Marco Polo

China has the space - it is building 'green' wind farms and solar farms. It has been using ethanol mixed in its fuel at the pumps for years. This is called decision making whereas Lame Duck Tsang just fritters away more money on more consultations on the roadside pollution and then does nothing when consultations run out. I think the green groups are right - too many things HK-Zhuhai bridge (without a rail line !), HK-Shenzhen airport sub sea tunnel, 3rd runway, expansion of Tung Chung town is too much for such a small area.
They will not get past the EIA stage even with rubber stamp Anissa Wong doing her bit. Then there is the high speed rail HK- (not) Guangzhou link to nowhere. The only one I would agree with is the HK airport-Shenzhen airport fast link.

Cathay Boy

The thing about "Green thing" is that the "Environmentalists" never put forth any logical and arguable theory on what is consider buildable, and what isn't. It seem they simply have ONE message and ONE message only: DO NOT BUILD ANYTHING as ANYTHING WILL HARM THE ENVIRONMENT.

Cathay Boy

No wonder UPS is not reliable in Asia....

Marco Polo

not exactly
www.hkgbc.org.hk/

http://www.gov.hk/en/residents/envir.../buildings.htm
they should practice what they preach

meanwhile, is this the 'growth' they refer to ?
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/0...7H709S20110707

kaka

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Again we need more flights. China transport at best, upon lost of signal they run at full speed. Massive derailing as they run into each other

kaka

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Again we need more flights. China transport at best, upon lost of signal they run at full speed. Massive derailing as they run into each other

percysmith

I thought you didn't like China Travel http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/catha...hk-37.html#543

I'll toughen up the calculations.

Assume no growth in pax: 50.9M
Assume everyone only pays tax on the outbound: 25.45M.

Assume cost is 136.2B, payable now (covers cost overrun)
Useful life: 25 years
Cost per year: 136.6 / 25 = $5.45B

Cost per pax: 5,448M / 25.45M = $214


This case also assumes inflation (and AAHK's ability to raise future landing prices) slightly exceeds nominal interest rates so no time value of money effect. Assuming that long run interest rate exceeds inflation by 5%:

Cost per year: $9.692B (=PMT(0.05, 25, -136600))
Cost per pax: 9,692M / 25.45M = $388

Affordable?
Will we cause negative growth in pax numbers as a result?

kaka

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

I dont, but for social good to avoid land based transport in china.

Anyway, I wonder whats the full cost per pax now regarding airport fees(including landing fees n all)

Cathay Boy

Yes, I was gravely concerned by that news. Especially I travel on that route much (Shanghai to Wenzhou to Fuzhou to Xiamen.) Horrific news, maybe it's time to rethink about how safe these new high-speed rails really are.

percysmith

Approx $31.81 paid by airline http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/catha...l#post16746964

Actually should double that to $62 cos I used the 50.9 traveller figure and that probably counts arrivals and departures as two pax (and transit as 2 also).

And $120 by the passenger

CX HK

Newspapers are already talking about the higher demand for airlines as a result of this, and the impact of the crash can clearly be seen in the stock market today in both China and Hong Kong.

kaka

it only went from bad to worse! it was first delays of a few hours, and now they've got this. The airlines stopped feeling the hit even after 2 weeks!

moondog

Air fares on PEK-SHA are still substantially lower than they were a month ago.

Marco Polo

[QUOTE=percysmith;16787347
Actually should double that to $62 cos I used the 50.9 traveller figure and that probably counts arrivals and departures as two pax (and transit as 2 also). And $120 by the passenger[/QUOTE]

When the 'real' numbers come to light I reckon the s--t will hit the fan.

Any smaller local construction project can overrun on variations etc by more than 200 % as in Pennys Bay station cost (600m above the winning tender of 200m). On a project of this magnitude read HKD 300+ billion instead of 136.2 billion at money of the day cost.

The PRD airslot 'consensus' is not a signed and sealed agreement. Without it nothing can proceed.

HKG chooses to use 2 pax counted for the same person in transit contrary to the ACI airport body's calculation as one pax in transit = 1 pax. So what are the real numbers in airport throughput was calculated as it should be ?
Likewise with transhipment cargo ,also uses the same piece of cargo counted twice in tonnage statistics issued.

Then there are the Green groups and the EIA and Judicial Reviews etc.
The infield works start imminently to add an extra 10m pax by 2015 anyway.
These are real 10m pax with two legs and two arms unlike the AAHK currently counting the same human as two in the airport numbers (sham) and cargo double counted in transit also.

Marco Polo

will be interesting to see how they can obviate their own consultant's report !

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...rt-runway-may-
cause-pollution-to-exceed-limit-1-.html

Hong Kong Airport Runway May Cause Pollution to Exceed Limit
By Jasmine Wang - Aug 9, 2011 8:59 PM GMT+0800
Hong Kong airport’s proposed HK$136 billion ($17 billion) third runway may cause the level of pollutant nitrogen dioxide in the facility’s vicinity to exceed the limit set by the city’s government, according to a study.
Annual cumulative concentrations of the gas in the airport and nearby areas may range between 16.5 micrograms and 81.1 micrograms per cubic meter, Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd., appointed by the Airport Authority Hong Kong to assess the effect on air quality, said in its report. The government has proposed halving the legal limit for nitrogen dioxide, found in vehicle exhaust, in Hong Kong to 40 micrograms per cubic meter.
The consultant’s 2010 report was one of the eight posted on the authority’s website yesterday as it performs a three-month public consultation to end Sept. 2. Another report by HSBC Holdings Plc said rising construction costs may increase the authority’s pre-financing cash shortfall.
The air quality report was based on a maximum projected capacity of 620,000 annual flight movements. The authority will conduct a more detailed assessment and ensure the project complies with the law, it said in an e-mailed response to Bloomberg News questions. The authority also said HSBC’s report “has sought to establish a prudent financing plan such that the underlying financial profile of the AAHK remains robust.”
Cash Shortfall
The authority’s HK$112.8 billion pre-financing cash shortfall for the new runway may increase to HK$133 billion because of rising construction costs, according to a May 31 report by HSBC, a financial adviser for the project.
The third runway will cost HK$86.2 billion in 2010 prices, equivalent to HK$136.2 billion with inflation, .............
Asia’s third-busiest airfield is considering the new runway to serve an estimated 97 million passengers by 2030. The project, which may take about nine years to complete, will also help handle 8.9 million tons of cargo.
The airport may need to reclaim about 650 hectares of land from the sea to build the runway. Groups including Civic Party lawmakers have opposed the plan on concern about its effect on marine wildlife, including the endangered pink dolphin.
Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. (293), the city’s biggest carrier, said on June 2 that it gave “full and unequivocal backing” for the third runway.......
To contact the reporter on this story: Jasmine Wang in Hong Kong at [email protected]