Why would anyone go via PER when there are direct services from MEL and SYD?


12 A351s won't be enough to sustain more than SYD/MEL to NYC and SYD/MEL/PER to LHR, plus one other route.

There have been negative comments about hubbing out of Perth since the idea was first mooted. "No one will go to LHR via Perth when they can go via Asia or the ME". Then it was "DRW will take over from Perth as the hub as it's more direct on route". Then it was "no one will go via Perth to FCO when there's more options via Asia or the ME". Yet the PER-LHR and FCO flights have been some of the high load factors and profitability in the network. CEO AJ was quoted as saying they want to make PER the second biggest hub after SYD if they had the aircraft and better terminal access, so I hardly think QF's commercial people don't know what they are talking about when they say they want more Int flying out of PER.

If Sunrise is a success, QF will look to offer more direct services out of SYD. There is nothing surer. The advantage in the SYD (and MEL) market will be to offer non-stops to Europe. Having a stop in PER means the competitive advantage against airlines such as SQ and EK is lost. A one-stop service is a one-stop service. There is nothing magical about breaking the journey in PER.

Of course, AJ talks about making PER a second hub. He is trying to buy political capital and get the WA Government on his side against PAPL. He wants to use T3/T4 out of PER into Europe until Sunrise comes along and this is trying to pressure the WA Government to help him. The fact is PAPL don't want to spend another cent on T3/4 which they see as being bulldozed as soon as T1 is finished. QF want T3/4 improved but aren't so keen on paying for the improvements.

The idea of Turkish flying from Istanbul to Perth is even crazier.[/quote]

Not so crazy when you consider the huge connecting feed TK has at IST.

planemanofnz wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

12 A351s won't be enough to sustain more than SYD/MEL to NYC and SYD/MEL/PER to LHR, plus one other route.

BNE-LHR?

That would require 2-3 frames, depending on exact schedule, plus they only have four slots which are committed to PER, SYD, MEL and SIN based on what they’ve said to date. Maybe SIN will continue to BNE but I doubt it. An A380 would be too large for BNE-SIN, and if they timed QF51 better then there’s not really any advantage in same plane transit vs connection.

With 3K a shadow of their former self, and therefore providing less connections from SIN to the rest of SE Asia, it would be good if they moved QF51 back to ~14:00 departure, as it always used to be. Facilitating more connections was the stated reason for moving it earlier.

As it is, I think sierrakilo44 is incorrect about having enough slack in 12 aircraft for an additional route. With super tight utilisation you could just about pull off MEL-LHR and SYD-LHR with 2 frames, with ~ 20:00 departure from SYD/MEL, and ~ 18:00 arrival in SYD/MEL coming in the other direction. However, you would need to plan to rotate the frames out after every few rotations like that, which would require an overnight layover in SYD/MEL, as ~ 21:00 departure won’t work for JFK, as it will arrival past midnight during AEDT. You therefore need 5 aircraft to operate SYD-LHR-SYD-JFK-SYD (or MEL). Add 2 aircraft for PER-LHR, and there’s your 12. You would save a fractional 0.5 by having an aircraft operate LHR turns 3 times, so 1 frame combined over SYD and MEL, but given how Qantas scheduled their fleet before Covid we can be fairly sure that would be used for an upgauge and/or extra Asia frequency over peak season (e.g. SYD-HKG or MEL-SIN) and maintenance during low season.

tullamarine wrote:

I would say a daily A351 to LHR (plus a double daily some days per week) would be achievable,

Apart from the issue that QF probably don't have enough LHR slots to have a double daily service out of PER, there is no way there would be enough demand to fill 2 A35Ks when there are also 2 A35Ks providing direct services out of SYD and MEL as well as a A380 via SIN.

NRT is also a possibility, and you can provably add ports like HKG, CGK, maybe BKK along with SIN when the A321XLR arrives.

None of these are services where PER would be a logical hub and would rely on O&D from PER alone. Why would anyone go via PER when there are direct services from MEL and SYD? Even ADL won't be a source once the A321XLR starts international services which will mean QF restarts ADL-SIN.

Despite what Joyce says I find it hard to see why anything other than a 789 will do PER - LHR.

tullamarine wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

I've always had a beef with the airline term "Direct" when they go via a couple of stops, Monopoly explains it much better,"Go directly to jail; do not pass go, do not collect $200".

Technically, direct means the same flight number for the entire journey even though there may be stops or even an equipment change during the journey. It is confusing as many people think direct and non-stop are synonymous when they are not.

Direct, strictly speaking means same plane, end to end on the route, as well as flight No. It has never meant there could be a change of aircraft en route [irrops excepted], I know that many airlines, especially in the USA introduced things like "change of gauge" etc but these are only manipulation of the reservation systems, not actually airline operations.

Gemuser

tullamarine wrote:

Of course, AJ talks about making PER a second hub. He is trying to buy political capital and get the WA Government on his side against PAPL. He wants to use T3/T4 out of PER into Europe until Sunrise comes along and this is trying to pressure the WA Government to help him.

The WA government is experienced dealing with QF, I would expect for them paying some cash to help with services out of T3/4 in the interim they’d want an assurance of a minimum level of services once QF do move to T1. I can’t see why moving to a brand spanking new terminal (presumably with a brand spanking new lounge) would be catalyst for QF to pull out of WA. I’ve never said it’ll be the only QF hub to Europe, but some act as if it’s only a temporary thing until Sunrise appears.

I think there would be a minimum level to sustain several FCO/CDG/FRA 789 services from Perth after Sunrise takes off, 3/4 per week. It wouldn’t be a flooding of the market, especially with the ME carriers reducing capacity into Perth compared to several years back, and they will get some on traffic from the East.

NTLDaz wrote:

Despite what Joyce says I find it hard to see why anything other than a 789 will do PER - LHR.

The 789 is still just a bit payload limited on LHR, when winds are a bit stronger and maybe a bit more holding fuel required for London. Rare for a diversion because of this but sometimes it’s a bit touch and go. The A351 with an extra 2 hours in the tanks should solve that. Plus it’ll have more premium seats, which are quite strong from Perth, the wealth in the state has produced quite a few important FFs.

I remember having a conversation with a QF manager some time back, he said going off things like revenue, profits and FF business that WA made the most money for them per capita out of any Australian state.

Gemuser wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

I've always had a beef with the airline term "Direct" when they go via a couple of stops, Monopoly explains it much better,"Go directly to jail; do not pass go, do not collect $200".

Technically, direct means the same flight number for the entire journey even though there may be stops or even an equipment change during the journey. It is confusing as many people think direct and non-stop are synonymous when they are not.

Direct, strictly speaking means same plane, end to end on the route, as well as flight No. It has never meant there could be a change of aircraft en route [irrops excepted], I know that many airlines, especially in the USA introduced things like "change of gauge" etc but these are only manipulation of the reservation systems, not actually airline operations.

Gemuser

For its LAX-JFK flights the frame used to fly BNE-LAX-JFK and back. But for the LAX-JFK portion it would take the flight number QF11/12 from the SYD-LAX flight.

In that case would the direct flight be the Sydney one as it keeps the flight number, or the Brisbane one as it keeps the same plane.

tullamarine wrote:

Why would anyone go via PER when there are direct services from MEL and SYD?



If Sunrise is a success, QF will look to offer more direct services out of SYD. There is nothing surer. The advantage in the SYD (and MEL) market will be to offer non-stops to Europe. Having a stop in PER means the competitive advantage against airlines such as SQ and EK is lost. A one-stop service is a one-stop service. There is nothing magical about breaking the journey in PER.

The reason that PER-LHR may survive is because of PER origin passengers make up between 50-75% of the flight.

BNEFlyer wrote:

A CDG-TNR/RUN/MRU-PER flight would be very cool to see.

AF already has a codeshare with MK on the MRU-PER route, but I doubt that AF would actually serve the route with its own aircraft via any of its South West Indian Ocean destinations. UU's flight between RUN and SYD were not a great success and there's not much traffic between TNR and Australia either.
If hypothetically AF considered starting flights between CDG and PER with a stopover in the Indian Ocean, MLE would have been a better option imho.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Technically, direct means the same flight number for the entire journey even though there may be stops or even an equipment change during the journey. It is confusing as many people think direct and non-stop are synonymous when they are not.

Direct, strictly speaking means same plane, end to end on the route, as well as flight No. It has never meant there could be a change of aircraft en route [irrops excepted], I know that many airlines, especially in the USA introduced things like "change of gauge" etc but these are only manipulation of the reservation systems, not actually airline operations.

Gemuser

For its LAX-JFK flights the frame used to fly BNE-LAX-JFK and back. But for the LAX-JFK portion it would take the flight number QF11/12 from the SYD-LAX flight.

In that case would the direct flight be the Sydney one as it keeps the flight number, or the Brisbane one as it keeps the same plane.

Neither or both would be direct flights! To me the aircraft takes precedence, to others the flight number. But the problem I see here is that checked bags have to be transferred from other planes to the A330 that actually went to JFK. [I have a vague idea that the MEL flight also connected to the A330, BUT don't quote me!]

Gemuser

mh124 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Why would anyone go via PER when there are direct services from MEL and SYD?



If Sunrise is a success, QF will look to offer more direct services out of SYD. There is nothing surer. The advantage in the SYD (and MEL) market will be to offer non-stops to Europe. Having a stop in PER means the competitive advantage against airlines such as SQ and EK is lost. A one-stop service is a one-stop service. There is nothing magical about breaking the journey in PER.

The reason that PER-LHR may survive is because of PER origin passengers make up between 50-75% of the flight.

Would that be a high enough load factor to keep the service? I doubt 50% would be, I suspect 75% would be very marginal. At those load factors it might become seasonal, depending on the yield.

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

mh124 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

The reason that PER-LHR may survive is because of PER origin passengers make up between 50-75% of the flight.

Would that be a high enough load factor to keep the service? I doubt 50% would be, I suspect 75% would be very marginal. At those load factors it might become seasonal, depending on the yield.

Gemuser

The load factor of the flight is the highest of all QFi services (98%). The O&D of pax really comes down to how QF sell the flight from a yield perspective.

3BNBE wrote:

BNEFlyer wrote:

A CDG-TNR/RUN/MRU-PER flight would be very cool to see.

AF already has a codeshare with MK on the MRU-PER route, but I doubt that AF would actually serve the route with its own aircraft via any of its South West Indian Ocean destinations. UU's flight between RUN and SYD were not a great success and there's not much traffic between TNR and Australia either.
If hypothetically AF considered starting flights between CDG and PER with a stopover in the Indian Ocean, MLE would have been a better option imho.

Forgot about MLE!

jrfspa320 wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

mh124 wrote:

The reason that PER-LHR may survive is because of PER origin passengers make up between 50-75% of the flight.

Would that be a high enough load factor to keep the service? I doubt 50% would be, I suspect 75% would be very marginal. At those load factors it might become seasonal, depending on the yield.

Gemuser

The load factor of the flight is the highest of all QFi services (98%). The O&D of pax really comes down to how QF sell the flight from a yield perspective.

You’re right about yield. Before Covid at least, it was close enough to impossible to find any of the discounted fare buckets (O/Q/N, T, I) on QF9/10 at any time of the year. Booking months out you would often only see K/H/B/Y, W and J. There is scope to loosen the fare buckets a bit to reflect the rest of the network, and in doing so pick up some passengers who would fly that route but are currently priced off of it. The route will do fine.

Gemuser wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

Direct, strictly speaking means same plane, end to end on the route, as well as flight No. It has never meant there could be a change of aircraft en route [irrops excepted], I know that many airlines, especially in the USA introduced things like "change of gauge" etc but these are only manipulation of the reservation systems, not actually airline operations.

Gemuser

For its LAX-JFK flights the frame used to fly BNE-LAX-JFK and back. But for the LAX-JFK portion it would take the flight number QF11/12 from the SYD-LAX flight.

In that case would the direct flight be the Sydney one as it keeps the flight number, or the Brisbane one as it keeps the same plane.

Neither or both would be direct flights! To me the aircraft takes precedence, to others the flight number. But the problem I see here is that checked bags have to be transferred from other planes to the A330 that actually went to JFK. [I have a vague idea that the MEL flight also connected to the A330, BUT don't quote me!]

Gemuser

This was when the A330 flew SYD-AKL-LAX-JFK as QF 141/QF25/QF11. QF25 was a 738 MEL-AKL while QF11 was an A380/744 SYD-LAX.

jrfspa320 wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

mh124 wrote:

The reason that PER-LHR may survive is because of PER origin passengers make up between 50-75% of the flight.

Would that be a high enough load factor to keep the service? I doubt 50% would be, I suspect 75% would be very marginal. At those load factors it might become seasonal, depending on the yield.

Gemuser

The load factor of the flight is the highest of all QFi services (98%). The O&D of pax really comes down to how QF sell the flight from a yield perspective.

You missed the point! If the flight has a 98% load factor NOW, when you take away the 50% to 25% who are connecting then the load factors come down to 48% to 73% [my mistake in previous post]. As I said above if QF are only getting 48% AFTER Sunrise reaches the East Coast then PER - LHR is unlikely to survive, at 73% load factors it is still marginal. Assuming the numbers in the original post are accurate.

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

Would that be a high enough load factor to keep the service? I doubt 50% would be, I suspect 75% would be very marginal. At those load factors it might become seasonal, depending on the yield.

Gemuser

The load factor of the flight is the highest of all QFi services (98%). The O&D of pax really comes down to how QF sell the flight from a yield perspective.

You missed the point! If the flight has a 98% load factor NOW, when you take away the 50% to 25% who are connecting then the load factors come down to 48% to 73% [my mistake in previous post]. As I said above if QF are only getting 48% AFTER Sunrise reaches the East Coast then PER - LHR is unlikely to survive, at 73% load factors it is still marginal. Assuming the numbers in the original post are accurate.

Gemuser

Thats not how load factors work. 98% load factor is as good as it gets, its an average so some days it went out 100% some days it didn’t. On the days it went out at 100% we don’t know how many more passengers would have flown with QF had there been available seats. Some days passengers miss their flight, etc.

Theres also things such as induced demand, direct flights not only create demand but also poach customers.

What the previous poster was saying was that it really depends on how QF sell the flight. Maybe some passengers will still connect from the east coast because QF decides to stimulate demand, or because the direct services are full, maybe they lower prices. Theres a ton of factors that go in, load factors definitely aren’t linear.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

The load factor of the flight is the highest of all QFi services (98%). The O&D of pax really comes down to how QF sell the flight from a yield perspective.

You missed the point! If the flight has a 98% load factor NOW, when you take away the 50% to 25% who are connecting then the load factors come down to 48% to 73% [my mistake in previous post]. As I said above if QF are only getting 48% AFTER Sunrise reaches the East Coast then PER - LHR is unlikely to survive, at 73% load factors it is still marginal. Assuming the numbers in the original post are accurate.

Gemuser

Thats not how load factors work. 98% load factor is as good as it gets, its an average so some days it went out 100% some days it didn’t. On the days it went out at 100% we don’t know how many more passengers would have flown with QF had there been available seats. Some days passengers miss their flight, etc.

Theres also things such as induced demand, direct flights not only create demand but also poach customers.

What the previous poster was saying was that it really depends on how QF sell the flight. Maybe some passengers will still connect from the east coast because QF decides to stimulate demand, or because the direct services are full, maybe they lower prices. Theres a ton of factors that go in, load factors definitely aren’t linear.

Completely agree, and wanted to add, not many VFR/leisure travellers will likely be flying on Sunrise given the small seat count and inevitable markups that QF will put on the flight by proxy of it being a proper nonstop set of services, meaning that we'll probably still get demand from the East Coast, but maybe not from business travellers.

That's why I believe that AJ is at least somewhat sincere when he says PER can be the second-biggest intl. hub. It could be a "leisure hub" vs. a hub-proper. Granted, it might just be my West Aussie delusion that we're bigger than we are, but several key points stand out:
- By the time QF and PAPL finally reach a conclusion (which, let's face it, might take a while lol), their PER terminal would probably be built by then. This is significant because we'll have one of QF's newest, nicest terminals to operate out of. We know that cx on the ground is important for any flight, but even more so for ULH.
- We have the mining industry; the premium cabins will be at least 50% full probably all the time.
- Western Australia is inherently a rich state, and it's getting richer and richer vs. the rest of the country. In the ten years since 2012, our wages grew (on average of course) double as quickly as Victoria's. Combine that with the fact that our median house prices are 55% of Sydney's, for example, and you have an almost Bali-esque situation (economy-wise) in the WA western suburbs (the ones that face the ocean). Now, I have to caveat this by saying that definitely not everyone's ballin' here, and there are definitely people who are suferring hard, but overall the people here are richer.
- WA is not an unattractive tourist destination. In fact, if more people were here, with our beaches, wine regions (even within the metro area), and our mild, mediterranean climate, we would be a pretty popular tourist destination. This is good for a lesiure hub.

So yeah, I might be slightly misguided, but I think there is a fair case to be made for PER-CDG and a more PER-centric network over, say, BNE-ORD and a very east-coast system.

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

You missed the point! If the flight has a 98% load factor NOW, when you take away the 50% to 25% who are connecting then the load factors come down to 48% to 73% [my mistake in previous post]. As I said above if QF are only getting 48% AFTER Sunrise reaches the East Coast then PER - LHR is unlikely to survive, at 73% load factors it is still marginal. Assuming the numbers in the original post are accurate.

Gemuser

Thats not how load factors work. 98% load factor is as good as it gets, its an average so some days it went out 100% some days it didn’t. On the days it went out at 100% we don’t know how many more passengers would have flown with QF had there been available seats. Some days passengers miss their flight, etc.

Theres also things such as induced demand, direct flights not only create demand but also poach customers.

What the previous poster was saying was that it really depends on how QF sell the flight. Maybe some passengers will still connect from the east coast because QF decides to stimulate demand, or because the direct services are full, maybe they lower prices. Theres a ton of factors that go in, load factors definitely aren’t linear.

Completely agree, and wanted to add, not many VFR/leisure travellers will likely be flying on Sunrise given the small seat count and inevitable markups that QF will put on the flight by proxy of it being a proper nonstop set of services, meaning that we'll probably still get demand from the East Coast, but maybe not from business travellers.

That's why I believe that AJ is at least somewhat sincere when he says PER can be the second-biggest intl. hub. It could be a "leisure hub" vs. a hub-proper. Granted, it might just be my West Aussie delusion that we're bigger than we are, but several key points stand out:
- By the time QF and PAPL finally reach a conclusion (which, let's face it, might take a while lol), their PER terminal would probably be built by then. This is significant because we'll have one of QF's newest, nicest terminals to operate out of. We know that cx on the ground is important for any flight, but even more so for ULH.
- We have the mining industry; the premium cabins will be at least 50% full probably all the time.
- Western Australia is inherently a rich state, and it's getting richer and richer vs. the rest of the country. In the ten years since 2012, our wages grew (on average of course) double as quickly as Victoria's. Combine that with the fact that our median house prices are 55% of Sydney's, for example, and you have an almost Bali-esque situation (economy-wise) in the WA western suburbs (the ones that face the ocean). Now, I have to caveat this by saying that definitely not everyone's ballin' here, and there are definitely people who are suferring hard, but overall the people here are richer.
- WA is not an unattractive tourist destination. In fact, if more people were here, with our beaches, wine regions (even within the metro area), and our mild, mediterranean climate, we would be a pretty popular tourist destination. This is good for a lesiure hub.

So yeah, I might be slightly misguided, but I think there is a fair case to be made for PER-CDG and a more PER-centric network over, say, BNE-ORD and a very east-coast system.

Points you have listed there make sense, but it’s still a market that lacks in its population base vs the east coast. The catchment zone is far smaller, and although may well be based on a higher earning population, in terms of volume and market demographic is a very different proposition to that of the east coast.

As I had said previously, I do see a role for PER to further boost its network in coming years, but I’m my view it still has a fair bit of work ahead of it to continue to build on its fundamentals to make it a compelling case as a hub and as a tourism destination of choice.

SteelChair wrote:

8,900 nm according to great circle mapper. Wonder what kind of payload restrictions would be necessary for a 789 to work? On the one hand, the 787 was built for routes like this. On the other hand....hard to believe there are enough PDEW at a high enough yield to justify.

Well, PER-LHR(7,829 nm) is being flown by QF on a 789; so what's the concern with PER-CDG (7,702 nm)?

IndianicWorld wrote:

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

As I had said previously, I do see a role for PER to further boost its network in coming years, but I’m my view it still has a fair bit of work ahead of it to continue to build on its fundamentals to make it a compelling case as a hub and as a tourism destination of choice.

I don’t think the perth hub will really happen (and I say it as a perth resident) - Qantas a very Sydney centric business. Perth should improve, yes, but I don’t think it would make much difference.
Will PER-LHR survive sunrise ? It seems so - along with the launch of syd, Mel and sin-lhr. But - given that state governments seem to be partially underwriting Qantas’s international network - I wouldn’t hold my breath and I’m sure the premiers of QLD and NSW would be encouraging BNE or a second daily SYD flight as well.

mh124 wrote:

... sin-lhr.

Will SIN-LHR survive though?

planemanofnz wrote:

mh124 wrote:

... sin-lhr.

Will SIN-LHR survive though?

QF have said that post Sunrise LHR services will consist of non stops from SYD/MEL/PER & the one stop via SIN. Will this be the actual service pattern? Who knows!

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

mh124 wrote:

... sin-lhr.

Will SIN-LHR survive though?

QF have said that post Sunrise LHR services will consist of non stops from SYD/MEL/PER & the one stop via SIN. Will this be the actual service pattern? Who knows!

Gemuser

Given the way QF have been changing their network plans currently, it certainly is a wait and see about a few years away.

The only A350-1000 routes that are locked in at this stage would likely be SYD-LHR/JFK, with routes like MEL/PER-LHR strong favourites for service too. The rest of the network will likely depend heavily on market conditions at the time, including whether a SIN-LHR connection continues.

Thinking outside the square abit, If BNE doesn’t get a non-stop initially, it could always be possible that they look at a BNE-SIN-LHR route instead. Interesting times.

Given that the Sunrise flights will likely charge a premium fare, I'd think the SIN-LHR flight would stay for the traveling masses.

BNEFlyer wrote:

A CDG-TNR/RUN/MRU-PER flight would be very cool to see.[/quote]

Would LOVE this! I always wanted Air Mauritius to start a 'paradise route' from Europe to Australia via Mauritius. They fly daily to LHR and CDG and I think a couple of times a week to PER and in days gone by to SYD and MEL. I always thought they could have tried to market this route in the UK and France with a stopover in Mauritius. I don't think it's that much longer than say via SIN (especially if factoring a stopover in MRU).I remember in the days of Air Austral's Oceania adventure, I sat next to a woman once who was doing CDG-RUN-SYD. I know the UU thing was a bit of a vanity project but if MK was in better health I'd have loved to seen them try -especially as they already fly to these 3 cities.

YVR744CP wrote:

Given that the Sunrise flights will likely charge a premium fare, I'd think the SIN-LHR flight would stay for the traveling masses.

Or they could just funnel the masses onto EK, and focus on the premium market themselves - and use the LHR slot that goes to SIN, for a new BNE-LHR non-stop flight.

planemanofnz wrote:

YVR744CP wrote:

Given that the Sunrise flights will likely charge a premium fare, I'd think the SIN-LHR flight would stay for the traveling masses.

Or they could just funnel the masses onto EK, and focus on the premium market themselves - and use the LHR slot that goes to SIN, for a new BNE-LHR non-stop flight.

PS is all about the premium cabins ( including first ). I doubt Brisbane will stack up for PS.

Gemuser wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

mh124 wrote:

... sin-lhr.

Will SIN-LHR survive though?

QF have said that post Sunrise LHR services will consist of non stops from SYD/MEL/PER & the one stop via SIN. Will this be the actual service pattern? Who knows!

Gemuser

Something like MEL/SYD-SIN-LHR with the A380 (they have to fly somewhere) but the SIN-LHR shifts from QF1/2 to QF51/52. That way BNE gets a « direct » flight, SIN remains as a hub, SYD/MEL/PER have non-stops. Would that be too much premium capacity though…

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Will SIN-LHR survive though?

QF have said that post Sunrise LHR services will consist of non stops from SYD/MEL/PER & the one stop via SIN. Will this be the actual service pattern? Who knows!

Gemuser

Something like MEL/SYD-SIN-LHR with the A380 (they have to fly somewhere) but the SIN-LHR shifts from QF1/2 to QF51/52. That way BNE gets a « direct » flight, SIN remains as a hub, SYD/MEL/PER have non-stops. Would that be too much premium capacity though…

Qf would need to buy or lesser a fifth slot at Heathrow.
I guess they could try Gatwick (there’s plenty of long haul growth from lgw these days) but probably won’t bother for a single flight.

mh124 wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

QF have said that post Sunrise LHR services will consist of non stops from SYD/MEL/PER & the one stop via SIN. Will this be the actual service pattern? Who knows!

Gemuser

Something like MEL/SYD-SIN-LHR with the A380 (they have to fly somewhere) but the SIN-LHR shifts from QF1/2 to QF51/52. That way BNE gets a « direct » flight, SIN remains as a hub, SYD/MEL/PER have non-stops. Would that be too much premium capacity though…

Qf would need to buy or lesser a fifth slot at Heathrow.
I guess they could try Gatwick (there’s plenty of long haul growth from lgw these days) but probably won’t bother for a single flight.

Sorry I meant A380 flights to SIN from both SYD and MEL. But only one would continue to LHR (like it was right before covid). That plus PER/SYD/MEL so total of 4 daily flights. I was just suggesting that the SIN-LHR flight could take on the flight number of the BNE-SIN flight so QF can advertise all 4 cities have « direct » flights when in reality only 3 will have « non stop » flights.

PieterBoth wrote:

BNEFlyer wrote:

A CDG-TNR/RUN/MRU-PER flight would be very cool to see.

Would LOVE this! I always wanted Air Mauritius to start a 'paradise route' from Europe to Australia via Mauritius. They fly daily to LHR and CDG and I think a couple of times a week to PER and in days gone by to SYD and MEL. I always thought they could have tried to market this route in the UK and France with a stopover in Mauritius. I don't think it's that much longer than say via SIN (especially if factoring a stopover in MRU).I remember in the days of Air Austral's Oceania adventure, I sat next to a woman once who was doing CDG-RUN-SYD. I know the UU thing was a bit of a vanity project but if MK was in better health I'd have loved to seen them try -especially as they already fly to these 3 cities.[/quote]
You missed the boat- MK already did this for years ex AU- the infrequent flights didn't make it a success.

mh124 wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

I don’t think the perth hub will really happen (and I say it as a perth resident) - Qantas a very Sydney centric business. Perth should improve, yes, but I don’t think it would make much difference.
Will PER-LHR survive sunrise ? It seems so - along with the launch of syd, Mel and sin-lhr. But - given that state governments seem to be partially underwriting Qantas’s international network - I wouldn’t hold my breath and I’m sure the premiers of QLD and NSW would be encouraging BNE or a second daily SYD flight as well.

I'm not aware of NSW playing the subsidy game, at least at this stage.

I agree that QF is east coast focussed, with SYD at its core. It makes sense with around 85% of the population in Sydney or within 90mins flight of SYD. PER is a "hub" for WA, or a tech stop for flights from the east to elsewhere. I could see QF growing its fleet and adding A321XLR to boost PER fligts into Asia, but once Sunrise happens, O&D will be the order of the day, and QF will need to decide where it places its fleet and who it competes with.

Kent350787 wrote:

mh124 wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

I don’t think the perth hub will really happen (and I say it as a perth resident) - Qantas a very Sydney centric business. Perth should improve, yes, but I don’t think it would make much difference.
Will PER-LHR survive sunrise ? It seems so - along with the launch of syd, Mel and sin-lhr. But - given that state governments seem to be partially underwriting Qantas’s international network - I wouldn’t hold my breath and I’m sure the premiers of QLD and NSW would be encouraging BNE or a second daily SYD flight as well.

I'm not aware of NSW playing the subsidy game, at least at this stage.

I agree that QF is east coast focussed, with SYD at its core. It makes sense with around 85% of the population in Sydney or within 90mins flight of SYD. PER is a "hub" for WA, or a tech stop for flights from the east to elsewhere. I could see QF growing its fleet and adding A321XLR to boost PER fligts into Asia, but once Sunrise happens, O&D will be the order of the day, and QF will need to decide where it places its fleet and who it competes with.

Correct, the reason for Sunrise is to offer non-stop into Europe/UK and east coast USA from SYD and MEL. Combined, these 2 states represent over half of Australia's population so are naturally the low-hanging fruit and QF see the ability to offer non-stop as a USP that will command a route premium. QF may continue PER-LHR but it will be more on the basis of O&D from PER.

There is no magic in a stop in PER compared with SIN or DXB; a one-stop journey is a one-stop journey so QF will decide the future of other possible Europe routes against the alternative, which is the EK JV. ADL may remain a source of customers for PER-LHR but, if QF commences ADL-SIN on XLRs as expected, ADL customers will get to LHR just as quickly connecting onto QF1 in SIN.

tullamarine wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

mh124 wrote:

I don’t think the perth hub will really happen (and I say it as a perth resident) - Qantas a very Sydney centric business. Perth should improve, yes, but I don’t think it would make much difference.
Will PER-LHR survive sunrise ? It seems so - along with the launch of syd, Mel and sin-lhr. But - given that state governments seem to be partially underwriting Qantas’s international network - I wouldn’t hold my breath and I’m sure the premiers of QLD and NSW would be encouraging BNE or a second daily SYD flight as well.

I'm not aware of NSW playing the subsidy game, at least at this stage.

I agree that QF is east coast focussed, with SYD at its core. It makes sense with around 85% of the population in Sydney or within 90mins flight of SYD. PER is a "hub" for WA, or a tech stop for flights from the east to elsewhere. I could see QF growing its fleet and adding A321XLR to boost PER fligts into Asia, but once Sunrise happens, O&D will be the order of the day, and QF will need to decide where it places its fleet and who it competes with.

Correct, the reason for Sunrise is to offer non-stop into Europe/UK and east coast USA from SYD and MEL. Combined, these 2 states represent over half of Australia's population so are naturally the low-hanging fruit and QF see the ability to offer non-stop as a USP that will command a route premium. QF may continue PER-LHR but it will be more on the basis of O&D from PER.

There is no magic in a stop in PER compared with SIN or DXB; a one-stop journey is a one-stop journey so QF will decide the future of other possible Europe routes against the alternative, which is the EK JV. ADL may remain a source of customers for PER-LHR but, if QF commences ADL-SIN on XLRs as expected, ADL customers will get to LHR just as quickly connecting onto QF1 in SIN.

Also depends on the timing of services. If QF really want to direct people onto the non-stop services then you change the timing of flights into SIN so that they bank more with connecting Asia / India flights than what they do with QF1. So people have a choice of do I wait for hours in SIN to connect onto QF1 or do I go to PER / SYD / MEL to fly on the non-stop. You also could find JQ doing the ADL-SIN flight which would be a further disincentive for people to fly that way.

But at the end of the day Perth Airport is going to have to come to the party and they have a rich history of not doing so and not giving a stuff about new services. The fact that PER doesn't have a year round connection to South Africa is absurd in the extreme given the local market and the fact that QF went from a 747 down to a 787 on SYD-JNB. So there should be more than enough people to sustain that year round as well but, alas, PER won't come to the party. So while I'd love to see PER-CDG and definitely think that's viable, unless it's AF going to operate it I can't see PER jumping up and down with excitement to facilitate it.

planemanofnz wrote:

Does anyone have the PDEW figures for Australia/PER with European cities? It would be interesting to see where CDG sits.

Do these stats even exist in the public domain? PDEW is something ive only ever seen in a US context.

jfk777 wrote:

The Perth Airport should see the "Big Picture" and cooperate with Qantas, what other Aussie airline is going to fly long haul from Perth ? Flying nonstop to CDG, FRA, and Johannesburg should be in Perth's interest. If Qantas want them to fly from their "international annex" attached to their domestic terminal why fight this ?

It seems to me some politician wants it done " his way or the highway". Air France and Lufthansa flying to Perth with A350-900 or 787-9 are a bad thing how ?

The Perth Airport vs Qantas discussion is far more complicated than the above. In the end it is coming down to who pays for it. Perth airport (like all major city airports) are not government owned and so the funding discussion isnt policital but commercial. Long long story short, QF doesn't want to pay for the infra, which only it would use, and PER cant see the value in providing it as the returns at present are not commercially viable. Each is presenting the other as the bad guy in the local press (some of which designed to get governments to fund the works) until they come to a conclusion theyre both happy with.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Will SIN-LHR survive though?

QF have said that post Sunrise LHR services will consist of non stops from SYD/MEL/PER & the one stop via SIN. Will this be the actual service pattern? Who knows!

Gemuser

Something like MEL/SYD-SIN-LHR with the A380 (they have to fly somewhere) but the SIN-LHR shifts from QF1/2 to QF51/52. That way BNE gets a « direct » flight, SIN remains as a hub, SYD/MEL/PER have non-stops. Would that be too much premium capacity though…

Go back to the good old scissor hub in SIN...

When I flew first time to Australia in 1989, there were flights from SYD/MEL/PER/BNE/ADL and they would go on to LHR, CDG and FRA. I believe the 747's from SYD, MEL and BNE would go on to Europe while PER and ADL were 767 doing return flights. After moving to SIN, many staff of the company I worked for flew to FRA on QF as it was far better service than LH at a lower price than SQ. This was all dismantled after the deal with EK which I still think was a very big mistake as QF lost a lot of business SE-Asia to Australia and handed SQ almost a monopoly on flying to Australia (it became by far SQ's most profitable market).

I believe focussing on Sunrise too much might be good if you look at LHR in isolation but not so good if you look at the network as a whole.

AngMoh wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

QF have said that post Sunrise LHR services will consist of non stops from SYD/MEL/PER & the one stop via SIN. Will this be the actual service pattern? Who knows!

Gemuser

Something like MEL/SYD-SIN-LHR with the A380 (they have to fly somewhere) but the SIN-LHR shifts from QF1/2 to QF51/52. That way BNE gets a « direct » flight, SIN remains as a hub, SYD/MEL/PER have non-stops. Would that be too much premium capacity though…

Go back to the good old scissor hub in SIN...

When I flew first time to Australia in 1989, there were flights from SYD/MEL/PER/BNE/ADL and they would go on to LHR, CDG and FRA. I believe the 747's from SYD, MEL and BNE would go on to Europe while PER and ADL were 767 doing return flights. After moving to SIN, many staff of the company I worked for flew to FRA on QF as it was far better service than LH at a lower price than SQ. This was all dismantled after the deal with EK which I still think was a very big mistake as QF lost a lot of business SE-Asia to Australia and handed SQ almost a monopoly on flying to Australia (it became by far SQ's most profitable market).

I believe focussing on Sunrise too much might be good if you look at LHR in isolation but not so good if you look at the network as a whole.

I don’t see the EK deal as a mistake, given the losses that QF’s international ops were having at the time from memory.

QF’s deal with EK gave far greater overall choice to Australian passengers, and as EK were growing significantly at the time, allowed QF to leverage off the benefits of a strong combined network. The SE Asia-Europe routes were obviously something that had to give as part of that, but a few years later, QF did eventually move back to a via SIN service to LHR instead of DXB once they were in a position to do so.

Project Sunrise gives it a chance to explore new options, but given the yield premium such routes will likely require, the economics of some routes would be hard to see occurring sustainably. LHR is where demand is strongest, so that will likely remain its main focus for non-stop east coast flights.

qf2220 wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

The Perth Airport should see the "Big Picture" and cooperate with Qantas, what other Aussie airline is going to fly long haul from Perth ? Flying nonstop to CDG, FRA, and Johannesburg should be in Perth's interest. If Qantas want them to fly from their "international annex" attached to their domestic terminal why fight this ?

It seems to me some politician wants it done " his way or the highway". Air France and Lufthansa flying to Perth with A350-900 or 787-9 are a bad thing how ?

The Perth Airport vs Qantas discussion is far more complicated than the above. In the end it is coming down to who pays for it. Perth airport (like all major city airports) are not government owned and so the funding discussion isnt policital but commercial. Long long story short, QF doesn't want to pay for the infra, which only it would use, and PER cant see the value in providing it as the returns at present are not commercially viable. Each is presenting the other as the bad guy in the local press (some of which designed to get governments to fund the works) until they come to a conclusion theyre both happy with.

This is the most accurate post I have seen about the situation. This stalemate has gone on for years and the bad blood between the two parties could fill a swimming pool. It came to a head recently with the JNB and CGK flights, which Qantas launched without consulting Border Force and the Department of Agriculture, which only a few weeks before JNB was going to go turned around and blocked it as there is physically not enough space at T3/4 for them to do the screening necessary for South Africa and Asia arrivals due to increased risk, particularly from foot and mouth disease. That then plays into the ongoing dispute - if QF and PER were able to hammer out a deal (and trust me, PER has been trying) then the issue would be moot as they would be moving to a new facility at T1 by 2025. But because Joyce's refusal to come close on pricing there has been no progress on that facility.

QF's position is that they will stay at T3/4 as long as possible and under-pay their invoices to try and force PER into a better deal. Problem is that the international annex just doesn't meet the standards for biosecurity, it's tiny and actually offers a very poor passenger experience for people arriving into PER.

Having said that, CDG I believe is covered under the original agreement around the T4 International facility, so the airport is already cool with it, and Border Force/Ag would probably find a way to make it work. It's just that for anything else there needs to be more infrastructure. The airport would be silly to build it, given they want to rightfully consolidate over one side, which leaves Qantas and potentially the State Government to pick up the tab, again for something which may have only a 5-10 year lifespan. It's complicated, and frankly could be solved by QF agreeing to the verdict of the Supreme Court rather than challenging it, but it's their trainset.

qf2220 wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

The Perth Airport should see the "Big Picture" and cooperate with Qantas, what other Aussie airline is going to fly long haul from Perth ? Flying nonstop to CDG, FRA, and Johannesburg should be in Perth's interest. If Qantas want them to fly from their "international annex" attached to their domestic terminal why fight this ?

It seems to me some politician wants it done " his way or the highway". Air France and Lufthansa flying to Perth with A350-900 or 787-9 are a bad thing how ?

The Perth Airport vs Qantas discussion is far more complicated than the above. In the end it is coming down to who pays for it. Perth airport (like all major city airports) are not government owned and so the funding discussion isnt policital but commercial. Long long story short, QF doesn't want to pay for the infra, which only it would use, and PER cant see the value in providing it as the returns at present are not commercially viable. Each is presenting the other as the bad guy in the local press (some of which designed to get governments to fund the works) until they come to a conclusion theyre both happy with.

PAPL do not want to spend anything more of T3/4; they want to demolish it but that can't happen until the new QF domestic concourse is built over at T1. QF understands this but wants T3/4 modified in the meantime but isn't really keen on paying more for it. PAPL definitely won't fund extensions that only have a short lifespan so won't do anything that QF won't fully pay over the remaining years of life in T3/4 hence the current stalemate.

The best outcome is for T1 extensions to be accelerated but I think that is held up as it also requires the new parallel runway to be completed at the same time.

tullamarine wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

The Perth Airport should see the "Big Picture" and cooperate with Qantas, what other Aussie airline is going to fly long haul from Perth ? Flying nonstop to CDG, FRA, and Johannesburg should be in Perth's interest. If Qantas want them to fly from their "international annex" attached to their domestic terminal why fight this ?

It seems to me some politician wants it done " his way or the highway". Air France and Lufthansa flying to Perth with A350-900 or 787-9 are a bad thing how ?

The Perth Airport vs Qantas discussion is far more complicated than the above. In the end it is coming down to who pays for it. Perth airport (like all major city airports) are not government owned and so the funding discussion isnt policital but commercial. Long long story short, QF doesn't want to pay for the infra, which only it would use, and PER cant see the value in providing it as the returns at present are not commercially viable. Each is presenting the other as the bad guy in the local press (some of which designed to get governments to fund the works) until they come to a conclusion theyre both happy with.

PAPL do not want to spend anything more of T3/4; they want to demolish it but that can't happen until the new QF domestic concourse is built over at T1. QF understands this but wants T3/4 modified in the meantime but isn't really keen on paying more for it. PAPL definitely won't fund extensions that only have a short lifespan so won't do anything that QF won't fully pay over the remaining years of life in T3/4 hence the current stalemate.

The best outcome is for T1 extensions to be accelerated but I think that is held up as it also requires the new parallel runway to be completed at the same time.

Much appreciated for the additional granular details. Non Aust Av posters - this is the detail you need to understand why the toddler isnt getting what it wants.

qf2220 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

The Perth Airport vs Qantas discussion is far more complicated than the above. In the end it is coming down to who pays for it. Perth airport (like all major city airports) are not government owned and so the funding discussion isnt policital but commercial. Long long story short, QF doesn't want to pay for the infra, which only it would use, and PER cant see the value in providing it as the returns at present are not commercially viable. Each is presenting the other as the bad guy in the local press (some of which designed to get governments to fund the works) until they come to a conclusion theyre both happy with.

PAPL do not want to spend anything more of T3/4; they want to demolish it but that can't happen until the new QF domestic concourse is built over at T1. QF understands this but wants T3/4 modified in the meantime but isn't really keen on paying more for it. PAPL definitely won't fund extensions that only have a short lifespan so won't do anything that QF won't fully pay over the remaining years of life in T3/4 hence the current stalemate.

The best outcome is for T1 extensions to be accelerated but I think that is held up as it also requires the new parallel runway to be completed at the same time.

Much appreciated for the additional granular details. Non Aust Av posters - this is the detail you need to understand why the toddler isnt getting what it wants.

Some more background, Qantas have been playing silly buggers with Perth airport for years, it took 4 years and supreme court action to get them to pay landing fees after a previous agreement ended.

https://simpleflying.com/qantas-perth-a ... pute-ends/

This is Qantas MO with Perth airport, antagonistic and litigious so when they ask PAPL to stump up millions for refurbishment of a building that has been slated for demolition for nearly a decade at PAPL's expense, (since the 2014 master plan at least), its not really a straightforward ask. Nobody would put it past QF to sue to keep any refurbished facility open disrupting the airport redevelopment if they thought it would save them a couple of dollars.

BoeingVista wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

PAPL do not want to spend anything more of T3/4; they want to demolish it but that can't happen until the new QF domestic concourse is built over at T1. QF understands this but wants T3/4 modified in the meantime but isn't really keen on paying more for it. PAPL definitely won't fund extensions that only have a short lifespan so won't do anything that QF won't fully pay over the remaining years of life in T3/4 hence the current stalemate.

The best outcome is for T1 extensions to be accelerated but I think that is held up as it also requires the new parallel runway to be completed at the same time.

Much appreciated for the additional granular details. Non Aust Av posters - this is the detail you need to understand why the toddler isnt getting what it wants.

Some more background, Qantas have been playing silly buggers with Perth airport for years, it took 4 years and supreme court action to get them to pay landing fees after a previous agreement ended.

https://simpleflying.com/qantas-perth-a ... pute-ends/

This is Qantas MO with Perth airport, antagonistic and litigious so when they ask PAPL to stump up millions for refurbishment of a building that has been slated for demolition for nearly a decade at PAPL's expense, (since the 2014 master plan at least), its not really a straightforward ask. Nobody would put it past QF to sue to keep any refurbished facility open disrupting the airport redevelopment if they thought it would save them a couple of dollars.

Agree the best outcomes is that T1 extension is put on the front burner however the T1 re-development has been proposed for more then a decade and while steps have been taken, ie the Wing housing Virgin, the significant expansion required has been delayed and delayed. What they need to do is to get on with it, consolidate the terminal area and demolish the existing QF one. Until they get on with it and do it I actually agree with QF's strategy of delaying and antagonising because it allows them to highlight the lazy fat cats sitting on a monopoly asset doing stuff all to help Perth. PER needs much less talk and more action and building.

Sydscott wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Much appreciated for the additional granular details. Non Aust Av posters - this is the detail you need to understand why the toddler isnt getting what it wants.

Some more background, Qantas have been playing silly buggers with Perth airport for years, it took 4 years and supreme court action to get them to pay landing fees after a previous agreement ended.

https://simpleflying.com/qantas-perth-a ... pute-ends/

This is Qantas MO with Perth airport, antagonistic and litigious so when they ask PAPL to stump up millions for refurbishment of a building that has been slated for demolition for nearly a decade at PAPL's expense, (since the 2014 master plan at least), its not really a straightforward ask. Nobody would put it past QF to sue to keep any refurbished facility open disrupting the airport redevelopment if they thought it would save them a couple of dollars.

Agree the best outcomes is that T1 extension is put on the front burner however the T1 re-development has been proposed for more then a decade and while steps have been taken, ie the Wing housing Virgin, the significant expansion required has been delayed and delayed. What they need to do is to get on with it, consolidate the terminal area and demolish the existing QF one. Until they get on with it and do it I actually agree with QF's strategy of delaying and antagonising because it allows them to highlight the lazy fat cats sitting on a monopoly asset doing stuff all to help Perth. PER needs much less talk and more action and building.

Yes, thanks for that.

Thats the view from Sydney all right sue sue sue, pay nothing, antagonise and people will get fed up and do what we say.

Maybe just maybe if QF paid their bills on time PAPL would have been able to fund the expansion when money was cheap..

Some comments up thread about Sunrise and 789s and where the focus is etc. Drawing from a few places, but I think a post in the NZ thread is the trigger (which i cant find right now), it appears QF's strategy is Sunrise for MEL/SYD flights, and then using PER and AKL and east and west 789 bases for the same flights but from non MEL/SYD cities, in my view to preserve margin on the non stop A35K sunrise routes. Some 789s will still go ex SYD (eg SCL, JNB) but by and large, it might be that in the future AKL and PER are where they do most of their flying.

BoeingVista wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Some more background, Qantas have been playing silly buggers with Perth airport for years, it took 4 years and supreme court action to get them to pay landing fees after a previous agreement ended.

https://simpleflying.com/qantas-perth-a ... pute-ends/

This is Qantas MO with Perth airport, antagonistic and litigious so when they ask PAPL to stump up millions for refurbishment of a building that has been slated for demolition for nearly a decade at PAPL's expense, (since the 2014 master plan at least), its not really a straightforward ask. Nobody would put it past QF to sue to keep any refurbished facility open disrupting the airport redevelopment if they thought it would save them a couple of dollars.

Agree the best outcomes is that T1 extension is put on the front burner however the T1 re-development has been proposed for more then a decade and while steps have been taken, ie the Wing housing Virgin, the significant expansion required has been delayed and delayed. What they need to do is to get on with it, consolidate the terminal area and demolish the existing QF one. Until they get on with it and do it I actually agree with QF's strategy of delaying and antagonising because it allows them to highlight the lazy fat cats sitting on a monopoly asset doing stuff all to help Perth. PER needs much less talk and more action and building.

Yes, thanks for that.

Thats the view from Sydney all right sue sue sue, pay nothing, antagonise and people will get fed up and do what we say.

Maybe just maybe if QF paid their bills on time PAPL would have been able to fund the expansion when money was cheap..

PAPL still wouldn’t have put a shovel in the ground. They’re not going to fund the entire project to build Qantas a new terminal, so even Qantas hadn’t stopped paying invoices it still wouldn’t have changed where we are at.

Qantas either need to contribute to the capital cost of the project, or agree to a user-pays arrangement that covers the capital investment. PAPL also need to come to the party, and show some willingness to move on price. They have to accept that they’re not entitled to whatever sky-price they pull out of their backside just because they are a monopoly service.

PAPL aren’t rush to negotiate as the status quo actually suits them just fine. They aren’t putting any money on the table while still collecting Qantas’ user fees in the mean time (when they eventually pay them).

RyanairGuru wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

Agree the best outcomes is that T1 extension is put on the front burner however the T1 re-development has been proposed for more then a decade and while steps have been taken, ie the Wing housing Virgin, the significant expansion required has been delayed and delayed. What they need to do is to get on with it, consolidate the terminal area and demolish the existing QF one. Until they get on with it and do it I actually agree with QF's strategy of delaying and antagonising because it allows them to highlight the lazy fat cats sitting on a monopoly asset doing stuff all to help Perth. PER needs much less talk and more action and building.

Yes, thanks for that.

Thats the view from Sydney all right sue sue sue, pay nothing, antagonise and people will get fed up and do what we say.

Maybe just maybe if QF paid their bills on time PAPL would have been able to fund the expansion when money was cheap..

PAPL still wouldn’t have put a shovel in the ground. They’re not going to fund the entire project to build Qantas a new terminal, so even Qantas hadn’t stopped paying invoices it still wouldn’t have changed where we are at.

Qantas either need to contribute to the capital cost of the project, or agree to a user-pays arrangement that covers the capital investment. PAPL also need to come to the party, and show some willingness to move on price. They have to accept that they’re not entitled to whatever sky-price they pull out of their backside just because they are a monopoly service.

PAPL aren’t rush to negotiate as the status quo actually suits them just fine. They aren’t putting any money on the table while still collecting Qantas’ user fees in the mean time (when they eventually pay them).

I agree… PAPL constantly gets bashed about why they haven’t built more facilities for Qantas.

To be honest. Why is Perth any different from Brisbane or Sydney????
Can you catch an international flight from Sydney or Brisbane domestic terminals? No. You have to transfer terminals to an international one. You have an international terminal at Perth that is nowhere near capacity.

The government built a rail line linking the Domestic and International sides as well, I am sure PAPL would even have a transfer bus from Domestic to International if that was the problem.

So I really think its a cheap shot by QF and some on here to constantly bash PAPL. If they can run services in Brisbane and Sydney with much the same layout then why not Perth. Simply its because Qantas don’t want to use the international terminal…. Seems to me its more the principle.

Anyways that’s my rant. As for Perth to Paris… WA government would throw money at that everyday of the week to get that off the ground.
If its not a serious contender then why are QF talking to AF?…just saying.

waoz1 wrote:

The government built a rail line linking the Domestic and International sides as well, I am sure PAPL would even have a transfer bus from Domestic to International if that was the problem.

Well, the state govt has built a train linking the new terminals T1 international and T2 domestic to the city but not both sides of the airport site because the plan is to consolidate on the T1 / T2 side of the field. It does not link to QF's T3 / T4 international / domestic

waoz1 wrote:

So I really think its a cheap shot by QF and some on here to constantly bash PAPL. If they can run services in Brisbane and Sydney with much the same layout then why not Perth. Simply its because Qantas don’t want to use the international terminal…. Seems to me its more the principle.

Yup.

waoz1 wrote:

Anyways that’s my rant. As for Perth to Paris… WA government would throw money at that everyday of the week to get that off the ground.
If its not a serious contender then why are QF talking to AF?…just saying.

From the shareholding it looks like 47% is still held through the federal government (future / infrastructure funds) so yes, maybe they should stump up some cash, they seem to have been able to joint fund the western sydney airport to the tune of $11bn.

Edit: lets try and get the Badgeys creek numbers right, from wiki

Federal Government announced it would develop the second Sydney Airport, after the Sydney Airport Group declined the Government's offer to develop the second airport, and announced an investment of $5.3 billion in the project over four years in the 2017–18 Budget.

So if the Feds are willing to stump up half the cash pretty sure PAPL will come through and get the terminals / 2nd runway built

will wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

mh124 wrote:

... sin-lhr.

Will SIN-LHR survive though?

QF have said that post Sunrise LHR services will consist of non stops from SYD/MEL/PER & the one stop via SIN. Will this be the actual service pattern? Who knows!

Gemuser

Don't forget there will be a few A321XLRs in the fleet, probably in an international configuration, which might allow for more QF volumes from 'new' places like DRW, ADL and CBR and maybe some additional frequencies from the existing capitals. I'm betting some off centre ideas like AKL might even work to support the existing SIN-LHR flights.