Looks like the old threads are filed.

Latest news today that the fire protection system may eventually be partially replaced. This could cause moe delay for the new BER terminal building.

in German only

http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/articl...nte-wieder-aufgerissen-werden.html

the article basically says that some of the installation is not conform with building codes and approvals and possibly must be replaced. This could cause an additional delay, more to come in the next few days.

Mr. Amann is a capable project manager who'se task it is to work through the mess his predecessor and an incompetent supervisory board has created. Not necessarily in that order.

Looks like I win a few bets and there's at least 6 more months to campaign to keep TXL open.

Wonderful! *cough* Wonderful!

The planners and builders must have been complete drunkards. Who in his right mind is building terminals while neglecting fire safety related building codes?

I just can't understand it...



David

and from what I gather from Süddeutsche Zeitung, they have several lawsuits heading their way, including Bundesbahn and Air Berlin.

I fly over once a week (CPH-PRG-CPH) and can see the area quite well on a clear day. Is the new Termnial really big enough to handle both Tegel and Schönefeldt traffic, as well as projected increases for BER??

Quoting PanHAM (Thread starter): Looks like I win a few bets and there's at least 6 more months to campaign to keep TXL open.

And has this campaign been joined by anyone other than yourself yet?

Quoting PanHAM (Thread starter): Latest news today that the fire protection system may eventually be partially replaced. This could cause moe delay for the new BER terminal building.

Well, this is almost making VIE SkyLink look like a well managed success.

How over budget is BER?

Quoting CPHFF (Reply 2): Is the new Termnial really big enough to handle both Tegel and Schönefeldt traffic, as well as projected increases for BER??

From what I've heard and read, it will be tight right from the start, if not too small. Berlin's aviation policy is a colossal mess, sadly, and while I don't share some people's Berlinophobia, this issue has become a national embarrassment.

Quoting lows (Reply 4): How over budget is BER?

The original planned called for 2.4 billion Euros.

We're at currently 4.3 billion Euros and counting.

And it's two years late, assuming it actually opens in October 2013.

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 6):

Will there be an official a.net excavator, truck and construction spotting event in October 2013?   


David

Quoting CPHFF (Reply 2): enough to handle both Tegel and Schönefeldt traffic, as well as projected increases for BER??

No

Quoting lows (Reply 4): How over budget is BER?

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 6): We're at currently 4.3 billion Euros and counting.

Save to say that 100% is under estimating.

There is no Berlinophobia. The mess is the way the airports situation in belrin is handled. The senate sticks to a decision that has been made in the first half of the 90s , based on completely obsolete figures. Closing THF was already a hige mistake and closing TXL will be even more fatal.

Look at the traffic figures at Berlin on ADV and anyone can see that the passenger figures have exploded, whereas the planning is still based on the figures of the late 80s early 90s.

The present mess with the completion of the terminal is based on a decision by zthe Berlin mayor and the Brandenburg PM , who are both members of the supervisory board, to take up the responisibilty for the completion of the terminal, instead of buying a turn key offer.

The turn key offer might have been half a year late, it might have been 500 Mio € over budget, but the terminal would be operational now.

If anyone here has a phobia, then the people who think that the capital city of Germany can be a single airport city.

In a now deleted post, lightsaber asked this:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10): Why is Europe forfeiting so much business?!?

Too many people want their peace, quiet and Colombian roses next to the holiday photos from Disney World without connecting the dots. In my view, it's very much a "have one's cake and eat it too" scenario. What happens when politicians cater to these people and then realise that they've made a mistake can be witnessed in the Rhine/Main area...   

[Edited 2012-11-11 09:43:05]

I haven't seen Lighsabers post, but just from the headline I agree with him.

Instead flexibility and adapting to changed passenger figures, Berlin sticks to a decision made almost 20 years ago. Most who are into the matter know and agree that closing THF was wrong and closing TXL will be wrong.

That not enough, the current situation, the inability to complete a project in time, is directly connected with a political system that puts poltical decisions over competence and practical restraint. Dividing up the project into several parcels in order to save some 600 Million € leads to a desaster which will cost between 2 and 3 billion €, and that may not even include damages.

Quoting aloges (Reply 9): In a now deleted post, lightsaber asked this: Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10): Why is Europe forfeiting so much business?!?

I'm not sure why I get deleted, but hey, it happens. Heck, I remember this thread being far longer!

My post basically said BER should have been built as a 3 runway 24/7 airport. I'm in general pro-transportation growth as it helps enable a higher standard of living. Europe is expected to have its 19 largest airports impacted within 15 years. Where is the growth. I would love to have seen MUC grow or the controversial 3rd runway at LHR and I am not a fan of the FRA curfew. Someone will meet the market demand for travel in and out of Europe. I simply do not understand why the European hubs are not expanding and why Europe is forfeiting so much business.

So instead, the secondary cities of Europe will be served by hubbing in the USA (e.g., IAD, CLT, PHL, and MCO as examples) or in the mid-East (or even PVG or the new Beijing airport, but those weren't in my last post). Business finds a way to thrive. The question just becomes where?

Lightsaber

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 11):

Well, I fear an arms race. If every continent is building these hubs, some will lose. Inevitably. Why should BER compete with FRA and MUC and LHR and CDG?

I'm not the wisest guy on that forum, but I'm sure we can't take economical growth for granted.


David

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 12): Well, I fear an arms race. If every continent is building these hubs, some will lose.

But not all are building hubs. And why would there not be economic growth? In particular in Asia. The middle class (globally) is expected to increase an an unprecedented rate. That means unusually fast air travel growth. There will be plenty of new long haul opportunities.

Note: I expect a massive slowing in China. But I also expect a shift of where the growth is to Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand (I'll date myself and call them the 'Asia tigers.')   

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 12): Why should BER compete with FRA and MUC and LHR and CDG?

Ok, why wouldn't Europe expand substantially the current hubs? (Such as MUC.) Currently, the prediction is a shortage of capacity into the major airports of Europe. Thus, unless European business collapses, that means those working at secondary cities in Europe will need to fly into them as the available hubbing capacity won't be meeting demand.

Either way, there will be more competition from the US and mid-east hubs. Europe is choosing not to grow their major hubs significantly. That means if there is significant growth, it *must* be elsewhere. Its not that growth is taken for granted, its if it happens, Europe is setting up conditions that favor its competitors.

In general, economically growth happens. Or do you know something that is going to keep the billions trying to enter the middle class out that I don't? I should point out I'm not a Malthusian. We always seem to engineer ourselves a solution before we run out of a resource.

Lightsaber

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 12): I'm not the wisest guy on that forum, but I'm sure we can't take economical growth for granted.

but it has shown an average increase of greater than 5% pverd ecades.

I always say here that BER is not a natural hub, by location. But BER has shown higher than expected traffic growth over the past 10 years and there has been nothing from the political side even to acknowledge that. Just blatant ignorance. Even when the BER terminal opens, it will be over crowded from start. That notz enough, thy will close TXL half a year later instead of keeping this airport as an overflow, for GA, business and government flights.

It remains to be seen how the current situation turns, but if the additional work that is reported needs to be done and cannot be coordinated with other work, the opening date will set back even further.

Quoting CPHFF (Reply 2): Is the new Termnial really big enough to handle both Tegel and Schönefeldt traffic, as well as projected increases for BER??

No, it is not. In fact, it will already be too small on opening day (even if it had been on time). Although labeled as a "Großflughafen" by many media, there is nothing so "big" about it. The original plan upon which Berlin's airport strategy was set up became obsolete many years ago, but was never updated to match reality. Thus, THF was closed, SXF's north runway was demolished, and TXL is still scheduled to be closed once the undersized BER opens. One shot in the foot after the other.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 15): Thus, THF was closed

By popular agreement, because people had an opportunity to vote against the closure. They didn't in sufficient numbers.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 15): SXF's north runway was demolished

It wouldn't have made sense to keep it open because the two old runways were too close to each other. If you can't operate a true independent runways operation, the only sense in having two runways is that you have a backup if one is blocked, and you can let aircraft line up while another aircraft is landing. The new second runway does all this and more, so the old north runway was obsolete. If BER ever gets a third runway it will be built in the south, at sufficient distance.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 15): TXL is still scheduled to be closed

TXL has to be closed because it is simply too close to residential areas. It doesn't make sense to keep it open just for business, private and government flights, because (unlike THF) that wouldn't be financially viable. TXL is too large and not close enough to the city center for that. For THF you had companies willing to continue airport operations, but not so for TXL.

Quoting Rara (Reply 16): By popular agreement, because people had an opportunity to vote against the closure. They didn't in sufficient numbers.

By popular, manipulated vote, not by popular agreement. The mayor lied to the people , especially in East Berlin, that keeping THF open would mean to subsidize the billionaires flying in their private jets. They believed this kind of BS and the mayor did not tell them, that closing THF wwould be more expensive than keeping it open. All the buildings will need to be maintained, as well as the whole area but the income from flight ops is missing.
As you say Berlin had plenty offers for the site which would have relieved the city completely from the 12 Million per year they had to pay for THF. Plus generating a lot of income.

Now, who would, after the THF exprience, offer for TXL? Waste of time. With a better city policy, offers would come in.

Now, with the idiocy of clsoing TXL as well, the BBI airport operatirs will have to tear down all the buildings, which will cost more money as well. Money they don#t have. But at least, the whole site must be protected which means ,we have THF AND TXL costing money with little or no income generated.

Quoting Rara (Reply 16): It wouldn't have made sense to keep it open because the two old runways were too close to each other.

Of course it would have made sense. If your argument would have any substance, ATL would not be viable.

Quoting Rara (Reply 16): TXL has to be closed because it is simply too close to residential areas.

tell the French to close LBG and you get the answer why TXL should be kept open.

Quoting Rara (Reply 16): If BER ever gets a third runway it will be built in the south, at sufficient distance.

sure money grows on trees, see above. Why build a new one when there was one ready and just needing some upgrade?

If TXL remained open.. who would use it? Obviously the government want BER to be the primary hub. Maybe make it a domestic airport with downgraded facilities?

Quoting Rara (Reply 16): TXL has to be closed because it is simply too close to residential areas. It doesn't make sense to keep it open just for business, private and government flights, because (unlike THF) that wouldn't be financially viable. TXL is too large and not close enough to the city center for that. For THF you had companies willing to continue airport operations, but not so for TXL.

TXL is not close to the city center? It is no THF, but the drive to the government buildings is under 10 minutes with the streets closed by the police like on all state visits and government flights of higher ranking politicians. Compare that to a drive of close to 25min with closed streets, too, to BER.

Normal times from city center West and East are about 10-20 minutes, depending on location and traffic situation. At least one quarter of Berlins citizens live in 10-15 minutes driving distance from TXL. No comparison to BER/SXF.

A city like Berlin needs more than one airport. TXL has a good location and a solid and proven infrastructure. Take 10 million pax away from TXL and shuffle them to BER and TXL will be again the lovely, efficient airport it once was. We have to remember that TXLs terminal A was planned for 2.5 million pax, but it can handle more. Let TXL do the GA, government, business and e.g. high-yielding p2p-flights, that would take 5 million pax away from BER and save this new airport from opening at its maximum capacity of 27 million pax.

27 million, btw a number which has to proven. A lot of rumours are saying the facilities of BER could not have handled the traffic which was planned for the opening in June. There were plans one month before the planned opening of building a large tent beside the main terminal (like in DUS after the big fire in 1999) to handle the summer holiday traffic. Why could not TXL handle the high-season and charter traffic? Two words: stupid politicians!

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 18): If TXL remained open.. who would use it? Obviously the government want BER to be the primary hub. Maybe make it a domestic airport with downgraded facilities?

I mentioned that. Similar to LBG, business aviation , GA and in the csse of Berlin also for Goovernment, The French even have a dedicated airport for that. SXF, or then called BER, could be the sole passenger airport for Berlin.

BER will be too small to handle the total demand in peak times quicker than it takes to expand or find an existing field in the near vicinity that could handle such ops.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17): By popular, manipulated vote, not by popular agreement. The mayor lied to the people , especially in East Berlin, that keeping THF open would mean to subsidize the billionaires flying in their private jets. They believed this kind of BS and the mayor did not tell them, that closing THF wwould be more expensive than keeping it open. All the buildings will need to be maintained, as well as the whole area but the income from flight ops is missing. As you say Berlin had plenty offers for the site which would have relieved the city completely from the 12 Million per year they had to pay for THF. Plus generating a lot of income.

Well I voted to keep THF open. Nevertheless, most other people here decided against it - and not primarily because of the costs, but because they thought it unnecessary to have an inner-city airport. Nowadays people are very happy with the park etc., I don't personally know anyone here who regrets that THF closed. It was the will of the people, which in a democracy I intend to respect.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17): tell the French to close LBG and you get the answer why TXL should be kept open.

Sure, let's compare Paris with a metro area of 17 mio. people and a GDP of 570 billion with Berlin (6 mio. people and 100 billion Euros GDP). Apples and oranges. Paris is a major aviation hub and Berlin isn't.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17): Quoting Rara (Reply 16): If BER ever gets a third runway it will be built in the south, at sufficient distance. sure money grows on trees, see above. Why build a new one when there was one ready and just needing some upgrade?

Because again, aviation-wise the northern runway would be of very little significance when the new southern runway will make independent operations possible. It's the same in TXL. If there was a new runway at a significant distance, one of the two existing runways could have been closed. It may seem counterintuitive, but from an operational point of view, two very close runways really just act like one.

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 18): If TXL remained open.. who would use it? Obviously the government want BER to be the primary hub. Maybe make it a domestic airport with downgraded facilities?

Can't. It's incredibly noisy for the people in the vicinity, and they've been promised the closure for many years now. If this decision is reversed, they'll go up in arms, and rightfully so. Government and business traffic could conceivably be kept at TXL, but there seems to be no demand for that.

Quoting CARST (Reply 19): TXL is not close to the city center? It is no THF, but the drive to the government buildings is under 10 minutes with the streets closed by the police like on all state visits and government flights of higher ranking politicians. Compare that to a drive of close to 25min with closed streets, too, to BER.

Sure, it's a bit faster to drive to TXL. If government officials take 15 minutes more, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, especially since the government seems to prefer to BER option.

Quoting CARST (Reply 19): A city like Berlin needs more than one airport.

Why is that? Having operations concentrated at one airport is always the better alternative - if it's viable. Land use is minimized, noise disturbance is limited to one area, it's easier to handle for ATC, it's better for connecting passengers (see the Paris nightmare), ground transportation has to be built only once, etc.

Quoting CARST (Reply 19): Why could not TXL handle the high-season and charter traffic? Two words: stupid politicians!

No, in this case it's the law. Part of the go-ahead for BER was the closure of TXL and THF - otherwise the demand for a large new airport could not be justified. In a way, it created an artificial demand.

Quoting Rara (Reply 21): Quoting CARST (Reply 19): Why could not TXL handle the high-season and charter traffic? Two words: stupid politicians!] No, in this case it's the law. Part of the go-ahead for BER was the closure of TXL and THF - otherwise the demand for a large new airport could not be justified. In a way, it created an artificial demand.

And who made the law? Stupid politicians!

q.e.d. 

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 18): If TXL remained open.. who would use it?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 20): Similar to LBG, business aviation , GA and in the csse of Berlin also for Goovernment

May I just point out the flaw in your logic?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17): Berlin, that keeping THF open would mean to subsidize the billionaires flying in their private jets. They believed this kind of BS

If keeping a second Berlin airport open was for the benefit business and general aviation (plus government), why would it be "BS" to say that the cost of it is a subsidy to the rich?

Quoting Rara (Reply 21): No, in this case it's the law. Part of the go-ahead for BER was the closure of TXL and THF - otherwise the demand for a large new airport could not be justified. In a way, it created an artificial demand.

Laws can be changed- The people in the parliament are also called lawmakers. OK, the zoning might need some changes as well and possibly this might go through the courts again, but, bQuoting aloges (Reply 23):
If keeping a second Berlin airport open was for the benefit business and general aviation (plus government), why would it be "BS" to say that the cost of it is a subsidy to the rich?

Where's the subsidy? They pay for the use of the airport. Imagine your local baker writes red ink, does he subsidize you when you buy your bread?

The open THF cost less to maintain than the closed site.

[Edited 2012-11-12 08:45:18]

Well, PanHAM will be proven correct, as I have also stated here numerous times.
I would be amazed if the airport would open before the summer or 2014.
But, to be honest, Berlin is always good for a surprise, so 2015 would not shock me in the slightest.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 1): I just can't understand it...

Well. I don't know anything on BBI, but I have read on Dutch tunnel safety problems. We've had a free-way road tunnel (A2 Utrecht corridor) that was 100% ready construction wise, but opening was delayed by over two years (!!) before all the bugs had been cleared on the safety systems.

The problem with tunnels (and I suspect that BBI is no different) is that you are looking 25 - 50+ different safety-systems that have to work together faultlessly. While all these systems are tested individually, there is simply no such thing as an "iron-bird" to test them all together; you test them real time on the real thing. When you find a significant fault that requires re-wiring . . .

These systems are designed and built by over 20 suppliers, that for the most part have their own network concepts, and which were not really designed to an agreed standard. There are no real building codes on these systems interoperability (yet).

The few companies that are now starting to develop and adopt common interfaces and protocoles are finding themselves in a competative disadvantage, because they can't charge any premium for their efforts, as they are not considered in the contract awarding rules. The (european) rules state that a contract should go to the lowest bidder. The lowest bidder has no interest or incentive to make sure their system can interoperate with a competitor's system. If it doesn't work, hey it's the other parties fault!

Also, another problem is that these construction projects take 10 - 15 years from the first draw of the pencil until operating and accepting the first (paying) customer. The safety rules in this aspect of (tunneling) fire &and egress safey are fairly young and are changing almost on a yearly basis.

Now try to manage all the above problems at contract stage . . .

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 11): My post basically said BER should have been built as a 3 runway 24/7 airport.

I would expect that 2 widely spaced parallel runways, especially with terminals in between, would be more than sufficient for the initial 10 - 15 years. Provided mixed-mode is practiced, such a lay-out can easily handle 450000 movements a year, without any noticeable delays. PHX managed over 550000 before their third parallel became active.
I don't see BER requiring more than two independent parallel runways for the time being.

Rgds,
PW100

Quoting PW100 (Reply 26): I would expect that 2 widely spaced parallel runways, especially with terminals in between

would be normally so, except in peak times. And that is when a third runway comes in handy.

What really surprised me is the fact, that at FRA, with the new landing runway inaugurated just a year ago and with ample space to grow, there won't be any slots after 9 pm due to the damn curfew. It's amazing.

Means, theroies such as what you said are correct in principle, but not in countries that can be called Absurdistan

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 27): Means, theroies such as what you said are correct in principle, but not in countries that can be called Absurdistan

Since BER is not a large hub, and won't be for the foreseeable future, two runways should do pretty fine, also in peak times. As a tax payer, I would not like to see my government spend hundreds of millions, just to be handy. And please relax, I know what you mean, I just don't fully agree.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 27): What really surprised me is the fact, that at FRA, with the new landing runway inaugurated just a year ago and with ample space to grow, there won't be any slots after 9 pm due to the damn curfew. It's amazing.

In our countries (Germany, Netherlands) runway capacity is (considreably) constrained by non-aviation factors such as environmental limits, curfews, cumulative noise limits etc. If the same is also the case at BER, a third runway won't alleviate that . . .

Rgds,
PW100

Quoting PW100 (Reply 26): I would expect that 2 widely spaced parallel runways, especially with terminals in between, would be more than sufficient for the initial 10 - 15 years.

Agreed. I'm thinking making it NIMBY proof for the future. And yes, I argued for such an airport as soon as the wall fell.

Actually, I argued for a bigger airport before I understood the limitations of the BER site...

Lightsaber

Quoting PW100 (Reply 28): As a tax payer, I would not like to see my government spend hundreds of millions, just to be handy.

Well, first of all, airport infrastructure is not paid by taxpayers, with the exception of Berlin. Here it is build by taxpayers in other federal states, of course. Second, what I mentioned was that the third runway existed and was actually destroyed, costing a couple of millions.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 30): Here it is built by taxpayers in other federal states, of course.

Could you explain this, please? My understanding is that 26% or €111 million of the equity came from other federal states via the federal government. This is a small fraction of the total budget of some €2.83 billion (as of 2010). As far as I have read, the delays and budget blowouts are likely to be covered by another €500 million in equity (€130 from the federal government if they stick to 26%) and the remainder in shareholder loans, which will have to be paid back, earning state and federal taxpayers a profit.

All up, you're looking at VERY minor share of the total cost actually being paid for by taxpayers in other federal states. I hope you're not exaggerating for effect.

[Edited 2012-11-13 00:53:19]

Quoting CaptainCrackers (Reply 31): Could you explain this, please? My

you are quoting a tiny portion of my response.

FRA for instance, the complete expansion, runway, terminals etc. is totally privetely financed, from cash flow of Fraport and bank loans to Fraport which the company can easily service from their own ressources.

The equity of FBB (Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg) is the base for loans to build the airport. Don't forget that FBB also has to run TXL. Whatever the cash flow situation there is right, now, the delays at BER means that FBB needs further loans which the banks will not give unless the owner, Berlin, Brandenburg and the federal government back these loans.

That, at the end of the day is taxpyers money which will never see a similar return. In addition to that, the poorer states get money from the richer states, BER is one of the poorest and the 3 rich states are Hesse, Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria. In other word, the money the blow by mis-managemtn in Berlin comes from the 3 states mentioned above.

agree that this is a complicated system, but it is like that.

adding to the above - it will be difficult for FBB to service the loans they need to complete the airport. They will likely not be able to collect through increased landing and user fees. At the end of the day, zthe owners might be forced to pay off loans with taxes, better with loans the states have to take up direct. One could say that doesn't change much when the annual spending deficit of Berlin alone is 4 billion € but...........

If that is not enough, they have to build new extensions at TXL to handle the traffic, just to tear these down after 1 or 2 years, never can amortize that in the short time.,

This is really a major f...up.

[Edited 2012-11-13 01:30:46]

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 22): And who made the law? Stupid politicians! q.e.d.

Well, yes.   But otherwise BER would likely not have been built. To start such a huge project in Germany and get it through the courts, you need to demonstrate a clear need for it. With TXL, THF and the old SXF terminal active, that need would not have been there.

In my view, the real mistake was to use the SXF site instead of building an all-new airport at Sperenberg. As we all know, Sperenberg was the better location and would have allowed for a 24 hrs operation, but it was prevented by politicians who feared it would compare too favourably with MUC. LH considered using Sperenberg as a hub, but the BER site is obviously not interesting enough.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 26): I don't see BER requiring more than two independent parallel runways for the time being.

And you're correct.

Quoting CaptainCrackers (Reply 31): Could you explain this, please?

I think PanHAM is referring to the Länderfinanzausgleich (equalisation payments among the German states), which provides a substantial part of Berlin's budget. In 2011, the sum of payments in the Länderfinanzausgleich was 7.3 billion Euros, and of this, just over 3 billion Euros (41% of the total volume!) went to Berlin.

Berlin's total budget in the same period was about 22 billion Euros, so nearly 14% of the money spent by the state of Berlin comes from taxpayers in the states who are net contributors to the Länderfinanzausgleich (currently: Bavaria, Hessen, Baden-Württemberg and Hamburg). Therefore, 14% of whatever money Berlin spent on BER was paid for by taxpayers outside Berlin. (plus the federal government's share) And to make matters worse, they also had to take on another 1.5 billion Euros in debt, adding to their shocking total debt of 63 billion Euros (about €18,000 per head of population).

State governments in Berlin simply cannot handle money. Berlin is already the Greece of Germany, and the last thing they need to be doing is wasting more money.

Quoting Rara (Reply 33): n my view, the real mistake was to use the SXF site instead of building an all-new airport at Sperenberg. As we all know, Sperenberg was the better location and would have allowed for a 24 hrs operation,

Sperenberg is too far away from anything to qualify as an airport. This would have been the same whoite elephant Montreal mirabel was. That's not the only reason the thumb would go down, former Russian military base would have needed to be cleared from ammo, oil contamination etc. Besides clearing a forest that site would have to be excavated 10 meters deep.

Even if an airport would hav been built there, in 10 years time there would have been a city of 100 to 200K with a good share of NIMBYs getting the place closed at night. If Berlin needs a 24 hour airport they have one it is called LEJ.

BER does not qualify as a major hub because of geographic location, it is peripheral, not central.

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 34): I think PanHAM is referring to the Länderfinanzausgleich (equalisation payments among the German states), which

Bingo, head on nail. I just did not want to throw in the German word for this non-sense.

Quoting Rara (Reply 33): To start such a huge project in Germany and get it through the courts, you need to demonstrate a clear need for it. With TXL, THF and the old SXF terminal active, that need would not have been there.

Berliners are famous for their big mouth. They should have used it then. Instead of making the projections klein-klein (small-small).

The figures which lead to the single airport decision had been outdated already by the end of the 1990s. It is safe to say, that growth in aviation, even in the rather saturated markets of Europe, are a linear 5% ++ p.a. Without checking the ADV figures now, its more than that fpr BER.

In the early 2000s, Berlin Brandeburg airports ran an advertising campaign promoting 6 in words six runways for Berlin. As an asset. This ad campaign, which included the back pages of the OAG must have cost millions, at a time when the wrong decision to close THF and TXL was valid law already.

If they had used this to revert that decision with a new parliament vote, one could have understood it. They did not, obviously the head did not know what the behind did and vice versa.

This goes like a red tape through the years and there is, unfortunately no end in sight. Even top people like Mr. Amann, cannot change it, only better the situation.

another interesting article, in German only

http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/articl...ile-muessen-neu-gebaut-werden.html

one can only wish that this is not true, or, as mentioned in the article, the consulting firm just uses the warning to cover its own a.. in case the October 27th deadline cannot be met.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 36): The figures which lead to the single airport decision had been outdated already by the end of the 1990s. It is safe to say, that growth in aviation, even in the rather saturated markets of Europe, are a linear 5% ++ p.a. Without checking the ADV figures now, its more than that fpr BER. In the early 2000s, Berlin Brandeburg airports ran an advertising campaign promoting 6 in words six runways for Berlin. As an asset. This ad campaign, which included the back pages of the OAG must have cost millions, at a time when the wrong decision to close THF and TXL was valid law already.

  

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 35): BER does not qualify as a major hub because of geographic location, it is peripheral, not central.

Totally wrong. Both BA and AB have been saying BER should be another OneWorld hub in Europe, not as large as LHR or MAD, but still of significant size, because it is one hour flying time closer to most Asian cities and requires not the amount of backtracking to Eastern Europe compared to LHR.

If not prevented by EY and the current size of BER, AB will be the third important player to the OneWorld network in Europe, improving connections to Eastern Europe and Asia.

Quoting CARST (Reply 38): If not prevented by EY and the current size of BER, AB will be the third important player to the OneWorld network in Europe, improving connections to Eastern Europe and Asia.

OK, I have a different opinion on that, i made my point and reason, but AB as the third largest player in OW is a relatively safe bet.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 32): That, at the end of the day is taxpyers money which will never see a similar return.

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 34): Therefore, 14% of whatever money Berlin spent on BER was paid for by taxpayers outside Berlin.

Thanks for the explanations, and your points are taken, but it is still only a small fraction of the total that other German states other than Berlin and Brandenburg are assuming, probably lower than a quarter.

And as for your talk of skyrocketing public debt and whether taxpayer funds will earn a return: The German federal government is borrowing money at negative interest right now. Private finance is fine, but it is not inherently any better than public finance.

Now is the time for public investment in infrastructure, while capital is easy to get. Of course those investments should be managed properly, which they are currently not, but the financial picture is probably not as bleak as some here paint it.

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 34): Berlin is already the Greece of Germany

That's just crazy talk. Berlin's economy is growing, not contracting. It grew at something like 170% of the German average in 1H 2012. Incomes are growing, unemployment falling, demographics changing. I'm not defending any of the mismanagement or waste. But Greece is in a far, far worse position.

Quoting CaptainCrackers (Reply 40): . Private finance is fine, but it is not inherently any better than public finance.

well, Berlin and the states will never pay back debt, same goes for the Federal State. .

Private financing, project dedicated, like the runway and terminals at FRA, will be paid back including interest. From cash flow generated by the additional business. Completely different matter.

That was the plan for BER as well, the problem was, is, that Flughafen Berlin Branenbrg is 100% state owned and obviously not managed well, contrary to Fraport which is, although majority ownership by the city of FRA and the state of Hesse, both cannot control Fraport which is run like a private enterprise.

The ownerswhip is not the problem, like Deutsche Bahn. As long as these companies are run efficiently and not as "authorities".

I'm all for one airport solutions. The sensible thing to do is, expand BER so it can handle all the traffic.

Quoting Rafabozzolla (Reply 42): I'm all for one airport solutions. The sensible thing to do is, expand BER so it can handle all the traffic.

There is the difference between a theoretical ideal solution and the reality. In theory it might be the best to have one large airport when you look at the problem from an economical viewpoint.

But if we try to see the full picture, for an metro area as large as Berlin and Brandenburg, it makes sense to have more than one commercial airport. If you could connect every part of this metro area to the airport with drive times and train times under 30 minutes, in this case the theory could work. But we have to face the reality, that all streets in Berlin all clogged for multiple hours a day in the morning and afternoon rush-hours, resulting in driving times of one hour from the North and the West.

Because of NIMBYs and mismanagement the trains will take longer to the Airport from the city-center as planned and the train company DB still has no plans to connect the northern part of Berlin to the new airport in the southern part of the city, resulting in train times of longer than one hour with a 1-stop connection. Only a few long-range high-speed trains (ICE) will stop at the airport, with most of them going directly to the main station.

With all the NIMBYs crying and going to court because of the departure and arrival routes over their houses I do not see the airport being extended for another 10 years. Perhaps a new terminal, but no new runways and no significant increase of the slots.

And there it is, the problem, no new slots, no growth, but the airport opening at or over maximum capacity in 2013. With air-traffic growing multiple points every year in the Berlin-Brandenburg metro area, the question remains, which airport takes up the additional traffic if BER is capacity-restricted from the start of operations there?


So there goes the theory into the trash-can. Goodbye mega-airport. Berlin has the same problem as all other large metro areas in the Western hemisphere. Now we just need the politicians to get aware of this problem and agree on commencing operations at TXL as long as all the mentioned problems haven't been solved.

Just look at the terminal building. That's a province airport but never a mega airport of the captial city of a large country.

Terminal extensions will be subject to legal battles, even though the planning and zoning is already approved. Endless delays will be sure. Closing an existant infrastructure (TXL) and giving back the operating certificate is reckless, to say it polite.

Back to BER - latest is that they try to meet the Oct 27 , 2013 deadlin, but it is "not for granted".