Originally Posted by
RHPrague
Thank you! This is what I supposed, but it's great to have it confirmed by people who know what they are talking about. If anyone else would like to add anything it would be appreciated, even if only to support the view above.
The plan to re-build and re-open an ages de-commissioned runway 04/22, realigned to increase capacity as 24L/06R
while at the same time
completely close 12/30 and thus remove the noise burden on the west side of the city
sounds like a fair one.
The argument about single runway being not safe does sound silly, however. Apart from the the reasons already mentioned, also because if 24L will not be built the 12/30 is not getting closed!
Anyway, back to your dilemma: If there is a major accident that closes a runway, the attending fire and rescue services cannot provide sufficient cover to sustain operation on the other runway anyway. They will re-group but for a certain period of time 20-40 minutes at least nothing else moves. Some will not be allowed to depart on time, some will need to divert or decide to wait and then divert anyway. The ops will be culled in the immediate wake of an accident but the effect is operationally incovenient, not itself a safety issue.