Too small, no need for second commercial airport says critic

National MP for Helensville JOHN KEY explains why a second commercial airport for Auckland is a waste of time and money


DOES AUCKLAND NEED ANOTHER AIRPORT?

No, there's absolutely no evidence it's necessary. Mangere's 1500ha gives it huge potential for expansion (including its plans for a second runway) and it already has the costly infrastructure required for a commercial airport. Mangere is equipped for the maintenance of planes, freight forwarding and its role as a hub to other airports.

Mangere is much more environmentally friendly as its location means planes approach and take off over the sea - not people's houses.

And there's plenty of international evidence that planes are getting bigger, which means fewer movements. Many cities abroad, with much larger populations than Auckland, operate successfully with only one airport, like Sydney.

WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES?

Whenuapai would never be a full-service airport; it has built-in space constraints and it wouldn't be able to handle long-haul, international planes. At best, it might service charter flights or point-to-point airlines like Virgin or Freedom Air, except such airlines rely on the needs of the whole of greater Auckland's population (not just those near Whenuapai) which would mean more traffic on roads already over-loaded.

The environmental impact cannot be underestimated either.

Whenuapai is in an area that doesn't have town-supply sewerage, depending instead on tank-supply water and septic tanks, so the fallout from higher levels of aviation gas is hardly something residents will appreciate.

The proposed curfew (midnight to 6am) is hardly acceptable in a built-up residential area, nor are assurances that increased flight movements won't be noticed.

Whenuapai supporters talk about the airport's current 22,000 annual movements, but most are gliders, light aircraft or military training flights.

The real figure is around 5500, and if Whenuapai is to be a viable commercial alternative it will need a lot more traffic than that.

Many existing houses are likely to be exposed to unacceptable noise levels; why should residents swap their serenity for council and corporate profits?

ARE THERE BETTER SUGGESTIONS FOR THE BASE'S FUTURE USE?

A second-rate commercial airport certainly won't be a big employer. Airports require very specialised staff and it's likely they'll have to commute from around the Auckland region. Nor is a second-rate airport likely to provide many jobs. If Waitakere City Mayor Bob Harvey is really concerned about job losses, he'd be better to focus on replicating a technological/industrial park like Albany Basin.

WILL RATEPAYERS SUFFER?

Infratil, the infrastructure investors, aren't asking for any public money - yet. But if the project starts losing money then asking ratepayers for cash can't be ruled out. The Government is already being asked to lease or gift the land to the airport for nothing; guaranteeing zero economic return for a large block of land that's worth hundreds of millions. Lets not forget taxpayers are also ratepayers.