Another runway at Heathrow
Forgive the cynicism of an old fart, but this old fart earned a lot of dosh in 2002/3 working as a sub-contracting consultant for DfT as it produced the definitive, final study to end all studies into future London airport capacity.
Yes, the Future of Air Transport was going to lay out a map for the future.
Its conclusion, to sum it up, was a new runway at the three then BAA airports, provided that air quality issues at LHR could be, ummm, overcome.
The report was, of course, shelved the day after it was published, and that was the last we heard of that. The cost was either £100m or £300m, I forget.
Guess what will happen to this latest report.
Yes, the Future of Air Transport was going to lay out a map for the future.
Its conclusion, to sum it up, was a new runway at the three then BAA airports, provided that air quality issues at LHR could be, ummm, overcome.
The report was, of course, shelved the day after it was published, and that was the last we heard of that. The cost was either £100m or £300m, I forget.
Guess what will happen to this latest report.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AndyH52,
Manchester tweeted their spare capacity not so long back, that is where I got the 40% from, infact recently they have been mentioning being able to handle 50m pax now (currently 22m+), which as you correctly point out mention at times would seem impossible, but there are large chunks of the day where much more could be handled.
As for flying from your local airport, would that be Liverpool ? So we'll use new slots at LHR to add more domestic air traffic, start LPL-LHR flights when MAN just 30 miles away has plenty of shuttles already, and I am sure LPL is also well connected by trains, to London.
MAN is just up the road from LPL, and in the interest of the NW / North I'd rather support growth there than supporting a new runway at LHR just so LPL can get shuttles to LHR.
No doubt LHR can also have a JFK flight every half hour with a new runway, with more flights there in a few hours than from the rest of the country combined, and ironically fairly well populated by folk connecting on shuttles, that would rather quite possibly fly direct.
Hopefully the politicians will remain scared to death of making the call on their watch, then maybe the Northern powerhouse may stand a chance in terms of aviation.
Manchester tweeted their spare capacity not so long back, that is where I got the 40% from, infact recently they have been mentioning being able to handle 50m pax now (currently 22m+), which as you correctly point out mention at times would seem impossible, but there are large chunks of the day where much more could be handled.
As for flying from your local airport, would that be Liverpool ? So we'll use new slots at LHR to add more domestic air traffic, start LPL-LHR flights when MAN just 30 miles away has plenty of shuttles already, and I am sure LPL is also well connected by trains, to London.
MAN is just up the road from LPL, and in the interest of the NW / North I'd rather support growth there than supporting a new runway at LHR just so LPL can get shuttles to LHR.
No doubt LHR can also have a JFK flight every half hour with a new runway, with more flights there in a few hours than from the rest of the country combined, and ironically fairly well populated by folk connecting on shuttles, that would rather quite possibly fly direct.
Hopefully the politicians will remain scared to death of making the call on their watch, then maybe the Northern powerhouse may stand a chance in terms of aviation.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The terminal redevelopment is hugely welcomed but is mainly replacing existing capacity and will only provide an extra 5 million capacity or so when it is all done in 10 years time. If MAN continues to grow in the meantime quite a bit of 5m headroom may have been taken up.
MAN in 2025 projection: 30 million
Like it or not Heathrow is our biggest aviation asset and ensuring it can connect to new and emerging markets is essential for future trade and economic growth
Regional airports just can't support those sorts of routes yet.
How in the Creation of Crunchie can you justify from a safety point of view not just prolonging but expanding the number of bigger aircraft that you are proposing to fly at low levels right over the centre of your capital city with no clear forced landing areas within many miles?
Absolute madness.
Heathrow should be getting wound down not expanded.
Absolute madness.
Heathrow should be getting wound down not expanded.
Paxing All Over The World
wallp PLEASE stop trying to talk sense. 
Really, this is Britain!
Fortunately, as well all know NOTHING will happen. Ever. So we can all go home and put the kettle on.
Really, this is Britain!Fortunately, as well all know NOTHING will happen. Ever. So we can all go home and put the kettle on.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Rainsville
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Chinese would have built a mono type railway to serve it as they have done in Shanghai.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd buy into that if AA and BA weren't so insistent on the need for practically hourly shuttles to JFK. If the regions have to make do with a daily service, then LHR should make do with 4 or 5 A380s. The freed up slots can then be used for the "new and emergent markets". And given this is NATIONAL boost, don't forget that when someone sneezes at LHR, BA decide to wipe out the domestic links. A surefire way to help the UK's regions, don't you think?
There is no restrictions on regional services and airline would increase if they felt it was worthwhile, there is an element of LHR vacuum but if there was demand for higher frequency regionally it would appear.
It's like cutting key Euro routes to 2 daily A380's, all it will do is drive passengers to other hubs to catch connections.
Without doubt, despite the nonsense LHR spout about the spread of benefits across the nation, an expanded LHR will damage development at regional airports and enhance the gap yet further between the SE and the rest of the country.
I assume LGW wouldn't damage any regional developments?
Hopefully the politicians will remain scared to death of making the call on their watch, then maybe the Northern powerhouse may stand a chance in terms of aviation.
MAN is just up the road from LPL, and in the interest of the NW / North I'd rather support growth there than supporting a new runway at LHR just so LPL can get shuttles to LHR.
There wouldn't have been any point in Davies recommending that, which is why he didn't (or one of the reasons, at least).
Birmingham has just invested 200m and is under utilised.
As for some conservative ministers would they really trigger by elections and lose their jobs and likely hand seats to other parties. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Cameron will clear it at some stage, isn't he resigning once by 2020.
If there is such a good case for P2P flights from regionals then it would be happening already. It's not only BA that flies out of LHR. There will be regional connections down to LHR with an easy connection onto many long haul services.
There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking going on here, this is an aviation forum and therefore people would like to see more flights by larger aircraft from their local airport but if the numbers are not there then it won't happen. There will never be a direct flight from Durham to Los Angeles but by using a shuttle to LHR this becomes possible. LHR expansion will put a stop to all this wishful thinking and people know this which is why those in the north who are not affected by noise/pollution issues are so against it.
The fact remains though that if so many people are flying from somewhere like MAN to a certain destination and having to connect via LHR then another airline will start direct flights in competition. Where there is a viable business case then it will and should happen. LHR expansion will open up many destinations from the regions, it is largely paid for by private investment, much of the public money being spent would be spent anyway in the same area. I really do not understand why those away from the SE are so set against it other than the usual anti London drivel.
There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking going on here, this is an aviation forum and therefore people would like to see more flights by larger aircraft from their local airport but if the numbers are not there then it won't happen. There will never be a direct flight from Durham to Los Angeles but by using a shuttle to LHR this becomes possible. LHR expansion will put a stop to all this wishful thinking and people know this which is why those in the north who are not affected by noise/pollution issues are so against it.
The fact remains though that if so many people are flying from somewhere like MAN to a certain destination and having to connect via LHR then another airline will start direct flights in competition. Where there is a viable business case then it will and should happen. LHR expansion will open up many destinations from the regions, it is largely paid for by private investment, much of the public money being spent would be spent anyway in the same area. I really do not understand why those away from the SE are so set against it other than the usual anti London drivel.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What exact developments is their to damage, LHR is more less closed for new business and will be for the foreseeable yet regional airports are not capitalizing on it. Why is that, very few seem to be able to come up with a logistical answer?
In recent years, GLA & EDI have seen the ME3 start services; NCL has EK and now a UA flight to New York. BHX is seeing EK expand and AI have regular flights. MAN now has non-stop flights to HKK and Saudi started last year. Now personally, I hope those flights have started because of demand from local business and communities that can make those services viable, thereby making it either unnecessary to use LHR if flying p2p, or providing alternative hubs to fly to and greater choice for passengers. However, it is conceivable I suppose that some of these developments only happened because of LHR being almost full.
So regional airports are progressing even for long haul, albeit slower than some of us would like. Cause and effect though may not be clear cut.
I've not had time to look at the figures but it would be interesting to see the growth in passengers (and freight) for the likes of AMS, CDG and FRA compared to LHR over the last 5 years, and any specific examples of airlines starting new routes or increasing frequency at those 3 airports because slots at LHR were not available. It does surprise me that there are still B757s being operating on some TATL flights into LHR. If demand is so great, why are larger a/c not being used?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flexi-flyer
While I agree we'll never see DTW - LAX for instance, MAN is a little different.
Have you checked the loads, and growth, on their LH services ?
Cathay almost from the off has a very healthy uptake, even at the front end.
Even Saudia make a first of things with 772's, often upgraded to 773's.
The US services do well, and are growing steadily.
What I am saying is if the services are there from MAN then people use them in the main, and the evidence is there if you dig a little.
There is not room in the UK for multiple hubs - or even 2 hubs, but there is enough demand in the North to warrant an increases at MAN to certain destinations which would assist in relieving the pressure on LHR.
The infrastructure is there, the runway capacity is there, yet we still seem to want to ferry people to London / elsewhere when if you crunch the numbers there is demand from the north to make certain services from the north viable.
Your comment on "anti-London drivel" is also nonsense. In every respect this country is London-centric, fine if your from the SE, but quite annoying if your not, so surely people can understand non-Londoners frustrations ? This relates not only to aviation, but nearly every other subject. Take a look how much public money is spent per head of population in London versus any other area of the country...its nigh on shocking ! Dismissive comments by London / SE folk like that don't help make us northerners feel any better about being 2nd rate !
While I agree we'll never see DTW - LAX for instance, MAN is a little different.
Have you checked the loads, and growth, on their LH services ?
Cathay almost from the off has a very healthy uptake, even at the front end.
Even Saudia make a first of things with 772's, often upgraded to 773's.
The US services do well, and are growing steadily.
What I am saying is if the services are there from MAN then people use them in the main, and the evidence is there if you dig a little.
There is not room in the UK for multiple hubs - or even 2 hubs, but there is enough demand in the North to warrant an increases at MAN to certain destinations which would assist in relieving the pressure on LHR.
The infrastructure is there, the runway capacity is there, yet we still seem to want to ferry people to London / elsewhere when if you crunch the numbers there is demand from the north to make certain services from the north viable.
Your comment on "anti-London drivel" is also nonsense. In every respect this country is London-centric, fine if your from the SE, but quite annoying if your not, so surely people can understand non-Londoners frustrations ? This relates not only to aviation, but nearly every other subject. Take a look how much public money is spent per head of population in London versus any other area of the country...its nigh on shocking ! Dismissive comments by London / SE folk like that don't help make us northerners feel any better about being 2nd rate !
BA used to have a good few flights out of Birmingham. They eventually gave them all up. Why ? Because they LOST MONEY on them all there. Consistently, year after year, shareholders money pi55ed down the drain at Birmingham. The airlines are not fools, they know where there is demand and where there is not. BMI had a shot at transatlantic flights with A332s from this wonderful Manchester. Huge amounts of money lost, until it was given up.
eggc
If there are direct services from MAN that are doing well and other direct services that will do well then of course these will remain or should and probably will be taken up.
The extra runway is there to cater for the other routes that are not viable as direct services. Nothing is going to be taken away.
I am a northerner myself and understand the frustration about the UK being London centric, they are valid arguments for more investment in the north but whenever a debate is ongoing it tends to descend into a north/south argument and there are some people with such a big chip on their shoulder about anything 'Down South' it becomes a waste of time trying to have reasonable conversation.
I am not in any way saying that is yourself but there are comments on here that have gone down that route and that is where my 'Anti London Drivel' remark was aimed.
If there are direct services from MAN that are doing well and other direct services that will do well then of course these will remain or should and probably will be taken up.
The extra runway is there to cater for the other routes that are not viable as direct services. Nothing is going to be taken away.
I am a northerner myself and understand the frustration about the UK being London centric, they are valid arguments for more investment in the north but whenever a debate is ongoing it tends to descend into a north/south argument and there are some people with such a big chip on their shoulder about anything 'Down South' it becomes a waste of time trying to have reasonable conversation.
I am not in any way saying that is yourself but there are comments on here that have gone down that route and that is where my 'Anti London Drivel' remark was aimed.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hubs
sorry supermarine I understand your query but this north/south discussion is connected to R3 at lhr...
as a londoner I have every sympathy with all those north of watford and all the way to shetland/orkneys who are obliged to go through lhr to get to their destination. you would think that somewhere in that 1000 mile corridor there could/should be another hub. sadly the economics of it just dont add up, not enough demand, not enough airlines interested and a lhr airport operator determined that it shouldnt happen anyway for their self-interest reasons. besides all that, another hub up north would need to be in scotland if distance is the deciding factor. manchester is the obvious choice but its too close to london in flying time. if you have to go to a hub is it really a big problem to spend the short extra time to get to london? perhaps annoying but you have to be pragmatic about what is achievable compared with what is desirable. in the end the airlines decide these matters and if they decide (as they appear to have done) that lhr is the place to be that is what will happen.
as a londoner I have every sympathy with all those north of watford and all the way to shetland/orkneys who are obliged to go through lhr to get to their destination. you would think that somewhere in that 1000 mile corridor there could/should be another hub. sadly the economics of it just dont add up, not enough demand, not enough airlines interested and a lhr airport operator determined that it shouldnt happen anyway for their self-interest reasons. besides all that, another hub up north would need to be in scotland if distance is the deciding factor. manchester is the obvious choice but its too close to london in flying time. if you have to go to a hub is it really a big problem to spend the short extra time to get to london? perhaps annoying but you have to be pragmatic about what is achievable compared with what is desirable. in the end the airlines decide these matters and if they decide (as they appear to have done) that lhr is the place to be that is what will happen.
As Al Murray would say "the Chinese!"............
Images show Chinese airstrip on man-made South China Sea island nearly finished - The Globe and Mail
Maybe we could get them to build the runway - it would be ready in 2016
Images show Chinese airstrip on man-made South China Sea island nearly finished - The Globe and Mail
Maybe we could get them to build the runway - it would be ready in 2016
LHR is more less closed for new business and will be for the foreseeable yet regional airports are not capitalizing on it. Why is that, very few seem to be able to come up with a logistical answer?
Continental (As it was known then) tried BRS, it didn't work. AA tried STN it didn't work. Carriers want LHR. If they can't then they will look elsewhere such as AMS CDG FRA where they can make money.
Obviously a heated argument but it all comes down to one thing- for UK to remain among the top European players in our out of the EU we have to have a good hub airport . At the moment we have only LHR -LHR can be expanded but LGW Birmingham Manchester etc etc cannot ever become proper hubs because heir just isn't the demand.
So to provide this its is a bigger LHR or Boris Island-and just the fact that the daft bond one supports that idea means it is almost certainly flawed (how many people have died on his stupid bikes without match road changes) . So that leave just LHR-which actually ahs for years and years had a huge empty expanse of land lying just behind the houses and hotels along the Bath Road north of LHR which provides much of the space for a new runway. Ok Sipson has to go but so did the village of Heathrow (for that is where the name comes from) back in 1950 and local people really did live there not the migrant airport workers who comprise the Sipson community of 2015.
As for more planes overflying London well the proposed third runway is located such that a surprising amount of the area beneath the approach at either end is pretty much open too.
Arguments about rail connections are spurious since most go to central London and not anywhere near LHR and as for expanding LGW and linking it to LHR wow that is a good idea- two or three changes of train or a coach round the M25.
No sadly it always had to be LHR all we have done is to waste a fortune on consultants and lawyers and that's a drop in the ocean compared to the cost over runs, crooked deals, environmental surveys etc etc which will mean it costs more for the runway and associated infrastructure than a new airport in most countries.
One bright spot though is despite all that if we do start it we will probably still finish ahead of BBI
So to provide this its is a bigger LHR or Boris Island-and just the fact that the daft bond one supports that idea means it is almost certainly flawed (how many people have died on his stupid bikes without match road changes) . So that leave just LHR-which actually ahs for years and years had a huge empty expanse of land lying just behind the houses and hotels along the Bath Road north of LHR which provides much of the space for a new runway. Ok Sipson has to go but so did the village of Heathrow (for that is where the name comes from) back in 1950 and local people really did live there not the migrant airport workers who comprise the Sipson community of 2015.
As for more planes overflying London well the proposed third runway is located such that a surprising amount of the area beneath the approach at either end is pretty much open too.
Arguments about rail connections are spurious since most go to central London and not anywhere near LHR and as for expanding LGW and linking it to LHR wow that is a good idea- two or three changes of train or a coach round the M25.
No sadly it always had to be LHR all we have done is to waste a fortune on consultants and lawyers and that's a drop in the ocean compared to the cost over runs, crooked deals, environmental surveys etc etc which will mean it costs more for the runway and associated infrastructure than a new airport in most countries.
One bright spot though is despite all that if we do start it we will probably still finish ahead of BBI