Australian Aviation Green Paper released

[Will T]

'Aviation Policy Green Paper - Flight Path to the Future - December 2008' downloadable from the Department of Infrastructure website at:

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi...nap/index.aspx

[Matt_L]

Interesting stuff.
I will paraphrase just a part concering the establishment of a second airport in Sydney

The construction of an airport at Badgerys Creek is no longer an option.

With Badgerys Creek gone, one would have to wonder the viability of remaining sites such as Richmond, Camden etc which after a quick look at this paper are not immediately clear.

[Radi K]

Interview with RAAA CEO on lateline biz tonight.

Should be on the website in a few hours: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/

[Andrew McLaughlin]

Interesting that the government is totally discounting the possibility of lifting YSSY's curfew or increasing the movements cap. Isn't the 'green paper' supposed to be a discussion paper where all possibilities are explored? Apparently not...

[Nigel C]

Without doing any research, I'd be surprised if nearly all of the surrounding areas of YSSY aren't safe Labor Party held seats. Got to keep the party faithful happy!

[D Chan]

I think Richmond is a very good choice in the interim if somehow, they could relocate the RAAF base

[Andrew McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by D Chan

I think Richmond is a very good choice in the interim if somehow, they could relocate the RAAF base

1) - why is it "a very good choice"?
2) - why would they need to "relocate the RAAF base"?

[Nigel C]

3) - runway length could be an issue
4) - the locals don't mind having an RAAF base there because it drives the local economy quite effectively. I can't see the same type of benefit being seen by the community if it becomes a commercially based port, therefore leading to some rejection of the idea
5) - fog

[Joseph D]

Originally Posted by Andrew McLaughlin

1) - why is it "a very good choice"?
2) - why would they need to "relocate the RAAF base"?

In response to Number 1, I think it is a good choice because
a) it is in the Sydney Basin
b) there are already heavy aircraft coming and going (hercules aircraft are as loud as anything).
c) area is full of bogans living in housing commission units
d) area is sparsely populated.

I think the RAAF base can stay.

[Nigel C]

Originally Posted by Joseph D

In response to Number 1, I think it is a good choice because
a) it is in the Sydney Basin
b) there are already heavy aircraft coming and going (hercules aircraft are as loud as anything).
c) area is full of bogans living in housing commission units
d) area is sparsely populated.

I think the RAAF base can stay.

In response to that argument I think it's a poor choice because

a) it's at the edge of the Sydney basin and the end of the rail link, and trains are very infrequent. The road system has only been improved to cater for traffic requirements 15 years ago and still struggles daily with the increase in population.
b) re-read my point 4 in my previous post, and no, I don't believe hercs are that loud in the overall scheme of things
c) having lived in Richmond for a few years, I tend to disagree. Windsor and Bligh Park is predominantly free standing privately owned housing. Richmond is much the same and Hobartville is full of privately owned ex-Defence housing. There really aren't that many units out there. And no, I'm not a bogan.
d) not any more. The city is growing quite quickly in that direction.

I agree that the RAAF base should stay.