300m runway extension for WLG

[speaker]

So the council have finally put $1m into the study for a 300m runway extension to the northern runway end into Evans bay. The airport authority also putting in $1m.

Wellington.scoop.co.nz » Airport to seek approval for 300 metre $300m northern extension to runway (http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=55822)

According to some the passenger figures to support new flights to International destinations with such carriers as Emirates and China Southern could be on the cards. But Air NZ and Qantas don't seem very interested in increasing capacity from WLG or adding new international destinations.

Does seem to be a good thing but at a million dollars per metre of runway it does seem bloody pricey!

Does anyone remember the Qantas 747SP days into WLG?

[Water Wings]

What the airport company of course fail to mention in any of their media briefs is that whilst they might want to build 300m more, whether that gives them 300m of runway is another thing. Four letters, two words and a number. RESA, "if practicable" and 240.

[kiwiandrew]

Water wings is totally correct. All this would really do is make a currently unsafe airport safer for existing operations. In practical terms it won't provide much additional useable runway length.

Furthermore, even if additional runway was provided who exactly is going to use it? Long haul ops out of WLG are a pipe dream. CBR and WLG are similar sizes, but CBR is a couple of hours flying time close to most markets. If CBR can't justify longhaul ops I can't see how WLG could. ( Don't be fooled by the fact that CHC has some longhaul ops, it is the inbound gateway for longhaul tourists to the South Island - WLG would be an inbound gateway to what exactly? ... WLG and the Wairarapa vineyards? )

[NZScion]

Another thing, given that some aircraft types are already performance restricted off 34 due to OEI climb performance and Newlands ridge, would it not be more practical to reclaim land to the south and extend in that direction?

[Steve Zissou]

'Gateway to what?' You clearly haven't experienced the jewel of the Pacific ... Tawa

[waren9]

or Wainuiomata

[Oktas8]

I would imagine it is much more difficult (that is, expensive) to build a runway extension into Cook Strait, than into calm and sheltered Evans Bay.

[speaker]

Ah Tawa. I don't think any other town can lay claim to having quite so many churches. I live in Linden just north of Tawa so can vouch for its boring-ness :)

Good points about its current state, currently 34 has got 130m "starter EXTN" at the north end, I know this is only for takeoff but is this something that could form part of a RESA? Is it really deemed unsafe as it is right now? What actual useful runway length would they get out of 300m extension?

On the subject, I've noted those ramp shaped objects at the end of 34, are these designed to launch an overrunning aircraft over SH1 /trolley bus wires to a graceful ditching in Evans Bay?

[1Charlie]

Are they not for protecting the LLZ aerials?

[haughtney1]

They should extend it into cook strait and put a ski jump at the end...give everyone departing to the south that sea harrier feeling...:E

[27/09]

Tell them they're dreaming.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I wish you Kiwis would use 4-letter identifiers... I was wondering why the **** Walgett would want a runway extension :rolleyes:

[waren9]

geez not this **** again i wish you aussies would learn the 3 letter ones.

walgett is wge.

[framer]

Air NZ and QF aren't jumping up and down because as it stands they have the narrow bodies in this part of the world that service WLG day in day out. if it suddenly became available to larger aircraft then they would have to compete against more carriers than they currently do.

[c100driver]

The reality is that if the WB machines don't arrive it will be Air NZ, QF and VA passengers that will have to pay for the extension that they don't need. Airport companies don't take a loss!

[clark y]

Waren9,
that's the IATA code (which I didn't know myself until I checked this morning). I've always known it as WLG which is the navaids.

[waren9]

that's the IATA code

i know.

the op used an iata code. horatio got his tits in a tangle. not sure why.

[burty]

that's the IATA code (which I didn't know myself until I checked this morning). I've always known it as WLG which is the navaids.

The navaids are all "WN" not WLG.

The reality is that if the WB machines don't arrive it will be Air NZ, QF and VA passengers that will have to pay for the extension that they don't need. Airport companies don't take a loss!

Given what lies at the end of that runway (a ten meter drop, trolley bus wires and a gas main), the extension will be useful even if it doesn't attract WB aircraft.

kiwiandrew Water wings is totally correct. All this would really do is make a currently unsafe airport safer for existing operations. In practical terms it won't provide much additional useable runway length.

Furthermore, even if additional runway was provided who exactly is going to use it? Long haul ops out of WLG are a pipe dream. CBR and WLG are similar sizes, but CBR is a couple of hours flying time close to most markets. If CBR can't justify longhaul ops I can't see how WLG could. ( Don't be fooled by the fact that CHC has some longhaul ops, it is the inbound gateway for longhaul tourists to the South Island - WLG would be an inbound gateway to what exactly? ... WLG and the Wairarapa vineyards? )

CHC is nothing more than a notional gateway to the South Island anyway, most travel via AKL then hop a jet south or increasingly for Australians, fly direct to ZQN.

And for some current and presumably most future types, Newlands ridge is no longer the performance impediment it used to be due to the availability of alternative single engine departure procedures.

[speaker]

I took a quick look down the forum before I posted and seen AKL and MEL so decided to use the IATA code. Life goes on.

[waren9]

On the subject, I've noted those ramp shaped objects at the end of 34, are these designed to launch an overrunning aircraft over SH1 /trolley bus wires to a graceful ditching in Evans Bay?

i heard a 767 blew an old lady over on the footpath down below when it took off once.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

'N ere Oi were thinkin' youse was referrin' to 'The Gong'.....

Silly Moi...:}

[tartare]

Erm - forgive my mere PPL ignorance, but in order to get anything like a stable 10 mile final approach for a WB jet into a northerly extended R34 - wouldn't you have to drop a nuke on Newlands to create a large gap that they could fly through?!
Although I suppose they could always do a tactical military descent to short finals - or even one of those bush pilot side-slip arrivals...:ok:

[slamer.]

say ... RNP-AR

[LeadSled]

Although I suppose they could always do a tactical military descent to short finals - or even one of those bush pilot side-slip arrivals

Tartare,
Neither the 747 SP or the B767 200/300 had a terrain problem going into NZWN --- don't know where that idea came from.

The SP into NZWN was an interesting political story. The RR B747-200s that both QF and NZ had were superior performers in and out of there. This was because of the different (simple) TE flaps on the SP, resulting in a higher Vref for approach than a -200.
However, NZ CAA of the day was desperate to not have to allow ANZ to operate there, so QF bought two of the world's longest range aeroplanes for its (then) shortest (almost) route.
The 767 operation was quite straight forward, and the low speed handling made short work of the turbulence -- the 767 in and out of NZWN was the best aircraft since the Electra to handle those conditions.
Tootle pip!!

[Chocks Away]

Extending the runway @ WLG?
Got a name for it!
"The Didymo extension"

:D:ok::}

(those longer serving PB crew would understand this)

[tartare]

Tks Leadsled - am just a lad, so both operations of both of those types into WLG was a little before my time behind the yoke.

[Oakape]

But you are correct regarding Newlands, tartare. I think the clearance is already tight on the G/S for 16 as it is.

That being said, take-off is generally more critical that landing, so the extension may be only for 16 departures & the landing distance will remain the same on that runway, with a displaced threshold.

The reverse would be true for 34 departures & arrivals, with the extra length being available for landings, but not much good for departures. Unless, of course, you have an alternate EFATO procedure available, such as an LNAV or visual turn back down the harbour, like burty referred to.

[1oztoffee1]

Just a thought from an out and out amateur.....when departing from 34 why can't aircraft fly up the Hutt Valley rather than over Newlands ridge if it causes so many problems? At least that way the distance is much longer to achieve the height necessary.
At Hayward's Rd a left turn would necessitate approx. another 120 metres to climb in excess of the Newlands ridge but gives another 14kms to achieve it.
The extra distance to overfly Paraparaumu for instance is about 3km.
To a layman this seems all too simple....why doesn't it happen?

[tartare]

It gets pretty skinny around Stokes Valley - and I imagine even further down towards Taita there wouldn't be a wide enough fan to either left or right clear of terrain in case of a missed approach... am I right?
Similar reason as to why there's no Cat 3 auto-land at Wellington on 34 or 16 despite it being a v. busy airport in terms of movements - big, fat, solid hills on either side!

[slamer.]

Have a look at Jepp WITBY2B, 10-3K-A. Eng fail procedure A320, goes up the Hutt then Haywards. This has the same or at least a similar result.

[jarden]

300m is hardly any improvement when the RESA takes out around 150m at each end they should extend it 500m+. Do it right first time properly, so not need to do another extension again 10 years down the track when construction costs have again doubled.

[speaker]

NZAPA comment that they want more then the proposed 300m:

Wellington Airport Pilots Urge Extension Of Runway... | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/new-zealand/8812071/Pilots-urge-scary-runway-extension)

[Horatio Leafblower]

horatio got his tits in a tangle. not sure why.

Just a bit of a joke. A little Trans-Tasman banter. Lighten up Comrade ;)

[1oztoffee1]

Slamer
On the subject of an engine-out, what would be the situation if a fully laden 737 for Oz were to experience an engine-out emergency?
Is NZWL runway long enough to accommodate the aircraft in that situation? I was thinking of the full reverse thrust needed to stop an aircraft at Wellington in a normal situation, the weight of the incoming craft and the massive assymetric thrust that would occur at full reverse thrust following an engine-out.
Would Wellington be OK?
The options.....
take a risk and try for Christchurch or would Ohakea be acceptable under the circumstances?
A case for lengthening the runway.....
I'd appreciate your thoughts.

[waren9]

Lighten up Comrade

ah, got ya. i'm a bit slow with written sarcasm. just call me sheldon cooper

:ok:

[waren9]

mr(s) toffee

jet perf is calculated to allow for eng failures both on the rwy and airborne. crews consider a/c ldg perf before departing, or they nominate a departure alternate eg nzoh. landing distance reqmnts are different in non normal situations.

assym rev thrust is not normally an issue unless rwy is contaminated with snow/ice etc. wellies is wide enough.

and unless you did actually mean west melton, wellington is nzwn

[1oztoffee1]

waren9

Many thanks for your input. Does what you are saying mean that the crew in the case I submitted would return to Wellington? (not West Melton ......ha ha good point)

[waren9]

a crews decision to return to land will be influenced by many things incl the nature of the failure/emergency, a/c ldg capability at that weight with remaining a/c systems, other options nearby, the weather, grd services avail, a/c perf in the missed appr etc etc etc

a heavy 737 with a straight engine failure i expect would be able to get back in to nzwn if ldg dist on a nice day was the only factor. others would know for sure.

[Jimmah]

A quick look over Boeing's performance data for the 777W or B788 indicates you'd need ~3000m on an ISA day to run a 5000nm mission with full payload. Payload reduces by ~30% off a 2300m runway. This is not a viable plan.

[our001]

I certainly remember the QF 747SP service into and out of WLG - I was present the day of the inaugural, and even did a guest flight over that weekend. I even attended a lecture given by the Chief Pilot - a month or two later that he gave at the Australia New Zealand Association that used to meet monthly at the Aust High Commission in Hobson St.

The Service was eventually handed over to 767 service, as more frequent service was preferable to 3 days a week SYD WLG SYD which is used to be in winter.

An expansion into Evans Bay is gathering a lot of protest - Evans Bay is a great bay and would change for ever with a runway extension to the north. I personally would prefer an reclamation to the south but cannot comment on the tech issues that could cause.

Someone made a comment that Newlands needed a nuclear bombing, in my opinion - not much at Newlands that would be missed. I was sropping a rental car off a at WLG in Nov 2009 when my eyes saw something Gold sitting on the tarmac - yes it was a Gulf Air Airbus - the Kiwi Soccer team was playing Bahrain that weekend , I guess it was flying on a low load . Got pics to prove it.

Long Haul service to Asia would be a huge improvement - and could be marketed very successfully.

I could even be tempted to live in WLG again if that were to happen

[RequestPidgeons]

I was dropping a rental car off a at WLG in Nov 2009 when my eyes saw something Gold sitting on the tarmac - yes it was a Gulf Air Airbus - the Kiwi Soccer team was playing Bahrain that weekend , I guess it was flying on a low load . Got pics to prove it.

Quite correct!

That was how New Zealand got to the FIFA World Cup in 2010 - AND went through the tournament as the only unbeaten team.

:ok: ;)

[Old 'Un]

Having flown into and out of WLG in my younger years and knowing the area quite well, any extension would have to be into Evans Bay, purely from a cost basis. To extend at the other end would be prohibitively expensive, to say nothing of the issues of stabilisation, and salt spray in a half-decent southerly. It could be done without too much technical difficulty, I would imagine. The floor of Evans Bay is rock, rather than sand or mud. If the extension was built as a pier deck on piles, the artificial reef created would improve the fishing there immensely. :ok:

Mind you, if Mother Nature has her way, we may not have to wait long before She does the work for us, given the seismic activity over the weekend. Remember the land upon which the Hutt Motorway is built used to be under the harbour's waters.

Le Vieux

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

The most fun trips into and out of Wellington were in DC-8s. I flew out of Wellington in a DC-8 in 1973, and flew in there in both 1973 and 1974. I reckon those pilots flying DC-8s into Wellington really earned their money. A friend's father was one of those DC-8 pilots (he started with TEAL on Solent flying-boats and retired off Air NZ's DC-10s, and is still going strong in retirement in his 80s).

[sfoxs]

Most 737 and a320 leave Wellington for oz 2 to 3000 kg under there max single engine landing weight for Wellington so return is a no brainer, unless it's gusting 35 kits, oh every day! Extension ! Only for those greedy at heart!!WAC

[slamer.]

NZIER savages Wgtn runway extension plan

8:40 AM Monday Feb 15, 2016

Wellington airport is investigating extending the runway by 350m in an effort to attract long-haul flights to the capital.
Wellington airport is investigating extending the runway by 350m in an effort to attract long-haul flights to the capital.
Analysis backing the proposed Wellington airport runway extension "grossly overstates" the benefits, understates the costs and is based on passenger projections that may be five times too high, according to two reports by the independent economic consultancy, the New Zealand Institute for Economic Research, commissioned by the body representing airlines flying in New Zealand.

The $300 million project, which the airport's owners want largely funded by taxpayers and Wellington ratepayers, "would be a wasteful investment and a drain on the national economy," NZIER concludes.

The Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand released the report as part of its submission on the proposal to extend Wellington's airport runway by 350 metres to allow long haul flights between the city's capital and global aviation centres including Dubai, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Hong Kong, and Los Angeles.


Of those five routes, NZIER suggests only one - Singapore to Wellington - might be commercially viable, and points out that it is already being achieved through a new Singapore Airlines service through Canberra, launching in September. Services to Malaysia, Thailand and Hong Kong would be ruled out by a Singapore connection competing with them, while Dubai is already serviced through Melbourne using jets that land at Wellington's existing runway.

Singapore Airlines has recently announced a new Wellington-Canberra service four days a week from September, connecting to Singapore in the first direct long-haul service between the Australian capital and any international hub airport. Infratil-controlled Wellington International Airport and its 33 percent shareholder, Wellington City Council, have hailed the Canberra stopover route as proof that long-haul services to Asia from Wellington can be viable.

Likewise, there was no need to extend the runway for services to Adelaide, as the scheme's backers have argued, because it too could be serviced using the existing runway, NZIER says.

Reports released by WIAL and WCC put a cost-benefit analysis ratio of a longer runway at 1.7:1, based on an annual discount rate of 7 percent and the pair are currently preparing a full business case for the proposal, which has yet to win government backing, but gained overwhelming support from a self-selecting survey of Wellington Chamber of Commerce members.

NZIER's analysis suggests not only is 1.7:1 a relatively low rate of benefit for what it deems a "risky" investment, but also that the 7 percent discount rate is too low, leaving aside its own analysis that wipes out those gains and calculates the extension could be, on balance, negative for New Zealand.

The forecasts for China and other Asia grossly overstate likely visitor arrivals by understating the maturity of these markets will occur well before 2060, 2050, 2040 or even 2030.
None of the airline members of BARNZ publicly support the initiative, with opposition led by Air New Zealand, which has invested in making Auckland International Airport the national airline's hub for global operations, competing directly with Sydney for long haul connections in this part of the world.

NZIER questioned analysis by international aviation consultancy INTERVISTAS on its assumptions about the potential growth of tourist and other travellers from China and South-East Asia, saying likely growth from China, in particular, was overstated.

"The forecasts for China and other Asia grossly overstate likely visitor arrivals by understating the maturity of these markets will occur well before 2060, 2050, 2040 or even 2030," the NZIER report says. "The forecasts are too bullish relative to the rates of population and income growth in China that will wane as the population ages. Aligning visitor growth to GDP (economic) growth cuts the expected number of visitors from China in half," NZIER says.

"When the forecasts are corrected by the elimination of routes that are unlikely to be viable and routes that do not need the extension, and corrected by reductions in the growth rates assumed for China and other Asia, the volumes reduce by a factor of about five," BARNZ executive director John Beckett says in a covering letter to WIAL.

NZIER criticised one of the airport's economic consultants, Sapere, for leaving out the cost to New Zealand of more kiwis taking overseas holidays if Wellington offered long haul connections and therefore spending less at home and says it may have overstated the value of shorter journeys "by between $230 million and $720 million."

BARNZ also faulted WIAL for not so far giving any "contractual" assurance that the extra cost of the runway extension wouldn't be passed on to users of the existing runway.

It said the gains to the airport were clear if a largely publicly funded longer runway led to increased revenue from retail, carparking and other services, while the additional value of the runway could be included in the asset base used to calculate the airport's regulated monopoly fees to airlines.

[atiuta]

Wellington, even at 2300m and WB operations from China?

Not going to happen.

[Jxbold]

What Wellington needs to do is take the $300 million and turn Paraparaumu into a world class international airport, the railway is within about a kilometer of the current airport and could easily be extended to the airport to run a high speed train into the city. That way the runway could be as long as you like and the weather and approach would be safer. :ugh:

[27/09]

Old 'Un: Having flown into and out of WLG in my younger years and knowing the area quite well, any extension would have to be into Evans Bay, purely from a cost basis. To extend at the other end would be prohibitively expensive, to say nothing of the issues of stabilisation, and salt spray in a half-decent southerly. It could be done without too much technical difficulty, I would imagine.

There in lies the problem. Extending to the northwest into Evans Bay isn't much help. It's the single engine climb performance to toward the north west that is the limiting factor now.

Extending the runway toward the high terrain effectively increases a climb gradient that is already a limitation. Or you just take off at a lower weight and get airborne at the same point as you do now, well before the new extended threshold and not use the extension at all.

To be useful the extension needs to be to the south east into Lyall Bay.

[27/09]

Jxbold: What Wellington needs to do is take the $300 million and turn Paraparaumu into a world class international airport, the railway is within about a kilometer of the current airport and could easily be extended to the airport to run a high speed train into the city. That way the runway could be as long as you like and the weather and approach would be safer.

I agree, NZPP, once upon a time, might have made a viable international airport. Not anymore. Have you looked at it recently. A circa 1300 metre runway with no prospect of ever being extended due proximity of houses and with hills close to the south east.

It's never going to be an option.

[Tarq57]

There in lies the problem. Extending to the northwest into Evans Bay isn't much help. It's the single engine climb performance to toward the north west that is the limiting factor now.

Extending the runway toward the high terrain effectively increases a climb gradient that is already a limitation. Or you just take off at a lower weight and get airborne at the same point as you do now, well before the new extended threshold and not use the extension at all.

To be useful the extension needs to be to the south east into Lyall Bay.
There is already an RNP departure that accounts for single engine climb to the North, developed and in use by ANZ.

It's moot, anyway. The proposed extension is to the South. The road around the perimeter was bridged at the South end some time ago. The water is less deep to the (immediate) South, and there is bedrock. (Well, sort of.) The only disadvantage working it at that end is the Southerly swell in Cook Strait. I imagine there will be a moll or similar protection at the new Southern airfield boundary.

[27/09]

Tarq57: There is already an RNP departure that accounts for single engine climb to the North, developed and in use by ANZ.

It's moot, anyway. The proposed extension is to the South. The road around the perimeter was bridged at the South end some time ago. The water is less deep to the (immediate) South, and there is bedrock. (Well, sort of.) The only disadvantage working it at that end is the Southerly swell in Cook Strait. I imagine there will be a moll or similar protection at the new Southern airfield boundary.

Yep, moot point. Yes there is an RNP departure to the north however I suspect it wouldn't work if the 34 departure threshold was moved further into Evans Bay. It would need designing assuming there could be a suitable new design.

Another moot point is whether or not the protection would ever be needed on the southern end. This proposal doesn't make any sense, the only way they'll pay for is by fleecing the Wellington region rate payers.

How that will go down with the locals is another debate especially since they will be subsidising a private company.

The airlines will also be watching closely to ensure they don't pay extra for something they don't want.

If they start work on the extension it's a fair bet there will be a legal challenge to make the airport comply with the recommended ICAO RESA areas, which they currently don't, or add a EMAS. If that challenge was successful then the cost of the 300 metres extension blows out significantly.

Wellington CC and Wellington airport Co would be smart to drop the whole idea.

[Tarq57]

...Another moot point is whether or not the protection would ever be needed on the southern end. This proposal doesn't make any sense, the only way they'll pay for is by fleecing the Wellington region rate payers.

The ratepayers are already in the process of being fleeced. Feedback to a popular news site tends to indicate that about 2/3 of the respondents are quite welcoming of a nice fleecing, they want the touted economic benefits, and the ability to fly long haul out of here on a direct flight.


...If they start work on the extension it's a fair bet there will be a legal challenge to make the airport comply with the recommended ICAO RESA areas, which they currently don't, or add a EMAS. If that challenge was successful then the cost of the 300 metres extension blows out significantly....
Legal challenge was already mounted by NZALPA. Wellington airport's safety disputed in runway extension case | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/74100093/Wellington-airports-safety-disputed-in-runway-extension-case)

[27/09]

Tarq57: The ratepayers are already in the process of being fleeced. Feedback to a popular news site tends to indicate that about 2/3 of the respondents are quite welcoming of a nice fleecing, they want the touted economic benefits, and the ability to fly long haul out of here on a direct flight.
No doubt.

The pro runway extension PR machine is most likely in overdrive.

If only the poor ratepayers knew the true facts then they'd want to keep their fleece to protect them against those horrible southerlies.

[Guptar]

Typical small minded NZ thinking. They should immediately extend the runway to the south to 3000m +. Wellington and the other picturesque destinations in NZ feature heavily on the radar of millions of newly wealthy Asians. But they want direct flights. NZ is popular with Beijing rich. But they want to go direct.

Now if NZ really wanted to make the big time they would find a technical solution for a bridge over the Cook Straight. Yes I know it's 24km and 1000 ft deep with fast flowing a current. But if man can land a probe on a comet, a bridge shouldn't be that hard.

Edit: Damn autospell

[27/09]

Guptar: they would find a technical solution for a bridge over the Cook Straight. Yes I know it's 24km and 1000 ft deep with fast flowing a current. But if man can land a probe on a comment, a bridge shouldn't be that hard.

Yep that bridge has been talked about a few times, the last time I recall was when Prince Charles was here a few years ago when he stumbled across a bottle with a Genie.

The Genie offered him one wish, since he was in New Zealand he thought he'd ask for something that would benefit New Zealand and asked for a bridge across Cook Strait.

The Genie replied "Don't you realise how difficult it would be to build a bridge across such a rough stretch of water, the foundations would be enormous, the amount of concrete in the pillars would be astronomical, why don't you choose another wish?"

Charles thought carefully for a while and then asked "Can you make Camilla more beautiful?"

The Genie responded "That bridge you wanted, two lanes or four?" :\

[slamer.]

Wellington Airport claims not all planes need to be able to land on longer runway

Wellington Airport has applied for resource consent to extend its runway by around 355 metres to the south.

Wellington Airport is playing down a report showing many wide-bodied aircrafts could not operate efficiently into the capital even with a $300 million extension.

On Friday it emerged that an expert report included in its resource consent application showed that a number of Boeing and Airbus planes which were looked at could not take off safely if full of passengers, even after its runway was extended 355 metres.

Wellington Airport has claimed its plan to extend the runway into Cook Strait could allow direct flights from North America and Asia into the capital.

While a report commissioned by Wellington Airport rules out some planes being able to fly long haul from the capital to ...
Supplied
While a report commissioned by Wellington Airport rules out some planes being able to fly long haul from the capital to Asia, it confirms the Boeing 777-200, which will soon visit via Canberra, would be able to fly direct to Singapore.

But a report it commissioned from Astral Aviation Consultants claimed that no aircraft could take off with a full passenger payload to Beijing in wet conditions, while only one aircraft type - the A330-800NEO - could reach Los Angeles Airport full of passengers if taking off from a wet runway.

However an airport spokesman said the report had taken a more conservative approach than airlines it had spoken to.

It was not necessary that all planes could land at the airport in all conditions to make a route viable.

"We only need one or two aircraft types to be capable [to operate], not all nine, and the ones that perform best [in the report] will be the most prevalent in airlines fleets over the next decades," the spokesman said.

The Astral report showed almost all of the aircraft studied could reach Singapore while a number could reach Guangzhou, the hub of China Southern Airlines, which flies direct to Christchurch and Auckland.

The same aircraft could fly direct to "everywhere within that distance including Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Manila, Vietnam, and there are options to Los Angeles".

Describing the runway as wet was "technical" the airport said, with Wellington's grooved runway meaning it could be classed as dry or damp even when it was raining, with the runway only classed as "wet" around 10 per cent of the time.

The airport's claims received some support from a regular critic of the runway extension plan, Board of Airline Representatives (Barnz) executive director John Beckett.

The lobby group, whose members are the major airlines, has warned the project would be "wasteful" from a national perspective, but Beckett said the Astral report did not in itself undermine the extension.

"It's not as if this is something which, as it were, is a huge blow against the runway extension in itself, but it's just something that limits its attractiveness of it to airlines based in Asia or North America."

The report showed routes the airlines might have hoped to established "are looking a bit marginal in terms of the passenger payload that can be carried," Beckett said.

While Beckett believed the Astral report suggested "Beijing is out" he acknowledged the report did nothing to diminish the odds of a direct route to Singapore being established.

"From this report, there's a number of aircraft types that could reach Singapore" fully laden with passengers, Beckett said.

In September Singapore Airlines will establish a new service to Wellington via Canberra to Singapore on Boeing 777-200.

According to the Astral report, the planes could fly direct from Wellington to Singapore full of passengers in wet conditions.

[Capn Bloggs]

Well, chuck on another couple of hundred metres! :ok:

[cavemanzk]

Another hit for WLG, EK just increased AKL-DXB to an daily 388 from the 77L from DEC.

Emirates to launch daily A380 flights to Auckland | GulfNews.com (http://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/emirates-to-launch-daily-a380-flights-to-auckland-1.1839712)

[Pakehaboy]

Quote speaker"Does seem to be a good thing but at a million dollars per metre of runway it does seem bloody pricey!"

Oh I don't know about that,we spent 26 mil on the flag issue,we can't house people but we always have millions for studies and surveys.

[Doors to Automatic]

My thoughts exactly Capn Bloggs - once built it will be there forever so why not do the job properly and extend to 3000m or whatever length is needed for non-stop Dubai.

[ramyon]

NZIER savages Wgtn runway extension plan


NZIER questioned analysis by international aviation consultancy INTERVISTAS on its assumptions about the potential growth of tourist and other travellers from China and South-East Asia, saying likely growth from China, in particular, was overstated.

"The forecasts for China and other Asia grossly overstate likely visitor arrivals by understating the maturity of these markets will occur well before 2060, 2050, 2040 or even 2030," the NZIER report says. "The forecasts are too bullish relative to the rates of population and income growth in China that will wane as the population ages.

Talk about covering all your bases, ridiculous statement, grasping at straws....:ugh:

[ramyon]

My thoughts exactly Capn Bloggs - once built it will be there forever so why not do the job properly and extend to 3000m or whatever length is needed for non-stop Dubai.

Exactly!! what is it with this country and always doing things in half measures especially when it comes to transport infrastructure?

[27/09]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doors to Automatic View Post
My thoughts exactly Capn Bloggs - once built it will be there forever so why not do the job properly and extend to 3000m or whatever length is needed for non-stop Dubai.


Exactly!! what is it with this country and always doing things in half measures especially when it comes to transport infrastructure?

Exactly how many people will want to fly direct to Dubai from Wellington.

Yes there are plenty of half measure examples. Equally there are plenty of examples of "we need one too" when there is absolutely no need.

New Zealand is a country of 4.5 million spread out over a land mass bigger than a the UK which has a population of over 64 million. We cannot support some of these grandiose schemes. I think the NZWN runway extension is one such scheme.

[ramyon]

I think the NZWN runway extension is one such scheme.

I don't think it's that grandiose of an investment ....International airports make runway improvements all of the time.. it's not like they're proposing to build a brand new airport on an island or something.
Mind you building a 3K runway would be I guess.

[Ollie Onion]

Biggest waste of money ever! The ratepayers have been brainwashed!

[Pakehaboy]

Well,as long as they finish Transmission gully before the airport,it should work out just fine

[Ollie Onion]

Couldn't believe my eyes recently when I actually saw them working on Transmission Gully, I remember when I was 9 years old and seeing the big article in the Evening Post that they would be starting imminently, that was 30ish + years ago. Maybe the extension of the runway will be the same!