The whole AKL is holding back money/not developing enough is a fascinating conversation.
Given the Commerce Commission analyses their performance from a ROI perspective, and capacity/customer satisfaction perspective, the light handed approach in theory prevents them from over-spending on assets, but also ensuring they deliver a quality service.
In addition, AKL is required to consult with substantial customers regarding pricing and future development at AKL to feed into their plans. It would be very interesting to see Air NZ's view on the proposed developments and whether they are necessary or not? It wouldn't surprise me if Air NZ was saying that they don't want the new domestic terminal.
From memory, AKL had a little telling off from the Commerce Commission which took a view that they would earn too much from their latest pricing round and their pricing was dropped. I wonder if they are trying to provide average facilities for a bit to argue that the ROI they are receiving it too low to justify the investment?
There are so many variables that could be impacting the development discussion!
You raise some valid points, but just because the commerce commission analyzes their performance (as you put it) and/or just because AIAL consult with other groups, that doesn't
mean it's making the best or right choices.
I think we need to look at what role the commerce commission plays and what the actual issues are. Things such as, Is AIAL charging fees beyond reasonable market levels due to the natural monopoly or better put the market advantage it has.
A good example of this is the second hotel. Why is this a priority? Changi only has the Crowne Plaza and the transit hotel. Auckland has the Novotel and Ibis plus many more around the airport boundary like Changi. But Airport to CBD is about 20km vs 26km, passenger movements are 68m vs 21m and one is a true hub where the other is largely end of line. The commerce commission can't or won't stop AIAL from building the Grand Mercure. But under the right model would there be more investment elsewhere. That's my point.
We also need to remember the commerce commission is there to investigate any kind of breach under the Commerce Act. If or how this reflects through to customer comfort or satisfaction is a minefield.
NZ not wanting a new terminal is way off the mark.
- ATR's being forced to Intl stands
- Baggage Belt well over capacity, you see this with almost daily stoppages and checkin restrictions in peak times.
- Gate occupancy near capacity daily and at capacity during peak to a point where no additional flights can be added
- There an immediate issue where terminal/avsec congestion is demanding an earlier check in but the earlier check in is adding more pending bags into the baggage system crashing as per point 2.
- Lounges are beyond full and NZ has been forced to create a regional lounge.
- Not enough regional gates, point 3 was air bridges
- Unable to 787's on domestic flights from the domestic terminal during major events / disrupts. Previously the 767-200's could be used from domestic stands and the desire/need to use them has also increased.
- If/when 787's are used, the issue in point 2 and 4 are made worse.
- Customer satisfaction is LOW
- Unable to expand check in and checking dwell time is growing due to higher number of passengers using the same number of kiosks and kiosk numbers are unable to grow at the rate passenger demand has.
- Outside the taxi and pick up /drop off zone is horrendous and hideously over capacity. It's worse the most american airports.
As I said before, there was a project which was squashed some time ago, 2012-2014 ish - it was a feasibility study into the customer, commercial and operational benefits of NZ building it's own dedicated terminal.