asitis Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 This may work !! safe.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Who wrote that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Not me, but I do have the authors permission to post it. It was written for professional examination purposes and is an academic document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 This may work !! Thanks, very interesting. How does this docment fit into the overall picture of the airport investment. Was it a 'freelance' report? It looks well researched to my layman's eyes but (pardon the question) how does it stand up in terms of professional analysis? I certainly wonder if it was read by MHKs before authorising the expenditure? The comparison of runway lengths surprised me as I thought Ronaldsway must have a very short runway to justify a £40 million spend. If I am reading the document correctly it actually seems very much on a par with Jersey, Guernsey, Southampton and London City. Is that before or after the £40 million spend? One can only hope that the Airport Manager is on a 30% fixed 70% performance related payment structure where the perfomance element is copper fastened to her achieving a minimum of the passenger growth targets that may have been used to 'justify' the investment - again if I quote correctly 9.3% per annum leading up to 2010, 11.8% p.a. over the next period to 2015. Given the decline of 2.5% in passenger numbers in 2007 would a significant part of the £40 million possibly have been better spent on promoting tourism? Reading this document my big fear would be that having spent £40 million of taxpayers' money on a runway that can only be justified by passenger growth the Government and the Airport will now want to spend extra millions of our money (above the current budget) on tourism to justify the spend. I hope I am wrong and that the runway itself will be sufficient incentive for bigger low cost carriers to fly here bringing a new stream of additional passengers without subsidies and for the existing carriers to be able to continue to survive if faced by that kind of competition. I also hope that their jets are quiet! Edit: Your previous post partially answers the source question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 One point on your post there manshimajin: The £44 million will be financed from the capital budget, so discussions of 'better spent on whatever' cannot be really applied very effectively. I personally do not see the case for the promintory (which is consuming half the runway project budget) in light of the collapse of one of the Island's major carriers, rising fuel costs and low passenger numbers. Instead I see this as a collosal waste of money. Sigh. I suppose there is no way this can be stopped? EDIT: Just looked at the motion that was put through Tynwald for this, and it looks like most of the other half of the money goes to accomodate all these big planes we are going to be getting in (strengthening taxiways and what have you). For fucks sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Thriller Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Cant the tower just be a massive Cock, cus thats what people think of the Island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Is this report Malarky circulated to Tynwald? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 One point on your post there manshimajin: The £44 million will be financed from the capital budget, so discussions of 'better spent on whatever' cannot be really applied very effectively. I personally do not see the case for the promintory (which is consuming half the runway project budget) in light of the collapse of one of the Island's major carriers, rising fuel costs and low passenger numbers. Instead I see this as a collosal waste of money. Sigh. I suppose there is no way this can be stopped? EDIT: Just looked at the motion that was put through Tynwald for this, and it looks like most of the other half of the money goes to accomodate all these big planes we are going to be getting in (strengthening taxiways and what have you). For fucks sake. Thanks - your point is taken. Having read the papers my concern was that it is all money from taxes as the Government's capital and expense budgets are all funded by us in some form or another. If I understand correctly the £44 million spend is fundamentally justified on grounds that an improved airport infrastructure will attract bigger carriers and more passengers to the Island. For this to be successful these passengers must be additional to the ones already brought here by other airlines and the IOMSPC. Otherwise we are spending £44 million to substitute one carrier for another. It just frivolously crossed my mind before that if the goal is to get more people over here there could be other ways to spend £44 million. That paper really shook me - if the current airlines don't want it, if they don't feel it is needed on any safety grounds, if Ronaldsway already has a runway that is as long as other key small/medium regional airports, if it is highly unlikely that we would get the passenger number increases projected (but might get rid of what little competition there is) - then why on earth are the MHKs authorising this spend? It sounds as if they couldn't manage a corner store (or a roundabout). I am sure that if anyone suggested curtailing/limiting this scheme the magic phrase 'penalty clauses' would now rear its ugly head. Still in straightened times maybe those armoured rocks could be left in Norway? And how much would the penalties be relative to the capital saved? Just keep hoping someone from the IOM media read this forum...mind you they don't exactly srike one as Woodward and Bernstein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 I should point out that this is only an academic document and no conclusions should be drawn from it, I am sure the same research principles were applied by all those who are in possession of the facts and it has only been posted in the interests of debate on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I've gone back and read the Tynwald debate on the motion to approve funding for the runway project, and it made me more unsure about the whole thing. First, Peter Karran gave what I thought to be a compelling argument against, though many of his points were (convincingly) shot down. So far as I can tell, the runway project has never actually been about business or commercial expansion. Mr Anderson, the Minister for the DoT, went so far as to call the academic paper (presumably the same as we have seen here) as 'pointless,' on the basis that it deliberately (and explicitly) ignores the safety case, which is the paramount justification for the project. Indeed, at least from what John Shimmin said in the debate, the only time a runway extension has been proposed on commercial expansion grounds was by...Peter Karran (who appeared to confirm this). The EMAS system (which has been mentioned on previous threads here) was also put forward by Mr Karren, but he himself admitted it was not a recognised measure under UK Aviation regulations. Even Peter Karran admitted half of the money would have to be spent anyway (and his proposed amendment reflected this), so I think we need to accept that we are talking about £22 million of taxpayers money with no business case, though this is still a substantial sum of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 My interpretation of what happened was that initially the submissions put forward by the proponents was 50/50 business case and safety. As the business case unravelled the issue of safety became the sole driver. The safety case is arguable ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 My interpretation of what happened was that initially the submissions put forward by the proponents was 50/50 business case and safety. As the business case unravelled the issue of safety became the sole driver. The safety case is arguable ! Based on what Triskelion and yourself have said above if the case was 50/50 then the £22 million can probably be justified assuming £22 million for safety is a reasonable price for the works needed (and that is where I hope the Airport authority is competent to evaluate quotes). But you do say that the safety case is arguable. But there seems to be a minimal commercial case for the other £22 million. Indeed there may even be a negative case. I think that if the Airport believe that there is a 'commercial case' they should be offered the money as a loan - as happens in real life - not as a gift. That way they can pay back principal and interest as a charge against the increased profits they (presumably) have projected to justify the commercial element of the project. What could be really interesting would be to float the possibility of privatising the airport - I wonder what its real commercial market value would be? Hopefully very much greater than the £50 million+ investment being made at present.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finaldestination Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Why, oh why, does everything these days have to be justified with a business case! What happened to good old common sense decisions made by professionals, free from interference from the 'bean counters'! It is probably one of the biggest gripes around amongst the staff of organisations that are technically based - airlines, airports, emergency services etc. etc. Don't get me wrong, I am not for squandering public money but we seem to pay highly professional people to run our organisations who come up with excellent common sense ideas only to be thwarted at the last minute by the 'bean counters'! Put yourself in an aircraft at the KWC end of the runway. It is raining, and as you are hurtling down the runway something goes horrendously wrong. Aircraft tries to stop but runs out of runway - first stop? - a massive steel gantry followed by a big drop onto the rocks! The IOM Government has a 'duty of care' to provide the best possible protection available for the travelling public, whether that be recommended, compulsory or just, in the opinion of the professionals, desirable. If you search the forums of avaiation accident photographs, you find loads of over-run incidents. I think one of the most notable recently was a BA146 which went off the end of the runway in Noway. I accept it was operating from a shorter runway but the principles are the same. http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/oy-crg/photo.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3v0 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Challenge for the guys, spot the tower: I have nothing to add, I just missed the boobs, welcome back to the thread boobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 The one thing we do need to avoid with the runway is for it to go down in the same way that Guernsey's appears to have. Guernsey Runway Deteriorating If we are going to have to spend a bit on upgrading the runway, including giving it a bit more length to avoid run-offs and for extra safety, to avoid airlines getting the hump and reducing their services or going away, then the money will have to be spent. Better now than when the cost has gone up even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.