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.