Never ending airport debate

The Xiamen Air accident has sparked fresh discussions about the need for a new international airport gateway soonest. People are complaining about government’s failure to approve private proposals for such a new airport to serve NCR.

Unfortunately, the debate on where to locate the new airport also started again. I think we have talked enough about this and should just run with the proposal that is at the most advanced stage.

I remember discussing the site for a NAIA replacement with Ed Manda, NAIA GM during the Arroyo years. At that time they were thinking of putting the new airport along the Laguna de Bay shoreline in Taguig.

Even earlier than that, JICA had a study on the same topic which was refreshed during the Aquino years. Talim Island on Laguna de Bay had been mentioned. Sangley and Clark were, of course, among the top preferences.

But nothing happened. Our government failed to act on JICA’s recommendations. We just talked about a new airport until the situation got worse at NAIA.

The reaction of Mar Roxas was perverse, ordering the local airlines to cut the number of their flights after they invested on new planes. Then tourism secretary Mon Jimenez said the congestion was a good sign that people were coming to Manila.

Then came San Miguel with a proposal to put the new airport in Bulakan, Bulacan. The site came as a shock when I first broke the news in this column on April 2, 2012. It was revealed to me by then CAAP head Ramon Gutierrez who shared a copy of the formal proposal.

It was controversial. People were asking why Bulacan? My reply, why not Bulacan?

It is too close to Clark, others say. So what if it is close to Clark?

Closeness to an existing airport shouldn’t be an issue. San Francisco International Airport is just across the Bay to Oakland International Airport. Total driving distance between the two airports 12 miles or 19 km with a driving time of 19 minutes, flight distance is eight miles or 13 kilometers.

 San Jose International Airport is about 60 miles south of San Francisco. Clark is 90 kilometers away from Metro Manila’s central business district.

For a while, Ramon S. Ang considered locating his airport proposal at his property in Cyberbay near MOA. But that means he will have to undertake extensive reclamation that will take time.

That’s the same problem with proposals to locate the new airport at Sangley. Reclamation is required because existing land is too small for the kind of airport we need. 

That’s why I started to support the Bulacan airport proposal. It is the fastest we can have because San Miguel already bought the 2000 hectares they need (no ROW problems) and will not require the kind of reclamation the other proposals need. Financing had also been secured.

But our government from Aquino to Duterte was slow to appreciate any airport proposal. Officials of both administrations were busy debating NAIA vs Clark.

The debate is a waste of time because we need both NAIA and Clark at least for the next five to 15 years while the Bulacan airport is being constructed. Thereafter, NAIA is still perfect as an in-city airport the way the London City Airport is operating.

 We will need more than one airport anyway. London has five. New York has three. Tokyo has two.

 The San Francisco Bay Area has three large international airports serving the megapolis of just seven million people compared to our over 12 million and rising. In addition, they also have about two dozen smaller airports to serve general aviation.

Clark also serves another market area of Central and Northern Luzon. Eventually, if and when government moves its offices to Clark and that new city really takes hold, Clark will thrive on its own.

But for the moment, Clark cannot replace NAIA. Clark is too far for Metro Manila passengers and it does not have a fast train connection. True, they will finally do the Tutuban to Clark train connection but that’s only up to Tutuban.

To the credit of DOTr Secretary Art Tugade, he finally saw the futility of the endless debate on where to locate the new airport. He adopted a multi-airport strategy that welcomes private initiatives so long as there is absolutely no government guarantees, explicit or implied.

It took two years, but Tugade also saw the need to act a little more quickly on rehabilitating NAIA because the reality is, we will depend on NAIA for at least the next six to 10 years. The abominable conditions at NAIA, the congestion at the root of delayed flights must be relieved.

Luckily, a consortium of the country’s largest conglomerates is ready to invest in fixing NAIA. Their proposal should be given express approval so work can get started right away.

One of the things that ought to be done is constructing a large enough taxiway parallel to the main international runway, space permitting. The taxiway can serve as an emergency runway in case a Xiamen type accident happens again.

They are planning to do the same thing at Mactan International because a Xiamen type accident that closes down a single runway is a pretty bad nightmare for any airport manager. At Mactan, they plan to build the second runway further away together with a new terminal that will maximize its independence from the first runway.

The lesson we should have learned from the Xiamen accident is to move faster. We must start building the most advanced of the proposals presented by San Miguel. And fixing NAIA is even more urgent.

We should break ground on both by yearend. But I am dreaming. It may take another accident like Xiamen’s to really light a fire under the asses of the bureaucrats to stop talking and start moving.

Boo Chanco’s e-mail address is [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @boochanco