CBR stoush with QF

[Quickstatus]

Originally from @Melburnian1 “Airlines Delays and Cancelations” thread and originally raised by @Flyerqf

Not sure if it was mentioned but last night QF28 diverted to CBR - aircraft was VH-OJU.

Slightly newsworthy given CBR recent press that they didn’t want to take QF diversions.

Kenyans now enter the fray of Qantas scrap with Canberra Airport

Some commentary further on in the D&C thread until at least #8010.

 

[Strategic Aviation]

The incident came to light as a result of the matter of cancellations and subsequent CBR/QF interactions.

Flights between Canberra and Sydney most likely to be cancelled, new data shows

Canberra Airport asks federal government for help on cancelled Sydney flights

Federal government won't intervene on Canberra to Sydney flight cancellations

Canberra to Sydney flight cancellations remained high in November

Available seats on Canberra to Sydney flights drop by 5 per cent

Canberra flight cancellations drop, but Labor wants action

Canberra Airport concerned with drop in capital to Sydney flights

Qantas brands Canberra Airport incentive scheme a 'stunt'

Qantas hits back at aggressive Canberra Airport tactics

For some reason there was no escalation with VA, despite VA having worse % cancellation statistics (10.5 to 10.9) than QF (6.6 to 6.8) during the original media reporting.

 

[oz_mark]

The incident came to light as a result of the matter of cancellations and subsequent CBR/QF interactions.

For some reason there was no escalation with VA, despite VA having worse % cancellation statistics (10.5 to 10.9) than QF (6.6 to 6.8) during the original media reporting.

The issue with Qantas was that they didn't have an agreement in place with CBR about handling diversions. That, I understand, has now been resolved and an agreement in place.

VA presumably have had an agreement in place, or if not, have chosen not to go public about it.

 

[Quickstatus]

What would that agreement entail.

Would any airline considering CBR as an alternate need such an agreement.

Do all such airlines have one?.

 

[davidj]

What would that agreement entail.

It's simply around the fee structure and having CBR on standby for such an event from QFA. Ie (example) QFA pays $5k/month flat fee to facilitate a diversion. If no agreement is in place QFA needs to pay $18k by credit card before the plane is able to depart.

 

[Strategic Aviation]

The issue with Qantas was that they didn't have an agreement in place with CBR about handling diversions. That, I understand, has now been resolved and an agreement in place.

An agreement was signed after the March 2017 incident, but supposedly there had previously been one between July 2008 and November 2014.

Canberra Airport calls Qantas 737 ransom claim "absolute baloney" - Australian Aviation

Do all such airlines have one?.

Above link indicates they have agreements "with a number of airlines".

 

[Quickstatus]

I’m still skeptical.

How is an agreement going to help when an influx of diverting aircraft is coming your way. At some point, the last resort of parking an aircraft on the runway may still be required agreement or not when there is no more room. Before the new agreement QF unplanned diversions cause dangerous conditions at the airport but with the new agreement it’s no longer a danger?. It’s still the same airport with the same hard area footprint

Are they going to say “no agreement no diversion rights”. All it takes is for the pilots to declare an emergency, then what is CBR going to do?. Say “sorry there is no contract go elsewhere?.

I only see a monopoly flexing its muscle

 

[Strategic Aviation]

Coincidentally, Qantas stoush with Canberra Airport singled out in government review.

An extraordinary stoush between Qantas and Canberra Airport has been singled out in a Productivity Commission report as a reason why airport regulation needs to be examined.

It has published a new issues paper after Treasurer Scott Morrison asked it to investigate the economics of airport regulation in Australia.

The Productivity Commission said other airlines had made similar complaints, although with less “rhetorical flourish” than Mr Joyce’s Somali comparison.

It also said both airlines and airports needed to be more transparent with their negotiating positions.

“The commission has found in recent inquiries an increasing reluctance of parties to expose information that may determine a matter, due to commercial-in-confidence claims," it said.

“Submitters should consider that position very closely.”

The commission last reviewed Australian airport regulation in 2012, although that review only focused on major gateway airports and not smaller hubs such as Canberra.

Submissions close in early September and more information can be found on the Productivity Commission’s website.

 

[jb747]

From a pilot's point of view, I could not care less who has an agreement with whom. If I need to go somewhere that was unplanned, I will take the safest course of action. I don't care if it is inconvenient for someone on the ground. There are major safety ramifications in this sort of behaviour from an airport.

I do know of one airport that was happily taking the money to be an available diversion...but at which ATC would not, under any circumstances, accept a wide body diversion.

 

[Quickstatus]

CBR is reported to say worst come to worst they would park an aircraft/obstacle on the runway if the airport can’t handle anymore. Not a good look if someone has an emergency like fuel

I don’t get how an agreement would improve management of an airport when it comes to unplanned diversions.

@jb747 have you ever had to use your CC to facilitate the movement of an aircraft under your control? A few extra points I suppose assuming there was enough credit in the card

 

[odysseus]

I’m still skeptical.

How is an agreement going to help when an influx of diverting aircraft is coming your way. At some point, the last resort of parking an aircraft on the runway may still be required agreement or not when there is no more room. Before the new agreement QF unplanned diversions cause dangerous conditions at the airport but with the new agreement it’s no longer a danger?. It’s still the same airport with the same hard area footprint

Are they going to say “no agreement no diversion rights”. All it takes is for the pilots to declare an emergency, then what is CBR going to do?. Say “sorry there is no contract go elsewhere?.

I only see a monopoly flexing its muscle

How it helps is that they appear to assert there are unwarranted diversions taking place. There's no claim that they can't or won't handle legitimate emergencies.

The agreement can put for example a sliding scale of charges based on frequency, time of day, whatever is at issue. That agreement means both sides have accepted that as reasonable. If they're at the higher end, it's obviously going to be financially disadvantageous for Qantas to go up to that level.

Whereas if there is no agreement, it's only the standard costs, and if there are 'penalties' for excessive numbers than you get public disputes, with people weighing in as happened here...

 

[Quickstatus]

I’ve never heard of an unwarranted diversion. What’s that?.

Who is to judge whether a diversion is unwarranted or unnecessary?

This is all about money and a monopoly (CBR) flexing its muscle
As in pay a contracted price each month whether or not you actually do a wide body divert, or we will charge an arm and leg Somali style each time you do divert without prior agreement

 

[dk4]

Like all airport parking, it is often better to prepay (in this case take the monthly "just-in-case" plan), than pay the casual user rate.

 

[Quickstatus]

It’s more like pay a monthly fee to the airport on the off chance you need to park there. And by the way we will make it really expensive if you don’t.

 

[UP4014]

An out of course landing should reflect a bit of reality (sure a premium forl staff call outs etc) not an opportunity to price gouge your biggest customer.

 

[kevrosmith]

Airports don't run around with credit card payment machines expecting payment-before-departure for flights. Parking charges are rarely charged for RPT services and most airports receive Landing/Departure records from Airservices Australia (ASA) for billing purposes, so Invoices can be issued later. Basically, if any aircraft lands at an airport there's an implicit confirmation of agreement with the published T&Cs of an airport, similar to opening the shrink wrap of a box of software implies agreement to the T&Cs. Airports have commercially published rates for RPT services and ad hoc/itinerant landings and parking charges etc, but have extensive Airline Service Agreements with airlines. This just sounds like QF throwing its weight around demanding a better deal... it does that often with all the major airports. People that think Airports have an exclusive monopoly over determining charges are not aware of the extensive commercial negotiations that often take months and years to complete, and airlines have much more weight and sway over determining what they pay than they portray in the media. Bleating-sheep syndrome....

 

[UP4014]

Airports don't run around with credit card payment machines expecting payment-before-departure for flights. Parking charges are rarely charged for RPT services and most airports receive Landing/Departure records from Airservices Australia (ASA) for billing purposes, so Invoices can be issued later. Basically, if any aircraft lands at an airport there's an implicit confirmation of agreement with the published T&Cs of an airport, similar to opening the shrink wrap of a box of software implies agreement to the T&Cs. Airports have commercially published rates for RPT services and ad hoc/itinerant landings and parking charges etc, but have extensive Airline Service Agreements with airlines. This just sounds like QF throwing its weight around demanding a better deal... it does that often with all the major airports. People that think Airports have an exclusive monopoly over determining charges are not aware of the extensive commercial negotiations that often take months and years to complete, and airlines have much more weight and sway over determining what they pay than they portray in the media. Bleating-sheep syndrome....

Ever flown on some lower level airlines in lower level parts of the world....handing the hat around the passenger cabin for money for airport fees, fuel or a part. So I'd have to disagree with your first comment.

Air France asks passengers for whip-round to pay for fuel after emergency stop in Damascus

Grounded passengers forced to pay £24,000 airline fees

 

[kevrosmith]

Ever flown on some lower level airlines in lower level parts of the world....handing the hat around the passenger cabin for money for airport fees, fuel or a part. So I'd have to disagree with your first comment.

Air France asks passengers for whip-round to pay for fuel after emergency stop in Damascus

Grounded passengers forced to pay £24,000 airline fees

My comments are in relation to Australian airports.

 

[Quickstatus]

People that think Airports have an exclusive monopoly over determining charges are not aware of the extensive commercial negotiations that often take months and years to complete, and airlines have much more weight and sway over determining what they pay than they portray in the media. Bleating-sheep syndrome....

Of course they are acting as a monopoly.
An airport does not necessarily compete with others when there is a diversion. There are only so many places a wide body can land refuel and resume, and if one is unsuitable due to whatever reason, then there often is no choice.

 

[jb747]

have you ever had to use your CC to facilitate the movement of an aircraft under your control? A few extra points I suppose assuming there was enough credit in the card

Not a chance of me using my card. There are mechanisms for sorting this sort of stuff out. Amazing how it works everywhere else in the world....