New Sydney Airport Vision

[wilco]

Re: Sydney Airport overhaul

Heck, from what I've just assessed, the whole idea might just be to rip up all 3 terminals and rebuild! A costly effort indeed.... now who came up with this idea again.......... :-|

Im with you on this one. If the Federal Government sold off the land, it'd make more than enough money to construct a brand spanking new, purpose built airport that could be futureproofed.

Im in the process of writing a Journal article on SYD and Congestion. I have compared SYD to MCO, which handles almost exactly the same number of passengers with the same number of movements and concluded that MCO has the distinct advantage of having 4 fully functioning runways as opposed to SYD's 2 or 1 cross runway not to mention a physical area 5 times that of SYD. No matter what gets done to SYD, the airport will eventually have to move, so why not start now instead of wasting billions of dollars improving something that has a limited lifespan.

 

[Noob]

So Qantas/partners get approximately double the gates of Virgin/partners when Virgin and their alliances currently have more market share in and out of Australia. How does that work?

T1 will need an expansion for domestic and regional VA operations, what they have alocated in the video wouldn't satisfy the airline now let alone in 10 years time.

 

[zinkle]

Re: Sydney Airport overhaul

Im with you on this one. If the Federal Government sold off the land, it'd make more than enough money to construct a brand spanking new, purpose built airport that could be futureproofed.

Im in the process of writing a Journal article on SYD and Congestion. I have compared SYD to MCO, which handles almost exactly the same number of passengers with the same number of movements and concluded that MCO has the distinct advantage of having 4 fully functioning runways as opposed to SYD's 2 or 1 cross runway not to mention a physical area 5 times that of SYD. No matter what gets done to SYD, the airport will eventually have to move, so why not start now instead of wasting billions of dollars improving something that has a limited lifespan.

They should kill two birds with one stone - Airport at Richmond and North West heavy rail link all the way there with the option of a express train from central station.

 

[harvyk]

I wonder how much work would be involved turning T2 \ T3 into international terminals.

Apart from the obvious sides of no customs \ immi \ aqis at either T2 \ T3, you also have issues of separating int departures from int arrivals and int from dom unless they start doing something like ADL which means they can turn gates from Dom to Int as they please. You've also got the aircraft size issue. AFAIK, there is only one gate at T3 which can handle a B747, and there are no gates at T2 \ T3 which can handle A380's...

With exception to some TT traffic, the majority of Int flights are widebody flights, and a great number of them are on large widebody aircraft which would require some serious gate upgrades so they could take B747's \ A380's.

By the time you've done all this you've now got the problem that not every traveller sticks to the one alliance.

 

[wilco]

I wonder how much work would be involved turning T2 \ T3 into international terminals.

Apart from the obvious sides of no customs \ immi \ aqis at either T2 \ T3, you also have issues of separating int departures from int arrivals and int from dom unless they start doing something like ADL which means they can turn gates from Dom to Int as they please. You've also got the aircraft size issue. AFAIK, there is only one gate at T3 which can handle a B747, and there are no gates at T2 \ T3 which can handle A380's...

With exception to some TT traffic, the majority of Int flights are widebody flights, and a great number of them are on large widebody aircraft which would require some serious gate upgrades so they could take B747's \ A380's.

By the time you've done all this you've now got the problem that not every traveller sticks to the one alliance.

It seems form the PP that a new international wing would be built where the existing QF engineering hangars currently are, meaning it could be built to accommodate wide bodies. Given that itd be a new building, im sure the facilities you mention could be easily incorporated.

 

[Stephen65]

My vision for Sydney airport is more direct flights to Melbourne. Then I would never have to connect through this awful airport again.

 

[anat0l]

Re: Sydney Airport overhaul

Im with you on this one. If the Federal Government sold off the land, it'd make more than enough money to construct a brand spanking new, purpose built airport that could be futureproofed.

Im in the process of writing a Journal article on SYD and Congestion. I have compared SYD to MCO, which handles almost exactly the same number of passengers with the same number of movements and concluded that MCO has the distinct advantage of having 4 fully functioning runways as opposed to SYD's 2 or 1 cross runway not to mention a physical area 5 times that of SYD. No matter what gets done to SYD, the airport will eventually have to move, so why not start now instead of wasting billions of dollars improving something that has a limited lifespan.

Even with comparable passenger loads, SYD and MCO is a bit of an apples and oranges situation. (Nevertheless, there must be some merit in the paper you're preparing so it might be nice to read it.)

Finding a suitable space for a better SYD airport, let alone one with 5 times as much space as current, is an easier said than done challenge in theory and in practice, where there is no end in sight to this long running argument between the State, local councils and the people. And SACL for that matter.

One could always entertain the possibility of simply stopping new capacity into SYD. Given the current load constraints due to the curfew and noise laws, I find it hard to see how much more real capacity there really is at SYD.

 

[simongr]

Re: Sydney Airport overhaul

One could always entertain the possibility of simply stopping new capacity into SYD. Given the current load constraints due to the curfew and noise laws, I find it hard to see how much more real capacity there really is at SYD.

The curfew should be the first thing to go.

 

[wilco]

Re: Sydney Airport overhaul

Even with comparable passenger loads, SYD and MCO is a bit of an apples and oranges situation. (Nevertheless, there must be some merit in the paper you're preparing so it might be nice to read it.)

Finding a suitable space for a better SYD airport, let alone one with 5 times as much space as current, is an easier said than done challenge in theory and in practice, where there is no end in sight to this long running argument between the State, local councils and the people. And SACL for that matter.

One could always entertain the possibility of simply stopping new capacity into SYD. Given the current load constraints due to the curfew and noise laws, I find it hard to see how much more real capacity there really is at SYD.

Believe it or not, SYD is not congested, and by definition never can be. It has an artificial cap of 80 movements per hour and an actual movement cap of 120. Congestion is where aircraft on average experience a delay exceeding 5 minutes due to aircraft movements, but SYD cap is legislative rather than actual. Im not suggesting that an area 5 times the size of SYD needs to be found, because as you say, MCO and SYD are like apples and oranges, but 9 odd square kilometres is simply inadequate for an airport handling 30 million pax and 300,000 movements per year and no matter what is done to the field, its size and runway layout will always be its achilles heel. Therefore it must be moved and the longer it takes to do so, the more difficult it will become.

 

[anat0l]

Re: Sydney Airport overhaul

Believe it or not, SYD is not congested, and by definition never can be. It has an artificial cap of 80 movements per hour and an actual movement cap of 120. Congestion is where aircraft on average experience a delay exceeding 5 minutes due to aircraft movements, but SYD cap is legislative rather than actual. Im not suggesting that an area 5 times the size of SYD needs to be found, because as you say, MCO and SYD are like apples and oranges, but 9 odd square kilometres is simply inadequate for an airport handling 30 million pax and 300,000 movements per year and no matter what is done to the field, its size and runway layout will always be its achilles heel. Therefore it must be moved and the longer it takes to do so, the more difficult it will become.

I wish the powers to be, and SACL for that matter, were similarly enlightened.

Whether the cap is artificial or not (yes, SYD could have so much more flights in and out but the curfew - a law - prevents it so), it is there and that begs to reason that the real capacity of SYD is approaching closer than we think. Necessitating a move will not necessarily liberate SYD of the legal constraints it has right now, let alone a relaxation in movement constraints. The best that will happen when moving the airport is that noise complaints may go down since the airport and concentration of flight paths will hopefully be able to evade most if not any populated areas.

Also, by definition SYD may not be congested, but flight schedules are never perfect, and imperfections cause schedule irregularities and thus a need for ATC to organise flights still within the hourly constraints and overall curfew constraints. This kind of situation has lead to numerous and sometimes insurmountable disruptions.

You'd probably get a few complaints from people who now can't drive their cars easily to the airport since it's now located more than a coo-ee away from Sydney central.

I'm not sure what vision anyone had in what SYD will be in the future, although one scenario had to be "no more flights" (viz. we are at capacity). Any new international ventures in or out of SYD will either need to be denied, auctioned, or considered for another hub (e.g. MEL, BNE, ADL or CNS).

 

[wilco]

Re: Sydney Airport overhaul

I wish the powers to be, and SACL for that matter, were similarly enlightened.

Whether the cap is artificial or not (yes, SYD could have so much more flights in and out but the curfew - a law - prevents it so), it is there and that begs to reason that the real capacity of SYD is approaching closer than we think. Necessitating a move will not necessarily liberate SYD of the legal constraints it has right now, let alone a relaxation in movement constraints. The best that will happen when moving the airport is that noise complaints may go down since the airport and concentration of flight paths will hopefully be able to evade most if not any populated areas.

Also, by definition SYD may not be congested, but flight schedules are never perfect, and imperfections cause schedule irregularities and thus a need for ATC to organise flights still within the hourly constraints and overall curfew constraints. This kind of situation has lead to numerous and sometimes insurmountable disruptions.

You'd probably get a few complaints from people who now can't drive their cars easily to the airport since it's now located more than a coo-ee away from Sydney central.

I'm not sure what vision anyone had in what SYD will be in the future, although one scenario had to be "no more flights" (viz. we are at capacity). Any new international ventures in or out of SYD will either need to be denied, auctioned, or considered for another hub (e.g. MEL, BNE, ADL or CNS).

SYD is an old airport that was never intended to serve its current role. The night curfew can be lifted by the minister, but of course no government would dream of it due to the political backlash. Thats why there needs to be an independent body, similar to the ATO, that is semi independent of the government in office. This would free them to make the hard decisions necessary with no political consequences. SYD is sitting on 70 odd movements but only during morning and afternoon peak, meaning it has someway to go before reaching 80MPH every hour that it operates.

Regarding flight schedules and delays, SYD operates on the european model that takes these delays into account but ensuring access to the port, whereas the US model does not and that is why they, and pretty much no one else, experiences those horrific 3, 4 and 5 hour tarmac delays.

As for driving cars, the airport is fundamental to the city and the nation, therefore, it needs to have effective transport to and from it. Cars are not the answer, but rail is. SYD was successful in finally getting a rail link, but its operation leaves a lot to be desired. it needs to be fast, cheap and reliable and its definitely not the first 2.

There is sadly no magic bullet for SYD. It has a bad layout and less than ideal location. There is very little that can be done to improve it given that real estate is king.

 

[dajop]

Would this be a bit of a free kick for QF/JQ - given taxi fares. Or is the price difference between CBD-airport taxi fares not that significant between intl and dom?

 

[anat0l]

SYD is an old airport that was never intended to serve its current role. The night curfew can be lifted by the minister, but of course no government would dream of it due to the political backlash. Thats why there needs to be an independent body, similar to the ATO, that is semi independent of the government in office. This would free them to make the hard decisions necessary with no political consequences.

The ATO is not really an independent body per se. It is still highly influenced and governed by the relevant Acts on taxation, which themselves are influenced and regularly changed by government policy. When we get taxed for something we don't like, we blame the government first, not the ATO. (We take the ATO to task when they press us for an audit.)

Similarly, there really needs to be a mutual, novel solution to the SYD problem or someone will just have to make the hard decision and live with the consequences (and hopefully live to not see it haplessly reversed by the next swept-in government). Needless to say, at the moment this makes getting blood out of a stone look like child's play (and frankly that realisation of hopelessness should be a source of political and professional embarrassment to all concerned).

As for driving cars, the airport is fundamental to the city and the nation, therefore, it needs to have effective transport to and from it. Cars are not the answer, but rail is. SYD was successful in finally getting a rail link, but its operation leaves a lot to be desired. it needs to be fast, cheap and reliable and its definitely not the first 2.

I don't know if having a more effective rail connection will necessarily decrease car traffic.

The only time when car traffic may truly decrease is if the airport is located very far out from the city and suburbia, a la Incheon, Narita or Chek Lap Kok (in the first two, they are actually located near their namesake small towns, but if you lived in Seoul or Tokyo respectively it wouldn't be awfully common to drive yourself or someone to the airport if it was on your own fuel).

Would this be a bit of a free kick for QF/JQ - given taxi fares. Or is the price difference between CBD-airport taxi fares not that significant between intl and dom?

From SYD city, a taxi to T1 might add another $5 - $10 in fare. A fare from city to T2 or T3 is likely to cost around $30 - $40 in the absence of significant traffic.

Call it a free kick if you will.

 

[wilco]

The ATO is not really an independent body per se. It is still highly influenced and governed by the relevant Acts on taxation, which themselves are influenced and regularly changed by government policy.

Thats why i said semi independent and all i meant by it was some statutory body that is tasked with managing the airport and its needs, independent of political interference. This would hopefully lead to the right decisions being made, that may not necessarily be popular, but essential nonetheless without the government in office taking the blame.

The ATO is governed in the way you suggest and it effectively works autonomously within the tax laws that currently exist. I agree that people blame the government for any new taxes, but they blame the tax office for old ones and this is what is needed regarding airports. If people dont like airports or the noise or whatever, there is a simple solution. dont live near one!

 

[docjames]

From SYD city, a taxi to T1 might add another $5 - $10 in fare. A fare from city to T2 or T3 is likely to cost around $30 - $40 in the absence of significant traffic.

many cities (NYC comes to mind) have a fixed fare eg. JFK--> manhattan.

This would be a good opportunity for any fixed fares SYD (any terminal) --> CBD (defined area).

 

[anat0l]

Thats why i said semi independent and all i meant by it was some statutory body that is tasked with managing the airport and its needs, independent of political interference. This would hopefully lead to the right decisions being made, that may not necessarily be popular, but essential nonetheless without the government in office taking the blame.

The problem is that with such a statuatory body the government in power will still take a lot of the blame. You'll have the same situation really as before except with an extra layer of indirection and bureaucracy.

Moreover, the body you propose is not as simple as one for tax, or even something like telecommunications. The operation of airports is tightly linked with other state and national laws such as planning, environment, state works etc. I highly doubt that a body will be endowed with a degree of political independence (or legal independence) that will allow it to make any "hard decisions".

Overall, I don't think a new statuatory body is the answer. The establishment of a new body would be through the decision of some government in power, and if things go pear-shaped, that government will be held fully responsible for the actions of that body (cf. that body itself, which you would contend is what would happen). Eventually someone will just have to make a decision, and my gut tells me this will either not happen and they direct SYD growth somewhere else, or it will happen with people kicking and screaming, and possibly over a few dead bodies (perhaps literally).

If people dont like airports or the noise or whatever, there is a simple solution. dont live near one!

If only it were that easy..... (as a person working with the mining industry, it is never that simple and saying something like that just gets you into five and a half inches deep of ****...)

 

[Justchecking]

Would this be a bit of a free kick for QF/JQ - given taxi fares. Or is the price difference between CBD-airport taxi fares not that significant between intl and dom?

It depends on your destination, not every and indeed probably not even the majority of taxi fares are CBD bound.

As for this plan? A lot of pretty pictures and fanciful ideas. This is the country that first looked at fast rail links 25yrs ago and still hasnt got one. would love to know how they are going to shut gates down in domestic for building and still accomodate the domestic schedule. Or are they just going to cull each airlines schedules for years on end while they do so?

 

[Justchecking]

Re: Sydney Airport overhaul

As for driving cars, the airport is fundamental to the city and the nation, therefore, it needs to have effective transport to and from it. Cars are not the answer, but rail is. SYD was successful in finally getting a rail link, but its operation leaves a lot to be desired. it needs to be fast, cheap and reliable and its definitely not the first 2.
Tking.

Its very cheap during trackwork, its a free bus service.....:mrgreen: just wish they would Work on the tracks more often.

 

[dajop]

Re: Sydney Airport overhaul

As for driving cars, the airport is fundamental to the city and the nation, therefore, it needs to have effective transport to and from it. Cars are not the answer, but rail is. SYD was successful in finally getting a rail link, but its operation leaves a lot to be desired. it needs to be fast, cheap and reliable and its definitely not the first 2.

I don't think a rail service to an airport necessarily has to be cheap, but if it is not cheap it has to be fast, frequent and reliable. The problem with rail at SYD is not that it is not cheap, nor is it fast, it is a public transport service at premium service pricing. Look around the world, many airport rail links provide premium services (ie dedicated carriage, express etc) at premium prices (eg HKG, KUL, LHR - heathrow express, NRT, PEK,), whilst others have public transport services at regular public transport prices (eg LHR-tube, SIN, ORD, MUC, BKK-local line, etc...). At SYD, you get to pay about 5x the usual fare for that distance to travel on regular suburban train on a regular suburban trainline. It is what is for the whole range of reasons, but still ....

 

[el_rooto]

Hopefully this will bring to an end the ridiculous outbound immigration formalities australia has...