Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:10 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 149):

I think you guys are fantasising. The cost of a single 5000ft runway alone would be about a billion. That's before you have built any terminals and developed any infrastructure. New airports in this part of the country just 'ain't going to happen. Not unless the population of Shanghai suddenly emigrates to Whangarei.

Whereas Whenuapai is an all singing, all dancing international capable airport ready to go *now*. I'm not saying it will - although as I said above, a source of mine in local government says it's a foregone conclusion.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:41 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 150):
Whereas Whenuapai is an all singing, all dancing international capable airport ready to go *now*.

I think they might have to do some work on the terminal:

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/cartoon/6611/whenuapai-airport

 

mariner
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:14 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 151):

I think they might have to do some work on the terminal:

Don't forget the NZ domestic terminal is a cargo building  
 
Sylus
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:14 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:32 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 141):
I actually think a stronger argument could be made for Whenuapai's existence as a commercial airport than could be made for HLZ.

Hasn't HLZ already got the green light for a runway extension beyond 2200m if required? If so, the 120km or so between AKL and HLZ may not seem to excessive in the argument of a second airport in the 'broad' AKL area. Costs would be significantly lower in comparison to the Whenuapai commercial airport idea.

Quoting nascarnut (Reply 142):
Some days it's quicker to drive from AKL to HLZ than it is to drive from the North Shore to the city

This could help HLZ's cause if there was to be any runway extension  
Quoting 777ER (Reply 138):
Firstly, welcome to A.net. Hope you enjoy the flight!

Thanks!, hope it's a smooth one!
 
keen2fly
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:10 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:53 am

Quoting Sylus (Reply 153):

I can see where you're coming from, I know many people who even commute from Hamilton to Auckland every weekday, but the issue is not really a second airport for Aucklanders in general (unless we're looking many years into the future). It's the fact that there is such a huge amount of people living north of the Harbour bridge, who must drive for a very long time (even if they only live on the North Shore) to get to AKL, and Whenuapai could help solve their transport woes as it negates the need to use much of Auckland's traffic riddled motorway network. Having driven from Leigh (about 1 hour north of Auckland) to catch a flight to WLG, I can say that after driving 1 hour to Central Auckland, only to encounter traffic south to AKL, it was a very long and unpleasant experience, if I was living there I would not hesitate to have flown from a commercial Whenuapai if it existed. People in Central and Southern Auckland already have AKL, HLZ is not needed for them. International flights have been tried from HLZ, and have failed, it's not to say they won't start in the future, but in terms of using HLZ as an alternative to converting Whenuapai, it's a completely different market you'd be trying to serve, one that as of yet has failed for international flights, thus I think even with the costs to give Whenuapai commercial infrastructure, the business case is still much more sound than that of HLZ.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13704
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:12 am

Quoting nascarnut (Reply 142):

Some days it's quicker to drive from AKL to HLZ than it is to drive from the North Shore to the city

That would only happen if there was an accident blocking the Bridge. Other than that traffic on the Harbour Bridge has been in decline for a number of years.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 149):
The Navy has been considering a move from Devonport to Whangarei for years.

The Navy will never move to Whangarei, it would kill recruitment stone dead, the Navy brass know this, the Govt knows this, besides the cost would be enormous, new wharfs, drydock, ammunition dump (moving Kauri Point would be very expensive) accommodation, training facilities......the list goes on and on.
 
Sylus
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:14 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:14 am

Quoting keen2fly (Reply 154):

Ahhh I understand, it's more the issue of proximity for North Shore (and other..) residents to AKL rather than a general need for a second airport in the whole of Auckland's area. Would a purely domestic airport at Whenuapai be sufficient for the outer Auckland residents driving to AKL? Or would it need to be TT capable?. A domestic only airport won't require as much development to terminals and hence could reduce the costs of the possible project (making it seem more viable).
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:35 am

Quoting Sylus (Reply 156):
's more the issue of proximity for North Shore (and other..) residents to AKL

If the issue is difficulties in accessing AKL (which is by any rational standard not really an issue), then the logical response is to improve that access, rather than build a new airport, surely?
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 10143
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:23 pm

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 157):

What AKL needs that links the Central City, North Shore and West Auckland is a decent public transport service like rail, only problem is the Harbour Bridge which is really preventing good public transport!
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:02 pm

I wonder what would be cheaper. A brand new airport north of Auckland or a higher speed rail link from the North of Auckland to AKL.

Could be interesting to see some numbers done on that. If you could drop the journey time down to something like 20mins and have it drop you off right at the terminals it could save a bunch of money and effort and pain trying to build a new airport further out.
 
keen2fly
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:10 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:36 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 158):

Now we're talking, but the tunnel is about a decade away from even starting, it's going to be a very painful and long wait for any decent public transport in terms of rail. The harbour bridge is just a cobbled-together mess of what was the cheapest to build at the time. 4 lanes was never going to be enough so they then bought cheap clip-ons from Japan which have huge maintenance costs, putting rail on it is a bridge too far unfortunately (sorry, I couldn't resist). Having a quick and easy way to get to AKL from the north has a long, uncertain and tedious future.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:24 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 158):
What AKL needs that links the Central City, North Shore and West Auckland is a decent public transport service like rail, only problem is the Harbour Bridge which is really preventing good public transport!
Quoting keen2fly (Reply 160):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 158):

Now we're talking, but the tunnel is about a decade away from even starting, it's going to be a very painful and long wait for any decent public transport in terms of rail.

This is precisely the time for people to make submissions (until 16 March) on the Regional Land Transport Plan, which deals with the ten-year future planning for transport, both roading and public transport (and walking and cycling).

The Airport rail link is still outside the ten-year horizon and therefore not covered in the immediate Plan, but the big news is a proposal to look at light rail - in a surprisingly quick timeframe. The initial proposals are for serving Dominion Rd, Mt Eden Rd, Sandringham Rd and Manukau Rd, but watch for a few key politicians to start talking up conversion of the Northern Busway to light rail, taking the tracks across the bridge itself by "appropriating" the eastern clip-on. Also watch for discussion of the proposed North-West Busway to include discussion of a North-West Light Rail instead.

Given that the light rail is intended to be "rapid transit", the proposal for Dominion Rd will segregate light rail from traffic, meaning that there will be limited stops and quite decent speeds. Watch then for the extension of the light-rail line all the way to the airport instead of the currently-postulated extension of the Onehunga (heavy-rail) Line. If light rail proceeds, it will also be on the basis of a public-private partnership (a BOOT, I suspect) which will minimise the up-front capital outlay required from public sources.

At the same time, budgetary constraints will likely leave the City Rail Link (another key piece of the Auckland mobility puzzle) until central government's proposed 2020 starting date (though the preliminary works across Aotea Square will likely proceed in 2016 because of the new construction on top of the line on the site of the Downtown Shopping Centre (due to be demolished soon).

Yes, Auckland has historically been very poorly served by public transport, but it's like chalk and cheese even now compared with ten years ago, and the next ten years will be even more dramatic. In addition, the completion of the motorway ring in 2017 will provide a seamless connection from the west to the airport via Waterview and SH20. So suggestions that Auckland may need a new airport because of access issues are, I think, quite misplaced.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:27 pm

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 161):
So suggestions that Auckland may need a new airport because of access issues are, I think, quite misplaced.

For me, it isn't "just access," nor do I have particularly extravagant dreams.

Always other than Whenuapai, there is no fully functioing airport north of the harbour bridge and the reason Air NZ is up-gauging to Q300 on AKL-WRE is not because of demand but because the 1900 can't fly the route in certain weathers with a full load.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10895747

""New CAA requirements impacting Whangarei Airport mean that in some weather conditions Air NZ's subsidiary Eagle Air is unable to operate its current 19-seater Beech aircraft into Whangarei with a full complement of passengers ..."

Whangarei is already planning a new airport because the "end of life" of Onerahi is in sight, and to extend the runway there would cost about $140 million - seen as "prohibitively" expensive - and would breach planning controls. A whole new airport at Port Nikau is estimated at $148 million because of the difficult terrain, but yet there's all that flat, accessible land around Marsden Point.

No one I know is suggesting some grand new long haul international airport - no one is foolishly imagining WRE-LAX or perhaps even WRE-SYD - but if they're building a new airport, and on the numbers quoted, I'm just wondering why it can't be done properly with a runway of decent length, or at least choose somewhere with that potential. Whenuapai is 2031 m.

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/local/2...need-for-new-airport-in-whangarei/

"Study confirms need for new airport in Whangarei"

The article says $40 million for the new airport, but I think that may be a misprint - LOL.

mariner
 
HLZCPH
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:35 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:57 pm

Interesting comments above. A few years back I attended a company training course (gas turbines) at Whenuapai. During general discussions, the instructor, ex RNZAF, said commercial operations would not get off the ground due to rules in regard to the surrounding terrain and engine out scenarios. Note the commercial bit.

Going forward, way out into the future! A new airport for combined military and all Northland domestic ops and maybe diversion traffic (a la Newcastle in NSW) would be nice. Most RNZAF SAR work etc is to our north. All the current larger Northland airports could be closed or revert to airfields. Whenuapai can be sold to the developers etc. It would have to be a reasonable strip, at least C17 capable. Located near the coast, Kaipara Harbour somewhere.

Just my 2c!
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:01 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 162):
The article says $40 million for the new airport, but I think that may be a misprint - LOL.

Indeed. It has been known in Ministry circles since at least the 1980's that New Zealand has more "airports" per capita than virtually any other country in Western world, and the vast majority of them with the exception of AKL, WLG, CHC, ZQN are half-arsed and barely suitable for commercial operations. The country doesn't need any more of these.

To build a quality airport facility meeting current standards from scratch you are looking at a 10 figure sum (ie. billions) as a starting point. It just isn't going to happen where there is not the definite population and market to justify it.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:59 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 147):
Dairy flat is not there - really. Having landed a light aircraft on it I can testify its runway is a bicycle track.

   Have they gotten rid of the power / telephone wires at the threshold of 03 - no markers on them, they were an accident waiting to happen.
 
aklrno
Posts: 1607
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:18 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:15 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 157):
If the issue is difficulties in accessing AKL (which is by any rational standard not really an issue), then the logical response is to improve that access, rather than build a new airport, surely?

That seems the right answer to me too. Access from the north all the way to Manakau is an issue. If I had my choice the government would sell all the land at Whenuapai and use the money to build a true high speed rail link (including the required new harbour crossing) all the way to the airport and Manakau serving commuters and airport traffic. Where this would actually go is beyond my imagination, but maybe someone could figure it out.

The crossing could be rail only if it moved enough people. And I certainly don't mean light rail going down Dominion Road. That would take forever. A real rail line, not NZ narrow gauge. Something more like BART in the San Francisco area, but designed by an engineer, not a PR man.

Look at how things have turned out in LA. LAX is hemmed in by the city but keeps getting upgraded while the remote, easy access airports like BUR and ONT wither. SNA and LGB hold on, but SNA is limited by it neighbors and not much more than Jet Blue goes to LGB. Nearly 18 million people and one dominant airport? Can Auckland justify two?
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:34 am

Quoting aklrno (Reply 166):
Nearly 18 million people and one dominant airport? Can Auckland justify two?

Fair point, but I'm not sure the comparison is completely valid. You forgot VNY, which has a massive general aviation catchment that would probably otherwise be shared between SNA and LAX. Also, in terms of land area Auckland is not that much smaller than Los Angeles, but Auckland's transport infrastructure is woeful (although it's slowly getting better). And also, AKL is in no way shape or form LAX, and never would be unless the poplualtion of Auckland grew to 10 million plus on the central isthmus. However as we know the population growth is happening northwards - but probably not quite rapidly enough to justify massive capital investment into a new public transport infrastructure.

But as Whenuapai already exists, the cost:benefit argument is easier to make.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:59 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 164):

To build a quality airport facility meeting current standards from scratch you are looking at a 10 figure sum (ie. billions) as a starting point. It just isn't going to happen where there is not the definite population and market to justify it.

At the risk of repeating myself, even the difficult Port Nikau airport is costed at $148 million. So far, at least, no one is asking "the government" to pay for one penny of it, although I suppose the government will eventually stick its nose in.

And once again:

Quoting mariner (Reply 162):
No one I know is suggesting some grand new long haul international airport - no one is foolishly imagining WRE-LAX or perhaps even WRE-SYD

But given that Onerahi is coming to the end of its life, if it isn't replaced there won't be any air service. if it is your view that we country bumpkins in the regions - and especially up north - don't warrant air service, there doesn't seem to be a lot more to say.

mariner

[Edited 2015-02-01 17:40:26]
 
kiwiandrew

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:22 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 167):
However as we know the population growth is happening northwards - but probably not quite rapidly enough to justify massive capital investment into a new public transport infrastructure.

Do we know that ? Looking at the last census I thought Auckland's growth was all over, not just northwards.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:14 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 169):
Do we know that ? Looking at the last census I thought Auckland's growth was all over, not just northwards.

It is, but North is growing faster than most. And it is spreading out, rather than growing upwards - which would be a whole lot more convenient from a public transportation/utility point of view.

Quoting mariner (Reply 168):
At the risk of repeating myself, even the difficult Port Nikau airport is costed at $148 million. So far, at least, no one is asking "the government" to pay for one penny of it, although I suppose the government will eventually stick its nose in.

I haven't seen exactly what they're propsing for 148 million; but I'm willing to stake your life   on it being either a dramatic underestimation, or something that is barely even suitable for general aviation. And that's my point. With the sums I think we're *actually* talking, contributions from not only central government but also the critical mass of the travelling and taxpaying population would be essential.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:22 am

Quoting aklrno (Reply 166):
If I had my choice the government would sell all the land at Whenuapai and use the money to build a true high speed rail link (including the required new harbour crossing) all the way to the airport and Manakau serving commuters and airport traffic. Where this would actually go is beyond my imagination, but maybe someone could figure it out.

The crossing could be rail only if it moved enough people. And I certainly don't mean light rail going down Dominion Road. That would take forever. A real rail line, not NZ narrow gauge. Something more like BART in the San Francisco area, but designed by an engineer, not a PR man.

I think we have to work within the realm of the possible. Currently, ANY further development of the Auckland rail network is contingent on completion of the City Rail Link from Britomart to Mt Eden via Aotea and K Rd. Current initiatives will use up the entire capacity of the system due to the fact that all trains must terminate and turn around at Britomart. Only then can attention be turned on the proposed Airport Line, which would go south from Onehunga to the Airport and then east to Puhinui to connect with the Southern Line. But there is absolutely zilch prospect of a high-speed link from the North Shore to anywhere, and no prospect of any line, light or heavy rail, being anything other than the current gauge. Actually, high-speed makes no sense anyway when you have stations roughly every kilometre, so it's really a non-issue.

As for light rail - there is potentially a trade-off here in that it's far more likely that light rail could deliver to the Airport sooner than heavy rail. I also think that you underestimate what Dominion Rd might look like in future, with traffic and light rail completely segregated except at the major intersections, which would accommodate the stations. Whether that would eventually be extended to the Airport I don't know, but there are some very influential people talking this up behind the scenes.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:17 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 170):
With the sums I think we're *actually* talking, contributions from not only central government but also the critical mass of the travelling and taxpaying population would be essential.

They may - but they haven't been yet and I think I've got your point (over and over) that we poor sods in the country should suck it up when Onerahi eventually closes.

Then again, it would be quite nice, even equitablele, to get a few shekels from the government every now and then. We do pay taxes, too.

Quoting gasman (Reply 164):
Indeed. It has been known in Ministry circles since at least the 1980's that New Zealand has more "airports" per capita than virtually any other country in Western world, and the vast majority of them with the exception of AKL, WLG, CHC, ZQN are half-arsed and barely suitable for commercial operations. The country doesn't need any more of these.

If you think NZ has to too many airports I'm not sure why you're blowing the trumpets and banging the drums for an unnecessary second Auckland airport at Whenuapai.

mariner
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 4:05 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 172):
If you think NZ has to too many airports I'm not sure why you're blowing the trumpets and banging the drums for an unnecessary second Auckland airport at Whenuapai.

It has too may airports, yes, but specifically too many *crap* airports. And Whenuapai is an international medium haul capable airport with ATC and navaids which already exists!! All I am advocating is making use of an existing facility, rather than considering building new airports from scratch at a cost of billions to do it properly.

Quoting mariner (Reply 172):
Then again, it would be quite nice, even equitablele, to get a few shekels from the government every now and then.

You already do. The regions (and than includes cities the size of Dunedin downwards) are all relatively overfunded on a per-capita basis, in everything from health, education, infrastructure etc.
 
SCL767
Posts: 2812
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:25 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 4:06 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 107):

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 18):
-In April LAN will operate all flights on the SCL-AKL-SYD route utilizing the 787-8

Interesting that there will be a capacity downgrade for that period. Good opportunity for me to log a 787-8 without flying Jetstar though.

It is a slight decrease considering the A340 has the capacity for 260 pax and the 787-8 has the capacity for 247 pax. By the end of the year there will be a significant increase in capacity on the route when the 787-9s are deployed to AKL/SYD, considering that it will have the capacity for 313 pax, (plus the three new frequencies on the route).

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 107):
Very good and not just because that soundtrack is my second favorite piece of music. I'll certainly miss the LAN A340s for flights to/from SYD. 4 engines 4 short haul and all that.

Indeed. Sometimes LAN deploys the A340s on short-haul while their on the ground at SCL to destinations i.e. EZE and LIM. They even recently deployed it on the SCL-IPC-PPT route.  
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 4:28 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 173):
It has too may airports, yes, but specifically too many *crap* airports. And Whenuapai is an international medium haul capable airport with ATC and navaids which already exists!!

The country's leading industry is still primary which happens, guess where, in the country.

"Crap" airports may be all that can be afforded, but a "crap" is better than nothing and I'm still struggling to understand why Auckland needs two airports at all.

Quoting gasman (Reply 173):
You already do. The regions (and than includes cities the size of Dunedin downwards) are all relatively overfunded on a per-capita basis, in everything from health, education, infrastructure etc.

Try living here. Parts of SH1 are third world standard.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northland-...cfm?c_id=1503402&objectid=11315475

"It was the government's prerogative to decide how money should be spent, but the changes had made it almost impossible to get funding for Far North roading projects.

"New Zealand is more than just freight. When you're not investing in towns like Moerewa and Kawakawa and they continue to flood, cutting off our lifeline, then I think they've got their priorities wrong," she said."


But we cope. Just as they did at Mangawhai when the cyclone moved the sandbar and blocked the harbour. The government declined to help - until the locals moved the sandbar themselves and it became a populist cause. Then the government came in.

mariner

[Edited 2015-02-01 20:31:44]
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 4:35 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 175):
I'm still struggling to understand why Auckland needs two airports at all.

Auckland per se - doesn't. But all the people who live north of the Auckland Harbour Bridge all the way to Kaitaia could probably sustain an international airport with main trunk routes all of their own. Now, where are most of those people concentrated......... and is there an exisitng facility anywhere in the vicinity............ hmmmmmmmmm.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 5:03 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 119):
But why would you given that frequency is king, and there's very little chance of the runway being extended and strengthened?

Frequency is only king under one business model. Jetstar, for instance, could service NSN with a morning and evening peak 320 service. Hugely beneficial to NSN, I'd imagine.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 123):
If the market "really" needed this I have no doubt someone would come and fill the gap. However, the fact that they haven't suggests that the market doesn't need it.

There are massive barriers to entry, mind you. So the market may "need" it in terms of efficiency, but with the monopoly situation an airline like NZ can probably afford to abuse their aircraft.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 152):
Don't forget the NZ domestic terminal is a cargo building

Ha! Zing!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 5:15 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 176):
Auckland per se - doesn't. But all the people who live north of the Auckland Harbour Bridge all the way to Kaitaia could probably sustain an international airport with main trunk routes all of their own.

I wouldn't want to drive from Kaitaia to AKL or Whenuapai to catch a plane - it's bad enough from Whangarei - we do it because we have to. And Whenuapai is still not much closer to one of the major tourist destinations, it's still a schlep to get there on bad roads once you hit the true north, so I don't really see the point of this second Auckland airport.

It's a bit like saying that folk who want to go to Queenstown could as easily fly into DUD and drive - or, as one poster advocated - IVC.

Well, yes, sure they could, if that's the New Zealand you want.

mariner

[Edited 2015-02-01 21:29:31]
 
Sylus
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:14 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:13 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 178):

Well its the old regional airport argument isn't it, folk in regional centers thinking its a right to have close access to an airport with a good range of destinations. (Probably the same folk who hate NZ's hefty regional airfares). To be honest we are extremely lucky to have the airports we have now. Many people I know in IVC genuinely believe IVC should have TT flights due to it's 2200+ meter runway. They won't accept the fact that both DUD and ZQN are within 2 hours drive! The international airport radius of IVC would make many worldwide very jealous!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:42 am

Quoting Sylus (Reply 179):
To be honest we are extremely lucky to have the airports we have now.

  

I think so.

mariner
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4631
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:30 am

Quoting Kiwirob (Reply 155):
The Navy will never move to Whangarei, it would kill recruitment stone dead, the Navy brass know this, the Govt knows this, besides the cost would be enormous, new wharfs, drydock, ammunition dump (moving Kauri Point would be very expensive) accommodation, training facilities......the list goes on and on.

1) recruitment dead? Half the Navy are from the country rather than the city and a high percentage are from Northland. Northland has cheap land and housing and nicer weather than Auckland. It would be much more affordable for personnel to live up there. Also if the Navy is in town then the town would expand quite a bit making it more appealing.
2) The costs would be considerable but not enormous. Firstly Marsden Point is already somewhat developed to the point that it could be used for this purpose. Devonport is old and most of the facilities including wharfs and the dry dock in particular are very old and will need replacement. Devonport has some of the most expensive real estate in the country not to mention the opportunity cost in having that land tied up. As for the ammunition dump at Kauri Point, this is actually considered to be one of the weakest links in the NZDF as the bunkers are located too close together, there is poor access, it is located close to housing etc, it has weak security and needs to be replaced. This could easily be done up North and with a rail line into the port it would be a safe method of transport. Speaking of the rail line, it would provide greater need to reactivate the Northern Rail line from Auckland. Another advantage of the move is that it would free up about 500 standalone houses in Auckland along with about another 1000 other non-NZDF properties to help with the housing shortage not too mention apartments in Devonport which would be very popular! Also by building a new proper airport up there (joint Civilian/NZDF) it would allow jets to operate meaning cheaper flights and with more demand it would connect the city more along with allowing Navy personnel better access to flights back home etc. All round a win-win for everyone.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13704
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:29 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 113):
At the same, an A320 capable airport somewhere north of the Auckland Harbour bridge (other than, obviously, Whenuapai) would take a considerable strain off the groaning bridge.

Traffic on the Harbour Bridge has been in decline for over 10 years.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 114):
I must say though that the planned design is rubbish! It has more corners than a wiggly snake, it only shaves a couple of km off the route (albeit avoiding some slow areas) and doesn't save much time outside of holidays for quite a high cost.

Really, looks pretty straight to me.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 128):
NZers pay too much for Houses, rates, electricity, water, milk, food,eating out etc all due to no competition in most aspects of NZL life.

I always find NZ pretty cheap whenever I'm back home. I will giove you houses they are over priced and that would be easy to contain if the govt instigated checks on foreign ownership.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 161):
The initial proposals are for serving Dominion Rd, Mt Eden Rd, Sandringham Rd and Manukau Rd, but watch for a few key politicians to start talking up conversion of the Northern Busway to light rail, taking the tracks across the bridge itself by "appropriating" the eastern clip-on. Also watch for discussion of the proposed North-West Busway to include discussion of a North-West Light Rail instead.

The Northern Busway was designed from the outset for conversion to light rail, one problem I've read about light rail over the bridge is the gradient would be too great.

I believe heavy rail gives the shore thew capacity it requires, I'd also have an underground spur to Takapuna and another to Glenfield/Birkenhead/Highbury

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 181):
1) recruitment dead? Half the Navy are from the country rather than the city and a high percentage are from Northland. Northland has cheap land and housing and nicer weather than Auckland. It would be much more affordable for personnel to live up there. Also if the Navy is in town then the town would expand quite a bit making it more appealing.

Yup stone dead, I've got a friend who is high up in the Navy, they know this is the big risk in moving, it's already difficult enough recruiting for the Navy already, a move to a remote part of NZ like Whangarei will cause more problems than they already have. Naval personal have wives/husbands and kids, where's the employment opportunities for them in Whangarei, what about decent schools? There are more problems moving North than there are solutions.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 181):
2) The costs would be considerable but not enormous.

This is Northport and Marsden Point, please show me where you could berth the Navy?



If you think billions aren't enormus then by all means move the Navy.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13704
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:38 pm

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 171):
As for light rail - there is potentially a trade-off here in that it's far more likely that light rail could deliver to the Airport sooner than heavy rail.

Light rail to the Auckland International is going to be very slow, plus passangers would have to transfer at Onehunga to heavy rail to continue on towards the CBD.

I think the way to do it properly is to double track the Onehunga line to AKL then continue it past the Airport to the Manukau Station. This then gives Auckland rail another loop plus a number of new stations and a huge catchment area which is currently without rail. If you're going to do rail to the Airport to it right the first time rather than build a make do solution which won't provide for the future.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:19 pm

Quoting Kiwirob (Reply 182):
Traffic on the Harbour Bridge has been in decline for over 10 years.

The I should ignore this?:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10860821

"Although average daily traffic volumes across the harbour bridge declined by about 5 per cent between 2007 and 2011 to about 157,000 vehicles after the establishment of the Northern Busway, they rebounded by 7 per cent last year to almost 168,000 in November."

And ignore this too?:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/region...ng-likely-to-be-toll-road-minister

"Traffic on the Auckland Harbour bridge - currently 168,000 vehicles a day - is expected to rise by about 40,000 vehicles a day by 2041."

And decline or not, it still took me nearly an hour to get from the bridge to the Gillies Avenue exit the last time I drove down to Auckland. The bridge itself wasn't actually the problem - I zoomed over - but then hit stand-still congestion, especially under K Road.

Glad I wasn't trying to catch a plane.

mariner
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:50 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 184):
The I should ignore this?:

No. But as, on principle, you oppose a commercial airport at Whenuapai you should continue to battle the traffic and travel another hour to get to AKL, even if one day soon commercial ops do commence out of Whenuapai.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:06 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 185):
No. But as, on principle, you oppose a commercial airport at Whenuapai you should continue to battle the traffic and travel another hour to get to AKL, even if one day soon commercial ops do commence out of Whenuapai.

As I do.

As I said, I never drive down the day I'm flying (I don't even drive down the day of a work meeting), but rather the day before and stay with an old chum in Onehunga. I understand that others don't have my complete flexibility of schedule, to try to my enjoy every aspect of my life, including traffic delays, or at least not feel pressured.

It isn't personal, but rather concern for the national infrastructure. You talk about "crap" airports and I agree, there being no fully-functioning all-weather airport in the north of the country. Whenuapai doesn't solve that.

Since there has to be, eventually, a new airport at Whangarei (or, in your book, no air service), I hope they get it right first time, when they do eventually build it. I'm not optimistic.

We're just going round in circles, you and I, because we are coming at this from diametrically opposed perspectives.

mariner
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:21 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 186):
We're just going round in circles, you and I, because we are coming at this from diametrically opposed perspectives.

No, I just couldn't resist such a golden opportunity to be a wanker. There are rules & expectations, after all.  
Quoting mariner (Reply 186):
You talk about "crap" airports and I agree, there being no fully-functioning all-weather airport in the north of the country.

I'm just being pragmatic. It's the age-old New Zealand problem........... we are a tiny country of four million people spread out over a large and geographically hostile land mass. It just isn't economically feasible to have all the services and conveniences of 21st century life covering all that population spread. The fact that we *are* so well served with (crap) airports is more a historical remant of WW2 "build an airstrip anywhere" mentality than an actual analysis of need/service and value.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:34 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 187):
No, I just couldn't resist such a golden opportunity to be a wanker.

I'd have said Jafa, but most people see things from the perspective of their own place.

Quoting gasman (Reply 187):
The fact that we *are* so well served with (crap) airports is more a historical remant of WW2
"build an airstrip anywhere" mentality than an actual analysis of need/service and value.

That may be. It doesn't affect my position.

You want Whenuapai - hey, you may get it and I might use it if it suited, the tyranny of Auckland may win, but that still wouldn't change my position either.

mariner
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:46 pm

Quoting Kiwirob (Reply 182):
The Northern Busway was designed from the outset for conversion to light rail, one problem I've read about light rail over the bridge is the gradient would be too great.

I believe heavy rail gives the shore thew capacity it requires, I'd also have an underground spur to Takapuna and another to Glenfield/Birkenhead/Highbury

Too steep for heavy rail, yes, but I believe light rail woudl not be a huge issue.

Quoting Kiwirob (Reply 183):
Light rail to the Auckland International is going to be very slow, plus passangers would have to transfer at Onehunga to heavy rail to continue on towards the CBD.

That's a drawback only if decent speeds cannot be achieved on a Dominion Road-SW Motorway alignment between Onehunga and the city. Getting from Onehunga to Dominion Rd the speeds would be equivalent to heavy rail speeds, so no problem there. The issue of getting along Dominion Rd is really only the extent to which the line is segregated from other traffic (and current intentions are tat it should be completely segregated) and the spacing of the stations. So while it's not quite as good as heavy rail, it's not as disadvantaged as might first be thought.

Quoting Kiwirob (Reply 183):
I think the way to do it properly is to double track the Onehunga line to AKL then continue it past the Airport to the Manukau Station. This then gives Auckland rail another loop plus a number of new stations and a huge catchment area which is currently without rail.

That's certainly Plan A, but the question is whether it's politically and financially achievable in our lifetimes. Whereas light rail under a public private partnership largely eliminates the Kiwirail-Central Government factor from the equation, and is considerably cheaper, especially if the Dominion Rd line is already in place.

Quoting mariner (Reply 184):
"Traffic on the Auckland Harbour bridge - currently 168,000 vehicles a day - is expected to rise by about 40,000 vehicles a day by 2041."

These are NZTA predictions, and they have been consistently predicting large growth all through the last decade when traffic has been in decline. No one in the transport sphere except NZTA takes them seriously. How else can they justify the mega-billion dollar tunnel project?
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:55 pm

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 189):
These are NZTA predictions, and they have been consistently predicting large growth all through the last decade when traffic has been in decline. No one in the transport sphere except NZTA takes them seriously. How else can they justify the mega-billion dollar tunnel project?

Fair enough, I'll ignore it, then. But should I also ignore the first quote, which seemed - to me - to be actual numbers?

Quoting mariner (Reply 184):
"Although average daily traffic volumes across the harbour bridge declined by about 5 per cent between 2007 and 2011 to about 157,000 vehicles after the establishment of the Northern Busway, they rebounded by 7 per cent last year to almost 168,000 in November."


Colour me confused.   

mariner
 
keen2fly
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:10 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:14 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 188):
I'd have said Jafa, but most people see things from the perspective of their own place.

  

There are people in all parts of the country who feel vindicated transport-wise, just as there are people who are fine with what's here. As an Aucklander I would say that, to be honest, transport here is not great, but not as bad as some public transport advocates would ham it up to be. The regions are a bit trickier to analyse, as some areas seem to have lovely sealed roads that nobody uses, while others have metal roads that get a fair bit of use. Airports are just something that big cities will have, because they have the passengers to warrant them, while regional centres won't obviously have the same ability to support them, much to the detriment of people who suddenly need to fly from their airport only when routes get cut...
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13704
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:18 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 184):
The I should ignore this?:

Yes

Quoting mariner (Reply 184):
And ignore this too?:

Yes again, you should read this.

http://transportblog.co.nz/2014/05/3...-birthday-auckland-harbour-bridge/

And another interesting read.

http://transportblog.co.nz/tag/additional-harbour-crossing/

Quoting gasman (Reply 187):
geographically hostile land mass

Oh come on, geographically hostile, we're not living in Switzerland. The only issue that stops us from having better roading infrastructure is a small population.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 189):
That's a drawback only if decent speeds cannot be achieved on a Dominion Road-SW Motorway alignment between Onehunga and the city. Getting from Onehunga to Dominion Rd the speeds would be equivalent to heavy rail speeds, so no problem there. The issue of getting along Dominion Rd is really only the extent to which the line is segregated from other traffic (and current intentions are tat it should be completely segregated) and the spacing of the stations. So while it's not quite as good as heavy rail, it's not as disadvantaged as might first be thought.

It's going to be slow along Dominion Road, passengers are still going to have to transfer before they get to the CBD, it really has to be heavy rail. We are spending all this money on electrification so we should continue and build the right connection to the airport not some half arsed band-aid solution which wouldn't be for the longer-term.

The other issue with light rail is it will never have the capacity of a 6 car EMU, which is 746 passengers.

As I mentioned before when building to the airport it's natural to continue out to Manukau via Wiri, the catchment area here is huge.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 189):

That's certainly Plan A, but the question is whether it's politically and financially achievable in our lifetimes.

It has to be or why are we bothering to electrify the existing heavy rail network?

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 189):
How else can they justify the mega-billion dollar tunnel project?

The tunnel should be heavy rail only if it's built, the doubling of the Upper Harbour Bridge, Waterview Connection, and the completion of the Western Ring Route will significantly reduce the amount of traffic on the Harbour Bridge and make it far quicker for Mariner to get from the Far North to Auckland International.
 
aklrno
Posts: 1607
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:18 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:39 pm

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 171):
I think we have to work within the realm of the possible.

Are you new to a.net?
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:19 pm

Quoting Kiwirob (Reply 192):
Yes again, you should read this.

I'd read both the links you've posted and neither change my position. The first chart, is the first link, seems to show some recovery, as the quote said. Even on those numbers they're still having to strengthen the clip-ons.

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/network/proj...-box-girder-strengthening-project/

"Auckland Harbour Bridge box girder strengthening project

As one of New Zealand’s critical transport links, ongoing maintenance keeps the Auckland Harbour Bridge in good condition for the 165,000 cars that cross it daily. A recent project has seen the box girders, also known as the clip-ons, strengthened to their maximum capacity. Approximately 900 tonnes of steel has been bolted and welded onto the clip-ons to extend the life of the bridge."


My view is that it may be cheaper to get it right first time and tthe bridge is a side-show to my position, I'll cope with whatever it is.

My concern is that there is no fully-functioing all-weather airport in the north, and that since there is to be a new airport at Whangarei, I hope they get it right first time.

mariner
 
Mr AirNZ
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 10:24 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:07 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 194):
My concern is that there is no fully-functioing all-weather airport in the north, and that since there is to be a new airport at Whangarei, I hope they get it right first time.

There is no such thing anywhere as an 'all-weather airport.' Every single destination in the network each year experiences varying weather phenomenon that precludes operations for sometime. Be it Keri Keri's low cloud, Hamilton's fog, New Plymouth's crosswinds, Wellington's ripper Nor' Wester, all have some sort of issue and a new location for an airport will not change that.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:13 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 194):
My concern is that there is no fully-functioing all-weather airport in the north, and that since there is to be a new airport at Whangarei, I hope they get it right first time.

You're aware there is no such thing as "all weather"........ runways and approaches are category graded according to visibility and available NAVAIDS. Airports are made capable to a certain category on the basis of the likelihood and severity of adverse weather, and the size and frequency of aircraft ops - in other words, a risk:benefit analysis like everything.

I think what you're getting at is that Whangarei be made instrument approach capable. I'm afraid that just will not happen - it'd require a level of infrastructure investment that simply would not be justified by the number of aircraft movements and the weather. Nothing to do with doing it properly - although I can totally understand why with New Zealand's track record of half-arsed infrastructure investment, you'd have this concern.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:21 pm

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 195):
There is no such thing anywhere as an 'all-weather airport.'


"All weather airport" is a generally recognised term:

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/all-weather+airport

"All-weather airport

An airport with facilities to permit the landing of qualified aircraft and aircrewmen without regard to operational weather limits."


AKL can have fog, too, but the northern airports seem particularly subject to weather and those problems can be alleviated, if not eliminated. See the comments about the 1900 above, where they've had to switch to the Q300 at WRE because of weather related problems.

So when they are choosing the site for the new Whangarei airport, I trust they find a location that is less problematic, and not just because of weather. That location isn't Port Nikau, where the terrain is a problem as well.

mariner

[Edited 2015-02-02 14:35:22]
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:30 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 196):
I think what you're getting at is that Whangarei be made instrument approach capable.

Nope. The primary decision is already made about WRE. See comments above.

Quoting gasman (Reply 196):
. Nothing to do with doing it properly

Everything to do with "doing it properly." I'm lost count of the number of times chums arriving at WRE have to be bussed in from AKL. Although, at the risk of repeating myself - again - I'm not optimistic.

I'm not sure what point anyone is trying to make. You're against "crap" airports, yet you seem to resist any concept of making them "not crap."

Surely, making them "not crap" should be an ambition. If not - colour me confused - again.   

mariner
 
Mr AirNZ
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 10:24 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 152

Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:12 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 197):
"All weather airport" is a generally recognised term:

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/all-weather+airport

"All-weather airport

An airport with facilities to permit the landing of qualified aircraft and aircrewmen without regard to operational weather limits

What a definition! I have serious issues with the words "without regard." Even a CAT IIIB approach has weather limits that definitely have to be regarded! Rules, manuals and approaches are all designed around operational limitations. That is certainly not an official ICAO definition.

Quoting mariner (Reply 197):
AKL can have fog, too, but the northern airports seem particularly subject to weather and those problems can be alleviated, if not eliminated. See the comments about the 1900 above, where they've had to switch to the Q300 at WRE because of weather related problems.

I'm acutely aware of everything you write of. The issues with the 1900 at Whangarei came about because the CAA decided (after more than a decade!) to change how they deemed compliance around certain rules was to be achieved.

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