Manila International Airport
Locked
1 ...
891011121314
... 30
1 ...
891011121314
... 30
 
Administrator
|
PRA is interfering on the project. They said its their call to reclaim Sangley. Actually the issue there is development and not reclamation. But apparently, they have other ideas. More likely connected with the ARRC. These two government agencies don't talk at all because the other has billion dollars on offer and I surmise PRA officers may be fired by DU30 soon. The EO to which PRA stand will be revoked soon. Just wait.
Making Sense
|
|
Administrator
|
This post was updated on .
Execution problemDEMAND AND SUPPLYBy Boo Chanco
Nice read. But here is the real score back then. Indeed FVR had a vision. He is more like Tugade only that his President. The plan was good at that time. Boo however failed to mention the most important thing that happen in 1997 or two years after that famous memo that crashed this dream. The thing where 24 pesos to a dollar suddenly becomes 57 pesos to a dollar. If Boo knows how to compute, he could have spelled the difference between the two. By the way, that is also the cause of PAL's almost eventual demise. The 1997 Philippine Transport Strategy Study (PTSS) otherwise known as the "Medium Term Airport development Plan 1999-2004" sponsored by ADB calls for Clark development. This was the time where LCC doesn't exist just yet. Actually, to be honest about it, its more like an envy of FVR to Malaysia's new Kuala Lumpur airport building to replace Subang. At the time of its opening in 1998, its 25m passenger terminal only handled 13 million, almost all of them coming from Subang traffic. It was only after AirAsia was born that the airport become productive. The difference between Malaysia and the Philippines however is money, they have lots of dollars and we have few to pay to its losses. The adoption of FVR's dual airport policy is premised on one thing, the eventual operation of Clark as premiere airport. The plan however was flawed in so many things, like the railway. To build the airport is to build the railway like KLIA does. You cannot have the airport without the railway. And with pesos hovering 60 to a dollar, dreams of a grandeous airport and railway can sometimes defer to basic necessities such as food for the Filipino people like rice importation to feed the many. Erap elected the latter which is one good decision from him. In fact, it took GMA 10 years to stabilize the foreign reserves depleted to almost zero in 2001. Aquino for all his flaws stabilize the peso that we can have $80b reserves equivalent to 7 months imports and paid up all our foreign debts to the IMF that was taken by Marcos. Now we have more money building non-productive airports. Clark airport is dollar denominated loan, and so was the fucked up original northrail component that Boo mentioned at the time of JDV. Foreign reserves pay for the loans in dollars. If we don't have dollars we cannot pay dollar denominated loans. Had Clark airport been built then, we could be much poorer now. I would say its more of a blessing in disguise. Because at that time we really don't need it. That is the reason why studies are updated to stay tuned with the times. Best example to be had is Davao airport which when built in 2003 was losing million dollars more than the projected estimate and it took the airport 10 years to correspond to projection which the study said it should be earning in 5 years time. And up to now the government is still paying for it that we cannot alter or modify it until its fully paid. If that was a regular business, Davao airport could already be closed in 2005 for massive losses and yet politicians are calling for the creation of airport authority which will add losses more. Good thing losses are paid by the government. Its a painful experience that DOTC overhauled the system to be more efficient like the ones you see in Bacolod and Iloilo and lately Clark. But you cannot always find that in the news. That is the same basic reason why an 8 million capacity LCC terminal at Clark was shut down by Pnoy in the first place and replaced with 3 million pax because it is so grandeous and a waste of taxpayer's money, considering that other airports in Laguindingan and the likes need the money more for capacity improvements. The ADP terminal was premised on all the LCC operators transfer out of Manila to Clark. Good 7 million of them. That was fine except that the cost of landing at Clark is more expensive than say taking PAL. So you see, its not about execution but thinking sensibly. Vince might argue otherwise but lets call spade a spade. And what they are building now is the 3 mppa terminal. And then there was PPP that was so good on paper that sometimes you wonder why it didn't pushed through? Well, you might thank DU30 or not for saving your pocket from excessive airport fees that airport operators are gonna collect from you. If you are one of those complaining for the P350 CAAP fees then you should expect to pay P500 or more from these supposed operators. To some its negligible but for the rest of us its huge amount.
Making Sense
|
|
On Sangley, it is sad that PRA has been blocking things. What's sadder is that PRA has always been pretty controversial. Either way, I don't see any reclamation works being part of what is supposed to be bid out. The minute Sangley gets a Passenger Terminal Building, I predict that growth will spike up in that airport, even with a short runway. As for Boo Chanco complaining about Clark, well, they had to do something when they kicked out the US bases. Those bases generated economic activity, and there had to be some sort of plan to replace it. Which makes one thing, what if Marcos built two parallel runways in NAIA? We could definitely make do with that. Or, what if we didn't push through with building T2 and T3, and moved to Sangley right away, when it was proposed in Cory's time? I guess we just got used to NAIA's convenience of being right there in the middle of the city. |
|
Administrator
|
NAIA actually has provisions for 2nd parallel runway defined under the 1973 MIA Development Project (MIADP) Masterplan. The Swiss-based consulting engineers allocated the parallel runway between MIASCOR all the way to Libingan ng mga Bayani boundary. AFP-RSBS Industrial Park was part of that runway. They are all government lands. They were supposed to be expansion areas. It was all lost in 1993 when FVR wanted Clark to be the next gateway. In 1973 however, MNL doesn't need that because it already has two intersecting runways capable of handling 30 million passengers. You see, we are way ahead of our time handling barely a million passengers at this time. At the time terminal 1 (International terminal) opened in 1981, the passengers that used it was barely 2 million from the 4.5 capacity designs. It was only in 1985 that it breached the 3 million mark and 1991 that it reached capacity, 10 years after it was completed. Also in 1985 we only have 5 million domestic and international passengers. In 1995, we only have a total of 10.5 million passengers (6.5m int., 4m dom). Note that 10 million from the 30 million runway capacity earlier stated and the plan of El tabaco to move to Clark following Malaysia's drive to move out of Subang. After that time, Skyway and C5 was cleared for construction as what you can see now. Sangley was never there in the plan because of Clark and Clark was useless in 1993 anyway so decision ain't hard for FVR. In fact, Gordon-ran Subic airport is more productive than Clark at that time.
Making Sense
|
|
Administrator
|
By the way, NAIA's parallel runway idea originally came from Airways Engineering Corporation's main man, Rufus Phillips, the same person famous for "Why Vietnam Matters". Detailed engineering works were however prepared by Renardet.
Phillips was also the author of the book "Maintenance of Adequate Airport System", published in 1967, the precursor of Saigon's parallel runway design and that of Manila amidst constricted space. That famous runway parallel design can now be found at Dubai airport. While Saigon was built, Manila never materializes as previously explained. All because of series of events, unfortunate or not. NAIA's version of parallel runway never pushes through because there was no need to do so. Unlike Saigon, all US military traffic used Clark while civilian traffic uses Manila. And when its finally time to expand in 1992, the decision was made to make it to Clark. The Philippines first parallel runway construction was made in 1991 to address growing military traffic courtesy of the US military which they were never able to used fully because they were kicked out later in September. For history buffs, Tan Son Nhut Airport was the biggest US air base in Asia and was the second busiest airport in the world in 1969 following Chicago O hare, with a mix of civilian and military air traffic. Clark airport grew what it is today only in 1975 after the fall of Vietnam. Although it is the biggest US military facility outside of America, its airport activity was however minuscule compared to Saigon.
Making Sense
|
|
|
So, PAL is publicizing its proposal for an expansion of T2. I guess this means that the planned reconfiguration of the NAIA terminals isn't panning out?
Also, does this mean that NAIA will get a new runway? Maybe it would be easier to expropriate Merville and Bicutan and just add capacity there. |
|
Administrator
|
What re-configuration plan? There was none paper-wise.
What was said is merely an expressed opinion nothing short of a plan. The person who said it can't even figure how to address terminal shortfall. And yet they made the news. Terminal 2 has been discussed in this thread previously and the cause of expansion delay was in fact answered. PAL expanding T2 has been there ever since predating the apron construction. In fact, they should have been constructed together. Its not a novel idea floated recently. The parallel runway option is still there while planners are debating Terminal 5 construction or T3 expansion. Maybe you can take your pick whichever comes out. Because right now they are not yet cast in stone.
Making Sense
|
|
Administrator
|
ONE OF THE WHY?
Making Sense
|
|
|
http://www.philstar.com:8080/business/2017/10/27/1753123/smcs-p700-b-bulacan-airport-proposal-neda-boards-deliberation
MANILA, Philippines — San Miguel Corp.'s proposal to build a new international airport in Bulacan worth P700 billion is now up for deliberation of the National Economic and Development Authority board. This was confirmed by Transportation Secretary Secretary Arthur Tugade on Friday, saying his department examined and approved SMC's unsolicited proposal. "Last week, we forwarded to NEDA...not for approval, for deliberation," Tugade told reporters during the Philippine Aviation Day on Friday. ===================================== Tinapon sa NEDA. But paperwork-wise, the SMC proposal is ahead. What are the chances of NEDA saying yes to this? I mean, MRT-7, for example, was languishing in NEDA for the longest time. Then SMC came into the picture. Let's say that NEDA says yes. And SMC has to abide by the condition that it cannot force airlines to transfer. What are the chances that they can make this airport work? For people in QC, Bulacan is a no-brainer, and much more accessible. For the people in Makati, however, NAIA is still more convenient. We'll have a true dual-airport system in that regard. But if this pushes through, Clark is dead. |
|
Administrator
|
Probably No. Why the probability? NEDA still has to make that decision.
What was approved was the proposal to build. But it was merely the tip of the iceberg that would sink that dream. Why the tip? Because the TOR of that proposal would sink it to the ground before it can even fly. Perhaps you are wondering why the need for government consent? Among other concerns, these are the most disturbing: Other than planning permissions and associated permits, building conditions require investor warranty of ROI and that means traffic support. Which means it needs to have diverted traffic. Overflow traffic isn't bad. What is a NO-NO is enforced diversions. Foul na kaagad yan Second, international bank lenders require sovereign guaranty of project in that magnitude. It always does, which basically defeat the purpose of the mode of its construction. It is also becoming more similar to the proposal for the development of Clark made by a foreign middle eastern investor premise on sovereign guaranty and minimum traffic conditions support. Also a NO-NO. Third, airport building is premise on government land ownership. It is only when land ownership is settled that airport construction and operation is awarded. The City of Paranaque vs. MIAA case should be a good read. Also, the MRT mistake already proved a tough lesson for DOTC. Of course, SMC can own and operate an airport privately like what Balesin and El Nido is doing. But SMC cannot say go there and land. Lallo and San Fernando thought that way and failed miserably. If that is not the case then SMC should be building an airport already. There's the rub.
Making Sense
|
|
|
Why do I sense that feeling SMC’s execution on this project will be palpak? If they build this, Clark is no more. And what if the down the road they need to expand the airport, are we going to end up with a NAIA 2.0? Hayys, si SMC puro push push sa mga projects para may increase sa stocks nila pero. Mamaya, cancel agad yung project. The Government should build and operate the airport NOT private companies.
|
|
Administrator
|
Something to ponder
Be wary of private-run airports – IATA
Making Sense
|
|
Administrator
|
Du30 airport policy made clearer now.
Two rail system for Clark-NAIA are now bared in the open. One regular, one hi speed. One made by China and one made by Japan. And it will just take you 30 minutes. That is super fast. Its not yet in the news but it already gives you an indication about airport policy direction in the next 6 years. Unfortunately, No Bulacan airport in the equation. So I guess that settles it. By the way, PDI jump the gun and made the story all wrong.
Making Sense
|
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Arianespace
Ernesto Pernia of NEDA just echoed yesterday what I said in this forum previously.
Its like telling them bluntly, build but don't ask.
Making Sense
|
|
|
If they had the balls to just build already, it would make the process a lot faster. It's their land, after all :D |
|
Administrator
|
Some bad news at the ICC yesterday. It just re-echoed my previous sentiments posted earlier.
1. No subsidy 2. No guarantee 3. No flight allocation Pretty bad if your SMC. They have a tax break though. That is a good start for building an airport. Now the ROI... You must be wondering why there is no "swiss challenge" proposal. For one, the land where the airport is to be build is private property. Unlike NAIA or Caticlan where the government owns the land, here the property belongs to them. That basically defeat the purpose of the challenge.
Making Sense
|
|
|
Well, will they even attempt to build an airstrip with those conditions? If they build something, definitely it will attract some spillover traffics. But will it be enough? Which reminds me, London has so many spillover airports, but not all of them make money |
|
|
It would still require a swiss challenge but on the land of SMC where the airport would be built |
|
Administrator
|
Works like a charm, and they are not talking about the land just yet. Still plenty of information in store. Just holding my horses at this time as not to spoil the party.
Making Sense
|
|
|
Just out curiosity, would it be feasible for Manila to have two airports with one being for LCCs similar to Don Mueang in Bangkok especially with the rise of LCCs? Cebu has the potential to be much bigger, the airport issue in my opinion is the one hampering their growth. Same with PAL.
Or better to keep everything under one airport complex if not one terminal? |
«
Return to Philippine Aviation Forum
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |