Really? what paths in and out of the runway are being built?

As far as the "new terminals" are concerned, you'll find they'll only offer a grand total of 3 (three) extra stands. Which won't help much considering the runway sees an average of 30 movements per hour anyway. Those who know their aviation will know why you can't really go beyond that. THose who don't probably imagine the planes will hover directly onto the parking stand.

No not really.

To get a 65-70% figure or better you've really got to have an issue that's unamibuously clear cut and black on white. I can think of very few referenda that were won with such majorities, except over formalities that were undisputed in principle or disputed only by insignificant fringe groups.

In french only: http://gva.ch/Portaldata/1/Resources...-directeur.pdf

Fascinating. Doesn't say anything about "paths in and out of the runway" though (unless you believe media hype that turning a high-speed turnoff around is a "new" exit)... neither about a 50% increase (haha) in handling capacity. Still Do you care to elaborate?

Geneva Airport
A) is not quiet but, while losing airlines, in regard to passengers-numbers expanded remarkably fast in the past decade BUT
B) has only ONE runway
C) and has facilities used to the fullest almost always

Basel-Mulhouse/Mülhausen Airport
looks as if having lots of reserves, BUT
A) an additional passenger-terminal needs a go-ahead from 50% owner République de France
B) the runways situation is strange. The airport has at least two runways but only ONE which can activily be used. To build an additional runway needs the go-ahead of the French Republic

so that in case Zürich-Airport can no longer cope, there are TWO alternatives
A) München Franz-Josef-Strauss Airport, and so, what will be needed are better train-connections between Zürich-HB & Zürich-Airport-Rail-Station and München Airport Rail Station
B) Milano-Malpensa-Airport. An airport I used as connection airport in the past and which I like, in spite of some negative aspects like being a bit chaotic at peak times. When the new San Gottardo tunnel gets opened, better rail connections between Zürich-Airport-Rail-Station & Zürich-HB and Malpensa-Rail-Station will be needed, possibly via Bellinzona and Lugano and Varese

I expect GVA-airport to reach the 18 mio pax per year line within a few years. BUT I am always astonished that people in Geneva and nearby CH areas are not aware that the real competition of Cointrin is not Zürich but Lyon Satolas (St.Exupéry) which is an excellent airport and attractive to people in French areas whose inhabitants routinely also use GVA-Cointrin.

That line is already under construction between Mendrisio and Varese and will terminate at Malpensa.

[QUOTE=Leafy;1346925]Then they really should drop the mooing cows & alphorn on the transit

NOOOOoooo..No...No...No. It's such a human, humorous touch. And the best is the come-hither air kiss by grown-up Heidi.

Just trying to point out you contradict yourself there. But that detail apart, how do you suggest GVA can boost capacity by 50% from current figures?

As for St. Exup... you probably haven't checked the public transport connections if you think it's "attractive".

GVA isn't close to maximum capacity. Although EZY hub there, I can see more scope, especially with LX now in a position to offer more international flights again as their capacity is increasing and now at SR levels again.

As LX are currently assessing new medium and long haul equipment after their Bombardier CS short range choice, the B.777 is under serious evaluation to replace their A.340 fleet. Expect a decision from their Frankfurt based owners sometime during 2012.

Average movements per hour - 30 (of which 20 are scheduled passenger, the rest cargo / GA). If we are to stick to ICAO 4444 separation minima, it is going to be very hard to increase that by any significant amount.

I have a vested interest in hoping the airport doesn't stick that close to the minima... but the BAZL just pounded its authoritative fist on the table.

Doesn't the TGV stop there? That should make it attractive enough. It's also on the Lyon tram system.

Of course the TGV stops there. The TGV stops in Geneva too. If they were also running on the same line it could work out, unfortunately they don't...

Personally I'd put money on the A350 but you never know. The B777 certainly wouldn't fit in with the LX philosophy of rotating pilots between A330 and A340, you could probably dual qualify crews on A330 and A350.

Last time I was in Satolas, it was by car. Satolas in fact has a TGV station.

Cointrin could build another terminal on the French side right accross the place. The bad thing is the runway situation with no chance for a second one.

They could try to move out "GeneralAviation" traffic to Nyon-Airfield or Annemasse-Airfield. Technically difficult but commercially interesting might be an upgrade of Lausanne-Blécherette-Airfield

There's no direct TGV to Satolas.

There's no point building terminals if you don't have runway capacity.

Move GA to Nyon? I suppose you don't know how big the runway is there. A GV or a Lear would have a hard time landing on a 500m grass strip.

Annemasse is full.

As to Lausanne... technically impossible as there's the highway at one end and the city at the other, but i'd love to see what technical suggestion you have to circumvent that, one that is also "commercially interesting".

-
Not from Geneva, but from Paris, Milano, and more important regionally from Annecy, Grenoble and Avignon

-
That indeed is THE problem of Cointrin, but there is no point to build runway capacity if you do not have terminal capacity. An additional runway only could be built between Ferney-Voltaire (F) and Chavannes-des-Bois (CH), linked to the airport by a taxiway undercutting existing roads. The project would cost some billions CHF but would be a profitable investment over the longer term.

-
A) it could not be all of GA (I visited the Nyon Airfield twice)
B) if that grass strip got extended to 600m or 750m AND paved, a lot would become possible

-
True, but extending that airfield should be possible

-
while the city cannot be "moved" of course, either the highway gets undercut by an extended runway or gets elevated so that the runway can get extended. Only a few additional billions CHF.

Both, the new runway for Cointrin and the runway extension for Blécherette would cost less than 10 Gripen fighters

The airport already has a second grass runway parallel to the 3,900 metres long one; wouldn't it be possible to pave it and extend it? there's even room in Swiss soil to extend it up to 2,000 metres, I believe the french wouldn't have problems to exchange 500 metres of soil and leave that runway with 2,500 for A320 and other single-asile planes and the long one (which is reaaaally long) for wide-body aircraft? Or are they too close to each other? (200m distance)

I believe that the existing runway is used for private jets, but building a new airfield for them somewhere in the countryside should be relatively inexpensive, however a new grass runway could be built perpendicular to the existing grass runway, but on the back of the current hangars, there is room in there and the place is empty and belongs to Switzerland.

They are far too close to operate as independent runways, so lengthening it would be a waste of money.



The runways are built aligned with prevailing winds - so building a "perpendicular" runway you'd also be building a runway perpendicular to the winds. Not to mention that having traffic departing from the grass crossing the concrete runway would be asking for trouble in terms of separation management.

Also the neighbors (the place is far from empty - an airstrip needs a bit more space than a parking lot) are currently unhappy with the existing air traffic, so going about suggesting a NEW grass runway will guarantee an unfriendly reception. Do recall that the neighbors that inhabit this "empty" space had to be ordered manu militari by Paris to cut down the trees to permit safe operation of the grass runway....

Relatively inexpensive to build an airport? You're kidding, right?

__________________
The opinions expressed above are not necessarily the opinions of management and in fact may be the opposite of that intended in order to confuse and obfuscate trolling readers.

Unfortunately basically correct. Any new runway and even more so a new airfield or/and the extension of existing airfields WILL meet opposition from "neighbours", the Greens and the Construction Industry, which make up, as the recent votings in Zürich have shown, between 40% and 50%. A way to overcome the hurdles is to place a "noise-plafond" onto operations at additional runways and on additional airfields. Newer airplanes are far less noisy than old ones, so that this kind of restrictions have to be taken, even if it reduces the competive quality of your place for some years.

You have seen it recently, when Frankfurt Airport got a night-ban on flights and some people suggested that Lufthansa-Cargo had to move its all-cargo flights to Hahn-Airport. A move which in the meantime got ruled out by Lufthansa as the transfer-operations between Frankfurt/Main and Hahn would be too expensive and too slow.

Good solutions ? Go from Cointrin terminals-area to Ferney-Voltaire. You have to go (by car or by feet) along the south-eastern perimeter to the East and then you can go/drive below the runway over to Ferney-Voltaire. This also is interesting for aircraft photographers, because if you after arrival in F-V turn sharply right and then back you can walk along a hotel (plus bar with a good Calvados) and a Lidl towards the fence and will find one of the best photography spots in a 2000 km radius (after 13.30 due to the position of the sun). Was that tunnel free of charge ? Hardly, but it solves the problems of the places on both sides remarkably well. The investment for sure has paid off widely in the time since the building took place