QF175 From Portugal, joined Mar 2007, 599 posts, RR: 2 Posted (2 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 16427 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
Ben175 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 570 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16288 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.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 6, posted (2 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 16105 times:
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?
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...
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 15977 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.
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.
QF175 From Portugal, joined Mar 2007, 599 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 15899 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
... 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...
The Coachman From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1411 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 15595 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).
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 15563 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.
EK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3910 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 15524 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...
Bill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8320 posts, RR: 9 Reply 17, posted (2 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 15487 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.
skyhawkmatthew From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 15391 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!
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...
Ben175 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 570 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 15216 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.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2514 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 14743 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.
QFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 130 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 14726 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.
tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 14666 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!!!
CXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2696 posts, RR: 1 Reply 25, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 14843 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.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 0 Reply 26, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14734 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
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.
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2377 posts, RR: 18 Reply 27, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14995 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.
tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 14917 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.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 14897 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?
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2377 posts, RR: 18 Reply 31, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 14779 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.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 14727 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.
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2377 posts, RR: 18 Reply 33, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 14677 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.
tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 14577 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.
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.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2514 posts, RR: 2 Reply 37, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13919 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.
Mikey86 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 137 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13769 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?
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2555 posts, RR: 1 Reply 39, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13742 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.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2514 posts, RR: 2 Reply 40, posted (2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13593 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
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 42, posted (2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13544 times:
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.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2514 posts, RR: 2 Reply 43, posted (2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13528 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.
koruman From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 2980 posts, RR: 6 Reply 45, posted (2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13325 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.
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): 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.
IndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2403 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (2 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13089 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).
travelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 556 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 13019 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.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 0 Reply 49, posted (2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12799 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?
SYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 113 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 12401 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.
QFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 130 posts, RR: 0 Reply 52, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 12078 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.
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?
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 10 Reply 53, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 12026 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.
Ben175 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 570 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11378 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.
Flyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 396 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11277 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.
tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 56, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11242 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.
TN486 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 816 posts, RR: 2 Reply 57, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11143 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
Ditzyboy From Australia, joined Feb 2008, 680 posts, RR: 1 Reply 58, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11053 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.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2514 posts, RR: 2 Reply 59, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10907 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.
EK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3910 posts, RR: 4 Reply 60, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10914 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.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2514 posts, RR: 2 Reply 61, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10867 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.
IndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2403 posts, RR: 0 Reply 62, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 10704 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.
BHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1284 posts, RR: 4 Reply 66, posted (2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10389 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..
EK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3910 posts, RR: 4 Reply 68, posted (2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10327 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...
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 69, posted (2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10314 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
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.
BHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1284 posts, RR: 4 Reply 70, posted (2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10272 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
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:
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.
CXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2696 posts, RR: 1 Reply 71, posted (2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 10226 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.
BHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1284 posts, RR: 4 Reply 73, posted (2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 10137 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..
EK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3910 posts, RR: 4 Reply 74, posted (2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10059 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...
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 75, posted (2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10063 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.
Flyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 396 posts, RR: 0 Reply 76, posted (2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10056 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.
CXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2696 posts, RR: 1 Reply 77, posted (2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10069 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.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 0 Reply 78, posted (2 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9874 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?
IndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2403 posts, RR: 0 Reply 79, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9834 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.
Ben175 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 570 posts, RR: 0 Reply 80, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9857 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!
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 0 Reply 82, posted (2 months 2 weeks ago) and read 9807 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?
CXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2696 posts, RR: 1 Reply 83, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9708 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.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 0 Reply 84, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9637 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?
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.)
eaglefarm4 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 295 posts, RR: 1 Reply 86, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9584 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.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 87, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9539 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?
BenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 88, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9306 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.
CXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2696 posts, RR: 1 Reply 90, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9282 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.
BenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 91, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9146 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.
gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5217 posts, RR: 6 Reply 92, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 9117 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!
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 93, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 9086 times:
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.
- 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.
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.
TN486 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 816 posts, RR: 2 Reply 96, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8839 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
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8821 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.
BenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 98, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 8682 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.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 99, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 8653 times:
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.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2514 posts, RR: 2 Reply 100, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8611 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.
TN486 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 816 posts, RR: 2 Reply 102, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8602 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
SYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 113 posts, RR: 0 Reply 104, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8416 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?
BenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 105, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8324 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.
SYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 113 posts, RR: 0 Reply 106, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8228 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.
PITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2687 posts, RR: 3 Reply 107, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8166 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.
BenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 108, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8068 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.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 109, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8031 times:
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:
"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:
"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 From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 111, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7957 times:
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:
"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.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2514 posts, RR: 2 Reply 112, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 7735 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.
EK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3910 posts, RR: 4 Reply 113, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7651 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...
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2377 posts, RR: 18 Reply 114, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7415 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)
SYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 113 posts, RR: 0 Reply 115, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7406 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 !
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2377 posts, RR: 18 Reply 116, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7387 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!)
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 117, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7366 times:
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:
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."
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2377 posts, RR: 18 Reply 120, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7058 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?
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 121, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7039 times:
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.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 0 Reply 122, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6934 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.
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.
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.
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2377 posts, RR: 18 Reply 125, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6887 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?
QFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 130 posts, RR: 0 Reply 126, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6884 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.
EK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3910 posts, RR: 4 Reply 128, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 6838 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).
Aussie_ From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 1765 posts, RR: 5 Reply 130, posted (2 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6536 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.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 132, posted (2 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6027 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.
SYDAIRPORTS From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 135, posted (2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4678 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.
BenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 136, posted (2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4576 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.
SYDAIRPORTS From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 137, posted (2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4549 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.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 0 Reply 138, posted (2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4502 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.
BenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 139, posted (2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4473 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.
SYDAIRPORTS From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 140, posted (2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4484 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.
BAeRJ100 From Australia, joined Nov 2011, 43 posts, RR: 0 Reply 141, posted (2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4462 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.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 0 Reply 142, posted (2 months 5 days ago) and read 4373 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.
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.
BenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 143, posted (2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4300 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.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 0 Reply 144, posted (2 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4207 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.
BenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 145, posted (2 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4147 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.
SYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 113 posts, RR: 0 Reply 146, posted (2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4042 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.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 0 Reply 147, posted (2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4002 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.
eta unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2010 posts, RR: 0 Reply 148, posted (2 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3931 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?
BenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 149, posted (2 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3692 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.
SYDAIRPORTS From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 150, posted (2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3554 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.
BenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 151, posted (2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3540 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.
StickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 622 posts, RR: 3 Reply 153, posted (2 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3068 times:
Quoting CXfirst (Reply 90): 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.
PER has grown exponentially in the past 8 to 10 years and not just in terms of FIFO pax - flights to most eastern capitals have grown from 738's to 767's/330's in the same period while international flights have also significantly increased. Pax movements have increased in double digit figures every year - far in excess of predictions used by Westralia Airports Corporation. FIFO pax movements now represent an important logistics link in both the mining and gas industries which are major revenue and tax contrubutors to the Australian economy - the consequences of major delays or serious problems are not trivial. FIFO pax will increase further in numbers as various LNG projects are completed in the next few years.
Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 140): Talking old, QF still has some 734's in their fleet at present & some of those must be approaching 30 years of age.
The 734 EIS was in 1988. QF acquired their 734's during the takeover of Australian Airlines (1993) who acquired them new in 1990 - that makes the oldest 734's 23 years old.
An interesting thing about this batch of 734's is that Australian Airlines orignially ordered 9 320's (V2500 powered) for the job (keeping up with Ansett) but dropped them in favour of the 734 due to cheaper pricing at the time (memory's a bit fuzzy here). Although Australian Airlines already had 733's in their fleet it is quite possible that had they stayed with the 320's then QF's now massive narrow body fleet might have been 320's rather than 737's - interesting thought.
Quoting BAeRJ100 (Reply 141): 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.
The FIFO market is a permanent fixture of Australian aviation - it will always be around. It does have some unique demands in terms of jet aircraft - namely good "hot n high" field performance in order to operate from relatively short strips in high ambient temperatures. Another requirement is reasonable range (preferably > 1500nm) as some FIFO sectors can be quite long. The F100 and B146 perform well in this regard but I'm not sure how well any potential modern day replacements would fare - eg E190 and other modern regional jets. The low utilisation of FIFO ops demands a low acquisition price (new aircraft are not an option), there will be plenty of used CRJ-200 and larger variants on the market soon but I'm not sure about their field performance - similar story for ERJ-135/145 jets.
Not sure if the 717 is a suitable candidate - not that many of them around. If the 717 is suitable then no doubt those in QF colours will migrate accross to Network Aviation.
As you suggest - it will be interesting to see what becomes the favourite FIFO jet in 10 years time.
Flyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 396 posts, RR: 0 Reply 154, posted (2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3050 times:
Quoting eta unknown (Reply 127): All Heavylift route authorities ex Australia have been cancelled by The International Air Services Commission
So does that mean Heavylift wont operate in Australia at all now? When I was up in CNS in 2010 I saw the 727 100F being broken up, what is happening to the Shorts Belfast is it still in CNS and what are they doing with it?
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2514 posts, RR: 2 Reply 156, posted (2 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2912 times:
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 153): there will be plenty of used CRJ-200 and larger variants on the market soon but I'm not sure about their field performance - similar story for ERJ-135/145 jets.
To be blunt, the 50 seaters field performance (especially hot n high) is crap. I've heard stories of flights that were fully booked leaving DEN in the summer with just 20 people on them. Everyone else was bumped, just so that they could get the thing up in the air!
While over the next 5 years there will be about a trillion CRJs and ER4s being parked in Arizona, I don't expect many (if any) to make it out here. They are simply not up to the job.
Well, of the "current" generation 100 seaters it is definitely the most appropriate. But, as you said, there aren't many of them. Given that DL will almost certainly hold onto theirs for a decade, I can't see where else they could come from.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 153): it will be interesting to see what becomes the favourite FIFO jet in 10 years time.
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2377 posts, RR: 18 Reply 157, posted (2 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2893 times:
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 153): PER has grown exponentially in the past 8 to 10 years and not just in terms of FIFO pax - flights to most eastern capitals have grown from 738's to 767's/330's in the same period while international flights have also significantly increased. Pax movements have increased in double digit figures every year - far in excess of predictions used by Westralia Airports Corporation.
The problem with PER is the serious lack of investment in Airport Infrastructure. For WAC to continually point to incorrect traffic estimates as a reason for them not investing shows a large level of incompetence on their part especially since the "boom" is hardly new. WAC has been too focused on the property development side of the airport and has neglected its aviation infrastructure. The new terminal is a step in the right direction however it'll be interesting to see what is next once the Virgin terminal annex is done. If QF commits to spending some dollars integrating the current domestic terminals into 1, then I highly doubt they're going to want to move from there. At the same time if they spend money turning the current VA terminal into a Jetstar & Network terminal, those two will hardly want to move either. Along with leasing out to commercial tenants land which impacst the ability of PER to build a new runway, you can only conclude a serious lack of vision on the part of WAC.
SYDAIRPORTS From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 159, posted (2 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2818 times:
Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 152): Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 150):
Who said anything about reducing frequency ? As demand increases more flights will have to be wide bodies.
OK, so how does increasing the size of aircraft solve the capacity issue at SYD? Whether you fly a 737 or 747 it is still one flight slot departure.
Exactly. A 747-400 can hold up to 480 in 2 class configuration or more in the Japanese domestic only version, while a 737-800 can hold 189 max in all economy.
So they bigger the aircraft the mroe people are moved per slot.
What you said doesn't make a lot of sense. Until get BC in Sydney basin, need to increase passengers per slot & only way to do that is to increase size of aircraft.
When Lion Air Australia start they might not go after Tiger type market & they will probably use 739's. Even this modest increase in capacity will help. Will be interesting to see Lion Air Australia's initial routes & fares. Makes sense to go after golden triangle especially if VA don't let Tiger fly anywhere near peak hour on the triangle.
Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 152): Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 150):
it all depends on keeping overheads low.
If they can do that, maybe.
Full serivce doesn't equate to low overheads. A small scale operator will never have the economies of scale to match QF/VA.
QF & now VA are very inefficient in terms of staff numbers (VA slightly better than QF).
A small operator can use technology instead of having dozens of staff sitting around at airports doing not very much but being paid a squillion.
Majority of passengers hate BNE & SYD due to delays.
Guess it depends what full service means. If it means having meals & drinks included with checked baggage allowance then that is the easy part.
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2377 posts, RR: 18 Reply 160, posted (2 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2810 times:
Quoting thegeek (Reply 158): Seems a common theme at all our airports. None want to invest in new runways. Can't say I blame them either. Where is the commercial return?
The issue for PER isn't even a new runway. (In fact it's mainly not a new runway!) The issue is more the terminal facilities, parking in the International precinct, an inadequate International terminal etc. These are problems that should have been fixed years ago! You just need to look at the fantastic terminal Adelaide has and the spending that MEL has done on terminals. Hell even SYD has completely re-done the International Terminal. What has PER done? Nothing. Zip. It's focused entirely on property development and industrial/commercial property income, while at the same time singing the same tune about how they couldn't have forecast what has happened. What a total load of rubbish.
Where is the commercial return? Well that's the thing given the traffic and frequency growth, PER is already getting the commercial return from maximum use of its existing facilities at peak hour. If that return is inadequate then I suggest that their business case for ownership is flawed and needs revising.
SYDAIRPORTS From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 161, posted (2 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2815 times:
FJ's 1st brand new aircraft has just arrived in NAN yesterday think it was.
In November FJ receives it's 3rd & apparently the old SQ 744's(former AN INT) will then be retired (not sure when exactly) giving FJ the newest long haul fleet across the Pacific by far. Some of VA's 777's must be over 5 years old now.
Then FJ will fly daily SYD/LAX. Up until all 3 A332's come online think they only fly 4 to 5 times a week SYD/LAX.
Daily will make a big difference.
They also have some very cheap business class specials in busy December & January period from under $4k return SYD/LAX/SYD.
IndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2403 posts, RR: 0 Reply 162, posted (2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2773 times:
Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 159): When Lion Air Australia start they might not go after Tiger type market & they will probably use 739's. Even this modest increase in capacity will help. Will be interesting to see Lion Air Australia's initial routes & fares. Makes sense to go after golden triangle especially if VA don't let Tiger fly anywhere near peak hour on the triangle.
Ummm..what? Lion Air Australia won't likely be a reality for a long time if at all.
It was a plan up to 7 or so years ago to have a JV with an airline that no longer even exists here. Their ambitions were knocked down by safety concerns.
It's fairly clear that a 3rd carrier really has not worked in Australia. With QF/JQ and soon likely a VA/TT to contend with, that just makes it even harder as both groups will have a very broad offering to rely on.
SYDAIRPORTS From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 163, posted (2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2760 times:
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 162): Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 159):
When Lion Air Australia start they might not go after Tiger type market & they will probably use 739's. Even this modest increase in capacity will help. Will be interesting to see Lion Air Australia's initial routes & fares. Makes sense to go after golden triangle especially if VA don't let Tiger fly anywhere near peak hour on the triangle.
Ummm..what? Lion Air Australia won't likely be a reality for a long time if at all.
It was a plan up to 7 or so years ago to have a JV with an airline that no longer even exists here. Their ambitions were knocked down by safety concerns.
It's fairly clear that a 3rd carrier really has not worked in Australia. With QF/JQ and soon likely a VA/TT to contend with, that just makes it even harder as both groups will have a very broad offering to rely on.
Imagine a lot of their costs will be in Indonesia.
Back office, heavy maintenance etc.
Won't be hard to get aircraft to Indonesia for maintenance. Presume they will fly regularly from DPS to everywhere in Australia.
If they have Tiger type wages but go after Golden triangle they might just give VA & QF a run for their money. They probably would leave CBR alone, but PER to east coast routes, they might do lower frequency at night when aircraft would otherwise be parked.
7 aircraft is enough to provide decnet frequency if only doing 3 routes. 2 based at both BNE & MEL & 3 based at SYD.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 164, posted (2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2681 times:
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 162): Ummm..what? Lion Air Australia won't likely be a reality for a long time if at all.
I have never understood why the bright sparks in Canberra thought it was a good idea to allow majority foreign ownership of Australian domestic airlines.
I have heard economists and financiers rabbit on about the wonders of it, and it makes no sense to me at all.
IndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2403 posts, RR: 0 Reply 165, posted (2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2658 times:
Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 163): Imagine a lot of their costs will be in Indonesia.
Back office, heavy maintenance etc.
Not unlike TT now with its SIN links, and look how that is going.
Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 163): If they have Tiger type wages but go after Golden triangle they might just give VA & QF a run for their money. They probably would leave CBR alone, but PER to east coast routes, they might do lower frequency at night when aircraft would otherwise be parked.
Its nothing that TT has not already tried and still hasn't made money.
Lower frequency at night is limited by curfews anyway.
SYDAIRPORTS From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 166, posted (2 months 3 days ago) and read 2642 times:
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 165): Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 163):
If they have Tiger type wages but go after Golden triangle they might just give VA & QF a run for their money. They probably would leave CBR alone, but PER to east coast routes, they might do lower frequency at night when aircraft would otherwise be parked.
Its nothing that TT has not already tried and still hasn't made money.
Lower frequency at night is limited by curfews anyway.
But Tiger didn't go after the Golden triangle, but instead went for nonstop routes not serviced.
What curfews ? Only SYD has curfew & hardly centre of the universe (although that is QF problem-it thinks it is)
Interestingly FJ is offering some very cheap business class fares around Christmas SYD/LAX/SYD from $3999 using their new A332 & cheap economy fares form around $1600 when Qantas & Virgin want $3100-$3300+.
BenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 167, posted (2 months 3 days ago) and read 2637 times:
The perplexing thing about domestic ownership policy is lack of reciprocity on a case by case basis. There are very smart people in the major Australian carriers who are concerned that the potential of the Indonesia market as an investment may not be realised by well qualified investors in this country.
We would allow total ownership of a domestic carrier in this country by investors domiciled in or exercising control from Indonesia,while its market is fiercely protected, with a very long a slow and minor process in train by which small investments from Tiger and Air Asia have been permitted.
Let me offer a hypothetical. If Qantas was to spin off Jetstar, and this is definitely not on the table at this moment, it would in theory be possible for an Indonesia or China or India or wherever carrier to buy the brand, and run the trans border franchise from a more centrally located and less costly headquarters than in Melbourne.
Which raises the issue of trans border franchises, such as Jetstar, Tiger, and Air Asia, and Lion Air to an early extent.
In theory any of those carriers could do to air travel what a US cola company did to soft drinks, that is, develop their current position as head franchises that sells a brand and the risk and rewards to franchisees. (Although I don't know of an airline brand that is bad for teeth or the obesity problem).
The history of those three low cost brands tells us that this view is, so far, wildly optimistic, and has ran aground more than once on exceedingly restrictive national policies and bi-lateral trade treaties. Those barriers are being eroded, but arguably not as fast as the patience or capital of would be trans national Asia-Pacific carriers are being eroded or at least battered at present.
However it may be an idea well and truly ahead of its time. It may also not necessarily be restricted to low fare high fee carriers, but higher quality product offerings, although most of the existing surviving quality international carriers have brands with firm and unmistakeable footings in national identities and cultures.
My own jaundiced experience is that the ideological fervour for totally open markets comes from departmental advisors and post graduates who have not yet left home and been exposed to the real world. And also from any financial advisors who perceive an advantage in driving stock price volatility.
I wrote about this recently to remind readers, specifically those in the parliamentary triangle, where I have good readership, that this is both a policy area and a policy opportunity that ought to be addressed with alacrity.
There is another element of ownership of course which is seldom mentioned, which is that irrespective of the ownership of stock, leasing entities and holders of special bonds taken out for example on the engines of a jet, or just a particular hull, can end of up being the real owners of the asset, and sometimes with preemptive rights over the decisions that a board can make pursuant to the lease or lease finance contract.
This is a very complex, and important question which probably won't get any oxygen in Australia until the events of today are resolved, which include a leadership ballot in Labor and persistent rumors of an early election and not one on 14 September.
SYDAIRPORTS From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 168, posted (2 months 3 days ago) and read 2640 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 164): I have never understood why the bright sparks in Canberra thought it was a good idea to allow majority foreign ownership of Australian domestic airlines.
I have heard economists and financiers rabbit on about the wonders of it, and it makes no sense to me at all.
mariner
Quoting mariner (Reply 164): I have never understood why the bright sparks in Canberra thought it was a good idea to allow majority foreign ownership of Australian domestic airlines.
I have heard economists and financiers rabbit on about the wonders of it, and it makes no sense to me at all.
mariner
Lion Air Indo will reportedly only own 49% of Lion Air Australia.
BenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 170, posted (2 months 3 days ago) and read 2639 times:
If Lion Air Australia wants to fly international routes out of Australia its foreign ownership would be limited to 49%.
If it were to restrict the Australian entity to domestic routes it could if it wished own 100% of the division.
The temptation would be to determine which company. Lion Air Indonesia or Lion Air Australia flew international routes depending on what capacity was available under the bilateral air treaty between each country.
It might even be possible to evade the ownership restrictions through clever use of corporate structure like that of Virgin Australia Holdings.
Under current settings, there might be more seats unallocated to Australian flag carriers, such as Lion Air Australia (49% owner buy Lion Air Indonesia) than available to Indonesia flag carriers, such as Lion Air Indonesia.
PS I'd pass on the change of government crystal ball for the time being. Aviation won't go anywhere for most of this year.
IndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2403 posts, RR: 0 Reply 171, posted (2 months 3 days ago) and read 2625 times:
Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 166): But Tiger didn't go after the Golden triangle, but instead went for nonstop routes not serviced.
They are going after that market hard now and still aren't making money. What does that tell you? It should say a lot,especially as there is a capacity flood as it is.
Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 166): What curfews ? Only SYD has curfew & hardly centre of the universe (although that is QF problem-it thinks it is)
Numerous airports have curfews, including SYD, ADL and OOL to name a few. That already limits the potential greatly for Night ops.
Boof From Australia, joined Apr 2008, 161 posts, RR: 0 Reply 173, posted (2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2569 times:
Hmmm SYDAIRPORTS, you wouldn't happen to be REALDEAL by chance? You have similar opinions...
Lion Air where going to partner with SkyAirWorld last time and flood the market with 739ER's. Now they are buying A320's and SkyAirWorld is dead. Things have changed so much in the past 7 years that I'm with Mariner on this one, best not to predict.
Cheers,
Boof
The more DJ changes, the more I wish it was like B6...
SYDAIRPORTS From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 174, posted (2 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2522 times:
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 171): Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 166):
But Tiger didn't go after the Golden triangle, but instead went for nonstop routes not serviced.
They are going after that market hard now and still aren't making money. What does that tell you? It should say a lot,especially as there is a capacity flood as it is.
Not really.
Current Tiger schedules:-
MEL/SYD arriving before 9am is only 3 days a week Mon, Fri & Sun.
SYD/MEL arriving before 9am is Mon-Fri one flight.
BNE/MEL no flights at all arriving before 9am
MEL/BNE arriving before 9am currently one daily, but at end of daylight saving none.
If they were serious about going after some of the business market, they'd have 4 aircraft based at each of BNE, SYD & MEL & would have 2 flights to each destination departing within 1 st hour of the day arrving at destination well before 9am & similarly in the pm peak hour.
Think Lion Air have bought 230 A320's & 234 B739's.
IndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2403 posts, RR: 0 Reply 175, posted (2 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2487 times:
Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 174): Think Lion Air have bought 230 A320's & 234 B739's.
And? That doesn't mean theres a market for them in Australia.
Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 174): If they were serious about going after some of the business market, they'd have 4 aircraft based at each of BNE, SYD & MEL & would have 2 flights to each destination departing within 1 st hour of the day arrving at destination well before 9am & similarly in the pm peak hour.
The market they are chasing is as viable as they can get it. Why go and add more capacity if theres no chance of filling it with QF and VA in a battle for the high yield corporate deals already, with business class products? Tjats where the profits sit, and frankly a LCC will always be only getting the crumbs.
I like your enthusiasm but the reality is a very different story.
IndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2403 posts, RR: 0 Reply 177, posted (2 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2545 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 176): The most continuously profitable airline in the US is LCC as is the most continuously profitable airline in Europe.
I get where you are coming from but in reality they are very different markets.
The fact is in a market of 23 million people (against 300 million plus each in the US and Europe), QF/JQ and soon likely VA/TT have both markets covered, which is not the case with most legacies in the regions you referenced.
At the end of the day the profit sits in higher yields which LCC's will struggle to achieve, which come mainly through corporate contracts. The inability of LCC's to get those contracts was evident with the old Virgin Blue, and JB has had to take the carrier in a new direction just to put it in a position to win those contracts.
Fighting for lower yield volume based business, especially against the lower cost bases of the LCC brands in Australia already would be very hard work, as TT has well and truly proven over its time here.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 178, posted (2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2492 times:
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 177): I get where you are coming from but in reality they are very different markets.
They are certainly different markets, if only in size.
But neither of the airlines I mentioned were "big" airlines when they started and it was seven years before Southwest Airlines flew anywhere outside Texas - population then about 15 million.
Then we have to consider Allegiant, which came along quite late in the day. Maurice Gallagher bought the failing airline in 2001 and carved out a whole new business model and, in a country saturated with airline service, carved out a whole new route map based on a simple theory - less is more.
Allegiant is - and has been for some time - the highest priced airline stock on Wall Street at (today) $88 with Alaska second at (today) $63. United is a distant third at (today) $32.50.
There's also the issue of Spirit Airlines which for years has been considered a bit of a joke - if a profitable one - and is now a highly expansionist airline with remarkable profit margins (25%-27%), again in a country where we might have thought there was no low-hanging fruit left.
Generally I might agree with many of your points, but I don't think Australia has yet seen a lean, mean and hungry LCC that thinks outside the box and that is content - in the beginning - to think small.
SYDAIRPORTS From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 179, posted (2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2458 times:
VA has stolen some of QF's market share partly by consistently being a few dollars cheaper than QF (not just on domestic, but also international especially to USA)
Of course there are other reasons.
So if Lion Air Australia, go full service but undercut VA & QF & have decent frequent then they should be able to give QF & VA a run for there money.
With lower overheads they should be able to do that.
IndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2403 posts, RR: 0 Reply 180, posted (2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2472 times:
I certainly take on board what you are saying Mariner, but I think its important to look at a couple of points here that worked in Southwest and Ryanairs favour.
In the US Southwest offered something new in a marketplace that was opening up more and more of carriers to grow during deregulation of the US skies. Ryanair took advantage of the opening up of European skies, after a very bumpy start to its life. Both examples exploited very specific times in the aviation histories of both markets, which also saw them take on very inefficient, state owned (in most cases) competitors that struggled to compete. The same can generally not be said for the competition here.
The TT cost base is as bare bones as anyone will get it, and its yet to see any results.
Allegiant and Spirit are good examples you listed of carving out a market, but those same strengths of their models do not exist here unfortunately. In many ways, Allegiant took on the original TT model with low frequencies on secondary routes and it worked because the variety of options that remained unserved.
The amount of options open here are minimal, which means any new airline will have to take on the established carriers on already capacity flooded routes, pushing down yields from day 1. Hardly a recipe for success.
SYDAIRPORTS From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 181, posted (2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2469 times:
Asian don't mind being subservient, Australians do, so if Lion Air Australia has an Asian flavour then maybe they can suceed in Australia like SQ has succeeded out of Australia.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 182, posted (2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2426 times:
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 180): I certainly take on board what you are saying Mariner, but I think its important to look at a couple of points here that worked in Southwest and Ryanairs favour.
Certainly there are. There are things that worked in Virgin Blue's favour as well, such as the collapse of Ansett.
Any savvy CEO will take advantage of circumstances that arise. Southwest succeeded where many other upstart airlines (some better funded) that arrived with deregulation failed. And while the opening up of Europe was certainly a major factor for Ryanair, the propelling imperative was the appointment of Michael O'Leary, who re-invented the airline.
Those advantages of the opening up of Europe were available to any airline, but none capitalized on it as astutely as MOL.
The common factor with in both cases was CEO's who were visionary, astute - and ruthless. And both of whom gave the two finger salute to legacy thinking.
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 180): The TT cost base is as bare bones as anyone will get it, and its yet to see any results.
Nor - I think - will there be any satisfactory results trying to steal market share from Qantas and Virgin Australia on legacy routes. They're trying to be a cheaper legacy without any frills which - I think - is a mug's game.
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 180): Allegiant and Spirit are good examples you listed of carving out a market, but those same strengths of their models do not exist here unfortunately.
That's where I differ. I think there are a number of opportunities, some of them international, going begging.
And there is more to Allegiant than that. The cleverness of Gallagher was in total vacation packaging, it is - officially - a travel company, not an airline. It also helped that Gallagher sunk his personal fortune into it.
Visionary, astute and ruthless - and happy to give the two finger salute to legacy thinking.
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 180): The amount of options open here are minimal, which means any new airline will have to take on the established carriers on already capacity flooded routes, pushing down yields from day 1. Hardly a recipe for success.
Other than the "minimal options" bit, absolutely, I agree. And not at all what I am suggesting.
BenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 183, posted (2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2422 times:
Tiger's performance in the quarter ending December 31 was, like Jetstar's in the first half year to the same date, affected by the fare war between Qantas and Virgin Australia. Andrew David, Tiger's now departed Australian CEO told me in an interview that the price war left very little head room for low cost carriers per se, as once you looked at higher frequency, a free checked bag in the case of Qantas, and complimentary refreshments on some but not all routes on both, including the transcontinental services the best offer from Tiger was only the equivalent of a few free hours parking charges at Sydney Airport.
There was an additional problem. In the aftermath of the grounding Tiger was not able to fully utilise its jets owing to residual sector limits by CASA, and while gone in the December quarter it was difficult for Tiger to take advantage of its new freedom. There was a substantial need for more staff, yet the fate of Tiger was uncertain, and still is, pending ACCC approval or rejection of the deal by which Virgin will acquire a controlling 60% interest but run it as an independent brand, and not a second brand in the Qantas-Jetstar manner. It could be argued that if it was flying 10 jets as many hours per day as Tiger's Singapore based fleet, it would have performed much better and cost per available seat kilometre would have significantly declined.
I am not sure this potential has carried into the March quarter, as a lot of the focus David brought to Tiger has dissipated, and morale is important, and Virgin and Qantas continue to bleed each other. That focus from Andrew David will soon be brought to bear on Jetstar international services, I think from a date in June.
I've suggested without pushback from Virgin that it really couldn't care less what the ACCC choses to do re Tiger. If the airline is closed down by its Singaporean shareholders (in which SIA is now a minority holder) Virgin will save tens of millions of dollars upfront, avoid capital expenditure, and continue with what seems like a robust single brand strategy.
If on the other hand, the deal goes ahead, Virgin will book 60% of Tiger's market share in the BITRE stats which could, just, push it right over the top of the Qantas line in the sand when it comes to market share, especially if it books another boost, however small, from the Skywest share on the market which will be acquired in full by Virgin.
The Qantas fightback should Virgin gets to book the 60% Tiger share of traffic and the smaller Skywest component will be fierce and well resourced. But like Virgin, this battle will come at shareholder cost, and without capital injections, gradually bleed away their respective cash reserves.
CXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2696 posts, RR: 1 Reply 184, posted (2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2376 times:
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 162): It was a plan up to 7 or so years ago to have a JV with an airline that no longer even exists here. Their ambitions were knocked down by safety concerns.
I think it's closer than you think. There was mention of Australian operations under the Airbus aircraft purchase ceremony.
"However its co-founder and chief executive Rusdi Kirana did mention Australia once more, in passing, at the ceremonial signing of the order for 234 assorted A320 family single aisle jets at the Elysée Palace in Paris, an event that might make even the very thick take Lion Air seriously."
I think Lion entering would be stronger than Tiger was when it came (but perhaps at a more difficult time to enter), and an LCC with Business class is somewhat new territory.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 185, posted (2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2372 times:
Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 183): If on the other hand, the deal goes ahead, Virgin will book 60% of Tiger's market share in the BITRE stats which could, just, push it right over the top of the Qantas line in the sand when it comes to market share, especially if it books another boost, however small, from the Skywest share on the market which will be acquired in full by Virgin.
The Qantas fightback should Virgin gets to book the 60% Tiger share of traffic and the smaller Skywest component will be fierce and well resourced. But like Virgin, this battle will come at shareholder cost, and without capital injections, gradually bleed away their respective cash reserves.
You may be right, but if this happens, if Virgin Australia gets Tiger, then it is simply yet another replay of the duopoly, and we've been there, we've done that.
As I said, I don't believe that Australia has yet seen a lean, mean, hungry LCC that thinks outside the box (and gives the finger to this legacy thinking that so bedevils Australian civil aviation) and I yearn for it to happen.
Tiger might have been on the right track, at least as an abstract. Tiger knew what the problem was at DRW and it knew what the solution was - or a partial solution - but its own financial structure prevented it from implementing that solution.
IndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2403 posts, RR: 0 Reply 186, posted (2 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2204 times:
I can see Lion Air taking on a significant Indonesia-Australia expansion, likely using its Batik air and the main Lion Air brands also for some services.
Opening up further secondary cities in Indonesia to Australia (ie. Surabaya) may well be the next step. That's where I see the main opportunities, not them trying to take on the domestic market here. Maybe AVV may be an option to consider here for some services to differentiate its offering.
It will still need to overcome the safety concerns for any plans to come to fruition though.
SYDAIRPORTS From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 187, posted (2 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2141 times:
O'Leary of Ryanair in interview in last 48 hours, says that the difference between 180 seat A320 & 189 seat B738 is huge from there point of view. The extra 9 seats make a huge financial difference (then again hejsut spend weeks screwing down Boeing on something like a 175 aircraft order for 738's, so maybe he's just being kind to Boeing?)
If Lion Air Australia were to come in with 739ER's with up to 215Y seats, then those extra seats, reduce their per seat cost, without increasing costs of production very much.
Or they could do a more spacious 2 class layout.
Either way, nothing says they have to follow their current Indonesian model for domestic Australian operations.
They might not even use the same name.
It works for Qantas/Jetstar. Qantas makes money domestically, but not internationally. Lion Air could make money internationally & the Australian division could make money domestically, whatever it's called.
They could be an LCC with included meals, drinks, checked baggage. This is not new. Was even done last century but rather long & medium haul, not short haul.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2514 posts, RR: 2 Reply 188, posted (2 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2118 times:
Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 187): If Lion Air Australia were to come in with 739ER's with up to 215Y seats
I'm assuming that Indonesia has the 1:50 rule (as opposed to our bizarre 1:36)
Going over 200 means that they need another flight attendant. The revenue of 15 extra seats might not be enough to cover that additional cost. MoL certainly doesn't think it does, he has said that he would love to find another 10 seats in the 73H (ie 199) but that he can't see FR going over 200 (220 in a 321, say) because of the diminishing returns.
SYDAIRPORTS From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 189, posted (2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2116 times:
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 188): Going over 200 means that they need another flight attendant. The revenue of 15 extra seats might not be enough to cover that additional cost. MoL certainly doesn't think it does, he has said that he would love to find another 10 seats in the 73H (ie 199) but that he can't see FR going over 200 (220 in a 321, say) because of the diminishing returns.
yes but doubt if Lion Air Australia will be paying anything like QF or VA flight attendnats pay, probbaly more like Tigers or less.
aryonoco From Iran, joined May 2012, 12 posts, RR: 0 Reply 191, posted (2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2061 times:
Well, Airbus now has a 236 seat config for the A321NEO, don't they? If MOL thinks those 9 extra seats between a 738 and a A320 make so much difference, I think the extra 21 seats on the A321NEO should make quite some difference as well.
Question is, does the A321NEO have the legs to do Indonesia to Australia carrying so many passengers? CGK to SYD is nearly 3,000 nm. I know that the A321NEO's still air range is supposed to be 3,650nm at EIS, but is that good enough to do this?
Lion Air's new order has 65 A321NEOs If I'm not mistaken. Makes one wonder...
PS: Long time reader, first time poster to a.net. I thought I've enjoyed reading these forums so much, I should finally join for real!
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 192, posted (2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1974 times:
Quoting aryonoco (Reply 191): Question is, does the A321NEO have the legs to do Indonesia to Australia carrying so many passengers? CGK to SYD is nearly 3,000 nm. I know that the A321NEO's still air range is supposed to be 3,650nm at EIS, but is that good enough to do this?
I wouldn't be too optimistic about that still air range.
I would fall over in shock if the A321Neo had the range for CGK-SYD and CEO Parker of US Airways is unconvinced that the aircraft has the range he needs - PHX-HNL e.g. at 2917 nautical miles - or trans-Atlantic (TATL):
"The problem, said Parker, is that US Airways is not certain the A321neo can fulfil the Phoenix-Hawaii missions currently operated by the carrier with its 757s.
US Airways previously said it had told Airbus of the necessity for the A321neo to achieve similar long-haul mission capabilities to the 757 that it operates to Hawaii and Europe."
It's going to be a terrific and very useful aircraft and Airbus is working on trying to make it TATL capable - but it ain't there yet.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2514 posts, RR: 2 Reply 193, posted (2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1947 times:
Quoting aryonoco (Reply 191): Airbus now has a 236 seat config for the A321NEO
Are you sure? I ask because that is the highest density configuration for the 757, which is quite a bit longer. Maybe with slimline seats it is now possible, but I would be surprised if it did.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 194, posted (2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1941 times:
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 193): Quoting aryonoco (Reply 191):
Airbus now has a 236 seat config for the A321NEO
Are you sure? I ask because that is the highest density configuration for the 757, which is quite a bit longer. Maybe with slimline seats it is now possible, but I would be surprised if it did.
BenSandilands From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 195, posted (2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1937 times:
The seat count and relative efficiency argument is always drastically oversimplified by the jet makers for popular consumption.
When up to 40% of the terminal to terminal time can be spent on the ground taxying at the originating and destination airport the issues are transformed into something so complex few can unravel them.
That infuriating stop start motion as you crawl to the takeoff point is not just about congestion but tyre and brake heat and the need to manage that so you don't deflate the gear. A GTF type engine as being offered by P&W may offer a big advantage there, and also during the climb and descent phases, although I want to make it clear many carriers appear to be unmoved or unconvinced by the engine maker's claims.
Similarly the 9 extra seats in a maximum evacuation limit configured 737-800 are either a revenue opportunity that translates into better earnings or a dead weight that is being carted around delivering a net loss to operating performance if persistently unoccupied.
The elasticity of lease charges or the particular purchase cost of the chosen type of airliner may over a six year period before it is churned in favour of a younger replacement to lower maintenance costs may also totally blow away claimed fuel, under floor palletised luggage handling or line operations cost advantages for one over the other.
It is for some operators such operator specific variances that are way, way more important in giving the order to Boeing or Airbus than headline claims about relative fuel efficiency or costs per seat kilometre.
Try asking Boeing or Airbus to give you comparative claims for average Sydney-Melbourne and then average Melbourne-Perth stages. I've done that. The answer is a very emphatic 'rack off' response. Its this real life route specific, airline specific stuff where some of the really fierce sales contests are waged, and where big carriers like Delta really stress Airbus and Boeing by starting off with the assumption that an end of run model, like today's jets, is actually a better overall proposition than paying a premium for an NEO or MAX model.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 196, posted (2 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1886 times:
Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 187): O'Leary of Ryanair in interview in last 48 hours, says that the difference between 180 seat A320 & 189 seat B738 is huge from there point of view. The extra 9 seats make a huge financial difference (then again hejsut spend weeks screwing down Boeing on something like a 175 aircraft order for 738's, so maybe he's just being kind to Boeing?)
There is always some truth in what Michael O'Leary (MOL) says - while he remains an attention whore. The idea that those nine seats can reduce fares by 5% is - well, debatable.
It is to take nothing away from Boeing to say that MOL was paying his dues to Boeing and was in full "love Boeing" mode in that interview, maybe as a kiss and make-up for his infamous statement about having raped Boeing on an earlier order - more than ten years ago - which still rankles with some.
He went on to say that the 787 problems were "regulatory crap" - which is a point of view, I guess, but hardly reliable given his known disdain for regulators and his undisguised love affair with Boeing.
Similarly, his comments about the Cyprus crisis - the populist in me can only agree, but I wonder what his solution would be.
Still, I love the man largely because he does challenge the Conventional Wisdoms. His comments about having a standing room area on aircraft are not said because he expects it to happen anytime soon, but (a) to try and change the dialogue about expectations of air travel (b) to give regulators some grief and (c) to get yet more headlines.
It is a classic negotiating position - always ask for more than you know you're going to get - and I admire what he has done and what he is doing beyond measure. Which doesn't mean I want all airlines to be like Ryanair.
And he is only talking about Ryanair and its agenda, or his agenda for it. It may be dangerous to extrapolate beyond that and even he admits that "O'Leary Airlines" might not be very popular.
aryonoco From Iran, joined May 2012, 12 posts, RR: 0 Reply 197, posted (2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1716 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 192): wouldn't be too optimistic about that still air range.
I would fall over in shock if the A321Neo had the range for CGK-SYD and CEO Parker of US Airways is unconvinced that the aircraft has the range he needs - PHX-HNL e.g. at 2917 nautical miles - or trans-Atlantic (TATL):
Well I am certainly less knowledgeable and less informed than Mr. Parker, but I'm optimistic the A321NEO should be able to do that. Word is that the GTF engine is actually burning less fuel than forecast, which might push A321Neo's (still air) range to 3,800 nm at EIS. Even if the earlier birds can't quite get there, there is reason to believe that within its lifetime the A321NEO could become a true TATL aircraft (or in this case, capable of doing Indonesia-Australia).
Airbus' website claims that the A321NEO has an "operating range of up to 3,000 nautical miles while carrying a maximum passenger payload". I am assuming that they mean maximum passenger payload with their standard configuration, not with this ultra high-density 236 seat config that they are now offering LCCs.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 198, posted (2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1652 times:
Quoting aryonoco (Reply 197): Airbus' website claims that the A321NEO has an "operating range of up to 3,000 nautical miles while carrying a maximum passenger payload".
There has always been a disconnect between the numbers that Airbus publishes and the routes that airlines actually fly and a lot of it has to with still air, weather and winds.
I don't know of too many airlines who fly the A320 family, in all weathers, on any route more than about 2600 statute miles, although I am told that it has happened seasonally.
The longest I know was Lacsa. who flew the A320 SJO-LAX which is 2700 stature miles - and almost invariably it had to make a tech stop at ACA, at least southbound. These days, I believe a stop is scheduled at GUA, southbound, at least the last time I checked.
Jetblue used to have problems with the A320 on US transcons - JFK-LAX, e.g. - in certain weathers, 2475 statute miles, and fuel stops, while not regular, were not uncommon.
For a time, Airbus provided an A320 with an extra fuel tank to see if that would help, but what it gained on the range it lost on the payload, although I believe (?) that US Airways opted for the additional fuel tanks for the A321 - to get that transcon range.
Now Airbus has made tweaks to the A320 family which give the aircraft slightly more range (eliminating most of the fuel stops) and the sharklets will give it slightly more. But we are still talking less than 3000 statute miles in practical circumstances and on its website, Lufthansa states the range of the A321 as 4350 km - 2700 (statute) miles.
United uses the A320 on DEN-ANC (2405 miles) but Frontier can't because it has no first class and thus more more seats/weight. Similarly, Frontier can just squeeze in DEN-PUJ at 2611 (miles) with the A319 - but only for three months in summer, because of the weather patterns. The standard version of the A320 could not make it even for those three months.
British, of course, flies the A318 JFK-LCY, but that is with a dramatically reduced payload, 42 business class.
So, while Airbus is hopeful that it can bring the A321 to TATL capability, it isn't there yet.
QFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 130 posts, RR: 0 Reply 199, posted (2 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1618 times:
Quoting aryonoco (Reply 191): Question is, does the A321NEO have the legs to do Indonesia to Australia carrying so many passengers? CGK to SYD is nearly 3,000 nm. I know that the A321NEO's still air range is supposed to be 3,650nm at EIS, but is that good enough to do this?
If the A321NEO can't make SYD-CGK, maybe SYD-DPS or SYD-SUB would be better options? And then connecting to elsewhere in Indonesia / SE Asia from there.
Sponsor Message: 
From Portugal, joined Mar 2007, 599 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1335 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2696 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2687 posts, 
From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2010 posts, 
From Iran, joined May 2012, 12 posts,