GLADSTONE AIRPORT
PROJECT PLANNING REPORT

PROJECT PLANNING REPORT
Upgrade of Gladstone Airport
Background
Gladstone Airport services the Gladstone region located some 500 kilometres north of Brisbane and comprising three former local government areas – the harbour city of Gladstone, and the Calliope and Miriam Vale shires. The airport is currently operated by the Gladstone Regional Council following recent council amalgamations and dissolution of the Gladstone-Calliope Aerodrome Board on
14 March 2008.
The airport caters primarily for business travellers and freight activities associated with the region’s developed and emerging industrial complexes. Regular public transport (RPT) services are currently provided by QantasLink utilising primarily
Dash 8 Series Q400 aircraft.
Continuing growth can be expected with over $14 billion worth of projects committed and/or planned in the next 5 years and with large scale stocks of land set aside for longer term expansion in the Gladstone State Development Area.
Since 1998 airport expansion has been guided by a Development Plan which the
Aerodrome Board updated in 2004 to take particular account of current and likely future aircraft types and stronger growth in passenger numbers than previously forecast. The forecasts prepared for the 2004 plan envisaged that the majority of RPT services would be provided in the short term by the Dash 8-300 aircraft and in the medium to long term by regular scheduled services by 70 seat aircraft such as the
Q400. However, passenger numbers have grown even more rapidly over the last three years than the high 4.53% growth forecast adopted in the 2004 plan and, for the 2006-07 Financial Year stood at almost 190,000 rather than the predicted
165,000. Passenger numbers for the last three years are as follows:
2004-05

139,445

2005-06

160,133

(14.8% growth)

2006-07

189,379

(18.3% growth)

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

1

Passenger numbers in the 9 months to 31 March 2008 are consistent with a further growth of at least 10% for the 2007-2008 Financial Year.
QantasLink has already introduced the Q400 on the majority of its services to cater for this growth. Virgin Blue recently approached the Aerodrome Board about operating the 78 seat Embraer (E)170 and 104 seat E190 regional jet aircraft to
Gladstone.
The 2004 plan was based on the airport continuing to cater for up to Code 3 aircraft such as the Q400, E170 and similar 70 seat capacity aircraft. While operations by larger Code 4C aircraft such as the E190, B717, B737 and A320 were considered, the 2004 plan concluded that their operation was not justified by forecast activity if the existing service frequency was maintained, and that significant pavement strengthening would be required to allow unrestricted operations by these aircraft.
While the latter is still true, the recent rate of growth may well result in 300,000 annual passengers by 2009-10 and justify the use of these higher capacity aircraft.
Existing situation
The airport has a single runway, 1635 metres long and 30 metres wide which is suitable for operations by reference Code 3C aircraft. Prior to November 2007 it had a published pavement strength rating, or pavement classification number
(PCN), of 14 on a subgrade with reported bearing strength category A. At that strength it should be suitable for frequent use by the Q400 which represents a relatively low 7% overload at its maximum take-off weight. However, it quickly become apparent that the PCN and subgrade category had been overstated as the Q400 has had a significant adverse impact on both the runway and taxiway pavements which are showing signs of significant distress.
Immediate pavement strengthening is required to arrest this deterioration and maintain current operations. Operations by the heavier E170 type aircraft cannot be considered at this time.
At its 26 June 2007 meeting the Aerodrome Board initiated urgent geotechnical investigations to confirm the present composition and underlying subgrade strength so that a reliable estimate of minimum upgrade requirements could be formulated. The geotechnical investigations found the runway pavement to be comprised of
200-250mm of river gravel on a subgrade with highly variable bearing strength and, at best, categorised as strength category B.

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

2

Although the section of runway between Chainages 0 and 385 metres was strengthened in 1997 to achieve a PCN 20/B, the current geotechnical results are consistent with an earlier assessment of runway strength varying from PCN 5-11 on subgrade strength category A-B.
At a special meeting held on 17 October 2007, the Aerodrome Board adopted a recommendation from its specialist technical advisors to publish a reduced PCN value of 10 and to report the subgrade strength category as B.
The Aerodrome Board was advised that on this basis each fully laden Q400 operation would represent a 160% overload of the pavement, an indicator which more realistically equated to the adverse impacts of these operations being observed and monitored by regular pavement inspections.
In adopting this strategy the Aerodrome Board acknowledged that the runway requires reconstruction even to maintain existing Q400 operations and that these works must be expedited to avoid:
•
•

ongoing, costly repairs, and/or possible restriction of current airline operations.

The Aerodrome Board further resolved that it would take all reasonable steps to facilitate ongoing Q400 operations while fast tracking plans to upgrade the runway.
This strategy introduces a further problem because the Civil Aviation Safety
Authority (CASA) has determined that any upgrade work will trigger an additional requirement to comply with runway longitudinal design standards. The existing runway is non-compliant, a deficiency which has resulted from the staged approach adopted in runway construction over the years and the earlier design for much lower performance aircraft.
Even without the CASA determination, Council would not be justified in reconstructing a runway which does not meet current design standards.
The runway slopes down from west to east and has a pronounced hump at its centre. The existing runway fails CASA criteria for both sight distance – the distance over which a pilot must be able to see whether other aircraft are on the runway or the number of runway edge lights a pilot must be able to see for night operations – and rideability – the radii of vertical curves at each change of grade along the runway.
The runway shape raises significant safety concerns when aircraft taxi or backtrack on the runway after landing as pilots cannot see other aircraft in the lee of the hump. This safety concern has been addressed by providing a full length

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

3

parallel taxiway – an unusual feature at a regional airport, even for those which handle much more traffic.
With pavement failures also evident in the parallel taxiway, the Aerodrome Board was obliged to restrict all Q400 operations to the runway. While accepting this limitation QantasLink has reiterated “that even large aircraft backtracking from the
Eastern end of the runway may not be visible to the pilot of an aircraft at the
Western threshold about to commence take-off” and this circumstance will “expose passengers, crew and aircraft to greater risks…”
All aircraft operators have been alerted to the potential risk associated with this limitation which, in turn, increases Q400 usage of the runway. QantasLink pilots have been requested to taxi their aircraft left of centreline in an attempt to distribute the aircraft loading and resulting pavement deterioration.
A further problem with the parallel taxiway, apart from the pavement strength deficiencies, is that it must be widened to 23 metres to fully comply with Q400 operational requirements. Operations had been permitted on the current 15 metre wide taxiways by CASA exemption.
Appendix 1 provides a summary of urgent repairs undertaken between June 2006 and July 2007 – the most significant being an area of 3.75 metres x 400 metres – which have been carried out at night when necessary. The runway pavement condition is being constantly monitored and further work has been necessary in
February/March 2008 to repair runway pavement failures at chainages 1200 and
1570 metres, and two further failures on Taxiway Gulf.
In summary, the Aerodrome Board is now faced with a situation where to continue with the present type and scale of operations the runway needs not only to be strengthened but also significantly reshaped/reconstructed to meet CASA standards. Upgrade requirements
Before the pavement damage became apparent, the Aerodrome Board had begun to investigate the feasibility of upgrading the runway to cater for larger aircraft including jet aircraft such as the E170/190 previously noted and other larger aircraft currently utilised by Australian domestic airlines. The preliminary investigation involved:
•

determining what length of runway is possible on the existing airport site given site and airspace constraints;

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

4

•

•
•
•
•

carrying out an aircraft performance assessment to establish the runway lengths required for jet aircraft to operate from Gladstone to a number of likely destinations; establishing what change in runway profile would be necessary to achieve compliance with CASA standards; determining what strengthening would be required to accommodate a range of larger aircraft; confirming that other airport infrastructure could be expanded to accommodate likely growth in passenger numbers; and determining how the runway could be reconstructed while maintaining aircraft operations.

The investigation to date has indicated the runway could be developed to cater for new generation jet aircraft including the B737 and A320.
Initial planning indicated that a runway length of around 1800 metres can be accommodated on the existing airport site with an extension to the runway at the western end. This requires significant fill or possibly a bridge structure to match the existing runway end elevation. Fill, in the quantities required, is readily available at present from nearby Byellee Hill and from a planned residential subdivision. Recovering fill from Byellee Hill has the added advantage of removing a significant close-in obstacle which limits aircraft payloads when take-off is required in that direction. Removal of the hill will also allow for a better “escape” route in the event of an engine failure on take-off. On this basis this extension would provide increased operational safety.
Aircraft performance assessments for the B737-700/800, the E170/190 and A320, based on published aircraft planning information, indicated that a length of around
1800 metres should allow viable operations to Cairns, Brisbane, Sydney and
Melbourne and other intermediate destinations. The Board noted that this is the same runway length available at Sunshine Coast Airport which has a similar obstacle environment.
Subsequent advice from Qantas suggested that a runway length of around 1900 metres may be necessary for the longer haul operations taking account of specific aircraft performance data.
This would require an extension to the east and the relocation of Callemondah
Drive. This being the case it became evident that the maximum possible extension should be identified in this direction so that minimal extension and associated earthworks would then be necessary to the west.
The fill available from Byellee Hill would still be utilised to remove the critical obstacle for take-off in that direction, and similarly to raise the runway platform in

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

5

its extension to the east, to minimise the relative impact of existing obstacles on or adjacent to the Dawson Highway and on Kin Kora Hill.
A runway design profile has been identified which fully complies with CASA design standards for code 4 aircraft such as the E190, B717, B737 and A320. As noted, this requires full length reconstruction of the existing runway and its extension at both ends.
The challenge is to achieve this reconstruction while providing for continuity of aircraft operations, albeit with some impact on take-off weights which reduce the available passenger load factors.
Following extensive investigation the Aerodrome Board accepted that the only feasible option was to reconstruct the parallel taxiway to allow its use as a temporary runway and then reconstruct the runway itself – both these activities being possible without significant impact on or interruption to aircraft operations.
This approach provides the ability to fully reconstruct both the runway and taxiway pavements to comply with CASA design standards.
Overall project costs may be higher as it provides for the full rehabilitation of both runway and parallel taxiway pavements, although the latter needs only to be long enough to be a temporary runway – around 1400 metres – to allow for Q400 operations. In reality the overall project costs will be minimised because of the relatively straightforward construction methodology available for the major runway works. QantasLink has advocated that this option be investigated in detail.
Appendix 2 shows the proposed scale of medium and long term facilities in figures
7 and 8 from Updated Development Plan.
Appendix 3 shows the proposed runway profile and extent of fill material require to achieve compliance with CASA design standards.
The alternative is complete runway closure for a period of 3-6 months while sufficient runway length is reconstructed to allow resumption of Q400 operations.
To minimise disruption this would involve a 24 hour construction programme.
In this scenario, the parallel taxiway would remain in its present condition – unsuitable for heavy aircraft operations – including Q400 and E170 - but available for light aircraft movements. While this would provide some benefits in terms of traffic management some safety issues may arise with airline aircraft required

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

6

always to taxi to/from a take-off or landing via the runway and taxiway(s) which provide direct access to the main apron.
The “ideal” runway design profile would need modification to maintain taxiway connections to the parallel taxiway and aprons should there be no change to the taxiway itself. While a design compliant with CASA requirements is still possible additional earthworks may be required for the eastern runway extension.
This is a potentially lower cost option, but involves some compromises in design, higher unit costs because of the need for 24 hour construction schedules, and reduced operational flexibility as the parallel taxiway would not be upgraded and would not be available for use by airline aircraft.
The Aerodrome Board rejected further consideration of this option.
Risk assessments undertaken independently by the Aerodrome Board and by
QantasLink confirm the temporary runway option is feasible subject to mitigation being considered to ensure positive control of other traffic during Q400 operations.
For viable payload operations use of the temporary runway must be planned for the cooler months when temperatures are less than 28°C.
The apron areas serving the terminal are in good condition and can cater for existing traffic. The introduction of jet aircraft would provide an opportunity to rationalise use of the two split level aprons currently serving the airline terminal – turboprops using the upper apron and jets the lower apron.
The existing passenger terminal has been expanded and upgraded in several stages to accommodate forecast passenger numbers identified in the 1998 Airport
Development Plan and the updated 2004 Plan. The current terminal design can cater comfortably for passenger numbers associated with the current QantasLink
Q400 flight schedule using the upper apron only.
The terminal design does not cater for security requirements associated with the operation of RPT jet aircraft and would require the following upgrades before jet operations could commence:
•
•
•

modification and expansion to baggage make up to provide a checked bag screening (CBS) system; alterations and expansion to the departures hall to provide a passenger screening system and establishment of a sterile gate lounge; and relocation of the Australian Helicopter tenancy to fully separate helicopter transfers and RPT activities which require apron areas at the terminal to be designated a security restricted zone during jet aircraft operations.

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

7

Passenger access to the terminal building from jet aircraft operating on the lower apron will require designated airside circulation zones and active management and supervision. Passenger amenity needs to be considered in terms of weather protection, stairs or ramp assistance in walking up the incline from the lower apron. A phased response can be implemented depending on the actual number of jet aircraft operations and demonstrated growth in passenger numbers.
These proposed terminal upgrades would suffice for passenger movements associated with the operation of 100-seat aircraft, but there is no further scope to expand the current terminal capacity to cater comfortably for the increased passenger and visitor numbers associated with larger aircraft.
While infrequent operations by 170-seat B737-800 or A320 aircraft can be accommodated, provided no other passenger movements are being processed at the same time, the forecast passenger growth suggests that a new terminal facility will need to be considered in 5-7 years. This should be developed on a Greenfield site on the northern side of the runway
The Aerodrome Board had negotiated with Airservices Australia to remove its
Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) which is located adjacent to the terminal area. This vacant site will allow the expansion of existing car parking by up to 400 vehicles.
Design strategies
The investigation established the feasibility of upgrading the runway to cater for larger aircraft. The proposals gain maximum benefit from and utilisation of the existing airport site. The airport will be able to:
•
•
•

safely handle both existing and larger aircraft types; cater for the community’s rapidly growing demand for air travel; and fully comply with CASA design and operating standards.

The Aerodrome Board agreed to proceed with the detailed design and costing of the proposed runway works and set a target to formalise the investigation findings in a further update of the Development Plan by March 2008.
The key issue which remains to be addressed is whether to upgrade at this time for: •
•
•

Q400 and/or E170 operations;
E190 operations; and/or
A320 and/or B737-700/800 operations.

Reconstruction of the existing runway is inevitable. A project which retains the existing length of 1635 metres will provide for Q400, E170 and possibly E190

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

8

operations. This will trigger modification terminal modifications to incorporate CBS and passenger screening requirements. This represents the minimum scope of work and will be referred to as the “base concept” for cost comparisons.
In contrast a runway of around 1900 metres will allow operations by the larger
B737 and A320 aircraft. As noted earlier, Virgin has expressed an interest in operating E170 and E190 aircraft. QantasLink, on behalf of the Qantas group has submitted that “an airport upgrade capable of handling Boeing 737-800 model aircraft…would meet a reasonable expected growth path”.
Both options require the runway to comply with CASA code 4 aircraft design standards. The initial construction needs to provide pavement strength suitable for unrestricted operations by the Q400, E170 and possibly E190 aircraft. This would result in a saving of around 10,000 cubic metres in pavement materials. Larger aircraft would be able to operate, but at relatively low frequency – say 1 or 2 a day
– and a further asphalt strengthening course would be added when justified by passenger growth and increased frequency of B737/A320 type aircraft operations.
This could be accomplished without disruption to normal operations.
Regular jet operations including the occasional 170-seat aircraft are likely to warrant airside terminal modifications to improve passenger amenity in accessing the lower apron.
Project cost estimates
The base concept runway upgrade was reliably costed in by the Aerodrome
Board’s advisers in April 2007 at $15-18 million. The cost escalation now evident in the updated estimates reflects the potential scarcity of construction resources following announcements of the multi-billion dollar Comalco and Santos expansion projects, and:
•
•
•
•
•
•

extension of the runway to 1915 metres; requirement for a significant hydraulic structure to allow extension of the runway across Briffney Creek; diversion of Callemondah Drive with a grade separated crossing of the main northern railway line, also to accommodate the runway extension; land acquisition to accommodate this diversion; reconstruction of the parallel taxiway to allow its use for Q400 operations during runway (re-)construction; and terminal expansion to provide for CBS and passenger screening related to
RPT jet aircraft operations.

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

9

The most recent cost estimates utilising unit rates provided by local civil engineering contractors are:

Base Concept
1635m Runway
1915m Runway

Runway Upgrade
Project Cost
Runway geometry and length suitable
$40.3 million for Q400/E170/E190 with terminal works to include CBS and passenger screening
Runway length and pavements suitable
$58.5 million for B737/A320 with augmented airside terminal access to lower apron
Callemondah Drive road works
$6.5 million
Total project cost
$65.0 million

The base concept allows $7.3 million to rebuild the parallel taxiway for use as a temporary runway and $2.9 million in terminal works.
The 1915 metre runway upgrade allows $1.7 million for additional car parking on the old NDB site, $2.2 million for airside and terminal works including augmentation of apron floodlighting, and $7.0 million for the hydraulic structure to span Briffney Creek.
A further provision of $6.5 million is required for external road works associated with the Callemondah Drive road diversion and grade separated railway crossing.
Preliminary 10 year funding plan
For the purposes of this exercise a cost estimate of $40 million has been adopted for the base concept and $60 million for the 1915 metre runway option and it is assumed that external road works will be funded separately.
Attached in Appendix 4 is a preliminary 10 year funding plan which indicates that borrowings of $40 million can be financed by increasing the passenger service charge to $20, and borrowings of $60 million by increasing the charge to $20-25.
The base concept $40 million borrowings is evaluated using the low range forecast passenger growth as this development limits usability of the runway to Q400 and
E170/190 aircraft.
In contrast the $60 million borrowings required for the 1915 metre runway and associated works are assessed using the mid-range and high growth forecasts as accessibility to larger aircraft will provide a greater stimulus to passenger demand.

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

10

Project delivery timeframe and cash flow analysis
A diagram depicting the project delivery timeframe and cash flow analysis is included at Appendix 5.
Kangaroo Island as an alternative airport site
The Aerodrome Board identified (and the State Government has reserved)
Kangaroo Island on the northern end of Gladstone Harbour as a future airport site.
This was done in the late 1960s following a study by the Commonwealth
Department of Transport which identified Kangaroo Island as the optimal alternative airport site in the event that technical restrictions at Gladstone Airport necessitate relocation.
The Central Queensland Ports Authority also has an interest in Kangaroo Island as part of its 50 year port development plan. The recent announcement by Santos to build a LNG facility on the south western end of Curtis Island also suggests that
Kangaroo Island will be the launching point for a bridge across to Curtis Island.
The passenger growth statistics discussed earlier in this report clearly indicate that a medium sized jet airport is required to service the Gladstone region into the future. Until such time as the final capability of the existing Gladstone Airport to cope with forecast growth is determined, Kangaroo Island needs to be retained as part of the region’s long term air transport strategy.
Gladstone Airport - essential infrastructure to ensure regional growth.
The State Government has identified the Gladstone region as a location for major industrial projects. The Department of State Development has acquired 21,000 hectares of land for this purpose. Announcements of Comalco Stage 2 and Santos
LNG plant are a clear indication of the Government’s commitment in this regard. In the short term these projects will have a significant impact on passenger growth rates which are already much higher than previously forecast.
Gladstone is also well placed to provide the air transport gateway to the substantial tourist/holiday destination being created to the south at Agnes
Water/Town of 1770 and to the nearby Heron Island resort.
The airport is needed to support and service industrial development and tourism in the region. The industries are of national importance. The airport must be able to handle the growth in air transport requirements – more passengers and freight, and larger aircraft - generated by such activity. The existing runway in its present condition cannot do this and unless the damage caused by the Q400 is rectified in the very near future the airport will not be able to meet existing demands.

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

11

The Aerodrome Board recognised that the situation it faced in June 2007 needed to be addressed urgently or risk disruption/loss of existing services. The analysis of the current situation, available options and the financial analysis presented in this report remain critical issues requiring the immediate attention of the newly constituted Gladstone Regional Council.
Gladstone is widely recognised as being to Brisbane what Newcastle and
Wollongong are to Sydney and Geelong is to Melbourne. Both Newcastle and
Geelong (Avalon) support rapidly expanding airports with rates of growth far in excess of the national average.
The fact remains that Gladstone Airport plays an essential part not only in development of the region but also that of this State and the Nation.
On this basis, the Aerodrome Board had determined that there exists a unique, but short, window of opportunity to upgrade Gladstone Airport to its ultimate capacity.

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

12

APPENDIX 1
Runway – Taxiway Repairs

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

14

Gladstone Calliope Aerodrome Board

Gladstone Calliope Aerodrome Board
Runway-Taxiway Repairs
The Gladstone Airport runway is 1635m long x 30m wide. It is rated as PCN
14/F/A/1000. The runway was constructed during the 1950’s and was overlayed with
25mm of Open Graded Novachip Asphalt in 1992.
Qantaslink are the only current RPT operator using Dash 8-I00, 200 and 300 aircraft prior to 2006. In early 2006, Qantaslink introduced the Dash 8-Q400 aircraft and in
July increased the Q400 operations to five services per day and reduced the Q300 operations to three services per day.
The Q300 has a MOTW of 18,800kg and ACN rating of 9.0. The Q400 has a MOTW of 28,450kg and ACN rating of 15. As the Q400 ACN is higher than the published
PCN a pavement concession was issued, in February 2006, to allow Q400 operations. In mid 2006 a routine inspection and subsequent visual inspection using a straight edge indicated minor rutting in the predominant 10 (western) end takeoff and landing zone. This rutting was considered to be generally minor and ongoing observation planned. See table attached “Runway 10-28 Pavement Deflections”
In June 2006 repairs were required on the western end of taxiway Alpha. This occurred during lead up to full Q400 operations
In November 2006 two separate sections of the western end of taxiway Alpha failed with rutting and associated shoving. (See pictures below)

Taxiway Alpha
Failure

Taxiway Alpha
Failure

In November 2006 a further visual inspection of the runway indicated no significant increase in rutting in the inspection area. See table attached “Runway 10-28
Pavement Deflections”

1

Gladstone Calliope Aerodrome Board

Due to the amount of damage and continual repairs the Board, in February 2007, modified the pavement concession to prevent Q400 operations on taxiway Alpha between taxiway Bravo and taxiway Golf. Q400 aircraft are now required to back track along the runway.
The following comment was provided by Qantaslink in regards to Q400 operations at
Gladstone.
“It is possible to conduct DHC 8 400 operations at Gladstone using taxiway G only and backtracking on the runway. Landing aircraft will be required to roll through to the end of the runway prior to turning (vide ERSA “Local Traffic
Regulations” item 4). The Gladstone runway slopes up from the 10 threshold for approximately 800 metres and then down to the 28 threshold. The effect of this is that even large aircraft backtracking from the Eastern end of the runway may not be visible to the pilot of an aircraft at the Western threshold about to commence takeoff.
This visibility limitation and the much increased runway occupancy time required by backtracking on the runway expose passengers, crew and aircraft to greater risks than those associated with the use of 15 m taxiways. It will be necessary to ensure other operators understand the length of time the DHC 8
400 will occupy the runway. There will inevitably be some delay to other airport users.” In April 2007 Taxiway Golf, which is the main taxiway between the RPT apron and runway, required repairs due to sections of asphalt breaking out.
An inspection of the runway during rain in early June 2007 indicated water ponding, in rutting, along the Q400 wheel path. (See pictures below). A subsequent check of the rutting under the straight edge indicated a significant increase in the rutting area and depth. See table attached “Runway 10-28 Pavement Deflections”. A small section in the rutting path was also in danger of complete failure and movement was evident under proof rolling.
Urgent, at night, runway repairs were subsequently undertaken. This work involved removal of the section were the failure was imminent and replacing it with a deep lift asphalt, milling off the rutted section of asphalt along the wheel path and replacing with new asphalt. (See pictures below)

Runway 10-28
Before Repairs

2

Runway 10-28
After Repairs

Gladstone Calliope Aerodrome Board

In July 2007 a further repair was required on taxiway Golf. The failure was a combined wheel path rutting and section of cracking, rutting and shoving. (See pictures below)

Taxiway Golf Rutting,
Cracking and shoving

Another area of taxiway Golf, that is showing signs of distress, is currently being monitored. 3

Gladstone Calliope Aerodrome Board

The table below reflects the monitoring of pavement deflection/rutting depth under a straight edge from June 2006 to June 2007;
Runway 10-28 Pavement Deflection Comparisons
Chn
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
1170
1180
1190
1200
1210
1220
1230
1240
1250
1260
1270
1280
1290
1300
1310
1320
1330
1340
1350
1360
1370
1380
1390
1400

June '06

Nov '06

5mm

6mm

6mm
<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

5mm

5mm

5mm

5mm

<5mm
9mm

<5mm
9mm

<5mm
5mm
7mm
<5mm
5mm
10mm
6mm

<5mm
5mm
7mm
<5mm
5mm
10mm
6mm

<5mm
<5mm
<5mm
<5mm
<5mm

<5mm
<5mm
<5mm
<5mm
<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

5mm
<5mm

5mm
<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

4

June '07
<5mm
5mm
9mm
14mm
9mm
15mm
12mm
6mm
5mm
<5mm
<5mm
6mm
5mm
8mm
<5mm
8mm
13mm
6mm
8mm
9mm
5mm
13mm
8mm
8mm
6mm
8mm
12mm
15mm
9mm
15mm
13mm
10mm
12mm
12mm
<5mm
<5mm
5mm
<5mm
<5mm
<5mm
<5mm

APPENDIX 2
Proposed Medium and Long Term Developments

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

15

APPENDIX 3
Proposed Runway Design Profile

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

16

...\glaapl03070009 fin con (1915m 22/04/2008 2:31:50 PM

...\glaapl03070009 fin con (1915m 22/04/2008 2:32:03 PM

...\glaapl03070009 fin con (1915m 22/04/2008 2:32:45 PM

APPENDIX 4
Ten Year Funding Plan

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

17

Gladstone Calliope Aerodrome Board 10 Year Financial Plan - Borrow $30M 08/09 plus Borrow $30M 09/10
Growth - $20 Head Tax 08/09 - inc CPI 2.9%
2007/08

OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Operating Revenue
Passsenger & Landing Charges
Fuel Sales
Shell Management Fee
Other Fees
Interest Received
Other Revenue
Total Operating Revenue
Operating Expenditure
Fuel Purchases
Employee Costs -> 4% pa
Materials & Services
Depreciation - total
Finance Costs (Interest)
Security Operating Expenses
Other Expenses
Total Operating Expenditure

Net Result from Operations
Capital Revenue (and costs)
Other capital grants and subsidies
Total Revenue

NET RESULT
Cash and capital adjustments to net result
Add back depreciation
Deduct capital grants, subsidies and dev contribs

Operating cash available for capital activity

2008/09

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

2016/17

1
2,442,336
2,251,836
28,000
162,500
500
50,000
185,200
2,678,036

2
5,805,718
5,611,408
28,560
165,750
510
80,000
188,904
6,075,132

3
8,562,701
8,364,505
29,131
169,065
520
150,000
192,682
8,905,903

4
11,557,917
11,353,974
29,976
173,968
535
150,000
198,270
11,906,722

5
13,693,449
13,483,591
30,845
179,013
551
50,000
204,020
13,948,019

6
15,412,310
15,196,366
31,740
184,204
567
10,000
209,936
15,632,813

7
16,450,215
16,228,009
32,660
189,546
583
30,000
216,024
16,696,822

8
17,530,201
17,301,551
33,607
195,043
600
100,000
222,289
17,853,090

9
18,721,802
18,486,521
34,582
200,699
617
220,000
228,735
19,171,154

10
20,024,784
19,782,680
35,585
206,520
635
490,000
235,369
20,750,788

26,000
731,063
754,815
483,835
27,333

26,520
760,306
769,911
704,649
974,539

10,000
2,033,046

10,200
3,246,125

27,050
790,718
785,310
1,103,963
2,817,584
750,000
10,404
6,285,029

27,834
822,347
808,084
1,307,515
3,641,941
1,500,000
10,706
8,118,427

28,642
855,241
831,518
1,318,689
3,470,929
1,543,500
11,016
8,059,534

29,472
889,450
855,632
1,337,758
3,288,640
1,588,262
11,336
8,000,550

30,327
925,028
880,446
1,362,721
3,094,333
1,634,321
11,664
7,938,840

31,206
962,029
905,979
1,350,328
2,887,213
1,681,716
12,003
7,830,475

32,111
1,000,511
932,252
1,339,486
2,666,438
1,730,486
12,351
7,713,635

33,043
1,040,531
959,287
1,367,958
2,431,105
1,780,670
12,709
7,625,303

644,990

2,829,007

2,678,036
644,990

2009/10

- HIgh

2,620,874

3,788,295

5,888,484

7,632,263

8,757,983

10,022,615

11,457,520

13,125,485

6,075,132

8,905,903

11,906,722

13,948,019

15,632,813

16,696,822

17,853,090

19,171,154

20,750,788

2,829,007

2,620,874

3,788,295

5,888,484

7,632,263

8,757,983

10,022,615

11,457,520

13,125,485

483,835
1,128,825

704,649
3,533,656

1,103,963
3,724,837

1,307,515
5,095,810

1,318,689
7,207,173

1,337,758
8,970,021

1,362,721
10,120,704

1,350,328
11,372,943

1,339,486
12,797,006

1,367,958
14,493,443

877,000
199,610
1,076,610
877,000
1,128,825
-

30,000,000
767,662
30,767,662
30,000,000
3,533,656
30,000,000
33,533,656

30,000,000
2,004,844
32,004,844
30,000,000
3,724,837
30,000,000
33,724,837

400,000
2,593,667
2,993,667
400,000
5,095,810
-

450,000
2,764,679
3,214,679
450,000
7,207,173
-

500,000
2,946,968
3,446,968
500,000
8,970,021
-

550,000
3,141,276
3,691,276
550,000
10,120,704
-

600,000
3,348,395
3,948,395
600,000
11,372,943
-

650,000
3,569,170
4,219,170
650,000
12,797,006
-

700,000
3,804,503
4,504,503
700,000
14,493,443
-

5,095,810

7,207,173

8,970,021

10,120,704

11,372,943

12,797,006

14,493,443

2,765,994

1,719,992

2,102,143

3,992,494

5,523,053

6,429,428

7,424,549

8,577,835

9,988,940

CAPITAL ACTIVITY
Capital Expenditure
Capital Additions
Debt redemption
Total Capital Expenditure
Capital Sources
From operations
Capital grants and subsidies and developers' contribs
New borrowing
Total Capital Sources
(Reduction)/Increase in opening cash

Balance of debt

1,128,825
52,215

New borrowing
Capital repayment

505,928
(199,610)

Closing debt

306,318

57,533,811
54,940,145
(2,593,667) (2,764,679)

52,175,465
(2,946,968)

49,228,497 46,087,222
42,738,827
39,169,656
(3,141,276) (3,348,395) (3,569,170) (3,804,503)

54,940,145

52,175,465

49,228,497

46,087,222

42,738,827

39,169,656

35,365,153

8,002,504
3,992,494
11,994,998

11,994,998
5,523,053
17,518,051

17,518,051
6,429,428
23,947,479

23,947,479
7,424,549
31,372,027

31,372,027
8,577,835
39,949,863

39,949,863
9,988,940
49,938,803

Debt Commitment Ratio
10.08%
31.05%
57.65%
54.92%
46.25%
41.03%
38.42%
36.04%
(Debt Servicing Obligations / Passenger Landing Charges)
Measures the boards ability to meet its Debt Service Obligations and identifies the percentage of passenger charges required to be isolated for debt servicing purposes.

33.73%

31.52%

Cash & investments at beginning of year
Reduction/Increase in opening cash

Cash & investments at end of year

1,362,160
52,215
1,414,375

306,318
29,538,656
30,000,000
30,000,000
(767,662) (2,004,844)
29,538,656
1,414,375
2,765,994
4,180,369

57,533,811
4,180,369
1,719,992
5,900,361

5,900,361
2,102,143
8,002,504

Ratio Analysis

A result of above 35% is generally considered to be high, clearly the taking on of $60m worth of debt in two years, in a business that has a current turnover of $2.5m is a significant investment, this ten year plan shows that the board has the ability to meet its debt obligations - with approximately a 1/5 of its passenger and landing charges required in the short to medium term to fund capital repayments. It shoud be noted that should projected passenger numbers not increase by the estimated % per annum then the debt service % of recurring income will increase.
Working Capital Ratio
10.14
2.23
(Measures the Board's ability to meet its obligations as and when they fall due)
A result of above 1.0 is considered desirable.
Revenue Assumptions
Passenger Numbers
Year on Year Increase
Passenger Service Fee
Year on Year Increase

221,780
$9.50

275,419
24.19%
$20.00
110.53%

2.38

392,329
42.45%
$20.58
2.90%

3.00

506,316
29.05%
$21.18
2.90%

4.17

582,994
15.14%
$21.79
2.90%

5.67

645,254
10.68%
$22.42
2.90%

7.24

672,419
4.21%
$23.07
2.90%

8.87

700,805
4.22%
$23.74
2.90%

10.58

12.38

730,470
4.23%
$24.43
2.90%

761,469
4.24%
$25.14
2.90%

Gladstone Calliope Aerodrome Board 10 Year Financial Plan - Borrow $30M 08/09 plus Borrow $30M 09/10
Mid-Range Growth - $25 Head Tax 08/09 - inc CPI 2.9%
2007/08

OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Operating Revenue
Passsenger & Landing Charges
Fuel Sales
Shell Management Fee
Other Fees
Interest Received
Other Revenue
Total Operating Revenue
Operating Expenditure
Fuel Purchases
Employee Costs -> 4% pa
Materials & Services
Depreciation - total
Finance Costs (Interest)
Security Operating Expenses
Other Expenses
Total Operating Expenditure

Net Result from Operations
Capital Revenue (and costs)
Other capital grants and subsidies
Total Revenue

NET RESULT
Cash and capital adjustments to net result
Add back depreciation
Deduct capital grants, subsidies and dev contribs

Operating cash available for capital activity

2008/09

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

2016/17

1
2,442,336
2,251,836
28,000
162,500
500
50,000
185,200
2,678,036

2
6,866,959
6,672,649
28,560
165,750
510
80,000
188,904
7,136,373

3
8,389,521
8,191,325
29,131
169,065
520
150,000
192,682
8,732,723

4
8,973,236
8,769,292
29,976
173,968
535
150,000
198,270
9,322,040

5
10,298,037
10,088,179
30,845
179,013
551
50,000
204,020
10,552,607

6
11,279,010
11,063,066
31,740
184,204
567
10,000
209,936
11,499,513

7
12,031,323
11,809,116
32,660
189,546
583
30,000
216,024
12,277,930

8
12,801,439
12,572,789
33,607
195,043
600
100,000
222,289
13,124,328

9
13,664,614
13,429,333
34,582
200,699
617
220,000
228,735
14,113,967

10
14,590,171
14,348,067
35,585
206,520
635
490,000
235,369
15,316,175

26,000
731,063
754,815
483,835
27,333

26,520
760,306
769,911
704,649
974,539

10,000
2,033,046

10,200
3,246,125

27,050
790,718
785,310
1,103,963
2,817,584
750,000
10,404
6,285,029

27,834
822,347
808,084
1,307,515
3,641,941
1,500,000
10,706
8,118,427

28,642
855,241
831,518
1,318,689
3,470,929
1,543,500
11,016
8,059,534

29,472
889,450
855,632
1,337,758
3,288,640
1,588,262
11,336
8,000,550

30,327
925,028
880,446
1,362,721
3,094,333
1,634,321
11,664
7,938,840

31,206
962,029
905,979
1,350,328
2,887,213
1,681,716
12,003
7,830,475

32,111
1,000,511
932,252
1,339,486
2,666,438
1,730,486
12,351
7,713,635

33,043
1,040,531
959,287
1,367,958
2,431,105
1,780,670
12,709
7,625,303

644,990

3,890,247

2,678,036
644,990

2009/10

2010/11

-

2,447,694

1,203,613

2,493,073

3,498,962

4,339,090

5,293,853

6,400,332

7,690,872

7,136,373

8,732,723

9,322,040

10,552,607

11,499,513

12,277,930

13,124,328

14,113,967

15,316,175

3,890,247

2,447,694

1,203,613

2,493,073

3,498,962

4,339,090

5,293,853

6,400,332

7,690,872

483,835
1,128,825

704,649
4,594,896

1,103,963
3,551,657

1,307,515
2,511,128

1,318,689
3,811,762

1,337,758
4,836,720

1,362,721
5,701,811

1,350,328
6,644,181

1,339,486
7,739,818

1,367,958
9,058,830

877,000
199,610
1,076,610
877,000
1,128,825
-

30,000,000
767,662
30,767,662
30,000,000
4,594,896
30,000,000
34,594,896

30,000,000
2,004,844
32,004,844
30,000,000
3,551,657
30,000,000
33,551,657

400,000
2,593,667
2,993,667
400,000
2,511,128
-

450,000
2,764,679
3,214,679
450,000
3,811,762
-

500,000
2,946,968
3,446,968
500,000
4,836,720
-

550,000
3,141,276
3,691,276
550,000
5,701,811
-

600,000
3,348,395
3,948,395
600,000
6,644,181
-

650,000
3,569,170
4,219,170
650,000
7,739,818
-

700,000
3,804,503
4,504,503
700,000
9,058,830
-

2,511,128

3,811,762

4,836,720

5,701,811

6,644,181

7,739,818

9,058,830

3,827,234

1,546,812

(482,538)

597,082

1,389,752

2,010,535

2,695,786

3,520,648

4,554,327

CAPITAL ACTIVITY
Capital Expenditure
Capital Additions
Debt redemption
Total Capital Expenditure
Capital Sources
From operations
Capital grants and subsidies and developers' contribs
New borrowing
Total Capital Sources
(Reduction)/Increase in opening cash

Balance of debt

1,128,825
52,215

New borrowing
Capital repayment

505,928
(199,610)

Closing debt

306,318

57,533,811
54,940,145
(2,593,667) (2,764,679)

52,175,465
(2,946,968)

49,228,497 46,087,222
42,738,827
39,169,656
(3,141,276) (3,348,395) (3,569,170) (3,804,503)

54,940,145

49,228,497

46,087,222

42,738,827

39,169,656

35,365,153

8,292,718
2,010,535
10,303,253

10,303,253
2,695,786
12,999,039

12,999,039
3,520,648
16,519,687

16,519,687
4,554,327
21,074,014

Debt Commitment Ratio
10.08%
26.11%
58.87%
71.11%
61.81%
56.36%
52.80%
49.60%
(Debt Servicing Obligations / Passenger Landing Charges)
Measures the boards ability to meet its Debt Service Obligations and identifies the percentage of passenger charges required to be isolated for debt servicing purposes.

46.43%

43.46%

Cash & investments at beginning of year
Reduction/Increase in opening cash

Cash & investments at end of year

1,362,160
52,215
1,414,375

306,318
29,538,656
30,000,000
30,000,000
(767,662) (2,004,844)
29,538,656
1,414,375
3,827,234
5,241,609

57,533,811
5,241,609
1,546,812
6,788,421

6,788,421
(482,538)
6,305,883

52,175,465
6,305,883
597,082
6,902,965

6,902,965
1,389,752
8,292,718

Ratio Analysis

A result of above 35% is generally considered to be high, clearly the taking on of $60m worth of debt in two years, in a business that has a current turnover of $2.5m is a significant investment, this ten year plan shows that the board has the ability to meet its debt obligations - with approximately a 1/3 of its passenger and landing charges required in the short to medium term to fund capital repayments. It shoud be noted that should projected passenger numbers not increase by the estimated 15% per annum then the debt service % of recurring income will increase.
Working Capital Ratio
10.14
2.76
(Measures the Board's ability to meet its obligations as and when they fall due)
A result of above 1.0 is considered desirable.
Revenue Assumptions
Passenger Numbers
Year on Year Increase
Passenger Service Fee
Year on Year Increase

221,780
$9.50

265,019
19.50%
$25.00
163.16%

2.73

341,011
28.67%
$20.58
-17.68%

2.38

392,129
14.99%
$21.18
2.90%

2.44

433,636
10.59%
$21.79
2.90%

2.73

465,831
7.42%
$22.42
2.90%

3.16

485,389
4.20%
$23.07
2.90%

3.72

505,828
4.21%
$23.74
2.90%

4.42

527,186
4.22%
$24.43
2.90%

5.27

549,506
4.23%
$25.14
2.90%

Gladstone Calliope Aerodrome Board 10 Year Financial Plan - Borrow $20M 08/09 plus Borrow $20M 09/10
Growth - $20 Head Tax 08/09 - inc CPI 2.9%
2007/08

OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Operating Revenue
Passsenger & Landing Charges
Fuel Sales
Shell Management Fee
Other Fees
Interest Received
Other Revenue
Total Operating Revenue
Operating Expenditure
Fuel Purchases
Employee Costs -> 4% pa
Materials & Services
Depreciation - total
Finance Costs (Interest)
Security Operating Expenses
Other Expenses
Total Operating Expenditure

Net Result from Operations
Capital Revenue (and costs)
Other capital grants and subsidies
Total Revenue

NET RESULT
Cash and capital adjustments to net result
Add back depreciation
Deduct capital grants, subsidies and dev contribs

Operating cash available for capital activity

2008/09

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Low

2014/15

2015/16

2016/17

1
2,442,336
2,251,836
28,000
162,500
500
50,000
185,200
2,678,036

2
5,414,318
5,220,008
28,560
165,750
510
80,000
188,904
5,683,732

3
6,439,361
6,241,165
29,131
169,065
520
150,000
192,682
6,782,563

4
6,858,994
6,655,050
29,976
173,968
535
150,000
198,270
7,207,799

5
8,091,387
7,881,529
30,845
179,013
551
50,000
204,020
8,345,957

6
8,653,000
8,437,056
31,740
184,204
567
10,000
209,936
8,873,503

7
9,239,675
9,017,469
32,660
189,546
583
30,000
216,024
9,486,282

8
9,856,053
9,627,403
33,607
195,043
600
100,000
222,289
10,178,942

9
10,554,055
10,318,774
34,582
200,699
617
220,000
228,735
11,003,408

10
11,277,043
11,034,939
35,585
206,520
635
490,000
235,369
12,003,047

26,000
731,063
754,815
483,835
27,333

26,520
760,306
769,911
704,649
974,539

10,000
2,033,046

10,200
3,246,125

27,050
790,718
785,310
1,103,963
2,817,584
750,000
10,404
6,285,029

27,834
822,347
808,084
1,307,515
3,641,941
1,500,000
10,706
8,118,427

28,642
855,241
831,518
1,318,689
3,470,929
1,543,500
11,016
8,059,534

29,472
889,450
855,632
1,337,758
3,288,640
1,588,262
11,336
8,000,550

30,327
925,028
880,446
1,362,721
3,094,333
1,634,321
11,664
7,938,840

31,206
962,029
905,979
1,350,328
2,887,213
1,681,716
12,003
7,830,475

32,111
1,000,511
932,252
1,339,486
2,666,438
1,730,486
12,351
7,713,635

33,043
1,040,531
959,287
1,367,958
2,431,105
1,780,670
12,709
7,625,303

644,990

2,437,607

497,533

(910,629)

286,423

872,953

1,547,442

2,348,468

3,289,773

4,377,744

2,678,036

5,683,732

6,782,563

8,873,503

9,486,282

10,178,942

11,003,408

12,003,047

2,437,607

497,533

7,207,799
1
(910,629)

8,345,957

644,990

286,423

872,953

1,547,442

2,348,468

3,289,773

4,377,744

483,835
1,128,825

704,649
3,142,256

1,103,963
1,601,496

1,307,515
396,886

1,318,689
1,605,112

1,337,758
2,210,711

1,362,721
2,910,163

1,350,328
3,698,796

1,339,486
4,629,259

1,367,958
5,745,702

877,000
199,610
1,076,610
877,000
1,128,825
-

30,000,000
767,662
30,767,662
30,000,000
3,142,256
30,000,000
33,142,256

30,000,000
2,004,844
32,004,844
30,000,000
1,601,496
30,000,000
31,601,496

400,000
2,593,667
2,993,667
400,000
396,886
-

450,000
2,764,679
3,214,679
450,000
1,605,112
-

500,000
2,946,968
3,446,968
500,000
2,210,711
-

550,000
3,141,276
3,691,276
550,000
2,910,163
-

600,000
3,348,395
3,948,395
600,000
3,698,796
-

650,000
3,569,170
4,219,170
650,000
4,629,259
-

700,000
3,804,503
4,504,503
700,000
5,745,702
-

1,605,112

2,210,711

2,910,163

3,698,796

4,629,259

5,745,702

(403,348)

(2,596,780)

(1,609,568)

(1,236,257)

410,089

1,241,199

CAPITAL ACTIVITY
Capital Expenditure
Capital Additions
Debt redemption
Total Capital Expenditure
Capital Sources
From operations
Capital grants and subsidies and developers' contribs
New borrowing
Total Capital Sources
(Reduction)/Increase in opening cash

Balance of debt

1,128,825
52,215

New borrowing
Capital repayment

505,928
(199,610)

Closing debt

306,318

2,374,594

(781,112)

(249,599)

57,533,811
54,940,145
(2,593,667) (2,764,679)

52,175,465
(2,946,968)

49,228,497 46,087,222
42,738,827
39,169,656
(3,141,276) (3,348,395) (3,569,170) (3,804,503)

54,940,145

49,228,497

46,087,222

42,738,827

39,169,656

35,365,153

(820,728)
(1,236,257)
(2,056,985)

(2,056,985)
(781,112)
(2,838,097)

(2,838,097)
(249,599)
(3,087,696)

(3,087,696)
410,089
(2,677,608)

(2,677,608)
1,241,199
(1,436,409)

Debt Commitment Ratio
10.08%
33.38%
77.27%
93.70%
79.12%
73.91%
69.15%
64.77%
(Debt Servicing Obligations / Passenger Landing Charges)
Measures the boards ability to meet its Debt Service Obligations and identifies the percentage of passenger charges required to be isolated for debt servicing purposes.

60.43%

56.51%

Cash & investments at beginning of year
Reduction/Increase in opening cash

Cash & investments at end of year

1,362,160
52,215
1,414,375

306,318
29,538,656
30,000,000
30,000,000
(767,662) (2,004,844)

396,886

29,538,656
1,414,375
2,374,594
3,788,969

57,533,811
3,788,969
(403,348)
3,385,620

3,385,620
(2,596,780)
788,840

52,175,465
788,840
(1,609,568)
(820,728)

Ratio Analysis

A result of above 35% is generally considered to be high, clearly the taking on of $60m worth of debt in two years, in a business that has a current turnover of $2.5m is a significant investment, this ten year plan shows that the board has the ability to meet its debt obligations - with approximately a 1/3 of its passenger and landing charges required in the short to medium term to fund capital repayments. It shoud be noted that should projected passenger numbers not increase by the estimated 15% per annum then the debt service % of recurring income will increase.
Working Capital Ratio
10.14
2.03
(Measures the Board's ability to meet its obligations as and when they fall due)
A result of above 1.0 is considered desirable.
Revenue Assumptions
Passenger Numbers
Year on Year Increase
Passenger Service Fee
Year on Year Increase

221,780
$9.50

254,819
14.90%
$20.00
110.53%

1.41

293,199
15.06%
$20.58
2.90%

0.39

324,525
10.68%
$21.18
2.90%

(0.18)

(0.56)

(0.76)

(0.79)

(0.63)

(0.28)

348,823
7.49%
$21.79
2.90%

363,584
4.23%
$22.42
2.90%

379,010
4.24%
$23.07
2.90%

395,129
4.25%
$23.74
2.90%

411,974
4.26%
$24.43
2.90%

429,577
4.27%
$25.14
2.90%

APPENDIX 5
Project Delivery Timeframe and Cash Flow Analysis

APRIL 2008 UPDATE

17