Avoid being stampeded into Mopa

Philip S. Thomas

Some useful details of the ICAO report about Dabolim and Mopa have appeared
elsewhere in the local English media recently. Ostensibly the report is,
indeed, about the two airports together. In fact, it acknowledges that both
airports may be needed on "social and economic grounds" but is silent on the
issue of the government's political credibility since the latter has openly
backed the idea of a two-airport tango with little or no clue as to how to
proceed. But the report confirms our worst fears that Goa is sought to be
stampeded into going in for the old Mopa project in an unjustified way. The
signs are clearly visible in a series of surprising conceptual flaws in the
ICAO's approach.

First and foremost, ICAO neglects to address the issue of the Union Cabinet'
s Resolution 2000 which mandates the closure of Dabolim civil enclave once
Mopa is functional. Ostensibly based on the 150 km separation rule, this
resolution may have been at the instance of the military under the guise of
enhancing the viability of a greenfield airport project for private
developers. The rule originated in 1997 with (a) the new Kochi airport (to
bypass the physically constrained naval runway on an island there) and (b)
the negotiations then underway over a new Bangalore airport (given the
inadequacies of the existing HAL civil enclave). The rule is currently under
active review and may be relaxed across the board. Goa should monitor the
outcome closely before jumping onto the ICAO plan. But Resolution 2000 will
be an obstacle till it is reworked.

The next flaw is in the use of the term "dual airport system" in conjunction
with the gratuitous warning about the commercial and financial risks of
"splitting air traffic". The issue arises if both Dabolim and Mopa are
considered as "international airports". This was the source of the original
plan for Mopa, designed as a replacement for Dabolim, not as a supplement.
Once it was clear that both airports need to co-exist, ICAO should have
recast the plan for Mopa in 2006 to function as a smaller regional airport
(albeit with the vision and design provisions for modular enlargement over
time according to traffic growth). Instead it still talks of a $325 million
project (up 40% from $225 million in 2005) even though capacity has
supposedly been halved (from nearly 12 million to 6 million).

In India it is easy to fall into the trap of "dual airports" because the
pent up demand for airport infrastructure induces us to think that every new
airport has to be an international airport. But in the rest of the world
every new airport is not an international airport from Day One. The
distinction usually applied is between "primary airports" and "secondary
airports" which, therefore, constitute "multi-airport systems". For vital
historical and practical reasons, Dabolim must be retained by Goa as a
primary airport to the maximum extent possible and Mopa should be designed
as a secondary airport, at least at the outset.

In this connection, it is unfair for ICAO to single out the Goa government
for preparing an "airport development strategy" while overlooking the role
of its client, the civil aviation ministry at the Centre. But it is a good
wake up call to all of us in Goa if the state is to avoid being stampeded in
unwanted directions. Goa cannot expect others to divine its fundamental
interests in aviation without participating pro-actively in the planning
process.

ICAO missed out on all the necessary parameters because it got side-tracked
by the nominal military element of Dabolim. It is "plane wrong" in saying
that "the primary use of Dabolim is for military purposes". On the contrary,
the Navy never misses an opportunity to play to the gallery by (a) proudly
proclaiming that it uses "only 16%" of weekly runway time for purely
military purposes and (b) suggesting that congestion could be easily reduced
if airlines made use of all the night hours. This inadvertently confirms
that Dabolim was originally a civilian airport and still continues to be
primarily a civilian facility even though it is controlled by the military
since Liberation. It is a sheep in wolf's clothing.

The fallacy in the Navy's stance is that all hours are the same. In fact the
hours blocked by the Navy are peak (morning) hours for national air traffic.
What are available to airlines at Goa are mostly off-peak hours (in the
afternoon) and non-peak hours (at night). The latter may be useful only for
international airlines from the west and for domestic low cost carriers (if
concessional airport rates and low ATF sales taxes are charged). Indeed it
should be useful to the Navy itself though it has lost many aircraft , (for
unspecified reasons), while "training" during broad daylight! But that's
another story.

The last straw in the ICAO's approach is that it has got carried away by the
challenge of "financing" the Mopa project. This is the back end of the
process not the front end. It follows from the physical plan and should not
dictate it. According to the well-known GIGO principle of computerized
financial modeling, if you put "garbage in" you get "garbage out"! It's as
simple as that. Once you decide on a multi-airport system, the traffic
growth projections currently applicable, the destinations to be served in a
non-overlapping way, the state's development strategy etc, then the
financing requirements may turn out to be not so humungous after all. Indeed
the state itself may feel the need to shoulder the burden given the onerous
and often unreasonable demands of both the opaque military (at Dabolim) and
mercenary private developers if any (at Mopa).

To give the devil its due, ICAO does make eminent sense when it says that
"going ahead (with Mopa) is necessary despite the importance of the
currently planned investment programme at the Dabolim airport". But in order
to follow this superficially sound advice, the Mopa project must be made
feasible and viable as a supplement to Dabolim without pre-judging the
financing aspects. This requires a lot of actual spade work, not
pre-conceived solutions. When ICAO observes at the very end that "only a
detailed financial analysis could better quantify the real potential
viability of the project while establishing the optimum investment required
from the state government to make it a win-win proposition." it must first
go back to the drawing boards about the real project. Anyone in Goa would
say "amen" to the idea of a "win-win proposition" if it means that both
Dabolim and Mopa must win out in the long run.

Published in Herald Dec 29,'07 as "Avoid stampede in Mopa".







Reply via email to