In a non-binding referendum, the voters of Berlin expressed their wish to keep TXL open. 56.1% voted for TXL, while 41.7 wanted to close it. The Senate is now requested to cease pushing for TXL's closure, but to work for a indefinite operation of said airport.

https://www.wahlen-berlin.de/wahlen/BU2 ... index.html

Given that this referendum came to be thanks to the FDP (this business-friendly party is rather weak in Berlin), and Berlin's government consists of a Social Democrat - Socialist - Green coalition, it will be interesting to watch how many votes this coalition will lose at the next election.


David

flyingturtle wrote:

In a non-binding referendum, the voters of Berlin expressed their wish to keep TXL open. 56.1% voted for TXL, while 41.7 wanted to close it. The Senate is now requested to cease pushing for TXL's closure, but to work for a indefinite operation of said airport.

https://www.wahlen-berlin.de/wahlen/BU2 ... index.html


David

That's pretty much squarely in line with all of the pre-election polls — most showed 55% in favor of keeping TXL. I think this could spur some much needed investment in the airport facilities, not least of which because it will be required as the primary airport for the foreseeable future. Berlin has long functioned with multiple airports, and given the convenience of TXL, I'm not at all surprised that Berliners want to keep it regardless of BER's status.

It's wholly logical to keep TXL so that when BER finally opens there will be sufficient capacity to serve the entire city and region. Then TXL can be modernised and retained as BER's second airport. The city region in my view can support two airports, especially as they are on diametrically opposite sides of the city.

Legally non-binding and pointless.

The city and region of Berlin could sustain two airports, at least in terms of traffic, but I doubt they will ever have the money to fully develop, maintain, modernise two airports. They would already struggle with one, let alone two. Moreover there´s the risk that what happened to MXP will happen to BER: a Cathedral in the desert with no airline having its hub there, people (and airlines) preferring the much more central TXL and preventing BER from developing into a global node. Such a waste.
Although TXL is much more convenient for me, I hoped the citizens would vote for its closure.

TXL only allowed to operate for 6 months after BER opens, but the actual operating permit is expired and only kept valid through the clause, that it may operate till BER opens. Apart from that not only would Berlin need to agree, so would Brandenburg and the federal government, while all projects already in development for the area of TXL would probably demand a compensation for money wasted. Nice gesture, but not going to happen.

Probably because they don't trust the government to run an airport delayed for years.

seahawk wrote:

TXL only allowed to operate for 6 months after BER opens, but the actual operating permit is expired and only kept valid through the clause, that it may operate till BER opens. Apart from that not only would Berlin need to agree, so would Brandenburg and the federal government, while all projects already in development for the area of TXL would probably demand a compensation for money wasted. Nice gesture, but not going to happen.

I am surprised that you are so negative to a vote the citizens voted on, or is that just fatalism on your part?

But the real question it seems to me is: Will BER ever open?

It seems to me that there is just as good a chance it is going to be razed as it is opened in the 2020's.

StuckinCMHland wrote:

seahawk wrote:

TXL only allowed to operate for 6 months after BER opens, but the actual operating permit is expired and only kept valid through the clause, that it may operate till BER opens. Apart from that not only would Berlin need to agree, so would Brandenburg and the federal government, while all projects already in development for the area of TXL would probably demand a compensation for money wasted. Nice gesture, but not going to happen.

I am surprised that you are so negative to a vote the citizens voted on, or is that just fatalism on your part?

But the real question it seems to me is: Will BER ever open?

It seems to me that there is just as good a chance it is going to be razed as it is opened in the 2020's.

I think there are many good reasons for his skepticism. The vote was primarily supported by the FDP Free Democrats (solidly conservative party), but the Brandenburg Government is run by a left leaning coalition of the SPD Social Democrats (left leaning) and The Left (solidly left), both of whom opposed this vote.

I could see the federal government potentially signing off, but getting Brandenburg to sign off would appear unlikely.

Remember that back in 1995, Stapleton Field operated until its closure. The next day, Denver International opened, despite a bad snowstorm and problems with the baggage system. From what friends of mine who lived in the Denver area tell me, if the power that be had it to do all over, Stapleton's closure would have been phased in.

It seems to me that if TXL eventually closes in favor of BER, the shifting of flights should be in phases, rather than similar to the move from Stapleton to DIA.

Although, with the demise of Air Berlin, how will that affect future operations at BER?

steman wrote:

The city and region of Berlin could sustain two airports, at least in terms of traffic, but I doubt they will ever have the money to fully develop, maintain, modernise two airports. They would already struggle with one, let alone two. Moreover there´s the risk that what happened to MXP will happen to BER: a Cathedral in the desert with no airline having its hub there, people (and airlines) preferring the much more central TXL and preventing BER from developing into a global node. Such a waste.
Although TXL is much more convenient for me, I hoped the citizens would vote for its closure.

There's a lot of things preventing BER from becoming a "global node", mostly the politicians overseeing its development. They've screwed the pooch so badly that keeping TXL open is one of the few things that can prevent the BER decision making from looking even worse, yet they cannot be seen to be reversing course, so...

seahawk wrote:

TXL only allowed to operate for 6 months after BER opens, but the actual operating permit is expired and only kept valid through the clause, that it may operate till BER opens. Apart from that not only would Berlin need to agree, so would Brandenburg and the federal government, while all projects already in development for the area of TXL would probably demand a compensation for money wasted. Nice gesture, but not going to happen.

As the saying goes, people get the government they deserve...

Berlin was always the outcast in Germany anyway = ) Look at what happened to BER.

StuckinCMHland wrote:

I am surprised that you are so negative to a vote the citizens voted on, or is that just fatalism on your part?

Probably just a working understanding of the legal difficulty of keeping TXL open. It would void BERs operating license, and getting one of those is a process that takes about 10 years, if it runs fairly smooth with not much sueing involved and even if those courts agree that the situation has sufficently changed to justify two airports.

The Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg GmbH is on record saying that there is no profitable business modell to operate both airports once BER is open, and the FDP is the last party to ever support keeping airports open with tax payers money.

Best regards
Thomas

I do not believe a word any official of FBB says, nor any politician who is attached to this failure.. They quoted figures for oerating TXL saying that it would cost 1 Billion € to refurbish the place, pretending that are the cost for one year, same with the noise reduction plan. However, These figures are for a 10 year period. They also completely forgot to hold evenues against costs. Liars all over-

The News that the 20 year old plan is obsolete is 10 years od., The manue hit the fan over 5 years ago, trime to Chance the laws and reglations regarding TXL. They did nothing, except drive the car against the wall, day for day, every day. They screw up BER, SXF and TXL over and over and cheat the public and waste billions.

StuckinCMHland wrote:

seahawk wrote:

TXL only allowed to operate for 6 months after BER opens, but the actual operating permit is expired and only kept valid through the clause, that it may operate till BER opens. Apart from that not only would Berlin need to agree, so would Brandenburg and the federal government, while all projects already in development for the area of TXL would probably demand a compensation for money wasted. Nice gesture, but not going to happen.

I am surprised that you are so negative to a vote the citizens voted on, or is that just fatalism on your part?

But the real question it seems to me is: Will BER ever open?

It seems to me that there is just as good a chance it is going to be razed as it is opened in the 2020's.

The point is that the referendum did not contain a binding suggestion for a change of the law or for a binding political decision, it only asks the government to try to keep TXL open, so they can try, but fail and win. If they would have wanted to put the Red-Red-Green government in trouble, the decision should have been a binding legal decision of the government to keep the infrastructure in TXL ready for operation in the next 20 years.

Berlin's citizens are wiser than their politicians. This is excellent news for the city!
And while it is not the end of the battle, as the ruling politicians had already vowed to ignore the result, they will do so at their own peril. Now that opposition politicians know that they have popular support, political opposition to TXL's closure should rise.

there´s the risk that what happened to MXP will happen to BER

MXP seems to be doing quite fine, actually. TXL cannot handle all of Berlin's traffic alone (nor can BER). Traffic will specialize and redistribute.

Given that this referendum came to be thanks to the FDP (this business-friendly party is rather weak in Berlin),

Actually, it started by a popular initiative, Berlin Braucht Tegel e.V. The FDP later joined supporting it, and helped them gain public attention as well as political support. But the FDP does not have the clout - and certainly not in Berlin - to pull this off.

The Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg GmbH is on record saying that there is no profitable business modell to operate both airports once BER is open

That is the fox taking care of the chickens, what else are they going to say being caught in such a conflict of interest?
FBB is also on record for spreading "alternative facts" to try to kill any arguments in favor of TXL.
TXL is making more than 100 Mio profit a year and actually helping pay for the BER desaster. Even after BER opening, a reduced TXL would handle 10-12 Mio pax a year. If you can't make money on those numbers, you have a serious problem. Oh wait, this is Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg GmbH we're talking about...

IMHO, you shouldn't be asking the entire city about this. You should be asking those living close to the airport and below the approach sectors. I am pretty certain the results will be quite different once you do it like that.

VSMUT wrote:

IMHO, you shouldn't be asking the entire city about this.

Why not, since the entire city will be affected by the decision?

bob75013 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

IMHO, you shouldn't be asking the entire city about this.

Why not, since the entire city will be affected by the decision?

Plans to close Tegel were announced a long time ago. People have brought properties and built there lives in the area based on the promise of the airport closing soon. This isn't just a matter of people moving to an existing airport and then complaining about it, people were lured into the area based on a promise, and that is why they are the people who should decide this.

r2rho wrote:

(...)
MXP seems to be doing quite fine, actually. TXL cannot handle all of Berlin's traffic alone (nor can BER). Traffic will specialize and redistribute.

MXP has been unable to attract a large volume operator. Its largest airline is EasyJet with a measly 80 departures per day. That is in spite of the enormously attractive catchment area. It may be doing well compared to BRU or MAN.

Now contrast that with MUC. MUC has more than double the number of seats offered at MXP. Just LH is at 330 departures per day. LH serves destinations that would have no chance of attracting another airline like LAX and MEX. The line-up of foreign carriers is at least an impressive as in MXP and Star Alliance airlines line up to serve MUC and benefit from LH's connectivity potential.

Now imagine how MUC would look like if Riem was left open. Riem would suck in all intra-Europe business traffic. MUC nonstops would battle with Riem connections - for example, MUC-LAX would struggle with passengers flying Riem-FRA-LAX or Riem-LHR-LAX. The reality would be one that most of long-haul at MUC would not be viable. MUC would do "fine", as well as LTN or GLA.

Now look at Berlin: It is a large city and Germany's capital. I love it - awesome city! But as a business center, it is not in the same league as Munich, Frankfurt or Milan. It needs to work harder to attract corporations that offer high paying jobs. If Tegel stays open, Berlin will continue to have multiple weak airports instead of a strong one. The needs of Berlin can be met at the old Schonefeld site which has big expansion potential. Tegel can be used for a greater purpose than being a drag in the local economy.

Voters do not understand how air service is created and should not have been asked the question. This is not a political matter, it is a technical one.

VSMUT wrote:

IMHO, you shouldn't be asking the entire city about this. You should be asking those living close to the airport and below the approach sectors. I am pretty certain the results will be quite different once you do it like that.

Oh? Should only those with school children be able to vote in school referendums?

Fact is, the airport has been operating for longer than most have lived under the respective approach paths. The airport serves more than just the people who lives underneath the flight paths. Those people who use it should have the right to self determination

FermiParadox wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

IMHO, you shouldn't be asking the entire city about this. You should be asking those living close to the airport and below the approach sectors. I am pretty certain the results will be quite different once you do it like that.

Oh? Should only those with school children be able to vote in school referendums?

Fact is, the airport has been operating for longer than most have lived under the respective approach paths. The airport serves more than just the people who lives underneath the flight paths. Those people who use it should have the right to self determination

People moved there on the promise that the airport would close. The decision was taken, and it will now have severe economic consequences to the people and investors who invested money in that part of the city if it is reversed.

Fact is, the entire city already had something to say about this some 20 years ago. If it is to be reversed, only the people affected by the decision should have anything to say about it.

VSMUT wrote:

Fact is, the entire city already had something to say about this some 20 years ago. If it is to be reversed, only the people affected by the decision should have anything to say about it.

As you well said, since the airport serves the whole city, the whole city (at least) as affected part should vote.

One thing missing from the discussion here: What will the airlines do? Can't see a big presence at both. If they have to choose, which will it be?

Jayafe wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Fact is, the entire city already had something to say about this some 20 years ago. If it is to be reversed, only the people affected by the decision should have anything to say about it.

As you well said, since the airport serves the whole city, the whole city (at least) as affected part should vote.

The whole city isn't going to suffer from falling property prices and higher than promised noise levels and a drop in the quality of life.

VSMUT wrote:

The whole city isn't going to suffer from falling property prices and higher than promised noise levels and a drop in the quality of life.

But the whole city will suffer lack of airport capacity and mobility. Such a dilema! I support the bigger figure of affected people

People have a short Memory. THF and TXL had been the lifelines for an Island in the unfree world. In These times until 1990 the BAC1-11s and the 727/373 early models were much louder than what the Airlines fly These days.

Not to mention the frequet sonic booms of the Russion fighter aircraft flying over the City. Just for fun. THF is closed already buy the guy who is in Charge of he BER Desaster.Now they finish off TXL and they use lies again. Berliners get smarter as we can see. The fingered referendum about closing THF was held in the east and the west Same is valid here. If you ask only those who are immediately affected you might as well just print the result on the sheet.

almost forgot the property Prices. They are going up in a working economy. We had the same BS when FRA got a new runway. The runway did not hurt the property Prices at all.

Jayafe wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

The whole city isn't going to suffer from falling property prices and higher than promised noise levels and a drop in the quality of life.

But the whole city will suffer lack of airport capacity and mobility. Such a dilema! I support the bigger figure of affected people

In Berlin? "Reduced" mobility, as in having to take a 20 minute train to Brandenburg, as opposed to a 15 minute bus to Tegel? Is that some sort of joke?

Reality check: When it comes to airport accessibility, Berlin Brandenburg will be among the absolutely best in the world.
Another reality check: Berlin isn't going to suffer a lack of capacity for the next 5 decades with Brandenburg. Air Berlin is practically bust, and that airport is massive. There is a ton of room for expansion. I know, because I've used the new part of the airport and the terminal as a crew-member already.

VSMUT wrote:

FermiParadox wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

People moved there on the speculation that the airport would close and they would be able to make money on a quick property value increase.

I fixed this for you. I am not sure why a Berliner is defending those who came in to invest in real estate, since by all means that has been what has destroyed Berlin's housing market in the last 10 years.

As for your other nonsense about how well connected BER will be, that may be the case from HbH but if you live in the areas most of those who are travelling do (Charlottenburg, Prenzlauer Berg, and then the ritzier suburbs like Grunewald and Dahlem), BER is a big loss compared to TXL.

Quick question for my German friends. At BER are the runways and taxiways all completed? What exactly is preventing the opening of the new airport?

TVNWZ wrote:

One thing missing from the discussion here: What will the airlines do? Can't see a big presence at both. If they have to choose, which will it be?

They will fly to the airport(s) they can make the most money at.

DDR wrote:

Quick question for my German friends. At BER are the runways and taxiways all completed? What exactly is preventing the opening of the new airport?

The airport is effectively collocated with SXF. Only one new runway was constructed, along with new taxiways and ramps. The only issues delaying the opening of BER are with the terminal itself.

Thanks actsundevil. That helps me understand the situation much better. So are we looking at 6 months to a year for the opening? On a side note, I really like the name Brandenburg.

DDR wrote:

Thanks actsundevil. That helps me understand the situation much better. So are we looking at 6 months to a year for the opening? On a side note, I really like the name Brandenburg.

Your guess is as good as ours, but I wouldn't be optimistic of an opening for any sooner than 12-18 months from now. The opening was due to occur in 2012 -- flights had already been moved in OAG, and the airport was a month from opening when it failed the fire safety certification. The subsequent fixes have uncovered numerous other major design flaws, and has resulted in much the building effectively being gutted. Despite dozens of management and leadership and countless promises to right the ship, an end in sight doesn't seem any closer than it did 1, 2, 3, 4+ years ago. It's gone from being an embarrassment to something else. The latest promise is sometime next autumn, but who knows...

atcsundevil wrote:

DDR wrote:

Thanks actsundevil. That helps me understand the situation much better. So are we looking at 6 months to a year for the opening? On a side note, I really like the name Brandenburg.

Your guess is as good as ours, but I wouldn't be optimistic of an opening for any sooner than 12-18 months from now. The opening was due to occur in 2012 -- flights had already been moved in OAG, and the airport was a month from opening when it failed the fire safety certification. The subsequent fixes have uncovered numerous other major design flaws, and has resulted in much the building effectively being gutted. Despite dozens of management and leadership and countless promises to right the ship, an end in sight doesn't seem any closer than it did 1, 2, 3, 4+ years ago. It's gone from being an embarrassment to something else. The latest promise is sometime next autumn, but who knows...

Thanks for the info. You’re the best mod on this site!

VSMUT wrote:

IMHO, you shouldn't be asking the entire city about this. You should be asking those living close to the airport and below the approach sectors. I am pretty certain the results will be quite different once you do it like that.

Reinickendorf (the district where TXL lies) just approved keeping TXL in operation...

David

32andBelow wrote:

TVNWZ wrote:

One thing missing from the discussion here: What will the airlines do? Can't see a big presence at both. If they have to choose, which will it be?

They will fly to the airport(s) they can make the most money at.

Duh. And which will that be in your estimation?

Hopefully the powers that be in Berlin/Germany will realize there is room for both, with some perimeter rules regarding TXL once BER is up and running. Maybe a LGA/JFK kind of thing.

seahawk wrote:

Legally non-binding and pointless.

Because the state of Brandenburg and the federal government have a say as well, and last I checked, Brandenburg and Berlin's position was to shut down TXL. And with the prospect of a so-called Jamaica coalition (because of the colours black, green and yellow) after last Sunday's parliament elections and the SPD rejecting the possibility of a third grand coalition under Chancellor Angela Merkel, it is doubtful if Mr Dobrindt's suggestion of keeping TXL open ever comes to fruition. Then again, Thomas Dobrindt was useless as Minister of Transportation and Digital Infrastructure.

FermiParadox wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

FermiParadox wrote:

I fixed this for you. I am not sure why a Berliner is defending those who came in to invest in real estate, since by all means that has been what has destroyed Berlin's housing market in the last 10 years.

As for your other nonsense about how well connected BER will be, that may be the case from HbH but if you live in the areas most of those who are travelling do (Charlottenburg, Prenzlauer Berg, and then the ritzier suburbs like Grunewald and Dahlem), BER is a big loss compared to TXL.

Except they weren't speculating. And big loss indeed that they will now have to spend 5 more minutes getting to the airport.

DDR wrote:

Quick question for my German friends. At BER are the runways and taxiways all completed? What exactly is preventing the opening of the new airport?

As far as I am aware, only the terminal building is holding them back. The runways, taxiways, hardstands etc are all in use today, although almost only for cargo planes, parked/stored aircraft and the odd business jet. The southern runway isn't really in use due to the distance from the Schönefeld terminal. It is marked with those white crosses as if it is closed, but in reality it is fully operational with working nav and approach aids. If they need it, they will land or depart an aircraft from it.

As for the terminal, it is physically "complete" and fully furnished, and lights are kept on at night for some weird reason. The problems are with the fire detection systems, wiring and ventilation, evacuation routes from the station, ventilation in the train tunnels, sprinkler water pipes aren't strong enough to handle the pressure when operating (and need to be replaced) and the transformer station exploded in March, just to name a few issues. But in theory you could take the terminal into use tomorrow and it would probably do its job pretty well, assuming a fire doesn't break out, in which case I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the airport

VSMUT wrote:

But in theory you could take the terminal into use tomorrow and it would probably do its job pretty well, assuming a fire doesn't break out, in which case I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the airport

I would also expect it significantly safer to use than many airports that are actually in operation, and like so many public accessible buildings wouldn´t dream of getting a permit under today´s regulations.

OzarkD9S wrote:

Hopefully the powers that be in Berlin/Germany will realize there is room for both, with some perimeter rules regarding TXL once BER is up and running. Maybe a LGA/JFK kind of thing.

Hopefully the powers that be are smart enough to push forward with a satellite terminal and a 3rd runway for BER, in that order. Keeping TXL open will do nothing good, it will just fragment traffic.

best regards
Thomas

VSMUT wrote:

FermiParadox wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

I fixed this for you. I am not sure why a Berliner is defending those who came in to invest in real estate, since by all means that has been what has destroyed Berlin's housing market in the last 10 years.

As for your other nonsense about how well connected BER will be, that may be the case from HbH but if you live in the areas most of those who are travelling do (Charlottenburg, Prenzlauer Berg, and then the ritzier suburbs like Grunewald and Dahlem), BER is a big loss compared to TXL.

Except they weren't speculating. And big loss indeed that they will now have to spend 5 more minutes getting to the airport.

Speculating is exactly what they were doing. You're completely just making things up and have yet to support your point with data other than feelings. Explain to me how someone living on the U7 in Wilmersdorf will only have to spend 5 extra minutes getting to BER than TXL. (You can't, because it will take significantly longer)

IMHO, you shouldn't be asking the entire city about this. You should be asking those living close to the airport and below the approach sectors. I am pretty certain the results will be quite different once you do it like that.

You are right. As Berlin is the capital, is this airport is essential national infrastructure, it should not be left to the political agenda of local politicians, and the whole nation should be asked.
By the way, you will be surprised to know that, in the polls, those living close to the airport were actually among its strongest supporters!

People have brought properties and built there lives in the area based on the promise of the airport closing soon

In Hamburg, people bought properties in Osdorf on the promise of a subway line (which had even started to be built). That was 40 years ago. Their children might now get it in the 2030's - when the original buyers will be dead! When you buy property speculating on a political promise, sometimes you can get burnt. Every adult knows that, or should.

The whole city isn't going to suffer from falling property prices and higher than promised noise levels and a drop in the quality of life.

Freising, once a little village, is booming and suffering from too high property prices, due to its proximity to MUC (and its jobs) - despite suffering its noise directly.

If Tegel stays open, Berlin will continue to have multiple weak airports instead of a strong one.

BER will be a weak airport. It does not have the capacity to be a second MUC. Furthermore, almost all of Berlin's current traffic is O&D, whereas MUC has a high transfer component. Berlin actually has the O&D to support a smaller local airport + a larger one (and potential hub if anyone wants to start it), whereas Munich and Milan don't. In Berlin, TXL and BER-SXF would complement each other. MUC/Riem and MXP/LIN, I agree, compete with each other.

Voters do not understand how air service is created and should not have been asked the question. This is not a political matter, it is a technical one.

I agree. But Berlin's airports have been in the hands of mediocre politicians playing airport managers as a hobby. A technical decision would have built a much bigger BER, or left THF open as government & GA airport, etc etc etc. But it hasn't. Thus, a political decision is required to send a message to these politicians.

r2rho wrote:

BER will be a weak airport. It does not have the capacity to be a second MUC. Furthermore, almost all of Berlin's current traffic is O&D, whereas MUC has a high transfer component. Berlin actually has the O&D to support a smaller local airport + a larger one (and potential hub if anyone wants to start it), whereas Munich and Milan don't. In Berlin, TXL and BER-SXF would complement each other. MUC/Riem and MXP/LIN, I agree, compete with each other.

BER will be an even weaker airport if TXL stays open. BER has vast expansion potential so it can be as big as MUC is today and more.

A big part of MUC having transfer traffic is that it is the single airport for Munich. I have not seen a single argument in this thread that supports the case that Berlin is somehow different from Munich and Milan. Actually, leaving TXL open is an even bigger threat to BER - it has enough runway and tarmac to ensure that BER never grows critical mass.

There are just a small number of cities in the world that can truly support more than one airport. It is the league of New York, London, Paris, L.A., Tokyo, Beijing. For everyone else, better to pool air traffic in a single location to attract service. Berlin is not there, not even close.

Reinickendorf (the district where TXL lies) just approved keeping TXL in operation...

Pre-election polls showed that those affected by the airport were actually also a majority in favor of keeping it open. Post-election results have more than confirmed it, with 63.7% of Reinickendorf voting in favor. But some people on this site prefer to put words in people's mouths and seem to know what is best for Berliners (just like... those responsible for BER).

https://www.morgenpost.de/bezirke/reini ... Tegel.html

I have not seen a single argument in this thread that supports the case that Berlin is somehow different from Munich and Milan

I did state some. But I can expand. It has to do with the different nature of traffic. Berlin is a huge O&D generator. While I generally also favor large single airports, BER is not large, nor will it be for the foreseeable and non-foreseeable future. The single airport strategy is good for connections, whereas the vast majority of the 33 million pax in Berlin are going to/from Berlin itself (MUC has 41 mio with a high transfer component). If someone ever wants to set up a hub in Berlin, BER can do that. TXL can handle EU O&D, government and GA traffic. Airlines offering connections will go to BER. Those just flying to Berlin will go to TXL. Some will go to both, because they serve different parts of the city. Traffic will specialize and redistribute, TXL does not cannibalize BER, because BER cannot, and will not, be able to handle all of Berlin's traffic. Impose a perimeter or MTOW on TXL if need be, no big deal.

how well connected BER will be, that may be the case from HbH but if you live in the areas most of those who are travelling do (Charlottenburg, Prenzlauer Berg, and then the ritzier suburbs like Grunewald and Dahlem), BER is a big loss compared to TXL.

Indeed, BER is great if you're heading to Hbf or Alexanderplatz, but the transport connections lack enough intermediate transfer stops (the exact opposite of MUC funnily). A very very low hanging fruit (having the S2 in Mahlow continue on existing right-of-way to the airport within its sight) or a semi-low hanging fruit (extending the U-Bahn to SXF and BER) have not been built, and the S-Bahn is forced to make a huge loop around the airport. The regional train to Hbf, I agree, will be excellent once the Dresdner Bahn expansion opens.

BER has vast expansion potential so it can be as big as MUC is today and more.

[/quote][/quote]
This is very hypothetical, while TL is real and funcitoning. Even if BER were to be expanded in that way, it would take decades. Who will handle all the traffic that BER can't handle during those decades? It is much easier, politically, to keep an existing infrastructure open than to convince Brandenburger villagers that they must now endure a 3-rwy, airport for 45 mio pax. And even if they can be convinced... once again, planning will take decades. How will the capital of Germany be connected by air to the world during that time? TXL provides the answer. We can then, in 20 years, talk about whether it is necessary or not to close TXL.

The problem is that BER can never be a hub if TXL remains the premium traffic airport serving most European destinations. It won't be possible to develop sufficient profitable feed to make it a viable hub. No full service carrier would choose to locate its flights at the more distant airport. As TXL is demonstrating now, it can still handle much of the traffic to Berlin. If TXL remains open, I can definitely see BER as the next Mirabel, or MXP at best--and look, Milan lost its hub despite being the business centre of the country since all the premium traffic prefers Linate. Keeping TXL open for GA/government traffic is an entirely different matter, though I doubt that would provide meaningful relief to BER.

BER, catastrophic construction issues aside, is a perfectly adequate commercial airport facility for a city like Berlin. As it stands, it's not a major hub and it doesn't look likely to become one in the near future given the collapse of Air Berlin. Two independent parallel runways has been perfectly adequate for MUC, a major international hub moving over 40 million passengers per year, up to this point. Now they're wanting to add a third independent parallel, which BER should have more than enough time to start planning for now. It goes without saying that LHR manages to be one of the busiest airports on earth with the same runway arrangement as BER, albeit uncomfortably. The terminal building is clearly too small at this point, but there is already a planning-approved satellite building to handle that traffic. Temporarily keeping the existing SXF terminal open for ULCC traffic also makes sense.

Virtually every congested airport is runway-constrained, not terminal-constrained. That's because it's far easier to expand a terminal (BER construction problems aside) than to build a new runway. The fact that BER isn't a hub and has high volumes of LCC traffic is an advantage in that regard. It means there are fewer connection-facilitating peak traffic periods, and it means aircraft are relatively large and high density. TXL and SXF combine for only 282,000 movements. That leaves vast room for growth, given that MUC is already handling just under 400,000 with the same runway arrangement. The prospect of expanding BER with a satellite terminal is not hypothetical. It has already received planning approval, which is the most difficult part of the process, and construction could start immediately (hopefully with different management from the rest of the airport!).

The construction management of BER has been an absolute catastrophe, but it's not worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The airport as planned is broadly speaking fine for its purpose once its problems are sorted out. It's less convenient by taxi from Mitte than TXL, but BER will have good rail connections and its access is as good as most other major city airports. It can fairly easily be improved further. Keeping a single main commercial airport is essential if Berlin is ever to become a serious hub.

YYZLGA wrote:

The problem is that BER can never be a hub if TXL remains the premium traffic airport serving most European destinations.

A hub in Berlin? Oh no. We already have excellent hubs in FRA and MUC. Even today, there are next to no long-haul flights to and from TXL.

There has been the argument that TXL was built for 4 million pax a year (or something like this), but now runs at 21 millions. So, they say... if BER was constructed for 11, it can take over all of TXL's pax on day one. But I heavily assume that any increase in efficiency was already built into this 11 million number. When TXL was opened, pax and baggage flows were not so automated, as well as ATC. It can't get much more automated.

Keeping TXL open until BER has a proven capacity of about 30 million pax a year is a must.


David

flyingturtle wrote:

Even today, there are next to no long-haul flights to and from TXL.

Yes, and this is a shocking situation for the capital of one of the world's most important countries and a major global tourist destination. It's a serious hindrance to the city's economy. Attracting more long-haul was one of the key goals of BER, and that's not going to happen without at least some connecting feed (which could in part be LCC). And that feed isn't going to happen if all the premium traffic is at TXL. It's also an enormous waste of money to duplicate the facilities of a major commercial airport when it isn't necessary.

Keeping TXL open until BER has a proven capacity of about 30 million pax a year is a must.

After all the disasters, you are right that prudence is the best course of action. A phase-in period with TXL still operation is a good idea given all the problems, but the ultimate situation should be a single commercial airport system. If the terminal is over capacity, keep SXF open until the satellite is built. It's terminal capacity that is the issue, not runway capacity. There's more than enough runway capacity at BER for current operations and foreseeable expansion--especially if, as you say, there is no hub that develops.

Berlin is no hub, we discussed that many times and even when AB was still alive their prime hub was DUS, not TXL.

The question about runway use is not answered yet. It is as screwed up as everything in this projecz. SXF had two runway, one was demolished (instead of keeping it intact for future use), the North runway, which is now in use, is the old SXF runway and the new south runway is part of the new Airport concept. That new runway can only be used once the new terminal (called BER) will be inaugurated. Once new terminal and new runway are in use, TXL must Close 6 months later, hail or snow, even if the new terminal Fails to operate properly. Even if there won't be an Airport open in Berlin, TXL must Close. The insanity of Planwirtschaft at work. Something that has never worked anywhere in the world, just again proven in Venezuela, is the base of the Airport concept in Berlin.

That was why the liberals nade that Referendum, unfortunately, the socialists in the Berlin City and state government will kill it.

The problem is that BER can never be a hub

33 million O&D pax in 2016 - despite constrained airport capacity. We do not even know what Berlin's pax numbers would be with unconstrained airports. Berlin doesn't need to be a hub! It is a massive O&D generator!

The fact that BER isn't a hub and has high volumes of LCC traffic is an advantage in that regard. It means there are fewer connection-facilitating peak traffic periods, and it means aircraft are relatively large and high density.

I agree and I think the "hub" future for BER is to be a "LCC hub" like VY in BCN, not a connecting-wave driven legacy hub like MUC.

As TXL is demonstrating now, it can still handle much of the traffic to Berlin

TXL is somehow managing because it has no other choice, but it would manage better with 8 mio pax less, which are the ones that could move to BER or SXF after traffic redistributes. Today, some airlines are flying into TXL because SXF doesn't have room either, you take what you can get.

TXL and SXF combine for only 282,000 movements. That leaves vast room for growth, given that MUC is already handling just under 400,000 with the same runway arrangement.

BER's runways are politically capped at, IIRC 360,000 movements a year. Not so much room anymore, if you want to set up a hub on top of all that O&D traffic.

Two independent parallel runways has been perfectly adequate for MUC, a major international hub moving over 40 million passengers per year, up to this point. Now they're wanting to add a third independent parallel, which BER should have more than enough time to start planning for now.

MUC has two mirror terminals (BER has only one), and is expanding T1, despite being an airport with far less O&D traffic than Berlin. Satellite terminals are irrelevant for Berlin - because they are for connecting pax, not O&D. BER's third runway already existed in many ways - the demolished SXF north runway (not fully independent), the closed THF, and still remaining today - TXL. Ok, let BER plan for a third runway. Ensure that BER can reliably handle 35 mio pax. In the meantime, keep TXL open. After that, we can have the discussion again. Nobody, not even this initiative, is talking about keeping TXL open forever. But at least for the next 10 years, which is what BER will at least need to be up and running and expansion construction to start. The situation can always be reassessed afterwards. And therein lies the difference between this vote and the Berlin governement - being open to reassessing the situation as reality changes.

There has been the argument that TXL was built for 4 million pax a year (or something like this), but now runs at 21 millions.

If wiki is to be believed, TXL's design capacity is 11.5 mio pax. I wouldn't say it is handling 21 mio, but surviving with 21 mio because it has no other choice.