Here are the highlights of the feedback you’ve provided.
Please make yourself heard and keep the feedback coming.
A longer airport runway will bring in more international visitors, and enhance business and education connections.
Showing 391 submissions for A longer airport runway.
A longer airport runway – 4 years ago #
Increasing airtravel is not sustainable. We need to reduce fossil fuel use in order to reduce CO2 emissions, cheap airtravel has been a luxury we cannot continue.
The speculated financial returns are dependent on airlines running services that will probably not occur (see the recent cut to Christchurch's service to Japan).
The speculated financial returns could be matched by putting $300million into a term deposit at only 3% for 40 years.
Wellington is currently constrained by poor air connectivity. Wellington Airport already handles a large number of international passengers to/from Australia and the Pacific Islands, almost 800,000 passengers, showing the market is there when there are direct connections. Forcing passengers to/from Asia, Europe and North America to have to transfer via Auckland or Sydney when they dont want to is inefficent, costs the economy millions of dollars a year, and provides a physical barrier for investment, business opportunities, migration, and tourism to the city.
Time critical freight to/from central New Zealand is also road freighted at great expense via Auckland due to the lack of large aircraft cargo capacity at Wellington.
The case for an airline to use the extended runway is strong now, and will continue to strengthen as Wellington's market increases and airline competition in Auckland/Sydney intensifies.
The runway extension is a relativity low cost investment in central New Zealand's economic future.
A solution looking for a problem. No robust business case. Ditch this idea.
I don't support this proposal as I don’t feel a cost benefit analysis has been sufficiently undertaken to warrant the huge funding. I wonder if the costs will outweigh any benefits. The airlines have not indicated they will make use of a longer runway, the popular and locally unique Lyall Bay surf area could be impacted, I am concerned about environmental effects of the on the marine environment. Lyall Bay is better grown as a place of and for the marine environment e.g. surf breaks, Maranui cafe, Ocean Exploration Centre. It is a large amount of money that could be better spent on other priority jobs (e.g. upgrading the sewage and stormwater systems). Also I think it would be better spending the money on further developing a vibrant city (events, a heart with easy living, greenspaces and cycle routes, Ocean Exploration centre and Film museum) that will entice visitors to fly from Auckland to visit. Much of the money could be spent on creating a greater city and marketing it and this would be more cost effective. The site is also not sustainable due to risks of sealevel rise (more erosion is happening on the south coast already) and tsunamis.
It's long overdue. I'm really struggling with all these people searching for a business case/cost benefit analysis though - I mean - come on people!? Lets do the maths shall we...they're not that hard!
Total Project cost = $300m
Total Project benefit = $389m to $684m
Ratio of Benefits to Costs = 1.3 to 2.28.
So for every dollar spent, you get upwards of $2.30 back!
Then lets think about the actual cost to the city described in this plan - that's $90m. All of a sudden we're getting $4.30 to $7.60 back (although to be fair, we need to share some of this benefit with our regional friends).
And this is why the airport extension is such a good idea.
Good in principle but need a committed airline as part of the deal.
It feels like build it and they will come. Not many cities in the world have their airports so close to their city centre. Some cities have even moved their airports further out. It seems to be that arriving in Auckland and then being in Wellington in what is often less than 3 hours is not a bad result after a long haul flight. In many countries e.g. the USA you have to arrive at a hub, of which there are not too many and then fly to your destination of choice.
I don't want to be too much of a naysayer but there are probably ways that Auckland airport could improve the experience of visitors to the country especially when they transition from the international to domestic terminal.
I am concerned that the business model has not explored the idea that safe actual landing distances continue to be optimised with modern aircraft. If the runway extension has an approx 30-year payback period, what are the chances the extension will be made redundant by improved technology within that timeframe? Some information to show this has been considered would be appreciated.
I am opposed because I think we can get better value for our investment elsewhere. We need to think smarter not bigger. There must be alternatives to improve the attractiveness of wellington. I'm sure the millions of dollars could be put to better use developing a world class city, we won't remain unique or the "coolest little capital" if we follow the path of every other city and continue building 20th Century infrastructure. The South Coast is an amazing natural resource right on the door step of our capital city, its worth more than a few extra direct flights.
Supports the idea.