News & Discussion: Adelaide Airport & Airlines

[rhino]

I'm not advocating moving the airport, but, if it was to be done, a fair slab of money would come from sale of the land on which it currently sits, would it not?

[Nathan]

I'm not advocating moving the airport, but, if it was to be done, a fair slab of money would come from sale of the land on which it currently sits, would it not?

Land which would likely require a huge amount of remediation.

[rev]

rev, I lived under the flight path for many years, and still experience it when visiting the parental unit. We were close enough that in the sixties and seventies when a plane came overhead, all conversation stopped. That is not so today.

Aircraft noise standards have improved to the point where measurable noise levels are a fraction of what they were. If you don't like present noise levels, then the sixties with the early B727 and DC09 aircraft would have sent you off the planet.

Here are some facts:

http://www.bne.com.au/sites/all/custom/ ... mpacts.pdf

Ah, so aircraft aren't "as" noisy as they used to be, so that must mean there isn't an issue. Right.
Mate I live nowhere near a flight path and I can hear those 777's coming in and leaving.
Fast forward to when the airport's been expanded again and we have dozens more aerobridges and air traffic has increased significantly(15 gates to 52), and then come back and tell me that aircraft noise isn't an issue. If I can hear the occasional 777 that comes in, what's it going to be like when there's more of them on a more regular basis?

The distance issue is important because if we want tourists and businesses, we need to make things easier for them to come to Adelaide, not harder. Maybe other cities have airports further away, (Sydney doesn't), but then again, more people are wanting to go to some of those cities.

How many of the 6 million tourists which come to Australia do you think fly to Adelaide?

Why do we need an airport in the middle of suburbia for tourists?
Australia gets around 6 million tourists. South Australia gets a small fraction of them.

Incheon Airport is 48km from Seoul. It's one of the worlds busiest and biggest airports. South Korea gets 12 million tourists.

Athens Airport is about 30km from the city center. It's not even in the city. It's on the opposite side of a series of hills and mountains. By the end of this year Greece will have seen over 21 million tourists arrive. The airport has over 12 million passengers.

Munich airport is about 30km outside of Munich as well. It handles close to 40 million passengers. Germany receives over 30 million tourists.

I'm sure I can dig up more examples.
And economically, Greece aside with it's economic problems, Munich and Seoul don't seem to be struggling with their airports outside of the city.

However, underlying all of that is that if we want to spend $5-7Bn on a new airport, then that money is going to come out of our pockets in some way. Either more cost when we fly, higher product costs passed on by companies who fly people and products in, more taxes, etc etc. There is no magic pudding. If the government pays for it direct, it will come out of our pockets, and if it is done by the private sector, again, it will come out of our pockets eventually, unless you believe that either of those will do it for free somehow. If you believe that, I have a bridge in Sydney to sell you, dirt cheap. LOL. Divide $5-7Bn by the number of taxpayers in Adelaide, and you get something like $10k per taxpayer. And then when you tell half those taxpayers that,

Do you know why government spending on infrastructure is so expensive? It's more expensive then it needs to be.
Get friendly with the right people in the related industries and they'll tell you it's because prices get fixed and marked up, by contractors and what not, so they can increase their profits. There's even price fixing and contract 'sharing' in the demolition and earth moving industries.

'oh by the way, since you live south of the CBD you will now have to travel to Two Wells to catch a plane'. All I say is, good luck with that.

Wow, really? I mean, just wow..

So maybe we should build an international airport in Coober Pedy, the Barrossa Valley, the Adelaide Hills, Murray Bridge, Mount Barker, Woomera, Ceduna, etc...
You know since it's too far for them to travel.

Better yet why inconvenience people with the burden of traveling at all?
Let's throw all our money at developing instant teleportation technology and install teleportation devices in every home, business, street and landmark in the world.

When I read stupid comments like that, I start to believe those who say the best and brightest have left the state.
Such short sighted thinking, unable to actually think of the bigger picture and think beyond what's said.
Building an airport beyond the metro area would also involve building a freeway/rail link to the City...It would be part of a wider plan for improving road and public transport infrastructure in Adelaide.

This is the sort of short sighted selfish attitude and mindset that has kept this state stagnating and lagging behind the other major cities in this country. The sort of stupid leaders who said nah we don't need a proper road network with freeways..now 50 years later we are trying to play catch up by spending many billions more then what it would have cost originally.

If that much money was available to spend on infrastructure, then I would vote for:

I never said it should be done or that it should be a priority over other infrastructure spending. That ship has sailed like someone else said there's no chance of an airport anywhere else since the new terminal was built.
But then again this is South Australia. Stupid decisions are plentiful.

[rubberman]

Rev.

Planes today are measurably much much less noisy than before, and that includes 777s. That's the measurable fact.

You are entitled to your opinions, but not entitled to make up facts.

You have not presented one single fact to back up your opinions, yet on the basis of zero fact, you want to spend a few billions of other people's money. LOLOL!!

Well, put it like this, the airport is where it is, and will stay there until someone puts up some reasons, backed by facts, for it to shift.

However, if you can convince people to spend all that money for zero benefit, good for you.

Why don't you start a petition right now?

[Nathan]

I used to live in Mile End directly under the flight path. Apart from the occasional low approach from a jumbo, I very quicky adapted to tuning the noise out. And this was in an old place with single glazed windows, unlike all the houses slightly closer. Same applies to living alongside the tram or one of the train lines. Total non-issue that is only brought up by people who want to hear their own voice rather that have a genuine complaint.

[skyliner]

I used to travel on DC3s - sounded like a lot of trucks let loose and like you were sitting under hood as well. Seeing as they were slow to get away, airports got to experience them for longer! All prop. planes generally quite loud - current planes immeasurably better .... although many together or over a short period of time each day would get like shell shock. So a point of relativity in measurement and effects on us involved. (see the graphs via rubberman).

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[rev]

Rev.

Planes today are measurably much much less noisy than before, and that includes 777s. That's the measurable fact.

You are entitled to your opinions, but not entitled to make up facts.

When did I dispute that planes aren't quieter today then they used to be? Can you point this out? Or are you just going to talk shit and make things up just to suit your argument for the sake of arguing?

What facts did I make up and claim? Point them out.

Fact 1 - There's an increase in 777's coming into Adelaide.
Fact 2 - An increase in aircraft means there's more chance that people beyond the airport region will hear them.

Dispute these facts.

The point I'm making, which you obviously cant understand, is that if a slight increase in large aircraft movements results in people in areas where aircraft normally aren't heard are now being heard occasionally, what's the situation going to be like when there are 52 gates at the airport to cater for a much more significant increase in aircraft movements at the airport.

It's a legitimate query and concern. And if you can't understand that, nor comprehend it, then that's too bad. Keep being a smart ass though, I'm sure you're winning in your mind.

I don't care if you disagree.
I'm not disputing what you posted about aircraft noise. Maybe you should learn to read and comprehend the words you are reading before having a go at people and trying to act like you know everything.

You have not presented one single fact to back up your opinions, yet on the basis of zero fact, you want to spend a few billions of other people's money. LOLOL!!

Well what is it, my opinions or facts? Make up your mind.

My opinion is based on the FACT I can hear a 777 coming in/leaving and I'm nowhere near the flight path or airport.
You want to dispute what I can hear with my own two ears go right ahead.
What are you going to do, go run to Google and claim I've got hyper sensitive hearing?

Well, put it like this, the airport is where it is, and will stay there until someone puts up some reasons, backed by facts, for it to shift.

Mother of God this guy
Who said it's moving?

Why don't you start a petition right now?

Only if you sign it with your crayons.

[rubberman]

Of course, one can also read the airport master plan. They have a couple of chapters on noise. (One is the appendix with the data).

Naturally enough, it will get to a point where noise will make operations unacceptable. The question is when will that be? If advances in noise reduction technology for aircraft keep coming at the rate they have, maybe never. If there is no such reduction, maybe by 2034, the time frame of the master plan. That will depend on the rate at which Adelaide expands.

So, depending on how fast Adelaide develops, and how fast aircraft noise reduction techniques develop, there may or may not be a problem in 2034.

At which time we might like to consider the relative costs of:

Relocating the airport, or

Building a second airport, or

Buying up property in the flight path to the present airport and converting it to industry, or

Any number of alternatives.

The point is, that since the last master plan came out, there is at least one lower noise level plane on the market. The 787.

Who knows what the noise level will be in 2034?

[Will]

rev, I lived under the flight path for many years, and still experience it when visiting the parental unit. We were close enough that in the sixties and seventies when a plane came overhead, all conversation stopped. That is not so today.

Aircraft noise standards have improved to the point where measurable noise levels are a fraction of what they were. If you don't like present noise levels, then the sixties with the early B727 and DC09 aircraft would have sent you off the planet.

Here are some facts:

http://www.bne.com.au/sites/all/custom/ ... mpacts.pdf

Ah, so aircraft aren't "as" noisy as they used to be, so that must mean there isn't an issue. Right.
Mate I live nowhere near a flight path and I can hear those 777's coming in and leaving.
Fast forward to when the airport's been expanded again and we have dozens more aerobridges and air traffic has increased significantly(15 gates to 52), and then come back and tell me that aircraft noise isn't an issue. If I can hear the occasional 777 that comes in, what's it going to be like when there's more of them on a more regular basis?

The distance issue is important because if we want tourists and businesses, we need to make things easier for them to come to Adelaide, not harder. Maybe other cities have airports further away, (Sydney doesn't), but then again, more people are wanting to go to some of those cities.

How many of the 6 million tourists which come to Australia do you think fly to Adelaide?

Why do we need an airport in the middle of suburbia for tourists?
Australia gets around 6 million tourists. South Australia gets a small fraction of them.

Incheon Airport is 48km from Seoul. It's one of the worlds busiest and biggest airports. South Korea gets 12 million tourists.

Athens Airport is about 30km from the city center. It's not even in the city. It's on the opposite side of a series of hills and mountains. By the end of this year Greece will have seen over 21 million tourists arrive. The airport has over 12 million passengers.

Munich airport is about 30km outside of Munich as well. It handles close to 40 million passengers. Germany receives over 30 million tourists.

I'm sure I can dig up more examples.
And economically, Greece aside with it's economic problems, Munich and Seoul don't seem to be struggling with their airports outside of the city.

However, underlying all of that is that if we want to spend $5-7Bn on a new airport, then that money is going to come out of our pockets in some way. Either more cost when we fly, higher product costs passed on by companies who fly people and products in, more taxes, etc etc. There is no magic pudding. If the government pays for it direct, it will come out of our pockets, and if it is done by the private sector, again, it will come out of our pockets eventually, unless you believe that either of those will do it for free somehow. If you believe that, I have a bridge in Sydney to sell you, dirt cheap. LOL. Divide $5-7Bn by the number of taxpayers in Adelaide, and you get something like $10k per taxpayer. And then when you tell half those taxpayers that,

Do you know why government spending on infrastructure is so expensive? It's more expensive then it needs to be.
Get friendly with the right people in the related industries and they'll tell you it's because prices get fixed and marked up, by contractors and what not, so they can increase their profits. There's even price fixing and contract 'sharing' in the demolition and earth moving industries.

'oh by the way, since you live south of the CBD you will now have to travel to Two Wells to catch a plane'. All I say is, good luck with that.

Wow, really? I mean, just wow..

So maybe we should build an international airport in Coober Pedy, the Barrossa Valley, the Adelaide Hills, Murray Bridge, Mount Barker, Woomera, Ceduna, etc...
You know since it's too far for them to travel.

Better yet why inconvenience people with the burden of traveling at all?
Let's throw all our money at developing instant teleportation technology and install teleportation devices in every home, business, street and landmark in the world.

When I read stupid comments like that, I start to believe those who say the best and brightest have left the state.
Such short sighted thinking, unable to actually think of the bigger picture and think beyond what's said.
Building an airport beyond the metro area would also involve building a freeway/rail link to the City...It would be part of a wider plan for improving road and public transport infrastructure in Adelaide.

This is the sort of short sighted selfish attitude and mindset that has kept this state stagnating and lagging behind the other major cities in this country. The sort of stupid leaders who said nah we don't need a proper road network with freeways..now 50 years later we are trying to play catch up by spending many billions more then what it would have cost originally.

If that much money was available to spend on infrastructure, then I would vote for:

I never said it should be done or that it should be a priority over other infrastructure spending. That ship has sailed like someone else said there's no chance of an airport anywhere else since the new terminal was built.
But then again this is South Australia. Stupid decisions are plentiful.

Was this post inspired by Malcolm King?

[fifty]

Of course, one can also read the airport master plan. They have a couple of chapters on noise. (One is the appendix with the data).

Naturally enough, it will get to a point where noise will make operations unacceptable. The question is when will that be? If advances in noise reduction technology for aircraft keep coming at the rate they have, maybe never. If there is no such reduction, maybe by 2034, the time frame of the master plan. That will depend on the rate at which Adelaide expands.

So, depending on how fast Adelaide develops, and how fast aircraft noise reduction techniques develop, there may or may not be a problem in 2034.

At which time we might like to consider the relative costs of:

Relocating the airport, or

Building a second airport, or

Buying up property in the flight path to the present airport and converting it to industry, or

Any number of alternatives.

The point is, that since the last master plan came out, there is at least one lower noise level plane on the market. The 787.

Who knows what the noise level will be in 2034?

Finally someone making sense and not trying to shove it down our throats!

[Goodsy]

How much land would they have buy if they were to buy the land in the flight path?

[Paulns]

I don't know why people are evening bothering to discuss moving the airport, when there's no way in hell it's going anywhere in at least the next 30 years anyway?! End of story...

[rev]

I don't know why people are evening bothering to discuss moving the airport, when there's no way in hell it's going anywhere in at least the next 30 years anyway?! End of story...

It's not so much a discussion, but more so Rubberman being under the impression that someone has disagreed with him.

It's just a few peoples thoughts on a better location for an international airport. Nobody is saying it should or will happen. We are all aware it wont happen any time within the next 75 years.

[Phantom]

Was this post inspired by Malcolm King?

You massive shit-stirrer!

To be fair, I'll pay that one, Will. It was pretty lols.

[Paulns]

I don't know why people are evening bothering to discuss moving the airport, when there's no way in hell it's going anywhere in at least the next 30 years anyway?! End of story...

It's not so much a discussion, but more so Rubberman being under the impression that someone has disagreed with him.

It's just a few peoples thoughts on a better location for an international airport. Nobody is saying it should or will happen. We are all aware it wont happen any time within the next 75 years.

Fair enough.