Second airport?

“While Sydney Airport may have the physical capacity to cope with some growth in the short to medium term, the Government is concerned that the capacity limitations may over time constrain the development of our aviation industry and have a negative impact on broader economic growth, given the airport’s strategic importance in the national network,” the Green Paper read.

In its latest Master Plan, which received government approval in June, Sydney Airports Corporation Limited (SACL) disputed the claims that it would reach capacity, instead predicting that with its expected investment plans it would be able to handle all expected traffic increases out to 2029, even with the current 80 movements per hour cap and night curfew arrangements.

Not surprisingly, shadow Minister for Transport Warren Truss MP has backed the SACL position. A spokesman for Mr Truss told Australian Aviation, “In government, the Coalition felt that a second Sydney airport would not be needed for at least another 20 years.

While that timeframe has shortened, other factors such as the global economic downturn and the use of larger planes such as the A380 has moved out the date when a second airport might be needed.”

The green paper has also made it clear that Labor has dumped the long favoured position of building an airport on Federal land west of Kingsford Smith at Badgerys Creek. “The construction of an airport at Badgerys Creek is no longer an option,” read the Green Paper. “The future use of the Badgerys Creek site will be subject to further consideration.”

This has led to much media debate over where a second airport will be, despite the government currently only committing to establish a study group to investigate different options for a second airport. The terms of reference for the study group will be contained in the Aviation White Paper which is due out by the end of this year.

In this debate, the option which appears to be firming as the favourite among commentators and other stakeholders is opening up RAAF Richmond or to either accept a limited number of commercial flights, or be completely redeveloped into a commercial airport. Other options include building a greenfields airport further out from the city and linking it with some form of fast rail, while a number of other airports have put together plans to help ease the congestion at Sydney by operating more freight and connecting passenger services through other ports such as Canberra and Newcastle.

Compared to previous debates on the topic, the options appear to have changed. While Bankstown has long been seen by some as the best option, Minister Albanese has ruled out allowing scheduled services to the airport, although it remains capable of taking Code 3C aircraft, such as BAe 146s. Bankstown Airports Limited has nevertheless called on the government to allow it to accept limited numbers of scheduled services to ease pressure on KSA as part of an all-encompassing Sydney Basin airport strategy.

Expanding Newcastle, which the New South Wales government identified in 2007 as a likely candidate for a second international airport to serve the state, also appears to be off the table, primarily due to the large investment that would be required for a rapid link to Sydney. The Department of Defence has also maintained that under its current joint-use arrangement that the RAAF needs to maintain operational priority over the airfield.

Starting from Scratch

While the terms of reference for the airport study group have not been finalised, a large part of it is expected to focus on the possibility of building a new airport at a greenfields site. Possible locations for this include Goulburn and Orange, although most stakeholders favour a site closer to the Sydney basin.

While not naming any particular site, the government appears to have backed an airport which may sit outside the basin, but be linked by a high-speed rail link to transport passengers to the CBD.

Not surprisingly, SACL points out that a remote airport linked by rail transport may not be the most cost effective solution. “In Sydney Airport’s view… the substantial cost, running into the multiple billions of dollars, needed to build a second Sydney airport, with associated fast transport infrastructure, cannot be justified in light of other identified infrastructure priorities, the infrastructure already in place at Sydney Airport and its demonstrated ability to sustainably meet the projected growth in demand,” SACL said in its submission in response to the Green Paper.

Most airlines also realise that with the proximity to the city, KSA serves it well, and to move a significant majority of their operations out to another airport could mean moving away from a large market. AirAsia X CEO Azran Osman-Rani recently told Australian Aviation that his airline was most likely to launch its Sydney services into Kingsford-Smith over previous plans to fly to Newcastle, while Tiger Airways has also recently started flights to the city airport.

“The site of the second Sydney airport must be capable of drawing on a sufficient population pool to generate a strong and growing outwards passenger base for both domestic and international air services,” Board of Airline Representatives of Australia executive director Warren Bennet told The Australian newspaper on July 13. “Proximity to the population pool is critical in order to minimise land transport infrastructure development costs and to maximise the attractiveness of the airport to airline passengers in the Sydney basin.”

As such, convincing any airline to move a substantial part of their operations to a new airport possibly outside of the basin could be difficult. Qantas said recently that to relocate its operations from KSA would cost it up to $1 billion.

Splitting some regional flights out to the new airport or even to Bankstown could also pose problems. A number of rural and regional councils also expressed concern that regional services would suffer if these flights were forced to move out to a second airport further away from the CBD. Similarly, BARA has called for the new airport to be built close to the CBD, saying that to do so would be the only way to effectively take pressure off KSA during the peak morning and afternoon periods.

Richmond

With new greenfields sites close to Sydney extremely limited, a number of stakeholders have backed calls to open up RAAF Richmond to be either redeveloped into a solely commercial airport, or as a joint airport/military facility, and now appears to be the frontrunner in much of the debate on a second airport.

The Qantas Group, Virgin Blue and Tiger Airways in their submissions all backed in some way looking at the options to possibly open Richmond, while the BARA has also backed opening up the base, although few international carriers have made any comment individually about the idea.

In its February submission to the green paper process, Tiger advocated opening up Richmond as a dual-use facility to facilitate the establishment of a ‘no frills’ terminal. “It is important for the growth of low fare travel in Australia that the final decision for the basin is not gold plated and that options to ensure efficient use of current infrastructure are pursued to reduce overall charges.”

One of the earliest backers of this proposal is the Hills Shire Council, which suggested that Richmond be opened up to some commercial flights in its original submission on the discussion paper in July last year. The Shire advocated a plan whereby the RAAF could maintain its presence under a joint use arrangement, similar to that used at Newcastle/RAAF Williamtown.

Hills Shire general manager David Walker told Australian Aviation that its motivation was to allow residents and businesses in the area more readily available access to air transport. “The Hills Shire has the Nor West Business Park, which is now one of the largest business parks in Sydney and I think its ultimate completion of development and utilisation depends on better transport infrastructure, and that includes air transport.”

“If people could land at Richmond, they could be at Nor West Business Park within 20 minutes, whereas taking a taxi from Sydney Airport sometimes takes an hour and a half,” he added.

Walker also pointed out that with a number of RAAF operations now moving further north that opening up the airfield to commercial traffic could help to spur additional investment for the benefit of the RAAF. “I think the challenge there is as they’re moving more and more of their investment to northern Australia, it seems to me that Richmond is going to compete with these other areas for investment. So maybe the joint approach may be the way of getting what the economy of the area needs and what Richmond needs as well. It’s been a long time since there was a lot of money spent there,” he said.

While the council has continued to hold a position drew a negative response from the neighbouring Hawkesbury Council, which is the local government area Richmond is in. “Hawkesbury City Council’s view on RAAF Base Richmond acknowledges that the Base is a significant contributor to the local economy and is of the view that Federal Government civil airport policy directions should not cloud/distract from Defence Policy and its strategic and operational needs, which must include the retention of RAAF Base Richmond as a strategic Defence facility,” the Council said in a submission on the aviation green paper in February.

“I understand Hawkesbury’s position, but my view is that Richmond now has to compete with other Defence establishments for investment and maybe one way of getting that extra investment is through joint use,” Walker responded.

As an operating airfield, Richmond is seen by many as a low risk options, although it would still require some investment to bring it up to an ability to operate sustained commercial flights. The current single runway is 2134m long and has scope for further expansion. With sufficient vacant land around it, a longer north-south runway could be constructed, allowing the airport to accommodate widebody aircraft. However this would also require some changes to existing roads and rail lines around the perimeter of the base.

Similarly, ground transport issues are much easier, with road access close by and a rail line running past the base, albeit only a single line. While some investment in upgrading these transport links would be required, it would be much less than a link out to a new greenfields airport, especially if it were to be located out from Sydney.

An Opposition spokesman also noted that there are still issues with opening up Richmond to commercial flying. “There are major geographical issues with the Blue Mountains escarpment, the Hawkesbury River and fog, not to mention problems with meshing the military operations. During the Coalition’s time in government, Richmond was discarded as an option for these and other reasons.”

The Department of Defence has also expressed concerns over the proposal. While operations by the RAAF have lessened, a Department of Defence spokesperson told Australian Aviation that Richmond was planned to remain a military base. In particular, the spokesperson noted that Richmond remains one of the RAAF’s main bases, and is a “major logistical support hub for the Australian Defence Force”, and as such operations would remain there for the foreseeable future.

And as for opening up to limited commercial flying, “Air Force has not conducted any discussions with airlines regarding possible use of Richmond.”

Lifting the Lid?

However, it seems that the most feasible solution may be to loosen some of the operational constraints on Kingsford-Smith, such as lifting the movements cap as some airlines such as Qantas have called for. They claim that Kingsford-Smith could easily accommodate up to 120 movements per hour instead of the current maximum of 80.

SACL in its latest Master Plan claims that it can still continue to grow and accommodate the projected traffic growth over the next 20 years, even within the airport’s current constraints. The company has also resisted calls to revise the cap, but could understandably favour such a move.

However, this is not a politically acceptable solution for the Labor government, particularly as the seats of Kingsford Smith (held by Peter Garrett) and Minister Albanese’s own seat of Grayndler surround the airport. Not surprisingly, the Minister said in a statement in June that: “The Government is absolutely committed to maintaining the existing cap on movements as well as the curfew.”

With the issue lifting the cap seemingly insurmountable, it does open up some opportunities for other airports around New South Wales to take some of the pressure off KSA. Canberra Airport in particular sees that with its plans of establishing a 24 hour airfreight hub could see some freight carriers move their services there, thus freeing up slots at KSA.

Time will tell

While a number of possible scenarios have already been established in the public debate on a second Sydney airport, little progress is expected until the release of the White Paper, which promises to outline the terms of reference for the study group which will consider the options available.

The Opposition has given broad support for the study, but says that it must consider the issues in depth. “The process must include a thorough investigation of any proposed second site to ensure that it did not become a white elephant,” said a spokesman for Truss.

“Recent world history is littered with examples of second city airports that are massive loss-makers and have done little or nothing to reduce the strain on the primary airport.”

It has also, thus far, avoided any commitment to a preferred option for a second airport. “In Opposition, Labor raised at least five different prospects for a second Sydney Airport. In Opposition, the Coalition does not intend making the same mistake that would lead to confusion and unnecessary concern among the residents of Sydney and neighbouring regions. We will consider any Government decision on its merits,” said the spokesman.

In the short term, there appears to be less pressure to start work on a new airport. The downturn in aviation has meant that the pressure on Sydney Airport has eased, with movements down an average five per cent per month between January and May this year. However, any sustained recovery over the next few years could reignite debate over KSA’s capacity and hasten the need for a second airport if the operational constraints remain as they currently are.

Overall, the issue of a second airport for Sydney is one which remains complex, and it seems that both sides of parliament will be content to let the study group take its time to examine a range of options before jumping to any conclusions on a preferred site. With little risk of KSA hitting capacity in the short term, there may be future rewards for taking the time to choose the right option.