Merged: Second Airport for Sydney back on the agenda
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if its been mentioned but when the goverment sold the airport, there is the wonderful little clause stating that 'there is to be no second airport within 100kms for the next 100 years!' See if that comes up in any goverment enquiry/report or the MASSIVE compensation MAC will seek.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MacBank
Macquarie Bank and MAp are two entities that I watch out of self interest.
The legislation says that the owners of Sydney Airport have first right of refusal for the construction of a second jet airport in the Sydney basin. From a certain date well this side of 100 years too. Much sooner. This means that if someone else came along with a plan to develop such an airport and the Feral gummint agrees in principle and forces the State government to cooperate which is two big asks then the owners either have to exercise their right to build the extra airport or let a competitor do it.
The loophole in the law is that there is no explicit prohibition of another turbo-prop airport anytime.
The legislation says that the owners of Sydney Airport have first right of refusal for the construction of a second jet airport in the Sydney basin. From a certain date well this side of 100 years too. Much sooner. This means that if someone else came along with a plan to develop such an airport and the Feral gummint agrees in principle and forces the State government to cooperate which is two big asks then the owners either have to exercise their right to build the extra airport or let a competitor do it.
The loophole in the law is that there is no explicit prohibition of another turbo-prop airport anytime.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the key issue for his(or her honour) will be the limitations of term or juxtaposed application of the definition of the phrase 'turbo prop.'
Tip for the punters: - put the the bet on Macquarie (the finance instrument not the electorate) in both superior State & Fed jurisdcitions.
If still doubtful, review electoral boundaries and respective constituent shift and be resigned to the current norm
Tip for the punters: - put the the bet on Macquarie (the finance instrument not the electorate) in both superior State & Fed jurisdcitions.
If still doubtful, review electoral boundaries and respective constituent shift and be resigned to the current norm
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KIX, NGO or UKB style offshore airport
Why not consider a Kansai, Nagoya Chubu (Centrair) or Kobe style airport (offshore island, with road/rail access):
KIX: http://www.mlit.go.jp/koku/english/0...al/kansai.html
NGO: http://www.mlit.go.jp/koku/english/0...nal/chubu.html
UKB: http://www.city.kobe.jp/cityoffice/3.../airport_e.htm
KIX: http://www.mlit.go.jp/koku/english/0...al/kansai.html
NGO: http://www.mlit.go.jp/koku/english/0...nal/chubu.html
UKB: http://www.city.kobe.jp/cityoffice/3.../airport_e.htm
concernaviat
Ah you’ll actually find they’re not off shore but in very large bays to protect them from the ocean swells. There is nothing like that in the Sydney area so therefore isn’t a practical idea. Melbourne though has Port Phillip Bay but could you imagine trying to convince the locals and environmentalists that an airport there is a good idea?
Ah you’ll actually find they’re not off shore but in very large bays to protect them from the ocean swells. There is nothing like that in the Sydney area so therefore isn’t a practical idea. Melbourne though has Port Phillip Bay but could you imagine trying to convince the locals and environmentalists that an airport there is a good idea?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 Titan,
Melbourne doens't need another airport because of capacity (it does for geographic reasons). What it needs is for the Dash8 and 340s to use EN, which would free up some slots and relieve them from the need to wait at the holding points at ML burning avtur. I have been told they want to use ML for marketing reasons, i.e., they want to be seen to be important enough to use major capital airports.
Walrus
Melbourne doens't need another airport because of capacity (it does for geographic reasons). What it needs is for the Dash8 and 340s to use EN, which would free up some slots and relieve them from the need to wait at the holding points at ML burning avtur. I have been told they want to use ML for marketing reasons, i.e., they want to be seen to be important enough to use major capital airports.
Walrus
Walrus 7
I think you missed my point. All I was trying to say is that Sydney doesn’t have a sheltered bay that is large enough i.e. like Port Phillip Bay in Melbourne, to build a man made island airport in.
I think you missed my point. All I was trying to say is that Sydney doesn’t have a sheltered bay that is large enough i.e. like Port Phillip Bay in Melbourne, to build a man made island airport in.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it time to revisit RAAF Richmond as the Second Airport?
Got most of the infrastrucre there and the locals are used to the noise, be great for turboprops too, after god knows how many years of Hercs operating out of there i should imagine the locals would be quite happy with Q400's etc operating there.
Still remember trying to talk to a shop owner in Richmond as a B707 took off from 28 and shook the living bejezus outta me!
Got most of the infrastrucre there and the locals are used to the noise, be great for turboprops too, after god knows how many years of Hercs operating out of there i should imagine the locals would be quite happy with Q400's etc operating there.
Still remember trying to talk to a shop owner in Richmond as a B707 took off from 28 and shook the living bejezus outta me!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kyeemagh
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richmond needs a long 18/36 runway to be viable and CATIIIC ILS or GLS (once proven) as there must be over 10 times as many fog days as YSSY. But agreed, it is by far the logical and only place for a second airport within the basin. High speed rail to YSSY and Central.
Could be justified and acceptable with closure of YSBK to aviation and moving GA to YSRI.
Could be justified and acceptable with closure of YSBK to aviation and moving GA to YSRI.
Why on Earth would you need, or want, to close Bankstown to use Richmond? Overseas airports often have close proximity to other aerodromes & still manage to function effectively.
For example, in Orlando where I now live, Orlando Int'l (KMCO) has four runways that point straight over the top of Orlando Executive's (KORL) 07/25 & 13/31 runways or over the approach/departure paths. The FAF for the 18R LOC (LLZ) at KMCO is overhead KORL. That's only 6 or 7 nm from the threshold. I've lost track of the number of ILS or LOC backcourse approaches I've done to KORL while KMCO traffic is going over the top on their own approaches.
Not to mention the other airports with instrument approaches within in 20 or so miles eg Kissimmee at 10nm or Sanford Intl at 20. Every one of these aerodromes have ILS, VOR, NDB &/or GPS approaches. And these aren't unusual in the US. There are any number of airports in the US that are close yet handle large numbers of mixed GA & airline traffic.
So, why does Oz seem to need 50nm or 100nm or whatever between airports? I see no reason why YSBK couldn't operate with RIC & YSSY - and Camden. And Hoxton Park.
For example, in Orlando where I now live, Orlando Int'l (KMCO) has four runways that point straight over the top of Orlando Executive's (KORL) 07/25 & 13/31 runways or over the approach/departure paths. The FAF for the 18R LOC (LLZ) at KMCO is overhead KORL. That's only 6 or 7 nm from the threshold. I've lost track of the number of ILS or LOC backcourse approaches I've done to KORL while KMCO traffic is going over the top on their own approaches.
Not to mention the other airports with instrument approaches within in 20 or so miles eg Kissimmee at 10nm or Sanford Intl at 20. Every one of these aerodromes have ILS, VOR, NDB &/or GPS approaches. And these aren't unusual in the US. There are any number of airports in the US that are close yet handle large numbers of mixed GA & airline traffic.
So, why does Oz seem to need 50nm or 100nm or whatever between airports? I see no reason why YSBK couldn't operate with RIC & YSSY - and Camden. And Hoxton Park.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot see for the life of me why when the RAAF moves out of Richmond, the airlines can't move in. The basics are already there, there is already a rail service that goes straight thru to SYD, that can be diverted to Mascot, and a fast light rail system could be put in place. For all my years of spinning around the world, I have come to accept the travel between airports, which is pretty norm for the rest of the world, but the Australian public have been spoilt by airports close to Cities. The RAAF are heading north in the next few years so this surely has to be a consideration.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Richmond had five times the area or more, room for at least two parallel runways capable of simultaneous MTOW A380 and autoland operations each with separate and independent ground access (taxiways) and holding bays, 24/7 operations, freeway access north, south, east and west, underground, automated and non-stop rail link to Mascot and then onto the city running every 15 minutes, then I might agree with you. If not, then Richmond might make a convenient Sydney domestic reliever/freight airport, but nothing more.
I'm with PAF; there's a camel in the making.
I'm with PAF; there's a camel in the making.
Last edited by Lodown; 16th Apr 2008 at 14:04.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lodown
If not, then Richmond might make a convenient Sydney domestic reliever/freight airport, but nothing more.
Mascot's proximity to the city is certainly a constraint in terms of possibility of expansion, but it is also a great asset in terms of convenience to the CBD and surrounding areas. I don't think it makes sense to replace it as the primary airport unless you can replace it with something very whiz-bang, but there really isn't anywhere convenient left to build a whiz-bang facility easily. You either end up with an airport which is just as compromised in terms of room to grow and curfews, or you end up with an airport that is so far away from Sydney that there will be significant demand left at Mascot (I think there are some parallels to the recent shift of airports in Bangkok...)
Personally, I'd like to see Sydney with three (yes three) commercial airports. Sydney as the main airport, with Richmond and Camden more geared towards domestic and low-cost operators. The three are all pretty much equally spaced (about 23nm from memory), Richmond is close to the north-west arm growth area of the city, Camden is close to the south-west growth area. Camden would obviously need a lot of work (probably a new runway on a ~20° more northerly-southerly alignment than the current one), and for that reason would probably be a lot further down the timeline than Richmond. GA should be retained at Camden, and encouraged at Richmond, in the same manner that airports such as Gold Coast have GA operations alongside airline operations.
TT
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kyeemagh
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lowdown, the point is that a second Sydney airport WOULD and SHOULD be a curfew-free reliever, GA, Low-cost-carrier, and freight airport (and heck, even a RAAF transport hub!) The only circumstance where it wouldn't be is if SYD closed entirely - and that isn't going to happen save rising sea levels. I agree that the works needed to improve Richmond are significant, but they are still an order of magnitude less than those requried for any other site.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melbourne doesn't need another airport, it needs parallel runways (on both trajectories due to the wind patterns). There was a long term plan to provide alignment and space for future parallel runways (the alignment is still indicated on the Melways - although that's not much of an indicator of future plans). I'm not sure if that potential has been sold off now due to airport privatisation and the consequent huge expansion in commercial wharehouse/factory land sell-offs around the airport... if so, very sad for the future of Tulla.
