Another runway will be constructed at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
This was once of the things agreed on during a meeting in Malacanang, where San Miguel and Philippine Airlines president Ramon Ang presented his proposed solutions to the congestion of flights at NAIA.
Transportation Secretary Jun Abaya confirmed the proposal has been approved.
Now, they will just have to iron out the details and measure the open space beside runway 6-24.
Ang also suggested buying the more modern navigation system Ground Base Augmented Systems (G-Bus).
Abaya said they will first consult with the Civil Aviation Authority if that is acceptable.
But the more permanent and long-term solution would be the construction of a bigger airport beside Manila Bay.
Not a surprise after all. I was breaking this story 3 years ago and said its not possible per ICAO regulation. Now, they have amended the distance to cover only 45m x 2km which is perfectly acceptable from regulation point of view. Clever. 06/24L can be perfect for A320/321 take-off and landing, but not the wide-bodies envisioned in the old plan.
The man responsible for this plan was Alfonso Cusi, the former MIAA Manager and CAAP Director. I'm glad to see the revised plan being implemented.
Passed by NAIA T1 last night. Arrived around 9PM and no other airlines arrived at that time, only our flight from KUL (and a little bit earlier, a UA flight). The new cubicles are already in place with 4 immigration officers per cubicle. I managed to clear everything in less than 15 mins.
Immigration: no more filling up of arrival cards
Customs: no one bothered to check the customs form.
That is my concern too about the second runway. the length and with is a no problem for the A320 or lower category. my concern would be beyond the surroundings of NAIA like the Centennial Building along C5 (before or opposite side of Libingan ng mga Bayani) and the C5 ramp to make way for the approach lights...
Has anyone heard another reason why airlines didn't want to transfer to T3?
I heard this from someone. A reason is because the owner of T3, which happens to be one of the ground service provider of T1, wants to charge the usage in T3 buy 3X than T1 and airlines are compelled to exclusively avail of that ground service provider. So the AOC agreed that they rather stay in T1 than to give in to the wants of that ground service provider.
Terminal 3 transfer by Big airlines are brought by Terminal 1 renovations, meaning they were forced to relocate because the gate and the holding area to where they are assigned are being worked on. Gates at Terminal 1 are premium and no crazy airline operating in Manila would want to surrender the slots, particularly those which had been operating in the country for quite a long time. Crazy as it seems because we think T3 is better but its not airline wise. T1 and T2 is very much better particularly if you use 06/24 all the time. You should figure it out why it is so.
By the way, T3 is already owned by the government, not the losing cargo provider. Also, charges for ground services are based on aircraft weight, so naturally charges for a widebody jet is 3-4 times bigger than the narrowbody ones.
whats the guideline / rule of CAAP for minimum distance between centerlines for simultaneous operations of parallel runways?
If I'm not mistaken, FAA has a 4000+feet rule between centerlines (please correct me if I'm wrong)...
It depends. There is separate figures for instrument and non-instrument approaches and departures.
For Manila, its going to be Non instrument, meaning landing and departure will be visual at a certain altitude.
As to separation distance, parallel runway needs to be 210 meters apart while taxiway needs to be separated by 93 meters, and the new parallel runway needs to have a further shoulder length of 75 meters, which when computed would total about 378 meters from runway 1 centerline.
While we talk about it, here is the actual separations made by CAAP.
There is a study in Clark and there is this Sangley thing. Both are JICA funded and both are needed for the future.
As you might well be aware, for the Clark airport project to work, it needs an express train and a larger expressway to carry the volume of passengers.
Clark airport alone might be cheaper to build but not without adding the cost of road and railway infrastructure component which is humungously expensive. Rails alone can fetch a price tag between $3-4 billion. That is the price you pay for building farther away. Classic example of that scenario would be Narita and Haneda.
Even Toni Fernandez of Air Asia admitted during WEP that they failed in Clark even with their "Gang Ho" attitude because of infrastructure bottleneck. Majority of passengers in Metro Manila other than those in Central Luzon simply don't want to go there for a ride at this time.
I am pleased to announce that terminal 2 expansion has commence starting with the apron expansion at the erstwhile Nayong Pilipino.
News regarding T2 expansion are coming out left and right. Would there be an estimate how long will it take to finish the whole construction of N/S wing expansion of T2? Would you know how many gates will be added to both sides?
The heavy gates have dual bridge similar to T3 while the gate for the narrowbodies has single tube. Existing heavy gates will also be upgraded to dual and there will be some gate realignments. Well that is the plan.