Well done.

Totally stupid project.

Yes it is stupid, but the only thing even more stupid is making that comment in 2021 as they are paving it instead of back in 2014 when there was enough time to change it.

Should have been a real second runway, not this inserted one.

Where would you put second runway?

Either parallel to the existing one but on the other side of the airport. Or, to the west of the existing one to for a letter 'T'. But this depends on the prevailing winds.

What you will have now it two runways too close to each other so that they cannot be used at the same time if necessary.

Yes and you think it is so easy to place runways wherever without you actually knowing land ownership rights, the terrain, of if there is water underneath your planned runway etc. Kako mali djokica zamisli.

Does BEG need a second runway?

Maybe they could do something about cleansiness and maintenance within the building. What they have currently is a complete disgrace.

First of all you don't 'place' a runway anywhere, you build it. Second, in the master plan for BEG the second runway was planned to be parallel to the existing one but on the opposite side of the airport. Land rights, and environmental issues can be dealt with as needed.

The question is where is the BEST place to build a second runway. What is best for the long term development of the airport. How best to accommodate future demand etc. Not where is the most convenient and easiest place to build it.

So take a chill pill Mr. djoki and learn something.

The master plan for BEG was made in the 80s. It was completely invalid after 1990.

'Invalid'? Perhaps the buildings and facilities need updating from the 1980s, but the location of the second runway was completely valid. That location was chosen for maximum optimization of flight takeoffs and landings.

Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic of paving the new runway. And cleanliness in the airport has been discussed many times when the topic is the airport building.

Not really with the amount of traffic they have but the current one is in need of renovation.

It has everything to do with the fact some people can't stand Belgrade getting a second runway and being the only airport in Ex Yu with runway redundancy. Petty and sad.

Whaaat? Master plan with non-inserted, distant second runway was NOT invalid after 1990. ExYuaviation posted one version from 2003:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EwrzXyUVbz8/VQUzbPfixUI/AAAAAAAAQPM/xMmWbaU9y54/s1600/beg2025.jpg

That's how second runway was planned since 1962 until 2014-2015.

Posting a comment that inserted or separate runway is not needed now that paving is happening is pathetic. That discussion was taking place 6-7 years ago. If you don't realize now is way too late to chime in with your opinion you should seek help to get acquainted with reality surrounding you.

What do you mean by runway redundancy? You mean having a more limited runway?
Vinci said that it may reach 15 million in 10 years similar to what BUD used to do before Corona

Where was it posted that a inserted or separate runway is not needed?

If they built the second runway on the opposite side of the airport as planned, then two planes could land/take off at the same time. The cost would not be significantly more.

With this inserted runway you cannot have two planes taking off/landing at the same time as it is to close to the old runway. Not saying that this will be necessary now, but in the future it would be nice to know that you could do that.

And I realize that the inserted runway is a fait accompli, but it is the wrong decision.

Try to concentrate and comprehend the issues be discussed.

Inserted runway was wrong but trying to talk about it in 2021 is much wronger.

You have no clue what was the point of inserted runway.

OK, never ever mention anything from the past. Got it.

But glad you agree with me that the inserted runway was a mistake. Not the idea of a second runway, just the location.

There is a reason us pilots and generally people involved in aviation roll our eyes at you avgeeks. You literally have no idea what the point of this whole thing is, yet you comment on "parallel runways" as if it's some cool thing that gives an airport prestige and you have to have it. I can very much take off and land here without two runways, the only thing stopping me is the weather in winter.

This inset will NOT be a runway in the long run, it will be a taxiway! Moreover, it will have rapid exit taxiways (you can google what that means) which will decrease runway occupancy times significantly, and increase the number of operations per hour.

This inset WILL serve as a runway in the interim, meaning once its construction is complete the main runway can and will undergo full renovation (because the taxiway will temporarily be used as the main runway), and once that's done, the inset will go back to serving its primary purpose - which is to be a taxi way accessible also by rapid exits.

Not a pilot but I can tell you winter weather is not the only thing stopping you. What can delay you is FOD sweeping, resurfacing and worst of all incidents like Egypt Air MS3100 on 12 Sep 2018, closing Belgrade airport for about 8 hours. It screwed up JU schedule to JFK for days. But it's true, inserted runway will be used as a taxiway most of the time and will be open only if existing one is closed, never both at the same time.

On the other hand, discussion we had back in 2015 was about benefits of non-inserted, separate runway over this inserted one. It would have been more expensive but would allow way more flexibility. For example, even now during pandemic, Aegean planes had to wait today on taxiway for 10-15 minutes for departure. Not tragic, but imagine how it will look like in 10-20 years. Inserted runway won't be able to help with congestion.

May I ask:
1. What is the price of this 'inserted' runway?
2. What will be the price of new separate runway?

Me (the pilot) again. Basically, I didn't get my point across. This is not a runway, please stop calling it a runway. It's just a taxiway that will temporarily be used as a runway in the interim (while the main is being renovated).

Now, those occurrences you've mentioned happen once in a blue moon. A parallel runway costs a lot of money to build, and not to mention - to maintain! The current runway has an ILS CATIIIB approach capability, and keeping that thing online isn't cheap, much less for 2 runways simultaneously. If you're gonna build a second runway without all weather operations capability, then don't bother building it.

So long story short, a rapid exit taxiway (which is what is being built) will allow a higher throughflow of traffic at a substantially lower price. The benefits are there, and a second runway (if needed) can always be built later on when the cost/benefit factors seem reasonable.

For now, it would just be a "safety net" that costs a lot of money. Worst case scenario, if any of those incidents or accidents ever happen again, you have two nearby airports where aircraft can divert, and passengers can be shuttled by bus. It's not Greenland or Antarctica.

Current RWY 12/30 needs deep reconstruction, not just resurfacing that can be done during series of overnight closures. That work would close the airport not just for couple of hours "once in a blue moon" but for months. Batajnica simply can't take over the load. Another runway, inserted or not, was needed to keep Belgrade airport operational so the existing RWY 12/30 can be reconstructed, RETs built etc.

Cost/benefit factors for a separate second runway will never seem reasonable. Apparently land cost on the other side of the airport is prohibitive. Space for a brand new airport further away is dedicated under a new 2035 land plan.

@Anon 21:38 You mentioned 'brand new airport further away'. What does it mean? Who will build it? What will be expected capacity level? How it will be connected with existing one?

"Current RWY 12/30 needs deep reconstruction, not just resurfacing that can be done during series of overnight closures. That work would close the airport not just for couple of hours "once in a blue moon" but for months. Batajnica simply can't take over the load. Another runway, inserted or not, was needed to keep Belgrade airport operational so the existing RWY 12/30 can be reconstructed, RETs built etc."

Dude, I don't know if you're the same anon, and I don't know if you're replying to me or the other guy. I'll just say this again - exactly because the runway needs a lot of time to be renovated, the taxiway they're building (which is being called an "inserted runway" for some funky reason) will be strong enough and wide enough to be used as a substitute during that 12-18 month period while the main is being renovated. The incidents that were mentioned before (the ones that would warrant a closure of the runway in use on a given day) happen so rarely, that for that one single day in 1000 days of operation, an airplane can land in Kraljevo or Ponikve, or even Nis, and have the passengers shuttled by bus as a one in a million event. It's still cheaper than building and maintaining a parallel runway.

Zadar has 2 runways.

Batajnica has 2 runways.