Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
HKG - Proposed 3rd Runway  
User currently offlineCX711 From Singapore, joined Jun 2011, 46 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6722 times:

Hong Kong Govt has recently started a public consultation on whether to build a 3rd parallel runway for the airport. I have a question and wonder whether any A-netters have any info or opinion. I know projected numbers have been given on the number of additional flights the 3rd runway will allow.

Given the hills in the NE direction and the presence of other nearby airports in the Pearl River Delta which will also grow in traffic, will they be able to do simultaneous take-offs or landings, as in other airports with parallel runways? Parallel landings towards the SW seems tricky. What will the new approach flight paths look like? If parallel T/Os and Landings are not possible, what is the benefit of a 3rd runway?

Right now, the airspace seems quite crowded judging by the approaches taken on landing.

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9230 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6641 times:

Quoting CX711 (Thread starter):
wonder whether any A-netters have any info or opinion

I think it is needed, at the present rate HKIA will be at full slot capacity in around 4 years. On top of that there are presently a large projected demand in passenger growth, and around 200 aircraft on order for airlines in HKG, with rumour of more to come.

The third runway will to the north of the second, and will also include an additional terminal.



There is not much that can be done about the airspace, until China moves more of its airspace control from the military to civil control. With RNP approaches, it would be possible to have corridor from the NW/NE to handle arrivals onto the northern runway, it will just takes political will for that to happen. Presently arrivals basically need to track to the south of HK before approaching the airport.

Expanding the airport would be a big boost to the HK economy, more info can be found on this website http://www.hkairport2030.com/en/



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4964 posts, RR: 40
Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6616 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 1):
I think it is needed, at the present rate HKIA will be at full slot capacity in around 4 years. On top of that there are presently a large projected demand in passenger growth, and around 200 aircraft on order for airlines in HKG, with rumour of more to come.

I think you are completely right with your post Zeke. HKIA at Chek Lap Kok is a beautiful airport for a truly magnificent city (I need to visit it again  ). But with the expected growth to come the best option for the airport is the third runway and second terminal building.

It already looks magnificent on the overview drawing. To prevent problems and restricted economic growth in the region, they better start building soon. That will prevent the situation where f.e. London Heathrow and Gatwick airport find themselves in.  .


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6387 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 1):
more info can be found on this website http://www.hkairport2030.com/en/

This looks very similar to what MUC is trying to do. But that link indicates a capacity of 102 movements/hour for the 3 runways. Surely this is a typo? A far-spaced third runway should enable to handle around 120. What is HKG's current capacity? I guess around 90?


User currently offlineflyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6342 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 1):
There is not much that can be done about the airspace, until China moves more of its airspace control from the military to civil control. With RNP approaches, it would be possible to have corridor from the NW/NE to handle arrivals onto the northern runway

We tested those last year and found them very effective with aircraft that were equipped accordingly. They are now used regularly and I must concurr with your opinion that this would be an effective way of solving any potential airspace "shortcomings"

One must however note that any runway is pointless without terminal building expansion in parallel. The system can only be as strong as the weakest link, and if the terminal buildings cannot handle much more additional passengers, there is little incentive to build a new runway. Especially when this is coupled with the costly process of reclaiming land   



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineCX711 From Singapore, joined Jun 2011, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5825 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 1):
With RNP approaches, it would be possible to have corridor from the NW/NE to handle arrivals onto the northern runway, it will just takes political will for that to happen.

Hi Zeke, do you mean that with RNP, the navigation would be accurate enough for 2 aircraft to land on northern and centre runways simulataneously? Does the flightpath for landing from NE take it near Tai Mo Shan (3000ft peak)?

Thanks.


User currently offlinecloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5576 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 3):
But that link indicates a capacity of 102 movements/hour for the 3 runways. Surely this is a typo?

It's not a typo. That's all I can comment on as I am involved in the project.

Current capacity is 61/hr rising to 68/hr ultimately under the current 2-runway system and airspace constraints.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 4973 times:

Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 6):
It's not a typo. That's all I can comment on as I am involved in the project.

Current capacity is 61/hr rising to 68/hr ultimately under the current 2-runway system and airspace constraints.

Thanks, in that case there must be some other airspace restriction that I'm not aware of, as a two far-spaced parallel runway system should be able to handle 80-90 ops per hour, not 61-68.


User currently offlinecloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 4901 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 7):
Thanks, in that case there must be some other airspace restriction that I'm not aware of, as a two far-spaced parallel runway system should be able to handle 80-90 ops per hour, not 61-68.

Muchuen vs Hong Kong: you get the gist.




A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4865 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 4824 times:

I presume that eventually a 4 runway will be needed, but given space constraints I guess it won't be independantly spaced from the new North rwy... (ie one will be used for t/o, one for landing ala LAX)


56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 4709 times:

Wimpy airports, Heathrow regularly does 90 moves per hour on two closely spaced runways!

User currently offlinecloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months ago) and read 4639 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 10):
Wimpy airports, Heathrow regularly does 90 moves per hour on two closely spaced runways!

Hmmmm~ The same company which consistently delivers 90+movements per hour at Heathrow is advising Hong Kong. Not a lot of people possess this sort of expertise. Easy to criticize in a comfortable position on the sofa.

[Edited 2011-06-26 07:18:49]


A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlinesuperhub From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2006, 478 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4435 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 10):

HKG has a large amount of heavies which need to be spaced out a lot more - hence the decrease in hourly movements


User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3038 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4391 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 10):
Wimpy airports, Heathrow regularly does 90 moves per hour on two closely spaced runways!

Yes but Heathrow doesn't have 3000m mountains, an international boarder and regular tropical winds to contend with does it ?


User currently offlineac033 From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2008, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4330 times:

I read this on the Chinese new paper "Ming Pao" , that they are building a shorter runway (around 2700M) to handle growing mainland China traffic(majority operated by narrowbody) and for landing only. I have no idea how accurate this is, but sounds pretty convincing.

User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4284 times:

Heathrow is 45% heavies, cannot do simultaneous approaches, has a considerable amount of runway crossers, sits in one of the busiest pieces of airspace in the world, is 99% full, sits in a relatively small area, has several other busy airports in the area, does all but 16 of the moves in a 17.5 hour day etc etc

They don't do bad really!

[Edited 2011-06-26 10:59:07]

User currently offlineFoilcat From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2001, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4267 times:

a shorter runway.... amm.. that is not ture i think. HK Govt only convinces us to accept 3rd runway proposal, which is shown in HKAA website. 1st option (dual-runway option) is just a fake consulting.

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4113 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Zeke's image is very interesting. HKG will need a 3rd runway and more gates to meet the projected 15 year growth. Heck, even a 3 runway airport will forfeit a huge amount of transfer traffic to competitors.  
Quoting CX711 (Thread starter):
will they be able to do simultaneous take-offs or landings, as in other airports with parallel runways?

Because only 1 of the 3 runways will be used in simultaneous OPS, only about 60% of the potential additional capacity will in fact be added.  
Quoting zeke (Reply 1):
at the present rate HKIA will be at full slot capacity in around 4 years.

Even the low growth basis will make operations at HKG very constrained by 2020. In other words, it is already past time to have the bulldozers in action!

Quoting ac033 (Reply 14):
I read this on the Chinese new paper "Ming Pao" , that they are building a shorter runway (around 2700M)

Considering how many European airports opt for 2500m, 2700m should save cash but provide enough crosswind allowance for flights within China, to Japan, to Korea, and other destinations within 1500nm.

I could see how a shorter 3rd runway would make economic sense. I would like to see the economic benefit analysis between 2700m and 3000m runways. I suspect the under-water geography limits, economically, the runway to certain lengths. Obviously they must pay to get to a minimum length (say 2200m), but would go for the longest 'cheap' runway possible. 2700nm sounds like a reasonable length. Obviously not for HKG-JFK/LHR, but certainly suitable for above a third of the flights.  

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4964 posts, RR: 40
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4060 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 17):

Even the low growth basis will make operations at HKG very constrained by 2020. In other words, it is already past time to have the bulldozers in action!

Well, sometimes construction can go very quick in Asia. But when it comes to reclaiming land, that takes time. It is a process which hardly can be accelerated. "We" Dutch know all about that.  . So I agree with your comments, they should start the work on the expansion of this already fantastic airport a.s.a.p.   .


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3952 times:

Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 8):

Muchuen vs Hong Kong: you get the gist.

That does explain a lot!   In which case, the case for HKG expansion becomes even more evident, 61-68 per hour is far too low for a major intercontinental hub like HKG.


User currently offlinecloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3860 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 15):
Heathrow is 45% heavies, cannot do simultaneous approaches, has a considerable amount of runway crossers, sits in one of the busiest pieces of airspace in the world, is 99% full, sits in a relatively small area, has several other busy airports in the area, does all but 16 of the moves in a 17.5 hour day etc etc

They don't do bad really!

Corrections: Heathrow is 38% non-mediums, can do independent parallel approaches but currently prevented from doing so for environmental reasons, has a considerable amount of runway crossers but manages them very well, sits in one of the busiest airspace in the world designed primarily around and for Heathrow, is 100% full, sits in a modestly sized area, has several busy airports in the area, does all but 16 of the moves in a 17.5 hour day etc etc

Actually people admire our operational efficiency and use us as the benchmark of success. We don't do bad really!



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineStanleyJ From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2010, 29 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3775 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 9):
I presume that eventually a 4 runway will be needed, but given space constraints I guess it won't be independantly spaced from the new North rwy... (ie one will be used for t/o, one for landing ala LAX)

Found this PDF study a while ago from CUHK:

http://www.baf.cuhk.edu.hk/research/...s/files/Final%20Runway%2029Nov.pdf

... if you skip to page 72 (page 69 of the actual doc), you'll see options C, D & E as possible 4-runway configs, where D is all wide spaced. It'd all just about fit into HK's territorial waters, which IMO not actually a problem, since part of Shenzhen became Hong Kong when the border river up north was straighten... the infamous Lok Ma Chau loop, so if need be they can always extend HK's territorial waters to give more space for any HKG enlargement.

However, the daft thing about the proposed 3rd runway (full PDF here: http://vps.hongkongairport.com/mp2030/TR_24May_Eng_Full.pdf) is that even if it is built now and ready for 2020, a 3-runway would hit saturation circa 2030. Considering the lead time there may be...what about the 4th & 5th (wouldn't be wide-spaced). The masterplan for CAN has space for 5 runways and SZX getting its 2nd real-soon-now... strange, strange, strange.

Mind you... all this is a moot point so long as the Chinese military require planes in & out of HKG to enter Chinese airspace at around 5km(!), meaning a lot of detouring and inflexible runway usage.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3760 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 18):
So I agree with your comments, they should start the work on the expansion of this already fantastic

You don't happen to work with or for one of those Dutch companies that own the ships that would be hired out?  

I'm sure ICN would love HKG to be constrained to 2 runways.  
Quoting r2rho (Reply 19):
the case for HKG expansion becomes even more evident, 61-68 per hour is far too low for a major intercontinental hub like HKG.

  
I've read surveys showing that HKG *could* be the world's largest airport, by passenger count, IFF* they expand enough to meet the expected demand. Due to the flights to Europe and North America, it will naturally have a large number of widebodies. However, the 3rd runway will be needed for the connecting flights as well as other natural growth.

*IFF=if and only if.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3651 times:

Quoting StanleyJ (Reply 21):
Corrections: Heathrow is 38% non-mediums, can do independent parallel approaches but currently prevented from doing so for environmental reasons, has a considerable amount of runway crossers but manages them very well, sits in one of the busiest airspace in the world designed primarily around and for Heathrow, is 100% full, sits in a modestly sized area, has several busy airports in the area, does all but 16 of the moves in a 17.5 hour day etc etc

What I said although it isn't 100% full as they seem to squeeze in quite a lot of biz jets these days. Also there may be a distinction between parallel approaches and simultaneous as they have to be staggared unless visual separation is used. It is also running about 7% up on pax this year so the aircraft sizes must be due for an increase!


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3595 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting StanleyJ (Reply 21):
you'll see options C, D & E as possible 4-runway configs,

Nice link! I recommend that white paper for everyone participating in this topic. It isn't exactly a light read and can be repetitive, but the graphs and tables were quite informative.

I notice plan C is a natural expansion of the 'Plan A' detailed as the most likely 3 runway expansion. That is probably why plan A is the preferred 3 runway growth plan...   

I find it interesting to look into the airspace restrictions.

Quoting StanleyJ (Reply 21):
The masterplan for CAN has space for 5 runways and SZX getting its 2nd real-soon-now...

The Pearl river delta represents a good 'chunk' of China air traffic. For CAN and SZX to grow, they need to add the runways. If the regional connections are not possible at HKG, then growth will shift to CAN or SZX. Eventually that regional feed will enable long haul competition... So it is not in HKG's interest to 'push away' growth. It is crazy that such a large population wouldn't be provided access to air travel. Personally, I would like HKG to grow to compete for that traffic.

I find your link interesting as it illustrates which water would be expensive to add a runway (> 30m depth, page 75).
It helps explain to myself why the plans of the current airport are shaped as they are.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
25 Post contains images EPA001 : No, too bad I am not. I would like to be in the places where all this kind of work is done. I mean, to work and live in Hong Kong for a year or two c
26 Post contains images flythere : Absolutely they can, that's why they are spaced-out with all those factors in mind and then came up with such a proposal. Currently 76% of HKG moveme
27 Post contains images ghifty : Reopen VHHX. Cheapest solution!
28 Zkpilot : Nice find! well done! I think looking at those option A or option B would be the most likely. If a 4th runway was to happen then option C or E. I jus
29 Post contains links fcogafa : A few more 'facts' on Heathrow from the Telegraph today.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...city-crisis-costing-thousands.html
30 r2rho : Thanks for that very interesting link. I like the option E, as it would need less land to be claimed than C while offering similar runway capacity. O
31 Post contains images EPA001 : I remember flying out of CAN to FRA (on a Lufthansa A346 flight) that we had to depart to the South and did not fly out over China's mainland. If I r
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...
Alternatives To 3rd Runway LHR posted Tue Oct 5 2010 13:19:17 by Bennett123
Hong Kong 3rd Runway Status? posted Mon Sep 20 2010 08:40:38 by B-HOX
LHR..3rd Runway Really Make That Much Difference? posted Mon Jun 14 2010 07:08:52 by mikey72
LHR 3rd Runway Now Cancelled? posted Tue May 11 2010 16:20:17 by AirbusA6
LHR 3rd Runway Back To Public Consultation posted Fri Mar 26 2010 03:20:04 by david_itl
Alternate Location For LHR 3rd Runway posted Sun Feb 21 2010 18:43:35 by kaitak744
KUL Expands - New Terminal And 3rd Runway posted Wed Jan 13 2010 03:10:18 by MAS777
SEA 3rd Runway: Worth It? posted Tue Dec 9 2008 21:06:51 by EIPremier
LHR 3rd Runway Decision Delayed Til Jan '09 posted Thu Dec 4 2008 02:05:27 by FLVILLA
LHR 3rd Runway, Status? posted Wed Nov 26 2008 18:26:38 by B747forever