Airports group joins Supreme Court hearing to warn of risks from pilots' safety challenge

Friday, 18 August 2017

While the court challenge ostensibly concerns a proposal to extend Wellington Airport's runway to enable long haul flights, it could conceivably mean the runway has to be extended to maintain jet services.

New Zealand's airports will square off against the commercial pilots association in the Supreme Court on Thursday, in a case which could impact flights across the country.

The two-day hearing covers a challenge to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) decision to indicate that if Wellington Airport extends its runway, its existing runway end safety areas (RESAs) would be suitable for the longer runway.

Queenstown Airport's runway is constrained by Frankton at one end and the delta of the Shotover River at the other.

Although the High Court threw out a bid by the New Zealand Airline Pilots' Association (NZALPA) to order the director of civil aviation to review the decision, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision, instructing that the director's decision be reviewed.

The case potentially has far wider implications than Wellington's ambitious plan, which it hopes would attract direct long-haul services.

* Wellington Airport wants runway extension hearings delayed

* Wellington Airport claims runway may need to be extended for existing operations

* Airports face new landing restrictions after court decision, aviation regulator warns

* Union: airport wants Supreme Court to serve its commercial interests**

NZALPA has focused on only the proposed Wellington runway extension and initially claimed the Court of Appeal ruling would not impact other airports.

However, Wellington Airport and the CAA itself has told the Supreme Court that the decision could impact the way the CAA assesses safety areas throughout New Zealand when operating licences are reviewed.

In its application to have the application for appeal rejected, Hugh Rennie QC, NZALPA's lawyer, conceded the court's 'interpretation may be relevant to the operations of other airport companies'.

The New Zealand Airports Association (NZAA), a member group for the industry, has joined the action as a party because of the potential impact on airports which operate with RESA's below the recommended minimum.

Under the Civil Aviation Act, airports are meant to have RESAs of at least 240 metres, but the safety areas must be at least 90m when a longer area is not 'reasonably practicable'.

The Court of Appeal found that the director of civil aviation, Graeme Harris, placed much too much weight on the cost of a longer RESA in his decision making.

Wellington Airport's runway, bordered by water at each end, operates with a 90m RESA, as does Queenstown Airport, where the runway is bordered at one end by the suburb of Frankton and the delta of the Shotover River at the other.

Should the CAA compel the airports to operate with 240m RESAs, irrespective of cost, it would likely be the end of jet services at either airport unless the runways were extended.

However, the silence of several parties which could face a heavy impact from the outcome suggests confidence that the issue will be resolved with little cost.

Air New Zealand, which would face a major disruption to its network if jet services were affected at Wellington and Queenstown Airport, have both remained silent.

Although the decision could have a major impact on tourism, New Zealand's largest export earner, Simon Bridges, who is both the Transport Minister and the Economic Development Minister, has refused to comment while the matter is before the courts.

Since the Court of Appeal decision the Ministry of Transport has announced a review of the Civil Aviation Act, and three sources have hinted that Bridges has offered private assurances that legislation could be amended to resolve the issue if necessary.

The court challenge has already forced Wellington Airport to suspend its resource consent application bid to extend its runway, a project it has said could cost $300 million.