New Thames Airport for London

[jabird]

MAN777,

I'll stand by my point with the geography - when you have a country with one city much larger than #2 - 4x or more, and that city is already the home to the national flag carrier, is the political and commercial capital, and that city has a significant tourist infrastructure, it almost always follows that aviation activity will gravitate to that city. Whether you want to call it moths to the light, or a self-fulfilling prophecy, this will be the major hub, just as night follows day.

This situation is especially prevalent in the UK and France, but also I would say the same scenario applies in each of the Nordic countries, and in Ireland. I would also say it applies to Mexico, South Korea and Taiwan.

It is not a universal phenomenon, nor does it seem to have any impact on the overall success of a country - as it clearly does not apply to the USA, China, Italy, Spain, India, Canada, Germany (as discussed) or Brazil.

Wherever you have one dominant city, residents in the others will complain about it - but even in countries with several major cities of similar size and importance, you still have regional disparities and rural-urban tensions, it is a fact of life.


Now with respect to Swizterland and the Netherlands, you have two special cases. Zurich isn't the political capital, but the Swiss cantonal system is highly devolved anyway, and Zurich is a major financial centre, aswell as the hub of the national rail network. However, Geneva is both key to the UN (hence NYC being a viable destination), and a major centre for low cost flights serving skiiers. Therefore, ZRH will always be the hub, but there is viability for Geneva in its own way too.

The main population centres of the Netherlands are concentrated in the Ranstad region, which includes AMS, The Hague and Rotterdam, which is just 26 mins away from AMS by fast train. Therefore, AMS is a natural hub for the whole country, not just the (relatively small) population of Amsterdam itself.

If you don't have the conditions above for one city to dominate, then it is anybody's game to become the major hub - hence the evolution of cities in the USA where the airport is indeed built, and they do come.

[silverstrata]

Thomas

Now we know your reason for being so keen on a new airport: It's so you can post your anti New Labour rhetoric. In case you haven't noticed in LA, New Labour have been out of power for 18 months.

Nonsense. Like many I would have backed New Labour if they had done something for the infrastructure and the economy, but they did nothing except social engineering for Marxist wealth distribution purposes (redistributing from the wealthy West to poverty-stricken tyrannical dictators who will buy more arms and population suppression materials).

Name me any great infrastructure project undertaken by New Labour during their tenure.

Flightman

John Prescott said when transport sec in 1997 " doing nothing is not an option" on S/E airport capacity. Then spent 13 years doing exactly that.

Exactly. See my comments above on New Labour. They were the most useless administration in the nation's history. And either incompetent or traitorous too - while they managed to build absolutely nothing, they simultaneously banckrupted the nation. Now that takes some doing !!

You will note that Spain also bankrupted itself - but at least they ended up with 5,000 miles of new motorways, 2,000 miles of highspeed rail, plus another 2 million houses and a whole host of new airports. We ended up with ....... errrrmm ........ the Birmingham toll road?

Man 7

But when the idea of Londoners having to be inconvenienced by hubbing or driving north, all hell breaks out and we get cries of we need a mega airport.

The Thames Airport is not about increasing local traffic, it is about capturing the huge increase in world traffic interlining into Europe. There are many locations in Europe that do not have easy direct flights, and there is huge demand for hubbing flights (as I do quite often). But with LHR so overcrowded and so susceptible to delays, it is much easier to go via AMS or CDG - and that is a big problem for the economy of London, and thus the economy of the UK.

Winebago

Why is nobody talking about an intergrated Heathrow plus Northolt?

Because you will end up with a mini-Heathrow situation. Northholt is slap ban in the middle of NW London, and the noise demonstrations will be huge and the night ban will be from 20:00 to 08:00. And if anyone does a BA 38 (777) on short finals, they will end up landing in the suburbs with vast loss of life. Northholt is a non-starter.

This is why we need an airport that is free from the sprawling conurbation that is the newly immigrant-inflated South East.

Inkjet

Birds and Money may be an issue (newts if Red Ken get back in) as well as airspace issues for LCY & AMS

LCY would have to close. But if Boris Island (B.I.) was big enough to take regional/commuter aircraft, and was connected to Cross-Rail (and thus directly to London Docklands, London Central, and London Windsor Views), there would no longer be a need to have a city airport.

Likewise, if B.I. was orientated NE - SW, I see no conflict with AMS traffic. Anyone from ATC with a view on this?

Inkjet

Of course it would require BA one-world to be there from the off, STAR could continue to use LHR and a reduced cap would give the people of west London a quieter lifestyle, LHR could become a major cargo hub.

No, LHR would have to close. It is the development and sale of LHR, as the largest and best-connected development site in Europe, that would pay for Boris Island.

So discounting Manchester, on the grounds of there is not enough demand, is very short sighted, some demand is there - Emirates, Qatar, 'Etihad, LH, AF, have all found it,

But if you had a decent hub, like B.I., with five flights a day to MAN and eight TGV trains a day to MAN - would there still be that demand? Is not MAN living off the back of the capacity constraints at LHR?

Do passengers want to go to MAN at all? Or do they really want to go to Birmingham, Gloucester and Leeds, but find LHR too tiresome and the train connections so poor (you have to go via London and a separate tube journey).

Sellbydate

Lord Foster appears to have been in Oxford last night giving a lecture on his grand vision for London - see link below

Lord Foster Reveals Further Developments for the Proposed Thames Hub

I think we can disregard anything Lummox Foster says. This study is all about 'wildlife habitats' and 'nature reserves' - the buzzwords for any project in the New Labour era. I'm surprised his proposal does not include the huge benefits his folly will give to sustainability, equality, multiculturalism and community relations.

Meanwhile, back on the Ranch of Rationality, Foster's Folly still has runways that will not allow simultaneous approaches, or unrestrained taxying, and his flightpath still goes right across the center of London.

So not only will Foster's Folly have huge night restrictions due noise, it will also be mighty dangerous. Had that 747 that crashed out of Stanstead been taking off from Foster's Folly, it would have impacted right around the Westminster area. Are the Westminster Wallies listening to this?

Gonzo

And who are you going to find to buy LHR for £40bn? And foot the bill for the 75,000 direct unemployed, and who knows how many indirect unemployed, in the West London, M40-M3 corridor?

Develop the site and sell the individual elements. If Docklands can be worth around £40 billion, I am sure LHR will be more so (Its right next to all those Thames corridor commuters, who would love to relocate their offices to London Windsor Views, rather than grinding their way into London Central each day.)

And there will be no unemployment around London Windsor Views - instead this will become the biggest development site in Europe, with jobs galore.

In fact, it is London Central that needs to worry. London Docklands will be right next to Europe's biggest airport, and have plenty of trade. London Windsor Views will be next to the wealthy lands of the Thames corridor, and so will have any number of private company offices relocating there. Meanwhile, London Central will be the sprawling dirty and overcrowded abortion that it has been for some time, served by a 19th century metro system that nobody has touched in five decades.

Where would you rather have your offices - London Windsor Views, London Central, or London Docklands?

P.S. Lets get rid of that London Docklands appellation, it hardly does the area justice. How about London Thames Views, or London Sunrise City??





.

[silverstrata]

.

Just one other thought.

If the UK cancelled its £12 bn overseas aid budget, you could pay for Boris Island in four years. Yes, you could pay for a new airport, plus a new TGV rail system all over the country, plus new roads and port facilities, all within 10 years. (£120 bn worth of infrastructure projects.)

But NO - prime minister Ca-Moron wants to give this money to despotic tyrants instead, so they can buy more weapons and oppress their people (and purchase more amfo trucks and semtex vests to be exported back to the West, as a small token of their thanks).


.

[Barling Magna]

Well, I'm no apologist for the New Labour government which, despite two landslide election victories, failed to achieve very much at all apart from kow-towing to the USA and its crazy president. It depends on your definition of infrastructure I suppose, but I have to admit that the Labour governments did have some positive achievements including the largest hospital building programme ever with over 100 new hospitals opened, and over 4000 schools were rebuilt or refurbished. Both infrastructural improvements were greatly needed and had been avoided by preceding Tory governments.

I'm struggling to find much else though. They failed to support the Severn Tidal Barrage which would provide renewable energy for decades to come. I suppose Labour's White Paper on airport development from 2003 expressed support for runway extensions and terminal developments at several airports including Bristol, Stansted and Teesside - but then, as far as I'm aware, no finance was provided to support any of these developments. Hopeless.

[silverstrata]

Barling:

It depends on your definition of infrastructure I suppose, but I have to admit that the Labour governments did have some positive achievements including the largest hospital building programme ever with over 100 new hospitals opened, and over 4000 schools were rebuilt or refurbished.

Financed by PFI. So the Labour government did not actually pay for these improvements - we are paying for them now, and our children will paying for some time in the future. Admit it, the majority of all that enormous Brownite borrowing (borrowing during the good times!!) went on social engineering - and they never had the guts or decency to ask anyone at the polls if this is what they wanted.

They failed to support the Severn Tidal Barrage which would provide renewable energy for decades to come.

I would not place much hope on the Severn Barrage - this is another Greeny pipe-dream that will be as hopeless as all those wind turbines.

Tidal barrages stop working either 4 times a day or 2 times a day, depending on how you operate them. Plus they generate next to nothing during neap tides (twice a month). And when peak tidal flow coincides with midnight and midday, the energy produced is unwanted and useless.

Thus every barrage needs a new fossil fuelled power station next door - burning and turning 24 hrs a day, and ready to take up the slack when the barrage quits generating 4 times a day. Thus you double the infrastructure and maintenance costs, and save bugger all in fuel costs and CO2 output. Barrages are Green window dressing, to salve the troubled consciences of Grauniad readers.

I suppose Labour's White Paper on airport development from 2003 expressed support for runway extensions and terminal developments at several airports including Bristol, Stansted and Teesside - but then, as far as I'm aware, no finance was provided to support any of these developments. Hopeless.

But who needs to extend Bristol airport's runway (if that is possible), when you have Bristol Filton next door - with a runway long enough to take a Brabazon ?!!

And why would you need to extend Birmingham, when you have Gaydon down the road?
And why would you need to extend Leeds, when you have Finningly next door?

This was a failure in political decision making, not finance.


.

[Barling Magna]

Mention of Filton reminds me that BAe Systems are closing it. Not content with having closed down our independent commercial airliner and business jet industries, they are now reducing our airport network:





Following discussions with the main airfield user and the local authorities, BAE Systems has announced today that Filton airfield will close on 31 December 2012.


Andrew Cheesman, Director, BAE Systems (Aviation Services) Ltd said: “This decision has been taken following a long review of the airfield’s commercial and economic viability. We regret the impact that this will have on our 19 employees and we will work with them to explore employment opportunities.

“We recognise the importance of Filton airfield to the local residential and business community and understand the concerns its closure may have."

[Ringwayman]

Is not MAN living off the back of the capacity constraints at LHR?

Which airlines have explicitly said that as they can't expand LHR ops, they are "forced" to use MAN? Can MAN get Cathay Pacific back with the known large demand - no, they'll find ways to get a 4th LHR daily service up and running before satisfying the seemingly obvious choice of MAN to help relieve the constraints of limited frequency restricting passenger mumber .

There's been a few airlines who have stated that they are going to LGW as they can't expand LHR schedules. Some of those would be ones that MAN would like. We have some airlines stating that they are unable to serve Britain due to lack of access to LHR but it's the myopic view that London is everything in the UK that needs to be eradicated.

Do passengers want to go to MAN at all? Or do they really want to go to Birmingham, Gloucester and Leeds, but find LHR too tiresome and the train connections so poor (you have to go via London and a separate tube journey).

That's quite right. No airline in the right mind would want to go to a regional airport as there isn't the demand. So when EK surprise everyone by getting an A380 to MAN a bit ahead of schedule by suggesting enormous untapped demand and that customer feedback indicated that they would be able to sell F class then we have to accept this as uninformed airline logic? That there's a solid amount of premium demand collectively carried by around a dozen other airlines would suggest demand is there unless all those airlines are equally uninformed about passenger demand like EK?

If you want to go to Birmingham or Gloucester then you would not want to use MAN; AA's problem when they were serving BHX is that the premium passengers were using LHR. From the West Midlands southwards you will find only a small portion using MAN. Look at CO who stopped serving Bristol. There's a route that southwest England had to service America but it didn't last. That premium passengers perferred using LHR should tell you that there was barely any flow of passengers northwards and the idea that the displaced BRS aircraft miraculously helped to add frequency at LHR for them reinforces that view.


As for Leeds, yes there's a lot of passengers coming from the "wrong" side of the Pennines to use MAN, but there's more passengers outside southeast England using LHR - do all those passengers want to go to LHR (or Boris Island)? I doubt it. The view that MAN is only allowed to have passengers going through its terminals whose journey ends or begins in Greater Manchester and is not able to have passengers from adjacent metropolitan areas is, frankly, laughable.

[Nick Thomas]

Am going to give you another opportunity to rant against New Labour by noting that you spent two paragraphs doing just that in post 164, whilst claiming that my earlier post was nonsense.

Repeating your nonsense about Heathrow being worth £40 billion will not make it worth that. If you had any knowledge of the development world you would have long ago stopped making that claim.

As far as Lord Foster is concerned, have you designed anything let alone an airport. Foster has an international track record and being abusive will not change that.

I expect you will now repeat your allegations that all Architects are brain dead.

Finally I fail to see how stating " that is the newly immigrant-inflated South East." adds anything to the debate. To many people that comment could be seen to be racist.

[Gonzo]

SS,

Develop the site and sell the individual elements. If Docklands can be worth around £40 billion, I am sure LHR will be more so (Its right next to all those Thames corridor commuters, who would love to relocate their offices to London Windsor Views, rather than grinding their way into London Central each day.)

And there will be no unemployment around London Windsor Views - instead this will become the biggest development site in Europe, with jobs galore.

In fact, it is London Central that needs to worry. London Docklands will be right next to Europe's biggest airport, and have plenty of trade. London Windsor Views will be next to the wealthy lands of the Thames corridor, and so will have any number of private company offices relocating there. Meanwhile, London Central will be the sprawling dirty and overcrowded abortion that it has been for some time, served by a 19th century metro system that nobody has touched in five decades.

Where would you rather have your offices - London Windsor Views, London Central, or London Docklands?

....However, in your grand vision, the Thames corridor will become a ghetto of formerly occupied company HQs and service industry centres, as the main reason for them being in the Thames corridor was LHR!!!!!!!

So this new development of LHR with all this prime, high end financial/service companies will provide jobs for those formerly employed as security guards, aircraft cleaners, airline ground staff, baggage handlers, catering staff, lorry drivers?

LHR is the economic engine of West London and the Thames corridor. Just have a drive along the M25/M3/M4/M40 or their corresponding A roads and associated industrial/business parks one day, and see how many lorries have some connection with air freight or LHR, observe how many company premises you pass that have a connection to the same.

All those employees are suddenly going to be employed by the new companies who will clamour to occupy the site of a former airport which has very little else going for it, attractiveness-wise?

Also, just a thought, but if you refrain from using language such as 'Lummox Foster' and 'Ca-Moron' you might have a more engaged debate.

[silverstrata]

thomas:

Lord Foster has an international track record and being abusive will not change that. I expect you will now repeat your allegations that all Architects are brain dead.

Any architect who proposes a new airport that:

Points out of the prevailing wind,
Points directly across the center of a capital city,
Is bound to have nights restrictions attached, due to the above orientation,
Cannot do simultaneous approaches because the runways are too close together,
Is forced to delay outbounds (on the inners), to wait for inbounds (on the outers) to cross the runway,
Will be severely limited during low-vis procedures,**
Has no taxiways - can you see any taxiways?,***
Has a terminal building at the end of the runway, which is inherently dangerous,
Is built next to an oil and gas terminal, which is inherently dangerous,
Is built on a cache of unexploded bombs, which is inherently dangerous,


Such an architect is either brain-dead, or very badly advised. Perhaps Lummox Foster could tell us how many pilots, controllers and airport managers were on his design team. I can predict the answer - none. And only a brain-dead architect would do such a thing.

Its a bit like reading newspaper articles about aviation, which are generally written with an infant's knowledge of aviation. But this is more important, as Fosters Folly could end up as a huge, expensive and very embarrassing waste of your money. Politicians, easily dazzled as they are by celebrity, will probably be similarly dazzled by Foster's Folly, and give it the go-ahead. Foster needs a dose of reality, before he wastes a golden opportunity to build a first-class transport facility (on Boris Island, further out in the estuary).



** With runways that close together, departing aircraft lining up on the inner runway will be within the ILS protected area for the aircraft on a CAT III approach to the outer runway. Thus no low-vis departures can be made from this airport, while aircraft are approaching, or vice versa. Is that mad, or what?

*** One presumes the aircraft stands are between the two runways. But how do you get from the runways, to the stands, if there are no taxiways?











P.S.
If you look at the size of CDG, it is obvious that Boris Island needs to be 5 x 5 km in area. This is a substantial lump of real estate in the estuary (draw it on a Google Earth image), and so it needs to be further eastwards than Foster's Folly. The south-western edge of this large reclaimed square of land, should lie on a line joining Shoeburyness and Eastchurch (on Sheppey), giving an orientation of about 245 degrees true. The NW apex of the island being 1km from Shoeburyness point (closer to Shoeburyness than Sheppey). The coastline at Shoeburyness point may have to be reinforced, due the invigorated tidal flows.

This would allow all SW departures from Boris Island to overfly the Isle of Grain and the Kingsnorth Inlet, and thus reduce noise nuisance in the area to an absolute minimum (the area is sparsely populated). Departures would then either:

a. Carry straight on between Gillingham and Gravesend.
b. Turn left 180 at 5nm and pass between Sittingbourne and Gillingham.
b. Turn right 270 at 5nm, and track to East tilbury, before turning north up the Basildon Brentwood gap.

Likewise, on NE landings, all the approaches would be just west of the Rochester gap, with no further conurbations inside this habited zone. Rochester would be at the 10nm / 3,000 ft zone, and having lived at this distance from a major airport, I can vouch that the noise nuisance is minimal.

Of course in the NE direction, there is only sea for the approaches and departures, and so this airport would be very noise-friendly. (And any CO2 emissions would end up in AMS - sorry, Cloggies).





.

[silverstrata]

.

And here it is. Instead of Fosters Folly, we now have Silver's Superhub.


Note the two commuter runways to the north have a separate terminal, to speed the flow of domestic/shengen traffic from the smaller aircraft - so large aircraft do not have to mix with smaller on the same approach. An underground metro would connect the two.

I see no reason for not doing triple simultaneous approaches, as long as the middle stream joins the furthest out, maximising the inbound traffic. Thus, on the commuter runways, the outer runway would be used for arrivals to allow simultaneous approaches, with the inner being for departures.

Note that all the departures (red lines) are over unpopulated areas, to the north, west and south. The blue arrow near Gillingham is the 10nm / 3,000 ft point for arrivals during N.E. landings. This altitude would cause minimal noise nuisance for the Rochester/Gillingham locale.








As to the rail links, the Chunnel line currently goes through Ebbsfleet, just west of Gravesend. A spur would be needed to link to the Silver Superhub Airport, or better still a whole new 'eastern route' that skirts the NE of London to connect to the north.

Links to the west would be via Crossrail. In a fit of planning stupidity, Crossrail ends at Abbey Wood, which is just 12 km short of the Chunnel line at Ebbsfleet. Why??? That is like ending the M6 a couple of miles short of the M1 !! The planners should be introduced to a long rope and a high lamppost. Linking these two lines together, and thence to the TGV spur from Ebbsfleet to the Silver Superhub Airport, would give instant access to the west.



.

[Nick Thomas]

Well your Architectural skills are so much better than Lord Foster I think you are wasted in aviation.

A quick sketch produced on your laptop is not a design for an airport it's just a pathetic attempt to belittle one of Britain's many great Architects . Yes I do know what am talking about as I spent seven years of my life gaining two Architectural degrees and membership of the RIBA. When you have done that I may take your proposals seriously. Until then my money is on Lord Foster's scheme.

I visit this site as I find the design and manufacture of aviation products interesting and also a good source of inspiration for my Architectural practise. So thank you to the vast majority of you for your well considered and interesting posts.

[Gonzo]

SS,

** With runways that close together, departing aircraft lining up on the inner runway will be within the ILS protected area for the aircraft on a CAT III approach to the outer runway. Thus no low-vis departures can be made from this airport, while aircraft are approaching, or vice versa. Is that mad, or what?

Sorry? Assuming we take that the artist's impression as a fixed blueprint (??), the LSA for CAT III ILS only has to be protected for landing clearance when the landing clearance is given, normally at 2nm, exceptionally at 1nm, so that''s not true. If you get confirmation that the departure is not using LLZ guidance, then you don't have to protect the LSA at all for departures.

You also claim:

Is forced to delay outbounds (on the inners), to wait for inbounds (on the outers) to cross the runway,

Ever heard of wake turbulence separation? 2 minutes?

But then in your masterplan;

Departures would then either:

a. Carry straight on between Gillingham and Gravesend.
b. Turn left 180 at 5nm and pass between Sittingbourne and Gillingham.
b. Turn right 270 at 5nm, and track to East tilbury, before turning north up the Basildon Brentwood gap.

So if all departures go straight ahead to 5nm, then every single departure would be a minimum of 2 minutes separation behind the last. As I'm sure you know, the ICAO regulations in SOIR DOC9643 say that simultaneous departures from parallel runways should diverge immediately after take off. Also, good luck on trying to make sure that the southbound aircraft from the 'commuter runway' don't get in the way of the west and northbound aircraft from the other two runways! At the end of the day, I don't think looking at that you'd have any more capacity from your plan than we do in theory from LHR! With two extra runways! What a waste of money!

[Geffen]

To fit all that in with 9643 and various other docs would be quite a challenge. I especially like the south bounds of the northern!

Heck if they had spent 30 secs thinking about this ARETS would have been a must, okay would add to the size but, hey money no object right?

[silverstrata]

Thomas:

A quick sketch produced on your laptop is not a design for an airport it's just a pathetic attempt to belittle one of Britain's many great Architects . Yes I do know what am talking about as I spent seven years of my life gaining two Architectural degrees and membership of the RIBA. When you have done that I may take your proposals seriously. Until then my money is on Lord Foster's scheme.

Until you have a specific criticism of the plan don't waste your breath on ad hominems, it makes you sound like a playground bully.



Now if you had any architectural/town planning skills you might well have argued that the airport is too far east, and that a site on the villages of St Mary Hoo and Stoke would be better for transport links. I might agree with such a notion, but point out that Gravesend and Gillingham would then have noise nuisance, and these estuary lands are populated by the three toed double-crested newt, and the lesser-spotted fibonacci snail.

But you didn't - you went straight for the ad hominem instead, in which case your opinions are void.

Giffen:

To fit all that in with 9643 and various other docs would be quite a challenge. I especially like the south bounds of the northern!

Heck if they had spent 30 secs thinking about this ARETS would have been a must, okay would add to the size but, hey money no object right?

You will have to enlighten us on what exactly ICAO 9643 says about simultaneous approaches. I was just using Heathrow as an example. The runways there are 1,500m apart and can sustain simultaneous approaches, so an island 5 km wide should easily be able to accommodate 3 simultaneous approaches.

I presume by ARETS you mean over-run areas. You would have to calculate whether an extended run-off area is cheaper than arrester cables. I would presume the latter would be cheaper and more effective.


.

[silverstrata]

Gonzo:

Sorry? Assuming we take that the artist's impression as a fixed blueprint (??)

One would hope that Foster does not issue flights of fancy to the press and the public, and had thought about the project for more than 2 minutes. What will be his next project, a skyscraper leaning at a 45 degree angle? ( "Yes, well, it was only an artist's impression...." )

Gonzo:

the LSA for CAT III ILS only has to be protected for landing clearance when the landing clearance is given, normally at 2nm, exceptionally at 1nm.

If you give me a CAT IIIb landing clearance at just 1nm/300ft, and declare the Sensitive Area to be cleared just at that time, I'll be knocking at your door.

Gonzo:

Ever heard of wake turbulence separation? (on departure) 2 minutes?

So if all departures go straight ahead to 5nm, then every single departure would be a minimum of 2 minutes separation behind the last.

Errr, you like to give the impression you are in Heathrow ATC. Are you really?

There is no time separation between similar weight types, which is why I attempted to separate small aircraft from larger in this runway layout. Thus, as any real controller would know, there is no 2 minute separation for departures. (But there is a distance separation of 5nm, if I remember correctly.)

Take a look at 2.7 in the following CAA AIC.
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1166.pdf

The only exception to this is the A380. But I think this was a political move by Boeing, to decrease the appeal of the A380 by giving it extra time separations for approach and departure.

Gonzo:

So if all departures go straight ahead to 5nm, then every single departure would be a minimum of 2 minutes separation behind the last. As I'm sure you know, the ICAO regulations in SOIR DOC9643 say that simultaneous departures from parallel runways should diverge immediately after take off.

And they do diverge - at 5nm (the 2 minutes is a red herring). Ok, so if you want to increase departure rates, then you diverge a bit earlier - by the recommended 15 degrees. Which gives the following departure routes. The only real restriction here is waiting until the Left departure turns (at 3nm), before the Center departure rolls.

The 'domestic' departure tracks crossing the heavies, to fly south is more of a problem, I agree, so I have included a circling departure. Not so efficient for the operator, but may be necessary during peak flow times (but not at other times).






.

[VC10man]

Silver, I took my wife to Heathrow last week from Derby, it took about 2 hours.
However long would it take me to get to Silverland? Presumably I would have to get a car ferry to the island?

Maybe it would be easier to build the new airport in northern France.

[Gonzo]

Yes, I work in Heathrow ATC. I have done so for nearly 13 years, and I now work in the ATC Operations department.

What experience in this sort of thing do you have?

2min separation is required for a/c departing on the same routes, depending upon the relative speeds. In the UK, at certain airports, and with CAA approval, you may use 5nm instead providing that the routes diverge. If they diverge by more than 45 degrees, and speeds are comparable, then you can get the 1 minute separation.

[Nick Thomas]

Why should I waste my time criticising an obviously flawed plan. Especially as I doubt that you would accept criticism from a brain dead Architect
It's interesting that you consider my views void as they are "ad hominem"
as a large part of your argument is just that. I shall quote some of them.
"Foster's Folly"
"Brain dead Architects"
"Ca-moron"

Whilst I can see the funny side of the above three quotes I must add that your comment:
"The planners should be introduced to a long rope and a high lamppost." is also in extremely bad taste as well.
So if am a "playground bully" what does that make you?

[MAN777]

This is a really interesting thread that is being spoilt by rude & sarcastic oneupmanship, can we please get back to discussing this in an intelligent professional manner without reference to people hanging and other completely irrelevant comments.