Quote: “
I wouldn't call LCY "regional". I would call it a niche commuter airport, aimed primarily at the business market. The whole point of regional airports is that they server the regions, ie not the capital or largest city/cities.
However, in terms of the thin destinations NHT would serve as a ptp facility, then it could still be described as "regional".
Fair point about LCY, in reality it’s probably a bit of both.
Quote: “
Yes I live in Windsor, but I don't object the LHR and most certainly don't want to see it closed; nor am I opposed to aviation expansion, if the government confirms the aviation/shipping recomendations of the Climate Change Committee.
However I recognise the true potential of BAA's Toast Rack re-building; my estimate is we could see pax numbers increase from the present 70mppa to 125+mppa within the existing 480,000 atm limit, without full mixed mode being introduced or runway alternation being abandoned.”
Sorry to be tedious, but at the risk of being repetitive,
LHR’s critical problem is a lack of rwy capacity.
For now, terminal capacity is not a problem - hence the ability to actually do the “toastracking” at this time.
Quote: “
But in order to improve LHR resilience and to facilitate more pax / larger aircraft, I believe the smaller aircraft should be decanted to Northolt. Let's remember we are not talking about a R3 or the Toast Rack re-build, the latter work will be required anyway for either the R3 or NHT proposals.”
No, it is not desirable: business needs the frequency, particularly on shorthaul, hence the use of smaller aircraft of the A320/B737 families (approx. 130-180 pax range). The amount of aircraft smaller than these at LHR is insignificant.
To arbitrarily decant some flights to NHT would be illegal, so to do as you suggest would need huge financial inducements. So if that kind of money is available, best spend it on rwys on open land west of the M25 and consequent required road diversions/tunnels, and keep LHR's hub status in tact.
Quote: “
Also I recognise the importance of Crossrail and Network Rail's J2 and J3 options for Western rail access to LHR; 125+mppa is going to require some serious surface access improvements including Crossrail, HS2 and the Piccadilly Line upgrade.
Finally the figures I've seen suggest R3 may cost £8+Billion and take up to 10 years, whilst my cheap and cheerful proposal for tents, taxis & buses could be implemented within 12 months at minimal cost; BAA could lease the land required from the RAF until the Davies Commission's long term proposals can be implemented.“
LHR with 125mppa will need 4 rwys, no getting away from it, so let’s do it now. Your figures for a third rwy (as approved in 2009) are almost certainly wrong.
Your proposals for NHT do not cut it in this day and age, but again, at the risk of being repetitive and tedious, as a small SEN-type operation with a station on the airport, NHT could be viable and desirable.
Why would the BAA want to lease NHT, or indeed, be allowed to: they’ve just had to sell 2 airports in England and 1 in Scotland.
Quote: “
The article implies that BAA also deem the Free Enterprise Group's plan to obliterate Stanwell and West Bedfont as another 4-runway option to be considered: http://www.freeenterprise.org.uk/sit...cy%20Bites.pdf”
Yes, this one’s been doing the rounds for some time, but they‘re correct about approving two more rwys at the same time. It also suggests very generous compensation to displaced residents.
Why not spend the equivelant on 2 rwys west of the M25 (see above) and save the the two towns (and Ashford Football Club!) from demolition. Bedfont and stanwell are both much much bigger than Sipson, and not blighted. Sipson is blighted because of 20 years of indecision.
Quote: “
Is there a case for a Flybe type operation at NHT - to feed in from the regions but still be closer to London for domestic hops to CAX, NQY etc than SEN and other airports are? Maybe, but might I respectively suggest that should be on a separate NORTHOLT thread (if it doesn't already exist)?”
Yes there
is a case for
exactly this,
jabird, hence my description of it as a “small regional airport”, and your use of the word “commuter airport”, but only with a proper terminal (not a tent), and a station on the airport.
As a LHR overflow, forget it!
There
was a NHT thread when the LHR overflow idea was first aired, go back a few months, was around April the first, IIRC...