Rex axes Whyalla flights over security charge spat

[ADFlyMore]

Rex axes Whyalla flights over security charge spat - InDaily

Rex Airlines says it will scrap its Whyalla to Adelaide flights from July 1, blaming the decision on Whyalla Council which it accused of wanting to impose a “devious and underhanded” passenger screening security charge on the route.

indaily.com.au

Bit disappointing for SA since it was a popular route but can understand why they had to make it.

 

[Quickstatus]

Again ZL trying to point the finger at bad boy QF.

Why does QF have to pay for regional airport security when ZL does not?. Anyone know?

 

[henrus]

Why does QF have to pay for regional airport security when ZL does not?. Anyone know?

In 2018 there was a change by the fed gov and in short airports that have less than 30,000 people per year plus aircraft with less than 40 seats are fully exempt from security screening whilst others would be required to implement screening for all flights (now there are some exemptions to this in regional QLD QConnect routes - like Longreach/Blackall/Barcaldine). Prior to 2018 the screening requirements were instead based on MTOW and instead of exemptions being on a per airport basis they were instead on a per flight basis (exempt flight = no screening needed). So historically (prior to 2018) an airport like Whyalla could have two flights to Adelaide at the same time and whilst the Rex would be exempt from screening the QF flight would have to screen everyone.

Now post the 2018 change when QF comes along to a port and bumps this over the cap of 30,000 people per year or starts flying Dash 8-400s with 74 then the airport operator (often the local council) is forced to implement security screening for all passengers regardless of the fact that other carriers like Rex are still only using under 40 seat aircraft.

The federal government had a subsidy program which Rex applied for and was successful at receiving that offset the impact of this by paying 100% of security fees if the airline would normally be exempt. This subsidy ends in June hence Rex is doing it's typical point the finger at someone else behaviour (this time it's ironically not Qantas but the local council instead).

 

[33kft]

The federal government had a subsidy program which Rex applied for and was successful at receiving that offset the impact of this by paying 100% of security fees if the airline would normally be exempt. This subsidy ends in June hence Rex is doing it's typical point the finger at someone else behaviour (this time it's ironically not Qantas but the local council instead).

Typical of government to institute such a complex regime that you need to provide subsidies to offset the costs that you introduced when replacing the previous regime with one that disadvantages smaller players when, assumedly, the previous regime simply excluded those flights and led to the same outcome, sans the reversion on the future when some eagle eyed finance person looks for a few dollars to cut in the next bud... Okay, yeah, score one for the bureaucrats.

Impressed that REX are once again railing at the wrong people though.

 

[eastwest101]

Yep this one is on the Fed Government, they should pay for security screening because it's a Fed Government requirement. All to be filed under government incompetence and unintended consequences.

Pretty soon many regional airports will have a perfect aviation security system, no flights at all.

If there is sufficient demand either Rex or Qantas could institute charter flights from ADL to Port Augusta and bus them to Whyalla.

Potentially a "show stopper" for some resource projects in the Whyalla area and if Qantas chose to leave the market and/or retire the Dash 8-2/300 fleet would be a loss of all air services to Whyalla.

I'm also wondering if this is an explanation of the cessation of the triangulated Rex Adelaide-Mildura-Broken Hill route recently? although I suspect that lack of aircraft spares and lack of pilots is also a possibility.

 

[henrus]

the previous regime simply excluded those flights and led to the same outcome

Correct previous Rex flights were excluded, I guess in the eyes of the government the outcome wasn't the same given only some passengers were being screened (now the outcome is 100% are screened) but I guess that's a question for home affairs which back in 2018 was led by now opposition leader Peter Dutton who refused to comment about any of these changes. The media coverage of the regional screening issues was also a joke as the government of the time refused to say which airports did and didn't have screening - like I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, hardly a national secret either.

Impressed that REX are once again railing at the wrong people though.

Not really, REX know the real ones who have a say in this is the federal government however given just a few years ago they were paid over $50 million to underwrite flights and still receive federal subsidises today they're not dumb enough to bite the hand that feeds them!

 

[jb747]

So, it sounds like it wasn’t actually viable, but by cancelling this way they can blame someone else, and potentially put their hand out again.

 

[Must...Fly!]

So, it sounds like it wasn’t actually viable, but by cancelling this way they can blame someone else, and potentially put their hand out again.

They must have a template for this strategy by now, been down that road enough times...