Another runway at Heathrow
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another runway at Heathrow
Have read the Davies report and it seems to be lacking in an important area. There is no real analysis of the affect on the overall Air Traffic system if and when a new runway is addded at Heathrow or elsewhere. Would be interested in any comment on what is a vital part of the overall system.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would you want an extra Heathrow runway? It operates well below potential capacity. Perhaps the shortage of slots adds to their value, and perhaps protects existing operators, and perhaps justifies high charges.
Have simulations of alternative runway utilisation methodology been tried? What were the results?
Just one serious reply to your question....the densely packed airspace around Heathrow is complex and congested with multiple climbing/descending/crossing tracks; another runway just adds to the potential congestion in an area where space is at a premium.
Have simulations of alternative runway utilisation methodology been tried? What were the results?
Just one serious reply to your question....the densely packed airspace around Heathrow is complex and congested with multiple climbing/descending/crossing tracks; another runway just adds to the potential congestion in an area where space is at a premium.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airport expansion
to the two certainties in life you can add " no decision on new airport or even a runway, ever". been discussing it since 1945 and still counting. I will not see one in my lifetime and I'm only nine.
Has anyone come across an analysis of the effect of a new runway on the air traffic system?
As far as the flightpaths are concerned, the official line is that it's too early to publish definitive ones, though given that the new runway would be parallel to the other two, it's not hard to predict where the approach path would be. But strictly speaking, everything else - SIDs, STARs, holds, etc - is subject to review.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Waters edge
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been a good deal of work done, essentially the conclusion is that any solution can be made to work, but there will be potential impacts to other airports operations.
Tfl and Davis commission websites publish the detail when it is accepted. Here is an example of early work involving NATS:
The CAA FAS plan is also worth a read:
https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cm...ats.pdf’
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2408/FAS%2...ent%20Plan.pdf
Tfl and Davis commission websites publish the detail when it is accepted. Here is an example of early work involving NATS:
The CAA FAS plan is also worth a read:
https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cm...ats.pdf’
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2408/FAS%2...ent%20Plan.pdf
You're unlikely to find any TfL documents addressing airspace changes resulting from Heathrow expansion, for obvious reasons, only references to the closure or downsizing of LHR if any of the Mayor's Estuary options were to be built.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H24 will only do so much. Since Adam was a babe the industry has been pretty simple. Cargo at night, pax during the day. Seems to have worked fine so far. Try telling a business man that their flight from LHR to CDG will be departing at 0230 and see what the loads look like.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBH ATC is only a small part of the equation - NATS will squawk whatever changes are made but they always seem to be able to come up with an answer
A few changes wouldn't be a bad thing either - the system still looks like something out of the 1950's
and that applies to either Boris island or LHR runway 3
A few changes wouldn't be a bad thing either - the system still looks like something out of the 1950's
and that applies to either Boris island or LHR runway 3
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Waters edge
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tfl has analysed the airspace consequences of all the options, whether LHR, LGW or ITE and has informed Davis of its views. The material will eventually make its way into the public domain if not already. Each of the options is being analysed by each of the parties so that all the pros and cons including airspace can be identified and considered advice submitted to Davis.
Airspace is not a show stopper for any of the short listed options, even NATS has said so in its formal submission.
Airspace is not a show stopper for any of the short listed options, even NATS has said so in its formal submission.
Airspace is not a show stopper for any of the short listed options, even NATS has said so in its formal submission.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next thought : If the traffic was rationalised between the airports ie Long Haul only from Heathrow and Short haul from the others, would this remove the need for another runway?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the whole point of a long haul hub is that it needs short haul feed to be viable, otherwise it's not a hub at all, and the question we need to address is hub connectivity which is related to but not the same thing as runway caapcity.
Hub capacity can realistically only be grown from LHR or a new hub airport with the forced closure of LHR to make that viable.
Hub capacity can realistically only be grown from LHR or a new hub airport with the forced closure of LHR to make that viable.
If the traffic was rationalised between the airports ie Long Haul only from Heathrow and Short haul from the others, would this remove the need for another runway?
Making it difficult, if not impossible, for passengers to transfer between shorthaul and longhaul flights would instantly render a significant number of existing routes unprofitable, thereby reducing demand for slots accordingly.
I suspect that wasn't quite what you had in mind.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS Airspace Analysis
Hi Flitefone,
Do you have a link please, if that NATS submission is public domain? - Is it this one on airspace: http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/wp-co...ember-2013.pdf
The report above suggests that a third Heathrow runway would not have any adverse effects on other airports. Neither would a second at Gatwick. A Thames Estuary airport with an East-West runway would, however, take out Heathrow, London City and Southend.
Do you have a link please, if that NATS submission is public domain? - Is it this one on airspace: http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/wp-co...ember-2013.pdf
The report above suggests that a third Heathrow runway would not have any adverse effects on other airports. Neither would a second at Gatwick. A Thames Estuary airport with an East-West runway would, however, take out Heathrow, London City and Southend.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Waters edge
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anna, your NATS report link is good.
Firstly the NATS advice concludes that any new runway, will have an impact on the others within 50nm (see conclusion page 44) and that detailed analysis is necessary, especially given the many variables of traffic mix and demand location as well as runway orientation. There is no definitive position re LCy or SEN. At this stage there cannot reasonably be.
Secondly, there is a suggestion from NATS that for ITE airport that SEN & LCY will, potentially be worst affected. this is rather stating the obvious, BUT LCY is further from the ITE site (IOG) than it is from LHR.
The most potentially challenged airport is SEN. But the impact is likely to be no worse than today's LHR/northolt relationship.
I believe the report is not public yet, but I know that it will be. PM me for more info.
The biggest Challenge is runway resilience at LHR, especially in Low vis, low cloud and high wind. The mandatory reduced movement rate badly impacts LHR capacity during these events. Today the planned LHR runway occupancy is 96 percent against AMS and CDG at low sixties. Even with a new runway LHR still only gets to similar levels of resilience as at AMS now. And that's without any new traffic!
NATS has time based separation and cross border arrival flow planning soon, both designed to relieve the pressure, but this is still squeezing even more out of an airport that's runways are too full and does not change the Low vis ops problem.
Firstly the NATS advice concludes that any new runway, will have an impact on the others within 50nm (see conclusion page 44) and that detailed analysis is necessary, especially given the many variables of traffic mix and demand location as well as runway orientation. There is no definitive position re LCy or SEN. At this stage there cannot reasonably be.
Secondly, there is a suggestion from NATS that for ITE airport that SEN & LCY will, potentially be worst affected. this is rather stating the obvious, BUT LCY is further from the ITE site (IOG) than it is from LHR.
The most potentially challenged airport is SEN. But the impact is likely to be no worse than today's LHR/northolt relationship.
I believe the report is not public yet, but I know that it will be. PM me for more info.
The biggest Challenge is runway resilience at LHR, especially in Low vis, low cloud and high wind. The mandatory reduced movement rate badly impacts LHR capacity during these events. Today the planned LHR runway occupancy is 96 percent against AMS and CDG at low sixties. Even with a new runway LHR still only gets to similar levels of resilience as at AMS now. And that's without any new traffic!
NATS has time based separation and cross border arrival flow planning soon, both designed to relieve the pressure, but this is still squeezing even more out of an airport that's runways are too full and does not change the Low vis ops problem.
Last edited by Flitefone; 9th Jul 2014 at 21:34.
Firstly the NATS advice concludes that any new runway, will have an impact on the others within 50nm (see conclusion page 44)
NATS' analysis, in that document, is that a third runway at Heathrow would have no impact on capacity at Gatwick (22nm away). Equally, Gatwick R2 would not affect Heathrow's capacity. See pages 41-42.
