Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Oz Govt Reviews Air Travel Rules-2nd SYD Airport!  
User currently offlineREALDEAL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 4149 times:

http://www.travelweekly.com.au/dirpl...ekly/TravelTodayPDF/10_04_2008.pdf

see bottom of page 2

future of Bankstown will now be reopened ... as well as Richmond as Sydneys' 2nd airport. Apparently SYD is talking about a low cost terminal ...

Can see Tiger with A319's & DJ with e-jets flying into Bankstown.

Could an e-170 fly in there right now, ie is there enough runway for non-weight restricted ops?

Where does that leave QF/JQ ? Using Dash8-400's ?

Also Richmond would surely be a good airport for low cost charters & LCC's & ULCC's, especially the likes of AAX who could fly into both NTL & Richmond if Richmond runway long enough for ops to KUL using a 332 or 333 ?

SYD airport in the past has apparently been very expensive fro airlines & been hard to deal with. A bit of competition & they might have to change their tune.

An LCC terminal at SYD doesn't solve th congestion problems.

57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4773 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 4058 times:

The problem is that Sydney should have a large airport to the West of the city that handles all flights Intl, Domestic, freight and some LCC flights. SYD in its current location should handle some LCC flights and be smaller than it is. This should have been done 20 years ago before SYD was fully developed...
to do this now would be very expensive and a waste of all the investment in SYD.
So all that Sydney can really expect now is a LCC airport out West and then MAYBE in 20 years or so if aviation has boomed significantly then the airports could swap roles.



54 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 4028 times:

After 50+ business trips to Australia, always starting in SYD, I would hate to think about the joys of going from the CBD to an airport 20+ miles further out than SYD.

If they do go with a second airport I can see QF pushing for retaining the old one for oneworld, with everyone else moving to the newer airport.  Smile


User currently offlineREALDEAL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 4017 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 2):
After 50+ business trips to Australia, always starting in SYD, I would hate to think about the joys of going from the CBD to an airport 20+ miles further out than SYD.

If they do go with a second airport I can see QF pushing for retaining the old one for oneworld, with everyone else moving to the newer airport.

2ndary airports could only handle domestic & trans-Tasman without major lengthening of runway at Richmond. KUL flights might be a stretch.

US flights would still operate from SYD.

QF wouldn't ever get monopoly status at SYD !!!


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4773 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3981 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 2):
After 50+ business trips to Australia, always starting in SYD, I would hate to think about the joys of going from the CBD to an airport 20+ miles further out than SYD.

Not sure what you are quite pointing out there... SYD airport is one of the closest Intl airports in the world to its CBD.
Sure an airport further out would take a lot longer to get to the city unless some changes were made (ie upgrading the highways to the airport) There is a plan to develop a highspeed rail service out west there which would of course result in quick trips to the city... especially if special carriages could be purchased (with room for luggage) and it was an express service only making say 2 stops on the way to the city.



54 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineAllrite From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 1864 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3952 times:

The problem in Sydney is that the transport links to any new airport are not guaranteed to be built in a reasonable time frame. They would, however, be announced and advertised pretty quickly!  Smile


Applying insanity to normality
User currently offlineDalavia From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 526 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3882 times:



Quoting Allrite (Reply 5):
The problem in Sydney is that the transport links to any new airport are not guaranteed to be built in a reasonable time frame.

There is already a railway within a few kilometres of Richmond that could be extended within the space of a few months (after an approval process that would probably take several years!!!) to provide a quick transport connection to central Sydney and to the existing SYD airport. The runway at Richmond can already take the largest transport planes in the world, and it is located in a relatively sparsely populated area.

It seems to be an obvious choice to develop as a second commercial airport for Sydney - or it would be if it were not located in a marginal electorate.


User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8434 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3811 times:



Quoting REALDEAL (Thread starter):

future of Bankstown will now be reopened ... as well as Richmond as Sydneys' 2nd airport. Apparently SYD is talking about a low cost terminal ...

All band aid solutions typical of governments in this country. Sydney needs a clean sheet approach, and the current budget surplus allows for it to happen. Considering this surplus is about to be dumped into the new prescribed agency Infrastructure Australia

Quoting Allrite (Reply 5):
The problem in Sydney is that the transport links to any new airport are not guaranteed to be built in a reasonable time frame.

The logical solution would be to build all the required infrastructure to the new airport as part of the overall project.


Quoting Dalavia (Reply 6):
(after an approval process that would probably take several years!!!)

Not really, if it's a federal project there are certain constitutional powers that can be used to push things forward such as compulsory land acquisitions.


User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3744 times:

Bankstown is heaps more convenient than Richmond, in spite of the rail line which could have a short spur to a terminal on the south side of the runway. You'd need a decent bus or bus/train connection to SYD, and then it would make a real lot of sense for ZL. Possibly DJ who's E-Jets would surely be able to use the runway and 73G's might with weight restrictions, but splitting your operations is not that convenient. The real question is the general busy-ness of Bankstown. It might have 3 runways, but they're all quite close together, and they get a fair bit of use now by light planes. Would scheduled ops be able to fit in between, or would you have to force out some of the general aviation?

User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 39
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3731 times:



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 4):
There is a plan to develop a highspeed rail service out west there which would of course result in quick trips to the city... especially if special carriages could be purchased (with room for luggage) and it was an express service only making say 2 stops on the way to the city.

I know there is a plan. But I'd point out that there have been many plans - and none of them have gone anywhere further than initial ideas. We already have express train services, some of them only making limited stops to the city, eg:

All stops Blue Mountains region - Penrith - Parramatta - Sydney Terminal.

Badgery's Creek is in the Penrith - Parramatta region. However, the express train services are not ideally suited to airline passengers with luggage - they are designed for daily intercity commutes. To modify them would greatly anger the regular passengers on these trains - some of whom pay upwards of AUD$1600 for a yearly ticket.


User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5551 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3708 times:



Quoting Dalavia (Reply 6):
There is already a railway within a few kilometres of Richmond that could be extended within the space of a few months

"A few kilometers"! Try across the road from & parallel to the main runway. It would probably be easier & quicker to extend Clarendon(sp) station, add turn back/terminating facilities and connect it to the new terminal via a train/people mover, like many airports already have between terminals, in a tunnel under the runway.

So easy, so logical, so it won't ever happen!


Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5551 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3685 times:



Quoting REALDEAL (Thread starter):
Can see Tiger with A319's & DJ with e-jets flying into Bankstown.

Could an e-170 fly in there right now, ie is there enough runway for non-weight restricted ops?

Where does that leave QF/JQ ? Using Dash8-400's ?

Does Bankstown even have an ILS installed. It didn't when I worked there and we were told one couldn't be put in because it would interfere with the ILS for 07 at SYD. There was IIRC a "non-precision" instrument approach using SYD Radar, is it still available and can you operate airline (RPT) services without an ILS?


Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8434 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3648 times:



Quoting Cpd (Reply 9):
Badgery's Creek is in the Penrith - Parramatta region. However, the express train services are not ideally suited to airline passengers with luggage - they are designed for daily intercity commutes. To modify them would greatly anger the regular passengers on these trains - some of whom pay upwards of AUD$1600 for a yearly ticket.

Maglev to central  wink 


User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 39
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3571 times:



Quoting Bill142 (Reply 12):
Maglev to central wink

I wish - but that's as likely to happen as a TGV Duplex high speed service that was promised a while back. Sad..  Sad


User currently offlineAllrite From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 1864 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3568 times:



Quoting Cpd (Reply 9):
However, the express train services are not ideally suited to airline passengers with luggage - they are designed for daily intercity commutes. To modify them would greatly anger the regular passengers on these trains - some of whom pay upwards of AUD$1600 for a yearly ticket.

But that's true of the existing rail service to Sydney Airport and I should know catching it every day during peak hour.

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 12):
Maglev to central

If they can start advertising a metro rail project supposedly to be completed by 2017 on tv already then I don't see a maglev as much of a stretch!  Smile

Out of interest, because I was driving past it over easter, is there any way that Wollongong's airport could become anything more than a couple of QF Dash8 flights to Melbourne? It's just over the road from a railway station. I would imagine, however, that Sydney's south is already well served by the existing airport.



Applying insanity to normality
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3563 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 2):
If they do go with a second airport I can see QF pushing for retaining the old one for oneworld, with everyone else moving to the newer airport.

It would have to be an all or nothing deal with lots of Compensation to Macquarie Airports for cancelling their lease. That'll soon turn a Budget Surplus into a Deficit!!

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 4):
SYD airport is one of the closest Intl airports in the world to its CBD.
Sure an airport further out would take a lot longer to get to the city unless some changes were made (ie upgrading the highways to the airport) There is a plan to develop a highspeed rail service out west there which would of course result in quick trips to the city... especially if special carriages could be purchased (with room for luggage) and it was an express service only making say 2 stops on the way to the city.

Australia is almost as good as England at building infrastructure. That is to say useless!

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 7):
All band aid solutions typical of governments in this country. Sydney needs a clean sheet approach, and the current budget surplus allows for it to happen. Considering this surplus is about to be dumped into the new prescribed agency Infrastructure Australia

No what we need is to use SYD to its current maximum potential and to stop the political interference with it. The people living around SYD have no-one to blame but themselves for the noise. So lets stop this rubbish, extend the East-West runway and or build a parallel runway to it, lift the cap to its maximum 100 to 120 flights per hour and use cross runway operations like they do in countless examples around the world. Air Services is just about to engage in yet another massive project to upgrade our ATC Infrastructure which will see every ATC facility at major airports get new equipment and there will be some new control towers etc built so its not like we can argue that it isn't safe. Once we have used our current piece of infrastructure to its fullest potential I'll support another airport and not before!

Meanwhile look at who is heading Infrsatructure Australia...............the Federal member for Granydler. And where is his electorate.............oh yeah right next to Sydney Airport. LIke he wont have a vested interest in any 2nd airport process!


User currently offlineSimes From Australia, joined May 2005, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3559 times:

There's also this opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald from about a week ago

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a...02.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

"A thriving aeropolis needs an airport in the west



Roderick Simpson
April 3, 2008


The problem with Sydney is that its geography is truly unique. We blithely, and obliquely, say "we are the most urbanised nation on Earth" as though it is something that we have consciously planned. In truth the highly urbanised nature of Sydney is primarily a consequence of being at the edge of the world, at the edge of the region, on the edge of the continent, and having most of the economic activity in the metropolitan area on the eastern edge.

This extreme concentration of activity means there is no economic hinterland or network of inland continental cities as exists in North America or Europe. Just look at the dense motorway and rail network of Europe, look at what is within 100 kilometres of Hong Kong, or Shanghai or London.

My point is this: polycentric cities in Europe or North America rely on the outer centres being on the way to something else; another big centre not too far away. At nearly 1000 kilometres, Melbourne doesn't really do much for Liverpool, and Lithgow or Katoomba won't make Penrith buzz.

This means we can't expect the desirable urban patterns of multicentred or "polycentric" cities that have emerged overseas to develop in Sydney without some very significant and deliberate intervention. And yet, so far, the State Government is relying on the concept of a "city of cities", through increased density near existing transport infrastructure, to achieve a more equitable distribution of jobs and services, improve travel patterns and public transport mode share and reinforce local identity.

The social consequences for western Sydney of continuing intensification of the eastern part of the city are fewer jobs in the west per household, which translates into car dependency to get to work. Households in western Sydney spend twice the proportion of household income on transport than in the inner suburbs, Bureau of Statistics figures show.

The only cards the Government can play when shaping the economic geography of the city are major infrastructure projects. Over the past couple of decades these have almost solely been roads. Roads can sometimes make it easier to get to some places, for example the M7, but the question then is: access to what?

So we have to create another centre of gravity for the city. The trumpcard that really counts is the location of the major airport (we can't really relocate the port). So, we had better be sure about when and where to play this trump - and the best option on the table is to build a second airport at Badgerys Creek.

Further upgrading the existing airport would put almost unbearable pressure on an already congested corridor leading to the city. Dealing with the environmental, noise and traffic effect would likely be as expensive as building a new airport and fast rail link - without any of the strategic advantages. But the worst aspect is that the more Kingsford Smith is consolidated, the less chance there is of creating another hub elsewhere, further entrenching the dominance of the eastern part of the city.

Expanding Bankstown airport would not achieve the strategic re-balancing the city needs and would have a significant effect on surrounding suburbs. Like Kingsford Smith, the economic, environmental and social costs are likely to far exceed the actual cost of constructing the infrastructure, and linking it to the rail system would be even more difficult.

The idea that the airport should be built outside the Sydney basin is even more flawed. Worldwide, airports are understood to be major structuring elements in cities, giving rise to the term "aeropolis". To locate it outside the Sydney basin would require much greater investment, fail to strengthen employment in western Sydney, increase car dependence and fail to restructure Sydney itself.

The setting aside of the Badgerys Creek site many years ago, and restricting development around it, is one of the few examples of good long-term planning in Sydney. We should not close off the long-term option of Badgerys Creek by selling it off.

Sydney's second airport should be the international airport, not the domestic hub. It should be surrounded by the freight and logistics terminals, linked to the M7 and the "western Sydney employment hub" at the junction of the M7 and M4, but the city centre will always be the centre.

The airport could be served by a very high-speed rail link that would connect it with Central. A high-speed rail link would give the polycentric "city of cities" strategy some meaning and weight. It would be the basis for the development of a network rather than the dominant radial pattern that confounds the city at the moment. Building a second airport in the west is not just about relieving congestion at Kingsford Smith, it is about changing the economic geography of Sydney.

Roderick Simpson is the director of simpson+wilson architecture+urban design."

Gotta say I agree!


User currently offlineFlyboysp From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 736 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3518 times:



Quoting Gemuser (Reply 11):
Does Bankstown even have an ILS installed. It didn't when I worked there and we were told one couldn't be put in because it would interfere with the ILS for 07 at SYD. There was IIRC a "non-precision" instrument approach using SYD Radar, is it still available and can you operate airline (RPT) services without an ILS?


Gemuser

Bankstown does not have an ILS for any of its runways. For Bankstown, there are 4 different NDB approaches and an RNAV for 11C. I'd think that it could be done, however one would hope for good weather all the time.



Felipe Baby...... stay cool!
User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3416 times:

First reaction: awww man not this s**t again!?!?! (has to be said)

Bankstown: close to lots of housing, so lots of nmbys who put up with GA but will protest/vote against commercial operations. Will need lots of infrastructure upgrades to make it worthwhile. Does it have enough space to be a really viable alternative? ie can they expand it without having to buy out home owners etc. Will airlines like QF & JQ that have major setups at SYD be willing to spend the money to duplicate services because of a second airport?

SYD: Could potentially be expanded, maybe buyout the housing directly south of the airport, turn that land into national parks etc (spotters paradise?) so that all movements south of the airport are not over housing and it should allow more movements per hour in that direction without hurting anyone. Maybe do some buying up to the north as well?

In addition the train service should be changed so it is a flat rate ticket for all journeys to/from the terminal stations, we are talking maybe $3 or $4 per person to the city, not the $10 per person or whatever it is now, ie make it such the the cost of the train for 4 people is less than the taxi trip. Route the train line so that every 2nd train heading west goes to Straithfield, Parramatta & Penrith so you can pull all those travellers in via express trains with very limited stops. From the west just make it those three stops, International & Domestic Terminals.

New Facility: To the north is national parks, to the west it is too crowded, to the south west maybe heading out somewhere towards Bowral you run into issues with fog, snow, frost etc. Dare anyone propose building it off the cost and do a Hong Kong or Dubai? It would be crazy expensive no doubt, but then you have unlimited space to reclaim, can have unlimited operations, can run 24*7 if you need to especially for cargo. Run high speed trains even the metro style from the airport and run one track to Town Hall, Wynyard & Nth Sydney, run one line as a direct extension of the new proposed metro, and run another one west to Straithfield, Parramatta & Penrith.

Given the amount of money invested by all parties in SYD, it would probably be cheaper/quicker to work on buying up properties etc to alleviate some of the issues with per hour movements than it would two invest in the second airport, and also the additional transport options surrounding it.


User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3026 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3365 times:



Quoting Sydscott (Reply 15):
No what we need is to use SYD to its current maximum potential and to stop the political interference with it. The people living around SYD have no-one to blame but themselves for the noise. So lets stop this rubbish, extend the East-West runway and or build a parallel runway to it, lift the cap to its maximum 100 to 120 flights per hour and use cross runway operations like they do in countless examples around the world. Air Services is just about to engage in yet another massive project to upgrade our ATC Infrastructure which will see every ATC facility at major airports get new equipment and there will be some new control towers etc built so its not like we can argue that it isn't safe. Once we have used our current piece of infrastructure to its fullest potential I'll support another airport and not before!

I agree 100%. However, instead of a second east-west runway, I would like to see a third parallel; in addition to more cross runway operations when possible. A third parallel could be immediately west of 16R/34L, but directly abeam 16L/34R, on land fill. It was done once; it could be done again, and would have much less environmental impact than a new green field airport, and all it's associated infrastructure.

As long as SYD's limitations are political, there is no need for a second airport. It's time to lift the cap on movements; SYD is the region's international gateway, and should remain so. It is a great airport in a great location with new or planned highway connections as well.



FLYi
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3343 times:



Quoting Jbernie (Reply 18):
SYD: Could potentially be expanded, maybe buyout the housing directly south of the airport, turn that land into national parks etc (spotters paradise?) so that all movements south of the airport are not over housing and it should allow more movements per hour in that direction without hurting anyone. Maybe do some buying up to the north as well?

There is no housing South of the Aiport.................unless you are talking about houseboats! LOL

Seriously though, the Howard government should have continued what the Keating Government started and kept the insulation and home strengthening program going. In that way people living around the Airport would now be better protected.

The other item we have Paul Keating to blame for at SYD is the appallingly political Environmental Impact Statement that the Labor Government Commissioned as part of the 3rd runway construction. That document and its manipulation by Government to basically ensure it came it in favour of a 3rd runway, has undermined confidence that any sort of fair process could be undertaken.

Quoting Simes (Reply 16):
Expanding Bankstown airport would not achieve the strategic re-balancing the city needs and would have a significant effect on surrounding suburbs. Like Kingsford Smith, the economic, environmental and social costs are likely to far exceed the actual cost of constructing the infrastructure, and linking it to the rail system would be even more difficult.

I don't know. Bankstown could turn itself into an Orange County type regional airport with a strict cap on passeger volumes to ensure surrounding communities aren't too inconvenienced by aircraft noise. Such a strategy could potentially have benefits to the South West area of Sydney.

Quoting Simes (Reply 16):
Sydney's second airport should be the international airport, not the domestic hub. It should be surrounded by the freight and logistics terminals, linked to the M7 and the "western Sydney employment hub" at the junction of the M7 and M4, but the city centre will always be the centre.

Western Sydney is not an employment hub and that's the problem. Long term planning in Sydney has seen vast suburbs dumped out West without the necessary planning of employment and infrastructure opportunities. The problem is that Sydney has expanded too far West when, in reality, we should be send people North and South of the City to the Central and Southern Coasts and then undertaking an urban consolidation program. The urban sprawl of Sydney has created the current problem and shifting infrastucture wont solve the underlying lack of planning.

In fact the classic case of the is Badgerys Creek Airport when, if the Hawke Govt had actually built it when it was recommended there would have been basically no surrounding suburbs at all to be affected by noise. The problem with the site now is that NIMBYS out West will kill any proposition to build it and the place is full of seats that neither party, if they want to hold onto Government, can afford to lose. So while that is the case there will be no second airport.


User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2701 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3337 times:

The better option is to eliminate half of the SYD - MEL and SYD-CBR traffic with a TGV (HSR) link between Sydney and Melbourne and optimize SYD. And before you tell me I don't know anything about the economics:

i) this must be a public infrastructure investment at least for the high speed line (main cost)
ii) this is the 2nd or third busiest air corridor in the world, so please spare us the "haven't got the population" nonsense
iii) city centre to city centre would be 3hrs for SYD - MEL and 1 hr for SYD-CBR and this will usually beat the air option
iv) this is the same distance roughly as Paris - Marsaille where the train has eliminated a huge % of air travel

Regional stops generate investment in rural areas due to new accessibility.

New generation TGV's and other HST's do over 360km/hr and are preferred by business travellers for all trips 3hrs and under.



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3310 times:



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 21):
The better option is to eliminate half of the SYD - MEL and SYD-CBR traffic with a TGV (HSR) link between Sydney and Melbourne and optimize SYD. And before you tell me I don't know anything about the economics:

Don't worry about the cost, they already were looking into that and the biggest problem seemed to be the best route went through national forest, even though such an easement would only need to be what, 10-15m wide the green movement was having a cow over that one back in the .. early 90s? That and the cost of the project  Smile.

High Speed Rail can be appealing for the suits in Melbourne as the airport is a bit of a drive from the city center, but not so much at the Sydney end.... but if they run it into Central Station in Sydney then you are pretty much walking distance to the city center which is good.

Assuming a travel time of 3 hours it does have promise assuming the cost of tickets doesn't price it out of the market. The only problem I might foresee is that with QF running the city flyer service you basically have a flight every hour between SYD-MEL, given the train travel time... unless the scheduling is right and the services frequent enough the travellers might find it easier to hop on the plane as they will be at home by the time the next train leaves.

Hmm... maybe not... I wonder how many seats the train service would be offering vs seats on aircraft. They might find it hard to get balance....that and QF can drop a 767 service down to a 737 if the train loadings picked up and still have a full profitable sevce.

I think in the end.... if you had Sydney and Melbourne closer together by a few hundred kilometers.... like Sydney to Canberra or a little further then you could get a lot more frequencies with a lot less trains and there in lies the true problem of the economics. A train on a 3 hour trip SYD-MEL can only run two services every 8 hours assuming a 1 hour turn around. A jet can run close to 4 services. Then given that this route is very heavily utilized by business folk ie Freuqent Flyers, they aren't going to want to give up the rewards... unless maybe someone like QF links their FF program to the train service which would encourage some to move over......

I like the idea... then i talk myself out of it... then i kinda like it again... decisive like a politician  Smile Smile


User currently offlineHKGKaiTak From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1050 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3255 times:

Oh, 2nd Sydney airport talk again ... YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll believe it when I see the first plane touch down there.  Yeah sure



4 Engines 4 LongHaul
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4773 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3216 times:



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 21):
The better option is to eliminate half of the SYD - MEL and SYD-CBR traffic with a TGV (HSR) link between Sydney and Melbourne and optimize SYD. And before you tell me I don't know anything about the economics:

i) this must be a public infrastructure investment at least for the high speed line (main cost)
ii) this is the 2nd or third busiest air corridor in the world, so please spare us the "haven't got the population" nonsense
iii) city centre to city centre would be 3hrs for SYD - MEL and 1 hr for SYD-CBR and this will usually beat the air option
iv) this is the same distance roughly as Paris - Marsaille where the train has eliminated a huge % of air travel

Regional stops generate investment in rural areas due to new accessibility.

New generation TGV's and other HST's do over 360km/hr and are preferred by business travellers for all trips 3hrs and under.

 checkmark  I think it would be an excellent investment for the federal government to make... also considering how much the current Labor Govt campaigned about carbon emissions this would be a good way of reducing them... everyone knows that over this sort of distance a high speed train uses but a fraction of the energy that an aircraft uses. Now if Australia was to develop more renewable energy sources (wind, solar etc) then its possible that the train could be zero emissions.

Quoting Jbernie (Reply 22):
Don't worry about the cost, they already were looking into that and the biggest problem seemed to be the best route went through national forest, even though such an easement would only need to be what, 10-15m wide the green movement was having a cow over that one back in the .. early 90s? That and the cost of the project .

High Speed Rail can be appealing for the suits in Melbourne as the airport is a bit of a drive from the city center, but not so much at the Sydney end.... but if they run it into Central Station in Sydney then you are pretty much walking distance to the city center which is good.

Assuming a travel time of 3 hours it does have promise assuming the cost of tickets doesn't price it out of the market. The only problem I might foresee is that with QF running the city flyer service you basically have a flight every hour between SYD-MEL, given the train travel time... unless the scheduling is right and the services frequent enough the travellers might find it easier to hop on the plane as they will be at home by the time the next train leaves.

Hmm... maybe not... I wonder how many seats the train service would be offering vs seats on aircraft. They might find it hard to get balance....that and QF can drop a 767 service down to a 737 if the train loadings picked up and still have a full profitable sevce.

I think in the end.... if you had Sydney and Melbourne closer together by a few hundred kilometers.... like Sydney to Canberra or a little further then you could get a lot more frequencies with a lot less trains and there in lies the true problem of the economics. A train on a 3 hour trip SYD-MEL can only run two services every 8 hours assuming a 1 hour turn around. A jet can run close to 4 services. Then given that this route is very heavily utilized by business folk ie Freuqent Flyers, they aren't going to want to give up the rewards... unless maybe someone like QF links their FF program to the train service which would encourage some to move over......

By the time a business person drives out to the airport from their office in the city, checks in, goes through security, boards, etc plus the delays at the other end and the drive to the office in the city again, the flights between MEL and SYD would actually take about the same amount of time as a High Speed Train. The difference for business people is that on the train they can work the entire time if they wish (ie get 3 hours of work done) and in full comunication (phone, internet). This means that they aren't wasting any of their valuble time. On a flight they might get to do something in the QF lounge, talk on the phone in the car and maybe use their laptop for about 30mins during the flight.

As for train services, each train could hold hundreds of people in comfort, and between SYD and MEL there could be 6 services per day in each direction eg leaving MEL or SYD at 0530, 0630, 1000, 1400, 1730, 1830 and arriving at MEL or SYD respectively at 0830, 0930, 1300, 1700, 2030, 2130. This type of service if it took 3 hours each direction would require only 4 trains. However a 5th train would be required for mx etc. The turn around times would of course allow for routine mx. At any one time the most trains running would of course be 4 (2 in each direction)



54 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
25 Thegeek : It's far from a lay down mizaire. You'd need less frequent services, and longer journey times even at 400km/h. So the ticket prices would probably ne
26 Zkpilot : Well I don't know those figures, going by what has been said. Because even though I love flying, aviation and everything to do with it, I do think th
27 CupraIbiza : Glad to see somenone else mention this. I have been alone on my high horse about this for ages. How he can be the responsible minister and at the sam
28 DavidByrne : Exactly. We live in the real world, not a construct in which aviation is the most important activity and outweighing all other issues.
29 CupraIbiza : Yes but this is a.net. Where we come to escape the real world!!
30 Sydscott : LOL it would be coal powered just like most other things around here. I agree a high speed rail link would be a good idea. But then I also think it s
31 REALDEAL : why ? 737's might never go into Bankstown, but e-jets & A319's might. GA can be pushed to Hoxton Park or whatever it's called. Richmond could be used
32 Flyboysp : Hoxton Park is out of the question. It is too small to cope with the transfer of GA traffic from Bankstown, and most importantly and unfortunately, H
33 FlashFlyGuy : You really have no idea, do you? As per People have been aware it is closing for a couple of years. It may have also escaped your notice ECONOMICS/RE
34 ANstar : Exactly.... currently they are limited to 80 movements per hour, when the airport can handle 120 per hour.... that is an extra 50% capcity on take of
35 CupraIbiza : How will people drive for 2 hours?? Isnt there a recession starting next week? Or is it going to be a depression now??. We wont be driving anywhere.
36 Sydscott : No it needs to be allowed to properly and fully utilise the current airport BEFORE we talk about building new airports are making others commercial.
37 Jbernie : I am guessing only the first sentence is directed to me? I wasn't anti/pro Bankstown, more I just don't see how it could work.
38 FlashFlyGuy : No, not directed to you. Just in agreement with what you stated there about 'this s**t again' Jbernie.
39 Zkpilot : Those QF mx hangers always seem to be full of aircraft whenever I look, and with QF fleet getting larger all the time where is the mx going to be don
40 Thegeek : No. It was planned to have a single runway, not long enough to allow a 744 to take off at MTOW. I remember seeing Laurie Brereton on Lateline saying
41 Zkpilot : Is this in the past few days? Otherwise AVV of course has been getting heavy mx. Offshore has been getting the overflow. What I am saying is that the
42 ANstar : The SYD MX base was not entirely QF's choice. The lease for the MX hangars was expiring and Mac Bank said that it was not renewable, so QF had to move
43 Thegeek : Don't think I said that. But SYD as an MX base will soon be a shadow of what it was 10 years ago. I wonder why MacBank wouldn't extend the lease? Do
44 Post contains links ANstar : Page 8 has a map of the planned expansion.... http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/NR/r...D03BF4B6071B/0/01_Introduction.pdf Essentially -The QF 747 MX ar
45 REALDEAL : Then the cheaper option would be to move Bankstown GA to a new GA airport. Not so politically sensitive as building new int airport. thousands & thou
46 Jbernie : Out of curiosity, and I am assuming this isn't something set in stone just yet, but with the large single aisle aircraft QF ordered for itself and JQ,
47 ANstar : That is correct... I owuld also expect them to feed an Asian hub that would extend to Europe with the 332/787's
48 REALDEAL : do u mean the twin aisle 787 ?
49 Thegeek : I believe they are planning to clear customs in DRW.
50 Jbernie : There was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald suggesting they would use DRW as a stop over for fuel/customs/??? and that they would be using the
51 Sydscott : Laurie Brereton didn't know squat about Badgerys Creek. There was a really good 4 Corners doco done back in the 1990's about SYD & Badgerys Creek and
52 ANstar : On that note I think BKK is a better hub.... SIN has too much business traffic and is already well served by QF. thailand is a great tourist destiani
53 Thegeek : Indeed. The only real problem is it's a huge deviation if you want to fly PER-ATH for example. It will work well from the east coast. SIN couldn't be
54 6thfreedom : No... QF Group 68 narrowbodies about 5 months ago, some B738s for QF, but mostly A320s and A321s for JQ. Jbernie said narrowbosy, NOT widebody! Indee
55 Thegeek : Maybe it's not that bad. And as you say, they will likely fly EK anyway, since DXB is nearly on the great circle route between PER and FCO.
56 REALDEAL : NOT domestic but international. How about eg. Air Asia X to London ? Based on sales fares OOL/KUL/OOL of AUD$309 return inc all taxes & surcharges (y
57 Jbernie : I wonder how the Frequent Flyer stuff will play into this.... there will always be people wanting the cheapest flight... but the further you fly the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Colbert Report Air Travel "ThreatDown" posted Thu Apr 3 2008 10:07:14 by Jkudall
Ashtrays In Aircraft: The Appendix Of Air Travel posted Fri Mar 21 2008 07:31:29 by SINGAPORE_AIR
HA HA HA! Saving On Air Travel posted Thu Mar 6 2008 10:48:06 by BR715-A1-30
What Effect Bird Flu In India On Air Travel? posted Wed Jan 30 2008 10:45:48 by Flysherwood
Air Travel Research Results posted Mon Jan 21 2008 10:48:24 by JMJAirways
What Lounge Does Air China Use In SYD posted Sun Jan 20 2008 16:18:09 by Sqb7e
Air Travel In Azerbaijan And The Caucasus posted Fri Jan 18 2008 08:18:43 by PlymSpotter
Air Travel And Pollution - What To Do? posted Sat Jan 12 2008 09:41:32 by Krje1980
Air Travel Research posted Thu Dec 27 2007 11:54:34 by JMJAirways
Mideast Air-travel Boom Sends Emirates Shopping posted Tue Dec 25 2007 08:47:24 by Stitch