argument that can be parodied if we wanted to, since nothing in transport economics ever behaves in a predictable linear or geometric manner.

My concern is gridlock at SYD will however to some degree deflate future economic activity in Sydney, with negative consequences for the state economy. However on the other hand that would also inflate the activity in greater Melbourne, or Canberra, should Canberra's government decide it wants to be a city of 1.3 million not 0.3 million.

Badgerys Creek can take a lot of pressure off SYD, but it certainly wouldn't kill it or make it unnecessary. The result of a well used Badgerys Creek starting say 2020, (could be ready by 2019 if we tried) might well make the national airport rankings MEL 1, SYD 2, BNE 3, SYDWEST 4, and we added the two Sydney airports together it would of course remain top of the table and the gap would most likely grow.

However if the Nepean option was developed, and Sydney maintained its gateway leadership, and SYD remained almost as constrained as it is, then by sometime in the 2030s if not very late 20s Nepean would become larger than Sydney .

This view has as those who visit another place would know, been challenged, quite a lot. However I tracked, in person, learned experts in the 80s insisting during the course of the MANS Inquiry, that Sydney Airport would not even need a third runway until 2005 at the earliest, when it might get to 10 million pax a year. These respected authorities were part of a forecasting establishment that in the late 60s argued that Sydney-Melbourne would only ever support 16 return flights a day of 727-100 sized jets equally divided by law into 8 identically configured TAA and Ansett-ANA aircraft.

The future of Australia has almost always been sold short by 'sane and respected' forecasters.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25693 posts, RR: 85
Reply 99, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11546 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 95):
I've heard it said that CNN started this process.

Many educationalists lay the blame on "Sesame Street" for encouraging the short attention span.

I don't see the problem. We have members here whom I can only describe as "verbose" and we have others who post in almost telegram-ese. Journalists are often paid by word-count and must deliver a minimum and Fox News used to pay Sarah Palin by the word - so she had a lot to say.

I try to use as few words as I need to express an idea, not how many.

Quoting TN486 (Reply 96):
However, on the other hand, the MAC seem generally to be at odds with the new generation and its ways (as were our forbearers with us).

It's their loss, I think. I'm presently working with a 24 year old and she's brilliant. I respect her passion and her ideas (and her energy in getting things done) and she respects my knowledge and experience.

It's my view of civil aviation. It's the younger blokes (and bloke-esses?) shaping the future now, bringing their ideas, their world view, and they have to have that space. Offer advice, sure, but cheer them on.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5943 posts, RR: 5
Reply 100, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11504 times:

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 98):
it would start to throttle the economic relevance of Sydney, and become a self fulfilling brake on expansion, which is also an argument that can be parodied if we wanted to, since nothing in transport economics ever behaves in a predictable linear or geometric manner.

My concern is gridlock at SYD will however to some degree deflate future economic activity in Sydney, with negative consequences for the state economy. However on the other hand that would also inflate the activity in greater Melbourne, or Canberra, should Canberra's government decide it wants to be a city of 1.3 million not 0.3 million.

The Commonwealth and NSW Governments' policies notwithstanding, I think this is the biggest concern about a second airport in Sydney, and that city's infrastructure more generally.

I'm not a Sydneysider, so from a parochial perspective I guess that I have no particular reason to want the NSW economy is remain the strongest in Australia. That, however, is short sighted. Sydney is, and for the foreseeable future will remain, our primary economic centre and our conduit to the global economy. We, as an entire nation, choke that at our peril. While I understand that the Vic, Qld, WA governments would want every cent of federal infrastructure spending to go to them rather than NSW, at some point they need to realise that this country's economy begins and ends in NSW. All three seem to think that they are God's gift to Australia. Victoria might have a point, the other two not so much, if mining sneezes their economies catch a cold, and I say that as a Queenslander. I remember some pretty tense conversations in 2008/9 when mining in Mount Isa contracted sharply.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 98):
Canberra, should Canberra's government decide it wants to be a city of 1.3 million not 0.3 million.

This is probably a minority view, but at this rate I believe that Sydney's future lies in Canberra. Western Western Sydney if you like. Canberra has a clean slate with which to work with, something Western Sydney never will have, and a government that is obsessive to the nth degree when it comes to planning. This allows the ACT to build infrastructure and housing in an orderly fashion, allowing the city to grow without strangling itself. The ACT Government has a stated policy of wanting to attract more private sector investment and employment so that the Territory is less reliant on just one employer, and with appropriate infrastructure (read HSR) it is well placed to take advantage of Sydney's problems over the next 20-30 years. Maybe I am wearing rose tinted lenses as I do have a soft spot for my adopted hometown, but I am genuinely excited for this city's future.

Quoting mariner (Reply 99):
Many educationalists lay the blame on "Sesame Street" for encouraging the short attention span.

Interesting, do you know why this is?

[Edited 2013-03-10 22:26:46]


Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25693 posts, RR: 85
Reply 101, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11473 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 100):
Interesting, do you know why this is?

Sure - but it's a long way from civil aviation, so I've sent you a pm.  

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineTN486 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 941 posts, RR: 2
Reply 102, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11495 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 99):
It's their loss, I think. I'm presently working with a 24 year old and she's brilliant. I respect her passion and her ideas (and her energy in getting things done) and she respects my knowledge and experience.


It's my view of civil aviation. It's the younger blokes (and bloke-esses?) shaping the future now, bringing their ideas, their world view, and they have to have that space. Offer advice, sure, but cheer them on.

I have 2 youngies assisting me at the moment, and we are sharing as you are, its sheer delight.

As my father used to say "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It works.



remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 103, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11492 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 99):
Fox News used to pay Sarah Palin by the word - so she had a lot to say.

How do you turn an imbecile into a commentator? Pay them by the word apparently.

But, I suppose, if her pay was based on saying something sensible she wouldn't get paid at all. She's got to make a living somehow..................


User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 11309 times:

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 98):
However if the Nepean option was developed, and Sydney maintained its gateway leadership, and SYD remained almost as constrained as it is, then by sometime in the 2030s if not very late 20s Nepean would become larger than Sydney .

Would you not in this instance make the Nepean option into a mega sized airport (i.e. 4-5 runways) and get rid of SYD as it stands, or does even the 'Nepean' option not have enough land to accomodate this. Sure you would need renegotiate the current lease/arrangement with SACL but you could sell off the existing SYD land to property developers which would help alleviate some of the population/residential land pressures within Sydney at the moment and raise a bundle of $$$. You would then (As much as I would hate the idea of this, renegotiate with SACL so they would run the new/expanded Nepean option - but you'd certainly make them pay several billion $ for the privlege!!!)

Having 2 different airports within SYD would certainly negate alot of the benefits (domestic-international, domestic-domestic, international-international connectivity) from having all operations consolidated onto one site. How would you split the ops between the existing SYD and 'NEPEAN':

(1) Intl/Dom - QF/VA at SYD, LCC's at Nepean
(2) QF and Partners at SYD, VA and partners and LCC's at Nepean
(3) Other combinations?



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlineBenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 105, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 11217 times:

These suggestions are always interesting but at the risk of being speared there are some problems.

I think what we are missing in this discussion is that a hypothetical but narrow focus on the state imposed reallocation of airport activity in the Sydney basin would have catastrophic unintended consequences in the broader economy. Never mind compensating the owners of SYD for 88 years of confiscated future profit expectations for the balance of their 99 year lease. Worry more about the collapse of superannuation funds that are heavily dependent on airport investments, which are not investments in air transport so much as retail opportunities.

Airports don't operate in a vacuum, but as part of an economic food chain.

The companies that generate large amounts of frequent corporate account travel would respond to being told they would have to travel to a site across the river from the lower Blue Mountains by terminating their CBD leases and shifting to another city. Property values would collapse, logistics firms would be unable to fund the necessary changes from their cash flows without suffering terminal loss of competitiveness against interstate rivals who would not have any such airport dislocation costs, and so forth.

A very important factor in transport economics is equality of opportunity. A draconian remake of Sydney's transport format would blow away Sydney based enterprises vis a vis interstate competitors with no such issues.

I think we need to recognise too that a single airport solution for something as broad and diverse as the Sydney basin and its current and growing population of 4.7 million isn't any more practicable than the current single airport that is running out of capacity and is horribly inconvenient from those in the western half of the basin.

It doesn't matter how good or bad either airport is, we do need two airports, and each needs to offer the full range of services to all comers, whether they are international, regional or interstate .

That way each airport is managed as its owners see best to maximise their economic opportunity.

I'd be very careful about the notion that low cost carrier activity can be 'sent' to remote or what are perceived to be non-premium locations. Low cost passengers and flights generate more income per passenger for airport owners than customers who are owned by the airlines and use valet parking and retreat into lounges. Modern airport commercial opportunity is about how many fee paying passengers can be fitted into a jet (something I'm always complaining about since I'm a large Australian .... ) and the terminal and parking retail opportunities. Airports take a cut from navigation fees, from security services, from baggage distribution and of course from aircraft parking fees. I'm generalising, but airports are like banks, they live on fees.

What is essential in my opinion for airport development in Sydney or other major cities is to make the access infrastructure work for or deliver dividends to the general population in appropriate development of road or rail access, not just to the airports, but through and around them.

I'd like to see the Nepean option taken at Badgerys Creek because it will be a major generator of additional jobs and economic activity for Sydney both during construction and for as long as it operates. But it is so much easier said than done. It's not just the politics, but the appropriate financing model, since it will have to predominantly come from private funds, or, where it comes from public funds, with an appropriate payback for the taxpayer from a levy or tax that captures the rise in property values that comes from association with the airport or its supporting transport infrastructure.

Unfortunately, all of these wishes depend on a depth of public discussion and a pursuit of detail which will not fit into a tweet, or onto a bumper sticker, or into a single election campaign. They require us to have a cultural change in the pursuit of a more prosperous but also sustainable economy. The state should never impose, but it should facilitate.

Which is like calling for thoughtful utopianism.


User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11121 times:

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 105):
The companies that generate large amounts of frequent corporate account travel would respond to being told they would have to travel to a site across the river from the lower Blue Mountains by terminating their CBD leases and shifting to another city. Property values would collapse, logistics firms would be unable to fund the necessary changes from their cash flows without suffering terminal loss of competitiveness against interstate rivals who would not have any such airport dislocation costs, and so forth.

I didn't take into account the flow on impact of relocating SYD to out to a western Sydney location but not sure it would have the scale of the impact that you're suggesting. Yes agree there would be certain companies and properties that would take an instant hit (e.g. hotels located near the airport) but I don't think the location of an airport necessarily drives the attractiveness of the underlying economic characteristics of a city. For example, Tullamarine is alot further away from the Melbourne CBD vs Kingsford Smith and the Sydney CBD, but that doesn't necessarily drive (yes it has an impact) a company's decision to headquarter their operations in Sydney vs Melbourne. However I can't see the collapse of commercial property prices (in the CBD anyway) if SYD was relocated given the population base + skill set within the workforce of Sydney.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 105):
It's not just the politics, but the appropriate financing model, since it will have to predominantly come from private funds, or, where it comes from public funds, with an appropriate payback for the taxpayer from a levy or tax that captures the rise in property values that comes from association with the airport or its supporting transport infrastructure.

I can't see a private model working unless the traffic is there from day 1, the required return on capital (discounted cash flow, IRR etc) would not be attractive enough for a private company unless the government and/or the airlines guarantee X amount of traffic from the day the new airport is completed. You can guarantee that SACL won't be lying down and letting any new airport skim away passengers. Perhaps a PPP is the way to go, although recent examples haven't been particularly successful.



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3255 posts, RR: 6
Reply 107, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11059 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 82):

The question I'd ask does cross-runway ops like MEL (one runway takeoffs and one runway landings have a significantly greater capacity than a single runway? How much?

Absolutely; one only needs to reference LGA and MDW.

In the case of LGA, it is a significant increase in capacity (handling approx 360,000 movements per year), except during high wind conditions.

[Edited 2013-03-11 07:13:47]


FLYi
User currently offlineBenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 108, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10961 times:

SYDspotter,

Your reference to PPP performance is a really vital but difficult issue, and probably way beyond the remit of Airliners.net.

The early private public partnerships in Australia worked very well. But this century they have seen the rise of financial engineering where the fees and structures within very complex ownership and debt raising arrangements could be compared to the build up of ice on the wings of an aircraft.

They can actually destroy projects and force them into receivership.

An example is Sydney's cross city tunnel where various estimates are that between 78 and 85 cents in the dollar of what is an incredibly costly toll goes to pay various fees between the parties to its ownership or their financiers. The balance is supposed to fund a dividend and the retirement of capital expenditure. About five years ago the NSW auditor general wrote an analysis for the AFR in which he said the underlying cost of the original $900 million project was only $200 million, which the state could have borrowed, and charged a $1 each way fee for 20 years, and totally paid for the project while seeing traffic numbers soar to original expectations of close to 100,000 vehicles a day rather than less than 20,000.

The financial fees feeding frenzy in PPP projects in Australia has resulted in the most expensive project costs for motorways and metro rail links and new runways, such as the second long runway for Brisbane Airport, in the world.

Taming the banks when it comes to these distortions is not an easy challenge, and I don't even try to discuss it elsewhere as it takes readers a long, long way from aviation, but does frustrate the things most of us would like to see happen get built.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25693 posts, RR: 85
Reply 109, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10924 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Air New Zealand last week released excellent financial numbers, and gave some clues to its actions and its future.

Air NZ is not, of course, an exact proxy for Qantas - it's very much smaller, for one thing - but given the crap that has been thrown at Qantas/Joyce by so many of the Old Imperialists of Australia (from Xenophon to Singleton) it might be instructive.

Some of the problems are similar - liberal aviation policies in the home country - and especially the relationship with the UK.

Air NZ's AKL-LAX-LHR had been a fairly stellar performer but the airline also started AKL-HKG-LHR, which many thought would be the favoured route to London, partly because of TSA issues at LAX.

It didn't work out that way. Air NZ's international long haul has been losing money for five years and because there was no recovery after the GFC, the airline took action. HKG-LHR was the main culprit. It was not profitable, was not expected to be so in the foreseeable future, and so the airline dropped it - to the consternation of many.

The results? International long haul is now back in the black:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-...says-long-flights-profitable-again

"Air New Zealand said Thursday its long-distance international flights are profitable again for the first time in five years after it axed its Hong Kong to London route and upped its offerings in Asia.

"The airline announced in January it was increasing the number of flights to Shanghai and Tokyo in response to strong growth in Asian markets.

North American revenue was up 17 percent from a year earlier and up by 9 percent in Asia. Revenue from the U.K. and Europe was down by 18 percent while revenue from Australia and the Pacific Islands was up by 2.5 percent."


Negative 18% from the UK/Europe is an alarming number, and presumably HKG-LHR plays into it, but the airline clearly sees it's own future as a Pacific Rim carrier:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/busine...h-potential-in-asia-pacific-region

"While it hasn't been decided where the aircraft will be deployed, Mr Luxon said the Pacific and Asia offer great growth opportunities for Air New Zealand.

He said Asia offered the greatest growth opportunities and China has now overtaken the UK as New Zealand's second biggest tourism market with 195,000 visitors."


As I said, it's not an exact proxy for Qantas and it doesn't have antagonistic and aggressive unions, but it may be a shadow and I wish the new CEO at Air NZ well. He clearly believes that at a well-run airline the market decides the route map, not sentiment.

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-11 14:00:28]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5943 posts, RR: 5
Reply 110, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10861 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 109):
Mr Luxon said the Pacific and Asia offer great growth opportunities for Air New Zealand.
Quoting mariner (Reply 109):
increasing the number of flights to Shanghai and Tokyo in response to strong growth in Asian markets.

I look forward to Koruman's response, he has a bee in his bonnet about NZ's Asia operations   



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25693 posts, RR: 85
Reply 111, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10850 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 110):
I look forward to Koruman's response, he has a bee in his bonnet about NZ's Asia operations   

I'll leave Koruman to speak for himself, but he seemed to have had something of an epiphany in another thread - and good on him for that, I dips my lid to him.  

As to the increase in China/Japan, it may have something to do with the fact that the nature of Auckland (more so than NZ generally) is changing:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...cle.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10870610

"Population trends mean, in effect, that Auckland's three main ethnic groups of Europeans, Asian, and people of Maori and Pacific heritage will soon be of roughly equal size."

It's all about the Pacific Rim. The missing link is Hispanic America - central and south - but hopefully, the NZ PM"s just concluding trip there may help to change that.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5943 posts, RR: 5
Reply 112, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10628 times:

I went back and read over the end of the other thread, and I really must apologise to you Koruman.

To provide a more constructive comment, it is interesting that NZ have decided that the Asia-Pacific region will play an increasingly important role in their future. I find it disheartening that Qantas do not have a strategy at the moment to adress this trend, which is almost surely happening here just as much. I know that this is something that they intend to fix over the medium-to-long term, but at this stage it is far from clear where that strategy lies. Arguably this is reflective of the national "debate" on this subject, with the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper providing lots of warm fuzzy feelings but not much in the way of substantive policy direction. My concern is that unless QF can begin implementing a constructive plan in the region soon then they will further fall behind the region competition. Obviously I'm not advocating a CZ-style schedule, but it does appear that QF is stuck between a rock and a hard place given the lack of an appropriate partner in the region.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5012 posts, RR: 4
Reply 113, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10544 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 112):
Obviously I'm not advocating a CZ-style schedule, but it does appear that QF is stuck between a rock and a hard place given the lack of an appropriate partner in the region.

MU *cough* *cough* 

The relationship will only grow stronger once JQ HKG takes off...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 114, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10309 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 112):
Obviously I'm not advocating a CZ-style schedule, but it does appear that QF is stuck between a rock and a hard place given the lack of an appropriate partner in the region.

Lets also face facts here, if QF is in a hard place it is one of their own making. You only need to look at OW with Malaysian, Cathay and JAL along with their growing relationship with MU to see what the opportunity is. (and where) Alan Joyce has got what he wants and has a clean sheet to build Asia with dedicated capacity so lets hope that he now takes it and in the next round of announcements, really gives us a strategy as opposed to a re-shuffle. At this stage they really can't afford not to!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 112):
Australia in the Asian Century White Paper providing lots of warm fuzzy feelings but not much in the way of substantive policy direction

I can almost hear Sir Humphrey Appleby speaking when people refer to that White Paper.............

Quoting mariner (Reply 111):
It's all about the Pacific Rim. The missing link is Hispanic America - central and south - but hopefully, the NZ PM"s just concluding trip there may help to change that.

Alas, what NZ lacks in South America is a partner. (As, for that matter, does the whole Star Alliance)


User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10300 times:

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 108):
The early private public partnerships in Australia worked very well. But this century they have seen the rise of financial engineering where the fees and structures within very complex ownership and debt raising arrangements could be compared to the build up of ice on the wings of an aircraft.

They can actually destroy projects and force them into receivership.

Ben, unfortunately in these modern times, it's all about $$$. The private equity deal to buy Qantas was all about financial engineering, load Qantas up with debt and pay yourself a nice dividend using the proceeds. I think people would agree that it was a good thing that deal fell over at the last minute (If I remember correctly, a hedge fund who was going to sell the remaining XX% of shares to the consortium tried to hold out for a last minute gain and ultimately the consortium failed to reach the 50% threshold).

I read somewhere recently that the cost of the Sydney Harbour Bridge wasn't fully paid off until 1988, 50yrs after it was completed. If that analysis was done in today's environment, the bridge would never have been built. But the simple financial analysis fails to take into account the broader economic impact + social benefits, I can't imagine Sydney without the bridge in terms of traffic flows, the cultural impact etc.

I guess we have the same situation with the 2nd airport in Sydney, alot of the benefits are hard to measure in $ terms so the thing never gets built. Plus you add the fact that politicians these days are so short sighted and are more worried about their approval rating rather than actually getting things done !



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 116, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10280 times:

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 105):
The companies that generate large amounts of frequent corporate account travel would respond to being told they would have to travel to a site across the river from the lower Blue Mountains by terminating their CBD leases and shifting to another city. Property values would collapse, logistics firms would be unable to fund the necessary changes from their cash flows without suffering terminal loss of competitiveness against interstate rivals who would not have any such airport dislocation costs, and so forth.
Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 105):
A very important factor in transport economics is equality of opportunity. A draconian remake of Sydney's transport format would blow away Sydney based enterprises vis a vis interstate competitors with no such issues.

I disagree with this.

What the Company's that generate large amounts of corporate traffic will do is demand proper infrastructure be built to transport their corporate flyers to and from the airport. This presents a once in a Cities development chance to sit down and re-make the whole of Sydneys transport network with everything from Fast Trains and dedicated Taxi Lanes, to new Freeways and Tunnels coming into the mix. Considering the mess that it is in now, the gridlock and the congestion everywhere, this sort of thing is not only long overdue, but completely essential if this City is to keep growing.

In relation to businesses and cash flow, what business wants more than anything else is certainty in the form of a decision being made so they can plan. While you're right in talking about cash flows as being critical, the key to a smooth transition is knowing that you will need to have cash available to do something at a particular point in time. The lead time for an airport will be, realistically, a decade so business will have plenty of time to assess and measure the impacts it will have and plan for their mitigation/minimisation. That's the key here, having a decision and having sufficient time to properly plan for the impact of it.

What also needs to occur at the new Airport site is not just the building of an Airport, but a significant amount of land will need to put aside to house the Industrial and Commercial precincts that feed the airport AND residential development which will house people working at all of these. Again, it's a once in a generation opportunity that Government should be doing something about. If we're going to do this, lets do it in a systematic and thoughtful way with what's best for the next 50 to 100 years in mind.

In relation to transport economics, Sydneys transport network is crowded and barely working how it is. The roads around SYD are congested and lack critical space which would allow for an increase in traffic flow. (Before 6am there is traffic banked up on General Holmes Drive and onto the Easter Distributor just for the airport!) Add on the expansion of the Port of Botany and all of its associated traffic and you have what we have today. With a Badgerys Creek development you have the opportunity to re-plan and re-make the whole of Sydney. Why sell ourselves short on an opportunity that will never again arise? (If the bloody thing goes ahead!)


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25693 posts, RR: 85
Reply 117, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10259 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sydscott (Reply 114):
Alas, what NZ lacks in South America is a partner.

True. But - happily, I think - airlines are finding partners outside their alliances. And it has time to find one as South America - with no clue as to which country - is a "medium-term" plan:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA130...agreement-with-brazil-welcomed.htm

"Air services agreement with Brazil welcomed

Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee today welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement in Brazil of a new open skies air services agreement between New Zealand and Brazil.

Air New Zealand has also publicly expressed an interest in operating to South America in the medium term, although what it does under the new agreement is a commercial decision for the company."


mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5012 posts, RR: 4
Reply 118, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10238 times:

Another QF B744 is off to VCV VH-OJJ...

Here's a photo of her being prepared for the long journey...

www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4560...=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineThe Coachman From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10190 times:

If anyone has the info, it'd be appreciated to know which aircraft will be operating VA555 SYD-PER this Saturday 16 March.


M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 120, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9951 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 117):
True. But - happily, I think - airlines are finding partners outside their alliances. And it has time to find one as South America - with no clue as to which country - is a "medium-term" plan:

Very true. Could NZ actually do AKL-GRU-AKL non-stop with their 77W or would it have to stop on the Westbound leg?


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25693 posts, RR: 85
Reply 121, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9932 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sydscott (Reply 120):
Very true. Could NZ actually do AKL-GRU-AKL non-stop with their 77W or would it have to stop on the Westbound leg?

I'M not a Tech Wallah, I've no real idea, but it seems a looong way. The A340 could do it easy, but that's not going to happen.

I guess the obvious one is SLC with an onward flight to GRU - but that's being covered by LAN/TAM. Maybe AKL-EZE? I dunno what the traffic is like for Aerolineas.

My dream would be to steal a march on everyone with AKL-MEX - I guess Virgin Australia would jump on a code share - but MEX-AKL has altitude issues, I'm told.

Pipe dreams, mate.  

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-12 14:54:28]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 122, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9827 times:

^ I think you meant SCL, not SLC.

AKL-GRU is about as far as SYD-LAX, but with virtually no alternates for the last part of the trip. My estimate is that it would take a payload hit in a 77W.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5943 posts, RR: 5
Reply 123, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9792 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 113):
MU *cough* *cough*
Quoting sydscott (Reply 114):
Malaysian, Cathay and JAL

I'm aware of these examples, which is why I used the word "appropriate" partner.

I hope that MU happens, as it will give QF very good access to the Chinese market. However, at the very least we need a full FF relationship (including status credits) to convince QFFs not to go via HKG on CX/KA. The problem with PVG is that it is too far north to be a good hub to anywhere else in Asia, other than maybe Korea and Japan. Also the split operation in Shanghai (PVG v SHA) means that PVG is no where near as good a connecting hub as CAN, or even PEK. That said, I imagine that most of QF's ex-Australia passengers (especially corporate) will be heading to the Shanghai, Guangzhou or Beijing conurbations rather than Wuwei or Taiyuan, and the major cities are linked to PVG as well as SHA.

JAL is simply too far north and east to be a partner for anything other than Japan. NRT is the perfect hub location for USA-Asia, but not good for Australia. Even for Japan, though, NRT isn't great because so many of the domestic routes are HND only.

CX we all know about. I don't need to cover that ground again, other than to say that it probably won't happen.

MH have potential, but I think that its helpfulness is somewhat negated by the fact that QF don't fly to KUL. That said, they might launch a token SYD-KUL if it came to it. Wasn't there supposed to be negotiations a couple of years ago, but they all broke down?


I'm going to throw out a left-field candidate: TG. QF have shown that they are willing to break with alliance ties if necessary, and BKK provides a relatively convenient hub for SE Asia, Indochina, western China, and - especially important - India. TG might also be interested post SQ-VA.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 120):
Could NZ actually do AKL-GRU-AKL non-stop with their 77W

ETOPS considerations notwithstanding, it should be possible. That said, I couldn't say what weight penalty might be needed on the westbound leg with the strong arctic winds blowing.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25693 posts, RR: 85
Reply 124, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9779 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting thegeek (Reply 122):
^ I think you meant SCL, not SLC.

AKL-GRU is about as far as SYD-LAX, but with virtually no alternates for the last part of the trip. My estimate is that it would take a payload hit in a 77W.

Sure, SCL - my bad, I usually check it.

I think the reason AKL-GRU (non-stop) came up is because of the open skies agreement between NZ and Brazil signed yesterday.

But NZ and Chile are both signatories to MALIAT, which is open skies up the wazoo, so I guess (?) it would be SCL in the first instance.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 125, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9780 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 123):
I'm aware of these examples, which is why I used the word "appropriate" partner.

But that's the thing, they're ALL appropriate partners and all for differrent reasons. If we examine using your logic;

MU - to cover Northern China, Korea and Japan plus Chinese domestic;

JAL - to cover Japan, Korea and North/Central Asia flying;

CX/Dragonair - to cover central and Southern China;

MH - to cover Southeast Asia.

TG I've always found as an interesting option and well worth QF considering! It'd be interesting to know premium pax potential of KUL vs BKK in that regard. They'd both be lower than SIN but which would have more potential?


User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 126, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9777 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 114):
Quoting mariner (Reply 111):
It's all about the Pacific Rim. The missing link is Hispanic America - central and south - but hopefully, the NZ PM"s just concluding trip there may help to change that.

Alas, what NZ lacks in South America is a partner. (As, for that matter, does the whole Star Alliance)

Could NZ not use Avianca-Taca as a partner? Admittedly they don't have the same reach as LATAM, but a AKL-LIM flight could work to link with Taca Peru.


User currently offlineeta unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2089 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9765 times:

All Heavylift route authorities ex Australia have been cancelled by The International Air Services Commission.

User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5012 posts, RR: 4
Reply 128, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9731 times:

I was reading on another discussion the QF/EK Alliance will include freight 

Today we will announce that from 31 March, Emirates SkyCargo and Qantas Freight will offer customers access to each other’s networks.
Under the Emirates and Qantas partnership, Emirates SkyCargo and Qantas Freight will cooperate on cargo capacity on each other’s passenger services offering freight customers of both airlines new trade and business opportunities.
The partnership will take cargo capacity to a combined total of 233 ports across six continents (subject to regulatory approval).

http://australianaviation.com.au/201...lliance-to-include-cargo-services/

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9539 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 128):
I was reading on another discussion the QF/EK Alliance will include freight

They'd be stupid not to.


User currently offlineAussie_ From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 1766 posts, RR: 5
Reply 130, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 9429 times:

Can I just say that it is great seeing you posting here, Ben. I have been a long time avid reader of your blog and applaud your willingness to tackle the tough issues head on and with no fear or favour. The ability to interact more freely with you here is welcome, and I for one hope you remain engaged.

Sadly my role in the industry precludes me from making comment without suggestions of bias, but rest assured I will remain on the sidelines reading the discussion with interest.


User currently offlineTN486 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 941 posts, RR: 2
Reply 131, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9164 times:

Is there light at the end of the tunnel for the proposed MEL rail link?

http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newsbu...-chosen-for-melbourne-airport-link



remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 132, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8920 times:

Shareholders at a meeting in Singapore have approved the 100% sale of Skywest to Virgin Australia. The deal still remains subject to approval by the Foreign Investment Review Board and the High Court of Singapore.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20130313/pdf/42dmpb86k6jwlq.pdf


User currently offlineBen175 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 133, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8123 times:

XR has started using the 320 on Perth-Kalgoorlie, and their second (VH-YUD) has just been put on the Australian register.

User currently offlinejetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2254 posts, RR: 0
Reply 134, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8115 times:

QF8 diverted to LAX at 1AM. On the ground until tomorrow. Late arrival into BNE 23:40 INSTEAD OF 5:15


Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
User currently offlineSYDAIRPORTS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 135, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 7574 times:

Have been reading with much interest about Sydney airports.

Nothing much seems to have been mention about Bankstown & it's close proximity to much of Sydney population & only 20 minutes drivwe west of Mascot.


Just had a proposal pass across my desk for a new operation using Bankstown for passenger services initially using turbo props as stage 1, along the lines of the Toowoomba to Sydney service, but also using F100's & BAE 146 jets as stage 2.

Interested parties include a large travel agency group, who would obviously push such operations.

Interestingly it says F100's can seat up to 122 & while noisy, would be subject to Sydney curfew, whereas 146's & turbo props would not, so the common problem with getting out of Sydney late at night can be avoided.

(FYI-many groups want to fly out of SYD after either an evening function or sporting event, but can't as 2130 to BNE & 2200 to MEL is not late enough, which means they either have to cut event short, which is not really an option, overnight at SYD or in many cases they don't go at all, as just too hard)

At Brisbane only BNE could be used by jets, but Archerfield could be used by turbo props.

Turbo props although slower than jets, the actual timetable would look very similar to jets, as all jet services SYD/BNE & SYD/MEL are timed at around 90 minutes even though actual flying time in a jet is clsoe to 60 mins.

With shorter taxis, no congestion & close by parking, the extra actual flying time in a turbo prop, is immaterial, as time from carpark to carpark would actually be less & no crowds to contend with.

With all the media coverage last week of what a mess BNE is, that's a very interesting idea. Also, it says, if only use 30 seaters no requirement for security at Archerfield or Bankstown.

It says there's currently a cap on paassenger services at Bankstown (12 per day), but the way it's worded, not sure if it means, 12 landings + 12 takeoffs or 24 of each.

At Melbourne, Essendon could be used by F100's & BAE146's (apparently the largest & heaviest aircraft that can use Essendon), while certain turbo props could use Moorabbin.

As big airports get busier & more congested, getting in & out of them is time consuming & stressful.

At of the suggested airports, things like parking are very close & currently free, although that would change.

Obviously the economies of scale aren't there for low cost type operations, but sounds like they are going for the business market, that sick of delays at both BNE & SYD.

Claims of fares less than full economy of Qantas & Virgin with full service. Not trying to compete with the likes of Jetstar or Tiger apparently.

Timing certainly seems right & if fares are right, then should be a goer.

Also with Qld not having daylight saving, the latest BNE/SYD flight currently is about 2000, arriving SYD at 2230, which is not very late.

What could SYD do to kill such an idea ? Who knows, but they might not even worry about it, as such a small operation, without a huge scope to grow due to limitations of airport.

Proposal looking for commitments in the way of purchase of block of seats, with either set times & dates or a voucher system, whereby passengers go online & book a flight with a prepaid voucher.

Payments can be made via credit or charge card which presumes covers those concerned about security of funds.


User currently offlineBenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 136, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7471 times:

Thanks for the tip off concerning Bankstown.

There was a very well researched study made into Bankstown back in the 90s, which is probably about the time that the practical issues began to work against what seemed like a good idea for turbo-prop and smaller jet flights within the so called golden triangle of Sydney-Melbourne-Brisbane together with regional commuter level flights that might move from the main airport. That study was driven by controversy over the construction of the third runway at Sydney Airport.

As I understand CASA's policy and that of aviation insurers, both are opposed to mixing RPT traffic and GA, private and flying school traffic at what is a busy GA airport. That said, I'm surprised insurers allow RPT at Port Macquarie, Ballina and Coffs Harbour on the same basis, although none are remotely as busy as Bankstown.

Bankstown's owners might welcome an RPT operation but not as much as big box retailing and other non aviaiton uses that have also contributed since privatisation to GA overcrowding and rent disputes at the airport, which if the sale act were to be taken seriously, must remain predominantly a training and private ownership GA airport. The pressure on the airport has been increased by the closure of Hoxton Park and the congestion at Camden, which is the surviving GA airport in the Sydney basin if we exclude a few dark strips in or near the Holsworthy military reserve, including Wedderburn which isn't open to the public unless you are on fire, or in similar crisis.

What has also worked against Bankstown for RPT, as if denial of insurance and CASA disapproval isn't enough, is access and connectivity. Bankstown is close to SYD but the the road access is diabolical, the suburb is shunned by taxis for obvious reasons if you ever drop by, the rail station is expeditionary, and small RPT flights are often part of connecting itineraries such as Perth, or Los Angeles.

In my opinion, the need to build Badgerys Creek immediately, and protect the space to its west so it can become the Nepean Airport option in the future, is such that proposals for Bankstown and Richmond are unwelcome diversions.

Bankstown can't provide the necessary number of movements to free up enough slots at SYD to cater for current demand. Nor can Richmond. The solution can only be found in building Badgerys Creek and allowing it to operate as a full competitor to Sydney open to all flights. The alternative to this is just to let Sydney choke and slide off the perch as the top gateway airport in Australia, a role that Melbourne is well equipped to seize.


User currently offlineSYDAIRPORTS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 137, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7443 times:

yes that's sounds fine, but none of above can happen fast.

Bankstown exists & jets & turbo props fly there now.

SYD & BNE are both congested & neither Federal political party wants to talk about it before election as too controversial, but post 14SEP, they could open up both Archerfield & Bankstown to more services.

Noise wouldn't be an issue, as both 146's & turbo props are not subject to any curfew anyway as so quiet.

A solution or at least a partial solution is needed now.

Part of the solution is that many more QF & VA flights BNE/SYD/MEL will have to be operated by bigger aircraft such as A330's.

[Edited 2013-03-18 19:00:39]

User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 138, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7395 times:

146s and F100s are pretty old planes. I think there needs to be a plan that outlasts their retirement.

Richmond makes far more sense to me than Bankstown for the reasons BenSandilands explains. Certainly Richmond's ability to reduce congestion at SYD is less than Badgerys Creek. I personally think that both possibilities have a low potential to reduce SYD's congestion.


User currently offlineBenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 139, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7366 times:

As I understand it the regular carriers can access Richmond under current regulations similar to those that permitted shared use with the RAAF at Williamtown and Darwin. They have to talk to the ADF, and negotiate an outcome, and probably put up a robust tent or demountable structure for the terminal.

The fact that none of the regular carriers have opted to use Richmond sends a message.

In 2005 I interviewed Brett Godfrey and asked how many flights he would operate from Badgerys Creek tomorrow if it was there and said 60, which was about 30% of the number DJ was then flying from SYD.

There is a big difference between zero and 60.

The way to get carriers to use Richmond would be to pay them to do so, by a party that could then apply a vacated slot at Sydney Airport to a larger aircraft. But I doubt that the numbers would work, the fee would have to be enormous given the costs and losses you would suffer.

Richmond is incredibly inconvenient from most of Sydney as a drive or rail trip, which would involve a transfer at the airport end. Yes, that could be solved by a huge and desirable investment in surface transport infrastructure.

But we are talking about Sydney, and transport infrastructure, and an inglorious culture of mismanagement and waste that isn't going to change any time soon, nor give priority to such improvements over those needed to extend the M4 to the city as well as branch off to Port Botany via the airport.

There are perverse economic forces at work here. The longer the delay in improving key transport infrastructure in the Sydney Basin the less the economic activity needed to support the state contribution to such projects gets generated, further reducing any chance of progress.


User currently offlineSYDAIRPORTS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 140, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7377 times:

146's & F100's used extensively for FIFO ops & will be for quite a few years to come.

Talking old, QF still has some 734's in their fleet at present & some of those must be approaching 30 years of age.


Even Richmond would take a while to get up & running for commercial ops & it's a long way out of town.

Bankstown is close in & exists now, so virtually no money needs to be spent, with possible exception of some sort of terminal, but surely something can be organised quickly.

Don't think they are trying to have anything fancy. Think the whole idea is, get to airport, get on flight get to destination 7 get out of airport, all fast.

From memory the original Virgin terminal at SYD went up fast.

No actual start date mentioned in brief we have received for Bankstown ops, but it looks like planning on 2nd 1/2 of this year.


User currently offlineBAeRJ100 From Australia, joined Nov 2011, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7355 times:

Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 140):
146's & F100's used extensively for FIFO ops & will be for quite a few years to come.

I fly on the 146's every day and they're definitely beginning to show their age (just last year the oldest pax model in service was retired after almost 31 years of service) - I just have a feeling it will cause a headache further down the track when it comes down to replacing and out-of-production model with pretty much no modern day replacement. The RJ100's are very nice, particularly the "newer" ones coming into service, but in the end poses the same problem; it's an OOP aircraft that cannot be replaced at only a small cost, and the backlog of aircraft that are in flyable condition and not being scrapped is falling quite a bit faster than that of the F100. It will be interesting in 10+ years if the FIFO market is still booming the way it is now, when the time comes to find a suitable replacement for the various aircraft used for these services.

[Edited 2013-03-18 19:51:39]


B738-9/744ER/753/763/777/A320/332/333/388/MD82/717/F100/RJ100/146-100/200/300
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 142, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7266 times:

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 139):
As I understand it the regular carriers can access Richmond under current regulations similar to those that permitted shared use with the RAAF at Williamtown and Darwin. They have to talk to the ADF, and negotiate an outcome, and probably put up a robust tent or demountable structure for the terminal.

I've never heard that before. A terminal on the north side of the runway would be a bit of a problem both for passengers and the ADF, I'd have thought.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 139):
In 2005 I interviewed Brett Godfrey and asked how many flights he would operate from Badgerys Creek tomorrow if it was there and said 60, which was about 30% of the number DJ was then flying from SYD.

That's fairly surprising. I don't know why it wouldn't be zero, unless the landing fees were significantly lower.

It seems that Brett Godfrey was fairly keen on closing SYD for the new Sydney airport: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/10/07/...y-aiport-lets-super-size-this-one/

I'm not completely sure what the solution is for Sydney's airport woes, but I'm sure a reduced capability airport at Badgery's Creek with runways less than 3km is not the answer. It won't even be able to take the dedicated freighter load like YMX.


User currently offlineBenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 143, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7193 times:

I did some checking around the other day and a 3000 metre runway will fit in the current site. The enthusiasm of the state/federal panel which recommended Badgerys Creek a year ago for a so called 'Nepean' airport is actually what would happen if you extended the Badgery's site west and then north, taking up the space between the western side and the Nepean River among other things. You could have a very large airport. Hate to say it but they might even be able to pay for part of the cost with coal seam gas royalties, since the site doesn't drain into any catchment area, although the contras, including myself, fear that it might drain some of the catchment areas.

There were various times when BC looked much more certain to be built and Cathay Pacific and United were among the keen, the former because it wanted a midnight frequency in additional to its multi-daily Sydney frequency, and the latter because it wanted to have an airport fee bidding war.

The demographic reality about Sydney West now is in situ demand. There has been a big shift in travel generation to the west, not just by lower fares, but in in business parks, campuses and the VFR market between Asia and western Sydney. If you live or need to visit the northwest and Hills district of Sydney the M7 makes BC an easier trip than SYD. Stress easier. It is far from easy to do anything in Sydney today, and the M7 already needs to be made into an 8 lane motorway if not 10 lanes, but the overpasses and cuttings have actually been sized for such growth and to allow clip on type extra lanes in major elevated freeway junctions.

A full airport, and with 24 hour operations, which has always been in the BC plan, competing against SYD would bring cost efficiencies to all airlines serving Sydney because of the competition, and the removal of traffic to the existing airport from western Sydney would bring some road and rail relief, as both where they pass through or near the airport are in peak hour crisis.

What astonishes me is how much growth pressure is being brought to bear on Sydney, internally and externally. The new land releases announced at the weekend at to that pressure, but also add to the need for shrewd infrastructure choices and investments. I'm an old air, sea and rail tragic. I've seen Sydney more than double in my life and even more amazing transitions occur in Asia. The future is infinitely more exciting and interesting than the finite past. You should not underestimate or short change the future, but and care and quality in public policy is needed to make it a good future. Sydney needs to go big in transport infrastructure, and for that reason I hope the BC decision comes with a Nepean option on the side.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 144, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7100 times:

I think the runway needs to be about 3.3km for a 747-8. Not much different for a heavier 777 either. I've never seen that included in the plan. Perhaps it's easily done, but then why was it proposed to be not done? Certainly 24 hour ops would please a number of people.

User currently offlineBenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 145, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7040 times:

Having witnessed an A380 prototype depart from Sydney to Vancouver at the then MTOW limit of 569 tonnes and rotate at the intersection of the east west and longer north south runway at Sydney heading toward Botany Bay and go straight to FL340 it seems that if flown in anger it can get airborne fairly quickly compared to some of the leisurely in service take offs I've had in both engined versions. That test flight preceded the SQ inauguration by a month or so. I understand the fully laden 748-I rotates at a higher speed and takes up a bit more runway, but a strong point for BC or SydWest would be freight given the logistics farms that you now see all along the north-south rail line and the M7, including the former Hoxton Park airport site. So we could expect a fair number of 748Fs there.

The BC site purchase legislation defined the airport as 24 hours ops from the very start, and was drafted along similar lines to the Tullamarine site regulations, which also specified curfew free ops. There have been legal challenges to the Tulla curfew free status taken on behalf of groups of noise affected residents in some of the housing estates that opened under flight paths after the airport opened.

All failed because of the prior legislation, which meant that real estate property titles searches always turned up the warning that the house being bought was affected to some degree by 24 hour jet operations.


User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 146, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6935 times:

Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 137):
A solution or at least a partial solution is needed now.

Part of the solution is that many more QF & VA flights BNE/SYD/MEL will have to be operated by bigger aircraft such as A330's.

Bigger aircraft won't solve the issue, both QF and VA compete on frequency (for the business/corporate market). So they will never reduce frequency by upping capacity on the existing flights. In peak periods, the BNE/SYD/MEL routes are served by B767's/A330's anyway and that's where the current capacity issues arise. You could only solve it using a 747/A380 but that ain't going to happen on a short domestic route where turnaround times are important.

Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 135):
Claims of fares less than full economy of Qantas & Virgin with full service. Not trying to compete with the likes of Jetstar or Tiger apparently.

I find this a little hard to believe, many airlines have tried and failed and by operating small F100's, turboprops or BAE 146's it doesn't give them any cost advantage, if anything it puts them at a disadvantage vs the larger aircraft operated by QF/VA.

Your proposal for Bankstown is interesting but it is a very short term band-aid solution at best.



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 147, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6895 times:

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 145):
rotate at the intersection of the east west and longer north south runway at Sydney

That's not a balanced field take off, which has to assume that an engine fails at the most inconvenient point. If you've noticed a pilot call of "V1" on Air Crash Investigations, that means that they are now going too fast to stop before the end of the runway.

An A380 is actually a pretty good field performer presumably due to its oversized wing.


User currently offlineeta unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2089 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6824 times:

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 146):
Bigger aircraft won't solve the issue, both QF and VA compete on frequency (for the business/corporate market). So they will never reduce frequency by upping capacity on the existing flights

True, but at the same time something's gotta give and if you remove some of the cheap seats between MEL/SYD/BNE then do you really need to operate all these 737 flights outside peak periods?


User currently offlineBenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 149, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6585 times:

The cheap seats are for the airport owners the profitable seats.

The per head pax charges are a critical part of airport earnings, just like the outrageous parking fees cheap flyers pay to parking companies that in turn are locked into tight revenue contracts with airport companies.

The costly seats use valet parking where the airlines get the benefits that the airports get in the public car parks.

Another problem is that the cheap seats are increasingly the ones companies insist that their employees use.

Both Qantas and Virgin Australia chase the large corporate accounts not just for their volume but their enforcement provisions, that is, the executive uses the booking tool provided by the company and it in turn is set to met the percentage required to meet the special discount or deal term negotiated between the airline and bank or retail or insurance firm in return for a specified and usually very high proportion of its bookings.

The commercial realities of relationships between airlines and large generators or business, and also the revenue strategies of the airport owners are not highly visible to the general public, but they do frustrate many of the sensible or innovative suggestions that aviation enthusiasts advance.

The ideas are good. But the 'world' is cruel.


User currently offlineSYDAIRPORTS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 150, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 6447 times:

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 146):
Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 137):
A solution or at least a partial solution is needed now.

Part of the solution is that many more QF & VA flights BNE/SYD/MEL will have to be operated by bigger aircraft such as A330's.

Bigger aircraft won't solve the issue, both QF and VA compete on frequency (for the business/corporate market). So they will never reduce frequency by upping capacity on the existing flights. In peak periods, the BNE/SYD/MEL routes are served by B767's/A330's anyway and that's where the current capacity issues arise. You could only solve it using a 747/A380 but that ain't going to happen on a short domestic route where turnaround times are important.

Who said anything about reducing frequency ? As demand increases more flights will have to be wide bodies.

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 146):
Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 135):
Claims of fares less than full economy of Qantas & Virgin with full service. Not trying to compete with the likes of Jetstar or Tiger apparently.

I find this a little hard to believe, many airlines have tried and failed and by operating small F100's, turboprops or BAE 146's it doesn't give them any cost advantage, if anything it puts them at a disadvantage vs the larger aircraft operated by QF/VA.

it all depends on keeping overheads low.

If they can do that, maybe.

If QF & VA keep increasing size of aircraft, then it will give SYD some breathing room for next 10 years before BC can come online. Having a dozen or more flights a day into Bankstown from Brisbane & Melbourne would also help, otherwise SYD will become a place to avoid.


User currently offlineBenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 151, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 6433 times:

By nominal civil engineering standards construction could be achieved in three years, if all the plans and specs and approvals were in place. Which is why your estimate of 10 years is probably right.