Tempus Fugit Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 just leave the traffic lights at the KWC gates for when they need it and extend the landward end ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Don't know if I am missing something, but the 30degree runway can be extended as far to the North as necessary over fields, and the other one could be extended West by putting the Douglas Road under it through a short tunnel, and demolishing part of a caravan park. Surely cheaper, and better environmentally. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Don't know if I am missing something, but the 30degree runway can be extended as far to the North as necessary over fields, and the other one could be extended West by putting the Douglas Road under it through a short tunnel, and demolishing part of a caravan park. Surely cheaper, and better environmentally. S You identified the issue - cheaper. Why have something cheaper when you can have something more expensive? I gather that all the decisions have been made and the capital allocated - when there are reasonable alternatives remember the MHKs' battlecry "No we can't" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Don't know if I am missing something, but the 30degree runway can be extended as far to the North as necessary over fields, and the other one could be extended West by putting the Douglas Road under it through a short tunnel, and demolishing part of a caravan park. Surely cheaper, and better environmentally. S In fairness, I seem to remember that the project options considered included the above. But an airport is more than just a length of runway - the planners also need to consider glidepath, placement of navigation beacons, proximity of approach to obstacles etc. I think the promontory was therefore the only solution. I tend to agree though - it's a shame we didn't wait until services threatened to stop serving Ronaldsway UNLESS the strip was longer, but I guess the cost of mothballing the project now would prove prohibitive. Can't wait for the final figure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Can't wait for the final figure! Can't wait for the follow-up interview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Can't wait for the final figure! Can't wait for the follow-up interview Unforseen difficulties, bad weather, delays rising cost of materials blah blah. So what is the final cost? Well we shouldn't look at the cost when we could have been without a runway we could use blah blah, so Was it £40m? Smack! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Unforseen difficulties, bad weather, delays rising cost of materials blah blah. So what is the final cost? Well we shouldn't look at the cost when we could have been without a runway we could use blah blah, so Was it £40m? Smack! "Nowhere near £40 million - the extension only cost £25 million, the safety zone only £17.5 million, the Control Tower only £7 million. Where on earth did you get that £40 million figure from? Utter nonsense - a typical media beat up! As Margaret Thatcher said 'Rejoice!' and stop trying to introduce red herrings about £40 million" Exits studio, knocking over glass of water... PS: those are hypothetical numbers for illustrative purposes only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanna Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Don't know if I am missing something, but the 30degree runway can be extended as far to the North as necessary over fields, and the other one could be extended West by putting the Douglas Road under it through a short tunnel, and demolishing part of a caravan park. Surely cheaper, and better environmentally. S ummm theres hills in the way. You need flat land for a runway. unless you propose blowing the hills up. My guess is its cheaper to go out to sea. as for going through the road.. you would have to wipe out several houses so that wouldnt go down well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I think there is a far wider debate here than the reasons or otherwise for the runway and airport works, whatever your views on the necessity or otherwise of these projects there is absolutely no doubt that a clear manipulation of public opinion has taken place where when justifications have been questioned they have been shelved, and others put into the public domain which cannot be so easily queried and the emotive subject of safety has been used as the hammer blow to those who would question and seek to justify the expenditure of huge amounts of public money. If EASA do not mandate the RESA best practice recommendations and if the traffic levels continue to be unable to attract the large cheap airlines to the benefit of us traveling public then why have our Gov. spent what will be at a wild guess 50m of our money. If we had unlimited amounts of money to throw away then build JFK here but what the island needs is sustainable growth in a controlled and budgeted manner not wild and grandiose ideas, which looking at the track record will be a millstone for generations to come. Yes we would all like large shiny new aircraft coming here taking us cheaply wherever we want to go but that wish has nothing to do with infrastructure and everything to do with the numbers of bums on seats. Most UK regional airports have an average target audience living within an hours drive of the facility of 3 million people, we are some way short of that ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Most UK regional airports have an average target audience living within an hours drive of the facility of 3 million people, we are some way short of that ! Perhaps we should just have a cheap shuttle service to Liverpool and close all other routes. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doofus Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Don't know if I am missing something, but the 30degree runway can be extended as far to the North as necessary over fields, and the other one could be extended West by putting the Douglas Road under it through a short tunnel, and demolishing part of a caravan park. Surely cheaper, and better environmentally. S In fairness, I seem to remember that the project options considered included the above. But an airport is more than just a length of runway - the planners also need to consider glidepath, placement of navigation beacons, proximity of approach to obstacles etc. I think the promontory was therefore the only solution. I tend to agree though - it's a shame we didn't wait until services threatened to stop serving Ronaldsway UNLESS the strip was longer, but I guess the cost of mothballing the project now would prove prohibitive. Can't wait for the final figure! work has already commenced on the shoreline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10poundslater Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 ...I wonder if Ann knows that the Project Managaement are no less than the same firm who gave - or rather are still giving us - the IRIS project? I wonder was she here when the New Hospital was built (exactly how many £multi-millions did that go over budget). * Mr Peters is a reputable and much revered Radio Broadcast Presenter. The phrase used above is for poetic comparison purposes only. Don't forget, the more a project costs the bigger the fee the designers and managers get, unless they go in on a fixed fee basis that is. fixed fee basis... we should be so lucky, the majority of it is done on a percentage based system where they take a cut off the top of the overall fee. The more the job cost the more they get, no wonder the government are always going over budget... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2004 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Ah so it begins....... http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Runway-exte...r-by.4941725.jp I think we all knew it would rise, but I did not think so soon. "Don't let me hear you say 40 million again" could very well come back and bite a certain someone in the @rse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 "Don't let me hear you say 40 million again" could very well come back and bite a certain someone in the @rse ...as they say "rather Stu than me". and if this quote from IOMToday is factually correct: This element came to £10.8m in sterling, but as a consequence in the fall in value of the pound against the euro, this cost will now be £13.1m. It is only a measly 21% increase on that element of the work. What's that between friends. No one to blame. No one to sack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 As lots of people have said; here we go again .... Big recession, big job private sector losses mooted, tax and VAT takings down, ...... same old fuck ups and lack of oversight on another public project but who cares because its only £2m or taxpayers money. Whats the betting at £60m before its finished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.