Gatwick Second Runway
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A runway south of and parallel to the A23 has always been the easiest solution at LGW, but I thought it was effectively ruled out when they built CAA Towers opposite the Beehive.
Somehow I don't think that Prescott et al could ever get the CAA to vacate and demolish for the sake of the greater good.
Somehow I don't think that Prescott et al could ever get the CAA to vacate and demolish for the sake of the greater good.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ironic that the objectors to 10R/28L at DUB are claiming among other things that "LGW is single runway so DUB doesn't need a second one" when LGW's primary reason for not having one is the agreement on the North Terminal.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remembering hearing a similar story on the news a few years ago, it would seem that the two runways there already are too close together for simultaneous ops and because of some contract, they cant exand for several years, maybe this has now changed, as London could certainly use that capacity.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised that nobody has provided the link:
http://www.baa.com/main/corporate/ne...ans_frame.html
http://www.baa.com/main/corporate/ne...ans_frame.html
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'The rumour' is basically as follows!
I quote:
The new runway - subject to consultation and Government approval - would be 1,130 yards to the south of the present runway at the West Sussex airport.
Already envisaged in the Government's 2003 aviation White Paper, the runway would not be built before 2019 and would only go ahead if an extra, third runway at Heathrow around 2015 failed to be developed.
BAA said that a third passenger terminal - in addition to the existing north and south terminals - "could and should be located between the runways".
The draft plan talks of taking slightly less land to the north of the current airport boundary than was originally envisaged, which could reduce the environmental impact of the new runway on the village of Charlwood.
With Gatwick currently handling around 31 million passengers a year, the BAA plan today said the airport could cater for as many as 45 million passengers a year by 2030 using one runway, or around 80 million a year if there were to be two runways.
I quote:
The new runway - subject to consultation and Government approval - would be 1,130 yards to the south of the present runway at the West Sussex airport.
Already envisaged in the Government's 2003 aviation White Paper, the runway would not be built before 2019 and would only go ahead if an extra, third runway at Heathrow around 2015 failed to be developed.
BAA said that a third passenger terminal - in addition to the existing north and south terminals - "could and should be located between the runways".
The draft plan talks of taking slightly less land to the north of the current airport boundary than was originally envisaged, which could reduce the environmental impact of the new runway on the village of Charlwood.
With Gatwick currently handling around 31 million passengers a year, the BAA plan today said the airport could cater for as many as 45 million passengers a year by 2030 using one runway, or around 80 million a year if there were to be two runways.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just curious about how they can go from being already the world's busiest airport with one runway at 31m ppa to 45 mppa using the same single strip?
What is the maximum amount of pax you can get off one piece of tarmac?
In theory v practice??
Presumably:
1 A380 every 2 minutes at 500 pax x 30/hour x 24 hours / day (I think we're talking about Gatwick's Second runway now being the new South pier at Brighton):
= 360,000 pax per day
= 129,600,000 per year, operating at this max level for 360 days per year.
Now considering that is an absolute theoretical max, aren't they stretching things far enough as is? Or is 1 every 2 minutes being conservative?
I've never understood the economics of all the billions which need to be spent on these new runways, but at what point does the environmental argument turn round and say that more fuel will be saved through less stacking etc, and that this benefit is more of a positive than the disbenefit of the land which will have to be taken to build the new runway?
My guess might be that this point, in LGW's case, was passed several years ago, but it isn't something we hear about very often.
All we get instead is the local nimbys saying they don't want the runway in Gatwick because Stansted is a better location, and then Stansted passing it to Luton, who try and pass it to Birmingham, then Coventry and so on.
This has to be one of the few places where we can get a proper debate on these issues without it being hijacked by the nimbys, but there are still many unanswered questions.
What is the maximum amount of pax you can get off one piece of tarmac?
In theory v practice??
Presumably:
1 A380 every 2 minutes at 500 pax x 30/hour x 24 hours / day (I think we're talking about Gatwick's Second runway now being the new South pier at Brighton):
= 360,000 pax per day
= 129,600,000 per year, operating at this max level for 360 days per year.
Now considering that is an absolute theoretical max, aren't they stretching things far enough as is? Or is 1 every 2 minutes being conservative?
I've never understood the economics of all the billions which need to be spent on these new runways, but at what point does the environmental argument turn round and say that more fuel will be saved through less stacking etc, and that this benefit is more of a positive than the disbenefit of the land which will have to be taken to build the new runway?
My guess might be that this point, in LGW's case, was passed several years ago, but it isn't something we hear about very often.
All we get instead is the local nimbys saying they don't want the runway in Gatwick because Stansted is a better location, and then Stansted passing it to Luton, who try and pass it to Birmingham, then Coventry and so on.
This has to be one of the few places where we can get a proper debate on these issues without it being hijacked by the nimbys, but there are still many unanswered questions.
