New hub in Poland (?) [CPK discussion]
#16
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,859
Make it more economical for them to use Modlin over Chopin. Seems cheaper than spending over $10 billion for a completely new airport. Heck, there's plenty of space there to construct a new terminal. Even construct a rail link from the airport to the track lines that run through the Modlin rail station.
Look at the map and check the footprint of the current terminal. Where do you put that new terminal? On the other side of the runways? How do you connect both terminals? How much does the MCT suffer?
Do you have any ideas about solving the environmental issues associated with the increased traffic?
#17
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SJJ/AMS
Posts: 4,634
#18
Join Date: Jun 2008
Programs: TK*G (E+), IHG Plat Ambassador
Posts: 7,884
#19
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,859
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Netherlands
Programs: KL Platinum; A3 Gold
Posts: 28,547
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Usually in SAN or Central Europe.
Programs: AA:EXP/1MM. Accor/Radisson:Silver; HH:Gold; ICH:Plt Amb.
Posts: 22,307
How do you make it more economical? Lower the fees? What about the other carriers? Increase the fees? Again, what about the other carriers?
Look at the map and check the footprint of the current terminal. Where do you put that new terminal? On the other side of the runways? How do you connect both terminals? How much does the MCT suffer?
Look at the map and check the footprint of the current terminal. Where do you put that new terminal? On the other side of the runways? How do you connect both terminals? How much does the MCT suffer?
#22
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,859
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Usually in SAN or Central Europe.
Programs: AA:EXP/1MM. Accor/Radisson:Silver; HH:Gold; ICH:Plt Amb.
Posts: 22,307
How did TXL get some LCCs to switch over to SXF last decade? Would those carriers prefer to help cover the costs for a $10 billion new airport? Warsaw already has two functional airports. And one of them still has plenty of open space around it to build a new terminal facility.
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 11,449
This further highlights what a huge clusterF EU transport spending is. Poland already has at least four "green field" airports as Oliver2002 puts it. One is Łdź! Radom (RDO), Rzeszw (RZE) and Lublin (LUZ), all heavily subsidised by the (Western) European taxpayer of which Poland is a huge net benefactor. I am sure Poland would be happy to see their taxes pay for the likes of Carlisle (CAX) to have a flight to SEN. They were so desperate to spend it or lose it that that money was catastrophically wasted when a far better case could have been made to expand WAW, as if this comes at a shock? It's absolutely perverse.
With Łdź (LCJ) so close to Warsaw it will become further redundant and as if we are meant to believe they didn't know that WAW would reach capacity and there was absolutely zero business case to pump precious cash into LCJ, its already a ghost airport as it is. Those three FR services (which are not even daily from LCJ) are costing a fortune- how much would the fares actually be if the pax paid the real cost to operate them? Do the landing fees even pay for the fire cover? And would it be another sweetheart deal like FR had with RZE for those lovely locker advertisements and the resounding success that foreign tourism to Podkarpacie has become...
It's wonderful that Ms May has reached V1 and the UK is heading out, so the Germans and the rest of the pals can pay for these projects because obviously Poland will cover every groszy. Of course, in the interest of balance I should point out that according to the Polish government 80 cents in every Euro goes back to the West anyway via Ferrovial, Skanska, Strabag, or any other foreign firms that will actually reap the benefits of this project. I'm sure it will be entirely Polish contracted .
With all that spare cash they desperately spent on LCJ, LUZ, RZE and RDO they should have just distributed it out so everyone can pay off their car leases, a bit like the Maltese did with the Tallinja .
With Łdź (LCJ) so close to Warsaw it will become further redundant and as if we are meant to believe they didn't know that WAW would reach capacity and there was absolutely zero business case to pump precious cash into LCJ, its already a ghost airport as it is. Those three FR services (which are not even daily from LCJ) are costing a fortune- how much would the fares actually be if the pax paid the real cost to operate them? Do the landing fees even pay for the fire cover? And would it be another sweetheart deal like FR had with RZE for those lovely locker advertisements and the resounding success that foreign tourism to Podkarpacie has become...
It's wonderful that Ms May has reached V1 and the UK is heading out, so the Germans and the rest of the pals can pay for these projects because obviously Poland will cover every groszy. Of course, in the interest of balance I should point out that according to the Polish government 80 cents in every Euro goes back to the West anyway via Ferrovial, Skanska, Strabag, or any other foreign firms that will actually reap the benefits of this project. I'm sure it will be entirely Polish contracted .
With all that spare cash they desperately spent on LCJ, LUZ, RZE and RDO they should have just distributed it out so everyone can pay off their car leases, a bit like the Maltese did with the Tallinja .
#25
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,859
How did TXL get some LCCs to switch over to SXF last decade? Would those carriers prefer to help cover the costs for a $10 billion new airport? Warsaw already has two functional airports. And one of them still has plenty of open space around it to build a new terminal facility.
This further highlights what a huge clusterF EU transport spending is. Poland already has at least four "green field" airports as Oliver2002 puts it. One is Łdź! Radom (RDO), Rzeszw (RZE) and Lublin (LUZ), all heavily subsidised by the (Western) European taxpayer of which Poland is a huge net benefactor. I am sure Poland would be happy to see their taxes pay for the likes of Carlisle (CAX) to have a flight to SEN. They were so desperate to spend it or lose it that that money was catastrophically wasted when a far better case could have been made to expand WAW, as if this comes at a shock? It's absolutely perverse.
I don't think the couple million clunkers that Polish people got of western roads were leases. But the vehicles Ferrovial, Skanska, Strabag and other foregin firms got for their employees probably were...
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Usually in SAN or Central Europe.
Programs: AA:EXP/1MM. Accor/Radisson:Silver; HH:Gold; ICH:Plt Amb.
Posts: 22,307
Wasn't WizzAir originally flying out of Modlin, then switched over to Chopin? But why is it that Chopin is maxed out anyway? Passenger facilities? Because I don't see it. The airport handles around 12-13 million passengers per year. If you are talking about gate space during peak times, then yes, there is some truth behind that. But I've also been there several times (using BA/AF/KL) when many gates were sitting empty. And let's face it, it's not as though LOT is flying a bunch of 160+ seat aircraft out of there, and has maxed-out its capacity.
I really don't hear Varsovians talking about how crowded and cramped it is at WAW, like I do Berliners talk about TXL. So this new proposal seems like one giant, over-priced, vanity project. And aside from its conveience to the city center, the other main thing I love about WAW is how little in fees the airport adds onto the price of a ticket. Unlike FRA, or MUC, or CDG, or LHR, and so on. Do you really think that is still going to be the case when they have to recoup the costs of a $10 billion new airport?
I really don't hear Varsovians talking about how crowded and cramped it is at WAW, like I do Berliners talk about TXL. So this new proposal seems like one giant, over-priced, vanity project. And aside from its conveience to the city center, the other main thing I love about WAW is how little in fees the airport adds onto the price of a ticket. Unlike FRA, or MUC, or CDG, or LHR, and so on. Do you really think that is still going to be the case when they have to recoup the costs of a $10 billion new airport?
#27
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Wrocław, Poland
Programs: SK *S, LH *S; Accor ALL Gold
Posts: 231
And let's face it, it's not as though LOT is flying a bunch of 160+ seat aircraft out of there, and has maxed-out its capacity.
So this new proposal seems like one giant, over-priced, vanity project.
#28
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Usually in SAN or Central Europe.
Programs: AA:EXP/1MM. Accor/Radisson:Silver; HH:Gold; ICH:Plt Amb.
Posts: 22,307
The masssive increase of passenger traffic at KRK in the past years indicates that the authorities really shouldn't be so Warsaw-centric in their growth strategy. And I would rather have them focus on adding more traffic into WRO and GDN.
Last edited by Fanjet; Sep 27, 2017 at 5:38 pm
#29
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,859
Wasn't WizzAir originally flying out of Modlin, then switched over to Chopin? But why is it that Chopin is maxed out anyway? Passenger facilities? Because I don't see it. The airport handles around 12-13 million passengers per year. If you are talking about gate space during peak times, then yes, there is some truth behind that. But I've also been there several times (using BA/AF/KL) when many gates were sitting empty. And let's face it, it's not as though LOT is flying a bunch of 160+ seat aircraft out of there, and has maxed-out its capacity.
The bottlenecks seem to be the NS zone, and the lack of E-type docks for larger planes. Between the 787 that LO already, the couple they'll get next year and the wide bodies other carriers send in (Emirates, Qatar, Air Canada and Air China is about as much as LO low used to have in 767) it get's pretty tight.
The terminal just wasn't designed and built with growth in mind. No real way to split levels to S/NS like in MUC for example. So you'd have to split it in the middle perhaps and underutilized one half with most of the wide bodies using a gate once a day in the same timeframe.
Building another terminal for widebodies (as in ZRH) could be perhaps a solution, but that's no easy task to do with ongoing operations and you're still building on shaky foundation as the environmental issues will likely kneecap the airport as they do in various other European airports in proximity of major cities.
I'd rather they not focusing on adding or subtracting any traffic, since it's all just a thinly covered bribing scheme benefiting the usual suspects.
#30
Moderator: Lufthansa Miles & More, India based airlines, India, External Miles & Points Resources
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MUC
Programs: LH SEN
Posts: 48,001
Beides the new airport cost aa additional big cost block will be to move LOT's operations to the new facility. LoT doesnt have cash for such a move right now.