HEATHROW

[Taildragger67]

FlgOffKite,

Big moves have been done before, so the 'established national airport' argument has been shown to be hollow (just takes a bit of political will):
- Tokyo (ok, Haneda still operates, but it's no longer Tokyo's main international gateway)
- Singapore (Paya Lebar still operational for military)
- Hong Kong
- Kuala Lumpur
- Denver
- Shanghai (again, Hongquing still runs, but Pudong's the main show in town and getting bigger)
- Osaka (same re Itami & Kansai)

Stansted already has at least as good transport links as EGLL: taps into good rail lines, straight into the City (now, just where do most of the customers BAA touts as needing EGLL expansion, work?), M11... main problem is it's 40 miles from the centre rather than 14...

From those examples above, I can't see why a second strip at EGSS can't go down and that become the main international gateway. If BA gets as much transit/connection traffic through EGLL as it says it does, then that'd be perfect and the distance from anywhere in the UK would not be an issue (as the punters aren't going into town).

If EGLL is as reliant on the City & Canary Wharf as they say EGLL is, then the direct train to EGSS directly answers that (EGSS to Liverpool St in 40 mins but by the time you've got the LHR Exp to Paddo, then got on the tube to, say, Liverpool St, you're far ahead coming down from EGSS).

Several of those I've mentioned have a main int'l gateway and a smaller domestic strip - so London, with EGSS and EGLL, EGKK and EGGW, London has an out-of-town, all-hours int'l plus a choice of potentially three primarily domestic/short-haul strips.

QED.

And yes, EGLL used to have six strips so I can't see what all the fuss is about, either.

Environmentally, expansion of EGSS would be better nationally as the north-of-London catchment would mean less pressure to expand Manchester, Birmingham and East Midlands. Plus it would be easier to drive a high-speed train spur to EGSS than to EGLL, to potentially link to Paris, Brussels & Amsterdam, reducing the need for flights to those centres.

One problem with a new parallel strip is that all ops are going to have to cross 27L/09R - so there will be delays. At Frankfurt, the new strip is off the end of the parallels and at Amsterdam you taxi past the end of the old strips to the new Polderbaan so there's no conflict (just a long drive in the country with the latter!)

An alternative would be to ban all aircraft under a certain size into EGLL. That is, let's say that 737-400/A320 size is the minimum - so no 737-700 or -600, no A319, no BAe146/RJ, no F50, no MD90... the A319 flights from (say) Stockholm go into EGKK or EGSS, and daily one or two larger a/c do that run into EGLL, mainly to service the long-haul connection market. BA booking systems are programmed to favour connecting pax onto the EGLL services and non-connectors get channeled onto the EGKK/EGSS runs. 'Channelling' would work by charging a premium on short-haul trips originating or finishing at EGLL whilst there would be no premium for connecting to long-haul services.

With respect to carriers other than BA using smaller aircraft, then they go straight into EGKK/EGSS anyway as EGLL will have lost its aura as 'the' London airport to go into; in any case, alliances could then run similar structures to that I've just described, for their connectors.