110 seater jets for Bankstown, Moorabbin, Archerfield
The paralysis of analysis is unbelievable in this country.
$75 million. Sounds like an excellent deal, for mine. Roughly, very roughly, the federal government spends that figure on detention centre management to private operators every 2 weeks.
Very roughly, the hardware parked on the Sydney airport GA hardstand is worth about that on mostly any given day.
London Gatwick - single runway for many years & to my knowledge still is, albeit a second runway is on the drawing board.
We are a wealthy country with enormous cash reserves. We just don't know how to overcome our fear of failure & with the easy money skewed toward residential & commercial property, this is a hard gig to get up.
With our new PM wishing to be remembered as the infrastructure PM, here's a thought:
Tunnel a rail link the 10.4 km permitting rapid ('Sydney rapid') rail to Bankstown & Yenora stations, strengthen the runways as discussed & build the terminals. Its really a no brainer, enormously overdue and will make a significant contribution on so many fronts.
Sorry, can't speak for AF or the other locations, but I suspect a similar opportunity would exist there.
$75 million. Sounds like an excellent deal, for mine. Roughly, very roughly, the federal government spends that figure on detention centre management to private operators every 2 weeks.
Very roughly, the hardware parked on the Sydney airport GA hardstand is worth about that on mostly any given day.
London Gatwick - single runway for many years & to my knowledge still is, albeit a second runway is on the drawing board.
We are a wealthy country with enormous cash reserves. We just don't know how to overcome our fear of failure & with the easy money skewed toward residential & commercial property, this is a hard gig to get up.
With our new PM wishing to be remembered as the infrastructure PM, here's a thought:
Tunnel a rail link the 10.4 km permitting rapid ('Sydney rapid') rail to Bankstown & Yenora stations, strengthen the runways as discussed & build the terminals. Its really a no brainer, enormously overdue and will make a significant contribution on so many fronts.
Sorry, can't speak for AF or the other locations, but I suspect a similar opportunity would exist there.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BNEA320,
The 1 million pax/yr is not a limit but simply estimate of traffic attracted from existing NSW regional flights. I don’t know what the limit would be at Bankstown. It is more than 1 million, but the airport layout plan looks crowded and complex, and ground movements would become a bottleneck at some stage. I don’t know enough about the ground movement patterns to comment further – I haven't seen them since I learned to fly there in VH–ETI several decades ago.
The existing runway/taxiway layout does not lend itself to an efficient system for handling RPT jets. 11C/29C doesn’t have a parallel taxiway and the taxiway system to/from the runway thresholds affects operations on the other runways. One million pax/yr requires 30 movements per day of a C series aircraft (at a high avg LF), and mixing that many aircraft with GA movements would make the place feel quite busy.
I'm fairly sure that an order of magnitude jump to 10 million pax/year is not possible. And the domestic airline fleets in Australia are such that operations at 10 million pax/yr would demand the addition of medium sized jets such as 737/A320, and these won’t fit into the airport. The terminal, aprons and car parking would take over the GA areas at Bankstown. And the numbers of aircraft movements would mean a range of serious airspace management and noise issues.
Gatwick is a shining example of what can be done with a single runway. But it is not something which can be emulated at Bankstown in any sense. Gatwick has the world's busiest single runway with up to 53 aircraft movements per hour in late-2012, and a maximum capacity of 55 movements per hour; it handled 34.2 million pax in 2012. The two terminals cover an area over 250,000 m2. To make a single runway carry high traffic volumes it needs lots of taxiway exits, and LGW has 14 taxiway exits (7 of which are rapid) and double parallel taxiways. If that sort of development was tried at Bankstown, all but one runway would have to close which would be a problem for GA.
The 1 million pax/yr is not a limit but simply estimate of traffic attracted from existing NSW regional flights. I don’t know what the limit would be at Bankstown. It is more than 1 million, but the airport layout plan looks crowded and complex, and ground movements would become a bottleneck at some stage. I don’t know enough about the ground movement patterns to comment further – I haven't seen them since I learned to fly there in VH–ETI several decades ago.
The existing runway/taxiway layout does not lend itself to an efficient system for handling RPT jets. 11C/29C doesn’t have a parallel taxiway and the taxiway system to/from the runway thresholds affects operations on the other runways. One million pax/yr requires 30 movements per day of a C series aircraft (at a high avg LF), and mixing that many aircraft with GA movements would make the place feel quite busy.
I'm fairly sure that an order of magnitude jump to 10 million pax/year is not possible. And the domestic airline fleets in Australia are such that operations at 10 million pax/yr would demand the addition of medium sized jets such as 737/A320, and these won’t fit into the airport. The terminal, aprons and car parking would take over the GA areas at Bankstown. And the numbers of aircraft movements would mean a range of serious airspace management and noise issues.
What's the connection between London Gatwick and Sydney Bankstown?
Gatwick has 2 runways by the way....
For those spruking the benefits of a single runway airport!
For those spruking the benefits of a single runway airport!
It is NEVER used in two-runway mode, but still achieves 50 movements an hour.
Last edited by Wizofoz; 21st Sep 2013 at 14:44.
'.......One million pax/yr requires 30 movements per day of a C series aircraft (at a high avg LF), and mixing that many aircraft with GA movements would make the place feel quite busy'
Really? < 2-3 movements/ hour of C-series a/c would make the place feel busy? I think not. Its been years since Bankstown felt busy.
The idea is not to turn BK into Gatwick. And who says it must have a car park. Time to think future not past. London City is a perfect example of what's possible with very little:
In 2012 it served over 3 million passengers
Approx. land area is just 33ha Vs Bankstown's approx. 260ha.
Very limited car parking circa - 400 cars!!
Now here's the kicker: LCY's master plan aims for a max. capability of 8 MILLION pax by 2030 with NO expansion of airport boundaries or a second runway.
Unfortunately, much of the inertia in our country is politically driven. The new treasurer is on record (via his website no less) as simply hopeful of a second Sydney airport any time within the next 31 years. Check out joehockey.com
Can we have some progressive thinking in this country & put an end to the big end of town controlling what should really be public assets. If the NSW state gov. can warn mining co's to use or lose their mining licences............ surely the same should apply to private operators of public facilities?? Develop them or lose them!!
Really? < 2-3 movements/ hour of C-series a/c would make the place feel busy? I think not. Its been years since Bankstown felt busy.
The idea is not to turn BK into Gatwick. And who says it must have a car park. Time to think future not past. London City is a perfect example of what's possible with very little:
In 2012 it served over 3 million passengers
Approx. land area is just 33ha Vs Bankstown's approx. 260ha.
Very limited car parking circa - 400 cars!!
Now here's the kicker: LCY's master plan aims for a max. capability of 8 MILLION pax by 2030 with NO expansion of airport boundaries or a second runway.
Unfortunately, much of the inertia in our country is politically driven. The new treasurer is on record (via his website no less) as simply hopeful of a second Sydney airport any time within the next 31 years. Check out joehockey.com
Can we have some progressive thinking in this country & put an end to the big end of town controlling what should really be public assets. If the NSW state gov. can warn mining co's to use or lose their mining licences............ surely the same should apply to private operators of public facilities?? Develop them or lose them!!
Overrun,
The estimates for the minimum upgrades were not my estimates, they were Bankstown Airport Co's estimates.
Likewise, the movement rates and resultant passenger throughput.
Even that very very modest movement rate did two things, it enraged the local council and the local anti-jet noise mob, and virtually eliminated most GA at YSBK --- only slightly alleviated with full radar in the tower, and YSSY running approach control at both airports.
The potential revenue (being the new RPT revenue minus most of the existing movement revenue, which is precluded by the RPT operation) versus the additional capital and running costs just did not make sense ---- it did make for a projected loss, hardly a welcome prospect for the shareholders.
I note the comments about Gatwick, and 50+ movements per hour --- that just illustrates the effect of the politically imposed limitations at Kingsford Smith, what has been imposed can be disposed.
Interestingly, there is only one "marginal" under the seriously noisy parts YSSY flightpaths, YSBK is surrounded by now marginal seats --- a point that will not be lost on local and national pollies.
Tootle pip!!
The estimates for the minimum upgrades were not my estimates, they were Bankstown Airport Co's estimates.
Likewise, the movement rates and resultant passenger throughput.
Even that very very modest movement rate did two things, it enraged the local council and the local anti-jet noise mob, and virtually eliminated most GA at YSBK --- only slightly alleviated with full radar in the tower, and YSSY running approach control at both airports.
The potential revenue (being the new RPT revenue minus most of the existing movement revenue, which is precluded by the RPT operation) versus the additional capital and running costs just did not make sense ---- it did make for a projected loss, hardly a welcome prospect for the shareholders.
I note the comments about Gatwick, and 50+ movements per hour --- that just illustrates the effect of the politically imposed limitations at Kingsford Smith, what has been imposed can be disposed.
Interestingly, there is only one "marginal" under the seriously noisy parts YSSY flightpaths, YSBK is surrounded by now marginal seats --- a point that will not be lost on local and national pollies.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 21st Sep 2013 at 15:06.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YSBK might not be needed if some of the ideas I heard at Oshkosh ever get up. At the Innovations Pavilion there was a forum called 'Tomorrow is Today' which addressed the problem we're all familiar with when using airlines. That is, it takes longer to get from home to the airport and then the same problem at the other end taking longer to arrive at final destination than the whole jet flight.
A proposed solution was an innovative method of making the hub and spoke system work better.
They proposed establishing micro airfields only 400 - 500 feet long in the suburbs and operating extremely quiet and extremely short field capable aircraft in the 4 - 20 passenger range to and from the main airport. The air taxis would not have to be fast because the would only operate in the 10 to 50 NM range.
One of the ideas for achieving very quiet very high acceleration was to install very small and very powerful electric motors in the wheel hubs. Someone suggested they would melt down in 20-30 seconds but the speaker assured us that they would only operate for 5-9 seconds before the aircraft was airborne with plenty of time to cool down before the next flight.
There was lots of other stuff like telescoping wings for parking and speed but extended for short takeoff and landing. Also geared slow turning props to keep noise at a minimum. They also spoke about very steep climb outs and steep descents to minimize the already small noise footprint. There was a bit about positioning these micro strips so departure was over swamps or rail yards or some other area not overly sensitive to noise.
Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm only a hick from the sticks with the back of my mouth still sunburned from all I saw at Oshkosh.
Cheers RA
A proposed solution was an innovative method of making the hub and spoke system work better.
They proposed establishing micro airfields only 400 - 500 feet long in the suburbs and operating extremely quiet and extremely short field capable aircraft in the 4 - 20 passenger range to and from the main airport. The air taxis would not have to be fast because the would only operate in the 10 to 50 NM range.
One of the ideas for achieving very quiet very high acceleration was to install very small and very powerful electric motors in the wheel hubs. Someone suggested they would melt down in 20-30 seconds but the speaker assured us that they would only operate for 5-9 seconds before the aircraft was airborne with plenty of time to cool down before the next flight.
There was lots of other stuff like telescoping wings for parking and speed but extended for short takeoff and landing. Also geared slow turning props to keep noise at a minimum. They also spoke about very steep climb outs and steep descents to minimize the already small noise footprint. There was a bit about positioning these micro strips so departure was over swamps or rail yards or some other area not overly sensitive to noise.
Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm only a hick from the sticks with the back of my mouth still sunburned from all I saw at Oshkosh.
Cheers RA
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled,
I also think the business case for RPT at Bankstown is pretty miserable. The likely pax numbers are discouragingly low in the short term. I cannot fault any owner of an airport who recoils when faced with the Bankstown numbers.
A reasonable principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation (that sounds much better than rule of thumb) is that an airport starts to make decent money when it gets to 2 million pax/yr. I am not sure if Bankstown would get there for a number of years which makes it a bad business case.
London City has done a great job. Lucky for them they have been there since 1986–87 when there was a lot of rundown dockland that desperately needed development – any development. Today there would be zero chance of starting it up. The Brits are even more constipated than Australians when it comes to building, developing, or constructing airports. Looking at the London new airport debate and the Sydney new airport debate – well I think that London and Sydney are vying for the award of the title of Greatest HAAC (Head up the Arse when dealing with Aviation for the City) in the World. The politicians always prefer to get an award rather than tackle a thorny issue.
EDIT
Let me add one more thing which I have just realised. London City started life as a STOLport for RPT services (Brymon Airways), and what we see today is the result of growth of that RPT business. Opening up Bankstown to RPT services however would effectively be starting up a whole new business, which is a lot riskier.
I also think the business case for RPT at Bankstown is pretty miserable. The likely pax numbers are discouragingly low in the short term. I cannot fault any owner of an airport who recoils when faced with the Bankstown numbers.
A reasonable principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation (that sounds much better than rule of thumb) is that an airport starts to make decent money when it gets to 2 million pax/yr. I am not sure if Bankstown would get there for a number of years which makes it a bad business case.
London City has done a great job. Lucky for them they have been there since 1986–87 when there was a lot of rundown dockland that desperately needed development – any development. Today there would be zero chance of starting it up. The Brits are even more constipated than Australians when it comes to building, developing, or constructing airports. Looking at the London new airport debate and the Sydney new airport debate – well I think that London and Sydney are vying for the award of the title of Greatest HAAC (Head up the Arse when dealing with Aviation for the City) in the World. The politicians always prefer to get an award rather than tackle a thorny issue.
EDIT
Let me add one more thing which I have just realised. London City started life as a STOLport for RPT services (Brymon Airways), and what we see today is the result of growth of that RPT business. Opening up Bankstown to RPT services however would effectively be starting up a whole new business, which is a lot riskier.
Last edited by OverRun; 22nd Sep 2013 at 05:30.
OverRun,
When it comes to airport decisions, I would reckon a dead heat between us and the UK.
In the year I first started flying in the UK, 1962, there was political uproar about a third London airport. --- this was in the days when GA was welcome at Gatwick. Ain't built yet!!
In the late 1940s, there was a master plan for a new airport for Sydney, which showed amazing foresight. It was for two wide spaced parallel run ways, one where 16R/34L now is, the other was well to the east, just in front of the now long gone Bunnerong power station.
The "west" runway was to be for domestic, the east for "international" , interesting thinking when most international flights were by flying boats.
The only remaining evidence of this wonderful plan is the motorway towards the airport, reservation was made for a multi-lane highway, just about the first multi lane in NSW.
That is why this road takes a right turn just past the Lakes gold course, it should have continues straight ahead to the planned international runway and terminals.
This was back in the day when we could build Snowy Mountains schemes, and with post war optimism, anything was possible.
Sadly, the Nay Sayers soon reasserted themselves in the form of the Melbourne based DCA, and 07/25 was built as the new runway, dead crosswind most of the time.
Tootle pip!!
When it comes to airport decisions, I would reckon a dead heat between us and the UK.
In the year I first started flying in the UK, 1962, there was political uproar about a third London airport. --- this was in the days when GA was welcome at Gatwick. Ain't built yet!!
In the late 1940s, there was a master plan for a new airport for Sydney, which showed amazing foresight. It was for two wide spaced parallel run ways, one where 16R/34L now is, the other was well to the east, just in front of the now long gone Bunnerong power station.
The "west" runway was to be for domestic, the east for "international" , interesting thinking when most international flights were by flying boats.
The only remaining evidence of this wonderful plan is the motorway towards the airport, reservation was made for a multi-lane highway, just about the first multi lane in NSW.
That is why this road takes a right turn just past the Lakes gold course, it should have continues straight ahead to the planned international runway and terminals.
This was back in the day when we could build Snowy Mountains schemes, and with post war optimism, anything was possible.
Sadly, the Nay Sayers soon reasserted themselves in the form of the Melbourne based DCA, and 07/25 was built as the new runway, dead crosswind most of the time.
Tootle pip!!
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled,
Ah yes – Sydney as it was historically. I know the Badgerys Creek site well – I put up the recording anemometer there for the MANS second Sydney airport studies in 1974, when working as a junior engineer for DCA. I put anemometers up at all the other potential airport sites too. The work was urgent then because it was believed that Sydney Airport would not cope with traffic by about 1980. History proves that it didn’t.
Holsworthy was the most interesting of the site options; the Army drove me to the base of the hill where the anemometer was to be placed. I got out of the vehicle and started to walk up the hill and then noticed that the Army people were conspicuous by their absence. I called and asked them if they were coming up the hill with me, and they politely declined to do so because the hill was strewn with live ordinance. I smile when it gets suggested as a possibility these days, and look forward to seeing a politician walking over the site to show how suitable it might be.
Ah yes – Sydney as it was historically. I know the Badgerys Creek site well – I put up the recording anemometer there for the MANS second Sydney airport studies in 1974, when working as a junior engineer for DCA. I put anemometers up at all the other potential airport sites too. The work was urgent then because it was believed that Sydney Airport would not cope with traffic by about 1980. History proves that it didn’t.
Holsworthy was the most interesting of the site options; the Army drove me to the base of the hill where the anemometer was to be placed. I got out of the vehicle and started to walk up the hill and then noticed that the Army people were conspicuous by their absence. I called and asked them if they were coming up the hill with me, and they politely declined to do so because the hill was strewn with live ordinance. I smile when it gets suggested as a possibility these days, and look forward to seeing a politician walking over the site to show how suitable it might be.
Last edited by OverRun; 22nd Sep 2013 at 22:05.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CS100 at Bankstown
think these are very quiet aircraft.
SYD is at or near capacity now at peak hours times Mon-Fri & Sun pm.
Any growth could come by way of Bankstown, especially in peak hours
MOORABBIN/BANKSTOWN/ARCHERFIELD & MOORABBIN/ARCHEFIELD nonstop.
SYD is at or near capacity now at peak hours times Mon-Fri & Sun pm.
Any growth could come by way of Bankstown, especially in peak hours
MOORABBIN/BANKSTOWN/ARCHERFIELD & MOORABBIN/ARCHEFIELD nonstop.
"In the year I first started flying in the UK, 1962, there was political uproar about a third London airport. --- this was in the days when GA was welcome at Gatwick. Ain't built yet!!"
Third airport? - Stanstead, Luton, Gatwick, Heathrow, London City. All London airports.
"I also think the business case for RPT at Bankstown is pretty miserable. The likely pax numbers are discouragingly low in the short term."
Not at all! LCY handles over 3M/ year. KSA 36M/ year. Why BK would not be capable of a rapid ramp up in today's mature travel market escapes logic.
Third airport? - Stanstead, Luton, Gatwick, Heathrow, London City. All London airports.
"I also think the business case for RPT at Bankstown is pretty miserable. The likely pax numbers are discouragingly low in the short term."
Not at all! LCY handles over 3M/ year. KSA 36M/ year. Why BK would not be capable of a rapid ramp up in today's mature travel market escapes logic.
Nuli,
Luton = London, you speak in jest, of course.
That would be a bit like Sydney Newcastle ??
I know all the "LONDON" airports well, as a crew member, and as self loading freight.
Stanstead --- HA HA, yes, it gets called London Stanstead, but I well remember when the runway was "not nearly long enough for serious long hall", so the runway was extended to "not quite long enough for for serious long haul". Have you ever tried to get there in reasonable time, except from NE London and Essex.
It's still Bishop Stortford International, as far as I am concerned, and that view is shared by a vast market of serious business travelers.
Gatwick was there in 1962, the biggest single change operationally since, was selling off the land for a decent second runway.
As for London City, interesting niche operation.
The argument in 1962 was the same as today ---- the need to build a major new airport, at least the size of EGLL It ain't been done.
Mind you, the number of new airports built anywhere in the western world in the last 30 years is pretty small. About as many as China builds a year.
Tootle pip!!
Luton = London, you speak in jest, of course.
That would be a bit like Sydney Newcastle ??
I know all the "LONDON" airports well, as a crew member, and as self loading freight.
Stanstead --- HA HA, yes, it gets called London Stanstead, but I well remember when the runway was "not nearly long enough for serious long hall", so the runway was extended to "not quite long enough for for serious long haul". Have you ever tried to get there in reasonable time, except from NE London and Essex.
It's still Bishop Stortford International, as far as I am concerned, and that view is shared by a vast market of serious business travelers.
Gatwick was there in 1962, the biggest single change operationally since, was selling off the land for a decent second runway.
As for London City, interesting niche operation.
The argument in 1962 was the same as today ---- the need to build a major new airport, at least the size of EGLL It ain't been done.
Mind you, the number of new airports built anywhere in the western world in the last 30 years is pretty small. About as many as China builds a year.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 24th Sep 2013 at 09:24.
A relevant article from a UK think tank about expanding airports outside London, linking them all with the already planned High Speed Rail.
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/201...e-on-aviation/
Not a magic bullet for Australia due to our greater size and smaller population but interesting none the less.
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/201...e-on-aviation/
Not a magic bullet for Australia due to our greater size and smaller population but interesting none the less.
SYD is at or near capacity now at peak hours times Mon-Fri & Sun pm.
No where near it, except for artificially imposed restrictions, of which the 80 per hour is one.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Slight thread drift, but China has just opened the world's highest airport, just over 14,000 ft. in Szechuan province. Makes for some interesting thoughts ---- CASA would probably ban it, because it is above all our rules for operations without oxygen.
Last edited by LeadSled; 24th Sep 2013 at 15:10.