Fourth Runway Preferred

Mitchell continues:

Their preferred option is the expansion of Kingsford Smith Airport with the addition of a fourth runway."

Yet, good folks, many of us have seen a July 1996 letter from Qantas supporting a Second Airport at either Badgery's Ck or Holsworthy - provided it was a 24 hour airport. What has changed ? Do these guys now figure that with Holsworthy ruled out, there's little hope of getting Badgery's Ck up as a 24 hour airport (given it has marginal electorates and recent cracks in bipartisan political support) ? Don't get your hope's up too high, as Mitchell goes on:

"A senior Qantas executive >dismissed community concerns about the spread of noise from an expanded Sydney Airport.

Wow. How out-of-character for an airline exec !

"The bottom line is that it would be cheaper to buy up a whole suburb and move everyone to brand new homes in another part of Sydney than building a new international airport"

What a lovely thought. Maybe I should persuade them to shift everything, not just the intra-state and middle-sized stuff, into Bankstown Airport. Then I could trade my humble 4 bedroom fibro cottage in Bankstown for a lovely double-brick double-insulated waterfront property adjacent to the abandoned KSA. Kyeemagh might even be a nice place to live then!

Moon-walker's stuff aint it ? What does it tell about the project's dis-economics ? Who can afford it ?

Mitchell then reports the executive's reasoning as to why KSA should remain the city's sole airport:

Except for the rail link, these are all factual evidence that KSA is going to expand. The DOT's air traffic forecasts for the Sydney Basin indicate that it has to expand by 50 %, even if Badgery's Ck or some other second airport site is built.

In the case of the rail link, airports are in the car-parking business - and public transport is not terribly relevant to them. Fewer than 10% of passengers are expected to reach the Second Airport by rail.

The rail link is being built because Sydney needs additional rail capacity between Sydenham (the suburb just North of KSA), and the city. Residential re-development of former industrial areas along the rail link route is also expected to become a nice little earner for the private railway operators.

So, only some of these "reasons" are evidence of expansion. None of them reach the scale of what you'd need to move 60 million passengers a year (instead of the current 20 million).

Floggings with Aircraft Noise

Now from the rival Sunday Telegraph newspaper(12^th October, 1997):

Should we take comfort from these words ? Will the airlines provide him with evidence that KSA can be flogged a little harder - that 60 or more lashes of aircraft noise per hour for the residents of anywhere in Sydney is fair and reasonable ?

Make sure the airlines's efforts are counter-vailled ! Write to Mr Vaille, urging him not to flog any Sydney residents with further aircraft noise.

Perhaps some gentle criticism of the unprofessional charade of Holsworthy etc.,. might also be appropriate - Mr Vaille still has a way to go to see beyond the tripe his advisers and bureaucrats have fed him !

Thoughts for the student of politics and duplicity

Where did these stories come from ? Could it be possible that both came out of the same ministerial or departmental office on the same day ? Is it more red-herrings, or just the usual disarming duplicity we've come to expect from the airport bureaucrats ?