A342
Topic Author
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:32 am

The moment of truth has finally come. Today the citizens of Munich decide about the construction of a third runway at MUC.

As supporters and opponents couldn't agree about a common question, in a flash of idiocy, there will be TWO questions on the ballot (one by the proponents and the other by the opponents) asking the very same thing - whether the city of Munich, as a 23% owner of the airport company, should support the construction of the third runway through its vote in the company board.
If BOTH questions should gain a majority yes or a majority no, there even is a tie-breaker question...

A voter turnout of at least 10% is necessary for a decision, a threshold which has already been achieved by postal voting.
The decision is legally binding for one year. While the (very popular) mayor of Munich, a supporter of the runway, has stated that he will accept the decision no matter what the outcome, the Bavarian Minister-President, also a supporter, said that he is determined to push forward with the runway in any case and he is even prepared to simultaneously turn the Bavarian parliamentary elections next year into a vote about the airport expansion. This situation is further complicated by the fact that the mayor of Munich will then also run for Minister-President, but his party is divided about the third runway...

If the outcome is positive, it will be up to the courts to decide (who would have thought...).


Starting at 18:00 CET, when polling places close, the results will be published here (sorry, German only):

http://www.muenchen.de/rathaus/ratha...scheid2012/ergebnisermittlung.html


Let's hope that the new runway will be approved. It is necessary to provide badly needed additional slots: In 2007 and 2008, new peaks of more than 430,000 movements were reached. Since then this has slipped to some 410,000 in 2011, but there is no question that movements will increase again as the European economy recovers. Even with the recent decline, there are no more peak-time slots available.
Also, the new runway will help to increase operational stability in the winter months, when there are less movements than in the summer. While Munich is probably among the best-equipped and most experienced airports in central Europe when it comes to dealing with snow and icing conditions, closing one of the runways for snow removal still results in substantial disruptions.

Let's hope that the lies and disinformation spread by the opponents will not prevail.



Ja zur dritten Startbahn!

http://www.ja-zur-3.de/England



A342
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
LOWS
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:37 am

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:39 am

Quoting A342 (Thread starter):
Ja zur dritten Startbahn!

        

I loved how the no camp was saying that MUC was still below capacity by 30k or so movements!

Yes has question 1, right?
 
B738FlyUIA
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:20 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:45 am

Quoting A342 (Thread starter):
Ja zur dritten Startbahn!

Great News!!!

So it will be about like this then?



Source: Google
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 1:03 pm

Quoting A342 (Thread starter):
If BOTH questions should gain a majority yes or a majority no, there even is a tie-breaker question...

After looking at the questions, only the third should be there.

Quoting A342 (Thread starter):
Let's hope that the lies and disinformation spread by the opponents will not prevail.

Doubt one side is better than the other.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
Senchingo
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:59 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 1:56 pm

Quoting B738FlyUIA (Reply 2):
So it will be about like this then?

Yes, something like that. Although the exact layout of the taxiways etc are not yet decided.
Here's another example of the future layout (please excuse if i'm not allowed to link to other sites pictures, it's my first post on a.net)
http://www.aero.de/content/pics/p_2321.jpg
Source: aero.de

Quoting cmf (Reply 3):
After looking at the questions, only the third should be there.

The problem was that the two parties could not agree to only one question, as both had their wishes for an exact phraseology.

Number 1 (For the runway):
"Sind Sie dafür, dass die Stadt München in den zuständigen Gremien der Flughafen München GmbH – ohne sich an den Kosten zu beteiligen – dem Projekt einer 3. Start- und Landebahn am Flughafen München zustimmt?"
"Do you agree that the city of Munich and its respective board in FMG - without supplying financial support - shall support the project of a third runway at Munich Airport?"

Number 2 (Against the runway):
"Stimmen Sie dafür, dass die Landeshauptstadt München alle ihre Möglichkeiten als Gesellschafterin der Flughafen München GmbH nutzt, um den Bau einer 3. Start- und Landebahn des Verkehrsflughafens München zu verhindern und dass die Landeshauptstadt München insbesondere in der Gesellschafterversammlung der Flughafen München GmbH keinem Beschluss zum Bau einer 3. Start- und Landebahn zustimmt?"
"Do you agree that the city of Munich shall use all possibilities as a shareholder of FMG to avoid the construction of a third runway at Munich Airport and that the city of Munich shall not agree for a construction in the meeting of shareholders?"

Should both parts have a majority, question 3 is a tie-break question.

Let's hope the result will be positive, even though Mr. Magerl is already stating that they will use all possibilities in case of a "yes for the third runway" to fight back....

Ja zur 3.!
 
A342
Topic Author
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 2:48 pm

Quoting LOWS (Reply 1):
Yes has question 1, right?
Quoting B738FlyUIA (Reply 2):
So it will be about like this then?
Quoting cmf (Reply 3):
After looking at the questions, only the third should be there.

Correct on all accounts.

Quoting LOWS (Reply 1):
I loved how the no camp was saying that MUC was still below capacity by 30k or so movements!

Yeah, they claim the new runway is not needed due to the lack of demand. Then they say that even with two runways, MUC can handle more than 500,000 movements, 520,000 to be exact, that's some 35k more than LHR ever head (yeah right   ). And IF the 3rd RWY is built, they fear the noise and emissions that result from 700,000 movements...

Btw, their figure of "more than 500,000 movements" was supposedly determined by a DLR (German Aerospace Center) study. DLR denies this:

http://www.muc-ausbau.de/media/downloads/klarstellungdlr040612.pdf


In fact, according to Airport Council International statistics for January and February 2012, MUC is the world's third busiest two-runway airport after LHR and CAN. CAN wil open a thrird runway next year, but the growth of MEX could keep MUC in third place (How does MEX manage so many movements with two closely-spaced runways? Many movements at night when MUC has a curfew?):

http://www.aci.aero/cda/aci_common/d...?zn=aci&cp=1-5-212-231-233_666_2__

Quoting cmf (Reply 3):
Quoting A342 (Thread starter):
Let's hope that the lies and disinformation spread by the opponents will not prevail.

Doubt one side is better than the other.

In this case, I dare say yes. Opponents didn't shy away from spreading misinformation like the city would have to partly finance the new runway, that the airport was subsidising fuel (!!!) in order to attract new flights, that the airport never reached its growth targets in the past and so on. Many posters of the pro-side were destroyed, too.
Of course the proponents aren't very eager to talk about issues like noise, but, at least to my knowledge, they never spread false information or tried to hamper the opponents' campaign.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
A342
Topic Author
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:20 pm

Polling stations have closed. Can't wait for the outcome to be announced!
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14485
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:04 pm

Quoting A342 (Thread starter):

Starting at 18:00 CET, when polling places close, the results will be published here (sorry, German only):

http://www.muenchen.de/rathaus/ratha....html


Here is a:

Google Translate link...

Not much posted yet.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
LOWS
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:37 am

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:07 pm

And already the site is having trouble!
 
A342
Topic Author
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:26 pm

Results now online for 33 of the 320 polling stations. Currently looks like a 56% majority AGAINST the runway. I pray that it'll change...
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
bavair
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 7:51 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:37 pm

101/320 polling stations makes it 56.3% against  
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12041
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:38 pm

This is a big deal. Germany is voting if they control the hubbing or letting chance decide. There was the same decision with FRA and night ops and the decision was made to send the night ops where the competition dictates.

But this isn't just Germany. Many developed metropolitan areas are hobbling growth. That doesn't mean there won't be growth, it just won't be at that airport. Its almost as if they think globalization was a fad that will go away... Since there is plenty of room to grow at secondary and tertiary airports, it just shifts where the hubbing will grow. (e.g., IAD, CLT, DXB, etc.)

Quoting LOWS (Reply 1):
I loved how the no camp was saying that MUC was still below capacity by 30k or so movements!

In other words, less optimal flight times...    Once an airport is beyond 85%, the remaining slots are not of high value unless there is supreme demand in/out of the metropolitan area not being met (e.g., LHR). That number tells me MUC needs more slots at ideal hubbing times just for the sake of LH growth there.

Quoting Senchingo (Reply 4):
it's my first post on a.net

Welcome! I hope you have many years of enjoyment. You did well setting up that photo for a new member.

Quoting A342 (Reply 6):

Polling stations have closed. Can't wait for the outcome to be announced!

I so hope MUC decided to grow.

Quoting A342 (Reply 5):
MUC is the world's third busiest two-runway airport after LHR and CAN. CAN wil open a thrird runway next year, but the growth of MEX could keep MUC in third place (How does MEX manage so many movements with two closely-spaced runways? Many movements at night when MUC has a curfew?):

What is interesting is how few really busy two runway airports there really are. LHR is an abnormality in that most capitol airports have at least planned to be grown beyond two runways. e.g., BKK will grow to 4, CGK to 4, KUL to 5, IAD was built to fix capacity issues as was CDG. While there is some reason to compare MUC to other two runway airports, most of the other busy two runway airports lack the curfews *and* will grow. For example, ICN has already grown to the 3rd runway and has plans to make it up to 5 runways with a vague statement of potentially more future growth!

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
LOWS
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:37 am

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:59 pm

56,6 Against (82.533 votes)
43,4 For (63.228 votes)

162/320 stations in.

Hopefully good old Horst will send it through anyway.

The third runway will benefit not just Munich...but all of Bavaria.
 
MUCramp
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:20 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:06 pm

Quoting LOWS (Reply 12):

Hopefully good old Horst will send it through anyway.

Even he can´t. This is not 1975-Bavaria anymore...
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:06 pm

Quoting A342 (Reply 5):
Yeah, they claim the new runway is not needed due to the lack of demand. Then they say that even with two runways, MUC can handle more than 500,000 movements, 520,000 to be exact, that's some 35k more than LHR ever head (yeah right ). And IF the 3rd RWY is built, they fear the noise and emissions that result from 700,000 movements...

The figure seems accurate, and LHR is a perfect example that it can be done.

LHR's current capacity is 480,000 movements (one runway for landers, one for takeoffs), if they use both runways for landing and takeoff, i.e in mixed mode, that capacity increases to 520,000, matching bang on the capacity of MUC.

LHR has been testing mixed mode ops i believe these last few years. With no 3rd runway there, they will need to operate in mixed mode in the near future just to meet demand.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2012-06-17 11:08:59]
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12041
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:09 pm

Quoting LOWS (Reply 12):
56,6 Against (82.533 votes)
43,4 For (63.228 votes)

   Will the mid-east hub carriers at least send some nice flowers as a thank you?

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
LOWS
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:37 am

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:26 pm

Quoting MUCramp (Reply 13):


Hopefully good old Horst will send it through anyway.

Even he can´t. This is not 1975-Bavaria anymore...

If this is only for the City, can he not put it through?

Other than the city of Munich now being obliged to vote against it, surely the MUC board is for it?
 
A342
Topic Author
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:47 pm

292 of 320 stations in. 54.5% against...

What a sad day, MUC is now on the way to become a second Heathrow...   

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 14):
The figure seems accurate, and LHR is a perfect example that it can be done.

LHR's current capacity is 480,000 movements (one runway for landers, one for takeoffs), if they use both runways for landing and takeoff, i.e in mixed mode, that capacity increases to 520,000, matching bang on the capacity of MUC.

LHR doesn't get a few weeks of heavy snowfall each year, at most just a few days...
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
Senchingo
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:59 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:00 pm

Just talked to a person in charge right there... Seems like there won't be a third runway anytime soon....  
 
PlaneInsomniac
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:34 am

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:47 pm

Yup, it seems that it's Game Over for the third runway for the foreseeable future:
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soz...-stoppen-wohl-ausbau-a-839408.html

"Euch geht's wohl zu gut". München - the new embodiment of a town where everybody flies twice a month but opposes airport expansion because it is "irresponsible".
Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
 
r2rho
Posts: 2475
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:05 pm

This is really frustrating. MUC was doing everything right from a PR point of view, avoiding the mistakes of Stuttgart21... it was a very well organized campaign to mobilize people in favor. MUC is one of my favorite airports and one of the best hub facilities in the world... this would have put them at the level of AMS, MAD, CDG or the new FRA... now their highly succesful development is capped and they are condemned to remain behind.

I for one shall now look forward to any new frequencies from EK. Too bad for MUC...

Press release (German) from MUC, regretting that they were unable to mobilize a silent majority in favor of the 3rd runway, and sees a missed opportunity to continue MUC's success story.

http://www.munich-airport.de/de/micr...ediathek/pm/2012/q2/pm37/index.jsp

[Edited 2012-06-17 15:11:06]
 
biztom
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:29 am

...I didn't dare to hope, but Munich's citizens showed today a very respectable common sense ! They didn't believe the empty promises of bavarian politics, airport officials and "VIP"s, who tried to make people believe MUC wouldn't have a future without a 3rd runway in an unbearable campaign.
MUC is a good hub, it had a good growth, but we need no second LAX in bavaria. The growth was primarily caused by the limited capacity at FRA in a phase of growing air traffic, and the generation of hub traffic. For a city of 1,4 mio inhabitants, a catchment area of some 5 mio people, Munich provides very good connections to all parts of europe and a lot of intercontinental routes. I cannot understand the necessity of further growth. In my opinion some bavarian politics and some officials suffer from megalomania. "Bigger, better, faster, more..." This is not the state of mind that makes people love bavaria !
There will be no neverending growth in air traffic ( oil price, economic downturn...) as the supporters of the 3rd runway claimed. And with the opening of Berlin's BBI hub next year, another competitor will offer frequencies and capacities.

So - be happy with your nice existing airport including two independent operating 4000m runways, and accept the democratic will of your citicens. This was a very good day for bavaria !

BIZ
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12041
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:04 am

Why is it that people do not realize that the airport growth would have had a nice job multiplier? Some of the traffic will have to eventually relocate to a city with less constrained growth. The big issue will be for LH to grow the connections. This will be like NRT, passengers will go to where connections are easier.

All of the US based airlines with room fot hubbing expansion thank the voters. US in particular desires an aircraft to further fragment the TATL market. With night curfews at FRA, BER, and MUC and constrained expansion it will be easier for US to compete. There is a phrase in business "grow from strength.". Bavaria just said let the growth be elsewhere.

Those who think the growth will all go to BER need to realize the customer will decide where the growth goes once the decision is made to constrain it. CLT, IAD, IAH, DFW, And other US airports will happily fragment the market. Since there will be fewer US connections, this will also make it easier for EK, QR, EY, and other hubbing airlines to the East.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4392
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:10 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 6):

Read on another website the votes are against 3rd runway & expansion of the terminal...

Sad day indeed for Munich, however happy day for Germany qualifying for the quarter finals in the Euro 2012...

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
BMI727
Posts: 11175
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:18 am

Well add this to the list of reasons why I have no patience with European whining about Middle Eastern carriers taking their flag carriers' lunch money. Seems like every sheikh is building himself a new airport and Europe can't even add a runway.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:38 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 22):

Why is it that people do not realize that the airport growth would have had a nice job multiplier?

Just because they can't add more movements doesn't mean they can't grow.

But the bigger and more important question: Is growing making things better for Munich? Passenger numbers are almost triple over 20 years. Is allocating more space to factories, offices, shops and housing making the Munich better? Could it be it would make it worse? Bigger isn't always better.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4392
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:10 am

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:30 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 17):
LHR doesn't get a few weeks of heavy snowfall each year, at most just a few days...

and MUC doesn't have nearly as bad night restrictions as LHR does. So i consider MUC to have a slight advantage in the regards of aircraft movements.
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
 
LOWS
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:37 am

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:40 am

Quoting EK413 (Reply 23):
expansion of the terminal...

No. This was only for the third runway.

I still think it would be possible for Seehofer (the leader of the Bavarian government) to build the runway because this vote was only for the city of Munich, and they only control a quarter of the MUC shares.
 
sharktail
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:41 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:41 am

Quoting cmf (Reply 25):
Is growing making things better for Munich? Passenger numbers are almost triple over 20 years. Is allocating more space to factories, offices, shops and housing making the Munich better?

YES. Growth allows people to live where they live today and schools to continue to operate and hospitals to not close.

If you don't believe growth is good, go and look at cities that have had negative growth. Like Detroit.

There are economies of scale to think about. If you don't grow, you shrink certain functions. So you start losing vital infrastructure because it is no longer logical to operate it for the number of people. Which begins a negative spiral.
 
cf6ppe
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:09 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:07 am

Went to MUC in 1996 during October Fest to attend a vendor meeting. It seemed that MUC is somewhat distant from Munich - maybe 80 - 100 km. (Please correct me if I am grossly off.)

Apparently from comments above, MUC operations (read noise, etc.) probably wouldn't have any affect on the Munich metro area. Usually, nimby problems are facilities close at hand.

I read the complaints not unlike those not wanting additional cell phone towers, but complaining when they can't get a signal.

My dear old dad (gosh, I miss him today on fathers day) who told locals in his Kansas community not wanting a cattle feed lot because of the smell, that a cattle feed lot was the smell of money. I would liken the noise, etc. from airport operations also as the noise associated with money.

Anyway, my 2 cents...

sorry if my comments are off topic....
 
LOWS
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:37 am

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:21 am

Quoting cf6ppe (Reply 30):
Went to MUC in 1996 during October Fest to attend a vendor meeting. It seemed that MUC is somewhat distant from Munich - maybe 80 - 100 km. (Please correct me if I am grossly off.)

Yes, that's more than double the length. It's about 30km. It just feels like it takes forever, because the Sbahn (S meaning „Schnell“ or „fast“) is so slow and there are so many intermediate stops.

Quoting cf6ppe (Reply 30):
sorry if my comments are off topic....

I take the point.

[Edited 2012-06-17 21:22:27]
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:42 am

Quoting sharktail (Reply 29):
YES. Growth allows people to live where they live today and schools to continue to operate and hospitals to not close.

If you don't believe growth is good, go and look at cities that have had negative growth. Like Detroit.

Growth can happen in many different forms. It doesn't need to be increased number of flights or number of people employed.

I agree that negative growth is bad, but it isn't what I suggested. It is a mistake to think that not agreeing with one thing is an automatic endorsement of the extreme opposite.

I'm suggesting growing within existing number of people and space. It is called increased productivity. The market tend to like increased productivity. Taking on more employees, office and factory space not so much.

As I said before, capping number of flights doesn't mean the end of growth. Just that growth must happen from larger equipment, more efficient equipment.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
MUCramp
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:20 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:16 am

Quoting LOWS (Reply 16):

If this is only for the City, can he not put it through?

Other than the city of Munich now being obliged to vote against it, surely the MUC board is for it?


I don´t see any way to put it through in some different way as the city of Munich, Bavaria and Germany (the three MUC owners) have to all agree on the third rwy. Since Sunday we know: the city practicially can´t agree on it - even in the next couple of years.

Well, the city of Munich might be able to sell their stakes at MUC (so that they don´t have to vote againt it), but everyone here consideres this to be strategicially pretty ineffective.

Sure, the MUC board is for it.
 
MUCramp
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:20 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:22 am

Quoting LOWS (Reply 28):
I still think it would be possible for Seehofer (the leader of the Bavarian government) to build the runway because this vote was only for the city of Munich, and they only control a quarter of the MUC shares.

It doesn´t depend on the quater of the MUC shares, unfortunately.

Regarding such desicions there has to be unanimity between all three stakeholders (city of Munich, Bavaria, Germany).
 
Unflug
Posts: 705
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:27 am

Quoting LOWS (Reply 28):
I still think it would be possible for Seehofer (the leader of the Bavarian government) to build the runway because this vote was only for the city of Munich, and they only control a quarter of the MUC shares.

No, since

Quoting MUCramp (Reply 34):
Regarding such desicions there has to be unanimity between all three stakeholders (city of Munich, Bavaria, Germany).

This is written in the statutes of the "Flughafen München GmbH".

Currently the board cannot decide to build the third runway, since one Board-Member (the city) is forced to vote against it.

Currently does mean that things might change in the future: the decision is binding for one year only. Obviously it won't work to just wait a year, since there would certainly be another ballot if the city decided to vote for a third runway after one year. But things may change, and it will get interesting if future development shows that the airport looses money as a consequence of this decision.
 
cuban8
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:17 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:53 am

If European airports continues to be restrictive with the amount of runways and curfews, I guess this will in the long run be in favor for the A380 operators.
When business goes to hell, you get rid of three things. Your private jet, your yacht and your mistress..........and most importantly in that order.
~ Russian Billionaire ~
 
r2rho
Posts: 2475
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:59 am

This was not some crazy mamooth project, based on speculation or growth for the sake of growth. It was a very sensible and well thought out expansion that would have allowed MUC to enter the 120 ops/hour club, as other hub airports in Europe already have, and would have surely been the last and ultimate airside expansion of the facility. It would have firmly established MUC as an intercontinental gateway on the European continent.

I always thought that one of the reasons to build MUC way out there in the countryside was to allow for future expansion - and now Munich is stuck with an far-away airport that cannot be expanded. Back in the day, Bavaria made a strategic decision to make MUC an international gateway, and this decision is now being reversed. If they just wanted to be an O&D destination, they might as well have kept the old Riem airport with a new terminal.

Quoting biztom (Reply 21):
For a city of 1,4 mio inhabitants, a catchment area of some 5 mio people, Munich provides very good connections to all parts of europe and a lot of intercontinental routes.

Indeed, and some of us who are not so lucky (like HAM) would kill to have even half the connectivity that MUC provides. But if they prefer to be an O&D destination and not an intercontinental crossroads then that is fine, it is Munich's choice, and it is up to them to decide on their future. But know that many people envy Munich for what they have now voted against.

Quoting biztom (Reply 21):
And with the opening of Berlin's BBI hub next year, another competitor will offer frequencies and capacities.

No because BBI is already sized too small from the start. It will cater to current demand and some future growth, but as an airport facility does not provide any true competition to MUC or FRA.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24):
Well add this to the list of reasons why I have no patience with European whining about Middle Eastern carriers taking their flag carriers' lunch money

Absolutely correct. The Gulf carriers are growing thanks to the traffic that we are kicking out of Europe's airports. I laugh at all the complaints about unfair competition. But once again - it is our choice. Election after election we are kicking air traffic away, so we should not be surprised when EK, EY & co pick that up while our flag carriers struggle to break even each year.

Quoting LOWS (Reply 28):
this vote was only for the city of Munich, and they only control a quarter of the MUC shares.

I believe they have veto rights, however...
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8647
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:15 am

A saturated country gambles its future away. It won't happen fast, but the kids which are born today will suffer from the inability of today's generations to realise that money does not grow on trees but has to be earned each and every day.

A country without adequate infrastructure will suffer strokes. IUt is always the same, the "NO" block uses all dirty tricks to brain wash their followers, telling lies, painting over bill boards of the PRO fraction and so on. The silent majority stays home and shruggs off results, not knowing that it will hurt them in the future. Again, this has shown that the Greens are, together with the Linke, the most conservative, backwards faced parties in Germany.

OK, it is one year in which the hands of the Munich city assembly are tied. Franz-Joseph Strauss, former Bavarian PM, without whom the airport (and Airbus Industry in its today's form) would not exist, went personally to the farmers and talked them, with a bottle of Schnaps, into selling the land where the new airport was build. The farmers got a good and fair deal and the region prospers.

This way of hands-on, sleeves rolled up way of handling things is, unfortunately out of fashion these days and we do not have these charismatic politicians any longer. But this was a battle lost yesterday, not the campaign to add the needed runway..
powered by Eierlikör
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:58 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 38):
the kids which are born today

Which kids? Germany will loose its current role in anyway because the current generation decided that getting kids is too exhausting. Who shall design, build sell all the BMWs, Mercedes, Airbus-parts etc in future?

So the lack of infrastructure e.g. MUC's third runway, the situation in FRA etc. is one serious issue but personally I am more concerned about the current demographic development in Germany.
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:14 am

So when will the people who voted ''against'' now reimburse what is almost half of the other people for the jobs and revenues forgone? FRA has to reimburse people for building a new runway, so it would only be logical to apply this measure both ways.
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
Ferroviarius
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:28 am

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:30 am

Good afternoon,

personally, I am quite happy about the decision. There definitely is much too much air traffic in central Europe. A lot of it could be avoided either by avoiding unnecessary travelling at all og by using trains for un-avoidable travelling, which, anyway, are much more environmentally friendly than air travelling. It is, to my mind, really a home made problem. Travelling has become so cheap that there is created an artificial demand for even more air travelling!


Best wishes,

Ferroviarius
 
User avatar
Aquila3
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:32 am

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 39):
Which kids? Germany will loose its current role in anyway because the current generation decided that getting kids is too exhausting. Who shall design, build sell all the BMW, Mercedes, Airbus-parts etc in future?


I won't worry. You will get as many (foreigner) kids you want. Just let the door open. They will design, produce, sell and even consume and recycle your BMW Mercedes and Airbus.
I say that from big experience.
I am actually an Expat, born Emigrant (not in D) , son of Emigrants (not in D), grandson of Emigrants (in D).
And, before you think that, no, nobody of my family was ever involved with mafia or even with pizza.  
chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:51 am

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 42):
I won't worry. You will get as many (foreigner) kids you want. Just let the door open. They will design, produce, sell and even consume and recycle your BMW Mercedes and Airbus.

This is actually the only chance we have left, if fully agree with you.

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 42):
And, before you think that, no, nobody of my family was ever involved with mafia or even with pizza.

  Cheers! I am writing these lines while I'd better prepare myself for a business meeting in Italy tomorrow.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8647
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:00 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 39):
So the lack of infrastructure e.g. MUC's third runway, the situation in FRA etc. is one serious issue but personally I am more concerned about the current demographic development in Germany.

I'm not worrying about that too much since this is self-regulating. In my business and family environment reproduction takes place. All these young couples want their babies and they are born into educated families. The generation in their 20ties are thinking by far more optimistic than the 68er generation born aorund 1948 who really screwed up this country,

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 41):
There definitely is much too much air traffic in central Europe. A lot of it could be avoided either by avoiding unnecessary travelling at all og by using trains for un-avoidable travelling,

Who's deciding that? You? Certainly not. Flights that cannot get slots at MUC or another European airport will take place elsewhere. . We have an excellent train infrastrtcure, I have made three long distance trips within the last week, all trains could not have accomodated the passengers from the equally full flights. The rail infrastructure is as stressed as the air infrastructure, with the exception that air is by far more flexibvle than train.

The new runway could accomodate about 40 flights per hour going anywhere in the world. Flights that don't pay their way are replaced by profitable routes. Rail can't do that.

Now, this result is binding for one year, since both the 2 big parties want the runway it is up to them to smoothen the path. One year delay is OK.
powered by Eierlikör
 
airbazar
Posts: 7122
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:20 pm

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 27):
and MUC doesn't have nearly as bad night restrictions as LHR does. So i consider MUC to have a slight advantage in the regards of aircraft movements.

But on the flip side MUC is predominantly a European hub so night ops aren't as relevant. IIRC, MUC has more European flights than FRA. Hence why a 3rd runway was needed. Think lots of flights per hour with small planes, during a limited time of the day. You go to MUC at 1pm or 10pm for example and the airport is a vast concrete desert. LHR, not so much, thanks to all the intercontinental operations.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 37):
I always thought that one of the reasons to build MUC way out there in the countryside was to allow for future expansion - and now Munich is stuck with an far-away airport that cannot be expanded. Back in the day, Bavaria made a strategic decision to make MUC an international gateway, and this decision is now being reversed. If they just wanted to be an O&D destination, they might as well have kept the old Riem airport with a new terminal.

MUC's first big mistake was not to build 3 runways from the beginning. They knew that a 3rd runway was going to be needed within 15 years of the airport opening. They had seen the FRA and LHR saga to build a new runway. It was a mistake not to build it when they had the green light to do it.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 37):
Absolutely correct. The Gulf carriers are growing thanks to the traffic that we are kicking out of Europe's airports. I laugh at all the complaints about unfair competition. But once again - it is our choice. Election after election we are kicking air traffic away, so we should not be surprised when EK, EY & co pick that up while our flag carriers struggle to break even each year.

I don't buy that. The Gulf carriers, like the LCC's are creating their own traffic. There hasn't been a traffic decrease at the major European legacy carriers. What they are suffering from is lower yields, thanks to price pressurs from the Middle Eastern carriers. More runway capacity is not about to change that.

People in aviation like to blame governments and NIMBY's for their problems but it wasn't the government who decided to install the crappy lie flat business class seat in LH's new Business class, instead of fully reclining flat beds. Those didn't last long and are now being replaced with a propper product. But the money has been wasted and people voted with their wallets. It's not the government who is forcing me to pay $100 for a second checked bag when I fly between the US and India. EK does not charge me $100 for a second checked bag.
 
Ferroviarius
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:28 am

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:26 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 44):
Who's deciding that? You? Certainly not. Flights that cannot get slots at AND OLD: Munich - Riem (MUC / EDDM) (closed), Germany">MUC or another European airport will take place elsewhere. . We have an excellent train infrastrtcure, I have made three long distance trips within the last week, all trains could not have accomodated the passengers from the equally full flights. The rail infrastructure is as stressed as the air infrastructure, with the exception that air is by far more flexibvle than train.


I am frequently in Munich, parts of my family are living there, and I do, indeed, prefer Munich or Zurich (as well as Arlanda, if possible) as hubs and try to avoid crazy Francfort. While being a frequent Munich airport user, I still do not use the plane for short distance travel.
Concerning your (important!) statement on the rail infrastructure:
The seating capacity of one ICE-3 16-car train exceeds 800, a double TGV Duplex has more than 1000 seats etc. pp. While the capacity of the European High Speed Rail lines is not yet saturated - even the old, classic lines block signalling sytems allow for one train each 3rd minute - the capacity of the main train stations would have to be adapted if the train circulation frequences would rise to levels much larger than today's. AND there would have to be more trains, of course.

I am not quite sure whether planes are more flexible than trains. There, obviously, are more train stations than airports, and using the plane also involves going to and from an airport, which in general is considerably longer than travelling to or from a train station. This said, I am aware of the problem with, e.g., the four different electric main line systems in European countries (15kV AC 16 2/3 Hz, 25kV AC 50Hz, 1,5 kV DC and 3kV DC) and different gauges on the Iberian Peninsula (and Ireland, and Russia and the Baltics), but these problems can be solved / have been solved without increasing traffic volume. Also, it still is a political issue if, e.g., a not French / German built train is circulating on French / German lines, the unions don't like it at all. This, however, is a political, not a technical issue, which, in similar form, exists in air traffic, as well (will AF ever order RR engines?).

The issue, to my mind, is that air planes should be used for the type of travelling, where they really are necessary, i.e. medium and long distance travelling. Thus, capacity problems at airports could be circumvented.

Best wishes,

Ferroviarius
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12041
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:11 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 25):
Just because they can't add more movements doesn't mean they can't grow.

True. But during commercially viable times they will have to substitude one flight for another. Is that the customer preference? Displaced traffic has a habit of finding a different home other than intended or just disapearing (job destruction).

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
I agree that negative growth is bad, but it isn't what I suggested. It is a mistake to think that not agreeing with one thing is an automatic endorsement of the extreme opposite.

It is tough to walk the fine line of low job growth and prosperity. Just ask Japan. For other regions will grow. On a global basis, it doesn't matter if oil goes to $250/bbl, there will be a growing middle class who travels. Is MUC and the Bavarian region going to participate in that growth? The answer is obviously yes. But how much? I do not consider one runway with a night curfew the extreme opposite. Far from it. Going to 4 runways and 24/7 operations would be. Let's bracket what extreme is before declaing the other's argument there.

Note: I do not consider this decision extreme either. I respect the voters decision. I just wonder if Europeans realize how much constraining their hub airport growth has enabled not only the mid-east airlines, but the LCCs. Not growing MUC means fewer connected cities for MUC and thus easier competition for the airlines based in hubs that can grow.

Will MUC provide the high demand non-stops? To large point to point markets, there will naturally be a fligth added. That soon will mean another flight cut or at least displaced to a less ideal time slot. Perhaps by displacement with high speed rail. But the competitors on the other side of the Atlantic based in CLT or IAD won't be cutting flights. They'll just add as economics dictates. The mid-east carriers also won't be cutting. Nor those at the large growing Asian hubs. This old routes that were once viable will drop in profit as there will need to be connections to sustain them. With fewer growth connection opportunities, as each flight is cut it will fractionally weaken existing routes due to reduction in connections.

There is a phrase in industry: "you grow or you rot."

While many European hubs will have limited growth, what happens if IST is indeed replaced with a new 4 (or more) runway airport designed as a mega-hub? Demand for connections to Africa and Asia will grow. There people will join the middle class and thus start traveling far more no matter what we debate on a.net. The question is where the demand growth will be met. Air travel demand doubles about every 15 years. The signs are growth is accelerating, not slowing, from that standard. While European air travel is unlikely to double, why not provide that service? Make money off us Americans connecting to new destinations.

Or let someone else do it. There will be new airports built. 400 runways are expected over the next 15 years. That means new air travel opportunities to where there wasn't an opportunity. It will be tougher to make those new connections without slots...

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 46):
Thus, capacity problems at airports could be circumvented.

Just as inconvient airports are circumvented. The One example: NRT is now mostly O&D for Tokyo. When the Tsunami hit, most hubs adapt by discounting connecting traffic to make up for a local drop in O&D traffic. How can that be done when the hub does not provide the level of timely connections the market now expects? Connections now provided at ICN, PEK, PVG, and HKG. My point is the level of service expectation grows. MUC based airlines will now have a tougher time meeting those expectations. A third runway would have made it likely that MUC would be the better choice of many competiting hubs that have two runways and even the mega-hubs that many wish to avoid.

While well connected airports to rail will substitute, it needs to be done as invisibily to the purchaser as buying an connecting airline ticket. I know for flying corporate travel to Europe, it isn't there. The ability to prove the train was the cheapest solution in one click shopping isn't in the AMEX search engine. Since various accounting laws require proof that contract provisions are being met, it is up to the individual rail networks to get into all of the systems. It can be done, but I'm not seeing the progress needed to make it a viable business solution.

I wish more people would read 'Wealth of Nations', 'Lexus and the Olive Tree/The World is Flat', and 'Birth of Plenty'. Those books combined, none on their own, explain how enabling infrastrure enables economic growth. They also explain how there will be competition.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
r2rho
Posts: 2475
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:14 pm

I has to be noted as well that the participation was of only 33%, so the result, while binding for the city of Munich, is not necessarily the most representative.

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 41):
A lot of it could be avoided either by avoiding unnecessary travelling at all og by using trains for un-avoidable travelling,

I would gladly take the train more often, but it has to made competitive. Incidentally, the same kind of people that oppose the 3rd runway have also been blocking attempts to build new high speed rail lines. Should we just all stay at home then?
But having said that, I believe both things are complementary. We're not talking about a mamooth airport expansion here, but a very reasonable expansion to 120 ops/hour that had always been in the planner's minds and which would surely be the last and final one. Together with a decent long distance rail link to connect MUC with the rest Bavaria (and parts of Austria) it would be win-win (it was a mistake not to build any long distance train connection to MUC; and the ICE line completely bypassed it...).
 
airbazar
Posts: 7122
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Munich Citizens Decide About Third Runway

Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:18 pm

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 46):
The issue, to my mind, is that air planes should be used for the type of travelling, where they really are necessary, i.e. medium and long distance travelling. Thus, capacity problems at airports could be circumvented.

But you can't have medium/long-haul without short haul which feeds the long haul flights, and there lies the problem and the need for more runway capacity because all those "feeder" flights need to arrive and take off at roughly the same time. Hence why it's called a hub.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos