110 seater jets for Bankstown, Moorabbin, Archerfield

[BNEA320]

just read an article about how the new Bombardier C series 100 jet could land at all these 3 airports.

All they need is stronger not longer runways.

They are so quiet, noise wouldn't an issue.

With the country now completely broke, surely this would be a much better & cheaper option than building a new airport at Badgerys Creek ?

Plus dodgy Sydney Airport wouldn't have to be consulted, plus BNE's new runway is now looking like it will be finished in 2024.

What a mess BNE will become by then.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Oh just stronger runways. Is that all?
No problemo, just tell the tower to up the pavement strength a stage or two!!!

Bzbzbzbzbzbzbzbz

[BNEA320]

yep stronger runways

think pavement strength/stronger runways same thing

[nitpicker330]

I think Mr Buzzy knows what you mean.

He's making the observation that making those runways stronger isn't simple or cheap...

[Horatio Leafblower]

All they need is stronger not longer

I've been telling chicks this for years.

[Wizofoz]

And by what measure is this-

With the country now completely broke,

even remotely true?

Australia has one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in the developed world!

[VH-XXX]

I'm not sure how anyone could think that building infrastructure and potentially spending millions based on a specific aircraft type can be a good thing...
But then again, some said that about the A380.

[Wunwing]

BNEA.
Why would you define the country as "completely broke"?The election is over and its time for the spin doctors to go back to their holes. According to the financial papers that I'm reading, Australia is awash with cash looking for somewhere to invest. A product of our superannuation system.

But here is where our system falls down as a result of a poorly thought out privatisation of monopoly assets/dash for cash of a previous version of the current team blue. In selling airports, Telstra etc for the maximum cash they failed to think through the end results. In the case of airports they are now owned by either companies or local government.

In the case of local government all expenditure is seen by residents as competing against allocations for roads, libraries etc.Under those circumstances it is almost impossible to justify spending money to upgrade a runway.

In the case of a company it is also hard to justify a runway upgrade when a nice shiny industrial park, trucking terminal or tourist trap(sorry, terminal shopping) will return much more/$.

So who funds the upgrade? The Government can't because the facility is not theirs anymore. So we are back to the original problem which is not that as a country we are broke. We aren't. Just that our privatisation of monopoly assets model is flawed. The ROI model does not work for monopoly infrastructure which in many cases is why the government rather than private enterprise built them in the first place.

Wunwing

[Capn Bloggs]

Australia has one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in the developed world!

So you think the gummit should spent with gay abandon to get our debt level up to the same as other countries? We have billions and billions of debt which you and I and my kids have to pay off; I'm in no mood for those jokers in Canberra to borrow even more, thank you.

[Wally Mk2]

I always love the way people throw around the words "Australia has one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in the developed world".... That might well be the case & it looks good on paper but we don't live in any other place than here, we live in Australia not the rest of the developed world where compared to them we are in great shape that's a COS (Crock Of Sh1t) to make the dumb asses Pollies feel good for their incompetence, we have massive debt thanks to the outgoing clowns & as 'Bloggsy' said we now have to pay for it.

"WW" that's a good way of looking at the mess we have regarding certain infrastructure.
The concept of using these smaller high cap jets at our smaller dromes is just a pipe dream on paper. The added cost of the necessary infrastructure such as security, added RFFF costs, the pavement (as has been mentioned) the Ldg system capabilities, the buildings needed for such a crazy stunt not to mention the public transport & parking req's needed, all pie in the sky stuff, ain't gunna happen here.




Wmk2

[mcgrath50]

Oh FFS macroeconomics is not the same as balancing your chequebook. Debt is not necessarily bad, it is the levels of debt and what that debt is being used for that can be bad. Similarly a surplus is not always good if it is attained the wrong way. There is some argument to be had that the fire sale of public assets to attain a surplus was not the right way, there is also some argument to be had that once that surplus was obtained we shouldn't have given away so much money in tax cuts etc in the lead up to the GFC, both Howard and Rudd were guilty of this in 2007.

How you view these arguments obviously depends on the economic school of thought you subscribe to and I'm not about to debate that here but for the love of god please can everyone in Australia stop taking the simple view that surplus is always good and is a sign of a competent government and debt is bad and is a sign of incompetence.

Have you noticed how the tone about the economy has changed from the coalition the closer they got to government? It is because at a macroeconomic level we are doing ok. The initial response to the GFC was excellent (more to do with Treasury than Rudd I'd say) and although we should be closer to getting back to surplus than we actually are it isn't the total stuff up many people believe.

[Nulli Secundus]

Infrastructure development can sometimes appear a double edge sword. Do you spend or don't you? Will it be worth the effort and what if you just leave the project on the shelf and leave the money in the bank? I've never dealt in billions of dollars so its hard to precisely convert these figures to a personal comfort factor.

What I can say is, before taking a politicians view (& to be honest, Australian politics is, & has been over 10 odd years, unfortunately less about good policy and much more about personal career development) I convert the numbers back to figures which give me perspective.

So here goes. The average household debt in Australia is a little over $151,000 (Melbourne Inst.). The ABS prefer to use a mean value of household liabilities of $120,000. So, nationally 'we' have private household debt to repay which is distributed across each household.
At the same time 'they' (the government 'household') has a total liability of circa $400 000 000 000. The Australian workforce is currently circa 11,648,000 people with an average national annual gross income per person of $77,262.

Now here's the kicker:

Part A - Govt V Average Household
It will take your household just over 71 weeks to turn over your total household liabilities.
It will take your government 'household' just over 22 weeks to turnover its total liabilities.
Your household debt situation is 3.22 times more precarious than the government's.

Part B - Investment
Anecdotal evidence indicates household investment in owner occupied renovations/ enhancements is not declining.

We all often repeat the published or spoken word but how often do we challenge the premise of the argument? Are we 3.22 times worse money managers than our government representatives or are they 3.22 times better?

[YPJT]

Looking at the available code 3 runways for BK AF and MB only rwy 11C at bankstown has the protected approach gradient for jet aircraft. So the problem with this idea might extend well beyond rwy PCNs.

[Oktas8]

I suspect that the citizens living in proximity to Bankstown might have something to say about the idea of turning it into a busy regional hub. Ditto for Archerfield, Moorabbin. Any airport established or expanded in the middle of suburban housing will very soon be hamstrung by curfews and noise complaints. Does the OP know about Essendon?

Assuming that existing airport expansion isn't possible, it's cheaper in the long run to build a new airport in a rural or industrial area, and protect it from housing development. It's that last factor that sinks many airports, and unfortunately there's not much will to establish and enforce housing restrictions in Australia.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Re. YSBK, last report by the owners that was available, the "upgrades" mooted for the master plane were financially unaffordable, unless the landing fees for the master planned movement rate was going to be eye watering ---- which is hardly going to attract airline customers, particularly as the likely operators have shown precisely zero interest so far.

Every few months some hopeful floats off an idea to run scheduled services, but I will take a very small bet that the sundry shareholders of Archerfield, Bankstown and Moorabbin will not spend many millions of $$$$ (the upgrade for YSBK was going to be $50M+, not including the cost of disruption to local operators) without a reasonably assured ROI.

[601]

given away so much money in tax cuts

They don't give money away. The Gvment does not have any money to give away.

The Gvment reduced the income tax rate, that is, the amount of money they took from us.

[BNEA320]

wouldn't be QF or VA

but the likes of Rex that would want to fly into Bankstown with jets, like the new CS100.

+ lots of other jets could then use Bankstown with a full load, eg. BAe146's !!!

Also much much cheaper & quicker to put down a new runway than build a whole new airport.

Talk of Richmond as a short term measure is a waste of time, unless the Air Asia's/Scoot s of this world could get in & out of there cheaply.

[OverRun]

The C series -100, is a code 3C aircraft (like a 146) and the -300 is a code 4C (like a 737). So the CS-100 aircraft would fit in with the concept of old 2005 Bankstown masterplan (but that may not the concept today).

Assuming the CS100 is being used which is the 110 pax version, with very provisional figures of a takeoff run at MTOW (53 t) at ISA of 1219m (and 11/29 is already 1416m long) and a 30m runway width requirement (11/29 is 30m wide), it would fit onto the runway.

The 11/29C runway PCN is not published, but can be estimated as a very provisional PCN 10/F/C/1050/U. The CS-100 ACN is not yet released by Bombardier, but has been estimated elsewhere as a very provisional 34/C at MTOW. The strength upgrade to the present runway so as to take the CS100 is estimated as about 200mm of asphalt. To overlay the existing runway (no extension), and overlay taxiways and aprons to suit, is probably about $5 million. Add for the grooving, lights, shoulders, works area, WSOs (say $4 million), and then double it to cover all the add-ons of planning, design, approvals, paperwork, more paperwork, etc. With GST, it is about $20 million. However Australian capital cities are notorious for costing more than a reasonable estimate, so it might cost $25-30 million for the pavement alone.

Wally Mk2 mentioned a list of other things needed. Security $2 mill, RFFF $12 mill (if their building needs upgrading), ldg system $1 mill, terminal $15 mill (for up to 1 mill pax/yr), parking $10 mill if some multistorey is needed (because there is little space left). All up - $40 mill and after considering my earlier comment about reasonable estimates (or should that be unreasonable) – perhaps $50 mill. Together with the pavement, the total might be $75 million.

That's quite a lot of money for what can only be a "single runway" airport with limited pax numbers. Assuming an arbitrary limit of 1 million pax annually at Bankstown, and with payback in 8 years [same as Heathrow Terminal 5], this would be $20 per one way ticket ($40 per return) added to the fare. I suspect that private shareholders would want a shorter payback periuod, and the fee is more likely to be $30 per oneway ticket.

[LeadSled]

That's quite a lot of money for what can only be a "single runway" airport with limited pax numbers. Assuming an arbitrary limit of 1 million pax annually at Bankstown, and with payback in 8 years [same as Heathrow Terminal 5], this would be $20 per one way ticket ($40 per return) added to the fare. I suspect that private shareholders would want a shorter payback periuod, and the fee is more likely to be $30 per oneway ticket.

Overrun,
I love the wonderfully optimistic estimates for upgrading the runway centre, and enough taxiways. The subsoil conditions at YSBK are not favorable, to say the least.

The lack of interest by Rex could be accounted for by the fact that they and other existing regionals are guaranteed access access to Kingsford Smith, and YSSY is "price declared", so Max can't price them out.

YSBK is the boonies, for people who actually want to go to Sydney, or originate in "Sydney" ---- including the substantial numbers of public servants traveling intrastate.

YSBK was built partly on a swamp, with fill over cleared timber, and the water table is very close to the surface. Most of the airfield is under the 50 year flood level, an interesting problem which, in the case of the museum, was solved by building up the area by about 2M. But you can't do that to the whole place ---- because it is part of a flood plane, and there are a few surrounding properties that, unsurprisingly, are not sympathetic to Bankstown Airport Company making a buck by diverting floodwater to their properties.

The approx. (I am only quoting the numbers at a meeting on the subject of master plan consultation) figure of $55M included digging up runway centre and starting again, plus adding another (from memory) 2/300 meters.
Time scale 2 years+, at what cost to existing operators.

At the movement rates mooted in the draft masterplan, the kind of per pax figures you came up, (1M pax. PA), were nowhere near that estimate, but less than half that passenger figure.

And all this would have been at the cost of eliminating what little training is left at YSBK.

Hence the loss of interest in the whole idea.

Drop the 80 per hour cap at YSSY, and allow that there are now some very quiet aircraft, and the whole problem of capacity goes away for quite a few years, as Sydney Airport Co. well knows, hence their objection to Badgerys Creek.

Bear in mind that all that I have said about YSBK would not apply to what would be built at Badgerys, that is a whole different ball game, with a substantially different market.

Tootle pip!!

[OverRun]

Leadsled,

Some points on which we agree and disagree

1.

The subsoil conditions at YSBK are not favorable, to say the least.

I agree; you'll find my PCN is indeed for subsoil which is not favourable.

2. I disagree my estimates are wonderfully optimistic. Your quote of $55 million is for something very different to mine. Your runway is extended 200-300m which is expensive work: Canberra extended 450m for $30 million. You haven't quoted design aircraft or weights, but only rebuilding to depth. The extra length and the rebuild suggest that they were looking at heavier aircraft than I was. The CS100 is a relatively light aircraft in the scale of things, and so an overlay is practical, and inexpensive. My estimates are a lot closer than your quote. This work could all be done at night over several months, with the runway open during the day and early evening, and 24 hr/day on the weekends.

3. My estimate of 1 million pax was simply 50% of the Sydney Airport 2012 Regional Airline pax. And I ramped the Bankstown traffic steadily up over 5 years before it reached that level. As I said, it was 'arbitrary'. But it seems not too far off. To quote "Joint Study on aviation capacity in the Sydney region", the approved Bankstown Airport Master Plan 2004/05 (the 2005 Bankstown Master Plan) foreshadows up to 12 RPT movements per day (0.4 mill pax/yr for a 110 seater with high avg LF). In the draft Master Plan submitted in 2010 BAL sought to extend the provision to 32 RPT movements per day (1.1 mill pax/yr). BTW at 0.4 mill pax/yr limit, the fee would be $50 per one way ticket ($100 per return).

4. I agree with you about the viability:

YSBK, last report by the owners that was available, the "upgrades" mooted for the master plan were financially unaffordable, unless the landing fees for the master planned movement rate was going to be eye watering ---- which is hardly going to attract airline customers, particularly as the likely operators have shown precisely zero interest so far.

I was adding numbers to the discussion here so as to help quantify the size of the project and the mistake it would be.