Wellington Airport Runway Extension Rort

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › Wellington Airport Runway Extension Rort

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

1527 posts

Uber Geek

#1128849 15-Sep-2014 10:34

Seems a stupid idea to me, its always fogged in and when its not its windy as hell. Welcome to New Zealand where you will be blown away.... Literally.

Why not spend the money on fixing the trains or building a fence around parliament to house the Zoo animals.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1128850 15-Sep-2014 10:35

Always fogged in?????? not really

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1128900 15-Sep-2014 11:13

There's more to this than simply extending the runway. For instance, congestion, which is quite bad at peak times, needs dealing with, docking/handling/lounge facilities would need expanding, car parking would need expanding - would the Public Works Act be coming to the fore to get some of the land needed for this?

I laughed when I read the line "The EY report does not attempt a cost-benefit analysis" - instead it relies on a series of three made up scenarios of what EY see as possible traffic flows. This is then extrapolated out to net benefits for the national economy (not regional) based on tourist flows into the country increasing - something that is reasonably likely to happen anyway, not just because an extension is built in Wellington. Oh, and all this is by 40 years after the extension is completed.

The thought of very large planes coming here with the heavy wind conditions we experience sits a little uneasily with me.

jonb

1772 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1128901 15-Sep-2014 11:13

dcole13:

I don't really think they need an international airport past QLD/NSW and the Pacific Islands. If they want to go further, it's not that hard to fly to Auckland or Christchurch.

Also good to compare to Canberra, both capital cities with about the same population. In that respect, Wellington is already better served internationally. Even if the runway were longer, the population is not there to support frequent long haul destinations so most will still travel via Auckland or a hub airport in Australia.

Canberra airport is constructing an International terminal at the moment, would be wise to see how that pans out before doing any works in Wellington.

nickb800

2723 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1128921 15-Sep-2014 11:37

Given that the airport company paid for the EY report, I would not consider it to be independent nor unbiased. The airport company is fishing for a subsidy

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1128957 15-Sep-2014 12:11

wongtop: Any aviation geeks want to chime in here. According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellington_International_Airport the existing runway is too short for even the B737 or the A320 to take off at MTOW. In order for long haul flights to be viable I would have thought that they would need to be operating around MTOW to allow for enough passangers and cargo for good load factors. I don't see how a mere 300 metre extension would allow this. My understanding is that the take off lengths for B787 and A350 at MTOW are up near 3000 metres, while the extended runway will still only be ~2400 m. Or am I mistaken?

Build a new airport in Masterton and a new 300kmh train between there and the city centre.

Or move Parliament, name Auckland as political capital as well as economic one and let Wellington revert to the Picton of the north island.

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1128990 15-Sep-2014 13:21

Yes move capital to Auckland.... watch the house prices.

Will be funny for those of us who don't live there.
.
Or you could move it to Christchurch as they already have an international airport

A.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

graemeh

2078 posts

Uber Geek

#1129059 15-Sep-2014 14:23

I am not in favour of this scheme (oh dear, I do sound like an old codger).

We don't need it in Wellington, we just don't have the population to support long haul flights.

Christchurch barely has enough people to support long haul flights.

The other problem is just where on the airport do they plan to park these planes? I doubt there is room for more than one 777 at a time at the airport.

If Infratil want to do it then they should put their money at risk and stop asking others to pay. If they believe it is such a great idea then how about a proposal where Infratil put the cash up to do the job and they have a deal with the local govt bodies in the region that see them paying money to Infratil when they hit certain performance targets.

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1129184 15-Sep-2014 16:12

BTR: Seems a stupid idea to me, its always fogged in

Ah no, on average, Wellington had 4.2 a year closures due to fog, compared to Auckland getting 14.5 and Christchurch's 52.3.

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1129208 15-Sep-2014 16:36

afe66: Yes move capital to Auckland.... watch the house prices.

Will be funny for those of us who don't live there.
.
Or you could move it to Christchurch as they already have an international airport

A.

Shame it does not have your predicted effect on house prices around here!

Ours is precisely identical right now to what it was in 2007 - has not, according to some interactive graphic in the Herald at least, gone up so much as a dollar!

tripper1000

1619 posts

Uber Geek

#1132437 19-Sep-2014 23:12

wongtop: Any aviation geeks want to chime in here. According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellington_International_Airport the existing runway is too short for even the B737 or the A320 to take off at MTOW. In order for long haul flights to be viable I would have thought that they would need to be operating around MTOW to allow for enough passangers and cargo for good load factors. I don't see how a mere 300 metre extension would allow this. My understanding is that the take off lengths for B787 and A350 at MTOW are up near 3000 metres, while the extended runway will still only be ~2400 m. Or am I mistaken?

Yeah, you are generally correct, backed up by the airport companies own website (http://www.wellingtonairport.co.nz/news/wellington-airport-welcomes-ana-777-charter-flight-direct-from-japan/)

WN is a comparatively short runway. Taking off is the tricky bit, and 300 meters can make a difference to the max take off weight (in the case of a B767, 300 meters allows for approx 5 tonnes more fuel/freight (http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec3.pdf) . Extra length also allows for aircraft to use less throttle which makes less noise pollution and conserves turbine engine life. (http://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/quickref/reducedandderatedthrust.pdf )

Unused runway in front of you is like money in the (safety) bank. There have been several aircraft in the last decade choose to make emergency landings in Ohakea (Airforce base near Palmerston Nth) not WG, not solely, but in part, because the runway is longer at 2445 meters and doesn't end in the ocean. Additionally there are 3 intersecting runways to choose from, so there is generally always a runway available that suits the wind direction of the day, further simplifying landing and avoiding those spectacular, crabbing, cross wind landings Wellington is famous for (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba_OBVafiq0).

Auckland Airport company is fishing for subsidies in the same way. They want the tax/rate payer to build a motorway and train to their airport and in the next breath insist there is no value in using Whenuapia as a commercial airport, despite it being much closer to the CBD, and being only 400 meters across farmland from one of Auckland major interconnecting motorways.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8875 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1132459 20-Sep-2014 01:09

Geektastic:

Build a new airport in Masterton and a new 300kmh train between there and the city centre.

... or redevelop Paraparaumu, Wellington's airport up till 1960's. Already a train line nearby and Transmission Gully coming soon.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#1132484 20-Sep-2014 06:41

And a population of 49,000 surrounding it on every approach angle...

timmmay

20591 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1132494 20-Sep-2014 07:48

Building elsewhere may be more cost effective in the long term. Kapiti's a bit far away, but there's plenty of land in the Porirua area, and it's not far from Wellington. That way more people would get there mostly on motorways too - people from the hutt, kapiti, and once people leave Wellington too. The current airport's way south and has little feeder roads that get clogged easily.

BTR: Seems a stupid idea to me, its always fogged in and when its not its windy as hell. Welcome to New Zealand where you will be blown away.... Literally.

Why not spend the money on fixing the trains or building a fence around parliament to house the Zoo animals.

Statistically Auckland airport is disrupted due to fog more than Wellington.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1132555 20-Sep-2014 09:27

tripper1000:

Auckland Airport company is fishing for subsidies in the same way. They want the tax/rate payer to build a motorway and train to their airport and in the next breath insist there is no value in using Whenuapia as a commercial airport, despite it being much closer to the CBD, and being only 400 meters across farmland from one of Auckland major interconnecting motorways.

Auckland Airport already receives ratepayer money by virtue of being part owned by the council. And personally, I'd rather the taxpayer/ratepayer pick up the tab for building transport links to the airport, to avoid situations like Brisbane where it's $16 by train to the airport or $5-$10 in tolls. Oh suuuuuuure there's a free way to it as well, but it's sooooo much less convenient. Ya know?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4