Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Melbourne Airport To Expand To 4 Runways  
User currently offlinejuced From Australia, joined Feb 2012, 10 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6320 times:

looks like a great new plan for Melbourne airport, check it out:

http://melbourneairport.com.au/docs/...eliminaryDraft_s5_LandUse_plan.pdf

and :
http://melbourneairport.com.au/About...-Airport/Planning/Master-Plan.html

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5953 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6118 times:

It looks like they are going to expand T2 landside slightly which is great to hear, although over all the terminal expansion looks somewhat modest (beyond T4 which we already knew about).

While I really shouldn't knock MEL for actually having a strategic plan that allows for growth (something that is sorely missing 800km north), I cannot help but wonder if 4 runways are actually necessary if the terminal facilities aren't able to support that level of growth.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineDexSwart From Australia, joined Aug 2012, 594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5960 times:

I wonder if they'll be able to accommodate duel take off and landings?
Always good to see a home airport grow a little bit more!



Durban. Melbourne. Denver. Hong Kong.
User currently offlinetayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5946 times:

4 eventually - there's always been a plan for 4 runways.

It's the 3rd runway now has a more concrete (or asphalt?) timeframe - in ops by 2022.


User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5775 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 1):
I cannot help but wonder if 4 runways are actually necessary if the terminal facilities aren't able to support that level of growth.

Essentially it is two sets of 2 parallel runways which intersect each other, the maximum no. of runways that can be in use at anytime simultaneously is only 2. The actual 2 parallel runways used will depend on wind conditions etc.

It certainly isn't unreasonable for MEL to need 2 active runways.



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5953 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5546 times:

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 4):
It certainly isn't unreasonable for MEL to need 2 active runways.

Looking again I see what you mean that all 4 won't be used simultaneously. In that case I think it's a great plan, as it would allow for capacity growth over the current cross-runway situation.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3256 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5459 times:

I think it is a quite odd runway layout honestly, as each runway crosses two others thereby minimizing capacity compared to other four runway layouts. When was the last time an airport was built with 4 runways in which each runway crosses two others? MDW? SFO? Granted, MEL will have greater spacing, but still a 60 year old concept. They are planning 4 runways with the intent of only using 2 at a time. But they will still pay the cost of designing, building, and maintaining 4 runways for decades.

Ideally I would think up to 3 parallel and one crosswind. Or if they insist on 2 sets of two parallel, at least uncouple the runways so they don't intersect. That way at least 3 of them can be used during less than strong wind conditions which is almost always.



FLYi
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8663 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5366 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 6):
Ideally I would think up to 3 parallel and one crosswind. Or if they insist on 2 sets of two parallel, at least uncouple the runways so they don't intersect. That way at least 3 of them can be used during less than strong wind conditions which is almost always.

When I read the document I get the impression that there are environmental and "heritage" restrictions, which is not uncommon in today's world. So your options may have been even more costly if at all possible.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5140 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 6):
Ideally I would think up to 3 parallel and one crosswind. Or if they insist on 2 sets of two parallel, at least uncouple the runways so they don't intersect. That way at least 3 of them can be used during less than strong wind conditions which is almost always

But that sort of capacity simply isn't needed. What MEL needs is the flexibility to operate at capacity at all times, regardless of weather conditions (and the winds can be pretty volatile at MEL).

Personally I think the plan is a good one. My only reservation would be the fact that the positioning of 09R/27L could cause issues if they want to add more terminal space south of T4 in future (I'm thinking very long term here).


User currently offlinedirktraveller From Singapore, joined Jan 2011, 623 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5096 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 1):
I cannot help but wonder if 4 runways are actually necessary if the terminal facilities aren't able to support that level of growth.

I am with you on this one. A plan to have four active runways by 2022 is a strategic plan and certainly good news for the future of MEL, given the increasing traffic MEL is getting these days.

But personally, I feel they have more things to work on before having four runways, such as upgrading their terminal capacity to ensure their terminals and facilities is able to cope with the increased traffic that comes with the additional number of runway(s) available.

Regards,
Dirktraveller.


User currently offlineAirvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4913 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 6):

It might be a 60 year old concept but melbourne has a problem with high winds.
3 parallels and a crosscwind runway would be useless. With this arrangement it can be guaranteed a movement rate of 80 per hour in almost all conditions.


User currently offlinetayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4856 times:

Quoting dirktraveller (Reply 9):
I am with you on this one. A plan to have four active runways by 2022 is a strategic plan and certainly good news for the future of MEL, given the increasing traffic MEL is getting these days.

It is NOT a plan for 4 operational/active runways by 2022.

There has always been scope for 4 runways - 2 x 2 intersecting. The latest Master Plan Draft merely gives a more concrete date on when the 3rd will be operational: 9/27 will become 9L/27R and a new 9R/27L will be built and operational by 2022.

The thread title is misleading.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 6):
think it is a quite odd runway layout honestly, as each runway crosses two others thereby minimizing capacity compared to other four runway layouts. When was the last time an airport was built with 4 runways in which each runway crosses two others? MDW? SFO? Granted, MEL will have greater spacing, but still a 60 year old concept. They are planning 4 runways with the intent of only using 2 at a time. But they will still pay the cost of designing, building, and maintaining 4 runways for decades.

MEL sees the smallest amount of little props/jets of the big 3 airports on the east coast: BNE gets more movements than MEL. Excluding DPO, BWT, ABX, MGB, almost all destinations served from MEL are a 737/320 or bigger, thus the need for 4 let alone 3 parallel runways is overkill.


User currently offlineSpaceshipDC10 From Canada, joined Jan 2013, 2078 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4829 times:

So they plan to have two more runways built in the future, and also to lengthen the two they have now.


I wish I was a glow worm.
User currently offlineABpositive From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4700 times:

I think the reason why MEL is getting in early is to pre-empt the housing developments which have been creeping in closer and closer to the airport over time.

User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3411 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4645 times:

Quoting ABpositive (Reply 13):
I think the reason why MEL is getting in early is to pre-empt the housing developments which have been creeping in closer and closer to the airport over time.

Also to not fall into the same trap that SYD has where capacity gets constrained.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 12):
So they plan to have two more runways built in the future, and also to lengthen the two they have now.

Yeah, pretty much.

I understand the extension of the current 9/27 to 3500m to accommodate loaded heavies but extending the current 16/34 about 850m to 4500m seems unnecessary. I reckon it is for the heat in the summer but even 16/34 at SYD which gets the same heat is under 4000m in length



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinetayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4538 times:

Quoting ABpositive (Reply 13):
I think the reason why MEL is getting in early is to pre-empt the housing developments which have been creeping in closer and closer to the airport over time.

The sprawl belt is constrained and directly west and north of the runways will always be open / non sprawl land:

http://www.gaa.vic.gov.au/wp-content/Assets/Files/Map%20of%20Urban%20Growth%20Zone%20-%20September%202012.jpg


The residents who live directly east of the runways have always known the airport would be expanded and many in the area - as they no doubt work at the airport - are supportative.

Despite it's location & proximity to the eastern quadrants of Melbourne (which will become less and less of an issue as most growth will be to the north and west, see map), Tullamarine has always had pride of place in terms of protecting the airport's operations. A very rare example of planning foresight from the 60s/70s


User currently offlinedirktraveller From Singapore, joined Jan 2011, 623 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4333 times:

Quoting tayser (Reply 11):
It is NOT a plan for 4 operational/active runways by 2022.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess MEL have even less time to work on upgrading their facilities to meet the demand when third and fourth runway is active.

On another note, I read their master plan on their website, and found that there is no mention to expand their terminals, especially the International section (T2). Does this mean when the 3rd and 4th runways become active, we can expect that their terminal remains within present capacity?

Regards,
Dirktraveller


User currently offlineAeolus From Mexico, joined Aug 2007, 374 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4161 times:

What about also thinking of better linking the city with the airport?
The bus ride is great, but way too expensive! Is there any way of linking MEL to Southern Cross or Flinders for that matter?

It would truly help and it could cut the time considerably also creating more competition and hopefully driving the commute prices down.

Other than that, it looks like a great project and just wondering what their plans are with the terminals? It looks like it should be big enough to justify a light rail link between the different terminals.

A-



Flying under the clouds above!
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3411 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 3335 times:

Quoting Aeolus (Reply 17):
What about also thinking of better linking the city with the airport?
The bus ride is great, but way too expensive! Is there any way of linking MEL to Southern Cross or Flinders for that matter?

It has been suggested that there will be a train link to MEL from either the Cragieburn lines or the Sunbury lines. Most likely the prior spitting at Essendon or Sunshine (the latter). The most logical thing to me is a shuttle from Essendon or Broadmeadows running to Flinders St. when needed.

Some plans below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propose..._extensions#Melbourne_Airport_line



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13551 posts, RR: 100
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2968 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Good to see MEL has a plan. 2 runways in each direction for winds will certainly be needed. When? I can only guess. But even if that is 2050... so what, its best to have a plan.   

Quoting tayser (Reply 3):
It's the 3rd runway now has a more concrete (or asphalt?) timeframe - in ops by 2022.

Thank you.

Quoting Aeolus (Reply 17):
What about also thinking of better linking the city with the airport?
The bus ride is great, but way too expensive! Is there any way of linking MEL to Southern Cross or Flinders for that matter?

Ground transport must be part of the plan. I too would like to know more about possible rail options.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2722 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 19):
Ground transport must be part of the plan. I too would like to know more about possible rail options.

The issue will be funding and politics (which is always the issue in Australia). I think I read somewhere that the Govt would be unwilling to build a rail network due to extensive lobbying from the taxi industry as this would break up the cosy monopoly the taxi industry has on transport to/from the airport   The Melbourne airport owners (who get lots of $$$ from car parking) and the bus operators are funnily enough also advocating against rail   

Mind you, SYD's airport rail link (albeit an expensive and lousy service) doesn't seem to have impacted the Sydney taxi's too much.



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlinesmi0006 From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 1557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2674 times:

I think terminal capacity will have to be increased greatly before thinking about the need for new runways. Whilst unpleasant, even gate space can be dealt with due through increased usage of bussing bays.

What cannot be over come quickly and cheaply is a lack of check-in space, at times peak periods (morning and night) its one carrier after another on counters, with no free space - this presents massive issues in the event of disruptions, especially with A380 aircraft. There are plans to do some cheap upgrades, improving lighting maybe? But a significant refurb wouldn't go astray. The new check-in counters are quite narrow, refurbishing older counters making them narrower would be a cheap way to increase check-in capacity and improve the general ambience of the check-in hall. A retile wouldn't go astray!

Whist we have such stringent quarantine and inspection requirements, despite recent reconfiguration the current space is dark cramped and simply too small!

Customs facilities are okay (outbound is quiet pleasant, inbound is acceptable), however huge delays are still often experienced- this is mainly due to the inefficiency of the customs service. It is common both in and outbound during peak periods to observe four customs officers on duty on counter processing passengers, whilst another four stand behind the counters doing god knows what (supervising, observing, loitering??) - whilst 20 counters remain closed and the line snakes on and on, I don't think it would even be necessary to increase the number of customs officers, just have more on counters!! Don't get me started on their general service levels or grooming. I think the customs service in airports needs a good review!!


User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2685 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2467 times:

People, the 4th runway is not needed until after 2040. I will not be built until then.

Thenoflyzone



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2261 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 1):
over all the terminal expansion looks somewhat modest (beyond T4 which we already knew about). I cannot help but wonder if 4 runways are actually necessary if the terminal facilities aren't able to support that level of growth.
Quoting smi0006 (Reply 21):
terminal capacity will have to be increased greatly before thinking about the need for new runways.

The 3rd runway will definitely be needed by 2022, and it's good to have plans for the 4th already laid out. In any case, building runways is the most difficult thing, much more than building terminals (I'm talking from a purely political point of view, which is all that matters in airport expansion). So once you have the runways in place, adding terminals afterwards is "easy".

Quoting PITrules (Reply 6):
as each runway crosses two others thereby minimizing capacity compared to other four runway layout [...] if they insist on 2 sets of two parallel, at least uncouple the runways so they don't intersect. That way at least 3 of them can be used during less than strong wind conditions which is almost always.

I am not familiar with the wind situation but I assume they must have some serious crosswinds as otherwise the plan wouldn't make sense. But as you say, it wouldn't cost much extra effort to slightly shift one of the runways to avoid the intersections.

Quoting Aeolus (Reply 17):
What about also thinking of better linking the city with the airport?

Agree, a rail link is a must given the size of the airport development.


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...
Liege Airport Looks To Attract Fedex, Replace TNT posted Mon Jan 7 2013 08:07:11 by LAXintl
'Biggest Airport' Set To Open In Beijing In 2017 posted Thu Oct 11 2012 10:53:39 by rmoore7734
A Change In Airport Profiling To Come? posted Sun Jul 1 2012 09:20:23 by readytotaxi
China New Kunming Airport Start To Operate posted Wed Jun 27 2012 23:55:00 by cx828
Spanish Airport Taxes To Raise On June, 25? posted Thu Jun 21 2012 12:44:34 by reifel
Boston Offers Free Airport Bus To Downtown posted Tue Jun 5 2012 20:18:36 by MarcoPoloWorld
EDI Airport Sold To GIP posted Mon Apr 23 2012 04:42:39 by fcogafa
Runway At Taoyuan Airport Slated To Re-open posted Mon Jan 2 2012 22:32:01 by BreninTW
Mt Comfort Airport (Indiana) To Change Name. posted Tue May 25 2010 12:09:38 by rampguy
Dubai Airport Open To Having Foreign Anchor posted Wed Sep 16 2009 03:45:29 by CV580Freak