Originally Posted by
Tinstaafl
Why on Earth would you need, or want, to close Bankstown to use Richmond? Overseas airports often have close proximity to other aerodromes & still manage to function effectively.
The point being made was not that aviaton industry or air traffic complexities needed BK to close, rather the closure of that airport would provide the required political sweetener to the voting public in affected areas. Upgrading BK to take anything bigger than E170-sized regional jets will require impractical political (ie, impossible) air traffic management changes.
Lowdown, the point is that a second Sydney airport WOULD and SHOULD be a curfew-free reliever, GA, Low-cost-carrier, and freight airport (and heck, even a RAAF transport hub!) The only circumstance where it wouldn't be is if SYD closed entirely - and that isn't going to happen save rising sea levels. I agree that the works needed to improve Richmond are significant, but they are still an order of magnitude less than those requried for any other site.