Third runway at Hong Kong International Airport ‘going to be needed’ - Cathay Pacific
Jun 2, 2011, 11:21 am
#16
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2
I found this thread looking into the 3rd runway consultation thread, I was hoping any of your learned gentlemen could help me with these questions.
I was wondering how a 3rd runway will benefit HKIA when it does not seem to make full utility of its existing 2 runways? What difference does it make whether Hong Kong adds a 3rd, or 4th, or 10th runway when HKIA airport cannot but land one plane-at-a-time? In other words, irregardless of the 2 runways existing, only one runway is ever used for either take-offs or landing at-a-time, unlike many other airports where I have witnessed regular tandem use of the runways, e.a., traffic arriving and departing from runways simultaneously. How does a 3rd runway change that equation?
This has apparently nothing to do with ground capacity problems and everything with airspace allotment, and unless I'm wrong, I don't believe any amount of landfilling will resolve the airspace congestion issue and I haven't heard of any initiatives by the SAR government to engage China to resolve airspace restrictions imposed on Hong Kong.
One of the contributors in this thread mentioned the Macau airport in passing... which is of interest to me since the Macau Airport is essentially a perfectly serviceable runway that has in the past processed Antonov An-124 aircraft to dispel any notions that it would not be suited for the diversion of increased cargo traffic to the Macua facility, if such "growth" were to occur at all. Why is it inconceivable to consider routing more cargo through the Macau facility at all?
Finally, I must confess to being a perpetual growth skeptic, since I do not see much of a future for the continued air handling of rubber dog poo, as the cargo doggies so fondly refer to it, when oil prices seem intent on parking permanently above $100-a-barrel or more.
In short... the Pearl River estuary in fact has 3 existing perfectly usable runways which in fact are really not being put to optimum use in the first place. How will adding an additional runway change anything?
I simply smell another construction boondoggle.
I was wondering how a 3rd runway will benefit HKIA when it does not seem to make full utility of its existing 2 runways? What difference does it make whether Hong Kong adds a 3rd, or 4th, or 10th runway when HKIA airport cannot but land one plane-at-a-time? In other words, irregardless of the 2 runways existing, only one runway is ever used for either take-offs or landing at-a-time, unlike many other airports where I have witnessed regular tandem use of the runways, e.a., traffic arriving and departing from runways simultaneously. How does a 3rd runway change that equation?
This has apparently nothing to do with ground capacity problems and everything with airspace allotment, and unless I'm wrong, I don't believe any amount of landfilling will resolve the airspace congestion issue and I haven't heard of any initiatives by the SAR government to engage China to resolve airspace restrictions imposed on Hong Kong.
One of the contributors in this thread mentioned the Macau airport in passing... which is of interest to me since the Macau Airport is essentially a perfectly serviceable runway that has in the past processed Antonov An-124 aircraft to dispel any notions that it would not be suited for the diversion of increased cargo traffic to the Macua facility, if such "growth" were to occur at all. Why is it inconceivable to consider routing more cargo through the Macau facility at all?
Finally, I must confess to being a perpetual growth skeptic, since I do not see much of a future for the continued air handling of rubber dog poo, as the cargo doggies so fondly refer to it, when oil prices seem intent on parking permanently above $100-a-barrel or more.
In short... the Pearl River estuary in fact has 3 existing perfectly usable runways which in fact are really not being put to optimum use in the first place. How will adding an additional runway change anything?
I simply smell another construction boondoggle.
Jun 2, 2011, 1:52 pm
#17
Join Date: May 2010
Location: LHR
Programs: BA Amex, CX MPC, IHG PC, LX M&M
Posts: 280
I found this thread looking into the 3rd runway consultation thread, I was hoping any of your learned gentlemen could help me with these questions.
I was wondering how a 3rd runway will benefit HKIA when it does not seem to make full utility of its existing 2 runways? What difference does it make whether Hong Kong adds a 3rd, or 4th, or 10th runway when HKIA airport cannot but land one plane-at-a-time? In other words, irregardless of the 2 runways existing, only one runway is ever used for either take-offs or landing at-a-time, unlike many other airports where I have witnessed regular tandem use of the runways, e.a., traffic arriving and departing from runways simultaneously. How does a 3rd runway change that equation?
This has apparently nothing to do with ground capacity problems and everything with airspace allotment, and unless I'm wrong, I don't believe any amount of landfilling will resolve the airspace congestion issue and I haven't heard of any initiatives by the SAR government to engage China to resolve airspace restrictions imposed on Hong Kong.
One of the contributors in this thread mentioned the Macau airport in passing... which is of interest to me since the Macau Airport is essentially a perfectly serviceable runway that has in the past processed Antonov An-124 aircraft to dispel any notions that it would not be suited for the diversion of increased cargo traffic to the Macua facility, if such "growth" were to occur at all. Why is it inconceivable to consider routing more cargo through the Macau facility at all?
Finally, I must confess to being a perpetual growth skeptic, since I do not see much of a future for the continued air handling of rubber dog poo, as the cargo doggies so fondly refer to it, when oil prices seem intent on parking permanently above $100-a-barrel or more.
In short... the Pearl River estuary in fact has 3 existing perfectly usable runways which in fact are really not being put to optimum use in the first place. How will adding an additional runway change anything?
I simply smell another construction boondoggle.
I was wondering how a 3rd runway will benefit HKIA when it does not seem to make full utility of its existing 2 runways? What difference does it make whether Hong Kong adds a 3rd, or 4th, or 10th runway when HKIA airport cannot but land one plane-at-a-time? In other words, irregardless of the 2 runways existing, only one runway is ever used for either take-offs or landing at-a-time, unlike many other airports where I have witnessed regular tandem use of the runways, e.a., traffic arriving and departing from runways simultaneously. How does a 3rd runway change that equation?
This has apparently nothing to do with ground capacity problems and everything with airspace allotment, and unless I'm wrong, I don't believe any amount of landfilling will resolve the airspace congestion issue and I haven't heard of any initiatives by the SAR government to engage China to resolve airspace restrictions imposed on Hong Kong.
One of the contributors in this thread mentioned the Macau airport in passing... which is of interest to me since the Macau Airport is essentially a perfectly serviceable runway that has in the past processed Antonov An-124 aircraft to dispel any notions that it would not be suited for the diversion of increased cargo traffic to the Macua facility, if such "growth" were to occur at all. Why is it inconceivable to consider routing more cargo through the Macau facility at all?
Finally, I must confess to being a perpetual growth skeptic, since I do not see much of a future for the continued air handling of rubber dog poo, as the cargo doggies so fondly refer to it, when oil prices seem intent on parking permanently above $100-a-barrel or more.
In short... the Pearl River estuary in fact has 3 existing perfectly usable runways which in fact are really not being put to optimum use in the first place. How will adding an additional runway change anything?
I simply smell another construction boondoggle.
To answer your first question, when looking at runways and configuration etc, its always better to use single-mode runways (ie designated take-off only and designated landing only) because it takes time when switching between the two modes. For example if an aircraft is on final, ATC will not permit a take-off even if it appears the aircraft waiting to take-off will take-off in time. A third runway should hopefully allow for one mixed-mode runway and one of each of the designated runways. As for getting a runway before utilising all capacity, it allows for more flexibility within the airport system. It may take in excess of 10-20 years before any runway is built and as far as I know, spare capacity at HKG is minimal...if all airports waited for runway capacity to be saturated before planning a new runway, it would be looking at no expansion for the duration of the planning phase.
Its true that landfilling won't address the issues of airspace restrictions. However, I think the issue here again is the time-frame it will take to resolve each issue. The time-frame in planning, building and inplementing a new runway is far greater than the time it takes to engage China in talks to reduce or remove airspace restrictions.
In terms of diverting traffic to Macau, I think that's an issue of competition. I don't think any airport in the world would promote the fact that a neighbouring airport is actually more suited to developing capacity than they are! In the case of Macau, it is far too easy for an airline who currently uses HKG for Cargo to fly there and ship everything back into Hong Kong!
Referring to your last point about the other three runways, again, its a competition issue. HKG is in a very good position in terms of being a passenger hub and it wants to maintain that...after all, they are a money making business!
As for my own view on the matter, I believe that in order for HKG to continue to maintain its status as Asia's hub, it must achieve the plan to build a third runway. Not building a third runway at HKG will make it more and more like LHR - unable to grow its capacity and even see a drop in passenger levels as passengers seek to fly through stronger hubs such as AMS and CDG.
Jun 2, 2011, 8:38 pm
#18
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: So Cal
Programs: AA EXP - 1.4MM
Posts: 684
Thanks for providing those images!
There's a Saudi Prince who is starting to create a push amongst the Middle East oil cartels to get oil down in the $70-80 range, figuring if it stays over $100, the West WILL develop alternatives:
http://alttransport.com/2011/05/saud...y-development/
Let the speculation begin on what flight arrival/departure times might be affected...
http://alttransport.com/2011/05/saud...y-development/
Let the speculation begin on what flight arrival/departure times might be affected...
Jun 2, 2011, 9:28 pm
#19
Join Date: Jul 2010
Programs: CX DM, SG Krisfl, MH Enrich, Hyatt GP Diam, Priority Club Plat, Marriott SL, HHonors, SPG, AClub
Posts: 289
) and can reassure that it's not only rubber dog poo being shipped via air. There is still a lot of time-sensitive freight moving via air as there's no alternative to it. Critical electronics components can't get on a ship for 4-6 weeks to Europe - same applies to final consumer products like the latest generation of iPhones. Not to speak of perishables like food, being re-exported from other countries via HKG. It's a mix then of lowering margins for carriers and freight forwarders and slapping it on to retail prices for end consumers if fuel surcharges are high.But yes, many goods are being manufactured from Pearl River Delta and the other airports are not being fully utilized yet. Nevertheless, it's not always full freighters - to many destinations it's better to buy belly cargo space of passenger flights. And that is something you can't just simply move to Macau/Shenzhen if the majority still wants to fly to HKG and could not be bothered to cross the border via road/rail.
As for the other goods: According to Census & Statisitcs Dept. HKG is re-exporting 90%+ of it's imports, underlining it's importance as transportation hub in Asia-Pacific where e.g. multi-(Asian)-country consolidation takes place to leverage on economies of scale for freight rates ex HKG to other destinations (instead of multiple smaller freight volumes on direct flights for higher price). When considering again utilizing cargo space of passenger flights, not everything can be handled at the other airports cost-effectively.
Jun 2, 2011, 10:18 pm
#20
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: HNL, TYO, & Many Places in the Sky
Programs: Too Many
Posts: 397
I think they will need to build it, or it is going to hurt CX's growth potential. I also think that there will plenty of the other carriers who will be happy to add capacity to or through HKG in the future if it possible to due to the construction of a 3rd runway.
Jun 3, 2011, 12:51 am
#21
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2
Thank you for taking the time to formulate your very thoughtful replies!
Seeing how the Int'l business community consensus seems to be to enthusiastically goad the SAR govt into sinking more resources into another questionable mud-dumping endeavor it would seem this thing is all but decided.
Too bad.
Best of luck to you gentleman. If you really think the price of oil is going to be hovering comfortably around the $70 level for the next 20-odd years because some toothy Saudi prince promised you with fingers crossed behind his back, you're going to need it.
Seeing how the Int'l business community consensus seems to be to enthusiastically goad the SAR govt into sinking more resources into another questionable mud-dumping endeavor it would seem this thing is all but decided.
Too bad.
Best of luck to you gentleman. If you really think the price of oil is going to be hovering comfortably around the $70 level for the next 20-odd years because some toothy Saudi prince promised you with fingers crossed behind his back, you're going to need it.
Jun 3, 2011, 2:42 am
#22
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 16
Thank you for taking the time to formulate your very thoughtful replies!
Seeing how the Int'l business community consensus seems to be to enthusiastically goad the SAR govt into sinking more resources into another questionable mud-dumping endeavor it would seem this thing is all but decided.
Too bad.
Best of luck to you gentleman. If you really think the price of oil is going to be hovering comfortably around the $70 level for the next 20-odd years because some toothy Saudi prince promised you with fingers crossed behind his back, you're going to need it.
Seeing how the Int'l business community consensus seems to be to enthusiastically goad the SAR govt into sinking more resources into another questionable mud-dumping endeavor it would seem this thing is all but decided.
Too bad.
Best of luck to you gentleman. If you really think the price of oil is going to be hovering comfortably around the $70 level for the next 20-odd years because some toothy Saudi prince promised you with fingers crossed behind his back, you're going to need it.
First of all, the runways are designed to have 60 planes per hour in the design phase, and the number goes up to 68 after fine tuning, but there are already 61 operations per hour now, and the remaining capacity is expected to be filled up within this decade.
Secondly, the HKIA is surrounded by hills, and this terrain issue limits the use of runway for mixed operations. You can find more information on the consultation documents.
Thirdly, you have to get 1500m of clearance in order to get all of the runways operational, and you have the fill the land inbetween two runways as taxiways, that's why the scale of reclamation is so large.
Fourthly, HKIA's handling 80% of international pax and 90% of international freight in the PRD, so the lack of space for expansion will drive all the traffic from HKIA to other airport in the region.
http://www.hkairport2030.com/en/info...lications.html
Last edited by jonathanmok; Jun 3, 2011 at 6:47 am
Jun 3, 2011, 4:31 am
#23
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,978
People love Hong Kong's hardware, software, and efficiency, let's keep them there.
Jun 3, 2011, 8:01 pm
#24
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 3,208
If CX were paying for the third runway, then by all means let them fight it out with the environmentalists and see who wins, but the HK taxpayer is in all likelihood going to shell out HK$200bn if this project is ever completed. I don't believe any of these preliminary budgets/estimates, and I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidize another runway.
That's a hell of a lot of money. The government has no credibility at all so I welcome the left wingers protecting the piggy bank. I need to be convinced that this is not another transfer of wealth from the shrinking middle class to big business.
There are perfectly good airports in Zhuhai, Macau and Shenzhen. Sure, CX can't make it one of their hubs, but Air China probably could, and we all know that Air China will take over CX one day anyway... Then there is also the question of how high speed rail will make many of the short haul flights obsolete which will free up slots...and how air space is already tightly controlled into and out HKG for flights going through the mainland
That's a hell of a lot of money. The government has no credibility at all so I welcome the left wingers protecting the piggy bank. I need to be convinced that this is not another transfer of wealth from the shrinking middle class to big business.
There are perfectly good airports in Zhuhai, Macau and Shenzhen. Sure, CX can't make it one of their hubs, but Air China probably could, and we all know that Air China will take over CX one day anyway... Then there is also the question of how high speed rail will make many of the short haul flights obsolete which will free up slots...and how air space is already tightly controlled into and out HKG for flights going through the mainland
Jun 3, 2011, 9:36 pm
#25
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,344
If CX were paying for the third runway, then by all means let them fight it out with the environmentalists and see who wins, but the HK taxpayer is in all likelihood going to shell out HK$200bn if this project is ever completed. I don't believe any of these preliminary budgets/estimates, and I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidize another runway.
That's a hell of a lot of money. The government has no credibility at all so I welcome the left wingers protecting the piggy bank. I need to be convinced that this is not another transfer of wealth from the shrinking middle class to big business.
There are perfectly good airports in Zhuhai, Macau and Shenzhen. Sure, CX can't make it one of their hubs, but Air China probably could, and we all know that Air China will take over CX one day anyway... Then there is also the question of how high speed rail will make many of the short haul flights obsolete which will free up slots...and how air space is already tightly controlled into and out HKG for flights going through the mainland
That's a hell of a lot of money. The government has no credibility at all so I welcome the left wingers protecting the piggy bank. I need to be convinced that this is not another transfer of wealth from the shrinking middle class to big business.
There are perfectly good airports in Zhuhai, Macau and Shenzhen. Sure, CX can't make it one of their hubs, but Air China probably could, and we all know that Air China will take over CX one day anyway... Then there is also the question of how high speed rail will make many of the short haul flights obsolete which will free up slots...and how air space is already tightly controlled into and out HKG for flights going through the mainland
Also - I've heard this before, but how does CA plan on 'taking over' CX when CX racks in ridiculous profits for Swire and in terms of value CX is an equal to CA?
Jun 4, 2011, 12:06 am
#26
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 16
If CX were paying for the third runway, then by all means let them fight it out with the environmentalists and see who wins, but the HK taxpayer is in all likelihood going to shell out HK$200bn if this project is ever completed. I don't believe any of these preliminary budgets/estimates, and I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidize another runway.
That's a hell of a lot of money. The government has no credibility at all so I welcome the left wingers protecting the piggy bank. I need to be convinced that this is not another transfer of wealth from the shrinking middle class to big business.
There are perfectly good airports in Zhuhai, Macau and Shenzhen. Sure, CX can't make it one of their hubs, but Air China probably could, and we all know that Air China will take over CX one day anyway... Then there is also the question of how high speed rail will make many of the short haul flights obsolete which will free up slots...and how air space is already tightly controlled into and out HKG for flights going through the mainland
That's a hell of a lot of money. The government has no credibility at all so I welcome the left wingers protecting the piggy bank. I need to be convinced that this is not another transfer of wealth from the shrinking middle class to big business.
There are perfectly good airports in Zhuhai, Macau and Shenzhen. Sure, CX can't make it one of their hubs, but Air China probably could, and we all know that Air China will take over CX one day anyway... Then there is also the question of how high speed rail will make many of the short haul flights obsolete which will free up slots...and how air space is already tightly controlled into and out HKG for flights going through the mainland
secondly, CA is not going to take over CX, CA holds 29.99% of Cathay, just 0.01% short of the share required for madatory takeover bid, while at the same time Swire holds 42% of Cathay, in case of hostile takeover, the difficulty faced by swire to fight off CA is not a big concern to Swire, if any.
Thirdly, you can say SZX's a good airport, but i don't think Zhuhai and Macau is in the same league with Guangzhou and Shenzhen, not to mention competing with HKIA for international connections.
Fourthly, I would say, the High-speed rail link is not needed, as the demand for trains connecting HK and Guangzhou is not filled and not even expected to be filled within this decade or two. However, the case in airport is different, the capacity is expected to be filled within 7 to 9 years, so it's crucial to plan ahead, that means expansion.
Last edited by jonathanmok; Jun 4, 2011 at 12:31 am
Jun 4, 2011, 6:13 am
#29
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,978
Some of you are looking at this issue from the pax point of view, and if that is the case, then yes, HKG is not your only option. Shenzhen is a good one, even Macau. However, we are talking from Hong Kong and CX's benefits, and that view a third runway is not only needed, but a must. Once HKG runs at full capacity, that means future businesses, be it pax or cargo, will be force to go to other airports if HKG can't handle them.
Personally, I think Hong Kong is too good of an airport, and too crucial for even China to give up too easily.
Personally, I think Hong Kong is too good of an airport, and too crucial for even China to give up too easily.
Jun 4, 2011, 7:10 pm
#30
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Programs: Star Alliance, One World, Skyteam, BR, GA, EK, VX, SPG, Marriott, Hyatt, Hilton, IC
Posts: 4,065
The other part to consider is how much HKG has become the main gateway to Asia and China. Its incredible to see the flexibility of flying through HKG instead of other airports in the area and since it is truly an international airport to begin with.
Moving to locations such as Macau, Guangzhou or even Shenzen will serve only to be an annoyance since for pax like me, HKG seems to be the prime spot to take a break before continuing my journey elsewhere.
Another thing to consider is that HKG is what to SIN is to Singapore. In an essence, the pax traffic through HKG is because of its strategic position. Then again, people can argue that all the other airports in the peninsula might be more strategic than HKG, but HK is also a prime destination for both business and tourism.
Yet HKG is also the hub of international business, and its going to be more than nagging for someone having to be diverted to some other airport than HKG due to runway /airspace shortage. Besides, doesn't HK economy depends on HKG, its ports, and its international business hubs? You can't take one away and expects the others to excel can't you?
Moving to locations such as Macau, Guangzhou or even Shenzen will serve only to be an annoyance since for pax like me, HKG seems to be the prime spot to take a break before continuing my journey elsewhere.
Another thing to consider is that HKG is what to SIN is to Singapore. In an essence, the pax traffic through HKG is because of its strategic position. Then again, people can argue that all the other airports in the peninsula might be more strategic than HKG, but HK is also a prime destination for both business and tourism.
Yet HKG is also the hub of international business, and its going to be more than nagging for someone having to be diverted to some other airport than HKG due to runway /airspace shortage. Besides, doesn't HK economy depends on HKG, its ports, and its international business hubs? You can't take one away and expects the others to excel can't you?