Flughafen Wien AG announced last week that it had applied for an extension of the implementation period for the construction of the planned third runway. On the part of the "citizens' initiative against aircraft noise in Vienna-West" and the Aviation Reset association, resistance is being formed.
Flughafen Wien AG had to fight for the building permit for the planned third runway for around eight years. Immediately before the start of the corona pandemic, which led to the almost complete standstill of air traffic, the highest court had approved the building permit and the EIA procedure. Since the first construction phase will most likely not be implemented in the intended time frame, an extension of the deadline has been applied for.
The two organizations are strictly against the government giving the go-ahead. Among other things, it is argued that the underlying planning is then more than 25 years old and would then relate to the state of the art in 2033 in 2033. It is feared that the project could then no longer correspond to that which was approved by the highest court. Therefore, it is demanded that a new environmental impact assessment or "at least an amendment procedure according to the EIA Act" be carried out.
"We will take all necessary steps at national and European level to oppose the realization of this project, which is harmful to the climate and health and environmentally unjustifiable.", said the legal representative of the citizens' initiative and the association, attorney Dr. Martin Fischer (law firm Heger & Partner).
The chairman of the Aviation Reset association, Dr. Susanne Heger adds: “The economic risk for the third runway project falls on the taxpayer. In the previous procedure, we pointed out the risk of epidemics and pandemics and also that Vienna Airport cannot go bankrupt due to international agreements. Our objections were dismissed. Today it is clear that we were right. The pandemic lasted two years and taxpayers had to pay a three-digit million sum to Vienna Airport and its main customer, AUA. Pursuing the project under these circumstances is not only environmentally irresponsible, but also economically irresponsible.”