New Runway. . . . Or Save Coastal Erosion?

[triskelion]

I wonder if its possible to get a breakdown of how all this money will be spent...

 

Anyway; we can probably all agree that the runway resurfacing is not a bad thing and is not a crazy waste on money.

 

Furthermore, whilst the new RESA's are not currently mandantory, the nature of the World we live in probably entails that they eventually will. According the the planning inspector, the new recommendations could simply be met by shortening the length designated as 'runway.' This would, however, have a negative impact on the types of aircraft that can land at Ronaldsway and/or the payloads they can carry.

 

So, rather than being a project designed to furnish the second homes of rock armour executives; this is actually something that has been (or in all probability will be) forced upon the Island.

[Skeddan]

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.

Still seems like it's going to be a white elephant to me. Many European airports are struggling (e.g. Sienna), uneconomic, and do not attract carriers just by 'being there'. The cost of airport taxes charged to IoM already makes it more expensive to fly to from London than say Venice, and carriers such as flybe are cutting services. If the extension is not paid for by the taxpayer, or out of the UK's defence budget, and is paid for in airport taxes, then it could make any flying - direct or indirect - ludicrously expensive. Factor in price sensitivity and one might find that where possible people would use the ferry instead, limit trips, and it would reduce inbound tourism. Paying for this extension may then reduce passenger numbers leading to financial collapse of the airport.

 

Sure the runway needs to be safe for small planes (capable of reaching London, etc.) and this might be a cost with resurfacing etc. The extension and expenditure of £44m does not seem to be a requirement even if the new regulations became mandatory, but rather a vanity project. I'd think half this amount invested elsewhere (ferry and improving existing services and developing code-shares) would have been far more beneficial.

According the the planning inspector, the new recommendations could simply be met by shortening the length designated as 'runway.' This would, however, have a negative impact on the types of aircraft that can land at Ronaldsway and/or the payloads they can carry.

So the type of aircraft and payloads might be more limited - if it became mandatory. Even so it could still cater to the type of trips currently being made from Ronaldsway. Payload limitations relates to capacity and ultilisation. I could see bigger planes with big payload capacity not servicing IoM because of lack of demand. If payload was a problem, it would be a good one - i.e. it means high utilisation - and can be addressed by increasing services. That is not only more flexible, without major capital investment, but also perhaps a great deal more economical, and certainly much lower risk.

 

There are also other cost issues - planes which could still be able to use the airport without extension have lower fuel costs and lower breakeven load factors. You aren't going to get short-haul jets being competitive, nor can I see long haul routes offering a good prospect of economical load factors.

 

Anyway, what are these long-haul routes that all these passengers want to regularly fly direct to? New York? The Caymans?

 

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.

It might be that this status of transit passengers could be negotiated with the UK. Is this a principal reason why £44m is going to be spent on this extension?

 

All that said, I don't know the business plan and financial model used to justify this expenditure. Can anyone shed any light on this? (e.g. taxpayer contribution, reserve for bailouts, contingencies, and additional cost of airport tax, impact on passenger numbers etc.)

 

triskelion - do you have info on what types of aircraft could still use the runway in this became mandatory? e.g. would DHC-8's no longer be able to fly from Ronaldsway.

[asitis]

The runway as is or even shorter can service all the current fleet of aircraft who regularly service IOM. BTW the new runway will have no effect whatsoever on the days when weather precludes operation. All the dash series of aircraft are designed for short field operation in any case. BTW Jersey runway is slightly shorter, easy jet operate from there !, nothing to do with runway just number of bums on seats !!

[Skeddan]

The runway as is or even shorter can service all the current fleet of aircraft who regularly service IOM. BTW the new runway will have no effect whatsoever on the days when weather precludes operation. All the dash series of aircraft are designed for short field operation in any case. BTW Jersey runway is slightly shorter, easy jet operate from there !, nothing to do with runway just number of bums on seats !!

Just to clarify - this would be so even if the new regulations became mandatory?

 

Do you know by how much loading would have to be reduced - e.g. could flight to London or Liverpool still be made with 60% loading (well above break-even for DHC-8).

[spanna]

As far as im aware its not a runway extension but a runway "runoff" extension.

As the rule coming into force is a minimum runoff length.

The options being shorten the runway we have now to make the runoff long enough or extend the runoff into the sea.

There is no option there. If you shorten the runway, the e195s, e145s couldnt take off fully loaded. and the charter a320s,737,757s would certainly not be getting in.

 

You would end up with crappy small props flying here only. I cant see why anyone is whinging about it, surely people who fly from here dont prefer crappy small prop planes over fast regional jets?

[jimbms]

You would end up with crappy small props flying here only. I cant see why anyone is whinging about it, surely people who fly from here dont prefer crappy small prop planes over fast regional jets?

Well if they don't like the planes we fly from here..........Theres always a boat in the morning

[Skeddan]

the e195s, e145s couldnt take off fully loaded. and the charter a320s,737,757s would certainly not be getting in.

 

You would end up with crappy small props flying here only. I cant see why anyone is whinging about it, surely people who fly from here dont prefer crappy small prop planes over fast regional jets?

So might have to change somewhere for long-haul rather than make use of the occasional charter. If airport taxes become astronomical, not many people will be flying anyway - and won't be many planes flying, large or small.

 

Maybe money is no issue - at least for residents if not tourists - but generally people would choose to fly in a DHC-8 rather than a regional jet if the cost is a lot lower. Those regional jets won't be flying into London City Airport - but I see they might be going to T5. (and though they are faster in the air, for most destinations it wouldn't reduce journey time anyway).

 

For short haul destinations there would be greater choice using short haul aircraft - serving those destinations that way is viable given loadfactor economics. Regional jets require consistent high demand. (Even if there is that demand at present, the savings would probably be minimal compared to £44m)

 

What are the long-haul destinations which would have regular direct flights served by a320s, 737s, 757s? Please could someone explain.

[triskelion]

If airport taxes become astronomical, not many people will be flying anyway - and won't be many planes flying, large or small.

Why would that happen when the project is being funded by central government?

[Skeddan]

If airport taxes become astronomical, not many people will be flying anyway - and won't be many planes flying, large or small.

Why would that happen when the project is being funded by central government?

If the cost wasn't passed back to those using the airport in some way like this, then the whole thing seems even more questionable.

 

It seems that £44m of taxpayers money is being spent on a marginal improvement in convenience for those people who do fly. And, as far as I can see the only bankable benefit is this will allow those people taking charter flights the convenience of maybe not having to change flights in future. Maybe also it allows carriers to be more profitable by having higher loadings (more bums on seats) - and so is a kind of subsidy to these operators (and an inefficient roundabout one at that).

 

I'd think there's other ways taxpayers money could be spent which would be of more general benefit and to meet more pressing and important needs. (e.g. better dental services for children).

 

An extension won't be a safety requirement for short-haulers like the DHC-8, and I don't see any prospect of a high level of demand for any regular longhaul services in the foreseable future. I am feeling like a real dummy here - what am I missing in the business case for this extension? The MHKs who approved this obviously believe this will bring some very significant tangible benefits - but so far I haven't been able to grasp what those are.

[Albert Tatlock]

This is a scandelous waste of public money. The sticky stuff could be about to hit the fan in the economy, and these idiots are piddling money away on something totally unneccesary.

 

Is there any way this can be questioned/audited - or grieved about at Tynwald in July?

[asitis]

If airport taxes become astronomical, not many people will be flying anyway - and won't be many planes flying, large or small.

Why would that happen when the project is being funded by central government?

If the cost wasn't passed back to those using the airport in some way like this, then the whole thing seems even more questionable.

 

It seems that £44m of taxpayers money is being spent on a marginal improvement in convenience for those people who do fly. And, as far as I can see the only bankable benefit is this will allow those people taking charter flights the convenience of maybe not having to change flights in future. Maybe also it allows carriers to be more profitable by having higher loadings (more bums on seats) - and so is a kind of subsidy to these operators (and an inefficient roundabout one at that).

 

I'd think there's other ways taxpayers money could be spent which would be of more general benefit and to meet more pressing and important needs. (e.g. better dental services for children).

 

An extension won't be a safety requirement for short-haulers like the DHC-8, and I don't see any prospect of a high level of demand for any regular longhaul services in the foreseable future. I am feeling like a real dummy here - what am I missing in the business case for this extension? The MHKs who approved this obviously believe this will bring some very significant tangible benefits - but so far I haven't been able to grasp what those are.

 

Hi Skeddan,

 

you are missing nothing, there is no business case the whole thing goes against DOT policy (2004) that the airport should be self funding, impossible from here on in.

[spanna]

This is a scandelous waste of public money. The sticky stuff could be about to hit the fan in the economy, and these idiots are piddling money away on something totally unneccesary.

 

Is there any way this can be questioned/audited - or grieved about at Tynwald in July?

totally unneccesary?

So your happy for the island to go back to having 1 small airline with very small prop a/c charging whatever they like?

Because without the runoff extension the big regional airlines will stop coming in here. So there goes the competition.

 

The point in running an airport is to try and encourage as many airlines as possible to operate from your airport.

more airlines serving more destinations = more passengers = more money.

[spanna]

but generally people would choose to fly in a DHC-8 rather than a regional jet if the cost is a lot lower. Those regional jets won't be flying into London City Airport - but I see they might be going to T5. (and though they are faster in the air, for most destinations it wouldn't reduce journey time anyway).

 

For short haul destinations there would be greater choice using short haul aircraft - serving those destinations that way is viable given loadfactor economics. Regional jets require consistent high demand. (Even if there is that demand at present, the savings would probably be minimal compared to £44m)

 

What are the long-haul destinations which would have regular direct flights served by a320s, 737s, 757s? Please could someone explain.

Just need to clear a few things up.

 

- the ticket price of flying in a dh8-q400 is no different to flying in a e195 or e145.

- regional jets do fly into london city. rj85, rj100 etc.

- who is going into t5? that can only be BA and there arent any BA flights here.

- regional jets are short haul aircraft. I think your getting confused on your a/c definitions. regional jets consist of a/c like embraer 145, 195. Rj85,100. dornier 328j. bae 146, crjs, etc

- a320s, 737s are not long haul a/c. They are deployed on shorthaul/commuter/charter routes.

[asitis]

This is a scandelous waste of public money. The sticky stuff could be about to hit the fan in the economy, and these idiots are piddling money away on something totally unneccesary.

 

Is there any way this can be questioned/audited - or grieved about at Tynwald in July?

totally unneccesary?

So your happy for the island to go back to having 1 small airline with very small prop a/c charging whatever they like?

Because without the runoff extension the big regional airlines will stop coming in here. So there goes the competition.

 

The point in running an airport is to try and encourage as many airlines as possible to operate from your airport.

more airlines serving more destinations = more passengers = more money.

 

I'm sorry spanna you couldn't be more wrong, a thorough cost benefit analysis will show you that the large aircraft will quickly put the smaller operators out of business, the figures are something like this 2007 29,000 movements average 26 passengers per movement to a large number of destinations, large aircraft easyjet etc operate at 83% capacity about 130 seats a time, 5000 movements less choice small operators out of business !, I believe the current situation is healthy for the Islands economy choice of destination and regular flights. Also the larger airlines contribute little to the economy they are aggressive and infrastructure demanding and will not pay. You must remember airports like Southampton for instance have a catchment area within one hours drive of 3 million people, we have 80,000 less those who don't fly. Tourism accounts for only 6% of the Islands economy so you will not fill many planes with that. All in all might be safe and look good but on paper at least is another financial black hole.

[Skeddan]

totally unneccesary?

So your happy for the island to go back to having 1 small airline with very small prop a/c charging whatever they like?

Because without the runoff extension the big regional airlines will stop coming in here. So there goes the competition.

 

The point in running an airport is to try and encourage as many airlines as possible to operate from your airport.

more airlines serving more destinations = more passengers = more money.

Having an airport doesn't mean airlines will operate from it. The airline and airport business is fiercely competitive. Airlines don't just come because an airport is there with a runway which their planes can land on. The economics of a short-haul DHC-8 are very competitive against a regional jet - unless there is very consistent demand on the route with high load factors. You could build a spanking new runway with all the bells and whistles and still no airlines come (apart from maybe a basic short haul turboprop service - as is, to meet demand - as is). In other words it would achieve nothing and be a white elephant project.

 

If you want to bring passengers in, encourage competition and control pricing, then there are ways of doing it without building an extension. It does sound very much like a 'field of dreams' - but one which will be built with no one coming - much like Sienna airport.