Sydney Airport scraps plans for alliance-based mega-terminals

[markis10]

While a bank owns SYD nothing will ever happen that does not benefit the profits of SACL - plain and simple.

A bank does not own SACL though!

 

[anat0l]

Why is everyone aware of the easiest solution for SYD's airport terminal transit (and probably city <-> airport transit) sitting right here, posting on this forum, instead of in Sydney somewhere making a couple of million:?:

For what it's worth, the underground monorail sounds like a great idea, though I wonder how much it costs to bore underground. Not to mention SACL will probably lobby the government to increase the SYD charge.

The other thing too is that you'd probably need a couple of monorail tracks or so, since one has to be airside and one needs to be landside. Not to mention a redundancy as well. They could always scrap the airside transit option, but no one would like that.


Back on topic, I don't see how they can effectively reorganise the terminals any different to what was proposed. Almost any other arrangement would be illogical IMO. Though, yes, we have come to expect that of SACL (that said, now they are all grinning at themselves that they don't have to find the capital to fund the original master plan).

 

[dajop]

The other thing too is that you'd probably need a couple of monorail tracks or so, since one has to be airside and one needs to be landside. Not to mention a redundancy as well. They could always scrap the airside transit option, but no one would like that.

It's not really airside anyway, in the true sense. Looking just at the QF "airside" services, DOM->INTL you go FROM airside TO landside. INTL ->DOM you start landside, go through security and then do airside transfer, which makes sense due to limited frequency of buses. If you there were more frequent transfers on a people mover, it would probably be OK just to do security upon reaching DOM. Of course the other solution is to run two carriages - one for airside and one for landside.

Of course if going under the runway, it probably may well be deemed necessary to do security at both ends anyway.

And to pay for it all 1) Have loads of shops and food outlets in the waiting area. 2) Have electronics vending machines on board. 3) Charge for it :!:

 

[pauly7]

I forsee the QF hangers moving to the new infield position as proposed.
New QF arm at the T3 domestic replacing the hangers. JQ moves to T3, freeing up space for DJ/TT in T2.

Very selfishly I like JQ being kept over in the budget terminal T2 with all the other riff raff Wouldn't mind the other QF Link flights being brought over to T3 though!

(I do though see the grim reality is that JQ will move over to an expanded QF Group T3 at some point though... )