A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, RR: 4 Posted (11 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 11399 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):
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.
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)
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....
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:
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?):
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.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10652 posts, RR: 100 Reply 11, posted (11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 10354 times:
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.
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!
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 12 Reply 14, posted (11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 10270 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 !!
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 9817 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...
"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...
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2245 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (11 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8226 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.
biztom From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 1 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (11 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7526 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 !
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10652 posts, RR: 100 Reply 22, posted (11 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7404 times:
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.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14315 posts, RR: 26 Reply 24, posted (11 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7342 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?
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 25, posted (11 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7617 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 22):
Why is it that people do not realize that the airport growth would have had a nice job multiplier?
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 for Munich? Passenger numbers are almost triple over 20 years. Is allocating more space to factories, offices, shops and housing making the Munich better? Could it be it would make it worse? Bigger isn't always better.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
LOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 982 posts, RR: 1 Reply 28, posted (11 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7345 times:
Quoting EK413 (Reply 23): expansion of the terminal...
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 because this vote was only for the city of Munich, and they only control a quarter of the MUC shares.
sharktail From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 21 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (11 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7346 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 25): Is growing making things better for Munich? Passenger numbers are almost triple over 20 years. Is allocating more space to factories, offices, shops and housing making the Munich better?
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 good, go and look at cities that have had negative growth. Like Detroit.
There are economies of scale to think about. If you don't grow, you shrink certain functions. So you start losing vital infrastructure because it is no longer logical to operate it for the number of people. Which begins a negative spiral.
cf6ppe From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 30, posted (11 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7288 times:
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 correct me if I am grossly off.)
Apparently from comments above, MUC operations (read noise, etc.) probably wouldn't have any affect on the Munich metro area. Usually, nimby problems are facilities close at hand.
I read the complaints not unlike those not wanting additional cell phone towers, but complaining when they can't get a signal.
My dear old dad (gosh, I miss him today on fathers day) who told locals in his Kansas community not wanting a cattle feed lot because of the smell, that a cattle feed lot was the smell of money. I would liken the noise, etc. from airport operations also as the noise associated with money.
LOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 982 posts, RR: 1 Reply 31, posted (11 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7235 times:
Quoting cf6ppe (Reply 30): 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 correct me if I am grossly off.)
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“) is so slow and there are so many intermediate stops.
Quoting cf6ppe (Reply 30): sorry if my comments are off topic....
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 32, posted (11 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7131 times:
Quoting sharktail (Reply 29): 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 good, go and look at cities that have had negative growth. Like Detroit.
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 growth is bad, but it isn't what I suggested. It is a mistake to think that not agreeing with one thing is an automatic endorsement of the extreme opposite.
I'm suggesting growing within existing number of people and space. It is called increased productivity. The market tend to like increased productivity. Taking on more employees, office and factory space not so much.
As I said before, capping number of flights doesn't mean the end of growth. Just that growth must happen from larger equipment, more efficient equipment.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
MUCramp From Germany, joined Apr 2011, 27 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (11 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7006 times:
Quoting LOWS (Reply 16):
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?
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 the third rwy. Since Sunday we know: the city practicially can´t agree on it - even in the next couple of years.
Well, the city of Munich might be able to sell their stakes at MUC (so that they don´t have to vote againt it), but everyone here consideres this to be strategicially pretty ineffective.
MUCramp From Germany, joined Apr 2011, 27 posts, RR: 0 Reply 34, posted (11 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6974 times:
Quoting LOWS (Reply 28): I still think it would be possible for Seehofer (the leader of the Bavarian government) to build the runway because this vote was only for the city of Munich, and they only control a quarter of the MUC shares.
It doesn´t depend on the quater of the MUC shares, unfortunately.
Regarding such desicions there has to be unanimity between all three stakeholders (city of Munich, Bavaria, Germany).
Unflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 188 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (11 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6711 times:
Quoting LOWS (Reply 28): I still think it would be possible for Seehofer (the leader of the Bavarian government) to build the runway because this vote was only for the city of Munich, and they only control a quarter of the MUC shares.
No, since
Quoting MUCramp (Reply 34): Regarding such desicions there has to be unanimity between all three stakeholders (city of Munich, Bavaria, Germany).
This is written in the statutes of the "Flughafen München GmbH".
Currently the board cannot decide to build the third runway, since one Board-Member (the city) is forced to vote against it.
Currently does mean that things might change in the future: the decision is binding for one year only. Obviously it won't work to just wait a year, since there would certainly be another ballot if the city decided to vote for a third runway after one year. But things may change, and it will get interesting if future development shows that the airport looses money as a consequence of this decision.
cuban8 From Kiribati, joined Sep 2009, 207 posts, RR: 0 Reply 36, posted (11 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6320 times:
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 operators.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2245 posts, RR: 1 Reply 37, posted (11 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6276 times:
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 that would have allowed MUC to enter the 120 ops/hour club, as other hub airports in Europe already have, and would have surely been the last and ultimate airside expansion of the facility. It would have firmly established MUC as an intercontinental gateway on the European continent.
I always thought that one of the reasons to build MUC way out there in the countryside was to allow for future expansion - and now Munich is stuck with an far-away airport that cannot be expanded. Back in the day, Bavaria made a strategic decision to make MUC an international gateway, and this decision is now being reversed. If they just wanted to be an O&D destination, they might as well have kept the old Riem airport with a new terminal.
Quoting biztom (Reply 21): 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.
Indeed, and some of us who are not so lucky (like HAM) would kill to have even half the connectivity that MUC provides. But if they prefer to be an O&D destination and not an intercontinental crossroads then that is fine, it is Munich's choice, and it is up to them to decide on their future. But know that many people envy Munich for what they have now voted against.
Quoting biztom (Reply 21): And with the opening of Berlin's BBI hub next year, another competitor will offer frequencies and capacities.
No because BBI is already sized too small from the start. It will cater to current demand and some future growth, but as an airport facility does not provide any true competition to MUC or FRA.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24): 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
Absolutely correct. The Gulf carriers are growing thanks to the traffic that we are kicking out of Europe's airports. I laugh at all the complaints about unfair competition. But once again - it is our choice. Election after election we are kicking air traffic away, so we should not be surprised when EK, EY & co pick that up while our flag carriers struggle to break even each year.
Quoting LOWS (Reply 28): this vote was only for the city of Munich, and they only control a quarter of the MUC shares.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 38, posted (11 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6231 times:
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 generations to realise that money does not grow on trees but has to be earned each and every day.
A country without adequate infrastructure will suffer strokes. IUt is always the same, the "NO" block uses all dirty tricks to brain wash their followers, telling lies, painting over bill boards of the PRO fraction and so on. The silent majority stays home and shruggs off results, not knowing that it will hurt them in the future. Again, this has shown that the Greens are, together with the Linke, the most conservative, backwards faced parties in Germany.
OK, it is one year in which the hands of the Munich city assembly are tied. Franz-Joseph Strauss, former Bavarian PM, without whom the airport (and Airbus Industry in its today's form) would not exist, went personally to the farmers and talked them, with a bottle of Schnaps, into selling the land where the new airport was build. The farmers got a good and fair deal and the region prospers.
This way of hands-on, sleeves rolled up way of handling things is, unfortunately out of fashion these days and we do not have these charismatic politicians any longer. But this was a battle lost yesterday, not the campaign to add the needed runway..
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 39, posted (11 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5564 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 38): the kids which are born today
Which kids? Germany will loose its current role in anyway because the current generation decided that getting kids is too exhausting. Who shall design, build sell all the BMWs, Mercedes, Airbus-parts etc in future?
So the lack of infrastructure e.g. MUC's third runway, the situation in FRA etc. is one serious issue but personally I am more concerned about the current demographic development in Germany.
something From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 24 Reply 40, posted (11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5451 times:
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 reimburse people for building a new runway, so it would only be logical to apply this measure both ways.
Ferroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 177 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5361 times:
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 avoided either by avoiding unnecessary travelling at all og by using trains for un-avoidable travelling, which, anyway, are much more environmentally friendly than air travelling. It is, to my mind, really a home made problem. Travelling has become so cheap that there is created an artificial demand for even more air travelling!
Aquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 208 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5335 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 39): Which kids? Germany will loose its current role in anyway because the current generation decided that getting kids is too exhausting. Who shall design, build sell all the BMW, Mercedes, Airbus-parts etc in future?
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 your BMW Mercedes and Airbus.
I say that from big experience.
I am actually an Expat, born Emigrant (not in D) , son of Emigrants (not in D), grandson of Emigrants (in D).
And, before you think that, no, nobody of my family was ever involved with mafia or even with pizza.
chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 43, posted (11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5271 times:
Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 42): 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 your BMW Mercedes and Airbus.
This is actually the only chance we have left, if fully agree with you.
Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 42): And, before you think that, no, nobody of my family was ever involved with mafia or even with pizza.
Cheers! I am writing these lines while I'd better prepare myself for a business meeting in Italy tomorrow.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 44, posted (11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5230 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 39): So the lack of infrastructure e.g. MUC's third runway, the situation in FRA etc. is one serious issue but personally I am more concerned about the current demographic development in Germany.
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 couples want their babies and they are born into educated families. The generation in their 20ties are thinking by far more optimistic than the 68er generation born aorund 1948 who really screwed up this country,
Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 41): There definitely is much too much air traffic in central Europe. A lot of it could be avoided either by avoiding unnecessary travelling at all og by using trains for un-avoidable travelling,
Who's deciding that? You? Certainly not. Flights that cannot get slots at MUC or another European airport will take place elsewhere. . We have an excellent train infrastrtcure, I have made three long distance trips within the last week, all trains could not have accomodated the passengers from the equally full flights. The rail infrastructure is as stressed as the air infrastructure, with the exception that air is by far more flexibvle than train.
The new runway could accomodate about 40 flights per hour going anywhere in the world. Flights that don't pay their way are replaced by profitable routes. Rail can't do that.
Now, this result is binding for one year, since both the 2 big parties want the runway it is up to them to smoothen the path. One year delay is OK.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6869 posts, RR: 7 Reply 45, posted (11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5193 times:
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 27): 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.
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 3rd runway was needed. Think lots of flights per hour with small planes, during a limited time of the day. You go to MUC at 1pm or 10pm for example and the airport is a vast concrete desert. LHR, not so much, thanks to all the intercontinental operations.
Quoting r2rho (Reply 37): I always thought that one of the reasons to build MUC way out there in the countryside was to allow for future expansion - and now Munich is stuck with an far-away airport that cannot be expanded. Back in the day, Bavaria made a strategic decision to make MUC an international gateway, and this decision is now being reversed. If they just wanted to be an O&D destination, they might as well have kept the old Riem airport with a new terminal.
MUC's first big mistake was not to build 3 runways from the beginning. They knew that a 3rd runway was going to be needed within 15 years of the airport opening. They had seen the FRA and LHR saga to build a new runway. It was a mistake not to build it when they had the green light to do it.
Quoting r2rho (Reply 37): Absolutely correct. The Gulf carriers are growing thanks to the traffic that we are kicking out of Europe's airports. I laugh at all the complaints about unfair competition. But once again - it is our choice. Election after election we are kicking air traffic away, so we should not be surprised when EK, EY & co pick that up while our flag carriers struggle to break even each year.
I don't buy that. The Gulf carriers, like the LCC's are creating their own traffic. There hasn't been a traffic decrease at the major European legacy carriers. What they are suffering from is lower yields, thanks to price pressurs from the Middle Eastern carriers. More runway capacity is not about to change that.
People in aviation like to blame governments and NIMBY's for their problems but it wasn't the government who decided to install the crappy lie flat business class seat in LH's new Business class, instead of fully reclining flat beds. Those didn't last long and are now being replaced with a propper product. But the money has been wasted and people voted with their wallets. It's not the government who is forcing me to pay $100 for a second checked bag when I fly between the US and India. EK does not charge me $100 for a second checked bag.
Ferroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 177 posts, RR: 0 Reply 46, posted (11 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4998 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 44): Who's deciding that? You? Certainly not. Flights that cannot get slots at AND OLD: Munich - Riem (MUC / EDDM) (closed), Germany">MUC or another European airport will take place elsewhere. . We have an excellent train infrastrtcure, I have made three long distance trips within the last week, all trains could not have accomodated the passengers from the equally full flights. The rail infrastructure is as stressed as the air infrastructure, with the exception that air is by far more flexibvle than train.
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 and try to avoid crazy Francfort. While being a frequent Munich airport user, I still do not use the plane for short distance travel.
Concerning your (important!) statement on the rail infrastructure:
The seating capacity of one ICE-3 16-car train exceeds 800, a double TGV Duplex has more than 1000 seats etc. pp. While the capacity of the European High Speed Rail lines is not yet saturated - even the old, classic lines block signalling sytems allow for one train each 3rd minute - the capacity of the main train stations would have to be adapted if the train circulation frequences would rise to levels much larger than today's. AND there would have to be more trains, of course.
I am not quite sure whether planes are more flexible than trains. There, obviously, are more train stations than airports, and using the plane also involves going to and from an airport, which in general is considerably longer than travelling to or from a train station. This said, I am aware of the problem with, e.g., the four different electric main line systems in European countries (15kV AC 16 2/3 Hz, 25kV AC 50Hz, 1,5 kV DC and 3kV DC) and different gauges on the Iberian Peninsula (and Ireland, and Russia and the Baltics), but these problems can be solved / have been solved without increasing traffic volume. Also, it still is a political issue if, e.g., a not French / German built train is circulating on French / German lines, the unions don't like it at all. This, however, is a political, not a technical issue, which, in similar form, exists in air traffic, as well (will AF ever order RR engines?).
The issue, to my mind, is that air planes should be used for the type of travelling, where they really are necessary, i.e. medium and long distance travelling. Thus, capacity problems at airports could be circumvented.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10652 posts, RR: 100 Reply 47, posted (11 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4907 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 25): Just because they can't add more movements doesn't mean they can't grow.
True. But during commercially viable times they will have to substitude one flight for another. Is that the customer preference? Displaced traffic has a habit of finding a different home other than intended or just disapearing (job destruction).
Quoting cmf (Reply 32): I agree that negative growth is bad, but it isn't what I suggested. It is a mistake to think that not agreeing with one thing is an automatic endorsement of the extreme opposite.
It is tough to walk the fine line of low job growth and prosperity. Just ask Japan. For other regions will grow. On a global basis, it doesn't matter if oil goes to $250/bbl, there will be a growing middle class who travels. Is MUC and the Bavarian region going to participate in that growth? The answer is obviously yes. But how much? I do not consider one runway with a night curfew the extreme opposite. Far from it. Going to 4 runways and 24/7 operations would be. Let's bracket what extreme is before declaing the other's argument there.
Note: I do not consider this decision extreme either. I respect the voters decision. I just wonder if Europeans realize how much constraining their hub airport growth has enabled not only the mid-east airlines, but the LCCs. Not growing MUC means fewer connected cities for MUC and thus easier competition for the airlines based in hubs that can grow.
Will MUC provide the high demand non-stops? To large point to point markets, there will naturally be a fligth added. That soon will mean another flight cut or at least displaced to a less ideal time slot. Perhaps by displacement with high speed rail. But the competitors on the other side of the Atlantic based in CLT or IAD won't be cutting flights. They'll just add as economics dictates. The mid-east carriers also won't be cutting. Nor those at the large growing Asian hubs. This old routes that were once viable will drop in profit as there will need to be connections to sustain them. With fewer growth connection opportunities, as each flight is cut it will fractionally weaken existing routes due to reduction in connections.
There is a phrase in industry: "you grow or you rot."
While many European hubs will have limited growth, what happens if IST is indeed replaced with a new 4 (or more) runway airport designed as a mega-hub? Demand for connections to Africa and Asia will grow. There people will join the middle class and thus start traveling far more no matter what we debate on a.net. The question is where the demand growth will be met. Air travel demand doubles about every 15 years. The signs are growth is accelerating, not slowing, from that standard. While European air travel is unlikely to double, why not provide that service? Make money off us Americans connecting to new destinations.
Or let someone else do it. There will be new airports built. 400 runways are expected over the next 15 years. That means new air travel opportunities to where there wasn't an opportunity. It will be tougher to make those new connections without slots...
Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 46): Thus, capacity problems at airports could be circumvented.
Just as inconvient airports are circumvented. The One example: NRT is now mostly O&D for Tokyo. When the Tsunami hit, most hubs adapt by discounting connecting traffic to make up for a local drop in O&D traffic. How can that be done when the hub does not provide the level of timely connections the market now expects? Connections now provided at ICN, PEK, PVG, and HKG. My point is the level of service expectation grows. MUC based airlines will now have a tougher time meeting those expectations. A third runway would have made it likely that MUC would be the better choice of many competiting hubs that have two runways and even the mega-hubs that many wish to avoid.
While well connected airports to rail will substitute, it needs to be done as invisibily to the purchaser as buying an connecting airline ticket. I know for flying corporate travel to Europe, it isn't there. The ability to prove the train was the cheapest solution in one click shopping isn't in the AMEX search engine. Since various accounting laws require proof that contract provisions are being met, it is up to the individual rail networks to get into all of the systems. It can be done, but I'm not seeing the progress needed to make it a viable business solution.
I wish more people would read 'Wealth of Nations', 'Lexus and the Olive Tree/The World is Flat', and 'Birth of Plenty'. Those books combined, none on their own, explain how enabling infrastrure enables economic growth. They also explain how there will be competition.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2245 posts, RR: 1 Reply 48, posted (11 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4888 times:
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 representative.
Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 41): A lot of it could be avoided either by avoiding unnecessary travelling at all og by using trains for un-avoidable travelling,
I would gladly take the train more often, but it has to made competitive. Incidentally, the same kind of people that oppose the 3rd runway have also been blocking attempts to build new high speed rail lines. Should we just all stay at home then?
But having said that, I believe both things are complementary. We're not talking about a mamooth airport expansion here, but a very reasonable expansion to 120 ops/hour that had always been in the planner's minds and which would surely be the last and final one. Together with a decent long distance rail link to connect MUC with the rest Bavaria (and parts of Austria) it would be win-win (it was a mistake not to build any long distance train connection to MUC; and the ICE line completely bypassed it...).
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6869 posts, RR: 7 Reply 49, posted (11 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4879 times:
Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 46): The issue, to my mind, is that air planes should be used for the type of travelling, where they really are necessary, i.e. medium and long distance travelling. Thus, capacity problems at airports could be circumvented.
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 capacity because all those "feeder" flights need to arrive and take off at roughly the same time. Hence why it's called a hub.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 50, posted (11 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4864 times:
Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 46): The issue, to my mind, is that air planes should be used for the type of travelling, where they really are necessary, i.e. medium and
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 trains go to France and TGV to Germany, no problem.
The problem is, that the core lines are full, no slots available and getting all the pax that go by air from MUC to HAM, BER, HAJ and from FRA to the same cities on the rail it is virtually impossible. High speed rail has reduced air traffic but it cannot and should not replace it totally. For many reasons.
Europe with its single market opens up many new business opportunities and travel to many destination can be by air only. Rail travel takes simply too much time and doe snot allow same day back and forth.
MUC has developed over the 20 years it is in service to a viable hub airport. It started as a mainly European hub but lh is now develoiping intercont services there. Growth can be served by introducing larger aircraft, LH is going to 90 seaters feeder aircraft as the smallest and many long distance are A346 already. But there are more cities available for service now, especially with the opening of Eastern Europe which is an argument for a third runway to cope with the increased number of flights.
I haven't followed the campaign in MUC and don't know which mistakes have been made by the PRO fraction. Fact is, they could not activate the silent majority and the naye sayers with their usual lies and desinformaiton have done it again. Like in Berlin when THF fell victim of an anti campaign.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10652 posts, RR: 100 Reply 51, posted (11 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4828 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 49): 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 capacity because all those "feeder" flights need to arrive and take off at roughly the same time. Hence why it's called a hub.
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 willing to give up another day with my family unless it cannot be avoided. Who would? I will find the connections, within corportate travel policy, that cut the travel time. Hence the demand for fragmentation and frequency. I have a friend who does not sleep well on planes (any class); but he usually takes 'sleeper flights' as it means one more day with the family even if he has to make an extra connection to make it happen (he isn't sleeping anyway...). He and his wife are considering moving if it means more family time.
I hope people have read or will read the books I suggested. It really shows how each customer makes their own decision based on their own criteria.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 50): But there are more cities available for service now, especially with the opening of Eastern Europe which is an argument for a third runway to cope with the increased number of flights.
But lets not forget so much of the growth will be in Africa and Asia. MUC is well placed to hub to those destinations. But that requires the feed traffic.
Quoting r2rho (Reply 48): Incidentally, the same kind of people that oppose the 3rd runway have also been blocking attempts to build new high speed rail lines. Should we just all stay at home then?
What happens is the children of Bavaria would have to travel and return home less often for job opportunities. Pehaps this means, at least temporarily, they live abroad. That satisfies those who do not wish to build more housing nor expand transportation. But they will go find positions. What fraction won't return home? (Hint: My office is full of people who moved to Los Angeles temporarily and stuck around.) I have friends who have upset their parents as they are not returning back to Los Angeles as the opportunities in China were too good to pass up and look to be their permanent new home. Grow or rot... The middle ground is next to impossible to acheive. It doesn't have to be over the top growth. Something minor...
speedbird128 From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1134 posts, RR: 2 Reply 52, posted (11 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4743 times:
Quoting biztom (Reply 21): 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 !
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 why there is such anti-futureproofing attitude towards things.
Same as in frankfurt where its blah blah blah nachflugverbot blah blah blah remove the new runway blah blah blah. If you ask *why* its "well, because". or "my kids fell out of bed at 4am with a departure". Thank god Rhein-main airbase with C5's no longer operates!!!
Securing a 3rd runway would make MUC viable for a long time to come. Competition is required to prosper, something which i thought was logical here. But alas it is not the case.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10448 posts, RR: 20 Reply 53, posted (11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4665 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 47): A third runway would have made it likely that MUC would be the better choice of many competiting hubs that have two runways and even the mega-hubs that many wish to avoid.
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 they vote "no".
It seems the situation with the Berlin airports as well as FRA and now MUC says that Germany really doesn't want to have a mega-hub airport ala Dubai.
Ferroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 177 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4664 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 49): 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 capacity because all those "feeder" flights need to arrive and take off at roughly the same time. Hence why it's called a hub.
Well, the idea is to have the feeder flights replaced by feeder trains!
Wsp From Germany, joined May 2007, 444 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4658 times:
Quoting biztom (Reply 21): 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 !
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 makes for a credible result.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6869 posts, RR: 7 Reply 58, posted (11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4529 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 50): that is up to the individual trveller to decide and the market.
It seems they just did
Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 54): Well, the idea is to have the feeder flights replaced by feeder trains!
But feeder trains cost a lot more than feeder airplanes, and there is just as much opposition to train expansion as there is to airport expansion. that is especially true is car loving Bavaria. Have you tried driving around Munich at rush hour? The train does not replace the airplane or the car. It complements it.
Aquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 208 posts, RR: 0 Reply 59, posted (11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4523 times:
Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 52): 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 why there is such anti-futureproofing attitude towards things.
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. So if the majority is (just to say, of course) lazy or decadent, then you will get lazy and decadent laws.
That is EU now, be happy to be in Germany, at least.
chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
mikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2 Reply 60, posted (11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4516 times:
Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 52): I don't understand in Germany why there is such anti-futureproofing attitude towards things.
Oh join the club.
Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 52): Securing a 3rd runway would make MUC viable for a long time to come. Competition is required to prosper, something which i thought was logical here. But alas it is not the case.
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 when none of us have a pot to p*ss in thanks to a collapsed economy.
I wish I could get my hands on an operational Concorde and do endless after-burning fly pasts right over the NIMBY's turf in the middle of the night !!!
See how they'd like them apples !!!
[Edited 2012-06-18 10:57:49]
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 61, posted (11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4468 times:
Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 54): Well, the idea is to have the feeder flights replaced by feeder trains!
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 same time, the same type of people who voted agaoinst mUC 3rd runway, make it difficult to connect STR airport to high speed rail. That line would take another 6 to 7 daily flights off the maps.12 to 14 slots per day both here and at STR.
No, saturated protest voters are not necessarily travellers as well and if they are, they take advantage of the existing infrastructure.
Our infrastructure is intermodal. much more than in the US. About 5 airports in Germany have HSR or both HSR and local trains, another 6 or 7 at least suburban train connections leading to long distance stations.
The general problem is that the people are saturated and do not want any additonal infrastructure built. They want to eat the cake and keep it. They do not udnerstand that this does not work, someone not only has to bake the cake, someone else has to bring it to the consumer.
Additional runways ? NO
additional train lines? NO
additional freight train lines? NO
additional roads? NO
More freight on trains? Yes
Amazone order next day in the mail? Yes
This could be carried on.
People have an opinion on just about everything but they lack the background of knowing why things have to happen like they do.
AS739BSI From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 63, posted (11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4411 times:
Then they will complain when most things are going
Quoting r2rho (Reply 48): A lot of it could be avoided either by avoiding unnecessary travelling at all og by using trains for un-avoidable travelling,
Problem is, there isn't enough true high-speed lines to reduce that travel. Sure there are many 200 km/h lines but you realistically need more 300 km/h or greater segments. I would love to see Munich-Hamburg and Munich-Berlin connected on full length 300 km/h + lines. Doing this for more large cities in Germany would reduce in-country flying significantly. Trips that are 500-800 km can be shifted primarily to HSR, opening up slots for more profitable operations for the airlines.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 50): The problem is, that the core lines are full, no slots available and getting all the pax that go by air from MUC to HAM, BER, HAJ and from FRA to the same cities on the rail it is virtually impossible. High speed rail has reduced air traffic but it cannot and should not replace it totally. For many reasons.
I can strongly agree with you there. Especially on the >800 km segments where air travel can be much faster. Also, without air travel, it would be impossible to get across the oceans or to get to Ireland.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3590 posts, RR: 36 Reply 64, posted (11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4429 times:
Quoting r2rho (Reply 37): This was not some crazy mammoth project, based on speculation or growth for the sake of growth. It was a very sensible and well thought out expansion that would have allowed MUC to enter the 120 ops/hour club, as other hub airports in Europe already have, and would have surely been the last and ultimate air-side expansion of the facility. It would have firmly established MUC as an intercontinental gateway on the European continent.
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 oppose any change. Even if the change will improve the standards of living drastically. We have seen it in Germany many times, we have seen it in the UK many times, and I personally have seen it many times in The Netherlands.
Whatever you propose, if it is infrastructure it is guaranteed to face extremely fierce and out of proportion strong opposition. Usually based on false arguments and sentiments, but nowadays a too little number of people looks after facts, and way too many go only sentimental. The outcome will usually in the longer time be catastrophic, but most people just can not see this far and beyond the horizon.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 38): 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 generations to realise that money does not grow on trees but has to be earned each and every day.
Well, this is just a vote. If circumstances change a new vote can be called upon. Under enough pressure everything becomes fluid. And if MUC will start to feel the economic restraints, people will in the end reluctantly change their opinion.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 38): A country without adequate infrastructure will suffer strokes.
That is totally true.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 45): MUC's first big mistake was not to build 3 runways from the beginning. They knew that a 3rd runway was going to be needed within 15 years of the airport opening. They had seen the FRA and LHR saga to build a new runway. It was a mistake not to build it when they had the green light to do it.
Yes, but the three runways from the start was politically and financially not viable. So they had to go this route. They did not have to call a vote over it imho. The majority of the voters just does not know enough details about the topics, and then usually will vote against change and progress. That is one major downside of democracy. .
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 47): Note: I do not consider this decision extreme either. I respect the voters decision. I just wonder if Europeans realize how much constraining their hub airport growth has enabled not only the mid-east airlines, but the LCCs. Not growing MUC means fewer connected cities for MUC and thus easier competition for the airlines based in hubs that can grow.
By the time the no-voters will realise it, it might be (partially) too late. .
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 47): It is tough to walk the fine line of low job growth and prosperity.
It is, this example shows that again.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 47): There is a phrase in industry: "you grow or you rot."
Mostly true. So most likely it will be true for MUC as well, at least in the short term.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 47): I wish more people would read 'Wealth of Nations', 'Lexus and the Olive Tree/The World is Flat', and 'Birth of Plenty'. Those books combined, none on their own, explain how enabling infrasture enables economic growth. They also explain how there will be competition.
A very, very wise advice. And again an excellent post by you. .
Quoting airbazar (Reply 49): 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 capacity because all those "feeder" flights need to arrive and take off at roughly the same time. Hence why it's called a hub.
That is the whole truth about this possible expansion.
Still, I believe it will be delayed for say 5-10 years. In the long term the opinion will sway in favor of the 3r runway. Bavarians are usually taking wise decisions when their economy is at stake, so in time the no-voters will suffer their defeat. Especially if economic conditions will force them to. Too bad though that the long run is the only option now instead of building the runway in time for the right and prosperous future of MUC and the surrounding area.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10652 posts, RR: 100 Reply 65, posted (11 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4311 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 64): By the time the no-voters will realise it, it might be (partially) too late.
I estimate the earliers the no voters could realize their mistake is seven years (more likely 15 to 20). I estimate political 'discussions' will occupy another 5 to 25 years. Then there is 5 to 10 years to actually build what is needed.
This means the 3rd runway, at the earliest, is due in 2029 to 2067. At 5% compound growth, a reasonable rate, air travel will double every 15 years (the normal growth). Sigh... Growth happens. One must plan for it or suffer the consequences...
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 38): A saturated country gambles its future away.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 38): A country without adequate infrastructure will suffer strokes.
All good comments.
Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 54): Well, the idea is to have the feeder flights replaced by feeder trains!
Get that into Orbitz, Travelociy, AMEX, Carlson-Wagonlit ASAP! Acounting law requires proof of the purchase of the most economical trip 'within reason.' For example, for trips over 9 hours 'within reason' means a business class seat. Right now a customized AMEX or Carlson-Wagonlit search will account for costs of travel and thus why LAX-FRA and drive the rental car back practically to AMS is approved by the train requires so much hassle, no one I know will do it. (And the rental car network must be integrated if a vehicle is needed). What you suggest is possible; it is not practical with today's software. The trains networks *must* do the work.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 64): Whatever you propose, if it is infrastructure it is guaranteed to face extremely fierce and out of proportion strong opposition. Usually based on false arguments and sentiments, but nowadays a too little number of people looks after facts, and way too many go only sentimental. The outcome will usually in the longer time be catastrophic, but most people just can not see this far and beyond the horizon.
That is no good. I notice others (not you) mock infrastructure. What happened to building for 15+ years of growth? Other regions are building the infrastructure.
To others: We've had oil crisis, scares, wars, and even a depression and yet tranportation has always grown quickly long term. Humans will figure out solutions around constraints. To state otherwise is to say we're done innovating. As an engineer, I refuse to believe that. As an aviation enthusiast, I see many reasons why aviaton will grow.
There are also 400 runways planned over the next 20 years. If each runway handled a mere 5 million passengers per year, aviaton demand would triple without any growth on the current runways. That is faster growth than I envision. I hope to be shown that more optimism was required.
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 57): Excellent post. Thanks, and keep them coming.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 64): A very, very wise advice. And again an excellent post by you.
Senchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 66, posted (11 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4193 times:
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 still had Riem Airport and after it was closed (by the way the fastest and maybe smoothest transition from one airport ops to another, which took just one night. The last flight was LH737 ("Goodbye Riem, it was nice here") on May 16 1992, 23:00L departing Riem - the first flight arriving Franz-Josef-Strauß was a UA 727 at 12:45L).
I was a kid back then and after Riem closed, i got to to drive along the runway with my dad. A present which at that time was not very spectacular for me (a huge straight empty street, great!), but which i'll never forget now.
Those days, the airport was just a provincial nest and discussions about aircraft noise or pollution was not existant.
When MUC II was planned, the strategy was clear. Bigger, more efficient, and (dispite the jokes about an airport in the middle of nowhere) in an area where space for expansion was given. Nowadays, i'm starting to wonder why a 3-runway layout was not in the inital plans, but ok... Maybe noone ever dared to dream about how big this airport would get.
When Terminal 2 was built and the setup was changed to one Star Alliance Terminal and one for the rest, i was able to join the foundation stone ceremony and use my schools summer vacation to work 4 weeks on the inital testing phase for the baggage transportation system (at that time the biggest and most modern in europe, don't know if it still is).
To give you some figures comparing the kick off to now: Passengers
1992: 12 Mio. - 2012: 37,8 Mio. Flight movements
1992: 192000 - 2012: 410000 (in 2007&2008 432000) Aircargo
1992: 57000 tons - 2012: 303000 tons Rankings in comparison (since started to count)
Germany: 1995 #3 - 1999 to today #2
Europe: 1995 #12 - 2011 #6
World: 1995 #51 - 2011 #27 Workplaces
1989: 8640 - 2012: 30000
Source: muc-ausbau.de
Red = Slots taken, Green = Slots available. Lower part = Arrivals, Upper part = Departures
The majority of slots is taken here with only some minor ones open for long haul or redeye flights (i.e. the 06:00 - 07:00 bank).
As interesting side facts, i'd like to mention that MUC is the worlds third largest 2-runway-operator, following LHR (where a near mega airport is planned instead of expanding LHR) and CAN (which will get its 3rd one soon). MUC received the Skytrax Award for best european airport several times, next to several awards for worlds best airports in the top 10's worldwide. MUC gave fundamental ideas to cooperation partners like HND and PVG. MUC's influencial area (Munich, Erding, Freising etc) is the area with the lowest unemployment rate in Germany.
Lufthansa, Germanies flag carrier and the biggest local market player is using MUC as its second main hub (also refered to as FRA=Boeing, MUC=Airbus hub). Their statement regarding the negative vote for the planned runway is frustrating. "We are expecting difficulties for our operation after this loss. With only two runways, Munich will reach the maximum soon. It will cost us great efforts to still meet our customers expectations and we are considering the dislocation of flights to other airports. Munich is reliant on this third runway to further supply possiblities for additional flights" - Thomas Klühr, Board of managing directors passenger service
Leave aside statements like "bigger better faster is not good", "MUC will never grow to sizes where a 3rd runway is needed" or "worldwide aviation will go down" - the no to 3rd runway stabbed my heart.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10652 posts, RR: 100 Reply 67, posted (11 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4086 times:
Quoting Senchingo (Reply 66): Red = Slots taken, Green = Slots available. Lower part = Arrivals, Upper part = Departures
The majority of slots is taken here with only some minor ones open for long haul or redeye flights (i.e. the 06:00 - 07:00 bank).
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 identified another wave EK could connect to MUC (thus QR and EY), but overall that shows a capped out airport.
World wide aviation won't go down due to the lack of the MUC expansion. It will just find a new home. I keep reading how 200 runways are planned in China and that is about half the global total. So there will be expansion somewhere.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2245 posts, RR: 1 Reply 69, posted (11 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3821 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 68): I haven't really followed the campaign by the pro fraction, what went wrong there?
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 debates, social media, public figures, ... Maybe their problem was precisely that the 3rd runway had too much public support! This made the opponents feel that politicians were conspiring to impose this unto them (the support of local & regional politicians from left and right was overwhelming) and so they had to fight back. And it probably made the supporters take it for granted and thus stay at home on the voting day.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 68): LH's reaction is to strenghten VIE and ZRH. The latter I really don't see but VIE has potential, especially with the new terminal.
Indeed. ZRH is too limited, but once VIE gets the new terminal, and if they get the 2nd parallel runway later on, they stand to gain from this. Particularly as air traffic to Eastern Europe is still in its infant stages, and VIE is well placed to take part in this growth.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 68): Let's hope that common sense will prevail in Bavaria and that the permission to build will not expire before they can start with the construction.
Semaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 769 posts, RR: 2 Reply 70, posted (11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3710 times:
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: The citizens of Munich-city were allowed to take part in the vote, yet the city is miles away from the airport itself, and considering the West-East runway layout one can say that basically, nobody living in Munich itself is feeling a negative impact (noise) from the airport. Yet they all profit from the passengers who travel to the city via the airport. It's a strange situation.
In addition, as somebody mentioned earlier, the area around MUC has the lowest unemployment rate of the whole of Germany, at around 2%, and the amount of low-paid jobs at the airport ("400€ Basis") is less than 5%, according to Michael Kerkloh, CEO of the airport holding company.
What makes it even more ironic is that for the first time in ages, both the ruling party in the city council (SPD) and the opposition (CSU) as well as the ruling parties in Bavaria (CSU+FDP) and the opposition (SPD) were of the same opinion, fighting for the expansion of the airport. Yet all their combined political efforts were useless.
Something isn't right here. All factors seem to be pointing in the direction that common sense would prevail and the airport be expanded.
I'm not suggesting a faulty outcome of the vote. I'm just doubting democracy when a (32.8% voters x 54.3% against) 18% "majority" decides on what they want, not what is best for the other 72%
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
Connections with MUC from the mainline rail networks (Linz-Passau-Landshut, Salzburg-Rosenheim-München Hbf, Innsbruck-Kufstein) would be a welcome development as well. Tirol, Salzburg, and Western Oberösterreich use MUC more than some of us (e.g. me) would like to admit, especially when fares from SZG, LNZ, INN and VIE are just too high.
What bothers me most about this vote is that a lot more people than voted against it in München Stadt will feel the unfortunate consequences.
I don't believe that VIE is a real solution, even with a new parallel runway. It lacks much international connectivity outside of Europe. Where it has connectivity, very few Star partners fly into VIE. No one from the US and no one from Asia. It's all on OS metal which, until after the upgrades are finished next year, is admittedly not up to the latest standards in B and Y.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 72, posted (11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3587 times:
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 moaning about the result, INN cannot take widebodies and SZG can be too small especially on weekends. Confined in mountainous terrain, there is not too much room for expansion and Memmingen is o solution either.
VIE - LH can bring in the transfer pax, there is a solid base of local business as well as leisure and VFR traffic, if MUC does not get it's act together VIE stands a good chance to win some traffic from MC.
My prediciton as follows:
Bavarian elections 2013 (I hate it but for the sake of it, make a grand coalition, even though if it triggers an earth quake at Rottach-Egern***)
The legal issues can be worked off by then, a valid building permit has been through the legal process by then and building the runway can start before the next eleciton. One or 2 years delay overall, ready by 2020.
The election result was a kick in the butt for all the lazy people who thought that this gets a thumbs-up anyhow and did not go to vote. The hard-core NIMBYs did and won the battle. Don't let them win the war.
This would not be bavaria-
*** Rottach-Egern is where Franz-Josef Strauss, without whom the Munich airport would still be confined at narrow and city located Riem and Airbus a small French outfit making some regional turboprops, is buried
Ferroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 177 posts, RR: 0 Reply 73, posted (11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3557 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 58): But feeder trains cost a lot more than feeder airplanes, and there is just as much opposition to train expansion as there is to airport expansion. that is especially true is car loving Bavaria. Have you tried driving around Munich at rush hour? The train does not replace the airplane or the car. It complements it.
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 the tracks are there, the trains are certainly a good feeder! Of course, in the central and mountain US, the situation is entirely different. A high speed train from Bozeman to Chicago would hardly be something useful. Same story in northern Norway.
something From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 24 Reply 74, posted (11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3546 times:
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 a 30km/h speed limit in the city at night. It supposedly creates a more peaceful traffic environment, makes traffic safer and reduces noise levels by up to 3 full decibels.
People who buy their house along major roads already benefit from lower property prices and probably have 4-ply sound prood windows installed as it is. Why should the collective rest of society now waste more time on the road, to make the life of certain people easier, who have already been compensated for the inconvenience? Nobody forced them to move there.
And that's where I see the parallel to MUC. Everyone who has rudimentary familiarity with MUC knows, that it was built way outside the city, right in the middle of nowhere to allow for future expansion. People would then settle around MUC, as the airport brought jobs and infrastructure, benefitted from cheap land and the money the airport earned - and they're now hampering the airport's growth?
It inevitably brings to mind a proverb about a pastry, that can only be possessed or consumed but not both.
I asked this earlier in the thread, and I ask again: FRA has to pay residents for the noise the airport creates. When will the ''against'' voters be invoiced for the economic disadvantages their vote puts local business and residents at?
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 75, posted (11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3513 times:
Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 73): I am not sure whether feeder trains cost a lot more in densely populated regions. T
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 too often. Not building an express train from the beginning was a mistake.
It all depends on the geographic location of the airport. For MUC, connection to the neares HSR line would have been less efficient since the HSR lines are too far from the airport.
FRA instead, which is located at the cross roads of Germany, geographically THE prime location, has the east west and north south rail lines running alongside, they just had to be connected to a station, The station for local trains is separate.
One can argue about the rail conenction at MUC, but what is important is, that the airport has grown over the past 20 years more than expected and all that without proper HSR. It is a thriving factor for Bavarian industres of all kinds and unemployment would be greater than the 2 % residual. I am still optimistic simply because what happened on Sunday is not the bavarian spirit. Could it be that MUC has by far too many "Zugroaste" (ousiders) ?
Aquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 208 posts, RR: 0 Reply 76, posted (11 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3478 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 75): Could it be that MUC has by far too many "Zugroaste" (ousiders) ?
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 weather, but in D...) I come from Milan and Munich is probably what Milan wanted to be if there was not ... but this is another story. MUC is a fantastic airport, I remember how I was impressed in the first days with all those white steel frames joined together with inox screws, the Siemens (then Siemens-Nixdorf) stuff everywhere, the taxiways over the Autobahn... Very sad that all this is going to have a stop. Decadence in EU is happening faster than I could think if this is really happening in Munich.
If you go along the Autobahn that brings to MUC in direction Deggendorf, you will pass a couple of BMW plants, one of the things that Bavarians (rightly, I believe) are most proud. When will we hear that BMW was sold to some Far-East company? How long will they even keep production in Bavaria, before transferring it in some more efficient place?
chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 77, posted (11 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3484 times:
Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 76): How long will they even keep production in Bavaria, before transferring it in some more efficient place?
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 that MUC will get the third runway, may be a few years late but they will get it. MUC can grow with larger aircraft. LH already has changed their policy some time ago and more 90 or 105 seaters will feed traffic than 70seaters. If I'm not mistaken LH 321 fleet is larger than the 319 fleet which eventually will make room for the larger 3207321s.
Too many people forgot that money has to be earned each day. They want to eat the cake and keep it. We make environmentaly clean products, the company you mentioned is a technology leader in that way, aircarft become cleaner and quieter, which has been an ongoing matter since 5 decades. The Embraers or the new Bombardiers are/will be quieter, so will be the A32xNEO and the 737MAX. This goes unnoticed or opponents of air traffic simply do not appreciate it.
The news has to be spread and the silent majority has to be brought to vote. The opponents mobilized their troops, we did not.
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 to get to the airport.
mikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2 Reply 79, posted (11 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3453 times:
Quoting something (Reply 74): And that's where I see the parallel to MUC. Everyone who has rudimentary familiarity with MUC knows, that it was built way outside the city, right in the middle of nowhere to allow for future expansion. People would then settle around MUC, as the airport brought jobs and infrastructure, benefitted from cheap land and the money the airport earned - and they're now hampering the airport's growth?
Governments in Europe are parlaysed by....
- fear of alienating an increasingly fractured electorate
- appearing tyrannical in the face of ridiculous human rights legislature
- the green issue
Matters like this should be in the hands of an outside body not reliant on voters.
They do the research etc and if it's decided that the country/economy needs it........it gets built.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
speedygonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 80, posted (11 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3400 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 75): It all depends on the geographic location of the airport. For MUC, connection to the neares HSR line would have been less efficient since the HSR lines are too far from the airport.
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, it could have had connections to both the München-Augsburg and München-Ingolstadt lines.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10448 posts, RR: 20 Reply 81, posted (11 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3382 times:
Quoting mikey72 (Reply 79): Governments in Europe are parlaysed
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 next is a US decision to cut back on mass transit!
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, RR: 4 Reply 82, posted (11 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3309 times:
Quoting Senchingo (Reply 66): Nowadays, i'm starting to wonder why a 3-runway layout was not in the inital plans, but ok... Maybe noone ever dared to dream about how big this airport would get.
In fact, MUC was planned with FOUR parallel runways and this was approved by the Bavarian government. However, judges who found the growth forecasts to be ridiculously high slashed two runways from the plan. You know the rest of the story...
Quoting Senchingo (Reply 66): Red = Slots taken, Green = Slots available. Lower part = Arrivals, Upper part = Departures
Wow, I didn't know it was THAT bad... I assume it is for the summer schedule, but it would be interesting to know whether this was for the 2007/2008 record years or 2010 or 2011.
bavair From Germany, joined Jul 2011, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 83, posted (11 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3264 times:
As previously mentioned, the Bavarian government continue to want to push this project forward. According to airliners.de, all planning will continue without any implications. They have now also opened the door to the possibility of doing a statewide poll although Munich's mayor has stated that the outcome will not affect the position of the city even after the legally binding period of one year.
Semaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 769 posts, RR: 2 Reply 84, posted (11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3211 times:
Quoting LOWS (Reply 71): Now comes the news that some in Tirol and Salzburg are considering legal action against MUC for failure to build the second runway.
Careful with the phrasing when translating. They are not considering legal action, they are just complaining.
However, they have the right to complain and to be honest, it's true that regions like Tyrol is heavily dependant on the Asian traffic which MUC gets, because INN is not able to support the traffic and other airports are either stuffed (ZRH), too small (LNZ) or simply too far away (MXP, VIE)
Quoting LOWS (Reply 71): I don't believe that VIE is a real solution, even with a new parallel runway. It lacks much international connectivity outside of Europe
I go one step further and say that a parallel runway at VIE itself is anything but given. Expect the same amount of protest there, possibly with the same outcome.
Quoting something (Reply 74): I asked this earlier in the thread, and I ask again: FRA has to pay residents for the noise the airport creates. When will the ''against'' voters be invoiced for the economic disadvantages their vote puts local business and residents at?
You're asking a politician to enforce something that will rip people off their money in a way that a nation like Germany has never seen before. If that politician was ever going to phrase such a thing, he'd be out of his job in the most dishonorable way in no time.
That is not to say that I don't like your way of thought.
Quoting something (Reply 74): Germans have become a very peculiar people.
It's what happens when a people gets breastfeeded for too long. We too have been living above our standards, and we tend to believe that the way we know it must be the way to go.
Quoting bavair (Reply 83): As previously mentioned, the Bavarian government continue to want to push this project forward. According to airliners.de, all planning will continue without any implications.
That is good news and leaves room for hope.
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
Ferroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 177 posts, RR: 0 Reply 85, posted (11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3211 times:
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 78): 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 to get to the airport.
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 for long distance trains and others for local trains.
Senchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 86, posted (11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3107 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 82): Wow, I didn't know it was THAT bad... I assume it is for the summer schedule, but it would be interesting to know whether this was for the 2007/2008 record years or 2010 or 2011.
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 flight movements (2007,2008) but the last season, where movements went down a little while passenger amounts still grew (which was reasonable, since airlines started to switch to bigger metal instead of adding new frequencies for which slots where not available).
For the slideshow geeks here, i'll post a comparison of flight movements vs. passengers flown 1992-2011.
Flight movements:
Source: munich-airport.de
Passengers flown:
Source: munich-airport.de
You can see that especially in 2007/2008 vs. 2011 the movements dipped from 432000 to 410000, while the passengers were rising from 34-34,5 Mio. to 37,8 Mio.
As mentioned, reasons are not only airlines choosing bigger a/c (EK,LH) but also new starters (NH,SQ), where we can assume that additional airlines or routes add 1/1 arrival and departure movement, but several hundred passengers.
The changes since end of 2008:
EK upgrade from daily B777 and A340 to daily B777 and A380.
LH adding MUC-ICN-PUS A346
TACV taking up MUC again
Temporary MUC-JFK on LH A380
CSO City Fly added EDDM-EDBC
NH starting daily B77W since JUL2010
SQ opening daily B77W SIN-MUC-MAN route
The trend of -movements +pax might continue, as some further anouncements have been made:
LH adding MUC-MEX in S12
Mongolian Airlines started 08JUN
Volotea starting 01JUN (though i can't confirm that, are they really set for operating?)
Jet Airways requesting 35 slots for upcoming W12
Monarch Airlines adding W12/S13 14 weekly frequencies (temporary ski-traffic)
Speculated talks (i.e. LAN coming, LH replacing A346's with B744's from FRA, which shall be replaced there with B748)
Quoting bavair (Reply 83): As previously mentioned, the Bavarian government continue to want to push this project forward. According to airliners.de, all planning will continue without any implications. They have now also opened the door to the possibility of doing a statewide poll although Munich's mayor has stated that the outcome will not affect the position of the city even after the legally binding period of one year.
I somehow got the shivers when i read the news on another website today. I can't imagine a vote within Bavaria will get it a better result then the last one. Right before the last vote my thought was the same: Why not ask Bavarians, instead of just Munich citizens? But now my guess is: The votes within the "affected area" (i.e. Attaching, Freising, Erding, Hallbergmoos etc) will most likely be negative. Too many people directly disturbed by noise will vote against, while residents living in Munich city enjoy the privilege of being able to fly but are not in the mood to go to a polling station.
On the other hand, the rest of Bavaria might give it a push as MUC offers connections which are not available in NUE, FMM, AGB, HOQ etc and they are not directly suffering from "aviational disturbance".
Another article similar to yours was posted on aero.de and one thing makes me wonder:
"Bei einem Planungsstopp drohten möglicherweise Schadenersatzforderungen, erklärte Söder. Alle juristischen Fragen rund um den Bau sollten bis hinauf zum Verwaltungsgerichtshof geklärt werden."
(If plans for building a third runway are cancelled, compensation requests would be possible, Söder (Markus Söder, Minister of financials and Head of the board of directors FMG) explained. All legal questions shall be clarified with the highest court).
Now, who can/will claim which compensation for not building the third runway at the moment?
LOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 982 posts, RR: 1 Reply 87, posted (11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3089 times:
Quoting Semaex (Reply 84): I go one step further and say that a parallel runway at VIE itself is anything but given. Expect the same amount of protest there, possibly with the same outcome.
And especially with the Greens in government, and Häupl giving them (from what my Viennese friends tell me) basically whatever they want.
Isn't Skylink already running at near capacity, too?
Quoting Semaex (Reply 84): Careful with the phrasing when translating. They are not considering legal action, they are just complaining.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 91, posted (11 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2620 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 47): True. But during commercially viable times they will have to substitude one flight for another. Is that the customer preference? Displaced traffic has a habit of finding a different home other than intended or just disapearing (job destruction).
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 destinations. It is about fullfiling demand by using right capacity instead of multiple frequency.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 47): It is tough to walk the fine line of low job growth and prosperity.
It is a very tough walk. A walk I think we will be required to learn. We are coming to an end of the time where additional resources are always available. Going forward I expect "smart solutions" to be rewarded much more than "brute solutions."
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 47): But how much? I do not consider one runway with a night curfew the extreme opposite.
Neither do I. The comment was to the suggestion of negative growth being the consequence of no additional flights.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 47): I just wonder if Europeans realize how much constraining their hub airport growth has enabled not only the mid-east airlines, but the LCCs. Not growing MUC means fewer connected cities for MUC and thus easier competition for the airlines based in hubs that can grow.
There is a lot of truth to this. At the same time there is also a lot of things missing. I do think hubs play a very important role in efficient transportation. I also think they are just one piece in a very large puzzle. A hub is only viable when it provides a benefit not easier achieved differently. Mirabel is a very good example of how things can go wrong.
Is Europe better by having MUC as a mega hub or is it better by connecting passengers to one of the other (existing) mega hubs? Is Europe better served by expanding MUC or better served by expanding a different airport? The same questions should be asked for Germany, Bavaria and Munich.
As I said I think the unlimited resources mentality is quickly coming to an end. Resources are staring to be valued differently and with that comes change.
I absolutely agree with this. The question is how you measure growth.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 47): The question is where the demand growth will be met. Air travel demand doubles about every 15 years.
Global growth is doubling but there are big differences between regions.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 47): While well connected airports to rail will substitute, it needs to be done as invisibily to the purchaser as buying an connecting airline ticket.
A big shortage in the travel engines used.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 47): explain how enabling infrastrure enables economic growth. They also explain how there will be competition.
I have not read them but I do think infrastructure is very important. But too much is about how to add new infrastructure. Too little about maintaining what we have so it isn't running degraded. I think the cost of building new is typically underestimated and the costs of maintenance and expansion overestimated. In large part because costs of abandoning resources are poorly covered.
Quoting r2rho (Reply 48): But having said that, I believe both things are complementary. We're not talking about a mamooth airport expansion here, but a very reasonable expansion to 120 ops/hour that had always been in the planner's minds and which would surely be the last and final one
I can't think of any place where 50% increase isn't significant
Neither do I think this would be the last and final. I expect it to go the same way as most other things. Slowly they will use up the additional capacity and then they will want more.
The question is if it is reasonable. I would have voted for having the additional capacity.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 51): I'm not willing to give up another day with my family unless it cannot be avoided.
Don't you already do that? You fly commercial flights. You select them based on price. If you were not prepared to give up a day with your family you would get a work that allowed you to work from home
You could change standard of living for more time at home.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 51): But lets not forget so much of the growth will be in Africa and Asia. MUC is well placed to hub to those destinations. But that requires the feed traffic.
I'm sorry but I don't see MUC well placed for this. It is well placed for Africa to Europe traffic and some of North America but I expect that to be a very small part of the additional traffic.
Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 52): Accepted most certainly. But in the future be prepared to possibly connect via FRA to wherever you may need to go...
Is that such a bad thing? Munich will still be better off than most German cities.
Quoting Wsp (Reply 55): And 32% voter participation hardly makes for a credible result.
Why not? By not participating the 68% said it is up to the 32% to make the right decision.
Quoting sweair (Reply 62): Lets hope the NIMBYs will pay the price. They deserve to lose their living and then live with their decisions.
I take it you happily live between a polluted river, oil refinery and coal plant with highway and railway crossing over you.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 65): That is no good. I notice others (not you) mock infrastructure. What happened to building for 15+ years of growth? Other regions are building the infrastructure.
What happened to maintaining and expanding existing infrastructure instead of adding and adding?
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 65): To others: We've had oil crisis, scares, wars, and even a depression and yet tranportation has always grown quickly long term. Humans will figure out solutions around constraints. To state otherwise is to say we're done innovating. As an engineer, I refuse to believe that. As an aviation enthusiast, I see many reasons why aviaton will grow.
I fully agree. I just think the solutions will increasingly come from higher efficiency instead of more parallel lines. Smarter engineering if you will.
Quoting Semaex (Reply 70): I'm just doubting democracy when a (32.8% voters x 54.3% against) 18% "majority" decides on what they want, not what is best for the other 72%
Your calculation is fundamentally wrong. That 68% didn't partake doesn't mean their best interest wasn't represented. By not participating they practically stated the trust those who voted to do what is best for them.
Quoting something (Reply 74): FRA has to pay residents for the noise the airport creates. When will the ''against'' voters be invoiced for the economic disadvantages their vote puts local business and residents at?
Payment is in not having access to the advantages those economic advantages. But as with someone paying more for a house far from the highway they may think it is a good choice.
Quoting mikey72 (Reply 79): Matters like this should be in the hands of an outside body not reliant on voters.
They do the research etc and if it's decided that the country/economy needs it........it gets built.
Somehow I doubt you will accept this when that body suggests things you do not agree with.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10652 posts, RR: 100 Reply 93, posted (11 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2554 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 68): LH's reaction is to strenghten VIE and ZRH. The latter I really don't see but VIE has potential, especially with the new terminal.
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.
Quoting cmf (Reply 91): It isn't so much about choosing between viable destinations. It is about fullfiling demand by using right capacity instead of multiple frequency.
Right capacity sounds great, but does it really meet the customers needs? I'm not going to stay in a hotel at/near MUC for a transfer, I'll find an easier transfer. MUC right now is short on long-haul destinations but could become a major regional (Europe being the region) to long-haul transfer hub.
It won't. That hubbing will go elsewhere. To small European cities from the US, it will be from CLT and IAD. To Asia, LH/AB will capture less US connecting traffic, etc.
Quoting cmf (Reply 91): A hub is only viable when it provides a benefit not easier achieved differently. Mirabel is a very good example of how things can go wrong.
Mirabel is an example of why MUC should expand as if domestic to internation connections are not enabled, then forign airlines will dominate the traffic. Splitting the domestic and international traffic at Mirabel doomed the hub. Once traffic was consolidated back at the old airport, it was too late. Customers were used to the new service that provided hub bypass thanks to longer range aircraft.
We're once again at a time where longer range aircraft are entering the fleet or about to.
Quoting cmf (Reply 91): Is Europe better by having MUC as a mega hub or is it better by connecting passengers to one of the other (existing) mega hubs?
Depends on where you want the jobs. If MUC connects to other mega-hubs, it means the other mega-hub is connecting other German cities.
For example, we're about to have an explosion in TATL narrowbody traffic with the NEO/MAX. MUC will be limited in capability to compete. US and UA have ample growth room at CLT/IAD and will grow. This will provide hub bypass of FRA, MUC, and BER. This will provide the bulk of the airline jobs in the US. If Bavaria doesn't want those jobs? The NEO/MAX will be even better for the mid-east hubs to Europe. All of those secondary airports not being served with frequency by European carriers will be easy expansion targets...
Basic game theory shows who will benefit. It won't be Bavaria.
Quoting cmf (Reply 91): A big shortage in the travel engines used.
It is. As an individual, it is easy to work around. Thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley, whomever figures out an answer early will easily steal business from AMEX, Carlson-Wagonlit, or Travelocity. (Three big corporate travel agencies in the USA.) However, they nead economical access to the data. That is the responsibility of the railroads to provide. Why isn't there a Eurorail SABRE site? AMEX could integrate it easily.
Quoting cmf (Reply 91): Quoting lightsaber (Reply 51):
I'm not willing to give up another day with my family unless it cannot be avoided.
Don't you already do that? You fly commercial flights. You select them based on price. If you were not prepared to give up a day with your family you would get a work that allowed you to work from home
I wish I could choose the day. But my work productivity at home would be poor. I'm talking about taking part of my weekend to fly which is required if excellent connections are not available. I'd love everything to be point to point, but that isn't economical and lack of global airport growth would prevent that anyway. For example, when there is a business meeting in Germany or The Netherlands, my childless coworkers will fly out a day ahead to acclimate. The coworkers with kids always catch the last flight. To make the meetings, we have to fly out mid-day Sunday (at the latest). The choice is to also give up the Saturday or not.
Poor connections mean I loose Saturday and Sunday with my kids. Saying otherwise means your lucky enough to be in a field where you job is secure. Three of my friends with kids were laid off and there simply are not enough jobs out there right now. Not unless one is ready/willing to take a pay cut or has the resources to set up their own business (in this poor climate).
So if MUC has poor connections, I'll fly to AMS. If that has poor connections, I'll fly elsewhere. If I had work from home, that would be easier. I also wouldn't be in aircraft design/testing. The ability to work from home is disapearing quick. I'm on a project that will cut the amount of that work by 60% or so (automation).
I do not do business travel by choice. I do it as it is the most efficient way to get the work done. And I don't have to choose 100% on price on business. My time costs and even if I'm not allowed to charge, it is put in as part of the ticket price comparison *at my fully loaded rate*.
I also look at it this way. I see families at the airport at 5am to catch that 7am flight as that is the only option to their international destination. For myself that is fine. For my wife and children, that isn't an option due to sleeping habits. We'll choose another destination. So limiting preferred travel slots has a consequence.
In my travels to Bavaria, I've loved the experience. But my wife wants to travel elsewhere. Don't give her an excuse to redirect the trip.
sbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 793 posts, RR: 5 Reply 94, posted (11 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2543 times:
Quoting r2rho (Reply 48): I would gladly take the train more often, but it has to made competitive.
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 walk up fare from Birmingham International (train station for BHX) to Glasgow Central. Walk up fare was £125.00 (approx) would take 5 1/2 hours and involve a change.
Pricing up BE for there afternoon flight BHX - GLA was £48.00 including cc fee and would take total 3 hours max (inlcuding check in and travel at the other end)
No brainer in my mind (Brother in Law is now trying to get rules changed!!)
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 show you all of the possible journeys in most EU cases.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10652 posts, RR: 100 Reply 96, posted (11 months 4 days ago) and read 2446 times:
Quoting LOWS (Reply 95): 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 show you all of the possible journeys in most EU cases.
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 connections.
Note: I'm writting as a US business buyer. I'm forced to use AMEX for business travel. It will book the airfares, hotels, and rental cars (minimum to initiate travel). If rail to a rental car were an option, that would be great! Heck, some locations would be viable sans rental car.
Its not just AMEX. Our competitors collaborate on the same projects and they use Carlson-Wagonlit or Travelocity. I've yet to see anyone else have the rail integrated. All have the same issues...
Our reimbursement already has 'train in stead of airtravel' as allowed. It just must be part of the initial search due to contract requirements to book the lowest reasonable airfare. (Reminder, we're allowed business class as that is considered a reasonable fare class for flights over 9 hours.) Time spent connecting has an estimated cost too (hours*fully loaded rate) and one is allowed to pick long flight legs for uninterupted sleep as long as the added cost is less than the hours times fully loaded rate plus another night of hotel and another 8 hours of fully loaded costs (lost time due to lost sleep).
Sorry, but this is something that has been bugging myself and several friends at a multitude of Fortune 500 companies. Many would rather take a train in Europe than rent a car.
LOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 982 posts, RR: 1 Reply 97, posted (11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2401 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 96): 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 show you all of the possible journeys in most EU cases.
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 or SHARES). The kind of interlining that is common in air travel (UAx to LH to OS) is still in its infancy in rail travel.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 98, posted (11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2377 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 92): 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 could not give a rat's @ss? Or each of them had their own individual reason for not participating?
No matter what the reason. By not participating they handed over the decision to the people who did. Simple as that.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 93): Right capacity sounds great, but does it really meet the customers needs?
By definition yes. In reality, not for everyone. But neither does multiple flights per day. It is always give and take.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 93): I'm not going to stay in a hotel at/near MUC for a transfer, I'll find an easier transfer. MUC right now is short on long-haul destinations but could become a major regional (Europe being the region) to long-haul transfer hub.
Of course you shouldn't. That would be a hub failure. As is having multiple flights to one destination in the same bank. The question for Munich is if transferring people between long haul flights is better for the city than reducing the number of flights/destinations but cater to passengers who stay at least some time in Munich. Both are viable models.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 93): Mirabel is an example of why MUC should expand as if domestic to internation connections are not enabled, then forign airlines will dominate the traffic. Splitting the domestic and international traffic at Mirabel doomed the hub. Once traffic was consolidated back at the old airport, it was too late. Customers were used to the new service that provided hub bypass thanks to longer range aircraft.
We're once again at a time where longer range aircraft are entering the fleet or about to.
Mirabel was doomed when the new generation of planes made it not only possible but more importantly cheaper (money and time) to fly direct to the final destination than to make a fuel stop. If Montreal had a lot of local demand it may have survived but with split operations where the airport with less attractive flights is far outside it had no chance. Pretty much the only person I know who preferr Mirabel lives just north of it.
MUC is in a similar situation. They have nothing that makes them a significantly better hub than the multiple other options in Europe. On a European level what is the advantage of moving passengers through Munich instead of one of the other hubs? What is the advantage for Germany? Even looking at Munich and Bavaria is transferring passengers really the best return? I don't think so. I think Munich and Bavaria is better served by focusing on O/D traffic.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 93): Depends on where you want the jobs. If MUC connects to other mega-hubs, it means the other mega-hub is connecting other German cities.
Not as much where I want the jobs as what kind of jobs I want. Munich needs a good O/D airport for it's residents and business (incl tourism.) I'd venture the region would be better served by attracting a couple of new companies instead of becoming a bigger hub.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 93): For example, we're about to have an explosion in TATL narrowbody traffic with the NEO/MAX. MUC will be limited in capability to compete. US and UA have ample growth room at CLT/IAD and will grow. This will provide hub bypass of FRA, MUC, and BER. This will provide the bulk of the airline jobs in the US. If Bavaria doesn't want those jobs? The NEO/MAX will be even better for the mid-east hubs to Europe. All of those secondary airports not being served with frequency by European carriers will be easy expansion targets...
Basic game theory shows who will benefit. It won't be Bavaria.
It may be down to the definition of explode but I do not think that is happening. No doubt there will be more narrow body TATL but I think it will be miority of all passengers. There just isn't enough P2P routes with enough and steady enough demand. Transfers at multiple smaller airports is less efficient and thus hubs will remain. What I do think is that a fair amount of traffic growth will be satisfied with P2P. Thus MUC trying to move from a medium hub to a large will be very difficult.
Then you can argue that Munic need additional capacity for P2P. Right now munic have direct flights to about 190 destinations. Is it reasonable to believe MUC will get much more connections even with additional capacity? Denver and JFK have about 165 destinations and they have more runways.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 93): It is. As an individual, it is easy to work around. Thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley, whomever figures out an answer early will easily steal business from AMEX, Carlson-Wagonlit, or Travelocity. (Three big corporate travel agencies in the USA.) However, they nead economical access to the data. That is the responsibility of the railroads to provide. Why isn't there a Eurorail SABRE site? AMEX could integrate it easily.
You make this a very tempting project
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 93): I wish I could choose the day. But my work productivity at home would be poor.
The question is how much of your current living standard you're prepared to give up. Productivity i a matter of discipline. It works for some people but not everyone. I suspect you will do much better than you think.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 93): Poor connections mean I loose Saturday and Sunday with my kids. Saying otherwise means your lucky enough to be in a field where you job is secure. Three of my friends with kids were laid off and there simply are not enough jobs out there right now. Not unless one is ready/willing to take a pay cut or has the resources to set up their own business (in this poor climate).
I do not have kids but I promise you that even without there are plenty of reasons why you want some time at home. Job security is a big issue for many. As per your example playing along and sacrificing all that time away isn't a guarantee you will keep your job. Make a decision about how much you like your job and what it provides. Then get plan b ready either way.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 93): So if MUC has poor connections, I'll fly to AMS. If that has poor connections, I'll fly elsewhere.
And there is the root of the problem. If you do not have a reason to visit Munich why should you pass through their airport? You do not care if it is Munich or some other place.
Munich should care bout what it costs them and what they gain. It isn't about going after all possible business. It is about going after the business that provides best return while still being diversified enough that it can handle natural ups and downs.
Even though construction would be handled outside of tax money (I think) There are many related infrastructure costs that isn't.Then consider what other things that money could be used for and add quality of living and the answer may very well be that Munich is better without a third runway.
Note: I'm not arguing that a third runway is a bad decision. I probably would have voted for it. I am against the idea that every project should be judged on how many new jobs it attracts. I don't think it is a good metric.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 93): I do not do business travel by choice. I do it as it is the most efficient way to get the work done. And I don't have to choose 100% on price on business. My time costs and even if I'm not allowed to charge, it is put in as part of the ticket price comparison *at my fully loaded rate*.
You're fortunate they value your time like that. I have not worked with a single company that does. Recently I looked at a company where the travel policy was that direct flights was only authorized if the expense was less than 50 USD per two hour of extra time. Stepped out but it had nothing to do with the travel policy. More about how the problems of the company was reflected in the travel policy.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 93): I also look at it this way. I see families at the airport at 5am to catch that 7am flight as that is the only option to their international destination. For myself that is fine. For my wife and children, that isn't an option due to sleeping habits. We'll choose another destination. So limiting preferred travel slots has a consequence.
This is where you're fortunate. You can pick a different destination. In my case family and friend travel typically involves multiple continents. No matter where we decide to met some will have tough connections. Fortunately my nieces and nephews are good travelers and strange times have not been an issue, pure luck.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 93): In my travels to Bavaria, I've loved the experience. But my wife wants to travel elsewhere. Don't give her an excuse to redirect the trip.
I'm sure I'm not able to influence her one way or another. On a personal level I have always enjoyed Bavaria though I have found myself selecting Austria instead each time it has been for private travel. On a business level it has often been tough trips. First we bought a company who thought being bought meant we wanted to implement their methods at all other companies we had. That experience changed the rules for the M&A team. Then we bought part of a Middle Eastern company where the original, now large part, owner lived in Munich and had very different views on the direction of the company. Would love to go back to visit. Not so much for business
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 96): Sorry, but this is something that has been bugging myself and several friends at a multitude of Fortune 500 companies. Many would rather take a train in Europe than rent a car.
Ironically, the only two places I've frequently rented cars when traveling on business, all of USA plus Munich
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10652 posts, RR: 100 Reply 99, posted (11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2295 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 98): Of course you shouldn't. That would be a hub failure. As is having multiple flights to one destination in the same bank. The question for Munich is if transferring people between long haul flights is better for the city than reducing the number of flights/destinations but cater to passengers who stay at least some time in Munich. Both are viable models.
Ah, I see where we disagree.
By having transfers, MUC may offer more destinations. As the hub becomes more congested, some destinations will be dropped in favor of others (this has happened at every congested airport). This means some business for MUC is lost with each dropped connection. While each is of low value, they add up.
From the above, we see MUC is the 8th best connected airport (note, with tickets available when I did the thread, not destinations served through the year). But look how far down LHR has dropped. Why? Its more profitable to serve the trunk routes. Like it or not, the multiple flights per hub wave to one destination are what happens with lack of expansion.
There is a reason I pick IST as MUC's competition. They are *very* close in number of routes served. If IST is expanded to a new 4 runway airport, it will easily add a few dozen more destinations. MUC? They'll keep consolidating on their most profitable trunk routes. I expect, if done at the same time of year, to see MUC lose 2 or 3 connections a year until it is down at LHR levels.
The Top 50 (in the link I have far more):
Rank by airport destinations, Airport, # destinations
1 FRA 253
2 AMS 221
3 CDG 218
4 ATL 200
5 PEK 190
6 DME 189
7 IST 185
8 MUC 184
9 ORD 182
10 DXB 175
11 DFW 173
12 IAH 168
13 DEN 161
14 LGW 157
15 FCO 155
15 LHR 155
15 MAD 155
18 DUS 153
19 BRU 151
20 EWR 148
20 YYZ 148
20 JFK 148
23 VIE 145
24 PVG 144
25 BCN 141
26 LAX 140
27 STN 137
28 SVO 136
29 ZRH 133
30 CLT 130
31 ICN 129
31 LAS 129
33 DTW 128
34 MSP 127
35 CAN 125
36 MIA 122
37 BKK 121
37 DUB 121
39 IAD 118
39 LED 118
39 MAN 118
39 ORY 118
43 SIN 117
44 PHL 114
45 HKG 113
46 CPH 109
47 KUL 107
47 VKO 107
49 PMI 106
50 MXP 100
To be clear, the above quantity is the number of destinations I could find on Google that day. I found *most* airports enhance their destination portfolio a little by quoting numbers higher than I could find.
Quoting cmf (Reply 98): Mirabel was doomed when the new generation of planes made it not only possible but more importantly cheaper (money and time) to fly direct to the final destination than to make a fuel stop.
Separating domestic from international easily sped the process by a decade or more. By the time domestic and international were re-integrated, the long range aircraft had changed. I think Mirabel could have worked, but only if the two rail lines had been built from day #1 and the close in airport closed.
Quoting cmf (Reply 98): Not as much where I want the jobs as what kind of jobs I want. Munich needs a good O/D airport for it's residents and business (incl tourism.) I'd venture the region would be better served by attracting a couple of new companies instead of becoming a bigger hub.
Why not do both? Do you just not want airport jobs? Short term they can go to BER. Longer term a new IST or DWC or ???. Growth will happen. The question is where and how much MUC captures.
Quoting cmf (Reply 98): It may be down to the definition of explode but I do not think that is happening. No doubt there will be more narrow body TATL but I think it will be miority of all passengers. There just isn't enough P2P routes with enough and steady enough demand.
But there are enough hub to spoke routes left to open. In particular from CLT and IAD. I believe the growth will be significant. I agree with demand not being steady enough. So why not fill 30% to 70% of the plane with connecting traffic?
In particular, increasing the range of narrowbodies will enable the mid-east hubs to serve a large number of markets with high frequency. This is going to significantly cut the need to double hub.
Oh, it isn't happening now as the MAX and NEO aren't out yet. Soon... very soon.
Quoting cmf (Reply 98): Is it reasonable to believe MUC will get much more connections even with additional capacity?
It is certain connections will be dropped if they don't. But yes, looking at cities served by MUC on the Airline Route Mapper (fun software to play with), I see many potential new destinations. For example, why doesn't MIA-MUC show up as a route? or MCO, DFW, IAH (*A), CAN. I could keep going. For example, MUC should eventually be connected to MAA. If MUC is going to grow as a business city, it needs more long haul destinations which will require more connections.
Quoting cmf (Reply 98): You make this a very tempting project
Please take it on! I'm sure there is money to be made connecting rail to airlines for US based business travelers.
Quoting cmf (Reply 98): The question is how much of your current living standard you're prepared to give up.
Quoting cmf (Reply 98): Make a decision about how much you like your job and what it provides.
I love my job. That isn't the point. It isn't the travel I mind, its losing the weekend day with my kids. It is spending one more bedtime story away. Its a push/pull. Hence how I pick hubs. If LH/MUC doesn't want US based business... ok.
But have you been involved in picking a city for a project that involves *significant* air travel? Or better yet, a convention. There are jobs every city wants (for they tend to bring in high margin business later). You pretty much have to select a well connected city.
Quoting cmf (Reply 98): This is where you're fortunate. You can pick a different destination.
Priceline. We first pick where by hotels (using sites that say what the hotels are going for) then we find the air fares. Only then do we decide based on time, budget, and how much the whole family will enjoy. Family lives 6 minutes away for the wife's and 7 for mine. Oh, I could travel for other family, but they would rather travel back to Los Angeles.
Quoting cmf (Reply 98): I have found myself selecting Austria instead each time it has been for private travel.
Love Saltzburg. But there is more for the kids elsewhere.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 100, posted (11 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2248 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 93): 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.
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 yield same day travel is a good base.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 93): Depends on where you want the jobs. If MUC connects to other mega-hubs, it means the other mega-hub is connecting other German cities.
MUC is the best Italian transfer hub. In a single market the focus is on European traffic, there's no more German domestic only. LH operates a solid 14 A321 flights between it's 2 largest hubs, despite the fact that German rail runs 3 1/2 hour trains FRA to MUC each hour and another route via STR which takes a bit longer.
Here we are back at infrastructure, it's full on all modes, roads, rail, air., someone should make that clear to the uneducated voter.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2245 posts, RR: 1 Reply 101, posted (11 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2151 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 91): Going forward I expect "smart solutions" to be rewarded much more than "brute solutions."
It is about fullfiling demand by using right capacity instead of multiple frequencyI can't think of any place where 50% increase isn't significant
I am against the idea that every project should be judged on how many new jobs it attracts. I don't think it is a good metric.[/quote]
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 expansion. MUC is not exactly a NY-style airport with hourly flights on tiny RJ's, but rather full of A320-family aircraft, with LH already shifting away from A319's and towards A321's. Soon, their smallest a/c will have 90 seats. And 120 ops/hour simply brings MUC in line with CDG, MAD, FRA and AMS. The extra capacity would not fill up overnight, but over many years.
Note that I would be against expanding MUC beyond 120 ops/hour. By the time (or rather, before) that gets filled up, we should have hopefully improved high-speed rail connections, other small airports in Bavaria would have hopefully become available for p2p flights, and other hubs in Eastern Europe will have become available to take on additional hub capacity. But I do think MUC needs the 120 ops.
Quoting cmf (Reply 91):
Is Europe better by having MUC as a mega hub or is it better by connecting passengers to one of the other (existing) mega hubs? Is Europe better served by expanding MUC or better served by expanding a different airport?
In my personal opinion as European, having lived and worked in several EU countries in the past years, I have strongly benefitted from MUC both as hub and O&D. MUC has significantly gained from the deeper integration of EU economies since the EU Treaty, thanks to the congestion of other hubs and MUC's superb facilities and efficiency. With the 3rd runway, MUC could have also gained from the next EU air travel expansion: towards the East, an airline market still in its infancy.
In terms of booking engines integration rail is indeed another market in its infancy. There is a lot of catching up to do there. If anyone wants to start up a new business in that sector, now is the perfect time. I'm convinced it would unleash a currently hidden demand.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 102, posted (11 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2158 times:
Quoting r2rho (Reply 101): In terms of booking engines integration rail is indeed another market in its infancy. There is a lot of catching up to do there. If anyone wants to start up a new business in that sector
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 thanks to IATA and interlining even when booking systems had been in their infancy. Even on some domestic requests DB (German Rail) gives sometimes a "pricing not possible" which simply means they cannot issue an on-line ticket.
Now, try to integrate that with airlines it works when the train gets a flight number. For a booking portal integrating 27 European rail systems with all the airlines around would be an interesting task, but would it be worthwhile?
They are 2 separate systems, air is highly advanced and globally connected 8except the low costs which have set back time) , rail is partially connected to neighbouring systems or through trains.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 103, posted (11 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1990 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 99): By having transfers, MUC may offer more destinations. As the hub becomes more congested, some destinations will be dropped in favor of others (this has happened at every congested airport). This means some business for MUC is lost with each dropped connection. While each is of low value, they add up
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 add upp enough to be worth their costs? To the passengers traveling, certainly. To the airport, probably. To the people of Munic, they said no this time.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 99): From the above, we see MUC is the 8th best connected airport (note, with tickets available when I did the thread, not destinations served through the year). But look how far down LHR has dropped. Why? Its more profitable to serve the trunk routes. Like it or not, the multiple flights per hub wave to one destination are what happens with lack of expansion.
8th place, they are doing pretty well with only two runways
LHR is an interesting example. Are the multiple flights to a single destination an example of multiple flights in a single bank or examples of transitioning to P2P? In the first case I'd say it is a clear example of using wrong equipment or having maxed out. In the second case I'd say it is no longer part of a bank and rather an example of maximizing P2P return. It becomes a question about which model provides best return.
What is best for London? A large hub with a lot of transferring passengers or more P2P connections to where the demand is?
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 99): There is a reason I pick IST as MUC's competition. They are *very* close in number of routes served. If IST is expanded to a new 4 runway airport, it will easily add a few dozen more destinations. MUC? They'll keep consolidating on their most profitable trunk routes. I expect, if done at the same time of year, to see MUC lose 2 or 3 connections a year until it is down at LHR levels.
I think these are two different things. The first is the question of how to use unused resources where the question is if the return is worth the effort. The second about how to use limited resources for best return.
The question is if there is a third issue, will an expanded IST render MUC unviable? I don't think so. Sure MUC may lose some traffic to IST just as MUC and IST are losing to FRA, AMS, CDG and DXB. From an infrastructure standpoint isn't FRA's 4th runway a bigger therat to MUC? But accepting IST and MUC are in competition the question becomes if the traffic is such that only one can survive as hub. If so, how do you justify spending so much effort on something likely ending up as a white elephant?
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 99): Separating domestic from international easily sped the process by a decade or more. By the time domestic and international were re-integrated, the long range aircraft had changed. I think Mirabel could have worked, but only if the two rail lines had been built from day #1 and the close in airport closed.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 99): Why not do both? Do you just not want airport jobs? Short term they can go to BER. Longer term a new IST or DWC or ???. Growth will happen. The question is where and how much MUC captures.
In a perfect world I would want both and much more. In the real world I acknowledge resources are limited.
The costs involved are not just at the airport in building the additional runway. The additional employees need places to live and they need transportation. They need to eat so we need shops and they get sick so we need hospitals. Many of them will have families so we need schools. All of this require additional transportation. In turn we need virgin land or reconstruction of existing land with either more usage of height with its problems or higher density with its problems. It will also created demand for more energy which in turn create more pollution. All of it also create more garbage and sewage.
Traditionally we have considered many of these unlimited resources but it is quickly changing. We have accepted that pumping some toxins in to the air is very costly in peoples health. That polluting water become very costly. And so on.
Are those extra jobs at the airport worth the real cost?
And I would have voted yes to allow expansion.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 99): But there are enough hub to spoke routes left to open. In particular from CLT and IAD. I believe the growth will be significant. I agree with demand not being steady enough. So why not fill 30% to 70% of the plane with connecting traffic?
Where are the wins? The passengers getting a direct flight are winners but are likely to pay a bit more for the ticket. The airports losing those connections are not winners. The airlines having to rebuild their transfer network and using smaller, less efficient equipment are unlikely to be winners.
In my view it takes that the route is viable by itself or that it was dismissed because of capacity constraints somewhere else.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 99): It is certain connections will be dropped if they don't. But yes, looking at cities served by MUC on the Airline Route Mapper (fun software to play with), I see many potential new destinations. For example, why doesn't MIA-MUC show up as a route? or MCO, DFW, IAH (*A), CAN. I could keep going. For example, MUC should eventually be connected to MAA. If MUC is going to grow as a business city, it needs more long haul destinations which will require more connections.
The underlying question is: what is the natural number of connections when there are no slot constraints. Many of the airports on your list have available slots, why isn't their number of destinations higher?
Is the high number of connections at MUC a sign of health or scraping for spoils?
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 99): Please take it on! I'm sure there is money to be made connecting rail to airlines for US based business travelers.
I found http://www.raileurope.com/ . I don't think this is much of a technical problem. The question is why isn't the will there?
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 99): I love my job. That isn't the point. It isn't the travel I mind, its losing the weekend day with my kids. It is spending one more bedtime story away. Its a push/pull. Hence how I pick hubs. If LH/MUC doesn't want US based business... ok.
I'm with you. It is a give and take where you want more than is possible. Just one more of the many games life play with us.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 99): But have you been involved in picking a city for a project that involves *significant* air travel? Or better yet, a convention. There are jobs every city wants (for they tend to bring in high margin business later). You pretty much have to select a well connected city.
I have done up to 500ish people which I guess would qualify as mid-sized. I find hotels and meeting rooms to be the limiting factors.
With Munich being the 8th highest connected city today and several great hubs close by I doubt Messe München will struggle without the third runway.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 99): Family lives 6 minutes away for the wife's and 7 for mine. Oh, I could travel for other family, but they would rather travel back to Los Angeles.
I have 7,800 km to my mother and sister, 17,000 km to my brother. It is 9,900 km between my sister and brother. It is a different problem They love Miami and I love South Africa but after a few times it has little draw.
Quoting r2rho (Reply 101): I agree, but we don't agree on the definition of smart and brute
To me brute means adding parallel capacity. Another runway, another terminal, another gate. Smart is utilizing those resources so you get more throughput while using the same number of runways, etc.
Quoting r2rho (Reply 101): To me, the MUC 3rd rwy falls well within what I consider sustainable and reasonable expansion.
When it comes down to it, so do I. I'm just always trying to look at it from as many sides as possible. Just because I think the end result should be different doesn't mean I can't appreciate the arguments from others or object to many of the arguments used by people who want the same end result.
I do see the value in arguing that additional flights may not bring as much benefit as they cost. I do see the value in suggesting better use of resources before adding. I do not see additional jobs as an automatic for approving every project.
Quoting r2rho (Reply 101): Note that I would be against expanding MUC beyond 120 ops/hour.
Why is 120 more reasonable than 80 or 160? Should 120 be limited to thee runways or should they have four so they can maintain 120 even if one become unusable or weather degrade capacity?
Quoting r2rho (Reply 101): By the time (or rather, before) that gets filled up, we should have hopefully improved high-speed rail connections, other small airports in Bavaria would have hopefully become available for p2p flights, and other hubs in Eastern Europe will have become available to take on additional hub capacity. But I do think MUC needs the 120 ops.
HSR isn't an replacement to air. They are complimentary. Up to around 4 -5 hours trains are more efficient. After that flying. Pick what is most efficient. Don't favor one for other reasons.
Quoting r2rho (Reply 101): In my personal opinion as European, having lived and worked in several EU countries in the past years, I have strongly benefitted from MUC both as hub and O&D. MUC has significantly gained from the deeper integration of EU economies since the EU Treaty, thanks to the congestion of other hubs and MUC's superb facilities and efficiency. With the 3rd runway, MUC could have also gained from the next EU air travel expansion: towards the East, an airline market still in its infancy.
No doubt MUC could gain traffic with a third runway. I'm sure a lot of airports can gain traffic with an additional runway. But is it worth it? Is Lufthansa better served by having a 5th runway at FRA, making BER, HAM or some other airport a third hub? Maybe even some other airport in Europe. Is Munch better off targeting other projects? I can make money selling ice-cream at the stoplight in front of where I live but it is not very good use of my time.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 102): Air traffic is light years ahead of rail when it comes to online booking systems. Has been thanks to IATA and interlining even when booking systems had been in their infancy. Even on some domestic requests DB (German Rail) gives sometimes a "pricing not possible" which simply means they cannot issue an on-line ticket.
Now, try to integrate that with airlines it works when the train gets a flight number. For a booking portal integrating 27 European rail systems with all the airlines around would be an interesting task, but would it be worthwhile?
They are 2 separate systems, air is highly advanced and globally connected 8except the low costs which have set back time) , rail is partially connected to neighbouring systems or through trains.
Some see problems. Others see opportunities.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 104, posted (11 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1963 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 103): Some see problems. Others see opportunities.
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 a goal will lose. Simple as that.
Quoting cmf (Reply 103): HSR isn't an replacement to air. They are complimentary. Up to around 4 -5 hours trains are more efficient. After that flying. Pick what is most efficient. Don't favor one for other reasons.
Like everything in life, it all depends on the particular item. Talking about intermodality, HSR has replaced flights from CGN to FRA totally and reduced capacity from DUS. Nex target would be STR, where the rail project STR21 has been through all legal and judicial stages and became law. It was all open, the information was there and available to all interested. Now, you can lad a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink. When building started, the snoring public (or shall we say horses), woke up and claimed they had been left out of the process.
A needless referendum was won by the pro fraction (as i said, the case was already law) but still the naye sayers try to torpedo the project. Presently the discussion is the connection of STR airport to the HSR network. The most conservative, backwards party we have in Germany, the Greens, want local trains only.
That would mean, LH must keep their 6 or so flights to FRA and some to MUC indefinately, as they have to stay in the STR market. Connecting the airport to the HSR metwork would make these flights obsolete, both to MUC and to FRA.
NUE could be the next HSR connection making flights to FRA obsolete, but the government hasn't even started on the part between Aschaffenburg and Wuerzburg that is needed to cut the travel time.
Now, we learn from these examples that infrastructure is held back by naye sayers, who seem to be unable to look much farther than their local church tower, regardless if that is runways or rail lines.
LOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 982 posts, RR: 1 Reply 105, posted (11 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1927 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 103): I found http://www.raileurope.com/ . I don't think this is much of a technical problem. The question is why isn't the will there?
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 out. It also doesn't include many smaller cities (including my own, the second biggest in Salzburg) and doesn't seem to handle anything the multitude of trains well.
It's a much, much, much more complex problem than a search for a flight.
There are many many more operators.
Many different types of trains, e.g. in Austria: Railjet, EuroCity, InterCity, ÖBB EuroCity, ÖBB InterCity, D (fast train), Regional Express (REx), Regional, Sbahn, CAT (City Airport Train in Vienna), BLB (Berchtesgadener Land Bahn from Germany) and ICE from Germany. The system has to be able to distinguish between all of them. And those are just here in Austria. The system also includes buses and other types of transit.
Senchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 106, posted (11 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1870 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 99): Rank by airport destinations, Airport, # destinations
1 FRA 253
2 AMS 221
3 CDG 218
4 ATL 200
5 PEK 190
6 DME 189
7 IST 185
8 MUC 184
9 ORD 182
10 DXB 175
11 DFW 173
12 IAH 168
13 DEN 161
14 LGW 157
15 FCO 155
15 LHR 155
15 MAD 155
18 DUS 153
19 BRU 151
20 EWR 148
20 YYZ 148
20 JFK 148
23 VIE 145
24 PVG 144
25 BCN 141
26 LAX 140
27 STN 137
28 SVO 136
29 ZRH 133
30 CLT 130
31 ICN 129
31 LAS 129
33 DTW 128
34 MSP 127
35 CAN 125
36 MIA 122
37 BKK 121
37 DUB 121
39 IAD 118
39 LED 118
39 MAN 118
39 ORY 118
43 SIN 117
44 PHL 114
45 HKG 113
46 CPH 109
47 KUL 107
47 VKO 107
49 PMI 106
50 MXP 100
To be clear, the above quantity is the number of destinations I could find on Google that day. I found *most* airports enhance their destination portfolio a little by quoting numbers higher than I could find.
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 expand the network, create additional short haul legs and feed long haul segments.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 99): For example, why doesn't MIA-MUC show up as a route?
It was served by LH. Earlier, i think it was seasonal (like summer schedule only). They cancelled the route in 2011 and since there are also FRA-MIA, DUS-MIA and ZRH-MIA maybe it's reasonable.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 102): They are 2 separate systems, air is highly advanced and globally connected 8except the low costs which have set back time) , rail is partially connected to neighbouring systems or through trains.
Keep in mind that rail traffic can also directly compete with air traffic. Take Japan as an example: The introduction and rapid (wordplay) expansion of the Shinkansen is closely monitored by ANA and JAL as significant backdrops on certain routes connected by both air and rail can be seen. I think same goes for France's Air France vs TGV, Germany's LH vs ICE etc.
travelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3311 posts, RR: 0 Reply 107, posted (11 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1862 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 96): Its not just AMEX. Our competitors collaborate on the same projects and they use Carlson-Wagonlit or Travelocity. I've yet to see anyone else have the rail integrated. All have the same issues...
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 Deutsche Bahn, Amtrak, SNCF, and some other European rail fares/schedules integrated into the air booking page.
Back to the MUC runway issue: Based on the pics in the first couple of posts, could another runway be built in the "footprint" of the existing runways? There seems to be an awful large space for taxi ways and the like.
I'm just comparing the MUC footprint to a place like LAX with 4 parallel runways in a relatively small footprint, and it seems (of course pics can be deceiving) that a third "runway complex" wouldn't be too necessary.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 109, posted (11 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1836 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 104): It's like with sports games, the team that does not take the opportiunity to make a goal will lose. Simple as that.
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.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 104): Now, we learn from these examples that infrastructure is held back by naye sayers, who seem to be unable to look much farther than their local church tower, regardless if that is runways or rail lines.
The extremes are rarely good. Doesn't matter what side they are on.
Quoting Senchingo (Reply 106): It was served by LH. Earlier, i think it was seasonal (like summer schedule only). They cancelled the route in 2011 and since there are also FRA-MIA, DUS-MIA and ZRH-MIA maybe it's reasonable.
Before LH it was flown by Lada.
Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 108): Exactly. Where are the Wittelsbachs when you need them? Today's voters would reject Neuschwanstein.
I think they went and implemented ETS. Look how little objection there has been to a body implementing it.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10652 posts, RR: 100 Reply 110, posted (11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1757 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 109): Quoting PanHAM (Reply 104):
It's like with sports games, the team that does not take the opportiunity to make a goal will lose. Simple as that.
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.
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 chosing (by vote) not to go after business. There is no choice to get off the playing field. Heck, there aren't really any breaks today in business...
Quoting travelin man (Reply 107): 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 Deutsche Bahn, Amtrak, SNCF, and some other European rail fares/schedules integrated into the air booking page.
For the record, that is the first time I've ever heard 'Concur being the best example.'
Thanks for the heads up, I'll look into this. I wonder if this is a company to company option? Does it do cross Boarder trains? (e.g., between The Netherlands and Germany)
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 111, posted (11 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1734 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 110): 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 chosing (by vote) not to go after business. There is no choice to get off the playing field. Heck, there aren't really any breaks today in business...
I see what you did there
Doesn't change that going after all business is rarely a good idea.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10652 posts, RR: 100 Reply 112, posted (11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1698 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 111): Doesn't change that going after all business is rarely a good idea.
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 median wage (by some amount, usually a standard deviation). That means supplying the connections those jobs demand. Runways are *very* long lead time items. When growth happens, decisions are made quickly.
MUC wouldn't be nearly at capacity if there wasn't demand. The airlines at MUC have done well, which implies they were serving the airport well.
Part of my opinion is based on being LA based and watching industries that pay more than the regional median wage leave due to various lack of infrastructure. Its easy to say 'a business should just accept' a condition. But when they must move, they often to not stay regionally.
For example, I believe either Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, or Thailand will be one of the next big growth area. When its time to expand flights, what will a MUC based airline do? Airlines are very hesitant to drop break even or better routes as new routes are notorious for taking a while to reach break even. (Its tougher at constricted hubs.)
Oh well... The vote is apparently only binding for a year.
For *A, this is a very nice gift to TK and who ever becomes the *A Indian partner. This will just make watching TK's growth that much more interesting.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 113, posted (11 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1657 times:
Quoting Senchingo (Reply 106): Keep in mind that rail traffic can also directly compete with air traffic
yes, but we are talking about booking portals in that answer. In that case rail is lagging far behind air.
Quoting Senchingo (Reply 106): It was served by LH. Earlier, i think it was seasonal (
VIE-FRA-MUC operated by Lauda 763 under joint Lauda/LH flight number. LTU served the route as well.
Quoting travelin man (Reply 107): Back to the MUC runway issue: Based on the pics in the first couple of posts, could another runway be built in the "footprint" of the existing runways? There seems to be an awful large space for taxi ways and the like.
It would not increase the number by the required 40 slots per hour.
besides, the planning application and legal procedure would need to start from scratch and opposition would be the same.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 114, posted (11 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1627 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 112): 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 median wage (by some amount, usually a standard deviation). That means supplying the connections those jobs demand. Runways are *very* long lead time items. When growth happens, decisions are made quickly.
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 the price.
It is no different that cities objecting to power plants, chemical plants, prisons, etc establishing in their area. The jobs are nice but the total price is too high. Companies are increasingly required to show their total value. It isn't measured on just jobs and tax revenue anymore.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 112): MUC wouldn't be nearly at capacity if there wasn't demand. The airlines at MUC have done well, which implies they were serving the airport well.
Agree, the airport and airlines are served well. Question is how well the people of the region are served by the expansion and what lack of expansion will cost them.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 112): Part of my opinion is based on being LA based and watching industries that pay more than the regional median wage leave due to various lack of infrastructure. Its easy to say 'a business should just accept' a condition. But when they must move, they often to not stay regionally.
To some extent companies must accept conditions. Just as residents must accepts conditions. It is about balancing it. I think we both agree that balance is increasingly moving towards residents in most industrialized countries. The question is if residents are getting more than their reasonable share or if companies need to give up more before there is a balance.
In my opinion companies have historically been well ahead. I also think that for the most part they are still way ahead but there are plenty of individual situations where they have been crippled more than they should.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 112): For example, I believe either Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, or Thailand will be one of the next big growth area.
Big growth of what? Production of low cost items where China is becoming too expensive? Production of high value products? R&D? Back office functions?
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 112): When its time to expand flights, what will a MUC based airline do? Airlines are very hesitant to drop break even or better routes as new routes are notorious for taking a while to reach break even.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the question is what will LH do. To a small extent what will AB do.
With the new runway I think a lot of LH's future expansion will be concentrated at FRA going forward. The decision on the night curfew is limiting them in some ways but it is small compared to the gain of all those extra morning and late afternoon and evening movements.
AB has indicated a lot of future expansion is happening around BER.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 112): For *A, this is a very nice gift to TK and who ever becomes the *A Indian partner. This will just make watching TK's growth that much more interesting.
Is TK competing with MUC or LH? I would suggest the later and as such the additional capacity at FRA is as big blow to TK/IST as this is a gift. I also expect LH to increase flights from their other airports.
TK is not at the end of their expansion either way.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 115, posted (11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1593 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 114): With the new runway I think a lot of LH's future expansion will be concentrated at FRA going forward. The decision on the night curfew is limiting them in some ways but it is small compared to the gain of all those extra morning and late afternoon and evening movements.
the night curfew are actually hindering the early morning and late evening banks. It is making turn-arounds difficult s well as connections, high yield passengers stay away from these flights because they have to calculate losing a day which is intolerable. Just to mention a few things. MUC actually had some evening slots left available but the new situation changes the picture for LH again.
TK is serving meanwhile almost every airport in Germany and they can build on strong ethnic traffic. High yield business traffic is the icing on the cake and they offer a lot of connections via IST.
Judges decisions which do not reflect the realities of airline operations are a gift to TK and the Gulf carriers who have no such restrictions. The new situation at MUC is certainly no help for German based carriers who are faced with curfews, stupid taxes like passenger tax and ETS and a hostile minority screaming in terminals each Monday.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 116, posted (11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1474 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 115): the night curfew are actually hindering the early morning and late evening banks. It is making turn-arounds difficult s well as connections, high yield passengers stay away from these flights because they have to calculate losing a day which is intolerable.
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 connections high yield passengers are staying away from due to the more restrictive curfew.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 115): TK is serving meanwhile almost every airport in Germany and they can build on strong ethnic traffic. High yield business traffic is the icing on the cake and they offer a lot of connections via IST.
IST isn't an operational panacea. Two close runways and a shorter crossing runway is not a good setup for high number of hourly movements. Building a new airport may or may not happen but will certainly take years.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 115): Judges decisions which do not reflect the realities of airline operations are a gift to TK and the Gulf carriers who have no such restrictions.
It sure is hard when airlines are not above the law.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 115): The new situation at MUC is certainly no help for German based carriers who are faced with curfews, stupid taxes like passenger tax and ETS and a hostile minority screaming in terminals each Monday.
I agree German carriers are not helped by the MUC 3rd runway not happening.
I do not agree with most of the "hostile minority screaming in terminals each Monday" are doing or what motivates them but I understand their objection to that airlines should have priority over people.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 117, posted (11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1449 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 116): understand their objection to that airlines should have priority over people.
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 base and not by occupying a part of T1 and screaming loud which hurts staff and passengers. Totally over any reason.
Quoting cmf (Reply 116): It sure is hard when airlines are not above the law.
Bull. Companies have to meet a lot of legal requirements and regulation, such as profitable operation. The same law maker obviously does not even notice the problems created by stupid contradicting rules and regulations. No one stands above the law, but the laws must acknowledge the requirements of trade.
Quoting cmf (Reply 116): How many flights have been lost? How many flight
The question is, how many connections have been lost. All evening long distance flights have been pulled forward, some by an hour, making connections on late inbound flights no longer possible, making these flights less viable.
No business man advertsises in the paper that he will use AMS instead of FRA in the future, but a state,ment of a CEO of an IT firm recently said exactly that in his firm, connections via FRA on late evening flights are avoided now because the risk of starning and losing a day is too high.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2245 posts, RR: 1 Reply 118, posted (11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1446 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 103): Why is 120 more reasonable than 80 or 160? Should 120 be limited to thee runways or should they have four so they can maintain 120 even if one become unusable or weather degrade capacity?
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 maintain a competitive hub alongside O&D for the long term. Should that fill up one day, MUC does not need to chase any further traffic beyond that, other hubs should become available for it.
Quoting cmf (Reply 103): HSR isn't an replacement to air. They are complimentary.
True, but it can replace air in some routes. In particular in German domestic travel HSR isn't replacing air as much as it could be, the no-brainers of NUE and STR cited by PanHAM just being two examples.
Quoting travelin man (Reply 107):
I'm just comparing the MUC footprint to a place like LAX with 4 parallel runways in a relatively small footprint, and it seems (of course pics can be deceiving) that a third "runway complex" wouldn't be too necessary.
LAX has a small footprint but no taxiways between runway pairs (though this is currently being fixed), narrow taxi space and tight terminal space with not much room for maneuvering. Thus, LAX does not get as much out of its runways as ATL (before the 5th runway). In fact, by its design, 4-runway ATL is a more adequate comparison to MUC. An alternative at MUC could have been an ATL-like 4 runway configuration (some runway alternatives to the south were studied but discarded). The net result would have also been 120ish ops/hour (probably a bit more), but a indeed a smaller footprint, at the expense of likely higher construction costs.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10652 posts, RR: 100 Reply 119, posted (11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1435 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 114): 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 the price.
"Transportation is the cornerstone a city build wealth." MUC is not strengthening that cornerstone. Everything else we're discussing is the value of air travel transportation and hosting a hub. I believe there is high value in expanding the hub, you do not. We're going in circles on that.
New flights need high connecting traffic to cut the risk at launch. Lack of flight growth inevitably leads to low connecting traffic (e.g., LHR, NRT) that makes launching new routes difficult. A new route is often launched with 70% connecting traffic. Customers decide much quicker today to switch.
Read the Lexus and the Olive tree book. What used to be major decisions are now mouse clicks. And thousands of jobs quickly move with the mouse clicks. You debate the value of the jobs. Well, its simple, Bavaria is a fairly high cost region. Individuals will not take low paying jobs. Low margin jobs will continually be leaving the region, thus Bavaria needs the resources to attract new higher paying jobs. Lack of growing connections will mean lost jobs opportunities.
I think the number of high wage jobs that will not grow in Bavaria will be significant due to this decision.
Quoting cmf (Reply 114): Is TK competing with MUC or LH?
Both, mostly LH, but both.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 115): the night curfew are actually hindering the early morning and late evening banks.
I can see how the night curfew is killing late incoming flights feeding longhaul. Early morning flights are usually flights going Eastward (West to East)... So that implies US flights feeding the morning bank. I could believe that. Those would be the flights I would want.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 117): No business man advertsises in the paper that he will use AMS instead of FRA in the future, but a state,ment of a CEO of an IT firm recently said exactly that in his firm, connections via FRA on late evening flights are avoided now because the risk of starning and losing a day is too high.
I'm surprised he went public. Most will have a VP quietly negotiate a new contract and not make noise.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 120, posted (11 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1404 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 119): I'm surprised he went public. Most will have a VP quietly negotiate a new contract and not make noise.
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 month to a meeting at their Far East HQ and usually his US and other European collegues assemble at FRA and jointly fly overnight. No longer as the risk of stranding and losing a full working day is too great.
I have a feeling that this issue will go through the courtsas the present situation at FRA is simply not workable and grandfather rights are neglected. Going down from 200 via 50 to zero literally overnight is not tolerable.
The MUC night curfew is a bit different, they have a quota but there it was established from the beginning. Still they have flexibilty there beyond the regulation., Talke the Championship game between Munich and Chelsea The crowd was back home in the early morning with flights departing MUC all night If 2 out of town teams had played, which is the rule, the number of flights would even have been double.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 119): Early morning flights are usually flights going Eastward (West to East)... So that implies US flights feeding the morning bank
Both far east and US inbound flights feed the early morning banks. if the NIMBYs have their way, the curfew would be extended 10 pm to 6 am. If that happens (the federal government would intervene for sure) this would be a hub killer and no aircraft could be stationed at FRA and still earn its keep.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 122, posted (11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1300 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 117): I don't. Airlines are run by people and they carry people.
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 society re-balancing priorities in a way you do not like.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 117): Bull. Companies have to meet a lot of legal requirements and regulation, such as profitable operation. The same law maker obviously does not even notice the problems created by stupid contradicting rules and regulations. No one stands above the law, but the laws must acknowledge the requirements of trade.
The law needs to acknowledged the requirements of everybody. They can't give priority to trade. Society is people. Companies are tools.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 117): The question is, how many connections have been lost. All evening long distance flights have been pulled forward, some by an hour, making connections on late inbound flights no longer possible, making these flights less viable.
Passenger numbers are up 1.4% for the year.
Quoting r2rho (Reply 118): 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 maintain a competitive hub alongside O&D for the long term. Should that fill up one day, MUC does not need to chase any further traffic beyond that, other hubs should become available for it.
In 1991 MUC had 192 k movements. In 2011 it was 410 k. Why isn't it time to let other hubs have further traffic already at this time? MUC has already become one of the 10 best connected airports in the world. Why isn't it time to bring up connections in another German city now?
Quoting r2rho (Reply 118): True, but it can replace air in some routes. In particular in German domestic travel HSR isn't replacing air as much as it could be, the no-brainers of NUE and STR cited by PanHAM just being two examples.
I'm sure there are places where train could take more but basically train is more efficient at short distances and after that it is planes. That is why they are complimentary.
With trains becoming faster the border is moving farther out and we need to adjust accordingly.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 119): "Transportation is the cornerstone a city build wealth."
The question is how you define wealth. Is a city with high GDP but low quality of life better than a city with low GDP bug high quality of life? Then of course there is the problem of how you measure quality of life.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 119): Lack of flight growth inevitably leads to low connecting traffic (e.g., LHR, NRT)
But has it harmed London and Tokyo? Population is up at and changes do not seem connected to airport capacity.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 119): You debate the value of the jobs. Well, its simple, Bavaria is a fairly high cost region. Individuals will not take low paying jobs. Low margin jobs will continually be leaving the region, thus Bavaria needs the resources to attract new higher paying jobs. Lack of growing connections will mean lost jobs opportunities.
I think the number of high wage jobs that will not grow in Bavaria will be significant due to this decision.
This is where we are different. I think you represent the old thinking in this. In my experience people are increasingly picking lower payed jobs for higher quality of life. Being home to see the kids to bed each night is worth more than having a big house.
And to the extent it is MUC additional capacity at say DUS or BER may be similar or worse. I expect the co-operation between AB and EY and their use of BER to have greater effect on TK than additional slots for any airline at MUC.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 120): Both far east and US inbound flights feed the early morning banks.
What changes have there been to the morning bank? I don't remember flights arriving before 5:00 before. I don't see any changes to the times of the flights I used to take.
Quoting sweair (Reply 121): 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.
And you will not change your mind until everyone is sick from pollution and can't work anymore. But hey, you can always move the jobs to Asia.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 123, posted (11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1293 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 122): What changes have there been to the morning bank?
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 intended. Bad style, but that goes like a red tape through your comments.
5 am for pax flights is fine, as long as aircraft that arrive early can land anytime before 5, which they cannot now. Circling and buring unnecessary fuel seems to be "green".
Quoting cmf (Reply 122):
Passenger numbers are up 1.4% for the year.
which is below average
Quoting cmf (Reply 122): The law needs to acknowledged the requirements of everybody. They can't give priority to trade. Society is people. Companies are tools.
companies are people. It is all about people. Companies are tools for people to earn money. If companies cannot operate efficiently because someone puts shackles to their legs, the people in those companies will suffer.
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, 
From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 982 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Dec 2009, 473 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, 
). And IF the 3rd RWY is built, they fear the noise and emissions that result from 700,000 movements...
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.
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, 
Will the mid-east hub carriers at least send some nice flowers as a thank you?
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3898 posts, 
From Kiribati, joined Sep 2009, 207 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, 
From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 177 posts, 
From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 208 posts, 
What happens is the children of Bavaria would have to travel and return home less often for job opportunities. Pehaps this means, at least temporarily, they live abroad. That satisfies those who do not wish to build more housing nor expand transportation. But they will go find positions. What fraction won't return home? (Hint: My office is full of people who moved to Los Angeles temporarily and stuck around.) I have friends who have upset their parents as they are not returning back to Los Angeles as the opportunities in China were too good to pass up and look to be their permanent new home. 
From UK - England, joined Sep 2011, 298 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1550 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3590 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}