Western Sydney Airport (WSI) Discussion

[Beano]

I

The Government must urgently designate the airport as a secondary airport because non “open skies” countries’ airlines will not fly there if they have a choice between it and SYD. Having a single terminal and no curfew would mean it would be a better travel experience for passengers switching from domestic to international and vice versa unlike SYD and BNE.

I would agree about Int to Dom transfer. I prefer to go to MEL for transfer from WLG if travelling west or to DRW.

 

[SYD]

I would agree about Int to Dom transfer. I prefer to go to MEL for transfer from WLG if travelling west or to DRW.

As mentioned earlier, QF have been proposing for years to consolidate their ops at SYD T2/T3 to remove the Dom/Int “transfer” bunfight. The SYD owners have pushed back but might rethink….

 

[JU581]

And Virgin fought tooth and nail to stop them because they were meant to move to T1 - which they argued would make them uncompetitive

 

[SYD]

And Virgin fought tooth and nail to stop them because they were meant to move to T1 - which they argued would make them uncompetitive

Despite their Federated partners all being there….

Maybe they could take over the existing QF F lounge as the VA lounge…

 

[elanshin]

The Government must urgently designate the airport as a secondary airport because non “open skies” countries’ airlines will not fly there if they have a choice between it and SYD. Having a single terminal and no curfew would mean it would be a better travel experience for passengers switching from domestic to international and vice versa unlike SYD and BNE.

I dont see any other airline besides QR that this would apply to right now and QR's gotten around all the limitation problems by buying VA (they doubled their capacity basically).

 

[moa999]

I'd also add whilst I expect there to initially be more LCC flights at WSI airport, this isn't an LCC terminal.

It's not a basic shed, it's first class expensive facilities and aerobridges and after any initial subsidies run out think costs for the airlines will be similar to SYD.

Airline will fly to WSI for the ability to undertake back of clock ops in the curfew, and because flying to/ from there is more attractive for a portion of Sydney and NSW passengers (taxi fare, time, maybe parking fees) than SYD.

 

[SYD]

I dont see any other airline besides QR that this would apply to right now and QR's gotten around all the limitation problems by buying VA (they doubled their capacity basically).

Not totally sure but starters would be SQ (and Scoot), CX, EK, DL, PR, TK…?

QR might consider it despite the VA shotgun.

 

[dajop]

Avalon has Geelong! Less than 30 minutes away.

Yes it does. But I think the number of people in Melbourne Metropolitan Area that are close to AVV than to MEL, is very small due to the relative location of the two airports (one SW of Melbourne, the other NW). It's only a few suburbs in the City of Wyndham (Werribee, Point Cook, Wyndham Vale, part of Hoppers Crossing) that are closer to AVV. Probably 300K in Geelong/Surf Coast/Bellarine and another 100K or so in the City of Wyndham. For Western Sydney it's over million. An equivalent location for WSI in Melbourne would be somewhere out Pakenham/Cranbourne way - the opposite side of the city to MEL.

 

[RooFlyer]

The issue woukd be if there is enough business in the WSI to merit airlines using it and whether any reduced flight costs plus time and cost to travel to Sydney merit passengers using WSI.
PS MEL is nominally about 30 minutes by car from the CBD.

you are still arguing from the point of view of the airport now. It’s probably going to be be one or two decades before it reaches its potential.

The new Airport will attract new infrastructure and businesses, not just service whatever happens to be there now.

But from the first flight, WSI will have an advantage over SYD that SYD will never overcome. WSI curfew free. When you talk about distance from WSI to the CBD, how about when a plane can’t land because of curfew and it goes back to Brisbane or Melbourne?

 

[33kft]

and another 100K or so in the City of Wyndham

Ha, there's almost 70K alone in Point Cook. There's about 350K people in Wyndham today, about the same number in Geelong, so probably 700K in the surrounding regions, but then there's Hobson's Bay and up through the inner west, so the catchment area is > 1m, not sure what the actual figure is but it's not 400K as you're suggesting.

Yes there would be a line at the border of Wyndham Council where there's no longer closer proximity to Avalon than Tullamarine, but having done both of those drives many times, there is about 2/3 of the day where the drive would be faster to Avalon despite the extra distance. If there were more services there, I'd dispute the suggestion that many in the west would necessarily choose to go to Tulla when you consider the benefits in terms of travel time and parking.

Hell, they could pretty easily have airport rail there if that were a priority, but obviously it isn't because it's severely underutilised.

 

[dajop]

Ha, there's almost 70K alone in Point Cook. There's about 350K people in Wyndham today, about the same number in Geelong, so probably 700K in the surrounding regions, but then there's Hobson's Bay and up through the inner west, so the catchment area is > 1m, not sure what the actual figure is but it's not 400K as you're suggesting

Sure, the overall potential catchment area could be that big, but in terms of convenience - I was more looking at the population that is closer to AVV than MEL, which isn't that significant.

A big chunk of the City of Wyndham is either actually closer to MEL (such as Williams Landing, Truganina) or more or less the same distance (such as Hoppers, Tarneit, Point Cook) and MEL has the advantage in destinations and frequencies. Werribee and Wyndham Vale are however definitely closer to AVV.

In summary, what I'm really saying it's big disadvantage is that it doesn't really have a compelling enough time advantage over MEL for basically the entire Melbourne metro area (it does for Geelong though, they should just give it the code GEX and rename it Geelong/Surf Coast Airport). WSI probably won't have that same problem as there are chunks of Sydney were it will take a lot longer to get to SYD than WSI.

As an aside shame there isn't at least a shuttle from Lara to the airport though, trains run stop there every 20 mins for a big part of the day.

 

[JU581]

The other thing to remember is that a lot of global airlines have multiple waves at their hubs. At the moment we get access to 1 or 2 out of 4. SYD’s curfew means EK and QR cannot schedule a 2am or 3am departure for example. Also WSI would enable late arrivals from Perth which now cannot be done with the latest departure from PER being around 4pm.

 

[Aeryn]

I'd also add whilst I expect there to initially be more LCC flights at WSI airport, this isn't an LCC terminal.

It's not a basic shed, it's first class expensive facilities and aerobridges and after any initial subsidies run out think costs for the airlines will be similar to SYD.

Plenty of LCC use aerobridges at many airports around the world. Its not the airport facilities or lack there off that attract the LCCs, its the less convenient location that enables them to negotiate lower fees than at more centrally located alternatives for which there is greater demand.

Noting I've taken many a Southwest flight and they have always used aerobridges. And plenty of Full Service Airlines use remote stands /stairs including BA at LHR and JAL at HND.

and because flying to/ from there is more attractive for a portion of Sydney and NSW passengers (taxi fare, time, maybe parking fees) than SYD.

Right now that portion is smaller than the portion who can get to SYD for less and from a time perspective that extra 50kms in traffic will be well over an hour more in time.

So yes great for some but equally very concerning for those for whom WSI will be a nightmare to get to if WSI should manage at any point to snag exclusivity for any full service airline or specific destination.

But from the first flight, WSI will have an advantage over SYD that SYD will never overcome. WSI curfew free.

That is the 'current plan' but I would not be at all surprised if that changes. There are already residents under the WSI flight path mobilising to request there be a curfew; that movement will gain more momentum once the start to experience aircraft noise.

Of course I also think curfew at SYD should be removed.

 

[Beano]

Plenty of LCC use aerobridges at many airports around the world. Its not the airport facilities or lack there off that attract the LCCs, its the less convenient location that enables them to negotiate lower fees that more centrally located alternatives for which there is greater demand.

Noting I've taken many a Southwest flight and they have always used aerobridges. And plenty of Full Service Airlines use remote stands /stairs including BA at LHR and JAL at HND.



Right now that portion is smaller than the portion who can get to SYD for less and from a time perspective that extra 50kms in traffic will be well over an hour more in time.

So yes great for some but equally very concerning for those for whom WSI is a nightmare to get to if WSI should manage at any point to snag exclusivity for any full service airline or specific destination.

That is the 'current plan' but I would not be at all surprised if that changes. There are already residents under the WSI flight path mobilising to request there be a curfew; that movement will gain more momentum once the start to experience aircraft noise.

Of course I also think curfew at SYD should be removed.

and think of future developments! If the thought is that business will increase, so will residential development.

 

[elanshin]

Not totally sure but starters would be SQ (and Scoot), CX, EK, DL, PR, TK…?

QR might consider it despite the VA shotgun.

They're talking a out opens skies and regional designation. Many of those aren't restricted and in the case of TK i think they're waiting for planes that can fly direct before expanding ops.

 

[kamchatsky]

That is the 'current plan' but I would not be at all surprised if that changes. There are already residents under the WSI flight path mobilising to request there be a curfew; that movement will gain more momentum once the start to experience aircraft noise.

Of course I also think curfew at SYD should be removed.

With WSI being curfew free, there is now even less of a reason for SYD curfew to be removed. Whoever implement this would be an electoral suicide for seats not too far from SYD.

 

[moa999]

Just for size - SYD is currently 41 MAP (25M Domestic, 16M International).

The forecasts for WSI (from an airliners.net post).
So they are forecasting a stage 2 terminal expansion in the early 2030s.

• B.2.4.1 Passenger movements forecast (p106):
  - "We are forecasting that total passenger movements at WSI will grow significantly during the 20-year period of this master plan. The initial forecast is for 8.4 MAP by 2030, increasing to 19.3 MAP by 2045. The airport has a designed initial capacity of 10 MAP, which we forecast to reach in 2033"
  - "Since this initial forecast, subsequent airport demand and air space modelling, as well as further information regarding domestic and international airlines routes, have become available. This indicates the demand could come forward 1 to 2 years, meaning we may reach 10 MAP closer to 2030, which is great news for Western Sydney."
• Forecast annual passenger numbers for WSI (MAP = Million Annual Passengers)
  - 2030: 5.4MAP DOM + 3.0MAP INTL = 8.4MAP
  - 2035: 6.4MAP DOM + 5.4MAP INTL = 11.8MAP
  - 2040: 7.4MAP DOM + 7.9MAP INTL = 15.3MAP
  - 2045: 8.2MAP DOM + 11.1MAP INTL = 19.3MAP

 

[jase05]

That is the 'current plan' but I would not be at all surprised if that changes. There are already residents under the WSI flight path mobilising to request there be a curfew; that movement will gain more momentum once the start to experience aircraft noise.

I’d be very surprised if it changes. Our organisation and others will spend many hundreds of millions in making it a designated freight hub with undertakings from the various governments that things won’t change. SYD costs us alone many millions each year thanks to their curfew and being that WSI will remain in government hands I very much doubt they will want to get their largest backers offside

 

[Ansett Nostalgic]

I’d be very surprised if it changes. Our organisation and others will spend many hundreds of millions in making it a designated freight hub with undertakings from the various governments that things won’t change. SYD costs us alone many millions each year thanks to their curfew and being that WSI will remain in government hands I very much doubt they will want to get their largest backers offside

I remember as early as the mid-1990s people were buying into the area near Badgery's Creek (e.g. Orchard Hills) and then trying to run petition campaigns to oppose the airport. Totally ridiculous.

 

[HS-TQE]

Despite their Federated partners all being there….

Maybe they could take over the existing QF F lounge as the VA lounge…

Two of those VA's partners doesn't have as strong links as they used to in the past (NZ and SQ), the former only recently re-instated as an unilateral Travel Agent partnership to the three main NZ cities and SQ reduced to primarily being a bilateral ASEAN & India partner after the QR partial acquisition of VA

The same argument above in Post #656 could potentially be used by the Bain-based accountants towards holding VA off starting WSI on Day 1. Plus VA would have to shuffle a few aircraft flying lines around (including the Alliance and occasional AirNorth wetleases) around to fit in a few rotations a day from BNE and MEL to WSI). Considering new MAX8 and E2 deliveries to VA throughout the rest of 2025 and 2026 are also fleet replacement to some the departing (near 20 yr old) 737-800s and the remainder of the VARA A320 fleet.