Qantas Plans OneWorld Superterminal at Sydney

[RooFlyer]

Just caught up with this thread - very informative, thanks.

FWIW, regarding whether people will 'want' to fly into/out of Nancy-Bird Walton (NBW)), I think they'll end up doing what the airlines want them to do. Assuming NBW will be cheaper to operate out of than SYD, both in reality and as an incentive, then the airlines can manipulate schedules and fares to 'encourage' people to go west. Say, MEL-NBW-BNE cheaper than MEL-SYD-BNE and much cheaper for the SYD-BNE leg of that flight.

Clears out traffic from SYD, allowing more traffic that 'needs' to use SYD and perhaps less curfew stress.

BTW, I guess in future, aircraft that want to land after the SYD curfew will simply be directed to NBW? "Well, we got you to Sydney, didn't we?"

 

[kangarooflyer88]

FWIW, regarding whether people will 'want' to fly into/out of Nancy-Bird Walton (NBW)), I think they'll end up doing what the airlines want them to do. Assuming NBW will be cheaper to operate out of than SYD, both in reality and as an incentive, then the airlines can manipulate schedules and fares to 'encourage' people to go west. Say, MEL-NBW-BNE cheaper than MEL-SYD-BNE and much cheaper for the SYD-BNE leg of that flight.

Let's just hope Western Sydney airport, Nancy-Bird Walton (NBW) airport, or Wal-Mart airport as I like to call it (WAL) doesn't end up becoming another Avalon airport. Kingsford Smith is in dire need of a reconfiguration as the current set up frankly doesn't work. Having to ferry passengers from one terminal to another for connecting flights (even with the same airline) doesn't work.

-RooFlyer88

 

[SYD]

Let's just hope Western Sydney airport, Nancy-Bird Walton (NBW) airport, or Wal-Mart airport as I like to call it (WAL) doesn't end up becoming another Avalon airport.

Quite likely in the first few years.

Kingsford Smith is in dire need of a reconfiguration as the current set up frankly doesn't work. Having to ferry passengers from one terminal to another for connecting flights (even with the same airline) doesn't work.

Certainly not ideal but not unique eg BNE and PER (to some extent - although VA moved to the international side and a shiny new pier and QF consolidated into the hand me downs on the Dom side). Of course many of us here have had to to the LHR inter terminal shuttle buses.

 

[justinbrett]

Having to ferry passengers from one terminal to another for connecting flights (even with the same airline) doesn't work.

-RooFlyer88

Oh please! SYD is not the only major airport that requires terminal transfers.

Was less than a decade ago when you had to take a connecting bus from T4 to TBIT in LAX when connecting between AA and QF.

SYD just needs an airside mass transit system like similar sized airports. That's a lot cheaper than building a whole new airport or even terminal.

And "doesn't work" is a bit extreme. It works, it generally works fine, just requires MCT to be respected.

BTW, I guess in future, aircraft that want to land after the SYD curfew will simply be directed to NBW? "Well, we got you to Sydney, didn't we?"

Most people would prefer a diversion there than a cancelled flight and and overnight stay at their departure location. I've had a couple of flights over the years where we couldn't get into BNE due weather so we landed in OOL instead. Once you're within reasonable ground transport range, people are just happy to get to their destination.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Oh please! SYD is not the only major airport that requires terminal transfers.

Was less than a decade ago when you had to take a connecting bus from T4 to TBIT in LAX when connecting between AA and QF.

That's true but the trend in airports is a move towards easier connections. For instance, you won't need to change terminals Heathrow on a connecting flight if flying Star Alliance.

SYD just needs an airside mass transit system like similar sized airports. That's a lot cheaper than building a whole new airport or even terminal.

That would be ideal but I don't see how that will happen given the cost associated and the fact that Australia has different security rules for domestic versus international departures requiring additional security screening for domestic to international. Also I see Australia hasn't adopted the IATA/ICAO annex allowing for the bypass of airport screening for international arrivals, which would make connections a lot more smooth.

And "doesn't work" is a bit extreme. It works, it generally works fine, just requires MCT to be respected.

Even if MCT is respected, it'll still lead to a lot of misconnections since MCT isn't the same as SCT (sensible connection time). If you've never flown through Sydney or Australia, trust me it'll take longer than those geniuses modelling MCT think it'll take. And that's supposing your JetStar flight arrives on time (a huge IF)!

Most people would prefer a diversion there than a cancelled flight and and overnight stay at their departure location. I've had a couple of flights over the years where we couldn't get into BNE due weather so we landed in OOL instead. Once you're within reasonable ground transport range, people are just happy to get to their destination.

I would be curious weather wise if things are more favourable out in the west versus landing at Kingsford Smith. For instance, are things like wind and showers less of a concern?

 

[dairyfloss]

I would be curious weather wise if things are more favourable out in the west versus landing at Kingsford Smith. For instance, are things like wind and showers less of a concern?

On the contrary, in fact - the storms tend to be worse in the western suburbs... not sure about fog; that's likely to be better there

 

[justinbrett]

That's true but the trend in airports is a move towards easier connections. For instance, you won't need to change terminals Heathrow on a connecting flight if flying Star Alliance.

That would be ideal but I don't see how that will happen given the cost associated and the fact that Australia has different security rules for domestic versus international departures requiring additional security screening for domestic to international. Also I see Australia hasn't adopted the IATA/ICAO annex allowing for the bypass of airport screening for international arrivals, which would make connections a lot more smooth.

Trains are cheaper to build than terminals and airports. If you are suggesting moving the lot to WS, that is going to cost much, much, much more than the cost of installing a train at SYD. Current plan is a light domestic airport at WSA and the bulk remain at SYD, for the next few decades at least.

Even if MCT is respected, it'll still lead to a lot of misconnections since MCT isn't the same as SCT (sensible connection time). If you've never flown through Sydney or Australia, trust me it'll take longer than those geniuses modelling MCT think it'll take. And that's supposing your JetStar flight arrives on time (a huge IF)!

So I've missed a few flights in LAX over the years too. Not unique. Up to airlines and airports to set this appropriately.

How many people are going to miss a SYD-WSA connection due to traffic? I'll tell you the answer - far more than those missing connections now. Plenty of stories from friends missing flights between LHR & LGW.

 

[SYD]

That's true but the trend in airports is a move towards easier connections. For instance, you won't need to change terminals Heathrow on a connecting flight if flying Star Alliance.

Someone forgot to tell LOT. There’s always an exception.

Slicing and dicing SYD - whilst probably a good thing, won‘t be perfect either.

 

[Lynda2475]

Assuming NBW will be cheaper to operate out of than SYD, both in reality and as an incentive, then the airlines can manipulate schedules and fares to 'encourage' people to go west.

For me flights would have to be at least $400 cheaper to justify the ~$450 Uber there and back vs ~$60 home to SYD return; and departing later. That doesn't add up for anything domestic.

 

[dajop]

That would be ideal but I don't see how that will happen given the cost associated and the fact that Australia has different security rules for domestic versus international departures requiring additional security screening for domestic to international. Also I see Australia hasn't adopted the IATA/ICAO annex allowing for the bypass of airport screening for international arrivals, which would make connections a lot more smooth.

I can think of at least one other major country that does not allow bypass of airport screening for international arrivals, unless under the specific circumstances of pre-clearing entry into that country at the origin.

(actually I can think of many countries that do not, in fact most (if not all) of the hubs used to connect from Australia to the world via another country require security screening before taking onwards flight).

 

[docjames]

How Sydney west is utilised for IRROPS at SYD will be interesting - once/if diverted, a slot to return to plane to SYD needs to be found etc. and crew duty limits etc may be factors too if having to commute to/from SYD/SYD West and also do the short “hop” - will be interesting How that all gets managed.

BTW, I guess in future, aircraft that want to land after the SYD curfew will simply be directed to NBW? "Well, we got you to Sydney, didn't we?"

 

[SYD]

I can think of at least one other major country that does not allow bypass of airport screening for international arrivals, unless under the specific circumstances of pre-clearing entry into that country at the origin.

(actually I can think of many countries that do not, in fact most (if not all) of the hubs used to connect from Australia to the world via another country require security screening before taking onwards flight).

I meant to comment earlier that I can’t think of any country that doesn’t rescreen transferring PAX.

For me flights would have to be at least $400 cheaper to justify the ~$450 Uber there and back vs ~$60 home to SYD return; and departing later. That doesn't add up for anything domestic.

Cheaper to fly SYD-MEL-SWZ and onwards….

 

[dajop]

I meant to comment earlier that I can’t think of any country that doesn’t rescreen transferring PAX.

Intra Europe often does not. Certainly I've done transits in ZRH and FRA from flights that originated in elsewhere in Europe (eg. UK, Spain) and then on to SIN without re-screening. Likewise transiting in US when originating in Canada. But these are exceptions, not the norm.

 

[justinbrett]

How Sydney west is utilised for IRROPS at SYD will be interesting - once/if diverted, a slot to return to plane to SYD needs to be found etc. and crew duty limits etc may be factors too if having to commute to/from SYD/SYD West and also do the short “hop” - will be interesting How that all gets managed.

Exactly how it's managed now, except now the aircraft is in WS instead of CBR/MEL/BNE etc.

 

[justinbrett]

Intra Europe often does not. Certainly I've done transits in ZRH and FRA from flights that originated in elsewhere in Europe (eg. UK, Spain) and then on to SIN without re-screening. Likewise transiting in US when originating in Canada. But these are exceptions, not the norm.

Not really the same, as you're talking about the Schengen zone, which is specifically setup to remove international border restrictions

And you only skip security ex-Canada if you do pre clearance in Canada, so again, you're not crossing the border at the US airport.

I can't think of one.

 

[SYD]

Intra Europe often does not. Certainly I've done transits in ZRH and FRA from flights that originated in elsewhere in Europe (eg. UK, Spain) and then on to SIN without re-screening. Likewise transiting in US when originating in Canada. But these are exceptions, not the norm.

Was thinking more longhaul arrivals - as implied in the earlier post.

Flights within the Schengen zone and CA-> US are like Oz (and most country) domestic stuff.

 

[dajop]

For me flights would have to be at least $400 cheaper to justify the ~$450 Uber there and back vs ~$60 home to SYD return; and departing later. That doesn't add up for anything domestic.

I can see what you're saying, but exaggerating somewhat? Assuming a proxy of $2.50/km, where in Sydney is 90km from the new WS airport and only 12 km from Mascot.

 

[SYD]

I can see what you're saying, but exaggerating somewhat? Assuming a proxy of $2.50/km, where in Sydney is 90km from the new WS airport and only 12 km from Mascot.

Bondi

 

[dajop]

Not really the same, as you're talking about the Schengen zone, which is specifically setup to remove international border restrictions

It's not about the Schengen zone it, I assume more an EU thing - setting up standard set of security procedures (which has been maintained for UK post-brexit). You get off a flight from a non-Schengen country, such as the UK, and transferring to another non-Schengen country you walk straight of the plane into the terminal. If transferring to a Schengen flight you need to clear immigration but not security I believe. Anecdotal evidence (i.e. reports from Flyertalk) also suggest transiting FRA on either SQ25 (from JFK to SIN) or SQ26 (from SIN to JFK) does not require security screening any more.

 

[RooFlyer]

Also I see Australia hasn't adopted the IATA/ICAO annex allowing for the bypass of airport screening for international arrivals, which would make connections a lot more smooth.

I see others have addressed this, but DOH screens international transfers (ie everybody!) and its the smoothest security you'll get.