Airport opens bids for runway project
Cayman Airways aircraft on ORIA apron
(CNS): The Cayman Islands Airports Authority has begun the search for a contractor to upgrade the airfields at Owen Roberts International Airport, which will include extending the runway. As Cayman’s overnight tourism numbers go from strength to strength and public opinion shifts towards favouring the growth of the more lucrative stay-over side of the islands’ tourism product rather than the controversial cruise berthing, the runway is a key part of expanding direct access to Cayman from more gateways. According to the tender documents, the airport is hoping to have contracts signed by June.
The request for proposals was posted on the government’s central procurement website Monday, and is seeking bids from experienced contractors who can extend and strengthen the existing runways as well as expand the apron, upgrade the perimeter road, fill in the ponds and create a taxiway turnaround. The runway is expected to be lengthened by around 900 feet to 8,000 feet, which allow for larger aircraft from further afield to fly directly to Grand Cayman.
With the airport redevelopment project due to formally open during the royal visit later this month, the plans to lengthen the runway are expected to add another $20 million to the existing project, which is understood to have run to around $65 million.
But the costs are still seen by many as far more justifiable than the project to develop cruise berthing facilities in the George Town Harbour, which could cost close to $300 million.
Those who oppose the cruise project but are in favour of a runway expansion argue that increasing investment in cruise tourism risks undermining overnight tourism, which represents more than 80% of the tourism product spend. In addition, stay-over guests have a much lower impact on the environment and infrastructure, and the money spent by overnight visitors is more widely distributed throughout the business community.
The only negative environmental impact of expanding the runway is the loss of the tiny area of wetland at the end of the runway, which already poses a danger to aircraft because of the birds it attracts, compared to the complete destruction of acres of live coral as well as historically and culturally significant wrecks in the harbour for the cruise project.
Category: Business, development, Local News, Transport
@3:52 pm and 11:49am RE: negative consequences of living under a flight path
In 2017 there were 25,636 aircraft movements per year or approx. 30 per day, according to CIAA site.
Negative consequences of 25,636 aircraft movements per year could NOT be insignificant. Even though a human body was designed with robust detoxing abilities, I doubt that it was designed to effectively eliminate the unimaginable toxic load we experience these days, including pollution and noise from the annual 25,636 aircraft movements.
add to that
more than 100,000 MAN MADE chemicals are found in foods, drugs, personal products and everyday items.
Healthy adult detoxification systems are very challenged to keep up, if not completely overwhelmed. One of the body’s main detoxification pathways is methylation, and this can be affected by a genetic mutation called MTHFR.
25% of earth’s population has genetic mutation that compromises toxins removal.
So living under a flight path in Grand Cayman (or anywhere else) is detrimental to one’s health.
This is the CIAA’s cunning way to get rid of the ponds and their bird problem. They have promised this many times over the last 3 decades and nothing has ever happened. despite their claim the birds are a majofr safety issue.
Cayman is truly blessed to have so much free advice readily available from so many subject matter experts. What’s even more amazing is that the same repeat posters are experts on all subjects. The recurring theme here seems to be if CIG is doing anything, then it must be poorly done, poorly planned, and rife with corruption. Get a life people.
12:00, If you take the time to look at the Auditors Report you would get the clear impression that many things done by the CIG are poorly done, poorly planned and rife with corruption. Just look at the total lack of transparency with the port project.
Cost overruns with the airport and abuse of environmental rules and regulations.
10 years and nothing but rhetoric about the Dump. Stop being an apologist for the CIG and come into the real world.
One does not need free advice but one should look at the FACTS. Suggest you start examining the facts that surround you.
Those facts maybe true, but it still doesn’t explain why the Cayman Islands are filled to the brim with amatuer investigative journalists, forensic analysts and critical commentators i.e. know it alls, but very few if any solution providers to the problems that are so frequently recognised and spoken about.
Well, maybe the recurring theme is that when the CIG does something it does it poorly, and leaves itself open to allegations of corruption.
We wish that were not the case. We really really do.
12/00pm you just have to be a civil servant. Your “recurring theme” reflects reality sad as it may seem to you.
What if its true though? Actually, of course it is.
The real issue here is not about European tourism. The real issue is that the newly touted and acquired Cayman Airways Max 8 does not have the ability to fly non-stop to the West Coas of the USA with a full load of passengers from the existing runway length.
Instead of acquiring properly powered aircraft they opted for the cheaper version thereby inhibiting the true potential of the aircraft. Had it not been for this there would be absolutely no rush on the part of dear Moses to extend the runway and in fact there is no other reason why it has to be extended at this time.
Cayman Airways technocrats and management were very aware of this inadequacy but sat back and relied once again on dear old Govenment to reach into its pockets to cover up their inefficencies. They failed to tell the people the truth about this deficiency but yet sold the whole idea on the long range ability of the aircraft. The aircraft can do it but not with the existing power plants it has.
Ask them and see what answers they come up with this time.
11.52am I think the real issue is that as a result of being suckered into acquiring 4 of these new jets by Boeing’s super salesmen our national airline’s deficit is inevitably going to increase significantly. No wonder the Minister and Mr Whorms are refusing to reveal the cost of the leases..
Numerous studies underline the negative consequences of living under a flight path.
* First of all, research shows that people who live near airports experience higher levels of respiratory and cardiac problems compared to the population at large. Carbon monoxide emissions are at least partly to blame, mostly due to the time airplanes spend taxiing and idling on the runway before takeoff or after landing, spewing out huge amounts of exhaust that lingers in the air.
* Pollution levels within three square miles of an airport are typically 10 times higher than a bit farther out. Airplanes spew out other toxins including sulfur oxides, carbon dioxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Each of these pollutants brings its own array of problems multiplying the effects beyond cardiovascular and respiratory issues. VOCs, for instance, have been linked to neurological issues and kidney and liver damage, as well as to headaches and eye, nose, and throat irritation.4 Pollution at the levels typical near airports has been linked to cancer, lymphoma, myeloid leukemia, depression, and more.
* Excessive noise exerts a negative influence on health for several reasons. Noise causes the body to release stress hormones, which can negatively impact the immune system, the cardiovascular system, and even cholesterol levels. Boeing 737 jet registers at 90 decibels one mile away from landing. In other words, anyone living a mile from the airport suffers a whole lot of noise. ( In a typical restaurant where there’s background music playing, you’ve got a 60-decibel level. Sixty decibels, by the way, sounds about half as loud as 70 decibels (volume doubles with every 10 decibels).)
How far away do you need to be to ensure you aren’t affected? Many sources suggest six miles..but one study found that particulate levels even ten miles away from a busy airport were twice as high as levels farther away. Those levels continued to escalate in closer proximity.
So don’t buy a house next to the airport. Problem solved.
Yes, but what if you already own a property in the airport flight path?
Sell and buy somewhere else ! Markets always hot hot hot right ?
Preach
I’m sure the study was of a one runway airport that gets what maybe one flight in our out every 30-45 minutes at the busiest time of day
If you lived near an airport with a constant intake and output of flights it might be different but I highly doubt one airplane an hour is anymore dangerous than the hundreds of people who spend an hour a day bumper to bumper going into town from the eastern districts between thousands of other exhaust pumping cars
3.52pm I agree, having lived half a mile from the airport under the incoming flight path, for 40 years, it hasn’t worried me.What does worry me is the large number of older diesel vehicles here, which belch out thick black plumes of filth from their exhausts.
You must be fun at parties!
Bidding? We all know theres only one company that will walk away with this job. Bidding! Lmao
A more robust safety and security regime needs to be put into place before any expansion to deal with increase traffic at ORIA. Both in the building and on runway to deal with the coming threats and existing ones. We need to for once be proactive in our approach and stop relying on the advice of old fogey board members who do not have a single clue. Runway Cameras & ground radar and to deal with latest threats like drones should be included into this project.
The lengthening of ORIA runaway “west” is not logical. This will pose greater danger to people, buildings and other structures.
It goes without saying the larger aircrafts will need to descent lower over the seas and almost clip the Jackson Point fuel tank to get the correct altitude for a runaway starting just after Smith Rd Park. If they maintain the current minimum altitude, It would mean a sudden dangerous drop to catch the runaway. This latter dangerous experience will not be welcomed.
This lower altitude and larger aircrafts will also introduce more noise to residents from South Sound to Smith Rd, resulting in long term hearing issues and other environmental pollution.
Any viable long term plan for ORIA runaway should be going “east” into the sea or relocate to East End. In my view this is more logical.
I far as I am aware the extension is for the use of departing aircraft the landing threshold remains unchanged. The present runway length is sufficient for landing regardless of aircraft size, therefore no change in approach. Suggest a higher priority is given to upgrading / replacing the General Aviation Terminal (reference the ORIA plan) the GA movements must be increase several fold.
The westward extension only allows bigger planes and heavier loads to take off. For bigger planes and heavier loads to land – since clearly we can’t change the heights of hundreds of pre-existing structures on the approach path – the eastward expansion is needed. Read the Compass article for a full explanation (sorry CNS, it’s just the detail, not a criticism!)
Fun fact: BA 777 has to stop in NAS for gas because it cannot take off with full fuel and reserve from GCM.
Also the traffic demand, dear boy.
It will be a very long time before we can fill a B777 ftom Grand Cayman to Lonfon.
People, get your facts str8. BA 777 did make GCM-LHR direct when Nassau’s airport was closed due to tropical storm philipe in 2017. Numerous private aircraft also make long haul trips using the current field length of 7000’ frequently.
For example, direct long distance GA flights during this week from/to Zurich, Faro (Portugal), London – Stansted, Geneva, Los Angeles (Reference – Flightaware.com)
But Cayman can’t fill the plane no matter how long the runway is, so who cares?
The plural of aircraft is aircraft, same as the plural of sheep is sheep. If your going to be an expert then at least be convincing with correct spelling and grammar.
It’s “You’re” Mr. Grammar policeman
Hahahaha Good one! I hate that when a misspelled word lessens your rant. (But also he/she made a good point about ‘aircraft’ meaning both singular and plural)
This is a new fad.just look at how many times CIG refers to outcomes.
Agreed I made a common grammatical error, but I am not claiming to be an expert either. My point remains the same.
Exactly and its pointless, thats the real issue…
Why are the Government prepared to spend up to $300 million dollars on a new cruise ship pier for people who may spend at most US$100 per visit, however when it comes to the airport and runway, they go cheap.
Went through the departure lounge at the new airport for the first time at the weekend, it is way too small already for the number of people waiting to board planes, so again the Governemt went for the cheap option.
The runway has two options for development, extend to 8000 feet or to 9200 feet, again the Government went for the cheap option. If you read the small print, this will mean that the BA plane can still not land at 100% capacity. Therefore this implies that possible future routes to and from Europe will not happen either, due to the narrow margins that airline companies fly with, they will want a 100% passenger capacity on their planes.
Lastly, extending the runway Westwards will mean a lower flight landing line for planes approaching which will mean significantly more noise for those properties underneath the flight line. If you are prepared to spend money then extent the runway into the North Sound on grounds of safety more than anything else.
Maybe because the financing is different. Airport funding is from Aurport cash and revenues, and cruise port is financing from cruise lines and the company building the port. Not too difficult to understand.
I think you may have missed the point there 9:58pm…
The BA flight never lands here at Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight (MGTW), because it has been burning tons of fuel over several hours to fly here. Longer runway allows it to takeoff and fly back non-stop.
The issue of non-stop flights to Europe from GCM has never been correctly understood by the vast majority of our public and most our media. The “if we lengthen the runway, they will come” concept is a myth. Firstly, non-stop European flights it is primarily a commercial consideration for airlines, not technical. Yes, every pilot wants more runway in front of him but with the aeronautic capabilities of most modern long-haul aircraft, non-stop flights to Europe from GCM is, and has been, possible for many years. Even B767-200 & 300 types can do this. Of course this the type of flight that B787 has been designed for, which is what will replace BA’s 767 fleet shortly.
The main issue is commercial! Cayman simply does not offer a consistent market to justify non-stop GCM to Europe flights with viable load factors, hence why BA stops in Nassau. BA combines these two markets in one flight for commercial reasons, not because their B767 needs to stop to re-fuel. Of course they re-fuel at a more practical and less costly location, since they stop there anyway.
Anyway, our Government is hell-bent on wasting more public funds and continues to take advantage of the general public’s ignorance on this issue. So, runway extension will happen although it’s not necessary. What are necessary is a RESA and an isolated parking area – the latter of which is ignored in any discussions!
To justify non-stop European flights, our Dep. of Tourism needs to get busy developing a market in continental Europe. Last time I asked, the Dir of Tourism said ” we don’t have a plan” for marketing in Europe. So extending the runway before developing a market is another Cayman Island Government “cart before the horse” situation, and waste of our public funds!!
Why do we keep letting them do this crap??
9:05 Great comment except for a couple of points – BA’s last 767 was retired in November 2018 and the service here has been operated by 777-200s since July 2016. We were promised Dreamliners in 2015 (I used to fly BA to London on business regularly) but they never came.
As for your point on the UK/European market it’s summed up in two words, ‘All Inclusive,’ and if you’re not a player in this area forget it. We’re not gearing up for it but just about every neighbouring destination in the region is and they are doing very well. Cuba is the classic example – you can do two weeks on Varadero beach (just voted #1 in the Caribbean) for about the same as the return air fare from London to ORIA. As you concluded – it’s a load of crap!
I remember when BA flew DC-10s here directly from Gatwick. But they still had to stage back through Nassau because that’s where most of their passengers were headed. The business isn’t here – get used to it.
great educated commentary. the nonsense talk of direct flights from europe/asia is laughable….
Europeans who want to go somewhere expensive have many closer options than Cayman.
Don’t forget to save a few million to fix mount trashmore landfill !
Moses Alden Joey are no different than McKeeva
That’s the thing. They’re not.
China Harbour Engineering Company will win the bid to do this and other Infrastructure projects for the Government of National Unity. PPM is no different than UDP. These things were decided from 2017. Promises must by kept and money talks.
What will happen to the section of Crewe Road that is currently where the expanded runway would be? Presumably it will be removed which is why the new road from the roundabout by Butterfield/Papermans to Mango Tree has been built. This is all fine, but isn’t this going to increase the volume of traffic passing through the Bobby Thompson junction, making commuting to and from the East even worse than it is already?
If they would finish the Bobby Thompson Way stretch of road this would accommodate the two lanes now immediately west of the Airport?
But why? Politics is why!
One of McKeeva’s huge supporters owns a land and business in the immediate area and has this tied up for the last several years because they don’t want to give up any of their land. So the public suffers.
Need I say more?
How about living in condos nearby? Is it even safe?
Safe, just noisey.
Go on Google earth and measure it yourself. 900 feet from the run way just barely reaches the fence. Blast shields will be installed too.
what are trying to say? We are not experts.
Look at the airport master plan map. Expansion goes across the current road and the cricket pitch
That’s correct. You’ll now have only Huldah Ave to get you on the path to the Esterley Tibbetts. My old trick of taking Crewe Road to the Jacques Scott 4-way stop and avoiding the Huldah Ave traffic light and CNB roundabout will be no more. Same choking effect if you’re going east; cars won’t have two options for how to get in position to make it past Hurleys anymore. And as you will notice, the government does not even comment upon the inconvenience this will cause to us, because like everything else it’s part of the master plan we never see.
CNS: can you please host this in the commissioned plans library before it disappears or moves somewhere more obscure? http://www.gov.ky/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/10986149.PDF
CNS: It’s already in the CNS Library under CIAA in the SAGS menu and under Developments in the Subject Index. But I’d like to thank you for sending it to us. We appreciate all documents to put in the Library before, as you say, they get buried.
as a native …i would welcome the extension…can you immagine direct flights from europe…i went thru bahamas during x mas to uk…there is a 2 hr layover while they clean plane…3 hrs before in air again…pain in the….
Beats walking
We all ready have direct flights from Europe.
Big planes are on the way out. The A380 is gone.
We already land 767 & 777 what more do we need?
Still not going to direct at 8000 ft. Just increases the load capacity. 9200 ft yep but that’s building into N Sound. And BA like stopping in Bahamas as they can a) refuel way cheaper than here b) max the seat usage – not enough uptake for Cayman to fill the plane and not likely to be as longs as our tourist prices are so high.
There won’t be any non-stop flights from Europe without building into the North Sound. BA counts on offloading at least 2/3 of its passengers in Nassau and being low on fuel to land here. For a non-stop route you need both runways to be able to handle the flight at normal load factors with enough fuel for the journey. This 900 foot extension to the west will only help bigger/heavier planes take off, not land, so it isn’t going to bring new routes.
A B777 holds 45,520 US gallons (171,160 litres) of aviation fuel. The B777-200LR burns 6.8t of fuel per hour cruising at 30,000 ft, and the B777-300ER 7.2t per hour. The B787 is 20% more efficient. In any case, the planes aren’t landing at MGTW after several hours of flight = less runway required to land then takeoff.
A pilot friend of mine used to say the only time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire.
Old saying, ‘A day late and a dollar short!’ Why the heck wasn’t this done years ago so that airlines from the UK and Europe could operate direct services here?
It’s deja vu here. I remember back in 2007 the debate over moving the cricket ground and re-routing Crewe Road to make room for a runway extension. That even reached the point where one senior civil servant claimed that a new site for the cricket ground had been identified but what happened – nothing!
The fact is that any hope we ever had of attracting the kind of mass tourism from the other side of the Atlantic that our regional neighbours enjoy went out of the window years ago. We may build it but they won’t come.
As for the $20million price tag? If it goes ahead someone is for sure going to make a killing on that.
Providenciales extended their airport but it failed to attract European tourists. I think this idea needs to be put on the long finger. Schools, the dump and the welfare including medical insurance of the poor is far more important.
Chris, this is the nub of the matter. When the sun loving Brits and other Europeans want a vacation there are plenty of options in Spain and elsewhere in Europe which will cost them 10% of what they would pay to fly and stay here.
Say it like it is – Or Cuba. You can do two weeks all inclusive on Varadero beach (just voted #1 in the Caribbean) for about the same as the return airfare on BA to ORIA. Before all the troubles my partner and I did two weeks in Egypt for less than it would have cost either one of us to fly back out here from London. That’s the real problem – too damn expensive.
But it hasn’t always been like that. I remember in the 1990s there was a booming UK tourism business. What went wrong there?
You are correct 3.43pm. You can build a runway as long as the Nile but it won’t encourage more visitors from Europe because Cayman is far too expensive. It’s pricing itself off the market for European tourists. The reason you have mainly American tourists is because the close proximity of the US and hugely cheaper costs. Europeans tend to favour the all inclusive resorts of Cuba, Jamaica Dom Rep., and of course the US. etc.,
The only visitors Cayman gets is from the Banking industry for work, parents visiting their children or like myself a returning resident that loves to visit work colleagues and reminisce about the good pleasurable old days in Cayman…….never to be seen again!