- Page 1
- Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5 - Page 6 - Page 7 - Page 8 - Page 9 - Page 10 - Page 11 - Page 12 - Page 13 - Page 14 - Page 15 - Page 16 - Page 17 - Page 18 - Page 19 - Page 20 - Page 21 - Page 22 - Page 23 - Page 24 - Page 25 - Page 26 - Page 27 - Page 28 - Page 29 - Page 30 - Page 31 - Page 32 - Page 33 - Page 34 - Page 35 - Page 36 - Page 37 - Page 38 - Page 39 - Page 40 - Page 41 - Page 42 - Page 43 - Page 44 - Page 45 - Page 46 - Page 47 - Page 48 - Page 49 - Page 50 - Page 51 - Page 52 - Page 53 - Page 54 - Page 55 - Page 56 - Page 57 - Page 58 - Page 59 - Page 60 - Page 61 - Page 62 - Page 63 - Page 64 - Flash version © UniFlip.com |
traffic may gradually replace the relatively lower yield transit/ transfer traffic. All these would eventually render Hong Kong a less attractive place for transit/ transfer traffic to hub through; (c) When the runway is operating to its limits, there will be less flexibility to cope with operational delays or disruptions due to weather or other unforeseen incidents. This will invariably lead to longer flight delay and deterioration of the overall airport experience; (d) Should all of the above happen, travellers who wish to use HKIA would be pushed to consider using other neighbouring airports that provide services they need, resulting in considerable inconvenience for travellers as a whole; and
(e) In the wider context, when HKIA is saturated, the growth of our hub airport would be halted and the economic benefits for Hong Kong associated with that potential growth would be lost. Hong Kong’s overall competitiveness in terms of its position as an international business centre would be adversely affected. Hong Kong’s market share across the whole spectrum of the logistics industry, including freight forwarding and insurance, would shrink as we lose our edge to other airports with increasing connectivity. In this respect, Option 2 has a clear advantage over Option 1 as the runway capacity of a three-runway system would be able to meet Hong Kong’s unconstrained traffic demand up to and possibly beyond
2030. Option 2 would ensure that our connectivity is maintained and developed in line with demand. Failure to do so would result in our connectivity being eroded over time relative to other neighbouring or regional airports with expansion plans. Adopting Option 1 now and then reverting to Option 2 at a later stage is not a viable proposition. Firstly, it would be very wasteful as part of the infrastructure built under Option 1 would have to be taken down to make way for a different airport layout under Option 2. Secondly, due to the long lead time required to implement Option 2, any substantial delay in implementing that option will mean that the capacity of HKIA would be exhausted before the third runway is built. During that period, traffic may be lost to other airports with increasing connectivity and,
7
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO OPTIONS
HKIA MASTER PLAN 2030
39
|