Agree with you that there are multiple ducks to line up – at two levels of government and the industry – before outbound international travel is able to be confirmed and actually happen. There is a least a credible commitment to it in some quarters, which didn’t seem to be there until quite recently.
hb13 is right of course that it’s supposed to be triggered
at 80% not
after 80% (as part of the suite of Phase C measures so lots to roll out simultaneously) though none of us will be hugely surprised if there is delay either because enabling systems aren’t quite ready or because of some political impediment. It doesn’t help, to put it mildly, that states & territories are going to meet the 70% & 80% thresholds at very different points but the working assumption still is (isn’t it?) that the first jurisdictions at 80% will be able to restart outbound travel, in a limited way initially, once national 80% is reached, which will be very soon afterwards.
There is impeccable logic in the point that
hb13 makes about more information about international travel being provided publicly in advance of 80% being reached. But an even earlier indicator ought to be government confirmation of the Phase B amendments to inbound international travel at 70%: this has gone ominously quiet despite that 70% point being achievable in not much more than a month – as I’ve commented in another post a few days ago.
I tend to agree that your March 2022 plans look safe, given what we think we know now, but we may not have anything like certainty until much nearer the implementation dates for unrestricted outbound and less restricted inbound travel.