orbitmic

It's by far my favourite! Much more pleasant than both SYD and BNE (and also than PER). The airport layout makes a lot more sense, and even though you exit one terminal before rechecking, they effectively all lead you to the same central hall (even terminal 4 is now connected to T3). It also has onsite reasonable hotel in case of very early departure or long transits.

scubaccr

Question for those that are better informed ...

I thought we had to immigrate to do customs with suitcases on arriving in Australia.

If true then LHR-PER-SYD could not be a simple 60-90 minute stopover on a "Direct" flight for fliers going onwards to SYD, but a lengthier stopover to allow for all of
suitcase unloading/immigration/customs/re-checkin baggage ?

orbitmic

Would probably be so if BA got 8th freedom rights. If not, I've done a number of international flights with a technical stop (a number of airlines did or still do fly xxx-syd-Mel). You just transit at the international terminal staying airside (in lounge if eligible). Stop was approximately 60 minutes and you clear immigration when disembarking at your final destination.

philiphenry

Depending on times it might be a nice flight in business as long as a good sleep is possible at the right time.

sxc

I think the reason is that you always have to collect baggage, clear immigration and customs at your first port of call in Australia. So there hasn't been a need to have an airside transfer.

orbitmic

Actually, that would not necessarily explain why there is no airside transfer going domestic to international as in the US.

Calchas

There are different security standards on international and domestic flights, as there are in Japan. In particular liquids are permitted on domestic flights but not international.

Bakpapier

I would not like to sit in Y for 18 hours non stop.

This flight will only have merit to passengers who have to be in Perth or in one of the smaller Australian cities where you can otherwise not get to with only one stop.

We will have to wait until a new ultra long haul aircraft is developed which can fly sydney to london non stop with enough payload to make it profitable, until we will see a stable Europe - Australia non stop service to stand the test of time.

Ausriver

Most people on those Y seats doesn't visit FT and the fly maybe once a year or less internationally, and they have no idea how 18 Hours in Y like. On paper, direct flights looks more attractive to most none frequent flyer.

I doubt any one on the forum would choose a 17 hour direct flight over a reliable single code flight with a stop.

I would even choose flights with little bit longer stop over if I had to sit in Y so I can relax in the airport and get fed.

20Rothmans

Well said.
Unless it's a mercy dash (which I thankfully haven't needed to do for a while), having a stopover long enough to make me want to be back on an aircraft and walking a mile or so makes the journey more pleasant.

Bakpapier

On the contrary. I know many people who have never flown long haul (or indeed have never flown AT ALL) and when I tell them that a flight to brazil takes 12 hours they are already saying that they could never bear such a long flight. They wonder what on earth one can do all the time on an airplane, etc.

I think that people who have little flying experience will certainly hesitate taking a 18 hour non stop flight. And rightfully so.

haasha

That still does not explain why would this affect terminals built before any liquid rules or similar silliness were introduced, and why you don't have just security in between domestic and international. That's certainly more efficient than having bus/train and then security (okay, it could mean one less security but anyway...).

I am guessing it was simply due to the fact that not many pax were actually leaving the country and hence no need for easy transfers. SYD actually plans to consolidate the domestic and international traffic according to its Master plan 2033.

Calchas

The security standards may always have differed, for one. In a country filled with remote airports serving explosives-handling mine workers, it would not surprise me at all if before 9/11 Australian domestic security had a few weak spots that could not really be countenanced by international carriers.

As to the question about introducing security (and passport control) between dom and int ... instead of dom->landside->int ... well, what is the point really? You've just moved the problem. I would agree that it would be nice to have it all under one roof.

So in respect of that question, the separation of international and domestic terminals, that is probably just poor planning by non-travelling civil engineers. To be fair pre-Terminal 5, BA operated under a similarly silly arrangement, with longhaul and shorthaul in different terminals.

truncated

Not necessarily � SQ flies CBR-SIN and its subsidiaries MI operate CNS-SIN and TZ OOL-SIN, also there's CX CNS-HKG � so it's already possible to get from these cities to most of Europe with one stop. Whereas with the new PER-LHR you'll still need two stops to get to any city that isn't London. And going via SIN/HKG is less circuitous than via PER. So not exactly sure if there'll be much of a market from those smaller cities.

Stez

I'd do the non-stop LHR-PER in Y... provided I have no seatmate or an EXST.

But I wouldn't do it if I had to go to the east coast.