Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway  
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 12483 times:

The moment of truth has finally come. Today the citizens of Munich decide about the construction of a third runway at MUC.

As supporters and opponents couldn't agree about a common question, in a flash of idiocy, there will be TWO questions on the ballot (one by the proponents and the other by the opponents) asking the very same thing - whether the city of Munich, as a 23% owner of the airport company, should support the construction of the third runway through its vote in the company board.
If BOTH questions should gain a majority yes or a majority no, there even is a tie-breaker question...

A voter turnout of at least 10% is necessary for a decision, a threshold which has already been achieved by postal voting.
The decision is legally binding for one year. While the (very popular) mayor of Munich, a supporter of the runway, has stated that he will accept the decision no matter what the outcome, the Bavarian Minister-President, also a supporter, said that he is determined to push forward with the runway in any case and he is even prepared to simultaneously turn the Bavarian parliamentary elections next year into a vote about the airport expansion. This situation is further complicated by the fact that the mayor of Munich will then also run for Minister-President, but his party is divided about the third runway...

If the outcome is positive, it will be up to the courts to decide (who would have thought...).


Starting at 18:00 CET, when polling places close, the results will be published here (sorry, German only):

http://www.muenchen.de/rathaus/ratha...scheid2012/ergebnisermittlung.html


Let's hope that the new runway will be approved. It is necessary to provide badly needed additional slots: In 2007 and 2008, new peaks of more than 430,000 movements were reached. Since then this has slipped to some 410,000 in 2011, but there is no question that movements will increase again as the European economy recovers. Even with the recent decline, there are no more peak-time slots available.
Also, the new runway will help to increase operational stability in the winter months, when there are less movements than in the summer. While Munich is probably among the best-equipped and most experienced airports in central Europe when it comes to dealing with snow and icing conditions, closing one of the runways for snow removal still results in substantial disruptions.

Let's hope that the lies and disinformation spread by the opponents will not prevail.



Ja zur dritten Startbahn!

http://www.ja-zur-3.de/England



A342


Exceptions confirm the rule.
123 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 1065 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 12470 times:

Quoting A342 (Thread starter):
Ja zur dritten Startbahn!

        

I loved how the no camp was saying that MUC was still below capacity by 30k or so movements!

Yes has question 1, right?


User currently offlineB738FlyUIA From Switzerland, joined Dec 2009, 543 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 12447 times:

Quoting A342 (Thread starter):
Ja zur dritten Startbahn!

Great News!!!

So it will be about like this then?



Source: Google



Next Flt: ZRH-SAW-ALA Rtn on (5-13.April.14)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 12225 times:

Quoting A342 (Thread starter):
If BOTH questions should gain a majority yes or a majority no, there even is a tie-breaker question...

After looking at the questions, only the third should be there.

Quoting A342 (Thread starter):
Let's hope that the lies and disinformation spread by the opponents will not prevail.

Doubt one side is better than the other.


User currently offlineSenchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 12072 times:

Quoting B738FlyUIA (Reply 2):
So it will be about like this then?

Yes, something like that. Although the exact layout of the taxiways etc are not yet decided.
Here's another example of the future layout (please excuse if i'm not allowed to link to other sites pictures, it's my first post on a.net)
http://www.aero.de/content/pics/p_2321.jpg
Source: aero.de

Quoting cmf (Reply 3):
After looking at the questions, only the third should be there.

The problem was that the two parties could not agree to only one question, as both had their wishes for an exact phraseology.

Number 1 (For the runway):
"Sind Sie dafür, dass die Stadt München in den zuständigen Gremien der Flughafen München GmbH – ohne sich an den Kosten zu beteiligen – dem Projekt einer 3. Start- und Landebahn am Flughafen München zustimmt?"
"Do you agree that the city of Munich and its respective board in FMG - without supplying financial support - shall support the project of a third runway at Munich Airport?"

Number 2 (Against the runway):
"Stimmen Sie dafür, dass die Landeshauptstadt München alle ihre Möglichkeiten als Gesellschafterin der Flughafen München GmbH nutzt, um den Bau einer 3. Start- und Landebahn des Verkehrsflughafens München zu verhindern und dass die Landeshauptstadt München insbesondere in der Gesellschafterversammlung der Flughafen München GmbH keinem Beschluss zum Bau einer 3. Start- und Landebahn zustimmt?"
"Do you agree that the city of Munich shall use all possibilities as a shareholder of FMG to avoid the construction of a third runway at Munich Airport and that the city of Munich shall not agree for a construction in the meeting of shareholders?"

Should both parts have a majority, question 3 is a tie-break question.

Let's hope the result will be positive, even though Mr. Magerl is already stating that they will use all possibilities in case of a "yes for the third runway" to fight back....

Ja zur 3.!


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 11929 times:

Quoting LOWS (Reply 1):
Yes has question 1, right?
Quoting B738FlyUIA (Reply 2):
So it will be about like this then?
Quoting cmf (Reply 3):
After looking at the questions, only the third should be there.

Correct on all accounts.

Quoting LOWS (Reply 1):
I loved how the no camp was saying that MUC was still below capacity by 30k or so movements!

Yeah, they claim the new runway is not needed due to the lack of demand. Then they say that even with two runways, MUC can handle more than 500,000 movements, 520,000 to be exact, that's some 35k more than LHR ever head (yeah right   ). And IF the 3rd RWY is built, they fear the noise and emissions that result from 700,000 movements...

Btw, their figure of "more than 500,000 movements" was supposedly determined by a DLR (German Aerospace Center) study. DLR denies this:

http://www.muc-ausbau.de/media/downloads/klarstellungdlr040612.pdf


In fact, according to Airport Council International statistics for January and February 2012, MUC is the world's third busiest two-runway airport after LHR and CAN. CAN wil open a thrird runway next year, but the growth of MEX could keep MUC in third place (How does MEX manage so many movements with two closely-spaced runways? Many movements at night when MUC has a curfew?):

http://www.aci.aero/cda/aci_common/d...?zn=aci&cp=1-5-212-231-233_666_2__

Quoting cmf (Reply 3):
Quoting A342 (Thread starter):
Let's hope that the lies and disinformation spread by the opponents will not prevail.

Doubt one side is better than the other.

In this case, I dare say yes. Opponents didn't shy away from spreading misinformation like the city would have to partly finance the new runway, that the airport was subsidising fuel (!!!) in order to attract new flights, that the airport never reached its growth targets in the past and so on. Many posters of the pro-side were destroyed, too.
Of course the proponents aren't very eager to talk about issues like noise, but, at least to my knowledge, they never spread false information or tried to hamper the opponents' campaign.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 11688 times:

Polling stations have closed. Can't wait for the outcome to be announced!


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11931 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 11550 times:

Quoting A342 (Thread starter):

Starting at 18:00 CET, when polling places close, the results will be published here (sorry, German only):

http://www.muenchen.de/rathaus/ratha....html


Here is a:

Google Translate link...

Not much posted yet.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineLOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 1065 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 11540 times:

And already the site is having trouble!

User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 11484 times:

Results now online for 33 of the 320 polling stations. Currently looks like a 56% majority AGAINST the runway. I pray that it'll change...


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlinebavair From Germany, joined Jul 2011, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11443 times:

101/320 polling stations makes it 56.3% against  

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12421 posts, RR: 100
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11438 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is a big deal. Germany is voting if they control the hubbing or letting chance decide. There was the same decision with FRA and night ops and the decision was made to send the night ops where the competition dictates.

But this isn't just Germany. Many developed metropolitan areas are hobbling growth. That doesn't mean there won't be growth, it just won't be at that airport. Its almost as if they think globalization was a fad that will go away... Since there is plenty of room to grow at secondary and tertiary airports, it just shifts where the hubbing will grow. (e.g., IAD, CLT, DXB, etc.)

Quoting LOWS (Reply 1):
I loved how the no camp was saying that MUC was still below capacity by 30k or so movements!

In other words, less optimal flight times...    Once an airport is beyond 85%, the remaining slots are not of high value unless there is supreme demand in/out of the metropolitan area not being met (e.g., LHR). That number tells me MUC needs more slots at ideal hubbing times just for the sake of LH growth there.

Quoting Senchingo (Reply 4):
it's my first post on a.net

Welcome! I hope you have many years of enjoyment. You did well setting up that photo for a new member.

Quoting A342 (Reply 6):

Polling stations have closed. Can't wait for the outcome to be announced!

I so hope MUC decided to grow.

Quoting A342 (Reply 5):
MUC is the world's third busiest two-runway airport after LHR and CAN. CAN wil open a thrird runway next year, but the growth of MEX could keep MUC in third place (How does MEX manage so many movements with two closely-spaced runways? Many movements at night when MUC has a curfew?):

What is interesting is how few really busy two runway airports there really are. LHR is an abnormality in that most capitol airports have at least planned to be grown beyond two runways. e.g., BKK will grow to 4, CGK to 4, KUL to 5, IAD was built to fix capacity issues as was CDG. While there is some reason to compare MUC to other two runway airports, most of the other busy two runway airports lack the curfews *and* will grow. For example, ICN has already grown to the 3rd runway and has plans to make it up to 5 runways with a vague statement of potentially more future growth!

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineLOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 1065 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11387 times:

56,6 Against (82.533 votes)
43,4 For (63.228 votes)

162/320 stations in.

Hopefully good old Horst will send it through anyway.

The third runway will benefit not just Munich...but all of Bavaria.


User currently offlineMUCramp From Germany, joined Apr 2011, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11354 times:

Quoting LOWS (Reply 12):

Hopefully good old Horst will send it through anyway.

Even he can´t. This is not 1975-Bavaria anymore...


User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2253 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11354 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 5):
Yeah, they claim the new runway is not needed due to the lack of demand. Then they say that even with two runways, MUC can handle more than 500,000 movements, 520,000 to be exact, that's some 35k more than LHR ever head (yeah right ). And IF the 3rd RWY is built, they fear the noise and emissions that result from 700,000 movements...

The figure seems accurate, and LHR is a perfect example that it can be done.

LHR's current capacity is 480,000 movements (one runway for landers, one for takeoffs), if they use both runways for landing and takeoff, i.e in mixed mode, that capacity increases to 520,000, matching bang on the capacity of MUC.

LHR has been testing mixed mode ops i believe these last few years. With no 3rd runway there, they will need to operate in mixed mode in the near future just to meet demand.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2012-06-17 11:08:59]


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12421 posts, RR: 100
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11330 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LOWS (Reply 12):
56,6 Against (82.533 votes)
43,4 For (63.228 votes)

   Will the mid-east hub carriers at least send some nice flowers as a thank you?

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineLOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 1065 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11106 times:

Quoting MUCramp (Reply 13):


Hopefully good old Horst will send it through anyway.

Even he can´t. This is not 1975-Bavaria anymore...

If this is only for the City, can he not put it through?

Other than the city of Munich now being obliged to vote against it, surely the MUC board is for it?


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 10901 times:

292 of 320 stations in. 54.5% against...

What a sad day, MUC is now on the way to become a second Heathrow...   

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 14):
The figure seems accurate, and LHR is a perfect example that it can be done.

LHR's current capacity is 480,000 movements (one runway for landers, one for takeoffs), if they use both runways for landing and takeoff, i.e in mixed mode, that capacity increases to 520,000, matching bang on the capacity of MUC.

LHR doesn't get a few weeks of heavy snowfall each year, at most just a few days...



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineSenchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 10783 times:

Just talked to a person in charge right there... Seems like there won't be a third runway anytime soon....  

User currently offlinePlaneInsomniac From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 647 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 10398 times:

Yup, it seems that it's Game Over for the third runway for the foreseeable future:
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soz...-stoppen-wohl-ausbau-a-839408.html

"Euch geht's wohl zu gut". München - the new embodiment of a town where everybody flies twice a month but opposes airport expansion because it is "irresponsible".



Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2497 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 9310 times:

This is really frustrating. MUC was doing everything right from a PR point of view, avoiding the mistakes of Stuttgart21... it was a very well organized campaign to mobilize people in favor. MUC is one of my favorite airports and one of the best hub facilities in the world... this would have put them at the level of AMS, MAD, CDG or the new FRA... now their highly succesful development is capped and they are condemned to remain behind.

I for one shall now look forward to any new frequencies from EK. Too bad for MUC...

Press release (German) from MUC, regretting that they were unable to mobilize a silent majority in favor of the 3rd runway, and sees a missed opportunity to continue MUC's success story.

http://www.munich-airport.de/de/micr...ediathek/pm/2012/q2/pm37/index.jsp

[Edited 2012-06-17 15:11:06]

User currently offlinebiztom From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 1 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 8610 times:

...I didn't dare to hope, but Munich's citizens showed today a very respectable common sense ! They didn't believe the empty promises of bavarian politics, airport officials and "VIP"s, who tried to make people believe MUC wouldn't have a future without a 3rd runway in an unbearable campaign.
MUC is a good hub, it had a good growth, but we need no second LAX in bavaria. The growth was primarily caused by the limited capacity at FRA in a phase of growing air traffic, and the generation of hub traffic. For a city of 1,4 mio inhabitants, a catchment area of some 5 mio people, Munich provides very good connections to all parts of europe and a lot of intercontinental routes. I cannot understand the necessity of further growth. In my opinion some bavarian politics and some officials suffer from megalomania. "Bigger, better, faster, more..." This is not the state of mind that makes people love bavaria !
There will be no neverending growth in air traffic ( oil price, economic downturn...) as the supporters of the 3rd runway claimed. And with the opening of Berlin's BBI hub next year, another competitor will offer frequencies and capacities.

So - be happy with your nice existing airport including two independent operating 4000m runways, and accept the democratic will of your citicens. This was a very good day for bavaria !

BIZ


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12421 posts, RR: 100
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 8488 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why is it that people do not realize that the airport growth would have had a nice job multiplier? Some of the traffic will have to eventually relocate to a city with less constrained growth. The big issue will be for LH to grow the connections. This will be like NRT, passengers will go to where connections are easier.

All of the US based airlines with room fot hubbing expansion thank the voters. US in particular desires an aircraft to further fragment the TATL market. With night curfews at FRA, BER, and MUC and constrained expansion it will be easier for US to compete. There is a phrase in business "grow from strength.". Bavaria just said let the growth be elsewhere.

Those who think the growth will all go to BER need to realize the customer will decide where the growth goes once the decision is made to constrain it. CLT, IAD, IAH, DFW, And other US airports will happily fragment the market. Since there will be fewer US connections, this will also make it easier for EK, QR, EY, and other hubbing airlines to the East.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4692 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 8462 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 6):

Read on another website the votes are against 3rd runway & expansion of the terminal...

Sad day indeed for Munich, however happy day for Germany qualifying for the quarter finals in the Euro 2012...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15489 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 8426 times:

Well add this to the list of reasons why I have no patience with European whining about Middle Eastern carriers taking their flag carriers' lunch money. Seems like every sheikh is building himself a new airport and Europe can't even add a runway.


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
25 cmf : Just because they can't add more movements doesn't mean they can't grow. But the bigger and more important question: Is growing making things better
26 Post contains links EK413 : Here are 2 images I have sumbled across... http://s14.directupload.net/images/120416/ki5rqkdn.jpg http://s7.directupload.net/images/120416/h3c3jrwv.jp
27 thenoflyzone : and MUC doesn't have nearly as bad night restrictions as LHR does. So i consider MUC to have a slight advantage in the regards of aircraft movements.
28 LOWS : No. This was only for the third runway. I still think it would be possible for Seehofer (the leader of the Bavarian government) to build the runway b
29 sharktail : YES. Growth allows people to live where they live today and schools to continue to operate and hospitals to not close. If you don't believe growth is
30 cf6ppe : Went to MUC in 1996 during October Fest to attend a vendor meeting. It seemed that MUC is somewhat distant from Munich - maybe 80 - 100 km. (Please co
31 LOWS : Yes, that's more than double the length. It's about 30km. It just feels like it takes forever, because the Sbahn (S meaning „Schnell“ or „fast
32 cmf : Growth can happen in many different forms. It doesn't need to be increased number of flights or number of people employed. I agree that negative grow
33 MUCramp : I don´t see any way to put it through in some different way as the city of Munich, Bavaria and Germany (the three MUC owners) have to all agree on t
34 MUCramp : It doesn´t depend on the quater of the MUC shares, unfortunately. Regarding such desicions there has to be unanimity between all three stakeholders
35 Unflug : No, since This is written in the statutes of the "Flughafen München GmbH". Currently the board cannot decide to build the third runway, since one Bo
36 cuban8 : If European airports continues to be restrictive with the amount of runways and curfews, I guess this will in the long run be in favor for the A380 op
37 r2rho : This was not some crazy mamooth project, based on speculation or growth for the sake of growth. It was a very sensible and well thought out expansion
38 PanHAM : A saturated country gambles its future away. It won't happen fast, but the kids which are born today will suffer from the inability of today's generat
39 N14AZ : Which kids? Germany will loose its current role in anyway because the current generation decided that getting kids is too exhausting. Who shall desig
40 something : So when will the people who voted ''against'' now reimburse what is almost half of the other people for the jobs and revenues forgone? FRA has to reim
41 Ferroviarius : Good afternoon, personally, I am quite happy about the decision. There definitely is much too much air traffic in central Europe. A lot of it could be
42 Post contains images Aquila3 : I won't worry. You will get as many (foreigner) kids you want. Just let the door open. They will design, produce, sell and even consume and recycle y
43 Post contains images N14AZ : This is actually the only chance we have left, if fully agree with you. Cheers! I am writing these lines while I'd better prepare myself for a busine
44 PanHAM : I'm not worrying about that too much since this is self-regulating. In my business and family environment reproduction takes place. All these young c
45 airbazar : But on the flip side MUC is predominantly a European hub so night ops aren't as relevant. IIRC, MUC has more European flights than FRA. Hence why a 3
46 Ferroviarius : I am frequently in Munich, parts of my family are living there, and I do, indeed, prefer Munich or Zurich (as well as Arlanda, if possible) as hubs a
47 lightsaber : True. But during commercially viable times they will have to substitude one flight for another. Is that the customer preference? Displaced traffic ha
48 r2rho : I has to be noted as well that the participation was of only 33%, so the result, while binding for the city of Munich, is not necessarily the most rep
49 airbazar : But you can't have medium/long-haul without short haul which feeds the long haul flights, and there lies the problem and the need for more runway cap
50 PanHAM : that is up to the individual trveller to decide and the market. For me, the airport is closer than FRA central station. Just to mention one. ICE trai
51 Post contains images lightsaber : Let's not forget that as new hubs are created, the expectations for that hubbing experience are increasing. To those against expansion: I'm not willi
52 speedbird128 : Accepted most certainly. But in the future be prepared to possibly connect via FRA to wherever you may need to go... I don't understand in Germany wh
53 Revelation : Rightly or wrongly, some seem to feel that adding more runways will make their airport into the kind of mega-hub that they would prefer to avoid, so
54 Ferroviarius : Well, the idea is to have the feeder flights replaced by feeder trains!
55 Wsp : Democratic would have been to have a vote in the entire region that depends on and is affected by the airport. And 32% voter participation hardly mak
56 eurowings : That's really quite common across Europe to be fair. It could be much worse, look at LHR, it's at bursting point with just two runways!
57 LAXDESI : Fully agree. Excellent post. Thanks, and keep them coming.
58 Post contains images airbazar : It seems they just did But feeder trains cost a lot more than feeder airplanes, and there is just as much opposition to train expansion as there is t
59 Aquila3 : Well, that is one of the defects of democracy. It does not ensure that the best decisions are taken, just that the decisions that suit the majority.
60 mikey72 : Oh join the club. And MUC isn't even your prime airport. Imagine how frustrating it is over here !! (UK) The NIMBY's will all be the first to moan wh
61 PanHAM : that's what we have at FRA since long. Still, it does not replace feeder flights. Except a few, like CGN/FRA which became obsolete. however, at the s
62 sweair : Lets hope the NIMBYs will pay the price. They deserve to lose their living and then live with their decisions.
63 AS739BSI : Then they will complain when most things are going Problem is, there isn't enough true high-speed lines to reduce that travel. Sure there are many 200
64 Post contains images EPA001 : You are totally right. But nowadays, especially in Europe, people are afraid of the future. And in reaction to that they stick to what they have and
65 Post contains images lightsaber : I estimate the earliers the no voters could realize their mistake is seven years (more likely 15 to 20). I estimate political 'discussions' will occu
66 Post contains links and images Senchingo : I'd like to share some memories, statistics and facts about MUC with you, just for the sake of discussion. I can very well remember the time when we s
67 Post contains images lightsaber : Thank you. That chart is incredibly informative. It says that MUC is in reality impacted. There are a few usable slot pairs there, but not many. I've
68 PanHAM : The temporary end of a great success story. I haven't really followed the campaign by the pro fraction, what went wrong there? LH's reaction is to str
69 Post contains images r2rho : I have, and it's really hard to say, IMO they were doing a lot of things right. Lots of communication, lots of information, public events, open debat
70 Semaex : I read the news on the matter yesterday and I was deeply frustrated by the outcome. What I found particularly strange on the matter is the following:
71 Post contains links LOWS : It has been open for a few weeks now. Finally. Now comes the news that some in Tirol and Salzburg are considering legal action against MUC for failur
72 Post contains images PanHAM : They don't take legal action, they are moaning... There is no base for legal action against votes. But basically the hoteliers and others are right in
73 Ferroviarius : I am not sure whether feeder trains cost a lot more in densely populated regions. The TGV goes directly to CDG, the ICE to Francfort Airport. Once th
74 something : Germans have become a very peculiar people. I read in the ''Hamburger Abendblatt'' this morning, that the SPD and the Greens are planning to introduce
75 PanHAM : Define "feeder trains" - that can be everything from high speed to local trains. DUS and FRA have both , MUC has only 2 local train lines which stop
76 Aquila3 : It could be. Myself, if I had to choose a city in D I will have no doubts about Munich. For the people, for the possibility to work (ok, not for the
77 PanHAM : Won't happen, driven by techology is almost family owned, large stock holding by the Quandt family. I am still confident that this is a lapsus and th
78 DLPMMM : Ummmm, I was on the ICE Sunday from Paris East Station to Frankfurt....it did not stop at FRA airport...we had to change to a local train at the Hbhf
79 mikey72 : Governments in Europe are parlaysed by.... - fear of alienating an increasingly fractured electorate - appearing tyrannical in the face of ridiculous
80 Post contains images speedygonzales : The location near Freising makes it inconvenient for long distance trains to stop at MUC. If it had been built between Dachau and Gröbenzell instead
81 Revelation : We read here that an EU government decides to not to build a runway. It's as predictable as pissed off Australians and dirty AF planes. All we need n
82 A342 : In fact, MUC was planned with FOUR parallel runways and this was approved by the Bavarian government. However, judges who found the growth forecasts
83 Post contains links bavair : As previously mentioned, the Bavarian government continue to want to push this project forward. According to airliners.de, all planning will continue
84 Semaex : Careful with the phrasing when translating. They are not considering legal action, they are just complaining. However, they have the right to complai
85 Ferroviarius : While not all long distance trains operate FRA, many do. That's why they even have built another train station at FRA, where there are now platforms
86 Post contains links and images Senchingo : It says "Repräsentativer Tag im Sommer 2011" (average day in summer 2011) written under the table. So this data is not even using the peak times of
87 Post contains images LOWS : And especially with the Greens in government, and Häupl giving them (from what my Viennese friends tell me) basically whatever they want. Isn't Skyl
88 A342 : Missed that, thank you!
89 cjpark : Really glad the election turned out this way. Freising is a favorite city for me in the area. The area will survive just fine without the runway.
90 sweair : It not the old Germany we knew before the reunion. Its turning out more like Sweden, the green left will bring it down like so many other countries.
91 Post contains images cmf : Is that the customer preference? The just had vote Seriously, I think the premise is wrong. It isn't so much about choosing between viable destinatio
92 PanHAM : WOW!!! I'm flabbergasted. That's a new definition of representative democracy. You should get a copy right on that. Or could it just be that they cou
93 Post contains images lightsaber : It is an option, but its always better to 'grow from strength.' MUC has grown and that is likely due to far better O&D RASM and volume. Right cap
94 sbworcs : Very true - I did a test a few weeks ago when my brother in law had to go to Glasgow from Birmingham. His firm insisted that he use train. I priced a
95 LOWS : The booking engines on Bahn.de can book a journey throughout most EU countries (UK excluded). At the very least, Bahn.de and the ÖBB's SCOTTY can sh
96 lightsaber : Why aren't those databases in the travel systems? They search sites want to sell tickets, I'm certain they would be happy to sell Airline to train co
97 LOWS : I would assume it is because trains are different. The reservation systems are, if I'm not mistaken, basically home grown (e.g. not Amadeus or Sabre
98 Post contains images cmf : No matter what the reason. By not participating they handed over the decision to the people who did. Simple as that. By definition yes. In reality, n
99 Post contains links and images lightsaber : Ah, I see where we disagree. By having transfers, MUC may offer more destinations. As the hub becomes more congested, some destinations will be dropp
100 PanHAM : Of course it is always better to grow an existing hub, but don't under estimate VIE. Many Eastern European companies have offices in VIE and high yie
101 Post contains images r2rho : I agree, but we don't agree on the definition of smart and brute To me, the MUC 3rd rwy falls well within what I consider sustainable and reasonable
102 PanHAM : The railways would have to get their act together first. Air traffic is light years ahead of rail when it comes to online booking systems. Has been t
103 Post contains links and images cmf : Fully agree. The flip side of that is that the connections enabled by the new runway are the lowest valued connections. While they add up, do they ad
104 PanHAM : If opportunities are not taken the world would have only problems. It's like with sports games, the team that does not take the opportiunity to make
105 LOWS : I think it is a technical problem. On RailEurope, I just tried some dummy bookings based on a trip I'll be taking in the Autumn. It couldn't work it
106 Senchingo : Thanks very much for this overview, lightsaber. Shows quite well that MUC is a major player as a connection hub and needs the 3rd runway to further e
107 travelin man : As a side note (not to derail the thread), there are corporate booking tools with integrated rail (Concur being the best example). Our company has De
108 MasseyBrown : Exactly. Where are the Wittelsbachs when you need them? Today's voters would reject Neuschwanstein.
109 Post contains images cmf : What a horrible explanation. It is more like a team saying the other team is so much better they don't even go out to play. The extremes are rarely g
110 Post contains images lightsaber : If a city choses not to expand, it means forfeiting certain business. By not expanding MUC, some business is forfeited. MUC is on the field today and
111 Post contains images cmf : I see what you did there Doesn't change that going after all business is rarely a good idea.
112 lightsaber : True. But, I didn't say that. But unless MUC expands there will be good opportunities missed. A city always should pursue jobs that are above its med
113 PanHAM : yes, but we are talking about booking portals in that answer. In that case rail is lagging far behind air. VIE-FRA-MUC operated by Lauda 763 under jo
114 cmf : I've never disputed it means missed opportunities for MUC, the airport. I'm saying that for Munich, the city, those opportunities may not be worth th
115 PanHAM : the night curfew are actually hindering the early morning and late evening banks. It is making turn-arounds difficult s well as connections, high yie
116 cmf : Do you actually believe what you write? How many flights have been lost? How many flights are there in the morning? I'd love to see an examples of co
117 PanHAM : I don't. Airlines are run by people and they carry people. Protests against a legal decision - the new runway is law - are OK but not on a weekly bas
118 r2rho : 120 is the "standard" at EU hubs like CDG, AMS, MAD, and FRA with the 5th rwy. I think 120 is an adequate capacity and provides ample room to maintai
119 lightsaber : "Transportation is the cornerstone a city build wealth." MUC is not strengthening that cornerstone. Everything else we're discussing is the value of
120 PanHAM : He did not, that was actually an invitation only meeting of the Wirtschaftsrat. I would not identify the company either. He said that he flies once a
121 sweair : Everything will change when the NIMBYs get unemployed with their jobs gone to asia, until that day they will keep living in a dream world.
122 cmf : It is clear that you prioritize those over others. Society is saying airlines have too much priority and thus curfews and no expansion. It is just so
123 PanHAM : Have I said there are changes? I haven't. You pick one sentence which is incomplete without the next one and imply something which was not said, not
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...
MUC Launches Pro Third Runway Campaign posted Tue Mar 6 2012 05:37:52 by LOWS
Committee 'unsure About Stansted Runway' posted Mon Dec 7 2009 04:14:12 by CV580Freak
BAA Buys Up Houses For Third Runway... posted Wed Oct 21 2009 08:38:35 by Fcogafa
TK To Decide About A380/787 Order Soon posted Fri Jul 3 2009 06:36:36 by NA
UK Government Wins Third Runway Vote posted Wed Jan 28 2009 11:52:40 by Smeg
MXP Third Runway posted Tue Nov 18 2008 02:42:15 by Beagleboys
LHR "could Get Third Runway" posted Mon Jul 14 2008 03:29:32 by BA6590
"Heathrow Needs A Third Runway" BAA Says posted Wed Jun 25 2008 06:49:26 by Talaier
Heathrow 'HAD' A Third Runway - 23/05 posted Tue Jun 24 2008 02:51:19 by Hypersonic
Munich Crash Question About BBC Report posted Thu Feb 7 2008 00:25:19 by Springbok295