https://www.merkur.de/lokales/freising/ ... 71867.html

The government of Bavaria will be a coalition Between CSU and Freie Wähler (= the same with different guys). The coalition agreement states that all plans for the 3rd runway will be suspended by 5 years.

So no new runway for MUC in the next 5 years.

Michael

Good decision.
Carsten Sporh recently even said LH did not need the 3rd runway and it was not a priority at this stage. He saw the need by 2030 maybe, but in meantime MUC could instead see larger aircraft types, and increased use of rail for domestic passengers.

http://www.airliners.de/nach-bayern-wah ... chen/47249

mercure1 wrote:

Good decision.
Carsten Sporh recently even said LH did not need the 3rd runway and it was not a priority at this stage. He saw the need by 2030 maybe, but in meantime MUC could instead see larger aircraft types, and increased use of rail for domestic passengers.

....gonna be funny when "5yrs" turns into 25

What is with Europe not expanding? The hub waves at MUC are full with only non-prime time slots available.
The new IST and the ME3 thank the Nimby of MUC.
MUC needs that runway to remain the regional hub that it is. Bummer it isn't happening.

Out of curiosity, besides the new IST, what European airports have the room to grow to take the growth MUC is throwing away? WIE? ZUR?
MXP could, but it needs the local competition shut down to boost the O&D feed.

Lightsaber

Why must everything always point to expansion ?

From what I have read every political party except one is against the runway, and citizens even voted against the runway in 2012 but yet after legal wrangling some politicians ignored this and greenlighted the project in 2015.

UPlog wrote:

Why must everything always point to expansion ?

From what I have read every political party except one is against the runway, and citizens even voted against the runway in 2012 but yet after legal wrangling some politicians ignored this and greenlighted the project in 2015.

It is called competition. If you don't expand your capacity someone else will take your market share. That someone in this case is Turkey/Turkish Airlines.

If you don't care about lost jobs and lost revenue and economic damage then there is no need to expand. But Turkey is expanding in a major way and will have the capacity to offer more and better connections that COULD have been handled in MUC. But they likely won't.

As long as the world is predominantly capitalist there will be a winner and many losers in these expansion games.

UPlog wrote:

Why must everything always point to expansion ?

From what I have read every political party except one is against the runway, and citizens even voted against the runway in 2012 but yet after legal wrangling some politicians ignored this and greenlighted the project in 2015.

Because people keep having too many kids.

Maybe communities don't want more traffic, pollution, noise, or general activity and congestion, be it more residents living there or things like rising housing cost, especially in a dense place like Europe?

Just like here in the US, I have long supported local zoning laws rights and letting local communities decide their fate, be it if they want a movie theatre, power plant, airport, office building or a mall in their area.

Anyhow, much of the short distance travel should be via rial instead (as even Mr. Sporh an airline chief) suggest.

The greens are making inroads in elections in Germany at the moment. Last time that happened Germany shut down its nuclear power plants, burning more dirty coal instead.

lightsaber wrote:

What is with Europe not expanding? The hub waves at MUC are full with only non-prime time slots available.
The new IST and the ME3 thank the Nimby of MUC.
MUC needs that runway to remain the regional hub that it is. Bummer it isn't happening.

Out of curiosity, besides the new IST, what European airports have the room to grow to take the growth MUC is throwing away? WIE? ZUR?
MXP could, but it needs the local competition shut down to boost the O&D feed.

Lightsaber

Although not being ideally located to substitute to MUC, Paris-CDG has enough available runway capacity for a 50% increase in aircraft operations beyond the current 470 000. This is the reason why a new terminal 4 is at planning stage.

lightsaber wrote:

What is with Europe not expanding? The hub waves at MUC are full with only non-prime time slots available.
The new IST and the ME3 thank the Nimby of MUC.
MUC needs that runway to remain the regional hub that it is. Bummer it isn't happening.

Out of curiosity, besides the new IST, what European airports have the room to grow to take the growth MUC is throwing away? WIE? ZUR?
MXP could, but it needs the local competition shut down to boost the O&D feed.

Lightsaber

Why should Europe expand and where else in developed (fully built) world are airports expanding?

For most pax, IST is no competitor for MUC, neither ME. Those are niche markets.

From European perspective, MUC has enough capacity. Unless there are weather restrictions that will require cross runways, two should be enough.

What is wrong with WIE, ZRH, STR, CGN, LYS, MXP, BSL ...? Overbuilding certain hub airports is like state support to flag carriers.

Last time I was in MUC there was no HST from the airport station, not even express train to the city center. Are there even plans for that? Germany and Europe have lots of unrealised potential for ecological ground transport (if Germans just could produce low-emission electricity).

Aesma wrote:

The greens are making inroads in elections in Germany at the moment. Last time that happened Germany shut down its nuclear power plants, burning more dirty coal instead.

Yes, quite the irony. It's just another strain of populism.

But with regards to Munich Airport, I believe that the FW has been against the project for some time, and it's probably a fairly easy thing for the CSU to give up (especially as public opinion seems to be against it). Let's just hope this doesn't turn into a repeat of the mess at London Heathrow.

Aesma wrote:

The greens are making inroads in elections in Germany at the moment. Last time that happened Germany shut down its nuclear power plants, burning more dirty coal instead.

Please provide a source for your statement. Yes, the greens did get more votes in some recent elections. But the rest is complete BS. Feel free to prove me wrong.
If you like here you can download a detailed report from Umweltbundesamt (German Federal Environmental Agency) about the electricty production in Germany in the years 1990 to 2017. Sorry, German only. The diagramm Abb. 3 on Page 19 gives a nice picture. In short: The overall amount grew and the production from nuclear power plants fell. But also the energy production from coal dropped. This and the growth in production was offset by production from renewable sources.

Maybe it makes sense environmentally and economically to realise a growth by better using existing ressouces? E.g. use the full capacity of the existing runways before you build a new one?

Edit: Years corrected.

osiris30 wrote:

UPlog wrote:

Why must everything always point to expansion ?

From what I have read every political party except one is against the runway, and citizens even voted against the runway in 2012 but yet after legal wrangling some politicians ignored this and greenlighted the project in 2015.

It is called competition. If you don't expand your capacity someone else will take your market share. That someone in this case is Turkey/Turkish Airlines.

If you don't care about lost jobs and lost revenue and economic damage then there is no need to expand. But Turkey is expanding in a major way and will have the capacity to offer more and better connections that COULD have been handled in MUC. But they likely won't.

As long as the world is predominantly capitalist there will be a winner and many losers in these expansion games.

I would love to be able to use LH or OS to travel between Texas and Ukraine. It's only practical to use them to fly to Kyiv. To fly to other other cities requires double connecting in Europe via Kyiv or having at least one direction of travel be 30 to 40 hours. Turkish Airlines allows flying to or from the US with a connection time of only 2-3 hours with a total travel time of 16 to 18 hours at a lower ticket price. I don't particularly like spending money helping Erdogan's economy, but the airlines with hubs to the west don't make it easy to use them instead.

No new runways, increased slot restrictions at busy airports yet increasing demand and desired expansion must all surely be good news for future A380 sales.

YIMBY wrote:

Last time I was in MUC there was no HST from the airport station, not even express train to the city center. Are there even plans for that? Germany and Europe have lots of unrealised potential for ecological ground transport (if Germans just could produce low-emission electricity).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erding_Ring_Closure

There are plans to extend the train connection to the east and provide regional train service. However that will not help with regards to the runway capacity. It's not like in FRA where the opening of the HST station triggered the shutdown of routes like FRA-CGN

KLDC10 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The greens are making inroads in elections in Germany at the moment. Last time that happened Germany shut down its nuclear power plants, burning more dirty coal instead.

Yes, quite the irony. It's just another strain of populism.

Ironically, it's also wrong.

Germany's nuclear plants haven't been shut down, only some. There's an exit strategy for the remaining plants until 2033.

This was mainly an effort by the CDU under Merkel in the wake of Fukushima. It has very little to do with the Greens.

What is true is that we're burning more coal right now, which is stupid as hell, but another subject in itself.

lightsaber wrote:

What is with Europe not expanding? The hub waves at MUC are full with only non-prime time slots available.
The new IST and the ME3 thank the Nimby of MUC.
MUC needs that runway to remain the regional hub that it is. Bummer it isn't happening.

Out of curiosity, besides the new IST, what European airports have the room to grow to take the growth MUC is throwing away? WIE? ZUR?
MXP could, but it needs the local competition shut down to boost the O&D feed.

Lightsaber

I would also add ATH to the list. Aegean might not be such a big player but they are growing each year and are adding destinations both in Europe and the Middle East.

Their fleet is quite impressive:

A319 x1
A320 x37
A321 x11
Q400 x8
Q100 x2
Atr-72 x2

This year alone they added three A321 to their fleet.

MassAppeal wrote:

Because people keep having too many kids.

not in Europe.
without refugee influx the population contracts.

ei146 wrote:

Maybe it makes sense environmentally and economically to realise a growth by better using existing ressouces? E.g. use the full capacity of the existing runways before you build a new one?

With NIMBY caused curfew arrangements that path is not available.
what is available is increasing shovel size. ( HAM just got an A380 rotation.)

Carsten Spohr must have had a hard time concealing his smile when he said that LH does not need the third runway before 2030. That way he sends the competition into the holding pattern.

The third runway at MUC will come as everything that is needed. Otherwise Bavaria would not be Bavaria. IST is a competition in enabling TK to oute more Transit Pax from German regional Airports through IST new. DXB amd DOH will feel the new competition much more.

Elsewhere, FRA has about 200 K movements available, the hourly increase availability will come to thhe market slowly but surely. .

MassAppeal wrote:

UPlog wrote:

Why must everything always point to expansion ?

From what I have read every political party except one is against the runway, and citizens even voted against the runway in 2012 but yet after legal wrangling some politicians ignored this and greenlighted the project in 2015.

Because people keep having too many kids.

Not European people and certainly not German people, birth rates in Europe have been declining for decades.

How high is the tax for transfer passengers at MUC compared to some other European hubs?

The COSTS at MUC are, according to LH, are 20% lower than at FRA kf you mean that. Besides transer at MUC is more efficient than at FRA

PanHAM wrote:

The COSTS at MUC are, according to LH, are 20% lower than at FRA kf you mean that. Besides transer at MUC is more efficient than at FRA

Thank you for that but I mean in term of actual transfer fee that the passenger pays. I think FRA charges €9 per passenger.

FRA us my home Airport, I never Transfer here. But whatever extra charges there are, it's collected by the Airline with the total ticket charges and paid to Fraport.

WIederling wrote:

MassAppeal wrote:

Because people keep having too many kids.

not in Europe.
without refugee influx the population contracts.

Lots of connecting passengers.

LHR has 476.000 flight movements a year with two runways, LGW has 281.000 with only one runway,
MEX has 449.000 with two runways.

MUC currently has 405.000 movements...so a third runway can`t be that important/necessary to survive as an airport.

Not a surprise and probably the expected thing in todays reality.

Many were shocked when the project got the green light to start with against the voter's will and many politicals blockers. Today's politics might have finally turned the tide to kill off the project for good. And yes there is more that can be done with things like HSR to provide solid transport links for the region.

lightsaber wrote:

Out of curiosity, besides the new IST, what European airports have the room to grow to take the growth MUC is throwing away? WIE? ZUR?
MXP could, but it needs the local competition shut down to boost the O&D feed.

AMS has room for 2 more runways and is building a new terminal.

Seems like the rural communities around MUC are quiet opposed to the 3rd runway. LH is quiet comfortable maintaining the status quo. They have already upgauged lot of the flights to A380.

With the capacity at a stand-still, any truth in LH ordering more 380's? Afterall, the German economy shows no signs of slowing down and the growth will have to be met.

MassAppeal wrote:

UPlog wrote:

Why must everything always point to expansion ?

From what I have read every political party except one is against the runway, and citizens even voted against the runway in 2012 but yet after legal wrangling some politicians ignored this and greenlighted the project in 2015.

Because people keep having too many kids.

Ironically enough, not in Europe.

https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2017/

The magic number for population stability is 2, the number needed to maintain a zero-growth population (2 children = replacement for parents). If the overall national average is above 2, the population will grow. If it is under 2, the population will decrease.

The average in Europe is less than two almost everywhere, and demographics are changing. As an example, Turks are filling the unfilled jobs in Germany, maintaining the economy so that the elderly - a very growing segment of the population - can have their pensions. Even in the U.S., immigration accounts for the vast majority of new residents, with new births actually being less than 1% of the population growth.

I know this scares a LOT of people in the world, that their country isn't going to "look like itself" in 100 years, and a lot of ultra-Nationalism is based upon this fear.

However, in the short run, NIMBY-ism is always a popular platform on which to run for political office. A third runway? Monstrous! Can't be done! Just tell airlines to fly bigger planes! That always sounds good at a political rally, but it doesn't work out well in the long term. But political decisions and long term have become diametrically opposed opposites in the world anymore...

And there is NOTHING that will generate more political opposition than an airport. Every airport in the Los Angeles metroplex (with the exception of ONT) has NIMBY neighbors hoping and praying for the day when their airport nearby is closed and they can build houses over it. They killed El Toro, they would kill BUR, SNA, and LGB, and Carlsbad's decision to expand its runway will probably be tied up in courts for decades. Ironically enough, it's always from people who complain about noise, but in San Diego, military aircraft can be heard for dozens of miles, including directly over La Jolla and other neighborhoods - which isn't a problem. But let a United 737 MAX 8 fly within five miles of their house? The word "apocalypse" was once thrown out in discussions.

airbazar wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

Good decision.
Carsten Sporh recently even said LH did not need the 3rd runway and it was not a priority at this stage. He saw the need by 2030 maybe, but in meantime MUC could instead see larger aircraft types, and increased use of rail for domestic passengers.

http://www.airliners.de/nach-bayern-wah ... chen/47249

It's a terrible decision for the public and the local economy.
Of course LH doesn't need it. BA also doesn't need a third runway at LHR.
It keeps competition away, and fares high. In my experience, MUC is arguably the most expensive airport to fly into from the U.S. and it's all because of hte lack of competition. And since there is no alternative for LCC's to operate to since unlike London Munich doesn't have another airport, the flying public is screwed.

DominikR83 wrote:

LHR has 476.000 flight movements a year with two runways, LGW has 281.000 with only one runway,
MEX has 449.000 with two runways.

MUC currently has 405.000 movements...so a third runway can`t be that important/necessary to survive as an airport.

Doesn't MUC have a longer night time curfew and more late night restrictions?

You can be sure that if BA and LH wanted a 3rd runway at LHR and MUC respectively, it would get built. Maybe we've been doing this all wrong. Instead of pushing for a new runway we should push for legislation to force an incumbent carrier to give up slots when a competing carrier wants to start a route. We'd see how fast a new runway would et built

The irony here is that the current airport was built because expanding the old airport would not be possible both legally and politically. And here we are again So this airport was planned and designed to have 3 runways but the builders did the sensible thing which was to build it in phases where the 3rd runway would be the last phase. In hindsight they should have thrown sensibility out the window.

Except the local public has voted against it, so disregard their will.
Several posts here fail to acknowledge that.

This was a state election, not a Referendum about the third runway. The third runway Project has the building right, they have passed successfully all legal steps. It is just put on hold.

Flughafen München GmbH can Change ist legal structure from a GmbH (LLP) to AG (PLC), simply going public as Fraport did

UPlog wrote:

Maybe communities don't want more traffic, pollution, noise, or general activity and congestion, .

Yet they're unsurprisingly the same types who start whining about limited flights and high pricing. Can't with with these putzes.

jmchevallier wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

What is with Europe not expanding? The hub waves at MUC are full with only non-prime time slots available.
The new IST and the ME3 thank the Nimby of MUC.
MUC needs that runway to remain the regional hub that it is. Bummer it isn't happening.

Out of curiosity, besides the new IST, what European airports have the room to grow to take the growth MUC is throwing away? WIE? ZUR?
MXP could, but it needs the local competition shut down to boost the O&D feed.

Lightsaber

Although not being ideally located to substitute to MUC, Paris-CDG has enough available runway capacity for a 50% increase in aircraft operations beyond the current 470 000. This is the reason why a new terminal 4 is at planning stage.

Now there is growth! What Paris needs is a good connecting terminal.

Traffic will grow. It will be interesting to see where the connections go. For example, when LHR filled up too much, AMS benefited. If you cannot hub in MUC, going east IST will be a replacement. Going to the rest of Western Europe, CDG will work.

Growth will happen. It will be interesting to see where it happens.

Lightsaber

Whoever follows will have a big Agenda modernizing Germany. All big Projects here stumble through rocky roads or runways.

The third runway has been through alll public Hearings and legal instances. Citizens has their Chance to participate and finally in 2015 IIRC the runway was approved. MUC could start tomorrow, if oit wasnt for political onstruction.

The same happens with the MUC ICE Connection (I'm not up to date with the Status. But the same Greens that want People to use public Transport obstruct the Connection of the second main artery in the City. The first, which routes also the Airport Connection is full.

Well, the second artery will provide new Options for connectng the Airport and in Frankfurt a short cut west of the City will be a good Option. Connecting the MUC Airport with the HSR line to NUE will provide Options like eliminating flights between NUE and MUC. As has been done before with CGN FRA and will come once S21 is completed for STR-FRA flights.

But that also shws how Little can be diverted from air to rail, in CGN it was 4 round trips per day. That alone would not justofy a rail Connection. The Beef is diverting car traffic to rail.

Whatever, the decision to postpone R3 at MUC was stupid but politics has tno choice, they have to make the best of what voters gave them. I

DominikR83 wrote:

LHR has 476.000 flight movements a year with two runways, LGW has 281.000 with only one runway,
MEX has 449.000 with two runways.

MUC currently has 405.000 movements...so a third runway can`t be that important/necessary to survive as an airport.

MUC days are not 24h. There is a curfew from 22:00 to 6:00 with strongly limited operations.

LHR potentially promises a curfew in exchange for a third runway.
LGW has some curfew arrangement from 23:00 to 6:00.

PanHAM wrote:

Connecting the MUC Airport with the HSR line to NUE will provide Options like eliminating flights between NUE and MUC.

There are no plans to connect MUC to the long distance network. They will get regional trains once the link to Erding has been built. Don't hold your breath for an ICE connection to Nuremberg or further.

WIederling wrote:

MUC days are not 24h. There is a curfew from 22:00 to 6:00 with strongly limited operations.

LHR also doesn`t have a 24h day.
I checked it and between 22:00 and 6:00 there are approx. 45 to 50 flights arriving and departing.
Thats not that much for an airport like LHR.SO this can`t be a reason why the thirs runway is needed.
The third runway would make many things easier,but it is not really necessary to keep the airport growing.

Noshow wrote:

In Germany you can see how important high speed train links are. Frankfurt is set up perfectly within the network. If Munich can't go on with the runway they should now work on their own high speed train link.

Highs peed rail link doesn`t help that much.It would help the people to get to the airport faster but that would even lead to more growth and without 3rd runway to more problems.
Munich as a city is already perfectly integrated in the german high speed train network,so people can get quite fast to FRA airport or STR airport.

DominikR83 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

MUC days are not 24h. There is a curfew from 22:00 to 6:00 with strongly limited operations.

LHR also doesn`t have a 24h day.
I checked it and between 22:00 and 6:00 there are approx. 45 to 50 flights arriving and departing.
Thats not that much for an airport like LHR.SO this can`t be a reason why the thirs runway is needed.
The third runway would make many things easier,but it is not really necessary to keep the airport growing.

Noshow wrote:

In Germany you can see how important high speed train links are. Frankfurt is set up perfectly within the network. If Munich can't go on with the runway they should now work on their own high speed train link.

Highs peed rail link doesn`t help that much.It would help the people to get to the airport faster but that would even lead to more growth and without 3rd runway to more problems.
Munich as a city is already perfectly integrated in the german high speed train network,so people can get quite fast to FRA airport or STR airport.

The railway Munich - Stuttgart isn't yet high speed on many parts. And STR airport is (still) poorly connected to rail, about as well as MUC is. Unless you already live within the catchment area of STR, you won't use it.

Also, between LH having no interest whatsoever in secondary airports and the political pressure to keep the ME3 out of those very airports, most intercontinental traffic is funneled via MUC & FRA.

lightsaber wrote:

Growth will happen. It will be interesting to see where it happens.

Lightsaber

Not in MUC, or not as much as you'd expect:

Regional traffic is slowly declining. It also is the first to suffer from slot shortages.

Traffic within Germany will likely see more growth on rail and less in the air. The new HSR Munich - Berlin was just opened and several more tracks (some improved, some new) are coming online within the next decade.

European "domestic" flights are limited by the lack of LCC's at MUC. It's just too expensive. The attractive slots (early morning & late afternoon) are also all taken, so any further expansion will need to happen with less than ideal slots.

Long-haul could see some growth in demand. However, the most important growth markets (ME3, India, China) are already limited by the bilaterals. TATL, on the other hand, already has poor yields and probably won't see much more capacity added. Further, LH Group can easily reshuffle connecting passengers through one of their 4 (6, incl BRU & DUS) hubs. VIE & FRA have ample capacity. BER is -hopefully- opening in 2020 and LH might be interested.

airbazar wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

Good decision.
Carsten Sporh recently even said LH did not need the 3rd runway and it was not a priority at this stage. He saw the need by 2030 maybe, but in meantime MUC could instead see larger aircraft types, and increased use of rail for domestic passengers.

http://www.airliners.de/nach-bayern-wah ... chen/47249

It's a terrible decision for the public and the local economy.
Of course LH doesn't need it. BA also doesn't need a third runway at LHR.
It keeps competition away, and fares high. In my experience, MUC is arguably the most expensive airport to fly into from the U.S. and it's all because of hte lack of competition. And since there is no alternative for LCC's to operate to since unlike London Munich doesn't have another airport, the flying public is screwed.

Well, there is Memmingen airport which seems to be quite popular with Wizz Air, Pobeda and Ryanair. The airport is some 115 km away and last year it handled 1.179.000 passengers.