• Fri
  • Aug 22, 2014
  • Updated: 3:37pm
Jake's View
PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 15 July, 2014, 1:17am
UPDATED : Tuesday, 15 July, 2014, 1:17am

Keep Hong Kong airport for wide-body jets and ditch need for third runway

Return to Kai Tak policy would remove officials' justification for pricey third runway


Jake van der Kamp is a native of the Netherlands, a Canadian citizen, and a longtime Hong Kong resident. He started as a South China Morning Post business reporter in 1978, soon made a career change to investment analyst and returned to the newspaper in 1998 as a financial columnist.

Airport chiefs are ignoring inefficiencies in the use of its two runways as they seek to justify a third, concerned groups say.

They questioned the need for the multibillion-dollar expansion of Chek Lap Kok after analysis of a million flights between 2010 and 2012 highlighted low operational efficiency of the existing runway.

SCMP, July 14

I can make a much stronger case of inefficient use of the airport than these concerned groups have done. I can make it from the Airport Authority's own studies.

Unsuitably small aircraft are flying to unsuitable destinations

Here follows an excerpt from a discussion paper written two years ago by Kevin Poole, the airport's deputy director of projects:

"... many of the working assumptions adopted in the early 1990s were based on the operating environment of Kai Tak Airport, which was highly constrained and fully stretched. At the time it was natural for airlines to maximise each valuable slot by deploying the biggest aircraft possible.

"The 1992 NAMP [New Airport Master Plan] therefore assumed that wide-bodied aircraft would comprise over 80% of aircraft movements, resulting in a high average passenger load forecast of more than 300 people per aircraft.

"The new airport at Chek Lap Kok provided more runway capacity, allowing airlines to increase their flight frequencies and service to secondary destinations. This has enabled HKIA to develop into an international and regional aviation hub, but it also led to the deployment of more narrow-bodied aircraft (mostly less than 200 seats).

"Since 2000, the average passenger load per aircraft has decreased to about 190. In other words, it will take 437,000 aircraft movements instead of the 278,000 originally estimated in the NAMP to serve 87 million passenger trips.

"In addition, from 1997 to 2010 the percentage of wide-bodied freighters decreased from 84% to 67% in favour of medium-sized aircraft. Therefore, moving 8.9 million tonnes of cargo will take 108,000 aircraft movements instead of the 66,000 forecast by the NAMP."

And there you have the big secret that the Airport Authority wishes to keep hidden from us when demanding that we build a third runway for it.

The reason that our new airport has been plugged up earlier than expected is that it has 57 per cent more passenger aircraft movements than the old airport did relative to the number of passengers it handles and 64 per cent more cargo aircraft movements.

Having two runways instead of just the single one at old Kai Tak was a convenience that the airlines exploited to run far more flights of small Boeing 737s and other such microlights, many of them half empty, to minor towns in the mainland.

And now that the new airport is reaching capacity in the number of flights it can handle, they baulk at the obvious step of reserving use of it for larger aircraft as they did at Kai Tak.

Instead they expect us to suit their convenience by building another runway at a cost of up HK$200 billion so that they can continue misusing the airport by operating unsuitably small aircraft to unsuitable destinations. We spoiled them at Chek Lap Kok and they now consider the privilege their right.

But there is a very good way of letting the truth out here. Let the mighty Hong Kong dollar speak. If the airlines think that a third runway is worth HK$200 billion in convenience to their passengers, then they should be glad to make these passengers pay for it. Just allocate landing slots by auction. When the revenue from these auctions becomes sufficient to satisfy financial markets that the airport can service a HK$200 billion bond issue, then we can hit the Go button on a third runway.

And if it is not sufficient, if the passengers on the small aircraft that Chek Lap Kok now accommodates would rather save money by flying to Shenzhen and taking a bus across the border, then we could reserve Chek Lap Kok for proper use by wide-body aircraft.

So, thank you, Mr Poole, for letting the secret slip. It hasn't slipped again since you let it out two years ago, but once was enough.



For unlimited access to:

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



This article is now closed to comments

To ***.... (July 16 at 2.32pm)
Let the government pays first and recoup the payment later with profits is a wrong model how infrastructures should be financed at least in countries where their future is not in question. It is a primitive simplistic accounting exercise. The one to one relationship that what amount invested must be recouped directly from the operation of the investment – the airport.
The tangible and the intangible, the measurable and the immeasurable is pretty absent for those who are bean counter. For those who do know the difference they are qualified to be leader in Hong Kong.
The one to one relationship only is used because during the colonial days that there were no other ways. The consequence is that it makes our government a businessman -- greedy.
as of now - 1 CNY buys you HK$1.25. Mighty HK$ JVDP? To say that CLK should only be for wide-body jets defies the reality in the APAC aviation space - that growth is in short-haul, more than long-haul. Try asking Cathay/Dragonair to fly wide body aircraft on all its regional routes. Impose the auction system on landing rights and customers in HK may well have to pay more for their tickets/just like their properties, and/or HK may well be hollowed out as an aviation hub, especially with growing options in the Pearl River Delta
actually - Cathay does fly wide body planes on all its routes
Factually, most of the fleet of the Cathay group is wide-body. However, the majority of Dragonair´s fleet is narrow-body. HKG has been enjoying robust, phenomenal and consistent growth in long-haul traffic because HKG is still the aviation gateway of China, the gateway for the North America - ASEAN & v.v. traffic and a traditional favorite stop on the Kangaroo Route. The ultimate global long-haul gateway LHR still needs plenty of short-haul narrow-body traffic.
Now I see that you need someone to locate the information you request for you because you cannot even find simple information like the fleet composition of Dragonair!
Will the Third Runway be the final blow to Hong Kong’s Chinese white dolphin? ..
Here come the usual fear mongering and data manipulation.
Airport noise
Here come the usual fear mongering and data manipulation.
If Hong Kong is ready to spend 300 billion for the third runway, I believe history would repeat itself – Central Government would intervene just like when CLK was first proposed.
The expansion of the airport is even more irrational this time when fact is presented that the runways are not efficiently used and the addition of the third runway is prohibitively expansive. For me I would question the real motive for the third runway if some individuals are enriching themselves in emptying Hong Kong government’s reserve?
It is exactly a history repeating itself.
Clearly, the Central Government would support its view this time with the consideration that more airports have been built within an hour travelling time from Hong Kong in mainland.
I would also add that Central Government is alert that thief from within is the hardest to catch as the old Chinese has said.
Time has changed. The Central Government has been engaging in all sorts of bona fide white elephant projects like building a new commercial jet, rail line to Tibet, etc. The opposition this time is simply desperate because they could not resort to claims like "Kai Tak is just fine" last time around.
I wrote in response to this article:
"The uninitiated and ignorant think when HKIA exists like an XL Kai Tak, everything will be fine and dandy. Have they seen how the aviation industry has developing in the entire Asia Pacific in the last 20 years instead of obsessing over the construction progress of the nearby airports?
There is so much you can do. If you just buck the trend all the way, you will loose out at the end. Hong Kong already stacks the convention centers and air cargo terminals up instead of spreading them out. When we are at it, the air traffic growth will partly fail to materialize when you block the expansion of the downtown convention center because you will come up with the lame propoganda, saying the mainland should have it because the MICE industry only hires cleaners and cooks. The mainland is out to destroy HKG, so will the local phobia against the mainland."




SCMP.com Account