rehbein aos - District Council of Grant

Transcription

DATE
29 May, 2006
CONTACT
BEN HARGREAVES
For District Council of Grant
Mount Gambier & District Airport 15 Year Strategic Plan
REHBEIN AOS
Document Control Page
Revision
Date
Description
Author
0
10/04/06
DRAFT
BJH
RS
RS
1
18/04/06
DRAFT
BJH
RS
RS
2
29/05/06
FINAL
BJH
RS
DRH
Ref: A05137AR001Rev2
Signature
Verifier
Signature
Approver
Signature
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Rehbein AOS Airport Consulting (R-AOS) was commissioned by the District Council of
Grant in January 2006 to prepare a 15-year Strategic Plan for Mount Gambier and District
Airport. The airport is located in the District Council of Grant, approximately 10 kilometres
north of the city of Mount Gambier in South Australia. It was established in 1939 as an
RAAF facility and the District Council of Mount Gambier took ownership of it in June 1989.
Ownership subsequently transferred to the District Council of Grant on 1 July 1996. In
recent years the airport has experienced significant growth in passenger traffic.
Mount Gambier is the largest regional centre in South Australia, outside of Adelaide. The
principal industries in the region are agriculture, fishing and forestry. Associated timber
and paper manufacturing facilities are significant local employers.
Mount Gambier airport currently has three runways, the longest of which is 1524 metres in
length. The airport is currently served by Jetstream 32 and Saab 340 turboprop aircraft,
operated by O’Connor Airlines and Regional Express (Rex). Both airlines operate services
to Melbourne and Adelaide.
In 2004-05 a total of 95,416 passengers used Mount Gambier Airport. This represents an
increase of 16.5% on the 2003-04 traffic. At present, traffic consists predominantly of
business passengers. Passenger traffic is forecast to grow to between 145,000 and
342,000 passengers annually by 2021.
There is a moderate amount of general aviation activity at the airport currently, and this is
not expected to grow significantly. There may be opportunities to attract charter and
private business traffic, however it is considered unlikely that this will form a significant
proportion of total passenger traffic. There appears to be limited opportunities for air
freight traffic development as a result of Mount Gambier’s particular location and
industries.
A small terminal building is provided to cater for RPT passenger traffic. There is a general
view that the terminal building is inadequate to cater for the growing levels of traffic and
that it does not present an appropriate image of Mount Gambier and the region. Improved
terminal facilities will be required to accommodate the forecast growth. Several options
exist for providing this and further study is recommended to determine the most
appropriate solution.
With the exception of pavement strengthening, little improvement to the runway and other
airfield facilities is required in order to accept the anticipated traffic growth, which should
continue to be adequately served by turbo-prop aircraft. Some runway extension may be
required, along with associated apron expansion, and options for this should be
maintained and reviewed regularly. Runway pavement strength is presently very low, in
comparison to that required by present and possible future aircraft types. Strengthening of
- i -
the main runway, taxiways and aprons should be investigated and carried out in the very
near future.
Additional aircraft maintenance facilities are likely to be required as aircraft fleets grow to
serve greater traffic. Increasing traffic will also demand additional car parking and rental
car facilities and space should also be safeguarded for these activities.
As traffic grows so too will the opportunities to increase the number and type of
concessions within the terminal. Those considered most likely to be viable are the letting
of advertising space, and the provision of a catering outlet of some type.
The geographical situation of the airport appears to limit the viability of many typical
aviation-related businesses. It may also prove difficult to attract commercial or industrial
development to the site due to its relative isolation. Some possibilities worth considering
are an aviation museum and retail activities such as a service station or fast-food
franchise on the Penola Road frontage. A local wine centre might also be suitable given
the proximity of the airport to several wine-producing regions. Nevertheless, more detailed
economic studies are required to determine the viability of attracting particular aviation
related and non-aviation related business to the airport.
Aeronautical charges are and will remain the single largest contributor to airport revenue.
It is considered that there is scope to review both the level and structure of these charges
in light of possible infrastructure improvements. Possible mechanisms for increasing
revenue include a fuel throughput levy and a car rental location fee, however caution
should be exercised in introducing additional concession charges of this type without first
assessing the possible consequences.
It is recognised that, despite relatively large cash reserves, the airport will require the
generation of capital in order to carry out infrastructure improvement projects. In addition
to loans there exist possibilities with regard to public or private sector partnerships. The
sale of airport land to raise capital is not recommended at this stage.
- ii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1
BRIEF
1
1.2
METHODOLOGY
1
1.3
REPORT STRUCTURE
2
BACKGROUND
3
2.1
HISTORY
3
2.2
LOCATION
3
2.3
MANAGEMENT
4
EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES
5
3.1
AIRSIDE FACILITIES
5
3.2
TERMINAL FACILITIES
7
3.3
LANDSIDE FACILITIES
8
AIRLINE TRAFFIC
9
4.1
HISTORICAL TRAFFIC TRENDS
9
4.2
PROJECTED TRAFFIC
13
4.3
COMPARISON WITH OTHER AIRPORTS
17
4.4
OTHER TRAFFIC
19
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
22
5.1
AIRSIDE FACILITIES
22
5.2
TERMINAL FACILITIES
27
5.3
LANDSIDE FACILITIES
29
COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES
31
6.1
TERMINAL CONCESSIONS
31
6.2
OTHER COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL
34
INCOME-PRODUCING STRATEGIES
39
7.1
CURRENT REVENUE
39
7.2
AERONAUTICAL CHARGES
39
7.3
COMMERCIAL INCOME
40
7.4
CAPITAL GENERATION
41
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
- iii -
44
APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
46
APPENDIX B: DRAWINGS
47
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Annual Passenger Traffic
10
Figure 2: Monthly Traffic Distribution
11
Figure 3: Airline Market Share
12
Figure 4: RPT Aircraft Movements 1993-94 - 2003-04
12
Figure 5: Daily Aircraft Movements
13
Figure 6: Forecast Passenger Traffic
15
Figure 7: Use of Advertising Space around Baggage Carousel
31
Figure 8: Kiosk at Emerald Airport
32
Figure 9: Café-Bar at Gladstone Airport
33
Figure 10: Revenue Breakdown 2004-05
39
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Airport Traffic by Type
11
Table 2: Future Traffic Scenarios
14
Table 3: Forecast Passenger Traffic
15
Table 4: RPT Traffic at Australian Regional Airports
18
Table 5: Selected Statistics for Mount Gambier and Other Regional Airports
19
Table 6: Possible Future Aircraft Types
23
Table 7: RPT Passenger Revenue at Selected Airports 2003-04
40
- iv -
1.0
1.1
INTRODUCTION
BRIEF
Mount Gambier and District Airport is located approximately 10 kilometres north
of the city of Mount Gambier in South Australia. In recent years the airport has
experienced significant growth in passenger traffic. This has prompted the owner,
the District Council of Grant, to prepare a strategic plan to guide future
development of the airport facilities over the next 15 years. The Council has
established an Airport Reference Group to coordinate the development of the
strategic plan.
Rehbein AOS Airport Consulting (R-AOS) was commissioned by the District
Council of Grant in January 2006 to prepare this 15-year Strategic Plan for Mount
Gambier and District Airport. The Strategic Plan is required to address issues
relating to passenger throughput; aircraft frequency and size; airfield, terminal
and landside facility requirements; and business and commercial opportunities at
the airport.
1.2
METHODOLOGY
The following methodology was adopted in the development of the strategic plan:
a)
Collect and analyse data on airline and other aviation activity from a range
of stakeholders.
b)
Utilise this data to define possible future traffic scenarios based on
projected annual passenger numbers, aircraft types and service
frequencies.
c)
Evaluate what the scenarios mean in terms of providing upgraded or
expanded facilities particularly in terms of:
•
runway length, width and strength requirements;
•
taxiway and apron requirements;
•
aircraft parking arrangements;
•
passenger terminal facilities;
•
other aviation facilities; and
•
landside development.
d)
1.2.1
Identify potential sources of additional revenue for the airport, in terms of
industrial and commercial development opportunities.
Data Collection and Consultation
The data collection stage involved research of relevant documents, reports,
statistics and plans provided by the District Council of Grant. Other data was
- 1 -
sourced from the Australian Census of Population and Housing, tourism reports
and Commonwealth and State authorities.
R-AOS inspected the landside and airside areas of the airport including aircraft
operations, aircraft parking arrangements, passenger and baggage movements
in the terminal, and landside access arrangements.
The preparation of this Strategic Plan involved consultation with the members of
the Airport Reference Group, both collectively and individually, as well as
organisations directly connected with the airport, airlines, aviation operators, and
local business and tourism interests. A full list of consultees is included at
Appendix A.
1.2.2
Traffic Scenarios
The data collection and consultation process allowed R-AOS to understand the
context in which the airport currently operates and the factors which might
influence future traffic levels and characteristics.
R-AOS then used this information to develop ‘Low-’, ‘Medium-’ and ‘High-growth’
traffic scenarios incorporating the likely influence of both aircraft size and service
frequency.
1.2.3
Facility Requirements
Using the traffic scenarios allowed R-AOS to determine the associated range of
facility requirements anticipated during the 15-year horizon of this strategic plan.
1.2.4
Development Opportunities
In assessing opportunities for the future development of the airport R-AOS drew
on the stakeholder consultation, as well as its recent experience with, and its
knowledge of, current practices at other airports.
1.3
REPORT STRUCTURE
This rest of this report is structured in seven sections as follows:
•
background information about the airport;
•
a description of the existing airport facilities;
•
discussion and analysis of existing and projected passenger, general
aviation and air freight traffic;
•
an analysis of future airport facility requirements;
•
consideration of potential commercial opportunities;
•
possible strategies for increasing airport revenue; and
•
a summary of recommendations.
- 2 -
2.0
2.1
BACKGROUND
HISTORY
Mount Gambier and District Airport was established in 1939 as an RAAF facility,
at which time the existing runway configuration was developed. Initially, three
unsealed runways were constructed, each 3000 x 100 feet in size. All three
runways were sealed in 1946. The main 18/36 runway was extended in 1956.
The airport was handed over to the Commonwealth Department of Civil Aviation
in July 1946.
The District Council of Mount Gambier took ownership of the airport on 18 June
1989. Ownership subsequently transferred to the District Council of Grant on 1
July 1996 following the amalgamation of the District Councils of Mount Gambier
and Port MacDonnell.
The site may be of some heritage significance due to its history as a Second
World War facility. At its peak, there were over 160 buildings on the airport site.
2.2
LOCATION
2.2.1
The Local Context
Mount Gambier and District Airport is located in the District Council of Grant,
approximately 10 kilometres north of the city of Mount Gambier in South
Australia.
The airport site occupies an area of approximately 260 hectares. To the north,
west and south local roads delineate the airport boundary. To the east the airport
is bounded by the Riddoch Highway (Penola Road) which connects Mount
Gambier with Penola and Naracoorte to the North. This is one of two primary
road routes between Mount Gambier and Adelaide.
Drawing A05137-A-001 shows the location of Mount Gambier and the airport.
2.2.2
The Regional Context
Mount Gambier is the largest regional centre in South Australia, outside of
Adelaide. The city is situated close to the state border with Victoria and is
approximately equidistant between Melbourne and the state capital of Adelaide.
R-AOS estimates that the airport serves a population of approximately 50,000
people. The population of Mount Gambier city itself is approximately 23,000 and
this increased at an average annual rate of approximately 0.08% per year
between 1991 and 2001. No population data are available for more recent years
but anecdotal evidence suggests ongoing population growth for the city in the
order of 1% per year. However, the growth of Mount Gambier’s population
- 3 -
appears to be offset by a slight decline in the population of the surrounding rural
areas such that the population of the airport’s overall catchment has remained
constant.
The principal activity in the region is primary industry with pastoral agriculture,
fishing and forestry. The latter in particular has resulted in associated
manufacturing facilities in the timber and paper sectors which are significant local
employers.
2.3
MANAGEMENT
The Mount Gambier and District Airport is currently wholly owned and managed
by the District Council of Grant.
The airport employs a single employee, the Airport Manager. Other human
resources are provided by Mount Gambier and District Council personnel and
recharged to the airport.
The airport receives its principal aeronautical revenues in the form of a
passenger levy from RPT operators. Other aeronautical revenues are obtained
from the lease of hangar space. Non-aeronautical revenues come from
concessions to car rental companies and the lease of airport land to non-aviation
interests.
- 4 -
3.0
EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES
This section of the report describes the existing airside, terminal and landside facilities at
Mount Gambier Airport. Drawing A05137-A-002 shows the layout of the existing airport
site.
3.1
AIRSIDE FACILITIES
3.1.1
Runways, Taxiways and Aprons
Mount Gambier Airport currently has three runways. The main runway (18/36),
located in a north/south direction, is 1524 metres long and 30 metres wide and is
surfaced with a bituminous seal. It is contained within a grassed runway strip
approximately 1648 metres long and 150 metres wide. Runway 18/36 currently
fulfils the requirements for a Code 3C non-precision instrument runway stipulated
in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Manual of Standards (MOS) Part
139.
There are two secondary runways at the airport. Runway 11/29 is 922 metres
long and 30 metres wide, within a grassed runway strip approximately 1045
metres long and 90 metres wide. Runway 06/24 is 842 metres long and 30
metres wide, within a grassed runway strip approximately 1113 metres long and
90 metres wide. Both runways are bitumen sealed. Runways 11/29 and 06/24
currently fulfil the requirements for Code 2C non-instrument runways stipulated in
CASA MOS Part 139.
All runways have a Pavement Classification Number (PCN) of 6.
There are two main apron areas at the airport. The main apron which serves the
terminal is marked to accommodate the regular public transport (RPT) aircraft
serving Mount Gambier: 2 Saab 340 and 2 BAe Jetstream 32 aircraft. A private
hangar has recently been constructed to the west of the RPT apron. Access to
two maintenance sheds housing ground maintenance and other equipment is
provided from the north-west of the RPT apron.
The general aviation (GA) apron is used for the storage of commuter and general
aviation aircraft including the Royal Flying Doctor Service and fire-fighting aircraft.
The GA apron also provides access to:
•
the O’Connor Airlines maintenance hangar;
•
a council-owned Bellman hangar with space rented to private GA aircraft
owners;
•
a private hangar used for storage of ultralight aircraft;and
•
the fuel facility (see Section 3.1.4 below).
- 5 -
Access from both the RPT and GA aprons to the Runway 18 threshold is via
Taxiway B. Taxiways A1 and A2 link the RPT apron with the thresholds of
Runways 11 and 06. Taxiway C connects the GA apron with the Runway 29
threshold but is only available to aircraft of less than 5700kg maximum take-off
weight. Runway 11/29 is used for the taxying of aircraft from Runway 18/36 to the
RPT apron. All aprons and taxiways are bitumen sealed.
All airside areas adjoining runways and taxiways are grassed natural surfaces.
3.1.2
Airport Lighting
Runways 18/36 and 06/24 are equipped with pilot actuated low intensity runway
lighting, consisting of elevated runway edge, runway end and threshold lights.
Runways 18 and 36 are equipped with pilot activated Precision Approach Path
Indicator (PAPI) systems.
Taxiways A1, A2 and B are provided with blue elevated omnidirectional taxiway
edge lights. Elevated yellow lights are provided on taxiways A1 and A2 at the 06
and 18 runway holding points. Inset yellow lights are provided at the 36 runway
holding point on taxiway B.
The primary wind indicator is illuminated.
Apron floodlighting is provided by 2 floodlighting towers on the RPT apron and
hangar mounted floodlights on the GA apron. Additional floodlighting for the RPT
apron is currently being installed in accordance with the latest aviation security
requirements established by the Department of Transport and Regional Services
(DOTARS).
3.1.3
Navigation Aids (Navaids)
There is a very high frequency (VHF) omni-directional range (VOR) and a nondirectional beacon (NDB) on the airport provided by Airservices Australia.
Both navaids are to be replaced by Airservices Australia in the near future.
Airservices Australia has indicated to the Airport Manager that the navaids will be
replaced in their existing locations unless the cost of relocating the navaids is
borne by the airport.
3.1.4
Other Facilities
The present volume of air traffic is substantially less than that required by CASA
to justify an Aerodrome Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) service, a certified
air/ground radio service or a control tower.
- 6 -
A relatively new aircraft refuelling facility is located at the north eastern end of the
GA Apron. The facility includes airside storage for the mobile tanker which serves
RPT aircraft.
3.2
TERMINAL FACILITIES
A small terminal building with a gross internal floor area of 480 m2 is provided to
cater for RPT passenger traffic. The terminal facilities consist of:
•
a kerbside drop-off area, with shelter for vehicles and persons provided
by a large, open-side corrugated metal structure;
•
a check in area with three check-in desks, one of which is currently used
by a car rental company. A small office space is provided to the rear of
each check-in counter, through which checked passenger baggage is
carried to the baggage make-up area. Seating for 6 people is provided in
the check-in area;
•
male, female and mobility-impaired toilet facilities, which appear to be
more than adequate for the current level of demand;
•
a VIP room with sofa seating for 5 people and a table with 6 chairs
around;
•
a lounge area with seating for approximately 45 people and access to an
external viewing area overlooking the RPT apron. A single access door
provides access to and from the RPT apron for passengers;
•
a outbound baggage make-up area; and
•
a inbound baggage collection area;
Two vending machines offering hot and cold drinks and snacks, and a public
telephone are provided for the convenience of passengers. Four small counters
are provided for the use of car rental companies, two of which are located in the
main lounge area and two within a separate area adjacent to the exit to the
baggage collection area.
Employees report that the terminal facilities in general are barely adequate in
peak period. Although the baggage make-up area is currently adequate, the
check-in facilities are cramped and would benefit from the provision of rollers for
the passage of baggage through to make up area.
There is a general view among stakeholders that the terminal building does not
reflect an appropriate image of Mount Gambier. As a gateway to the region it
provides no sense of arrival for the non resident and is not a source of pride for
locals.
Changes in passenger processing philosophy and renewed emphasis on
passenger/baggage security suggest that a revamp of the terminal layout and
- 7 -
functional areas is long overdue. In particular, the single access point to the
airside from the building does not allow for the separation of arriving and
departing passengers. The current arrangements for baggage collection allow
those congregated at the baggage claim to have access to the airside during the
arrival of the baggage trolley.
3.3
LANDSIDE FACILITIES
3.3.1
Roads and Car Parks
An access road loop is provided from the road to the north. A one-way circulation
system operates. The one-way loop provides access to the Mount Gambier Aero
Club building, Shell fuel facility, O’Connor Airlines maintenance hangar, the RPT
terminal and car parking.
There is a car parking area opposite the terminal with 85 public car spaces, 7
Hertz car rental bays and 13 Avis car rental bays. 9 Taxi spaces are provided
immediately adjacent to the baggage collection area. Taxi companies report that
these spaces are often used by the public or the car rental companies and
therefore leave inadequate facilities for taxis to wait for incoming flight arrivals.
3.3.2
Other Facilities
A number of other ancillary facilities are located landside, including:
•
car rental office and workshop facilities;
•
a small clubhouse housing the Mount Gambier Aero Club;
•
a generator building owned by Airservices Australia providing standby
power to the airport;
•
a standalone building housing a flight training school run by O’Connor
Airlines, although currently dormant; and
•
a compound for the RAAF South Australian Air Training Corps No. 12
Flight.
Furthermore, several areas of land are leased to non-aviation interests. The
Mount Gambier and District Pony Club currently occupy a large plot of land to the
north of the main terminal complex, east of the main airport access road. A large
plot in north-west corner of the site houses the CSIRO Division of Forest
Research Plantation Forest Research Centre. A small plot on the western
boundary of the airport is leased to the Australian Government Bureau of
Meteorology.
- 8 -
4.0
AIRPORT TRAFFIC
This section of the report analyses historical records of passenger numbers and aircraft
movements at Mount Gambier Airport and presents possible scenarios for future growth.
Airport planning is based on forecasts of future aircraft movements and passenger
numbers, which, in aggregate form, indicate the overall capacity that will be required of
the airport. These forecasts can be converted into planning and design criteria, which
determine the spatial (size) and traffic flow requirements of individual airport facilities. The
forecasts will also determine when particular facilities will be required.
The key drivers affecting aviation growth are:
•
economic factors, e.g. gross or discretionary income per capita;
•
demographic factors, i.e. the impact of increasing or decreasing population; and
•
air fares, which are more likely to have an impact in the short term if there is a
large change, rather than in the medium or long term.
Additionally, factors such as consumer preference for other transport modes, competition
from other airports in the region and airport marketing/promotion will all impact on
demand.
The forecasts of future activity in this report have been developed from an analysis of
recent trends and the potential for additional positive growth resulting from an increase in
tourist numbers. It is important to recognise there will always be uncertainties when
forecasting and for that reason low, mid and high traffic growth scenarios have been
prepared for the airport.
Even so, these are intended to reflect only average growth rates over the planning period.
The mid-growth scenario is that which is considered most likely to occur in the future in
the absence of significant changes in the underlying trends of the key drivers of aviation
growth. However, because many factors operate to influence passenger traffic, it is almost
certain that actual traffic at any point in the future will vary from this mid-growth scenario.
Whilst it is considered that future traffic will develop within the envelope formed by the
low- and high-growth scenarios, it cannot be guaranteed that traffic will remain within this
band for any or all of the forecast period. It should be further stressed that the accuracy of
any traffic prediction reduces substantially as the horizon becomes more distant.
4.1
HISTORICAL TRAFFIC TRENDS
4.1.1
Passenger traffic
Council has provided a historical time series of passenger numbers for each
financial year since 1989-90, with the exception of financial years 1994-95 and
1995-96. Data for these years have been obtained from DOTARS’ AvStats
database.
- 9 -
In the year ending June 2005 a total of 95,416 passengers used Mount Gambier
Airport. This represents an increase of 16.5% on the 2003-04 traffic. Data for the
first half of the 2005-06 financial year indicate a year-on-year growth of 6.4% over
the same period in 2004-05.
Passengers
Figure 1 summarises the available annual passenger traffic data at the airport
since 1989-90.
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
2000-01
1999-00
1998-99
1997-98
1996-97
1995-96
1994-95
1993-94
1992-93
1991-92
1990-91
1989-90
0
Figure 1: Annual Passenger Traffic
It should be noted that the annual passenger data provided by Council and that
recorded by DOTARS vary somewhat for those years where both datasets
overlap. The degree of variation is not, however, considered significant for the
purposes of this study.
There is an overall steady positive growth trend since 1989-90. Although there
was some short term discontinuity in 2001-02 as a result of the collapse of Ansett
and the subsequent reduction in airline services (see section 4.1.2 below) it
appears that traffic levels have returned to trend in subsequent years.
Figure 2 shows the mean percentage of total annual traffic for each month of the
year, where data are available. Passenger traffic levels are relatively constant
across the year, with the exception of January. The relatively low level of traffic
during January could be explained by a drop in business traffic during the
summer holiday period.
- 10 -
Mean % of Annual Traffic
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Figure 2: Monthly Traffic Distribution
Anecdotal evidence indicates that Mondays and Fridays are the busiest days of
the week, which is consistent with high levels of business traffic. This is
supported by the airline schedules which offer more flights on Mondays and
Fridays (see Section 4.1.2 below).
Passenger traffic at an airport can, broadly, speaking, be broken down into three
categories: visiting friends and relatives (VFR), business and leisure.
Furthermore, discussions with the Reference Group suggest that a significant
element of travel between Mount Gambier and Adelaide is for health or education
related reasons.
The breakdown of passenger traffic shown in Table 1 was developed from
discussions with several stakeholders.
ROUTE
PURPOSE
Business
VFR
Leisure
Other (Health, Education)
Adelaide
75%
15%
Melbourne
85%
15%
Negligible
Negligible
10%
Negligible
Table 1: Airport Traffic by Type
Analysis of Regional Express (Rex) traffic data for 2004-05 indicates that almost
two-thirds of the traffic at Mount Gambier is to and from Adelaide with just over
one-third to and from Melbourne. This pattern is consistent with the fact that
Adelaide is the state capital, even though Melbourne is a much larger city.
Discussion with O’Connor Airlines confirmed a similar breakdown in terms of the
split between Melbourne and Adelaide. Rex also serves Portland as part of some
services to and from Melbourne. There is very little traffic between Portland and
Mount Gambier and the primary source of traffic on this route is on the sector
between Portland and Melbourne.
- 11 -
Market Share
Figure 3 shows the market share of passenger traffic by airline for the last nine
years. Historically, Kendall Airlines carried the majority of passengers. However,
with the collapse of Ansett in 2001 O’Connor Airlines gained a majority market
share. This situation has again reversed over the last three years, with Rex now
carrying approximately two-thirds of the traffic.
100%
75%
50%
25%
Kendall Airlines/Rex
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
2000-01
1999-00
1998-99
1997-98
1996-97
0%
O'Connor Airlines
Figure 3: Airline Market Share
4.1.2
Aircraft Movements
Aircraft Movements
Figure 4 shows annual numbers of RPT aircraft movements at the airport
between 1993-94 and 2003-04, obtained from the Department of Transport and
Regional Services AvStats database. The number of movements increased
steadily over that period from 6,648 in 1993-94 to 7,624 in 2003-04, with the
exception of a reduction in 2001-02 resulting from the collapse of Ansett Airlines.
8000
7500
7000
6500
6000
5500
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
2000-01
1999-00
1998-99
1997-98
1996-97
1995-96
1994-95
1993-94
5000
Figure 4: RPT Aircraft Movements 1993-94 - 2003-04
- 12 -
Aircraft Movements
Based on the latest schedules obtained from Rex and O’Connor Airlines, there
are 158 weekly scheduled RPT aircraft movements serving Mount Gambier
airport. This equates to 8,216 annual movements. Figure 5 shows the daily
distribution of RPT aircraft movements. The busiest day of the week is Friday,
with 30 movements. Both Saturday and Sunday are significantly less busy than
the rest of the week, with 12 and 16 movements respectively. This reflects the
dominance of business traffic at the airport.
30
MEL
ADL
25
20
15
10
5
0
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Figure 5: Daily Aircraft Movements
4.2
PROJECTED TRAFFIC
4.2.1
Future Traffic Scenarios
Growth over the 14 years between 1990-91 and 2004-05 is equivalent to an
annual average growth of 5.5% per annum. Even ignoring the very rapid growth
achieved in recent years, the rate of growth between 1990-91 and 2000-01 fits
this long term trend. This suggests that recent high growth rates may simply be a
correction of the drop in traffic caused by the collapse of Ansett. A growth rate of
around 5-6% per annum is consistent with global trends in air traffic over the
same period. It is therefore considered reasonable to extrapolate the long-term
trend of average 5.5% growth in passenger traffic per annum for the next 15
years in order to form the ‘Mid-growth’ scenario.
Although the above ‘Mid-growth’ scenario is considered to be the most likely,
historical trends are no guarantee of future traffic. It should be considered that
even this level of long-term growth may well be unsustainable. A number of
factors, including maturing of the aviation industry, volatility of world oil prices, the
threat of terrorism and possible global or national economic downturn could all
restrict the growth of aviation traffic. Based on discussions with airlines, a lowerbound average annual growth rate of 2.5% was selected to form a ‘Low-growth’
scenario.
- 13 -
In order to develop a ‘High-growth’ scenario, the potential for attracting a
proportion of the leisure traffic segment was considered in more detail. Presently,
very little of the pure tourism traffic (excluding VFR) travels to the area by air. The
segment of this traffic that might potentially be attracted to air services was
restricted to:
•
visitors from international, domestic interstate and Adelaide areas; and
•
visitors travelling alone, as part of a couple or with friends or relatives
without children.
The size of the estimated tourism market that might be amenable to using air
travel to or from Mount Gambier is therefore estimated to be approximately
257,000 visitors per year. It is acknowledged that, in practice, that not all of this
market could be captured by airlines, for a variety of reasons including the desire
for self-drive holidays. It is difficult to estimate with any accuracy the extent to
which air travel might be attractive in terms of inbound tourism to the region.
However, based on discussions with the regional tourism body an optimistic
assumption was made that up to 25% of the amenable market might be captured
by 2021. If this were to occur, it could result in almost 130,000 passengers each
year through the airport at the end of the 15-year planning period, in addition to
the growth represented by the ‘Mid-growth’ scenario. The potential increase in
traffic over the 15-year period of the plan represented by this ‘High-growth’
scenario can be characterised by exponential growth at 8.5% per annum.
The purpose of the ‘High-growth’ scenario is to represent the highest traffic levels
on which planning decisions about facility requirements will be made. Therefore,
although the traffic levels predicted by this scenario are considered feasible
under the right combination of circumstances, they should be considered as
relatively unlikely to occur in practice.
Table 2 summarises the assumed average growth rates for each of the
scenarios.
Scenario
Average Annual RPT Passenger
Traffic Growth
2.5%
5.5%
8.5%
Low-growth
Mid-growth
High-growth
Table 2: Future Traffic Scenarios
Base year (Year 0) passenger traffic (for the financial year 2005-06) has been
estimated by increasing the 2004-05 passenger traffic by the year-on-year growth
experienced for the first half of the 2005-06 financial year. The resulting forecast
passenger numbers for the next 15 years are given in Table 3 and Figure 6.
- 14 -
SCENARIO
Mid-growth
100,664
106,170
112,010
118,170
124,669
131,526
138,760
146,392
154,444
162,938
171,900
181,354
191,329
201,852
212,953
224,666
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Low-growth
100,664
103,180
105,760
108,404
111,114
113,892
116,739
119,658
122,649
125,715
128,858
132,080
135,382
138,766
142,235
145,791
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
High-growth
100,664
109,220
118,504
128,577
139,506
151,364
164,230
178,189
193,335
209,769
227,599
246,945
267,936
290,710
315,421
342,231
400,000
High-growth
Mid-growth
350,000
Low-growth
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
2020-21
2019-20
2018-19
2017-18
2016-17
2015-16
2014-15
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
0
2005-06
Annual Passengers
Table 3: Forecast Passenger Traffic
Figure 6: Forecast Passenger Traffic
- 15 -
4.2.2
Service Frequency and Aircraft Size
Approximately 212,000 seats annually are currently available on routes from
Mount Gambier. Based on the estimated 2005-06 passenger traffic of
approximately 100,000 passengers, this suggests that average load factors of
only around 47% are currently being realised. As a result, the existing service
frequency and aircraft types should be able to absorb growth for several years.
However, at some level of traffic, the more popular routes and times can be
expected to become completely full, therefore resulting in unsatisfied demand. It
is around this point that additional capacity to continue to satisfy demand
becomes viable.
The actual value of average load factor at which additional capacity is triggered
will be dependent on the traffic characteristics of each route and airline policy.
However, in most cases this tends to be around 70 – 80% average load factor.
For the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that an average load factor
of 75% is the trigger point for the introduction of additional capacity. Based on the
current annual capacity of 212,000 seats, this equates to annual passenger traffic
of approximately 159,000 passengers. Therefore, from Table 3 and Figure 6, it
can be seen that the existing capacity is expected be sufficient until:
•
beyond 2020 in the ‘Low-growth’ scenario;
•
approximately 2014 in the ‘Mid-growth’ scenario; and
•
around 2011 in the ‘High-growth scenario’
There are two ways in which airlines could provide the additional capacity when
required. Firstly, capacity can be increased through the provision of additional
services with the same size of aircraft. This could either be through an increase in
frequency by the existing carriers or by the introduction of a new carrier. The
second mechanism is to increase the size of aircraft operating at the airport.
Discussions with Rex and O’Connor Airlines regarding fleet and route planning
suggest that neither operator anticipates a change to the aircraft type in the
foreseeable future. Regional Express is currently in the process of rationalising
aircraft types across its fleet and is now operating relatively young Saab 340
aircraft on almost all of the airline’s services into Mount Gambier. Both airlines
have indicated that, in the short term, capacity will be accommodated by an
increase in service frequency.
It is estimated that there is scope for an approximate doubling in service
frequency from the current situation. However, further service frequency beyond
this is likely to be uneconomic from the point of view of the airlines and
discussions with the airlines confirm this. Doubling of the current service
frequency by both airlines would result in approximately 438,000 total annual
seats. At a 60% average load factor this would accommodate traffic
- 16 -
approximately 265,000 passengers per year. Therefore, it is feasible that demand
can be satisfied through the provision of additional services until:
•
well beyond 2020 in the ‘Low-growth’ and ‘Mid-growth’ scenarios; and
•
around 2017 in the ‘High-growth scenario’.
However, airport planning must by necessity extend well beyond airline planning
horizons. There are numerous factors influencing the airlines’ decision whether or
not to introduce larger aircraft. These factors can change relatively quickly. Based
on the forecast demand, decisions by airlines about how best to provide
additional capacity are not expected for between 4 and 7 years.
An additional consideration is that the new airlines might begin to operate to
Mount Gambier, either in addition to the existing operators as a response to
increased demand, or as a replacement should one or other of the existing
airlines withdraw from serving the airport. Other airlines will almost certainly
operate different aircraft types. Facilities at Mount Gambier are particularly
sensitive to increases in operating aircraft size because current facilities are only
just adequate for the present aircraft types.
Consideration must therefore also be given to likely aircraft types and their
infrastructure requirements to ensure that the airport facilities can accommodate
a variety of airline operating scenarios. This is discussed further in Section 5.0.
4.3
COMPARISON WITH OTHER AIRPORTS
Table 4 lists RPT passenger traffic and aircraft movements at Australian regional
airports for the financial years 2004-05 and 2003-04.
AIRPORT
Maroochydore (QLD)
Newcastle (NSW)
Alice Springs (NT)
Mackay (QLD)
Rockhampton (QLD)
Ayers Rock (NT)
Hamilton Island (QLD)
Broome (WA)
Coffs Harbour (NSW)
Proserpine (QLD)
Karratha (WA)
Ballina (NSW)
Albury (NSW)
Kalgoorlie (WA)
Wagga Wagga (NSW)
RPT PASSENGERS
2004-05
663,943
639,917
602,618
583,074
549,199
369,244
357,370
284,489
273,449
228,038
221,052
191,148
184,607
182,370
157,423
2003-04
431,295
302,404
607,751
442,709
398,303
322,927
338,978
230,924
238,906
136,256
187,401
84,934
158,489
160,352
130,135
- 17 -
Growth
53.9%
111.6%
-0.8%
31.7%
37.9%
14.3%
5.4%
23.2%
14.5%
67.4%
18.0%
125.1%
16.5%
13.7%
21.0%
RPT AIRCRAFT
MOVEMENTS
2004-05
2003-04
7,944
5,831
13,459
10,811
7,264
7,900
8,307
7,299
9,441
7,373
4,387
4,110
3,982
4,798
6,212
5,481
7,011
5,784
2,001
1,246
3,475
2,907
4,949
4,464
8,301
8,597
3,237
2,886
6,857
6,590
AIRPORT
Mildura (VIC)
Gladstone (QLD)
Dubbo (NSW)
Port Lincoln (SA)
Devonport (TAS)
Mount Isa (QLD)
Gove (NT)
Port Hedland (WA)
Port Macquarie (NSW)
Mount Gambier (SA)
Burnie (TAS)
Armidale (NSW)
Bundaberg (QLD)
Tamworth (NSW)
Geraldton (WA)
Newman (WA)
Norfolk Island (NSW)
Paraburdoo (WA)
Lismore (NSW)
Kingscote (SA)
Emerald (QLD)
Orange (QLD)
Whyalla (SA)
Griffith (NSW)
RPT PASSENGERS
2004-05
148,368
139,928
134,447
129,483
116,139
111,303
102,154
100,430
96,224
95,502
94,984
89,616
87,377
86,503
77,235
75,384
71,461
70,343
67,497
64,207
61,736
57,294
55,076
53,675
2003-04
126,253
133,509
114,138
110,649
117,048
99,205
94,394
91,371
79,325
81,795
89,727
63,678
66,716
75,274
56,707
62,670
81,470
61,717
56,049
62,677
47,714
48,945
46,005
42,596
Growth
17.5%
4.8%
17.8%
17.0%
-0.8%
12.2%
8.2%
9.9%
21.3%
16.8%
5.9%
40.7%
31.0%
14.9%
36.2%
20.3%
-12.3%
14.0%
20.4%
2.4%
29.4%
17.1%
19.7%
26.0%
RPT AIRCRAFT
MOVEMENTS
2004-05
2003-04
6,769
6,616
5,314
5,705
8,978
8,704
6,567
6,664
5,648
5,292
3,540
3,596
3,887
4,130
2,791
2,502
3,405
3,267
7,913
7,624
6,757
4,695
5,466
3,766
2,915
2,522
5,040
4,717
3,727
2,416
1,632
1,591
923
1,199
1,285
1,255
2,738
3,907
6,253
6,622
2,081
1,816
2,512
2,381
4,120
4,177
3,536
3,232
Table 4: RPT Traffic at Australian Regional Airports
It is important not to draw any conclusions from Table 4 about how traffic at
Mount Gambier might grow in future, as each airport is subject to very different
driving forces which underlie their traffic characteristics. However, Table 4 does
allow a rough indication of where Mount Gambier currently sits within the
Australian airport population. In general, Mount Gambier is most closely
comparable to airports such as Dubbo, Wagga Wagga, Albury or Port Lincoln in
terms of its traffic characteristics.
Table 4 also allows some visualisation of the scale of airport facilities that might
be required for each of the future traffic scenarios developed in Section 4.2.1, by
considering airports currently handling those levels of traffic. Again, it is important
not to draw too many firm conclusions from other airports as the particular traffic
characteristics may not be comparable to those at Mount Gambier.
Table 5 compares some more detailed statistics for Mount Gambier airport with
some other regional airports for the financial year 2003-04.
- 18 -
GRIFFITH
TAMWORTH
MOUNT
GAMBIER
DUBBO
WAGGA
WAGGA
ALBURY
RPT Passengers (Pax)
42,596
75,274
81,795
114,138
130,135
158,679
Population
24,000
37,272
22,656
39,077
57,557
44,887
Pax/Population
1.77
2.02
3.61
2.92
2.26
3.54
No. of airlines
1
2
2
3
2
2
1,820
4,717
7,624
8,704
6,590
8,601
24
16
11
13
20
18
No aircraft movements
Av pax per flight
Table 5: Selected Statistics for Mount Gambier and Other Regional Airports
It can be seen from Table 4 that although roughly similar in size to several other
Australian regional airports, Mount Gambier handles a correspondingly greater
number of aircraft movements than these airports. This is a result of the relatively
small aircraft types operated by the airlines serving the airport, from which it can
be deduced that service frequency at Mount Gambier is higher than at many
similarly sized airports. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, Mount Gambier is likely to
continue to be served by relatively high-frequency turbo-prop passenger services
for the foreseeable future.
Table 5 reveals that Mount Gambier has a relatively high ratio of 3.61 passengers
per head of base population (Pax/Population). This high propensity to fly reflects
the dominance of business traffic. This may also indicate that opportunities for
further traffic growth are limited without substantial increases in population, which
are not expected, or an increase in tourism.
4.4
OTHER TRAFFIC
4.4.1
General Aviation
General Aviation (GA) activity is made up of all aircraft operations not related to
commercial RPT or freight services and includes activities such as aerial work,
government business, medical services, charter traffic, flying training and private
leisure flying.
Although no detailed figures are available, the level of GA activity at Mount
Gambier is currently not high and is largely composed of private flying and aerial
work. GA activity at Mount Gambier is generated by local aircraft, aircraft from
other areas visiting Mount Gambier and itinerant aircraft using Mount Gambier as
a stopping-off point en-route to some other destination. Very little of the general
aviation activity involves aircraft over 5,700 kilograms.
Licence fees to use Mount Gambier airport are currently paid in respect of 28
private aircraft. A total of 11 aircraft also occupy hangar space. Inspection of the
Australian civil aircraft register reveals that Mount Gambier does not have a high
resident population of GA aircraft. Only 13 aircraft are currently registered within
- 19 -
the local postcode area. Of these, 5 are stored in privately rented space in
hangars at the airport: 3 in the Bellman hangar and 2 in a private hangar. A
further 4 light aircraft and 2 ultralight aircraft are privately hangared at the airport
in the Bellman hangar. There are just 8 aircraft currently registered in the local
postcode that are not stored at the airport. Of these, 6 have licences to operate at
the airport.
The Royal Flying Doctor Service operates from Mount Gambier airport. Fire
fighting activities are also carried out from the airport by AMB Aerial Fire Support
during the summer months.
The number of movements due to general aviation activity is low and is unlikely
to become significant within the life of the plan. Unless something new occurs to
attract general aviation activity, growth in this area is likely to remain low in line
with national and global trends. Whilst it should be ensured that appropriate GA
facilities continue to be provided at Mount Gambier airport, the costs of this need
to be balanced with the economic benefits associated with the level of GA activity
occurring at the airport. Consideration should be given to providing only the
minimum level of facilities appropriate to the level of GA activity expected.
Council has advised that occasional requests to bring charter aircraft to Mount
Gambier have been received. The most significant of these in recent times was
for a BAe 146 jet aircraft from Adelaide, which had to be refused on the grounds
of insufficient pavement strength.
Charter traffic is not expected to provide a significant proportion of total annual
passenger traffic. For example, based on current passenger traffic levels of
100,000 passengers per year, an increase of 5% due to charter traffic would
provide 5000 passengers which equates to roughly 1 BAe 146 or equivalent jet
aircraft per week.
It is recognised that demand for a certain amount of charter traffic might be
generated through active marketing of Mount Gambier and the Limestone Coast
region as a destination for conferences from Melbourne and Adelaide. However,
unless such traffic is considerable, the required upgrading of the airport facilities
to accommodate medium jet operations will require substantial financial
subsidisation. Smaller jet aircraft types such as the Canadair Challenger 604/605
aircraft could be accommodated on the pavements required for RPT operations.
4.4.2
Air Freight
The principal exports from the Mount Gambier Airport catchment area are
seafood (predominantly crayfish), timber products, and wine.
The dedicated carriage of freight by air is really only economically viable for lowweight/high value/time-critical goods. The primary products of the Limestone
- 20 -
Coast region, with the possible exception of crayfish, do not meet sufficient of
these criteria for air freight to offer a significant commercial advantage over other
transport modes such as road or rail.
Currently, crayfish are transported by road to Melbourne or Adelaide, and from
there the growing export market for this produce is met. The travel time by road
to the major airports in Adelaide or Melbourne is only around 4-5 hours. Air
freight can only offer a marginal improvement in this transfer time, which is not
significant especially when the overall transit time to destinations overseas is
considered.
Without the establishment of significant secondary industry in the region,
producing products suited to domestic air freight operations, it is considered
unlikely that sufficient demand will develop to attract a dedicated air freight
operator.
- 21 -
5.0
5.1
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
AIRSIDE FACILITIES
5.1.1
Runways
Runway 18/36 is presently the only runway at Mount Gambier airport sufficiently
long to serve RPT aircraft movements. It is recognised that the main runway
18/36 at the airport is not optimally aligned with the prevailing wind direction.
However, the runway usability analysis undertaken as part of the Local
Ownership Feasibility Study indicates that the usability of the runway is 98.6%,
against a usability of 98.9% for runway 06-24. There is no reason to believe that
the wind data used for that analysis (1941-1985) would not remain representative
of long-term wind patterns today.
The usability of the runway system is primarily an economic decision for the
airport owner. Traditionally, 99.5% usability was recommended for Australian
regional airports such as Mount Gambier. However, ICAO recommends a runway
usability of just 95%, and many airports worldwide accept 98% in practice. No
adverse comment has been received from the airlines regarding the usability of
the runways at the airport. Provided that Council is satisfied through discussions
with the airline operators that the present usability of runway 18/36 for RPT
operations is adequate, the status quo is considered acceptable.
Whilst runway 06/24 could potentially be extended, the cost involved in this is
considered to be excessive given the marginal increase in usability (0.9%) that
would be achieved from a combination of runways 18/36 and 06/24. There are
also potential obstacle issues that may severely limit the operational value of an
extended runway 06/24. However, should runway 18/36 require closure in order
to carry out strengthening work, an extended runway 06/24 might provide a
usable temporary alternative for RPT services. The exact runway length
requirements in this situation would need to be confirmed with the existing
operators. In any event it is recommended that land be safeguarded within the
airport boundary to permit future extension of Runway 06/24 if required.
Discussions with GA operators at the airport confirm that all three runways are
used with approximately equal frequency. It is recommended that all three
runways be retained for the immediate future in order to ensure that availability
for GA operations, which are generally more sensitive to cross winds than RPT
operations, remains at current levels. However, it is noted that the Local
Ownership Feasibility Study suggests that runway 11/29 be decommissioned.
This remains a viable option for the future should there be sound economic
reasons for downgrading its status to a taxiway. This would release a
considerable area of land between the CSIRO and Meteorological Office sites for
development. The economic cost-benefit associated with retaining Runway 11/29
should be reviewed in advance of the next required maintenance expenditure on
the runway.
- 22 -
The present main 18/36 runway length of 1524m is adequate for the current level
of RPT aircraft operations. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, current aircraft types
are likely to be adequate to accommodate passenger demand in all but the
highest growth scenarios. However, the introduction of new aircraft types might
still occur due to other factors, such as the introduction of new airlines operating
at the airport. Possibly the most significant operator missing from Mount Gambier
that is present at other regional airports of similar size is QantasLink. QantasLink
operates a fleet of Dash-8 aircraft (predominantly Q300 and more recently Q400
variants).
The most logical next step aircraft types for the current operators are the
Jetstream 41 and the Saab 2000. The Dash-8 (Q300) and in the longer term, the
larger Dash-8 (Q400) might also prove to be viable types at Mount Gambier.
Table 6 lists the key parameters of these aircraft that influence airport
infrastructure requirements for each of these aircraft. It is considered prudent to
plan for these aircraft types.
AIRCRAFT TYPE
Jetstream 41
Dash-8 (Q300)
Saab 2000
Dash-8 (Q400)
SEATS
ACN(1)
29
50-54
50-58
74-78
< 6(3)
16.5
16.5
20
RUNWAY LENGTH REQURIED(2)
< 1524m(3)
1500m
1700m
1700m
(1) Aircraft Classification Number (ACN) taken from CASA MOS Part 139, Chapter 5 (September 2004 version), for a
flexible pavement on a Category D sub-grade (CBR 3%).
(2) Typical runway length requirements for take-off at Mount Gambier at 35°C and aircraft Maximum Take-Off Weight,
based on manufacturer’s generic performance data. Actual performance will vary dependent on exact aircraft
configurations and operator’s procedures. Runway length requirements should be verified by aircraft operators prior to
any investment in runway facilities.
(3) R-AOS has been unable to obtain manufacturer’s data for the Jetstream 41 aircraft, however discussions with the
potential operator indicates that the current airfield infrastructure would not impose any significant operational limitations.
Table 6: Possible Future Aircraft Types
Larger aircraft types, including medium and large jets such as the BAe 146 and
the Boeing 737 will require substantial upgrading of the airport facilities at Mount
Gambier, in particular the pavement strength. It is anticipated that aircraft of this
size would only be operated from Mount Gambier by RPT carriers on routes
significantly longer than to Adelaide or Melbourne. At present, it is not possible to
envisage sufficient demand from Mount Gambier to make such longer routes
attractive to airlines.
It is recommended that provision be made for a future runway extension of up to
1800m. This would allow the runway to serve all of the current and potential
future fleet of turbo-prop aircraft. This is an extension of some 275m from the
- 23 -
present length. However, it is noted that there are currently some significant
obstacle limitation issues associated with all runways at Mount Gambier.
Therefore, it may be necessary to retain runway thresholds in the existing
locations due to obstacle clearance requirements. For this reason, land at both
the southern and northern ends of the 18/36 runway should be safeguarded for
future extension of that runway. These areas are shown on Drawing A05137-A003. A more detailed study, including a comprehensive obstacle survey, will be
needed in order to determine the appropriate method by which increased runway
length should be provided.
Extension of the runway to the north would require diversion of the existing road.
If this were to be carried out, it would be logical to provide an access route to the
terminal precinct along the eastern edge of the existing Mount Gambier Pony
Club land. This could form either an alternative or an additional public access into
the airport.
Runway strength is a critical issue at Mount Gambier. The current reported PCN
of 6 is only just adequate for the current RPT aircraft types. Strengthening of the
existing runway 18-36 should be considered as a priority. Based on Table 6, it is
recommended that the runway be strengthened to achieve a PCN of 20, sufficient
to accommodate potential future Dash 8 – Q400 operations. Such a PCN will also
allow occasional operation by some small to medium jet aircraft basis, although
not necessarily at Maximum Take-Off Weight. Runway strengthening should be
carried out as soon as practicable.
Whilst reference is made to the previous report by Coffey & Partners (1997), it is
strongly recommended that further pavement investigation be conducted.
Discussion with Airport Technical Services Pty, which has undertaken recent
pavement inspections of the airport, suggests that such investigation may reveal
a means of achieving the required strength by provision of an overlay, thereby
avoiding the need for long-term runway closure. This investigation should be
undertaken as a matter of urgency, in order to expedite the runway strengthening
work.
5.1.2
Taxiways
The current taxiway layout is considered to be adequate to serve the anticipated
aircraft movement levels over the next 15 years, subject only to any additional
lengths of taxiway required as a result of runway extensions. In particular, it is
recommended that land be safeguarded to permit the diversion of Taxiway Bravo
to suit any northerly extension of Runway 18/36, as shown on Drawing A0137-A003.
Progressive strengthening of the taxiways should be undertaken to match the
runway strength.
- 24 -
5.1.3
Aprons
The current RPT apron may require expansion in the future due to one or other or
a combination of:
•
an increase in peak period aircraft parking demand, due to an increase
in RPT services; or
•
an increase in the size of aircraft operated.
It is therefore recommended that a suitable adjoining area be safeguarded for
future RPT apron expansion. The most suitable area for expansion is to the west
of the existing RPT apron, however this area is currently occupied by a number of
buildings of various uses. It is recommended that these buildings be
progressively decommissioned and their respective functions relocated to other
areas to permit the RPT apron expansion.
The GA apron my require expansion in future for a number of reasons:
•
an increase in maintenance activities resulting from an increase in the
resident RPT aircraft fleet;
•
an increase in charter or private business GA operations;
•
the development of small-scale freight operations.
It is therefore recommended that a suitable adjoining area be safeguarded for
future GA apron expansion. It is acknowledged that this would require the
relocation of the existing light aircraft tie-down are but it is considered that there
exist several suitable alternative locations for this facility.
The areas that have been identified as most suitable for future expansion of the
aprons are shown on Drawing A05137-A-004-A.
Progressive and selective strengthening of the existing apron areas should be
undertaken to match the runway strength.
5.1.4
Other Airside Facilities
CASA MOS Sub-part 139H stipulates that domestic aerodromes must provide an
Aerodrome Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) service when annual traffic reaches
350,000 passengers. None of the scenarios considered in this Strategic Plan
forecast that level of traffic prior to 2021. However, there may be other factors
which support the establishment of an ARFF service at a lower level of traffic.
Although considered unlikely within the 15-year horizon of this plan, it is deemed
prudent to safeguard a suitable location for a future ARFF facility within the
aerodrome.
Air Traffic Control Services are currently not required at Mount Gambier, however
the ‘high-growth’ scenario suggests that traffic levels at the airport may surpass
- 25 -
the necessary trigger points whereby the provision of a Class D Aerodrome
Control Service is required to be assessed by aeronautical study, in accordance
with the draft CASA MOS Part 71 – Airspace (version 1.0, February 2004). There
is therefore a small possibility that a control tower may be required at the airport
during the latter part of the 15-year horizon considered in this plan. This
requirement should be kept under review.
One suitable location for both ARFF facilities and a control tower would be
adjacent to Penola Road midway along Runway 18/36, although other
possibilities exist.
Airlines have expressed a desire to introduce a precision approach capability on
Runway 18/36, which would allow aircraft to land in a greater variety of weather
conditions than presently. Currently, the only method by which this could be
achieved is through an Instrument Landing System (ILS), with its associated
localiser radio-antenna array at the end of the runway. In the near future,
satellite-based positioning technology is expected to allow precision approach
capability with greater flexibility over the positioning of the ground-based element
of the system and with greater cost-effectiveness. Such systems are therefore
expected to make conventional ILS technology obsolete within the next few
years. Therefore, the benefit offered by the installation of an ILS at Mount
Gambier airport is doubtful. Regardless of the technology used, it would not be
practicable to achieve the full 300 metre width of runway strip and flyover area
appropriate to a precision approach runway. CASA MOS Part 139 permits a
precision approach runway to operate with a 150 metre wide strip subject to
landing minima adjustments. This would be the only practicable way to achieve
precision approach capability at Mount Gambier. However, there would remain
significant obstacle issues associated with the wider approach surfaces required
for a precision approach runway and these would also need to be resolved.
The existing maintenance facilities will almost certainly need to be expanded to
accommodate increased traffic, particularly as increases in service frequency
demand a larger aircraft fleet based at the airport. Space should therefore be
allocated adjacent the existing O’Connor Airlines maintenance hangar to allow
future expansion of this facility. This is not to preclude the possibility of additional
maintenance facilities being required in future for other airlines or third-party
companies who might decide to establish maintenance bases at the airport (see
Section 6.2.1).
- 26 -
5.2
TERMINAL FACILITIES
It is widely acknowledged by all stakeholders consulted that the current terminal
facilities are inadequate for the current level of traffic, and that significant
improvements need to be made in order to accommodate any future passenger
growth.
Gross estimates of overall terminal building size have been prepared using
International Air Transport Association (IATA) capacity calculation formulae. This
suggests an order of magnitude size requirement for the terminal building of
between 800m2 and 2100m2 at the end of the strategic plan period, depending on
traffic growth characteristics and the amount of space allocated to concessions. It
should be noted that this is an initial estimate only using generic data which may
not be wholly appropriate to the any particular airport. Actual size requirements
will need to be determined through a more detailed study giving consideration to
the particular operating requirements and traffic characteristics of Mount Gambier
airport.
There are three possible alternatives for the provision of addition terminal space:
i)
expand the existing terminal building;
ii)
provide a new terminal building within the existing terminal precinct; or
iii) provide a new terminal facility in a new location on the airport
Land use requirements for options (i) and (ii) are illustrated in Drawings A05137A-003 and 004. Drawings A05137-A-005 and 006 present alternative land use
plans for a relocated terminal.
Each of these options is discussed in the following sub-sections. However, it
should be stressed that finding the optimum solution in terms of terminal facilities
is beyond the scope of this study. It is strongly recommended that a specific,
detailed study be undertaken, preferably by an aviation specialist, to determine
the optimum solution for the provision of future terminal facility requirements at
Mount Gambier airport and that this be done as a matter of urgency so as to best
inform the rest of the airport development.
5.2.1
Expansion of existing terminal
Expansion of the existing terminal building appears to be hindered by its
architectural design. It is also understood that there are buried services located to
either side of the building which would need to be relocated to allow expansion to
proceed. Otherwise, the current location appears to offer considerable scope for
expansion of the terminal building.
- 27 -
5.2.2
New terminal in existing precinct
Several potential options exist for the provision of a new terminal building within
the existing terminal precinct. In order to avoid unnecessary expense and
disruption, it is expected that a new building would be constructed ‘off-line’ whilst
the existing building remained in use. The location shown on drawing A05137-A003-A is considered at this stage to be the most suitable one a new terminal
building. However, it is understood that some of the buildings presently occupying
this site are of heritage value. The ability to remove or relocate these buildings
will need to be considered as part of a more detailed study. Alternative locations
for a new terminal located within the existing terminal precinct exist and these
should all be considered in detail.
5.2.3
New terminal in a different location
If the RPT terminal were to be relocated to a different area of the airfield, a
location in the south-eastern corner of the site would appear to be the most
suitable. Other locations offer few advantages over retaining the terminal within
the existing precinct.
The principal advantage of relocation of the terminal to this particular location
would be to permit direct access from Penola Road. This would also enhance the
commercial opportunities the site from the point of view of visibility to passing
trade.
However, relocation of the terminal would require, at the very least, the
construction of a new RPT apron. The impact on the taxiway system would also
need to be considered and provision of a new parallel taxiway to the east of
runway 18/36 may be required, at least for part of the runway length. Relocation
of the terminal would also impose a number of other operational difficulties,
notably the provision of fuelling services to RPT aircraft from the fuel facility.
Other essential landside facilities such as car rental infrastructure would also
realistically need to relocate alongside the terminal.
Drawing A05137-A-006 shows an indicative layout for a terminal precinct in the
south-east of the airport site.
At an airport of this size, there are considerable synergies, in terms of site
servicing and concentration of personnel, which result from a single terminal
precinct. Splitting the existing RPT and GA operations between two separate
locations on the airport would unnecessarily restrict the viability of potential
terminal concessions such as food and beverage outlets.
A further, significant, drawback to this approach is that the available space within
the proposed site is limited and any terminal facility in this location would be
unnecessarily constrained in terms of future growth, both airside and landside.
- 28 -
Relocation of the terminal is therefore not considered to be the preferred option
for the provision of improved terminal facilities.
5.3
LANDSIDE FACILITIES
Car parking and car rental facilities are both essential and likely to form the
principal demand for space at airports like Mount Gambier.
5.3.1
Car Parking
The current car parking area and the grassed area beyond has capacity for
approximately 600-700 cars (See drawing A-05137-A-004-A). Even if some
spaces were to be occupied by rental cars (see Section 5.3.2 below), this still
leaves around 500 public spaces. Even in the ‘High-growth’ scenario and
conservative assumptions about surface access mode share and vehicle
occupancy rates, this level of parking provision is likely to be adequate until 202021. If required, the area to the west of the existing car park would be suitable to
accommodate additional car parking.
It is recommended that the grassed area to the north-west of the existing car park
be reserved for expansion of the car park. The area to the west of the existing car
park should be safeguarded for possible future expansion of the car park.
If the terminal were to be relocated to the south-east of the site, approximately
21,000 m2 of land would be required for car parking, plus suitable land
safeguarded for possible future expansion.
5.3.2
Car Rental
The principal demand for landside facilities is likely to continue to be from car
rental companies. At present, the combined rental car fleet at Mount Gambier
airport is approximately 90 vehicles. The peak demand for storage space is over
the weekend, when around two-thirds of the fleet unused. It has been indicated
both by car rental representatives and others, that there is insufficient dedicated
space within the car park area for rental car storage and that often the grassed
area behind the car park has to be used as overflow.
In the short-term, additional rental car storage facilities are required. In the long
term, if it is assumed that the rental car fleet size grows in line with traffic, it can
be expected that the peak on-site rental car storage requirement will grow to
between 100 and 200 rental cars.
In order to maintain the maximum flexibility, rental car storage should continue to
be located within the public car parking area. This allows the actual split between
public and rental car spaces to be adjusted as demand develops. It is suggested
that an element of the rental car companies’ concession charges be based on the
number of spaces they choose to have allocated.
- 29 -
As demand grows, car rental companies are also be likely to locate more of their
facilities, such as fuelling, workshops and wash facilities, on site. At least one
company has indicated the desire to construct a wash facility in the immediate
future. It is recommended that such facilities be consolidated into the area
immediately to the north-east of the car park.
If the terminal were to be relocated to the south-east of the site, car rental
facilities might be located in the strip of land between the terminal access road
and the Riddoch Highway.
5.3.3
General Aviation Precinct
It is recommended that all non-RPT aviation facilities be generally consolidated
into a general aviation precinct. The most logical area for this is extending northeast from the existing GA Apron. Relocation of light aircraft hangars from their
existing locations might be considered, as and when the opportunity arises, in
order to permit more suitable activities in those areas currently occupied.
Consideration should be given to the level of charter and private business traffic
that is anticipated. If this becomes significant, it may be worth considering the
provision of a separate terminal for this traffic within the GA precinct.
It is recommended that land be safeguarded in this area for an additional or
alternative access route into the terminal precinct, as shown on Drawing A05137A-003 and 004.
- 30 -
6.0
6.1
COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES
TERMINAL CONCESSIONS
The viability of concessions is dependent to a large extent on the overall volume
of passenger traffic. Low traffic levels typically only support concessions serving
essential passenger needs such as food and beverage, newspapers and
magazines, car rental desks and bank ATMs. However, as traffic levels increase
a wider variety of concessions become viable.
With the exception of car rental, the economic viability of other terminal
concessions is uncertain without further study. However, it is possible to note
some possibilities based on those provided at other airports with similar levels of
traffic. In particular, these tend to be:
•
advertising space;
•
food and beverage outlets;
•
business lounges; and
•
security car parking.
6.1.1
Advertising Space
The lease of advertising space within the terminal building is a common means of
increasing concession revenue. In many cases, the space occupied would not be
used for other purposes so the incremental costs to the airport are negligible.
However, to ensure the best yields, potential advertising spaces should be
identified and protected from encroachment by elements such as air conditioning
vents or structural columns. Ideally, the incorporation of advertising space would
be carried out as part of the detailed design of the terminal building. Figure 7
shows how the area around a baggage reclaim carousel can be used for
advertising.
Figure 7: Use of Advertising Space around Baggage Carousel
- 31 -
6.1.2
Food and Beverage Outlets
Food and beverage outlets are also relatively common concessions at airports
with traffic levels in excess of around 50,000 passengers annually. The extent to
which the provision of this type of service is viable will depend on the way the
passenger traffic is distributed throughout the day. The potential non-passenger
market (which includes ‘meeters and greeters’, airport-based employees, nearby
off-airport workers and passing trade) should also be taken into account. The
total potential market will ultimately influence the type of catering outlet that might
be appropriate.
By way of example, a comparison of the food and beverage facilities at Emerald
and Gladstone airports illustrates two different approaches taken by regional
airports visited recently by R-AOS.
At Emerald (approximately 62,000 passengers and 2,000 RPT aircraft
movements in 2004-05) there is a kiosk located within the departures concourse
providing hot and cold snacks, tea, coffee, soft drinks and alcoholic beverages as
well as newspapers, magazines and cigarettes. Figure 8 shows the kiosk and
adjacent seating area.
Figure 8: Kiosk at Emerald Airport
At Gladstone (approximately 140,000 passengers and 5,300 RPT aircraft
movements in 2004-05) there is a café-bar located in the arrivals concourse
serving a selection of hot meals and snacks, cakes, tea and coffee, beer and
wine. It is understood that the high-quality outlet attracts customers from nearby
non-airport businesses and even from further afield. However, it is noted that the
airport is situated within the Gladstone urban area so the potential catchement is
much larger than would be the case at Mount Gambier. The café-bar also sells
books, newspapers and magazines, snacks and confectionary, souvenirs and
traveller’s essentials such as headache tablets and pens. Figure 9 shows the
Café-Bar area.
- 32 -
Figure 9: Café-Bar at Gladstone Airport
The provision of catering facilities requires an investment in terminal space in
order to provide seating and tables for customers. However, this can often be
offset by a reduction in departure lounge seating. Clearly, the necessary services,
preparation areas and access for personnel also need to be provided.
6.1.3
Business Lounge
At other airports where business traffic dominates, notably Burnie (approximately
95,000 passengers and 6,750 RPT aircraft movements in 2004-05) it has been
agreed to provide a dedicated business lounge in response to passenger
demand. Such lounges reflect the facilities provided at larger airports by airlines
such as Qantas, Virgin Blue and Rex. Clearly at regional airports there is unlikely
to be sufficient traffic to support dedicated airline lounges. However, a non-airline
specific facility providing comfortable space and facilities such as fax, printing and
internet access may be viable at Mount Gambier as there is a large proportion of
business traffic. Access could be on an annual membership or a per-visit basis.
Business lounges are, by necessity, space-intensive and therefore relatively
expensive from a capital and operating cost point of view. It is unclear whether
there would be sufficient demand for such a facility at Mount Gambier to outweigh
the cost of providing it. The relatively short dwell-times of most passengers in the
terminal may mean that the benefit to passengers is limited. However, access
could also be linked to the use of a premium parking service (see Section 6.1.4
below), as is the case at Burnie, to increase the attractiveness of the service. A
detailed survey of passengers at Mount Gambier would be required to determine
the viability of this type of facility and the most appropriate format.
6.1.4
Premium Parking
At larger airports, where land surrounding the terminal is at a premium, it is
common practice to charge for car parking. Indeed, car parking often represents
the largest non-aeronautical source of revenue for airports. However, it is
- 33 -
recognised that the introduction of a charge for car parking at Mount Gambier
would be extremely difficult to justify given the amount of land at the airport site
and the fact that that free parking is abundant even within the city centre.
Nevertheless, at other airports including Burnie it has been found that a
proportion of business travellers are prepared to pay for the privilege of using a
security parking area. This area is differentiated from the free parking area by the
provision of 24-hour security surveillance. It may also be located closer to the
terminal, offering greater convenience to users, or a valet parking service may be
provided where customers leave their vehicle at the terminal kerbside on
departure and collect it there on their return. As an additional feature, a full valet
service on the vehicle could be conducted whilst the owner is away.
Use of this premium parking service might be linked to access to a business
lounge (see Section 6.1.3 above) to provide an attractive overall package to
regular passengers. A detailed survey of passengers at Mount Gambier would be
required to determine the viability of this type of facility and the most appropriate
format.
6.1.5
Other Concession Opportunities
Other possible concession facilities that are potentially viable at Mount Gambier
include:
6.2
•
a concession to an internet service provider for the provision of wireless
broadband internet facilities;
•
concessions to local wineries for the sale and/or tasting of products (see
also Section 6.2.2); and
•
a bank ATM.
OTHER COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL
Given the relatively large area of land which the airport site occupies, there would
appear to be opportunities to obtain revenue through commercial development. It
should be emphasised that the comments in this study are based on qualitative
evidence only. Without a more detailed study, including a quantitative analysis of
the likely yields, it is not possible to provide advice on which commercial
developments are financially viable propositions. The following discussion
therefore focuses on the general types of development which have taken place at
other similar airports.
Developments on airports can either be aviation related or non-aviation related.
However, any development would require Council to provide access and services
to the sites. Council would also need to provide competitive rentals and long term
leases to attract development and provide the proponents with a basis for
securing the necessary development finance.
- 34 -
Any commercial development proposal, whether aviation or non-aviation related,
will need to be assessed against the operational requirements of the airport and
the requirements of any relevant legislation. These include issues such as:
•
the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) and related airspace protection
criteria;
•
ANEF contours and related aircraft noise restrictions;
•
separation distances to aircraft operational areas;
•
hazards to aircraft operations caused by installing bright lights;
•
hazards to aircraft operations caused by bird attracting activities;
•
hazards to aircraft operations caused by activities that generate smoke,
dust or other airborne particulates;
•
hazards to aircraft operations caused by activities that transmit radio
waves; and
•
local planning restrictions.
In particular, it is essential that the airspace associated with runway extensions
needs to be protected from any further encroachment by obstacles. To achieve
this, it is recommended that comprehensive plans are prepared showing the OLS
associated with the future runway layout.
It is noted that the latest noise exposure information appears to be that contain
within the Local Ownership Feasibility Study dating back to 1985. This
information is now very much out of date due to changes in traffic levels and the
aircraft types operating. A new ANEF which reflects forecast aircraft movements
for the next 15 years should be prepared to safeguard the airport from residential
encroachment and residents from exposure to aircraft noise.
It is recommended that more detailed economic studies be undertaken to
determine the viability of attracting various aviation related and non-aviation
related business to establish at the airport. Drawing A05137-A-003 shows areas
of airport land that could be considered for the development of lettable sites.
6.2.1
Aviation Related Business
Aviation related business activities offer the advantage that (in most cases) they
derive significant benefit from being located on the airport itself. Competition from
other nearby sites is therefore not an issue and it should prove easier to attract
aviation related than non-aviation related activities to establish at an airport.
Potential aviation-related businesses that have established at other regional
airports include:
- 35 -
•
pilot training centres;
•
aircraft maintenance and avionics companies;
•
aviation related warehousing and storage;
•
air freight forwarding; and
•
aviation museums or visitor centres.
Because of the nature of aviation, the catchment areas for aviation-related
businesses are much larger and geographically distant airports can become
competitors for certain aviation related business. Mount Gambier suffers in this
regard as a result of its location. Its close proximity to the coast immediately
restricts the airport’s hinterland to less than half that of similar airports located
inland such as Griffith, Albury and Wagga Wagga. Its relative proximity to
Adelaide and Melbourne also limits the catchment of Mount Gambier airport for
certain aviation-related activities. These two factors will serve to limit the viability
of establishing third-party aircraft maintenance or avionics companies on the site.
Similarly, proximity to Melbourne and Adelaide limits the viability of air freight
activities at Mount Gambier (see Section 4.4.2). This in turn will restrict the
attractiveness of the site for warehousing and storage and freight forwarding
businesses.
The establishment of a pilot training centre, to meet demand from south-east
Asian airlines for qualified air transport pilot’s licence holders, has been
considered by a number of airports. Such a centre could provide significant
income but would require a substantial investment of capital and resources to
provide the necessary accommodation and enough suitably qualified instructors
to operate successfully. Any such flight training centre would be in direct
competition with the well-established facility at Adelaide’s Parafield airport which
is likely to limit its attractiveness as a commercial proposition.
The provision of an aviation museum might be worth considering, given the
potential heritage value of the airport site. It is considered unlikely that an aviation
museum would attract sufficient custom to be profitable in its own right, however
its presence will increase the numbers of people visiting the airport and thereby
may enhance the viability of other businesses.
Aviation-related business tends to require either direct apron access, or a
location close to airside access points. Therefore, areas within and close to the
general aviation precinct are the most appropriate for this development. The
possible exception to this is if an aviation museum were to be provided. This
might benefit from the exposure to passing trade associated with a Penola Road
frontage. On the other hand, locating it in the terminal precinct could offer
synergies in terms of attracting demand both for the museum and any food and
beverage outlets located in the terminal building.
- 36 -
6.2.2
Non-aviation Businesses
While there are a number of non-aviation activities that could reasonably co-exist
with airport activity there has to be a demand for them and the location has to be
suitable.
At present, the airport site would appear to offer little advantage to potential
industrial or commercial development. It is understood that there is plenty of
appropriately zoned land available within the City of Mount Gambier and the
District Council of Grant. In comparison, the airport site is relatively isolated.
Therefore, it is likely that a significant cost-advantage might be required in order
to attract non-aviation business to the site. This might mean that the return to the
airport itself is not particularly attractive.
However, the development of non-aviation businesses should be encouraged as
far as possible in order to establish a ‘critical mass’ of activity which will help to
support further development. R-AOS notes the presence of the Bureau of
Meteorology’s Mount Gambier Meteorological Office on the site, which is
operational between 5.30am and 10.00pm seven days a week. Together with the
presence of the CSIRO Plantation Forest Research Centre this represents a
potential customer base for commercial enterprises on the site. The potential
customer base also includes aircraft and ground maintenance personnel, airline
staff, concession employees, passengers, visitors and passing trade.
In general, commercial activity is preferable to industrial development, as higher
yields are potentially achievable. The types of commercial development
considered most likely to be viable on the airport site are those which serve the
largest possible segment of the available customer base. The two most obvious
opportunities are a service station and a fast food outlet. The site in the southeast corner of the airport adjacent to Penola Road is considered the most
suitable for these types of activity as it maximises exposure both to passing trade
and to airport users.
One particular specific opportunity that is considered worthy of further
consideration by Council is the establishment of a local ‘wine centre’, similar to
that in the Hunter Valley wine region at Cessnock. This would offer the public the
opportunity to taste and purchase wine from a variety of wineries at a single
location. Given that winemaking is a strong local industry, such an outlet could
offer an effective gateway to the nearby wine producing regions.
Examples of other non-aviation businesses that have established at similar
airports include:
•
conference facilities;
•
hotels;
- 37 -
•
agricultural equipment sales;
•
boarding kennels;
•
nurseries;
•
crèches or child care centres; and
•
freight storage and haulage depots.
It must be stressed that, in terms of non-aviation related businesses, the airport is
competing for tenants with other potential development sites in the local area. It
should also be remembered that the market for non-aviation business is subject
to change due to factors outside of aviation. Therefore, flexibility is essential
when developing lettable commercial or industrial sites on the airport.
- 38 -
7.0
7.1
INCOME-PRODUCING STRATEGIES
CURRENT REVENUE
A review of the accounts indicates that the airport has been operating at a
surplus for the past several years. Current revenue (2004-05) is in the order of
$800,000 annually. Figure 10 shows the breakdown of revenue for the 2004-05
financial year (income from capital grants received in relation to security works
has been excluded). Almost three-quarters of revenue comes from aeronautical
sources, with almost all of this from RPT passenger levies. Commercial revenue
(leases and concessions excluding hangar rental) comprises only 8% of the total
revenue.
Miscellaneous
2%
Interest
17%
Commercial
8%
Aeronautical
73%
Figure 10: Revenue Breakdown 2004-05
Recent operating surpluses have built up and the airport now holds a substantial
reserve fund of some $2.4 million. Interest earned on this investment currently
contributes 17% of total annual revenue. This revenue would be sacrificed should
the reserve funds be used to fund maintenance or capital works at the airport.
7.2
AERONAUTICAL CHARGES
Given the size of the airport, it is expected that aeronautical charges will continue
to provide the majority of income for the airport for the foreseeable future. Due to
the general decline in GA activity, charges due to RPT passenger services will
remain the primary source of aeronautical income.
Table 7 shows the levy per RPT passenger charged by several regional airports
of similar size to Mount Gambier in 2003-04 and indicates the potential for Mount
Gambier to grow its revenue as passenger numbers increase. It also shows that
the passenger levy at Mount Gambier is relatively low. However, it should be
stressed that the passenger levy is related to the level of service offered by the
- 39 -
airport. Increases in the levy are therefore not automatically justifiable on the
basis that other airports charge more.
GRIFFITH
TAMWORTH
MOUNT
GAMBIER
DUBBO
WAGGA
WAGGA
ALBURY
RPT Passengers (Pax)
42,596
75,274
81,795
114,138
130,135
158,679
RPT Passenger Levy
$7.70
$12.50
$5.50
$10.91
$9.23
$12.27
$327,989
$940,925
$446,980
$1,245,246
$1,201,146
$1,946,991
RPT Pax. Revenue
Table 7: RPT Passenger Revenue at Selected Airports 2003-04
A review of the aeronautical charging structure currently in place is
recommended. This should address not only the level of the passenger levy,
which should include consideration of any proposed improvements to terminal
and airfield facilities, but also a review of alternative pricing mechanisms. The two
most common alternative pricing strategies are landing charges and terminal
rental charges. Combinations of these should be considered as they may
represent fairer ways of charging users for the facilities they use. For example, a
combination of a weight-based landing charge relating (approximately) to use of
the runway, taxiway and apron infrastructure, with a passenger levy or terminal
rents element relating to the use of terminal facilities could be considered.
Ultimately, it is in the airport’s interest to establish a pricing regime that best
reflects the cost of providing individual facilities. However, the optimum strategy
should also encourage the airlines to grow passenger traffic, as this will remain
the most certain way of increasing airport revenue for a regional airport like
Mount Gambier. This will require some consideration of airlines’ ability and/or
willingness to pay.
Several stakeholders have expressed the view that commercial development
should not be subsidised by aeronautical charges. R-AOS concurs with this view.
If anything, the justification for commercial development should be that it allows a
relative reduction in aeronautical charges. However, in general it is considered
appropriate for aeronautical costs to be paid for by aeronautical charges and the
costs of commercial development to be covered by commercial revenues, as far
as it is possible to distinguish the two activities.
7.3
COMMERCIAL INCOME
Several options exist for growing commercial income through increasing the
number of concessions and leases. The potential for these is discussed in
Section 6.0. There are, however, a number of possible ways in which revenue
from existing concessions could be increased. Some of these are described
below.
- 40 -
7.3.1
Fuel Throughput Levy
It is common for a small levy per litre of fuel delivered by the aviation fuel provider
Although aviation fuel continues to increase in price, the airport could impose a
small levy per litre of fuel provided by the fuel concessionaire. Such a charge is
essentially a royalty on the airport fuel concessionaire. If set appropriately it can
yield a steady income to the airport operators without being a significant impost to
users.
7.3.2
Car Rental Location Fee
Many airports impose an additional fee on car rental companies of a percentage
of the cost of the rental. 15% is a common airport location charge at major
airports. Alternatively a flat fee such as $5 per rental could be charged. These
location charges are passed on by the rental company to the customer and are
theoretically a consideration for the convenience of being able to collect and
return vehicles to the airport rather than downtown office locations. Such charges
are gradually becoming accepted by users, even if their popularity is
questionable.
7.3.3
Taxi Charge
Increasingly, taxi companies are charged a fee for the use of waiting areas at
larger airports. The charge is passed on to the passenger as an extra by the taxi
company. $2 per hire appears to be a common charge at larger airports, however
collection on a ‘per-hire’ basis requires some means of monitoring usage of the
waiting area, such as an automatic access/egress barrier. Other methods of
charging are less transparent to the passenger and therefore less likely to be
acceptable to the taxi companies. It is difficult to see how such a charge could be
justified at Mount Gambier at present.
7.4
CAPITAL GENERATION
While the strategies discussed above relate to increasing revenue, it is
recognised that the generation of capital to fund infrastructure improvements or
development works is also essential. In the case of Mount Gambier, immediate
requirements are runway strengthening works and a new or upgraded terminal.
Some alternative mechanisms by which this can be achieved, other than by use
of the reserve fund or negotiating a substantial loan, are discussed below.
7.4.1
Sale of Land
Sale of airport land, even that apparently surplus to aviation requirements, is not
recommended at this stage. While it provides the airport with a one-off injection of
funds, the airport operator loses a potential on-going revenue stream and, more
importantly, the flexibility to alter its development options in the future.
- 41 -
The sale of selected areas of land might be considered once there is confidence
in the long term master plan for the airport and it can be demonstrated that the
loss of the land will not adversely limit the ongoing development of the airport.
7.4.2
Private Sector Involvement
There are a variety of options that Council could consider to provide the
community with an improved asset which is self sustaining and profitable. Many
of these involve the private sector.
To date there is no example of a Local Government airport owner selling its
airport outright. However, Burnie airport which passed to the Burnie Port
Corporation under the Airport Local Ownership Plan, has been sold outright to
the Burnie City Council (BCC) and its joint venture partner Australian Regional
Airports Pty Ltd. A wholesale sell off of the airport to private interests would have
the advantages of removing a non-core activity from Council’s operations and
removing Council’s liability for its ongoing safety and security. However, as the
airport is currently operating profitably, it also represents an asset with
considerable potential. It is also recognised that a full privatisation of the airport
might be extremely unpopular, for a number of reasons.
Council could, however, limit its risk or raise substantial capital yet maintain
control over the airport by seeking private sector investment in the airport through
a joint venture arrangement. The Burnie airport model maintains a 51%
controlling interest for BCC.
Advantages of this option to Council are:
•
an up-front cash payment;
•
a return on its continued investment;
•
use of a specialist management team;
•
ability to step back from non-core business;
•
reduction in operating costs;
•
access to alternative funding for development costs;
•
access to innovative development options;
•
maintenance of some degree of control of the asset’s development;
•
growth in asset value; and
•
continued compatibility
development.
between
airport
and external land use
However, in order to proceed in this manner the new arrangement would need to
be negotiated with the Commonwealth, in accordance with any relevant
provisions of the ALOP. Council would also have to submit to a due diligence
- 42 -
process and undertake one in relation to its potential partner. The private investor
may require its upfront payment to be utilised to carry out immediate
development tasks.
A logical variation of this approach would be to enter into partnership(s) with
private sector developer(s) who would carry out required infrastructure works
(such as the provision of a new terminal, runway strengthening works, or the
development of lettable sites) in exchange for an equity stake in the airport.
7.4.3
Public Sector Partnership
As an alternative to the public-private partnership model described in Section
7.4.1 above, Council could consider transferring partial ownership of the airport to
another local government body.
Newcastle Airport provides a practical model where the Port Stephens and
Newcastle councils formed a company limited by guarantee. Newcastle Airport
Limited is controlled by a Board of Directors and provides independent
management for the airport. It is formed under legislation which requires the
company to be non-profit making and return all revenues to fund airport
maintenance and operating expenses. Other examples of airports that have
adopted this model include Gladstone (Gladstone/Calliope councils) and
Warnambool.
A Board of Directors could comprise Councillors, business leaders, council
technical or planning staff, a representative of airport tenants/users and possibly
an airport technical advisor.
At Mount Gambier, the obvious public sector partner for Council would be Mount
Gambier City Council; however given the regional significance of the airport other
councils may be interested in taking a minority stake. Local government bodies,
by their nature, are likely to be limited in the extent to which they can invest in an
airport. This model may, therefore, be of limited benefit in raising capital for
development works.
- 43 -
8.0
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are made with regard to the development of Mount
Gambier and District airport over the next 15 years. The recommendations are presented
in the order in which they occur in the main body of this report.
i)
Runway 18/36 should be retained as the main runway at Mount Gambier.
ii)
Land should be safeguarded to permit the extension of Runway 06/24 should it
be required.
iii) All three runways should be retained to permit general aviation operations for the
immediate future. The upkeep of Runway 11/29 should be reviewed based on
future maintenance costs and revenue attributable to GA operations.
iv) Land should be safeguarded to the north and south of Runway 18/36 for future
extension, as shown on Drawing A01537-A-003.
v)
The existing length of Runway 18/36 should be strengthened to achieve a PCN of
20 as soon as practicable. Taxiways and aprons should be progressively
strengthened to the same standard as and when the opportunity arises. Further
pavement investigation should be commissioned as a matter of urgency to
determine the options for achieving this.
vi) Land should be safeguarded adjacent the RPT and GA aprons for future
expansion, as indicated on Drawing A01537-A-004.
vii) A detailed study should be undertaken as a matter of urgency to determine the
optimum solution for the provision of future terminal facility requirements at Mount
Gambier airport.
viii) Areas to the north and west of the existing car park should be reserved for
additional car parking in the short- and long-term respectively, as indicated on
Drawing A05137-004.
ix) Car rental facilities should be consolidated into the area to the north-east of the
car park as the opportunity arises to relocate individual facilities, as indicated on
Drawing A01537-A-004.
x)
All non-RPT aviation facilities should be consolidated into a general aviation
precinct to the north-east of the existing fuel facility and GA apron, as indicated
on Drawings A01537-A-003 and 004.
xi) It is recommended that land be safeguarded for an additional or alternative
access route into the terminal precinct, as shown on Drawings A05137-A-003
and 004.
- 44 -
xii) Comprehensive plans should be prepared showing the obstacle limitation
surfaces associated with the future runway layout.
xiii) A new ANEF reflecting forecast aircraft movements for the next 15 years should
be prepared.
xiv) The aeronautical charging structure currently applied should be reviewed to
consider the level of the passenger levy and the possible benefits of alternative
pricing strategies.
xv) It is recommended that further study be undertaken to determine the viability of
attracting various aviation related and non-aviation related business to establish
at the airport.
xvi) Surplus land should not be sold to raise capital at this stage.
In particular, the following elements of further work are strongly encouraged, in order to
inform Council’s decision-making about how best to proceed with the implementation of
this Strategic Plan.
1. Further pavement investigation should be commissioned to allow a suitable strategy for
the attainment of the required pavement strength to be determined.
2. A detailed study to determine the optimum solution for provision of future terminal
facilities should be undertaken, as the selected location for the terminal facilities will
significantly influence the ultimate land-use plan for the airport site.
3. Further study into the economic viability of attracting various types of business to the
airport is required to determine a strategy for the development of the land identified as
suitable for commercial activities.
Until such time as this further study indicates otherwise, land on the airport site should be
safeguarded in accordance with this Strategic Plan.
- 45 -
APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
Consultation with stakeholders was undertaken during a visit to Mount Gambier from 6 – 8
February 2006, or subsequently by telephone. The following stakeholders have provided
input to the development of this Strategic Plan:
District Council of Grant Airport Reference Group
Mr David Herbert
Mayor Don Pegler
Cr Tom Megaw
Mr Nick Styles
Mr Leigh O’Connor
Mr Grant King
Mr Peter Abbott
Mr Chris Nelson
Mr Russell Peate
Chairman, Airport Management Committee
Mayor of the District Council of Grant
Airport Portfolio Holder
Rex Airlines Representative
O’Connor Airlines Representative
CEO, Limestone Coast Regional Development Board
Regional Marketing Manager, Limestone Coast Tourism
Airport Manager
CEO, District Council of Grant
Mount Gambier City Council
Mr Greg Muller
CEO, Mount Gambier City Council
Travel Agents & Rex Ground Handling Agent
Mr Michael Brooksby
Manager, B & P Travelworld
Rental Car Companies
Avis Rental Car Representative
Mount Gambier Chamber of Commerce
Mr Graeme Gilbertson
President
Limestone Coast Regional Development Board
Mr Grant King
Chairman
Airline Employees
O’Connor Airlines check-in staff
O’Connor Airlines baggage handling staff
- 46 -
APPENDIX B: DRAWINGS
A01537-A-001
Location Plan
A05137-A-002
Existing Layout
A05137-A-003
Future Land Use
A05137-A-004
Terminal Precinct
A05137-A-005
Alt. Future Land Use
A05137-A-006
Alternative RPT Terminal Precinct
- 47 -

rehbein aos - District Council of Grant

Transcription

Similar documents

Kuala Lumpur International Airport

AIRMAN`S INFORMATiON MANUAL

7851 Horan Wall Perspex Posters3.indd

brochure - Aliserio – Bizjet Maintenance

Dining becomes an elevated experience as high

Travel Advisor - Lamberg Seminars

Road Closure - Oregon International Air Show

Airport Open House

The Highlights Read the Highlights

Preflight Airport Parking