PDA

View Full Version : Richmond new Sydney airport?


Taildragger67
23rd Nov 2009, 00:27
From the SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/new-airport-set-for-takeoff-20091122-isv8.html):


New airport set for take-off

MATT O'SULLIVAN
November 23, 2009

THE Rudd Government is expected to pave the way for the Richmond air force base to be opened up to commercial airline traffic when it releases its long-awaited aviation white paper next month.

As part of the revamp of aviation policy, the blueprint will renew the search for a permanent site for a second Sydney airport after 63 years of political wrangling.

The Richmond RAAF base is expected to be announced as a temporary solution while the Government intensifies its search for a permanent location.

The white paper is expected to highlight the long-term need for a second airport north of the Sydney basin but closer than Newcastle. The Williamtown RAAF base has been touted as a possible site.

The development of Richmond would take pressure off Sydney Airport, which had more than 3 million passengers last month for the first time despite a downturn in travel.

''The most obvious is Richmond, but that is not a long-term option,'' a well-placed source said.

The Board of Airline Representatives, on behalf of international airlines flying to and from Australia, said it would welcome Richmond as the site for a second Sydney airport.

''We don't believe that an airport outside the Sydney basin would be viable. It would just become a white elephant,'' the board's executive director, Warren Bennett, said.

The only way to make a second airport viable commercially would be to place it near a large population and have it serve both international and domestic passengers, he said. The cost of providing transport links to Richmond would also be cheaper than sites such as Williamtown, which would need a high-speed rail link to Sydney.

Richmond is capable of handling most long-haul aircraft and would suit low-cost airlines such as Jetstar and the Singapore Airlines-backed Tiger Airways.

But any use of Richmond by commercial aircraft, even on an interim basis, would face staunch opposition in the area. Hawkesbury Council said in a response to the aviation green paper that it would have ''an unacceptable impact on the community''.

It is understood support is building within Labor for an airport inland from the Central Coast. The party's policy is for a second airport to be sited outside the Sydney basin.

The federal Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, has not previously ruled Richmond in or out as a site for a second airport but has struck Blacktown Airport and Badgerys Creek off the list.

A spokesman for the minister said the white paper would most likely be released next month. He would not comment on the use of Richmond as a stop-gap measure but said the blueprint would address the needs for additional airport capacity and the future of Badgerys Creek.

The State Government backed a second airport in the Sydney basin in its response to the aviation green paper, a U-turn on its previous preference for the Williamtown RAAF base at Newcastle. The change of heart was due to the cost of a high-speed rail link.

Keg
23rd Nov 2009, 00:53
Hmmm. Lots of fog in winter, crappy infrastructure in terms of the last 20km of road from the M7 to the base, lack of space for expansion on the current runway config. This strikes me as a 'divert attention away from excessive debt, a stuffed stance on illegal non residents, a stuffed position on an ETS, and the fact that we have no other ideas of substance on aviation'. :rolleyes:

:= :ugh: :suspect:

Horatio Leafblower
23rd Nov 2009, 01:04
I am having trouble compreheding the following para; I think I know what was meant but can't be certain:

The white paper is expected to highlight the long-term need for a second airport north of the Sydney basin but closer than Newcastle. The Williamtown RAAF base has been touted as a possible site.


:confused: Why is Willy being touted when it is NOT netween Sydney and Newcastle? :ugh:

I think what he means is:

"Williamtown RAAF base, located north of Newcastle, has been touted as a possible site but the white paper will highlight the need for a second airport between Newcastle and Sydney"

Kid journos these days := :yuk: :sad:

Cougar
23rd Nov 2009, 01:28
Suitable for long haul? I think not. 7000 ft of runway causes all sorts of payload penalties for the USAF transient KC10s - likewise when the Pope visited in an Alitalia 777.

Short haul, yes - but then you need to realise that there is no infrastructure for RPT ops. Minimal ramp space left (unless they build) due to the transient mil aircraft, paint shop and deep level maintenance for P3s and C130s.

It will be like Sydney back in the impulse days, operating out of a makeshift hut.

We need a TGV-esque high speed train from Syd to Canberra - that's the solution (45 mins to 1 hour one way). Then use CBR as the alternative to Syd. But too much jinning around and no action has meant that now that is very unlikely.

Atlas Shrugged
23rd Nov 2009, 01:53
the long-term need for a second airport north of the Sydney basin

When did they move Richmond??

Wiley
23rd Nov 2009, 01:55
I heard some clown - sorry, "spokesman" - for some "airline operators' group" say on the ABC this morning that Richmond was ideal and that it would be easy to extend the existing RW10/28.

Yeah, right. I'm sure the residents of Windsor and Richmond would be interested to see what those "easily implimented" plans to extend the runway would be.

I have to agree with the Mayor of Hawkesbury - if Richmond is made a temporary civil field, it'll be a very long 'temporary' period before a replacement is found.

Like not in in any of our lifetimes.

DutchRoll
23rd Nov 2009, 02:22
Sigh. Here we go again.....

As a long term resident of the general area and having flown out of and into Richmond for many years in a previous life, I find myself repeating exactly the same stuff I did when this was last touted. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that.

Keg was spot on. Sydney prob30 = Richmond pea soup. The runway and approach config is very limited by both terrain, and the townships. You could, in a moment of madness, build a longer runway towards the south, which will be great fun for all in the roaring westerlies which dominate many parts of the year (the last one blew my chimney flu cap off!). The other option would be to frog-march the 6-7000 residents of Richmond somewhere and demolish the township, as the threshold of 10 is a stone's throw from the built up area. Or you could have much fun knocking down the Sebel Hotel, digging up the golf course, and terra-forming Rickaby's Creek to get more length to the east (which will impress the hell out of the residents of historic Windsor township).

My other thought was go to the north. Easy. Just fill in the lowlands between the base and the Hawkesbury river with 68 ft of dirt. And you still get to join in the fun with the roaring westerlies, because after all, aren't all long main runways built perpendicular to the local prevailing wind?

Richmond is capable of handling most long-haul aircraft
Yes, a 747 could takeoff from here............with enough fuel to make BNE.

Anyway, I don't expect bureaucrats will heed any of that.

newsensation
23rd Nov 2009, 03:55
It is not Sydney that needs a second airport but the state of New South Wales! Newcastle Williamtown and Canberra should be developed as alternate entry points to the state!
what is wrong with incoming tourists via V australia/Jetstar Int arriving in Newcastle/Canberra as their first port of call, am i missing some thing? do all roads have to lead to Rome....:ugh:

neville_nobody
23rd Nov 2009, 04:19
what is wrong with incoming tourists via V australia/Jetstar Int arriving in Newcastle/Canberra as their first port of call, am i missing some thing? do all roads have to lead to Rome

Only the small matter of connecting flights!! The same reason why when they tried to move all regional flights out of YSSY the regionals all blew up. How would you like to be on a 13 hour flight across the pacific then drive from one end of Sydney to the other in peak hour just to get to your connecting flight to Wagga/Coffs/Canberra/Albury Perth etc etc. Jetstar might do it as they don't really do the connection thing but I doubt anyone else would be that keen on the idea.

RIC might create a market for Western Sydney to MEL/BNE/OOL/MCY and there could also be a market for some international guys if they wanted to fly at curfew busting times or the ultra low cost international folk but other than that I can't see to many operators heading out there.

Frank Arouet
23rd Nov 2009, 04:27
It is not Sydney that needs a second airport but the state of New South Wales!

More, Australia needs a major international airport that can "hub" to all other airports and take the load off the existing.

Alice Springs comes to mind.

InSoMnIaC
23rd Nov 2009, 04:34
More, Australia needs a major international airport that can "hub" to all other airports and take the load off the existing.

Alice Springs comes to mind.

Frank, I'm sure you would be the first one to put your hand up to be based there.

Freewheel
23rd Nov 2009, 09:04
Frankly, I'm surprised Woomera wasn't nominated....


Isn't there a 747 at Longreach? Just buy a set of those drive up steps and job done!

eapilot2009
23rd Nov 2009, 21:49
This topic gets thrashed out every few years!

Wont happen because of all the same reasons as before (MAC, NIMBY's, "How can it be outside of Sydney?", etc)

So Sydney will just become more crowded and expensive, and more INTL carriers will do more flights to BNE, MEL (no curfew in MEL), and even ADL.

Cougar
23rd Nov 2009, 22:30
As for curfew, Richmond has a curfew which can only be broken under certain circumstances by mil aircraft. Not as strict as Sydney's, but I am sure once civil aircraft moved there that someone would change the legislation and make the fine = YSSY.

neville_nobody
24th Nov 2009, 02:25
I for one don't see the point of having two airports in Sydney with curfews. You might as well just stick with YSSY if that's the case.

b_sta
24th Nov 2009, 04:34
The answer, as always, is to either build a new airport in open land 100-200km from Sydney and link with high speed rail, or use Canberra and link with high speed rail. Not use an existing and in-use GA or military airport in the Sydney basin. And yet every few years the same useless suggestions come up from the same crew.

Duff Man
24th Nov 2009, 10:33
Richmond is the perfect airport to take LCCs out of expensive Syd. $2 fares, bring it on. Just won't see Duff Man on board.

Wiley
24th Nov 2009, 21:43
They could - stress could - take a leaf out of the Japanese book and build a new runway on an artificial island in Botany Bay pointing out through the entrance to Botany Bay.

This would allow them to:

(a) use the existing transport system and 90% of the airfield infrastructure of KSA whilst giving them enough space to build new world class passenger terminals,

(b) be far enough removed from built up areas immediately to the north to allow 24 hour a day operation, (yeah, right!)

(c) probably end up considerably cheaper than any other option, and

(d) not suffer quite as many of the inevitable noise complaints and demands for curfews ANY other option will certainly attract within 12 months of the airport being built, wherever it will be built.



Unfortunately, I have it on good authority that any such artificial island would interfere with the annual migratory path from Kurnell to Brighton of the rare as batshit Botany Bay three-toed sulphur crested perinewt, so it'll never happen.

neville_nobody
25th Nov 2009, 05:14
I think Kansai has a few structural issues they need to deal with before it sinks into oblivion. I highly doubt that will be a realistic option.

Stagger Lee
25th Nov 2009, 06:34
Just do it - make it the freight centre and aa option for el cheapo airlines - It frees up all the room at SYD to keep it going well into the future

Richmond makes sense. :ok:

Pass-A-Frozzo
25th Nov 2009, 06:46
Keg was spot on. Sydney prob30 = Richmond pea soup. The runway and approach config is very limited by both terrain, and the townships. You could, in a moment of madness, build a longer runway towards the south, which will be great fun for all in the roaring westerlies which dominate many parts of the year (the last one blew my chimney flu cap off!).

G'day DutchRoll, long time no see.

Given that airport infrastructure costs a lot they could probably build a North-South runway and put the road under the runway. UWS has plenty of paddack space in-line with the N/S grass runway. You could build a 12,000 foot runway there with no real terrain off each end. Sure you'd get adverse winds on days - but the majority of time it would be suitable.

Politically if the government (which I hate - no surprises there) was worried about the uproar they could move a few C-17's there and ramp up heavy jet moves in order to "prepare" the local community.

Cheers,
PAF

DutchRoll
26th Nov 2009, 00:55
Gidday mate! Yeah no surprises there PAF. ;)

South is the only feasible way another runway could go, except don't forget about the railway line too. However given the rate of expansion of the northwestern suburbs, well, I'd be surprised it ever happens! It would require planning and land aquisition to start now. The idea being touted by some of a 10/28 runway extension is poppycock, IMHO.

The fog will be the major weather issue. I cannot even begin to count the number of times I've looked out the front window from my perch here in the mountains and seen the base shrouded in fog, then driven into SYD where it has been fine. And who could forget the good ol' days when we used to do local, and sit around for hours playing uckers waiting it to lift?

Stretch06
26th Nov 2009, 02:47
Canberra probably isnt viable any more, now that Terry Snow has put buildings alongside 90% of the runways and the taxiway is blocked as soon as one jet pushes back. Not to meation the resisdents of Jerrabomberra already complain of the nose, imagine what they would say about even more aircraft movements......

Cougar
26th Nov 2009, 20:28
PAF - are you skylarking as Pass-A-Frozo or have you really changed names to Pass-A-Frozzo??

I am intrigued... too much time on your hands at the CC? :}

farrari
27th Nov 2009, 18:48
Richmond makes sense , crap. Fog bound ,house bound. A new runway in Botany Bay is the way to go however with these clowns hell will freeze over before that.

p.j.m
27th Nov 2009, 20:22
Fog bound ,house bound.Compared to other airports around the world, how many days does Richmond get fog and for how long?

I'd say minimal, and it usually clears away quickly.

Also looks pretty good to me with plenty of room for expansion, and even minimal houses to remove to double its existing length, or add additional runways.

All they need to do is get the NorthWest railway built and extended 14 Klms to Richmond.

Pretty cheap option all up I'd say, even it you left the existing strip alone and built 2 new east/west runways at the northern end of the property

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/5357/20091128081327.th.jpg (http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/5357/20091128081327.jpg)

mustafagander
28th Nov 2009, 00:36
RIC gets minimal fog???

Take a look at BuMet stats for the last year and see how often fog was forecast.

Remember, it doesn't matter a fig whether the fog ACTUALLY occurs, only whether or not it is FORECAST.

Wiley
28th Nov 2009, 01:05
No airport is going to be built anywhere in Sydney's western suburbs that won't generate a huge nimby reaction, particularly in regards to noise. The locals will love the better roads and railways that go in to support the new airport - and developers will throw up closely packed MacMansions by the squadillion as close to the boundaries of the new airport as they can while it is being built (or in Richmond's case, extended),


... and then the people who'll buy said MacMansions will scream blue bloody murder about the aircraft noise, and because they vote, they'll be heard.


And the new airport will have a curfew and silly bloody 'noise sharing' rules before it's even fully operational.

Fact.

As I said above, Botany Bay would make a lot more sense and end up cheaper in the long run.


....if it wasn't for that rare as batshit Botany Bay three-toed sulphur crested peri-newt.

Jet_A_Knight
28th Nov 2009, 01:23
God forbid you'd build an airport with CAT IIIB/C ILS capability to deal with fog.:hmm:

Pass-A-Frozzo
28th Nov 2009, 03:52
PAF - are you skylarking as Pass-A-Frozo or have you really changed names to Pass-A-Frozzo??

I am intrigued... too much time on your hands at the CC?

G'day Cougar,

I no longer work at the CC or in fact for the same employer :ok:

I now have an extra Z in my name after I wrote (what I thought was) an awesome application that did some housekeeping by deleting some 4000+ previous posts. PPRuNe HQ took umbrage to a user account with 4000+ deleted posts :E

The fog issue aside I think it's possible they (the Fed Gov't) could ask the RAAF to move (to Amberley) and open the airfield up as a second airport.

After electoral boundary changes RAAF Richmond was moved into Greenway which was won by the Liberals with a margin of ~4.5%. It's quite possible the Federal Government won't care that much about a "nimby" reaction any more than the NSW State Government care about complaints regarding Sydney's transport network in the NW or North Shore.

If the land purchase wasn't so expensive the Federal Government would build a new airport in the middle of Mosman with a one-way strip so as to keep the flight path over Manly and the northern beaches.

DutchRoll
28th Nov 2009, 12:18
4000? Oh come on! You cannot be serious! And I thought my post count was excessive despite the number of years I've been on pprune. :p

If the land purchase wasn't so expensive the Federal Government would build a new airport in the middle of Mosman with a one-way strip so as to keep the flight path over Manly and the northern beaches.
Well, I think that concept (do it over your enemy's electorate) cuts both ways no matter who is in Government.

I'll still be amazed if it ever gets up.

Transition Layer
28th Nov 2009, 22:48
God forbid you'd build an airport with CAT IIIB/C ILS capability to deal with fog.

Agreed...I'd like to think that any new airport would have that capability.

However, whilst you will more than likely be able to land off a Cat III, you still need to carry the alternate fuel. That's a lot of extra gas every year to carry Melbourne or Brisbane as an alternate. (assuming Sydney KSA is not available).

p.j.m
29th Nov 2009, 04:10
I for one don't see the point of having two airports in Sydney with curfews. You might as well just stick with YSSY if that's the case.

Pretty simple really, YSSY is already crowded. No point adding additional runways which would just increase the overcrowded airways and ground facilities.

Richmond would add a lot of additional capacity and potential capacity, for minimal cost - including building the rail links.

No brainer really.

Best part of it is we stop getting sucked dry by Macquaire, for everything from parking to passenger charges!

Starts with P
29th Nov 2009, 06:32
I think Mac Bank has first dibs on any new airport in Sydney. My guess is that they will see it as a sound investment.

alangirvan
29th Nov 2009, 21:44
How long did it take them to put up the Sydney Domestic Express Terminal when Virgin Blue and Impulse got going? A few months. All they need is a very basic terminal at Richmond with stands for 10 planes of A320 or 737-800 size. The current runway would allow flights to just about anywhere in Australia, and if you want International flights, the same planes could make it over to Kiwiland. No movements before 0600 or after 2130 ( I think some UK airports allow airlines access during curfew periods on some rare events, so the plane does not get turned away if it misses curfew by a few minutes).

A320s and 738s will make less noise than many of the Military planes that already operate at Richmond.

maybe!
30th Nov 2009, 00:29
In the last 10yrs china has built/upgraded 40 international airports. In the last 40yrs Australia has talked about building 1 new airport,
Build one outside syd basin with a high speed train ie shanghai 400km+ And get private equity to pay for it.

Cougar
1st Dec 2009, 02:06
alan,
There aren't 8-10 spare parking spots for 737/A320s at Richmond. That's why it would require an entirely new apron (probably to the west of the field).

Big $$ and time.

ARFOR
1st Dec 2009, 03:01
Interesting discussion!

p.j.m

Your expansion drawing above looks great except for a couple of issues:-

1. The land to the north of the existing hangers and east-west runway is approx 50ft below the runway surface level [river valley]. Your north-south parallels, and the northern most east-west [in blue north of the existing paved runway] is not buildable!

2. Likewise, your proposed extension to the east of the existing east-west is also a deep land depression [and creek] between the runway and the Windsor township [which is elevated compared to the existing runway]

A single north-south [or parallel set] is technically doable as far south as Blacktown Road, possibly futher south to where you have drawn. The road and rail might link with terminal/s built in the south-east quadrant south of the existing road and rail lines with tunnels under said north-south runways and taxiways.

The land aquisition costs would be astronomical as Richmond/Windsor and surrounds has in recent years become quite popular for townies and small acreage types!

Are the political and financial ducks in a row for such a large and likely locally unpopular project? Who knows! From what I know of the local discussion, it is the usual mix of those that don't like the noise, but like the RAAFie's and Yank's in town spending money. A civilain op would atract the same division I guess.

The only sale to the locals would be a reduced o/fly [Richmond at the western end, and Windsor at the eastern end] footprint from a north south runway!

If the State were to consider a loop line linking the Richmond line south to Penrith, then the locals get another public transport link they would use [Penrith shopping], and the state could loop services in opposite directions through Richmond and Penrith back into the suburbs. There's your airport Pax feed and quick air link for western sydney residents!

CATIII, an ILS to the north-south [built with necessary lighting], you could overcome some of the negatives of the terrain [very high terrain] not that many miles to the west, the terrain south and to a lesser extent to the north is relatively flat.

Wiley
1st Dec 2009, 05:46
i.e., by no means an 'easy option'.

p.j.m
1st Dec 2009, 06:30
i.e., by no means an 'easy option'.

I'm sure if it was properly looked at there would be better options available.

Even if they did have to create 50 foot landfills for the airstrips, it would be much easier and cheaper doing it on dry land, rather than trying to fill in more of Botany Bay.

Andu
1st Dec 2009, 07:41
I don't think anyone could overstate the noise abatement / demands for a curfew any development of Richmond would create, which would make it almost useless, or at least not a step forward any new airport for Sydney should be.

p.j.m., have you ever operated out of Richmond? As you think it's a good option, I doubt it. As well as the noise abatement problem, the fog problem there can be atrocious, and a Cat III ILS (a definite requirement for Richmond should it become Sydney's second airport), involves huge expense, both for the airport operator and the airlines that will use it.

p.j.m
1st Dec 2009, 23:21
So many NIMBY's around here.

Seems the RAAF have no problems using Richmond as an airbase. I'm sure any commercial operators would have a similar experience.

And yes, by all means, lets equip the airport with the latest CAT III ILS, and 21st century baggage handling too!

Great opportunity here, lets not let the naysayers kill it!

Ivasrus
2nd Dec 2009, 09:46
CAT III ils ... how about a low-cost GBAS/GLS. Will solve the fog problem (pending CAT III certification) for small bikkies, and give fancy approaches to assist NAP to boot!

mustafagander
3rd Dec 2009, 09:10
Fellas,

It doesn't matter what approaches you've got, cat III, cat IV, cat anything. When fog is forecast you must carry an alternate and that gets hard from LAX.

That is the major operational objection to RIC. Look how often fog was forecast, I said forecast, in the last year.