Trans-Tasman routes to become "domestic"

[isbrodie1]

Well really it would make more sense for NZ to take up the option granted to them in the Australian Constitution and become a state

Then you would have a State team beating the Country in Rugby and Cricket

 

[anat0l]

Then you would have a State team beating the Country in Rugby and Cricket

Them's fighting words. :mrgreen:

 

[comint]

OK, I’m thinking about this way too much. But, the more I do, the more I have to concede arriving into international terminals is likely.

If we discount the European Schengen Visa system, which I think would be the optimum choice (domestic-domestic). As it could lead to slashing of vast numbers of public service jobs, and huge saving for tax payers on both sides of the Tasman; it won’t.

So, we turn to the US pre-clearance system, which works well as all arrivals onto US soil are processed for entry, regardless of whether they are connecting on internationally. (Unlike here, where International connections are security screened but don’t actually arrive into Australia. But, as an “end of the line” location, most people taking advantage of this would be heading on to NZ anyway…)

So, if we don’t fully adopt the US system, we need to adapt it. Thus, why is in not feasible for completely pre-cleared arrivals from NZ to walk UP the aerobridges in our major international terminals, and onto the departures level. (As all the people on the departures level have been cleared to AU standards, either in NZ or AU, I see little issue.) They then move through duty free, and head out a side channel past security and immigration. (Presumably an ID, NZ BP and DF check would be conducted as they exited, which is an extra cost, but so much smaller than previously guessed for using the “D” for duplication system.)

International airports would have to put baggage reclaim facilities landside, but the cost of this could be offset (to their bottom line) by the federal government NOT removing 20%(?) of their incoming customer base to terminals where they can’t manage duty free on arrival.

I also recognise that, security screening at International terminals is duplicated. i.e. if flying QF as an international service from MEL-SYD-SFO, you are security screened to AU standards in MEL, and then again in SYD (to the same standards) before you can enter the secured departure area. I assume that this is only done, due connecting passengers entering the non-sterile arrivals level.

 

[JohnK]

Why do people have an issue with travelling from the international terminal. Is it the hassle of connecting from domestic/international or vice versa?

One of the perks of flying to/from New Zealand is the purchase of duty free goods. I cannot see duty free stores opening up in domestic terminals just for flights to/from New Zealand.

 

[Maca44]

Why do people have an issue with travelling from the international terminal. Is it the hassle of connecting from domestic/international or vice versa?

One of the perks of flying to/from New Zealand is the purchase of duty free goods. I cannot see duty free stores opening up in domestic terminals just for flights to/from New Zealand.

If this goes ahead, then it would not matter which terminal the flights depart from, however, with it being a domestic flight pax are not entitled to purchase/take duty free out of the country.

As someone mentioned before, and I agree, the only problem I can see is quarantine procedures.

 

[JohnK]

If this goes ahead, then it would not matter which terminal the flights depart from, however, with it being a domestic flight pax are not entitled to purchase/take duty free out of the country.

Good point. The article mentions speeding up immigration, customs and quarantine but no mention of duty free.

As I mentioned earlier for me duty free is one of the perks of travelling to New Zealand. I can easily get $120+ value out of duty free tobacco and alcohol coming back into Australia. I can't see airfares dropping that much and speeding up processing time by 5-10 minutes is irrelevant to me.

Once you look at something a little more closely it does not appear as rosy as you first thought it would be....

 

[Adelaide_Matthew]

The article says it has not been decided if the flights would be fully or partially cleared.

If partially, they would have to arrive into international terminals. If they're still going to arrive into international, I cannot see the advantage. A/NZ citizens would have stamps equivalent to the current D, but customs must remain the same if they are mixed with non-D passengers.

If fully, they could arrive into domestic terminals. This surely is the only way it could be of value?

This system works well in the Canada/US context - it makes arrival so much better - go straight to baggage on arrival then out, or connect like ordinary domestic flights.

There are effectively 3 different systems at airports like YVR: a domestic one, a US-bound one, and an international one. Each one is separate/sterile (although with the ability to switch gates from one side to the other). Domestic arrivals are simply herded into a secure corridor that runs above/through the US-cleared zone of departing passengers.

Adapting to Australia/NZ is more difficult to predict.

Airlines would not want to shift empty planes between terminals, so we can rule out arriving into domestic terminals but leaving from internationals.

It seems to me that the greatest advantage would be to get A/NZ flights OUT of overcrowded international terminals like SYD. (Yes, I don't have F lounge access.) How many of us have arrived into SYD off an international flight and waited a substantial time for a gate?

This can only work if (1) flights are FULLY cleared for domestic arrival and (2) recipient domestic terminals are reconfigured to have secure A/NZ-cleared areas for departing passengers.

If the Canada/US experience is anything to go by, there would still be some duty free and shopping in the A/NZ terminal, but not much.

One area of saving not yet mentioned is reducing re-handling of bags at INT - rather than clearing customs and then re-checking as now, once you clear customs in the departure airport you wouldn't see the bag until your distination.

Who wins?
Passengers - absolutely: arrival and transfer are much easier
QF/JQ/DJ - for sure (each in different ways admittedly): transfer is much easier e.g. every NZ passenger with a connecting flight at SYD, rather than having to re-check and be bussed, would walk and bags would transfer as normal for domestic.

Who loses?
Passengers - lounge arrangements might be a problem (for F lounge guests anyway)
Non-QF/JQ/DJ carriers: possibly - depends if they stay at international terminals, or have to move to shared A/NZ zone terminals
If it's compulsory, every carrier operating A-NZ-elsewhere flights (including QF) - if the A-NZ sector arrives domestic, ALL passengers on that sector have to be admitted to NZ, which eliminates transit (everyone on the connecting flight needs a NZ transit visa or waiver) and (even if bags can be through-checked) adds transferring terminals and clearing NZ immigration.

Of course, this also involves BIG capital investments in new terminal infrastructure (including new lounges for the A/NZ airside areas). I really wonder whether the savings involved justify significant capital projects at every A/NZ airport - offhand I can think of ADL, MEL, SYD, BNE, CNS, OOL, AKL, WLG, CHC, ZQN.

Now, perhaps not every airport and airline would do this, maybe it would only be the busiest routes for the busiest carriers that would bother (I have no idea what they are, but e.g. SYD/AKL for QF would probably be one, MEL/AKL for all but the LAX flight (at the risk of causing confusion for passengers) etc).

So, much potential, but I think also many logistical questions to be sorted out yet.

 

[Maca44]

Also, do pax arriving into AKL from say LAX have to clear customs and/or immigration there before travelling to SYD/MEL as this would be their first point of call from an internation flight, and then they would transfer to a domestic flight for the AKL -SYD/MEL leg. This would create additional problems for New Zealand.

 

[taswegian77]

as long as I still get F lounge access when traveling to AKL in either SYD or MEL i do not care. Clearing immigration/customs etc is a fact of life. I am sure that AU ports will always ensure they have their bio measures strictly enforced to ensure our country is protected. otherwise they would need to do it all in NZ which appears extra cost. We cannot afford disease to enter AU.

 

[pauly7]

We cannot afford disease to enter AU.

I'm sure NZ have the same position on disease entering their country

 

[anat0l]

I'm sure NZ have the same position on disease entering their country

If you've ever been benched in AKL customs before, you'll know they're more cough than we are.

 

[Flashback]

If you've ever been benched in AKL customs before, you'll know they're more cough than we are.

Speaking from experience?

 

[anat0l]

Speaking from experience?

How'd you guess? :mrgreen:

I think I kinda fit the "suspicious profile" too - Asian, uni student, not too much money to splash around, didn't know anyone who lived in NZ. But all I had was a box of chocolates, a bottle of wine and a tiny bottle of Bailey's liqueur. Then they gave me the 3rd degree plus profile questioning. I think they were disappointed when they had to let me go.

 

[Flashback]

How'd you guess? :mrgreen:

I think I kinda fit the "suspicious profile" too - Asian, uni student, not too much money to splash around, didn't know anyone who lived in NZ. But all I had was a box of chocolates, a bottle of wine and a tiny bottle of Bailey's liqueur. Then they gave me the 3rd degree plus profile questioning. I think they were disappointed when they had to let me go.

The uh... "Coca cola" shirt you were wearing probably didn't help, right? :mrgreen:

 

[JohnK]

If you've ever been benched in AKL customs before, you'll know they're more cough than we are.

A couple of years ago I was pulled over in AKL before I even got to immigration/passport control. There was 2 of them and the long line of questions started after asking for my passport.

Why are you doing in New Zealand? I am here on holiday.
How long are you staying in New Zealand? I will be here for 7 days.
Where are you going? Christchurch.
Where did you come from? Sydney.
What are you doing in Auckland? In-transit on my way to Christchurch.
Why didn't you go SYD-CHC directly? I could not find availability on the direct flight but this routing is cheaper and I get more FF points. Don't start to explain status, status runs and FF programs to them.
Are you alone? No I am meeting a friend in Christchurch.
Where is he now? He is flying SYD-AKL-CHC with Air New Zealand.
Why aren't you flying together? Because I want to fly Qantas and he had FF points with SQ and got award flights with Air New Zealand.
What are you doing in Christchurch? We are hiring a car, staying there for a few days and then driving up to Auckland and departing from there....

This went on and on and sometimes repeating the same questions. Glad I was able to waste their time....

 

[Nigelinoz]

But all I had was a box of chocolates, a bottle of wine and a tiny bottle of Bailey's liqueur

Serves you right then, it's amazing the sort of thing people try and take into some countries.

 

[Mwenenzi]

From NZ Hearld of 13 March

A common border for Australia and New Zealand - with travel between the two countries treated as domestic, as in Europe - has again been mooted. But as welcome as that would be, there are too many obstacles for it to happen any time soon.

So attention has shifted to the simpler procedure of pre-clearance, under which travellers would undergo all customs, immigration, biosecurity and physical security checks before departure across the Tasman, and then enter freely on arrival. But this will also require negotiating through a minefield.
..
..

Financial considerations aside, biosecurity and immigration remain significant obstacles today. In particular, whereas New Zealand has visa-free arrangements with 57 countries, Australia requires a visa from all visitors except New Zealand passport-holder
..

 

[Bundy Bear]

From NZ Hearld of 13 March

Looks like we won't loose F lounge benefits for those passengers traveling to NZ for a while yet.

I have been lucky when I have traveled to New Zealand; I guess I have relatives there. The worst questioning I got was;
How long are you in New Zealand for? 3 days.
Where is all bags? I am only here for 3 days.

 

[Harpoon]

Hi,

I'm looking at flying to NZ in Feb 2010. Do people think this new domestic arrangement will be brought in before then?

Given prices should drop by up to 30%, do you think it's worth waiting to book flights and see how it pans out?

Is there any ETA on this deal and/or how long would it take to implement the changes?

 

[serfty]

You can be rest assured that this is unlikely to happen before February 2011, let alone February 2010.

Even if it did happen, inclusive fares will not drop by 30% -the airline are more likely to absorb this into their revenue streams.

Currently r/t coach fares SYD-AKL-SYD start from around around $370 on QF and $345 on NZ.

(AKL-SYD-AKL are NZ$460 [~AUD360] on both QF & NZ)