PFR
It is not feasible to utilise our runways in the manner you describe used at LHR. As you say yourself, the ground infrastructure is not there to facilitate this. The procedure you outline is do-able as was proved very capably yesterday but at a cost: delays.
For those not aware, yesterday morning from about 0745 local time, 06L was available for departures only, with a TORA of 2100m due to a badly damged light fitting. Aircraft unable to depart with this distance available were allowed to depart from 06R. 06R was still the arrival runway. The movement rate achieved was remarkable considering the 20+ departures from 06R (many of them "heavies") had to backtrack almost the full length of the runway in the face of arriving traffic. This lasted over 2 hours. The delay to departures needing to use 06R was about 15 minutes on top of the normal taxy time of 15 minutes. Who would tolerate that on a regular basis just to reduce noise in one area and move it somewhere else?
At this time it is not possible to spread the noise around more evenly by using different approach paths. Considering that the 6s are in use for less than 20% of the year (my estimate), I think you have little to complain about on the noise front! What about the residents to the north east of the airport. They get the noise for 80% of the time, with comparatively few complaints.
As for allowing some aircraft to land on 06L instead of 06R, we (ATC) are not allowed to offer the switch.
I do not understand your reference to STARs as they terminate at the holding fixes and what happens after there is of no relevance.
sky9
There is space for a parallel taxiway to 06R but it would require the two tunnels to be joined to make one long one. For the amount of times it would be used, I feel it would be difficult to make a business case when terminal expansion and parking are in short supply already.
I don't see any need for a third runway.
BTW It was a pleasure to be a part of D watch yesterday morning (as it is most days
) it was a great team effort!