aerokiwi wrote:RyanairGuru wrote:smi0006 wrote:
I can’t see QF backing down for this one, they won’t want to set a precedent for other airports.
Neiher can I. I will be shocked if they don't appeal the order to turn over this information.
$11mil is nothing to Qantas. In the long they could easily end up spending more than that in legal fees. To be fighting it the issues clearly run much deeper than one unpaid bill, regardless of what spin PAPL try and put on it.
What's the actual dispute here? Can someone give a quick summary? Wasn't Qantas in a similar situation with Canberra recently? Is Virgin in the same dispute and arrears that QF is in? Seems an odd situation.
It dates back to 2015 prior to PER-LHR being announced. At the time PAPL wanted QF to use T1, QF wanted to use T3 or the service wouldn't go ahead. Eventually the state government also came to the party to get the deal over the line. At the time an agreement was made which included QF moving to the new planned T1 domestic terminal by 31 Dec 2025 and that T3 could be used for QF's existing International services, at the time that was SIN and AKL however the last flight to AKL was operated from T1 prior to PER-LHR starting in 2018 and any future routes to Europe
In mid 2018 QF wanted to start PER-JNB, seasonal service, PAPL said T1 QF said T3, the planned service was ditched shortly after
In December 2018 PAPL filed a writ in the WA Supreme Court after QF short changed the airport in October 2018 over fees payable to PAPL, at the time fees were supposedly agreed upon however QF took matters into their own hands resulting in them ultimately being sued by PAPL. At the time all other airlines serving PER have signed new agreements which saw fees lowered.
Last year we saw QF flip and flop over the new terminal at T1. Then the JNB issue was brought up again, but this time it was reported to operate PER-JNB-PER-AKL-PER.
Then PER-CDG has been raised several times but QF had said it wont go anywhere until all issues are resolved.
I think it was in 2018 both ASP and DRW had come and said they had similar issues with QF with receiving payment but did not have the means to pursue.
Where Virgin is concerned they have not been vocal on the whole airport costs. I personally think when Scurrah and Joyce did the Press Club together Scurrah was forced to go. Virgin has handled the whole airport saga thing professionally, Qantas on the other hand is using the press a lot and also from where I sit they seem to be using their corporate market power to get their own way. Their is also a level of hypocrisy on their part, they seem going after PER but what about SYD or MEL, didn't QF recently blame the increase in delays out of SYD on climate change, not anything to do with the airport itself such as growing faster than it can handle and what about the cost SYD charges for lets say the a delay at a gate, the cost in PER is pretty similar so why is one being singled out over the other. Look I like Qantas but this is much their own doing as PAPL. Its not likely to end anytime soon as I have said the ultimately losers are the state and the general travelling public. If it is not resolved soon the 2025 date of moving to the new terminal will slip into 2026 and beyond.