Sydney’s second airport revealed
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oz3,
Our little soiree to BK occurred prior to the current "security arrangements", and happened as a result of curfew and an unforecast southerly change which pushed us beyond the 20kt tailwind limit for landing permitted on 34L SY.
Without going into too much detail, my phone bill was significantly increased that night because of the taxi drivers refusal to attend the airport. Basically the majority of PAX contacted relatives who came out and picked them up.
We managed to get a bus sent out 3 1/2 hours after arriving at BK. That put the crew and remaining PAX at SY Domestic Terminal 0345 the next day.
Fortunately the Wx was fine that night, because the terminal (old Briefing Office) was locked up and all 39 of us had to stand around outside
.
On the face of this single experience, BK appears to have a security image problem if taxis refuse to go there. They must know something I don't, because for the 3 years I worked there (with many late nights) I never witnessed any activity which could even remotely be described as a threat to anyone's safety.
Our little soiree to BK occurred prior to the current "security arrangements", and happened as a result of curfew and an unforecast southerly change which pushed us beyond the 20kt tailwind limit for landing permitted on 34L SY.
Without going into too much detail, my phone bill was significantly increased that night because of the taxi drivers refusal to attend the airport. Basically the majority of PAX contacted relatives who came out and picked them up.
We managed to get a bus sent out 3 1/2 hours after arriving at BK. That put the crew and remaining PAX at SY Domestic Terminal 0345 the next day.
Fortunately the Wx was fine that night, because the terminal (old Briefing Office) was locked up and all 39 of us had to stand around outside
.On the face of this single experience, BK appears to have a security image problem if taxis refuse to go there. They must know something I don't, because for the 3 years I worked there (with many late nights) I never witnessed any activity which could even remotely be described as a threat to anyone's safety.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the current issue of Australian Flying (for which I am a contributor) Ben Sandilands mentions Wilton or Towra Point as possibles. Not knowing where either of those locations are, I have no clue whether either is a good or bad idea. What do people think about them?
Walrus
Walrus
Why the need for a second airport anyway?
2000 Olympics saw as much air traffic as we are likely to ever see in Sydney and KSA coped more than well enough with that.
2000 Olympics saw as much air traffic as we are likely to ever see in Sydney and KSA coped more than well enough with that.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you looked at the aircraft order announcements from Tiger, Virgin, Jetstar & Qantas? Between them they plan to add hundreds of extra aircraft to Australian skies over the next few years... Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane will seriously struggle (as they all do now at certain times of day and under certain wind conditions).
Parallel runway is planned for BNE but won't be finished until about 2013. Melbourne needs parallel runways and they should have started building those yesterday. Sydney will need something - but nobody seems to quite know what.
Parallel runway is planned for BNE but won't be finished until about 2013. Melbourne needs parallel runways and they should have started building those yesterday. Sydney will need something - but nobody seems to quite know what.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If one believes the SMH, Macquarie Bank is having enough trouble with its infrastructure subsidiaries at the moment that it could barely afford to re-pave the disabled car park, let alone throw down another strip. They will:
a. squeeze everything they can out of YSSY without spending... you think BAA running EGLL into the ground was bad...;
b. use their pre-emption right to halt any development of a 'major' airport within 100km of YSSY, so as to maximise revenue flowing through that asset.
Hence it has to be Willy or CBR, both of which are >100km from YSSY.
a. squeeze everything they can out of YSSY without spending... you think BAA running EGLL into the ground was bad...;
b. use their pre-emption right to halt any development of a 'major' airport within 100km of YSSY, so as to maximise revenue flowing through that asset.
Hence it has to be Willy or CBR, both of which are >100km from YSSY.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just by way of a query; what's the difference between business jets landing regularly at BK, bank runners operating quasi-RPT, turboprop charter operators and a multitude of C152s as happens now, and then an additional A-319 operation? Other than an additonal few hundred people a day and the word "airline", then not much. But the pollies have to pander to the voters and even moreso to McBank.
The proximity to Sydney is just an excuse. LAX is close to Longbeach and Burbank with a couple of GA fields in between. It can be done if someone wants it done and alternatively, it can be quashed if someone wants it quashed.
The proximity to Sydney is just an excuse. LAX is close to Longbeach and Burbank with a couple of GA fields in between. It can be done if someone wants it done and alternatively, it can be quashed if someone wants it quashed.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, building a fast train to NTL is faaar more expensive than building one to CBR on account of the nasty terrain, bridges required etc. So why wouldn't you do one to Canberra and kill two birds with one stone - plus of course it's in the right direction to extend to MEL one day.
I know, pigs might fly...
As for freight, you could use CBR now and transfer to trucks down the Federal/Hume Highways back of the clock! Again the road is better than to NTL, though it is further, not to mention that I believe the RAAF ban civil movements at NTL overnight anyway.
I know, pigs might fly...
As for freight, you could use CBR now and transfer to trucks down the Federal/Hume Highways back of the clock! Again the road is better than to NTL, though it is further, not to mention that I believe the RAAF ban civil movements at NTL overnight anyway.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Narita is quite some distance from Tokyo. I haven't been since 2001 but from memory it was at least 1 hour on a train. A fast express train but not a bullet train. My guess is at least 100km though. Could be wrong.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
not to mention that I believe the RAAF ban civil movements at NTL overnight anyway.
Although I gotta say it is a lot quicker than when the tower is active...
I'm certain I saw an article somewhere with a statement from RAAF Willy along the lines of "the airport cannot cope with much more additional civil traffic, and we won't allow much more expansion."
So newie would be out.
So newie would be out.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggestions for RAAF Richmond.
1. Only one flying squadron now remains at Richmond i.e. 37 Sqn operating C130's
2. The army wants them closer to their troops and the S.E Asia/South Pacific regions for rapid deployment purposes e.g. Darwin, Amberley, Townsville. Move them
3. However, If the RAAF leave Richmond about $100 million per annum in civil contracts disappears from the local coffers.
4. Solution, develop Richmond as second civil airport in the Sydney basin.
5. Build North/South runway, 12000ft, through university grounds. Make it Category 3 capable for low visibilty operations.
6. University of Western Sydney (UWS) - Hawkesbury Campus is in decline. Move university to another (quieter) location within the Hawkesbury and build a world class facility as a tradeoff for utilising their land. Benefit - attracts students/staff back to the area.
7. Upgrade existing railway to Richmond to a high speed link to Sydney as well as a freight link for air cargo operations. The railway could go under the proposed new runway together with the existing Windsor/Richmond road.
8. M2 has land allocated all the way to the Hawkesbury (look at the latest SYDWAY street directory). Build it.
9. Utilisation of N/S runway should alleviate noise issues which exist with current E/W runway over Richmond/Windsor townships. Keeps local community happy.
10. Zone area around airport to minimise residential development and to preserve the semi-rural nature of the area. Again, keeps local community happy.
11. The local community is used to aviation movements/activity. If the RAAF leave, there will be an enormous economic vacuum that needs to be filled. Seize the opportunity with the Federal govenment funding it and reap the benefits.
All of the above benefits not only the Hawkesbury, but the surrounding areas e.g. Penrith, Hills District with improved transportation/education/employment opportunities. If anyone has any other ideas about Richmond, both positive and negative, I am very interested.
1. Only one flying squadron now remains at Richmond i.e. 37 Sqn operating C130's
2. The army wants them closer to their troops and the S.E Asia/South Pacific regions for rapid deployment purposes e.g. Darwin, Amberley, Townsville. Move them
3. However, If the RAAF leave Richmond about $100 million per annum in civil contracts disappears from the local coffers.
4. Solution, develop Richmond as second civil airport in the Sydney basin.
5. Build North/South runway, 12000ft, through university grounds. Make it Category 3 capable for low visibilty operations.
6. University of Western Sydney (UWS) - Hawkesbury Campus is in decline. Move university to another (quieter) location within the Hawkesbury and build a world class facility as a tradeoff for utilising their land. Benefit - attracts students/staff back to the area.
7. Upgrade existing railway to Richmond to a high speed link to Sydney as well as a freight link for air cargo operations. The railway could go under the proposed new runway together with the existing Windsor/Richmond road.
8. M2 has land allocated all the way to the Hawkesbury (look at the latest SYDWAY street directory). Build it.
9. Utilisation of N/S runway should alleviate noise issues which exist with current E/W runway over Richmond/Windsor townships. Keeps local community happy.
10. Zone area around airport to minimise residential development and to preserve the semi-rural nature of the area. Again, keeps local community happy.
11. The local community is used to aviation movements/activity. If the RAAF leave, there will be an enormous economic vacuum that needs to be filled. Seize the opportunity with the Federal govenment funding it and reap the benefits.
All of the above benefits not only the Hawkesbury, but the surrounding areas e.g. Penrith, Hills District with improved transportation/education/employment opportunities. If anyone has any other ideas about Richmond, both positive and negative, I am very interested.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't that full of houses Jet? What a great idea to buy up around Mascot and make it into old peoples homes. I think "Dunroutin" Home for Retired Airline Pilots should have the prime position near the runway, we could sit there rocking away, with a whiskey sour clutched to our chests, and wearing our bibs we could talk about the "good old days" when pilots were blokes who didn't use moisturisers, and the aircraft were mean bastards, hell bent on flying into the deck at any given chance. I think I might book a bed and a catheter as soon as it happens. BK as a second airport?
Personally I think if the Gov't is serious they would buy the land to enable 18/36 at Richmond (mind you there would be a crap load of earth works required to level it) and make that the next Sydney Airport, and divert the rail track to make a Richmond Airport rail station. Then move the RAAF to Dubbo (i.e. a better place than Sydney) - better quality locals there . Problem being the Lower North Shore brigade would resign - and resign instantly
RICHMOND BACK ON THE DRAWING BOARD?
A good, thoughtful post dingo trapper. You may be "very interested", but nowt will happen without a concerted lobby at work. It's a full time job drumming up sufficient interest to get considered proposals onto the desks of all concerned. Why not make it your holy grail for the next five years?
A good, thoughtful post dingo trapper. You may be "very interested", but nowt will happen without a concerted lobby at work. It's a full time job drumming up sufficient interest to get considered proposals onto the desks of all concerned. Why not make it your holy grail for the next five years?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Fantome. The ironic point of this story is that the politicians in the Hawkesbury and beyond all support the concept.....off the record, but are too afraid to publicly support it. The Environmental Impact Statement that was released in the late 90's regarding Badgerys Creek dedicated two pages to the Richmond concept but dismissed it mainly due fog considerations which, as we know is a specious argument. Yes it is a bit of a 'Holy Grail' of mine. Care to join the crusade?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Solution: Build a huge wind machine that can produce around a 150MPH constant wind that way you can slip any current jet head on into it & land vertically, see no need for a second airport, SY & BK would be huge for such a Jules Verne dream like that, then again the journey to the centre of the Earth must have been one hell of a dream too!
Compared to the rest of the world does SY handle the same amount of traffic as say O'Hare? (Planes per minute say) Could SY be utilised more if our ATC could handle it?
DG
Compared to the rest of the world does SY handle the same amount of traffic as say O'Hare? (Planes per minute say) Could SY be utilised more if our ATC could handle it?
DG
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compared to the rest of the world does SY handle the same amount of traffic as say O'Hare? (Planes per minute say) Could SY be utilised more if our ATC could handle it?
LTOP is the primary factor determining movement rates; ie it is "capped" at 80 movements an hour. It is not the fault of ATC that LTOP exists and determines the rate (even if ignoramuses can't recognise that). You'll find that the Sydney TMA is configured in such a way that they are able to handle that rate or slightly more; because that is the hourly workload; to up the rates may have an impact on configuration, but then again maybe not.
The other considerations re movements are taxiways and runway exits and entries especially on the single runway mode; ie the strong Westerly wind days. On those days movements can be reduced significantly below LTOP caps to about 50 and hour; this is totally about aerodrome design and layout not the ability of ATC.