smi0006 wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

waoz1 wrote:

WA government has a little bit to say about Qantas not agreeing to move to consolidated terminal.

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/102149558

The article is a smidge misleading. PER now owns the terminal building that QF resides in despite a dispute over the price. What PER should do is get on with building the terminal, not expand or invest into T4 and force QF to move across to Airport central at the end of their lease term. Yes it will be a nuisance and yes QF will complain but just get on and do it. Once it's done QF won't have a choice but to move and PER can bulldoze that part of the airport.

Unfortunately airport pricing doesn’t work that way - airlines pay for the capex…. So QF will need to start paying for a terminal under construction…. I suspect they are using PER to flag the challenges of a lack of airport regulation in Australia.

Sydscott wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

The article is a smidge misleading. PER now owns the terminal building that QF resides in despite a dispute over the price. What PER should do is get on with building the terminal, not expand or invest into T4 and force QF to move across to Airport central at the end of their lease term. Yes it will be a nuisance and yes QF will complain but just get on and do it. Once it's done QF won't have a choice but to move and PER can bulldoze that part of the airport.

Unfortunately airport pricing doesn’t work that way - airlines pay for the capex…. So QF will need to start paying for a terminal under construction…. I suspect they are using PER to flag the challenges of a lack of airport regulation in Australia.

Yeah I know. I suspect you are right in relation to QF and the situation will remain in stalemate with WA the only loser until someone gets off their fence. It is a tad ridiculous that a user needs to pay for someone else's capex to provide a service to them AND that someone else then charges extortionate rent on top of that once the facility is built. A truly stupid state of affairs.

Sydscott wrote:

waoz1 wrote:

WA government has a little bit to say about Qantas not agreeing to move to consolidated terminal.

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/102149558

The article is a smidge misleading. PER now owns the terminal building that QF resides in despite a dispute over the price. What PER should do is get on with building the terminal, not expand or invest into T4 and force QF to move across to Airport central at the end of their lease term. Yes it will be a nuisance and yes QF will complain but just get on and do it. Once it's done QF won't have a choice but to move and PER can bulldoze that part of the airport.

SCFlyer wrote:

tsurumaru wrote:

VA have loaded their first domestic MAX 8 routes.

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230327-va7m8

Any idea on the product / livery these planes will feature?

I'd guess VA would probably install the J recliners and Y seats currently trialled on two of the ex-SilkAir/SQ 738 units onto the 737-8 MAX fleet.

https://flighthacks.com.au/virgin-austr ... and-seats/

BoeingVista wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

waoz1 wrote:

WA government has a little bit to say about Qantas not agreeing to move to consolidated terminal.

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/102149558

The article is a smidge misleading. PER now owns the terminal building that QF resides in despite a dispute over the price. What PER should do is get on with building the terminal, not expand or invest into T4 and force QF to move across to Airport central at the end of their lease term. Yes it will be a nuisance and yes QF will complain but just get on and do it. Once it's done QF won't have a choice but to move and PER can bulldoze that part of the airport.

On the face of it yes, give QF a quit notice and then built the new terminals but is there any amongst us who doubt that Qantas would engage in litigation that would probably stretch past the opening date of the new buildings?

In Perth we are used to Qantas being aholes just because they can.

9MMPD wrote:

waoz1 wrote:

[code][/code]

qf789 wrote:

Air India, Indigo and Vistara are currently in discussions with WA government about direct Perth to India services

https://www.newindianexpress.com/busine ... 58230.html

Where did Air India fly to from Perth back in the day? Did they use to do Bombay?
Im talking 80s/90s

I know BA used to fly Perth to Bombay daily.

AI last attempted BOM-PER in 1995 using A310s via SIN. The serviced was short lived and constantly delayed

qf789 wrote:

Air India, Indigo and Vistara are currently in discussions with WA government about direct Perth to India services

https://www.newindianexpress.com/busine ... 58230.html

Velocity7 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

tsurumaru wrote:

VA have loaded their first domestic MAX 8 routes.

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230327-va7m8

Any idea on the product / livery these planes will feature?

I'd guess VA would probably install the J recliners and Y seats currently trialled on two of the ex-SilkAir/SQ 738 units onto the 737-8 MAX fleet.

https://flighthacks.com.au/virgin-austr ... and-seats/

I travelled on one of the ex SilkAir 738's recently in Economy X with VA - I thought the seat was actually quite comfortable - it felt a bit softer than the legacy seat and the head rests appeared to go up a bit higher. The divider missing between J & Y was unusual but made it feel much more open.
On another note, travelled out of LST for the first time yesterday - OMG, what a cluster. 4 or 5 flights all departing within a short period of time (some were delayed arriving which I think bunched them all up for departure) - nowhere to sit in either the food court areas or the gates downstairs, people everywhere. Someone tell me that is not the normal MO @ LST? The airport itself is actually quite nice. Great runway views!

tullamarine wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

The article is a smidge misleading. PER now owns the terminal building that QF resides in despite a dispute over the price. What PER should do is get on with building the terminal, not expand or invest into T4 and force QF to move across to Airport central at the end of their lease term. Yes it will be a nuisance and yes QF will complain but just get on and do it. Once it's done QF won't have a choice but to move and PER can bulldoze that part of the airport.

On the face of it yes, give QF a quit notice and then built the new terminals but is there any amongst us who doubt that Qantas would engage in litigation that would probably stretch past the opening date of the new buildings?

In Perth we are used to Qantas being aholes just because they can.

It is sort of puzzling. Surely, QF wants a new terminal; anyone who think T3/4 are anything but very average is kidding themselves. There is no way PAPL will spend any money developing new facilities at T3/4; they have to maintain it to a safe standard until the new terminal is built but that is all they will want to do.

It seems the WA Government may be on PAPL's side as it wants to show off a world class terminal precinct and there is nothing world class about the old domestic terminals. The government wanted to make PER a west coast hub for Australia but, it's taken so long, the opportunity will have passed by time they are ready and airlines, that want to, will be flying ULH to SYD or MEL.

smi0006 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

On the face of it yes, give QF a quit notice and then built the new terminals but is there any amongst us who doubt that Qantas would engage in litigation that would probably stretch past the opening date of the new buildings?

In Perth we are used to Qantas being aholes just because they can.

It is sort of puzzling. Surely, QF wants a new terminal; anyone who think T3/4 are anything but very average is kidding themselves. There is no way PAPL will spend any money developing new facilities at T3/4; they have to maintain it to a safe standard until the new terminal is built but that is all they will want to do.

It seems the WA Government may be on PAPL's side as it wants to show off a world class terminal precinct and there is nothing world class about the old domestic terminals. The government wanted to make PER a west coast hub for Australia but, it's taken so long, the opportunity will have passed by time they are ready and airlines, that want to, will be flying ULH to SYD or MEL.

Maybe the State Government should cough up some bucks too? It certainly seems economically in their interest to not simply let airlines (and in turn the passenger) fund such a key piece of infrastructure. I wish we could see how things would have played out if airports hadn’t been privatised

Sydscott wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

It is sort of puzzling. Surely, QF wants a new terminal; anyone who think T3/4 are anything but very average is kidding themselves. There is no way PAPL will spend any money developing new facilities at T3/4; they have to maintain it to a safe standard until the new terminal is built but that is all they will want to do.

It seems the WA Government may be on PAPL's side as it wants to show off a world class terminal precinct and there is nothing world class about the old domestic terminals. The government wanted to make PER a west coast hub for Australia but, it's taken so long, the opportunity will have passed by time they are ready and airlines, that want to, will be flying ULH to SYD or MEL.

Maybe the State Government should cough up some bucks too? It certainly seems economically in their interest to not simply let airlines (and in turn the passenger) fund such a key piece of infrastructure. I wish we could see how things would have played out if airports hadn’t been privatised

Entirely agree. The Federal Airports Commission was a well run agency that did a great job of managing our airports pre privatisation.

tullamarine wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

The article is a smidge misleading. PER now owns the terminal building that QF resides in despite a dispute over the price. What PER should do is get on with building the terminal, not expand or invest into T4 and force QF to move across to Airport central at the end of their lease term. Yes it will be a nuisance and yes QF will complain but just get on and do it. Once it's done QF won't have a choice but to move and PER can bulldoze that part of the airport.

On the face of it yes, give QF a quit notice and then built the new terminals but is there any amongst us who doubt that Qantas would engage in litigation that would probably stretch past the opening date of the new buildings?

In Perth we are used to Qantas being aholes just because they can.

It is sort of puzzling. Surely, QF wants a new terminal; anyone who think T3/4 are anything but very average is kidding themselves. There is no way PAPL will spend any money developing new facilities at T3/4; they have to maintain it to a safe standard until the new terminal is built but that is all they will want to do.

It seems the WA Government may be on PAPL's side as it wants to show off a world class terminal precinct and there is nothing world class about the old domestic terminals. The government wanted to make PER a west coast hub for Australia but, it's taken so long, the opportunity will have passed by time they are ready and airlines, that want to, will be flying ULH to SYD or MEL.

waoz1 wrote:

It is still mad to me that QF is quiet happy to have seperate terminals in SYD and BRISSY but can't do this in Perth... for some unexplained reason.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Because in those two cities they physically can’t co-locate. In Perth they can block their ears and yell « lalala » and act like everything is ok.

qf789 wrote:

PER saw February 2023 passenger numbers above pre covid levels of February 2019. Overall it saw regional flight passenger numbers increase by 31% while domestic was 93% and international 85% of pre covid levels

PER is also reporting that they are at runway capacity during morning peaks on Tuesdays through to Thursdays and are awaiting on a decision from the Federal Government on an environmental offsets strategy before construction can begin on the new parallel runway

https://www.perthairport.com.au/Home/co ... ers-return

waoz1 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

On the face of it yes, give QF a quit notice and then built the new terminals but is there any amongst us who doubt that Qantas would engage in litigation that would probably stretch past the opening date of the new buildings?

In Perth we are used to Qantas being aholes just because they can.

It is sort of puzzling. Surely, QF wants a new terminal; anyone who think T3/4 are anything but very average is kidding themselves. There is no way PAPL will spend any money developing new facilities at T3/4; they have to maintain it to a safe standard until the new terminal is built but that is all they will want to do.

It seems the WA Government may be on PAPL's side as it wants to show off a world class terminal precinct and there is nothing world class about the old domestic terminals. The government wanted to make PER a west coast hub for Australia but, it's taken so long, the opportunity will have passed by time they are ready and airlines, that want to, will be flying ULH to SYD or MEL.

I think the WA government is frustrated after spending a few $billion on a dedicated airport rail line, that is under utilised at the International because QF wont commit. They have also spend a few Billion on the gateway project to give better roads to the international terminal as well. So I can see why they are a little miffed.

It is still mad to me that QF is quiet happy to have seperate terminals in SYD and BRISSY but can't do this in Perth... for some unexplained reason.

Kent350787 wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Because in those two cities they physically can’t co-locate. In Perth they can block their ears and yell « lalala » and act like everything is ok.

QF fully supports the SAC future strategy for separate OneWorld and Star Alliance terminals, that would see a combined Int/Dom terminal for QF. Until and if that happens, separate terminals at its major hub.

Sydscott wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

It is sort of puzzling. Surely, QF wants a new terminal; anyone who think T3/4 are anything but very average is kidding themselves. There is no way PAPL will spend any money developing new facilities at T3/4; they have to maintain it to a safe standard until the new terminal is built but that is all they will want to do.

It seems the WA Government may be on PAPL's side as it wants to show off a world class terminal precinct and there is nothing world class about the old domestic terminals. The government wanted to make PER a west coast hub for Australia but, it's taken so long, the opportunity will have passed by time they are ready and airlines, that want to, will be flying ULH to SYD or MEL.

Maybe the State Government should cough up some bucks too? It certainly seems economically in their interest to not simply let airlines (and in turn the passenger) fund such a key piece of infrastructure. I wish we could see how things would have played out if airports hadn’t been privatised

Entirely agree. The Federal Airports Commission was a well run agency that did a great job of managing our airports pre privatisation.

redroo wrote:

waoz1 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

It is sort of puzzling. Surely, QF wants a new terminal; anyone who think T3/4 are anything but very average is kidding themselves. There is no way PAPL will spend any money developing new facilities at T3/4; they have to maintain it to a safe standard until the new terminal is built but that is all they will want to do.

It seems the WA Government may be on PAPL's side as it wants to show off a world class terminal precinct and there is nothing world class about the old domestic terminals. The government wanted to make PER a west coast hub for Australia but, it's taken so long, the opportunity will have passed by time they are ready and airlines, that want to, will be flying ULH to SYD or MEL.

I think the WA government is frustrated after spending a few $billion on a dedicated airport rail line, that is under utilised at the International because QF wont commit. They have also spend a few Billion on the gateway project to give better roads to the international terminal as well. So I can see why they are a little miffed.

It is still mad to me that QF is quiet happy to have seperate terminals in SYD and BRISSY but can't do this in Perth... for some unexplained reason.

The airport and the state government want qantas to move, but they want qantas to pay for it. It will never happen if that’s the approach. Either the airport or the state government will have to build it and qantas will come.

qf2220 wrote:

redroo wrote:

waoz1 wrote:

I think the WA government is frustrated after spending a few $billion on a dedicated airport rail line, that is under utilised at the International because QF wont commit. They have also spend a few Billion on the gateway project to give better roads to the international terminal as well. So I can see why they are a little miffed.

It is still mad to me that QF is quiet happy to have seperate terminals in SYD and BRISSY but can't do this in Perth... for some unexplained reason.

The airport and the state government want qantas to move, but they want qantas to pay for it. It will never happen if that’s the approach. Either the airport or the state government will have to build it and qantas will come.

What exactly is being paid for by QF/PER here? Physical logistics of transfer from T3/4 to T1/2? Terminal construction? Or what? Commercial models would say that both PER and QF should share it somehow (all ultimately paid for by the passenger, mind you), but what is the detail that they are bogged down on? Or is QF simply saying no, T3/T4 are fine for us and were not moving?

Kent350787 wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Because in those two cities they physically can’t co-locate. In Perth they can block their ears and yell « lalala » and act like everything is ok.

QF fully supports the SAC future strategy for separate OneWorld and Star Alliance terminals, that would see a combined Int/Dom terminal for QF. Until and if that happens, separate terminals at its major hub.

EK413 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

redroo wrote:

The airport and the state government want qantas to move, but they want qantas to pay for it. It will never happen if that’s the approach. Either the airport or the state government will have to build it and qantas will come.

What exactly is being paid for by QF/PER here? Physical logistics of transfer from T3/4 to T1/2? Terminal construction? Or what? Commercial models would say that both PER and QF should share it somehow (all ultimately paid for by the passenger, mind you), but what is the detail that they are bogged down on? Or is QF simply saying no, T3/T4 are fine for us and were not moving?

Sounds to me as though QF are saying we’ve been at T3/4 and now we being forced to move to T1 which with nowhere to accommodate us moving considering the infrastructure isn’t in place… Then PAPL’s are saying we will build it but you need to pay for it in advance and QF is saying you don’t pay to construct a house up front with no development plans, yes there are costs in the design process but QF don’t want to pay up front until they see these plans in black and white…
Well that’s the way I see it anyways…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

qf789 wrote:

Last nights QF943 BNE-PER diverted to KGI for fuel but then a maintenance issue keep the aircraft at KGI. As no accommodation was available passengers slept on terminal floor and a replacement aircraft has been sent to KGI this morning

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/aviati ... b3znkqsx3i

jrfspa320 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

What exactly is being paid for by QF/PER here? Physical logistics of transfer from T3/4 to T1/2? Terminal construction? Or what? Commercial models would say that both PER and QF should share it somehow (all ultimately paid for by the passenger, mind you), but what is the detail that they are bogged down on? Or is QF simply saying no, T3/T4 are fine for us and were not moving?

Sounds to me as though QF are saying we’ve been at T3/4 and now we being forced to move to T1 which with nowhere to accommodate us moving considering the infrastructure isn’t in place… Then PAPL’s are saying we will build it but you need to pay for it in advance and QF is saying you don’t pay to construct a house up front with no development plans, yes there are costs in the design process but QF don’t want to pay up front until they see these plans in black and white…
Well that’s the way I see it anyways…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The master plan has already been developed for some years. In order to progress to detailed design / planning / construction PAPL need QFs agreement (specifically on costing/charging). I dont think QF object to moving just what its going to cost them.

Obzerva wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Because in those two cities they physically can’t co-locate. In Perth they can block their ears and yell « lalala » and act like everything is ok.

QF fully supports the SAC future strategy for separate OneWorld and Star Alliance terminals, that would see a combined Int/Dom terminal for QF. Until and if that happens, separate terminals at its major hub.

I think QF support would be conditional on which terminal they ended up in, if they end up with the terminal that's further from the city via the train than VA, ie the current international terminal, I can see the support waning.

jrfspa320 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Last nights QF943 BNE-PER diverted to KGI for fuel but then a maintenance issue keep the aircraft at KGI. As no accommodation was available passengers slept on terminal floor and a replacement aircraft has been sent to KGI this morning

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/aviati ... b3znkqsx3i

Ive seen quite a few of the BNE-PER flights divert for fuel over the last few months...

BoeingVista wrote:

Obzerva wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

QF fully supports the SAC future strategy for separate OneWorld and Star Alliance terminals, that would see a combined Int/Dom terminal for QF. Until and if that happens, separate terminals at its major hub.

I think QF support would be conditional on which terminal they ended up in, if they end up with the terminal that's further from the city via the train than VA, ie the current international terminal, I can see the support waning.

Ha! And so to make sure they don't end up with a terminal "further from the city via train", what ever that means as train line is built, VA terminal is built right next to it already.. they stomp their feet and continue with a terminal that has no train connection at all.

As is pointed out down thread the development plans are not a secret, QF already know where their terminal is going to be and short of demolishing a newly built terminal to placate Qantas thats not going to change.

jrfspa320 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

What exactly is being paid for by QF/PER here? Physical logistics of transfer from T3/4 to T1/2? Terminal construction? Or what? Commercial models would say that both PER and QF should share it somehow (all ultimately paid for by the passenger, mind you), but what is the detail that they are bogged down on? Or is QF simply saying no, T3/T4 are fine for us and were not moving?

Sounds to me as though QF are saying we’ve been at T3/4 and now we being forced to move to T1 which with nowhere to accommodate us moving considering the infrastructure isn’t in place… Then PAPL’s are saying we will build it but you need to pay for it in advance and QF is saying you don’t pay to construct a house up front with no development plans, yes there are costs in the design process but QF don’t want to pay up front until they see these plans in black and white…
Well that’s the way I see it anyways…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The master plan has already been developed for some years. In order to progress to detailed design / planning / construction PAPL need QFs agreement (specifically on costing/charging). I dont think QF object to moving just what its going to cost them.

Sydscott wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Sounds to me as though QF are saying we’ve been at T3/4 and now we being forced to move to T1 which with nowhere to accommodate us moving considering the infrastructure isn’t in place… Then PAPL’s are saying we will build it but you need to pay for it in advance and QF is saying you don’t pay to construct a house up front with no development plans, yes there are costs in the design process but QF don’t want to pay up front until they see these plans in black and white…
Well that’s the way I see it anyways…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The master plan has already been developed for some years. In order to progress to detailed design / planning / construction PAPL need QFs agreement (specifically on costing/charging). I dont think QF object to moving just what its going to cost them.

Correct.

Unfortunately Airports in Australia don't believe in a "Build it and they will come" principle.

Realistically what Australia should do at a Federal Level is impose a passenger facility charge, (similar to what the US charges), that is collected to fund infrastructure development at Airports. We already have a Passenger Movement Charge on International Tickets to fund Customs etc so would be an easy way to ensure this sort of nonsense doesn't get in the way of airport capital works and make it a uniform approach across everyone. That way all of the airports that have passenger facilities, be they Government owned or Private owned would have certainty and could get on with it.

Sydscott wrote:

Realistically what Australia should do at a Federal Level is impose a passenger facility charge, (similar to what the US charges), that is collected to fund infrastructure development at Airports. We already have a Passenger Movement Charge on International Tickets to fund Customs etc so would be an easy way to ensure this sort of nonsense doesn't get in the way of airport capital works and make it a uniform approach across everyone. That way all of the airports that have passenger facilities, be they Government owned or Private owned would have certainty and could get on with it.

qf2220 wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

The master plan has already been developed for some years. In order to progress to detailed design / planning / construction PAPL need QFs agreement (specifically on costing/charging). I dont think QF object to moving just what its going to cost them.

Correct.

Unfortunately Airports in Australia don't believe in a "Build it and they will come" principle.

Realistically what Australia should do at a Federal Level is impose a passenger facility charge, (similar to what the US charges), that is collected to fund infrastructure development at Airports. We already have a Passenger Movement Charge on International Tickets to fund Customs etc so would be an easy way to ensure this sort of nonsense doesn't get in the way of airport capital works and make it a uniform approach across everyone. That way all of the airports that have passenger facilities, be they Government owned or Private owned would have certainty and could get on with it.

How are funds drawn down from the PFC funding pool in the US?

jrfspa320 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

What exactly is being paid for by QF/PER here? Physical logistics of transfer from T3/4 to T1/2? Terminal construction? Or what? Commercial models would say that both PER and QF should share it somehow (all ultimately paid for by the passenger, mind you), but what is the detail that they are bogged down on? Or is QF simply saying no, T3/T4 are fine for us and were not moving?

Sounds to me as though QF are saying we’ve been at T3/4 and now we being forced to move to T1 which with nowhere to accommodate us moving considering the infrastructure isn’t in place… Then PAPL’s are saying we will build it but you need to pay for it in advance and QF is saying you don’t pay to construct a house up front with no development plans, yes there are costs in the design process but QF don’t want to pay up front until they see these plans in black and white…
Well that’s the way I see it anyways…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The master plan has already been developed for some years. In order to progress to detailed design / planning / construction PAPL need QFs agreement (specifically on costing/charging). I dont think QF object to moving just what its going to cost them.

tullamarine wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Sounds to me as though QF are saying we’ve been at T3/4 and now we being forced to move to T1 which with nowhere to accommodate us moving considering the infrastructure isn’t in place… Then PAPL’s are saying we will build it but you need to pay for it in advance and QF is saying you don’t pay to construct a house up front with no development plans, yes there are costs in the design process but QF don’t want to pay up front until they see these plans in black and white…
Well that’s the way I see it anyways…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The master plan has already been developed for some years. In order to progress to detailed design / planning / construction PAPL need QFs agreement (specifically on costing/charging). I dont think QF object to moving just what its going to cost them.

How does what PAPL propose to QF in relation to funding and design of its concourse in T1 differ from what was given to VA and accepted by them?

It is reasonable to assume that QF's total rental charge would increase as it would be a much better facility. It is also reasonable to assume they would have significant input on the design of the QF concourse but obviously that would be within the strictures of the overall terminal master plan. Are they being asked to pay upfront? I haven't seen that actually stated and agree it would be unreasonable given it is a lease arrangement with the terminal remaining in PAPL ownership.

EK413 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

The master plan has already been developed for some years. In order to progress to detailed design / planning / construction PAPL need QFs agreement (specifically on costing/charging). I dont think QF object to moving just what its going to cost them.

How does what PAPL propose to QF in relation to funding and design of its concourse in T1 differ from what was given to VA and accepted by them?

It is reasonable to assume that QF's total rental charge would increase as it would be a much better facility. It is also reasonable to assume they would have significant input on the design of the QF concourse but obviously that would be within the strictures of the overall terminal master plan. Are they being asked to pay upfront? I haven't seen that actually stated and agree it would be unreasonable given it is a lease arrangement with the terminal remaining in PAPL ownership.

Having reviewed the PAPL master plan I honestly don’t see how QF would consolidate their INT/DOM/REG/FIFO flying into T1.

Is PAPL implying 1 concourse will accommodate QF’s flying and no dedicated stand-off area for NETWORK?

I understand this is illustration purposes.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

elegiac wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

Realistically what Australia should do at a Federal Level is impose a passenger facility charge, (similar to what the US charges), that is collected to fund infrastructure development at Airports. We already have a Passenger Movement Charge on International Tickets to fund Customs etc so would be an easy way to ensure this sort of nonsense doesn't get in the way of airport capital works and make it a uniform approach across everyone. That way all of the airports that have passenger facilities, be they Government owned or Private owned would have certainty and could get on with it.

A passenger levy that goes directly to privately owned airports is going to mostly end up with their shareholders as profit. If you force them to actually spend it, they're going to mostly spend it on stuff that has marginal benefit to the average airport user (e.g. adding more retail areas).

If the government steps in and starts collecting the levy and spending it responsibly there's still going to be a lot of friction with the airport owners because they're being forced to maintain additional infrastructure that isn't paying them as well as luxury retail or premium parking or duty free chicanes would.

If the government steps in and starts collecting the levy and spending it responsibly

SCFlyer wrote:

Going by the presence of the PAPL and the State of Western Australia (through the Minister of Tourism), this heavily suggests that this is partly funded through their "Reconnecting WA" aviation fund, which assumably was originally meant for QF's (now cancelled) PER-CGK service.

waoz1 wrote:

Air Asia to commence PER-CGK

Lol QF cant do it but Air Asia can

It's official - Indonesia AirAsia will be flying non-stop to Jakarta!

This morning Perth Airport’s A/CEO Kate Holsgrove, Minister for Tourism Roger Cook, TWA Managing Director Carolyn Turnbull, CEO of Indonesia AirAsia Veranita Yosephine, Consul General of the Republic of Indonesia in Perth, Listiana Operananta, and Director of Commercial and Services PT Angkasa Pura I, Indonesia Airport, Mohammad Rizal Pahlevi announced the new direct Perth-Jakarta service will operate four times a week from 2 June 2023 on the Airbus A320 aircraft.This route will deliver almost 75,000 seats annually

AirAsia is currently the only airline flying this route and fills a gap in the WA international aviation market.

waoz1 wrote:

Air Asia to commence PER-CGK

Lol QF cant do it but Air Asia can

It's official - Indonesia AirAsia will be flying non-stop to Jakarta!

This morning Perth Airport’s A/CEO Kate Holsgrove, Minister for Tourism Roger Cook, TWA Managing Director Carolyn Turnbull, CEO of Indonesia AirAsia Veranita Yosephine, Consul General of the Republic of Indonesia in Perth, Listiana Operananta, and Director of Commercial and Services PT Angkasa Pura I, Indonesia Airport, Mohammad Rizal Pahlevi announced the new direct Perth-Jakarta service will operate four times a week from 2 June 2023 on the Airbus A320 aircraft. This route will deliver almost 75,000 seats annually

AirAsia is currently the only airline flying this route and fills a gap in the WA international aviation market.