Debrief

Japan.

Jetstar claim impressive figures for Japan services but total numbers over all routes and operators and the inbound/outbound split remains crucial. ’09 inbound Japanese predictions are bad and as 120,000 in Queensland alone work in tourism and 100,000 in hospitality ( Vs 50,000 in resources) many hope Jetstar gets it right. There has however been shifting of existing passengers, the Queensland SE corner the prime example. Brisbane used to get dual JAL and Qantas 747s to/from Tokyo, feeding thousands by bus to the Gold Coast. Ansett and TAA/Australian briefly ran direct Gold Coast/Cairns links linking the many flights then hubbed through Cairns from other Japanese cities. Now Jetstar runs Gold Coast to Tokyo, not code shared with JAL, and to Osaka, JAL code shared, and Brisbane has a daily JAL 747, QF code shared, to Tokyo. The Japan market splits roughly equally between JAL, Qantas and Jetstar. ie Qantas win hands down, but if Australia was as attractive to Japanese as we advertise that would unlikely be so. Without detracting from Jetstar’s achievements ( much “carved off” Qantas) only when we see a nett increase in Japanese carriers’ loads and higher proportions of inbound passengers will we have got Japan right.

The White Paper.

Major airports, routes and carriers will survive albeit with change, an endless process since the Two Airline Policy assured most places an equal number of ANA and TAA seats – at a price, through Deregulation which helped the big end, doing nothing for the thin routes, to the LCC era which has concentrated even more on denser routes. Continuation of the Remote Subsidy Service providing weekly services to over 200 communities and Queensland type subsidy and protection schemes don’t cover the big Dollar problem – remote bush airports- over represented among failed services and a factor in Queensland’s coming retendering process.

Post WW11 ANA and TAA served round 200 such places with DC3s, aided in WA by MMA and a few small regionals. Runs such as TAA’s “4 Day Western” Brisbane all stops Adelaide via Birdsville and back, all stops Brisbane and Adelaide to Darwin, and ANA’s Cape York and weekly “Stations” runs kept the bush open, and when dirt “highways” and Developmental Roads went under in the wet airports were/are the only lifelines.

An open revue, not an inquiry hobbled by terms of reference set by a hand picked Steering Committee is needed. Perhaps operational ADF, emergency service, Customs, and disaster management air tasking officers and grass roots community representatives should be asked to come up with an answer that meets normal and disaster community needs, national security and defence – and is affordable to industry. That will still cost, but the post WW11 network survived through airline Cross Subsidisation and aerodromes were national assets, not ratepayer or investor owned seeing lower end users ever more squeezed. If today’s trunk route passengers were levied just $1 a head the $40m raised would significantly help the solution and wouldn’t need an empire to run. Back in the ’50s a licence to fly lucrative routes meant you also flew your share of essential bush routes.

Reality now sees rugged Caravans or peers as ideal short hop vehicles, just as the ageless Beech 200 with a rudimentary toilet, and an esky as a flight attendant, provided excellent longer thin route service until the 2 pilot rule killed its economics. Runways suitable for those types and Beech 1900 level equipment – not F27s- provided with GPS approaches ( funded by Government) are all that is now needed unless national interests dictate. It’s also hard to accept that B200s et al lift thousands on charters, some over long distances such as Toowoomba/Innamincka, yet to lift RPT passengers over “easier” routes requires a different standard, so CASA may have to bend a little.

The A400M.

Joining other long delayed new types on both sides of the Atlantic reported engine problem delays to the A400M need solving fast. Much is made of the A400Ms weight/payload ratio largely attributed to its use of handed ( ie contra-rotating) engines as introduced on the Twin Comanche in 1970. On the A400M this reportedly saves much rear end airframe weight by requiring less tail area to combat asymmetric engine failure induced yaw.

Should the engine problems prove insurmountable there is no similar rated engine available, let alone in handed versions. Much of the world’s military inventory has outgrown the C130 hold – hence the C-17, the A400M’s hold lying nearer the C-17s than the C130s, but it might need a lot of goodwill (and cash) before the C-17 siphons off most of its market. 852