And yet if it was specialised equipment that can only be profitably used by a few companies surely it is reasonable to expect them to cover part of the cost? Naturally the companies paying/contributing towards that equipment should reap the greatest benefits from its implementation.
But this is an infrastructure which is:
- Used by every airline and at fair access (not restricted)
- Essential to the continued operation of the airport (not to the enhancement of operations of an airline or a set of airlines)
- Substantially a benefit reaped by the airport itself and indirectly its non-airline partners and stakeholders (i.e. BAC, governments, etc.)
What if Qantas decided to lower the number of flights so that it was unprofitable to actually build the new runway?
That would be completely counterproductive for Qantas to do. This is not like the great grounding a few years ago - it won't achieve the same effect, even if QF move all their operations to OOL. BAC know they have all the airlines in a corner so they are taking the most greedy path they can to unreasonable defray significant portions of the risk for essential infrastructure.
It could be argued that asking them to stump up some money now is an assurance that they will maintain/increase their current usage thus ensuring ongoing income for the airport which is necessary for their continued success.
I see where you're coming from but the counter is that they will raise fees and charges anyway after the runway is built. They are using multiple instruments with the same effect to coerce the same outcome. That's ridiculous.
I can see both sides here and my above comment is intended to further the polemic rather than support either side.
I see where you're getting at and it does explain the other side. Unfortunately, I see the other side (BAC) as being quite unreasonable and unethical in this regard.
VA's attitude is not explicitly stated in the article.
What a great headline, eh? "BAC and VA reach agreement to
enhance customer experience". I think the part which has me chuckling the most is
Ongoing runway access for the next 10 years
What is this - as if an airline will invest in operations at an airport and will not get access to the runway as part of the minimum deal.
Unless the BAC are planning to charge per runway in the future, i.e. your runway charge will be $x for the old one, $y for the new one or you can access both for the discounted price of $z. Sheesh........
Another key here is that everyone should have access to the new runway (in fact, both runways) in a fair manner, i.e. no preferential treatment. It should be all part of whatever BAC charges the airlines to use Brisbane Airport. Sure, some airlines have better fit outs at the terminals (i.e. for lounges, dedicated check-in areas, etc.), but these are for the benefit of specific airlines (with little primary gain to BAC) and so of course it makes sense for the airlines to foot the bill for these kinds of improvements.
If VA want to throw more money at BAC to support runway development, that is their prerogative. It is not wrong for them to do so, but it should be made clear that they should never be compelled to do so. It would also not be
prima facie right to grant VA any exclusive rights or extraordinary rights (to the significant detriment of other airlines) to BAC facilities - including the new runway - just because of this gesture. (I know the latter is extremely difficult to police but it is still not right). A similar example is EK throwing money at PER in order to accelerate the developments at that airport to support A380 operations.
I wonder if BAC negotiated any money out of the airlines to pay for the new carparks they built. I mean, the airlines don't exactly use them much (except maybe for their employees), but they do support the pax who use the airlines at the airports, so they could've argued it that way, I mean.... (OK, I'll stop being facetious now.....)
