Merged: Second Airport for Sydney back on the agenda
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Launceston. Tasmania,Australia
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merged: Second Airport for Sydney back on the agenda
Second airport, but not at Badgerys Creek
Mark Davis Political Correspondent
April 11, 2008
A SECOND airport for Sydney is back on the agenda, although the Federal Government continues to rule out Badgerys Creek as its location.
The federal Minister for Transport, Anthony Albanese, released an aviation policy issues paper yesterday indicating that the Government would begin considering the timing and location of a second airport next year. The issues paper also canvassed imposing stricter height rules on residential and office developments near existing airports.
It said airlines would not be able to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by relying on cleaner aircraft and new technology alone, and would have to expand measures such as carbon offset schemes for passengers.
Mr Albanese's paper is the first step by the Government in drawing up a white paper to guide the development of aviation over the next decade.
On the issue of a second Sydney airport, it says: "The need for additional airport capacity for Sydney in the future has been acknowledged for many years, but the challenge remains to identify a suitable site.
"The Australian Government does not support building an airport at Badgerys Creek. The 2009 review of the Sydney airport master plan provides an opportunity to consider current and future capacity issues."
Sydney Airport's owners have suggested the advent of larger aircraft such as the Airbus A380 will alleviate capacity pressures by allowing fewer aircraft to move more passengers.
But the paper says larger aircraft will also create pressures on existing airports, as more passengers arrive at once.
"A future challenge is how Australian airport infrastructure might adapt to manage such large influxes of passenger arrivals and departures," it says.
The paper also raises concerns that property developers are increasingly proposing tall buildings just outside airports.
It suggests state and local government planning rules need to be overhauled to protect flight paths and aircraft operations.
It also criticises residential developments in noise-affected areas around airports. It says these often lead to many complaints and pressure for curfews and other restrictions on airport operations.
This problem could be tackled by toughening building standards dealing with noise, especially for residential developments in greenfields areas near airports.
Mr Albanese, whose inner-west electorate of Grayndler is affected by aircraft noise, said planning issues around airports needed to be dealt with in a more integrated way.
"The provisions of the Airports Act do not have the confidence of many state and local authorities and are in need of reform," he said, adding that a more mature dialogue between airport operators and local residents on the impact of aircraft noise was needed.
The issues paper also canvasses government support to help the struggling general aviation sector replace its ageing fleet of small aircraft.
It sought submissions from the industry on whether the caps on foreign ownership of Qantas should be relaxed.
And it warns that shortages of pilots, engineers and air traffic controllers could jeopardise safety and the economics of the aviation industry, and calls on the industry to consider setting up a national flying school.
Mark Davis Political Correspondent
April 11, 2008
A SECOND airport for Sydney is back on the agenda, although the Federal Government continues to rule out Badgerys Creek as its location.
The federal Minister for Transport, Anthony Albanese, released an aviation policy issues paper yesterday indicating that the Government would begin considering the timing and location of a second airport next year. The issues paper also canvassed imposing stricter height rules on residential and office developments near existing airports.
It said airlines would not be able to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by relying on cleaner aircraft and new technology alone, and would have to expand measures such as carbon offset schemes for passengers.
Mr Albanese's paper is the first step by the Government in drawing up a white paper to guide the development of aviation over the next decade.
On the issue of a second Sydney airport, it says: "The need for additional airport capacity for Sydney in the future has been acknowledged for many years, but the challenge remains to identify a suitable site.
"The Australian Government does not support building an airport at Badgerys Creek. The 2009 review of the Sydney airport master plan provides an opportunity to consider current and future capacity issues."
Sydney Airport's owners have suggested the advent of larger aircraft such as the Airbus A380 will alleviate capacity pressures by allowing fewer aircraft to move more passengers.
But the paper says larger aircraft will also create pressures on existing airports, as more passengers arrive at once.
"A future challenge is how Australian airport infrastructure might adapt to manage such large influxes of passenger arrivals and departures," it says.
The paper also raises concerns that property developers are increasingly proposing tall buildings just outside airports.
It suggests state and local government planning rules need to be overhauled to protect flight paths and aircraft operations.
It also criticises residential developments in noise-affected areas around airports. It says these often lead to many complaints and pressure for curfews and other restrictions on airport operations.
This problem could be tackled by toughening building standards dealing with noise, especially for residential developments in greenfields areas near airports.
Mr Albanese, whose inner-west electorate of Grayndler is affected by aircraft noise, said planning issues around airports needed to be dealt with in a more integrated way.
"The provisions of the Airports Act do not have the confidence of many state and local authorities and are in need of reform," he said, adding that a more mature dialogue between airport operators and local residents on the impact of aircraft noise was needed.
The issues paper also canvasses government support to help the struggling general aviation sector replace its ageing fleet of small aircraft.
It sought submissions from the industry on whether the caps on foreign ownership of Qantas should be relaxed.
And it warns that shortages of pilots, engineers and air traffic controllers could jeopardise safety and the economics of the aviation industry, and calls on the industry to consider setting up a national flying school.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wanna Be Up There...
Age: 53
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The issues paper also canvasses government support to help the struggling general aviation sector replace its ageing fleet of small aircraft.
...
And it warns that shortages of pilots, engineers and air traffic controllers could jeopardise safety and the economics of the aviation industry, and calls on the industry to consider setting up a national flying school.
...
And it warns that shortages of pilots, engineers and air traffic controllers could jeopardise safety and the economics of the aviation industry, and calls on the industry to consider setting up a national flying school.
I think maybe the best way to improve the GA sector is to enforce some of the rules covering things like wages and conditions for staff (remove the wages from competition), reduce Govt red tape for GA operators, remove the "Low Bid" mentality from government tenders, and introduce an induction system for all CASA employees where they must work for 6 weeks in a GA business to understand what GA operations are up against.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: An old flying boat station on Moreton Bay
Age: 84
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New SYD Airport
For years I've argued that SYD does not need a second airport.
It needs a new one, a la HKG, with more runways and proper Freeway and rail access..
The existing Mascot site has plenty of potential for Port Botany expansion, light industry, bayside resort development and so on. So the Commonwealth can get its money back.
Never won that argument though.
It needs a new one, a la HKG, with more runways and proper Freeway and rail access..
The existing Mascot site has plenty of potential for Port Botany expansion, light industry, bayside resort development and so on. So the Commonwealth can get its money back.
Never won that argument though.
Sydney's airport problem goes from Badgery's to worse
From Crikey.com.au
Ben Sandilands writes:
At least 250,000 vehicles will drive close to the preserved site of Sydney’s second jet airport at Badgery’s Creek today along the M4 and M7 motorways. They will do so with less inconvenience than anyone driving within 20 kilometres of Sydney’s existing airport. And they will have done something the Sydney media, and most politicians, twist and turn to avoid mentioning in any comments about the impending implosion of infrastructure at the main airport, because the obvious Badgery’s Creek solution equals political suicide. But then again, so do all of the options, from doing bugger all, to throwing open Richmond and Bankstown to jet flights as Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese has signalled as possible answers in his courageous plan to formulate a comprehensive aviation policy for Australia by March next year.
Several important signs of change have occurred. In the space of a few months Albanese has ruled out but then ruled in possible flights to the two suburban airfields. In that same interval Tiger has ordered a lightweight version of the Airbus A319, in a roomy 144 seat version that could actually fly useful distances from either Bankstown or Richmond, which suffer from short runways. And for the first time Qantas, through its executive general manager John Borghetti, referred to an urgent need for a second airport in the Sydney basin. This is a sharp U-turn by Qantas. It has always held to the line that another Sydney Airport is unnecessary. Now it is sending a signal that the existing airport is "stuffed". Borghetti’s other signal is the phrase "in the Sydney basin" used in his call for action at this week’s aviation infrastructure summit.
Ask any international or domestic airline manager what they think about a second Sydney Airport at Goulburn, or Newcastle, or Alice Springs, and they will point out that even if they were miraculously connected for free with space age maglev railways costing a trillion dollars, no-one flying to Sydney would use them. Air travel is about trip times more than anything else. It isn’t about fighting one’s way to a central rail terminal to then spend a few hours, or half a day in total, getting to an airport in Whoop-whoop.
Without adequate air links Sydney will bleed economic activity to Brisbane and Melbourne, which it is already. A top level Qantas manager last week told the chief executive of Airbus, Tom Enders, that Sydney Airport is half the land area of any other airport taking a current 30 million passengers a year, and when that reaches a forecast 70 million in less than 20 years it won’t even have room to short term park the dozens of 500 passenger A380s that will be trying to use it each day.
Of course that raises the other political unmentionable in the Sydney Airport saga. All of the space it needs can be found on the southern shore of Botany Bay.
Between now and next March another notion might take root in the rest of Australia; that the solution to all of Sydney’s woeful transport problems is to let it choke on the consequences of 100 years of wilful neglect, rather than bankrupt the country subsidising the solutions.
At least 250,000 vehicles will drive close to the preserved site of Sydney’s second jet airport at Badgery’s Creek today along the M4 and M7 motorways. They will do so with less inconvenience than anyone driving within 20 kilometres of Sydney’s existing airport. And they will have done something the Sydney media, and most politicians, twist and turn to avoid mentioning in any comments about the impending implosion of infrastructure at the main airport, because the obvious Badgery’s Creek solution equals political suicide. But then again, so do all of the options, from doing bugger all, to throwing open Richmond and Bankstown to jet flights as Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese has signalled as possible answers in his courageous plan to formulate a comprehensive aviation policy for Australia by March next year.
Several important signs of change have occurred. In the space of a few months Albanese has ruled out but then ruled in possible flights to the two suburban airfields. In that same interval Tiger has ordered a lightweight version of the Airbus A319, in a roomy 144 seat version that could actually fly useful distances from either Bankstown or Richmond, which suffer from short runways. And for the first time Qantas, through its executive general manager John Borghetti, referred to an urgent need for a second airport in the Sydney basin. This is a sharp U-turn by Qantas. It has always held to the line that another Sydney Airport is unnecessary. Now it is sending a signal that the existing airport is "stuffed". Borghetti’s other signal is the phrase "in the Sydney basin" used in his call for action at this week’s aviation infrastructure summit.
Ask any international or domestic airline manager what they think about a second Sydney Airport at Goulburn, or Newcastle, or Alice Springs, and they will point out that even if they were miraculously connected for free with space age maglev railways costing a trillion dollars, no-one flying to Sydney would use them. Air travel is about trip times more than anything else. It isn’t about fighting one’s way to a central rail terminal to then spend a few hours, or half a day in total, getting to an airport in Whoop-whoop.
Without adequate air links Sydney will bleed economic activity to Brisbane and Melbourne, which it is already. A top level Qantas manager last week told the chief executive of Airbus, Tom Enders, that Sydney Airport is half the land area of any other airport taking a current 30 million passengers a year, and when that reaches a forecast 70 million in less than 20 years it won’t even have room to short term park the dozens of 500 passenger A380s that will be trying to use it each day.
Of course that raises the other political unmentionable in the Sydney Airport saga. All of the space it needs can be found on the southern shore of Botany Bay.
Between now and next March another notion might take root in the rest of Australia; that the solution to all of Sydney’s woeful transport problems is to let it choke on the consequences of 100 years of wilful neglect, rather than bankrupt the country subsidising the solutions.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kyeemagh
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "Issues Paper" is available from http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi...nap/index.aspx
"Submissions are invited from interested parties" for development of Aviation Policy and are required by 27 June 2008. That site has contact information.
"Submissions are invited from interested parties" for development of Aviation Policy and are required by 27 June 2008. That site has contact information.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Two Cents...
2 airports in Sydney won't work. Reasons is that a lot of pax inbound have connecting flights. So a pax coming in from, say, Dubbo, needs to connect with a flight to BNE or even LAX has to travel somehow to the "big" airport.
YSSY is small in acreage compared to other airports. The conjestion isn't in the air its actually where to park all the aircraft; and jams on the taxiways.
We need to make the tough choices soon. A new airport out of town with a high speed land connection to the city. Before the urban sprawl leaves it too late.
2 airports in Sydney won't work. Reasons is that a lot of pax inbound have connecting flights. So a pax coming in from, say, Dubbo, needs to connect with a flight to BNE or even LAX has to travel somehow to the "big" airport.
YSSY is small in acreage compared to other airports. The conjestion isn't in the air its actually where to park all the aircraft; and jams on the taxiways.
We need to make the tough choices soon. A new airport out of town with a high speed land connection to the city. Before the urban sprawl leaves it too late.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rail will fail
I'm amazed anyone believes anyone is going to cough up billions for a high speed rail link that no air traveller in their right mind would use.
Hong Kong works fine, London would work better if went further in than Paddington, and Paris is said to be great too from all reports.
But an airport outside the Sydney basin, like near here as in down the road in Goulburn would be a joke. Who the ferk is going to struggle to get to an airport transfer platform at Central if they live in the suburbs and then spent a hundred bucks to lurch out into the spinifex to some sort of airport that will waste so much bleedin' time getting to that may as well fly to Brisbane or Melbourne from the existing airport to make better connections.
The whole idea of an airport outside of Sydney but for Sydney is not on. Put in the single runway that I'm told could be done at Badgerys to make it work to solve part of the problem, and do something incredibly ballsy at Sydney like lifting the movement cap, or putting turbo props out at Little Bay, or extending the footprint at Sydney by reclaiming more land or buy up a few hundrfed acres of Mascot and redo the space to park and service jets.
But, DO SOMETHING , because if 'they in power' or we don't, Brisbane or Melbourne will do it for you and me, and Sydney can decline into a paralysed mass of old people wondering where all the new jobs and business headquarters went.
Hey, I like high speed rail. I did Eurostar and a trip on the ICE a few years back. Loved it. But they drew their customers from several hundred million people. We've got 20 million. We need to spend megabucks on decent defence and education and health, instead of hosing it down the gurgler on grandiose railways that nobody will use, if they ever get built anyhow.
Hell, the trains from here to Sydney take nearly as long as flight to Perth, and none of the trains in Sydney work effectively anyhow.
We need to bite the bullets. A bigger, better main airport, and another new build at Badgery's to hook into the M7.
Hong Kong works fine, London would work better if went further in than Paddington, and Paris is said to be great too from all reports.
But an airport outside the Sydney basin, like near here as in down the road in Goulburn would be a joke. Who the ferk is going to struggle to get to an airport transfer platform at Central if they live in the suburbs and then spent a hundred bucks to lurch out into the spinifex to some sort of airport that will waste so much bleedin' time getting to that may as well fly to Brisbane or Melbourne from the existing airport to make better connections.
The whole idea of an airport outside of Sydney but for Sydney is not on. Put in the single runway that I'm told could be done at Badgerys to make it work to solve part of the problem, and do something incredibly ballsy at Sydney like lifting the movement cap, or putting turbo props out at Little Bay, or extending the footprint at Sydney by reclaiming more land or buy up a few hundrfed acres of Mascot and redo the space to park and service jets.
But, DO SOMETHING , because if 'they in power' or we don't, Brisbane or Melbourne will do it for you and me, and Sydney can decline into a paralysed mass of old people wondering where all the new jobs and business headquarters went.
Hey, I like high speed rail. I did Eurostar and a trip on the ICE a few years back. Loved it. But they drew their customers from several hundred million people. We've got 20 million. We need to spend megabucks on decent defence and education and health, instead of hosing it down the gurgler on grandiose railways that nobody will use, if they ever get built anyhow.
Hell, the trains from here to Sydney take nearly as long as flight to Perth, and none of the trains in Sydney work effectively anyhow.
We need to bite the bullets. A bigger, better main airport, and another new build at Badgery's to hook into the M7.
When Badgerys Creek was still on the agenda, a well respected Civil Engineer came up with an alternative plan where SKSA kept operating as a domestic airport with a new international terminal/runway complex situated on Kernel peninsular. The parallel runways at Kernel would have a 04/22 orientation and curved arrival/departures would enable all built-up areas to be avoided as well as avoiding the domestic operations from the existing airport. There would be a road tunnel under Botany Bay (same type of construction as the one under Sydney Harbour) connecting the international airport complex to the main North/south road arterials allowing fast access to the CBD. A rail link tunnel would connect the international complex to the domestic terminals allowing easy transfers.
The main problems would be:-
1. Relocation of the oil refinery complex - the engineer made a comment that the existing facility is old technology and that it would be better to build a brand new modern technology refinery in the Hunter Valley instead of progressively upgrading the Kernel refinery, &
2. A small part of the land required for the new runway complex is currently National Park and he noted that this may be the biggest problem with his proposal. The greenies have a lot of power in the NSW government and getting this small area of land rezoned would be very difficult.
I liked his proposal as it would allow the existing facilities to remain in use while allowing for a significant increase in aircraft movements and pax throughput without having to build an entire airport at a great distance from the city with all the additional costs such as a high speed rail link.
I hope that his proposal is submitted to the Minister for Transport for consideration in his " issues paper".
The main problems would be:-
1. Relocation of the oil refinery complex - the engineer made a comment that the existing facility is old technology and that it would be better to build a brand new modern technology refinery in the Hunter Valley instead of progressively upgrading the Kernel refinery, &
2. A small part of the land required for the new runway complex is currently National Park and he noted that this may be the biggest problem with his proposal. The greenies have a lot of power in the NSW government and getting this small area of land rezoned would be very difficult.
I liked his proposal as it would allow the existing facilities to remain in use while allowing for a significant increase in aircraft movements and pax throughput without having to build an entire airport at a great distance from the city with all the additional costs such as a high speed rail link.
I hope that his proposal is submitted to the Minister for Transport for consideration in his " issues paper".
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
success mustn't be a possibility
Going Boeing,
I read up on this some time ago in one of the aviation magazines. It made so much sense I knew it would get shot down in flames.
The real problem is that the idiot greens will attack anything that looks like making anything they are against succeed.
I think there are a lot of sensible green people too, including in the community around here, who have seen the light about climate issues, about recycling, about the need to use water better, and a broad range of smart things.
But there is a hard core of ratbags that basically hate anything that mightn't serve their political agenda of seeing the country revert to some sort of cross between a cottage industry economy and a continental sized sheltered workshop with people living under rocks in the dark waiting for the greenhouse gases to dissolve away and so forth.
They are anti-technology. I'm all for green technology, not a green version of the dark ages where science, and aviation, and anything but push bikes have been banished by this new mixture of pious eco-tripe and social engineering.
The southern airport solution would no doubt work very well, far too well, and in a number of possible configurations from a straight turbo-prop satellite hub to major jet runways if I remember correctly. I didn't remember it correctly in my first response referring to Little Bay. I meant the Kurnell Peninsula, back toward Woolaware Bay. I'm sure you could put a reasonable turbo-prop runway on the headland with the rifle range at South Maroubra or Little Bay, or is it Long Bay, but somehow that is even less likely to happen to some of those ratbag ideas of floating airports and such.
I read up on this some time ago in one of the aviation magazines. It made so much sense I knew it would get shot down in flames.
The real problem is that the idiot greens will attack anything that looks like making anything they are against succeed.
I think there are a lot of sensible green people too, including in the community around here, who have seen the light about climate issues, about recycling, about the need to use water better, and a broad range of smart things.
But there is a hard core of ratbags that basically hate anything that mightn't serve their political agenda of seeing the country revert to some sort of cross between a cottage industry economy and a continental sized sheltered workshop with people living under rocks in the dark waiting for the greenhouse gases to dissolve away and so forth.
They are anti-technology. I'm all for green technology, not a green version of the dark ages where science, and aviation, and anything but push bikes have been banished by this new mixture of pious eco-tripe and social engineering.
The southern airport solution would no doubt work very well, far too well, and in a number of possible configurations from a straight turbo-prop satellite hub to major jet runways if I remember correctly. I didn't remember it correctly in my first response referring to Little Bay. I meant the Kurnell Peninsula, back toward Woolaware Bay. I'm sure you could put a reasonable turbo-prop runway on the headland with the rifle range at South Maroubra or Little Bay, or is it Long Bay, but somehow that is even less likely to happen to some of those ratbag ideas of floating airports and such.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact of the matter is that YSSY is one of the few major airports in the world that is in the heart of the city.
Its not necessary. Look at Tullamarine. Opened in 1970 it was miles away from the city. No noise pollution problems and yet still easy to get to.
The money made by selling the Mascot site would easily pay for the infrastructure and get rid of the curfew.
Its not necessary. Look at Tullamarine. Opened in 1970 it was miles away from the city. No noise pollution problems and yet still easy to get to.
The money made by selling the Mascot site would easily pay for the infrastructure and get rid of the curfew.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The money made by selling the Mascot site would easily pay for the infrastructure and get rid of the curfew.
04/22 at Kurnell would be way too close to KSA; this would effectively render KSA next to useless or not increase capacity sufficiently to justify the expense, IMHO. In certain configurations EN traffic must be Flowed with ML traffic; ie too close for independent use; not to mention the 'non parallel' converging/diverging approach/departure paths.
A 07R/25L would be far more efficient than something at Kurnell; you could set it up for RNP only and have curved, noise sensitive approach paths ie over water/industrial sites and away from the other established flight paths.
Otherwise bite the bullet and put the airport somewhere in the middle of nowhere (is there a site???) and then put in a freeway/rail-link and move on; allow for future development and call it a day. Make all new start-up airlines (including new INT entries) use the new airport or in a similar way to London Airports, make it not worthwhile for budget/regional to go to KSA; transfers be damned.
I have transfered between airports in the UK & France & Germany; it's difficult but it is easily done if you allow sufficient time between flights.
Denabol,
Have you ever been to Dallas? Over 70% of American Airlines flights go through this hub. To have an airport in the bush will drive the country to decentralise. Obviously the Macquarie Banks of the world will not support it because it takes away from there revenue base unless of course they have a piece of the action. Australia has not undertaken a major infrastructure project since the Snowy Mountains Scheme. China, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia(Jakarta has had three airports in 40 years) have all invested heavily in airport infrastructure while India is now trying to catch up. Sydney airport remains in place as a major feeder to "Trangie International" and if you pull out a map you see the Dubbo area is equi-distant to Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Canberra and Sydney. First concentrate on an airline feed and eventually the road and rail infrastructure will come. Build an airport we can be proud of now instead of a "just in time" solution as we have seen with Sydney in the past and Brisbane and Perth more recently. The problem for Sydney will be within 2 years. Can you imagine 6 A380s arriving at the same time. Absolute bedlam! Even more than today.
How much will all this engineering cost to redesign the the Kurnell peninsular? We are victims of our own success in this country and while we try to build airlines through growth we are fast coming up with a roadblock being not able to cope with this and spending more and more time circling or in airport queues. You just have to go to Singapore, Hong Kong and Beijing to see how far we are falling behind. Someone has to bite the bullet.
Have you ever been to Dallas? Over 70% of American Airlines flights go through this hub. To have an airport in the bush will drive the country to decentralise. Obviously the Macquarie Banks of the world will not support it because it takes away from there revenue base unless of course they have a piece of the action. Australia has not undertaken a major infrastructure project since the Snowy Mountains Scheme. China, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia(Jakarta has had three airports in 40 years) have all invested heavily in airport infrastructure while India is now trying to catch up. Sydney airport remains in place as a major feeder to "Trangie International" and if you pull out a map you see the Dubbo area is equi-distant to Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Canberra and Sydney. First concentrate on an airline feed and eventually the road and rail infrastructure will come. Build an airport we can be proud of now instead of a "just in time" solution as we have seen with Sydney in the past and Brisbane and Perth more recently. The problem for Sydney will be within 2 years. Can you imagine 6 A380s arriving at the same time. Absolute bedlam! Even more than today.
How much will all this engineering cost to redesign the the Kurnell peninsular? We are victims of our own success in this country and while we try to build airlines through growth we are fast coming up with a roadblock being not able to cope with this and spending more and more time circling or in airport queues. You just have to go to Singapore, Hong Kong and Beijing to see how far we are falling behind. Someone has to bite the bullet.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A tunnel from Kernell? It'd be cheaper to put KSA on two levels. Put all the terminals and parking underground with a flat piece of land on top. DFW would still be 10 times larger.
But Busdriver raises an interesting point. The airports are privatised. Any proposed solution will impact MacBank and they're not going to lift a finger unless there is a buck in it for them. And if they face the prospect of losing a buck, there'll be hell to pay.
Would have been a far easier decision prior to privatisation.
I suspect part of the reason why QF is making noises now is that the Pacific is opening up to competition. Anyone with a major hub in BNE and MLB has room to expand and grow while SYD (and by association, Qantas) stagnates.
Anything east of the ranges within 2 hours of the Sydney CBD won't be viable over the long term because of space and political constraints. Anything out of the city confines won't be a Sydney airport. I think the only long-term solution for Mascot's future is a domestic terminal with limited International access with the main eastern International airports in Melbourne and Brisbane.
That'll upset the Sydney-centrics and the NSW government, but they blew it 15 years ago! Until Sydney and the Federal politicians face reality and realize that the national interest would best be served by one or two major international airports outside the Sydney region, then national growth is going to be limited. Unfortunately, that means that Sydney as a city is looking at the prospect of being overtaken by Brisbane and Melbourne in growth.
That's what should happen. What will happen? The NSW Feds and the NSW guvmints will play turf protection and voter cuddling. The airport will be built at Dubbo or Goulburn and taxpayers' money will be thrown at it in large sums. It will be forever a white elephant, but all will be fine in the short-term, just so long as Brisbane and Melbourne aren't seen as getting ahead of Sydney. Reality and market forces will expose all the flaws in about 25 years or perhaps sooner.
But Busdriver raises an interesting point. The airports are privatised. Any proposed solution will impact MacBank and they're not going to lift a finger unless there is a buck in it for them. And if they face the prospect of losing a buck, there'll be hell to pay.
Would have been a far easier decision prior to privatisation.
I suspect part of the reason why QF is making noises now is that the Pacific is opening up to competition. Anyone with a major hub in BNE and MLB has room to expand and grow while SYD (and by association, Qantas) stagnates.
Anything east of the ranges within 2 hours of the Sydney CBD won't be viable over the long term because of space and political constraints. Anything out of the city confines won't be a Sydney airport. I think the only long-term solution for Mascot's future is a domestic terminal with limited International access with the main eastern International airports in Melbourne and Brisbane.
That'll upset the Sydney-centrics and the NSW government, but they blew it 15 years ago! Until Sydney and the Federal politicians face reality and realize that the national interest would best be served by one or two major international airports outside the Sydney region, then national growth is going to be limited. Unfortunately, that means that Sydney as a city is looking at the prospect of being overtaken by Brisbane and Melbourne in growth.
That's what should happen. What will happen? The NSW Feds and the NSW guvmints will play turf protection and voter cuddling. The airport will be built at Dubbo or Goulburn and taxpayers' money will be thrown at it in large sums. It will be forever a white elephant, but all will be fine in the short-term, just so long as Brisbane and Melbourne aren't seen as getting ahead of Sydney. Reality and market forces will expose all the flaws in about 25 years or perhaps sooner.
Last edited by Lodown; 14th Apr 2008 at 00:54.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some pretty good points. Yes, done Dallas but not like Debbie, and even driven past Love Field. I like the idea of a parallel east-west runway at Sydney.
The constraints for future action seem to start off with Sydney Airport ain't closing, ever, which means the alternative really must be in the greater metropolitan area. I can only think of Badgerys for anything likely to be to Sydney what Gatwick is to Heathrow. Maybe as unit costs for fast surface transport systems come down in the future there will be viable alternatives to flying between Canberra-Sydney-Melbourne, maybe even as far as Brisbane. But that is grandchildren stuff. Between now and then I think nothing will get done and spending eight hours driving to Melbourne from here will seem not too shabby put beside a two hour drive into Sydney for four hours of being stuffed around or 80 minutes to Canberra and then three hours of being rooted on the spot especially in winter.
The constraints for future action seem to start off with Sydney Airport ain't closing, ever, which means the alternative really must be in the greater metropolitan area. I can only think of Badgerys for anything likely to be to Sydney what Gatwick is to Heathrow. Maybe as unit costs for fast surface transport systems come down in the future there will be viable alternatives to flying between Canberra-Sydney-Melbourne, maybe even as far as Brisbane. But that is grandchildren stuff. Between now and then I think nothing will get done and spending eight hours driving to Melbourne from here will seem not too shabby put beside a two hour drive into Sydney for four hours of being stuffed around or 80 minutes to Canberra and then three hours of being rooted on the spot especially in winter.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
notmyC150v2,
Mark Davis needs to go back and read the white paper again. I note he is a political reporter and not an aviation reporter.
The white paper asks the industry to consider setting up a national flying school to train flying instructors, not pilots.
I suppose this would work something along the lines of RAAF CFS at East Sale; all instructors would have to graduate from the central college before they could be employed by a flying school. This would have some advantages:
1. Easy pairing of student instructors for training
2. The college could set and control the flight training syllabus, which would ensure consistency.
3. The quality of PPLs might improve because the style of instruction would be consistent from school to school.
Of course, the biggest hurdle would be funding. Who pays the instructor trainers?
Walrus
Mark Davis needs to go back and read the white paper again. I note he is a political reporter and not an aviation reporter.
The white paper asks the industry to consider setting up a national flying school to train flying instructors, not pilots.
I suppose this would work something along the lines of RAAF CFS at East Sale; all instructors would have to graduate from the central college before they could be employed by a flying school. This would have some advantages:
1. Easy pairing of student instructors for training
2. The college could set and control the flight training syllabus, which would ensure consistency.
3. The quality of PPLs might improve because the style of instruction would be consistent from school to school.
Of course, the biggest hurdle would be funding. Who pays the instructor trainers?
Walrus
denabol said:
You can add habitat protection to the list too.
Towra Point (which is part of the Kurnell peninsula) is an internationally significant wetland with migratory birds from all over the world including China, Japan, Russia, and even the Arctic!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towra_Point_Nature_Reserve
http://fnpw.org.au/ForSupporters/PAW...TowraPoint.htm
The wiki link above lists 114 species of birds at Towra Point!
And I don't think we should be looking to countries such as Indonesia and China for inspiration when it comes to environmentally responsible development!
I think there are a lot of sensible green people too, including in the community around here, who have seen the light about climate issues, about recycling, about the need to use water better, and a broad range of smart things.
Towra Point (which is part of the Kurnell peninsula) is an internationally significant wetland with migratory birds from all over the world including China, Japan, Russia, and even the Arctic!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towra_Point_Nature_Reserve
http://fnpw.org.au/ForSupporters/PAW...TowraPoint.htm
The wiki link above lists 114 species of birds at Towra Point!
And I don't think we should be looking to countries such as Indonesia and China for inspiration when it comes to environmentally responsible development!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wanna Be Up There...
Age: 53
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Walrus,
Thanks for that clarification. I thought it was the other side of loopy. The idea of a central school for flying instructors is not bad but you are right, there are plenty of other problems associated with such an implementation.
As for Kernel, this has no chance IMHO. It was the site of Captain Cooks first land fall in the region and (as far as we know) the first Aboriginals were killed by whites there (there is a plaque to prove it). No way is that area going to be developed for anything. I can see the protestors now...
I like the idea of Sydney becoming a domestic airport only whilst Bris and Mel become the major International Ports. Bne still has heaps of room to grow if needed.
What about if they got rid of the army base near Liverpool??? There might be enough room there to build a runway or two.
Thanks for that clarification. I thought it was the other side of loopy. The idea of a central school for flying instructors is not bad but you are right, there are plenty of other problems associated with such an implementation.
As for Kernel, this has no chance IMHO. It was the site of Captain Cooks first land fall in the region and (as far as we know) the first Aboriginals were killed by whites there (there is a plaque to prove it). No way is that area going to be developed for anything. I can see the protestors now...
I like the idea of Sydney becoming a domestic airport only whilst Bris and Mel become the major International Ports. Bne still has heaps of room to grow if needed.
What about if they got rid of the army base near Liverpool??? There might be enough room there to build a runway or two.