MooLor wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

MooLor wrote:

That is true of many industries, but I doubt aviation is one of them.

What concerns me is men putting themselves forward to be discriminated against, by being on the wrong side of the "affirmative action" equation.

So how do you explain the tiny percentage of pilots that are women? Do you believe that is all choice and that very few women genuinely want to be pilots?

In our country, females have equal opportunity to participate in cadetship programmes etc. But you must have the correct education to qualify. If you want to be a pilot cadet you ensure you get the right education - that's a choice.

However, females are under represented in the sciences. So there would be less opportunity to "fall into" a pilot career for the majority, or choose to go that way after high school. That's not the aviation industry's fault. But as I read it, it is the area AJ is suggesting be addressed - you ensure females who wish to become pilots follow the correct stream/s through high school, so that the best people can become pilots, regardless of their gender. I doubt he is suggesting there are fewer female airline pilots due to discrimination or a "blokey" culture.

Now, those taking the bush-pilot route are less likely to be female. A blokey culture or an aversion to the physical environment? A bit of both I suspect. Can that be fixed? Good luck with that, but it does seem to have been addressed in the mining industry - there are female engineers etc. now, whereas they were practically non-existent back when I worked in that sector. How has that come about? When I was at Uni the engineering student were animals - right up there with the "rugger buggers". That's the culture that needed to change in order to produce more female engineering graduates, and apparently it has.

Another source of pilots are third-world countries - and I'm thinking of India. That is an example of a country where a female does not have equal opportunity to gain an education. Nothing AJ can do about that.

So, what can AJ do to enable more females to become QF pilots? He doesn't want sub-par cadets via affirmative action / quotas. So he educates. And good on him.

qf789 wrote:

The Australian Airport Association has weighed into the QF/NZ codeshare deal saying it will lessen competition and potentially constraining the Trans-Tasman market calling for regulators to intervene

The Australian Airports Association has called on regulators in Australia and in New Zealand to make sure the agreement won’t impact travellers or Virgin Australia, saying the deal would likely lessen competition on both sides of the Tasman.
“There are a limited number of airlines operating in both countries, and between them, so it is important there remains a healthy level of competition in the market,” said association chief executive Caroline Wilkie.
“This arrangement seems likely to make it harder for Virgin Australia to compete in the Australian market.”
It comes after Qantas (QAN) and Air New Zealand said they’d will remain competitive on trans-Tasman routes as they announced a deal to that will add 115 new domestic routes in Australia and New Zealand on Friday.

VA has also issued a statement saying it was bad news for customers

A spokesperson for Virgin Australia, which has an interlining agreement with Air New Zealand up for renegotiation in October, said last week that the deal was “bad news for customers” and that it would stifle competition.
“We are particularly concerned this arrangement will further strengthen Qantas’ dominant position in the Australian market to the detriment of both Virgin Australia and the Australian travelling public,” Ms Wilkie said today.
“The ability to distribute each other’s passengers on the other side of the Tasman will improve the market position of Qantas and Air New Zealand and make it harder for Virgin to compete on trans-Tasman routes.
“It is important to ensure both the Australian and New Zealand economies enjoy the tourism benefits of easy and affordable trans-Tasman travel and this can only be ensured if there are more carriers, not less, flying these routes.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busine ... um=Twitter

Qantas16 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas has scrapped plans for PER-JNB, the aircraft will now deployed elsewhere

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-scraps- ... ource=hero

What a shame for PER and QF! Whilst I'm sure there is likely more to it, I don't understand why PER wouldn't let QF run the flight out of T3 like they want too...

SYDSpotter wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas has scrapped plans for PER-JNB, the aircraft will now deployed elsewhere

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-scraps- ... ource=hero

What a shame for PER and QF! Whilst I'm sure there is likely more to it, I don't understand why PER wouldn't let QF run the flight out of T3 like they want too...

I'd be gobsmacked if this is purely down to which terminal QF can use. You'd think that airports would be happy to accommodate new routes let alone QF which is PER's biggest customer.

Is this a case of duplication of resourcing - i.e. The departure and arrival times of QF flights (PER-JNB) would mean that the airport would have to roster additional staff to T3 specifically for the JNB flights, whereas operating it out of T1 would mean utilising existing staff for the other existing international flights?

Or is it QF gets cheaper airport fees and charges operating out of T3 rather than T1? I don't know, simply trying to rationalise why PER would let an opportunity like this go...

SYDSpotter wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas has scrapped plans for PER-JNB, the aircraft will now deployed elsewhere

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-scraps- ... ource=hero

What a shame for PER and QF! Whilst I'm sure there is likely more to it, I don't understand why PER wouldn't let QF run the flight out of T3 like they want too...

I'd be gobsmacked if this is purely down to which terminal QF can use. You'd think that airports would be happy to accommodate new routes let alone QF which is PER's biggest customer.

Is this a case of duplication of resourcing - i.e. The departure and arrival times of QF flights (PER-JNB) would mean that the airport would have to roster additional staff to T3 specifically for the JNB flights, whereas operating it out of T1 would mean utilising existing staff for the other existing international flights?

Or is it QF gets cheaper airport fees and charges operating out of T3 rather than T1? I don't know, simply trying to rationalise why PER would let an opportunity like this go...

qf789 wrote:

Qantas plans to comply to China's request to refer to Taiwan as Chinese territory and not an independent country but needs more time

https://www.reuters.com/article/airline ... SL3N1T62WC

planemanofnz wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas plans to comply to China's request to refer to Taiwan as Chinese territory and not an independent country but needs more time

https://www.reuters.com/article/airline ... SL3N1T62WC

In light of NZ returning to TPE, I wonder if QF would also consider a Taiwan re-launch at some point too?

It's regularly one of the most expensive Asian destinations on their website to fly to, up there with ICN too.

Separately, I'm unsurprised by the decision to give in on China's request; nothing to gain, but much to lose.

Cheers,

C.

qf789 wrote:

xiaotung wrote:

qf789 wrote:

VA has also issued a statement saying it was bad news for customers



https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busine ... um=Twitter

Maybe the spokesperson should ask the public to blame John Borghetti. It didn't have to come to this if VA could work things out with NZ.

All the public cares about is the cost and that they get from A to B, most of the public would not be able to name the CEO. The fact remains that this deal could be bad for consumers in the long run

RyanairGuru wrote:

qf789 wrote:

xiaotung wrote:

Maybe the spokesperson should ask the public to blame John Borghetti. It didn't have to come to this if VA could work things out with NZ.

All the public cares about is the cost and that they get from A to B, most of the public would not be able to name the CEO. The fact remains that this deal could be bad for consumers in the long run

In what way is this bad for consumers? QF and NZ will remain competitors on the Tasman routes, i.e. the only routes where they compete head-to-head, but will be able to avail themselves of each other’s beyond connectivity to provide the largest ever network between these two countries. While still competitors! Other than VAH, who brought this upon themselves, it is impossible for anyone to be worse off under this agreement, be they an investor or Joe and Jane looking for a cheap flight.

eamondzhang wrote:

SYDSpotter wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

What a shame for PER and QF! Whilst I'm sure there is likely more to it, I don't understand why PER wouldn't let QF run the flight out of T3 like they want too...

I'd be gobsmacked if this is purely down to which terminal QF can use. You'd think that airports would be happy to accommodate new routes let alone QF which is PER's biggest customer.

Is this a case of duplication of resourcing - i.e. The departure and arrival times of QF flights (PER-JNB) would mean that the airport would have to roster additional staff to T3 specifically for the JNB flights, whereas operating it out of T1 would mean utilising existing staff for the other existing international flights?

Or is it QF gets cheaper airport fees and charges operating out of T3 rather than T1? I don't know, simply trying to rationalise why PER would let an opportunity like this go...

I would bet it comes down to a similar situation re CBR and QF. Staffing wouldn't be too much of an issue if you ask me, particularly since QF does their own inhouse handling, and I bet these staffs are casual anyway (apart from the customs officers but with a timing similar to QF10's arrival it wouldn't be too difficult I guess). I don't think this is the first time they've done something like this, and without the shaking of airports in Australia (which I strongly hope to happen) this kind of incidents will only become norm in the future.

Michael

qf789 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

I would bet it comes down to a similar situation re CBR and QF. Staffing wouldn't be too much of an issue if you ask me, particularly since QF does their own inhouse handling, and I bet these staffs are casual anyway (apart from the customs officers but with a timing similar to QF10's arrival it wouldn't be too difficult I guess). I don't think this is the first time they've done something like this, and without the shaking of airports in Australia (which I strongly hope to happen) this kind of incidents will only become norm in the future.

Michael

It seems the route is not off all together, while it is gone for this year, the plan for PER-JNB was to run it seasonally DEC-MAR, QF have said that it may operate next year providing its resolved. Unfortunately until this is resolved and what QF refers to the "Perth Airport situation" flights such as CDG and FRA dont look like happening either.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... urg-plans/

Qantas16 wrote:

VA474 BNE-PER is currently holding over Moreton Bay likely to return to BNE, reason unknown

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 4#119b4344

sq256 wrote:

Seeing that VA still owns 4 of the 5 77Ws perhaps VA's now bitter rival NZ and/or their partner UA could grab them in a asset fire sale in the extreme case of VA going south with the existing investors either bailing or having financial problems of their own ala Etihad. (thus leading VA to go belly up).

qf789 wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

VA474 BNE-PER is currently holding over Moreton Bay likely to return to BNE, reason unknown

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 4#119b4344

Whatever the problem was it circled near BNE for nearly 4 hours

Qantas16 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

VA474 BNE-PER is currently holding over Moreton Bay likely to return to BNE, reason unknown

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 4#119b4344

Whatever the problem was it circled near BNE for nearly 4 hours

Apparently it was a burst tyre... glad I wasn't a passenger on board that flight!

planemanofnz wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas plans to comply to China's request to refer to Taiwan as Chinese territory and not an independent country but needs more time

https://www.reuters.com/article/airline ... SL3N1T62WC

In light of NZ returning to TPE, I wonder if QF would also consider a Taiwan re-launch at some point too?

It's regularly one of the most expensive Asian destinations on their website to fly to, up there with ICN too.

Separately, I'm unsurprised by the decision to give in on China's request; nothing to gain, but much to lose.

Cheers,

C.

Obzerva wrote:

Re the cost on the QF site, you can usually get it cheaper with CI on the same aircraft, it’s just more expensive on the QF codeshare.
Can be similar with OZ to ICN

qf789 wrote:

It seems the route is not off all together, while it is gone for this year, the plan for PER-JNB was to run it seasonally DEC-MAR, QF have said that it may operate next year providing its resolved. Unfortunately until this is resolved and what QF refers to the "Perth Airport situation" flights such as CDG and FRA dont look like happening either.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... urg-plans/

Sydscott wrote:

qf789 wrote:

It seems the route is not off all together, while it is gone for this year, the plan for PER-JNB was to run it seasonally DEC-MAR, QF have said that it may operate next year providing its resolved. Unfortunately until this is resolved and what QF refers to the "Perth Airport situation" flights such as CDG and FRA dont look like happening either.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... urg-plans/

I love this paragraph from Perth Airport:

"“Centralisation at the T1 International Terminal will be faster and easier for passengers, more cost-effective for our airline customers and will build on the $4 billion dollars of investment already made by Perth Airport and the State and Federal governments in delivering road, rail, and terminal upgrades."

What the article fails to mention is not much of this actually helps this situation with Qantas since the majority of what PER has done is:

- Build Terminal WA for all of the Charter / intra-WA operators;
- Build the new Virgin Pier in the International precinct;
- Build an A380 gate and refurbish the existing International facility.

It also fails to mention that a significant chunk of this money has been spent by Government on road and transport upgrades. If the Airport itself had actually spent this they would have a much better facility!

redroo wrote:

We need a fundme page to take PER into anybody else hands than PAPL.

redroo wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

qf789 wrote:

It seems the route is not off all together, while it is gone for this year, the plan for PER-JNB was to run it seasonally DEC-MAR, QF have said that it may operate next year providing its resolved. Unfortunately until this is resolved and what QF refers to the "Perth Airport situation" flights such as CDG and FRA dont look like happening either.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... urg-plans/

I love this paragraph from Perth Airport:

"“Centralisation at the T1 International Terminal will be faster and easier for passengers, more cost-effective for our airline customers and will build on the $4 billion dollars of investment already made by Perth Airport and the State and Federal governments in delivering road, rail, and terminal upgrades."

What the article fails to mention is not much of this actually helps this situation with Qantas since the majority of what PER has done is:

- Build Terminal WA for all of the Charter / intra-WA operators;
- Build the new Virgin Pier in the International precinct;
- Build an A380 gate and refurbish the existing International facility.

It also fails to mention that a significant chunk of this money has been spent by Government on road and transport upgrades. If the Airport itself had actually spent this they would have a much better facility!

It does make me laugh and cry at the same time.

Qantas physically cannot move it’s operations over to the other side of the airfield until the airport builds a new terminal, so they try and make do with what they’ve got on the old domestic side. Which let’s face it is not as flash as the international side even though it has had a lick of paint in recent years.

Here’s your biggest customer wanting to grow and bring more passengers to your airport but you’re doing everything you can to make it impossible for them.

I really don’t get it.

We need a fundme page to take PER into anybody else hands than PAPL.

qf002 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

In what way is this bad for consumers?

Because it creates vested interests. For example a future proposal to potentially expand JQ’s domestic operation in New Zealand now has to be assessed against the value of the partnership with NZ. Same situation for NZ when they come to assess proposed new routes - is it more profitable (certainly lower risk) to keep pushing passengers onto QF services into CBR or DRW for example under commercially favourable terms rather than launching new nonstop links?

DavidByrne wrote:

An767 wrote:

So over this PC Bull re women in the workforce. If a woman wants to be a pilot or whatever, they would be doing it . If they need encouraging , then do they really want to do it in the first place?
AN767

Yes, it's clearly womens' own fault that there is ongoing discrimination in the male-dominated workforce and a serious pay imbalance . . .

qf789 wrote:

Qantas plans to comply to China's request to refer to Taiwan as Chinese territory and not an independent country but needs more time

https://www.reuters.com/article/airline ... SL3N1T62WC

smi0006 wrote:

MooLor wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

So how do you explain the tiny percentage of pilots that are women? Do you believe that is all choice and that very few women genuinely want to be pilots?

In our country, females have equal opportunity to participate in cadetship programmes etc. But you must have the correct education to qualify. If you want to be a pilot cadet you ensure you get the right education - that's a choice.

However, females are under represented in the sciences. So there would be less opportunity to "fall into" a pilot career for the majority, or choose to go that way after high school. That's not the aviation industry's fault. But as I read it, it is the area AJ is suggesting be addressed - you ensure females who wish to become pilots follow the correct stream/s through high school, so that the best people can become pilots, regardless of their gender. I doubt he is suggesting there are fewer female airline pilots due to discrimination or a "blokey" culture.

Now, those taking the bush-pilot route are less likely to be female. A blokey culture or an aversion to the physical environment? A bit of both I suspect. Can that be fixed? Good luck with that, but it does seem to have been addressed in the mining industry - there are female engineers etc. now, whereas they were practically non-existent back when I worked in that sector. How has that come about? When I was at Uni the engineering student were animals - right up there with the "rugger buggers". That's the culture that needed to change in order to produce more female engineering graduates, and apparently it has.

Another source of pilots are third-world countries - and I'm thinking of India. That is an example of a country where a female does not have equal opportunity to gain an education. Nothing AJ can do about that.

So, what can AJ do to enable more females to become QF pilots? He doesn't want sub-par cadets via affirmative action / quotas. So he educates. And good on him.

I must confess, as someone who’s been in the industry for a decade now, and whilst my experience is first hand anecdotal (and a gay guy) - there is still and element of a gentleman’s club on many flight decks (and I’d add engineering also) are woman or others decrimianted against in an institutional manner? Not at all, however casual unintentional (hopefully) discrimination is still prevalent. But it’s an old guard who is either moving on or changing their opinions. As you’ve outlined better promotion of equal gender neutral education (not science, sports for boys, arts, English for girls) combined with a more welcoming environment will see a continued improvement in female (and LGBT) numbers in all areas of the industry. But due to the very nature of the career and length of training, it’s going to take years to truly see the numbers shift.

I welcome AJs comments and support to see more female tech crew, engineers, and rampies too I may add!!

qf789 wrote:

The Australian Airport Association has weighed into the QF/NZ codeshare deal saying it will lessen competition and potentially constraining the Trans-Tasman market calling for regulators to intervene

The Australian Airports Association has called on regulators in Australia and in New Zealand to make sure the agreement won’t impact travellers or Virgin Australia, saying the deal would likely lessen competition on both sides of the Tasman.
“There are a limited number of airlines operating in both countries, and between them, so it is important there remains a healthy level of competition in the market,” said association chief executive Caroline Wilkie.
“This arrangement seems likely to make it harder for Virgin Australia to compete in the Australian market.”
It comes after Qantas (QAN) and Air New Zealand said they’d will remain competitive on trans-Tasman routes as they announced a deal to that will add 115 new domestic routes in Australia and New Zealand on Friday.

VA has also issued a statement saying it was bad news for customers

A spokesperson for Virgin Australia, which has an interlining agreement with Air New Zealand up for renegotiation in October, said last week that the deal was “bad news for customers” and that it would stifle competition.
“We are particularly concerned this arrangement will further strengthen Qantas’ dominant position in the Australian market to the detriment of both Virgin Australia and the Australian travelling public,” Ms Wilkie said today.
“The ability to distribute each other’s passengers on the other side of the Tasman will improve the market position of Qantas and Air New Zealand and make it harder for Virgin to compete on trans-Tasman routes.
“It is important to ensure both the Australian and New Zealand economies enjoy the tourism benefits of easy and affordable trans-Tasman travel and this can only be ensured if there are more carriers, not less, flying these routes.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busine ... um=Twitter

Kashmon wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

MooLor wrote:

In our country, females have equal opportunity to participate in cadetship programmes etc. But you must have the correct education to qualify. If you want to be a pilot cadet you ensure you get the right education - that's a choice.

However, females are under represented in the sciences. So there would be less opportunity to "fall into" a pilot career for the majority, or choose to go that way after high school. That's not the aviation industry's fault. But as I read it, it is the area AJ is suggesting be addressed - you ensure females who wish to become pilots follow the correct stream/s through high school, so that the best people can become pilots, regardless of their gender. I doubt he is suggesting there are fewer female airline pilots due to discrimination or a "blokey" culture.

Now, those taking the bush-pilot route are less likely to be female. A blokey culture or an aversion to the physical environment? A bit of both I suspect. Can that be fixed? Good luck with that, but it does seem to have been addressed in the mining industry - there are female engineers etc. now, whereas they were practically non-existent back when I worked in that sector. How has that come about? When I was at Uni the engineering student were animals - right up there with the "rugger buggers". That's the culture that needed to change in order to produce more female engineering graduates, and apparently it has.

Another source of pilots are third-world countries - and I'm thinking of India. That is an example of a country where a female does not have equal opportunity to gain an education. Nothing AJ can do about that.

So, what can AJ do to enable more females to become QF pilots? He doesn't want sub-par cadets via affirmative action / quotas. So he educates. And good on him.

I must confess, as someone who’s been in the industry for a decade now, and whilst my experience is first hand anecdotal (and a gay guy) - there is still and element of a gentleman’s club on many flight decks (and I’d add engineering also) are woman or others decrimianted against in an institutional manner? Not at all, however casual unintentional (hopefully) discrimination is still prevalent. But it’s an old guard who is either moving on or changing their opinions. As you’ve outlined better promotion of equal gender neutral education (not science, sports for boys, arts, English for girls) combined with a more welcoming environment will see a continued improvement in female (and LGBT) numbers in all areas of the industry. But due to the very nature of the career and length of training, it’s going to take years to truly see the numbers shift.

I welcome AJs comments and support to see more female tech crew, engineers, and rampies too I may add!!

Which school in Australia is banning girls from sciences?!!!

FYI INDIA with no female education has more female engineers and females studying STEM than any western country....

as for Girls in engineering- every young millennial engineers knows that most female engineers receive their jobs because they are female... same with your mines, they all have quota's. In terms of respect for female skill, it is backfiring in a big way- not that the girls or the HR department know

An767 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Alan Joyce says the way to address pilot shortage is to encourage my female students to become pilots

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busine ... cb47f968e6

So over this PC Bull re women in the workforce. If a woman wants to be a pilot or whatever, they would be doing it . If they need encouraging , then do they really want to do it in the first place?
AN767

getluv wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

I must confess, as someone who’s been in the industry for a decade now, and whilst my experience is first hand anecdotal (and a gay guy) - there is still and element of a gentleman’s club on many flight decks (and I’d add engineering also) are woman or others decrimianted against in an institutional manner? Not at all, however casual unintentional (hopefully) discrimination is still prevalent. But it’s an old guard who is either moving on or changing their opinions. As you’ve outlined better promotion of equal gender neutral education (not science, sports for boys, arts, English for girls) combined with a more welcoming environment will see a continued improvement in female (and LGBT) numbers in all areas of the industry. But due to the very nature of the career and length of training, it’s going to take years to truly see the numbers shift.

I welcome AJs comments and support to see more female tech crew, engineers, and rampies too I may add!!

Which school in Australia is banning girls from sciences?!!!

FYI INDIA with no female education has more female engineers and females studying STEM than any western country....

as for Girls in engineering- every young millennial engineers knows that most female engineers receive their jobs because they are female... same with your mines, they all have quota's. In terms of respect for female skill, it is backfiring in a big way- not that the girls or the HR department know

But obviously you know.

Kashmon wrote:

getluv wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

Which school in Australia is banning girls from sciences?!!!

FYI INDIA with no female education has more female engineers and females studying STEM than any western country....

as for Girls in engineering- every young millennial engineers knows that most female engineers receive their jobs because they are female... same with your mines, they all have quota's. In terms of respect for female skill, it is backfiring in a big way- not that the girls or the HR department know

But obviously you know.

yes my female ENGINEER colleagues constantly feel like they are treated differently because they are women and perceived to have got their positions because of their gender...

Sydscott wrote:

qf789 wrote:

It seems the route is not off all together, while it is gone for this year, the plan for PER-JNB was to run it seasonally DEC-MAR, QF have said that it may operate next year providing its resolved. Unfortunately until this is resolved and what QF refers to the "Perth Airport situation" flights such as CDG and FRA dont look like happening either.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... urg-plans/

I love this paragraph from Perth Airport:

"“Centralisation at the T1 International Terminal will be faster and easier for passengers, more cost-effective for our airline customers and will build on the $4 billion dollars of investment already made by Perth Airport and the State and Federal governments in delivering road, rail, and terminal upgrades."

What the article fails to mention is not much of this actually helps this situation with Qantas since the majority of what PER has done is:

- Build Terminal WA for all of the Charter / intra-WA operators;
- Build the new Virgin Pier in the International precinct;
- Build an A380 gate and refurbish the existing International facility.

It also fails to mention that a significant chunk of this money has been spent by Government on road and transport upgrades. If the Airport itself had actually spent this they would have a much better facility!

waoz1 wrote:

redroo wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

I love this paragraph from Perth Airport:

"“Centralisation at the T1 International Terminal will be faster and easier for passengers, more cost-effective for our airline customers and will build on the $4 billion dollars of investment already made by Perth Airport and the State and Federal governments in delivering road, rail, and terminal upgrades."

What the article fails to mention is not much of this actually helps this situation with Qantas since the majority of what PER has done is:

- Build Terminal WA for all of the Charter / intra-WA operators;
- Build the new Virgin Pier in the International precinct;
- Build an A380 gate and refurbish the existing International facility.

It also fails to mention that a significant chunk of this money has been spent by Government on road and transport upgrades. If the Airport itself had actually spent this they would have a much better facility!

It does make me laugh and cry at the same time.

Qantas physically cannot move it’s operations over to the other side of the airfield until the airport builds a new terminal, so they try and make do with what they’ve got on the old domestic side. Which let’s face it is not as flash as the international side even though it has had a lick of paint in recent years.

Here’s your biggest customer wanting to grow and bring more passengers to your airport but you’re doing everything you can to make it impossible for them.

I really don’t get it.

We need a fundme page to take PER into anybody else hands than PAPL.

I often wonder when the airports were given a 99 year lease. Is there a get out of jail free card for the state.
Can the state force a sale if it isnt meeting community expectations and restricting growth.
As its a major part of a states economy.

Perth airport hasnt lived up to expectations and new airlines/route expansion has been almost non existant. Well unless you include bali, kl or singapore cant get enough of those.

ben175 wrote:

PER airport management is an absolute joke for letting this slide. But I guess on the other hand, those at SA would be very pleased.

qf789 wrote:

Iran Air is planning to launch SYD later this year, routing will be via Asia

https://twitter.com/flightintl/status/1 ... 71776?s=21

waoz1 wrote:

ben175 wrote:

PER airport management is an absolute joke for letting this slide. But I guess on the other hand, those at SA would be very pleased.

Could be worse..could just be opening Costco's and dfo's rather than new air services to make money.


Aww hang on a second

VA82 wrote:

Was at the Boeing factory in Everett a couple of days ago, and QFs next 787 was the next to come out if final production (to the untrained eye it looked very nearly done). As a Brisbanite it was very cool to see #5!

P.S. If you ever get a chance to go to Seattle I'd highly recommend it!

CraigAnderson wrote:

Jetstar considering some form of business class or premium cabin on its domestic A321neos

https://www.ausbt.com.au/jetstar-could- ... ource=hero