og

littlegreenman

Not surprising really. Most US capital cities have more than one airport in a 50 mile radius. Anothet factor to consider how shoddy most US airports are in comparison to Australian equivalents.

Think about how hard it is to build a second runway, not to mention a second airport anywhere in Australis. It is a known fact that SYD and MEL are full in terms of landing slots. Curfews don't help. Accordingly where demand significantly outstrips supply, the price has to go up.

Solution: more runways/airports or other modes of transport such as high speed rail (this discussion is a wholly different cattle of fish though). Problem solved.

Platy

You mean the very airports that the airline expects to pay for their own capital costs of new runways, etc...right?

You mean the airline that simply tweaks its "carrier charges" at will, including on redemption fares...?

The airline that plays the patriotism card, but won't support the national interest by servicing regional cities...?

The airline that's crying poor when it makes a record profit...?

The airline that charges Australians disproportionate high fares compared with those found in other countries...?

The airline that expects to ram home lower costs onto suppliers...?

The airline that evades staff wages by setting up a whole new operation (JQ) and announces staff bonuses which only apply to those that acquiesce to its draconian IR regime...?

The airline that spurns its own Code of Conduct by giving freebies to politicians...?

The airline that can afford to pay out an annual bonus of $25 million to its CEO whilst sacking 250 call centre workers leading to ridiculously long call wait times for customers...?

The airline that can afford to enter a protracted and costly capacity war with its domestic rival...?

And this on a price differential of a few dollars per passenger compared with the US model...?

The QF PR is a thing of wonder...the arrogant attitude of the CEO and executive a case study in corporate sociopathy...!

Dave Noble

No it doesn't - what should happen is that airports in such situations should not be private companies - wouldn't generally do the same with railway stations or bus stations

US airports are not run as shopping centres and are not run as private companies - the airports are ok ime - the long time that can occur waiting at security are not caused by the airport

Platy

Indeed...essential and one-off infrastructure should never placed into private ownership...(power grid / water / rail lines / telecom network / airports, etc)...

Dave Noble

What has been allowed is bizarre - like the protection that the train station has to allow it to charge access fees that make it better for 2+ passengers to take a taxi - also , iirc, the limiting of bus services to the airport to limit competition

Even if in private ownership, the fees allowed to be charged for items such as passenger arrivals/departues and parking fees should be regulated

It isn't like a shopping centre where there is competition - if a shopping centre suddenly decided to start charging $10 for 30 mins parking, people can go elsewhere - at an airport, not many options

It is wonderfully amusing that Qantas is whinging about price gouging whilst it does the same to its frequent flyer members that dare to redeem for flights

littlegreenman

No but by a government agency. Presumably the same type you're proposing should operate the whole airport since you're saying the private companies are the issue?

Best example is WTB. Private airport. Built in record time specifically because the government couldn't get their finger out of their backside for years, win win for everyone and a well functioning airport. If we left it up to the government then we'd have another Badgerys Creek on our hands because government means incapable politicians which are no better than the incapable CEOs. If we had a technocratic government my response would be very different.

Dave Noble

The delays are not caused by the operator , but by the excessive requirements that are not required to be performed - if the Australian Government was to turn around and state that at all security checkpoints, that the airport was now required to

Check official id
validdate the boarding pass
require that everyone remove shoes and belts etc
remove all liquids
use the new snazzy detectors that take quite a long while to process people
etc

then there would, I suspect, be pretty long wait times at domestic security checkpoints, especially at places such as Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane

Platy

Wherever an airport is built (private or public), the project will need the appropriate permitting from the various levels of government.

You can't justly compare the whole project lifecycle time line (from scoping study, extended scoping study, pre-feasibility study, feasibility study, value improvement studies, notice to proceed, construction, commissioning, etc) in one case to just the construction phase on another. Unfair comparison.

Nor can you compare a multi billion dollar project such as Badgery's Creek with one in the ballpark of $100 million. Again an unfair comparison.

So, no, not the best example.

There was also reportedly some controversy about the Council planning processes for WTB with submissions lodged using pre amalgamation rules just before the new amalgamated Council system came into play enabling a easier process for the airport owner.

Privatising core / monopoly public assets has repeatedly led to price gouging by the private operator - water in the UK, telco and power in Australia, Sydney Airport on its travellers, etc.

Core infrastructure and monopoly assets should never be trusted to private operators.

I was a consultant at Sydney Airport just before it was privatised - management successfully managed the pre-Olympics construction projects and had a world leading safety operational program and IME key leadership folk were evidently highly competent, moving on to be GMs of other airports in their own right (Newcastle, Brisbane, Port Marquarie, etc): there was a significant downgrading in the safety effort and huge loss of operation collective competence / experience post privatisation.

Trotting out the line that governments can't run anything is blatantly not true and actually demeaning to many highly competent folk in the aviation industry.

Yes, sure actual governments and certain folk therein are frustratingly hopeless, but that shouldn't be confused with the good work of many public servants.

You might also recall - regarding the notion that private operators are somehow superior - that one certain ridiculously overpaid airline CEO had run QF into the ground just a few years ago and was begging the government to bail it out with taxpayers' funds (this confirmed in private discussions at that time with a certain MP who is now a party leader). Kinda like the government needing to bail out the banks and other financial institutions post GFC and place guarantees on account balances, etc.


.

og

lokijuh

For an amusing read, check out some of Rex's press releases. Various stoushes with local councils increasing user charges over time. Different situation, council are monopoly providers, but often so are Rex, and seem quite happy to walk away if councils don't want to play ball. Bit different to the city situations, the airlines can't just walk (fly?) away if they don't like the charges.

justinbrett

The federal government has no business running a major international airport.

I'm not opposed to local councils "owning" regional airports, because in most cases they're run by a council owned business (eg Newcastle).

But for a SYD/MEL/BNE airport - could you even imagine? We've moved on since the days of airline regulation. The old models don't work anymore.

At the end of the day, aviation isn't a hugely profitable business. That's why nobody wanted Western Sydney Airport and the government is stuck with it. If it's a success it will be sold off well before it gets much bigger.



I'm not talking about the tactical running of the airport - which is what you're talking about. At the end of the day, a competent APS worker and a regular civilian are no different, despite where their pay cheques come from. However - we'd never see APS staff running airports again, they would be employees of the commonwealth corporation like Australia Post.

It's the strategic management and bureaucracy where they'd trip up. They'd be more worried about staff completing gender diversity training than making sure the runway is serviceable.

Platy

Please consider some basic facts:

• I don't need "to imagine" how Sydney Airport would run under public ownership - the fact is that Sydney Airport was run competently under public ownership before it as privatised - at that time it was administered under an entity called SACL (Sydney Airports Corporation Limited).
• Airport ownership and airline regulation are two completely separate things. Regulation of airlines ended in October 1990. That is 12 years before Sydney Airport was privatised. So Sydney Airport was still operating as a publicly owned entry during that time. No problem.
• The privatised Sydney Airport is in an unfettered monopoly position (no competitive restraint or government limit) and can price gouge as far as the owner dare take it: car parking, for example, making a profit of 73.1% according to ACCC data from 2017 (so much for airports being an unprofitable business!)
• Of course governments have been reluctant to decide on a western Sydney airport - they are stymied by political considerations (nobody wants an airport built in heir backyard) and the need to stump up billions of dollars of capital for complex infrastructure / engineering project: remember that even if a private entity stumps up the cash, the government still has to make the decisions on whether the project goes ahead
• Corporates are similarly risk averse - consider BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam expansion project: perhaps $1 billion annual profit from potential reserves sitting in their mining lease areas but the business risk of spending $10 billions in capital costs to secure NPV
• Governments are accountable to citizens / taxpayers just as corporations are answerable to their shareholders (or in the exceptional case of WTB to themselves)

More reading at:

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/201...privatisation/

Your comments on the APS and gender diversity training are completely random, presumably Tory Twit gibberish.

Any competent organisation publishes Code of Conduct Guidelines and undertakes training for its staff, whether publicly or privately owned - that necessarily involves covering relevant legal topics, OH&S, etc., including discrimination, harassment, etc., for the purposes of health and safety, managing business risk and ensuring legal compliance. Whether you respect such or not is immaterial - both private and public organisations do it!

Ironically, the publicly owned Sydney Airport had world leading training and innovation in eLearning for safety training (just as the privately owned Qantas), although that not of interest to the incoming private owners.

A final point, on gender politics, since you raised it, most airlines have less then 5% women on their pilot payroll.

FWIW since there seems to be a lot of wanton misrepresentation by your new (religiously driven) PM and others - gender diversity training has a purpose - to address the 80% attempted suicide rate in a group of young people. When you scorn such you are showing complete disdain for the wellbeing of such children. A shameful lack of leadership in our PM and stupidity in those that buy into the his abusive nonsense rather than considering the facts. Like I said, Tory Twit, and it would be amusing if not putting the lives of children at risk.

DownUnderFlyer

[mod hat] Keep in mind that this is the QF forum so when discussing things make sure that you are contributing to something which touches the Qantas group. [/mod hat]

og