triskelion Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 "Aerodrome Bird Control" ? EDIT: Oh right Chapter 3 section 5. What am I supposed to see here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Evidence? Evidence of what? Evidence that rock armour is needed so that the runway will last 100 years? Do you really think planes will be flying in 100 years? What fuel will they use? Will they need a runway at all? Evidence that there is more to it than we are being told? There is always more to it. E.g. submit plans for a new roundabout and ask if it should go ahead after you have already spent £1,000,000 on the pub and planning? Jersey has a shorter runway than IOM. They land 737s there many times daily. They also land bigger planes than that there too. Prior to Jersey having it's extension (10+ years ago), I remember them landing a Lockheed Tristar there. That is a seriously big, transatlantic type plane. So, the longer runway we already have can easily accomodate Flybe's rubber band models. Unfortunately, work has already started on the extention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 It isn't about aircraft types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I still don't see why the rock has to come from Norway The extension is in an area sheltered from the prevailing wind and is only subject to a battering in an easterly gale, probably less than a dozen times a year There is a quarry only 300 meters from the site which provides the same rock as was used for Castletown breakwater, which is still keeping waves at bay despite several hundred years of pounding by the sea Looks to me like a classic case of the consultants + contractors + senior civil servants getting their stories straight then giving the clueless politicians a slick presentation. That, combined with the promise of said politicians getting their names engraved on a lump of rock and a good piss-up at the opening ceremony is usually enough to send them off in nodding approval Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 There is a quarry only 300 meters from the site which provides the same rock as was used for Castletown breakwater, which is still keeping waves at bay despite several hundred years of pounding by the sea no doubt the stone is excellent, however the quay at Castletown (ie the bit between the footbridge and road bridge dates from c.1810 - the Umber quay on the Lorne house side somewhat later - the breakwater and 'dry' harbour date from 1844-5 and to indicate that things havn't changed the construction was roundly condemmed as unnecessary and not sactioned by admiralty etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Looks to me like a classic case of the consultants + contractors + senior civil servants getting their stories straight then giving the clueless politicians a slick presentation. That, combined with the promise of said politicians getting their names engraved on a lump of rock and a good piss-up at the opening ceremony is usually enough to send them off in nodding approval Maybe there should be a lump of rock with the names of everyone who has made a financial contribution carved on it - mind you that would be so big it would be a safety hazard. I am still puzzled by the huge cost differences projected for the (cancelled) improvements to Carlisle and for Ronaldsway. This is the first time I have seen anything that might give a basis for cost comprison. On the one hand we apparently need to ship rocks from Norway and infill from Liverpool which may cost a lot. On the other hand Carlisle's costs for what looks like much more work would have cost 30% less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Assuming the project at Carlisle was costed accurately. Its fairly apparent that it was not the final costing, otherwise why abandon it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I believe that the project was shelved at Carlisle due to the difficulties encountered over planning objections and the delays meant that Stobarts were not prepared to be held to ransom by the planners when investing private money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 It isn't about aircraft types. sorry to double post but forgot I wanted to add that the original submission to government made a big play on the changing aircraft types citing Airbus 319 / 20 boeing etc. Any research will tell you that in these fuel sensitive times these aircraft will not become stock regional aircraft. For those who think this was all about safety see the original planning submission where passenger numbers / aircraft types / "international hub" all formed an integral part of the raison d'etre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Any idea where I can get those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 It isn't about aircraft types. sorry to double post but forgot I wanted to add that the original submission to government made a big play on the changing aircraft types citing Airbus 319 / 20 boeing etc. Any research will tell you that in these fuel sensitive times these aircraft will not become stock regional aircraft. For those who think this was all about safety see the original planning submission where passenger numbers / aircraft types / "international hub" all formed an integral part of the raison d'etre. Aer Lingus have regular Airbus 320 passenger services into Jersey on its shorter runway so I am not sure why a 'big play' was made of that point for Ronaldsway. Ronaldsway International would need a helluva lot of justifying. With the local population numbers and the tourist numbers rationally it is a 'feeder' airport. This raises another concern. "We have got ourselves an 'international' airport. So that we do not waste our expenditure we would like another £50 million for international promotion overseas. Oh, and a bit more to upgrade the Terminal". Do you have a www. address for the original planning submission? TriskelionAssuming the project at Carlisle was costed accurately. Its fairly apparent that it was not the final costing, otherwise why abandon it? Even so 30% less for a lot more infrastructure is strange...maybe the Private Sector is that much more efficient and effective than the Public Sector? Even if the price was 25% out it would still make the work at Ronaldsway look expensive. Could the Government be over-capitalising the airport with taxpayer funds? If they sold it what would it be worth? (Macquarie are experts in this area....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/airport/pr31res...icationsub1.pdf is as close as you will get to the planning application. Don't know if these kind of things are archived, might be worth asking at the Tynwald Library if you are bothered enough. To be honest, trying to compare it to the abortive Carlisle project is pure speculation, so of highly dubious value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 most of the information to which I refer is on the CD, I haven't seen a link online. There is far more detail than the link above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 'triskelion' date='Jul 9 2008, 08:34 PM' post='337912'To be honest, trying to compare it to the abortive Carlisle project is pure speculation, so of highly dubious value. Thanks for link. Maybe trying to compare Public Sector and Private Sector financial and project management is also comparing chalk and cheese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 To be honest, trying to compare it to the abortive Carlisle project is pure speculation, so of highly dubious value. I have a copy of the original proposal for the Summerland / Derby Castle Swimming Pool complex drawn up by Lomas architects in 1963 Included in the details are like for like costings for similar projects in the UK. This seems to make perfect sense, I mean you wouldn't buy anything these days without looking it up an a price comparison site so why should capital projects be any different ? I would be interested to know what our hospital, incinerator etc would have cost in the UK and I'm willing to bet we paid about 50% 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.