A Tale of Two Airports
No, I have never read the Charles Dickens classic "A Tale of Two Cities" but that obviously has not prevented me from adopting its title for this blog post. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, we can talk about this article.
The article notes that:
"It has been eight years since the location of the new airport has been known; in all that time the state government of Karnataka state -- of which Bangalore is the capital -- didn't bother to build an expressway.
The airport in its first year will be operating at 12.5 million passengers, 1.5 million more than its official capacity of 11 million. In its first year!!! What does Mr. Brunner have to say?
"The existing runway can handle 20 million passengers a year, he says, compared with the 12.5 million expected in the first year of operations."
The existing runway can handle 20 million passengers a year only if one continues the uniquely Indian practice of operating an airport 24 hours a day! The reason we have a new, larger airport is because we didn't want to have to show up at the airport for flights departing at 2:05 a.m. as we did at the old airport because it was too small to handle all the traffic in daylight hours.
Let's look at Mr. Brunner's home airport, the Zurich Airport, which Bangalore's new airport was supposed to be modeled on. In 2007, Zurich Airport handled 20.7 million passengers. By Mr. Brunner's assessment, it should have one runway, right, with expansion work being undertaken on a second runway? Wrong!!! Zurich Airport has three runways, which is the requisite amount for an airport of that size.
What about some other airports? Sacramento International Airport handles about 11 million passengers and has two runways, as Bangalore should have had. In neighboring China, Chongqing International Airport, for example, handled 10.35 million passengers in 2007. Though possessing one runway, after crossing the figure of 10 million passengers, the airport is about commence on a second and third runway to handle the increased air traffic.
In Bangalore, a second runway is not even planned for the immediate future and Albert Brunner seems perfectly happy to allow Bangaloreans to continue going to the airport at odd hours of the night to catch their flights and pay exorbitant "user-development fees" in the process. Hence, the litigation in the courts to keep the old airport open.
Siemens and the other private companies contend that the government agreed to give them a monopoly on an airport in the Bangalore area. Yes, that's true and the government should have given them a monopoly if they had provided a quality product. Instead, they have provided Bangalore a shoddy, third-class product that is under capacity. Clearly, the situation has changed and the courts should decree the original contract null and void and resume operations at the old airport in the public interest, which should be paramount in any democracy. Maybe some good old fashioned, capitalist competition is what is needed to get Brunner and his ilk to get to it and provide the airport that Bangaloreans deserve!
P.S. Did I mention the airport was a shoddy, third-class product? Click to read, this is a different article!
The article notes that:
"It has been eight years since the location of the new airport has been known; in all that time the state government of Karnataka state -- of which Bangalore is the capital -- didn't bother to build an expressway.
The net result is this: A software engineer working in Electronic City on Bangalore's outskirts may end up spending three hours on the road to catch a one-hour flight to another destination within India.
That, more than anything else, is why frequent fliers of Bangalore are feeling cheated with an airport they have eagerly awaited for so many years."
Yes, the lack of a proper expressway is a significant grumbling point for many Bangaloreans, but Albert Brunner and his thieving business partners would be sorely mistaken if they think that's the only thing that ails the airport. After promising Bangalore the sky (or at least an airport modeled on that of Zurich, Switzerland), these con-artists have done a number on Bangalore that's truly impressive. To con India, well known for producing illustrious con-artists, so thoroughly is no small feat by any yardstick.The airport in its first year will be operating at 12.5 million passengers, 1.5 million more than its official capacity of 11 million. In its first year!!! What does Mr. Brunner have to say?
"The existing runway can handle 20 million passengers a year, he says, compared with the 12.5 million expected in the first year of operations."
The existing runway can handle 20 million passengers a year only if one continues the uniquely Indian practice of operating an airport 24 hours a day! The reason we have a new, larger airport is because we didn't want to have to show up at the airport for flights departing at 2:05 a.m. as we did at the old airport because it was too small to handle all the traffic in daylight hours.
Let's look at Mr. Brunner's home airport, the Zurich Airport, which Bangalore's new airport was supposed to be modeled on. In 2007, Zurich Airport handled 20.7 million passengers. By Mr. Brunner's assessment, it should have one runway, right, with expansion work being undertaken on a second runway? Wrong!!! Zurich Airport has three runways, which is the requisite amount for an airport of that size.
What about some other airports? Sacramento International Airport handles about 11 million passengers and has two runways, as Bangalore should have had. In neighboring China, Chongqing International Airport, for example, handled 10.35 million passengers in 2007. Though possessing one runway, after crossing the figure of 10 million passengers, the airport is about commence on a second and third runway to handle the increased air traffic.
In Bangalore, a second runway is not even planned for the immediate future and Albert Brunner seems perfectly happy to allow Bangaloreans to continue going to the airport at odd hours of the night to catch their flights and pay exorbitant "user-development fees" in the process. Hence, the litigation in the courts to keep the old airport open.
Siemens and the other private companies contend that the government agreed to give them a monopoly on an airport in the Bangalore area. Yes, that's true and the government should have given them a monopoly if they had provided a quality product. Instead, they have provided Bangalore a shoddy, third-class product that is under capacity. Clearly, the situation has changed and the courts should decree the original contract null and void and resume operations at the old airport in the public interest, which should be paramount in any democracy. Maybe some good old fashioned, capitalist competition is what is needed to get Brunner and his ilk to get to it and provide the airport that Bangaloreans deserve!
P.S. Did I mention the airport was a shoddy, third-class product? Click to read, this is a different article!
posted by Vivek at 9:38 PM
1 Comments:
In the Bloomberg article however, Brunner states that plans for a second runway are set. The promoters have little incentive in trying to stifle traffic. The more traffic they have, the more their revenue. So a second runway is only a matter of time.
Post a Comment
<< Home