View Full Version : Paraparaumu Extentions???
Daqqy152
31st May 2006, 06:59
Long term $750m plan to develop Paraparaumu airport
1.00pm Wednesday May 31, 2006
The new owners of Paraparaumu Airport, on the Kapiti Coast north of Wellington, have long term plans for hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent developing the facility providing thousands of jobs.
Paraparaumu Airport Holdings' major shareholder Noel Robinson told The Dominion Post that he and two other investors, accountant Steve Bootten and property investment manager Tom Hoare, had bought the airport for "well under $40 million".
The new owners wanted to enhance the 131ha site's potential as a source of business growth and employment, and as a community amenity, Mr Robinson said.
"We want to create about 8000 new jobs, so half the local population will not have to travel out of the district to work, as it does now."
Fifteen consultants were working on the project, and it was planned that $750 million would be spent in a 30-year redevelopment.
Plans included walkways, open spaces, canals (up to 2km long and 20m wide), water features and sculptures, two terminals and a network of wide tree-lined boulevards in a new commercial area.
The main runway would be extended to allow planes carrying up to 70 people to land, with the aim of making the airport a major subregional facility, although not in competition with Wellington Airport.
In 1995 the National government sold the airport complex to Murray Cole and some associates for $1.65 million. Soon afterward the new owners sold part of the area to a developer for $800,000.
In 2004 Te Whanau a te Ngarara and airport users opposed Paraparaumu Airport Ltd's application for a plan change to include a mix of airport-residential, commercial, general business and varied aviation use.
The iwi staged an occupation at the airport in protest that the land had not been offered back to it, as members believed it should have been under the Public Works Act, through which it was taken during World War 2.
- NZPA
With all the houses at each end there is not a lot of room to extend the runway? But would be nice to see the RW and taxiways resealed they are getting just a bit lumpy!
pakeha-boy
31st May 2006, 10:08
sounds like another...."Midway" "Burbank" project.....ask any Southwest Pilot what short Rwys surrounded by houses will do for you
Kiwiguy
19th Jun 2006, 12:50
I understand they wish to extend and concentrate on one runway 34/16 ?
The other runway would be sold as commercial developments is my guess and financing seems to be based upon the carve up of this land. Interesting since the local maori have prior claim if the land is withdrawn from airport use.
What sort of aircraft would cope with the current 1350m runway ?
Thereis hardly any fencing around the airport, so security would be a significant worry. Anybody care to hazard a guess how many people in the immediate catchment would want to fly to Auckland each morning ?:hmm:
There was a public meeting about it last week. Strong defence of the cross runway on the basis of emergencies and crosswind issues during westerly winds, but overall the case for retaining it is pretty weak.
Anything up to a BAe146 could use the main runway at the moment (assuming the runway is strong enough).
Auckland flights have been tried a few times and it never lasted long. Origin is rumoured to be opening a couple of routes, last I heard it was NS-PP-AA.
Air2there are also looking at a commuter service to Wellington, landing on the Westpac Stadium walkway. It is technically feasible, but who knows how serious Air2There are about anything...
zulu_kilo
19th Jun 2006, 20:08
Didn't Air Nelson try PPAA back around the early 90's? - Good on QO if they give it a try:ok: , you couldn't blame them if it doesn't work I guess:} . Kapiti Coast has grown hugely since Air Nelson stopped, but if Eagle AND QO can operate in/out of WAG, surely Kapiti Coast could sustain at least a daily flight? - On the side Air2There I note on their website are launching "Day Excursions" :D to the mountain for around $250rtn. (flying time quoted at less than an hour each way) Interesting watching.:hmm:
Not sure about Air Nelson, but Associated Aviation tried it with an OP J31 in the early '90s. They had previously operated a daily service with a 421. The J31 lasted a few months, from memory.
Kiwiguy
24th Jun 2006, 13:00
I just ran the runway performance of a 737-200-9 and IFR fuel for PP-AA and it turns out the 732 could carry 92 pax plus bags with HLZ diversion and 45 minutes loiter fuel.
Thanks for the imput. What would the flight time be for an Origin J42 ?
Origin is really struggling with creditors at WLG from what some mates at AGS told me recently.
Anybody know the proposed runway extension length ?
Surely if motivated to do so then the Air NZ Q300 could also manage the current 1347m runway ?
haughtney1
24th Jun 2006, 16:35
Hmmmm a 732 out of Para para.....I wonder who would want to operate out of there?
Air2 where? :} werent they going to fill the skies with Caravans?
Personally, I think the only realistic operators in and out of Para will be freight orientated....as long as the costs stay low:ok:
zulu_kilo
24th Jun 2006, 21:01
Its worked in some places in Australia (Avalon/Newcastle...) but of course there is a population base to support it. If someone is brave enough, they will give it another go. I would think that a J41 is about all the pax you would get, not forgetting that people in the northern suburbs of WLG would perhaps consider driving north to PP where the carparking and perhaps airfares a both cheaper (still will be hard to compete with a 737). - I would have thought that the new announcement of TRG-CHC during the week and TRG-NSN on saturdays would be harder to fill...... :confused:
There isn't a snowballs chance in hell of a 737 operating out of PP... too many issues (noise, obstacle clearance surfaces, lack of infrastructure, not nearly enough pax to warrant it). I could just about see a 146 if you could find the pax - it is far more neighbour-friendly than the 737. It could lift more than 90 pax too... more like 125 for a -300 series to Auckland.
Far more likely to be a small turboprop of some sort. Good luck to whoever tries it... it SHOULD work, but for some reason, it never does.
Air2there aren't serious players, as any casual study of their operation will reveal.
Freight operators are unlikely to ever prosper at PP due to noise considerations (not to mention lack of infrastructure).
prospector
25th Jun 2006, 03:43
" Paraparaumu aerodrome is no longer needed"
That was the decision of the Swedavia Report roundabout 1988 , and following the report the airfield was sold for some 1.6 million dollars. These owners have not apparantly been able to make a profit, even with high landing fees, own airline???, and even a cafe!!!!.
The local story is that the new owners paid something in excess of 30 million dollars. This is only a rumour, but if it is only half correct some persons have done very well out of the Swedavia report. As the new owners are not a philanthropic society how are they going to get a return on their outlay?? certainly not operating that lump of land as an airport. Their core business is as land developers, now why would they buy an airport that is no longer needed??.
Prospector
You forgot to mention that the "previous owner" sold off lumps of the airport, enough of it that it came close to returning his original investment. The land was promptly developed for housing (surprise, surprise), and, despite signing covenants to the effect that they would never complain about the noise, the residents of said housing now spend a consderable amount of their time, you guessed it, complaining about the noise. In the time-honoured way of the squeaky wheel, their voices carry a disproportionate amount of influence.
Good analysis of the new owners intentions, though. One way or another, the runways are destined to be dug up under the new owners - maybe not immediately, but you can bet your bottom dollar it will happen eventually.
As usual, the pilot community, other voices of common sense, and the original Maori owners, will all lose out. Such is the way under an (allegedly) corrupt local government.
Once it is gone... you will never get it back...
Kiwiguy
25th Jun 2006, 08:07
Hey MOR ... Which end of the airport did they sell off last time ?
The purchase price is reported in the press as NZ$40m which is quite a capital gain! Any jet service would only benefit from outbound to Auckland in the morning and inbound from Auckland by evening...
As for obstacle clearance I was looking at 737-200-9A BFL from the Boeing website. The later models couldn't manage it. Incidentally I was looking at standard day +15C. On a standard day it would get 113 out of there with bags.
The east end (Milne Drive and environs).
As for your performance figures, it would be interesting to see them (ie a link to the site). I doubt that they would apply in any case, as the US calculates performance differently to the CAA. Also, those figures are probably predicated on the use of reverse - maybe not, but probably are. I doubt that you would ever get permission to use a 737 with reversers at PP, too much noise.
Kiwiguy
25th Jun 2006, 09:53
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/727sec3.pdf
Hopefully I inserted the link to Boeings website PDF properly...
If not this is how it should read:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/ airports/ acaps/ 727sec3.pdf
....commercial/airports/acaps/727sec3.pdf (is the full text)
No that is merely the balanced field length with brakes. I understand that the NZCAA certification for the 737 family is based on acceptance of the FAA type certificate.
It is the trend in Europe to use smaller airports as alternate to big city airports but then they have huge populations.
errr... those links are to 727 perf, not 737. Even if you look up the 737 charts, it all depends on whether you use FAR or JAR figures, what empty weight you use, etc.
The NZCAA may use the US type certification as a basis for approval, but that is because they have no choice! As you may have noticed from the 737 perf charts, the type certification is not approved in the same way as performance data is - hence the FAR and JAR figures. For a start, you would never use only a balanced field length when assessing runway performance.
It's all academic anyway, no chance of a -200 series 737 ever being used at PP.
It is true that smaller airports are popular with LCCs in Europe, but "smaller airport" normally means a runway of at least 1800m.
Kiwiguy
26th Jun 2006, 04:42
MOR it was very late at nite when at your request i went to the Boeing website to get the link for you. Why can't you go and read the damn thing yourself or are you totally helpless.
I did my calculations from the correct PDF. I just gave you the wrong link. Do you suffer from little people's disease or something?
devolved
26th Jun 2006, 08:08
Extended Runway aye?
Lets all hope if it does go ahead, their runway maintenance on the new seal is boosted, or should I say, lets hope a maintenance program is created. The current seal sure makes things interesting.
However this does not concern me a great deal, as landing at "ANY OTHER" airport is a sure pleasure, therefore another bonus to look forward to on XCs.
Not to mention i believe the pilots get great training on Aquaplaning, debris dodging, trespasser(s) dodging, spot the centreline, spot the threshold, guess where rwy11 starts and have midair’s with golf balls on short finals for 29.
Kiwiguy
No, I suffer from can't-be-bothered-with-people-who-don't-undertand-the-principles disease... :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:
From the anger in your post, I'll just assume your understanding of transport-category performance is minimal and that you have misinterpreted the graphs. Which one did you use?
Anyway... all academic. Now go and kick your cat, you'll feel better... :rolleyes:
CougarNZ
26th Jun 2006, 09:00
Devolved . you forgot to mention some cat eyes on the runway which actually reflect for nights ops as well.
well , as for a 737 trying to land at NZPP , **** poor old grandma in raumati south that believes the hughes 300 sounds like a WW2 air raid would really complain then Ha HA
devolved
26th Jun 2006, 22:50
OOooh is that what they are?
I thought they were put there to set off nose wheel shimmying on aircraft with weak dampers? (seen many times). As there is no reflective qualities on those bumps on the centre line and taxiways. Sure is fun trying to find the taxiways back to the club at night, *vacates left off the active* "oops that’s the grass"
Cloud Cutter
26th Jun 2006, 23:31
Settle down fellas, there is no chance that 737s will be operated out of PP, so who cares about the figures. Both the B1900 and Q300 could operate fine at the present length. The aircraft they are getting at in the article is the ATR-72 (or perhaps, misguidedly, the Q400). They would require an extension to operate effectively (or at all). Probably something like 1700 m at a minimum.
The aircraft they are getting at in the article is the ATR-72 (or perhaps, misguidedly, the Q400). They would require an extension to operate effectively (or at all). Probably something like 1700 m at a minimum.
No, they wouldn't. ATR72s and Q400s routinely operate out of London City (1200m) and Gueurnsey (1483m), to name but two. You can normally lift a full load out of both (from memory - KLM UK used to lift full loads out of London City, but they they were only going to Guernsey).
At 1470m, PP is plenty long enough, so I guess that argument is academic too...
tinpis
27th Jun 2006, 02:05
Does anyone live there?:ooh:
devolved
27th Jun 2006, 05:28
Far enough to not hear the Chieftain doing its runups, but close enough to hear the TUG nice and early on a Sunday morning :S