Cret Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Why can't they build this out of stabits anyway? Surely they could do the same as they did for battery pier and then just fill in the top & surface it. They could be made locally (as I think the original ones were?) and therefore save obscene amounts of money hopefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid 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. I doubt doubt it. It's a daft amount of cash to solve a problem that isn't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 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. If there is a problem, would an whole new airport at a different location be a feasible alternative option? If so, has it been considered? As I understand it the current site is extremely limited and costly in terms of expansion. A new airport might perhaps be more expensive (depending on value of land etc. it might even be cheaper). If given these projected increases in traffic is anything to go by then at some point there may have to be another runway... Is it perhaps throwing good money after bad? Better still might be a tie-in with a UK or Irish airport with very quick transfers - rather than trying to provide IoM with all-singing-all-dancing point-to-point facilities itself. It might take just a little longer in journey time, but getting to the main airport by shuttle flight would add less time than say getting to Narita airport from Tokyo, or Kyoto to Kansai. In those terms it seems more of a vanity project than a real necessity or great benefit. Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 If there is a problem, would an whole new airport at a different location be a feasible alternative option? I would imagine the cost of a new airport would be £500 million plus - we could have a monorail for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 If there is a problem, would an whole new airport at a different location be a feasible alternative option? I would imagine the cost of a new airport would be £500 million plus - we could have a monorail for that. You could spend that much, but I'd think the cost could be a lot less, especially if existing equipment is taken into account and a new site is suitable without extensive drainage, levelling etc. (Jurby??). Maybe £90m?? The additional cost might be offset by land values - and benefit of developing existing airport site etc. Of course it would have been better had it been considered 10 years ago before investment made into Ronaldsway, but even so it possibly might prove a feasible alternative. (Or go for a second hand one - e.g. Exeter Airport for £60m ) If anything I'd think using another airport(s) as a hub could be more attractive if a requirement. Why is it so essential to offer point to point facilities for bigger aircraft? Better to get into code-sharing etc. i.e. can still do Geneva-Douglas or Tehran-Douglas - but via Liverpool with very short stop and change (with or without eBorders). (Glasgow, Leeds, Exeter or other might be better than Liverpool, which is just an example). What great benefit would the extension offer over this which is worth the cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Why is it so essential to offer point to point facilities for bigger aircraft? Its about safety, dummy! I vaguely remember hearing that the little island-hopper size planes...not many...something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Why is it so essential to offer point to point facilities for bigger aircraft? Its about safety, dummy! I vaguely remember hearing that the little island-hopper size planes...not many...something. Sorry triskelion - I don't get it. If the recommendations became mandatory, and no extension is built, does it mean that aircraft could not land and take off in IoM and safely fly to Liverpool, Leeds or wherever and shuttle passengers to that departure airport? Would it not be safe enough? How much more safe would having this extension make flying from IoM than that? (If this reduces the chance of 20 fatalities by just one in a fifty million, then it will be safer, but possibly not worth it unless required - £40m spent on road safety, safety in the TT, and other initiatives would save more lives). Are you saying this extension will make that much of a difference to safety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Well, it seems to me the initial enthusiasm was for a bigger planes and more (further) destinations. Whatever. Anyway, the line now is that they need to extend for the runway end safety zones to comply with international safety standards. Whilst these are currently not mandantory, it seems to be generally agreed that they will become so at some stage, though some favour waiting until this actually the case. If a promontory is not constructed for this purpose, space will have to found within the existing airfield, which would, the airlines assure us, be very bad. A number of alternatives were examined prior to deciding on this one, including the possibility of using Jurby, but they were all rejected. Frankly, the current scheme seems the best of a bad bunch, rather than some scheme to benefit CoMin friends in the rock barge business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 I'm sorry triskelion but your arguments are hugely flawed, you are correct in as much as the initial enthusiasm for this hugely expensive project was the attraction to the Island of low cost carriers, that argument can be shot out of the water on purely economic grounds at the outset. The size of the project is not only based on the recommendations for a RESA but for a substantial runway extension as well. It is interesting to note how the ministers rhetoric has changed from business case to mandatory to now reported in the courier last week as "prudent". If the issue were purely one of safety then why not double the size of the runway, that would be hugely safer than its current length, however that is neither practical nor necessary in the real world. It is wise to spend a huge amount of public money at the airport and lots of infrastructure need improving however Gov. must ensure it has done its research first and not paid to have a conclusion rubber stamped !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsbot Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 Tynwald members approve a £44m project to strengthen and extend the runway at the Isle of Man airport. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7349569.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 Why can't they build this out of stabits anyway? Surely they could do the same as they did for battery pier and then just fill in the top & surface it. They could be made locally (as I think the original ones were?) and therefore save obscene amounts of money hopefully. Of course they could The new Battery Pier was built with a stone quarried in Foxdale ans protected from erosion by 5000 interlocking concrete Stabits which were built in a field at port Soderick It faces the worst of the prevailing south easterly gales and has stood up to them without problems, the runway extension will only have to withstand the occasional north easterly Given the solidity of the Battery Pier there can be no reasons why stone from the quarry at the end of the runway cannot be used in the same way and at a lower cost than shipping from Norway Unless you know different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 I'm sorry triskelion but your arguments are hugely flawed, you are correct in as much as the initial enthusiasm for this hugely expensive project was the attraction to the Island of low cost carriers, that argument can be shot out of the water on purely economic grounds at the outset. The size of the project is not only based on the recommendations for a RESA but for a substantial runway extension as well. It is interesting to note how the ministers rhetoric has changed from business case to mandatory to now reported in the courier last week as "prudent". If the issue were purely one of safety then why not double the size of the runway, that would be hugely safer than its current length, however that is neither practical nor necessary in the real world. It is wise to spend a huge amount of public money at the airport and lots of infrastructure need improving however Gov. must ensure it has done its research first and not paid to have a conclusion rubber stamped !! Woah woah woah, these aren't MY arguments; just saying that the minister has been saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Well, those of us who took an interest in this always knew it was a done deal, brought to the public by the production team that brought us IRIS, MEA etc !. The consultants and contractors must love the Isle of Man, get the cigars out chaps !! I hope this well of public money never dries up ! Sorry triskellion didn't mean to cause you offence but seeing money wasted in a non democratic way really gets my goat. I am a pilot so I'll certainly get my moneys worth but many thousands wont and their voice was never going to be heard. Tynwald and democracy two different things ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 I am broadly in agreement that there should be an extension to the runway. This will prove to be invaluable in years to come, and better to put in the expense now rather than leave it for future generations, when inflation will have taken its toll. The extension to the Battery Pier has already been mentioned. Initial plans included a possible replacement pier much further out, which would have increased the capacity of the harbour, and allowed for much larger ships to come in. As it is now, there is a permanent restriction to the size of ships that can use Douglas. Whilst Heysham is the main UK port for freight for the Island (with similar size restrictions) this is currently not necessarily material, unless cruise ships could have been accommodated at a sheltered berth. There has however beeen the lack of forethought over what may have been required in the future. The cost of reconstruction would have been considerably less had it been done when first suggested. Whether the construction should/could be completed using local stone/stabits is another matter. Do we have enough suitable stone locally? It will need a considerable quantity. As for the possibility of using small planes to link to an off-Island hub - a bit of a non-starter. People prefer to travel direct where possible. We have also recently seen the UK Govt's attempts to make days of change-over at UK airports UK days for the purposes of determining residence status. As they have had the idea, they may try to bring this back in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Be reasonable! Imagine someone like Mrs Crowe sitting in the back seat of a plane. You need a runway extension! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.