View Full Version : Righto...so whats wrong with Richmond for 2nd airport.


Guptar
13th Apr 2012, 07:29
Driving home today, listening to some whacker from politics saying they dont need a 2nd airport for Sydney, but at the same time no increase in the movement cap will even be contemplated for YSSY.

Some random points Ive been thinking about. Purely hypothetical.

1. What is the theoretical capacity of YSSY if the pollies butted out and left it to the pros.......but no change in curfew.

2. Would a 4th runway, parrallel to 07/25 be useful.

So why cant Richmond be used. The RAAF apparently wants out. Level everything. Now a grand plan is in order. Use the whole area thats south of the River (not sure of the name) and north of Karrajung Rd. According to google earth, that gives you an area 7km wide by5km or so deep. Plenty of room for just about any airport of any size you want.

But it's a flood plain yells someone from the back of the room. Welkl yes it is, but we have a secret weapon....civil engineers. Hell, if Hong Kong can lop the top off a mountain, Singapore can build an airport on land reclaimed from the sea. Kansai was built on a man made island in the middle of a bloody great bay. Funchal has half the runway built on stilts on the side of a mountain.

Surely we can handle a flood plain. or have we become that inefectual.

The Indonesians are starting to build a 40 km long bridge over a deep ocean to link up their two biggest islands. A massive engineering project in any ones language.



The Bunglerat
13th Apr 2012, 08:10
Apologies in advance if this might be better suited to another thread currently running, but personally, I like Ben Sandilands' suggestion: Just cut Sydney loose & leave it to fend for itself.

Sydney Airport? Just cut Sydney loose and get on with life | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/04/11/heres-a-radical-pre-budget-thought-lets-cut-sydney-loose/)

After more years than I care to remember, the NSW government (in whatever guise it happens to be at the time) is still no closer to showing the balls to commit to a second airport than it was before. In the meantime, Melbourne's population/economy/infrastructure is growing - with forecasts that it will actually eclipse Sydney as the nation's largest city in the next twenty years - in fact, the rest of Australia is growing, & in the meantime Sydney will end up becoming irrelevant.

Capt Kremin
13th Apr 2012, 08:46
YSRI = FG Central. Current runway can not be extended. A long North-South would have to be built. Once you have to do that then it has no advantages over a greenfields site.

Personally I think suggesting Wilton is a classic Sir Humphrey move. With the adjacent Sydney Water catchment area and the housing estates already in place and growing... It will provide another 2 to 3 years of solid controversy before it is quietly scrapped.

maggot
13th Apr 2012, 09:32
YSRI = FG Central

my thoughts too - but the whole western basin kind of is too... sure they can build the new stuff to a low vis standard but there's still stacks of delays with that stuff

Frank Arouet
13th Apr 2012, 09:49
We lack people with vision. People like Keith Williams who took out the side of a mountain for Hamilton Is airport.

We have instead three year politicians with a three year vision. No use upping it to four years, they just do nothing for another year.

Richmond? Well, think of Meigs Field. Meigs Field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meigs_Field)

It can take the load off Sydney while they think of something else to keep the bureaucrats in business.

Well perhaps Meigs wasn't the best example, but a good case.

Archer2002
13th Apr 2012, 09:54
Spot on Capt Kremin. Reports, studies, consultants,Federal Government muddying the waters with another location,State Government resistance, Federal Opposition waffling,Local Government NIMBY/IMBY, my God this could go on for decades........oh wait it has. Not going to happen in my lifetime.

It is symtomatic of the inertia that has existed in NSW for two decades, and despite O'Farrell's massive majority he has turned out to be a huge disappointment as Premier. No doubt the back room boys in the Liberal Party are already scheming if things dont improve. The voters are less tolerant and forgiving these days.

The type of politician that would look beyond the next election has been extinct since the 30's.Nothing to see here, move on.

pull-up-terrain
13th Apr 2012, 10:34
In my personal opinion i dont see the need for a 2nd airport. They should get rid of the 11pm-6am curfew and spend the money on building new roads like the F6, improving public transport and improving roads.
Even if Sydney airport gets that congested surely they could raise landing fee's on narrow body aircraft to try and encourage airline's to use widebody aircraft.

Even if they do build a 2nd airport it probably will be come shit rip off like everything else the NSW government builds like that "2 lane" cross city tunnel :ugh:

Icarus2001
13th Apr 2012, 10:53
The type of politician that would look beyond the next election has been extinct since the 30's.Nothing to see here, move on. Possibly true but I am beginning to suspect that the axiom about "the people getting the government they deserve" is also true. Politicians and their parties run focus groups, polls, you name it, they KNOW what WE the people care about and want. I also don't subscribe to the theory that they are dumb, most of the politicians I have met and spoke with are intelligent and articulate people. They just do not have the will to drive long term visions it seems.

We live in a country that thinks Masterchef and MKR are fantastic television, that produces a Kyle Sandilands and makes him a star, that allows Craig Thomson to continue holding a seat and voting in our federal parliament whilst under a cloud. We pay football players $500K a year for seven months work and provide stadiums around the country on peppercorn rents for the AFL whilst they in turn sell TV rights for a billion dollars. Most of what happens does not make any sense because every small part of the jigsaw is looking after its' own piece and no one sees the whole. We have a national debate and hand wringing about a few thousand boat people arriving on our shores seeking asylum with almost nothing at all said about the number of people who arrive by aircraft and stay illegally, a number greater by a factor of about ten.

The state of national debate in this country gets reduced to the lowest level, eg Germaine Greer on QandA takes aim at the PMs bum size, this from an "intellectual and feminist" no less. Imagine if she were one of the great unwashed.

The first job of government is to be re-elected. Everything else is secondary. So our friend whose electorate is near Sydney airport will put the views of a couple of thousand homeowners who bought their house decades after the airport was built ahead of the national or state good. He would argue that is his job as the local member, to protect and represent their interests and so he is correct.

The new Sydney airport should be about half way between Sydney and Canberra and joined to both by a high speed rail link. Anything else is a massive compromise. Problem is that since the federal government stupidly leased the airports out they have lost control. If they had control selling the land for housing at Mascot would pay for a good proportion of the new site with land buy backs etc.

Question. If the airport leaseholders can turn a profit from the leased airports why couldn't the federal government as the owner? Answer that and you understand the mess we are in.

Bob Brown is not a stupid person, his timing is brilliant, much better in fact than John Howards almost as good as Bligh losing the election at the right time so that she will not have to face the music once Qld Water gets sued by all and sundry.

Off to have a glass of medicine.:eek:

Archer2002
13th Apr 2012, 11:16
Question. If the airport leaseholders can turn a profit from the leased airports why couldn't the federal government as the owner? Answer that and you understand the mess we are in.
Because when governments are in a tight financial spot and require a fast buck, they sell whatever they can. Like selling your house to pay off the mortgage. Solves one problem but creates another. As for turning a profit, governments could never get away with the outrageous gouging that the private operators do, with nary a second thought. After all thats how the capitalist system works. Unfortunately with major airports they usually operate as a monopoly. And we thought Macquarie was mad to pay such a high price for Kingsford Smith didnt we?

Wally Mk2
13th Apr 2012, 11:23
"I-2001" excellent post :ok: I too feel this country has it's priorities all wrong.
There simply is no future for planning of airports or otherwise for that matter.There isn't a visionary amongst the lot of them!:ugh:
We waste billions on failed Govt ventures yet we all dig deep here in Vic for Eg on the RCH appeal at Easter time for the kids of our future nation,we raised $16Mill or so a great effort...what did we Vic's waste on Myki & the pink batts fiasco just as a start ??? :ugh:
Another Airport for Syd,high speed rail links etc...........yeah like to see that!!!:ugh:

Don't forget everyone that a polly is in the game as a job,nothing else but to make his bed as comfy as possible & ride the wave of perks until it's time to bail like we have seen of late. A 3 year tenure is damned short,like their visions!!!
That saying ..."what do you call a 1000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean?..............a good start"...............substitute Pollies & now where getting somewhere !:ugh:

God help our children in the future,we've left an awful mess for them,something that none of us can be proud of!

Rant over...phew !

Wmk2

Jabawocky
13th Apr 2012, 11:51
Lift the curfew

List the movements per hour limit

A lot of problems would be fixed real quick.

CATIII ILS

Tell all the whingers to take a dose of Choppers Medicine and Harden the Fokker Up

That would give you 10 years to sort out another airport to support a properly functioning YSSY.

Anyone disagree?

Wally Mk2
13th Apr 2012, 12:11
...............................................yeah jabadabadoo I disagree, we can't have common sense here it just won't work as far as Pollies go!:-)


Wmk2

Jack Ranga
13th Apr 2012, 13:02
Icarus2001.........Are you Ben Sandilands? :ok::D

Australian politicians are now the weakest, most gutless breed of inbreds we produce. I would love to pay a politician what they are worth.

If anybody saw Bob Brown's press conference where he pronounced that the greens were ready to govern the country :cool: And the grinning idiot beside him that now 'leads' their party. Or anyone who heard Larissa Waters comments about donations to political parties (She gives new meaning to the phrase 'dumb blonde').

Yep, this country is in capable hands :cool:

Dream on Sydney, a second airport? Not in my lifetime.

Jack Ranga
13th Apr 2012, 13:05
Lift the curfew

List the movements per hour limit

Dood, you do that, you wouldn't need a second airport in Sydney in my lifetime :cool:

Jabawocky
13th Apr 2012, 13:16
............ ummmmm derrrrrrrr.............

The pollies are that effing dumb :ugh:

but if implimented, you could then plan ahead.


Hang on Wally is right........can't be having no common sense around here :rolleyes:

Old Fella
13th Apr 2012, 13:23
As one who operated out of Richmond for more than a decade I can tell you Richmond is not only FOG CENTRAL, but there is absolutely no way of extending 10/28 sufficiently and the provision of a runway of sufficient length oriented E/W would involve sending both road and rail underground if the Rail link and the main road between Windsor and Richmond townships were to be retained.
Add to that the limited infrastructure and the probable need to relocate the RAAF flying operations. The one thing that cannot be engineered to ensure uninterupted operations is the dreaded fog. Anyone who has operated into and out of Richmond will fully understand just what a problem it is.

By George
13th Apr 2012, 20:44
That is why we need Cat3b. minima of 20ft vis of 150m. This is how Europe keep their Airports running. Try ZRH in the winter, they have far more 'fog days' than we do, snow and ice and yet seem to manage alright. This country is very Third World when it comes to Aviation. Even India has Cat2 where International Airports like OOL don't even have an ILS. I cannot think of one airport in the US that still has an NDB. The International Aviation Community consider Australia a backwater these days. Very sad compared to how we were once held.

Captain Dart
13th Apr 2012, 21:09
In fact India has Cat 3B at Delhi. I did one one day when even the birds were walking, onto a new runway and the A Team on ATC.

Usual Cat 3B minima for my operator's A330/A340 is 'no' DH and 75 m.

Australian airports are a goddamn disgrace.

Oktas8
13th Apr 2012, 21:15
High speed rail is expensive. Think around $40 per 100km in Japan, if you're a full-fare Shinkansen ticket holder (from memory). And that's in a country with a much higher population density than NSW & ACT. It would be more expensive in this country, even ignoring the need for a tunnel under the Blue Mountains.

It would also need stupendous cash up front from the public purse, which won't happen in NSW.

At the moment air travel is both cheaper and more convenient than rail for most people. No doubt that will change eventually...

neville_nobody
13th Apr 2012, 23:23
High speed rail is expensive.

And a environmental nightmare. I find it ridiculous that the Greens propose such a deal. If you consider the thousands of Kilometres of clearing you have to do, the damage to the environment, the carbon footprint due loss of trees, the carbon footprint of the steel in the rails plus the maintenance, trains are not the answer over long distances when compared toto relatively small area of a airport. 2 x 2km of tar vs 1000+km of steel rail:hmm:

Reading between the lines you could almost argue that the powers at be are out to destroy aviation in this country for some reason. These so called 'Green' solutions are not when you scratch the surface.

Seabreeze
14th Apr 2012, 01:56
Have a good solid read of the Mrdak Joint Study Report (over 3000 pages if you have the time...). It is thorough and makes many good points. You can argue about the exact time scales for growth, but it is clear that the problems which are forshadowed will occur and that the decsion needs to be made NOW.

Short answers

A decent sized site is need for a multi runway international airport with appropriate ground trasnport facilities etc. The YSRI site is too small and as said above is a flood plain.

The ignore sydney approach won't work; there will always be many flights routed through YSSY and when the system gets overloaded then the delays will cascade australia wide. this will just get worse.

BOF is a quarter- wit who has no vision except for trying to save a few votes. I doubt he can read that much material, or even if he does, has no capacity to understand it!

Badgery's Creek looks like the best option to me because the land is set aside... Mrdak says as much...



SB

Icarus2001
14th Apr 2012, 02:07
That would be this one...

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/sydney_av_cap/files/sydney_aviation_capacity_exec_summary.pdf

ButFli
14th Apr 2012, 03:55
In my personal opinion i dont see the need for a 2nd airport. They should get rid of the 11pm-6am curfew and spend the money on building new roads like the F6, improving public transport and improving roads.
Even if Sydney airport gets that congested surely they could raise landing fee's on narrow body aircraft to try and encourage airline's to use widebody aircraft.

Who wants to fly between 11pm and 6am? Look at Brisbane and Melbourne and you'll get your answer. There're about 3 flights per day at each of those airports that would be affected by a Sydney-style curfew. No one wants to fly at that time. If I'm looking at setting up in international business in an Australian city I'm not going to choose the one that forces me and my employees to travel at such unfriendly hours. I'm going straight to Melbourne or Brisbane.

Spend what money on other infrastructure? A new Sydney airport won't cost the Government anything. The Government can sell the right to build a new Sydney airport. It makes the Government money (which can then be spent upgrading surrounding transport infrastructure).

Where are you going to park all these extra widebodies at YSSY? They're already struggling to fit them all in.

Ozgrade3
14th Apr 2012, 05:37
Big engineering progects in recent years.

The Laerdal tunnel, Sunda straights bridge in indonesia, the Chunnel, even the Greeks have bult one of the worlds largest bridges. The Millau Viaduct in France.

What have we built here in oz since the the Snowy River Hydro scheme in the 50's.

We cant even do something simple like blocking off a flood plain.

Australia is going backwards at an ever increasing speed.

BuzzBox
14th Apr 2012, 06:09
India...A Team on ATC

Seriously?? :}

But I agree, Australian airports are a bloody disgrace. There are so-called third world countries that have airports far better than ours.

Unfortunately, this country suffers from an acute lack of vision. Our infrastructure is rapidly falling apart and there is precious little political will to do anything about it. I love this country, but there are times when I'm embarrassed to call myself Australian.

Captain Dart
14th Apr 2012, 06:09
ButFli, I often operate a midnight horror widebody flight (not QF) to Asia out of MEL and it is usually chockers. I think the demand is there.

Yes Buzz, they were bloody good. Indian ATC is a shambles most other times though.

Ozgrade, I fully agree. Australia: preoccupied with supporting three levels of government for a relatively small population and other important matters such as gay marriage, multiculturalism and the 'climate change' scam.

nomorecatering
14th Apr 2012, 06:54
Kansai

World's biggest ever construction - Kansai man-made island airport - YouTube



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTC3U67pHxU

ozangel
14th Apr 2012, 13:23
Reclassify Lord Howe (falsely if need be) - name it John Howard International.

Shark Patrol
15th Apr 2012, 22:34
Option 1.

I'm sure the current and future generations of aircraft are whisper jets compared to the old 707s and 747s of yesteryear. The airport at Mascot has been around a hell of a lot longer than the good rate paying citizens of surrounding areas - time they harden up and realize why their house was probably cheaper than others not near the airport.

Option 2.

Leave the cap on movements as is, but move regional and light aircraft traffic to Bankstown with underground rail connection to SYD Domestic and International.

Alien Role
16th Apr 2012, 00:05
FORGET "SYDNEY'S SECOND AIRPORT" - go regional, boot the RAAF out of Willy'.
No curfew, cheaper "taxes" etc would put KSA on the spot re their exorbitant charges and the polies would not have to go cap in hand to Macquarie Airports for their "approval".

Role on....

Ultralights
16th Apr 2012, 02:54
why not Holsworthy? extend the current runway obviously, its far enough from residential areas for noise to be no consideration, not only that, no one complains of the weapon fire noise around here, rail link is very close, just extend off Glenfield station, new Freight depot is planned for Moorebank, the M7 and M5 very close, and the airspace is already restricted, so can easily be changed to class C without disrupting existing airspace, and all flight paths will arrive and depart to the south, over virgin bushland.

Like This - Do That
16th Apr 2012, 04:26
A standard heavy rail line from Epping to Rouse Hill is looking like the best part of $10billion.

How much would a high speed rail line to Canberra or Williamtown cost? Compulsory acquisition of how many Sydney properties at the best part or $600k per 500m2 block? Running along the Great dividing range? Crossing the Hawkesbury River and going under / above the hills and valleys from there up to Wyong? How much would it cost to maintain that distance of high speed line? What sort of subsidy would be required to cover the costs of 200km (to Willy) or 300km (to Canberra) high speed journeys?

Next bit - move the ADF out (RAAF out of Richmond or Willy, Army out of Holsworthy, RAN out of Sydney for the benefit of cruise ships). To where? How is it that every member of the ADF apparently will be happy to live in Tindal or Weipa or Cultana or some other Godforsaken outback dump? Care to explain how recruitment and retention will be addressed? Care to explain how FLTLTs and CAPTs and SGTs and the like will be replaced when they get the choice of losing their marriage or leaving the ADF?

The Auditor General identified an average per member additional cost of $15k p.a. to maintain 1 BDE in Darwin. Watch retention when Op SLIPPER ends and there are no trips and medals any more .... 1 & 3 BDE will bleed. The Army has to work hard to post people out of 7 BDE in large part because they'd prefer to live in Brisvegas than Darwin or Townsville. Why is 7 RAR now at RAAF Edinburgh instead of Robbo?

How much does it cost to train RAAF aircrew? If the only posting locations are Curtin / Scherger / Learmonth / Tindal consider how much more it will cost to recruit and train.

The Gummint already owns Badgery's Creek. All it takes is is an ounce of political gumption. It's the right answer. Everyone knows it is.

BPA
16th Apr 2012, 04:44
And if you look at Google Maps you will find Sydney West Airport marked at Badgery's Creek, so why not build it there and be done with it.

flighthappens
16th Apr 2012, 12:14
LikeThis - its not just the cost of shipping the ADF members off and then having to train a bunch of people because everyone else has left with their corporate knowledge..

e.g. for Willytown there are 6x Flying Squadrons, A few different HQ's, ATC, GCI, and a truck load of support people.

If you kick them out all of that basing and support infrastructure needs to be rebuilt somewhere, the people need to be relocated along with housing and the money to achieve this isn't coming out of thin air...

Because successive Govts have been so inept for 25years it starts looking like an attractive option - until you realise that the govt just needs to do their job and Govern, rather than carrying on like 15 year olds in Parliament trying to get cheap shots in...

Old Fella
17th Apr 2012, 05:50
Alien Role, I joined the RAAF in 1958 and even then there was talk of moving RAAF Richmond to Narromine. I guess the RAAF have pretty good roots in the Hawkesbury as they are still there and no doubt still will be after I have slipped off this planet. Willy will be the same, and of course, it is a case of who injects most into the local economy at both Richmond and Williamtown? Lift the curfew in Sydney and remind the natives that KSF has been there much longer than many of the residential areas which surround it.

The The
17th Apr 2012, 06:16
Why would the RAAF need to vacate YWLM?

Build a parallel rwy and big new civil terminal to the south. Military can keep the northern side with access to training areas etc.

Freeway onto the F3 and railway connection to existing at Hexham would better serve anybody north of mid central coast. The area would boom and become a satellite for Sydney.

flighthappens
17th Apr 2012, 08:22
If you are going to put in a new runway, Freeway extension and Rail line why not then just build a new airport at Sydney where the demand actually exists?

Civilian Access to RAAF Airfields (http://www.airforce.gov.au/aboutus/docs/Civil%20Aviation%20Access%20to%20AF%20Airfields%20Final.pdf)

Summary – Major Capital City and Secondary Airports
50. There is no case for RPT operations from Air Force airfields where an adjacent Major Capital city Airport is available as these aerodromes have adequate capacity well into the future. The caveat, with respect to the Sydney Region Capacity Study being the exception. In seeking to operate a civil airport at AMB, EDN, PEA, or RIC, a prospective operator would be basing their proposal on commercial rather than operational considerations. Additionally, the WLM experience provides sufficient warning that civil aviation access can have unintended consequences for Air Force, including increased costs, capability loss or skewing of personnel requirements, (both ATS and ARFFS), and ultimately reduced military access to the airfield, with attendant significant, and possibly irretrievable capability loss.
51. If significant general aviation activity was to be approved at Air Force airfields, reversing the decision would be difficult. Further, it would be difficult to be selective when agreeing to a request from a commercial organisation to use an Air Force airfield as it would no doubt be followed quickly by others requests seeking similar access.


Any initiative aimed at introducing Heavy category RPT aircraft will require increased wake turbulence separation distances, thereby reducing arrival and departure traffic rates, which will serve to disrupt both military and civil movements. WLM terminal airspace is designed for fighter operations, and is not adequate for either increased levels of Medium category aircraft activity or the introduction of Heavy category RPT activity. Major exercise activity also creates significant increased traffic flows adding to congestion. The impact of heavy aircraft activity on required ARFFS category may place further unfunded pressure of Defence resources. A review of the current Operating Agreement, to allow access by Heavy category civil aircraft to WLM, is inadvisable and the WLM/NAL lease should be amended to exclude Heavy category civil operations. A summary of WLM traffic capacity issues is at annex B

Icarus2001
17th Apr 2012, 09:23
Let me guess, the military wrote a report recommending that they do not share "their" airports with mere civvies?

Perhaps an "independent" report is needed.

Yes minister? A report minister? Well here is the conclusion we will have a consultant write the other 1000 pages to support our conclusion.

Yawn.

flighthappens
17th Apr 2012, 10:51
Maybe my sarcasm meeter isn't sensitive enough but an independent report has been written. It can be found here (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/sydney_av_cap/index.aspx) and it highlights the issues that have been talked about already in this and other threads... :ugh: Please do keep up.

Newcastle Airport at RAAF Base Williamtown is too far from the Sydney market to serve as Sydney’s second passenger airport. It is an important airport for the Hunter and Central Coast regions but its capacity to grow in the future needs to be settled, having principal regard to RAAF’s requirements for the site as its primary fighter base.So now thats the RAAF and the Independent steering committee report reccomending that Williamtown not become Sydneys second airport.

The Badgerys Creek site, which was acquired by the Commonwealth between 1986 and 1991 for a future airport, remains the best site for an additional major RPT airport.

teresa green
17th Apr 2012, 11:57
Willy is becoming a large airport by stealth anyway, as the North West of Sydney, the ever increasing Central Coast, and of course the growing Newcastle/Hunter region demand better airservices. It has been shown that many of the residents of these areas would prefer to drive the F3 than face Sydney and the almost promised traffic gridlock anyway if flying domestic, not to mention the cheap parking fees that NTL offers. Over the next ten years NTL airport is really going to become a big airport, call it regional, call it what you like, but that area of the coast is growing big time, and it has to be serviced one way or another. Great flying WX 99% of the time also.

Tinstaafl
17th Apr 2012, 16:08
I wonder if Schofields could ever have been an option?

teresa green
18th Apr 2012, 06:00
Its wall to wall with McMansions now mate.

Tankengine
18th Apr 2012, 07:43
Actually TG the airport itself, including bitumen runways is still there.
McMansions on final though!;)

Tinstaafl
18th Apr 2012, 12:02
I figured around Schofields was housing development by now. It was more of a 'Wonder if it could have been...?" thought.

TBM-Legend
18th Apr 2012, 21:02
Willi needed a parallel runway back in the '70's. Plenty of land then but now encroached by terminals/hangars etc etc. The short sighted idiots that run this country should have a re-education holiday at somewhere like.....
Treblinka.

Most Major Oz airports should have or plan for a parallel runway like the rest of the modern world.

aveng
19th Apr 2012, 00:58
Most Major Oz airports should have or plan for a parallel runway like the rest of the modern world.

Perth used to have a plan, before the Federal gov sold it to a private concern. The area set aside for the parallel runway is now under the Coles and Woolworth distribution centres. The federal government should have kept them.

Mimpe
27th Apr 2012, 10:52
Heaps of land just north of Warnervale, East or west of the Sydney/ Newcastle freeway. We dont mind a parallel runway. heaps of jobs, beautiful aircraft to look at all day, good freeway and rail connection to Hornsby and Newcastle and Gosford.....

DutchRoll
27th Apr 2012, 11:53
Warnervale has rapidly encroaching development and very strong commercial pressure to sell land for industrial use. I've flown over Schofields a few times. Funny to still see the remnants of runway and aerodrome surrounded by housing developments. Richmond has a number of serious limitations.

The pollies, bless their souls, need to friggin' make a decision, stick to it, and not succumb to the greedy lure of housing/industrial development dollars. And what are the chances of that happening? Unfortunately when it comes to a 2nd airport for Sydney, it is bipartisan greed and incompetence as far as the eye can see.....

NoTrainingWheel
28th Apr 2012, 03:58
Would constructing a new 2.7km 40/220 runway at Richmond from Bankstown Rd, North East across Hawkesbury Valley Way (route the vehicle traffic underneath) towards Dight St be a solution and:


Install world class navigational facilities
Re-direct domestic B737 / A320 / Turboprops to Richmond
Provide limited B737 / A320 / slots at Sydney for passengers connecting to international flights.

alangirvan
28th Apr 2012, 07:46
It is the year 2035 - an A380-1000X operated by British Emirates Airways has just arrived at newly opened Sydney West Albanese Airport after an 18 hour flight from Thames Estuary Boris Airport.

teresa green
28th Apr 2012, 07:55
They will keep stuffing around for the perceivable future, meanwhile CBR and NTL will continue to grow as their populations continue to grow, until Bingo, someone will say whats wrong with CBR or NTL, by then thats where Sydney will start and finish. Expect a new airport circa 2035. (You might even get two)!

international hog driver
28th Apr 2012, 09:26
2. Re-direct domestic B737 / A320 / Turboprops to Richmond
3. Provide limited B737 / A320 / slots at Sydney for passengers connecting to international flights.

Tell him he's dreamin'......

Yeah I can really see someone who lives in Cronulla driving past Mascot, and then sit in a car for another 90mis to get to Richmond to check in a minimum 60 mins before flight to fly to Brisbane, enter the mandatory hold at CG for 20 mins and finally get to Brisbane where you hold off stand for another 20 mins waiting for a gate........

It was quicker to fly between SYD & MEL/BNE 45 years ago in turboprop than it is now.

Both SYD & BNE are artificially limited by either government sanctioned or other groups interests.

Until, party politics are put aside we as tax payers, fight crew or ground staff are going to have to put up with this situation for a very, very long time!

Lets look at two airports.... Brisbane & Gatwick..... both with 1 runway.

BNE 192,000 movements, 20 million pax
LGW 251,000 movements, 32 million pax

There is no reason why BNE cant step up, and no reason why SYD cant handle more or even if RIC was to get serious.....

1 runway can handle a lot of traffic its the political BS that needs to be circumvented.

Australian city dwellers need a teaspoon of cement powder and TTFU! If you want to move forward and join the rest of the world as something more than a bridge, a harbour, some beaches and the daily bikie shoot out you and your political drones need to get real.

Lodown
29th Apr 2012, 01:45
Well said IHD. Face it, the Sydney basin will only ever have one major airport. The horse has bolted. It doesn't have the infrastructure, space, and money for capital expenditure and never will now. The best thing to do for Sydney is move the international ops out of there and make it a purely domestic airport. Any satellite airport for Sydney; whether it be Newcastle, Orange, Bathurst, or wherever, may as well be out of state. It's all much the same for travel times in connecting flights. For example, Brisbane has a lot of room for expansion into Moreton Bay. If it wasn't for the fact that it's privately owned, it could serve Sydney as well as, if not better than any secondary Sydney airport. Same applies to Melbourne.

Tinstaafl
29th Apr 2012, 02:25
Fill in Botany Bay and turn it into a giant airport. Screw the rare midget saltwater slime mould, et al - the bay hasn't been 'natural' since the Tank Stream was last able to supplythe entire colony with fresh water.

Mimpe
29th Apr 2012, 11:18
land fill east broken bay, or Jilliby, Wyee,Walllarah, or even the long and largely unnnocupied Budgewoi sandy point which is about7 km long and a km wide.

Got to be creative!

Archer2002
29th Apr 2012, 22:15
If last Friday night trying to pick up relatives from a 10pm flight is any example,Sydney Airport is farked already. Total gridlock TRYING to get to that absurd pickup carpark,in the end relos just walked up to me in the traffic and jumped in. Forget any additional flights unless they make the Airport rail link free and an express dedicated line to Central and back.

ampclamp
29th Apr 2012, 23:17
archer you are certainly correct. The infrastructure "servicing' the airport is utter sh!te. You can do whatever you like to the airport re movements, runways whatever but the roads are clogged from 6am thru to 8 pm at least. The rail link is an expensive joke (just like parking there) and the pick up and drop off is hopeless as the place is held hostage by spiv limo drivers and taxi drivers who clearly have a completely different set of rules.

Typhoon650
30th Apr 2012, 01:30
Wasn't there talk about an airport site around Peat's ridge somewhere a few years ago? Bugger all residents to annoy, lots of farm land, good transport to the area etc.

pull-up-terrain
30th Apr 2012, 06:37
After flying home from Narita last night. Getting from tokyo to narita airport was absolutely stuffed. After a 1 hour train ride, swapping trains 3 times and $40 out of pocket i got to Narita airport and supposedly Japan's public transport system is meant to be good.

I can only imagine how long it will take for someone like myself who lives on the east coast of Sydney (Sutherland Shire) to get to an airport somewhere in western Sydney by public transport. And also how expensive the taxi fare will be (to get to Sydney airport from my house the cab fare was $80. :ugh:

My suggestion would be to just to expand the airport we already have by somehow extending the 16L/34R runway so that A330's, 767's and 787's can take off and land and building a runway parallel to the 07/25 runway.

Archer2002
30th Apr 2012, 11:21
8pm? This was a 10pm landing and the road was in gridlock at almost 10.30pm.As for pull-up-terrain's issues with living in the Shire, spare a thought for the people in Sydney's North West, or further out West. An $80 taxi fare would be a blessing, and its about more than aircraft movements if the passengers can't get to the airport because of the traffic.

pull-up-terrain
30th Apr 2012, 11:40
As for pull-up-terrain's issues with living in the Shire, spare a thought for the people in Sydney's North West, or further out West.

Pffft, the people out west are too busy pimping up cars, and shooting at houses. The few who can afford to fly are probably rich drug dealers anyway. :E

Ozgrade3
30th Apr 2012, 13:14
The flloodplain north of Richmond can never be built on for reidential housing, so a perfect spot for an airport.

Newcastle, Canberra will eventualy become international airports in their own right, serving their local population bases. But not as a 2nd sydney airport.

Fog at Richmond, cat 3 ILS solves that problem, only been doing that for 40 years in Europe and the USA.

Terrain around richmond, cant see that as a big problem, an annoying one for sure. Have a look at the IFR letdowns into Innsbruck. Right down a narrow valley with mountains 8,000 above airport elevation 4nm either side.

RAAF not allowing civies into their airports.......who the bloody hell runs the country, tha RAAF????.........I sure as hell didnt vote for Wing Commander such and such.

Sydney needs a 2nd airport in the Sydney basin, no where else.

Badgereys Creek is right in the middle of the expansion are for houses, non sensical to put an airport there.

Wilton, thats a red herring staight out of the script of yes Minister. Sir Humprey Appleby would be most impressed.

The Egyptians (and others) built the Suez Cannal 150 years ago. we cant even dam off a floodplain. Kinda sums up Australia.

Old Fella
1st May 2012, 04:46
Ozgrade3, bloody good question. Of course the RAAF do not run the country. Neither is the current Federal Government doing much of a job of it either. Your suggestion that the floodplain to the north of Richmond be built up and the airfield expanded is probably not implausible, but it won't happen in my lifetime nor yours most likely.

As for the RAAF not allowing civilian aircraft to use their facility, don't think that is the case. Many airfields are shared and have been for years. The RAAF may control airspace around airfields, but they give clearances to non military aircraft to use that airspace and the associated airfields. Maybe you did not vote for Wing Commander So and So, but just remember that maybe someday you might appreciate him or her as they fight to keep you free to fly around in this country.

Capt Groper
1st May 2012, 06:53
Join the real world.
Noise compliant A/C are quieter than other other environmental noise

markis10
17th May 2012, 21:53
The DOD are now actively positioning Richmond for more civil traffic, not trying to stop it.

rj27
17th May 2012, 22:14
It doesn't get mentioned much. As ULTRALIGHTS mentioned, land is there, aligned for a 3rd runway Sydney. Centrally located. Easy to put in a short high speed rail link between airports with connections to anywhere else on the rail system. M5 feeds into it. The military could easily be moved to that large base they have near Cobbitty and still have rapid response for Sydney from there. Bankstown a/port shouldn't interfere and could also be linked. Seems like a no brainer. Am I missing something??

markis10
17th May 2012, 22:22
There is a reason why Holsworthy has not got a large strip, any earthworks in the area run the risk of unexplored ordinance and it's a tad close to a radioactive restricted area. To quote a 1995 report on the second airport proposals: The 1985 SSP rejected Holsworthy because of irresolvable airspace conflicts with Bankstown Airport, which would have to close, as well as the unexploded ordnance issue. Consequently, Holsworthy was not included in the ranking process which led to the short-list of two sites.

rj27
17th May 2012, 23:59
Shame they can't find and remove any old ordinance which will have to be done at some stage anyway you would think. Relocate Bankstown to Holsworthy(that would keep it busy initially) or a new runway at Badgery's creek(there's land still set aside if the previous scenario is untenable). Let the developers take Bankstown. That would cover a lot of the costs $$$. Radioactive area?? Not good for the middle of Sydney, can't they clean that up and remove it as well?? Sounds like killing 2 or 3 birds with the one stone.

ampclamp
18th May 2012, 01:29
rj27 He I believe would be referring to the just rebuilt nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights.

Taildragger67
18th May 2012, 06:10
It appears that much of the talk re Badgery's, Wilton, etc. is for an aerodrome to replace KSA; likewise much of the talk around RIC & Willy (such as teh RAAF study quoted above) appears to be for them to become 'major' civil fields.

We have to assume that KSA will remain the primary for years - decades - to come. But could not RIC and Willy become - not major civil fields, but overflows?

Riccy could have a limited number of A320 / 737-sized, short- and mid-range services, meaning no runway extension, limited impact on military operations and a viable alternative for anyone north and west of Parramatta - even if available destinations were only (say) MEL, BNE and ADL (and the odd AKL perhaps). Stick a cat III in and the fog issue is largely addressed.

As for Willy, the Newcastle / Hunter area has sufficient population to act as its own catchment, and it is too far from Sydney to be a 'second' Sydney airport - again naturally limiting ops to the extent that there would be no threat to mil ops.

So if each of RIC & WIL took 10-15 services a day, that's 30 slot pairs a day opened up at YSSY. Even 24 services between 06.00-18.00 would be only 2 arrivals and 2 departures per hour - one every 15 minutes - would that seriously stuff up military ops?

Fieldmouse
18th May 2012, 07:33
They have told the minister they will exercise their option over the 2nd airport.
They will now take their time, doing it where they want, when they want.
It will be driven by airline demand and shareholder willingness to invest.
Government at both levels have been hoist by their own petards.
Max the Axe proving once again that no matter where he is, he is the smartest man in the room. Nothing to see here now folks.