Cath O'Brien: Board of Airline Representatives chair on Wellington Airport's $500 five-year upgrade plan

Published Nov 22, 2024, 3:40 AM

An airline group is casting doubt on demand for sending long-haul flights into Wellington Airport.

The Airport's announced a $500 million five-year upgrade plan – which includes extending its runway.

It will let bigger planes land – with hopes it'll attract non-stop flights from Asia and Los Angeles.

Board of Airline Representatives chair Cath O'Brien told Heather du Plessis-Allan it costs a lot to fly to New Zealand.

“If I look at air services demand for New Zealand in total, I don’t see any real growth at the moment. So, Auckland Airport is looking at pretty much a flat scenario.”

LISTEN ABOVE

Wellington Airport. Now, Wellington Airport has announced it's going to try to attract more international flights from the likes of Los Angeles and Singapore, and it's revealed it's going to do that in a five hundred million dollar five year plan that includes extending the runway with these energy absorbing blocks. Here's the chief executive, Matt Clark.

Enhancing the safety areas around the airport mean that we can actually optimize the space that we do have and that produces a one hundred and two meter extension to the effective length of the runway.

Now, Catho Brian is the executive director of the Board of Airlines Representatives and with us. Now, hey, kat, Hey, do you reckon that there's demands in Wellington for these longer flights.

Look, I'm not sure that there is a great demand environment on New Zealand, despite you know, Wellington Airport doing what is clearly the right thing and investing in some runway safety areas.

Why do you think that there might not be the demand.

Look, if I look at air services demand for New Zealand and total, I don't see any real growth at the moment. So, you know, Auckland Airport is looking at pretty much a flat scenario. You've got a little bit of growth going to christ Church, which is great to see, and we've got those news services coming to Hamilton next year. But outside of that, you know, there's not a lot out there.

Oh.

Do you think when you talk about growth, you're talking about growth in terms of airlines wanting to add capacity.

Yeah, airlines willing to come to New Zealand and fly more to New Zealand. Yeah, And I think you know, one of the reasons that they that they maybe aren't doing that is because of the increasingly high cost that New Zealand you know, represents in terms of the destination.

Yeah.

I mean, is kath are they future proofing? Maybe, because if we actually play our cards right, we will increase demand again, won't we. Yeah.

Look, I think, as I say, Wellington Airport is doing the right thing by by looking at it safety area around its runway and making sure it's safely operable, and so I think that's that's a great thing. I think whether or not that that brings us more international air services to Wellington is another thing. I think. You know, we, as I say, we aren't sort of seeing that really around And I think that comes from a lot of the costs that we're imposing on airlines who fly here.

Okay, now what about how you pay for this stuff? Right? Are the airlines going to squeal if they are head up for it?

Yeah?

Look, I mean Wellington Airport consulted with airlines as part of its price setting process on the EMAS proposal, so it's included in the capex. It may you know that the cost of it may change as we roll through the process. So airlines as is the usual way pay for airport capex in New Zealand, and that is how it works.

Is it not actually a good idea to bolster an airport like this in order to be able to play it off against Auckland Airport, given that you guys are in such a massive fight with Auckland Airport about its costs.

Yeah, well, I think you know, as I say, it's good to see Wellington considering that the area around it's runaway and making sure that it's safe. So that's a good thing. And I think in terms of the capex spend, it you know, pales into insignificance as we compare it to Auckland Airport's five point nine billion dollars of aeronontical capex that we are going to need to fund up there. So yes, you know, the different airports have different capex profiles, and so some airports become cheaper than others, and maybe that's a good thing. But I think the important thing to think about when it comes to this runway stuff is that if the airlines are considering landing on a runway in the world, their own civil aviation authority has to consider whether or not that safe. And so that's a consideration for each airline and for each you know, international civilization.

Are you suggesting that there would be civil aviation authorities out there who look at Wellington's plans go not safe.

Well, I think everyone has to make their own assessment, right, and so I see from Wellington's announcement that the EMAS will will allow any aircraft that runs off the runway to be captured, which is a good thing, certainly better than the water. But you know, it does say with minimal damage, and so I think any airline with result with a very large, expensive asset would think how much exactly minimal damage? And you know, those are very reasonable questions to be asking, and there will be a process in which those questions will be asked.

Fascinating. Hey, Kat, thanks very much, appreciate it. As Kath O'Brien, the executive director of the Board of Airlines Representatives known as Barnes. For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to news talks.

It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.