airsurfer

Then flying QR is rather insecure ....
For me as a holiday traveler, price, short layovers and decent legroom count, as I cannot afford F/J tickets and even W(aste) is hundreds of $$$ too much which I rather spend on location. For business travelers it is quite different.

So I don't care where the transfer is, DXB, SIN, KUL or PER is all OK to me.

But, indeed there is a chance for the EU (and AU/NZ ?) carriers to compete with ME3 to open a nonstop PER-EU/UK flight with a codeshare with QF, VA or NZ for the PER-final destination leg.
And indeed instead of LHR, EU major hubs FRA of CDG come even closer (< 14000 km ) which is already done by EK to Calfornia and NZ.

pandaperth

I have transited through Doha four times this year - went through a security check each time (just before you take the escalator down to the departure area).

(Noting you said "can be" Dave - under what circumstances would a transiting pax not go through security there?)

Globaliser

I agree. Those in the know won't want an international-to-domestic connection that's full of hassle if there's a reasonably easy alternative. SYD gets away with it because it's such a strong O&D point (and a reasonable international-to-international connecting point) that it's going to get a lot of capacity thrown at it, and so many connecting passengers will get routed that way because the price advantage outweighs the hassle (which can only really be reduced by connecting through MEL).

I can't think what good reasons there would be (if all other things were equal) to prefer a flight from Europe to PER followed by an international-to-domestic connection that's full of hassle, over an easy one-stop international-to-international connection via Asia or the Middle East where the second flight lands in your destination city, just because the former option notionally takes you directly to your destination country.

So if PER wants to develop into a hub that takes incoming international traffic and feeds it across Australia, IMHO it has got to do something to make the international-to-domestic connection process much better than it is.

airsurfer

I think, as I said earlier, that stronger competition of AU carriers (and alongside EU and UK carriers) with the ME3 can be a reason.

But DRW can be a such a hub as well and is even slightly closer: 13800km from LHR which is equal to SIN-SFO or DXB-LAX which are already flown on a regular basis.

pandaperth

And that is part of the airport's master plan - all terminals co-located on the eastern side of the runway.

Virgin Australia has already moved its terminal over there, I expect D-I and I-D connections involving VA are now similar to those connections in MEL - just walk between terminals.

QF's domestic terminal is in the old terminal area on the other side of the runway. But the plan calls for the terminals there (T3 and T4) to be demolished, and a new T3 constructed next to the International terminal (T1)

SW7London

Indeed. Usual Perth Airport behaviour - this terminal consolidation should be a lot further along than it is. However given the downturn in the WA economy I cant see them bringing these plans forward.

However I struggle to understand the WA government actively considering subsidising the required modifications to the current QF domestic terminal - QF obviously want to ease transfers. This implies that a large number of passengers, probably most, will be connecting and not O/D traffic.

Therefore whats in it for WA? If most passengers are merely transferring between Domestic & International flights then the benefits seem little to WA, certainly doesn't justify the taxpayer subsidising the service.

Even if the majority of passengers would be O/D then will it stimulate demand so much to justify taxpayer investment? How much new demand would it create? Hard to quantify, I would wager most people visiting Perth already need to have a strong reason to visit given its distance & remoteness. I doubt there is much pent up demand which will suddenly be realised if it takes an hour or so less to travel from London.

(and it'll be quicker for most UK folks to transfer in Asia/Middle East rather than Heathrow)

In summary - WA Gov would be wasting money putting any taxpayer funds towards this. Marginal at best, and certainly better value elsewhere for the economy.

Dave Noble

No it isn't ; passengers arriving from on some flights from airports where the security of that airport is trusted , may not be required to go through security again. When connecting from UK in July, was not required to pass though security when connecting

If the security was done at Heathrow and the person was airside and only access has been to the aeroplane, whet is insecure about it?

serfty

Seems the WA government are pretty keen on direct flights.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/...hts-row/#page1

Himeno

Why? I know a lot of people who don't like to be in aircraft for long periods and would prefer to stop for 1-2 days at mid points on their way to their final destination. eg, SYD-LHR via SIN and DXB or LAX-SYD via HNL and NAN.

Ausriver

People simply prefer direct flight over connecting ones. LHR - PER will surely be marketed as DIRECT flight from Australia to London and aussies feel a lot easier when stopping at PER, when all the money, language, mobile service is exactly the same.

bensyd

The punters flying a couple of times a year are likely driven by price and schedule, like everyone else.

No way I'd want to sit in a metal tube for that long.

Himeno

I've connected through DOH twice since the new airport opened.
The first time I was coming from ORD. They waved people from that flight through the checkpoint without any check. The second time they asked where I was coming from (DFW) before directing me to the check.

Dave Noble

A non stop flight ( as opposed to just being direct ) is often preferred for a journey from origin to destination.

For those whose destination is Perth, then indeed can see it being popular I don't know anyone who prefers to have to then connect onwards in destination country, versus an airport set up for decent connections

Where a I-D connection is required, then Perth could be popular for those where the journey would be shorter

wandering_fred

OTOH there are a number of people who would rather not have 17 hour flights. Actually I would rather not have 13 hour flights without a night in a bed.

I don't think CX or SQ will lose passengers for Australia to a LHR-PER flight. EK? Perhaps I would say - I hope so.

But I'm wandering

Fred

vbroucek

Another problem is that not everyone wants to fly to UK. Australia has strong "continental Europe" communities (central Europe, former Yugoslavia, Greece, Austria and even Germany) that want to fly to continental Europe, not to UK. I want to reach Vienna as quickly as possible - I do not want to fly to LHR, wait for two hours or more, suffer horrible transfer and then fly two hours back to Vienna (PRG, FRA, etc.). For me, it is no brainer - MEL-BKK (TG) - VIE (OS)... Then perhaps quick and painless transfer in Vienna to max 90 min flight... And to sweeten it up, I can often get two business class seats on there for what I would pay for one seat only on QF. Same applies to SQ/LH, SQ/LX etc... No, in my books, PER-LHR will never work...

Finally, no, I do not want to spend 1-2 days in BKK/SIN or any other Asian (or Middle East, God forbid) stop over - IMHO, it makes jet lag even worse. But two hours break is good... Cannot imagine sitting 17+ even in business class that I always fly...