Originally Posted by Chief galah
(Post 10620271)
Can anyone explain the logic behind having a taxiway system west of the proposed runway?
|
High winds today have reduced ops to 16/34 and likely to be that way for most of the day. Some flights cancelled as a result.
|
Originally Posted by MELKBQF
(Post 10620832)
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 If only all those damn factories weren't there....... In my 'somewhat later' Melways, the proposed parallel 16/34 was over to the west about where the current control tower is. |
Originally Posted by GA Driver
(Post 10623083)
If only all those damn factories weren't there.......
In my 'somewhat later' Melways, the proposed parallel 16/34 was over to the west about where the current control tower is. |
Slightly OT but does anyone know the reason for extending V north of 27/09 up to C?
If 16 is in use no one is exiting at C and heading southbound down A so no conflict there, if 34 is in use then no one is going northbound on A so no conflict there either. The only benefits I can think of are: 1. Makes it easier for the tugs to go up and down A 2. Reduces the impact of works on that part of A Neither of which seem significant enough to me to really justify it. |
The CFMEU will decide if there will be another runway built and where it may go. Probably going to have to wait until they have drained every last available dollar from rail crossings and metro tunnels first though. Ten years at least.
|
Originally Posted by JustJoinedToSearch
(Post 10623781)
Slightly OT but does anyone know the reason for extending V north of 27/09 up to C?
If 16 is in use no one is exiting at C and heading southbound down A so no conflict there, if 34 is in use then no one is going northbound on A so no conflict there either. The only benefits I can think of are: 1. Makes it easier for the tugs to go up and down A 2. Reduces the impact of works on that part of A Neither of which seem significant enough to me to really justify it. |
Hopefully Melbourne-Tullamarine gets its 3rd runway and also an airport train.
long talked about, never delivered. North-South orientation surely makes more sense. If Melbourne authorities were so concerned about noise abatement, Melbourne-Avalon would have been a great option to expand. |
Hopefully they build a new parallel runway and close any crossing runway.
The last thing we need is another SYD where if the wind get above 20 knots they close a majority of the airport. Having no crossing runway would eliminate the need for any closures and keep everything moving. |
Proposal is for ILS on R34L and R and consequent lowering of airspace over the bay from LL4500 to LL2500 to facilitate.
|
I really wish they would just get on with it. And perhaps be a bit more ambitious with timeframes. They said it ‘could’ be ready by 2027, but they said more like 28 or 29. See you mid next decade.
The whole train thing is just embarrassing. A decade or two talking about it. Then a decade to build the train line. Only in Oz. |
Originally Posted by aussieflyboy
(Post 11321318)
Hopefully they build a new parallel runway and close any crossing runway.
The last thing we need is another SYD where if the wind get above 20 knots they close a majority of the airport. Having no crossing runway would eliminate the need for any closures and keep everything moving. No, another parallel runway (34L/16R) is about the only thing that makes sense and even then, probably only when the new Terminal is built - otherwise we'd get another "SYD 3rd runway" situation and nobody down here wants that.. |
Originally Posted by Roller Merlin
(Post 11321321)
Proposal is for ILS on R34L and R and consequent lowering of airspace over the bay from LL4500 to LL2500 to facilitate.
|
I really wish they would just get on with it. And perhaps be a bit more ambitious with timeframes. They said it ‘could’ be ready by 2027, but they said more like 28 or 29. See you mid next decade. The whole train thing is just embarrassing. A decade or two talking about it. Then a decade to build the train line. Only in Oz. Australia = showbags. Big, fat and full of ****. |
Originally Posted by tossbag
(Post 11321579)
So, on the one hand you wish they'd get on with it, but you correctly identify that Australia is an infrastructure **** hole. The world has fast trains, Australia has pieces of **** that look awesome on the outside but are as fast as an uber milking a fare in peaktime.
Australia = showbags. Big, fat and full of ****. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:03. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.