Idie Cent
...but the 3rd runway was planned with an additional Terminal and it's own taxiways.
Yes, but surely the whole point of a third runway at LHR is to bring extra interlining passengers into LHR. They are not visiting London, they are visiting Mumbai or L.A.
In other words, a new runway for short haul will bring extra demand for long haul, which LHR simply cannot deal with. LHR is too small, as I said.
Jabird
Since when are runways designated according to the traffic they serve. To suggest such a use of runways really reveals a complete lack of knowledge of how the industry works.
Err, to say such a thing means you are not an aviator. Never been to CDG, have you !!! Ha, ha, ha. Oh, these threads do bring out the spotters.
For your info, the short runways at CDG are for short-haul aircraft. You could try taking off in a 747, but the results might be interesting. Glad you are not in aviation.
And the reason for having separate long-haul and short haul runways?
a. Its cheaper. Shorter runway = less cost, especially if you have to build the island to contain it.
b. Customs and immigration. It is still advantageous to separate domestic (small aircraft) and international traffic (big aircraft), for immigration reasons.
c. Wake vortex separation. If you mix heavies and lights, half of the aircraft on the approach need greater separation. A small turboprop behind an A380 needs 8 nm, while an A380 behind and A380 needs only 4 nm. It is much more efficient to have two short haul runways (and their terminal) and a separate group of long-haul runways (and their terminal).
It is a shame that idiots like Lord Foster did not ask aviators, before designing his absurd Thames airport proposal. Just how does a Saab 2000 make an approach into an airport like this?? Does the whole airport sit and wait, for ten minutes, doing nothing? Does the Saab get blown over, or its tail knocked off, as it taxies?
Jabird
Not really, most of the major interline players operate through LHR, the other airports take more point to point - alhough yes, there are several players at LGW who would rather be at LHR, and some LGW BA destinations which also might otherwise be at LHR, BUT.....
You are wrong again.
As far as I am aware, the whole reason for the BA-Iberia marriage, is that BA was desperately short of S American routes. A larger airport could sort out that situation, but LHR is desperately short of slots for new routes - hence the absurd price placed upon a failing operator like BMI.
Jabird
Again, I'm getting you on a technicality, but it shows your lack of knowledge. The TGV does not, and cannot operate through the Channel Tunnel, due to voltage issues.
Oh, please do not be stupid.
The Eurostar trains that go from Paris to London are TGV373000 rolling-stock - and yes, they go through the Channel Tunnel.
Here is a TGV at London St Pancras. How do you think it got there - by boat? by air?
Jabird
Although it always seems good logic to have surface links to airports, they are not as big a traffic generator as the cities they serve - in other words, as a rail destination, LHR is much smaller than London.
Yes, because you cannot catch a train from Manchester to LHR !! This is the stupidity of the UK transport 'system'.
From Manchester, you go to Euston, then walk down the road in the rain to a tube station (the Euston tube is not direct), get the tube to Paddington, then get a train to LHR. You think this is easy, with four bags falling off the trolly and three kids running down the wrong escalator and ending up in Charing Cross??
And please do not expect to make this journey to get to LHR for a 6am departure - IT AINT GOING TO HAPPEN.
Do you wonder why people drive?
.