Topic Author
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:54 pm

Runway 12/30 at Málaga-Costa del Sol (AGP)

Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:30 pm

Last week I flew EasyJet from AGP to SXF and was surprised that we took off from runway 30. From what I have seen, it appears that this newer runway is rarely used. I recall reading that this is because of the convergence of the takeoff paths when using 12/30 and 13/31 simultaneously when taking off to the north. I am wondering if this is actually a problem or if it is just that the second runway is not needed that much. Looking at Google Maps, it would seem to be possible to replace the original runway 13/31 with a new 12L/30R without having to appropriate too much land, although of course the cost would be an issue. Any thoughts?
Jeff in Málaga
User avatar
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:49 am

Re: Runway 12/30 at Málaga-Costa del Sol (AGP)

Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:18 am

I think it's more of a cost issue. Continuously operating and maintaining 2 runways is more expensive than one. In the winter time, 12/30 isn't used at all, which saves a fair bit of money I presume.
What normally happens during busy times in the summer (mornings between 0800 and 1200) is in a northerly configuration, landing will happen on 31 and take-off on 30. There is no instrument approach to rwy 30. Coming in from the North, so in the southerly config, landing will take place on 12 and take-off from 13.
When you talk about adjusting 13/31 to a new 12L/30R, you have to think about the surrounding terrain as well. Quite a lot of high terrain to the north, with not that much room to manoeuvre. I think the way they handle it now is quite okay, at busy times 1 runway dedicated to landings and 1 for departures, works out quite nicely. LGW would be jealous of such an arrangement ;-).
Love flying, hate the alarm at 3 in the morning, love watching the sun rise at 5:30. It's all about compromises.
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:43 pm

Re: Runway 12/30 at Málaga-Costa del Sol (AGP)

Sun Jun 24, 2018 12:04 pm

The reason the newer runway was built the way it was built is because of the river. A proper parallel runway would have required humongous infrastructure in the form of a tunnel under the runway that is big enough for a 1000 year flooding event, or upwards of 10000 cubic meters per second (well over 300.000 cubic feets per second). The river is notorious for the large number of historical flooding events, over 60 in the last 500 years, or a major flooding event on average every decade, the last one was 1989 with a peak flow of over 3000 cubic meters, that is over 100.000 cubic feets per second.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mfranjic and 27 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos