PDA

View Full Version : Sydney's Second Airport


Kurt A
10th April 2008, 01:19 PM
Government reviews air travel rules

The federal government is expected to announce a review into the country’s air travel rules today, possibly clearing the way for a second airport in Sydney.

Transport minister Anthony Albanese will launch a review into existing air transport regulations. Insiders in thetransport department say the future of Bankstown will now be reopened, as well as Hoxton Park and Richmond airfields as potential second airports for scheduled flights.

A senior source at Sydney airport said he was unconcerned by the review, as the airport is conducting its own master plan for the next decade. This could include a low-cost terminal, he added.

-tw

Lukas M
10th April 2008, 01:22 PM
We might see a tiger prowling around SYD soon then:)

Marty H
10th April 2008, 01:35 PM
We might see a tiger prowling around SYD soon then:)

A senior source at Sydney airport said he was unconcerned by the review, as the airport is conducting its own master plan for the next decade. This could include a low-cost terminal, he added.

I guess we could if you call the next decade soon

Michael Morrison
10th April 2008, 05:03 PM
Before they get a LCC terminal, they need to lift the artificial cap on runway landings/takeoffs

Gerald A
11th April 2008, 06:24 AM
Here we go again


Mark Davis Political Correspondent
April 11, 2008


A SECOND airport for Sydney is back on the agenda, although the Federal Government continues to rule out Badgerys Creek as its location.

The federal Minister for Transport, Anthony Albanese, released an aviation policy issues paper yesterday indicating that the Government would begin considering the timing and location of a second airport next year. The issues paper also canvassed imposing stricter height rules on residential and office developments near existing airports.

It said airlines would not be able to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by relying on cleaner aircraft and new technology alone, and would have to expand measures such as carbon offset schemes for passengers.

Mr Albanese's paper is the first step by the Government in drawing up a white paper to guide the development of aviation over the next decade.

On the issue of a second Sydney airport, it says: "The need for additional airport capacity for Sydney in the future has been acknowledged for many years, but the challenge remains to identify a suitable site.

"The Australian Government does not support building an airport at Badgerys Creek. The 2009 review of the Sydney airport master plan provides an opportunity to consider current and future capacity issues."

Sydney Airport's owners have suggested the advent of larger aircraft such as the Airbus A380 will alleviate capacity pressures by allowing fewer aircraft to move more passengers.

But the paper says larger aircraft will also create pressures on existing airports, as more passengers arrive at once.

"A future challenge is how Australian airport infrastructure might adapt to manage such large influxes of passenger arrivals and departures," it says.

The paper also raises concerns that property developers are increasingly proposing tall buildings just outside airports.

It suggests state and local government planning rules need to be overhauled to protect flight paths and aircraft operations.

It also criticises residential developments in noise-affected areas around airports. It says these often lead to many complaints and pressure for curfews and other restrictions on airport operations.

This problem could be tackled by toughening building standards dealing with noise, especially for residential developments in greenfields areas near airports.

Mr Albanese, whose inner-west electorate of Grayndler is affected by aircraft noise, said planning issues around airports needed to be dealt with in a more integrated way.

"The provisions of the Airports Act do not have the confidence of many state and local authorities and are in need of reform," he said, adding that a more mature dialogue between airport operators and local residents on the impact of aircraft noise was needed.

The issues paper also canvasses government support to help the struggling general aviation sector replace its ageing fleet of small aircraft.

It sought submissions from the industry on whether the caps on foreign ownership of Qantas should be relaxed.

And it warns that shortages of pilots, engineers and air traffic controllers could jeopardise safety and the economics of the aviation industry, and calls on the industry to consider setting up a national flying school.

Link http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/second-airport-but-not-at-badgerys-creek/2008/04/10/1207420587470.html

Gerald

Steve S... 2
11th April 2008, 08:40 AM
Tiger Airways at Bankstowns might happen... but anything else ??? Post a new thread in year 2050. :)

Kieran Wells
11th April 2008, 10:24 AM
Hoxton Park?? When i drove past that last week there were large signs up there about the business park which was going to be built on the site. There is also the M7 right next to it, which see it as a pro(major motorway access) or a con(no room really to expand).I thought it was meant to close either this year or next. Also i am aware that there is alot of residential being built around the area especially north of the airport.

Michael Mak
11th April 2008, 10:58 AM
Hoxton Park?? When i drove past that last week there were large signs up there about the business park which was going to be built on the site. There is also the M7 right next to it, which see it as a pro(major motorway access) or a con(no room really to expand).I thought it was meant to close either this year or next. Also i am aware that there is alot of residential being built around the area especially north of the airport.

Hoxton Park is too close to Bankstown.

Nigel C
11th April 2008, 11:04 AM
Hoxton Park is getting more and more surrounded by houses...

Rich W
11th April 2008, 11:06 AM
Richmond would be good for a low budget airport. Well my views could be biased considering I live in the North West and hate paying $$$ for road tolls and sitting in traffic to get to YSSY.

Surely they could build a small terminal separate from the base and share the space perhaps?

Bernie P
11th April 2008, 11:34 AM
Richmond would be good for a low budget airport. Well my views could be biased considering I live in the North West and hate paying $$$ for road tolls and sitting in traffic to get to YSSY.

Surely they could build a small terminal separate from the base and share the space perhaps?

Isn't the mountains to the west the major constraint for here :confused: ??? I seem to remember this being mentioned (somewhere) before!

Kieran Wells
11th April 2008, 11:42 AM
Isn't the mountains to the west the major constraint for here :confused: ??? I seem to remember this being mentioned (somewhere) before!

the mountains are only bout 5km approx from the airforce base. however, they still land some large airforce planes there. Surely A320's(which alot of the LCC's are using at the moment) and the like aren't much bigger...

Morris Biondi
11th April 2008, 06:28 PM
Before they get a LCC terminal, they need to lift the artificial cap on runway landings/takeoffs

Well said Michael, I've never understood the 80 movements per hour cap, it should go up to a more realistic 120 per hour, I realise Sydney Airport has always been a hot political issue but surely somebody can have the common sense to realise that a city like Sydney with well over 4 million people and a thriving economy needs a fully functional airport not a handicapped one, regardless of wether we get a second airport or not which by the way comes up as a talking point amongst politicians every now and then, we need to utilise the current one to the max of it's ability.

Only my 2 cents worth anyway.

Morris

Lukas M
11th April 2008, 06:52 PM
If a 2nd Airpot was constructed, how many of us would actually prefer to use it over Sydney(YSSY). If it:
-Is miles and miles out of Sydney, its pointless, not pointless for the Sydney population
-The airport needs to be on a train line, because Taxis, Buses take time, and cost to much, so a cheaper fare/regular fare can skyrocket
-If Tiger does eventually use Bankstown, tourists could become lost, and the transport factor again, and I repeat, its great for Sydney Population(as they have cars to and from airport), but for us youth for cant afford mega fares, the 9.95 fare can turn into a $50 fare!

In the end, I will use Sydney Airport, not another proposal, as YSSY is in the perfect location with regards to Transport, and great for Connections (I wouldn't like to connect from one airport to the other)

Again, this is MY opinion, you could have a 100% opposite thought, anyway;)

Nick W.
11th April 2008, 08:28 PM
I guess an issue with a 2nd airport is that sydney is so centralised. Parra has a good CBD, as do other western suburbs, but not enough to warrant a domestic airport around there, like in other cities.

Blue mountains make it a bit tricky to expand so far that both SY and BK become central by default, but it could eventually happen.

Maybe if someone has a few hectares to spare closer to the CBD ;)

Adam G
11th April 2008, 08:36 PM
Well said Michael, I've never understood the 80 movements per hour cap, it should go up to a more realistic 120 per hour
Morris

The issue with that is that when they have to drop the flow rate due to the use of 07/25 or ATC shortage or weather issues or any airport incident, the airlines schedules will be thrown into chaos.

You see, SYD gives the slots based on maximum rates - bring on any weather or issues and they reduce the flow rate, causing CTMS (aircraft ground held at departure airport) and airbourne delays.

Most days now there are flow reductions - imagine if the movements per hour was increased - no domestic airline would have decent OTP again!

Before everyone demands increased flow rates, there needs to be some research into how it would be managed - pretty pointless if they allow extra movements but then the airlines have to cancel the flights to deal with the schedule issues reduced flow rates result in.

Andrew C
11th April 2008, 09:47 PM
As I understand it the Master Plan for Sydney Airport is due in 2009. It will look out for the next decade, not be due in the next decade.

Morris Biondi
12th April 2008, 09:50 AM
Adam,

the points you make are very valid ones, there are ways it could be done but it means using the runways a lot more efficiently, take a simple 1 runway arrival, 1 runway departure system, as used around the world in many airports, I realise the 16L/34R rwy would need an extension but it could handle larger aircraft arrivals as we have witnessed in the past for short periods of time, the extension of that rwy was due to take place in the late nineties but was scrapped for what I imagine would have been political reasons.

It would require some lateral thinking and some determination to make it happen, because unfortunately whenever you say something cannot be done you tend to find lots of reasons for it not to be, my point being, as you say let's look for ways through reasearch of how it can be done rather than saying it is too hard, it's just not going to work.

Morris

Erik H. Bakke
12th April 2008, 10:08 AM
Adam,
I realise the 16L/34R rwy would need an extension but it could handle larger aircraft arrivals as we have witnessed in the past for short periods of time, the extension of that rwy was due to take place in the late nineties but was scrapped for what I imagine would have been political reasons.

It would require some lateral thinking and some determination to make it happen, because unfortunately whenever you say something cannot be done you tend to find lots of reasons for it not to be, my point being, as you say let's look for ways through reasearch of how it can be done rather than saying it is too hard, it's just not going to work.

Morris

Extending 16L/34R further out into Port Botany may be extremely difficult to get past the politicians, now that most politicians want to appear to be green.
The option then would be to extend it to the north, but that would involve putting another km or so of GHD underground, putting it in a tunnel under 16L/34R.
Now, with the traffic volumes on the road, I can't see how they can pull that one off. No politician who has even an idea about getting re-elected will want to close off one of the major traffic arteries for an extended period.

The next option would then be to build a second east/west runway. This will be a far easier task, but it would mean putting even more aircraft movements over more suburbs, some wielding considerable political power.

Extending the runway system at Sydney Airport is far from being an impossible task. The task that would be near impossible is getting it approved, as the political consequences of approving it are far worse than the consequences of not approving it.

There are precious few in state and federal government who are able and willing to see further than 3 years ahead. The days of doing massive, rather unpopular projects simply because they need to be done to solve long term issues may be gone. It looks like things only get done if doing so will replace a current bad headline with a good one.

Morris Biondi
12th April 2008, 01:24 PM
Erik what you say is very wise and very true, I realise that this is exactly the situation we find ourselves with Sydney Airport, hopefully Macquarie Bank with their power and pull may 1 day be able to get something done, as you say it can be done, just selling it to the people is the hard part.

Morris

Nigel C
12th April 2008, 05:58 PM
Extending 16L/34R further out into Port Botany may be extremely difficult to get past the politicians,

Bugger the politicians. The environmental effects of the 3rd runway in its present form extend far beyond the sea bed that is covered up. The rock groynes on Silver Beach at Kurnell and at Brighton Le Sands and Dolls Point were put there due to the changing sand drift patterns as a result of the 3rd runway.

If they extended that runway, they'd have to remap the sand drifts again and build a whole new set of groynes. Shipping channels, amongst other things, would most likely have to be changed too.

And no, I'm not a greenie.

Rhys Xanthis
12th April 2008, 09:46 PM
I dont think a second airport is the way to go (at least not yet..).

Lift the artificial cap, see how it goes.

It may be needed after all, but i agree with what others have said; utilise what you have now to full capacity!

Adam P.
13th April 2008, 06:43 AM
And no, I'm not a greenie.

We would never have guessed Nigel.... Where's Sonia when you need her...

Lift the artificial cap, see how it goes.
Um. See Adam G's comment earlier. Lift cap, well and good. But when the runway system IS at or over capacity, as happens during single runway ops these days, there's not much that lifting an 'artificial' cap will change.

Peter T Syd
13th April 2008, 07:53 AM
My money is on Bankstown. It has the infrastructure and the transport links. And some of the light aircraft can move to the more smaller airports nearby. We cant have a city of 3.5Mill people and only one airport. Tiger and other small players will be locked out as YSSY is too full. I think the government can sell it if they put strict caps on the type of jets they can use and the movements. I know some people feel passionate about this but it reminds me of all decisions in Australia ( not my backyard policy). I live in the inner west and I hear planes all day and life goes on..

Mark D
13th April 2008, 11:14 PM
My money is on Bankstown. It has the infrastructure and the transport links.
Well yes, but it's suburban right up to the fence all around.
I think the first jet operator into there will raise so much airport noise that it won't last long even if it gets off the ground (sorry :D).
Apart from which the runway alignment in combination with Mascot has it's own issues with high performance aircraft, it may not represent a real increase in the capacity of the Sydney Basin.
The real alternative is more like what they did when Tullamarine opened, a new airport miles from anywhere with well advertised noise impact areas.
That does really restrict the choices in the Sydney area, either north or SW along the current high capacity highways.

Adam P.
13th April 2008, 11:17 PM
I think I read while at uni a study done ages ago, setting out that even opening BK to jets would provide only the equivalent of one or two extra slots per hour for Sydney in general, due in part to the disruption caused at the current Mascot airport from the aforementioned clashes in airspace design.

Mark D
13th April 2008, 11:18 PM
Bugger the politicians. The environmental effects of the 3rd runway in its present form extend far beyond the sea bed that is covered up.
So will the proposed port extensions I'm sure....
I wonder what they did with that old Hydraulics building for modelling Botany Bay that used to be next to Botany Bay just east of where the speed camera is now :-)

I think we might need it back... although I guess computer modelling has taken over that sort of work.

Steve Jones
14th April 2008, 09:21 AM
The Japanese can build offshore airports. Hong Kong and Macau have airports on reclaimed land. I don't see why an offshore airport hasn't been considered for Sydney. Yes, it's expensive, but if it can be made to work for Osaka etc (it's not like construction costs in Japan are that low...) surely it could be made to work for a city/airport the size of Sydney.

Alternatively, what about a long taxiway and (at least) a short turboprop-capable runway on Kurnell peninsula?

Andrew P
14th April 2008, 09:37 AM
The Japanese can build offshore airports. Hong Kong and Macau have airports on reclaimed land. .

2 reasons politicians & sea bed structure

all the 3 quoted has fairly low depth sea beds to conquer, Sydney doe snot have that luxury

Banjo

Adam P.
14th April 2008, 09:48 AM
what about a long taxiway
The taxi from the Foxtrot bays to the departure end of 34R is already about 6km... you might as well drive the aeroplane all the way to your destination!

Erik H. Bakke
14th April 2008, 10:10 AM
Any new airport for Sydney does not necessarily have to be located close to the city.
The international trend is for new airports in major cities to be located further and further away from the cities and connected to their cities through high-speed rail.

In Europe, several airports are already on the high-speed rail network and rail is being used more and more for the domestic leg of international travel. There are even airlines that codeshare with the train companies. (AF/KLM codeshare with TGV/Thalys, for example)

The major drivers for building away from the cities are the cheaper land and reduced noise impact. The lower land price is offset by having to build fast and convenient transport links to the site, but building a major airport is never going to be cheap anyway. What is required is a government that is willing to spend money without expecting a short term ROI, and a population that is willing to support the decision.
The main drawback to putting an airport away from the city is travel time. This can be mitigated by high-speed rail and by making sure there is an adequate transport link for those who need to use a car.
As long as travel time to/from the airport is kept within certain limits, the increased distance from the city will not be a significant disadvantage.
With the airport being where it is now, when I need to travel in the morning I routinely spend 90 minutes or more to get there from my home at West Ryde. Going by car or by train doesn't alter the picture much in this case.
Now, if the airport was away from the city, I would be going against or across the traffic flow to get there, no need to brave the traffic on Victoria Road or the M5...

Andrew C
14th April 2008, 12:30 PM
I agree that the trend is now for Airport moving out. I can't see the state paying the significant costs for a fast rail.

Also most people will still want to go to YSSY so the new aiport will have issues trying to make a go of it.

Mick F
14th April 2008, 12:39 PM
Who ever said that YSSY would stay open if a new airport was built?

Peter T Syd
14th April 2008, 02:15 PM
Newcastle is a good option as it could open up a fast train link from Newcastle to Sydney capturing Gosford Commuters...its up in swinging voter territory and also can help the job issue up there since the closure of the steel works...also have you noticed the F3 is being expanded and there is a M2 link that is in the cards...So Buses could be on the F3 , The airport will create a demand that could have a very large knockon effect up the Central and Mid Coast......what do you think?

Adam P.
14th April 2008, 02:22 PM
One accident on the F3 and it all falls to pieces. Some other type of link would be required.

David Sims
14th April 2008, 05:35 PM
Somehow I don't think an airport in Newcastle will be the right solution to Sydney airport problems. My feeling is to expand Bankstown.

Russell D
15th April 2008, 10:19 AM
What about an expansion of Camden airport. Its not to far from the M5, which connects to the M7. Plus there's plenty of room to facilitate an expansion. Only thing is the rail line is not as close as it ought to be, but that could change in future. However, I would have to admit that the incidence of fog down that way would present some sort of formidable barrier.

Would the Federal Government ever consider developing a portion of the Military Reserve just east of Cambelltown? (adjoins Holsworthy Barracks to the North, and is not too far away from Sydney, YSBK, and YSSY.

Justin L
15th April 2008, 09:26 PM
Who ever said that YSSY would stay open if a new airport was built?

I think as the statement refers to a second airport in Sydney, then at least in the short- to medium-term following the opening of any new airport, you could assume YSSY would remain open.

If a new airport out of the metro area was to be built, then you'd think this could become the predominant international terminal, still with several connecting trunk domestic routes for connections etc., with YSSY remaining the main domestic airport, to allow easy same day returns for business traffic, with also perhaps short-haul smaller aircraft international routes such as trans-Tasman and Pacific island services staying at Mascot.

If they weren't to build a completely new airport, but utilise an existing airfield, perhaps we could see Richmond become Sydney's second airport. Assuming any defence force issues can be resolved, then expanding Richmond would allow airports in geographically separate areas in Sydney's north-west and central-south, with perhaps Richmond being used predominantly for domestic LCC and perhaps some/all regional routes, and Mascot remaining the main airport. Clarendon station on the Richmond branch of the Western Line is close by, so dedicated shuttle buses to the terminal, or construction of a spur line from Windsor Station would allow for convenient rail travel. You could maybe even extend the planned North West Metro from Rouse Hill to Schoefields station to connect to heavy rail to Clarendon/Richmond Airport which would open up even more possibilities for residents on that line. Road capacity may be an issue though, but a motorway spur north west from the M7 just before it curves south could help.

Anyway, just my two cents.

Nick W.
15th April 2008, 09:41 PM
bring back the flying boats, easy way to fix it!

my generation doesn't even think a boat can fly :eek:

:D

N

Kurt A
15th April 2008, 10:31 PM
I like your thinking Justin.


Rudd government must focus on infrastructure

Aussie airlines Qantas and Virgin Blue have publicly encouraged the new Australian government to include infrastructure problems in air travel whilst they undertake a broad assessment of the aviation industry.

Both Brett Godfrey and John Borghetti, chief executive of Virgin Blue and executive general manager of Qantas respectively, noted the difficulties that Australian aviation faced due to the inability of infrastructure to meet growing demands.

"Aviation infrastructure is lagging behind national requirements, simply because aviation demand has grown much faster than anyone predicted" Mr Borghetti said.

Special emphasis was accorded to Perth and Sydney as particularly worrisome. Passenger numbers in Sydney have multiplied by 50 percent in the past decade, and Mr Borghetti recognised that passenger needs could not continue to be met by the current capacity of the airport.

"Given the long lead times to identify, plan and develop sites, Qantas believes that consideration must turn as soon as possible to meeting the needs of the growing numbers of passengers in the Sydney basin," he said.

The Government intends to finalise a white paper regarding aviation by mid-2009, with infrastructure one of the topics considered.

The paper will have regard to international and domestic services, with consideration of skill needs, air traffic management, safety and regulatory reform, climate change, consumer protections and security, as listed by The Australian.

Transport Minister Anthony Albanese noted that "There unfortunately hasn't been a national aviation policy for at least a decade.”

“Indeed, I found it extraordinary that no Australian government has produced an aviation white paper. The Rudd Government will change that."
Mr Albanese listed a range of issues that the government ought to consider, giving special attention to the shortage of pilots.

He pointed to the recent reduction in Qantaslink and Rex services, claiming "Aviation activity is predicted to double by 2020, but our airlines are cancelling services because they can't get pilots." -eTravel

Nigel C
15th April 2008, 10:38 PM
I'm sorry, I don't buy the expand Richmond or expand Camden theories.

Can someone tell me where they expect them to expand to?:confused:

Nigel C
15th April 2008, 10:42 PM
The taxi from the Foxtrot bays to the departure end of 34R is already about 6km... you might as well drive the aeroplane all the way to your destination!

6kms?

I did the Bay 1 T3 to Tango-6 run a few years ago in the car to see how long that was...it only came to around 6kms folloing standard taxi routes.

I'll measure the Foxtrot bays tomorrow night if I get a chance.

Adam P.
15th April 2008, 10:48 PM
I'll measure the Foxtrot bays tomorrow night if I get a chance.

;) Make sure you go from the NEW F16... it's the furthest away.... :)

Nigel C
16th April 2008, 09:50 AM
Doing it from the 'old' F16 could be diifficult...I believe they might be expanding the demolition zone for the old Ansett Hangar 83 tonight. They only have the hangar entrance part to go...

In fact, I'll also try to do one from Bay 50 at T1. I think that might be the longest route of them all. Execujet to Tango-6 might also be a contender.

Justin L
16th April 2008, 09:54 AM
I'm sorry, I don't buy the expand Richmond or expand Camden theories.

Can someone tell me where they expect them to expand to?:confused:

I can't comment on Camden but regarding Richmond, would the existing runway be suitable for aircraft up to at least B737/A320-type sizes? If so, and Richmond is used as a secondary airport, then the current single runway could be sufficient. Regarding terminal and car parking etc., isn't there enough land at the moment to accommodate this? Car parking could be multi-level to reduce the footprint. I've only been to Richmond base once for an air show a couple of years ago, but there seemed to be a fair bit of land around there (and as per my post I am assuming any denfence force issues can be resolved). Otherwise you could maybe run the Richmond-Windsor road and the railway line underground and buyout the Hawkesbury racecourse to use that land for airport facilities, and relocate the regional racecourse elsewhere.

Kurt A
18th April 2008, 04:50 PM
Traffic at YSSY still on the increase...

Sydney airport recorded a 6.1 per cent increase in passenger traffic during March to 2.8 million, with domestic traffic up seven per cent to 1.9 million and international traffic up 4.2 per cent to 894,000.

damien b
5th May 2008, 06:17 AM
From news.com.au

The Federal Government is convinced capacity at Sydney airport will soon be exhausted and has dumped forecasts that there was no foreseeable need for another site.

It wants the second airport to be outside the Sydney basin and will review options from Newcastle to the Southern Highlands and inland.

An official decision will be made after the release next year of the first ever white paper - a comprehensive government discussion document - on Australia's aviation future.

Part of the white paper will cover planning for second airports at capital cities.

However, The Daily Telegraph has learned the Government is already convinced that Sydney will have to have a second major airport, and soon, even if only for freight services and has started canvassing options.

The options include building at Camden, converting part or all of RAAF Richmond or developing Canberra International Airport or its nearby towns as passenger and freight terminals.

Sources said there would not be a second airport at Badgerys Creek, and that Bankstown would not be expanded to take up the secondary role.

The move is understood to have the support of a senior executive at Qantas.

The Government has been told that aircraft noise is certain to increase over inner Sydney, and spread to other suburbs unless another airport is found.

It has long been Labor policy to establish a second airport and this is the first chance to carry out the policy in government.

The official quest for a second airport began in 1964 when it was predicted that Sydney airport would be at capacity by 1980.

The previous Coalition government rejected the argument that work had to start soon on a second airport and in 2005 endorsed a review that said Mascot would be able to cope with more traffic to the end of the decade.

The Coalition went further and said changes, such as bigger aircraft, meant a second airport would not be needed for the foreseeable future.

It backed a "master plan" which said Mascot could cope for another 20 years.

In December 2003, the then transport minister John Anderson said that "following exhaustive examination it is clear the existing airport at Mascot will be able to handle air traffic demands for a long time to come".

As i have said on the old board, i doubt RAAF Richmond would be a suitable location due to fog, space and heritage building restrictions, but Camden may be if they can get trains out there, although it is within the basin which seems to be an undesirable location for the second airport.

Steve Jones
5th May 2008, 08:29 AM
Canberra's a good freight option - no curfew, and you can send trucks up and down the Federal/Hume Highways to Sydney. Dual carriageways the whole way.

Bernie P
5th May 2008, 08:48 AM
From news.com.au

As i have said on the old board, i doubt RAAF Richmond would be a suitable location due to fog, space and heritage building restrictions, but Camden may be if they can get trains out there, although it is within the basin which seems to be an undesirable location for the second airport.

But doesn't Camden still suffer from fog as well??? If my ageing memory serves me correct from my Uni days out there it did (or was it the very late nights in the dorms reading and prepong for the following days presentations and I was foggy??) :o :p

Kent Broadhead
5th May 2008, 08:54 AM
In a number of ways Canberra seems like a good option - but aren't suburban developments already seeing it with a curfew in future?

Bring on the VFT!!:)

Kent

lloyd fox
5th May 2008, 09:47 AM
Steve Hi

Brisbane is secretly moving towards this goal of becoming the freight base for Sydney.

a massive freight development has started which initially will have apron for 12 747F .It will involve cold storage and explosive handling along with warehouses and logistics.All aspects of freight handling and shipment will be based here .Domestic freighters will also operate from this facility.

With no curfew,reduced landing charges and parking charges,and less flying hours from the states,and the ability to have freight in Sydney within 14 hrs which is quicker than currently as most freight that arrives in Sydney usually does not leave the facility immediately and delays of 24 hrs are common.

This facility will be operational in 2 years.

Have a look

http://www.bne.com.au/files/pdf/Property_Export%20Park%20Layout.pdf


The third stage of the highly successful Export Park Precinct is under way with an expected final completion date of May 2010.

The 17 hectare land subdivision will provide land suitable for:

First line business: This includes direct airside access adjoining a freight apron and international and domestic cargo terminal operators;

Second line business: This is ideally situated directly opposite the first line warehouse for freight forwarders, customs brokers and integrators;

Third line business: This land will be made available for Quarantine services, Customs Services, warehouse and distribution service providers as well as large scale importing and/or exporting businesses; and

An exclusive portion of the development along Lomandra Drive, will provide high exposure to more traditional smaller light industrial, commercial and third line businesses.

Justin L
11th June 2008, 03:20 PM
Heard this on the radio today as well. A fast train to Newcastle with NTL being a second international airport would be great...if it happens.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/new-airport-train-plan/2008/06/10/1212863646286.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

New airport, fast train to rescue NSW tourism

Jano Gibson and Sunanda Creagh
June 11, 2008

AN INTERNATIONAL airport should be built at Newcastle with a fast train link to Sydney, national parks should be opened for commercial tourism and Sydney should be rebranded as a global tourist destination, says a scathing report on the State Government's handling of tourism since the 2000 Olympics.

The report, commissioned by the Premier, Morris Iemma, and compiled by the chairman of Events NSW, John O'Neill, said the Government's "doesn't care" approach had cost it $3.5 billion in potential tourism revenue since the Olympics.

Government policy and practice had led to resorts, attractions and transport "growing slower and ageing faster, which in turn leads to less attractive holiday offerings and less promotion expenditure by tourism operators", Mr O'Neill said.

In response, the Tourism Minister, Matt Brown, announced an additional $40 million to be spent on tourism development over three years. In the next three months, industry representatives will be asked to help formulate an action plan, including how best to rebrand Sydney.

The managing director of the Tourism and Transport Forum, Christopher Brown, said the Government had "dropped the ball" after the Olympics but yesterday's announcement brought "the Government back to the table on tourism - and the industry needs it to stay there".

Some of the strongest criticism in Mr O'Neill's report was levelled at the state-run Tourism NSW, which, it was noted, had had its budget reduced by $5 million in real terms since 1996-97.

Regional tourism organisations had likened their inter-actions with Tourism NSW to students being told what to do by a teacher, Mr O'Neill said.

But despite its "classroom-style" approach, Tourism NSW had limited awareness of regional issues, did not sufficiently consult its regional partners and published incorrect promotional material. In one example, the tourism organisation for the Snowy Mountains region was rebranded, without consultation, as "High Country" - the brand name used for its main domestic competitor, the Victorian Alps.

Mr O'Neill's report recommended greater autonomy for regional tourism organisations so they could concentrate on niche markets, rather than being subject to Tourism NSW's one-size-fits-all approach.

"[The approach] perversely imposes on the stronger tourism localities an approach designed more to meet the situation of the weaker ones," the report said.

One of the main recommendations is for the transformation of Newcastle's small but rapidly growing domestic airport at Williamtown into the state's second international aviation hub.

The Hunter and Central Coast regions had almost 1 million residents - about the size of the Gold Coast region, which already had international aviation capacity, the report said.

Almost 5 million people visited the Hunter and Central Coast area in 2006-07, although only 3.8 per cent were from overseas.

A fast train service linking Sydney and Newcastle would have to be built and neighbouring land provided for airport expansion, the report said. The needs of the RAAF, which shares the runway with domestic airlines, would have to be managed appropriately, it said.

But the chief operating officer of the Centre for Asia-Pacific Aviation, Derek Sadubin, said it would not be possible to turn Newcastle airport into a major international airport and keep the RAAF base operating at current levels.

In relation to wilderness areas, the report noted criticism of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, saying "Their philosophy appears to be to leave as little footprint as possible for the tourism industry, which is at odds with tourism development."

It recommended making national parks "available to people willing to pay to sustain and enhance those assets instead of focusing on protecting them from people". It did not specifically recommend commercial development. Rather, it said private tour operators should have access to all areas open to the public.

The chief executive of the National Parks Association, Andrew ***, said he would "die in a ditch" protecting national parks from commercialisation by the tourism industry.

The Environment Minister, Verity Firth, said the Government would appoint a six-member tourism and national parks taskforce, headed by the former parks chief Brian Gilligan, "to come up with practical recommendations as to how we can increase visitation to national parks, while not impinging on the conservation of protected areas".

Mr O'Neill's report said NSW had hosted 18 million fewer visitor nights than it would have if it had maintained tourism at 1999-2000 levels. The rest of Australia had hosted 20.8 million more visitor nights.

Had NSW maintained its relative position, it would have earned $3.5 billion more than it has.
The O'Neill plan

- Turn Newcastle airport into NSW's second international airport

- Open national parks to tourism operators rather than protecting parks from people

- State Plan should increase annual visitor nights by 30 million per year

- A new body to rebrand Sydney to the world

- Increase number of international students

Stephen Brown
11th June 2008, 05:01 PM
They'll have to build a new airport then.

I cant see an international airport co-existing with the RAAF. They already have to curtail some of the commercial flights when the RAAF are doing live fire exercises....

Justin L
4th July 2008, 10:26 AM
This from today's (4-Jul-08) Australian on Baulkham Hills Shire's government submission for commercial flights from Richmond.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23964103-26037,00.html


Richmond call

July 04, 2008

A SYDNEY council is lobbying the federal Government to open the Richmond RAAF base to commercial traffic.

Baulkham Hills Shire Council made a submission to the government aviation review supporting opening the base for aircraft as big as Boeing 767s. Mayor Sonya Phillips said the northwest sub-region contained a growing population with a high percentage of professional people and business managers who regularly used air travel.

Russell D
18th July 2008, 09:35 AM
Premier Morris Iemma spoke on 2UE this morning and said he is submitting some sort of plan to the Federal Government to have the new international airport at Newcastle (RAAF Williamtown) since JQ already have their maintenance hub there.

Also said will bring many new jobs (2000 more but don't quote me on that) to the region and would be a gateway for international tourism to the mid-north coast and far north coast of NSW.

Justin L
18th July 2008, 09:41 AM
Further news here:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/give-sydney-a-new-airport/2008/07/17/1216163059261.html

Give Sydney a new airport - in Newcastle

Linton Besser Transport Reporter
July 18, 2008

SYDNEY will need a second international airport in about 17 years as the number of air travellers soars, according to the NSW Government.

Billions of dollars worth of road and rail projects are also required to help alleviate the growing congestion around Kingsford Smith Airport.

In a wide-ranging submission to the Federal Government's aviation review, the State Government has declared planning must immediately begin for the second airport. It strongly urges the Federal Government to consider Williamtown RAAF base at Newcastle. The paper, prepared by the Premier's Department and the office of the Co-ordinator General, David Richmond, reveals "land transport infrastructure is struggling" around the airport.

A radical overhaul of the road and rail networks servicing the Macquarie Bank-owned airport, and Port Botany, will soon be necessary, the paper argues, to accommodate the more than 68 million air passengers a year expected by 2023.

The soaring demand will translate into another 9000-10,000 vehicles per hour in the morning peak on Southern Cross Drive, the M5 East and O'Riordan Street within 15 years. More than 9000 vehicles per hour currently use Southern Cross Drive in the morning peak.

"This growth will cause significant congestion of suburban roads, which are already operating close to full capacity."

The Government says several high-cost projects are essential, including the duplication of the M5 East tunnel, the widening of the M5, and a road or rail flyover at General Holmes Drive.

But even then, "these significant increases in passenger and freight movements … cannot be accommodated without the construction of a linkage between the airport and Port Botany precinct with the M4".

This road is the centrepiece of the yet-to-be-unveiled $7 billion M4 East inner-city motorway, which the Government has yet to find a way to finance.

The enormous cost is partly why the paper suggests the State Government take over responsibility for approving all non-aviation developments at the site.

The Government is concerned that Sydney Airport Corporation has not contributed enough to the cost of infrastructure, including public transport. The problem is particularly acute, the paper says, "in relation to non-aviation commercial developments … [that] generate maximum gain for the airport lessee while undermining strategic planning".

But even if the transport links are built, a second airport will be required within 20 years, the paper says. "In the longer term, if aviation continues to grow, the capacity of KSA and the regional airports will be exceeded."

The admission comes after a scathing report into NSW tourism

last month recommended Williamtown as the best location for a second airport, together with a fast train service to bring passengers into Sydney in half an hour. The Federal Government swiftly dismissed that idea.

The Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, said the RAAF base, and the FA-18 Hornets it houses, was "strategically well located and very important to Australia's national security".

But the latest submission urges the Commonwealth to increase civil aviation at Williamtown alongside its military role.

"Whilst Badgerys Creek may not be a suitable location for Sydney's second main air hub, a planning process needs to be commenced to evaluate options to accommodate the future growth in aviation in order to harness the significant benefits to the economy," the submission says.

"Given the long lead times in airport planning and the expectation that KSA will reach capacity some time in the mid 2020s, planning for a second Sydney airport needs to commence now.

"Consideration should also be given to growth of civil aviation at Williamtown."

The Federal Government will release its green paper on aviation later this year.

A spokesman for Sydney Airport Corporation, Michael Samaras, said it would be inappropriate to comment because the submission was intended for the Commonwealth rather than it.

Stephen Brown
18th July 2008, 10:57 AM
Joel Fitzgibbon said on Newcastle Radio this morning that current Newcastle pax movements are at one million per year, and the current plans have that being able to go up to three million and still fit within the RAAF operational needs. This certainly would not be able to handle the amount of pax a second arrival hub would need. He also highlighted the very strategic position and role the base plays.

He said that he would prefer to see the new airport, if Newcastle was to get one, on the Southern side of Newcastle, not the Northern Side. He did not name a location. Fitzgibbon also highlighted the need for any transport link to have to traverse some difficult terrain (sandstone) and cross the Hawksberry river.

My personal feeling is that the current Government sees the Williamtown base as a very strategic asset and would not do anything to hinder the operation of the base. The current domestic operators at times are hindered by RAAF operations, especially when live ordinance is in use (the runway length has to be shortened for the civilian aircraft so they don't pass in front of the loading bays.) This means they have to limit load factors on the aircraft to use the shorter strip. I can't see any operator being happy about these sort of limitations being place especially if an international operator wanted to come to Williamtown. An A330 full of pax and fuel would need the full length and I can't see how the operational restrictions would allow them flexibility.

There was talk and I think it is the future plans of Newcastle Airport Corporation to put in a parallel runway to the current one for the civilian aircraft to use, while the RAAF use their old Runway. This to me would only solve about half of the problem. The other problem is in the skys around the base. Fast moving jet aircraft and slow moving pax aircraft don't mix too readily. I have been on a Dash 8 that was held on a taxiway for 30 mins while multiple F-18's were dispatched and recovered. Also I have been at the airport during times where arriving domestic flights have been held out of the coast for extended periods while a large amount of take-offs and recovery's were happening. Not good for flight schedules, especially as the RAAF are not really going to make the information of flight movements known.

Williamtown is also a CTAF on weekends with no controller around. Any increased amount of movements would need some sort of control.

Well those are my thoughts...(since I've lived with the place mear me all my life)

Browneye

Adam P.
18th July 2008, 11:31 AM
He did not name a location.

Wallsend! (http://yssyforum.net/board/showthread.php?t=1029)


http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/gy.gif


"Sydney needs a second airport" is a debate that's been going on for years...

...and years.....

....and years....

....with no real action on anyone's part.

We're unlikely to see anything happen in the short term.

Adrian B
18th July 2008, 11:42 AM
How 'strategic' is Richmond nowadays?

Given the harmony by which Darwin and Newcastle seem to work (Military v Commercial), why would this not be possible with Richmond?. Yes there will need to be ramp / building infrastructure costs, but there seems to be room towards the north west end of the field for these? Would an Avalon sized footprint not fit into ths area?

There seem to road and rail infrastructure in place, or for 'minimal setup costs' these could be used for the airport?

Not a local so I dont know if this is all possible?

Russell D
18th July 2008, 12:41 PM
How 'strategic' is Richmond nowadays?

Given the harmony by which Darwin and Newcastle seem to work (Military v Commercial), why would this not be possible with Richmond?. Yes there will need to be ramp / building infrastructure costs, but there seems to be room towards the north west end of the field for these? Would an Avalon sized footprint not fit into this area?

That's exactly what I've always been thinking. Wouldn't it be easier and possibly cheaper to set up some high-speed rail and road links to YSRI? You have the M4, M2, and M7 in reasonable proximity to enable some sort of link up such as an upgrading of Richmond Road.

For me, Newcastle is a bit too far away to be considered "local" for Sydney-siders. However, the fog might be an impediment I imagine at YSRI?

Andrew McLaughlin
18th July 2008, 12:56 PM
Richmond has been discussed, but only really as a freight, bizjet and/or regional airport.

The road and rail links have improved in recent years but would need further work in order to make it viable, plus I think the base/airport would need a proper north-south runway of at least 9000' length, as the current east-west 7000' runway just can't support large aircraft ops at high weights.

Interesting also that...

...the Premier's Department and the office of the Co-ordinator General, David Richmond, reveals "land transport infrastructure is struggling" around the airport...

...while the Transport minister says public transport to and from the airport is adequate in response to Macquarie's compaints earlier this week!?!?

damien b
18th July 2008, 01:35 PM
YSRI may be viable as a frieght alternative but unless major upgrading takes place, removing the current rail line (and rebuilding it somewhere else to allow passengers to arrive/depart using public transport) to allow a north/south runway to be built and major infrastructure upgrades within the base itself it couldn't handle normal commercial traffic. Fog is also an issue at YSRI, more so than at Mascot i think.

To answer your question Russel - the north west area is vacant as that is where explosive ordance is loaded onto aircraft at present. Unless that stops, nothing will be built down that way.

Darwin works well as it is not a active base as such, its only used during military exercises and with the small amount of commercial movements out of Darwin, its never been a big problem. Townsville is also a combined Military/Civilian base but since most military traffic is rotary, its not a big issue either i believe.

I have not been to Albion Park but would that make more sense than trying to utilise Williamtown or Richmond as airports even if it is a bit of a hike from Sydney (no more than Williamtown though i guess)

Andrew McLaughlin
18th July 2008, 01:57 PM
I have not been to Albion Park but would that make more sense than trying to utilise Williamtown or Richmond as airports even if it is a bit of a hike from Sydney (no more than Williamtown though i guess)

Terrain may be an issue at Albion Park, not to ention all the new housing estates around there.

Nigel C
18th July 2008, 04:50 PM
Agreed, terrain would be a major factor.

Also, I think the main runway is only 1800 odd metres long, with no room for expansion.

Adam P.
18th July 2008, 05:10 PM
The other issue with Albion Park, of course, is Nigel sitting under one of the approaches with a bazooka... :D

Nigel C
18th July 2008, 05:53 PM
There won't be a bird problem...I can take care of that before they arrive!;)

Russell D
18th July 2008, 06:59 PM
On the notion of active and non/partially active bases, wasn't there some talk a year or two ago about closing down military ops at YSRI and having it all at Amberly? Such an event might open up the YSRI option as a second airport if that were the case and defense were still thinking about closing down YSRI.

Adam P.
18th July 2008, 07:16 PM
having it all at Amberly?

Just one well-placed bomb..... :eek:

Grant Smith
18th July 2008, 07:42 PM
Doubt there'd be too much objection from council either :eek:

Ossian N
18th July 2008, 09:29 PM
this may sound like an odd suggestion but what about warnervale??

Adam P.
18th July 2008, 10:04 PM
Hoxton Park, if the rumours I hear are true, is closing in less than two weeks.


Final chance for a farewell touch and go on the way back from Wallsend, dya reckon, boys??


Someone mentioned YHOX on the first page so it's still relevant to the thread!! ;)

damien b
19th July 2008, 07:07 AM
On the notion of active and non/partially active bases, wasn't there some talk a year or two ago about closing down military ops at YSRI and having it all at Amberly? Such an event might open up the YSRI option as a second airport if that were the case and defense were still thinking about closing down YSRI.

There is still talk of 37SQN moving to Amberley (has been for many years)but leaving behind the C-130 maintenance performed by QDS and P-3 maintenace performed by Australian Aerospace along with C-130 logistic/engineering support staff and air movement training sections. Amberely is not big enough to take all of them.

Even if the C-130's do go, some may go to Townsville (Pearce has been mentioned at times as well, to support the SAS) due to space restrictions at Amberley. The talk has been around as long as i have been involved with the C-130's which started back in '91. When i left the RAAF in '01, the then 36SQN was going to Townsville and 37SQN to Amberley by '04 - its now '08 and 36SQN is in Amberley and 37SQN hasn't moved.

YRSI without the RAAF there (even with the RAAF) is viable if you want to do as i mentioned earlier (move the railway, build a new runway, new infrastructure etc), install adequate ILS for foggy mornings and Hawkesbury council allows it. Also many buildings are heritage listed and can not be demoslished or modified much (they are mostly hangers and some small admin type buildings)

The local council and MP's are not favourable towards a commercial airport. An attempt was made back in the late 1990's i think and it was knocked back on environmental grounds (noise pollution, contamination of the Hawkesbury river which is close by and other reasons that i forget).

Whilst the special forces are at Holsworthy and with Amberley already containing or scheduled to contain F-111's, F/A-18F's, C-17's, KC-30's i think the C-130's will stay just for cost, political and space reasons alone.

Jethro H
20th July 2008, 10:04 AM
It's nice that Baulkham Hills Shire are pushing for RAAF Richmond for commercial operations. :rolleyes: It's not even their LGA!

Now they state that Richmond would be hard because of poor infrastructure.... what infrastructure does Williamtown have to be a "Second Sydney Airport"?

Williamtown is about 20km from the nearest railway... which is then 2 hours by train to Sydney. Richmond at leasts has a railway line near by

Williamtown has ONE over-populated road (F3) to Sydney with no plans to build a second. At least there was a plan by RTA to build the Castlereagh Motorway from the M7 to Richmond and the Windsor Road has had a lot of recent upgrades.

Williamtown is a 2.5 hour drive for me, longer in peak (Im in western Sydney). Richmond is only 30 minutes away. (Parramatta is suppose to be the centre of Sydney's population, not Newcastle)

I don't know if there would be a benefit in making Richmond just domestic and just using the current runway, but most of my colleagues don't fly overseas but often flying to Brisbane and Melbourne and they dread the trip to Sydney. I know in the past there has been talk of building a 10,000+ ft North-South at Richmond, but I think that is all talk and no support from the Councils.

In the end, former Federal Governments should of bit the bullet and build Badgery's Creek or Wilton (I like Wilton as it has less fog and less surrounding population)

Adam P.
20th July 2008, 10:09 AM
In the end, former Federal Governments should of bit the bullet and build Badgery's Creek or Wilton
...but didn't, leaving the mess we have now. So the question remains, how to fix it??

Nigel C
20th July 2008, 10:24 AM
They should grow some nuts (was "b a l l s", but the system didn't like that...) and spend the money pronto.

It's got to go somewhere, and the Government is cashed up like never before, so they should just make a decision which annoys a minority (after all, this is meant to be a democracy where the majority rules) and build it.

Jethro H
20th July 2008, 11:59 AM
I noticed how they are spending $120m to upgrade Amberly mainly for the Super Hornets.

Would it make sense to upgrade Nowra to replace Richmond and then make Richmond commercial? ... or is Nowra just "RAN"... keep the RAAF out....

Adam P.
20th July 2008, 02:18 PM
Tennis *****
Soccer *****
Cricket *****



Baaahahaha!!! Some work needed on the autocensor, fellas???

Nigel C
20th July 2008, 02:54 PM
Nice to see you read my post!:D

Rather *****y of you to suggest the mods change the censorship laws, don't you think?
It is good to see you trying to keep them on the ***** of their feet when it comes to this forum!

Bradley Porter
22nd July 2008, 04:10 PM
First off remove the cerfew, Labour wont last long enough anyway so who cares about the voter backlash, silly fools should not have moved into the area in the first place anyway if they dont like aircraft noise, besides the aircraft are much quieter now than 20 years ago.

Why not fill the gap between 16L/34R & 16R/34L (between the two fingers into Botany Bay) and put the freight aprons/facility out there, easy access for trucks etc, and expand the International around to where the freight apron is now.

Look at the feasability of another parrallel runway to the west of 16R/34L, just knock down the carpark, sorry M5 overpass and tunnel it around to the existing tunnel near 07.

That should get at least another 20 years out of YSSY.

In the meantime the Government should pull their finger out and look at a floating offshore soloution with high speed rail link to the CBD. Macquarie Bank are slugging enough from the carparking to just about pay for it !!

Brad

Nigel C
22nd July 2008, 05:10 PM
Why not fill the gap between 16L/34R & 16R/34L (between the two fingers into Botany Bay) and put the freight aprons/facility out there, easy access for trucks etc, and expand the International around to where the freight apron is now.

Brad


How do you propose to get trucks across Bravo-10 and Lima to service such a facility?

Bradley Porter
22nd July 2008, 07:56 PM
How do you propose to get trucks across Bravo-10 and Lima to service such a facility?

Via a tunnel of course !

Or if thats not feasable, a road built around the 34R threshold from Foreshore Drive. Perhaps even incorporate a runway extension project into it, that way the runway can handle up to A380F if it ever happens.

Another bonus of a 16L/34R extension is that the noise footprint over the northern and inner western suburbs is slightly less due to the approach path being higher. The government can then argue for 24hour Ops but only using 16L/34R.

I just think it is rediculous to be looking at a second airport when the one we already have is in one of the most prime locations in comparison to other places in the world and it is far from being developed to its full potential. I agree that it is inevitable that Sydney will need a second airport at some stage, but I think the current airport has been sold way short of its full potential and is a classical example of how governments have let politics get in the way of progress, this happens all over the country, governments are counting the cost of votes before counting the cost to the country.

YSSY was there way before anybody who lives under the approach path, its about time that the government grew some nuts and made the hard decision to lift the cerfew for starters, if the voters want to vote for the other side next election then at least the pollies can live with the fact that they made the right decision for once, besides the next mob to get in wont reverse it, we still have GST, do we not, and the current mob opposed it rigorously.

Nigel C
22nd July 2008, 08:29 PM
The sand movement patterns of Botany Bay changed greatly when they added the 3rd runway, leading to a silting up of many areas and the installation of groynes along various areas.
I can only imagine your proposal, as good as it seems in an ideal world, would cause similar problems.

But, as has been previously stated, we'll have to wait for a government with the ***** to do it before anything will change.

Cheers
Nigel

Justin L
10th February 2009, 05:19 PM
Very interesting article today regarding a high speed rail link between Sydney CBD-YSSY-Canberra Airport in 50 minutes. The below comment is especially valid I think.

"For example, the cost of developing a new international airport between Sydney and Canberra, with a dedicated high speed rail link to Sydney, would be substantially greater than extending a high speed rail line to Canberra and utilising existing airport facilities at Canberra Airport.

"Furthermore, a high speed train link to serve a second Sydney Airport in Canberra would not simply serve the needs of the Airport site, as it would at a greenfields Airport site, but would also serve the significant population catchment in and around the ACT."

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/sydney-to-canberra-in-50-minutes-fast-tracking-second-airport-20090210-832g.html

Norman Box
10th February 2009, 06:17 PM
Hi Folks

Couple of points.

1. We will be looking at 787 in vintage aircraft magazines long before Sydney gets a second Airport. Politicians have not got the ***** to do anything, so they will keep fobbing off a decision forever. Australia does not have the get it done sense of urgency or innovation when it comes to infrastructure. ( Take the South China Region in the last 15 years - New Airports in Hong Kong, Shenzhen ( Baoan ), Macau, Zuhai ( Sanzao ) and Guangzhou.

2. Logic would dictate Richmond Air Force Base, The Airforce only keeps a few planes there anyway and much of its other functions could be relocated to another base ie Williamstown maybe. The infrastructure is well maybe a quarter done, A link up road to the M7 Orbital and a railway renovation into a future NW Rail System is all thats really needed apart from arterial road upgrades etc. Hey just my idea.

3. In the interim a low cost Jet Terminal at Bankstown. For the residents around Bankstown maybe MEA can run a Bankstown, KL, Bahrain and Beirut Service and just think Saudia can run Haj flights from Bankstown too ( That will win over most of the locals given the demographic of the area ) Keep it cheap enough and that Tiger might just show itself too. Or Air Asia X with some of those cheapo fares to KL ( Hey cheap fare is a cheap fare even if it is only to KL )

Just my two cents on the topic. Love this website!!!

Cheers,

Norman

[edited - mod]

Nigel C
10th February 2009, 08:35 PM
Perhaps Norman should re-read the entire thread to see all the previous arguments for and against Richmond, and then be just a little less prejudiced to those living in the Bankstown area?

[edited - mod]

Norman Box
10th February 2009, 11:48 PM
Obviously you don't go to Bankstown much anyway it seems or you would not think a view is so prejudiced (Anyway Jetstar could fly to Hanoi as well if you like just to cover all demographics if you feel it would make a better case)

Cheers
Norman

[edited - mod]

Seth Jaworski
11th February 2009, 05:36 AM
I'm from Bankstown and I have polish heritage- does that mean LOT should start flying here as well??

Nigel C
11th February 2009, 08:11 AM
You wouldn't be such a big hero in person I'm sure.

Just tell me when you're going to be making an appearance at Centro Bankstown to share your view with the locals. I'll introduce myself before hand if you like.

Obviously you don't go to Bankstown much anyway it seems or you would not think a view is so prejudiced ( Anyway Jetstar could fly to Hanoi as well if you like just to cover all demographics if you feel it would make a better case )

Cheers
Norman


I have lived in Greenacre in years gone past, so I'm well aware of the demographics of the area.

Justin L
11th February 2009, 08:14 AM
I didn't resurrect this thread to have a slanging match ruin it. It would be great if we could please have some constructive comments on the thread at hand.

As I mentioned I think the rail proposal is a good idea. It is on the infrastructure wish list given to the Federal Government as per the SMH article. While it is still all politics, hopefully the good thing that can come out of the seriousness of the financial crisis is more bigger longer term thinking. If this rail project goes ahead, it would also benefit Canberra and Canberra Airport, not just an outer suburban region of Sydney. It could also help quell the inevitable NIMBY (not in my backyard) complaints around sites mooted as a second airport for Sydney.

Nigel C
11th February 2009, 08:37 AM
Canberra has its own fair share of NIMBY's too, who have complained about the airport at its current size and operations. So although you might 'quell' the Sydney NIMBY's, you'd be throwing petrol on the Canberrans argument.

As you probably know, you can't/won't make everybody happy.

In the article you linked, it's an interesting statement but would also serve the significant population catchment in and around the ACT.
It's one thing having the rail link there, but it's another thing getting it patronised enough to make it viable.
There's also the farmers you have to deal with who won't want a high speed rail line running through their property.

Andrew McLaughlin
11th February 2009, 08:41 AM
When VFT proposals were popping up about in the 1990s it was found that, in order to just break even, the service would need to carry 25,000 pax per day each way to break even.

The trouble with a VFT is, even if it is <1 hour from SYD to CBR, few people live near Central or Kingston stations. You still need to get from where you live to these stations and allow enough time for traffic/public transport delays etc - in my case, I'd need to allow at least 1.5 hours.

But, I can drive from my home in Castle Hill to my office in Fyshwick in 2.75 hours and will have my car with me at the other end to get around town for the cost of a tanks and a half of petrol (~$90) for the return trip...a VFT can't compete with that.

And to cap it all off, the NSW Govt is too broke to build it, and after the disasters of the privately financed Cross City and Lane Cove Tunnels, I can't see anyone coming up with a PFI in the short to medium term either!

Justin L
11th February 2009, 08:56 AM
Both interesting points Nigel and Andrew. If the VFT network was planned to be comprehensive with an extension initially up to say Newcastle, with stops at Sydney CBD, some stopping at Chatswood, Hornsby and Gosford, then connection from other areas/lines/buses to these intermediate stops may help the situation. Also have some stops south in Liverpool, Campbelltown, Goulburn etc. Not all trains have to stop at all stations all the time, but the trains could replace or be part of the Intercity network. There are always talks on a similar proposal for an Intercity fast train to the west through Parramatta and Penrith. Anyway, I suppose we do not (yet) have the population density to sustain it. Although town planning in Sydney is already mooted to focus along rail lines, so maybe this could help that also.

I read an article where Sydney's population and size in 25 years will be comparable to the Manchester/Liverpool region in the UK. Maybe someone can comment on how their set up could be used for Sydney in a transport/second airport sense?

Here's another suggestion which may or may not work (or be viable or practical), but if Sydney needs a second airport to alleviate Mascot, could Canberra serve as an international gateway for some flights, with dedicated connection shuttle flights scheduled to meet these flights to ferry them to Sydney and even Melbourne, Adelaide, Tasmania etc.? Maybe the international airlines could codeshare on these flights? Are there certain international flights where the bulk of passengers are just transitting through Sydney to onwards destinations - or is it really just case by case and day by day cases where this may happen?

May be hard to set up or run, but just another thought.

Bernie P
11th February 2009, 09:14 AM
I read an article where Sydney's population and size in 25 years will be comparable to the Manchester/Liverpool region in the UK. Maybe someone can comment on how their set up could be used for Sydney in a transport/second airport sense?

Back in 2005 when I went to Llandudno, Nth Wales, I flew into Manchester. I then transferred to my Aunts place in Liverpool, Seaforth actually. Anyway, I caught the train from the Airport to Manchester, then another train to Liverpool Lime St and finally ANOTHER train to Seaforth!

The train from the airport to Manchester was terrible, worse than Sydney Fail, I mean Rail, however the train from Manchester to Liverpool was great, small about 4-5 carriages and not VFT, but fast enough for me!

Furthermore, the train from Narita to Tokyo centre was by far better! It was about 15 cars long, and was very comfortable (and a lot faster than the Manchester version. And no, it was not the Narita Express but the normal train service!

hope this helps in this discussion...

Nigel C
11th February 2009, 09:39 AM
Justin, I guess with the stops you propose, it really takes it away from being an effective fast train. The fewer stops it has to make, the quicker and more attractive the train becomes.

On the topic of viability, Andrew mentions 25000 people required daily to make such a plan viable back in the 90's. Does anyone know the current figures of people who commute daily between Canberra and Sydney by air?

Andrew McLaughlin
11th February 2009, 10:06 AM
On the topic of viability, Andrew mentions 25000 people required daily to make such a plan viable back in the 90's. Does anyone know the current figures of people who commute daily between Canberra and Sydney by air?

Just doing some very rough maths...

QF flies about 23 times each way b/w CBR and SYD @ ~110 pax per flight = ~4800 seats (split roughly evenly between 72 seat Q400s and 150 seat 734s)
DJ flies about 8 times each way @~110 pax per flight = ~1700 seats (split between 70 seat E-170s and 144 seat 737s)

Very rough total = 6000-7000 seats available on the route each day

Kim F
11th February 2009, 10:45 AM
Where does Canberra's foggy winter mornings factor into this.

Gareth Forwood
11th February 2009, 10:53 AM
On the topic of fog, wouldn't it make sense for a new/upgraded airport to be fitted with CAT III ILS - from my understanding, doesn't CAT III allow landing in zero visibility? Forgive me if I'm wrong.

Andrew McLaughlin
11th February 2009, 12:02 PM
Where does Canberra's foggy winter mornings factor into this.

About 5 days per year...not really something you can factor in at an airport with so few movements as to make the investment into Cat II/III impractical.

Steve Jones
11th February 2009, 03:06 PM
Interestingly, with a mixture of drought and improvements to the current Cat I ILS decision altitude, there was not one major fog event in Canberra last year... These days Sydney is actually worse than Canberra in terms of fog!

Nigel C
11th February 2009, 03:53 PM
On the topic of fog, wouldn't it make sense for a new/upgraded airport to be fitted with CAT III ILS - from my understanding, doesn't CAT III allow landing in zero visibility? Forgive me if I'm wrong.


There would be no problems of fitting it into a new or existing airport, but the cost of maintaining such a facility is absolutely cost prohibitive if it's not utilised regularly.

Grant Smith
11th February 2009, 03:56 PM
I didn't resurrect this thread to have a slanging match ruin it.

Justin,

They all want a shot at the title mate ;)

Justin L
11th March 2009, 12:32 PM
Qantas has urged the Federal Governmenet to open up RAAF bases to civilian traffic (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/look-to-raaf-bases-qantas-says-20090310-8u6m.html). The government's white paper due out later this year is expected to identify Sydney's second airport location.

Arthur T
11th March 2009, 02:30 PM
I think Bankstown would be a good idea for Sydney's 2nd Airport. But Airport transfers and road system must be built as well to cater the needs for it.

Furthermore, how about other airports around Sydney such as Goulburn, Wollongong etc?

Greg McDonald
11th March 2009, 03:11 PM
I think Bankstown would be a good idea for Sydney's 2nd Airport. But Airport transfers and road system must be built as well to cater the needs for it.

Furthermore, how about other airports around Sydney such as Goulburn, Wollongong etc?

As Griswold would say: Look Kids...it's Big Ben!!!!!

Nigel C
11th March 2009, 04:04 PM
I think Bankstown would be a good idea for Sydney's 2nd Airport. But Airport transfers and road system must be built as well to cater the needs for it.

Furthermore, how about other airports around Sydney such as Goulburn, Wollongong etc?

A few issues come to mind here...

Short runways at Bankstown with little room for expansion
Runways laterally spaced very close to each other. Major redevelopment would probably be required.
Surrounded by light industrial initially, but then residential areas in a Labor dominated electorate...political suicide for the current Labor Fed Govt if they choose this path.
Where would the GA aircraft go?


Goulburn would require a viable high speed rail link and airlines willing to use it (obviously Sydney is highly attractive due to its proximity to the city and surrounding infrastructure). I think there has been discussion on this previously in this thread.
Wollongong has the issue of the the surrounding escarpment, a relatively short runway with little room for expansion and a lack of a viable high speed rail link to Sydney.

Adam P.
11th March 2009, 05:41 PM
Where would the GA aircraft go?
Not that anyone not involved with aviation really cares, but this really is a big issue for any 'development' of Bankstown. Hoxton Park closed last year, Camden is overflowing and Bankstown has (admittedly unconnected to the 'second airport' thing) congestion issues complicated by air traffic controller shortages. A major capital city without effective GA infrastructure is not a pretty thought.

Wollongong? Damn big hills down that way (and Nigel's neighbours with bazookas), too much housing development in the area and no room to extend the runway.
Goulburn? Has potential, but I wouldn't call it a 'Sydney' airport. Too far away.
Richmond? Upgrade transport links, raze a small village or two for a north-south runway and kick the RAAF out and you might be on a winner.

Abolish the curfew? Hell no, apart from the political suicide implications thereof, I enjoy my few hours peace and quiet a night. Don't start with the 'you should have known about it before you moved there' argument that I know is a favourite with some here - I moved into an aircraft-noise-affected area in the full knowledge that I would be hearing aircraft noise... and also in the full knowledge that between 2300 and 0600 each night that noise would stop.

So what's the solution? I don't know. Richmond appears to be a resource with potential, but would need some upgrading to handle intercontinental flights (runway isn't very long). The question also remains of how you would split up traffic to each airport. Restrict SYD to International flights only, and send domestics and regionals to RIC? Good in theory, but remember that many passengers are transferring to other flights... especially off the regional services, some for international connections. Separating these into different airports that are geographically far apart may not be so productive.

They're complicated issues. A resolution will not keep everyone happy, regardless of what that solution eventually is. I'm not holding my breath for anything anytime soon however.

Owen H
11th March 2009, 06:57 PM
It isn't the curfew itself that annoys me, it is the rediculous noise sharing plans that CRIPPLE the airport.

Using runways that are not into wind to stop noise going up north (25/07), but then reducing the capacity of the airport in half. Having Melbourne departures using 34R and going half way to Auckland before being able to track to Melbourne, instead of 34L and a left turn.

All these noise issues are what cripple Sydney airport, and Australian aviation. They HAVE to go. They cost airlines in the hundreds of millions a year, and it would reduce fuel burn (and pollution) monumentally.

If we can't fly out of Sydney at midnight, fine, but at least allow us to use the SAFEST runway for takeoff, and even remotely direct tracking for one of the busiest trunk routes in the world.

Gerard M
11th March 2009, 07:02 PM
If Richmond ceased to be a RAAF base anymore, that would leave NSW without any major RAAF bases/facilities wouldn't it,apart from Williamtown which already has a comercial part to it? Or is that not really much of a concern?
But i mean there is a fair bit of movement in and out of there usually, as well as the weekly cargo run from USAF (even though thats not a major thing, could easily fly somewhere else as its stop over before Alice Springs), or am i looking at this thing the wrong way and it doesnt really matter if Richmond wasnt RAAF anymore?

Jason Mac
11th March 2009, 07:43 PM
Correct me if I am wrong.... Richmond only has ILS from the East ???
with the mountains so close, would it be possible to install and ILS from the West???

If Richmond was to become a 2nd airport, wouldnt the Civil industry want ILS from the West ??

Cheers

damien b
12th March 2009, 04:25 AM
As Adam said earlier with Richmond, it'd need some work and purchasing of industrial sites, university land and homes around the base to allow the required expansion to occur. The main link between Windsor and Richmond would also need to be moved or placed under ground to allow a North-South runway to be built.

Even the current East -West runway may need to be longer depending on aircraft types using the "new" commercial airport. Fog is an issue at Richmond a well.

Governments would need to improve road and rail infrastrucure, especially for connections to Mascot for international travellers (if that is indeed how it will work) as the rail trip is around 1hr 20 just to central at present, and not all that regular.

The other rather large factor is where would the current RAAF resident units go to? Amberley is full, Townsville isn't that big a base and Darwin (also a major army base) isn't ideal due to weather in the tropical season. Build a new base?

Jethro H
12th March 2009, 08:44 AM
If Richmond is going to be same concept that Badgery's Creek was to be, the current 7000' runway is long enough and amount of foggy mornings is the same at both locations. ILS is only currently on 28 at Richmond.
Only 15km 280 degrees from Richmond, Kurrajong Heights peaks at about 650 metres.

As in previous plans that Hawkesbury City Council showed some years ago, a 10000' North-South Runway could be built but would require changing the Railway, Hawkesbury Valley Way, Blacktown Road and acquiring some private and uni land.

But it is expected (like every other location) there would be a large amount of protest of residents north and south of Richmond, more so south within the Penrith LGA who strongly protested about Badgery's.

One assumes it will be run by MAp as per the Airports Act.

It depends what the Government wants out of a Second Airport?

Nigel C
12th March 2009, 10:17 AM
It depends what the Government wants out of a Second Airport?

Time on the opposition benches???

:p

Craig Sandford
12th March 2009, 12:46 PM
So what's the solution? I don't know. Richmond appears to be a resource with potential, but would need some upgrading to handle intercontinental flights (runway isn't very long). The question also remains of how you would split up traffic to each airport. Restrict SYD to International flights only, and send domestics and regionals to RIC? Good in theory, but remember that many passengers are transferring to other flights... especially off the regional services, some for international connections. Separating these into different airports that are geographically far apart may not be so productive.

Tokyo, Seoul and Taipei all use a model that has the main International airport located 70+ kms away from the city centre, and a Domestic airport close to the CBD.

For Narita (main Tokyo Int airport), there are high speed, express and local trains that run into the CBD. The express trains connect at a station that has a monorail to Haneda (Dom Airport). There is a non-stop bus that runs along the motorways that between the two airports (approx 95kms). The same bus company offers buses to TCAT (Tokyo City Air Terminal) which sits above a subway station. There are a number of bus companies offering transport to major Hotels and suburban areas. There are some Domestic flights from Narita to major cities, and Haneda handles a few international commuter flights (to Gimpo in Seoul).

In Seoul, Incheon is the main International airport, about 75kms from Central Seoul. There are a number of bus companies offering cheap transport to major hotels, KCAT (similar idea to TCAT) and to Gimpo (Dom Airport). Incheon also has a few domestic flights, and of course Gimpo has the flights to Haneda.

In Taipei, Taoyuan (Int airport - 70kms from CBD) doesn't have easy public transport options, but the freeway runs all the way in. Songshan (Dom Airport) is in the CBD area, so you can get there for less than $5 in a taxi. Although the "new" high speed train between Taipei and Kaohsiung may remove the attractiveness of domestic flights.

Of course there are downsides. I allow 8 hours hotel to hotel travelling between Tokyo and Seoul when using Narita / Incheon for a flight about the same distance as MEL/BNE. But it can be done with a bit of political will and investment.

So long as they don't do a Kuala Lumpur, move the airport out 80kms and close the airport closer to the city to RPT flights. Mind you, once again, a regular high speed train from Sepang to KL Sentral isn't that painful.

Gerard M
21st March 2009, 09:38 PM
I read an article in the paper this week i think from Monday, possibly tuesday that said Richmond was now likely to be the second airport. I cant remember whether it was saying it was more likely or just the same likely hood as before. If Richmond were to be made the second airport, what would be more practical...having the same sort of setup as Williamtown or just boot the RAAF out? If so, im presuming that the hercs would just go to Amberley, but isnt that getting pretty full up there despite their upgrades at the moment with the C-17s and the new tankers and aren't the super hornets going there too?

Andrew McLaughlin
21st March 2009, 10:00 PM
I read an article in the paper this week i think from Monday, possibly tuesday that said Richmond was now likely to be the second airport. I cant remember whether it was saying it was more likely or just the same likely hood as before. If Richmond were to be made the second airport, what would be more practical...having the same sort of setup as Williamtown or just boot the RAAF out? If so, im presuming that the hercs would just go to Amberley, but isnt that getting pretty full up there despite their upgrades at the moment with the C-17s and the new tankers and aren't the super hornets going there too?

Amberley will house 24 Super Hornets, four C-17s and five KC30As and a large CSG component...overall, not a large burden.

The Hercs aren't going anywhere soon. Australian Aerospace and Lockheed Martin have just been awarded the C-130J support contract, the work for which will be conducted in the old 33SQN hangar at Richmond alongside the AP-3C heavy maintenance work.

Putting political and/or noise sensitivities aside, the Hercs can co-exist with commercial traffic.

Gerard M
21st March 2009, 10:05 PM
Amberley will house 24 Super Hornets, four C-17s and five KC30As and a large CSG component...overall, not a large burden.

The Hercs aren't going anywhere soon. Australian Aerospace and Lockheed Martin have just been awarded the C-130J support contract, the work for which will be conducted in the old 33SQN hangar at Richmond alongside the AP-3C heavy maintenance work.

Putting political and/or noise sensitivities aside, the Hercs can co-exist with commercial traffic.

That makes sense Andrew, thanks. One question i do have, i can't find an answer to this on the net anywhere, but im guessing at the moment Richmond isnt bound by the 11pm curfew, is that just Sydney? What would the curfew be like if any if it was the second airport

Also, quite frankly even if they do appoint Richmond as the second airport, i cant see the government will be any better at getting it started let alone finished than they were with the North West rail link which was meant to come out here to castle hill etc etc etc. Thats my opinion by the way not a fact..not yet anyway..

Andrew McLaughlin
22nd March 2009, 08:48 AM
That makes sense Andrew, thanks. One question i do have, i can't find an answer to this on the net anywhere, but im guessing at the moment Richmond isnt bound by the 11pm curfew, is that just Sydney?

I don't think any RAAF bases are bound by curfew, however the RAAF, as a considerate citizen, usually abides by an unofficial curfew at most of its bases which are located near or within metropolitan areas.

Jethro H
22nd March 2009, 09:08 PM
Time on the opposition benches???
:p
Good point Nigel as opposition to Badgerys Creek scared the government off.... and that was from within their own party.
A North-South at Richmond would have the same the reaction as it would also point towards the Federal Seat of Lindsay... more so than Badgerys Creek.

As for curfew, only Sydney has such a ridiculous law under the SYDNEY AIRPORT CURFEW ACT 1995. But in saying that, I remember last year the XO of Richmond explain to a group of us how they are good to the community. She said that night time exercises are limited for the community as an unwritten rule.

Benefits of Richmond over a 'new' airport:
- Rail corridors in place .. just need some expansion, but much cheaper than building new.
-There was a Corridor for the North West Motorway (aka Castlereagh Freeway) by the RTA in the 1990s.
- Existing 24 hour airport with surrounding residents hoping that it would remain and use to its 24/7 operation.
- Only 50-60 km from Sydney area, nice and close but far enough away.
Canberra at about 280km from Sydney could not be counted as a second airport without spending $4b on a VFT.
- Land is there for a North South Runway of 10,000'

Disadvantages:
- only 7000' with no room to expand 28/10... towns at either end.
- fog (foggier than Canberra too!)
- North South option could be political hold up or even a stop.
- limited space for air terminal if current RAAF remains, (but if a new North South runway is built, a new terminal could be build somewhere else on that side.

Gerard M
16th April 2009, 12:01 PM
Has anyone seen anything in the White paper yet as i looked at it but couldn't see anything about it but i could have been looking at the wrong one :confused:

Cheers
Gerard

Ken K
16th April 2009, 12:20 PM
Gerald, the White Paper is not yet out. It should be available in the second half of the year.

Andrew McLaughlin
16th April 2009, 01:59 PM
Has anyone seen anything in the White paper yet as i looked at it but couldn't see anything about it but i could have been looking at the wrong one :confused:

Cheers
Gerard

That was just a VERY fluffy summary of the public submissions, without ANY worthwhile detail whatsoever! Word is the WP will be released late May.

Cheers

Gerard M
17th April 2009, 05:58 AM
That was just a VERY fluffy summary of the public submissions, without ANY worthwhile detail whatsoever! Word is the WP will be released late May.

Cheers

Thanks Andrew. I think that was the fluffy one that i was reading. Didn't know if that was the white paper or what. And as you said, nothing worth mentioning that i saw in there!!!

Jethro H
25th December 2011, 12:50 PM
Where did the Terrograph get this bit of information?
http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/nepean-the-preferred-site-for-second-airport/story-e6frfq80-1226228884434
UPDATE 12.16AM THE NSW government says it will continue to oppose a second international airport in Sydney following reports a site in the city's west is under consideration.
The Nepean option, covering Luddenham, Wallacia and Greendale, is shaping up as a leading location in a joint federal-state study.

But NSW Planning and Infrastructure Minister Brad Hazzard says the federal government had not briefed him about putting an airport in western Sydney.

"Reports in the media today have come from a report that I certainly haven't seen," he told reporters in Sydney.

"But there is a very strong view in the NSW state government that a second airport will certainly not be happening in the Sydney basin, nor will it happen on the Central Coast."

The study suggested Sydney Airport was nearing capacity.

But the peak tourism body said Sydney Airport had the capacity to expand and this should be considered ahead of building a second airport.

"Sydney Airport's proximity to the city centre is the envy of other global cities and has benefits for business and tourism alike," chief executive of the Tourism & Transport Forum John Lee said.

"Unless Sydney Airport is allowed to grow, NSW risks losing new international services to other cities, which do not face the same restrictions as Sydney."

THE Nepean district is the prime location for a second international airport for Sydney, a high-level government taskforce has found.
Sources revealed the Nepean option - which covers Luddenham, Wallacia and Greendale in the city's west - is "streets ahead" of other locations, according to economic modelling.
A draft blueprint also suggested long-suffering inner-city residents could be subjected to an 8 per cent increase in aircraft noise as a short-term fix to Australia's most pressing transport problem.
It said Sydney Airport was at breaking point, despite its private-sector owners claiming they had plenty of room to grow, and warned the cost of doing nothing could run into billions of dollars.
Western Sydney was ahead of a number of alternative sites for a second airport, including the Central Coast and the small town of Wilton, about 80km southwest of the CBD.
But the recommendation presents a thorny problem for the Gillard government, which has ruled out constructing an airport around Badgerys Creek, identified in 1969 as a possible location to land jet aircraft.
Among a number of options, the taskforce canvassed expanding airport facilities at Richmond, currently an RAAF site, and Bankstown, which is only used by non-passenger aircraft.
Does Sydney need a second airport? Tell us below
The report said Bankstown could be turned into a "hub" for regional flights from airlines such as Rex and Qantas Jetlink, which currently clog up air slots at Sydney's main facility.
The prospect of turning these into "spillover" airports was strongly promoted in the report, which is running months behind schedule after being announced in December 2009.
The joint Gillard/O'Farrell Study on Aviation Capacity for the Sydney Region also examined lifting the "cap" on aircraft movements at Sydney - currently set at a maximum of 80 per hour - to about 85.
That would be political dynamite for the federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese, who is a long-standing advocate of a second airport for Australia's main tourism gateway.
Increasing the hourly flow of aircraft would trigger mass protests over airport noise across much of inner Sydney, including in Mr Albanese's seat of Grayndler, which has a strong Greens support base.
And the benefits of the government approving a more generous "cap" would be only minimal.
Mr Albanese last night declined to comment on the findings. Successive federal governments have baulked at building a second airport in Sydney but well-placed sources said the "chickens are coming home to roost" and Canberra and the state government had no option but to consider a new facility.
That is a challenge for Premier Barry O'Farrell, who in April effectively ruled out supporting another airport in the Sydney basin.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/nepean-the-preferred-site-for-second-airport/story-e6frfq80-1226228884434#ixzz1hVkW82ux