110 seater jets for Bankstown, Moorabbin, Archerfield [Archive]

BNEA320

13th Sep 2013, 05:31

just read an article about how the new Bombardier C series 100 jet could land at all these 3 airports.

All they need is stronger not longer runways.

They are so quiet, noise wouldn't an issue.

With the country now completely broke, surely this would be a much better & cheaper option than building a new airport at Badgerys Creek ?

Plus dodgy Sydney Airport wouldn't have to be consulted, plus BNE's new runway is now looking like it will be finished in 2024.

What a mess BNE will become by then.

Mr.Buzzy

13th Sep 2013, 06:01

Oh just stronger runways. Is that all?
No problemo, just tell the tower to up the pavement strength a stage or two!!!

Bzbzbzbzbzbzbzbz:ok:

BNEA320

13th Sep 2013, 06:03

think pavement strength/stronger runways same thing

nitpicker330

13th Sep 2013, 06:31

I think Mr Buzzy knows what you mean.

He's making the observation that making those runways stronger isn't simple or cheap...

Horatio Leafblower

13th Sep 2013, 08:12

All they need is stronger not longer

I've been telling chicks this for years. :ugh:

Wizofoz

13th Sep 2013, 13:05

And by what measure is this-

With the country now completely broke,

even remotely true?

Australia has one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in the developed world!

VH-XXX

13th Sep 2013, 20:44

I'm not sure how anyone could think that building infrastructure and potentially spending millions based on a specific aircraft type can be a good thing...
But then again, some said that about the A380.

Wunwing

13th Sep 2013, 21:25

BNEA.
Why would you define the country as "completely broke"?The election is over and its time for the spin doctors to go back to their holes. According to the financial papers that I'm reading, Australia is awash with cash looking for somewhere to invest. A product of our superannuation system.

But here is where our system falls down as a result of a poorly thought out privatisation of monopoly assets/dash for cash of a previous version of the current team blue. In selling airports, Telstra etc for the maximum cash they failed to think through the end results. In the case of airports they are now owned by either companies or local government.

In the case of local government all expenditure is seen by residents as competing against allocations for roads, libraries etc.Under those circumstances it is almost impossible to justify spending money to upgrade a runway.

In the case of a company it is also hard to justify a runway upgrade when a nice shiny industrial park, trucking terminal or tourist trap(sorry, terminal shopping) will return much more/$.

So who funds the upgrade? The Government can't because the facility is not theirs anymore. So we are back to the original problem which is not that as a country we are broke. We aren't. Just that our privatisation of monopoly assets model is flawed. The ROI model does not work for monopoly infrastructure which in many cases is why the government rather than private enterprise built them in the first place.

Wunwing

Capn Bloggs

13th Sep 2013, 23:08

Australia has one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in the developed world!

So you think the gummit should spent with gay abandon to get our debt level up to the same as other countries? We have billions and billions of debt which you and I and my kids have to pay off; I'm in no mood for those jokers in Canberra to borrow even more, thank you.

Wally Mk2

14th Sep 2013, 00:21

I always love the way people throw around the words "Australia has one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in the developed world".... That might well be the case & it looks good on paper but we don't live in any other place than here, we live in Australia not the rest of the developed world where compared to them we are in great shape that's a COS (Crock Of Sh1t) to make the dumb asses Pollies feel good for their incompetence, we have massive debt thanks to the outgoing clowns & as 'Bloggsy' said we now have to pay for it.

"WW" that's a good way of looking at the mess we have regarding certain infrastructure.
The concept of using these smaller high cap jets at our smaller dromes is just a pipe dream on paper. The added cost of the necessary infrastructure such as security, added RFFF costs, the pavement (as has been mentioned) the Ldg system capabilities, the buildings needed for such a crazy stunt not to mention the public transport & parking req's needed, all pie in the sky stuff, ain't gunna happen here.

Wmk2

mcgrath50

14th Sep 2013, 02:46

Oh FFS macroeconomics is not the same as balancing your chequebook. Debt is not necessarily bad, it is the levels of debt and what that debt is being used for that can be bad. Similarly a surplus is not always good if it is attained the wrong way. There is some argument to be had that the fire sale of public assets to attain a surplus was not the right way, there is also some argument to be had that once that surplus was obtained we shouldn't have given away so much money in tax cuts etc in the lead up to the GFC, both Howard and Rudd were guilty of this in 2007.

How you view these arguments obviously depends on the economic school of thought you subscribe to and I'm not about to debate that here but for the love of god please can everyone in Australia stop taking the simple view that surplus is always good and is a sign of a competent government and debt is bad and is a sign of incompetence.

Have you noticed how the tone about the economy has changed from the coalition the closer they got to government? It is because at a macroeconomic level we are doing ok. The initial response to the GFC was excellent (more to do with Treasury than Rudd I'd say) and although we should be closer to getting back to surplus than we actually are it isn't the total stuff up many people believe.

Nulli Secundus

14th Sep 2013, 03:31

Infrastructure development can sometimes appear a double edge sword. Do you spend or don't you? Will it be worth the effort and what if you just leave the project on the shelf and leave the money in the bank? I've never dealt in billions of dollars so its hard to precisely convert these figures to a personal comfort factor.

What I can say is, before taking a politicians view (& to be honest, Australian politics is, & has been over 10 odd years, unfortunately less about good policy and much more about personal career development) I convert the numbers back to figures which give me perspective.

So here goes. The average household debt in Australia is a little over $151,000 (Melbourne Inst.). The ABS prefer to use a mean value of household liabilities of $120,000. So, nationally 'we' have private household debt to repay which is distributed across each household.
At the same time 'they' (the government 'household') has a total liability of circa $400 000 000 000. The Australian workforce is currently circa 11,648,000 people with an average national annual gross income per person of $77,262.

Now here's the kicker:

Part A - Govt V Average Household
It will take your household just over 71 weeks to turn over your total household liabilities.
It will take your government 'household' just over 22 weeks to turnover its total liabilities.
Your household debt situation is 3.22 times more precarious than the government's.

Part B - Investment
Anecdotal evidence indicates household investment in owner occupied renovations/ enhancements is not declining.

We all often repeat the published or spoken word but how often do we challenge the premise of the argument? Are we 3.22 times worse money managers than our government representatives or are they 3.22 times better?

YPJT

14th Sep 2013, 05:42

Looking at the available code 3 runways for BK AF and MB only rwy 11C at bankstown has the protected approach gradient for jet aircraft. So the problem with this idea might extend well beyond rwy PCNs.

Oktas8

14th Sep 2013, 06:33

LeadSled

19th Sep 2013, 15:56

Folks,
Re. YSBK, last report by the owners that was available, the "upgrades" mooted for the master plane were financially unaffordable, unless the landing fees for the master planned movement rate was going to be eye watering ---- which is hardly going to attract airline customers, particularly as the likely operators have shown precisely zero interest so far.

Every few months some hopeful floats off an idea to run scheduled services, but I will take a very small bet that the sundry shareholders of Archerfield, Bankstown and Moorabbin will not spend many millions of $$$$ (the upgrade for YSBK was going to be $50M+, not including the cost of disruption to local operators) without a reasonably assured ROI.

601

20th Sep 2013, 02:37

given away so much money in tax cuts

They don't give money away. The Gvment does not have any money to give away.

The Gvment reduced the income tax rate, that is, the amount of money they took from us.

BNEA320

20th Sep 2013, 03:43

but the likes of Rex that would want to fly into Bankstown with jets, like the new CS100.

+ lots of other jets could then use Bankstown with a full load, eg. BAe146's !!!

Also much much cheaper & quicker to put down a new runway than build a whole new airport.

Talk of Richmond as a short term measure is a waste of time, unless the Air Asia's/Scoot s of this world could get in & out of there cheaply.

OverRun

20th Sep 2013, 05:42

The C series -100, is a code 3C aircraft (like a 146) and the -300 is a code 4C (like a 737). So the CS-100 aircraft would fit in with the concept of old 2005 Bankstown masterplan (but that may not the concept today).

Assuming the CS100 is being used which is the 110 pax version, with very provisional figures of a takeoff run at MTOW (53 t) at ISA of 1219m (and 11/29 is already 1416m long) and a 30m runway width requirement (11/29 is 30m wide), it would fit onto the runway.

The 11/29C runway PCN is not published, but can be estimated as a very provisional PCN 10/F/C/1050/U. The CS-100 ACN is not yet released by Bombardier, but has been estimated elsewhere as a very provisional 34/C at MTOW. The strength upgrade to the present runway so as to take the CS100 is estimated as about 200mm of asphalt. To overlay the existing runway (no extension), and overlay taxiways and aprons to suit, is probably about $5 million. Add for the grooving, lights, shoulders, works area, WSOs (say $4 million), and then double it to cover all the add-ons of planning, design, approvals, paperwork, more paperwork, etc. With GST, it is about $20 million. However Australian capital cities are notorious for costing more than a reasonable estimate, so it might cost $25-30 million for the pavement alone.

Wally Mk2 mentioned a list of other things needed. Security $2 mill, RFFF $12 mill (if their building needs upgrading), ldg system $1 mill, terminal $15 mill (for up to 1 mill pax/yr), parking $10 mill if some multistorey is needed (because there is little space left). All up - $40 mill and after considering my earlier comment about reasonable estimates (or should that be unreasonable) – perhaps $50 mill. Together with the pavement, the total might be $75 million.

That's quite a lot of money for what can only be a "single runway" airport with limited pax numbers. Assuming an arbitrary limit of 1 million pax annually at Bankstown, and with payback in 8 years [same as Heathrow Terminal 5], this would be $20 per one way ticket ($40 per return) added to the fare. I suspect that private shareholders would want a shorter payback periuod, and the fee is more likely to be $30 per oneway ticket.

LeadSled

20th Sep 2013, 08:38

That's quite a lot of money for what can only be a "single runway" airport with limited pax numbers. Assuming an arbitrary limit of 1 million pax annually at Bankstown, and with payback in 8 years [same as Heathrow Terminal 5], this would be $20 per one way ticket ($40 per return) added to the fare. I suspect that private shareholders would want a shorter payback periuod, and the fee is more likely to be $30 per oneway ticket.

Overrun,
I love the wonderfully optimistic estimates for upgrading the runway centre, and enough taxiways. The subsoil conditions at YSBK are not favorable, to say the least.

The lack of interest by Rex could be accounted for by the fact that they and other existing regionals are guaranteed access access to Kingsford Smith, and YSSY is "price declared", so Max can't price them out.

YSBK is the boonies, for people who actually want to go to Sydney, or originate in "Sydney" ---- including the substantial numbers of public servants traveling intrastate.

YSBK was built partly on a swamp, with fill over cleared timber, and the water table is very close to the surface. Most of the airfield is under the 50 year flood level, an interesting problem which, in the case of the museum, was solved by building up the area by about 2M. But you can't do that to the whole place ---- because it is part of a flood plane, and there are a few surrounding properties that, unsurprisingly, are not sympathetic to Bankstown Airport Company making a buck by diverting floodwater to their properties.

The approx. (I am only quoting the numbers at a meeting on the subject of master plan consultation) figure of $55M included digging up runway centre and starting again, plus adding another (from memory) 2/300 meters.
Time scale 2 years+, at what cost to existing operators.

At the movement rates mooted in the draft masterplan, the kind of per pax figures you came up, (1M pax. PA), were nowhere near that estimate, but less than half that passenger figure.

And all this would have been at the cost of eliminating what little training is left at YSBK.

Hence the loss of interest in the whole idea.

Drop the 80 per hour cap at YSSY, and allow that there are now some very quiet aircraft, and the whole problem of capacity goes away for quite a few years, as Sydney Airport Co. well knows, hence their objection to Badgerys Creek.

Bear in mind that all that I have said about YSBK would not apply to what would be built at Badgerys, that is a whole different ball game, with a substantially different market.

Tootle pip!!

OverRun

20th Sep 2013, 10:20

Leadsled,

Some points on which we agree and disagree

1. The subsoil conditions at YSBK are not favorable, to say the least.I agree; you'll find my PCN is indeed for subsoil which is not favourable.

2. I disagree my estimates are wonderfully optimistic. Your quote of $55 million is for something very different to mine. Your runway is extended 200-300m which is expensive work: Canberra extended 450m for $30 million. You haven't quoted design aircraft or weights, but only rebuilding to depth. The extra length and the rebuild suggest that they were looking at heavier aircraft than I was. The CS100 is a relatively light aircraft in the scale of things, and so an overlay is practical, and inexpensive. My estimates are a lot closer than your quote. This work could all be done at night over several months, with the runway open during the day and early evening, and 24 hr/day on the weekends.

3. My estimate of 1 million pax was simply 50% of the Sydney Airport 2012 Regional Airline pax. And I ramped the Bankstown traffic steadily up over 5 years before it reached that level. As I said, it was 'arbitrary'. But it seems not too far off. To quote "Joint Study on aviation capacity in the Sydney region", the approved Bankstown Airport Master Plan 2004/05 (the 2005 Bankstown Master Plan) foreshadows up to 12 RPT movements per day (0.4 mill pax/yr for a 110 seater with high avg LF). In the draft Master Plan submitted in 2010 BAL sought to extend the provision to 32 RPT movements per day (1.1 mill pax/yr). BTW at 0.4 mill pax/yr limit, the fee would be $50 per one way ticket ($100 per return).

4. I agree with you about the viability:
YSBK, last report by the owners that was available, the "upgrades" mooted for the master plan were financially unaffordable, unless the landing fees for the master planned movement rate was going to be eye watering ---- which is hardly going to attract airline customers, particularly as the likely operators have shown precisely zero interest so far.

I was adding numbers to the discussion here so as to help quantify the size of the project and the mistake it would be.

Nulli Secundus

20th Sep 2013, 10:42

The paralysis of analysis is unbelievable in this country.

$75 million. Sounds like an excellent deal, for mine. Roughly, very roughly, the federal government spends that figure on detention centre management to private operators every 2 weeks.

Very roughly, the hardware parked on the Sydney airport GA hardstand is worth about that on mostly any given day.

London Gatwick - single runway for many years & to my knowledge still is, albeit a second runway is on the drawing board.

We are a wealthy country with enormous cash reserves. We just don't know how to overcome our fear of failure & with the easy money skewed toward residential & commercial property, this is a hard gig to get up.

With our new PM wishing to be remembered as the infrastructure PM, here's a thought:

Tunnel a rail link the 10.4 km permitting rapid ('Sydney rapid') rail to Bankstown & Yenora stations, strengthen the runways as discussed & build the terminals. Its really a no brainer, enormously overdue and will make a significant contribution on so many fronts.

Sorry, can't speak for AF or the other locations, but I suspect a similar opportunity would exist there.

BNEA320

21st Sep 2013, 01:06

Masterplan can be changed very quickly by new government.

Capt Fathom

21st Sep 2013, 01:40

What's the connection between London Gatwick and Sydney Bankstown? :confused:

OverRun

21st Sep 2013, 10:09

BNEA320,

The 1 million pax/yr is not a limit but simply estimate of traffic attracted from existing NSW regional flights. I don’t know what the limit would be at Bankstown. It is more than 1 million, but the airport layout plan looks crowded and complex, and ground movements would become a bottleneck at some stage. I don’t know enough about the ground movement patterns to comment further – I haven't seen them since I learned to fly there in VH–ETI several decades ago.

The existing runway/taxiway layout does not lend itself to an efficient system for handling RPT jets. 11C/29C doesn’t have a parallel taxiway and the taxiway system to/from the runway thresholds affects operations on the other runways. One million pax/yr requires 30 movements per day of a C series aircraft (at a high avg LF), and mixing that many aircraft with GA movements would make the place feel quite busy.

I'm fairly sure that an order of magnitude jump to 10 million pax/year is not possible. And the domestic airline fleets in Australia are such that operations at 10 million pax/yr would demand the addition of medium sized jets such as 737/A320, and these won’t fit into the airport. The terminal, aprons and car parking would take over the GA areas at Bankstown. And the numbers of aircraft movements would mean a range of serious airspace management and noise issues.

What's the connection between London Gatwick and Sydney Bankstown?
Gatwick is a shining example of what can be done with a single runway. But it is not something which can be emulated at Bankstown in any sense. Gatwick has the world's busiest single runway with up to 53 aircraft movements per hour in late-2012, and a maximum capacity of 55 movements per hour; it handled 34.2 million pax in 2012. The two terminals cover an area over 250,000 m2. To make a single runway carry high traffic volumes it needs lots of taxiway exits, and LGW has 14 taxiway exits (7 of which are rapid) and double parallel taxiways. If that sort of development was tried at Bankstown, all but one runway would have to close which would be a problem for GA.

Capt Fathom

21st Sep 2013, 12:22

Gatwick has 2 runways by the way....

For those spruking the benefits of a single runway airport!

OverRun

21st Sep 2013, 13:58

Tsk Tsk Captain Fathom, disengenuous.

Wizofoz

21st Sep 2013, 14:43

Gatwick has 2 runways by the way....

For those spruking the benefits of a single runway airport!

It has an emergency runway which is usually only used as a taxiway but is available if the main runway is closed.

It is NEVER used in two-runway mode, but still achieves 50 movements an hour.

Nulli Secundus

21st Sep 2013, 14:48

'.......One million pax/yr requires 30 movements per day of a C series aircraft (at a high avg LF), and mixing that many aircraft with GA movements would make the place feel quite busy'

Really? < 2-3 movements/ hour of C-series a/c would make the place feel busy? I think not. Its been years since Bankstown felt busy.

The idea is not to turn BK into Gatwick. And who says it must have a car park. Time to think future not past. London City is a perfect example of what's possible with very little:
In 2012 it served over 3 million passengers
Approx. land area is just 33ha Vs Bankstown's approx. 260ha.
Very limited car parking circa - 400 cars!!

Now here's the kicker: LCY's master plan aims for a max. capability of 8 MILLION pax by 2030 with NO expansion of airport boundaries or a second runway.

Unfortunately, much of the inertia in our country is politically driven. The new treasurer is on record (via his website no less) as simply hopeful of a second Sydney airport any time within the next 31 years. Check out joehockey.com

Can we have some progressive thinking in this country & put an end to the big end of town controlling what should really be public assets. If the NSW state gov. can warn mining co's to use or lose their mining licences............ surely the same should apply to private operators of public facilities?? Develop them or lose them!!

LeadSled

21st Sep 2013, 15:03

Overrun,
The estimates for the minimum upgrades were not my estimates, they were Bankstown Airport Co's estimates.

Likewise, the movement rates and resultant passenger throughput.

Even that very very modest movement rate did two things, it enraged the local council and the local anti-jet noise mob, and virtually eliminated most GA at YSBK --- only slightly alleviated with full radar in the tower, and YSSY running approach control at both airports.

The potential revenue (being the new RPT revenue minus most of the existing movement revenue, which is precluded by the RPT operation) versus the additional capital and running costs just did not make sense ---- it did make for a projected loss, hardly a welcome prospect for the shareholders.

I note the comments about Gatwick, and 50+ movements per hour --- that just illustrates the effect of the politically imposed limitations at Kingsford Smith, what has been imposed can be disposed.

Interestingly, there is only one "marginal" under the seriously noisy parts YSSY flightpaths, YSBK is surrounded by now marginal seats --- a point that will not be lost on local and national pollies.

Tootle pip!!

rutan around

21st Sep 2013, 21:42

YSBK might not be needed if some of the ideas I heard at Oshkosh ever get up. At the Innovations Pavilion there was a forum called 'Tomorrow is Today' which addressed the problem we're all familiar with when using airlines. That is, it takes longer to get from home to the airport and then the same problem at the other end taking longer to arrive at final destination than the whole jet flight.

A proposed solution was an innovative method of making the hub and spoke system work better.

They proposed establishing micro airfields only 400 - 500 feet long in the suburbs and operating extremely quiet and extremely short field capable aircraft in the 4 - 20 passenger range to and from the main airport. The air taxis would not have to be fast because the would only operate in the 10 to 50 NM range.

One of the ideas for achieving very quiet very high acceleration was to install very small and very powerful electric motors in the wheel hubs. Someone suggested they would melt down in 20-30 seconds but the speaker assured us that they would only operate for 5-9 seconds before the aircraft was airborne with plenty of time to cool down before the next flight.

There was lots of other stuff like telescoping wings for parking and speed but extended for short takeoff and landing. Also geared slow turning props to keep noise at a minimum. They also spoke about very steep climb outs and steep descents to minimize the already small noise footprint. There was a bit about positioning these micro strips so departure was over swamps or rail yards or some other area not overly sensitive to noise.

Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm only a hick from the sticks with the back of my mouth still sunburned from all I saw at Oshkosh.
Cheers RA

OverRun

22nd Sep 2013, 05:10

Leadsled,

I also think the business case for RPT at Bankstown is pretty miserable. The likely pax numbers are discouragingly low in the short term. I cannot fault any owner of an airport who recoils when faced with the Bankstown numbers.

A reasonable principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation (that sounds much better than rule of thumb) is that an airport starts to make decent money when it gets to 2 million pax/yr. I am not sure if Bankstown would get there for a number of years which makes it a bad business case.

London City has done a great job. Lucky for them they have been there since 1986–87 when there was a lot of rundown dockland that desperately needed development – any development. Today there would be zero chance of starting it up. The Brits are even more constipated than Australians when it comes to building, developing, or constructing airports. Looking at the London new airport debate and the Sydney new airport debate – well I think that London and Sydney are vying for the award of the title of Greatest HAAC (Head up the Arse when dealing with Aviation for the City) in the World. The politicians always prefer to get an award rather than tackle a thorny issue.

EDIT
Let me add one more thing which I have just realised. London City started life as a STOLport for RPT services (Brymon Airways), and what we see today is the result of growth of that RPT business. Opening up Bankstown to RPT services however would effectively be starting up a whole new business, which is a lot riskier.

LeadSled

22nd Sep 2013, 09:39

OverRun,
When it comes to airport decisions, I would reckon a dead heat between us and the UK.

In the year I first started flying in the UK, 1962, there was political uproar about a third London airport. --- this was in the days when GA was welcome at Gatwick. Ain't built yet!!

In the late 1940s, there was a master plan for a new airport for Sydney, which showed amazing foresight. It was for two wide spaced parallel run ways, one where 16R/34L now is, the other was well to the east, just in front of the now long gone Bunnerong power station.

The "west" runway was to be for domestic, the east for "international" , interesting thinking when most international flights were by flying boats.

The only remaining evidence of this wonderful plan is the motorway towards the airport, reservation was made for a multi-lane highway, just about the first multi lane in NSW.

That is why this road takes a right turn just past the Lakes gold course, it should have continues straight ahead to the planned international runway and terminals.

This was back in the day when we could build Snowy Mountains schemes, and with post war optimism, anything was possible.

Sadly, the Nay Sayers soon reasserted themselves in the form of the Melbourne based DCA, and 07/25 was built as the new runway, dead crosswind most of the time.

Tootle pip!!

OverRun

22nd Sep 2013, 10:24

LeadSled,

Ah yes – Sydney as it was historically. I know the Badgerys Creek site well – I put up the recording anemometer there for the MANS second Sydney airport studies in 1974, when working as a junior engineer for DCA. I put anemometers up at all the other potential airport sites too. The work was urgent then because it was believed that Sydney Airport would not cope with traffic by about 1980. History proves that it didn’t.

Holsworthy was the most interesting of the site options; the Army drove me to the base of the hill where the anemometer was to be placed. I got out of the vehicle and started to walk up the hill and then noticed that the Army people were conspicuous by their absence. I called and asked them if they were coming up the hill with me, and they politely declined to do so because the hill was strewn with live ordinance. I smile when it gets suggested as a possibility these days, and look forward to seeing a politician walking over the site to show how suitable it might be.

BNEA320

23rd Sep 2013, 05:52

think these are very quiet aircraft.

SYD is at or near capacity now at peak hours times Mon-Fri & Sun pm.

Any growth could come by way of Bankstown, especially in peak hours

MOORABBIN/BANKSTOWN/ARCHERFIELD & MOORABBIN/ARCHEFIELD nonstop.

Capt Fathom

23rd Sep 2013, 06:52

I think BNEA320 is a Bombardier plant! :E

Hugh Jarse

23rd Sep 2013, 09:27

I don't think Sydney is at capacity during peak at all. At its 'cap' limit, sure, but certainly not at capacity.

Nulli Secundus

23rd Sep 2013, 13:34

"In the year I first started flying in the UK, 1962, there was political uproar about a third London airport. --- this was in the days when GA was welcome at Gatwick. Ain't built yet!!"

Third airport? - Stanstead, Luton, Gatwick, Heathrow, London City. All London airports.

"I also think the business case for RPT at Bankstown is pretty miserable. The likely pax numbers are discouragingly low in the short term."

Not at all! LCY handles over 3M/ year. KSA 36M/ year. Why BK would not be capable of a rapid ramp up in today's mature travel market escapes logic.

LeadSled

24th Sep 2013, 09:21

Nuli,
Luton = London, you speak in jest, of course.

That would be a bit like Sydney Newcastle ??

I know all the "LONDON" airports well, as a crew member, and as self loading freight.

Stanstead --- HA HA, yes, it gets called London Stanstead, but I well remember when the runway was "not nearly long enough for serious long hall", so the runway was extended to "not quite long enough for for serious long haul". Have you ever tried to get there in reasonable time, except from NE London and Essex.

It's still Bishop Stortford International, as far as I am concerned, and that view is shared by a vast market of serious business travelers.

Gatwick was there in 1962, the biggest single change operationally since, was selling off the land for a decent second runway.

As for London City, interesting niche operation.

The argument in 1962 was the same as today ---- the need to build a major new airport, at least the size of EGLL It ain't been done.

Mind you, the number of new airports built anywhere in the western world in the last 30 years is pretty small. About as many as China builds a year.

Tootle pip!!

mcgrath50

24th Sep 2013, 14:07

A relevant article from a UK think tank about expanding airports outside London, linking them all with the already planned High Speed Rail.

http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2012/09/12/look-at-the-bigger-picture-on-aviation/

Not a magic bullet for Australia due to our greater size and smaller population but interesting none the less.

LeadSled

24th Sep 2013, 15:04

SYD is at or near capacity now at peak hours times Mon-Fri & Sun pm.BNEA320,
No where near it, except for artificially imposed restrictions, of which the 80 per hour is one.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Slight thread drift, but China has just opened the world's highest airport, just over 14,000 ft. in Szechuan province. Makes for some interesting thoughts ---- CASA would probably ban it, because it is above all our rules for operations without oxygen.

kabukiman

26th Sep 2013, 04:58

"country completely broke"

let me guess, you voted coalition because <insert generic nonsense about economic emergency here>?

on topic: AFAIK strengthening the runways as opposed to lengthening them would actually be more costly wouldn't it?

kabukiman

26th Sep 2013, 05:01

So you think the gummit should spent with gay abandon to get our debt level up to the same as other countries? We have billions and billions of debt which you and I and my kids have to pay off; I'm in no mood for those jokers in Canberra to borrow even more, thank you.

Are you serious? you never studied economics at all did you

kabukiman

26th Sep 2013, 05:06

I suspect that the citizens living in proximity to Bankstown might have something to say about the idea of turning it into a busy regional hub. Ditto for Archerfield, Moorabbin. Any airport established or expanded in the middle of suburban housing will very soon be hamstrung by curfews and noise complaints. Does the OP know about Essendon?

Assuming that existing airport expansion isn't possible, it's cheaper in the long run to build a new airport in a rural or industrial area, and protect it from housing development. It's that last factor that sinks many airports, and unfortunately there's not much will to establish and enforce housing restrictions in Australia.

I never was able to get my head around people who buy houses near airports such as YMEN and complain about noise.....

Just like the folk who move in next to pubs and have them shut down because the live music is annoying. Never mind they'd been a music venue for decades prior.

In YMMB's case the few jets that come in and out of there aren't any noisier on take off or landing than some of the piston aircraft IME. They're a bit annoying to stand near in the parking areas however.

MB is already pretty busy, I don't think a few flights a day in these new jets would make much of an impact however

LeadSled

26th Sep 2013, 10:18

MB is already pretty busy, I don't think a few flights a day in these new jets would make much of an impact however

Well, the mooted 10 flights per day into YSBK is said to be enough to shut down all training, and severely impact all IFR movements, so what would happen at YMMB?? And that is not me speaking, that is from the draft masterplan, after "consultations" with Airservices and CASA.

Tootle pip!!

Wally Mk2

26th Sep 2013, 12:22

'Kaby' it's not so much the noise, the few extra movements or so it's the COST, the infrastructure or lack of it that has this idea as pie in the sky stuff. Christ ANY Aussie Govt or private operator can't get the most basic things sorted (especially when it comes to aviation) never lone this hair brained scheme to fix a completely useless permanent problem we have in Oz, LACK OF FORESIGHT & LEADERSHIP!

Syd is a joke re utilization & with & having BK in close prox would mean all sorts of delays for A/C in & out of both dromes (SY&BK)

Wmk2

LeadSled

27th Sep 2013, 06:14

Syd is a joke re utilization & with & having BK in close prox would mean all sorts of delays for A/C in & out of both dromes (SY&BK)

Wally Mk2,
Only because of self imposed limitations in Australian ATC. If we could handle traffic like the US, Bankstown would not be a problem, and training would not be forced out for a miserable 10 RPT movements per day.

Get a map of the Los Angeles basin, and count up the number of airports and airfields, and it is not much bigger than the Sydney basin, and ringed on three sides with much bigger hills than Sydney.

As an ATC traffiv handling problem, Sydney is almost analogous to Honolulu International --- look at what they quite comfortably accommodate.

Tootle pip!!