Qantas Plans OneWorld Superterminal at Sydney

[dajop]

Bondi

Yeh, I thought so before I posted, but I did check ... , $43 from T3 Sydney (So ~ $90 return) and $160 ($320 return) from location close to WSA airport. OK, big difference of $230, but not $400.

 

[justinbrett]

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.

Whether it's Schengen, the customs union, or some other agreement - you're still talking about a supranational entity that won't apply to most other places on Earth.

Yeh, I thought so before I posted, but I did check ... , $43 from T3 Sydney (So ~ $90 return) and $160 ($320 return) from location close to WSA airport. OK, big difference of $230, but not $400.

Right now it's $180 one way, no traffic, no surge pricing.

That could easily double under different circumstances.

 

[SYD]

Yeh, I thought so before I posted, but I did check ... , $43 from T3 Sydney (So ~ $90 return) and $160 ($320 return) from location close to WSA airport. OK, big difference of $230, but not $400.

But I could get a bus to/from SYD for $3.93 (takes about 1 hr) or train ~$20 (45 mins). But I usually Uber for $30 - $35 for 15-20mins.

@Lynda2475 main point, it could literally take several hours to cross the entire metro area of Sydney to go from east to west (or from the northern suburbs/beaches) to get to SWZ. It just won’t be practical for a large chunk of people. Conversely, it will be excellent for people out west/south west.

 

[jpp42]

Sure DFW is better but ORD is a close second in terms of non-coastal hubs. The two will complement each other rather well (and I'd say more o/d traffic to Chicago vs DFW)

And once ORD gets up and running as a Qantas destination, my advice to flyers will always be - try to connect through ORD for summertime flights and DFW for winter time. The weather delays for snow at ORD and summer thunderstorms at DFW can be shocking. It will be great to have that kind of choice for east coast destinations, as there are dozens of cities that AA flies to from both DFW and ORD.

 

[dajop]

Whether it's Schengen, the customs union, or some other agreement - you're still talking about a supranational entity that won't apply to most other places on Earth.

Yes, but USA and Singapore are not part of that supranational entity. So there is obviously another explanation for that, perhaps a special circumstance due to confidence in procedures at the port and an onwards connecting flight.

But anyway didn't I say initially these were the "exceptions not the norm"? The whole origin of my reasoning was that SYD suggested they couldn't think of any think of any countries that didn't re-screen passengers from another country, I merely pointed out that there were some exceptions to this. Which undeniably there are. Doesn't alter the original premise that Australia is very much the norm in this regard, and it is only exceptions that allow security-free transit from another country.

 

[dajop]

. Conversely, it will be excellent for people out west/south west.

Yes, absolutely agree. Just because it's not for one person doesn't mean it's not any good for another! And if multiple passengers are travelling together (eg a family) that threshold will be different too vs single travellers, where savings might add up.

 

[jpp42]

The whole origin of my reasoning was that SYD suggested they couldn't think of any think of any countries that didn't re-screen passengers from another country, I merely pointed out that there were some exceptions to this. Which undeniably there are. Doesn't alter the original premise that Australia is very much the norm in this regard, and it is only exceptions that allow security-free transit from another country.

Another twist on this is the US customs preclearance - flights from Abu Dhabi to the USA arrive at domestic terminals with all customs and immigration procedures done at the point of origin at US-run facilities, as do many flights from Canada, Ireland, and certain Caribbean ports. This also includes security, as these passengers disembark directly into the destination terminal like any US domestic flight. However, there are additional security checks at the overseas preclearance facility beyond the standard airport ones - similar to all US bound flights.

 

[dairyfloss]

Yeh, I thought so before I posted, but I did check ... , $43 from T3 Sydney (So ~ $90 return) and $160 ($320 return) from location close to WSA airport. OK, big difference of $230, but not $400.

Depends if you book Uber Black / Premier or not... that's a quote of $425-265 each way from the northern beaches

 

[justinbrett]

Yes, but USA and Singapore are not part of that supranational entity. So there is obviously another explanation for that, perhaps a special circumstance due to confidence in procedures at the port and an onwards connecting flight.

But anyway didn't I say initially these were the "exceptions not the norm"? The whole origin of my reasoning was that SYD suggested they couldn't think of any think of any countries that didn't re-screen passengers from another country, I merely pointed out that there were some exceptions to this. Which undeniably there are. Doesn't alter the original premise that Australia is very much the norm in this regard, and it is only exceptions that allow security-free transit from another country.

It's more that other countries view the EU as a nation, and all of that would be covered in the Air Services Agreement treaties between the EU and countries like Singapore / US.

I just think you're confusing the topic talking about the EU which is a unique thing that no other group of countries is like.

Another twist on this is the US customs preclearance - flights from Abu Dhabi to the USA arrive at domestic terminals with all customs and immigration procedures done at the point of origin at US-run facilities, as do many flights from Canada, Ireland, and certain Caribbean ports. This also includes security, as these passengers disembark directly into the destination terminal like any US domestic flight. However, there are additional security checks at the overseas preclearance facility beyond the standard airport ones - similar to all US bound flights.

And that's what I said above - Canada and the US have no special agreement. It's just that Canada offers pre-clearance at many airports. If they don't offer pre-clearance, they get treated the same as if they came from Australia.

Again, talking about Canada in this context is completely off topic.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

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

Incorrect. LOT takes off from Terminal 2 along with the other Star Alliance carriers:

 

[dajop]

Whatever the reason there are exceptions. Doesn't really matter, still doesn't alter the fact that what Australia does is entirely normal, and I can't see any sort of exception anytime soon for allowing people to arrive from international, go through immigration and precede directly to a domestic flight, even if QF consolidated into a superterminal.

The only way of doing this would be segrating arrivals from "trusted countries*" (eg SIN, UK, USA) leading them to a separate immigration path to arrivals from countries without such agreements (DPS, MNL anyone?). Strike that, our strict customs and quarantine, mean collection and recheck of checked luggage would prevent that. So I think we're back to an automated people mover just making it easier to move from T1 to T2/3, which remove some of the present angst and unreliability involved in SYD transfers.

 

[justinbrett]

Whatever the reason there are exceptions. Doesn't really matter, still doesn't alter the fact that what Australia does is entirely normal, and I can't see any sort of exception anytime soon for allowing people to arrive from international, go through immigration and precede directly to a domestic flight, even if QF consolidated into a superterminal.

I can see the reverse however, where domestic arrivals can proceed directly to passport control and skip security.

That will require standardisation of screening between international and domestic terminals which is a fair way off but not impossible- we've made the start now with body scanners and the new x-ray scanners that don't require anything taken out.

Obviously the elephant in the room, how is WSA going to solve this any differently? The original suggestion was in the context that we need a new airport because SYD doesn't work. Well, you'll have the same problem at WSA.

 

[dajop]

That will require standardisation of screening between international and domestic terminals which is a fair way off but not impossible- we've made the start now with body scanners and the new x-ray scanners that don't require anything taken out.

Also would require change in LAGs restrictions (I.e. impose international restrictions on domestic). Airports and LCCs would love it - more opportunity to sell beverages. Passengers not so much.

 

[justinbrett]

Also would require change in LAGs restrictions (I.e. impose international restrictions on domestic). Airports and LCCs would love it - more opportunity to sell beverages. Passengers not so much.

Not really, the world is moving the other direction on this.

https://www.escape.com.au/travel-advice/annoying-luggage-rule-soon-to-be-scrapped/news-story/efd1270cb386b7a9583229a3807f8c54

 

[jrfsp]

Also would require change in LAGs restrictions (I.e. impose international restrictions on domestic). Airports and LCCs would love it - more opportunity to sell beverages. Passengers not so much.

Not only that but would likely require full ID checks etc, a longer cut off time for domestic check in. I cant see that being too popular for those flying domestically.

 

[justinbrett]

Not only that but would likely require full ID checks etc, a longer cut off time for domestic check in. I cant see that being too popular for those flying domestically.

AFP has been pushing for this for years. I actually think it’s laughable that we don’t do it already.

It may not be required though because pax would go through passport control prior to entering the international terminal.

 

[SYD]

WSI has been announced.

Three-letter code puts Western Sydney International on global radar

The assignment of the three-letter airport code ‘WSI’ for Western Sydney International (Nancy Bird-Walton) Airport places the proj

minister.infrastructure.gov.au

 

[justinbrett]

WSI has been announced.

Three-letter code puts Western Sydney International on global radar

The assignment of the three-letter airport code ‘WSI’ for Western Sydney International (Nancy Bird-Walton) Airport places the proj

minister.infrastructure.gov.au

Contravenes a number of conventions to put the descriptor before the main city name - but whatever

Maybe it will be called Sydney (Western Sydney)?

 

[SYD]

Contravenes a number of conventions to put the descriptor before the main city name - but whatever

Maybe it will be called Sydney (Western Sydney)?

Apparently “Western Sydney”….

Another thread to discuss the pros and cons.

WSI for Western Sydney Airport

Or technically Western Sydney International Nancy-Bird Walton Airport. IATA has issued a provisional code of WSI. Previously SWZ had been though of as likely and even appeared on Google maps for a while. Just hope the US baggage handlers don't confuse it for MSI (New Orleans)

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au

 

[RooFlyer]

Contravenes a number of conventions to put the descriptor before the main city name - but whatever

Maybe it will be called Sydney (Western Sydney)?

I went looking for examples where the code reflects the 'name' of the airport' versus the location In this case, Nancy Bird Walton.

Very few - the most obvious one - John Fitzgerald Kennedy, JFK; nearby I found Mayor Fiorello La Guardia, LGA.; maybe Washington Dulles - IAD

Also Paris Charles De Galle CDG

Were these exceptions due to strong representations from the country in involved? Its apparently not convention or generally allowed.