Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 11
 
getluv
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:07 pm

qf789 wrote:
mh124 wrote:
Now see the issue, there isn't the available gate space, Gates 21-24 are only suitable for narrowbodies, so operating a number of flights so close to each other is outside of what the terminal can handle. For this to work some scheduling changes need to be made, if both the SIN and JNB/AKL flights can be retimed it is probably doable, the scenario above presents PAPL's position which is understandable considering it could lead to congestion, a poor passenger experience etc.


I agree it doesn't sound like there is enough space.
But is this really the issue? It seems much larger than that? Like they are basically at loggerheads over an eventual move to T1? It seems that with every news article an extra tiny snippet of vague relevance gets released. I think I read something about PAPL using accelerated depreciation of the terminal to increase costs imposed on QF. I don't know about the veracity or significance but it sounds like there is a strategic battle going on in the background ?? Is it possible the QF has zero intention of moving ?


There are many aspects in this feud, the gate space is just one of them. I was also trying to point out that its not all PAPL, QF is as much to blame for this as PAPL. I do get the feeling that QF are trying to back out of the agreement made pre PER-LHR that included them moving over to T1 by the end of 2025. A lot of the expansion (new domestic terminal, 3rd runway) is dependent on QF as most of that is to their benefit, they need to be able to give something to take something in return and they come across as anything but that. It has been known for at least 2 decades from what I can remember that the ultimate goal of PAPL was to consolidate all services at T1. As much as I like QF they do come across with its our way or the highway method and I do find it quite hypocritical of them criticising PAPL's profit while at the same time they are making their own record profits, and I am not sure that in the long run it sits well with the public either, it will be viewed as corporate greed.



I don't buy the gate argument at all. The gate issue seems like a convenient argument that PAPL feeds to the media because it seems logical and understandable to the common Joe. However, QF would be clearly aware that there is finite space at the airport in order to handle such operations. Furthermore, QF71 can easily be retimed to arrive/leave earlier/later in order to free up gate space.

Unfortunately PAPL ultimately has the final say as they are the operator and therefore can dictate to QF what it wants hence why QF couldn't start their seasonal services and how they want QF to absorb the accelerated depreciation costs. Total profit and profit margins also different things. QF's profit margins on its domestic/int'l business are a tiny percentage of what PAPL can derive.

It is worth mentioning that VA shares a lot of the same concerns QF has with Australian airports, unfortunately the issues at TLV and PER are unique to QF.
I'm that bad type.
 
waoz1
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:31 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:59 am

Some Malindo staff arrested in Melbourne....

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/ ... 881075371z
 
User avatar
Flyingdevil737
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:26 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:11 am

[twoid][/twoid]
HM7 wrote:
Given some of the Qantas Freight Toll 737s were repainted in QF livery, does anyone think we’ll ever get the Atlas 747s repainted in QF colors too?


I’d love to see it happen, but I doubt it will.
In the century-old war between very fast-moving aircraft and the ground, the ground has yet to lose.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8472
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:20 am

getluv wrote:
qf789 wrote:
mh124 wrote:

I agree it doesn't sound like there is enough space.
But is this really the issue? It seems much larger than that? Like they are basically at loggerheads over an eventual move to T1? It seems that with every news article an extra tiny snippet of vague relevance gets released. I think I read something about PAPL using accelerated depreciation of the terminal to increase costs imposed on QF. I don't know about the veracity or significance but it sounds like there is a strategic battle going on in the background ?? Is it possible the QF has zero intention of moving ?


There are many aspects in this feud, the gate space is just one of them. I was also trying to point out that its not all PAPL, QF is as much to blame for this as PAPL. I do get the feeling that QF are trying to back out of the agreement made pre PER-LHR that included them moving over to T1 by the end of 2025. A lot of the expansion (new domestic terminal, 3rd runway) is dependent on QF as most of that is to their benefit, they need to be able to give something to take something in return and they come across as anything but that. It has been known for at least 2 decades from what I can remember that the ultimate goal of PAPL was to consolidate all services at T1. As much as I like QF they do come across with its our way or the highway method and I do find it quite hypocritical of them criticising PAPL's profit while at the same time they are making their own record profits, and I am not sure that in the long run it sits well with the public either, it will be viewed as corporate greed.



I don't buy the gate argument at all. The gate issue seems like a convenient argument that PAPL feeds to the media because it seems logical and understandable to the common Joe. However, QF would be clearly aware that there is finite space at the airport in order to handle such operations. Furthermore, QF71 can easily be retimed to arrive/leave earlier/later in order to free up gate space.

Unfortunately PAPL ultimately has the final say as they are the operator and therefore can dictate to QF what it wants hence why QF couldn't start their seasonal services and how they want QF to absorb the accelerated depreciation costs. Total profit and profit margins also different things. QF's profit margins on its domestic/int'l business are a tiny percentage of what PAPL can derive.

It is worth mentioning that VA shares a lot of the same concerns QF has with Australian airports, unfortunately the issues at TLV and PER are unique to QF.


I 100% agree. There is no way that Qantas isn't aware that they only have 2/3 international gates, and they will schedule their flights appropriately. That sounds like a fairly pointless talking point that makes PAPL look slightly better.

I question what airport you mean by TLV though. Qantas couldn't care less about airport charges in Tel Aviv!
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
Qantas737
Posts: 766
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:34 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:37 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
getluv wrote:
qf789 wrote:

There are many aspects in this feud, the gate space is just one of them. I was also trying to point out that its not all PAPL, QF is as much to blame for this as PAPL. I do get the feeling that QF are trying to back out of the agreement made pre PER-LHR that included them moving over to T1 by the end of 2025. A lot of the expansion (new domestic terminal, 3rd runway) is dependent on QF as most of that is to their benefit, they need to be able to give something to take something in return and they come across as anything but that. It has been known for at least 2 decades from what I can remember that the ultimate goal of PAPL was to consolidate all services at T1. As much as I like QF they do come across with its our way or the highway method and I do find it quite hypocritical of them criticising PAPL's profit while at the same time they are making their own record profits, and I am not sure that in the long run it sits well with the public either, it will be viewed as corporate greed.



I don't buy the gate argument at all. The gate issue seems like a convenient argument that PAPL feeds to the media because it seems logical and understandable to the common Joe. However, QF would be clearly aware that there is finite space at the airport in order to handle such operations. Furthermore, QF71 can easily be retimed to arrive/leave earlier/later in order to free up gate space.

Unfortunately PAPL ultimately has the final say as they are the operator and therefore can dictate to QF what it wants hence why QF couldn't start their seasonal services and how they want QF to absorb the accelerated depreciation costs. Total profit and profit margins also different things. QF's profit margins on its domestic/int'l business are a tiny percentage of what PAPL can derive.

It is worth mentioning that VA shares a lot of the same concerns QF has with Australian airports, unfortunately the issues at TLV and PER are unique to QF.


I 100% agree. There is no way that Qantas isn't aware that they only have 2/3 international gates, and they will schedule their flights appropriately. That sounds like a fairly pointless talking point that makes PAPL look slightly better.

I question what airport you mean by TLV though. Qantas couldn't care less about airport charges in Tel Aviv!


I'm assuming he meant TSV with the well publicised dispute between Qantas and QAL regarding the terminal upgrade fee.
 
getluv
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:45 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
getluv wrote:
qf789 wrote:

There are many aspects in this feud, the gate space is just one of them. I was also trying to point out that its not all PAPL, QF is as much to blame for this as PAPL. I do get the feeling that QF are trying to back out of the agreement made pre PER-LHR that included them moving over to T1 by the end of 2025. A lot of the expansion (new domestic terminal, 3rd runway) is dependent on QF as most of that is to their benefit, they need to be able to give something to take something in return and they come across as anything but that. It has been known for at least 2 decades from what I can remember that the ultimate goal of PAPL was to consolidate all services at T1. As much as I like QF they do come across with its our way or the highway method and I do find it quite hypocritical of them criticising PAPL's profit while at the same time they are making their own record profits, and I am not sure that in the long run it sits well with the public either, it will be viewed as corporate greed.



I don't buy the gate argument at all. The gate issue seems like a convenient argument that PAPL feeds to the media because it seems logical and understandable to the common Joe. However, QF would be clearly aware that there is finite space at the airport in order to handle such operations. Furthermore, QF71 can easily be retimed to arrive/leave earlier/later in order to free up gate space.

Unfortunately PAPL ultimately has the final say as they are the operator and therefore can dictate to QF what it wants hence why QF couldn't start their seasonal services and how they want QF to absorb the accelerated depreciation costs. Total profit and profit margins also different things. QF's profit margins on its domestic/int'l business are a tiny percentage of what PAPL can derive.

It is worth mentioning that VA shares a lot of the same concerns QF has with Australian airports, unfortunately the issues at TLV and PER are unique to QF.


I 100% agree. There is no way that Qantas isn't aware that they only have 2/3 international gates, and they will schedule their flights appropriately. That sounds like a fairly pointless talking point that makes PAPL look slightly better.

I question what airport you mean by TLV though. Qantas couldn't care less about airport charges in Tel Aviv!


Oops, I meant TSV.
I'm that bad type.
 
TasFlyer
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2018 4:55 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:48 am

qf789 wrote:
TasFlyer wrote:
qf789 wrote:

In contrast VA has also launched in recent months PER-OOL and PER-HBA. PER-OOL is using the same aircraft that would typically serve PER-CBR, overall loads have been slightly better than PER-CBR so I would expect PER-OOL to operate in holiday seasons throughout the year. PER-HBA has been the best performer out of the 3 routes started by VA. Judging on the numbers I have seen I would expect an increase in services next summer. Loads have been very good averaging in the 80's (percent that is). I have not really seen MEL and SYD numbers drop due to transfer traffic either so I think this route has opened new opportunties. I do think QF has missed an opportunity here in operating PER-HBA.


That's great news about PER-OOL and PER-HBA; especially so in HBA's case given the significant number of additional services provided for peak season - up to six weekly, which is double the usual three weekly. Moreover, there are extra flights scheduled on this route during February as well as the Easter/ANZAC day fortnight; quite an accomplishment in the present environment of high utilisation and capacity consolidation.

The issue I see that would need solving is the aircraft operates PER-HBA on Mon, Wed, Fri; PER-CBR on Thu, Sun; with PER-OOL on Thu, Sat during the season when PER-CBR doesn't run; so if PER-HBA were to increase to daily over the summer peak when PER-CBR doesn't run, then PER-OOL may need to be switched to an OOL based aircraft as a red-eye? A triangular MEL-HBA-PER would be another option. I'm sure VA will find the right mix somehow.


Typically the Mon and Wed flights operate PER-KGI-PER-HBA-PER, sometimes it will then operate a redeye usually to BNE. Friday's it starts PER-HBA-PER then turns for a late afternoon flight to MEL, ADL or BNE. The extra flights over the past few weeks have operated SYD-HBA-PER or MEL-HBA-PER and vice versa. Also sometimes PER-ADL will be subbed by either a F100 or A320 over a 737. Over the past few weeks VA has been operating with 80 out of 81 737's in service, outside this period they normally operate with 77-78 on a daily basis. Depending on how many services operate depends on how many services operate to PER, some evenings we may only get 1 A332 and others we may get 3, this is compensated by adding extra 737 flights. For example recently VA was operating 3 evening services from BNE, VA470, 472 and 474 on selected days. Lastly VA does not base an aircraft at a particular port they are rotated through as the schedule demands it.


Yes, you're quite right about the earlier flight on Fridays - I keep forgetting that!

And my wording of "OOL based aircraft" was a poor choice because I really meant operating an OOL-PER-OOL rotation (as was done as a one-off on Dec 20), in contrast to the usual PER-OOL-PER rotation.
 
smi0006
Posts: 2587
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:44 am

timtam wrote:
According to QF reports, what PAPL appears to be doing is to change the rate of depreciation underlying their charges for T3 from 20 years to 7 years. That is they are seeking to recover the full capital cost of T3 over the next 7 years. They justify this change in pricing on the basis that they will be tearing down T3 in 2025 when QF move to T1.

This would be like the owner of the house you are renting telling you he is going to demolish the house in 7 years so your rent needs to go up from its current 5% of the capital value of the house to 14% of the capital value because the owner wants to recover the full value of the house before they demolish it.

Only a monopolist could think it can get away with this type of pricing changes.


Melbourne airport tried to do a similar manoeuvre with their new runway - increasing prices to pay for it now, before construction had started.... yet they would decided what capacity tiggers would be in place to start construction... so internationals in particular would would be paying in advance for additional capacity to allow their competitors, or domestic to fly in! If airports remain privatised time for significantly more regulation to support the consumers and airlines.
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1877
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:26 am

qf2048 wrote:
With EK dropping the 418/419 maybe QF, if they can find a spare frame, operate a PM departure to BKK with a daytime return flight back to Sydney. Would be nice anyway..

It would be a disaster for aircraft utilisation though. If you see QF adding flights on SYD-BKK it will most likely be a midnight departure from BKK with a midday arrival.

Michael
 
User avatar
SCFlyer
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:41 am

Can't really see QF adding any further SYD-BKK flights in the short-medium term considering the low-yielding/VFR nature of that market. Happy for QF to prove me wrong otherwise.

If anything if QF are to add extra flights to BKK, it may be replacing the existing JQ MEL-BKK service (plus an extra frequency or two), IMO. Allowing JQ to deploy the 788 elsewhere (e.g Vietnam or Japan).
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:12 am

timtam wrote:
mh124 wrote:

Ah yes thanks. It's an extremely unfortunate situation for Western Australian taxpayers. I wonder if the state government has an agreement for QF to move in writing. Still, I guess QF can stymie things as much as they wish. If anyone has any inside info then don't hesitate !!


Be very surprising if any agreement to move is firm. PAPL must have rocks in their heads if they think QF is going to be co-operative and move terminals while both parties remain in dispute over airport charges. The terminal move is dead in the water whilst the parties are in dispute.

QF is winning the battle in the media with PAPL painted as a price gouging monopolist.


I am not too sure of the particulars of the Perth Airport / QANTAS debacle, but I wouldn't take the QF side of the argument as being pure gospel.

If I remember correctly, the T3 buildings date back to the sixties, so from this perspective the original construction would probably be fully depreciated by now.

During the life of the T3 terminal there would have been numerous upgrades to the facilities. These upgrades (fire systems, HVAC, electrical, interiors, structures, etc) would more often than not be treated as Capital Expenditure and as such would have to be depreciated over the remaining life of the building.

In some instances buildings becomes very expensive to maintain and as such to continue investing in their upgrade / maintenance simply becomes uneconomic.

I'd suggest Perth Airport would prefer to spend their Capital Expenditure on new facilities rather than old facilities that are coming close to the end of their economic life.

If we consider the T3 terminal is predominantly used by QANTAS there may also be limited revenue opportunity by committing additional CAPEX to its upgrade / maintenance.

On the flip side spending Capital Expenditure on the new multi-user international terminals may result in more revenue opportunity, lower operating costs and building stock with higher valuations. The travelling public may also prefer newer terminals and the opportunities associated with having more airline choices.

From a financial perspective Perth Airport would have investors with ROI targets that the airport would be expected to meet. I'd suggest, the last thing the investors would want is for the asset managers to invest in old infrastructure where the ROI is questionable or the investment adds no or limited value for other airline and the flying public.

This seems to be a situation of trial by media. From where I sit both parties are using rhetoric to gain a political upper hand for achieving their own objectives.

If this dispute continues, there will ultimately come a stage where both parties will face harm. When this starts to happen investors from both camps will have to start asking questions about management change.

In short QANTAS and Perth Airport need to settle this matter quickly. If they can't, they are simply telling investors, airlines and the flying public they are not up to the task of running the companies they are responsible for.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:33 am

TasFlyer wrote:
qf789 wrote:
TasFlyer wrote:

That's great news about PER-OOL and PER-HBA; especially so in HBA's case given the significant number of additional services provided for peak season - up to six weekly, which is double the usual three weekly. Moreover, there are extra flights scheduled on this route during February as well as the Easter/ANZAC day fortnight; quite an accomplishment in the present environment of high utilisation and capacity consolidation.

The issue I see that would need solving is the aircraft operates PER-HBA on Mon, Wed, Fri; PER-CBR on Thu, Sun; with PER-OOL on Thu, Sat during the season when PER-CBR doesn't run; so if PER-HBA were to increase to daily over the summer peak when PER-CBR doesn't run, then PER-OOL may need to be switched to an OOL based aircraft as a red-eye? A triangular MEL-HBA-PER would be another option. I'm sure VA will find the right mix somehow.


Typically the Mon and Wed flights operate PER-KGI-PER-HBA-PER, sometimes it will then operate a redeye usually to BNE. Friday's it starts PER-HBA-PER then turns for a late afternoon flight to MEL, ADL or BNE. The extra flights over the past few weeks have operated SYD-HBA-PER or MEL-HBA-PER and vice versa. Also sometimes PER-ADL will be subbed by either a F100 or A320 over a 737. Over the past few weeks VA has been operating with 80 out of 81 737's in service, outside this period they normally operate with 77-78 on a daily basis. Depending on how many services operate depends on how many services operate to PER, some evenings we may only get 1 A332 and others we may get 3, this is compensated by adding extra 737 flights. For example recently VA was operating 3 evening services from BNE, VA470, 472 and 474 on selected days. Lastly VA does not base an aircraft at a particular port they are rotated through as the schedule demands it.


Yes, you're quite right about the earlier flight on Fridays - I keep forgetting that!

And my wording of "OOL based aircraft" was a poor choice because I really meant operating an OOL-PER-OOL rotation (as was done as a one-off on Dec 20), in contrast to the usual PER-OOL-PER rotation.


The OOL-PER-OOL rotation didn't happen that day due to that 3 day period of bad weather on the east coast. That particular night VA ended up cancelling 3 flights and a fourth one was delayed to the following day as a result of aircraft being somewhere else and crew timing out. At one stage the OOL-PER prior to being canned had a ETA in PER of 3am, the VA474 BNE-PER flight was the same, IIRC the earlier VA470 was the one delayed overnight while VA569 from SYD, that being an A332 had its ETD pushed back from 1900 to just before the curfew and in the end the curfew beat it. The departing OOL flight did operate from one of the extra 737's in PER that night. Overall that night VA operated 6 redeye's 1 to OOL, 1 to BNE, 2 to SYD and 2 MEL, both MEL and SYD had 1 737 and 1 332. In the end there were several 737's that were suppose to overnight in PER which ended up doing redeyes instead, OOL just being one example
Forum Moderator
 
SYDSpotter
Posts: 899
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:10 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:43 am

MooLor wrote:
Have I offended you mate? You sound a bit like my wife when she's just itching for an argument.
.


Offended, no, did my post indicate I was offended. :eyebrow:

As to comparisons to your wife, I haven't had the pleasure of meeting her, so can't confirm your observation ;)


MooLor wrote:
I've often wondered how many on EK419 are going beyond BKK. Do you have numbers? Does not seem logical to me that more than a relative handful would choose that route when they can go direct to DXB on one of the three other daily A380 out of SYD. Might be those "LCC type" price sensitive travellers again eh? So I'll stand by my "must be close to 50%" guesstimate. Could not be arsed comparing seat counts. Is (7 * A380 + 4 * 744) >= (7 * 744 + 7 * A330)? Must be close.


People travelling to DXB and beyond on EK419- Yup all about price. I don't know what the fare difference is like vs the non-stop, but no doubt cheaper than the non-stop.

Using BITRE Oct stats, 3825 outbound pax used Emirates to fly to BKK in October 2018 (Sept 4251). As EK419 is the only service going via BKK from Oz, an average of 127 pax per day in October. As I don't have EK's load factors on the EK419, hard to say how many on EK419 went to DXB and beyond. But we do know only 127 pax a day were going to BKK.
319_320_321_332_333_359_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W_788_789
 
getluv
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:53 am

travelhound wrote:
timtam wrote:
mh124 wrote:

Ah yes thanks. It's an extremely unfortunate situation for Western Australian taxpayers. I wonder if the state government has an agreement for QF to move in writing. Still, I guess QF can stymie things as much as they wish. If anyone has any inside info then don't hesitate !!


Be very surprising if any agreement to move is firm. PAPL must have rocks in their heads if they think QF is going to be co-operative and move terminals while both parties remain in dispute over airport charges. The terminal move is dead in the water whilst the parties are in dispute.

QF is winning the battle in the media with PAPL painted as a price gouging monopolist.


I am not too sure of the particulars of the Perth Airport / QANTAS debacle, but I wouldn't take the QF side of the argument as being pure gospel.

If I remember correctly, the T3 buildings date back to the sixties, so from this perspective the original construction would probably be fully depreciated by now.

During the life of the T3 terminal there would have been numerous upgrades to the facilities. These upgrades (fire systems, HVAC, electrical, interiors, structures, etc) would more often than not be treated as Capital Expenditure and as such would have to be depreciated over the remaining life of the building.

In some instances buildings becomes very expensive to maintain and as such to continue investing in their upgrade / maintenance simply becomes uneconomic.

I'd suggest Perth Airport would prefer to spend their Capital Expenditure on new facilities rather than old facilities that are coming close to the end of their economic life.

If we consider the T3 terminal is predominantly used by QANTAS there may also be limited revenue opportunity by committing additional CAPEX to its upgrade / maintenance.

On the flip side spending Capital Expenditure on the new multi-user international terminals may result in more revenue opportunity, lower operating costs and building stock with higher valuations. The travelling public may also prefer newer terminals and the opportunities associated with having more airline choices.

From a financial perspective Perth Airport would have investors with ROI targets that the airport would be expected to meet. I'd suggest, the last thing the investors would want is for the asset managers to invest in old infrastructure where the ROI is questionable or the investment adds no or limited value for other airline and the flying public.

This seems to be a situation of trial by media. From where I sit both parties are using rhetoric to gain a political upper hand for achieving their own objectives.

If this dispute continues, there will ultimately come a stage where both parties will face harm. When this starts to happen investors from both camps will have to start asking questions about management change.

In short QANTAS and Perth Airport need to settle this matter quickly. If they can't, they are simply telling investors, airlines and the flying public they are not up to the task of running the companies they are responsible for.


The last paragraph doesn't make sense to me. This is a situation where a monopoly is dealing with their biggest customer and I think both sides are playing to their strengths in order to ascertain better value for their respective shareholders.

This wouldn't be an issue if there was an Australian regulator who approved price increases for aeronautical charges, similar to other industries where there is a monopoly operator. Australian Airports are use to high ROI and profit margins because they don't wear the economic and competitive risks that airlines have too.

I just think QF is using their strong PER-LHR numbers to get more concessions from PER and waving PER-CDG/FRA to get lower charges. This is where the WA Government should probably get their hands dirty and mediate in order to get runs on the board because the State comes off worse.
I'm that bad type.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:06 am

MH to use A332 on MH126/127 to PER on a daily basis eff 31 March 19, MH124/125 to remain 5 weekly 738

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... t-changes/
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:10 am

Oman expands Codeshare on MH services

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -jan-2019/
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:12 am

China Eastern to upgrade MU561/562 to SYD eff 31 March 19

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... arch-2019/
Forum Moderator
 
waoz1
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:31 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:43 am

qf789 wrote:
Oman expands Codeshare on MH services

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -jan-2019/


Interesting that one
Oman have been code sharing with malindo via KL with flights to uk.

Had some really cheap fares

Also
Air Mauritius A330-900neo Perth service
Mauritius – Perth 02MAR19 – 30MAR19 2 weekly
 
redroo
Posts: 584
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:24 pm

travelhound wrote:
timtam wrote:
mh124 wrote:

Ah yes thanks. It's an extremely unfortunate situation for Western Australian taxpayers. I wonder if the state government has an agreement for QF to move in writing. Still, I guess QF can stymie things as much as they wish. If anyone has any inside info then don't hesitate !!


Be very surprising if any agreement to move is firm. PAPL must have rocks in their heads if they think QF is going to be co-operative and move terminals while both parties remain in dispute over airport charges. The terminal move is dead in the water whilst the parties are in dispute.

QF is winning the battle in the media with PAPL painted as a price gouging monopolist.


I am not too sure of the particulars of the Perth Airport / QANTAS debacle, but I wouldn't take the QF side of the argument as being pure gospel.

If I remember correctly, the T3 buildings date back to the sixties, so from this perspective the original construction would probably be fully depreciated by now.

During the life of the T3 terminal there would have been numerous upgrades to the facilities. These upgrades (fire systems, HVAC, electrical, interiors, structures, etc) would more often than not be treated as Capital Expenditure and as such would have to be depreciated over the remaining life of the building.

In some instances buildings becomes very expensive to maintain and as such to continue investing in their upgrade / maintenance simply becomes uneconomic.

I'd suggest Perth Airport would prefer to spend their Capital Expenditure on new facilities rather than old facilities that are coming close to the end of their economic life.

If we consider the T3 terminal is predominantly used by QANTAS there may also be limited revenue opportunity by committing additional CAPEX to its upgrade / maintenance.

On the flip side spending Capital Expenditure on the new multi-user international terminals may result in more revenue opportunity, lower operating costs and building stock with higher valuations. The travelling public may also prefer newer terminals and the opportunities associated with having more airline choices.

From a financial perspective Perth Airport would have investors with ROI targets that the airport would be expected to meet. I'd suggest, the last thing the investors would want is for the asset managers to invest in old infrastructure where the ROI is questionable or the investment adds no or limited value for other airline and the flying public.

This seems to be a situation of trial by media. From where I sit both parties are using rhetoric to gain a political upper hand for achieving their own objectives.

If this dispute continues, there will ultimately come a stage where both parties will face harm. When this starts to happen investors from both camps will have to start asking questions about management change.

In short QANTAS and Perth Airport need to settle this matter quickly. If they can't, they are simply telling investors, airlines and the flying public they are not up to the task of running the companies they are responsible for.



So here is an odd thing. PAPL want qantas to move over to the new terminal (as yet unbuilt) yet they have told the cafes and restaurants in the existing QF terminals that they need to be renovated to their standard as soon as possible. This includes the new cafe that was built in the corner of the Jetstar/international terminal. Why the renovations if the place is end of life? Why the renovations for the new place? I’ve been told that some of these places may just simply close and tell PAPL where to go. Something very odd going on.
 
timtam
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:02 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:11 pm

travelhound wrote:

I am not too sure of the particulars of the Perth Airport / QANTAS debacle, but I wouldn't take the QF side of the argument as being pure gospel.

If I remember correctly, the T3 buildings date back to the sixties, so from this perspective the original construction would probably be fully depreciated by now.

During the life of the T3 terminal there would have been numerous upgrades to the facilities. These upgrades (fire systems, HVAC, electrical, interiors, structures, etc) would more often than not be treated as Capital Expenditure and as such would have to be depreciated over the remaining life of the building.

In some instances buildings becomes very expensive to maintain and as such to continue investing in their upgrade / maintenance simply becomes uneconomic.

I'd suggest Perth Airport would prefer to spend their Capital Expenditure on new facilities rather than old facilities that are coming close to the end of their economic life.

If we consider the T3 terminal is predominantly used by QANTAS there may also be limited revenue opportunity by committing additional CAPEX to its upgrade / maintenance.

On the flip side spending Capital Expenditure on the new multi-user international terminals may result in more revenue opportunity, lower operating costs and building stock with higher valuations. The travelling public may also prefer newer terminals and the opportunities associated with having more airline choices.

From a financial perspective Perth Airport would have investors with ROI targets that the airport would be expected to meet. I'd suggest, the last thing the investors would want is for the asset managers to invest in old infrastructure where the ROI is questionable or the investment adds no or limited value for other airline and the flying public.

This seems to be a situation of trial by media. From where I sit both parties are using rhetoric to gain a political upper hand for achieving their own objectives.

If this dispute continues, there will ultimately come a stage where both parties will face harm. When this starts to happen investors from both camps will have to start asking questions about management change.

In short QANTAS and Perth Airport need to settle this matter quickly. If they can't, they are simply telling investors, airlines and the flying public they are not up to the task of running the companies they are responsible for.


Unfortunately that is not how infrastructure investments work. The date that T3 was built is irrelevant. T3 may have been build in the 1960's but when the airport was sold, the purchase price for would have become the basis for the value of the assets. Infrastructure investors expect to recoup the depreciation from the users of their assets but they do not subsequently deduct the value of that depreciation from the asset value.

PAPL would be regularly revaluing the airport in their books and most likely that value would be increasing over time (not going down in line with depreciation). But now that they are planning to close T3, their revenue stream for T3 has been reduced to 7 years and so the value of the asset has to decrease towards nil in their books over that period. The decision to close T3 is being pursued by PAPL and not QF. Its not the fault of QF that the value of the asset has to be written down to NIL because PAPL want to close the terminal. Further PAPL would only be willing to take the hit on T3 if, after investing in the upgrades, it is going to make even more money.

I suggest the real reason PAPL wants to consolidate activity in T1 has absolutely nothing to do with maintenance costs. Rather it is because Airports have become Shopping Centres and they want to consolidate all the shoppers in the one location so they can charge higher shop rents and support more square metres of shopping. In the end its always about greed.
 
mh124
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:33 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:40 pm

sigh....
so many rumours. I guess I did kind of invite this.
I don't even know if there is an avenue for the WA govt to mediate, unless both parties wanted that (and it certainly doesn't sound like that).
The federal government which has responsibility for aviation is going through a particularly useless period so that's that.
i guess it will just have to play out in the courts. WA will have to be shafted for the time being. Could drag on for 6 months, QF will make a decision to apply the 789 elsewhere (rather than PER-CDG), for all we know they already have decided that.
Thanks for everyone's input I guess. I think I'm even more pessimistic than I was 48 hours ago!
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 7:54 pm

timtam wrote:
travelhound wrote:

I am not too sure of the particulars of the Perth Airport / QANTAS debacle, but I wouldn't take the QF side of the argument as being pure gospel.

If I remember correctly, the T3 buildings date back to the sixties, so from this perspective the original construction would probably be fully depreciated by now.

During the life of the T3 terminal there would have been numerous upgrades to the facilities. These upgrades (fire systems, HVAC, electrical, interiors, structures, etc) would more often than not be treated as Capital Expenditure and as such would have to be depreciated over the remaining life of the building.

In some instances buildings becomes very expensive to maintain and as such to continue investing in their upgrade / maintenance simply becomes uneconomic.

I'd suggest Perth Airport would prefer to spend their Capital Expenditure on new facilities rather than old facilities that are coming close to the end of their economic life.

If we consider the T3 terminal is predominantly used by QANTAS there may also be limited revenue opportunity by committing additional CAPEX to its upgrade / maintenance.

On the flip side spending Capital Expenditure on the new multi-user international terminals may result in more revenue opportunity, lower operating costs and building stock with higher valuations. The travelling public may also prefer newer terminals and the opportunities associated with having more airline choices.

From a financial perspective Perth Airport would have investors with ROI targets that the airport would be expected to meet. I'd suggest, the last thing the investors would want is for the asset managers to invest in old infrastructure where the ROI is questionable or the investment adds no or limited value for other airline and the flying public.

This seems to be a situation of trial by media. From where I sit both parties are using rhetoric to gain a political upper hand for achieving their own objectives.

If this dispute continues, there will ultimately come a stage where both parties will face harm. When this starts to happen investors from both camps will have to start asking questions about management change.

In short QANTAS and Perth Airport need to settle this matter quickly. If they can't, they are simply telling investors, airlines and the flying public they are not up to the task of running the companies they are responsible for.


Unfortunately that is not how infrastructure investments work. The date that T3 was built is irrelevant. T3 may have been build in the 1960's but when the airport was sold, the purchase price for would have become the basis for the value of the assets. Infrastructure investors expect to recoup the depreciation from the users of their assets but they do not subsequently deduct the value of that depreciation from the asset value.

PAPL would be regularly revaluing the airport in their books and most likely that value would be increasing over time (not going down in line with depreciation). But now that they are planning to close T3, their revenue stream for T3 has been reduced to 7 years and so the value of the asset has to decrease towards nil in their books over that period. The decision to close T3 is being pursued by PAPL and not QF. Its not the fault of QF that the value of the asset has to be written down to NIL because PAPL want to close the terminal. Further PAPL would only be willing to take the hit on T3 if, after investing in the upgrades, it is going to make even more money.

I suggest the real reason PAPL wants to consolidate activity in T1 has absolutely nothing to do with maintenance costs. Rather it is because Airports have become Shopping Centres and they want to consolidate all the shoppers in the one location so they can charge higher shop rents and support more square metres of shopping. In the end its always about greed.


I think you are confusing the economic and book value of an asset.

The purchase price of the airport would have been based upon the economic value of the airport as an investment. Within that investment value equation would have been valuations about facilities, the cost to maintain and upgrade those facilities, CAPEX requirements going forward, etc.The book value of the building assets including airport equipment would have only been one part of a very big equation.

These types of disputes are not uncommon. What is, is that both parties are using the media to polticise the matter so one can obtain benefit.

All I am saying is that the facts are little more complex than what the parties re trying to make us believe.
 
ben175
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:44 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:21 pm

qf789 wrote:
MH to use A332 on MH126/127 to PER on a daily basis eff 31 March 19, MH124/125 to remain 5 weekly 738

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... t-changes/


Good to see MH doing better in PER again.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:43 pm

travelhound wrote:
The purchase price of the airport would have been based upon the economic value of the airport as an investment. Within that investment value equation would have been valuations about facilities, the cost to maintain and upgrade those facilities, CAPEX requirements going forward, etc.The book value of the building assets including airport equipment would have only been one part of a very big equation.

These types of disputes are not uncommon. What is, is that both parties are using the media to polticise the matter so one can obtain benefit.

All I am saying is that the facts are little more complex than what the parties re trying to make us believe.

You are describing theoretical, rational purchase decisions.

When you purchase a monopoly, with limited price controls, the actual purchase price will include a substantial premium, to be recovered over the life of the investment. That's why such investments are attractive to funds managers and the like, who have conflicted interests in Perth, aviation, and even Australia.

Over time, you grow the asset, extract costs, increase revenue streams, widen margins, introduce new charges...............

Interested party lobbying occurs all the time. For example, QF will be asking for lower 787 family fees / and higher for 777, 747 and A388 (based on current and projected QF movements), and EK the reverse, just like the US3 now lobby for larger aircraft they no longer / don't operate, are financially penalised.

And financial experts are circling, and fanning the flames. We can facilitate taking it back to direct State or Federal ownership. Sign here please.
 
getluv
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:27 pm

The Australian Government taking back Airports would be an even worse decision. Giving a body, like the ACCC, an industrial umpire to intervene with problems between Airports and airlines would be far more appropriate.
I'm that bad type.
 
User avatar
CraigAnderson
Posts: 601
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:28 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:09 pm

China Eastern Airbus A350 to begin SYD-PVG on March 31 https://www.ausbt.com.au/china-eastern- ... m-march-31
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:40 am

smartplane wrote:
travelhound wrote:
The purchase price of the airport would have been based upon the economic value of the airport as an investment. Within that investment value equation would have been valuations about facilities, the cost to maintain and upgrade those facilities, CAPEX requirements going forward, etc.The book value of the building assets including airport equipment would have only been one part of a very big equation.

These types of disputes are not uncommon. What is, is that both parties are using the media to polticise the matter so one can obtain benefit.

All I am saying is that the facts are little more complex than what the parties re trying to make us believe.

You are describing theoretical, rational purchase decisions.

When you purchase a monopoly, with limited price controls, the actual purchase price will include a substantial premium, to be recovered over the life of the investment. That's why such investments are attractive to funds managers and the like, who have conflicted interests in Perth, aviation, and even Australia.

Over time, you grow the asset, extract costs, increase revenue streams, widen margins, introduce new charges...............

Interested party lobbying occurs all the time. For example, QF will be asking for lower 787 family fees / and higher for 777, 747 and A388 (based on current and projected QF movements), and EK the reverse, just like the US3 now lobby for larger aircraft they no longer / don't operate, are financially penalised.

And financial experts are circling, and fanning the flames. We can facilitate taking it back to direct State or Federal ownership. Sign here please.


Being a frequent traveller to PER and originally being from there, I'd make the following comments in relation to the PER / QF dispute:

1) PER is the worst run airport in Australia. Their debacle extending the International Pier to accommodate Virgin is the tip of the iceberg in their mis-management of the valuable Asset that Perth Airport is;
2) QF is being hard headed in wanting to go outside their agreement for PER-LHR to run more international flights from their domestic building. They know the agreement restricts them and they entered into it so it goes back to being careful about what you sign before you sign it. I'd also point out that QF and PER were in dispute about LHR-PER until the WA State Government stepped in;
3) QF is right to be sceptical about PER's ability to have a terminal facility in place to handle QF on the International side of the airfield by 2025 given PER's track record of developments and delivering them on time. So why pay someone in advance for something that they don't have a track record of delivering on time?;
4) The fact is that the reason why PER wants all of the International pax to go through Terminal 1 is purely about the amount of money they derive from all of the concessions in T1 that they don't have to share with airlines. So PER's position comes down to $$$, all of the passenger experience stuff is just marketing sideplay to distract people. This dispute is about money pure and simple;
5) QF needs to strike a deal with PER. They will need the co-operation of the Airport in order to do the expansion that they want to do both on announced flights, like AKL and JNB, and for speculated flights like CDG and FRA. So while this is going on, at the end of it QF and PER need to do deal with each other.

Overall, what I see this dispute as is QF taking a stand against what they see as a monopoly abusing their power. In the context of our airports it's probably overdue and I think it's entirely appropriate that PER is reaping some of the seeds that they have sown over the years by under-investing / not investing in PER's facilities in the same way that ADL or MEL have done. That was especially highlighted during the last mining boom!
 
moa999
Posts: 980
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:34 am

So have you actually seen the agreement Sydscott?

I'd be very surprised if having shuttered operations in T1 (apart from the lounge which is effectively run for others) that anyone thought QF would go back to T1 if it added any more flights.

Arguably Perth Airport pushed QF down this path by giving VA a big advantage on International connections, given the ridiculous route of the connections bus.

The discount rate argument I can understand. If another flight needs another widebody gate or other internal changes then I can see why Perth Airport doesn't want to make the investment if the 'plan' to shutter the terminal in a few years.

That said I see Badgerys opening well before another Perth terminal.
 
TN486
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:08 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:18 am

http://australianaviation.com.au/2019/0 ... australia/

Just a thought. Do we now have a situation where Alliance can become an effective VirginLink (ala QantasLink). Hmmmm???
remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:24 am

TN486 wrote:
http://australianaviation.com.au/2019/01/alliance-airlines-to-fly-brisbane-port-moresby-on-behalf-of-virgin-australia/

Just a thought. Do we now have a situation where Alliance can become an effective VirginLink (ala QantasLink). Hmmmm???


Probably not, Alliance also does charter work for QF as well
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8472
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:24 am

This afternoon I saw a fairly odd aircraft at CBR. It was a BAe-146 that had clearly been modified and it had a C reg. I'm assuming it was an aerial fire fighter?
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
VHZNE
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:56 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:32 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
This afternoon I saw a fairly odd aircraft at CBR. It was a BAe-146 that had clearly been modified and it had a C reg. I'm assuming it was an aerial fire fighter?


The RJ85s have a bulge to the point where they look 'pregnant'. Would likely have been C-GVFK or C-GVFT, they are both fire bombers.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8472
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:38 pm

VHZNE wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
This afternoon I saw a fairly odd aircraft at CBR. It was a BAe-146 that had clearly been modified and it had a C reg. I'm assuming it was an aerial fire fighter?


The RJ85s have a bulge to the point where they look 'pregnant'. Would likely have been C-GVFK or C-GVFT, they are both fire bombers.


Many thanks, it was C-GVFT.

When writing the original post I was trying to come up with another way of saying the modifications made the aircraft look pregnant, so I'm glad I'm not the only person who thought that!
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
oskarclare
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:53 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:56 pm

Royal Brunei restarting BNE:

https://www.ausbt.com.au/royal-brunei-w ... ource=hero

Starting 11 June A32N will serve BNE 4x weekly on MON, WED, THUR, SAT. Looking forward to seeing RB back in BNE!
 
MooLor
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:13 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:57 pm

SYDSpotter wrote:
MooLor wrote:
Have I offended you mate? You sound a bit like my wife when she's just itching for an argument.
.


Offended, no, did my post indicate I was offended. :eyebrow:

As to comparisons to your wife, I haven't had the pleasure of meeting her, so can't confirm your observation ;)


MooLor wrote:
I've often wondered how many on EK419 are going beyond BKK. Do you have numbers? Does not seem logical to me that more than a relative handful would choose that route when they can go direct to DXB on one of the three other daily A380 out of SYD. Might be those "LCC type" price sensitive travellers again eh? So I'll stand by my "must be close to 50%" guesstimate. Could not be arsed comparing seat counts. Is (7 * A380 + 4 * 744) >= (7 * 744 + 7 * A330)? Must be close.


People travelling to DXB and beyond on EK419- Yup all about price. I don't know what the fare difference is like vs the non-stop, but no doubt cheaper than the non-stop.

Using BITRE Oct stats, 3825 outbound pax used Emirates to fly to BKK in October 2018 (Sept 4251). As EK419 is the only service going via BKK from Oz, an average of 127 pax per day in October. As I don't have EK's load factors on the EK419, hard to say how many on EK419 went to DXB and beyond. But we do know only 127 pax a day were going to BKK.


Hahah, I might have been a bit over sensitive. All good.

I read elsewhere that this EK flight is / was a popular way to burn QF points. I presume partner-points passengers are worth less to the carrier airline than other types of passengers - paying, code-share, EK points. But I would guess J yield is impacted by any points passenger.

Well it's back to TG charging top-dollar like they do on many routes, unless a LCC spots an opportunity. Personally I'm on the verge of retirement so will happily go one-stop with city-break stopovers once I get to that point.
 
A350OZ
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:20 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:14 am

Sydscott wrote:
1) PER is the worst run airport in Australia.


Having worked in a related industry and for a company that has a presence at all major and most regional airports in Australia & New Zealand (and overseas for that matter), and being closely involved in negotiations with airports around new licence and lease agreements, I can confirm this viewpoint. Of all major airport operators in the region, PAPL was the worst to deal with, closely followed by Canberra Airport, Infratil (WLG), and NQA Group (CNS & MKY).

SACL as an example was tough of course, but at least the relationship and engagement side of things was always fair and reasonable, and they were true to their word around plans and investments. It felt more like a collaboration. PAPL on the other hand (and the other three I mentioned to a degree) always behaved like the classic monopolist: "Give me your money, this is what we think we're going to do and how much we will invest, but no guarantees and we might change our mind tomorrow..." (and usually they did).

It seems Qantas is experiencing the same incompetence...
 
waoz1
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:31 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:53 am

 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8472
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:06 am

A350OZ wrote:
Sydscott wrote:
1) PER is the worst run airport in Australia.


Having worked in a related industry and for a company that has a presence at all major and most regional airports in Australia & New Zealand (and overseas for that matter), and being closely involved in negotiations with airports around new licence and lease agreements, I can confirm this viewpoint. Of all major airport operators in the region, PAPL was the worst to deal with, closely followed by Canberra Airport, Infratil (WLG), and NQA Group (CNS & MKY).

SACL as an example was tough of course, but at least the relationship and engagement side of things was always fair and reasonable, and they were true to their word around plans and investments. It felt more like a collaboration. PAPL on the other hand (and the other three I mentioned to a degree) always behaved like the classic monopolist: "Give me your money, this is what we think we're going to do and how much we will invest, but no guarantees and we might change our mind tomorrow..." (and usually they did).

It seems Qantas is experiencing the same incompetence...


I have the misfortune of dealing with the real estate side of Capital Airport Group. I can easily see why CBR is the second worse, and why they are the other airport that QF are having public spats with.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:50 am

Emirates to shut ticketing office in MEL, and city offices in BNE, PER and ADL

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emi ... structure/
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:02 am

waoz1 wrote:


Going off the article and seeing what the EK425 load for today was late last night I suspect that EK was probably able to accomodate about half the passengers on that flight alone. There was also a delay on EK421 last night so perhaps there were some passengers on that flight as well.
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:10 am

Some domestic flights have been cancelled and delays are expected from SYD as there is a shortage of Air Traffic Controllers on duty

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-u ... 117d27bc44
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2877
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:31 am

EK office closures- not surprised- heavy over-staffing across some departments- it was a matter of time.

BI BNE A320- follows the company's narrowbody low risk strategy- remember Australia has high operational costs. The 2011 closure wasn't about revenue (BNE was the highest revenue generating station after BWN) it was an internal political problem involving the Ministry of Finance.

PER Airport management- it's funny how different people have different opinions. We find PER OK- we have issues with BNE in just about every dept: Ops (they don't follow their own contractual obligations), Commercial Relations (completely culturally unaware- also made rude remarks about how they don't care about some airlines- and then named them) and Media/PR (low standards and offended local senior management).
 
waoz1
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:31 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:03 am

eta unknown wrote:
EK office closures- not surprised- heavy over-staffing across some departments- it was a matter of time.

BI BNE A320- follows the company's narrowbody low risk strategy- remember Australia has high operational costs. The 2011 closure wasn't about revenue (BNE was the highest revenue generating station after BWN) it was an internal political problem involving the Ministry of Finance.

PER Airport management- it's funny how different people have different opinions. We find PER OK- we have issues with BNE in just about every dept: Ops (they don't follow their own contractual obligations), Commercial Relations (completely culturally unaware- also made rude remarks about how they don't care about some airlines- and then named them) and Media/PR (low standards and offended local senior management).


To be honest being a local using the airport and not working for an airline or airport. I find Perth airport as a passenger a good experience and thats what should count.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4687
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:55 am

I saw an ad saying Chengdu Airlines is now marketing their new URC-CKG-SYD route by offering 300usd return fare on like PEK/KMG/CTU-URC-CKG-SYD.....
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
(≧▽≦) Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
(≧▽≦) Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:25 pm

VH-ZNE which went tech on Thursday is now back in service operating Friday's QF9 PER-LHR
Forum Moderator
 
Gemuser
Posts: 5092
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:45 pm

waoz1 wrote:
To be honest being a local using the airport and not working for an airline or airport. I find Perth airport as a passenger a good experience and thats what should count.

An airport that did this would be out of business pretty smartly! Passengers are NOT customers of the airport, their customers are the operators. Not to say that the passenger experience is not important, it is but only to a point, they also have to keep the operators happy, again only to a point, they cannot neglect either, they need to do a very smart balancing act between both and their own financial needs, being greedy will not work.

Assuming the "facts" presented in this thread are reasonably accurate, especially the accounting points, Perth airport [& others] are playing with fire. Too much "upset operators" will eventually lead to "an abuse of monopoly power" response from Canberra, the airports will not like that, especially if its the ACCC.

Gemuser
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1986
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:41 pm

waoz1 wrote:
To be honest being a local using the airport and not working for an airline or airport. I find Perth airport as a passenger a good experience and thats what should count.


Could.ypu be better served however if the airport could let you or other users fly direct to say CDG and FRA? So your experience is not as good as it could be?
 
smi0006
Posts: 2587
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:45 am

Gemuser wrote:
waoz1 wrote:
To be honest being a local using the airport and not working for an airline or airport. I find Perth airport as a passenger a good experience and thats what should count.

An airport that did this would be out of business pretty smartly! Passengers are NOT customers of the airport, their customers are the operators. Not to say that the passenger experience is not important, it is but only to a point, they also have to keep the operators happy, again only to a point, they cannot neglect either, they need to do a very smart balancing act between both and their own financial needs, being greedy will not work.

Assuming the "facts" presented in this thread are reasonably accurate, especially the accounting points, Perth airport [& others] are playing with fire. Too much "upset operators" will eventually lead to "an abuse of monopoly power" response from Canberra, the airports will not like that, especially if its the ACCC.

Gemuser


Not to mention you mustn’t be a customer with reduced mobility, those stairs at international in summer are atrocious- staff need to take wheelchair pax down a single lift, into the arrivals then through doors into the bridge. Moving from sterile to none sterile back to sterile. I’m sure they have OTS approval, but just shows the lack of investment and work arounds.

I agree - this is why QF have played this out in the media, Australians may love to bash QF.... but the public loathes a monopoly!
 
waoz1
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:31 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:11 am

smi0006 wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
waoz1 wrote:
To be honest being a local using the airport and not working for an airline or airport. I find Perth airport as a passenger a good experience and thats what should count.

An airport that did this would be out of business pretty smartly! Passengers are NOT customers of the airport, their customers are the operators. Not to say that the passenger experience is not important, it is but only to a point, they also have to keep the operators happy, again only to a point, they cannot neglect either, they need to do a very smart balancing act between both and their own financial needs, being greedy will not work.

Assuming the "facts" presented in this thread are reasonably accurate, especially the accounting points, Perth airport [& others] are playing with fire. Too much "upset operators" will eventually lead to "an abuse of monopoly power" response from Canberra, the airports will not like that, especially if its the ACCC.

Gemuser


Not to mention you mustn’t be a customer with reduced mobility, those stairs at international in summer are atrocious- staff need to take wheelchair pax down a single lift, into the arrivals then through doors into the bridge. Moving from sterile to none sterile back to sterile. I’m sure they have OTS approval, but just shows the lack of investment and work arounds.

I agree - this is why QF have played this out in the media, Australians may love to bash QF.... but the public loathes a monopoly!



I think the stairs your mentioning are being addressed with new works about to start. However that has been gripe by most.

Not sure i believe eithet side if im honest. Especially when i had to pay for a regional WA flight on qf with not much change out of $2,000 return.
 
waoz1
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:31 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:17 am

qf2220 wrote:
waoz1 wrote:
To be honest being a local using the airport and not working for an airline or airport. I find Perth airport as a passenger a good experience and thats what should count.


Could.ypu be better served however if the airport could let you or other users fly direct to say CDG and FRA? So your experience is not as good as it could be?


Well this is the thing, if we are talking QF not like they have really looked after Perth intentionally over the years. For a while there we had no services at all. I think most in the West would have the feeling if they added CDG and FRA for a while then they could use an aircraft that could go SYD direct... Perth would be dropped in a second. So I could see why PAPL would be reluctant to fork out on something that in all probability wouldnt last.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 747classic, A350OZ, AC4500, alexwm, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], cylw, ERJ170, gdavis003, Jamake1, martlet76, ORDFlyer99, OzarkD9S, PolarRoute, pspfan, qexonial, Rock3tman, solro, ZKSUJ and 195 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos