IFT - Infratil

[kiora]

Wellington runway extension - who to believe with conflicting reports by presumed experts. The latest report by Ailevon Pacific Aviation Consultants was commissioned by an airlines lobby group. It slams earlier report from InterVistas. Both supposedly independent experts.

Who knows, but isn't the rule - follow the money? Auckland is the hub at the moment. It is very lucrative for them.

Yes conflicts of interest everywhere.What is best for Wellington?Likely to be other Airlines using Wellington as a hub that are not using Auckland at the moment?

[artemis]

Yes conflicts of interest everywhere.What is best for Wellington?Likely to be other Airlines using Wellington as a hub that are not using Auckland at the moment?

At the recent IFT roadshow they put up a very telling diagram showing the main hubs in the region. Auckland obviously, but Singapore is a massive hub. And sounds like that is the key target for Wellington, with recent visits there by Wellington mayor and IFT.

I don't know enough to have a strong opinion either way, but IFT are no slugs and as a shareholder I'd be happy for them to follow the money! And as a Welly resident I would prefer not to travel via Auckland any time I want to leave the country to anywhere but Australia.

[RGR367]

I'm a shareholder too and say just build it.

[Robomo]

I'm doubtful about the economics of this Airport proposal. A few years ago Air New Zealand tried flying 747's from Los Angeles to Christchurch but this did not work and was stopped. Christchurch and the South Island Tourist industry are significanlty greater drawcards than Wellington and the lower North Island and if it can't work in Christchurch then it won't work in Wellington.

Having said that the direct China-CHC flights seem to be doing OK but no one else is coming on board.

[777]

NZ is a to small to have 3 long haul international airports. The population is the same as the city of Melbourne.

As a shareholder I hope the hell they don't waste money pursuing this.

[Harvey Specter]

NZ is a to small to have 3 long haul international airports. The population is the same as the city of Melbourne.

As a shareholder I hope the hell they don't waste money pursuing this.

Isn't that the real issue. IFT are trying to get the Council to pay for it. If they were paying for it themselves, it would just be a resource consent issue, not a funding issue.

[artemis]

Isn't that the real issue. IFT are trying to get the Council to pay for it. If they were paying for it themselves, it would just be a resource consent issue, not a funding issue.

There was an EY report a while back which set out a significant financial boost to Wellington City from the proposal.

Yep, another report ....

[winner69]

NZ is a to small to have 3 long haul international airports. The population is the same as the city of Melbourne.

As a shareholder I hope the hell they don't waste money pursuing this.

As a Wellington rate payer I hope so as well

More importantly it will destroy the iconic surfing at Lyall Bay

[see weed]

As a Wellington rate payer I hope so as well

More importantly it will destroy the iconic surfing at Lyall Bay

As long as it doesn't destroy Piha surf, who cares. I made this comment for a good reason, about the caring NZ public.

[Kelvin]

I'd much prefer IFT to continue to invest in the retirement & tech infrastructure sectors - the runway would provide next to nothing ROI for IFT.

To attract long-haul flights (e.g. a non-stop Singapore to Wellington service) the airport waives most of the landing and parking fees for the airline for the first few years. So where's the direct financial benefit to the airport? I think it would be a very long term before we see any direct financial benefit, and that's a assuming the airport does get and retain a long-haul carrier.