When it gets really, really busy (like LHR is) it needs more than one runway that can be used for landing at the same time, i.e. 'independent simultaneous instrument approaches'. To meet the requirements for 'independent simultaneous instrument approaches' the runways have to be far enough apart. At LHR the runways are not far enough apart (there is no airport in Britain that has runways far enough apart). When a third runway is built, the 'outside' two runways will be far enough apart.
(LHR is running at about 98% capacity. At busy periods the spacing between landing aeroplanes is about 2 miles. In 'low visibility' conditions the minimum spacing safety requirement for most aeroplanes is about 4 miles, so when it becomes foggy about 48% of capacity is lost, hence all the delays and cancellations every time the fog rolls in there.)
Under the present LHR rwy arrangements, simultaneous landings do take place in the early morning 0445-0600. Granted it is not busy then.
Despite everything that any 'green' or pseudo-'green' politician might sprout, that extra runway at LHR is a requirement if there is not another British 'hub' instantly available. Failure to get on with that runway fast will have the hubs at Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt, Madrid (all of which have more than two runways and sufficiently separated for 'independent simultaneous instrument approaches'), Doha and Dubai (and probably several more too) rubbing their hands with glee at the stupidity of British politicians.
Good point!
It is far too late to be thinking of a 'new airport'. It will take too long to be ready to use (just look at how long the 'efficient' Germans have been with getting Berlin Brandenburg ready!!!!).
Indeed, even if we are thinking about a new airport, LHR expansion would
still be needed because it is 50 years overdue, and the new airport would take another 50.
As this is the case let’s just do the former, and do it now.
Other than for an hour or so in the early morning and an hour in the late evening, Heathrow doesn't have "departure peaks" and "arrival peaks", in fact it doesn't really have peaks and troughs at all (hence the 98% utilisation).
It could be said that LHR has one departure peak and one arrival peak, both operating from 0600 to 2200.
Hence the need, whether you like or loath the place, for that extra runway, fast!! If the existing UK 'hub' is already that close to full, then there is simply no time to think of an entirely new airport (and I refer again to the 'efficient' Germans and Berlin Brandenburg). LHR doesn't have the capacity at the moment to provide a reliable feeder service to/from the rest of the UK (the moment there is anything like fog, etc., at LHR then the airline that provides most of those feeders cancels them) so it is questionable if it can be truly called a 'UK hub' or just a 'hub in the UK'.
Back to the name of the thread: no, a new airport is not feasible unless you are planning decades ahead (and then it should not be on the French side of that London traffic jam if it wants to be considered to be a 'UK hub'). In the mean time, UK plc's airline industry needs to stay in business and from the 'hub' aspect of it, LHR needs improved runway capacity, FAST.
Exactly, and well summarised!