Sydney’s second airport revealed

[Thylacine]

SMH March 7, 2008

REGULAR domestic airline services could start taking off from Bankstown Airport as soon as next year, after the low-cost carrier Tiger Airways provided its strongest signal yet that it wants to use the airport as its Sydney hub.

QantasLink and Virgin Blue are already negotiating with the airport's private owners.

Tiger Airways, part-owned by Singapore Airlines, announced yesterday it was preparing to add two 144-seat Airbus A319 aircraft to its Australian fleet of 180-seat A320s by the end of this year.

The order for the smaller jets is seen as code in aviation circles that Tiger wants to bypass Sydney Airport and use Bankstown, which could handle A319s if it extended its main runway.

The airport, founded in 1940, was once regarded one of the largest general aviation airports in the world. But since it was privatised five years ago it has been trying to squeeze out smaller aviation businesses.

"We believe bringing the A319s into the fleet in Australia will give us great access to land at smaller airfields in the country," the airline's chief executive, Tony Davis, said. "We believe this will open up a number of airports."

When asked if Bankstown could be serviced by Tiger, he said: "It's for the airport to determine whether or not they are able to allow jet [aircraft]."

Tiger Airways has already held talks with the airport's management, which has been seeking to attract regular passenger flights for the past year. But the airport still needs Federal Government approval to extend the runway to handle A319s.

Virgin Blue has also recently introduced a fleet of Brazilian-made Embraer jets into its fleet, small enough to use Bankstown. It is believed to be interested in using the airport. QantasLink has also held talks with the airport's management to fly its propeller aircraft into Bankstown.

Since introducing domestic flights out of Melbourne in November, Tiger has so far shied away from Sydney. There are rumours it has been pressuring Sydney Airport to establish a terminal for low-cost operators.

Tiger, which models itself on the Irish no-frills airline Ryanair, has expressed its interest in using secondary airports which charge lower landing fees, allowing budget airlines to offer lower fares. Bankstown Airport expressed enthusiasm for Tiger's A319 order.

"It will be a great aircraft for Bankstown," said an airport spokeswoman, Meredith Laverty. "We're excited about it."

She added that it would be a great opportunity for western Sydney to have regular passenger traffic. Airbus held discussions with the airport last year on the suitability of the jet.

But Ms Laverty said it could be 18 months before Bankstown could handle domestic airlines such as Tiger, because it needed to upgrade its taxiways, runways and other infrastructure.

Bankstown already has permission to handle 18 regular passenger flights a day. While this is small - Sydney Airport handles about 500 domestic and regional aircraft movements every day - Bankstown could seek permission to lift this cap.

Airlines have expressed increasing concern that Sydney Airport's domestic T2 terminal is becoming too congested to handle more services. The airport denies this.

Bankstown Airport could face stiff local opposition to plans to extend its runway for Tiger, even though Airbus says the A319 is a quiet plane given its steep landing angle.

There are at least three schools, two preschools and an aged-care centre near the airport which could be affected by increased aircraft noise that would result from the proposal.

"The noise level could be an issue," the chief executive of Bankstown City Aged Care, Terry Madden, said. "We'd need to know what acoustic level these planes are going to have and therefore what noise levels are going to be created."

A Bankstown councillor, Allan Winterbottom, said there would be considerable local opposition if it was to go ahead.

"The problem is that there's no curfew. We could have these planes flying over at all hours."

[Jabawocky]

Next thing you will hear about after the increased noise, is the RPT boys complaining about C152's and Traumahawks getting in their way at their own airport:ugh:.

Mind you in makes sense. Same at YBAF.........better to use the place than lose the place!

Just keep the air fair! (sorry cheap slogan...)

J:ok:

[Buster Hyman]

Half the punters in the Aged care centre probably won't hear the aircraft anyway...:rolleyes:

[Jabawocky]

Buster you crack me up!:} :D

Thats the solution at Mascot then, move out the residents and build ALL aged care centres there.

YSSY....open 24/7!:ok:

J

[Jet_A_Knight]

"GoKat 319, join upwind, you're number 4, follow a Basair C152 with an indian student who can barely speak english doing night circuits just turning downwind'

If the pax survive that, they can spend 1/2 an hour explaining to the taxi dispatcher they're at the Bankstown Airport Terminal, which is at the bottom of Airport Avenue, then wait an hour for the cabbie to rock up because he couldn't find Airport Avenue and just did the rounds of the perimeter road trying to work out what hangar number you were at.

There's ALOT to sort out at that joint before it can be a meaningful passenger port.


PS It's the A318 certified for steep approach profiles - not 319

[Buster Hyman]

I guess when they decided to use Avalon, it was a bit of a buggah that there was nothing there....but that was probably a positive as well...nothing was there to get in the way.

I still think OzJet should've stuck with their Moorrabbin-Sydney idea using 146's. I reckon that would've been a nice little earner...provided they could find willing cabin crew to crew 'em!

[Foyl]

Not likely. From news.com.au:

Bankstown won't fly, says minister
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font March 7, 2008 - 2:30PM

Latest related coverage
Mayor calls for Bankstown curfew
Revealed: second airport
Your Say: Should Bankstown be Sydney's second airport?
Advertisement
Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese has ruled out any expansion of Bankstown Airport as a second domestic flight hub in Sydney.

Mr Albanese says the airport's location in a densely populated area and its proximity to the existing Sydney International Airport makes it an unsuitable site.

"When it comes to Bankstown Airport being Sydney's second airport, it simply won't fly,'' he told reporters today.

"This isn't a new proposal, it's been around for some time. The previous government considered moving some of the planes from Sydney Airport to Bankstown Airport.

"It's an inappropriate site and there are a whole range of practical issues of where it is in a densely populated suburb, and there are issues of flight path confusion as it is quite close aeronautically to Sydney Airport.''

Any expansion of an airport is a federal government matter, and Mr Albanese today ruled out offering his approval.

"I'm saying Bankstown Airport won't be Sydney's second airport,'' he said.

And the operator of Bankstown Airport says it does not have any agreement with any airline to operate regular large-scale passenger services.

"The speculation on any airline about to offer passenger services from Bankstown is premature," Sydney Metropolitan Airport Bankstown said in a statement today.

"The airport does not currently have the infrastructure to handle large regular passenger operations."

The airport says an announcement by Tiger Airways that it is buying two 144-seat Airbus A319 aircraft is a matter for the airline.

The announcement has been seen as an indication that Tiger Airways aims to run regular services to and from Bankstown airport, which could accommodate the A319s if its runways were extended.

However, the airport's chief executive, Kim Ellis, said regular passenger operations would require significant investment and changes which could take up to two years to complete, following approvals and extensive consultation.

"We do not have an agreement or deal with any airline to operate regular passenger services from Bankstown," Mr Ellis said in the statement.

"Extensive public consultation and relevant approvals are required well before any significant runway and taxiway works are carried out.

"Any changes we make to the airport will involve extensive and detailed consultation with all of our stakeholders, the local community, elected officials, our tenants, airport users and regulatory authorities."

He says the airline welcomes the media interest, but, "Sydney Metropolitan Airport Bankstown is not the second Sydney Airport".

AAP

[Atlas Shrugged]

Here we go again....goodoh beaut!

[Walrus 7]

So what are the options, given that Badgery's Creek is also off the agenda? Boot the RAAF out of Richmond and take that?

Walrus

[Hugh Jarse]

JAK how's that confounded French Chainsaw going?

If the pax survive that, they can spend 1/2 an hour explaining to the taxi dispatcher they're at the Bankstown Airport Terminal, which is at the bottom of Airport Avenue, then wait an hour for the cabbie to rock up because he couldn't find Airport Avenue and just did the rounds of the perimeter road trying to work out what hangar number you were at.

The last time I diverted in there with the Dash the taxi driver scumbags refused to go there to pick up 36 fares. The reason? They don't feel safe going there after dark, according to the dispatcher :ugh::yuk::=

I have greater fear getting in a cab, the way some of those idiots drive compared to security at the airport:rolleyes:

If taxis refuse to go there after dark, BAL has a major image and security problem to address before RPT starts going there.....

Plus there is no public transport infrastructure (currently) to get people out of the aiport.

[notmyC150v2]

I think you can completely discount any chance of the ALP allowing an airport anywhere near their heartland.

Perhaps Richmond would be a good idea. Now where do we put those pesky airforce people...

Buy an aircraft carrier and put the buggers out to sea where the fish can't complain about aircraft noise :}:}

[Wiley]

Bankstown? They'll need flare pods, anti laser goggles and God (or should that be 'Allah'?) only knows what other countermeasures, to counter the groundfire from a large number of 'locals' who originally come from areas where shooting at noisy, annoying airliners is a national sport.

I think Tiger and other airlines wanting to use Bankstown might get away with it as long as they promise they'll only approach and take off during the ad. breaks while 'Home and Away' and 'Big Brother' are on.

[Tmbstory]

Walrus 7

Years ago there was a study/proposal that one option for the Sydney basin was Williamtown/ Newcastle, in conjunction with a high speed rail connection (like Eurostar etc) to Sydney.
It would work.

Tmb

[Taildragger67]

Problem will be our friends at Macquarie Bank, who get a veto over any 'major' airport development within 100km of YSSY. Thank Little Johnnie and his good mate Max Moore-Wilton (who happened to slink out of the PM's Department and into Macquarie Airports) for that little cracker. One might hope comments shooting down Bankstown are not being made with an eye to anyone's post-government gig... :hmm:

Riccy would work, close to the putative catchment area, less issue with locals, a train station across the road, a good ILS-ed runway, no need to upgrade twys or any of the rest of the hardware, maybe just a bit of a tack-on to Air Movements (which has its own entrance anyway so no punters driving through the base proper). Indeed if it resulted in upgrades to local feeder roads and train services, the locals might actually support it.

[Curved Approach]

Biggest media beat up for a while!! The proximity of BK to SY means a major restructure of the airspace would be required. Flight training and GA obviously would end up moved to CN and WOL (not a bad thing!)

The only real sollution to a second airport (without building a completely new airport) is Goulburn with a high speed rail link to Sydney. In this day and age the military bases are becoming busier and Williamtown will never expand the RPT apron or allow more movements (NB: no longer an international alternate)

[Taildragger67]

Curved Approach,

Surely 33 Sqn moving YAMB to will free up some slots at YSRI?

[Ozgrade3]

Hugh Jarse

Can you tell us the story of diverting into BK in a Dash full of pax, would be an interesting read.

The place is locked up at night tighter than Fort Knox. A while back, to Global expresses had to move to BK at 12 pm from YSSY because runway works were closing at 16R. Apparantly the poor drivers had top climb over the fence cause they couldnt find anyone with a key to the gates.

[OpsNormal]

P-A-F wrote:
Personally I think if the Gov't is serious they would buy the land to enable 18/36 at Richmond (mind you there would be a crap load of earth works required to level it) and make that the next Sydney Airport, and divert the rail track to make a Richmond Airport rail station. Then move the RAAF to Dubbo (i.e. a better place than Sydney) - better quality locals there . Problem being the Lower North Shore brigade would resign - and resign instantly

I never thought I'd honestly say this: I agree with you P-A-F.... well at least up to the point of moving the RAAF. IMHO there is no need, just keep it a Joint User Facility with the RAAF on the Northern side, and the Civvies on the southern side where the road should be moved from and diverted around near the University/TAFE/Ag College to make room on the southern side for a N/S runway complex, and a decent upgrade of the railway to at least two side by side lines and a ring line to Campbelltown - which by itself has been overdue for 20 years.:=

The Sydney basin has become a victim of its own slothery in the way it has expanded without massively upgrading its infrastructure, especially in the past 20 years. Badgeries was never going to work due to approaches over houses from every direction. Granted there is some fog from time to time at Richmond, but hey - why not install Australia's first operational Cat III ILS?:E

OzG3, it was difficult enough when we diverted there one morning when CB got well and truly fogged-in. I can say that even during the day the airport struggles to cope with even a smaller RPT aircraft, let alone what would have happened to Jarse at night.

[Stationair8]

Smart move, fly into Bankstown spend hour plus travelling to Sydney airport to connect to fly somewhere else, a great government initiative!

RPT Jet traffic into YSBK that will help the traffic flow situation into YSSY at peak times especially those on a crappy southerly day, when its gusting 45 knots. No doubt 18/36 at YSBK will be upgraded to jet standard, sorry that is closed because the airport owners said that strong southerly winds don't won't affect the airport operations!!!!!

Why don't they upgrade Newcastle and make it the second Sydney airport?

[Jet_A_Knight]

What about firing up Schofields again:E

Isn't that blimp hangar still there??

[kookabat]

What about firing up Schofields again

Now you're talking!!! :D

[Hugh Jarse]

Oz3,

Our little soiree to BK occurred prior to the current "security arrangements", and happened as a result of curfew and an unforecast southerly change which pushed us beyond the 20kt tailwind limit for landing permitted on 34L SY.

Without going into too much detail, my phone bill was significantly increased that night because of the taxi drivers refusal to attend the airport. Basically the majority of PAX contacted relatives who came out and picked them up.

We managed to get a bus sent out 3 1/2 hours after arriving at BK. That put the crew and remaining PAX at SY Domestic Terminal 0345 the next day.

Fortunately the Wx was fine that night, because the terminal (old Briefing Office) was locked up and all 39 of us had to stand around outside:ugh:.

On the face of this single experience, BK appears to have a security image problem if taxis refuse to go there. They must know something I don't, because for the 3 years I worked there (with many late nights) I never witnessed any activity which could even remotely be described as a threat to anyone's safety.:rolleyes:

[Walrus 7]

In the current issue of Australian Flying (for which I am a contributor) Ben Sandilands mentions Wilton or Towra Point as possibles. Not knowing where either of those locations are, I have no clue whether either is a good or bad idea. What do people think about them?

Walrus

[Buster Hyman]

What about CBR?:rolleyes:

[Atlas Shrugged]

Why the need for a second airport anyway?

2000 Olympics saw as much air traffic as we are likely to ever see in Sydney and KSA coped more than well enough with that.

[HF3000]

Have you looked at the aircraft order announcements from Tiger, Virgin, Jetstar & Qantas? Between them they plan to add hundreds of extra aircraft to Australian skies over the next few years... Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane will seriously struggle (as they all do now at certain times of day and under certain wind conditions).

Parallel runway is planned for BNE but won't be finished until about 2013. Melbourne needs parallel runways and they should have started building those yesterday. Sydney will need something - but nobody seems to quite know what.

[Taildragger67]

If one believes the SMH, Macquarie Bank is having enough trouble with its infrastructure subsidiaries at the moment that it could barely afford to re-pave the disabled car park, let alone throw down another strip. They will:

a. squeeze everything they can out of YSSY without spending... you think BAA running EGLL into the ground was bad...;

b. use their pre-emption right to halt any development of a 'major' airport within 100km of YSSY, so as to maximise revenue flowing through that asset.

Hence it has to be Willy or CBR, both of which are >100km from YSSY.

[capt.cynical]

Towra Point,you must be joking not even the "LLR" aka JWH would come at that.:rolleyes:
The Greenies would scream thier T$TS off.:*

[Lodown]

Just by way of a query; what's the difference between business jets landing regularly at BK, bank runners operating quasi-RPT, turboprop charter operators and a multitude of C152s as happens now, and then an additional A-319 operation? Other than an additonal few hundred people a day and the word "airline", then not much. But the pollies have to pander to the voters and even moreso to McBank.

The proximity to Sydney is just an excuse. LAX is close to Longbeach and Burbank with a couple of GA fields in between. It can be done if someone wants it done and alternatively, it can be quashed if someone wants it quashed.

[apacau]

As I understand it, building a fast train to NTL is faaar more expensive than building one to CBR on account of the nasty terrain, bridges required etc. So why wouldn't you do one to Canberra and kill two birds with one stone - plus of course it's in the right direction to extend to MEL one day.

I know, pigs might fly...

As for freight, you could use CBR now and transfer to trucks down the Federal/Hume Highways back of the clock! Again the road is better than to NTL, though it is further, not to mention that I believe the RAAF ban civil movements at NTL overnight anyway.

[Matt J]

Narita is quite some distance from Tokyo. I haven't been since 2001 but from memory it was at least 1 hour on a train. A fast express train but not a bullet train. My guess is at least 100km though. Could be wrong.

[Howard Hughes]

not to mention that I believe the RAAF ban civil movements at NTL overnight anyway.
I wish that were so, I wouldn't miss the 3am trips into Willy!;)

Although I gotta say it is a lot quicker than when the tower is active...:hmm:

[Cap'n Arrr]

I'm certain I saw an article somewhere with a statement from RAAF Willy along the lines of "the airport cannot cope with much more additional civil traffic, and we won't allow much more expansion."

So newie would be out.

[dingo trapper]

Suggestions for RAAF Richmond.

1. Only one flying squadron now remains at Richmond i.e. 37 Sqn operating C130's
2. The army wants them closer to their troops and the S.E Asia/South Pacific regions for rapid deployment purposes e.g. Darwin, Amberley, Townsville. Move them
3. However, If the RAAF leave Richmond about $100 million per annum in civil contracts disappears from the local coffers.
4. Solution, develop Richmond as second civil airport in the Sydney basin.
5. Build North/South runway, 12000ft, through university grounds. Make it Category 3 capable for low visibilty operations.
6. University of Western Sydney (UWS) - Hawkesbury Campus is in decline. Move university to another (quieter) location within the Hawkesbury and build a world class facility as a tradeoff for utilising their land. Benefit - attracts students/staff back to the area.
7. Upgrade existing railway to Richmond to a high speed link to Sydney as well as a freight link for air cargo operations. The railway could go under the proposed new runway together with the existing Windsor/Richmond road.
8. M2 has land allocated all the way to the Hawkesbury (look at the latest SYDWAY street directory). Build it.
9. Utilisation of N/S runway should alleviate noise issues which exist with current E/W runway over Richmond/Windsor townships. Keeps local community happy.
10. Zone area around airport to minimise residential development and to preserve the semi-rural nature of the area. Again, keeps local community happy.
11. The local community is used to aviation movements/activity. If the RAAF leave, there will be an enormous economic vacuum that needs to be filled. Seize the opportunity with the Federal govenment funding it and reap the benefits.

All of the above benefits not only the Hawkesbury, but the surrounding areas e.g. Penrith, Hills District with improved transportation/education/employment opportunities. If anyone has any other ideas about Richmond, both positive and negative, I am very interested.

[teresa green]

Isn't that full of houses Jet? What a great idea to buy up around Mascot and make it into old peoples homes. I think "Dunroutin" Home for Retired Airline Pilots should have the prime position near the runway, we could sit there rocking away, with a whiskey sour clutched to our chests, and wearing our bibs we could talk about the "good old days" when pilots were blokes who didn't use moisturisers, and the aircraft were mean bastards, hell bent on flying into the deck at any given chance. I think I might book a bed and a catheter as soon as it happens. BK as a second airport?

[Trojan1981]

Personally I think if the Gov't is serious they would buy the land to enable 18/36 at Richmond (mind you there would be a crap load of earth works required to level it) and make that the next Sydney Airport, and divert the rail track to make a Richmond Airport rail station. Then move the RAAF to Dubbo (i.e. a better place than Sydney) - better quality locals there . Problem being the Lower North Shore brigade would resign - and resign instantly
Not much RAAF in Richmond to move anymore. Could be a 'joint' facility.

[Fantome]

RICHMOND BACK ON THE DRAWING BOARD?

A good, thoughtful post dingo trapper. You may be "very interested", but nowt will happen without a concerted lobby at work. It's a full time job drumming up sufficient interest to get considered proposals onto the desks of all concerned. Why not make it your holy grail for the next five years?

[dingo trapper]

Thanks Fantome. The ironic point of this story is that the politicians in the Hawkesbury and beyond all support the concept.....off the record, but are too afraid to publicly support it. The Environmental Impact Statement that was released in the late 90's regarding Badgerys Creek dedicated two pages to the Richmond concept but dismissed it mainly due fog considerations which, as we know is a specious argument. Yes it is a bit of a 'Holy Grail' of mine. Care to join the crusade?

[flyinggit]

Solution: Build a huge wind machine that can produce around a 150MPH constant wind that way you can slip any current jet head on into it & land vertically, see no need for a second airport, SY & BK would be huge for such a Jules Verne dream like that, then again the journey to the centre of the Earth must have been one hell of a dream too!
Compared to the rest of the world does SY handle the same amount of traffic as say O'Hare? (Planes per minute say) Could SY be utilised more if our ATC could handle it?


DG

[SM4 Pirate]

Compared to the rest of the world does SY handle the same amount of traffic as say O'Hare? (Planes per minute say) Could SY be utilised more if our ATC could handle it?Whilst it against my nature to respond to obvious trolls; WTF? It's not exactly fair to compare an aerodrome with one parallel runway system with an aerodrome with three. Think of the TMA/TWR controllers at O'Hare and you'll find that SY is very competitive in terms of traffic to controller ratio.

LTOP is the primary factor determining movement rates; ie it is "capped" at 80 movements an hour. It is not the fault of ATC that LTOP exists and determines the rate (even if ignoramuses can't recognise that). You'll find that the Sydney TMA is configured in such a way that they are able to handle that rate or slightly more; because that is the hourly workload; to up the rates may have an impact on configuration, but then again maybe not.

The other considerations re movements are taxiways and runway exits and entries especially on the single runway mode; ie the strong Westerly wind days. On those days movements can be reduced significantly below LTOP caps to about 50 and hour; this is totally about aerodrome design and layout not the ability of ATC.

[Pera]

Richmond could work as a joint user facility. It wouldn't impact at all on the raaf and would mean that the raaf got more atc coverage.

The runway is long enough (just) for domestic, but major money would have to be spent on infrastructure.

A north/south runway would generate a lot of noise complaints. The north of ri is full of houses now. (5 acre blocks etc)

I think it could work in it's current configuration (runway) if you built a terminal south of the runway, which would mean diverting the road and or rail. You would need to have the terminal near the railway line.

Probably too much money for too little gain.

[Trojan1981]

Tony transport's electorate is under the Sy 16 app I believe so I doubt their will be any expansion of Sydney.

Richmond could work as a joint user facility. It wouldn't impact at all on the raaf and would mean that the raaf got more atc coverage.

The runway is long enough (just) for domestic, but major money would have to be spent on infrastructure.

A north/south runway would generate a lot of noise complaints. The north of ri is full of houses now. (5 acre blocks etc)

It might work for small numbers of A320s (ie Tiger). It shouldn't bother the RAAF to much. It shouldn't bother the locals to much either as most of them are used to 707/hercs and the occasional Il76s and Hornets so airbuses would be much quieter by comparisson.
With 33,36 and several other units gone the place is like a ghost town now. The area could do with the business and Railcrop already has plans to duplicate the branch line at least as far as Riverstone, which should provide better services.

[Taildragger67]

To all you suggesting expanding Richmond:

MACQUARIE BANK WILL NOT ALLOW IT.

Especially not at the moment, when it's a strong cash generator in tough times.

When they bought (were given? :hmm:) YSSY there was a clause in the contract which gave them first-choice over any new major airport development within 100km of Sydney CBD.

They own that asset (YSSY) and will continue to milk it. Building another facility themselves would dilute the money they get from YSSY, and someone else building another facility certainly would. A future government might decide a second Sydney Airport (2SA) is needed, but if SACL refuse to do it, you could put your house on them coming up with defence after court-case after God-knows-what to delay it. And given that there's been chat about a 2SA since post-war plans for the city were drawn up in 1948, my money would definitely been on the delay side. In the words of Darryl Kerrigan (when talking about airports): "It ain't gonna happen".

Hence any major airport development to service Sydney needs to be at least 101km from the CBD.

Keg has pointed out reasons why Canberra airfield could not handle much expansion. I have explained how, with a new parallel twy and a couple of high-speed rwy exits, you could get higher flow on the one runway at Williamtown. On another site I have also explained that the public transport issues are pretty easily surmountable for much ofthe travelling public. In short:
- you won't get premium pax going to either Canberra or Willy (unless you close YSSY), so it's pointless going after them;
- so that leaves your VFR pax, who are frequently less time-sensitive re ground time;
- have dedicated, express buses to primary nodes around Sydney (eg. city, North Sydney, Hornsby, Parramatta, Pennant Hills) and Gosford, timed for the flights (ie. to get there for departures and meet arrivals), plus improve the train services (with a few express trains, also some going down the North Shore line) and frequent buses to both Newcastle and Raymond Tce rail stations.

This is how Ryanair FILL aircraft serving out-of-town airports. It works. I went to Stockholm last month from Stansted and the buses to & from Skavsta were full but clean and comfortable, pay online beforehand, all very easy and predictable. And the flights were full and I paid about 1/3 of the BA fare to Arlanda (which still ain't exactly a down-town strip, let's face it...).

Much has been made of the value of land at YSSY and how MBL would be better off flogging the property and developing an airport outside Sydney. This analysis forgets that YSSY already provides a cashflow from rents based on land values - so that side is covered; the assets are largely in place (so little build cost) and air travel is at its core inelastic - fuel has more than doubled in the last couple of years and still the punters come. And when they do, they buy parking, burgers at Australia's priciest Macca's, etc. - a few shekels of every transactions falling into Nick Moore's pockets.

SACL/MBL will do everything it can to keep YSSY as a monopoly (at least within 100km of the CBD). We may hate it, but it's a rational business approach. Hence whilst Riccy might get a few civvy ops a day, the moment anyone starts buidling a decent terminal, improving the field primarily for civ ops, moving roads or railways, etc. SACL/MBL would be running off to court claiming it's a major airport development for which they must get first bite.

[Trojan1981]

All true, so that probably rules put Richmond. Willytn is outside that radius however. Jq/tiger/dj could have cheap domestic flights in/out of there with connecting bus services. The Govt won't have the spare rolling stock to provide extra train services on existing lines for quite a while and the current infrustructure keeps them S-L-O-W down the shore.