Albanese does nothing on Sydney Airports

[Lucerne]

There are not yet any spokes of international status at Orange as there has not, and foreseeable, will not be a need for international traffic there.

[Frank Arouet]

Oh, I understand now. Thanks for the enlightenment. The tyre pressures of the A380 are to be lowered?

bulk of the $25M did come from the NSW Government through re-allocation out of other projects

Pray tell where.

EDIT to add: No don't bother. Albanese is the problem. You are a distraction.

[Rural]

Lucerne, where are you getting the information about the NSW government contributing $25M to Orange airport?

There are works being carried out at the moment and like many regional airports there is a long term masterplan, but pprune seems to be the only place that refers to a $25M contribution from the NSW state government and this level of State Govt funding for a regional airport would be unprecedented.

Rural

[Frank Arouet]

After a long search I find this;

Feature Stories :: Orange News Now

Hidden within the missive is;

John Davis is pleased, as any city mayor would be, with the employment opportunities that the Cadia mine is contributing, also the proceeds of mine workers’ accommodation and other needs – even though the influx is driving rents and house prices through the roof.
Newcrest Cadia is also likely to be contributing to the reported $24 million cost of a proposed expansion of Orange Airport to increase air traffic movements and to cope with bigger passenger jets like the Boeing 737 .
But then it’s the big rise in mining traffic, the daily in-and-out syndrome of shuttling workers between Brisbane, Orange and Western Australia, that’s largely caused the need to upgrade the airport in the first place.

The monotonous thing about all this speculation is not my rants, but the simple fact NIMBY's won't let airports happen.

Labor would put the airport in St Ives and Libs would extend the current one into Marrickville. No political party has the balls to make a decision because it will cost them votes.

Until the FEDERAL Minister for Aviation makes a decision on an "Australian Hub", (somebody else brought that up), in a remote area that nobody cares about because nobody lives there, and can service existing City airports that would in fact become Domestic terminals, this topic will drag on and on and on........

[Lucerne]

Rural,

At no stage did I mention that the State Government had contributed $25M.

[Frank Arouet]

Try post #56. Lucerne said;

The NSW Government paid the $25M although there may also have been a federal contribution to that sum.

Nothing about Cadia.

[Rural]

It is simply a long term master plan (for Orange Airport) that many regional airports have in place and it may have expected costs but they could also spread over the next 20 years. I am not really sure why it is relevant to this thread.

[Fieldmouse]

Its kinda relevant...........

One option Albanese has, is to allow Sydney to dictate the size of aircraft it will accept. If they say that from July 1 2014 they will only accept 50 seat aircraft, those ports that have positioned themselves as hubs, with security and aprons and such, will win out. Rex and Brindapelican will have an economic decision to make.... service the hubs or go to 50 seaters. The government and SACL can say that the rural and regional slots are still available......to complying aircraft from a screened port.
Sydney won't care if some rural people can't fly direct, thats just a 19 seater they can replace with an A380 when the slot expires.
Nasty but possible.

[Rural]

The option in the recent capacity report was not about not accepting aircraft less than 50seats from a certain date, but not permitting any "new" slots for these aircraft. Existing slots would be protected.

The regional hub theory might look ok on paper but it will generally not work in practice. Airports / routes will simply die ahead of finding viable options to channel traffic via another larger port.

[Fieldmouse]

Exactly Rural,

Code:

 Airports / routes will simply die ahead of finding viable options to channel traffic via another larger port.

And Sydney buys some time with all those pesky <20k p.a pax ports gone from the mix. Can't see them losing any sleep over it mate!

I know who my money's on.

[Joker89]

http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/premier-barry-ofarrell-decides-second-sydney-airport-wont-fly/story-fn7q4q9f-1226320109398

Barry is not going to allow a new airport in sydney under his watch. Sadly with such a huge majority it's never going to be easier.

Pretty sure Canberra doesn't want sydney noise and that rail link will never happen.

How can the answer to Sydney's problems lie outside the state. Absolute joke.

[fencehopper]

The RAAF at Willy seem to think they are not accountable to the tax paying public. Some of the comments from the chief honcho seen in the local papers are pretty demeaning to the people they are supposed to serve.
Now they look like making a grab on most of the airspace in the Hunter area.
Maybe they should be moved to Orange. Actually not maybe, they should move to Orange. They should also move the Army out of Holsworthy and send them west as well. Then we can have two really good areas for airport expansion. Can't see any pollie pushing the military around though. The last one that tried got shafted big time.

FH

[TIMA9X]

What, Now Albo wants a second Sydney Airport

INFRASTRUCTURE Minister Anthony Albanese has accused NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell of pursuing "short-term politics" through his continued opposition to a second Sydney airport. Mr Albanese said the government would continue to push for a second international airport and maintained the economic costs of not acting soon would be “substantial”.
“A major infrastructure project, like a second airport for Sydney, should be beyond short-term politics,” Mr Albanese told The Australian Online.
“This issue needs a bipartisan and evidence-based approach. Sydney needs a second airport sooner rather than later.”
Last month Mr Albanese released a 3200-page independent report on Sydney's aviation needs.
The report was commissioned by both the federal and NSW governments and emphasised that the current airport arrangements were not sufficient to cope with future demand.


But Mr O'Farrell told The Daily Telegraph the idea of a second Sydney airport would never be supported by his conservative government.
He said Sydneysiders should not have to put up with more aircraft noise and maintained a fast-rail service between Sydney and an expanded Canberra airport was “the most sensible option”.
Mr O'Farrell's opposition to the plan is at odds with not just the federal government but also Qantas CEO Alan Joyce.
For the first time, Mr Joyce expressed his support for the proposal and said planning should get underway.
“Sydney Airport will always be Australia's principal aviation hub and we need to focus on maximising the efficient use of the existing airport infrastructure,” Mr Joyce told The Australian Online.
“However it is also timely to start planning for a second airport in the Sydney basin to ensure that future international and domestic aviation growth opportunities can be realised.”
Foreign Minister Bob Carr, a former NSW Premier, also weighed into the debate today, saying a second international airport was inevitable and a bipartisan approach was needed from the federal and state governments.
"I'd like to see both levels of government, both sides of politics, get together and have a common position on a second airport,” Senator Carr said.
“I'd like to invite Barry O'Farrell to consider a bipartisan approach.”
Senator Carr declined to endorse putting a second airport at Badgery's Creek, in Sydney's west.
“I don't think options should be taken off the table,” he said.
” Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Minister do nothing now wants to do something. Funny world we live in.

[teresa green]

The RAAF cannot hog NTL forever, the only enemy they will find down there are the Kiwis, so no joy there. They need to be up north where the action is, but the word is the wives are not keen. NTL has it all, plenty of room, flat terrain, all approaches over sea or farm land, plenty of room for more runways, hotels, existing hangers, very good WX, little or no fog. Already the people of northern Sydney and Central Coast find its much smarter to go straight up the F3 rather than go into the S$#tfight that is Sydney, if flying domestic. The parking is cheap, (at the moment) and plenty of it. Then the Hunter and Newcastle offer, the beautiful valley, plenty of golf, great restaurants, and the waterways of Port Stephens for those that wish to linger. If the silly buggers can get their act together for a very fast train of some sort (ask China) it would serve the purpose well, in fact NTL will become the second airport by stealth and pressure on the systems, so it should be well and truly considered, now and developed as the RAAF will have to eventually move north, as much as they hate the idea, they love Willy, its got it all.

[Lucerne]

We certainly don't need the raaf at Orange. Move them into the desert where they won't be in anyone's way.

Also, Teresa, why are approaches over farmland a good thing? I think they are better off staying in Sydney where there are only residential areas that have been established around the current airport environment.

If you really want to increase Sydney's capacity, get rid of the ridiculous noise curfews!

[teresa green]

Lucerne, NTL would only ever be a second airport, the main airport will always be SYD, but as a second airport NTL fits the bill nicely. The growth of Northern Sydney and the Central Coast plus Newcastle and the Hunter will see NTL do it by stealth anyway, and as for over farm land your still fairly high until nearly over Grahamstown dam, with Raymond Terrace still well to your starboard side. If you want flat terrain, and they do, then you have to expect it to be used for farming, whilst the farmers might not totally rejoice, the employment and a career for the young of the district will far outweigh, the cattle whinging. Anyway they are totally used to it, the fighters are noisy little bastards, much worse than commercial aircraft, and there are often three or four landing at once. The people of Willy and Medowie are very used to aircraft and would love a job close to home. In fact many are already airport workers.

[TIMA9X]

It's hotting up for the second airport thing, again

Now the Libs are on the case, OMG, here we go again..

Federal Libs fight O'Farrell on airport


A GROUP of federal Coalition MPs has begun a behind-the-scenes campaign in a desperate bid to persuade the Premier, Barry O'Farrell, to drop his opposition to a second airport in the Sydney basin.
The MPs want to avoid what some describe as the ''armageddon scenario'' spelt out in a recent report if immediate action is not taken to start planning for a second airport - of traffic gridlock around Sydney Airport, air travel delays, lost jobs and economic growth and a return to the concentration of aircraft noise that plagued Sydney in the 1990s.
The report - to the federal and state governments - said there were only two options for a second airport. The best remained the Badgerys Creek site, near Liverpool, bought by the Hawke government almost three decades ago but now ruled out by both sides of politics. The second best was at Wilton, south-west of Campbelltown.

Mr Albanese said: ''This is a national economic issue and doing nothing would be a handbrake on national economic activity so there is a clear case for the national government to act. But we will be constrained in terms of planning and other issues if NSW refuses to co-operate.''

Read more: Federal Libs fight O'Farrell on airport

I think Albo got his lines from this thread, somewhere..

[neville_nobody]

What a circus

The failure to build a second Sydney airport is a decades-long story of political myopia and cowardice from both major parties. A new report is telling the federal and NSW governments there is no more time to waste - Sydney's aviation D-day has arrived.

Their own top transport bureaucrats and leading business people tell them if they don't start planning for a second airport right away the NSW economy will be stunted, the national economy will be badly hurt, the people of Sydney will again be subject to the levels of aircraft noise that drove them to protest in the streets in the 1990s, the roads around Kingsford Smith will be a permanent traffic gridlock and aircraft delays will ricochet throughout Australia's aviation system.

You'd think that would be enough to stir some action from politicians who bang on about nation-building infrastructure and productivity every other day. But no.

The report said very clearly there were only two options for a second airport - Badgerys Creek, where the land was purchased by the Hawke government 27 years ago, remains the best choice. Wilton, south-west of Campbelltown, is the second-best and only other choice.

The federal Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, plumped for Wilton. For reasons that have been described by Paul Keating as ''cynicism and political opportunism'', the Labor opposition led by Simon Crean ruled out Badgerys Creek in 2003. Labor has continued to rule it out ever since. Internal Labor politics would make reversing this decision difficult, although the land is still sitting there, unsold.

The NSW Premier, Barry O'Farrell, astonishingly, insists the second Sydney airport should be built in Canberra and linked with Sydney by a very fast train, even though the report - in part written by his own bureaucratic advisers - categorically ruled out Canberra as a viable second airport option, train or no train.

Yes, O'Farrell had promised no airport in the Sydney basin, but you'd think some of the warnings in the report might have focused his mind.

Like this: ''From 2015, the capacity of existing road junctions at the entrance to the domestic [airport] terminal precinct will be exceeded, resulting in a near constant traffic jam on key roads to the CBD and the M5 motorway.''

You don't get too many traffic problems here in Canberra. But as a frequent visitor to Sydney that warning sends a chill down my spine, so I can only imagine the reaction of residents.

Or this warning: The result of inaction will be flight delays in Sydney and around the nation and stunted growth in the NSW and national economy. The report forecasts losses to the NSW economy in excess of $30 billion by 2060 and about 30,000 new NSW jobs forgone in that year alone. That economic cost would knock-on nationwide.

Or if none of that works, surely any politician alive during the 1980s and '90s would pay attention to this one: the ''noise-sharing plan'' - implemented as one of the first acts of the incoming Howard government to end the infamous ''Bennelong funnel'' and spread the aircraft noise around - won't work any more.

Even within the current legislated cap on aircraft movements, the number of planes taking off and landing will blow the noise-sharing plan nine hours every weekday by 2015. By 2020 it will work only after 8pm.

O'Farrell has accused the federal government of wanting to ''dump'' an airport on the people of western Sydney, saying "the NSW government believes no other part of Sydney should be contaminated by the sort of noise that comes with an airport''. But the report makes it clear that doing nothing is also going to increase the noise ''contamination'' along the east-west flight path substantially.

And that is focusing the minds of federal MPs, including O'Farrell's coalition colleagues, a dozen of whom met during the last sitting week last month to work on a strategy to persuade the Premier to change his mind.

The shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, has already described O'Farrell's position in favour of Canberra as ''absurd''. His frontbench colleague Scott Morrison believes Wilton has to be considered and the backbencher Paul Fletcher says it's hard to sustain the argument that Sydney's second airport should be built in Canberra when it's 300 kilometres away. Many other MPs privately agree, and say they are lobbying to try to find a resolution.

National Party MPs are also deeply concerned that if nothing is done and temporary measures are taken, one of those measures will be the bouncing of all regional airlines to secondary airports such as Bankstown. (Last year the federal government rejected an application by Bankstown Airport to increase the number of flights it took, a move seen within government as a bid to become the de facto second Sydney airport.)

Curiously, the member for Bennelong, John Alexander, whose constituents stand to suffer more than most Sydneysiders as the noise increases, backs the Canberra/high-speed rail link idea, which the report specifically rejected.

And the Liberal backbencher Alby Schultz, whose electorate includes the Wilton site, says he is opposed to it based on the feedback he has received from his constituents.

The Business Council of Australia pleads with both governments to pay close attention to the report. ''It is critical for the competitiveness and growth of Australia's economy,'' the council's president, Tony Shepherd, says.

The federal government is considering going ahead with a scoping study of the Wilton site even without NSW agreement. O'Farrell has not yet even replied to Albanese's request for a meeting.

Christopher Brown, the former head of the Tourism and Transport Forum and a member of the steering committee that wrote the report, says the deadlock is ''quite literally risking the future of NSW'' and says he is ''utterly appalled if we resign ourselves to the dire consequences of doing nothing''.

But doing nothing on this issue has a long and inglorious history. The Hawke government bought the land at Badgerys Creek and the Keating government budgeted to build the airport, but then the Howard government cancelled the project, the Crean opposition reversed Labor's position and ruled out Badgerys Creek and the Rudd government confirmed that Badgerys Creek would not be the site, commissioning this study to find another one.

It is no wonder Shepherd was complaining this week about Australia's lack of political leadership and vision.

Read more: Airport chaos imminent but the cockpit's vacant

[Wally Mk2]

This debate about Syd's 2nd airport will go on 'till jet fuel is no longer avail.


Lets look at the fundamental problems here with expansion of aviation in this country, any country for that matter.
We have a major Airport (Syd) the gateway to Aus that is curfewed, that alone is a huge restriction. For the few the whole of the country suffers.
Nobody wants an airport near their home,put it in some one else's backyard, the typical Aussie way of thinking so building a 2nd drome for Syd is out of the question for the foreseeable future,too hot a political potato.

Now the biggest issue that doesn't seem to get much of mention is frequency, yes the amount of planes coming & going to an airport.
Like our roads which are cactus morning & night with traffic/cars usually holding only 1or 2 people at a time all going to the same place to work.
I know the answer to that problem is better public transport to move people in bulk but that ain't gunna happen as we have Govt's who couldn't plan/run a kids toy train set efficiently! So no fix therefor the foreseeable future.
The same scenario is happening with moving people by air. Sure the distance is greater but the end result is the same,congestion & inefficiency.
This is hypothetical for now I know but instead of trying to offer the traveling public more choice time wise to travel the service will be to destination 'A' at a certain time along with several hundred others via one large airframe (A380 good Eg ) rather than 4 or so smaller airframes taking up more space/handling than just one. Am sure cost would still be acceptable.
Sure there will be greater handling times involved getting those say 600 bums on seats but that extra time can be allowed for & won't create any extra noise or extra pollution. Yes the same 600 people will still need the same parking etc so no change there other than airports would need to plan better ways to process them,a challenge in it's own right ! This scenario is from one major city to another. Hubbing will still need to take place due our large Island we live on/in.
I know this won't happen in the near future as the 'concrete as already been poured' (current fwd planning for airframes, so called current infrastructure etc for yrs to come albeit inadequate) for the next generation or so of people movers but someone some day will have to make a long term vision for the future of air travel & that doesn't mean setting up more LCC's to move the masses cheaply,that just compounds the problem.

It's like tackling obesity by letting out ones belt a little more !!

Food 4 thought as we go round & round in circles here (& not just in a holding pattern either) with this subject, Syd's 2nd airport which I might add would take years to get up & running, 10 yrs or so!!

Wmk2

[neville_nobody]

The larger aircraft theory is the one spun by Mac Bank however they are not spending any money on improving the infrastructure to handle it. Even if you wanted to run widebody aircraft domestically SYD to MEL/BNE/OOL/PER YSSY cannot cope as you couldn't park the things anywhere. QF terminal could handle it, maybe, but the VB/Jetstar/Tiger terminal would have to be either demolished and rebuilt or extended down to the GA, neither of which will happen in a hurry.

You then have all the dramas of moving all the people around the airport at the same time. It will actually create more bottlenecks as they will be larger numbers of people around at peak times. Then there's the parking and public transport

SYD is a lost cause as a airport as long as we have 1940's ATC rules/no real public transport/curfews/movement caps. Change all that and YSSY will work as it is. Mac Bank will obviously try to drag it out for as long as possible as they have the monopoly power but the only serious solution is to build a proper large airport at Badgery's Creek and turn YSSY into a suburb.