London Heathrow airport sky (caption: The congestion at Heathrow represents a powerful argument for those calling for an additional runway)
Around the world, airports are dealing with more and more flights every day. As the traffic increases, so too of course does the need for those same gateways to have the necessary infrastructure and equipment in place.
And nothing is as fundamental to an airport’s capacity to handle new services as its runways. Along with the increased volume of demand for flight frequencies in and out, bigger and bigger aircraft have taken to the skies over the decades, the latest being the A380 superjumbo and the B747-8 Intercontinental. These larger airplanes require – as a general rule – the longest possible take-off and landing strips. Likewise, demand for longer haul services from what have traditionally been seen as regional gateways calls for extended runways.
Hence the drive at so many hubs to lengthen and widen existing strips or, where possible, to build entirely new runways. Of course, there are immense challenges in such projects; there isn’t always the space or the money to grow runway capacity, plus there are numerous other considerations to be taken into account, not least the environmental impact and the reaction of citizens dismayed at potential increases in noise.
The construction of a new runway at Frankfurt-Main International is an example indicative of both the ups and downs of building a new strip, while the plan to build a new runway at Hong Kong International airport (HKIA) also throws into sharp relief the challenges facing operators seeking to cope with the requirements for ever-growing flight frequencies.
Meanwhile, London Heathrow shows best, perhaps, how ‘people power’ and politicians can put a stop to plans for one of the world’s busiest airports to ease heavy congestion by adding to its much-overworked runway capacity.
Mixed fortunes
Frankfurt-Main’s fourth strip, Runway Northwest, became operational in October 2011 amid much fanfare, but it hasn’t been an unmitigated success. The 2,800m long by 45m wide runway, which was designed and is used only for landings, raised the airport’s capacity from 82 to a potential 126 aircraft movements per hour in a move seen as essential – at least by airport operator Fraport – to meet the needs of customer airlines.
Approximately 2.5 million cubic metres of earth was moved for the creation of about 440,000 square metres of paved surface (concrete and asphalt). The newly built runway was connected to pre-existing flight operations areas by two taxiways, which cross over high-speed train tracks, an autobahn and the airport’s own ring road.
Five taxiway overpasses and two perimeter road bridges had to be built. The taxiing bridge East 1 alone is over 200m long and at its widest spans 220m. Also built were two transformer stations and a new fire station; more than 700 shafts were dug, about 100km of cable laid and about 60km of drainage channels put in.
Total construction costs associated with Runway Northwest are estimated by Fraport to have reached about 600 million euros (US$791 million), while ecological compensation measures are thought to have cost about 160 million euros ($211 million).
The new strip can be used in all weather conditions and was expected to help Frankfurt-Main cater to a projected increase in passenger numbers at the gateway to 90 million a year (coming, going or transferring at the airport). Stefan Schulte, Fraport’s executive board chairman, has said that the fourth runway “laid the foundation for the future development of our company – while creating sustainable growth opportunities for the city of Frankfurt and the entire state of Hesse” (in which Frankfurt-Main lies).
He added that it represents “the necessary capacity gain to guarantee Hesse’s and Germany’s long-term international connectivity”. However, despite Fraport claiming that it would “do everything we can to minimise the associated burdens on people and the environment” and that it is “committed to active noise abatement”, soon after the runway’s inauguration large-scale protests began to make their weight felt.
Those people living on the approach flight corridor of the new strip were particularly vociferous, although many observers contend that the opening of the new runway was simply an opportunity for some to voice their lack of empathy with the expansion of what they regard as a noisy, polluting, and otherwise environmentally damaging facility that may or may not be on their doorstep.
These demonstrations were just one aspect of what has turned into a very difficult time for the airport, a period since late 2011 that has included the imposition of a night-flight ban that shows no sign of being rescinded and strikes that have affected the gateway’s operational performance. Together with the impact of an operating environment hard-hit by Europe and North America’s economic slump, these factors have in part offset the beneficial effect of new runway capacity causing, for example, Frankfurt-Main’s cargo volumes to tumble in comparison to the previous year’s.
Pushing ahead
While Frankfurt may offer a salutary lesson to airport operators that the construction of a new runway is by no means an answer to all their problems and, indeed may create some of its own, other gateways are determined to press ahead with their own infrastructure development.
Hong Kong has long seen the need for a major expansion in its runway capacity. Its two strips can currently handle about 420,000 flight movements a year, yet it is predicting that it will be needing to host that many movements by sometime between 2019 and 2022. It believes that, with three runways, it will grow its capacity to an annual figure of 620,000 flight movements, meeting projections in demand until at least 2030.
Thus, in 2011 the gateway’s operator launched a three-month consultation process to assess public opinion on the airport’s future expansion and last year – in the wake of the Hong Kong government’s approval in principle of adding a third strip – Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA) launched a multi-phase process which it has broken down into the three stages of planning, approval and implementation.
“We are dedicated to carrying out this work in a highly prudent, transparent and professional manner as always,” AA explains. While going, it notes, to great lengths to “avoid, minimise, mitigate and compensate for potential environmental impacts”, it has begun developing the design details required for facilities under a three-runway system. This planning phase, which incorporates assessment of funding options, is expected to take two years to complete.
The approval phase will involve securing the required environmental permit, going through the foreshore and seabed gazettal (the third runway and associated infrastructure will require the reclamation of about 650 hectares of land north of the existing airport island), and working out all the financial arrangements. This phase is expected to take at least a year to complete and only after this is entirely finalised will the AA proceed to actually seeking final government approval. In other words, it will take at least until 2015 before actual project implementation can begin – and this phase is expected to take eight years to execute.
o the AA’s consultation document, the whole project will cost approximately HK$86.2 billion at 2010 prices; that would be US$11.1 billion today, but the figure will be much higher in real terms over the programme’s entire timeframe. As a result, the opportunities that will become available to suppliers to the project are likely to be huge – not just in the enormous volumes of equipment, materials and labour required for the land reclamation and construction of the runway itself but also in the development of taxiway systems; aircraft parking stands; navigation aids; passenger concourses and the expansion of the existing terminal 2; the extension of part of the airport’s midfield freighter apron; and the lengthening of the gateway’s automated people mover, to name but a few planned developments.
Also likely to attract the attention of suppliers of materials and equipment are the proposed extension of the airport’s baggage handling system; the improvement of the road network to both the gateway’s passenger and cargo areas, as well as landside facilities such as car parks; a new water recycling system in the reclaimed area; and modifications required to existing marine equipment and infrastructure, such as aviation fuel pipelines and sea rescue facilities.
Congestion and contention
While the UK’s Coalition government has, at least for the moment, put the idea of a third runway at the country’s busiest airport on hold, the need for new runway capacity there remains seemingly unquestionable, at least to some. Certainly, Heathrow’s operator hasn’t given up hope entirely. According to a spokesperson: “Our position is that we would like all options for improving hub airport capacity to be on the table, with the pros and cons of each option examined objectively and rationally side by side.”
In November last year, the operator responded to the government’s announcement of the full terms and references of its new Airports Commission, a body headed by Sir Howard Davies and the role of which is to identify and evaluate the country’s needs for additional airport capacity in the short, medium and long term: “We hope the Davies Commission will build consensus on the UK’s requirements for hub capacity and then rigorously assess every option against those needs.”
Remaining positive but realistic of the numerous objections that have been raised to expanding what is already a huge facility, it added: “None of the options for hub airport capacity is easy. Every choice, including doing nothing, has its consequences.”
In that regard, Heathrow points to the results of a recent study carried out by Frontier Economics that suggests the lack of capacity is currently costing the UK up to £14 billion (US$22.4 billion) annually in lost trade business and that this figure could rise to £26 billion ($41.6 billion) a year by 2030.
Colin Matthews, CEO at Heathrow, says that the study proves that only a single hub can “meet the UK’s connectivity needs and the choice is therefore between adding capacity at Heathrow or closing Heathrow and replacing it with a new UK hub airport”.
The Airports Commission is not expected to report until 2015 at the earliest and any significant expansion at the gateway would illustrate the huge time and expense that runway construction can involve. The operator of the UK’s busiest airport, Heathrow Limited (prior to October 2012, this organisation would have officially formed part of the wider UK airport operator known as BAA), believes that a third runway’s development might take up to 10 years – although the required planning enquiry could take up to half of that – and cost as much as £10 billion ($16.2 billion).
But, with that amount of money on the table, private sector providers of the materials required for the runway and all the associated airfield equipment would be licking their lips if a green light were to be given. “There would be significant development in all infrastructure areas” in such an eventuality, the spokesperson confirms.
Gearing up for action
Other UK gateways have either announced their intention to expand or have already begun development work on their runways. London Gatwick is currently engaged in what it describes as “detailed studies” in regard to a second runway while Birmingham International airport is in the midst of a major runway expansion project. Birmingham, the UK’s second-busiest airport outside London (after Manchester), handles approximately 9 million passengers a year at the moment but has the facilities in place to double that. At a time when the London gateways are approaching capacity, this regional airport is looking to make the most of its available terminal and handling capacity by extending its single runway strip by 405m to 3,003m.
Planning permission for the lengthening of Birmingham’s runway was given in 2009, with final approval being received in April 2012. Work on extending the landing strip began in November last year and the expectation is that construction work on the runway will finish this autumn. This will be followed by resurfacing, with flight-testing to follow in the spring of 2014. The runway is scheduled to become operational later that same spring.
The runway extension is expected to cost approximately £33 million ($53.2 million), all of it invested by the airport operator, with resurfacing the entire strip costing another £9 million ($14.5 million). As part of the programme, a new, higher air traffic control tower that can view the end of the extended runway has already been built, while a new radar has also been installed. Both the ATC tower and radar are expected to go into operation in the spring of this year, at a total cost of £13 million ($21 million).
Leading the construction programme is a joint venture made up of VolkerFitzpatrick and Colas, known together in this work as VFC. These engineering and construction companies are taking the lead not only on the extension of the runway but also on the slight rerouting of the A45 road linking Birmingham to Coventry where it runs past the airport and where it needs to be diverted away from the lengthened runway, a project known as the A45 Transport Corridor Improvement Scheme.
Birmingham airport notes that the runway extension will allow it to bring numerous long-haul destinations within range for the first time. It lists cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo, Bangkok, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Johannesburg as possible new direct connections.
The airport operator believes that the additional runway capacity will make the Midlands gateway a long-haul alternative to London and Manchester as it seeks to gain true national airport status. As communications manager Justine Howl explains, the gateway wants to be recognised as such by the UK government, a national stamp of accreditation that it could take to potential long-haul customer carriers. It also believes that this would take pressure off the overworked airports in the south-east of the UK.
As well as improving passenger connections, the increased long-haul capability would also stimulate its cargo operations. While twice-a-day Emirates B777-300 services to Dubai offer significant freight capacity, there is little dedicated cargo activity at the gateway because of its night-flight restrictions. Increased widebody long-haul connections would therefore offer genuine scope for expanding cargo throughput.
Each to their own
When giving a speech to an audience including Chancellor Angela Merkel at the occasion of the opening of Frankfurt’s Runway Northwest in October 2011, Fraport executive board chairman Stefan Schulte described the strip’s construction as having been “one of the largest infrastructure projects in Germany”. The process of adding a fourth runway took the airport operator well over a decade, if planning, mediation and application procedures are all taken into account.
If Hong Kong goes ahead with its plans for a further runway that project is likely to take at least as long, while any expansion at London Heathrow would represent a massive initiative likely to have as many political implications as logistical.
Yet many of the world’s gateways – and not just the biggest of them – are clamouring to handle more flight operations on additional or longer runways as demand quickly rises. Each must meet the associated challenges, be they financial, political or social, as best they can.
