This article is spot on. Those advocating that public money be spent to follow a high risk dream of a second Sydney airport are out of order.

One issue which is frequently overlooked, perhaps because of the toxic outrage which comes from both those who recognise the strength of climate science and those who are deaf to argument based on climate science, is the twin hazard of future fuel costs and of climate change due, in no small part, to aviation. Fuel certainly isn't about to get any cheaper. It's realistic to expectat that the real cost of air transport will increase over the coming couple of decades, at least. Projecting endless growth for Mascot is a fool's charade.

Forget Williamtown. The RAAF has a stranglehold over it operationally and owns the site, besides which land transport from Williamtown to Newcastle, let alone to Sydney, is a nightmare and the locals have become somewhat litigious regarding property rights, noise, traffic, zoning, et al.

The third issue which may impact on Mascot well before any new airport is operational is the possibility of high speed passenger rail linking Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney, Newcastle and/or Brisbane. Any decision to build or not to build additional airports should be taken in concert with decisions regarding the role, if any, that upgraded rail will play in Australia's future domestic transport systems.

The probable end result is that the existing resource, Mascot, will become scarcer and scarcer. This will result in incremental operational improvements, coupled with either a congestion tax or even more monopolist profits, depending on whether Macquarie Bank or a government has the whip hand at the relevant time.