I'm not a fan of the argument that WLG should not get a runway extension because,
currently, no long-haul airlines have been petitioning for this. Could you imagine if airports around the world waited to start building infrastructure, until there were commitments and/or expressions of interest for its use? That's what AKL looks like, and it's a total mess. All investment requires an element of risk - IMO, if the investor is not willing to burden a risk, then he/she should not be entitled to reap the benefits, should the investment succeed.
Aside from the very obvious safety-related benefits of the runway extension, IMO, it's extremely naive to suggest that if the extension is secured, it's highly unlikely that at least a few long-haul carriers would make use of it in the 2020's or 2030's. Look at AKL - 15 years ago, would you have imagined that we would have flights to DOH, IAH, ORD, CTU, CKG, SZX and/or XIY? Or at CHC - would you have imagined that it would have flights to CAN, TPE, DXB and/or HKG? Markets change - it's about showing some foresight and vision!
We should note that:
1. WLG, though not big, has potential - SQ flies there (yes, with a subsidy), and it has more demand to China than the likes of CBR.
2. Earlier in May, SQ said that "
the airline has recorded double digit growth on the number of passengers travelling to SIN from WLG."
3. Many airlines are already at 2x daily AKL / 1x daily CHC services, like CZ and EK - these carriers could be enticed to use WLG.
4. Regulatory bodies (or the threat of them) can be a tool to facilitate use of secondary airports, as occurred with CX / NZ at CHC.
5. Non-stop flights stimulate demand that wasn't previously there - e.g. when NZ launched AKL - IAH, Texan tourist arrivals doubled.
6. The economics of long-haul flights to WLG will only get better, with new technology coming online, like more fuel-efficient aircraft.
Notably, on point 3. above, IMO, the following airlines and routes to WLG are just some of the very possible contenders, in 10 years:
EK (
on DXB - Australia - WLG):
EK has said its relationship with QF may die down, as QF by-passes DXB with the likes of PER / SYD / MEL - LHR / CDG / FRA. As such, restraint on a BNE / SYD / MEL / SIN - WLG service would be reduced, allowing EK to better tap European - WLG demand, and challenge SQ's European - Australasian positioning.
CZ (
on CAN - WLG):
As the dominant player in Chinese traffic to Australasia, and already being strong at AKL and CHC (with multiple daily seasonal frequencies), as well as with the right-sized 788, CZ could take advantage of WLG having the second highest un-met non-stop demand to China from Oceania, and tap European traffic too.
SQ (
on SIN - WLG):
SQ is already reporting strong growth ex-WLG to SIN (at a double-digit rate), which naturally, in 10 years, could lead to enough support for non-stop SIN - WLG flights. This would be in line with SQ's strategy of dominating the Australasian end of its Kangaroo route offering, with the likes of CBR, CHC, CNS and DRW too.
I don't feel strongly one way or the other about who should fund the extension, or even whether the extension should and will go ahead, but I think that we need to make better arguments than simply saying that WLG is currently "too small" or that "no long-haul airlines have shown an interest," and that therefore, the runway extension debate should end. Those don't really add anything to the debate - they don't take note of what's happened in the past in New Zealand, and what the growth trajectory and trends suggest for the future.
Cheers,
C.
] 
