Here we go again

[red750]

Announcement of plans for a third runway parallel to the north/south runway, and already Save Gladstone Park protesters are out with NO THIRD RUNWAY placards.

[FlyBoy1960]

where

[red750]

Sorry. Tullamarine.

[440032]

I think the third and fourth runways where actually announced in about 1974 on the original airport plans.

48 years, not a lot of time to grasp the concept that the airport would expand.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Hah! If Heathrow getting a 3rd is anything to go by, it's at least 2 generations away... And it was approved 2 years ago!

 

Who on earth would want to save Gladstone Park?  (Only joking).

 

Does Tulla need another runway.. Outside peak hour runs to Sydney, it has (or had) a steady, but not congested stream of traffic... and that was both before and after Avalon.

 

[facthunter]

The Sydney-Melbourne route is BUSY even by world standards.  The original proposal had another east west located South of the current east west RWY. The longer runway is the N-S one and I think they propose a new one parallel to that.

 I did some training at Tulla (before it officially opened) on 11 sept. 1970. B727(1) TJE. Had the whole place to ourselves.  Nev

[red750]

This shows the location of the third runway, although with the proposed Koo Wee Rup airport, one wonders why  this is needed. They say to allow for simultaneous take-offs and landings.

 

[facthunter]

That has only superimposed the existing N-S to the more westerly position. They CLAIM double the traffic can be handled but there's a lot of extra taxi time and conflicting traffic coming out of bays (Time wasted).. You are not likely to double the capacity in reality and Parallel runways have extra risks. The "Original' runways were relatively cheap to construct. Not a lot of fill required if I  recall correctly. Nev

[turboplanner]

19 minutes ago, red750 said:

This shows the location of the third runway, although with the proposed Koo Wee Rup airport, one wonders why  this is needed. They say to allow for simultaneous take-offs and landings.

 

Tullamarine's base layout was based on business travel, but the WalMart principle of setting ultralow fares has been making more money for the airlines and brought affordability to most families, so the long term carpark is now 1.5 km long and requires a bus service, and the original short term car park is now one of several offering various rates and services. Where you once would be looking at a sea of suits and briefcases they are harder to spot these days. So domestic air travel has gone through a revolution. On top of that Asian Countries,  particularly China are running direct services from their provinces to Melbourne, so more capacity is required, and that will quickly spread to a demand for the eastern airport.  Avalon could have performed that role, but it got into private hands who blew the opportunity and Avalon didn't fire. In the early days I did a few flights from there because it was faster to the eastern side of Melbourne, but the government stuck with a single freeway to Geelong and then turned it into a megacity, so it no longer has the access advantage. The eastern airport will take a huge chunk of pressure off Tullmarine.

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

The Sydney-Melbourne route is BUSY even by world standards.  The original proposal had another east west located South of the current east west RWY. The longer runway is the N-S one and I think they propose a new one parallel to that.

 I did some training at Tulla (before it officially opened) on 11 sept. 1970. B727(1) TJE. Had the whole place to ourselves.  Nev

The Qantas 747 training was done at Avalon and they'd often come in low and scrape over the cars. One afternoon I saw a very low one making his turn on to final. When I looked across the plains at him I realised the distance from the ground to his wingtip was less than the wingtip to the top wingtip.

[RossK]

I'm not sure what the issue with Gladstone Park is?

None of the existing or proposed 16/34 flight plans overfly GP.

Now, if they build the 4th runway -  the 2nd E/W one, then the GP residents might have an issue, but, it's been planned since the 1960's

[F10]

I think parallel runways is a very effective way of greatly increasing capacity without another airport, which leads to more airspace complexity/congestion and greater demands on public transport and other spin offs. It's the way to go I think?