Possible Plans for up to two New Runways at LGW announced!

[Out Of Trim]

Various new runway layouts at LGW have been put forward as part of the solution for extra runway capacity in the SE.

One plan includes two parallel runways around the present one and a further one well to the north of the current airport boundary towards the village of Charlwood.

see BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2803187.stm

[A and C]

There was an agreement that no futher runway development would take place at Gatwick before 2019 made when the north terminal was built.

It would seem that the leagal action that has forced the goverment to once more consider gatwick has come from the anti-airport protest groups at other airports.

To be this action shows that the protest groups see the need for more runways just as long as it is not in there back yard.

[Colonel Klink]

Those anti noise protesters are the same all around the world - they buy the land around an airport cheaply usually because the airport is built well out of town, and often against Government advice, then later when the population spreads they want to have the airport moved because it is too noisy!! Pitiful!!

[Unwell_Raptor]

I'll believe it when I see it.

There has been kite-flying over airport expansion for as long as I can remember. To name but a few, Wing, Maplin, LHR runway 3, LGW runways 2 & 3, Cliffe, Northolt (LHR satellite) Thurleigh, Stansted runways 2 & 3, and so ever onwards.

We don't do grand projects very well in Britain; I bet we end up with tinkering with the existing setups, and do it about 20 years too late.

I was involved in very early consultations for LHR T5 over 20 years ago, and the thing is still only a hole in the ground.

[BigRab]

A long overdue piece of commonsense.

A second runway has been needed at Gatwick for at least the 12 years that I have operated out of it, even without any increase in aircraft movements. At times the delays are ridiculous and the spacing between take off and landing aircraft uncomfortably close.

In my view there is more than enough congestion near Heathrow, and with possible terrorist risks magnified by the proximity of its flight paths over large parts of London, it would be better to increase capacity elsewhere.

At least one additional runway at LGW & STN is the best option.

Consideration should also be given to another airport to the west of London. An expanded ex-military airport along the M4 would be ideal for trans Atlantic flights. Cliffe is in the wrong place both for the travelling public and for ATC.

I became a resident of Crawley to be near to work and believe expansion at LGW will be a nett economic benefit to the area. I have little sympathy for those who move near an airport only to complain about airplane noise etc! If you don’t like it move.

[Leclairage]

Agree with BigRab - extra runway capacity long overdue, and local factors seem to have rather blighted the airports' exapansion, with several carriers moving out and BA reducing routes, which has only served to increase congestion at LHR.

But the locals must be very strong - having succesfully fought off busy Redhill's (a) application for a hard runway and (b) positioning as a regional satellite for LGW.

Given the choice of overturning the 2019 promise and developing an already existing asset, or starting afresh building something from scratch at, say, Cliffe, the answer appears to be a no-brainer. From both environmental and access standpoints.

Anyway. What would Crawly and its environs be without the prosperity LGW has brought?

[Big Tudor]

It may be me being cynical but is the proposed plan for LGW realistic, or is it just a smoke screen to increase the chances for expansion at STN. It seems strange that LGW was omitted from the original proposal on the grounds of the 2019 agreement, only for major expansion plans to appear on a judges decision.

All of Britains major airports need major overhaul, LGW & LHR especially. It is ridiculous to try and increase the capacity by inward expansion within the confines of the perimeter fence. We are at risk of being the laughing stock of the aviation world with our outdated airports and connections to major cities. As Big Rab says, we are squeezing more and more flights into a space that doesn't exist.

[Bob Brown]

I agree with teh expansion of Gatwick. the single runway has been at saturation for years.
It always seems funny to me that the majority of people that complain about the potential noise, live no-where near the proposed new runways or flight paths, but cite as a reason that hose prices (theirs) would be affected. Too righ, they would go up!
With more flights, come more staff, with more staff come more money and more of a requirement to live locally.
So, get off your soap boxes and give LGW the second runway it deserves to keep going as a major airport in the UK.

Before any of you start thinking that I live somewhere else, I have lived in Crawley for 15 years now. Unfortunately I no longer work there due to a career change 10 years ago, but when the three runway option was suggested, I assumed that in addition to another e/w runway there would be a n/s runway for when the wind does get too much.

That would have put my house right under the flight path and I am still in favour.

Dont just think of yourselves. Think about what your children and grandchildren will do for work in the area if LGW does not get the expansio it needs and ends up as a third rate airport that nobody wants to use.



(climb down off soap box)

[Jules42]

The 2019 agreement stated that BAA would not seek a 2nd runway before this date, unless the government decided that expansion was required.
The problem with either of the southern runway options are that it is then difficult to get to the terminals without crossing or going round the existing runway. These options would really need a new terminal south of the airport. The northern runway option is the only real option.

[Stan Sted]

My money is still on expansion at STN. BAA owns a massive area of farmland to the east of the airport, funnily enough where they want to build one or two more runways.

I tend to agree with BTudor. LGW is a smokescreen.

[In trim]

I tend to agree that the northern runway at Gatwick is a smokescreen.....the environmental lobby would be so hard that it'd never happen. However, the "close parallel runway" to the south would minimise the environmental effects, whilst still giving a significant boost to capacity (even though not as much capacity as a runway at a greater distance).

STN has to be the preferred option, given the amount of land owned by the BAA, the infrastructure improvements currently being completed in terms of road access, the 'modular' concept to the terminal (which could pretty much be expanded ad infinitum), etc.

The original 'announcement' of up to 4 new runways for STN was clearly a 'worst case' scenario, and no doubt under environmental pressure this will be reduced to just 1 or 2 new runways! I'm convinced the government has already made up its mind with STN the preferred option.

All we need now is a decent rail transport policy which links airports without having to sit on a coach on the M25 !

[Woodman]

I agree that the only real possibility is another runway at STN. Cliffe is a red herring, LGW's proposed runways are ridiculous when considered from the operational viewpoint - let alone the environmental impact on already overheated Sussex/Surrey. There's a head of steam behind a short runway for LHR but once West London realises what's up, that will be dropped.
STN is already laid out to accept more runways and terminals in a logical operation rather than the mess that would result if more were added at LHR or LGW.

Just remember, Maplin would have opened in 1982 with, initially, one runway and one terminal but space for ten terminals and four runways. Politicians cancelled it for short-term expediency.

There will be a hiccup in air traffic after the coming Iraq conflict and the politicians will grab the easy way out and shelve the longterm solutions, leaving the industry to cope.

[Lou Scannon]

I have always believed that option 2, for the extra runway to be built south of the LGW airport, will be the one chosen.

The option for the runway that has Horley as an undershoot is a red herring that can be discarded in reaction to the opposition groups that are bound to be set up.

One of the opponents predicted twice the traffic, twice the polution and twice the noise. In fact I suggest that they will achieve twice the traffic and the noise and polution will be significantly reduced thanks to the reduction in holding prior to departure, stacking before landing and being able to fly cleaner approaches.

Perhaps those of us in the LGW area who believe in the benefits that 26L will bring should form our own pressure group.

[GustyOrange]

Nobody has mentioned that pax would much rather fly into LHR than LGW.

Heathrow is known worldwide whereas few people outside the UK have heard of Gatwick.

As a frequent pax to London I would rather see another 2 runways built at LHR, with construction beginning tomorrow.

Gusty

[Unwell_Raptor]

"Just remember, Maplin would have opened in 1982 with, initially, one runway and one terminal but space for ten terminals and four runways. Politicians cancelled it for short-term expediency. "

Short term certainly, but when there is an election every four years or so, it's not surprising is it?

In the long run, as someone said, we are all dead.

[Leclairage]

Whilst I agree with that Gusty, LHR is running at effective capacity. If you develop LGW to its full potential, and increase pax numbers, facilities, and, importantly onward connections the same as LHR, possibly without the inevitable stacking for LHR, then pax will come to regard LGW in the same way that they think little of going into New York airports various.
In other words, sweat the asset that LGW offers, and the travelling public will come to hold it in high esteem - a veritable competitor for LHR.

[Thunderball]

I felt as if I'd been transported back in time 25 years reading the last few posts on this thread. Rest assured, LGW is very well known throughout the world, especially in the 25% of it to which BCAL used to fly! LHR will certainly eclipse it for interline/intraline potential, but - with respect - it's simply not true that "everyone would rather go to LHR". LGW has a long-established and distinct catchment area of its own for business traffic and leisure traffic, and only part of this overlaps with the LHR catchment. And then there is the fact that LGW is actually a much nicer airport, and the Gatwick Express is a great way to get into London.

(Anyone remember the bizarre suggestion made 20 years ago in Flight magazine that the second LGW runway should be built OVER the northbound M23 due north of LGW, with the motorway being buried underneath it in a two mile tunnel? Now that's what I call lateral thinking.........) :D

[Dispatcher]

GustyOrange has certainly hit a chord that many travellers from around the world think, and that also major airlines believe too.

The major difference between LHR and LGW is not location, travel links, airport facilities and size - it is the tremendous amount of interline connections.

For major international airlines and minor airlines serving just UK and european routes this is an absolute necessity. Can you see 10-15 airlines upping and leaving LHR to set up camp at LGW ? Absolutely not. Star Alliance and Oneworld are the majors here and they are never going to leave LHR what with a terminal 5 opening shortly (ish). Then you have all the other smaller airline networks, your many interline agreements and your thousands of codeshare agreements !!!!

Mini hubs can be generated from a refurbed LGW but LHR is alwas going to be number one, and needs a new runway to support it. Face up to the problem now UK ! New runways are always going to be a pain in the arse for residents but for business and the economy it is a lifeline for many, many years to come.It has to be done in the south somewhere - agreed LGW should ave a runway to expand, but so does LHR more importantly. We do not want thru traffic by major airlines turning to SPL, CDG and FRA - that would be a tragedy.

I want an extra runway at LHR opened at the same time or nearest to the opening of T5. BA and Oneworld can have it and enjoy the many benefits of having their own space. Terminals 1 and 2 should be amalgamated for Star Alliance ( they are already joined at the hip via the Europier ) with the deveoping of some stands to ensure more widebodied aircraft. Terminals 3 and 4 wll then be used for other airlines and networks.

Can you tell I work at Heathrow ? And yes I do live nearby and can handle the additional noise. We shoould not shy away from important decisions, nor should we bow to a terrorist threat like someone else was suggesting here by not building a runway due to the security threat fr aircraft flying in over London.

And that would be the end of my fairytale ending for LHR !!!

[Crowe]

would anyone miss Horley? I spent the first 18 years of my life there, and the only good thing about it was the proximity of an airport that could get you out of there.

Concrete it and build another 08/26 north of Gatwick for proper parallel runway ops says I.

[Jet II]

Dispatcher

Unfortunatley your scenario for LHR is just that - a fairytale.

The BAA have already admitted that their forcast PAX increase in numbers for an extra runway were overly optimistic (they apparently forgot that to get to the proposed runway 3 you have to cross the Northern runway and therefore cut the capacity of that one!)

So to get the extra capacity needed they now admit to needing Terminal 6 so what with that and the massive amount of people that will be under the new flight path (300,000 plus as opposed to 31,000 at LGW and 28,000 at STN) I think the expansion of LHR is a non-starter.

So at the end of the day my moneys still on Stanstead getting 3 runways. (although I would personally prefer LGW to be expanded)

[Hen Ddraig]

This story is just another example of of the wonders of journalism.
It has been lifted from the Department of Transport revised consultation documents. www.airconsult.gov.uk This has been reissued and the consultation period extended by 6 months due to the High Court descision that Gatwick could not be excluded from the process.
The consultation document now has an additional 9 options to be considered, including a don't do anything one.

Don't hold your breath for an early result.

[ModernDinosaur]

Interesting that Hen Ddraig mentions the consultation documents. Has anyone else noticed the subtle change they've made on page 66 between the first and second drafts of the document? The page describes the compensation that people will receive in the event that their house is compulsorily purchased. The original document reads:
... Home Loss Payments are subject to a minimum payment of £15,000 ...
The revised text is:
... Home Loss Payments are subject to a minimum payment of £1,500 and a maximum payment of £15,000 ...
I wonder why this "typographical error" wasn't spotted in the first draft...

[The Southend King]

The same problem with Heathrow Vs Gatwick, in terms of public perception, applies to Kennedy Vs Newark, even though Newark is actually nearer to Manhattan than Kennedy.

[Woodman]

What the passenger really wants is to be able to drive to the airport when he feels like it, park his car right beside the aircraft, walk up the steps to a comfortable seat, take off immediately and pay zilch for the priviledge.

The problem comes with hundreds of destinations, thousands of aircraft and millions of passengers.

The airlines want one airport where everyone can interline with everyone else. Passengers don't want big complex airports.

Everyone in the industry talks about service standards but the perception of the passenger is that standards are going downhill fast. Delays, crowds, congestion, no frills, etc.

Depressing, really. Don't know why I like this industry so much!

[Lost_luggage34]

Do you not think that the LGW proposal has just been brought up to steer attention away from the LHR expansion, Stanstead, the Thames Estuary plan (a non-starter).

With my limited knowledge I posted on here a while back - I asked the ATC chaps & chapesses if we had reached capacity. Seem to recall the answer was mostly Yes.

[Jet II]

Lost_luggage34

LGW was brought into the equation because several local councils in the SouthEast who would have been affected by expansion at LHR, STN or Cliffe won a court battle to have it included.

The latest edition of the consultation document dropped through my letterbox this morning with the revised figures including LGW. When you look at the cost - benefit analysis for each option, 2 new runways at LGW (with or without other developement) shows the best economic benefit.

[Lost_luggage34]

Jet II - very aware of the consultation document. Does it contain anything new or is it just a 90 page document of flannel ?

Please excuse my negatvity. But expansion has been talked about for years. We have yet to see any progress.

[Jet II]

The only 'new' bits in the document are the proposals for LGW.

It seems that from a purely financial viewpoint expansion of LGW is by far the best option for the future. However once all the NIMBY's have a go then I still expect to see only expansion at STN (fewer NIMBY's around there)

;)