|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 2, 2013 16:35:32 GMT 12
That is due to cutbacks, they sold half the airline so half their aeroplanes went to the new owners.  |
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Dec 2, 2013 16:39:41 GMT 12
Oh wow, ok. I was thinking from that photo the eagle had been put in the same place. Take a look at the photograph of the eagle accompanying the first Dominion Post article I posted yesterday. You can see Gollum in the background. |
|
|
|
Post by Naki on Dec 2, 2013 18:07:51 GMT 12
That is due to cutbacks, they sold half the airline so half their aeroplanes went to the new owners. Airbus A160? |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 2, 2013 18:50:15 GMT 12
I saw them putting the new display up on the news tonight and there are actually two eagles. Cool!
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Dec 2, 2013 19:20:43 GMT 12
I saw them putting the new display up on the news tonight and there are actually two eagles. Cool! Plus Gollum. So if they put up one prop for the first Hobbit movie and two props for the second Hobbit movie, could this mean that next year they will put up three props, making six Hobbit props in total? That would really make the domestic terminal at Wellington Airport look spectacular inside. Eat your hearts out, Aucklanders....  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 2, 2013 19:23:24 GMT 12
I cannot wait till Dambusters gets made and see what they stick up in there for that!
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Dec 2, 2013 19:27:07 GMT 12
An Avro Lancaster bomber hanging from the ceiling, perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonesy on Dec 2, 2013 21:28:23 GMT 12
Or a big black dog called errr.... "Digger" |
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Feb 10, 2014 10:06:52 GMT 12
Airport proposed up in the hillsBy HANK SCHOUTEN - The Dominion Post | 5:00AM - Monday, 10 February 2014 BLUE SKY THINKING: Richard Burrell on farmland north of Newlands which he suggests would make
a better site for Wellington Airport. — KEVIN STENT/Fairfax NZ.A PROPOSAL to relocate Wellington Airport to a site on the hills north of Newlands is worth investigating, Greater Wellington Regional Council chairwoman Fran Wilde says.
The relocation, which has been labelled an "exciting" idea by Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee, has been proposed by Wellington property investor Richard Burrell, who said a completely new airport with a longer runway would have major economic advantages for the region.
It would take a lot of pressure off Wellington City's roading network and do away with the need for expensive roadworks, including a second Mount Victoria tunnel and more than $300 million that is needed to extend the current airport's runway.
Mr Burrell said surveyors and engineers had assessed a proposal to put an airport with a 2.4 kilometre runway — able to handle long-haul flights — on farmland at Hunters Hill, between Newlands and Grenada North.
The costings for a new 120ha airport came to about $750 million, far less than the estimated $1.1 billion needed to improve road links to Wellington Airport and to extend the runway.
If the current Wellington Airport was closed, the land could be sold off for housing and the net effect would be that Wellington would get a better airport with an all-up capital saving of around $500m, Mr Burrell said. His plans were presented to Wellington City Council just before Christmas but Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown was reluctant to be drawn on it.
Her only comment, conveyed by her spokesman, was "our immediate focus is on getting direct long haul flights from Asia as emphasised in our eight big ideas programme".
Ms Wilde said if it saved money it would be worth investigating — "You wouldn't want to close the door on any option."
Mr Brownlee gave his qualified support. "It's very exciting that someone has had an idea for a new airport, especially as when the private sector comes up with plans of this nature they tend to be fully funded.
However, "the Government has no intention of helping fund a new airport on the hills above Newlands".
Wellington Employers' Chamber of Commerce chief executive Raewyn Bleakley said the chamber was always interested in ideas that could boost the Wellington economy.
"But we would need to hear from aviation and construction experts, along with other feasibility studies and a robust business plan, before we would see this as a real or viable option."
Aviation New Zealand chief executive Ed Sims said a new airport development would be hugely challenging and there could be operational problems.
The altitude would be more prone to being clouded in, the winds would be stronger and gustier and the height of Mount Kaukau, just a few kilometres to the south, could be a problem.
Wellington Airport was well located for aircraft operations and close to the city and he doubted there would be commercial advantages. Mr Sims was also sceptical of estimates suggesting it would save $500m — "I'd be guessing it would be a zero sum game."www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9702360/Airport-proposed-up-in-the-hills
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 10, 2014 10:48:12 GMT 12
How far away from the CBD would that be? Quite a journey?
Also would the turbulence be worse or lessened in the hills as opposed to the current site?
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Feb 10, 2014 11:03:08 GMT 12
It's rather interesting that Richard Burrell's company, Building Solutions, appears to either own the land at Hunters Hill, or have development rights to it, and therefore stand to profit from the proposal to build a new Wellington Airport at the site. See HERE and HERE. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 10, 2014 11:17:57 GMT 12
I would have thought that was natural for a developer to make proposals that gain them profit??
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Feb 10, 2014 14:09:36 GMT 12
I wonder if Richard Burrell has any shares in hotels in Wellington and is also looking to profit from the days the new airport is in the clouds and is therefore closed?
Good capitalist way of thinking if he is.
|
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Feb 10, 2014 15:36:28 GMT 12
How far away from the CBD would that be? Quite a journey? Also would the turbulence be worse or lessened in the hills as opposed to the current site? Longer journey but better roads so vaguely comparable. Turbulence may be more at that site. Average windspeeds almost certainly will be, not to mention that it will be in the clouds a lot of the time (like say the last three days on the trot as I write). For those and other reasons it's a daft idea. |
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Feb 10, 2014 15:39:54 GMT 12
I would have thought that was natural for a developer to make proposals that gain them profit?? Perhaps, but that means a marked conflict of interest for the promoter, and questionable motives for the proposal. |
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Feb 10, 2014 15:42:51 GMT 12
Longer runway poses flight path problemElectricity pylons along the Newlands ridge could be a problem
for planes taking off from an extended airport runway.By JIM CHIPP - The Wellingtonian | 3:58PM - Wednesday, 17 July 2013 RICHARD LAMB: The former airline pilot and airport
inspector says those planning the runway extension
should pull a tape measure before spending a
fortune on it. — JIM CHIPP/The Wellingtonian. Not sure if I've mentioned it before but my wife sings in a choir with this guy and I've met him once or twice. He flew Sunderlands in the RNZAF among other things, and is a very modest and interesting guy to share a table with at the odd function  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 10, 2014 16:01:39 GMT 12
Sorry Sam, but you've lost me. Why is it a conflict of interest for a developer who owns land to propose to build something on the land that will make him and his company money? The article states the Government has no interest in funding the venture and the Mayor isn't entertaining the idea, so it would have to be a private venture, like many other airports around the country. Where is this conflict of interest? Does he work for the current airport or something??
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Feb 10, 2014 16:33:13 GMT 12
Well, I guess if the developer is prepared to cough up for the supporting infrastructure (roads, etc), then one could say he doesn't have a conflict of interest and everything is neutral.
The simple fact is that no matter what Herr Brownlie says, if this airport proposal went ahead, taxpayers and ratepayers would end up spending a huge amount putting in support infrastructure connecting the airport to the region. And the huge spend on transport between the eastern suburbs and Rongotai would still need to go ahead, because the current Wellington Airport would be replaced by hundreds of houses, so you'd have all the additional traffic that would generate. In fact, as that area (Kilburnie & Rongotai) has been earmarked for high density housing, you'd most likely find that high-density housing would be what would end up on the current airport site.
|
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Feb 10, 2014 16:45:29 GMT 12
I saw this on Stuff this morning, my first reaction was to check it wasn't April 1!...seems even more harebrained through the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 10, 2014 18:00:11 GMT 12
"if this airport proposal went ahead, taxpayers and ratepayers would end up spending a huge amount putting in support infrastructure connecting the airport to the region"
Not necessarily. I understand that Auckland Airport's owners paid for and owns that road that connects it to the motorway, not the taxpayers or Auckland rate payers. But I see what you are saying.
I cannot really see the idea proposed here working too well, taking the airport out of the heart of the city and therefore away from business, industry, the wharves and the ferry terminals, seems to be counter productive. Especially if the site has issues with weather, clouding in the visibility. Even if aeroplanes have all the latest electronic equipment for landing and taking off in cloud, do they think people will really want to be driving through cloud to get there? Sounds like a series of accidents waiting to happen.
This airport would be like Mangere is now. You land at Auckland airport and then have to drive for an hour to actually get to Auckland. Whereas Rongotai is only ten minutes or so from downtown Wellington.
|
|
