THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1980. Airport battle still on

Press, 2 April 1980, Page 24

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1980. Airport battle still on

The dashing by the Government of the Christchurch City Council’s wish to lengthen the main runway at Christchurch Airport is thoroughly disappointing and may well prove shortsighted. At the opening of the international terminal building yesterday, the Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon, made it clear that the Government would not agree to the proposal “unless and until” authorised airlines gave a firm indication that they were prepared to use Christchurch for long-haul flights.

He placed considerable emphasis on the fact that only two of the five large international carriers already authorised to use Christchurch had exercised their option. They are Air New Zealand and Qantas which both provide well used flights on camparatively short routes across the Tasman.

It is hardly reasonable to expect the other carriers, Pan American, Continental, and Singapore Airlines, even to consider Christchurch as a departure point for their much longer flights to the United States and Asia when the limited length of the existing runway would seriously restrict the payload of their aircraft and render the whole operation uneconomic. Even Air New Zealand has been forced to by-pass Christchurch because, of this limitation: its sight-seeing flights to Antarctica all have had to take off from Auckland.

By insisting that airlines should make the first move, the Government ■ has created a chicken-or-the-egg dilemma. The facilities x must exist before the City Council can hope to promote its airport as an attractive proposition to the airlines. The airlines are most unlikely to take the initiative in anticipation of a longer runway years hence.

Mr Muldoon also bases his argument against the extension: on the fact that Air New Zealand’s attempt to maintain an international service from Christchurch to Los Angeles, via Auckland, failed for want of support. Similar services, operated by' other carriers need not meet the same fate. The main problem for Air New Zealand was that its Lbs Angeles flight was offering only once a week and originated from Christchurch. Pan American and Continental Would undoubtedly want to fly through Christchurch to or from Australia.’

As a further incentive they would also need to have the right to service Auckland on the same flights. This \ would require a . change of . the Government’s present policy so; that American airlines would have the same privilege as that extended by the. United. States-. authorities to Air New Zealand; on jits ' / flights through Hbnolultf to Los Angeles. Such a privilege would not mean that foreign airlines would appro- -' priate Air New Zealand’s /: domestic role; they would have the right to carry between Christchurch and Auckland only the passengers they brought into the country.

, A change of policy is not beyond the bounds of possibility: after all, shipping, companies have never been forced to choose between one port or another'in New Zealand.

If the Government is as concerned

about the future of the South Island’s ailing tourist plant as Mr Muldoon suggests, it should not hesitate to approve such incentives to woo other airlines to Christchurch as soon as possible. Surely it is reasonable to assume that Continental or Pan American would be far more inclined to promote New Zealand if they could retain their passen-gers-and did not run the risk, as they run it now, of losing normal-fare passengers who venture south of Taupo. At present those destined to carry on to Australia have no option but to fly from Christchurch on Air New Zealand or Qantas if their tour is to include the South Island.

The problem is compounded by a restriction on moving passengers between airlines; this prohibits overseas tourists on low. fares from leaving New Zealand on an airline other than the one on which they arrive. The South Island is again often missed out because Pan American and Continental passengers are reluctant to pay the high cost of domestic travel south and back to Auckland again. The arrangement certainly favours Air New Zealand, but it does little to foster either Christchurch as a gateway or the South Island as a destination for international tourists.

The recent inability of either Air New Zealand or Qantas to accommodate a large group from Adelaide on flights to and from Christchurch and difficulties of tour promoters in getting bookings for Australian ski groups wanting to come to the South Island this winter are further evidence of the need for extra airline capacity across " the Tasman.

Compared with the estimated $4O million required for extensions to the runway at Wellington Airport, the $5 million needed for Christchurch is a mere drop in the bucket, particularly as the taxpayer would have to meet only $750,000 of that cost for approach lighting and navigational aids. The balance would be drawn from airport funds held jointly by the Government and the City Council.

The Prime Minister may be correct in his assessment of the prospects for regular, long-haul cargo flights in and out of Christchurch in the immediate future. In the meantime an enlarged passenger service with ample freight capacity would probably serve the South Island best. He did not pretend that in due course the Government would not be convinced of the need for a runway extension; indeed, his speech yesterday was a challenge to the Christchurch City Council and the many aviation supporters in the South Island to renew, repeat, and substantiate their arguments. After frustrating delays in obtaining'Government approval the excellent new terminal building is a credit to its designers and builders and must now be an attraction to airlines. The extra business that the airport needs will come from long-haul jet services and these will not be produced by the airlines until the bigger runway egg has been laid. In this argument the chicken comes: second; .