Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

2nd North South Runway at Melbourne Airport

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

2nd North South Runway at Melbourne Airport

Old 14th Nov 2019, 00:25
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 13
This might be 'bye' to YMML if the NIMBYs get their way. After the delay with the proposed 09R/27L, the switch to N/S orientation seems strange. I don't necessarily think the wind modelling is the sole factor for the switch, because from a terminal access point of view the E/W runway would have been a much better option. You'd think they'd want to get a move on given the capacity will top out soon.
Cat on a PC© is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2019, 00:33
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,655
This was discussed some weeks ago here. As for wind modelling, ask yourself how many times wind direction and strength prevent 16/34 ops? almost never. Same can't be said for 09/27.

Parallel 16/34 runways are the way to go. They probably resolved this too which was stopping it. https://www.theage.com.au/melbourne-...18-p4zg55.html
compressor stall is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2019, 01:04
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by compressor stall View Post
They probably resolved this too which was stopping it.
Yes, I suspect this, but I would have thought the N/S option would have been the initial option from the start. (I haven't seen the other comments, so I'll have to track them down. Thanks.)
Cat on a PC© is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2019, 03:30
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 667
Originally Posted by Cat on a PC© View Post
This might be 'bye' to YMML if the NIMBYs get their way. After the delay with the proposed 09R/27L, the switch to N/S orientation seems strange. I don't necessarily think the wind modelling is the sole factor for the switch, because from a terminal access point of view the E/W runway would have been a much better option. You'd think they'd want to get a move on given the capacity will top out soon.
Could it possibly be that the "NIMBYs" have a reasonable argument considering the vast majority of them built houses and moved to the area being assured of a completely different runway layout???

If it does go ahead, it's just another example of how government's lie then trounce all over citizens when they complain. All for the advancement of the industry, but serious steps were taken many years ago to SPECIFICALLY outline the areas that would be affected by aircraft noise and now the rules are all changed and it's bad luck presumably???

I don't think it'd be a bad idea to invest in YMAV, it is a vast area, not terribly bordered by housing and one side of it practically faces out to sea. The size Melbourne is growing, it makes sense to start spreading the infrastructure. YMML is a crap airport in many ways... it was out of date within a year of opening with the arrival of the 747, despite the construction authority knowing years earlier that 747s were coming they still built it for 707s and DC-8s... it took YEARS to do anything about it and when they did all I see is mistake after mistake, particularly in terminal development.

So, I wouldn't be too hard on the "NIMBYs", they are just highlighting the sort of government and corporate action often alluded to in these pages for other reasons.

From what I've heard, the 'community consultation' was a bloody joke.

Last edited by AerialPerspective; 24th Nov 2019 at 04:58.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2019, 04:14
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective View Post
Could it possibly be that the "NIMBYs" have a reasonable argument considering the vast majority of them built houses and moved to the area being assured of a completely different runway layout???
Really, let me tell you the vast majority who live out in the area don't worry about it. I live further out and still get aircraft noise because I live under a couple of STARs. You can't stop progress and even though the proposed runways and noise areas have been known for years (even published in Melways), councils still allowed building underneath flight paths. If you bought a house underneath one, well . . .

YMAV is not an option. At least not for PAX. Had it been on the other side of the bay, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And if the community consultation "was a joke", well, I wouldn't disagree. It may be just tokenism, because, in the end, the runway(s) will have to be built.
Cat on a PC© is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2019, 04:35
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,655
Could it possibly be that the "NIMBYs" have a reasonable argument considering the vast majority of them built houses and moved to the area being assured of a completely different runway layout???
Um, no. Future runway alignment and aircraft noise warning have been highlighted in the Melways since the airport was built back in the 70s. Should be a link earlier in this thread now its merged.
compressor stall is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2019, 04:43
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 481
YBAD , one of the biggest airports on the planet just opened . 5 years from start to finish !
Toruk Macto is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2019, 04:45
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 47
Posts: 604
YMAV and some massive under bay tunnel work.....

Or have a look at RJBB, anything can be done.

Then again it is Straya, only took longer than settling the colonies to start work on Sidney’s second.

Just bring in the Wagners and ask them to get whatever is chosen done, Wellcamp certainly proves without the red tape what can be done.

Now back to YMML, can someone help me with my land title, I’m sure I left it on the bar in Y & J one night!
Global Aviator is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2019, 04:56
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,679
Originally Posted by compressor stall View Post
Um, no. Future runway alignment and aircraft noise warning have been highlighted in the Melways since the airport was built back in the 70s. Should be a link earlier in this thread now its merged.
It has also been part of the airport's development plans for fifty years...
Rated De is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2019, 22:51
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Global Aviator View Post
YMAV and some massive under bay tunnel work.....

Or have a look at RJBB, anything can be done.
https://youtu.be/yXbT2zL5yRA

Then again it is Straya, only took longer than settling the colonies to start work on Sidney’s second.

Just bring in the Wagners and ask them to get whatever is chosen done, Wellcamp certainly proves without the red tape what can be done.

Now back to YMML, can someone help me with my land title, I’m sure I left it on the bar in Y & J one night!
Don't worry GA I'm sure Chloe will keep an eye on it for you.

Cheers hoss58
hoss58 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2019, 09:42
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 675
Originally Posted by 73qanda View Post
I have been flying into Mel weekly for fifteen years and have landed on 09 twice!
Many years ago I/we where being vectored on to 16 at ML when App said Rwy 09 is avail, advise! We looked at each other in the cockpit and thought, have we got charts for that RWY? -) First time in 40 years!
machtuk is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2019, 20:36
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 667
Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie View Post
Remember WHY Tulla was built way out in the sticks? No houses anywhere near anything?

Then the councils allow land to be developed right up to the boundary. Then the noise complaints begin. Same as every airport in Oz.
Sorry, but places like Keilor were built up based on a certain runway configuration, per the signage that was on every boundary line for years. It's why people abandoned Gladstone Park initially and went to Keilor instead although eventually the land at GP was sold (there were half built houses and sales of land for years after though). Now the owners of the airport have allowed multiple businesses to build infrastructure where the runways were supposed to be so have changed the configuration. People in places like Keilor DID make an informed choice based on one assured way of expansion and it has changed.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2019, 20:39
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 667
Originally Posted by Rated De View Post
It has also been part of the airport's development plans for fifty years...
No, that's wrong. I have the opening book and the info from the time. The original runways were to be where the industrial estate is now. No, the rules HAVE changed and they are building it with an entirely different affect noise-wise. This is why residents, many of whom have been in the path for nearly 50 years are annoyed and with good reason.
Because government thinks it can just sell off assets then wash its hands of any consequences and then as we've seen in the media the last few weeks, apply for FOI information and you get 50 blacked out pages.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2019, 20:44
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 667
Originally Posted by compressor stall View Post
Um, no. Future runway alignment and aircraft noise warning have been highlighted in the Melways since the airport was built back in the 70s. Should be a link earlier in this thread now its merged.
Rubbish. The runway alignment in the Melways was for many years (decades) based on that in the Melbourne Airport Opening book and the big billboards all around the airport boundary. The Airport has allowed companies to develop land where the runways were to originally be, where they were to be when those residents bought their houses and now they are planning the runways significantly north of where they were going to be. You can't just brush this off as "they should have known". I know people who have been in Keilor 47 years and the runways were never planned to be like that, in fact some chose Keilor over Gladston Park for that very reason and now the government has sold the airports and washed its hands of any responsibility.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2019, 20:48
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 667
Originally Posted by machtuk View Post
hahaha I used to watch it from the back seat of my FC Holden, although missed most of the movies...lolol
Ahh the good old days. I worked out at Tulla started 1979 at the fuel depot (JUHI) back then there was always talk of a 3rd Rwy being built very soon, I guess soon wasn't anytime soon back then:-)

Side note: As most would know the drome was designed for the largest jets of the day B707 DC8 Etc so when the Jumbo Jets turned up not long after Tulla was opened it was chaos as the hydrants the gates etc needed extensive modification, I recall many a late night on the apron with crews modifying the Hydrant system that was only a few years old!:-)
Another side note (sorry): Being involved with much of the underground beneath Tulla I always laugh when I hear about a train station being already there for the future rail link to Tulla, trust me there are LOTS of hidden tunnels & locked steel doors down there, it's a rat infested rabbit warren where you could get lost & never be seen again!:-):-)
40 years latter I'm still waiting for that 3rd Rwy...………..will be another 40 years before we see it if ever!:-)
The whole thing was a government cock up, they knew for YEARS that the 747 was coming and the runways were completed years before the terminals. The terminals and infrastructure plans could have been EASILY changed but weren't so the airport was out of date within a year. Compare that with Changi and even DFW where I have seen both marketing/development material and both added 20-30% to the size of (then) current aircraft to allow for expansion. I may be wrong but I think this is one of very few LNP infrastructure projects in our history (Tulla) and it's funny that it was a white elephant. Not just the hydrants but half the aerobridges were useless once the terminal was handling mainly 747/DC-10 type aircraft. It took them nearly 25 years just to move some aerobridges in a pathetic attempt to update it.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2019, 21:32
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 447
No, that's wrong. I have the opening book and the info from the time. The original runways were to be where the industrial estate is now.
Any chance you could reproduce that graphic/info here?
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2019, 21:35
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 675
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective View Post
The whole thing was a government cock up, they knew for YEARS that the 747 was coming and the runways were completed years before the terminals. The terminals and infrastructure plans could have been EASILY changed but weren't so the airport was out of date within a year. Compare that with Changi and even DFW where I have seen both marketing/development material and both added 20-30% to the size of (then) current aircraft to allow for expansion. I may be wrong but I think this is one of very few LNP infrastructure projects in our history (Tulla) and it's funny that it was a white elephant. Not just the hydrants but half the aerobridges were useless once the terminal was handling mainly 747/DC-10 type aircraft. It took them nearly 25 years just to move some aerobridges in a pathetic attempt to update it.
Yeah the Aerobridges (gates as I mentioned) where another debacle! With a single Jumbo at one gate the adjacent gate was partly taken up by the new massive bird, seems odd now large planes are nothing new:-) Additional to all of the above the fuel storage capacity (1.6 Mill Ltr at the time total) & the 6 inch incoming line (from the Somerton 16Mill Ltr main jet storage) was also woefully inadequate only a few years after Tulla was commissioned open. The whole idea of an underground pipeline was to keep the fuel trucks off the Tulla Fwy but the supply was soon getting low daily so the trucks rolled in whist the pipeline was running most of the time. The design of the depot did have the facilities for trucks so as to keep the fuel coming during maint down time. Oddly enough whomever designed the whole fueling supply/system must have been behind the 8 ball cause the Somerton storage facility had only one large tank & when that was being filled by pipeline from the Refineries then the 6 inch Tulla supply line could not be used, go figure? In the end when I left mid 90's the storage supply was adequate for a single day had there been any supply issues & that's for a so called modern international Airport! This was all in the 70's 80's & 90's, it's changed now.
There's plenty more stories but am off track here:-)
machtuk is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2019, 08:17
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Can anyone explain the logic behind having a taxiway system west of the proposed runway?
Chief galah is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2019, 09:05
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Doomagee
Age: 7
Posts: 725
Originally Posted by Chief galah View Post
Can anyone explain the logic behind having a taxiway system west of the proposed runway?
That’s for the waterpark, shopping centre and bowling alley going in..

(did see once in the paper a water park..6 degrees and overcast in Melbourne middle of November it’ll get used for two months tops .lol)
Berealgetreal is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2019, 03:39
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 43
Posts: 104
1975 Melway showing the original second nth/sth runway proposal located where the factories and warehouses have been built.

https://digitised-collections.unimel...12&isAllowed=y
MELKBQF is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.