Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Cathay Pacific | Marco Polo Club
Reload this Page >

Third runway at Hong Kong International Airport ‘going to be needed’ - Cathay Pacific

Third runway at Hong Kong International Airport ‘going to be needed’ - Cathay Pacific

Old Jul 2, 11, 9:43 am
  #91  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Depends
Posts: 14,901
Originally Posted by Marco Polo View Post
well Percy look at reality : it means WE the HK taxpayers pay and CX gets richer


http://www.hongkongairport.com/eng/p...Statements.pdf

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr04-05/engl...cb1-1591-e.pdf

the cost for the 3rd runway and terminal is estimated at HK$ 136.2 billion at projected future construction cost.
The HK airport total profit in the past year was HK$ 4.038 billion.
Perhaps a Flyertalk accountant can work out how long it would take the airport to repay the capital sum given depreciation / projected landing charge increase etc ?
A simplistic calculation would be 136 / 4 = 34 years by which time of course they would be out of capacity and would already need the 4th runway and by then Bao’An will probably have 6 runways and the SAR , given the completion date years hence +34 will be past its 2047 Mainland reunification date .

only FS John Tsang would rate that a good deal but he screwed up everything else already on his decision changing U turn Budget.

It's $86.2B at today's costs and HK$136.2B at completed costs (i.e. after 10 years' cumulative inflation) http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_d...pe=3&pp_cat=30

HKAA's profits are in today's prices so it should be the 86.2B we should be comparing to rather than the headline 136.2B. Alternatively inflate HKAA's 4B profit by 136/86 = $6.3B

Either way you're going to get simple payback of 86.2/4 = 21.6 years. Runways last 25 years so that's OK http://www.hongkongairport.com/eng/p...ts.pdf#page=39

Of course that payback calculation will be criticised.

1. Shouldn't use the whole of HKAA profit - the current place has two runways plus infrastructure. Assuming we proportionally increase the number of planes by increasing runways without need to build more parking bays (i.e. T1 and T2 as is can cope), then the third runway should only generate 2B profit on its own; payback inreases to 43 years.

2. I suspect as a fully-governmment owned statutory body, HKAA isn't charging as much as it could for landing fees. I'm not sure if any of the PRD airports are - even though SZN and CAN are owned by A-share companies, I don't think they can set tariffs on their own (severe state price control).

2a. Let's use another HK example - the Cross Harbour Tunnel charges $20 for cars whereas the Citic Pacific-owned EHT costs $25 and WHF costs $50 (http://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in...ges/index.html). Taking the average of the two Citic Pacific tunnels (37.5%) this represents a 87.5% premium. Assuming HKAA can also charge the same premium if privatised (and demand is inelastic - airlines and passengers keep flying as before) - payback is reduced to 23 years. Still well within the expected life of the runway.

After my after-dinner back of napkin calculations, the runway might still be able to pay for itself.
percysmith is online now  
Old Jul 2, 11, 9:52 am
  #92  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Depends
Posts: 14,901
The Standard also noted the XRL is $67B. The third runway will be almost twice that http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_d...d_str=20110610.

For one more comparison of size, Festival Walk's only $22B http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...rty-asset.html.

Although I still think the 3rd runway will have greater economic benefit than the XRL (I don't think of the XRL as anything but a white elephant, even as a (former) frequent PRC business traveller), it does make me think whether we can afford it - it can be useful but just too bloody unaffordable.
percysmith is online now  
Old Jul 2, 11, 10:13 am
  #93  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: HKG
Programs: CX DM, SQ, BA, TG, Sheba, VN, MPO since 1980
Posts: 1,055
http://www.hongkongairport.com/eng/p...ity/MP2020.pdf
Marco Polo is offline  
Old Jul 2, 11, 7:54 pm
  #94  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: HKG
Programs: CX DM, SQ, BA, TG, Sheba, VN, MPO since 1980
Posts: 1,055
www.scmp.com
Let investors pay for airport plan Philip Bowring says that if the financial projections for the third runway are to be believed, then the private sector and aviation industry should be willing to bear the risk PHILIP BOWRING Jul 03, 2011 (excerpt)
Before legislators get carried away on the public relations wave created by the Airport Authority and Cathay Pacific: in support of spending HK$100 billion or so of public money on a new runway, they should consider the government's abysmal records both in forecasting and infrastructure planning.
The nearest comparison to the airport proposal is container terminals. ………………..As late as 2008, it was still insisting on the need for CT 10 despite the massive container development across the border. It wasted a way-over-budget HK$3.7 billion on Stonecutters Bridge, …………….. Hong Kong has now lost out to Shenzhen and Shanghai in container port throughput……………There are plenty of other examples of wasted investment by bureaucrats with their straight-line growth charts.

Some aspects of aviation are high-value business compared with container handling, but not all. Simply acting as an interchange hub is of limited value-added, and, for low-end travel, Hong Kong should not try to compete with Pearl River Delta airports with their plentiful land and access to government largesse. The pollution issue is ........... The government should also be reminded that the Airport Authority was supposed to be partly privatised and face the same financial disciplines and return expectations as other listed and privately owned or operated airports such as those in Beijing, Sydney, Frankfurt and London. So let's see such a move in supposedly free-market Hong Kong before any decision is made on expansion. That would provide a sterner test of the claims in the authority's financial and overall economic projections. If this is such a good deal, why not try to raise, say, HK$35 billion from an offering of new shares …………..,
Meanwhile, one must wonder about returns on a much enlarged equity when, even now, its profits are hardly spectacular - HK$4.03 billion in 2010/11 on equity of HK$36.38 billion, or 11.1 per cent. The airport is little used at night and flight frequency is constrained by air traffic issues out of Hong Kong's control……………
The authority's overriding requirement is to "maximise value" for Hong Kong's benefit. That means maximising its returns, not putting out contentious claims about its contribution to gross domestic product. That may justify expansion but let the private sector, and the aviation industry itself, bear the risk and reward.

The government's so-called planning is no more than knee-jerk responses to particular vested interests - including those of its own departments. In total, the airport, express railway and bridge to Zhuhai and Macau constitute spending of about HK$200 billion at today's prices. Officials justify them all not by the rate of return but by the general benefits of improving links with the mainland and the outside world.
Yet, quite extraordinarily, there is no logical connection between the three. The bridge links to the airport but, being only a road bridge, does not link to the existing airport rail line - another expensive, money-losing piece of publicly financed infrastructure. The ultra-expensive high-speed railway goes nowhere near the airport but, for reasons best known to vested interests, to the dense heart of Kowloon, a shopping and residential area more than a business district. It will take the high-speed train 20 minutes to reach the border……………..
The problem of border controls is brought up to support expanding Chek Lap Kok rather than making more use of delta airports, but the same argument is never used to show the futility of high-speed trains which cannot reach very high speeds over such a short distance.
Other mega projects sponsored by interest groups are already consuming large sums of money for pouring concrete. One is the cruise liner terminal, which will serve a tiny percentage of visitors at huge opportunity cost in terms of harbourfront land ……………………
Economics is about choosing how to use scarce resources. Unfortunately, Hong Kong's HK$1.2 trillion reserves are not scarce enough to be used prudently or efficiently......... They are he plaything of officials and vested interests. Legislative Council, wake up to this fact. There may be justification for the new runway, but let investors decide. Aviation does not merit implicit public subsidy. Philip Bowring is a Hong Kong-based journalist and commentator
Marco Polo is offline  
Old Jul 2, 11, 9:03 pm
  #95  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,968
Some mega projects are wasteful, others are no-brainers. I believe the third run-way is a no-brainer, especially if HKIA wants to be relevant and a top airport in the future to come. Two runways for a mega-city like Hong Kong? Unbelievable. Especially as Hong Kong has successfully re-imaged itself as a major transportation hub, cargo hub, and a tourism city. It would be ashamed if progress is hampered because HKIA runs out of take-off/landing capacity.
Cathay Boy is offline  
Old Jul 2, 11, 10:12 pm
  #96  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Depends
Posts: 14,901
Oh - I should've noticed there's a problem using the $4B profit - $7B (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation) should be used instead. You shouldn't double count depreciation charged on existing runways, interest paid on debt used to fund the existing runways, or tax on existing equity return.

Using half of current EBITDA (two exisiting runways) to pay for the runway's current cost ($86.2B), we get 24.6 years.

If we take into account that HKAA may be possibly underpricing its landing fees like cross-harbour tunnels (in effect subsidising airlines using HK *and* air travellers) then payback is reduced to 13 years.
percysmith is online now  
Old Jul 2, 11, 11:47 pm
  #97  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Depends
Posts: 14,901
Wirelessly posted (Palm850/V0100 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.11))

I also don't buy the lack of night demand as an argument. Queen's Road is also "underutilised" at night, does that mean there's no congestion? Maybe we can ask Landmark to open 24h and have the Tai Tais come shop and have tea at 3am.
percysmith is online now  
Old Jul 3, 11, 12:06 am
  #98  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: China
Posts: 1,500
The return to the HK govt (the owners) also always ignores the 120 HKD tax. I.e. the govt not only gets 4bn profit, but 1.8 bn airport duty... So ebitda to the govt is c. 9billion
peasant is offline  
Old Jul 3, 11, 2:14 am
  #99  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manila
Programs: CX DM, TG *G, HH DM
Posts: 209
Project valuation, private vs public sector

Finally this thread takes a turn towards what I do for a living!

To make heads or tails of what is the right thing to do, we must first establish if HK airport is to be run as a government owned undertaking or a private one. For the time being, it is firmly held by the goverment. Many governments try to avoid being caught up as owners, by making it a limited liability company or other structures, but when they are the controlling owners - it is a government undertaking.

This means that the standard project evaluation done in private companies no longer suffices. Governments are, by their very definition, tasked to look after more than the bottom line. They are to take care of their citizens' rights, the environment, the bio-diversity, etc. Not an easy job!

But one thing comes shining through: If they are to do this evaluation properly, then they do need to put a price on what they lose by expanding. This is similar to the exercise done in most countries when considering where to place a new road, for example. Stonecutter's Bridge was likely never put to this test.

Looking at the third runway, what factors are there to consider - beyond the purely financial? And how to cost them? That is where HK government needs to bring in some credible expertise. Once you add it all up, it would surprise me greatly if the public ever sees a return on investment. Will that stop HK from pouring ahead? Nope, not for a second. Is it wasteful? Hugely.

HK has a not-so-proud history of chasing ghosts, like new container terminals, bridges and amusement parks (ROI for Disneyland?). I'm just waiting for the posters to arrive: "Runway 3 - add to your flying excitment!" or "A new runway for more airborne titillation". And all with a new shopping centre as the piece de la resistance, just like the sad story in T2.

If they are serious about analysing this properly, there are solid frameworks out there from IFC and others. It would be really interesting to see the payoffs from the third runway in such an analysis!
Flying Viking is offline  
Old Jul 3, 11, 6:44 am
  #100  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: HKG
Programs: CX DM, SQ, BA, TG, Sheba, VN, MPO since 1980
Posts: 1,055
http://www.hongkongairport.com/eng/p...ial_Review.pdf

Mainland Airports
Buoyed by the Mainland’s continued economic
expansion and Expo 2010 Shanghai China, AAHK’s
share of profits from Mainland airports showed steady
improvement in 2010/11.
In calendar 2010, Hangzhou Xiaoshan International
Airport (HXIA) recorded solid growth in passenger
traffic and cargo throughput, which increased 14.2%
and 25.2%, respectively. Our 35.0% share of HXIA’s
profits was HK$240 million (2009/10: HK$177 million),
an increase of 35.6%, largely due to profit growth and
higher airport construction fee subsidies that HXIA
received from the Central Government.

At Zhuhai Airport, which is managed by a joint venture
between AAHK and the Zhuhai Municipal People’s
Government, all traffic categories including passenger
traffic, cargo throughput and air traffic movements
recorded remarkable double-digit growth. Zhuhai
Airport broke even and achieved a HK$0.6 million
profit in this financial year. AAHK’s share of the profit
was HK$0.3 million, versus a loss of HK$6.1 million
in 2009/10.
(so now we know why they want the HK - Zhuhai bridge)

AAHK’s joint venture with Shanghai Airport (Group)
Company Limited, which runs several businesses at
Shanghai Hongqiao International Airport, reported
a small loss in its first year of operation.

Balance
Financing
AAHK’s total borrowings amounted to HK$7,086 million
at 31 March 2011 (2009/10: HK$8,193 million). Total
borrowings comprised unsecured bank loans and
medium- to long-term fixed-rate notes and bonds.
AAHK’s major financing activity during the year was
the arrangement of a five-year, HK$5.0 billion revolving
credit facility, which was signed in June 2010 with a
group of 14 local and international banks. The loan
was used to refinance maturing debt and meet working
capital requirements.

Outlook
Traffic is expected to continue to grow, albeit at a
slower pace
, driven by the continued economic
expansion of the Mainland and global economies.
With the faster than expected recovery in 2010/11, our
principal facilities, such as aircraft parking stands, are
approaching capacity. Following the completion of the
HK$4.5 billion enhancement programme that began in
2005/06, our main focus in the next phase of airport
development will be to plan and provide new facilities
and services to meet growing demand, while upholding
our core values and maintaining financial discipline.
Construction of the Phase 1 of the midfield development
will start in the third quarter of 2011. This project, which
will be completed in 2015, includes a new Midfield
Concourse with 20 parking stands, a new cross-field
taxiway and the extension of the existing automated
people mover to the Midfield Concourse.
Marco Polo is offline  
Old Jul 3, 11, 9:44 am
  #101  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: HKG
Programs: CX DM, SQ, BA, TG, Sheba, VN, MPO since 1980
Posts: 1,055
SCMP
www.scmp.com

Sky-high marketing for runway plan kept secret
Former aviation chief says the public has a right to know what is being done with taxpayers' money
Lana Lam Jul 03, 2011

The transparency of the Airport Authority is in question after the statutory body refused to reveal the marketing budget for its controversial third runway plan.
Peter Lok Kung-nam, who headed the Civil Aviation Department from 1990 to 1996, said Hong Kong people had the right to know how much was being spent on marketing "since they are using public money".

The authority is wholly owned by the government and operates under the Airport Authority Ordinance.
Lok said the authority was jumping the gun by pouring millions of dollars into producing 21 videos that all supported the expansion plan. He estimated the production cost of the videos would "be in the millions" because "videos take ages to create, even just one minute".
"[But] you are dealing with airports so this amount of money is peanuts," he said.
"I'm not surprised ................. but it's premature," he said of the videos which feature high-profile personalities such as Cathay Pacific chief executive John Slosar............
The videos echo the sentiment in the authority's written documents which state that Hong Kong's overall competitiveness as a world city would be at risk if the third runway plan does not go ahead.
An authority spokeswoman refused to disclose the amount spent on the videos or reveal the name of the company that won a tender for the project. She also refused to reveal the total budget of the marketing strategy for the authority's 2030 master plan which includes roving exhibitions, public forums and advertisements on TV and billboards.
She did confirm that all the interviewees appeared "on a voluntary basis ...............".
The videos are currently screening on more than 100 monitors throughout the airport. The authority has not spent any money on producing equivalent videos featuring local personalities who do not want the third runway. One video production company in North Point provided a conservative quote for a half-day of filming for one video at HK$12,000, so 21 videos would total about HK$250,000.
Lok, who supports a third runway, but not at the existing site, said he was not surprised that the videos only presented one side of the argument and he criticised the authority for hiding vital information about the feasibility of the third runway plan.
"If you look at the technical report, there is a caveat laid down that this scheme requires very extensive revision with Pearl River Delta airspace which we share with several other airports," he said. "To develop and implement the changes, we need to confer with Macau and mainland authorities.
"If you fail to get their consensus, there's no point talking about how much it's going to cost or if it's cost-effective. They have never mentioned this caveat in all the publicity, which I think is rather immoral." In documents for the master plan, the authority states its intention to ensure a "transparent, professional and objective planning process".
Questions the Post sent to the authority ............ went unanswered and at a public forum on the master plan yesterday, Howard Eng Kiu-chor, executive director of airport operations, did not take questions from the media.
Marco Polo is offline  
Old Jul 3, 11, 11:29 pm
  #102  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: China
Posts: 1,500
VK - good post. However, it was my understanding that "public" analysis (vs private) would also look at the public benefits as well as dis-benefits.

One oddity about the AAHK is that only the airport infrastructure is included in the balance sheet - the N Lantau express way & bridges are not, despite very much being part of the original airport project. But in which case, I guess you would have to value Tung Chung as a benefit.

I would be hugely surprised if a "holistic" evaluation didn't show a very strong return to the HK public. Look at the original investment in HKIA - the govt is getting c.9bn cash flow on 48bn of assets (disregarding financing mix of the assets) Plus cargo & pax throughput have doubled over what was possible at Kai Tak. Tung Chung also seems to have been one of the more successful "New Towns" - I would say only Shatin is more "valuable"
peasant is offline  
Old Jul 4, 11, 12:22 am
  #103  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: HKG
Programs: A3, TK *G; JL JGC; SPG,Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,959
Originally Posted by peasant View Post
VK - good post. However, it was my understanding that "public" analysis (vs private) would also look at the public benefits as well as dis-benefits.

One oddity about the AAHK is that only the airport infrastructure is included in the balance sheet - the N Lantau express way & bridges are not, despite very much being part of the original airport project. But in which case, I guess you would have to value Tung Chung as a benefit.

I would be hugely surprised if a "holistic" evaluation didn't show a very strong return to the HK public. Look at the original investment in HKIA - the govt is getting c.9bn cash flow on 48bn of assets (disregarding financing mix of the assets) Plus cargo & pax throughput have doubled over what was possible at Kai Tak. Tung Chung also seems to have been one of the more successful "New Towns" - I would say only Shatin is more "valuable"
I'm not trying to disprove your entire message, but how do you value tung chung? All i know is Sheung Shui has been a massive plughole for china money in the last few years.
kaka is offline  
Old Jul 4, 11, 5:23 am
  #104  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: HKG
Programs: CX DM, SQ, BA, TG, Sheba, VN, MPO since 1980
Posts: 1,055
so in a nutshell the former HK Civil Aviation Dept boss is against the third runway idea (in this location) , the proposed airspace the 3rd runway requires to operate currently would usurp an existing PRD ATC area without any clearance obtained to change same, the white dolphin crowd are against, the local Green groups are against, Designing HK are against, two SCMP columnists are against,the AAHK is 'running' Zhuhai airport and by coincidence HK Govt , sole shareholder in the tax paying AAHK wants to build a road transport only bridge from Zhuhai to HK airport which is now held up after a court case bounced the Environmental Impact Assessment based on increased pollution that would be brought to the area let alone without all the reclamation work dust and pollution this 3rd runway idea will bring, they are building a submarine tunnel for an express rail between HK Airport and Bao An airport which is already building an additional runway and is a more sensible choice for the export of Chinese aircargo goods, PRD manufacturing companies are moving further away from HKG because of costs in PRD , HK Govt has a disasterous record of white elephant concrete pouring as Flying Viking shows above, and the AAHK wants to use public money to pay HK$ 136 bilion for a third runway that will benefit AAHK's sole shareholder , HK Govt , and CX's new cargo building hub and airline profits. The tangible benefits to the man in the street tax paying public of Hong Kong are :.............................................

I am struggling here.


Splat
Runway 'will add to butterfly threat'

Green group warns that combined impact of three major projects could put insect haven in danger

Ng Kang-chung
www.scmp.com
Jul 04, 2011

A third airport runway will increase the threat to a butterfly haven on Lantau Island, a green group says ......... Tai Po Environmental Association warned yesterday of the possible "aggregated impact" of three major infrastructure projects being built or planned near Tung Chung.

..... executive officer Yau Wing-kwong urged the government to assess the adverse impact on the ecology of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge, the expansion of Tung Chung new town and the planned third runway. "Although the impact of one project may look acceptable, we should also take into account the total impact of the three," said Yau.

Yau, whose association also manages the Fung Yuen Butterfly Reserve in Tai Po, yesterday led a group of students to visit San Tau, a butterfly haven on a hillside overlooking Chek Lap Kok Airport.

Around 140 species of butterfly can be found in San Tau, ..............
San Tau is also one of the most popular sites to watch butterflies besides Fung Yuen.
"The extra air traffic brought about by a new runway could worsen air quality in the Tung Chung area, not to mention the air and sea pollution during construction," he said.
"We are building the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge and there are also plans for massive reclamation to expand the Tung Chung new town. We should not take the aggregated impact too lightly," he added.

The Airport Authority last month launched a three-month public consultation on plans to expand Chek Lap Kok airport.

One option calls for the reclamation of about 650 hectares of seabed - about half the size of the existing airport island - to build a third, parallel runway north of the existing two at a cost of about HK$136 billion.

A cheaper option is to upgrade the existing two runways, costing HK$42.5 billion. The authority favours having a new runway.
But green groups have warned of a possible "ecological disaster" brought about by the massive reclamation and construction projects.
Marco Polo is offline  
Old Jul 4, 11, 9:47 pm
  #105  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: HKG
Programs: CX DM, SQ, BA, TG, Sheba, VN, MPO since 1980
Posts: 1,055
Originally Posted by peasant View Post

One oddity about the AAHK is that only the airport infrastructure is included in the balance sheet - the N Lantau express way & bridges are not, despite very much being part of the original airport project. But in which case, I guess you would have to value Tung Chung as a benefit.
I would be hugely surprised if a "holistic" evaluation didn't show a very strong return to the HK public. Look at the original investment in HKIA - the govt is getting c.9bn cash flow on 48bn of assets (disregarding financing mix of the assets) Plus cargo & pax throughput have doubled over what was possible at Kai Tak. Tung Chung also seems to have been one of the more successful "New Towns" - I would say only Shatin is more "valuable
"
The Government does collect a departure tax of HKD 120 per local ticket but that does not include transfer and transit passengers whereas AAHK passenger throughput numbers includes the same pax arriving and transiting as 2 Pax in their figures ; it does the same with aircargo, 90% of which are re-exports.
The actual cost of the airport project was HKD 155 billion when including the dedicated railway line, bridges and expressways etc; see below:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_d...=20110610&fc=7
" Sung believes too that what officials fear most is an environmental impact assessment unfavorable to the project.
The airport opened in July 1998. Seventy billion dollars of public and private money went for terminals, runways, taxiways, bays and ancillary facilities.
Another HK$34 billion went into the airport railway, and billions more on bridges, tunnels and expressways to make the Lantau site accessible.
The all- in cost was HK$155 billion."


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hkediti...t_12764351.htm
" The diversification of firms such as Foxconn and the consequent drop in air cargo have taken place therefore mainly at the Hong Kong International Airport, and it probably explains the monthly declines in cargo turnover in April and May this year. If this truly is the case and the decline is structural instead of seasonal, one should expect further declines in air cargo shipments in the coming months and perhaps even years. It may become a long-term declining trend if the metropolitanization process in the PRD region turns it into a service economy instead, thereby forcing most of the manufacturing activities to shift to places further away from the core areas of Guangzhou and Hong Kong. Thus Hong Kong's airport will lose the local industry's demand for air cargo freight from the region forever.
Hong Kong has to find new sources of demand to sustain its current operations and the new runway beyond the next 12 years. Even so, the competition will be very acute because of the large increase in capacity in the regional cluster of airports. Thus late expansion of the airport in Hong Kong is running counter to any conventional wisdom.
The author is head of China Business Centre, Hong Kong Polytechnic University. "

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hkediti...t_12727350.htm Hong Kong China Daily
More studies demanded on third runway impact By Joseph Li (HK Edition) Updated: 2011-06-18 06:45
“Besides, the report does not take into account carbon emissions by vehicles passing by the airport's vicinity, including Tung Chung and North Lantau, Choi said.
Samuel Hung, chairman of the Hong Kong Dolphin Conservation Society, said the authority has attempted to dismiss the impacts on the Chinese White Dolphins by modifying the document on dolphin movements that he had prepared for the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department. The authority management finally apologized to the green groups. The environment groups responded that the authority should apologize to the public for having misled the people of Hong Kong. "


www.scmp.com
Emissions from aircraft will grow Letters Page
The 2 per cent aviation emissions figure Cathay Pacific Mark Watson cites ("Aviation industry is committed to addressing climate change impact", June 20) in response to my letter ("Emissions accelerating, not declining", June 13) differ from the 3-3.5 per cent cited by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) website.
The ICAO's projected aircraft emissions growth of 3-4 per cent per year contrasts with Mr Watson's planned halving of emissions by 2050. In 38 years, a 3.5 per cent exponential growth will quadruple, not halve, current emissions: 628 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually will become 2,512 million tonnes. Because aircraft engines release CO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates into the stratosphere, their impact is amplified. Current contrail-generated cirrus clouds insulate the atmosphere adding an independent warming effect greater than all previous aircraft CO2/NOX emissions since we began flying. Also, the 70 per cent of improvement in aircraft fuel efficiency has already been achieved. To "radically reduce" that remaining 30 per cent of emissions is technically increasingly difficult.
Any future efficiency improvements are offset by the doubling of flights projected by the Airport Authority.................. I quote: "HK's GDP forecast at compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.4 per cent" (GDP doubles in 20 years); "Mainland's CAGR at 7 per cent" (an unrealistic quadruple GDP increase over 38 years); "Air traffic demand doubling by 2030", coincidentally, a 3.5 per cent annualised growth in demand. Where is this growth to come from? Cheap extractable oil, without which these growth projections are unfeasible, is almost exhausted. If the authority's growth projections are correct, aircraft emissions will rise exponentially, making climate change a major problem - or Peak Oil will terminate the 20th century infinite-economic-growth/business-as-usual model, making flying prohibitively expensive, thereby killing demand. Thus, a third runway either adds to climate change or is redundant.
Richard Fielding, Pok Fu Lam
http://sph.hku.hk/faculty_and_staff_detail.php?id=20
Marco Polo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread