2nd North South Runway at Melbourne Airport [Archive]

View Full Version : 2nd North South Runway at Melbourne Airport

Flying Ted

27th Jun 2019, 23:34

Can anyone explain how Melbourne aiport got the orientation of their proposed third runway so wrong?

https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/melbourne-airport-s-long-awaited-third-runway-could-change-direction-20190627-p521zc.html

Passengers at Melbourne Airport face several years of increasing congestion and delays after its managers decided to put their long-held plan for a third runway on hold, in favour of building it running in another direction.

The airport's chief executive Lyell Strambi said on Thursday that its plan for a new east-west runway, in place since 2013 and due to open in 2023, had been put on hold.

The airport now wants to build a new runway running north to south.

The east-west runway would have to be shut 17 per cent of the time due to wind interference, a new analysis revealed, rather than 5 per cent as previously thought.

“There will be a lot of days of the year when we won’t be able to use [either east-west runway] and we’ll be stuck with the north-south runway, so that in itself is quite problematic,” Mr Strambi said.

“That would say to us north-south looks like a better option," said Mr Strambi, who will now sit down with aviation authorities to "pressure-test" the revised plan.

Melbourne Airport’s master plan predicts it will hit maximum capacity next year, and that it will be plagued by delays if a new runway is not opened by 2023.

Melbourne Airport must now go back to the drawing board and create a new "master development plan" for a north-south runway , which needs to be approved by federal government. It will not open until about 2025.

News of the change of direction has alarmed local residents, who fear rising noise from flights over housing south of Tullamarine.

Frank Rivoli, from the Hume Residents Airport Action Group, says changing the direction of the third runway could "pit communities against communities", and that it would suit Melbourne Airport if residents bickered over which was best.

An east-west runway would generate more noise overhead in suburbs including Gladstone Park and Westmeadows.

The north-south plan would affect residents in neighbourhoods such as Keilor, St Albans and Tottenham.

"We're not here to say it should go east-west or north-south. It impacts local people and residents wherever it goes." He said new runways should be built "elsewhere ... not here where it is going to affect so many".

Mr Rivoli said the state government had not updated noise rules for suburbs surrounding the airport since 2003, and since then aircraft noise had become much worse. "A lot of people own properties who are being badly affected by airport noise, but under [Planning Minister Richard Wynne's] rules that doesn't matter."

Mr Wynne's office declined to comment on the issue.

A new north-south runway will cost about $1.5 billion, compared to $1.1 billion for the east-west option, because it is further away from the terminal and requires more groundwork.

However the airport's Mr Strambi said the an east-west runway would reach maximum capacity sooner than a north-south option because of the wind restrictions and a fourth runway would have to be built sooner than necessary.

Four runways in a “hashtag” formation remain the airport’s long-term plan, with the final runway to be built at some point after 2036.

Mr Strambi said the response from both government and his airlines customers to the construction delay had been "encouraging".

He said he hoped to have a firm decision on which runway to build within three months.

“Definitely delays will build through that period,” Mr Stambi said. “[But] it’s better to take the pain of that at this point in time if that means a better long-term decision.”

The move by Melbourne Airport will also have serious impacts on nearby Essendon Airport.

In Essendon's masterplan, released this year, it said that Melbourne Airport's previous indication it would opt for an east-west runway would force the smaller airport to follow suit.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/805x453/2230123_1561623484974_d069f5899712494a3050044ac22d35ecdf06ad c3.png

Squawk7700

28th Jun 2019, 00:12

It’s an interesting situation because on most days of the year you’ll see QF 94 coming in from LA to land to the north as it flies over the CBD on base. That would be presumably as you can’t land a 380 on the east west runway.

It it feels like parallel north-south runways would be best for most conditions, as Melbourne does get south-westerly sea-breezes pretty much every day in summer. The residents aren’t going to be very happy !

mickjoebill

28th Jun 2019, 00:31

Melbourne Airport is testing public opinion(?) regarding building 2nd North South Runaway as a priority, reversing plans that East West runway was the priority. In a radio interview the reason given was a re-evaluation of new digital wind shear data, which indicates an increase in number of days E/W would be closed because of a narrowing of safety margins.
Oddly they do not seem to support the announcement with online maps and charts of flight paths.

compressor stall

28th Jun 2019, 00:45

Doesn't take digital wind shear data to work out that there are very very few days when the crosswind limits are too great for 16/34 but there are lots when it's too great for 09/27. If it's over 25kts, then its blowing from the north, or the SSW. Something's fishy they didn't work that out years ago.

09R/27L won't alleviate Single Runway Ops weather and subsequent delays. 16R/34L will.

Lookleft

28th Jun 2019, 01:25

Building a parallel 09/27 never did make sense. Given the time it takes Melbourne Airport to complete taxiway works I think the current crop of brand new F/O's into regionals will be retired before another runway at Melbourne is completed.

Ladloy

28th Jun 2019, 01:33

Judging the general ground and airborne delays I'd say they're already very close to capacity

crosscutter

28th Jun 2019, 01:56

The new east west runway stunk of the tail wagging the dog. At least the correct decision is going to be made. Shame on those responsible for allowing the east west proposal to get this far.

So many airports have shown how it should be done...Mel are no trailblazers... as soon as community focus groups and politicians get involved the optimal solution gets compromised with self interest.

wheels_down

28th Jun 2019, 02:34

There are really only four flights impacted regularly as above is QF 94, Virgin 777 and the EK/QR 380.

Virgin in summer struggles with the current setup and usually offloads outbound.

compressor stall

28th Jun 2019, 02:49

Maybe so but pretty much everyone is affected on a hot 40kt northerly day which another 09/27 won’t fix.

neville_nobody

28th Jun 2019, 03:05

All this does is give the airport more time to procrastinate and not spend money on anything whilst raking in landing fees and terminal rents etc etc. Whilst all the airlines pay for their inefficiency with higher fuel burns and total time on their airframes. They will still be holding planning committees and community consultations come 2030. Meanwhile projecting 10%+ passenger growth all with zero real capex.

Gear in transit

28th Jun 2019, 04:41

Maybe so but pretty much everyone is affected on a hot 40kt northerly day which another 09/27 won’t fix.
Agreed. Trouble is whenever it’s LAHSO which is often, it’s even more restrictive.

All this does is give the airport more time to procrastinate and not spend money on anything whilst raking in landing fees and terminal rents etc etc

Some significant truths to this one too!

Angle of Attack

28th Jun 2019, 05:33

Even though I bag Qld even though I’m a local, I can’t help but feeling Aviation wise anyway QLD is miles ahead of the pack,
Wellcamp built, ILS in Gold Coast ...done, runway extension Sunny Coast, underway, An actual real parallel runway for BNE....ahead of schedule underway....Maybe I should say what Sco Mo said on election night...”How good is Queensland?”....maybe that’s going too far but seriously it’s looking good in a South east Qld.

Slippery_Pete

28th Jun 2019, 05:48

There’s a runway 09 in Melbourne? News to me.

Squawk7700

28th Jun 2019, 08:55

There’s a runway 09 in Melbourne? News to me.

Have flown out of YMML as a pax hundreds of times and have never taken off on 09.

clark y

28th Jun 2019, 09:50

Firstly Melbourne airport should extend RWY 27 and yes it can be done. That would be a quick fix to allow more heavies to use it. Otherwise any extra runway would be good.
The original plans for YMML allowed for extra runways. Runway 34 has extra fillets at the southern end presumably because someone in the 1960's had the foresight to put them the early to save effort later.
Brisbane also had 2 parallel runways on its master plan. It's only taken 30 years to build it.

73qanda

28th Jun 2019, 09:54

I have been flying into Mel weekly for fifteen years and have landed on 09 twice!

PoppaJo

28th Jun 2019, 10:31

Always have a laugh when the International widebodies ask for 09.

Why don’t they just add a extra line in the Notam. DO NOT REQ 09 ATC WILL GET UPSET.

George Glass

28th Jun 2019, 10:49

But wait, there’s more...........the noise abatement lobby is getting fired up and will oppose whatever solution is proposed and demand either no runway, curfew, displaced threshold or all of the above. The Greens will oppose the north-south option because the copse of trees abeam the threshold of 34 is registered and ATC will screw up every option because traffic crossing runways causing conflict, Essendon, ATC work rules etc. etc. and whatever configuration is chosen will NEVER achieve its designed rate of movements.
Meanwhile 5 knot tailwind on 27 will continue to require 40 minutes holding...........
And whatever you do, DONT attend any of the briefings offered by ATC or Melbourne Airports because then you’ll see how decisions are really made.
If you didn’t laugh you’d cry.

Angle of Attack

28th Jun 2019, 11:49

Meanwhile BNE will reap the rewards and SYD and MEL will become secondary domestic feeder ports

Buster Hyman

28th Jun 2019, 19:31

Have flown out of YMML as a pax hundreds of times and have never taken off on 09.

Have lived in & around the shadow of Tulla all my life & on average, you could count the annual 09 departures on one hand!

Ascend Charlie

28th Jun 2019, 20:56

patty50

29th Jun 2019, 04:23

Remember WHY Tulla was built way out in the sticks? No houses anywhere near anything?

Then the councils allow land to be developed right up to the boundary. Then the noise complaints begin. Same as every airport in Oz.

When the population is going up by over a thousand people a day those people need to live somewhere and most of them probably aren’t that fond of aircraft noise in their newfound homes.

Developers (none of whom live under flight paths) bribe councils to change the rules. Councils get development targets imposed upon them by state governments and are stuck between a rock and a hard place, federal government approves the visas thanks to developer lobbying.

The circle of life, not dissimilar to a holding pattern.

Australopithecus

29th Jun 2019, 05:38

After YMML opened the Melways pages for adjacent empty land all carried a printed message “Future noise corridor”. The next time I bought a Melways in 1995 (?) that information had been removed. That’s about when houses were being built for the future “no aircraft noise” party members.

missy

29th Jun 2019, 05:58

The logical solution is to build a new airport further from the city with a rapid transit link to the city, an airport that has the passenger terminals between the parallel runways and maintenance and cargo facilities on the outside of the runways. $$ yes, but any additional runway at YMML (irrespective of the orientation or location) will be a major compromise.

compressor stall

29th Jun 2019, 06:04

VAfter YMML opened the Melways pages for adjacent empty land all carried a printed message “Future noise corridor”. The next time I bought a Melways in 1995 (?) that information had been removed. That’s about when houses were being built for the future “no aircraft noise” party members.
and if you go back to the mid 70s melways there’s a THIRD north south runway earmarked. Roughly where Airport Drive Porsche centre is now.
https://digitised-collections.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/23958/301385_UDS2013221-3-0014-wm.jpg?sequence=14&isAllowed=y

edit. It wasn’t a third NS runway. Rather it seems that from the melways archives the Airport Drive north south runway was changed in 1990 to be the location of the current proposal.

clark y

29th Jun 2019, 11:21

Time to ditch Melbourne and develop Avalon. We just have to get Linfox to throw in a billion or two.

Buster Hyman

29th Jun 2019, 13:13

V
and if you go back to the mid 70s melways there’s a THIRD north south runway earmarked. Roughly where Airport Drive Porsche centre is now.
https://digitised-collections.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/23958/301385_UDS2013221-3-0014-wm.jpg?sequence=14&isAllowed=y

edit. It wasn’t a third NS runway. Rather it seems that from the melways archives the Airport Drive north south runway was changed in 1990 to be the location of the current proposal.

Ahh, the old Drive in Theatre in Tullamarine. I could see that screen from the front of my house. Used to watch it with Binoculars!

C441

29th Jun 2019, 21:56

That would be presumably as you can’t land a 380 on the east west runway.
You can land a 380 on the 27 and it has been done on many occasions. Most of those occasions though, have been with a solid westerly blowing.

sms777

2nd Jul 2019, 07:47

Time to ditch Melbourne and develop Avalon. We just have to get Linfox to throw in a billion or two.

You get Linfox out of Essendon it will turn Essendon Airport land into downtown Mogadishu overnight.

machtuk

3rd Jul 2019, 03:35

Ahh, the old Drive in Theatre in Tullamarine. I could see that screen from the front of my house. Used to watch it with Binoculars!

hahaha I used to watch it from the back seat of my FC Holden, although missed most of the movies...lolol
Ahh the good old days. I worked out at Tulla started 1979 at the fuel depot (JUHI) back then there was always talk of a 3rd Rwy being built very soon, I guess soon wasn't anytime soon back then:-)

Side note: As most would know the drome was designed for the largest jets of the day B707 DC8 Etc so when the Jumbo Jets turned up not long after Tulla was opened it was chaos as the hydrants the gates etc needed extensive modification, I recall many a late night on the apron with crews modifying the Hydrant system that was only a few years old!:-)
Another side note (sorry): Being involved with much of the underground beneath Tulla I always laugh when I hear about a train station being already there for the future rail link to Tulla, trust me there are LOTS of hidden tunnels & locked steel doors down there, it's a rat infested rabbit warren where you could get lost & never be seen again!:-):-)
40 years latter I'm still waiting for that 3rd Rwy...………..will be another 40 years before we see it if ever!:-)

RAC/OPS

3rd Jul 2019, 06:55

Meanwhile a whole airport, Daxing in China is almost complete after construction started in 2014.

Centaurus

3rd Jul 2019, 15:12

trust me there are LOTS of hidden tunnels & locked steel doors down there, it's a rat infested rabbit warren where you could get lost & never be seen again!:-):-)

Reminds me of the new Taipei Airport in Taiwan circa 1982? We landed there in an Air Nauru 737 for an overnight. We were transported from one side of the airport to the other side by travelling under the airport. There were hundreds of tanks, guns and other military equipment parked deep underground.

Gear in transit

4th Jul 2019, 01:23

trust me there are LOTS of hidden tunnels & locked steel doors down there, it's a rat infested rabbit warren where you could get lost & never be seen again!:-):-)

Any idea the purpose of these locked steel doors and hidden tunnels?

machtuk

4th Jul 2019, 08:40

I asked around at the time out of curiosity but none one knew & or was willing to say what was behind those seriously locked doors. All I recall these days (as it was 40 years ago now) is that the doors where large, heavy in construction & had plenty of red sign on them, red meaning danger! It was a damp dark creepy place under the airport with dripping water everywhere &pipes going in all directions, the airport was built on top of a creek! EPA these days would have a fit! If ya hated ya boss you could hide him out of sight out of mind for decades down there !:-) I took my now ex wife down there one W/E back in the days before security was out of control & you could wander around the tarmac etc in thongs!!!, she hated it, hated the rats that ran between her feet, typical girl...heheh

Nose wheel first

20th Jul 2019, 01:46

There’s a runway 09 in Melbourne? News to me.

I used it a couple of times early this year in the middle of the night. I cant remember why but it may have been runway works on 16/34 and something going on down at the 27 threshold?
Out of curiosity, what is the actual reason we're not allowed to use 09? Does anyone actually know?

I fly into Melbourne weekly and its now an almost nightly thing to get a flow time for LIZZI (or other feeder fixes) for arrivals at or after midnight with both runways in use.

Gear in transit

20th Jul 2019, 07:04

I used it a couple of times early this year in the middle of the night. I cant remember why but it may have been runway works on 16/34 and something going on down at the 27 threshold?
Out of curiosity, what is the actual reason we're not allowed to use 09? Does anyone actually know?

I fly into Melbourne weekly and its now an almost nightly thing to get a flow time for LIZZI (or other feeder fixes) for arrivals at or after midnight with both runways in use.

If/when you work it out, can you let us all know the answer also?

vhtae

21st Jul 2019, 07:35

There was a picture online a while back of a cavity with support columns underneath the pick up/drop off area out the front of International. ‘Apparently’ a provision for a future airport rail platform/station.

Willoz269

30th Jul 2019, 23:25

Meanwhile a whole airport, Daxing in China is almost complete after construction started in 2014.
yes but they dont have to contend with politicians wanting aircraft away from view of their balcony, residents upset because an aircraft makes less noise than their nearest road or trainline, or airlines that want to dictate how an airport is built just to suit them and nobody else....

Asturias56

31st Jul 2019, 08:00

I don't think the good people of Daxing have votes..........................

That's the problem with democracy - people insist on being heard................

Ex FSO GRIFFO

13th Nov 2019, 23:32

Announced on ABC News at 0830WST, Ch 24, that YMML Airport has a preference for the 3rd RWY to be N/S orientation, after consultation with the industry.

(Much) More to follow, I would imagine.....

Would this be 'bye' to the ML Airport Golf Club....?

Possible relocation of the TAAAATS Centre....?

OVAH...!!!.

Cat on a PC©

14th Nov 2019, 00:25

compressor stall

14th Nov 2019, 00:33

This was discussed some weeks ago here. As for wind modelling, ask yourself how many times wind direction and strength prevent 16/34 ops? almost never. Same can't be said for 09/27.

Parallel 16/34 runways are the way to go. They probably resolved this too which was stopping it. https://www.theage.com.au/melbourne-news/who-owns-the-tulla-land-probably-too-many-people-to-count-20180518-p4zg55.html

Cat on a PC©

14th Nov 2019, 01:04

They probably resolved this too which was stopping it.

Yes, I suspect this, but I would have thought the N/S option would have been the initial option from the start. (I haven't seen the other comments, so I'll have to track them down. Thanks.)

AerialPerspective

14th Nov 2019, 03:30

This might be 'bye' to YMML if the NIMBYs get their way. After the delay with the proposed 09R/27L, the switch to N/S orientation seems strange. I don't necessarily think the wind modelling is the sole factor for the switch, because from a terminal access point of view the E/W runway would have been a much better option. You'd think they'd want to get a move on given the capacity will top out soon.

Could it possibly be that the "NIMBYs" have a reasonable argument considering the vast majority of them built houses and moved to the area being assured of a completely different runway layout???

If it does go ahead, it's just another example of how government's lie then trounce all over citizens when they complain. All for the advancement of the industry, but serious steps were taken many years ago to SPECIFICALLY outline the areas that would be affected by aircraft noise and now the rules are all changed and it's bad luck presumably???

I don't think it'd be a bad idea to invest in YMAV, it is a vast area, not terribly bordered by housing and one side of it practically faces out to sea. The size Melbourne is growing, it makes sense to start spreading the infrastructure. YMML is a crap airport in many ways... it was out of date within a year of opening with the arrival of the 747, despite the construction authority knowing years earlier that 747s were coming they still built it for 707s and DC-8s... it took YEARS to do anything about it and when they did all I see is mistake after mistake, particularly in terminal development.

So, I wouldn't be too hard on the "NIMBYs", they are just highlighting the sort of government and corporate action often alluded to in these pages for other reasons.

From what I've heard, the 'community consultation' was a bloody joke.

Cat on a PC©

14th Nov 2019, 04:14

Could it possibly be that the "NIMBYs" have a reasonable argument considering the vast majority of them built houses and moved to the area being assured of a completely different runway layout???

Really, let me tell you the vast majority who live out in the area don't worry about it. I live further out and still get aircraft noise because I live under a couple of STARs. You can't stop progress and even though the proposed runways and noise areas have been known for years (even published in Melways), councils still allowed building underneath flight paths. If you bought a house underneath one, well . . .

YMAV is not an option. At least not for PAX. Had it been on the other side of the bay, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And if the community consultation "was a joke", well, I wouldn't disagree. It may be just tokenism, because, in the end, the runway(s) will have to be built.

compressor stall

14th Nov 2019, 04:35

Could it possibly be that the "NIMBYs" have a reasonable argument considering the vast majority of them built houses and moved to the area being assured of a completely different runway layout???

Um, no. Future runway alignment and aircraft noise warning have been highlighted in the Melways since the airport was built back in the 70s. Should be a link earlier in this thread now its merged.

Toruk Macto

14th Nov 2019, 04:43

YBAD , one of the biggest airports on the planet just opened . 5 years from start to finish !

Global Aviator

14th Nov 2019, 04:45

YMAV and some massive under bay tunnel work.....

Or have a look at RJBB, anything can be done.
https://youtu.be/yXbT2zL5yRA

Then again it is Straya, only took longer than settling the colonies to start work on Sidney’s second.

Just bring in the Wagners and ask them to get whatever is chosen done, Wellcamp certainly proves without the red tape what can be done.

Now back to YMML, can someone help me with my land title, I’m sure I left it on the bar in Y & J one night!

Rated De

14th Nov 2019, 04:56

hoss58

14th Nov 2019, 22:51

machtuk

16th Nov 2019, 09:42

I have been flying into Mel weekly for fifteen years and have landed on 09 twice!

Many years ago I/we where being vectored on to 16 at ML when App said Rwy 09 is avail, advise! We looked at each other in the cockpit and thought, have we got charts for that RWY? -) First time in 40 years!

AerialPerspective

16th Nov 2019, 20:36

Remember WHY Tulla was built way out in the sticks? No houses anywhere near anything?

Then the councils allow land to be developed right up to the boundary. Then the noise complaints begin. Same as every airport in Oz.

Sorry, but places like Keilor were built up based on a certain runway configuration, per the signage that was on every boundary line for years. It's why people abandoned Gladstone Park initially and went to Keilor instead although eventually the land at GP was sold (there were half built houses and sales of land for years after though). Now the owners of the airport have allowed multiple businesses to build infrastructure where the runways were supposed to be so have changed the configuration. People in places like Keilor DID make an informed choice based on one assured way of expansion and it has changed.

AerialPerspective

16th Nov 2019, 20:39

It has also been part of the airport's development plans for fifty years...

No, that's wrong. I have the opening book and the info from the time. The original runways were to be where the industrial estate is now. No, the rules HAVE changed and they are building it with an entirely different affect noise-wise. This is why residents, many of whom have been in the path for nearly 50 years are annoyed and with good reason.
Because government thinks it can just sell off assets then wash its hands of any consequences and then as we've seen in the media the last few weeks, apply for FOI information and you get 50 blacked out pages.

AerialPerspective

16th Nov 2019, 20:44

Um, no. Future runway alignment and aircraft noise warning have been highlighted in the Melways since the airport was built back in the 70s. Should be a link earlier in this thread now its merged.

Rubbish. The runway alignment in the Melways was for many years (decades) based on that in the Melbourne Airport Opening book and the big billboards all around the airport boundary. The Airport has allowed companies to develop land where the runways were to originally be, where they were to be when those residents bought their houses and now they are planning the runways significantly north of where they were going to be. You can't just brush this off as "they should have known". I know people who have been in Keilor 47 years and the runways were never planned to be like that, in fact some chose Keilor over Gladston Park for that very reason and now the government has sold the airports and washed its hands of any responsibility.

AerialPerspective

16th Nov 2019, 20:48

hahaha I used to watch it from the back seat of my FC Holden, although missed most of the movies...lolol
Ahh the good old days. I worked out at Tulla started 1979 at the fuel depot (JUHI) back then there was always talk of a 3rd Rwy being built very soon, I guess soon wasn't anytime soon back then:-)

Side note: As most would know the drome was designed for the largest jets of the day B707 DC8 Etc so when the Jumbo Jets turned up not long after Tulla was opened it was chaos as the hydrants the gates etc needed extensive modification, I recall many a late night on the apron with crews modifying the Hydrant system that was only a few years old!:-)
Another side note (sorry): Being involved with much of the underground beneath Tulla I always laugh when I hear about a train station being already there for the future rail link to Tulla, trust me there are LOTS of hidden tunnels & locked steel doors down there, it's a rat infested rabbit warren where you could get lost & never be seen again!:-):-)
40 years latter I'm still waiting for that 3rd Rwy...………..will be another 40 years before we see it if ever!:-)

The whole thing was a government cock up, they knew for YEARS that the 747 was coming and the runways were completed years before the terminals. The terminals and infrastructure plans could have been EASILY changed but weren't so the airport was out of date within a year. Compare that with Changi and even DFW where I have seen both marketing/development material and both added 20-30% to the size of (then) current aircraft to allow for expansion. I may be wrong but I think this is one of very few LNP infrastructure projects in our history (Tulla) and it's funny that it was a white elephant. Not just the hydrants but half the aerobridges were useless once the terminal was handling mainly 747/DC-10 type aircraft. It took them nearly 25 years just to move some aerobridges in a pathetic attempt to update it.

Beer Baron

16th Nov 2019, 21:32

No, that's wrong. I have the opening book and the info from the time. The original runways were to be where the industrial estate is now.
Any chance you could reproduce that graphic/info here?

machtuk

16th Nov 2019, 21:35

The whole thing was a government cock up, they knew for YEARS that the 747 was coming and the runways were completed years before the terminals. The terminals and infrastructure plans could have been EASILY changed but weren't so the airport was out of date within a year. Compare that with Changi and even DFW where I have seen both marketing/development material and both added 20-30% to the size of (then) current aircraft to allow for expansion. I may be wrong but I think this is one of very few LNP infrastructure projects in our history (Tulla) and it's funny that it was a white elephant. Not just the hydrants but half the aerobridges were useless once the terminal was handling mainly 747/DC-10 type aircraft. It took them nearly 25 years just to move some aerobridges in a pathetic attempt to update it.

Yeah the Aerobridges (gates as I mentioned) where another debacle! With a single Jumbo at one gate the adjacent gate was partly taken up by the new massive bird, seems odd now large planes are nothing new:-) Additional to all of the above the fuel storage capacity (1.6 Mill Ltr at the time total) & the 6 inch incoming line (from the Somerton 16Mill Ltr main jet storage) was also woefully inadequate only a few years after Tulla was commissioned open. The whole idea of an underground pipeline was to keep the fuel trucks off the Tulla Fwy but the supply was soon getting low daily so the trucks rolled in whist the pipeline was running most of the time. The design of the depot did have the facilities for trucks so as to keep the fuel coming during maint down time. Oddly enough whomever designed the whole fueling supply/system must have been behind the 8 ball cause the Somerton storage facility had only one large tank & when that was being filled by pipeline from the Refineries then the 6 inch Tulla supply line could not be used, go figure? In the end when I left mid 90's the storage supply was adequate for a single day had there been any supply issues & that's for a so called modern international Airport! This was all in the 70's 80's & 90's, it's changed now.
There's plenty more stories but am off track here:-)

Chief galah

17th Nov 2019, 08:17

Can anyone explain the logic behind having a taxiway system west of the proposed runway?

Berealgetreal

17th Nov 2019, 09:05

Can anyone explain the logic behind having a taxiway system west of the proposed runway?

That’s for the waterpark, shopping centre and bowling alley going in..

(did see once in the paper a water park..6 degrees and overcast in Melbourne middle of November it’ll get used for two months tops .lol)

MELKBQF

18th Nov 2019, 03:39

slf.au

20th Nov 2019, 21:35

Can anyone explain the logic behind having a taxiway system west of the proposed runway?
That is for the west terminal, see the airport development plan on the Tullamarine airport Web site, page 115. The hint is that the proposed railway is extended to there.

Cat on a PC©

21st Nov 2019, 00:14

High winds today have reduced ops to 16/34 and likely to be that way for most of the day. Some flights cancelled as a result.

GA Driver

21st Nov 2019, 04:38

1975 Melway showing the original second nth/sth runway proposal located where the factories and warehouses have been built.

https://digitised-collections.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/23957/300857_UDS2013221-2-0012-wm.jpg?sequence=12&isAllowed=y

If only all those damn factories weren't there.......
In my 'somewhat later' Melways, the proposed parallel 16/34 was over to the west about where the current control tower is.

Cat on a PC©

21st Nov 2019, 23:25

If only all those damn factories weren't there.......
In my 'somewhat later' Melways, the proposed parallel 16/34 was over to the west about where the current control tower is.

Yes, and have been for years. I forgot all about that runway to the east.

JustJoinedToSearch

22nd Nov 2019, 02:12

deja vu

22nd Nov 2019, 05:56

The CFMEU will decide if there will be another runway built and where it may go. Probably going to have to wait until they have drained every last available dollar from rail crossings and metro tunnels first though. Ten years at least.

DukeBen

22nd Nov 2019, 07:41

Slightly OT but does anyone know the reason for extending V north of 27/09 up to C?

If 16 is in use no one is exiting at C and heading southbound down A so no conflict there, if 34 is in use then no one is going northbound on A so no conflict there either.

The only benefits I can think of are:
1. Makes it easier for the tugs to go up and down A
2. Reduces the impact of works on that part of A

Neither of which seem significant enough to me to really justify it.

Twy A near Twy E will be closing temporarily as part of the Twy E re-alignment & Twy Z project, so Twy V is being extended to ensure aircraft can taxi north of Rwy 27 to depart Rwy 16 without having to backtrack Rwy 16 whilst Twy A is closed.

L-Plater

28th Oct 2022, 01:52

Hopefully Melbourne-Tullamarine gets its 3rd runway and also an airport train.

long talked about, never delivered.

North-South orientation surely makes more sense.

If Melbourne authorities were so concerned about noise abatement, Melbourne-Avalon would have been a great option to expand.

aussieflyboy

28th Oct 2022, 02:34

Roller Merlin

28th Oct 2022, 02:43

Proposal is for ILS on R34L and R and consequent lowering of airspace over the bay from LL4500 to LL2500 to facilitate.

PoppaJo

28th Oct 2022, 04:45

PiperCameron

28th Oct 2022, 05:16

Hopefully they build a new parallel runway and close any crossing runway.

The last thing we need is another SYD where if the wind get above 20 knots they close a majority of the airport. Having no crossing runway would eliminate the need for any closures and keep everything moving.

That would kinda put an end to LAHSO and 09/16 simultaneous operations on those calm sunny days we get in summer.

No, another parallel runway (34L/16R) is about the only thing that makes sense and even then, probably only when the new Terminal is built - otherwise we'd get another "SYD 3rd runway" situation and nobody down here wants that..

PiperCameron

28th Oct 2022, 05:24

Proposal is for ILS on R34L and R and consequent lowering of airspace over the bay from LL4500 to LL2500 to facilitate.

Yeah it sucks - but given that the VFR Coastal Route is already down to 2000, I don't think too many folks will have a problem with that.

tossbag

28th Oct 2022, 12:10

I really wish they would just get on with it. And perhaps be a bit more ambitious with timeframes. They said it ‘could’ be ready by 2027, but they said more like 28 or 29. See you mid next decade.

The whole train thing is just embarrassing. A decade or two talking about it. Then a decade to build the train line. Only in Oz.

So, on the one hand you wish they'd get on with it, but you correctly identify that Australia is an infrastructure **** hole. The world has fast trains, Australia has pieces of **** that look awesome on the outside but are as fast as an uber milking a fare in peaktime.

Australia = showbags. Big, fat and full of ****.

PoppaJo

28th Oct 2022, 23:40

So, on the one hand you wish they'd get on with it, but you correctly identify that Australia is an infrastructure **** hole. The world has fast trains, Australia has pieces of **** that look awesome on the outside but are as fast as an uber milking a fare in peaktime.

Australia = showbags. Big, fat and full of ****.
Correct on rail. Vline still use 1980 built carriages and loco’s on its network. Melbourne to Geelong should be fast rail or ‘faster’ rail, 40 mins tops. We are still stuck in the 80s it seems.