Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New SYD Airport In Botany Bay  
User currently offlinejetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2198 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2133 times:

AN ambitious plan to build a fourth and fifth runway at Sydney Airport on reclaimed land in Botany Bay has won the backing of state Treasurer Mike Baird.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...ydney/story-fndo28a5-1226514736234


Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
87 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2145 times:

Build the airport like what they did in Hong Kong and Kansi, build it on reclaim land in the middle of Botany Bay ? Sounds like a plan.  

User currently offlineskyhawkmatthew From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2137 times:

There's no way this will ever happen.


Qantas - The Spirit of Australia.
User currently offlineaussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1734 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2139 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Cant see this going ahead,Best chance of a 2nd Sydney airport is at Wilton but even that is in the "Too hard basket".

User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

Not going to happen.. for one thing the greenies will go on about changing tides and habitats for wading birds, also it concentrates noise over the inner west so will still be subject to curfew and movement caps.


BV
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2137 times:

Sydney will never get it's second airport.

User currently onlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5148 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

This would never get through... and their is no point.


Sydney doesn't need more runways.... it's runways are already artificially capped.

This proposal just routes more flights over the suburbs which is why we have caps now.

If they wanted to expand SYD I would say get rid of the artificial cap and build a new terminal on reclaimed land.


User currently offlineFlyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2137 times:

[quote=BoeingVista,reply=4]Not going to happen.. for one thing the greenies will go on about changing tides and habitats for wading birds

LOL you are spot on my friend, not to mention it might scare the fish away. Unfortunealy as good as it sounds and yes Sydney has to do some thing the Greenies will always get in the way of progress and Julia will be to scared of the Greens to give this project the go ahead.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2136 times:

Quoting jetfuel (Thread starter):

Finally someone has the balls to build a new Sydney Airport... Wait sorry didn't mean to get excited so quickly...

Ain't going to happen in a million years... I remember the 2nd airport was being discussed a good 26 years ago!!!

Never forget the sign erected across the road from Australia's Wonderland!

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2136 times:

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 7):
the Greenies will always get in the way of progress and Julia will be to scared of the Greens to give this project the go ahead.

Why only blame the Greens? This is as much to do with other self interests.

a) Local residents, at all three proposed airport sites.
b) Investors in the existing airport.
c) Investors in land around the proposed airports.
d) Infrastructure needed for the proposed airports
e) The proposed new runways do nothing for caps on movements per hour and curfew.
f) Clashes between three levels of government, local, state and federal.
h) The interests of regional airlines that want to fly to the main airport, and not be consigned to a secondary airport.

Changes in government at all levels have done nothing to move expanding air capacity any closer to a reality. Instead, what you get is the necessity of making it look like something is happening. It was only recently the Liberal State Government proposed Canberra as the second airport, now they have just come up with something that is just as much a fairy tale. In the meantime, they have approved expansion of housing near the Canberra airport. You couldn't write a French farce that was more absurd.


User currently offlinejetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

I had to check it wasn't dated April 1


Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2135 times:

Quite apart from any thoughts Greens or local residents may have, the salient point in the linked article may be,

Quote:
Mr Baird said he believed the Sydney Airport company, federal and state governments could all contribute to the cost of funding the plan.

I can see them all doing the sums to see who can out-bid to stump up the most. Sure. The company is primarily concerned with the shareholders and may be averse to the risk of using its own money. The State will cry poor and suggest that, as interstate and international travel is a federal matter, the Commonwealth should provide the most. Meanwhile, the federal treasurer can be heard muttering about a surplus and suggest that as Sydney is the main beneficiary...


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2138 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 9):

Why only blame the Greens? This is as much to do with other self interests.

I don't really, that was me being ironic  

Look the simplest and best solution is a no brainier, build the 2nd airport at the site bought by the federal government in 1994 for the purpose of building Sydney's 2nd airport, Badgerys Creek.

This will never happen either.



BV
User currently offlineIrishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

I'm confused. I don't see the 3rd and 4th new runway in the picture, unless they are planning to keep the old airport open as well. In that case then it looks like planes would be landing/taking off right behind each other or towards each other.

Doesn't make sense.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2135 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 4):
Not going to happen.. for one thing the greenies will go on about changing tides and habitats for wading birds
Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 7):
the Greenies will always get in the way of progress and Julia will be to scared of the Greens to give this project the go ahead.

I want to precis this comment by saying that I am in no way a supporter of the Greens.

Nonetheless, tidal flows, fish patterns, and wading birds were - in fact - the first things I thought of when I saw the image in the OP's post. This plan would potentially cut Botany Bay in half, and would therefore be an ecological disaster.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 11):
The State will cry poor and suggest that, as interstate and international travel is a federal matter, the Commonwealth should provide the most

And there's the real reason that nothing will ever happen. Our wonderful split system of government means that every level can palm off responsibility to someone else, and use the "we're too poor, but they're loaded" argument to justify doing nothing. It works for roads, so I'm sure it's good for airports as well.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

Quoting Irishpower (Reply 13):

So am I...!

The best solution to the problem being faced would be to buy out the properties in Kurnell and build a NEW airport similar to HKG in the ocean... Once the NEW airport becomes operational redevelop the current Kingsford Smith airport... BUT.... We all know that's in the too difficult not going to bloody happen basket!!!

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24963 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2134 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 14):
Nonetheless, tidal flows, fish patterns, and wading birds were - in fact - the first things I thought of when I saw the image in the OP's post. This plan would potentially cut Botany Bay in half, and would therefore be an ecological disaster.

  

And if the western suburbs keep growing as fast as they are, it's going to be gridlock for anyone from the west getting to SYD.

Back in the old days, Botany Bay was a great idea for the flying boats, as an alternative to Rose Bay, but those days are gone.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2711 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day ago) and read 2137 times:

Build an HSR between Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne and eventually Brisbane and you won't need a second airport. But Australia seems, like the US, unable to make big infrastructure decisions any more...


When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlinefuffla From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 23 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

That proposed development will never happen. That is a wildlife conservation area, the suburb is home to 2600 people and is the site of Captain Cook's first landing.

There are two main issues with the current Sydney Airport site. Runway capacity is limited under a cap system to reduce aircraft noise, and the layout of the airport itself is restricting gate availability during peak periods (or all day if you are flying Virgin Australia).

The first issue will only be resolved when local residents and politicians pull their heads out of their arses and lift the cap and reduce the curfew times (say to 0100-0500L). Travellers will be the first to complain when their flight is delayed due to the cap or congestion but will then on the other hand complain about aircraft noise. Education and responsible government will be the only cure.

The second issue comes down to ageing airport infrastructure and layout which can only be fixed by Sydney Airport Corporation and pressure from the government. One only has to arrive on an international flight at 0800-0900 in the morning and spend 30 minutes waiting for a gate to realise how bad the situation is becoming with no fix (neither short or long term) on the horizon. The airport needs to make better use of the limited land it has available, but that costs money and SACL (Macquarie Group) won't part with that anytime soon.

A new airport isn't required, the current site requires responsible government and capital investment. So unfortunately, the situation will not improve for some time because we do not have a responsible government on either side of parliament and no-one will part with their money.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 2135 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 17):
Build an HSR between Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne and eventually Brisbane and you won't need a second airport. But Australia seems, like the US, unable to make big infrastructure decisions any more...

        .

I find it impossible to believe that a federal government so intent on delivering major infrastructure (like the NBN) has such a shortsighted approach to this issue. Why spend all this money on a new airport, when it can be redirected to pay for most of a system that will revolutionise the way Australia travels/does business domestically.

All this talk though, nothing is going to happen until the change is forced (ie fuel getting really expensive).


User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 2135 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 15):
The best solution to the problem being faced would be to buy out the properties in Kurnell and build a NEW airport similar to HKG in the ocean... Once the NEW airport becomes operational redevelop the current Kingsford Smith airport... BUT.... We all know that's in the too difficult not going to bloody happen basket!!!

Hmm, was just thinking how much $$$ you would be able to raise by selling off the existing airport site to developers? A billion or more? Kingsford Smith sits on some pretty prime real estate so I would imagine it would be very valuable.

Building an airport on reclaimed land in the ocean though is prohibitively expensive.Maybe the best option is to build a brand new purpose built airport at Wilton and link it to the CBD via a dedicated HSR. The journey time would be what 30-40 mins to the CBD?? which would acceptable to most people. Once you build that HSR to Wilton, you've got the first link of the HSR to Canberra/Melbourne, although if we were to build that, we wouldn't need a second airport would we !!!   



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlinebjwonline From UK - England, joined Mar 2007, 105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 2136 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 14):
I want to precis this comment by saying that I am in no way a supporter of the Greens.

Nonetheless, tidal flows, fish patterns, and wading birds were - in fact - the first things I thought of when I saw the image in the OP's post. This plan would potentially cut Botany Bay in half, and would therefore be an ecological disaster.

  

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 17):
Build an HSR between Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne and eventually Brisbane and you won't need a second airport. But Australia seems, like the US, unable to make big infrastructure decisions any more...

        

Quoting anstar (Reply 6):
Sydney doesn't need more runways.... it's runways are already artificially capped.

This proposal just routes more flights over the suburbs which is why we have caps now.

If they wanted to expand SYD I would say get rid of the artificial cap and build a new terminal on reclaimed land.

For the foreseeable future, this is the ONLY option for SYD. The runways are nowhere near at capacity physically, just politically. The cap must be increased. The noise level of an airport is not what it was back when these caps were agreed upon, with the modern jets of today (ie A380, B77W, B788 etc) the cap could harmlessly be increased and the curfew even "trimmed" a bit too. I'm not just making this "someone else's problem" I live next to SYD and can say the noise is not a problem anymore like it was with older jets.

As for terminal space, there is so much ample room on solid ground at SYD even the need for reclamation from the bay for a terminal is not necessary. There have been many studies done on how to better use the plentiful land at SYD, the governments just need to agree and let the operators of SYD make it better.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24963 posts, RR: 85
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 2135 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting qf002 (Reply 19):
Why spend all this money on a new airport, when it can be redirected to pay for most of a system that will revolutionise the way Australia travels/does business domestically.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but I don't see how HSR between Sydney and Melbourne has more than a very small impact on air traffic congestion at SYD or MEL.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 2140 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 22):
Maybe I'm missing your point, but I don't see how HSR between Sydney and Melbourne has more than a very small impact on air traffic congestion at SYD or MEL.

I think there are like 70 daily flight pairs between Melbourne and Sydney daily (70 arrivals and 70 departures). I believe there are about 400 odd daily departures and 400 arrivals (international and domestic) everyday into and out of SYD. So MEL to SYD does contribute to alot of the airport traffic, if a HSR were to be in place, you would maybe take away say 50% of the existing air market, so you save about 30 odd arrival and departure slots (a little under 10%). You're right a small impact, but would make a difference in the peak times when you have flights every 1/2 hour from QF, DJ, JQ and TT between SYD and MEL departing/arriving.



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 22):
Maybe I'm missing your point, but I don't see how HSR between Sydney and Melbourne has more than a very small impact on air traffic congestion at SYD or MEL.

Something like 30-40% of SYD movements (I'll see if I can track down the place I read that) are to/from MEL, CBR and BNE. Offer alternative ways of reaching those cities at a cheaper cost, in as little time centre to centre and you'll free up a lot of capacity at the existing airport.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 21 hours ago) and read 2412 times:

Quoting fuffla (Reply 18):
The first issue will only be resolved when local residents and politicians pull their heads out of their arses and lift the cap and reduce the curfew times

Nope, I used to live between 16 and 34 about 5km out and operation between 6.00 and 23.00 is quite enough thank you. Until I moved I really didn't appreciate how disruptive the noise was. Locals will never agree to changing the curfew.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 17):
Build an HSR between Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne and eventually Brisbane and you won't need a second airport. But Australia seems, like the US, unable to make big infrastructure decisions any more...

Well NSW being completely dysfunctional has just approved a housing development under the flight path to Canberra airport which will lead to a curfew there.

Quote:
THE O'Farrell government's plans for Canberra to host Sydney's second airport are in tatters, following the approval of a big housing development in the Canberra Airport flight path, the federal government says.

The NSW Planning Minister, Brad Hazzard, will announce on Tuesday the government has agreed to rezone land for the South Tralee housing development, a controversial proposal that will allow about 2000 homes to be built south of the airport.
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/second-...rt-plan-dashed-20121105-28ucu.html



BV
User currently offlinestrangr From Australia, joined Apr 2012, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 21 hours ago) and read 2374 times:

Well if we want to talk about reclaimed land. How about we chuck it here.

-34.044837,150.810943


User currently offlineFlyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 19 hours ago) and read 2474 times:

What is the actual problem with SYD ?

is it the curfew ?
is it a lack of gates?
is the airport to small for the amount of flights that come in ?
is 3 runways not enough for Sydney ?


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 19 hours ago) and read 2466 times:

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 27):
What is the actual problem with SYD ?

is it the curfew ?
is it a lack of gates?
is the airport to small for the amount of flights that come in ?
is 3 runways not enough for Sydney ?

You hit the nail in the head...!!!

With the exception of the 3 runways... Sydney needs the curfew altered with extended hours of operations... The international terminal is screaming for more gate space, nothing worse after traveling +10 hours and having to be bused to the terminal (I've seen it with my own eyes but unfortunately I haven't experienced yet)...
The terminal of the future plans which have been scrapped was a huge blow as would've solved the gate issue...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 19 hours ago) and read 2439 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 25):
Well NSW being completely dysfunctional has just approved a housing development under the flight path to Canberra airport which will lead to a curfew there.

There is so much empty land around Canberra, why put a housing estate there?


User currently offlinea36001 From Australia, joined Sep 2012, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 19 hours ago) and read 2436 times:

Get real! This will never happen! Our politicians simply do not have the guts to do it! They will scuttle the entire economy of Sydney (drama added) because some sandle wearing greenie will find a frog somewhere! I wish in some ways we were more like Japan, Osaka says it needs a new airport, no land available so let's level three mountain ranges and build an island! I call that progressive thinking, something we lack in Australia sadly! :-/

User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 19 hours ago) and read 2438 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 19):
I find it impossible to believe that a federal government so intent on delivering major infrastructure (like the NBN) has such a shortsighted approach to this issue.

The way I see it, the federal government hasn't really obtained a mandate for an HSR. With the current political and economical environment I think it is unwise for the government to propose such a project. Just imagine Tony Abbott having a field day with "white elephant" "pink batts II" "broken promise on budget surplus" etc.
Secondly, such project will undoubtedly be very expensive. I am personally not concerned about it and am even willing to contribute to it in the form of a tax, having seen the enormous impact HSR is having in China. However, as much as it pains me to say it, I don't think the Australian society, as a whole, has a forward looking mentality when it comes to long-term prospects. Too many people are too comfortable with what they have today and they will be blinded by "XX billion" price tag without realising what an HSR can achieve in the long run
Thirdly, state and federal government politics will undoubtedly hinder the project. With NSW/QLD/VIC's Coalition government one can be sure there will be endless point scoring from both sides of politics.
Fourthly, NIMBYs, NIMBYs, NIMBYs.

I fully support a HSR, but I am very pessimistic over the prospect of one actually being built in the next three decades, if ever.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 2419 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 31):
The way I see it, the federal government hasn't really obtained a mandate for an HSR

Yup, and the problem is that the mandate often doesn't exist until after the issue has taken effect. With a project that would take so long to develop/build, waiting until the mandate exists can cause massive issues.

Though you're completely correct that the politicians don't think about it that way...


User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2711 posts, RR: 4
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 8 hours ago) and read 2425 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 32):
Quoting Cerecl (Reply 31):
The way I see it, the federal government hasn't really obtained a mandate for an HSR

Yup, and the problem is that the mandate often doesn't exist until after the issue has taken effect.

It's called "leadership"....  



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2365 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 32):
Yup, and the problem is that the mandate often doesn't exist until after the issue has taken effect. With a project that would take so long to develop/build, waiting until the mandate exists can cause massive issues.
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 33):
It's called "leadership"....

Labor hasn't enough political capital to exhibit any leadership on this issue at the moment. If they win government next year they may start to lay the foundation for an HSR during that term. My most optimistic estimate is for serious work to start during the term after that. If the Coalition gets up, one can forget about such a project.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2354 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 33):
It's called "leadership"....  

Politics is in a very negative phase at the moment. Everyone wants to keep their head down, and save money.

In theory, a functional NBN could reduce the need for travel if video conferencing becomes simple, reliable and cheap.


User currently offlinestrangr From Australia, joined Apr 2012, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

Sydney does not need a bigger airport. The simple solution is to build a 3rd Runway in Melbourne, we have no issues with a curfew and well we are crying out for people to come visit out big wheel.

User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 37, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2377 times:

Quoting strangr (Reply 36):
Sydney does not need a bigger airport. The simple solution is to build a 3rd Runway in Melbourne, we have no issues with a curfew and well we are crying out for people to come visit out big wheel.

No offence but SYD is the gateway to Australia and I bet my money MEL will get a 3rd runway built way before any decision is made on the 2nd SYD airport... It ain't going to happen and the politicians need to get their heads out of the sand and make a decision!

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24963 posts, RR: 85
Reply 38, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2374 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting qf002 (Reply 24):
Something like 30-40% of SYD movements (I'll see if I can track down the place I read that) are to/from MEL, CBR and BNE.

I"m surprised by that number. I'm not disputing it, but it seems high.

Quoting a36001 (Reply 30):
They will scuttle the entire economy of Sydney (drama added) because some sandle wearing greenie will find a frog somewhere! I wish in some ways we were more like Japan, Osaka says it needs a new airport, no land available so let's level three mountain ranges and build an island! I call that progressive thinking, something we lack in Australia sadly! :-/


I'm no greenie, but I prefer to live with some considerations for the environment.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 39, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2378 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 38):
I"m surprised by that number. I'm not disputing it, but it seems high.

I'm not overly surprised myself. If you think that QF runs flight up to every 15 minutes from SYD to MEL at peak times, plus 2 with DL, plus JQ and TT, then there can easily be up to 8 flights an hour each way between SYD and MEL. BNE is another 4-5, and at some times of day/day of the week QF have 5 flights an hour from CBR to SYD + 1/2 from DJ.

At peak times those 3 routes alone could account for almost 20 departures an hour!



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 40, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2383 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 32):
Yup, and the problem is that the mandate often doesn't exist until after the issue has taken effect. With a project that would take so long to develop/build, waiting until the mandate exists can cause massive issues.

Though you're completely correct that the politicians don't think about it that way...

Getting planning permission for a 1000km high speed rail line would be a nightmare as would the actual build. And when you have finished you will be lucky if the Melbourne to Sydney trip time is under 4 hours.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 34):
Labor hasn't enough political capital to exhibit any leadership on this issue at the moment. If they win government next year they may start to lay the foundation for an HSR during that term.

What are you talking about? Labour does not have a policy of building a HSR thats the Greens.



BV
User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2368 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 40):
What are you talking about? Labour does not have a policy of building a HSR thats the Greens.

I should have been clearer. What I proposed obviously depends on Labor actually having an internal consensus that an HSR should be built. They may not, hence my "most optimistic" comment.
Having said that, I think there is enough signals out there that Labor is at least giving the idea some serious thought with the feasibility study. The whole point of my previous post is that even if Labor wants to do it now is not the time to make it a formal policy. That Labor does not have a stated policy to build an HSR is therefore IMHO irrelevant. As to the Greens, they can have a policy of building a space station for that matters. They are not going to form the government, and I don't see an HSR as a key demand should they hold the balance of power.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 40):
Getting planning permission for a 1000km high speed rail line would be a nightmare as would the actual build. And when you have finished you will be lucky if the Melbourne to Sydney trip time is under 4 hours.

I don't disagree. However, time will be saved if stations in SYD and MEL are located in the CBD, plus less check in/boarding time etc. However, the impact of an HSR on satellite cities of Sydney or Melbourne will simply be enormous. Imagine living 100-200 km away from these two major metropolis and spent only 30-45 minutes one way going into work every day. It opens up so many opportunities.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2393 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 38):
I"m surprised by that number. I'm not disputing it, but it seems high.

I'm not being precise here, but:

SYD has just over 310,000 movements a year. That's 850 movements a day on average and includes departures and arrivals.

There are up to 88 daily departures to MEL. On average, there are 77 a day, which makes for 154 movements at SYD.

There are up to 32 daily departures to CBR. On average, there are 27 a day, which makes for 54 movements at SYD.

Together, that's 208 movements just to MEL/CBR, which accounts for about 25% of total movements.

There are up to 50 daily departures to BNE. On average, there are 45 a day, which makes for 90 movements at SYD.

Including MEL, CBR and BNE, that's 298 movements which is just over 35% of total movements. On a busy weekday, that could be higher with 40 extra movements.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 40):
Getting planning permission for a 1000km high speed rail line would be a nightmare as would the actual build. And when you have finished you will be lucky if the Melbourne to Sydney trip time is under 4 hours.

Compared to building a new airport anywhere near Sydney, which will be a walk in the park? Both will be enormous projects, cause massive planning/construction issues and cost ****loads of money, so why not choose to do the project that will have a more meaningful impact in the long run.

And a 300kmh train should make the journey in about 3 hours including a stop in CBR. That's extremely competitive remembering the 15 minute trip to/from the city in Sydney and the 30 minute trip at the Melbourne end.

[Edited 2012-11-14 05:08:08]

User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2711 posts, RR: 4
Reply 43, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2363 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 42):
And a 300kmh train should make the journey in about 3 hours including a stop in CBR. That's extremely competitive remembering the 15 minute trip to/from the city in Sydney and the 30 minute trip at the Melbourne end.

Of course it's competitive. What's more, comfort and productivity of the time are much higher. You can work or dine, when you want, from the time you get on until you arrive: city centre to city centre. Plus, you can have some trains stop at regional HSR stops. This opens up new development in rural areas, as has been the case in France and other countries; one could even argue, around Ashford in the UK.

Also, new generation of HSR is typically 350-360 km/h e.g. Alstom AGV now deployed in Italy.



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2716 posts, RR: 8
Reply 44, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2363 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 38):
I"m surprised by that number. I'm not disputing it, but it seems high.

I may be completely wrong, but I think I read somewhere (long time ago) that SYD/MEL was one, if not the, busiest routes in the world.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2711 posts, RR: 4
Reply 45, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2346 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 44):
Quoting mariner (Reply 38):
I"m surprised by that number. I'm not disputing it, but it seems high.

I may be completely wrong, but I think I read somewhere (long time ago) that SYD/MEL was one, if not the, busiest routes in the world.

Depending on the season and the way you measure (seats vs flights), it is top 4 or top 5 in the world...



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlinetp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 200 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2346 times:

As an outsider, just looking at the map, you could put a nice 6 runway airport in Heathcote.

User currently offlinecosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2356 times:

Rather than building the whole airport out there, why don't they just extend the existing peninsulas and move the runways farther out. Then they can build more terminal space where the current runways intersect.

User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3115 posts, RR: 4
Reply 48, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2347 times:

I like the article's headline, but that's about it. The layout depicted is nonsensical.

Lift the movement cap, then build a 3rd parallel runway in the bay. It's the best solution as it would give SYD decades of additional use.



FLYi
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 49, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2339 times:

Quoting cosyr (Reply 47):

Botany Bay is a historical bay it ain't going to happen plus I wouldnt want to see that either...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3115 posts, RR: 4
Reply 50, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2337 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 49):
Botany Bay is a historical bay it ain't going to happen plus I wouldnt want to see that either...

Yet the bay has continued to see large scale reclamation, even very recently.



FLYi
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2716 posts, RR: 8
Reply 51, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2326 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 45):
Depending on the season and the way you measure (seats vs flights), it is top 4 or top 5 in the world...

OZ, thanks for the clarification. New that it was up there somewhere.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 49):
Botany Bay is a historical bay it ain't going to happen plus I wouldnt want to see that either...

There has been some very large scale development in Botany bay over the years, 3rd runway included, a desalinsation plant, and an oil /petroleum storage refinery.

Development is not the problem here, lack of political will and for sight is.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 52, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2334 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 45):
Depending on the season and the way you measure (seats vs flights), it is top 4 or top 5 in the world...

According to Wikipedia (if you have a better source I'd much rather rely on it!) it is #4 by capacity and #2 by movements.

Top 5 by seats:

1) HND-CTS
2) GMP-CJU
3) HND-FUK
4) SYD-MEL
5) PEK-SHA

Top 5 by flights:

1) CGH-SDU
2) SYD-MEL
3) GMP-CJU
4) BOM-DEL
5) PEK-SHA


If SYD-MEL has more capacity than the likes of Beijing-Shanghai and Delhi-Mumbai then that is absolutely incredible!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimpo_International_Airport



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 53, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2307 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 50):
Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 51):

Do we forget the noise surrounding the expansion of Port Botany... & we expect another 2 runways to be built...?

It ain't going to happen...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineVIDP From India, joined Feb 2010, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2314 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 52):
If SYD-MEL has more capacity than the likes of Beijing-Shanghai and Delhi-Mumbai then that is absolutely incredible!

Not sure of PEK-SHA but yes capacity on SYD-MEL is definately more than DEL-BOM.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 48):
Lift the movement cap

I know the noise abadement laws are pretty strict but i think the first thing which should be done is that the night curfew at SYD airport should go. If i am not wrong majority of hubs SIN/DXB all operate 24x7.

Quoting fuffla (Reply 18):
the layout of the airport itself is restricting gate availability during peak periods (or all day if you are flying Virgin Australia).

Virjing Australia is a low cost airline. Not too sure how it works in Mascot but over here in Indian Subcontinent majority of the low cost carriers prefer remote stand parkings than a aerobridges as its less expensive. offcourse its bit more time consuming as the baggages have to trucked along with pax.

[Edited 2012-11-14 17:33:12]

User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3115 posts, RR: 4
Reply 55, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2307 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 53):

Do we forget the noise surrounding the expansion of Port Botany... & we expect another 2 runways to be built...?

Well I suggested only one additional runway; it would be in immediate proximity to the existing airport boundary and I believe the number of people affected by noise would actually decrease. I posted a diagram a while ago; I'd be happy to re-post if interested.

Like it or not, it seems like Botany Bay has already been "sacrificed" to act as one of Australia's major logistics and transportation centers. Original 16/34 extension, 3rd runway, container port, expansion of container port, and the other items TheCommodore listed.

Quoting VIDP (Reply 54):
I know the noise abadement laws are pretty strict but i think the first thing which should be done is that the night curfew at SYD airport should go

I agree. Its amazing airplanes are so much quieter now than when these laws were put in place, but they remain in place. Even when the day comes when airplanes are virtually silent from the ground there will be pressure from a segment of society to keep these caps in place for no other reason than there are airplanes over people's head.



FLYi
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 56, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2295 times:

Quoting VIDP (Reply 54):
the night curfew at SYD airport should go.

It's not feasible to do that at the existing airport. As much as we moan about it, the fact is that SYD is an urban airport, and while that has massive benefits it also means that there are drawbacks.

There aren't many other airports in high density residential areas that operate through the night. Examples like SIN (and even MEL) are different, because the approaches are over water and generally quite uninhabited areas. Examples like DXB are very different, because the airport is in the middle of the desert.

Quoting VIDP (Reply 54):
Virjing Australia is a low cost airline. Not too sure how it works in Mascot but over here in Indian Subcontinent majority of the low cost carriers prefer remote stand parkings than a aerobridges as its less expensive.

VA isn't a low cost carrier. They have positioned themselves at the same level as QF, and have their own pier at all the major domestic airports. VA is spending hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading their terminal spaces to add more gates, and will be moving into PER's new development in a few years.

The only LCC here that favours stairs is TT, and even they use bridges at some airports.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 57, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2296 times:

Quoting VIDP (Reply 54):
Not too sure how it works in Mascot but over here in Indian Subcontinent majority of the low cost carriers prefer remote stand parkings than a aerobridges as its less expensive

VA isn't really an LCC anymore, but even when they were they used airbridges whenever possible, as does JQ.

The only time that VA don't park at an airbridge is at an airport such as LST or PPP which is 100% remote stand, or at a couple of random gates at larger airports which don't have one attached (such as Gate 50 at BNE).



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2716 posts, RR: 8
Reply 58, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2291 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 53):
Do we forget the noise surrounding the expansion of Port Botany... & we expect another 2 runways to be built...?

It ain't going to happen...

Housing and business around the airport, were not so long (1985-96) ago, given sound insulation as part of a package by the Gov

People know there is an airport there, noise goes with that, deal with it or don't move there in the first place.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 55):
Like it or not, it seems like Botany Bay has already been "sacrificed" to act as one of Australia's major logistics and transportation centers. Original 16/34 extension, 3rd runway, container port, expansion of container port, and the other items TheCommodore listed.

Exactly, People know that Botany bay = noise



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 59, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2293 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 55):

Would be great if you can share it with us...

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 58):

I couldn't care less what they build... I ain't complaining I'm just being realistic...
The aircraft can handle the traffic, the problem presently faced is the curfew...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 60, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2288 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 58):
People know there is an airport there, noise goes with that, deal with it or don't move there in the first place.

But people move there knowing there's an 80 movement/hr cap and a curfew. They are happy to deal with that, because it's a pretty minimal invasion. Nobody is complaining about or asking for a reduction in operations.

If you start changing the conditions that people thought they were signing up to then you're going to spark outrage. We're not talking about a few dozen people here, we're talking about 25%+ of the Sydney population that lives under one of the many flight paths.

These are loud things. Even where my family lives 30km north east of the airport, the A380s and 744s headed north and across the Pacific are deafeningly loud and we aren't anywhere near the airport (I don't mind it though  )

Imagine the government comes in and tells you that the road your house is on has been designated the replacement to the F3 freeway, and that you'll now have 1000x the traffic passing just outside your bedroom window all day and all night. Same sort of thing.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2290 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 60):
These are loud things. Even where my family lives 30km north east of the airport, the A380s and 744s headed north and across the Pacific are deafeningly loud and we aren't anywhere near the airport (I don't mind it though  )

That doesn't sound right to me. The 744 and A380 are significantly different terms of noise level.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 62, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2292 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 61):
That doesn't sound right to me. The 744 and A380 are significantly different terms of noise level.

The 744 is certainly the louder of the two, but both are still extremely loud. It might be a little quieter, but the A380 is still a big, heavy, loud aircraft that creates a lot of noise when it's still quite low over the suburbs.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 63, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2285 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 59):

Sorry I noticed my typing error... I meant to say the infrastructure in place can handle more traffic it's curfew and cap on movements which is restricting it...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3115 posts, RR: 4
Reply 64, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2289 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 59):
Would be great if you can share it with us...

Here ya go..



When I first posted this another poster was adamant that it would not increase capacity, which I find not to be the case at all. After all, other airports with similar patterns of 3 parallel runways can't all be wrong. ICN, PVG, PHX, FRA, PIT, MIA, the list goes on.

Also note redeveloped terminals. I think the current site would be the best option for a single airport capable of a large increase in passengers and operations (assuming one more runway such as this and/or elimination of movement cap), all while taking advantage of existing ground infrastructure. Things avoided would be the higher costs and environmental damage of a 1000km HSR line or second airport that subjects Sydney to the possibility of dual hub stagnation or failure such as Montreal and Osaka.

[Edited 2012-11-14 23:06:47]


FLYi
User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2711 posts, RR: 4
Reply 65, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2297 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 52):
Top 5 by seats:

1) HND-CTS
2) GMP-CJU
3) HND-FUK
4) SYD-MEL
5) PEK-SHA

Top 5 by flights:

1) CGH-SDU
2) SYD-MEL
3) GMP-CJU
4) BOM-DEL
5) PEK-SHA


If SYD-MEL has more capacity than the likes of Beijing-Shanghai and Delhi-Mumbai then that is absolutely incredible!

Not really, since PEK-SHA now has an HSR service, the flights will have dropped considerably which actually helps to prove the point...



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 66, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2286 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 64):
When I first posted this another poster was adamant that it would not increase capacity

Because capacity remains capped by law at 80 movements per hour.

A third runway in the same orientation would increase the noise burden on the same areas of Sydney or even worse, shift the burden to neighbouring Liberal voting constituencies! and those buggers write complaining letters like there is no tomorrow.

Also you have now put the international terminal underneath the flight path of your new runway which may not be permissible and you are moving the bottleneck to the taxiways which will be unable to cope, they barely cope with the present runways so I dont see this as a runner really.



BV
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3115 posts, RR: 4
Reply 67, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2292 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 66):
Because capacity remains capped by law at 80 movements per hour.

The issue was the physical capacity, not the artificial cap.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 66):

A third runway in the same orientation would increase the noise burden on the same areas of Sydney or even worse,

It seems to me that landing to the south or taking off to the north on this new runway as opposed to the existing 16R/34L would shift noise away from central Sydney.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 66):
Also you have now put the international terminal underneath the flight path of your new runway which may not be permissible

But landing on 16L over the domestic terminals is not a problem.

With 4 full length north-south parallel taxiways, I don't buy the taxiway congestion argument either.



FLYi
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2293 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 67):

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 66):
Because capacity remains capped by law at 80 movements per hour.

The issue was the physical capacity, not the artificial cap.

This artificial cap is cast in iron. The government that changes it will lose so many seats, the next election and several after it will be guaranteed to be out of office.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 69, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2294 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 67):
It seems to me that landing to the south or taking off to the north on this new runway as opposed to the existing 16R/34L would shift noise away from central Sydney.

Central Sydney isn't the point the noise burden is felt by the inner west and depending on wind direction the eastern suburbs.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 67):
But landing on 16L over the domestic terminals is not a problem.

You have a point but rules change.. Not saying that they have but the planning process in NSW is fickle.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 68):
This artificial cap is cast in iron. The government that changes it will lose so many seats, the next election and several after it will be guaranteed to be out of office.

Yup, both sides have seats that they need to retain under the flight path, the party that moves to remove the cap will lose those seats and be out of power.

Even with a landslide victory the current state premier, Barry O'Farrel proposes that Sydney's new airport capacity be provided by Canberra, 200km away and in a different freeking state! The issue is toxic, the cap isn't up for discussion.



BV
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 70, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2290 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 69):
in a different freeking state

Beyond the fact that I am a massive proponent of CBR as SYD#2, I am cynical enough to believe that this is why O'Farrel was quite keen on the idea. He gets to look like he is doing something, but by moving the proposed site outside of NSW he could wiggle out of actually paying for it. Smart!



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 71, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2276 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 70):
I am cynical enough to believe that this is why O'Farrel was quite keen on the idea. He gets to look like he is doing something, but by moving the proposed site outside of NSW he could wiggle out of actually paying for it. Smart!

Yup, he is trying to create the illusion of action, it would be more convincing though if his housing minister didn't go and approve a housing development under the flight path to CBR (See post 25) planning in NSW is hugely corrupt and dysfunctional.



BV
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 72, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2267 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 71):

I know, and as someone said above it is particularly stupid as it's not as though there is a shortage of land in the CBR region.

I thought that these sorts of duboius, shady planning decisions did a lot to damage the ALP government, NSW politics is what it is though and isn't gong to change any time soon



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 73, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2270 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 72):

I thought that these sorts of duboius, shady planning decisions did a lot to damage the ALP government, NSW politics is what it is though and isn't gong to change any time soon

No, the Packer casino saga at Barangaroo shows that its not just the ALP that makes corrupt and illogical planning decisions.



BV
User currently offlineFlyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2273 times:

Quoting a36001 (Reply 30):
They will scuttle the entire economy of Sydney (drama added) because some sandle wearing greenie will find a frog somewhere! I wish in some ways we were more like Japan, Osaka says it needs a new airport, no land available so let's level three mountain ranges and build an island!

LOL    That is gold well said.

Just about every thread in this subject leads to the one common denomator and that is "Leadership" from Federal, State, and local Government. Juila and Waynne keep telling us we will have a suplus budget but behind closed doors they are both sweating and shivering in their boots cause the chances of a surplus is looking slim very slim, to scared to give the go ahead to Sydney Airport because of a wrecking ball with the faces of Christine Milne and Sarah Hanson Young on will smash the idea to peices and to spend what will turn out to be billions will send the budget into freefall, the local council will opose it because of people that live in the area knowing full well that airport was there long before they moved in will be complaing about the noise aswell. Its not only this Government, to be fair John Howard and the last Liberal Government did nothing either apart from doing a study of Bagery"s Creek and look how quiet that went and then disapeared .
The only one that did some thing was the Keating Government when that 3rd runway was built no dout plenty had some thing to say about it and they had to have been some resistment to it but I guess he just said F***you all Sydney needs it its going to get built so get over it. They cant even decide on an HSR between the major popluations on the Eastern seaboard so Sydney wont be any different. In 5 years time some will ask the question again on A NET " Sydney needs a 2nd Airport" and we will be here saying the same things. We do need to get like Japan or even Singapore when they say they are going to build it for the betterment of their countrys they do it. Sydney is the international gateway to Australia and they have to have an airport that reflects that, So these dumb arsed Politions in Canberra have to make some sort of a decission before it gets much worse.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 75, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2255 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 64):

Well here is Japan's solution...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steven Shi



A portion of the runway is reclaimed and the other portion is built on a platform to allow the water to flow...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2219 times:

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 74):
Quoting a36001 (Reply 30):
They will scuttle the entire economy of Sydney (drama added) because some sandle wearing greenie will find a frog somewhere! I wish in some ways we were more like Japan, Osaka says it needs a new airport, no land available so let's level three mountain ranges and build an island!

LOL    That is gold well said.

It has little to do with greens. As I said earlier, the pecking order starts with the residents of the area, 90% of whom are not greens. Then there are the commercial interests and financing, then there is the clash/disconnect between three levels of government. Finally, there is the distinct probability that this is nothing more than a stunt to make it look like the NSW government is addressing the issue of airport capacity, with absolutely no serious intention of this ever happening.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24963 posts, RR: 85
Reply 77, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2227 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EK413 (Reply 75):
Well here is Japan's solution...

That would be beyond my understanding.

The one thing we are not short of in Australia is land so why we would spend untold billions creating an artificial island - and destroy a magnificent bay in the process - so Sydney-siders can keep their easy access to the airport has me scratching my head.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3805 posts, RR: 1
Reply 78, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2227 times:

Quoting Irishpower (Reply 13):
I'm confused. I don't see the 3rd and 4th new runway in the picture, unless they are planning to keep the old airport open as well.

The way I see it and understand the article is that they plan on keeping the old airport open and connect it with a new road and rail acess to the adittional reclaimed land with the adittional runways etc


From the article:

" The runways will be between Cronulla and Sutherland on the west side and Kurnell on the east, where residents already have to put up with an oil refinery, the existing airport, a desalination plant and sewage run-off. "


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 79, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2210 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 77):
Quoting EK413 (Reply 75):
Well here is Japan's solution...

That would be beyond my understanding.

The one thing we are not short of in Australia is land so why we would spend untold billions creating an artificial island - and destroy a magnificent bay in the process - so Sydney-siders can keep their easy access to the airport has me scratching my head.

Why is it every time a link or proposal is posted on a thread the messenger is criticized...?
Anyways, moving on a number of comments have been towards the eco effects a fourth or fifth runway would have & I was simply providing an example of Japanese engineering which resolves the problem without effecting the tides and water flow etc...

I understand Australia has plenty of land to work with but the problem which would be faced with a new development out west is the fact our roads / transport / infrastructure would not support it... The M5 pops in my mind... If it can't cope from day one how would it cope if we build Sydney 2nd International Airport out west...? It would cost billions to build new infrastructure to handle it...

Reality is Sydney needs the 2nd airport and we need a decision made now before its too late!

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2207 times:

There were delays this afternoon (18th) around 4pm at SYD. Pilots on my flight mentioned flight ops were limited to one runway due to strong winds and this caused a backlog of flights. This then caused issues with the 80 flights/hour cap, with lots of aircraft were held on the runway/gates because of this. My flight ended up being 1 1/2 hours late taking off and other flights were similar (across QF, DJ, TT and JQ) this afternoon.


319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24963 posts, RR: 85
Reply 81, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2198 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EK413 (Reply 79):
Why is it every time a link or proposal is posted on a thread the messenger is criticized...?

I'm not shooting the messenger and I'm sorry if you thought that - I was shooting the message. A concept as in the photo you posted would be extraordinarily depressing to me.

I agree that Sydney needs a second airport - and it is equally beyond my understanding why they didn't bite the bullet on Badgery's Creek decades ago. But part of that has always been that there was a huge pressure (from Sydney) because it is "too far away" and that Mascot and can - and should - be built out instead.

There was a similar war in Japan when NRT was built - why not develop HND instead? But NRT was built (against furious opposition) and is now part of the accepted infrastructure.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 82, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2201 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 81):

No harm done... Must admit though HND is a pretty amazing piece of engineering...

As for the badgerys creek proposal I believe that ship has sailed ever since land surrounding the proposed site has been released for housing therefore we would be back to square one with a curfew and 80 movements cap airport...

Just wish the bloody government would get their arse into gear and select a site and do it!

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24963 posts, RR: 85
Reply 83, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2197 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EK413 (Reply 82):
As for the badgerys creek proposal I believe that ship has sailed ever since land surrounding the proposed site has been released for housing therefore we would be back to square one with a curfew and 80 movements cap airport...

That's probably true, but when I first started hearing about it - decades ago - it seemed a good location.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 82):
Just wish the bloody government would get their arse into gear and select a site and do it!


I would have thought the RAAF base at Richmond was the go, but I doubt it ail happen.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 84, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2193 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 83):

I remember heading out to Australia's Wonderland there was absolutely nothing out there back in the 90s... Nothing... It's was a perfect site for a 2nd airport plus the M5 wasnt built so probably the study into the M5 wouldve included a 3 or 4 lane highway... but I guess it ain't happening now...

The RAAF base has been considered but again we face the same problem we face with the Bankstown site...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2716 posts, RR: 8
Reply 85, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2186 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 77):
so Sydney-siders can keep their easy access to the airport has me scratching my head.

mariner, Its all about location.
One of the great benefits about Kingsford Smith, it is proximity to Sydney city, which many folks appreciate.

Quoting mariner (Reply 83):
I would have thought the RAAF base at Richmond was the go, but I doubt it ail happen.

From what I understand, topography as well as the small fact of it being in a "flood plain" area has placed restrictions on Richmond. Not viable.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24963 posts, RR: 85
Reply 86, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2183 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 85):
One of the great benefits about Kingsford Smith, it is proximity to Sydney city, which many folks appreciate.



I understand that, it has all been the problem. And I think Sydney has to make up its mind whether it wants that proximity or whether it wants an airport for its future needs.

Coz I don't think it can have both, barring some monumental change to Botany Bay. And I'd vote for the Greens if that happened.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 87, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2161 times:

I stumbled across the Richmond option... Interesting but the area is populated...

http://futureurbanism.blogspot.com.a...2010/09/second-sydney-airport.html

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
New Mega-Airport In Florida... posted Fri Feb 6 2004 04:31:09 by AAgent
New Int. Airport In China To Be Opened In 2003! posted Fri Apr 20 2001 10:06:41 by Wolfy
New Intl. Airport In Mojave Desert posted Tue Mar 6 2001 07:30:02 by Early Air
Proposal: New Chicago Airport In Lake Michigan... posted Sun Feb 25 2001 08:39:01 by 747-600X
Proposed New Domestic Airport In Sydney? posted Mon Dec 20 1999 09:06:40 by PerthWA
Quito Gets A New Airport In 2012 posted Mon Nov 28 2011 13:38:07 by wingedtaurus
New Airport In London? posted Thu Nov 3 2011 14:26:08 by ZKSUJ
Next New Airport In Japan posted Mon Feb 16 2009 14:53:36 by Carpethead
Beautiful New Airport In Bangalore (BLR) posted Sat Apr 12 2008 20:35:59 by Comorin
New Airport In Natal, Brazil? posted Sat Mar 29 2008 14:29:27 by Varig767