Sydney’s second airport revealed
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richmond could work as a joint user facility. It wouldn't impact at all on the raaf and would mean that the raaf got more atc coverage.
The runway is long enough (just) for domestic, but major money would have to be spent on infrastructure.
A north/south runway would generate a lot of noise complaints. The north of ri is full of houses now. (5 acre blocks etc)
I think it could work in it's current configuration (runway) if you built a terminal south of the runway, which would mean diverting the road and or rail. You would need to have the terminal near the railway line.
Probably too much money for too little gain.
The runway is long enough (just) for domestic, but major money would have to be spent on infrastructure.
A north/south runway would generate a lot of noise complaints. The north of ri is full of houses now. (5 acre blocks etc)
I think it could work in it's current configuration (runway) if you built a terminal south of the runway, which would mean diverting the road and or rail. You would need to have the terminal near the railway line.
Probably too much money for too little gain.
Tony transport's electorate is under the Sy 16 app I believe so I doubt their will be any expansion of Sydney.
It might work for small numbers of A320s (ie Tiger). It shouldn't bother the RAAF to much. It shouldn't bother the locals to much either as most of them are used to 707/hercs and the occasional Il76s and Hornets so airbuses would be much quieter by comparisson.
With 33,36 and several other units gone the place is like a ghost town now. The area could do with the business and Railcrop already has plans to duplicate the branch line at least as far as Riverstone, which should provide better services.
Richmond could work as a joint user facility. It wouldn't impact at all on the raaf and would mean that the raaf got more atc coverage.
The runway is long enough (just) for domestic, but major money would have to be spent on infrastructure.
A north/south runway would generate a lot of noise complaints. The north of ri is full of houses now. (5 acre blocks etc)
The runway is long enough (just) for domestic, but major money would have to be spent on infrastructure.
A north/south runway would generate a lot of noise complaints. The north of ri is full of houses now. (5 acre blocks etc)
With 33,36 and several other units gone the place is like a ghost town now. The area could do with the business and Railcrop already has plans to duplicate the branch line at least as far as Riverstone, which should provide better services.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
To all you suggesting expanding Richmond:
MACQUARIE BANK WILL NOT ALLOW IT.
Especially not at the moment, when it's a strong cash generator in tough times.
When they bought (were given?
) YSSY there was a clause in the contract which gave them first-choice over any new major airport development within 100km of Sydney CBD.
They own that asset (YSSY) and will continue to milk it. Building another facility themselves would dilute the money they get from YSSY, and someone else building another facility certainly would. A future government might decide a second Sydney Airport (2SA) is needed, but if SACL refuse to do it, you could put your house on them coming up with defence after court-case after God-knows-what to delay it. And given that there's been chat about a 2SA since post-war plans for the city were drawn up in 1948, my money would definitely been on the delay side. In the words of Darryl Kerrigan (when talking about airports): "It ain't gonna happen".
Hence any major airport development to service Sydney needs to be at least 101km from the CBD.
Keg has pointed out reasons why Canberra airfield could not handle much expansion. I have explained how, with a new parallel twy and a couple of high-speed rwy exits, you could get higher flow on the one runway at Williamtown. On another site I have also explained that the public transport issues are pretty easily surmountable for much ofthe travelling public. In short:
- you won't get premium pax going to either Canberra or Willy (unless you close YSSY), so it's pointless going after them;
- so that leaves your VFR pax, who are frequently less time-sensitive re ground time;
- have dedicated, express buses to primary nodes around Sydney (eg. city, North Sydney, Hornsby, Parramatta, Pennant Hills) and Gosford, timed for the flights (ie. to get there for departures and meet arrivals), plus improve the train services (with a few express trains, also some going down the North Shore line) and frequent buses to both Newcastle and Raymond Tce rail stations.
This is how Ryanair FILL aircraft serving out-of-town airports. It works. I went to Stockholm last month from Stansted and the buses to & from Skavsta were full but clean and comfortable, pay online beforehand, all very easy and predictable. And the flights were full and I paid about 1/3 of the BA fare to Arlanda (which still ain't exactly a down-town strip, let's face it...).
Much has been made of the value of land at YSSY and how MBL would be better off flogging the property and developing an airport outside Sydney. This analysis forgets that YSSY already provides a cashflow from rents based on land values - so that side is covered; the assets are largely in place (so little build cost) and air travel is at its core inelastic - fuel has more than doubled in the last couple of years and still the punters come. And when they do, they buy parking, burgers at Australia's priciest Macca's, etc. - a few shekels of every transactions falling into Nick Moore's pockets.
SACL/MBL will do everything it can to keep YSSY as a monopoly (at least within 100km of the CBD). We may hate it, but it's a rational business approach. Hence whilst Riccy might get a few civvy ops a day, the moment anyone starts buidling a decent terminal, improving the field primarily for civ ops, moving roads or railways, etc. SACL/MBL would be running off to court claiming it's a major airport development for which they must get first bite.
MACQUARIE BANK WILL NOT ALLOW IT.
Especially not at the moment, when it's a strong cash generator in tough times.
When they bought (were given?
) YSSY there was a clause in the contract which gave them first-choice over any new major airport development within 100km of Sydney CBD.They own that asset (YSSY) and will continue to milk it. Building another facility themselves would dilute the money they get from YSSY, and someone else building another facility certainly would. A future government might decide a second Sydney Airport (2SA) is needed, but if SACL refuse to do it, you could put your house on them coming up with defence after court-case after God-knows-what to delay it. And given that there's been chat about a 2SA since post-war plans for the city were drawn up in 1948, my money would definitely been on the delay side. In the words of Darryl Kerrigan (when talking about airports): "It ain't gonna happen".
Hence any major airport development to service Sydney needs to be at least 101km from the CBD.
Keg has pointed out reasons why Canberra airfield could not handle much expansion. I have explained how, with a new parallel twy and a couple of high-speed rwy exits, you could get higher flow on the one runway at Williamtown. On another site I have also explained that the public transport issues are pretty easily surmountable for much ofthe travelling public. In short:
- you won't get premium pax going to either Canberra or Willy (unless you close YSSY), so it's pointless going after them;
- so that leaves your VFR pax, who are frequently less time-sensitive re ground time;
- have dedicated, express buses to primary nodes around Sydney (eg. city, North Sydney, Hornsby, Parramatta, Pennant Hills) and Gosford, timed for the flights (ie. to get there for departures and meet arrivals), plus improve the train services (with a few express trains, also some going down the North Shore line) and frequent buses to both Newcastle and Raymond Tce rail stations.
This is how Ryanair FILL aircraft serving out-of-town airports. It works. I went to Stockholm last month from Stansted and the buses to & from Skavsta were full but clean and comfortable, pay online beforehand, all very easy and predictable. And the flights were full and I paid about 1/3 of the BA fare to Arlanda (which still ain't exactly a down-town strip, let's face it...).
Much has been made of the value of land at YSSY and how MBL would be better off flogging the property and developing an airport outside Sydney. This analysis forgets that YSSY already provides a cashflow from rents based on land values - so that side is covered; the assets are largely in place (so little build cost) and air travel is at its core inelastic - fuel has more than doubled in the last couple of years and still the punters come. And when they do, they buy parking, burgers at Australia's priciest Macca's, etc. - a few shekels of every transactions falling into Nick Moore's pockets.
SACL/MBL will do everything it can to keep YSSY as a monopoly (at least within 100km of the CBD). We may hate it, but it's a rational business approach. Hence whilst Riccy might get a few civvy ops a day, the moment anyone starts buidling a decent terminal, improving the field primarily for civ ops, moving roads or railways, etc. SACL/MBL would be running off to court claiming it's a major airport development for which they must get first bite.
Last edited by Taildragger67; 23rd Jul 2008 at 11:50.
All true, so that probably rules put Richmond. Willytn is outside that radius however. Jq/tiger/dj could have cheap domestic flights in/out of there with connecting bus services. The Govt won't have the spare rolling stock to provide extra train services on existing lines for quite a while and the current infrustructure keeps them S-L-O-W down the shore.
