HK Airport risks losing World Crown - Philip Chen

[Harbour Dweller]

HK airport risks losing world crown

Restricted flights are slowing growth, writes Steve Creedy of The Australian.
October 13, 2006

CATHAY Pacific chief executive Philip Chen has warned Chinese aviation officials they need to solve airspace congestion in the crowded Pearl River Delta if Hong Kong is to keep its status as a world-leading hub.


Chen believes Hong Kong can become the world's premier aviation hub but says its eight-year-old international airport has already become a victim of its own success and faces serious slot shortages.
The airport is artificially constrained by a cap of 53 movements an hour - well below the planned capacity of 75 an hour and not even doubling the 30 an hour average at Kai Tek, the old Hong Kong airport. Airspace inefficiencies are costing airlines $HK1 million ($172,480) a day.

The problem is compounded by the fact there are four other major airports within a 50km radius with differing needs and air traffic control systems.
The stakes are high: the Chinese University of Hong Kong estimates the Hong Kong economy loses $HK1.6 billion for each percentage point fall in aircraft movements.

The problem is more than academic to Cathay as it continues to grow strongly, particularly after the recent acquisition of Dragonair.
Last month, it celebrated the 60th anniversary of its founding, with one DC3, by Texan Roy Farell and Australian Sydney de Kantzow.
While the fleet grew to 59 aircraft in the first 50 years, Cathay has boosted that to 100 in the past decade and the deal to take over Dragonair adds another 43. By 2010, the mainline Cathay fleet will have grown to 135 aircraft, or 180 if Dragonair is included.

According to Chen, Hong Kong officials are aware of the airspace problem and the city's airport authority has started a preliminary feasibility study on the need for a third runway.

He says there is no question the extra runway is needed, but warns that any plans for the increased operating capacity needs to be co-ordinated with the problem of airspace congestion.

"All of those concerned, including the operators, should be involved in the process of getting the solution," he says. "This is (so) important to the future of Hong Kong as an aviation hub that we can't afford to get it wrong or take action too late."

Chen's views are backed by IATA director general Giovanni Bisignani.
Bisignani says the international airline umbrella group is working hard with the Chinese Government to address the problems in Hong kong and create a more efficient Chinese aviation industry.

IATA last August signed a memorandum of understanding with the General Administration of Civil Aviation (CAAC) to increase information exchanges on 11 key issues.

It has already scored some successes in terms of a settlement system that handles 70 million tickets a year and a new route, IATA 1, which cuts 30 minutes from a trip to Europe.

But Bisignani notes traffic growth is challenging China's infrastructure and there is a growing need for more effective flow control and routes.
He warns work also must be done to bring the costs of Chinese infrastructure in line with global standards.

Next to Japan, Chinese airports are the most expensive in the region and airlines face an expensive $US1 a mile over-flight charge. "We've been requested by (CAAC) Minister Yang (Yuanyuan) to advance certain proposals on how to structure the user charges systems from an International Civil Aviation Organisation procedures and best practices viewpoint," Bisignani says.

"I think China has done a great job in building very quickly an effective infrastructure system.
"The second stage is to have the costs in place in the right way. We will be starting in the following months to work on the specific issue of the users' charges - it's on the table - and I don't see a big problem."
On the air-route front, IATA is working to establish a new, more efficient route in time for the Beijing Olympics in 2008.

It hopes this permanent route will use new techniques such as software management to achieve its goals.

For Hong Kong, it is also calling for a three-stage approach that begins with sorting out the airspace issue so that that the 53 movement an hour cap can be removed.

[LapSap]

Note to Philip:

Dear Philip.
While your management team at Cathay were busily ordering new aircraft and hiring more pilots earlier this millenium and the Airport Authority was beavering away building infrastructure to handle the massive growth in air traffic in the region that even Blind Freddy could have seen coming, the Hong Kong Government, through the Civil Service Bureau, froze ATC recruitment, demanded that CAD reduce their expat numbers by 10 per year and cut salaries by more than 11%.

Now the chickens have come home to roost and there are some very red faces when it comes to answering that difficult question every 6 months- "How many movements can you give us?"

Well guess what Philip, no matter how many times they deny it, you are simply not going to get the movement rate to meet the demand in the next 10 years. Simple as that.

How much does it cost to get a parking space in the Arizona desert?

[throw a dyce]

Well I got told on another thread that HK controllers are doing very well and earning mega bucks and that I was talking a load of Bo:mad: ocks.
Oh dear,what a pity,never mind.:}
Looks like I was right all along.:D :D :D CAD see ya suckers:} :}

[Cain and Abel]

3rd runway? Does it ever cross your mind on a 07 day where's the aircraft gonna end up into? Tai Mo Shan i presume? If anyone cares to think again carefully, it's probably the poor selection to base an airfiled here at Chek Lap Kok, terrain all over the area with Macao located just a mere 15NM due west of CLK and ZGSZ north... Sea breeze kicking in almost 70% of the time during the middle of the day causing a runway change delaying the arrivals and departures. What are the high speed exits' for? China Airlines not going to vacate the runway until they are below 35kts...

When's AA going to realize it's not how many runways they can afford but where to locate an airfield to maximze the operation capacity? Even if they put 1,000 runways at CLK, traffic capacity cannot be increased! What one really needs is to redsign the whole airspace, relocate the airfield, most important of all, ask our Mainland officials to put away all those airways restrictions. It's stupid to ask an aircraft and it's passengers to wait on the ground for 1hour+ just because o these stupid restrictions!! I never want to keep you fellas on the ground for it's going to screw up all the stupid bay allocation plans AA has put up to! They never get the big picture of what's happpening! You think 20+ tow requests put forth within 1 and a half hour from 9p.m. onwards with all the arrivals and departures still there is funny?

The design of Terminal Y is not of a bright one, how can one design a terminal with corners as such that after one aircraft commences its pushback it will affect 4 of adjacent bays? I think this alone has nothing to do with expedetiousness! The idea of having N68 and N70 is also incredible! How stupid is it an idea to have two parking bays blocking a major taxiway? Of course i cannot compare myself to those people working for AA for i have a small-soft, white-grayish stuff inside my skull and they don't!

My last word here, Philip, good luck to your 80+ movements per hour!

[Stereolab]

I guess it's time to look at a second hub to handle growth. Most major airlines in the world have more than one...

[bamboosnake]

The complexity of the Pearl river Delta is a problem that will not go away in a hurry, however can it handle more traffic.
With investment in the right direction this is of course very feasible..ATC is serriously lacking at this time, both in numbers leadership and facilities
never mind moral due to all the cutbacks and low experience levels, a serious review on the governments attitude to this part of the civil service needs to be undertaken very soon before things get worse rather than better.
Traffic to the north will continue to be severely delayed due to the chinese bureaucracy and military restrictions, if anything it is allready worse now than it was last year.
A much needed central control unit orchestrating the traffic into and out of the delta region is a dream that is still 20 years away unfortunately.

But for now from ATC ...pay at 97 levels =traffic at 97 levels .
Good luck

[tolosweetpea]

If CAD allowed and encouraged it's staff to use safe international standards instead of standard + we don't understand it so we'll add a bit more because it's a bit scary, then HK could increase runway capacity immediately by at least 10%. The capacity has been capped from day one without objective reasons. I can't see how the airlines have let CAD get away with these inefficencies for so long, do they like wasting time and money. Actual arrival rates can exceed 30 per hour now regardless of the artificial cap; departure??. Just like Kai Tak (over 40 per hour real movements) we usually do better than the stated CAD capacity; not hard given the fact that the CAD capacity does not seem to be based on objective aviation related issues.

We are however short of the staff neccessary to realise bigger efficiency improvements unless CAD improve their package and recruit outside HK then we will stay short of staff. There is scope for improvements of up to 20% more over current capacity depending on the traffic mix.

The airspace delays are mainly down to adjacent FIR. China imposes flow control (very badly) most days.

And yes the airfield is obviously in the wrong place, the terrain prevents full use of the independent runwayse It is too close to Shenzhen and Macao airfileds to avoid interaction that affects capacity at one or all airfields.

tolosweetpea

[wtr]

If CAD allowed and encouraged it's staff to use safe international standards instead of standard + we don't understand it so we'll add a bit more because it's a bit scary, then HK could increase runway capacity immediately by at least 10%.


What international standard?? Heathrows 2.5 nm inter arrival spacing??? New Yorks 60 sec or min wake turbulence between departures ...? This is Hong Kong ... Have you forgotten about Lantau Peak, Tai Mo Shan, the airspace limitations?? Wake up:ugh: How did you come up with 10 %? Talk about being 'objective'!!!!:ok:
The capacity has been capped from day one without objective reasons.

Are you sure about this statement. How much do you know about the reasoning behind the 'runway capacity' figure. I assume you are APP rated - do you want more arrivals in DEP airspace when we're on rwy 07?? How many more departures can you take?? Many other factors contribute to this figure .... workload (# of acft and R/T), traffic complexity, conflictions, many many more. Do your research before making a statement like that:= :=
I can't see how the airlines have let CAD get away with these inefficencies for so long, do they like wasting time and money. Actual arrival rates can exceed 30 per hour now regardless of the artificial cap; departure??. Just like Kai Tak (over 40 per hour real movements)
[QUOTE]we usually do better than the stated CAD capacity; not hard given the fact that the CAD capacity does not seem to be based on objective aviation related issues.
Yeah, how do you do better with all the issues??


We are however short of the staff neccessary to realise bigger efficiency improvements unless CAD improve their package and recruit outside HK then we will stay short of staff. There is scope for improvements of up to 20% more over current capacity depending on the traffic mix.

Reccruit outside? No thanks ....:=

The airspace delays are mainly down to adjacent FIR. China imposes flow control (very badly) most days.

And yes the airfield is obviously in the wrong place, the terrain prevents full use of the independent runwayse It is too close to Shenzhen and Macao airfileds to avoid interaction that affects capacity at one or all airfields.

tolosweetpea

[tolosweetpea]

wtr,

If you care to edit your post to sort the quotes out from your views then it makes it easier to reply: to take one of your points.

The actual figures will at least depend on runway configuration, weather, a/c operating conditions (e,g asymetric training operations), and a/c wake turbulence category.

Regardless of weather conditions APP should normally (but not must) space aircraft at least 5NM apart on final. Our radar systems support 3NM separation and in the case of two heavy category a/c ICAO 4444 recommends 4NM as a minimum separation for wake turbulence. In good weather conditions HK operates in Simultaneous mode where also because of the missed approaches diverging from SIDs we do not need to consider a departure as affecting arrival spacing (and a possible missed approach). The situation changes if the weather is bad or we are not using the usual runway configuration of landing on the North and departing on the South.

4NM is 80% of 5NM so allowing for some margin of error I suggested that HK could achieve 10% greater effficiency now and that 20% was possible. In the case of a medium category a/c ahead of a heavy the mimimum separation can be further reduced to 3NM under the conditions I have outlined above. Depending on the mix of traffic then it should be possible (including some margin for error) to be more efficient than we are now by just using ICAO separations - they are international standards and they do apply at HK. Nothing I have suggested has any safety implications.

Is that objective enough for you? If you are an ATCO at HK you know all of this anyway. I really didin't think that it would be necessary to spell out in detail some very basic stuff. The separaitons above apply to HK operations and the maths is simple.

To extend this discussion: if HK went to mixed mode landing and departing on both runways then there may be further gains in efficiencies. In this case however the SIDs would need redesign since the one of the recent changes was to have the North and South SIDs converge soon after departure. This of course interacts with missed approaches. Doh! I'm not suggesting that mixed mode is the way to go but it should be considered when investigating ways to increase capacity.

tolosweetpea

[LapSap]

Hmmmm.
Some confusing arguments there WTR.

Tolosweetpea is correct with his/her numbers there and the fact that there is definitely an underlying culture of everyone along the Management line "adding a bit for mum" because they just don't understand most of the time. Just look at the misunderstanding with the 25L dep and 25R missed app procedures - they ARE separated, but we still have a weather minima for sim mode and expect the tower controller to do something (what?). Why? Because the 4th floor just can't trust that to be so. Who will we blame?!

2.5 miles is an international standard as it happens, with certain requirements, which I believe don't exist at HK at the moment e.g. runway occupancy time. Nothing wrong with 1 minute on departure either if tower controllers are smart about who they use it with- HK controllers need to get used to seeing a/c closer together, thats all.

All that said however, especially in Hong Kong where nobody gets anything for nothing and the almighty dollar rules everyday life, I see no reason why I should be busting my gut any harder to handle more movements when they're not prepared to pay any more than 10 years ago. Pats on the back and the occasional subsidised dinner don't pay the mortgage I'm afraid.

"They" chose to adopt the policies I stated in an earlier post, "they" can take the brunt of the industry's pressure - not us operational controllers.

[throw a dyce]

Can you do Sim mode on 07,or is it still always co-ordinated?Would making 07L the dep and 07R the arrival help? If you could use 3nm radar spacing/and min vortex all the time it's a bonus.
As for pay etc,you need to ditch the Civil Service.Serco or Nats anyone?

PS If Chinese mainland restictions were applied to airports in the UK,then there would be thousands of cancelled flights a day.Good luck for the 2008 Olympics!! If you can get there!!

[tolosweetpea]

Yes we do sim mode on 07. The 07 L MAP diverges to the north away from the 07R SID. HK is on 07 more often than 25.

We can and do try to get 3NM between North and South. In that respect is it far easier to get 3NM when the leading a/c is on the North. We only join the Locs from the South (airspace restricted).

If the leading a/c is on the South then it is harder beacuse we need to cross behind the track of the South lander before turning to intercept. That might mean keeping the profile of the North lander above the other to avoid wake turbulence separations and possibly keeping more speed than the crew might usually like. Much depends on the a/c involved and their speeds on final.


tolosweetpea

[LapSap]

If you want to do 3 miles North following South then the APP guy has to play it smarter and keep verts and close behind i.e. 4-5 miles before handing to Director given that you're gunna lose a mile crossing the Loc.
Seems like the workload pendulum has swung the other way now with some APP guys not doing enough to set up FAD in the most efficient way. Then again, maybe they don't give a stuff about the movement rate like me either.:suspect:

[throw a dyce]

Tolo,
I agree with what your saying.The CAD has to have the system operating at max efficiency according to the conditions.When I was there they were so conservative,it must have been costing the airlines gazzilions in wasted space.To get back to your earlier point, why? (10bucks) are they saying 5 mile spacing.Surely on sim mode it should be 3nm and or min vortex.
Here Nats are under constant pressure to reduce delays,and get as much out of runway utilisation and airspace as possible.The HKIAA is just getting all the airlines wanting slots,and coming to CAD to what is possible.If CAD are still in mourning for Kai Tak,or using 2 forms of separation,then doubling it,then they will be sussed out very quickly.
Hey maybe they could open Kai Tak again like London City.All the low cost ones go there.Kai Stol Tak.;) Nothing bigger than a 757.I recommend the idea to the house..Stand by for the flak.:E

[SeeMyToe]

[Surely on sim mode it should be 3nm and or min vortex.]
I agree dyce, however 50% of arriving aircraft don't get off the :mad: ing runway, including the 'Worlds favourite airline'. They just help themselves to any exit they like. No back-up from management. Just the occasional NOTAM to say "please expedite off the runway after landing".:=

[throw a dyce]

Yep.Quite often saw Asian/Chinese Airlines stopped dead on a high speed.Probably waiting for Christmas or something.The Worlds Favourite Airline,don't hang around at ''The World's busiest and most horrible'' Hounslow aerodrome.It's a well known fact that you don't dawdle on the runway there, as there's one coming over the fence at you.At least I found that if you tell them to expedite,they try to.Asian/Chinese airlines just sit there asleep.