Sydney Airport says it is able to meet aviation growth “within our existing footprint”

written by australianaviation.com.au | May 30, 2017
An aerial image of Sydney Airport. (Sydney Airport)
An aerial image of Sydney Airport. (Sydney Airport)

Sydney Airport chief executive Kerrie Mather says plans to expand Terminal 1 and the introduction of international flights at the Terminal 2/3 precinct will ensure Mascot has the necessary aviation capacity to meet the expected growth in passenger traffic in the years ahead.

Speaking at the company’s annual general meeting in Sydney on Tuesday, Mather said Sydney Airport has begun preparing its 2039 master plan, which factors in the opening of the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek in 2026.

Mather, who announced in March her intention to step down at chief executive once a successor is appointed by the board, said that initial work showed Sydney Airport was able to “meet significant aviation growth within our existing footprint”.

Advertisement
Advertisement

“Over the next 12 months, we will be preparing for the release of our 2039 Master Plan, and importantly progressing our expansion plans,” Mather said in prepared remarks. “This includes a greater focus on co-location, new terminals, and differentiated products.”

“These include an expansion of our international Terminal 1, by adding new gates, baggage system expansions and apron capacity. Also a new Terminal 4, which will provide new, international gates adjoining T2/T3. And also new aeronautical facilities in the SSE sector, south of General Holmes Drive.

“It is important these plans remain flexible, and that we deliver an integrated solution for passengers, terminal connectivity and ground access, whilst improving the customer experience, and optimising the capacity and operations at the airport.”

A slide from Sydney Airport's annual general meeting presentation. (Sydney Airport)
A slide from Sydney Airport’s annual general meeting presentation. (Sydney Airport)

Earlier in May, Sydney Airport said it would not take up its right of first refusal (ROFL) to build and operate the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek. The Commonwealth said it would build the  airport.

PROMOTED CONTENT

At the time, the company said the risks associated with the development and operation of the proposed airport were “considerable and ensure for many decades without commensurate returns for our investors”.

Although Sydney Airport will not be involved in Badgerys Creek, its chairman Trevor Gerber said the consultations with the federal government and others regarding the development would be useful in compiling the 2039 master plan.

“Over the past three years, the Western Sydney Airport consultation has allowed us to gather extensive and valuable information on future Sydney Basin demand, which will help us prepare for the release of our 2039 Master Plan, and importantly progressing our expansion plans in consultation with our stakeholders,” Gerber said in prepared remarks.

“We have no doubt that the new airport, which is expected to be operational late 2026, will create jobs and encourage significant investment in the region. Importantly, the additional aviation capacity Western Sydney Airport will provide for both the Sydney Basin and Sydney Airport, will ensure that NSW continues to compete both nationally and internationally competitive.”

Asked by a shareholder what the impact of Badgerys Creek would be on Sydney Airport’s profitability, Gerber said “looking a decade out is awfully difficult”.

Gerber confirmed previously issued guidance of a 33.5 cent distribution per stapled security for calendar 2017, with an interim distribution of 16.5 cents per stapled security.

Did you know that Australian Aviation Magazine comes digitally? Subscribe to Australian Aviation’s digital magazine for just $59.95 a year! Our app is available on mobile, tablet and PC devices! Subscribe now at australianaviation.com.au.

13 Comments

  • NJP

    says:

    So proposed T4, replaces the QF maintenance base – hope there’s not job losses for QF engineers

  • deano

    says:

    Wow
    They look like they are going to get rid of the Qantas Jet Base,
    Looks like long term parking will be greatly reduced
    The SSE sector will see the fire services demolished and a terminal built in THE only place they could ever build a parallel East/West runway
    Looks like they are expecting international freight to reduce dramatically as they extend T1
    Looks like S/W sector will have no parking or road access
    Looks like REX will need a new home when they extend T3

    Honestly my 3 year old could have done a better job with a crayon

    All good to have extra terminals until the wind blows from the west and you are down to 1 runway (a flaw that also besets BCA)

  • Matty

    says:

    The construction of Badgerys Creek may benefit Sydney Airport if the low cost carriers relocate. This would potentially free up additional slots for larger internationals to access Sydney. However there is also the possibility that Internationals may opt for Badgerys if their route planning prefers night time arrivals. Will be very interesting to see what happens in this space over the coming years.

  • Scott

    says:

    You can have all the aprons and gates you want but while the “movements” per hour are restricted by the government in the early morning peak periods, the airport is already at capacity.

  • Craig

    says:

    First step to get people to question the investment at Badgery’s Creek, make out it isn’t needed as Sydney has the space within existing boundaries. That’s one way to kill off the competition. The cap on movements per hour will continue to impact on the airports capacity during peak times.

    I can see Sydney Airport trying to get rid of the turboprop regionals because of increased revenue from landing fees for the larger jets and passenger through put in the terminals results in higher rents for business and costs for passengers

  • Marc

    says:

    Makes you wonder why Bankstown or Richmond options weren’t looked at properly. This country wastes money on bureaucracy.

  • Alex

    says:

    @Marc

    Bankstown and Richmond are even close to suitable candidates as a second airport.

  • Ben

    says:

    Lots of terminal space there… does this mean that SACL is looking at forcing the cargo operators to WSA?

  • Jonathan Ventham

    says:

    Sydney Airport says it is able to meet aviation growth “within our existing footprint” – good luck with that.
    ask the Wagners what they’d propose to ease the burden on SYD.
    I’ll bet they’d have a better and cheaper alternative …
    http://www.wagner.com.au

  • Flyer

    says:

    It would be interesting to see the results of an analysis of Sydney based customers and the percentage breakdown between WSA and SACL based on shortest travel time… If a larger split have a shorter travel time to WSA it would be interesting to see some airlines reactions, especially if WSA offers cheaper access fees.
    For internationals that fly multiple flights into Sydney each day, the flexibility of being able to provide a late night connection may prove enticing…

  • Paul Case

    says:

    Bankstown location not suitable for international, nor even for domestic due to airspace complexity and awkward location in Sydney road/rail traffic. Charters from Bankstown might suit some, but it’s not suitable for Regionals because many regional customers need quick/easy connections to Mascot domestic & international flights, or to Sydney CBD. Bankstown is not even good for student pilots because 30 minute round trip to training area at Camden. Bankstown should sell up and existing operators move to Camden.

    Richmond is RAAF base, so also unsuitable for intnl; compare Williamtown/Newcastle complexities.

    Wilton/Picton is too close and too far from everything else to be useful international ariport location.

    Parkes as a purely freight terminal required significant rail upgrades, and too far from all other major metro and regional centres.

    Badgery’s Creek is poor location for flying weather/safety, and SW Sydney already collects pollution from the rest of Sydney, and noise pollution for all Sydney (esp SW) will become worse, and two international airports competing for same SMALL Australian market is unviable. Badgery’s Creek was always a bad idea.

    Expansion of Canberra would have been suitable option due to being national capital, + midway SDY-MLB, + existing freeway/railway connections.

    Goulbourn is halfway between Canberra-Sydney with easier access to country NSW & VIC, on existing freeway & freight railway, so new international freight terminal would have been good at Goulbourn, leaving Mascot to focus on passenger.

    VFT rail is unnecesary to all options.

  • Steven

    says:

    How ridiculous, four different terminal precincts spread all around the airport perimeter.

    Had anyone considered extending Rwy 16R/34L further into Botany Bay and building a new terminal between the two runways? If the space between the two doesn’t allow for sufficient room for the terminal then build 16R over the current taxiway A.

    An added bonus would be that the runway would be about 2 km further away from residential areas so aircraft would fly about 400′ higher on approach over the buildings, reducing noise. Perhaps allowing for less restricted curfew conditions….

  • Ryan

    says:

    That could work. Then sell all the land north of the cross runway to pay for it?

Leave a Comment to deano Cancel

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Each day, our subscribers are more informed with the right information.

SIGN UP to the Australian Aviation magazine for high-quality news and features for just $99.95 per year