Article: Fees rejig hit airlines for $5m

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by Yada Yada, Dec 13, 2005.

Thread Status:
Due to inactivity, this thread is no longer open for new posts. You can still join the conversation by posting to an open thread or starting a new one. Alternatively, please contact a Moderator if you have new information you wish to be added to this thread.
  1. Claim your free gift valued at $39.95 when you take the Australian Frequent Flyer's quick user survey. More...

  1. Yada Yada

    Yada Yada Established Member

    Dec 6, 2004
    Registered Users don't see this and have the option of removing all other advertisements.  Register HERE
  2. JohnK

    JohnK Veteran Member

    Mar 22, 2005
    BNE, SYD and CNX
    Justs shows how much influence Qantas still has.
  3. Yada Yada

    Yada Yada Established Member

    Dec 6, 2004
    Yes indeed. They've been busted, again. But I guess they will continue to try to eliminate their competition, just as happened with YM back in the 1990's. I always felt pissed off at AN more than anyone for that. :(
  4. NM


    Aug 27, 2004
    Flight Map:
    View my flight map
    The system whereby the airlines pay based on the max registered take-off weight of the aircraft resulted in some strange compliance processes by airlines. QF reduced the registered MGTW of some of their aircraft (mainly 767-338) that are used primarily for domestic ops in order to reduce the fees. The fee was based on the registered MGTW as listed on the aircraft compliance plate (usually installed in the cockpit) and not the actual take-off weight of the aircraft. So if the aircraft was operating below its MGTW, as is the case with domestic ops for 767's due to the light fuel load, they still pay the fees for the full MGTW.

    So on aircraft that would be used sometimes for long-haul international ops (and hence needing the full MGTW), and sometimes for short-haul domestic ops, they would actually replace the compliance plate so that it was "registered" with a lower weight for the domestic ops and hence paying a lower fee.

    I think a per-passenger fee is more realistic and fairer, rather than a fee based on aircraft weight. There is no way I can believe the SACL's costs are in greatly impacted by the registered MGTW of an aircraft, but are more proportional to the number of passengers passing through the airport.

    So I understand why QF wanted the system changes. It was not reflective of the the airport's cost structure, and discriminated against them because they used aircraft that were bought initially for long-haul international ops (767-200ER, 767-300ER) and hence had registered MGTW significantly higher than needed for the short-haul domestic ops.

    However, the facts are that the new system resulted in a significant change in the balance of how much each airline pays in fees, and that meant DJ's fees went up a lot more than QF's did.

Share This Page