Ronague Ram Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I think most people are missing the real requirement for the runway extension - to allow complaince with longer 'runoff' safety zones at each end of the runway which are to be imposed in future. Without being able to accomodate the new distances, the options on aircraft using the runway would reduce. Many seem to think it is to allow options on bigger aircraft and not simply keep the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I think most people are missing the real requirement for the runway extension - to allow complaince with longer 'runoff' safety zones at each end of the runway which are to be imposed in future. Without being able to accomodate the new distances, the options on aircraft using the runway would reduce. From this it sounds like it will be a mandatory requirement, not a recommendation as others have describe it. Can you clarify, and when exactly will this requirement have to be met by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 ...quote David Anderson " this is for our bread and butter aircraft "... No way I'm flyin' on one of those! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 its not a mandatory requirement as we dont have to comply with the CAA we just choose to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 . . . at a cost of how much? And who is 'we' exactly when it comes to choosing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Pure guess here now but if we didn't adhere to the CAA rules and regs would airlines be as willing to fly in and out of here? Also if we didn't and there was an accident and we didn't would be negligent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Some airlines have been quoted as saying it would make no difference to their operations whatsoever. Regarding possible accidents and all that. We could apply that sort of logic to anything. Harbours, roads, TT races, beaches, sewers. Anything. The Government have masses and masses of the Isle of Man's money to spend and their 'advisors' have made them desperate to dissipate it to the fat cats and so forth, under the guise of necessity. New Hospital. IRIS. MEA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I am neither for nor against the construction of the runway extension, what I am strongly opposed to is a few people manipulating the use of public money without proper debate about the desirability or necessity of a project. When the original planning application for this was submitted, much was made of huge projected increases in traffic and the ability of larger aircraft to use the airport. Time has proven that the figures much lauded, cannot be supported so the whole emphasis of the recent TV and press coverage of this has put the safety issue to the fore. Safety is a very emotive subject and everyone should support anything which makes travel safer, however exactly what is necessary is open to serious debate. These suggested safety areas are not mandatory and should they ever become so then some UK airports will have no option but to publish shorter runway figures as they cannot extend. I have been informed that the airport director has said something like " I am convinced one day there will be a letter on my desk making the resa mandatory " is that a good basis on which to base a decision to spend 41million of other peoples money. I also understand she made much of the recent 777 accident at Heathrow where the aircraft landed short of the runway and the resa saved everyone, on 27L at heathrow the resa is at the other end !!. I do not believe all the options have been explored as to what is necessary and on what grounds, I am afraid a large number of people are dining at this trough and sight has been lost of whose money this actually is. By all means spend 41m at the airport but make sure when you have that it has given some tangible benefit to all. I firmly believe that labelling this purely as a safety issue is now gagging some politicians who would have liked to put forward a reasoned argument and a review of the whole issue. Of course we do not have this extra length at present so does that in fact mean the airport is unsafe ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Some airlines have been quoted as saying it would make no difference to their operations whatsoever. Regarding possible accidents and all that. We could apply that sort of logic to anything. Harbours, roads, TT races, beaches, sewers. Anything. The Government have masses and masses of the Isle of Man's money to spend and their 'advisors' have made them desperate to dissipate it to the fat cats and so forth, under the guise of necessity. New Hospital. IRIS. MEA. Yes, its all a conspiracy That you consider it more acceptable for the legislature to take decisions without expert guidance and advice than with it is bizarre to say the least. In fact, this is an utterly ridiculous post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I am neither for nor against the construction of the runway extension, what I am strongly opposed to is a few people manipulating the use of public money without proper debate about the desirability or necessity of a project. When the original planning application for this was submitted, much was made of huge projected increases in traffic and the ability of larger aircraft to use the airport. Time has proven that the figures much lauded, cannot be supported so the whole emphasis of the recent TV and press coverage of this has put the safety issue to the fore. Safety is a very emotive subject and everyone should support anything which makes travel safer, however exactly what is necessary is open to serious debate. These suggested safety areas are not mandatory and should they ever become so then some UK airports will have no option but to publish shorter runway figures as they cannot extend. I have been informed that the airport director has said something like " I am convinced one day there will be a letter on my desk making the resa mandatory " is that a good basis on which to base a decision to spend 41million of other peoples money. I also understand she made much of the recent 777 accident at Heathrow where the aircraft landed short of the runway and the resa saved everyone, on 27L at heathrow the resa is at the other end !!. I do not believe all the options have been explored as to what is necessary and on what grounds, I am afraid a large number of people are dining at this trough and sight has been lost of whose money this actually is. By all means spend 41m at the airport but make sure when you have that it has given some tangible benefit to all. I firmly believe that labelling this purely as a safety issue is now gagging some politicians who would have liked to put forward a reasoned argument and a review of the whole issue. Of course we do not have this extra length at present so does that in fact mean the airport is unsafe ? I agree - the lack of sensible discussion on the actual need for this is scandelous. Plus, even on the unlikely grounds that if something did 'have' to be done, there are alternatives to look into too e.g. materiel solutions designed to slow aircraft down in the event of overshoot etc. People need to put this £40M into perspective i.e. it is the equivalent of £1300 per household on the island, and other than for Dept Health & Social Security and Dept Education, £40M is higher than the annual spend of all other government departments. Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 15.8 Education 99.5 Health and Social Security 215.81 Home Affairs 38.16 Local Government and Environment 31.05 Tourism and Leisure 27.48 Trade and Industry 10.62 Transport 39.74 Treasury 33.99 (pink book) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 The government, that is to say the Council of Ministers, along with the inevitable wannabes and crawlers in the rest of Tynwald, are like a dog with a bone once they have been convinced that something is necessary. They do not like losing face and those once fragile egos have now been moulded into sturdy stuff. The Flouride farce (I am in an alliterate mood today) is a good recent/current example. There will be the inevitable spouting of how much the runway has been debated in Tynwald but to be honest all the 'debating' has taken part after the fait accompli. By that I mean the decision has been made by Council of Ministers (CoMin). See, that's the beauty of Manx Politics - no opposition. Even the moronic masses like me and thee can buggar off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 We are recycling the same arguements; Asitis's case for putting a stop to this massive waste of OUR money is flawless and I made the point, some time ago, concerning the inablility/unwillingness of our public servants - yes, you MHKs and other amateurs in our legislature are put there by US to serve US - to have the integrity to say 'OK, we've had a rethink and we'll put this one on hold'. I shall put same the question as I did earlier in this discussion to which there was no response; how can we bring pressure to bear on Government to get this project reviewed? Or is this Islands' constitutional structure so procedurally bankrupt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 We are recycling the same arguements; Asitis's case for putting a stop to this massive waste of OUR money is flawless and I made the point, some time ago, concerning the inablility/unwillingness of our public servants - yes, you MHKs and other amateurs in our legislature are put there by US to serve US - to have the integrity to say 'OK, we've had a rethink and we'll put this one on hold'. I shall put same the question as I did earlier in this discussion to which there was no response; how can we bring pressure to bear on Government to get this project reviewed? Or is this Islands' constitutional structure so procedurally bankrupt? I think a major problem was that the issue was not properly debated in the first instance, and whether the original appeal was properly organised is also another matter. With an appeal already dismissed I think organising another without 'substantial new grounds' for such an appeal would be very difficult - especially without the support of a significant number of MHKs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Come on Albert, that is only the appeal in relation to Planning Permission. Nothing to do with the argument as to whether or not our Government should be spending over £40million on this scheme. The arguments are simple, it is either necessary or it is not. It is not....although it might be...maybe....we'll have to see. Another argument is whether the runaway is desired. It is, by contractors and consultants and various civil servants and of course the smiling faces in the Government. Whether or not the public of the Isle of Man desire their money to be spent on such a scheme appears entirely irrelevant. As I say, you lot can buggar off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Listening to the radio this morning there were two articles which suggested that the runway extension £millions could be better spent elsewhere. They were talking about cruise ships coming to the Island and how the money would be better spent extending the harbour to receive these visitors without them having to use those shuttle boats. In fact there has been a 'specially' made gangway made for this very purpose. There was meant to be a grand opening and receiving party there this morning but the ship left without dropping off any visitors because it was too choppy or something, so it shot off to Belfast instead. It's a bit of a buggar when you spend all that shed loads of money on something, hold a party - and nobody turns up. I'm sure there will be a good opening party for the runway though. And a plaque so yet another money waster can be immortalised in the Manx psyche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.