Kingscote Airport Master Plan Apr 2010 - Kangaroo Island Council

KINGSCOTE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
South Australian based passengers are likely to prefer Adelaide as their port of origin while
International and interstate passengers may have a preference for either Melbourne or
Sydney. So even if half the passengers originated from interstate, it only generates 1.5
flights per day using optimistic forecast. The demand is unlikely to warrant an expected
capital outlay of between $10M and $20M for infrastructure needed to allow introduction of
regional jets.
So at this stage unless there is significant shift in passenger demand, it is unlikely we will see
regional jets operating regularly into Kingscote within the 15 to 20 year Master Plan study
period.
The Role of Executive Jets
These aircraft currently operate on an occasional basis into Kingscote, primarily servicing the
high end resort market. Provided operating times do not clash with scheduled flights, the
existing passenger facilities at Kingscote will generally be satisfactory.
The ability of the aircraft pavements to cope with increased loads and tyre pressures
becomes an issue when larger corporate jets such as the Gulfstream IV are proposed.
Those aircraft requiring stronger pavements, greater runway lengths etc, may need to look at
alternatives as their numbers are unlikely to generate enough revenue to the airport through
landing charges to justify additional infrastructure solely for these occasional aircraft.
Details of the weight and passenger capacity of existing and possible future aircraft for
Kingscote are listed in Table 1:
Critical Aircraft Recommendation
Based on known and predicted passenger trends, a turbo prop aircraft with a seating
capacity range of approximately 50 to 80 appears to be the most likely choice to replace the
current Saab 340 commuter fleet. The 50-80 seat aircraft typically have a wingspan of
around 30m and a fuselage length of 35m. Some growth in size may occur; both
Aerospatiale and Bombardier have plans for 90 seat stretched versions of the ATR 72 and
Q400 models respectively, but they will remain within the Code 3C criterion which permits up
to 36m wingspan. Either way, the current apron and terminal facilities can be expanded to
accommodate all potential Code 3C turbo prop aircraft.
Table 1 Possible Future Critical Aircraft
TURBO PROP Max Weight kg Passengers
Saab 340 (production ceased 1999) 13,200 34-36
Fokker F50 (production ceased 1996) 20,820 up to 58
Bombardier Dash 8 300 (production ceased 2008) 18,860 50-56
ATR 42 500 18,600 44-50
ATR 72 22,970 62-74
Bombardier Q400 (Dash 8 400) 29,260 68-78
JETS
Embraer ERJ 170 35,990 70-78
Fokker F100 (production ceased 1999) 41,730 107
BAE 146 300 (production ceased 2000) 44,230 87
Embraer ERJ 190 (comparison only – beyond Master Plan) 50,790 108-118
Airbus 320 (comparison only – beyond Master Plan) 77,000 148-180
Boeing B737 800 (comparison only – beyond Master Plan) 79,230 162-175
4