Newsbot Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 The Isle of Man Airport has shown marginal growth at the start of the year, the government says. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7247578.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 So, to justify the £41m pounds for the runway extension, please tell us why we need a longer runway? We are obviously getting enough business to be profitable, why be greedy and encourage larger, more polluting, aircraft? How long will it take to earn back the investment, or isn't that the plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 So, to justify the £41m pounds for the runway extension, please tell us why we need a longer runway? Because it's more profitable and useful than a pier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I thought the runway extension's main purpose was to provide "marginal growth" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I am afraid we are about to see the squander of many millions of public money on a project which is neither necessary nor justifiable. The reasoning has gone from a commercial base i.e. traffic increases etc to now purely one of safety as they cannot support the figures quoted in the business case. The egos of a few people are being supported by our money which could be better spent in other areas to the benefit of all. The runway is long enough for the needs of the Isle of Man for the foreseeable future and the air travel industry is yet to absorb the full implications of fuel costs and the green lobby which may have a negative growth effect still further. On the issue of safety, the pros would have us believe that this extra length will have a major impact on safety, of course any increase on a runway length in theory will make it safer and therefore at what point do we say it is long enough ? extend south to the Calf ?. London City airport is a good measure of how an efficient airport can be run, we should be striving for efficiency with what we have. Another Iris, hospital etc etc !! Come on Govt lets have some facilities for young people and care for elderly etc etc !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 The extension is totally unjustifiable on cost grounds and is nothing more than a desirable compliance to recommended practise. Is there no way an injunction can be served to prevent this dreadful waste of taxpayers money and an independent assessment made. Egos be damned - let them stump up the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Egos be damned - let them stump up the money. Who's them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Just found out from one of our elected representatives that the extension is a done deal and the usual Tynwald approval is nothing more than a joke !! Why am I not suprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I think I'm right in saying that the present runway length is restricting the loads of some of the aircraft that currently use the airport in certain weather conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I think I'm right in saying that the present runway length is restricting the loads of some of the aircraft that currently use the airport in certain weather conditions. This is probably the case and commercial operators need to load accordingly at many regional airports, however the cost benefit analysis of some 40 million to aid a few flights a year just does not make sense. The original planning application was based around passenger increases and benefits to the Island economy, they cannot now support those figures as they are nowhere near what was originally quoted, accordingly the airport director now talks only of the issue of safety and has conveniently dropped the supposed traffic benefits. On the issue of safety, if what she is saying is that this is necessary to make the airport safe then it follows that she considers the airport as is to be unsafe !. Let us not forget these recommendations are precisely that recommendations and not mandatory and regional airports can operate very efficiently with less runway than here i.e. London City. The recent accident at Heathrow with the 777 has been cited as an example of why a resa is necessary, however had the engines lost power a few seconds earlier then that would have been on the houses and the resa would have made no difference. I am not against airport development far from it, I would just like to see more thought being given as to how public interests are best served by the use of huge amounts of public money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Safety is not a black and white issue as your last post seems to say and your example of the 777 having an earlier power failure is not reasonable in arguing this point. I think it goes without saying that an aircraft has to actually reach the runway before its dimensions become an argument....... The glideslope at LCY is very steep and far from ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 asitis....you are quite correct on all counts. I am astonished that this totally unecessary project, that will cost each Manx household in the region of £2000, appears to be going through on the nod. Is the Manx population so completely apathetic or are they simply not aware of the excesses of our cash-rich government. The Airport Directress has had to take this project onto what is now a face-saving exercise for all concerned. Why are there no politicians anywhere who are prepared to concede that be better to shelve a plan rather than just plough on against all reason. There are those in the Dti who still fantasise about larger aircraft operators coming to the Island and that is as far as it will ever go - pure fantasy. The extra 200m (if that) is going to make no difference whatsoever to 99.9% of aircraft using Ronaldsway. So let's put the tax payers' money to better use. I ask the question again: is there no way this can be halted and reviewed, preferably independently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 thay should have just gone the other way, and divert the road, prob save a cool 20 mil and of the cost of £2000, per house hold, think u have to pay tax before thay can have my 2 grand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 So, to justify the £41m pounds for the runway extension, please tell us why we need a longer runway? Because it's more profitable and useful than a pier? But isn't it going to be like a pier? A hell of a lot more expensive than doing up Ramsey Pier would be, too. Out of interest, compare our airport with Madeira, see this link - Madeira Airport At Madeira, a considerable amount of money has been spent on building up the runway above the shoreline, which has given them an airport that will take jumbo jets - not that we need that sort of length, but there may be a time when we want to encourage large plane loads of tourists, or when we want to have direct tourist flights out, with size not being so much of an object as it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 The extra 200m (if that) is going to make no difference whatsoever to 99.9% of aircraft using Ronaldsway. Just wondering, do you have any evidence of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.