|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Apr 26, 2017 21:37:52 GMT 12
from Fairfax NZ....Airports warn Transport Minister:
Change the law or services will be shut downBy HAMISH RUTHERFORD | 2:12PM - Tuesday, 25 April 2017 Guns N' Roses private Boeing 767 on the tarmac at Wellington Airport, ahead of the band's concert
in the capital on February 3rd. The New Zealand Airports Association is now warning that a court
decision could mean airports including Wellington could lose jet services if a Court of Appeal
decision forces the aviation regulator to rethink the way it assesses safety areas.JET SERVICES could end to some regions if a court ruling forces the aviation watchdog to change its decision making, New Zealand's airports are warning.
The New Zealand Airports Association has written to Transport Minister Simon Bridges seeking an urgent law change to prevent a court decision from requiring the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to remove cost from its calculations of whether longer safety areas are practicable.
In February the Court of Appeal ordered the director of civil aviation, Graeme Harris, to change the way he determines whether runway safety areas (RESA) are acceptable.
The order came after the Airline Pilots' Association challenged the CAA's finding for Wellington Airport's safety area in its proposed runway extension.
The Court of Appeal said the CAA should not consider cost as a substantial factor in determining whether a longer RESA is practicable.
In a letter to Bridges on March 14th, released under the Official Information Act, the NZ Airports Association said the decision could have a “pronounced” impact on New Zealand's air services.
“The outcome may see some airports lose the ability to serve jet traffic and turbo prop services, or operating with significant payload restrictions,” the letter, written by chairman Steve Sanderson and chief executive Kevin Ward said.
“We think the best and most sustainable solution will be to review the intent and the wording of the current [Civil Aviation] Act” to give the CAA the mandate to balance cost with safety in the public interest.
While Sanderson, Wellington Airport's chief executive, has already made the warnings publicly, the letter reflected the position of the wider executive committee, Ward said.
The committee has members from most of New Zealand's major airports, including Queenstown Airport chief executive Colin Keel. Queenstown Airport has refused to comment on the impact a Court of Appeal decision could have on
its safety arrangements, however its chief executive sits on the executive committee of the NZ
Airports Association, which warns the impact on New Zealand aviation could be “pronounced”.Queenstown, a key tourist hub, is rumoured in the industry to be among the most potentially affected by the Court of Appeal ruling, but which has so far refused to comment.
Like Wellington, Queenstown operates with a 90-metre RESA, the minimum under international aviation rules. Extending the Queenstown RESA would appear to require building further into the delta of the Shotover River.
Although the CAA is refusing to discuss the situation with the media, documents it has filed with the Supreme Court show it at least broadly agrees with the airports' position.
Wellington Airport and the CAA have both applied for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court. Ward said it was possible the NZ Airports Association would attempt to join the appeal.
Almost all of New Zealand's airports operate with RESAs of less than the recommended minimum 240-metres, with the approval of the CAA.
Bridges declined to comment on the letter, as the matter was before the courts.__________________________________________________________________________ Read more on this topic:
• Airports face new landing restrictions after court decision, aviation regulator warns
• Wellington Airport claims runway may need to be extended for existing operations
• CAA must review safety areas at Wellington Airport, Court of Appeal ruleswww.stuff.co.nz/business/91897573
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on May 6, 2017 21:44:42 GMT 12
from Fairfax NZ....Union: Airport wants Supreme Court
to serve its commercial interestsBy HAMISH RUTHERFORD | 10:43AM - Saturday, 06 May 2017 Wellington Airport claims that if a Court of Appeal decision is not overturned, it may have
to undertake a substantial runway extension just to maintain its existing air services.
— Photograph: Maarten Holl/Fairfax NZ.THE pilots union says the aviation watchdog should be kicked off a Supreme Court appeal, arguing the process is being driven by Wellington Airport's commercial interests.
Wellington Airport and the Civil Aviation Authority have applied to the Supreme Court in a bid to appeal a Court of Appeal ruling which ordered director of civil aviation Graeme Harris to rethink the way he assesses runway safety areas (RESA).
In documents filed with the Supreme Court, the airport and the CAA have separately claimed the Court of Appeal decision could lead to some airports, including Wellington and Queenstown, losing jet and turbo prop services if they do not construct lengthy runway extensions.
But the New Zealand Airline Pilot's Association (NZALPA) — which initiated the court proceedings, has written to the Supreme Court urging it to decline to request for an appeal.
“There is no issue arising from the decision of the Court of Appeal for which a further appeal is necessary,” Hugh Rennie QC wrote in the NZALPA's submission, filed with the Supreme Court on Friday.
“The intended appeal asks the Supreme Court to rewrite the relevant Civil Aviation Rules to suit the commercial interests of some airport operators.”
Rennie noted that The NZ Airports Association, which is chaired by Wellington Airport chief executive Steve Sanderson, has already written to Transport Minister Simon Bridges urging him to change the law to prevent air services being affected by the decision.
NZALPA said if the Supreme Court were to grant the application for an appeal, the CAA should not be allowed to be involved as a party, as director Graeme Harris would be in the position of being both decision maker and appellant.
“His duty is to abide by and apply the Court of Appeal's decision on the general law, not to seek to advance, again, his interpretation of the law.”
The CAA has declined to comment.
Wellington Airport spokesman Greg Thomas said the company's position was "clear and consistent".
“The CAA and Wellington Airport are seeking clarity and certainty from the Supreme Court over the interpretation of the rules around the required length of the RESA.”
NZALPA president Tim Robinson said in an interview in March that the organisation — based on legal advice — did not believe Court of Appeal decision would have an impact on the existing operations of other New Zealand airports.
Rennie's submission, however, concedes that other airport operations could be affected.
“The Court of Appeal's interpretation may be relevant to the operations of other airport companies.”
Nevertheless Rennie said this did not mean the Supreme Court should hear the appeal, with no general public importance ir miscarriage of justice involved.
“Any commercial interest here is [Wellington Airport's] singular wish to gain an exception to the regulatory regime.”
The Court of Appeal decision found the CAA placed too much weight on the cost when deciding whether it was "practicable" to construct a RESA of the recommended minimum of 240 metres.
Some airports in New Zealand, including Wellington and Queenstown — both crucial hubs with significant international operations — have RESAs of 90 metres, the minimum allowed under international aviation rules.
Following the decision's release at the end of February, Wellington Airport was granted an indefinite suspension of its application to the Environment Court for resource consent to extend its runway into Cook Strait in a bid to attract direct, long haul services.www.stuff.co.nz/business/92263761
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on May 17, 2017 19:18:41 GMT 12
from Fairfax NZ....Supreme Court will hear appeal warning
some airports could lose jet servicesBy HAMISH RUTHERFORD | 2:35PM - Tuesday, 16 May 2017 The Air China plane carrying Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and wife Madame Cheng arrives at
Wellington Airport in March. According to warnings from the aviation regulator, a Court of
Appeal ruling could see Wellington lose jet services. — Photograph: Robert Kitchin/Fairfax NZ.NEW ZEALAND's highest court will hear an appeal against a decision the aviation regulator says could see jet services cut from airports across the country.
On Tuesday the Supreme Court granted leave for Wellington Airport and the Director of Civil Aviation to appeal a Court of Appeal ruling from February.
The decision ordered the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to review the way it established whether a runway safety area (RESA) was acceptable, finding that the director, Graeme Harris, placed too much emphasis on cost when determining what was “practicable”.
Although the case was taken in relation to Wellington Airport's bid to extend its runway into Cook Strait to allow direct long haul flights, both the CAA and the New Zealand Airports Association said the decision could potentially see airports across New Zealand affected.
International aviation law recommends safety areas should be at least 240 metres at each end, with an absolute minimum of 90 metres where a longer RESA is not deemed practicable.
Both Wellington and Queenstown airports operate with the minimum length, while Auckland is the only airport in New Zealand that has all of its runways with RESAs of at least 240 metres.
If portions of the runway are redesignated as safety areas, the effective runway length would be shortened.
The Supreme Court's hearing, which the parties have indicated could be in August, will ask whether the Court of Appeal was right to hear the appeal — the earlier appeal being brought by the New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association.www.stuff.co.nz/business/92642214
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on May 17, 2017 19:19:30 GMT 12
from Fairfax NZ....Wellington Airport may be taking steps
to prepare for losing runway challengeBy HAMISH RUTHERFORD | 4:43PM - Wednesday, 17 May 2017 A court challenge could force Wellington Airport to build longer runway safety area, purely
to maintain its existing services. — Photograph: Ross Giblin/Fairfax Media.WELLINGTON AIRPORT appears to have sought quotes for a possible crushable concrete “arrester bed” designed to slow down planes which overshoot the runway.
Installed at some airports overseas, in particular in the United States, the beds, known in aviation circles as engineered material arresting systems (EMAS) aim to shorten the distance its takes to stop a plane which has lost control.
During the 2016 US presidential campaign, a charter plane carrying Donald Trump's running mate, Mike Pence, slid off the runway at New York's LaGuardia Airport, stopped by the runway's arrester bed.
The New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association (NZALPA) — which has taken legal action in an attempt to force Wellington to build a longer runway end safety area (RESA) — has raised an arrester bed as an alternative.
On Monday the Supreme Court granted leave Wellington Airport to appeal a decision which it claims could force it to extend its runway purely to maintain its existing services.
There now appears to be evidence that the airport is considering what it would do in the event it is forced to increase the safety area.
NZALPA, a union which represents most commercial pilots, has provided emails from an executive at Runway Safe, a Swedish-based company which constructs EMAS.
The email said the company had provided Wellington Airport with “a preliminary performance report and cost estimate in the last month” for an EMAS.
Wellington Airport issued a statement which did not dispute NZALPA's claims.
“As a prudent and responsible organisation, we are reviewing a range of scenarios based on the potential outcomes, however given that the matter is now before the Supreme Court, it would be inappropriate to comment on any speculation.”
The airport has indefinitely suspended its resource consent application pending the legal action.
That decision, which ordered the CAA to rethink the way it assesses whether a safety area is “practicable”, said the regulator was placing too much emphasis on cost.
NZALPA said it attempted to arrange a briefing for Wellington Airport from experts on arrester beds back in 2013, before the company sought an approval from the Civil Aviation Authority for its proposed extension into Cook Strait.
“Despite knowing the relatively low cost but high safety attributes of an EMAS, [Wellington Airport] continue to pursue its appeal to the Supreme Court and spend even more ratepayer's money,” NZALPA general manager Dawn Handforth said.
NZALPA has joined the appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing the CAA should be removed as a party as the matter at issue is its decision-making.www.stuff.co.nz/business/92694398
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74 
|
Post by jeffref on May 24, 2017 17:54:34 GMT 12
Supreme Court Hearing set for Aug 24-25
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Aug 21, 2017 12:00:05 GMT 12
from Fairfax NZ....Airports group joins Supreme Court hearing
to warn of risks from pilots' safety challengeBy HAMISH RUTHERFORD | 5:00AM - Monday, 21 August 2017 While the court challenge ostensibly concerns a proposal to extend Wellington Airport's
runway to enable long haul flights, it could conceivably mean the runway has to be
extended to maintain jet services. — Photograph: Kevin Stent/Fairfax NZ.NEW ZEALAND's airports will square off against the commercial pilots association in the Supreme Court on Thursday, in a case which could impact flights across the country.
The two-day hearing covers a challenge to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) decision to indicate that if Wellington Airport extends its runway, its existing runway end safety areas (RESAs) would be suitable for the longer runway.
Although the High Court threw out a bid by the New Zealand Airline Pilots' Association (NZALPA) to order the director of civil aviation to review the decision, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision, instructing that the director's decision be reviewed.
The case potentially has far wider implications than Wellington's ambitious plan, which it hopes would attract direct long-haul services.
NZALPA has focused on only the proposed Wellington runway extension and initially claimed the Court of Appeal ruling would not impact other airports.
However, Wellington Airport and the CAA itself has told the Supreme Court that the decision could impact the way the CAA assesses safety areas throughout New Zealand when operating licences are reviewed. Queenstown Airport's runway is constrained by Frankton at one end and the delta
of the Shotover River at the other.In its application to have the application for appeal rejected, Hugh Rennie QC, NZALPA's lawyer, conceded the court's “interpretation may be relevant to the operations of other airport companies”.
The New Zealand Airports Association (NZAA), a member group for the industry, has joined the action as a party because of the potential impact on airports which operate with RESA's below the recommended minimum.
Under the Civil Aviation Act, airports are meant to have RESAs of at least 240 metres, but the safety areas must be at least 90 metres when a longer area is not “reasonably practicable”.
The Court of Appeal found that the director of civil aviation, Graeme Harris, placed much too much weight on the cost of a longer RESA in his decision making.
Wellington Airport's runway, bordered by water at each end, operates with a 90 metre RESA, as does Queenstown Airport, where the runway is bordered at one end by the suburb of Frankton and the delta of the Shotover River at the other.
Should the CAA compel the airports to operate with 240 metre RESAs, irrespective of cost, it would likely be the end of jet services at either airport unless the runways were extended. New Zealand's airports are squaring off against the commercial pilots association
in the Supreme Court. — Photograph: Paul McCredie/Fairfax NZ.However, the silence of several parties which could face a heavy impact from the outcome suggests confidence that the issue will be resolved with little cost.
Air New Zealand, which would face a major disruption to its network if jet services were affected at Wellington and Queenstown Airport, have both remained silent.
Although the decision could have a major impact on tourism, New Zealand's largest export earner, Simon Bridges, who is both the Transport Minister and the Economic Development Minister, has refused to comment while the matter is before the courts.
Since the Court of Appeal decision the Ministry of Transport has announced a review of the Civil Aviation Act, and three sources have hinted that Bridges has offered private assurances that legislation could be amended to resolve the issue if necessary.
The court challenge has already forced Wellington Airport to suspend its resource consent application bid to extend its runway, a project it has said could cost $300 million.__________________________________________________________________________ Related to this topic:
• Union: Airport wants Supreme Court to serve its commercial interests
• Airports face new landing restrictions after court decision, aviation regulator warns
• Wellington Airport claims runway may need to be extended for existing operations
• Wellington Airport wants runway extension hearings delayed
• CAA must review safety areas at Wellington Airport, Court of Appeal ruleswww.stuff.co.nz/business/95926342
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Aug 25, 2017 12:58:10 GMT 12
from Fairfax NZ....Court ruling could crush tourism into Queenstown,
aviation regulator warnsBy HAMISH RUTHERFORD | 5:26PM - Thursday, 24 August 2017 The Civil Aviation Authority has warned that if it is required to reconsider runway safety areas in the
way the Court of Appeal has directed to for Wellington Airport, it could end jet services into Queenstown.THE Civil Aviation Authority has warned a court ruling on Wellington Airport's runway extension proposal could end up slashing tourism in Queenstown.
On Thursday the CAA took its appeal against a Court of Appeal ruling on runway safety areas to the Supreme Court.
The case, brought originally by the New Zealand Airline Pilots' Association (NZALPA), officially relates to Wellington Airport's plan to extend its runway into Cook Strait in a bid to attract long-haul services.
But the aviation regulator has warned the Court of Appeal decision could hurt existing air services.
Under international aviation rules, airports should have runway end safety areas (RESAs) of at least 240 metres where it is “reasonably practicable”, but the absolute minimum is 90 metres.
Both Wellington and Queenstown are allowed to operate with 90m RESAs because the surrounding geography makes longer safety areas difficult. Wellington's runway has water at each end, while Queenstown Airport has the suburb of Frankton at one end and the delta of the Shotover River at the other.
Court documents show that if the airports were forced to shorten their runway areas by redesignating part of it as RESA, it could end jet services into both Wellington and Queenstown.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the director of civil aviation should reexamine a decision to indicate to Wellington Airport that it could continue with its existing safety areas were it to extend its runway, because the decision placed too much weight on cost when ruling out a longer safety area.
Francis Cooke QC, appearing for the CAA, told the Supreme Court that the ruling could mean the aviation regulator was applying the test incorrectly elsewhere.
“On the Court of Appeal's approach, there will be a significant issue for airports such as Wellington and Queenstown now. Just how profound that will be will require proper analysis but it is something that bites here and now.”
One option available to the CAA would be to direct the affected airports to “paint on” additional RESA on what was currently designated as runway, Cooke said, however cutting the runway length would limit the type of plane which could land on the runway.
“The solution to the RESA issue, in one sense, is magically available tomorrow, because someone could simply take a tin of paint [to the runway],” Cooke said.
“But it would mean you probably wouldn't have any tourism into Queenstown.”
Chief Justice Sian Elias suggested such a solution would require people to take trains to Wellington.
Cooke responded: “Which must be a major consideration.”
Later he admitted that the CAA had no analysis on the exact implications and it was possible tourists could fly into Queenstown and propeller planes could fly into Wellington, both airports would be significantly affected.
Cooke said there were no safety issues in the mind of the director of civil aviation at any New Zealand airports.
“All of the airports meet international standards. It would be great if we could have longer airport RESAs at all of these places, but we have to be realistic about the environment we have in those places, including Wellington Airport.”
David Goddard QC, appearing for Wellington Airport, said he was advised that while jets flying domestically could still take off from the airport, it would only be with 50 empty seats, and none could fly to Australia.
NZALPA insists the Court of Appeal was right in its decision and the appeal of the CAA should be dismissed.
Hugh Rennie QC said aviation had “zero tolerance of any risk of safety”. The assessment of what was practicable was what could be constructed in each circumstance, based on the individual facts.
In the current case, the director of civil aviation had simply relied on an imprecise assessment, designed and costed by Wellington Airport which concluded that a longer safety area was not practicable.
“[The decision] was premature. It did not ask the right questions, indeed it did not even formulate correctly what [the director] was required to decide,” Rennie said.
“In making his assessment the director must act independently and not as if he were the proponent of the airport's business scheme.”
Rennie said the issue of practicability was relevant to Wellington Airport's extension plans.
“If it is practicable in such circumstances for the airport to build the runway extension then why would it not be practicable also to build a 240 metre RESA?”www.stuff.co.nz/business/96106833
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Dec 21, 2017 15:23:39 GMT 12
from STUFF Business....Supreme Court hands down runway rulingBy TOM PULLAR-STRECKER | 4:09PM - Thursday, 21 December 2017THE SUPREME COURT has put an obstacle in front of Wellington Airport's planned runway extension.
Wellington Airport plans to extend its runway by 355 metres at a cost of about $300 million, so it can accommodate bigger jets that would allow long-haul for flights to cities in Asia and the United States.
But the New Zealand Air Line Pilots Association threw a spanner in the works when it went to court in 2015.
It argued that the airport should at the same time extend safe areas at the end of the runway by several hundred metres.
Wellington Airport currently has a 90 metre safety zone, which is the minimum allowed under international aviation law and well short of the recommended 240 metres.
Safety zones are designed to minimise the risk of jets under or over shooting runways, and while they don't need to be of the same quality as a runway itself, they do need to be graded and navigable by rescue vehicles.
Under the Civil Aviation Act, safety zones can be 90 metres where a longer area is not “reasonably practicable”.
But the pilots' association argued the Civil Aviation Authority had put too much weight on the cost of lengthening the safety zone when it decided that Wellington Airport could keep its zone at 90 metres while extending the runway itself.
The association had acknowledged that a win could undermine the economic case for extending the runway.
Wellington Airport put its resource consent application for the runway extension on hold while the matter was in front of the Supreme Court.
Although the pilots association's focus was with the Wellington runway-extension project, Wellington Airport and the CAA had argued the court case had wider implications.
Queenstown airport also has only a 90 metres safety zone and lengthening that poses problems, given the runway is sandwiched between the suburb of Frankton and the Shotover River.__________________________________________________________________________ Related to this topic:
• Wellington Airport lines up Chinese construction giant for runway extension
• Airports group joins Supreme Court hearing to warn of risks from pilots' safety challenge
• Wellington Airport claims not all planes need to be able to land on longer runwaywww.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/100084223 |
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Dec 21, 2017 15:33:44 GMT 12
So....I wonder if this is going to end up putting the screws on Queenstown Airport over their runway safety ends?
My next time into there will be on Thursday, 29th March 2018 (in an A320 from Wellington), flying out again on Tuesday, 3rd April.
I guess if the worst came to the worst and things happened quickly, Air NZ might end up going back to using ATR72 airliners instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Dec 21, 2017 17:10:11 GMT 12
I guess if the worst came to the worst and things happened quickly, Air NZ might end up going back to using ATR72 airliners instead.
I would have thought that the "worst" wold have been beyond the 90m mark in "the suburb of Frankton" or "the Shotover river"...? |
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Dec 21, 2017 18:11:17 GMT 12
Yeah, well that too.
However, I suppose it is all a matter of perspective.
One of the thrill-seeking things I did in Queenstown more than two decades ago was to leap from a Helicopter Line AS350 Squirrel hovering 1,100 feet above the ground with my ankles connected to the cargo hook beneath the helicopter via a 250-foot-long rubber band, which then proceeded to stretch out to 1,000-feet before going tight, then hauling me rapidly back up to 800-feet or so above the ground, followed by a few huge bounces up and down.
I would imagine that statistically, there was most likely more danger of a transmission failure in the helicopter while indulging in that particular piece of thrill-seeking, a situation which I imagine would have made auto-rotation almost impossible due to no foward airspeed, apart from the fact I would have been slammed at high speed into the ground; than the danger of over-running the end of the runway into the Shotover River, or the Queenstown suburb of Frankton. And I imagine statistically, driving around Queenstown is probably more dangerous than flying into and out of Queenstown Airport with those short safety zones, or doing a 1,000-foot bungy jump from a hovering helicopter. I guess it's just that because air transport into and out of Queenstown is supposed to be absolutely safe (according to the regulators), I guess the required standards are higher, as ruled in today's Supreme Court of NZ judgement about Wellington Airport.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 21, 2017 18:37:31 GMT 12
I think for safety's sake the jets should return to flying into Hamilton, and then people can just bus to Wellington from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Dec 21, 2017 19:20:41 GMT 12
I think for safety's sake the jets should return to flying into Hamilton, and then people can just bus to Wellington from there. What about the dreaded Waikato fog chucking Mr Murphy's spanner into the works?  Bring back flying-boats into Evans Bay. Then they'd have the entire length of Wellington Harbour to takeoff and alight. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Dec 22, 2017 6:34:17 GMT 12
...hovering 1,100 feet above the ground with my ankles connected to the cargo hook beneath the helicopter with a 250-foot-long rubber band, which then proceeded to stretch out to 1,000 metres...
Well that explains a few things...! |
|
|
|
Post by lindstrim on Dec 23, 2017 8:28:30 GMT 12
So....I wonder if this is going to end up putting the screws on Queenstown Airport over their runway safety ends?
My next time into there will be on Thursday, 29th March 2018 (in an A320 from Wellington), flying out again on Tuesday, 3rd April.
I guess if the worst came to the worst and things happened quickly, Air NZ might end up going back to using ATR72 airliners instead.
Don't think so, as the the wording of the act is 90m is acceptable if it not practicable to have it longer. In Queenstown's case if they extend the runway further then they may get into issues. And failing that you could have EMAS instead. |
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Dec 29, 2017 10:21:16 GMT 12
The Appeal Court stated that Wellington (and presumably other NZ airports) should use the recommended safety limit 240 M, not the minimum 90 M. That is how this mess started. It seems ridiculous to me if you have a runway 1700 m long and you wanted to extend it to 2000 M that it should require a longer RESA than one already 2000 M long that had not been extended. NZALPA thinking astounds!
Queenstown can "easily" extend to the lake end by purchasing the properties between the runway end and the lake. This would be quite expensive as land values are quite high. The river end is more difficult but the Queenstown Airport masterplan includes proposals to extend both ways.
As far as EMAS is concerned this will reduce take off length available by whatever length is chosen. Some overseas airports use 50 M at each end. NZALPA have stated they want Wellington to include 100 M. If you took off 100 M at each end of Queenstowns runway you would say goodbye to services to Aussie. If you took off 300 M for a 240 M RESA that would reduce takeoff length by 150 M and landing length by 300 M. Goodbye to jet services unless they bring back the old BAer whisperjets.
NZALPA were looking only to block the extension to prevent overseas competition. This may in fact backfire if WIAL decide to add the difference to take the extension to the final 655 M as per their future plans. If that happens the overseas airlines will be even more interested. The Supreme Court indicated an extra 50 M RESA might be acceptable making a total 140 M with a corresponding increase of 50 M for take off but no change in landing distance however the SC decision is unfortunately unclear as to what is actually required.
|
|
