Interesting that PER-LHR is not listed as MEL - PER - LHR considering the statement yesterday about QFs potential consideration of using DRW as a stop instead due to "conservative state border policy".
I’d say due to MEL-PER being the domestic leg is why they didn’t include it on a statement of which international devices are being resumed.
There’s also something about the consideration of Darwin as an alternative that is quite strange. If you’ve been following the various states and territories in Australia and their approach to cases you’ll see that the Northern Territory has employed the same strict policies as WA. In fact in some cases the NT has closed borders quicker to outbreak states than WA has, and the NT has also implemented two lockdowns now over single cases in order to drive cases quickly to zero.
NT and WA have some similarities, remote indigenous populations with poor health and vaccine levels which would be decimated in an outbreak, and significant resource sectors critical to that jurisdiction’s economy. Which in my opinion sort of makes their border policy in an unvaccinated population look like WA. And similar to SA, Tasmania and Qld too, didn’t stop QF announcing routes from BNE yesterday.
I just think it’s strange QF would do that, and it makes me think that statement is in essence a bluff. To get a more considerate border policy out of the WA government, to get some money out of them perhaps (before the announcement of PER-LHR in 2017 they said they wouldn’t start the route unless the state government gave them some assistance which they eventually did). To get a bit of leverage in negotiations on the expanded T1/T2 terminal.
I don’t think they’d drop PER-LHR entirely, too high a UK born population in Perth, the infrastructure’s there (not in DRW), Perth’s population is increasing, capacity to expand in PER over DRW.