• Wed
  • Dec 24, 2014
  • Updated: 9:54am
Jake's View
PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 04 March, 2014, 5:09am
UPDATED : Tuesday, 04 March, 2014, 6:56am

Taxpayers should not pay for a third runway … but they will

Making airlines bid for landing and take-off slots at Chek Lap Kok would be the best way for airport to build revenue and fund new landing strip

One airline executive has suggested a radical solution to the peak hour problem. Airlines should be allowed to bid for the best time slots, as was done at Heathrow, Hong Kong Express Airways deputy chief executive Andrew Cowen said.

But analysts said that would be a last resort move because of objections from incumbent airlines.

SCMP, March 1


Join me in a hopeless stand, Mr Cowen. You are absolutely right. Auctioning off landing and take-off slots at the airport is a brilliant idea. But these so-called "analysts" are also right. It will never happen.

I accept that at some level of aircraft movements there will be a need for a third runway at Chek Lap Kok and, given the lead time for building one, we may already be past the point at which we should have started work on it.

But a crucial element of the debate about this third runway has always been pushed quietly to the side. Who will pay for it? We could be presented with a bill here for much more than even the mooted HK$130 billion if construction costs keep rising as quickly as they are at present.

The original consultation document on the third runway, a glitzy triumph of the public relations art with plenty of green talk and embedded videos for online readers (it even mentioned engineering studies), said nothing on the subject other than that it would be dealt with later.

I assume it had already been dealt with. We, the taxpaying public will pay for this project out of sales of our greatest treasure, public land. A little of the cost will be made up by squeezing yet more shops into the terminal, and the airlines will then call this a return on investment and get the new facility effectively for free. It is the established pattern.

This cabal of airlines and hoteliers thinks itself entitled to ready access to the public purse

Their pitch is that the airport is crucial to the fundamentals of the economy of Hong Kong and therefore the government has a responsibility to ensure that airline passengers find it very convenient (and cheap).

Even more fundamental to our economy, however, is the food we eat to sustain economic effort, but do we think government under obligation to provide our grocers with supermarkets at construction cost? Do we believe government should provide clothing retailers with rent-free shops because we need clothes more than we do air transport?

It has always amazed me that our bureaucrats so quickly fall in line with the wishes of that cabal of airlines, hoteliers and tourist shop operators, which thinks itself entitled to ready access to the public purse.

Auctioning off landing and take-off slots is the obvious way to go. As the airport becomes busier the best times for embarking and disembarking passengers become more valuable and the best way to take advantage of this is to put these times up for auction.

Business travellers to whom timely travel is crucial will have to pay more for the privilege and budget travellers will have to put up with red-eye flights. They may not like it but they will have the choice of how much they want to pay.

And as the money from these auctions rolls in, the airport will find it ever easier to raise the necessary funds for expansion on its own credit rating. Commercial pressure for expansion will by itself create the revenues for that expansion. That's why it is the perfect solution. That's why Heathrow is going this way.

If the cabal then tells us that the consequent rise in air fares will stop people from coming, very well, these people could not possibly bring our economy much benefit if so little extra is enough to deter them. We will have a very good acid test then of how important the visitor dollar really is to us.

We are talking about spending a great deal of money on this third runway. It will be the single most expensive capital project in Hong Kong's history, more than triple the cost of the original airport platform and terminal.

It is irresponsible to talk of building it on the blithe assumption, never properly considered, that construction will be entirely funded again from the general public treasure chest.

But that is the way it will happen. I'm a realist.



For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

Our government likes to think that having lots of planes landing and taking off is a sign of success, just like having a lot of tourists walking around buying shampoo.
I remember when our new airport was proposed; mainland government interceded with two reasons. First it was the high price tag and secondly the amount of investment to justify its fringe location relative to China’s geo/business center. Politically, mainland Central Government was highly suspicious that the sky-high construction cost to be paid by Hong Kong government was a means for the colonial government to divert cash away from Hong Kong to Britain from its last days. International bidding in construction of the airport was hence finally implemented.
Now we are revisited by yet another huge expense for our airport. While suspicious of the British in stealing money from Hong Kong’s treasury has no reason to be, mainland Central Government should have other issues to consider. First, would a new runway undermine the new and expanded airports just across the border? Secondly, would it undermine the future use of the railway between mainland and Hong Kong.
This time around, the local privileged are the players and I can assure you the real motive for a third runway is again about properties and retail shops. Hong Kong’s well-being is in the hands of officials and businessmen who are blind to anything else.
Let the Central Government intercedes again. Hundreds of billions spend on a mere strip of land?
and milk powder
Why don't we begin by commissioning an independent (and then I really mean independent, by an outside firm, free of interference by the concrete and aviation lobby) report on the need for a third runway, weighing costs and benefits? Not a public consultation, a real report with hard numbers and facts.

If we are considering spending HKD 130 billion, surely it would make sense to commission such a study first, costing a couple of million at most.

Because I am far from convinced that we, as a city of 7~8 million, need three runways, especially since we are also building a high-speed rail link and a road bridge to the mainland. Are the benefits of having more tourists worth HKD 130bn? How many transfer passengers does Cathay handle now, and how many more will use the third runway? How do they benefit us at all? What is expected competitive position of HKIA vs Macau vs Shenzhen vs Guangzhou airports?

A lot of serious, difficult questions, none of which have been satisfactorily answered yet.
Guangzhou is steadily advancing its planned 2nd airport in Nansha, directly opposite
Shenzhen's airport. How will all 5 coastal airports mesh air traffic ?
Has HK Gov, even done an assessment of needs that includes a Nansha airport?
John Adams
Does anyone in the corridors of power ever read what you write Mr van der Kamp?
Does anyone in the corridors of power ever read anything that is not written by the property and business cartels ?
I think not .
shamp0o might conceivably be made somewhere in Hong Kong at least ..Yau Tong maybe


SCMP.com Account