Well, the question was in regards to Heathrow and the 3rd rwy, in all fairness.
In that class A environment with virtually no other air traffic than known IFR, then it's nowhere near handling as much traffic as, ORD, JFK or LAX. I'm not talking landings, but real air traffic. Most of the example class B is smaller than the class A in London, filled with mixed traffic of all kinds (no convenient glide free rules to keep the small fry out of your hair like in London) etc. So why is it that this is presented as somehow this gargantuan skillful task by the almost superhumanly competent airspace handlers in Europe, when much more traffic is quietly handled without chest thumping daily elsewhere? Heck, even Sydney deals with it all in class D, as far as I know.
The airspace is not overcrowded in class A and could easily accommodate a 3rd rwy or a 4th. Even at 4 rwy's, they'd be handling less real traffic than LAX. Sure they might have to change some procedures, but that's all doable. As for the adjoining airports in the London area, yes, it's crowded. But no more than JFK/La Guardia/Newark, or LAX/Long Beach/Burbank/John Wayne. But I bet the first thing they'll propose is to expand class A, so the get rid of those pesky unwanted little small airplanes with the amateurs in them and the annoying operators who are not paying into the system, right? If you can't cope with it, just force it out. That seems to be the MO here.
There's an age old Euro tendency of thinking we're superior and more skilled than everybody else and when that's proven not to be the case, we legislate the problem away rather than dig in and step up to the challenge. Cradle of civilisation and all that. I say this as a European, not an American.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 27th Aug 2012 at 19:07.