Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4

BTR

1477 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 433


  Reply # 1128849 15-Sep-2014 10:34
Send private message

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.

13150 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6171

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1128850 15-Sep-2014 10:35
Send private message

Always fogged in?????? not really




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


3127 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 947

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1128900 15-Sep-2014 11:13
Send private message

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.

1449 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 324

Trusted

  Reply # 1128901 15-Sep-2014 11:13
Send private message

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.

2026 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 340

Trusted

  Reply # 1128921 15-Sep-2014 11:37
One person supports this post
Send private message

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

11908 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3860

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1128957 15-Sep-2014 12:11
Send private message

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.





1854 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1128990 15-Sep-2014 13:21
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.


2078 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 230

Subscriber

  Reply # 1129059 15-Sep-2014 14:23
3 people support this post
Send private message

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.

4123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 842
Inactive user


  Reply # 1129184 15-Sep-2014 16:12
Send private message

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.

11908 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3860

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1129208 15-Sep-2014 16:36
Send private message

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!





699 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 442


  Reply # 1132437 19-Sep-2014 23:12
Send private message

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.

2853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 798

Subscriber

  Reply # 1132459 20-Sep-2014 01:09
2 people support this post
Send private message

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.

1623 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 275

Subscriber

  Reply # 1132484 20-Sep-2014 06:41
Send private message

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

14151 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2546

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1132494 20-Sep-2014 07:48
Send private message

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.






AWS Certified Solution Architect Professional, Sysop Administrator Associate, and Developer Associate
TOGAF certified enterprise architect
Professional photographer


3034 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 466

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1132555 20-Sep-2014 09:27
Send private message

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
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.