Melbourne airport delays, why?
I believe that Melbourne airport originally planned on a parallel 16/34 but were advised by Airservices that this would create bottlenecks due to aircraft having to cross the current 16/34 to access the terminal areas.
A parallel 27L/09R seemed a perfect answer until they came up against the realities of noise sensitive areas, Essendon airport operations, loss of LAHSO, not being able to make either parallel 27/09 long enough for heavy long range departures, and so having to retain 16/34 for departures which would have to cross not one, but two, active 27/09 runways!
Hopefully they have re-thought the issue and will find the money to fill in the ravines to build 16R/34L and finance a taxiway that allows aircraft to taxi under the final approach path of 16L/34R as is the case in Frankfurt. In the meantime there is a perfectly good airport at Avalon to take airlines that do not need to interline with domestic flights.
A parallel 27L/09R seemed a perfect answer until they came up against the realities of noise sensitive areas, Essendon airport operations, loss of LAHSO, not being able to make either parallel 27/09 long enough for heavy long range departures, and so having to retain 16/34 for departures which would have to cross not one, but two, active 27/09 runways!
Hopefully they have re-thought the issue and will find the money to fill in the ravines to build 16R/34L and finance a taxiway that allows aircraft to taxi under the final approach path of 16L/34R as is the case in Frankfurt. In the meantime there is a perfectly good airport at Avalon to take airlines that do not need to interline with domestic flights.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Under the sea
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Capn - I'm listening!
Arguably Melbourne is a classic example of a monopoly sweating their assets - the aircraft all end up landing there anyway, so they get their money, and as far as I am aware the airport does not have to compensate the airlines for loss of profit due diversion or holding.
Contrary to these posts, though, Melbourne has been doing a lot of taxiway building, voluntarily put in CAT III on RWY 16, and is actively planning a parallel runway. (To continue my parrying with you Capn, none of these things were required by CASA, although they all had to be approved by CASA!)
It is good to see Melbourne ATC getting some use out of RWY 09 - for years I seem to recall they claimed they could not use it, and admittedly taxiing aircraft for departure 09 would be a pain in the A with having to cross 16. Obviously traffic pressure is having it's inevitable effect.
So why the alleged delays? Melbourne has CAT II and CAT III approaches but only on 16 and 27, however if LAHSO cannot be used then it is a single runway airport. However Gatwick 2018 movements were 283,919 and Melbourne 245,766 so having only one runway is not the problem - perhaps our ATC procedures are not as slick as the UK - but that definitely is thread drift!
Arguably Melbourne is a classic example of a monopoly sweating their assets - the aircraft all end up landing there anyway, so they get their money, and as far as I am aware the airport does not have to compensate the airlines for loss of profit due diversion or holding.
Contrary to these posts, though, Melbourne has been doing a lot of taxiway building, voluntarily put in CAT III on RWY 16, and is actively planning a parallel runway. (To continue my parrying with you Capn, none of these things were required by CASA, although they all had to be approved by CASA!)
It is good to see Melbourne ATC getting some use out of RWY 09 - for years I seem to recall they claimed they could not use it, and admittedly taxiing aircraft for departure 09 would be a pain in the A with having to cross 16. Obviously traffic pressure is having it's inevitable effect.
So why the alleged delays? Melbourne has CAT II and CAT III approaches but only on 16 and 27, however if LAHSO cannot be used then it is a single runway airport. However Gatwick 2018 movements were 283,919 and Melbourne 245,766 so having only one runway is not the problem - perhaps our ATC procedures are not as slick as the UK - but that definitely is thread drift!
Embrace change people.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is most definitely the issue. It is as much a cultural issue as opposed to an ability/talent issue. What we all need to understand about aviation is that 'things' always change. No matter how we all yearn things to remain the same. "We" that live in the aviation industry are not immune to what is occurring in all other industries.
Embrace change people.
Embrace change people.
With only 1 rapid exit on Rwy 27, 16 and 34, and none on Rwy 09 at Melbourne, if an aircraft misses the RET, the extra time on the runway has large impacts on movement rates. Missing the RET would occur most on Rwy 27, where I'd estimate it happens for 20% of movements. Gatwick has 3 RETs in each direction.
Another factor explaining some of there difference is the aircraft types in use at each airport. A quick dig through airport movement records showed that Melbourne had about 80% medium aircraft (with no wake turbulence separation needed between them and other mediums) and 20% heavy or super, with the additional wake turbulence separation needed, increasing spacing and reducing movement capability.
Gatwick had around 90% medium aircraft and 10% heavy or super. Mediums generally make the RET taxiways more often (especially if there are 3 of them!), plus have less requirement for spacing behind them. Heavy and Super aircraft also generally take longer to line up and depart, with follow on impacts on spacing and movement capability.
So yes, I'm sure there are lessons to be learned from overseas ATC operators on efficiency, but the differences in movements rates between these two airports in particular definitely involve other factors as well.
08R/26L at Gatwick is almost 1000m longer too. Adding another 1000m to 09/27 at Melbourne would make a huge difference, starting with heavier aircraft being more inclined to use it.
Another RET on RWY 27, a RET on RWY 09 east of TWY A. Parallel TWY west of 16/34 (south of TWY E) to link across at TWY J, and extend TWY Y across 16/34 as well. A couple more entry points within 150m would help with the mix and match capabilities TWY B, TWY K, TWY J, TWY C - in order of preference).
I believe the plan was (is) to extend 27R/09L at both ends. The 27 end would go back to the highway with a bridge for approach lighting and 09 as far as possible without filling in the ravine. However it would still not be long enough for the long range heavy departures.
27L/09R would not be parallel due to noise concerns near Essendon so the 09 centrelines would cross somewhere west of Melbourne airport. This required new precision approaches for curved intercepts inside the crossover point and probably precision runway monitoring of mid final!
27L would also require a displaced threshold due to the same noise issues making the runway of limited value for the investment required. And all of this so that taxiing aircraft do not have to cross 16/34, which must remain due to aforementioned heavy long range departures - a horses breakfast if I ever saw one.
As I posted Frankfurt had the same problem so go have look at what they did.
27L/09R would not be parallel due to noise concerns near Essendon so the 09 centrelines would cross somewhere west of Melbourne airport. This required new precision approaches for curved intercepts inside the crossover point and probably precision runway monitoring of mid final!
27L would also require a displaced threshold due to the same noise issues making the runway of limited value for the investment required. And all of this so that taxiing aircraft do not have to cross 16/34, which must remain due to aforementioned heavy long range departures - a horses breakfast if I ever saw one.
As I posted Frankfurt had the same problem so go have look at what they did.
