Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Runways At AMS Schiphol  
User currently offlineKLM-MD11 From Greece, joined Mar 2002, 471 posts, RR: 1
Posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4456 times:

Now that Schiphol's 5th runway (actually 6th, because everybody seems to forget about the little 04-22) is almost ready, they are talking about building a 6th and 7th runway… (Actually 7th and 8th )

Schiphol proposes a second 06-24 right next to the current one, and a new 01-19 between the current 01L-19R and the new runway, which I believe will be called 18-36.

Knowing the Dutch environmentalists, heavy protests will occur and I wonder if the new runways will ever be built. But Schiphol says once these rwy' s are built the 2 current rwy's that cause most noise-complaints can be closed (the 01R-19L and 09-27)

What do you guys think? Do we have enough runways or should Schiphol expand??



5 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineAvi From Israel, joined Sep 2001, 965 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4414 times:

What is the new runway name? Where is it? Do you have a link to the airport chart?

Long live the B747
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 3103 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4381 times:

The new runway name [that is the so called 5th runway] will be called 18-36. It should open for VFR traffic at the end of this year. By the end of 2003 it should be fully up and running with all systems [ILS] calibrated.

I personally don't see any additional runways coming, just maybe perhaps a 8000ft parallel Kaagbaan [06R-24L]. The thing is that within a couple of years, AMS will have a 2x2 operation, meaning that at anyone time two runways will be available for inbound traffic [18+19R, or 06+01R/27], and two other runways will be avialable [independently and simultaneously] for outbound traffic [24+19L/09 or 01L+36]. This results in airfield capacity of 120+ movements an hour, which is amongst the top in Europe. Only CDG has higher potential capacity. LHR can only dream of this number of movements. Maybe FRA will also approach 120 movements per hour when their fourth runway opens in 2007 or so.

At AMS, an additional north south runway in between 18/36 and 01L-19R does not make any sense at all from air traffic perspective. It will only make sense if the new north south runway and current 01L-19R will also be used from and to the south, since it will give AMS four parallel north south runways. However this will severly limit operations on 06-24. And 06-24 is the most preferable runway considering aircraft noise. So an additional north south runway will not happen.

An additional 06-24 would be of some use, but is unlikely since quite some recently constructed large office blocks will have to be demolished.
It would make much more sense to use 01R and/or 04 as the second inbound runway in combination with 24. But this should be accomplished in combination with the segragation of heavy and light traffic. Medium to heavy traffic should use 06-24, and light traffic [stage 4 compliant regional jets] could then use 01R-19L and 22-04. The approach path for 04 and outbound path for 22 could be flown parallel to 06/24 if new IFR approach procedures can make this possible.

The biggest problem for AMS is that with heavy east/west winds, operations are limited to 1x1 [single departure and single arrival runway: 09/27 + 06/24]. This is the biggest problem since these wind conditions prevail for over 40 days every year, causing severe delays when air traffic volume requires 2x2 operations. AMS desperately needs another east west runway [which will allow departures to and arrivals from the east], but there simply is not enough space available.

If new technology becomes available that can allow AMS to operate a indepently 2x2 operation, AMS does not need any new runways. Theoratical airfield capacity will then be something like 800,000+ movements a year. Off course this won't happen any time soon, since AMS is by noise abatement law limited to 600,000 movements. Adding additional runways won't help to raise this limit.


Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineDutchwings From Netherlands, joined Jan 2001, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4338 times:

I think an airport close to Lelystad is an option, plenty of space and very central in the Netherlands. ( For the ones who don't know what I'm talking about, Lelystad lies in the province of Flevoland, which we've have made ourself hehehe )

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4290 times:

The environmentalist mafia will never let it happen. They successfully delayed the 18-36 for almost a decade and came to within a cat's whisker of stopping it completely.
When/if the 2 new runways are built, the old 04-22 will be closed as well. I didn't hear about other runway closures, but the 01R-19L and 09-27 could well be put on emergency standby (deactivated but kept maintained).
The main reason for the parallel 06-24 would be to have 3 runways available during high winds (which at Schiphol typically blow from 220-260 degrees), so dismantling the 09-27 would be counterproductive.
The 01R-19L is already inop for landings during most of the day because of noise abatement, with only takeoffs being allowed during outbound peaks. Putting in a parallel 18-36 would mean this runway can be dismantled, Schiphol can then use the space it was on for other things such as part of a new terminal building to increase capacity which is also part of the plan and planned to the northeast of the current terminal (which would put it just about at the treshold of the current 19L).

I wish I were flying
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 3103 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4261 times:

Putting in a parallel 18-36 would mean this runway can be dismantled...
What do you mean with "this runway"? Maybe 01L-19R?
I believe that Schiphol recently announced that further terminal expansion could take place east of 19R, north of 09 and west of highway A4. Not sure how this will look like. Earlier plans already existed for a new terminal island between 01L-19R and the new 18-36 runway.
Why could the existing 04-22 not be used together with 06-24?


Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
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...
KQ 772 New Livery At AMS posted Fri Apr 29 2005 21:28:26 by A388
Runways At AMS posted Sun Nov 23 2003 16:21:27 by Aviationfreak
New Runways At SFO posted Mon Jan 29 2001 08:46:51 by SJC>SFO
New Runways At YYZ posted Thu Aug 10 2000 03:39:06 by Euroflyer
New Wedding Services At AMS posted Thu Oct 12 2006 15:23:07 by BuyantUkhaa
New LCC Concourse (H) At AMS posted Tue Nov 1 2005 17:34:36 by 777klm
KL's New Crown Lounge At AMS. posted Tue Jun 7 2005 12:32:30 by KLMcedric
AMS Schiphol Has 4 New Webcams. posted Thu Apr 1 2004 19:30:27 by Ams
New Airport At Kobe/Japan posted Sun Nov 19 2006 18:18:51 by BizFlyer
Chance Of New Airlines At BUR? posted Tue Nov 14 2006 21:35:57 by YOW