Mactan-Cebu International Airport To Refuse Entry Of New Flights Pending Rehab

[Geoff Thomas]

Great for business in the future when all this go's ahead. Glad I am in the real estate sector!

http://business.inquirer.net/109763/mactan-cebu-international-airport-to-refuse-entry-of-new-flights-pending-rehab

[Bruce]

I am not too sure about that. Better to place an online ad for new management  and make it a requirement that can work under pressure and not whine so much. If the facility is / will expand and there are flights now wanting to set up a schedule, the hire now / added ground staff  to meet that need NOW rather than wait for the new buildings.  

 

Once the current whiners, I mean management are aware of the ad, maybe they will try to work around the issue. Look on line at OHare or the Hong Kong airports. Sure they are bigger with many more  building, BUT they are also 50x time busier!  

 

Send the management a letter form the civil air people saying 'Sorry to get your resignations, but we wich you well in your future endeavors'....

 

It is NOT a good business plan to turn away more flights. Adapt and hire more staff as you will be getting more fees anyway.  

[i am bob]

What's the problem?  The airport ramps are loaded between 10 am and 2 pm and don't have room for any more aircraft to board / dump passengers.  The management asked that any new flights to come to the airport should be booked to arrive before the 10 am slot or after the 2 pm slot.  Sounds fine to me.  Not everybody can have the prime time of flight slots.

 

:attention:

[Bruce]

What's the problem?  The airport ramps are loaded between 10 am and 2 pm and don't have room for any more aircraft to board / dump passengers.  The management asked that any new flights to come to the airport should be booked to arrive before the 10 am slot or after the 2 pm slot.  Sounds fine to me.  Not everybody can have the prime time of flight slots.

 

:attention:

 

Ramps? What ramps, they already load and unload on the tarmac when the ramps are full. By refusing landings of more planes between 10-2, that upsets the schedule or potential schedule for other airports (and travelers) all over the Philippines.

 

If the traffic is available, then more fees are there for the taking... hire more ground support people and then all the extra planes can land. Means more MONEY for the airport. 

[Dave Hounddriver]

The way the building is being used is inefficient.  As Bruce said, they need to learn from a bigger airport.  Throwing money at the problem will not work, but it is the Philippine way, provided it is someone else's money.

[Call me bubba]

Great for business in the future when all this go's ahead. Glad I am in the real estate sector!

 

http://business.inquirer.net/109763/mactan-cebu-international-airport-to-refuse-entry-of-new-flights-pending-rehab

thanks for the link, sometimes some of our connections are really slow or its the server, here is the story posted from the link..

 

GREAT STORY START, 

 

MANILA, Philippines—Like its bigger brother the Ninoy Aquino

International Airport (NAIA) in Manila, the Mactan-Cebu International

Airport (MCIA) is now refusing the entry of new flights pending

improvements in its outdated facilities.

 

In a letter to the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), the MCIA

Authority (MCIAA) asked for the deferral in the approval of all new

flights during peak times due to limited space at the airport’s

passenger terminal.

 

“The MCIA Authority (MCIAA) as an operator of an aerodrome

catering to both domestic and international flights would like to

respectfully inform your office that the international passenger

terminal is currently experiencing congestion due to limited facilities

enabling to handle more flights,” MCIAA General Manager Nigel Paul

Villarete said.

He added that this congestion would reach its peak between 10

p.m. and 2 a.m. every day—which is when the departures and arrivals of

most budget airlines are scheduled.

 

“Due to heavy congestion of flights, it is respectfully requested

that applications or requests to operate an international flight,

whether charter or regular…,

between the hours of 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. be

deferred,” Villarete said.

 

Villarete’s letter, a copy of which was obtained by the

Philippine Daily Inquirer, was addressed to CAB Executive Director

Carmelo Arcilla and dated January 28.

Villarete asked that the approval for new international flights

be deferred until the completion of all works to expand the existing

MCIA passenger terminal.

The expansion of the current terminal building is the first phase

of the P17.5-billion public-private partnership (PPP) project for the

development and operation of MCIA currently being bid out by the

Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC).

The existing MCIA terminal houses both domestic and international

operations and has an annual capacity of 4.5 million passengers.

Passenger traffic reached 6.77 million passengers last year.

The DOTC is currently bidding out the contract for the expansion, and operations and maintenance of the MCIA.

 

A total of 11 companies have bought

pre-qualification documents for the Cebu airport project. These include

Metro Pacific Investments Corp., JG Summit Holdings Inc.,

Aboitiz Land

Inc., Filinvest Development Corp. and Filinvest Land Inc., Macroasia

Corp., San Miguel Corp., Prime Power Holdings Corp.

, Megawide, GMR

Infrastructure, First Philippine Holdings Corp. and SM Investments Corp.

 

According to DOTC, MCIA is the second-most

important airport in the Philippines in terms of passenger traffic

catering to both the industrial and tourism sectors.

Several conglomerates have already

announced plans to form joint ventures that will take on the project.

This week, Manuel V. Pangilinan’s Metro Pacific Investments Corp. and

the Gokongwei family’s JG Summit Holdings formalized a deal for the

eventual creation of a consortium to bid for the MCIA project.

 

Conglomerate Ayala Corp. has also announced a partnership with Cebu’s Aboitiz family to pursue the project.

The first phase involves the expansion of

the current terminal to allow it to handle 8 million passengers a year. A

second terminal will then be built to cater to another 8 million

annually.

 

The winning bidder shall be responsible for

the operation and maintenance of the new passenger terminal and the

existing one for a concession period of 20 years. After the concession

agreement, the private partner will turn over the facility and its

operation to the government.

[i am bob]

ok, a little quick check and I see that the airport can handle 13 wide-bodied or 29 smaller bodied aircraft at a time - or a combination of such.  Reason for the limit on numbers?  Not because of where they can park but weight.  Stress of more aircraft would cause everything to collapse and sink into the ground.  You see - there's a lot more that goes into an airport than you think.  I learned all about this fun in hard numbers trying to figure out where and how far apart to put aircraft for our airshow in Halifax back in my airforce days. It's called weight restrictions and stress planning.  For Mactan, I was able to find out what the handling levels were on the main airport page.  I then looked up some engineering data that showed max tolerances and voila - no more aircraft.  Also remember - there is only one runway so you can't have an aircraft take off and then another take off right behind it or you end up with number 2 doing a number 2 as it approaches the ground.  There has to be a set time to allow for turbulence to settle out for all weather conditions.  And of course, landings as well.  So this will affect your numbers as well.  And then there's the other 550 million other things that people don't know about that affect things.

 

If the airport looks organised while you are sitting on-board, that is probably the ground control not handling their job very smoothly or aircrew who can't read a clock to make their time slot properly.  And I"m not saying the airport couldn't do a better job, I just saying that there are often reasons people don't know about that cause them to complain.

[i am bob]

Hopefully they will plan on a multi-directional dual runway and build a much higher stess-capable and multiple or vastly extended inner ramp sequence, thus allowing for multi or extended terminals and boarding ramps  This would keep the airport operating and allow for minimal upgrades required for many many years.  Kind of like building with Lego - need it bigger?  Add more blocks!

[Bruce]

ok, a little quick check and I see that the airport can handle 13 wide-bodied or 29 smaller bodied aircraft at a time - or a combination of such.  Reason for the limit on numbers?  Not because of where they can park but weight.  Stress of more aircraft would cause everything to collapse and sink into the ground.  You see - there's a lot more that goes into an airport than you think.  I learned all about this fun in hard numbers trying to figure out where and how far apart to put aircraft for our airshow in Halifax back in my airforce days. It's called weight restrictions and stress planning.  For Mactan, I was able to find out what the handling levels were on the main airport page.  I then looked up some engineering data that showed max tolerances and voila - no more aircraft.  Also remember - there is only one runway so you can't have an aircraft take off and then another take off right behind it or you end up with number 2 doing a number 2 as it approaches the ground.  There has to be a set time to allow for turbulence to settle out for all weather conditions.  And of course, landings as well.  So this will affect your numbers as well.  And then there's the other 550 million other things that people don't know about that affect things.

 

If the airport looks organised while you are sitting on-board, that is probably the ground control not handling their job very smoothly or aircrew who can't read a clock to make their time slot properly.  And I"m not saying the airport couldn't do a better job, I just saying that there are often reasons people don't know about that cause them to complain.

 

 

AH HA! Now I see your pattern. You sir! Are a paid professional witness that sells your opinion to the highest bidder. Like  a doctor who does not actually practice medicine, but instead, advertizes himself an an 'expert witness'  in legal news papers looking for paying cilents!

 

Now Doctor, let me see if I understand.... The surgeon sitting over there at the defendant's table, operated on the WRONG LEG and is being sued for malpractice. And it is your position that the surgeon did NOTHING wrong? Because he, in your words, by operating on the wrong leg, prevented the same issues as affecting the leg the surgeon was supposed to operate on from happening in the leg he did operate on? Just how much are you being paid to say this opinion of yours?

 

OK, as far as I see it, the airport personel are still looking for a lighter work load! :hystery: Your weight issues for the runway are 1st world thinking and beyond their excuse manufacturing level. But they like your ideas! They just want to work less.... and a lot of the planes are not wide body planes and not international flights. As for turbulance... I like a bumpy ride! (insert Jake's joke HERE)  

Edited February 27, 2013 by Bruce

[i am bob]

ok, a little quick check and I see that the airport can handle 13 wide-bodied or 29 smaller bodied aircraft at a time - or a combination of such.  Reason for the limit on numbers?  Not because of where they can park but weight.  Stress of more aircraft would cause everything to collapse and sink into the ground.  You see - there's a lot more that goes into an airport than you think.  I learned all about this fun in hard numbers trying to figure out where and how far apart to put aircraft for our airshow in Halifax back in my airforce days. It's called weight restrictions and stress planning.  For Mactan, I was able to find out what the handling levels were on the main airport page.  I then looked up some engineering data that showed max tolerances and voila - no more aircraft.  Also remember - there is only one runway so you can't have an aircraft take off and then another take off right behind it or you end up with number 2 doing a number 2 as it approaches the ground.  There has to be a set time to allow for turbulence to settle out for all weather conditions.  And of course, landings as well.  So this will affect your numbers as well.  And then there's the other 550 million other things that people don't know about that affect things.

 

If the airport looks organised while you are sitting on-board, that is probably the ground control not handling their job very smoothly or aircrew who can't read a clock to make their time slot properly.  And I"m not saying the airport couldn't do a better job, I just saying that there are often reasons people don't know about that cause them to complain.

 

 

AH HA! Now I see your pattern. You sir! Ar a paid professional witness that sells your opinion to the highest bidder. Like  a doctor who does not actually practice medicine, but instead, advertizes himself an an 'expert witness'  in legal news papers looking for paying cilents!

 

Now Doctor, let me see if I understand.... The surgeon sitting over there at the defendant's table, operated on the WRONG LEG and is being sued for malpractice. And it is your position that the surgeon did NOTHING wrong? Because he, in your words, by operating on the wrong leg, prevented the same issues as affecting the leg the surgeon was supposed to operate on from happening in the leg he did operate on? Just how much are you being paid to say this opinion of yours?

 

OK, as far as I see it, the airport personel are still looking for a lighter work load! :hystery: Your weight issues for the runway are 1st world thinking and beyond their excuse manufacturing level. But they like your ideas! They just want to work less.... and a lot of the planes are not wide body planes and not international flights. As for turbulance... I like a bumpy ride! (insert Jake's joke HERE)  

If only I could get paid for the vast quantities of useless knowledge I possess...   :mocking:

 

Seriously, the biggest restrictions on airports are not staffing or terminal sizes but the weight the airfield can actually handle.  This airport really should have been built stronger but then they probably weren't expecting to be handling this much volume so soon.  In my opinion, they really should look at building a bigger airport with a projected volume increase of at least 600% in order to properly engineer in the weight of the aircraft coming in the next 20 years or so.  Which would be about the time they will probably be breaking ground on one.  In the meantime, they can expand the terminals but the ramps and runways themselves will most likely end up dissolving into dust and need replacing.