HEATHROW
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Heathrow Harry
The proposal to shift LHR runways westward and build over the reservoirs will actually result in less destruction of housing than the current proposal for runway 3 north of the current two.
It also still makes full use of current terminal infrastructure, including the redeveloped 1/2, and only results in the need to construct one new terminal (I think they called it west terminal).
If you read the whole proposal (it is quite long...but interesting!) it certainly looks the least bad option to me, being far cheaper than the estuary airport, giving the 4 runways that LHR probably needs instead of just 3 and even makes an attempt to deal with noise issues over local residents.
The proposal to shift LHR runways westward and build over the reservoirs will actually result in less destruction of housing than the current proposal for runway 3 north of the current two.
It also still makes full use of current terminal infrastructure, including the redeveloped 1/2, and only results in the need to construct one new terminal (I think they called it west terminal).
If you read the whole proposal (it is quite long...but interesting!) it certainly looks the least bad option to me, being far cheaper than the estuary airport, giving the 4 runways that LHR probably needs instead of just 3 and even makes an attempt to deal with noise issues over local residents.
I suggest you read the published info that refers to London being one of the best connected cities in the world; this is a reference to all London's airports - Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, London City, Luton (& possibly now Southend) acting together as a multi-hub.
It's only BAA/IAG/supporters who falsely claim LHR is and must remain the UKs only hub airport; then there is the question of regional dispersal !
But the first part of your statement is undeniably true - LHR is currently the UK's only hub airport.
And as for the second part - that it should remain so, I have no view on that either way. I do however agree with the proposition that the UK is too small a country to support more than one hub airport, wherever that ends up.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Multi or dispersed hubs
Sorry, you'll have to explain that one to me - what on earth is a "multi-hub" ?
I do however agree with the proposition that the UK is too small a country to support more than one hub airport
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As discussed before, it seems that the only place that could support a hub would be London. Manchester does not have the economy nor the location to support a hub status, and as long as BA and VS are focussing basing on LHR then LGW won't succeed as a hub in the true sense.
Talk of multi hubs is all well and good, but have you ever tried to get from one airport from another via surface transport?! Connectivity between even London airports is woeful, and would require some kind of high speed ring railway connecting LHR, LGW, STN and LTN to properly connect them. However, given that this would cost probably as much as a new estuary airport you can begin to see how likely it would be to happen...
Talk of multi hubs is all well and good, but have you ever tried to get from one airport from another via surface transport?! Connectivity between even London airports is woeful, and would require some kind of high speed ring railway connecting LHR, LGW, STN and LTN to properly connect them. However, given that this would cost probably as much as a new estuary airport you can begin to see how likely it would be to happen...
Talk of multi hubs is all well and good, but have you ever tried to get from one airport from another via surface transport?! Connectivity between even London airports is woeful, and would require some kind of high speed ring railway connecting LHR, LGW, STN and LTN to properly connect them.
No-one disputes that London is served by multiple airports from which, collectively, you can fly to lots of places. But to argue that they somehow constitute multiple hubs, or form part of some kind of combined hub arrangement that is greater than the sum of its parts, is ludicrous for the reasons you have described.
You could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of pax per day who get off a flight at one of London's airports and continue their journey from a different one.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “@ Fairdealfrank I refer you to #2079 on 24th October 2012
One option is to base planes with <100pax at Northolt and bus transfers on single or double deckers; thus quickly freeing up LHR capacity.
Where only a handful pax transfer, an electric taxi or mini-cab may suffice ! !”
NHT’s present VIP travel, Queen’s flight and military traffic as well as its distance (6 mi.) make it unsuitable as a proxy LHR third rwy.
However, there is considerable merit in having NHT as a small regional airport for thin domestic routes, no frills, and leisure charter holiday business, and general aviation, just like the success story that is SEN.
Or to put it another way, to handle traffic that cannot afford LHR charges and slot prices. It would add capacity by providing a small point-to-point airport to the west of London (for a change!).
It would need a station adjacent to the terminal, as envisaged in the NHT-as-third-rwy proposal, on the Central Line underground and on Chiltern railways (to provide a 17 minute link to London), as well as a decent link to LHR, fast bus perhaps.
Have checked out # 2079 as per your suggestion, Windsorian.
Quote: “1. BAA should be told that in the short to medium term that there will be no R3 at Heathrow, no full mixed mode and no more night flights; instead they should concentrate on their "Toast Rack" rebuilding. In order to restore confidence, BAA must be assured the government has absolutely no intention at any time of closing Heathrow.”
Strongly disagree, extra rwys are needed urgently at LHR, now.
Quote: “2. In the short term the use of larger more fuel efficient aircraft must be encouraged to accommodate the expected growth in passenger numbers; this will free up some slots for new destinations.”
Business requires frequency, so it can’t always be done. Pretty sure that where it is practical, it’s already being done.
Quote: “2. In the medium term the government should encourage the development of competing hub airports, both in the SE and nationally. The reason the Competition Commisssion ordered BAA to sell Gatwick, Stansted and either Glasgow or Edinburgh was to increase competition between the airports and was ruled to be in the public interest.”
Carriers have to be able to make money: if sufficient demand is there at the right price, carriers will provide services, for example, EK at LGW, BHX, MAN, NCL, and GLA.
Quote: “4. There should be positive discrimination in favour of implementing the Competition Commission ruling in terms of the timing of the construction of new runways. Also there should be a government priority for introducing reciprocal 5th Freedom rights to airports allowing them to operate as virtual hub airports.”
No such thing as “positive” discrimination. All discrimination is wrong.
Quote: “5. It is the introduction of genuine competition between competing hubs that will encourage the development of flights to new destinations and cause the Heathrow airlines to consider re-allocating some existing slots.”
There’s already competition: BA/VS at LHR v. AF at CDG v. LH at FRA v KL at AMS. No disrespect to LGW and STN, but they’re not in the same league.
Quote: "Way back in 1952 Northolt handled 50,000 atms, so they should be able to handle the same today. All I am suggesting is decanting the smallest existing LHR aircraft, requiring the largest wake separation distances, to NHT; thus freeing up capacity for additional larger aircraft on LHR main runways."
No, NHT makes sense as a small regional airport, NOT as an overflow from LHR. Very few LHR movements are by small aircraft now, especially since the demise of the Embraer BD services to ABZ, LBA and MME.
Quote: "The proposal to shift LHR runways westward and build over the reservoirs will actually result in less destruction of housing than the current proposal for runway 3 north of the current two.
It also still makes full use of current terminal infrastructure, including the redeveloped 1/2, and only results in the need to construct one new terminal (I think they called it west terminal).
If you read the whole proposal (it is quite long...but interesting!) it certainly looks the least bad option to me, being far cheaper than the estuary airport, giving the 4 runways that LHR probably needs instead of just 3 and even makes an attempt to deal with noise issues over local residents."
Agreed that is the "the least bad option", however, a modified version could be even better.
Rather than abandoning two long (10,000+ ft) rwys conveniently located near the terminals as suggested, keep the existing infrastructure and status quo.
Put just two new rwys on the open land west of the M25 but north of the existing rwys. That way, although some roads may need to be diverted/tunnelised, there's no need to obliterate any resevoirs.
One option is to base planes with <100pax at Northolt and bus transfers on single or double deckers; thus quickly freeing up LHR capacity.
Where only a handful pax transfer, an electric taxi or mini-cab may suffice ! !”
NHT’s present VIP travel, Queen’s flight and military traffic as well as its distance (6 mi.) make it unsuitable as a proxy LHR third rwy.
However, there is considerable merit in having NHT as a small regional airport for thin domestic routes, no frills, and leisure charter holiday business, and general aviation, just like the success story that is SEN.
Or to put it another way, to handle traffic that cannot afford LHR charges and slot prices. It would add capacity by providing a small point-to-point airport to the west of London (for a change!).
It would need a station adjacent to the terminal, as envisaged in the NHT-as-third-rwy proposal, on the Central Line underground and on Chiltern railways (to provide a 17 minute link to London), as well as a decent link to LHR, fast bus perhaps.
Have checked out # 2079 as per your suggestion, Windsorian.
Quote: “1. BAA should be told that in the short to medium term that there will be no R3 at Heathrow, no full mixed mode and no more night flights; instead they should concentrate on their "Toast Rack" rebuilding. In order to restore confidence, BAA must be assured the government has absolutely no intention at any time of closing Heathrow.”
Strongly disagree, extra rwys are needed urgently at LHR, now.
Quote: “2. In the short term the use of larger more fuel efficient aircraft must be encouraged to accommodate the expected growth in passenger numbers; this will free up some slots for new destinations.”
Business requires frequency, so it can’t always be done. Pretty sure that where it is practical, it’s already being done.
Quote: “2. In the medium term the government should encourage the development of competing hub airports, both in the SE and nationally. The reason the Competition Commisssion ordered BAA to sell Gatwick, Stansted and either Glasgow or Edinburgh was to increase competition between the airports and was ruled to be in the public interest.”
Carriers have to be able to make money: if sufficient demand is there at the right price, carriers will provide services, for example, EK at LGW, BHX, MAN, NCL, and GLA.
Quote: “4. There should be positive discrimination in favour of implementing the Competition Commission ruling in terms of the timing of the construction of new runways. Also there should be a government priority for introducing reciprocal 5th Freedom rights to airports allowing them to operate as virtual hub airports.”
No such thing as “positive” discrimination. All discrimination is wrong.
Quote: “5. It is the introduction of genuine competition between competing hubs that will encourage the development of flights to new destinations and cause the Heathrow airlines to consider re-allocating some existing slots.”
There’s already competition: BA/VS at LHR v. AF at CDG v. LH at FRA v KL at AMS. No disrespect to LGW and STN, but they’re not in the same league.
Quote: "Way back in 1952 Northolt handled 50,000 atms, so they should be able to handle the same today. All I am suggesting is decanting the smallest existing LHR aircraft, requiring the largest wake separation distances, to NHT; thus freeing up capacity for additional larger aircraft on LHR main runways."
No, NHT makes sense as a small regional airport, NOT as an overflow from LHR. Very few LHR movements are by small aircraft now, especially since the demise of the Embraer BD services to ABZ, LBA and MME.
Quote: "The proposal to shift LHR runways westward and build over the reservoirs will actually result in less destruction of housing than the current proposal for runway 3 north of the current two.
It also still makes full use of current terminal infrastructure, including the redeveloped 1/2, and only results in the need to construct one new terminal (I think they called it west terminal).
If you read the whole proposal (it is quite long...but interesting!) it certainly looks the least bad option to me, being far cheaper than the estuary airport, giving the 4 runways that LHR probably needs instead of just 3 and even makes an attempt to deal with noise issues over local residents."
Agreed that is the "the least bad option", however, a modified version could be even better.
Rather than abandoning two long (10,000+ ft) rwys conveniently located near the terminals as suggested, keep the existing infrastructure and status quo.
Put just two new rwys on the open land west of the M25 but north of the existing rwys. That way, although some roads may need to be diverted/tunnelised, there's no need to obliterate any resevoirs.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 5th Nov 2012 at 17:50. Reason: clarity
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is considerable merit in having NHT as a small regional airport
Also it is already there, ready to go and capable of handling at least 50,000 atms / year. No need to build anything new or bulldoze anyones homes, just relocate the troublesome smaller planes to an existing airport just a few miles away.
Like days of old (and the Olympics), BAA could erect some tents at NHL for temporary terminals and a fast taxi / bus link along the A312 will not be much different to getting from R3 / T6 to the other terminals; perhaps BAA could pay for a bus lane ?
If the Davies Commission is to include quick short term alternatives for increased capacity in its Interim Report due late 2013, then NHL should be in the mix !
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Windorsian, again, do you understand the key difference between capacity and connectivity? Just because you can build something doesn't mean it will be profitable. Does your cunning plan for Northolt assist LHR in the fight against FRA/AMS/CDG? No, it does not, which is why it won't happen.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What smaller planes are you on about ?
Private aircraft should be banned from LHR, again freeing up slots for new routes.
A progressive programme of relocating to NHT aircraft with <100 pax.
This could start with <50pax, then <75pax and then <100pax. This would give BAA time to erect their tents and install the A312 bus lane(s).
The removal of small aircraft from LHR will have two effects; it will allow larger aircraft carrying a greater number of passengers to use the existing slots and will increase resilence within the existing 480,000atm limit.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you are saying remove B737 now because very lttle smaller than that operates
to LHR
What charter flights do you mean, didn`t know there were any and have not been for many years
Chaps
to LHR
What charter flights do you mean, didn`t know there were any and have not been for many years
Chaps
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Libertine
you may well demolish fewer hosues but you are extending LHR dramatically westwards - I just can't see how you'd ever get over all the legal and political obstacles -
Just look at how the rich inhabitants of Sonning have fought to avoid a minimal upgrade their bridge across the Thames to see what a swamp you're getting into
these people are well off, well briefed and they are very very very stubborn
you may well demolish fewer hosues but you are extending LHR dramatically westwards - I just can't see how you'd ever get over all the legal and political obstacles -
Just look at how the rich inhabitants of Sonning have fought to avoid a minimal upgrade their bridge across the Thames to see what a swamp you're getting into
these people are well off, well briefed and they are very very very stubborn
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: MIA-IBZ
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets have some numbers
So please do tell me how many a/c a day fly into LHR with less than 100 seats. And how many holiday charters a day. I also would like to know how many privert jets fly into LHR.
fr-
fr-
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just look at how the rich inhabitants of Sonning have fought to avoid a minimal upgrade their bridge across the Thames to see what a swamp you're getting into; these people are well off, well briefed and they are very very, very stubborn.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA must release Heathrow plane info
So please do tell me how many a/c a day fly into LHR with less than 100 seats, how many holiday charters a day, also would like to know how many private jets fly into LHR.
I can still remember the T5 Inquiry when BAA refused to release the recorded noise measurements of landing B747 aircraft, on the grounds they were flying too low over its mobile noise monitors !!
Last edited by Windsorian; 6th Nov 2012 at 10:58.
Northolt - ready to go
Also it is already there, ready to go and capable of handling at least 50,000 atms / year. No need to build anything new or bulldoze anyones homes, just relocate the troublesome smaller planes to an existing airport just a few miles away.
Ever wondered why the clever chaps who designed Heathrow in the 1940s arranged the runways parallel to each other ?
Northolt's runway, on the other hand, is aligned at 20° to Heathrow's, which is another way of saying that the ILS approaches to 09s at LHR and Northolt's 07 intersect at about 10 nm (or rather they would if Northolt actually had an ILS on 07).
So how exactly is that novel arrangement going to work ? By the time you have ensured sufficient separation between traffic landing at the two airports, you will probably end up with less capacity from the 3 runways combined than you currently have at LHR alone.
That's why all the plans floated for using Northolt for short-haul traffic are predicated on building a new 09/27 runway (euphemistically referred to as "realigning the existing runway") and even that won't wholly solve the potential ATC problems.
"Ready to go" ? I think not.
Last edited by DaveReidUK; 6th Nov 2012 at 11:30. Reason: typo
I referred to pax rather than seats, but both figures would be useful; what we need is for the UK CAA to put this information into the public arena for the Davies Commission to take into account during their aviation inquiry, or BAA Heathrow will claim it's commercially sensitive information.
BAA does, however, publish overall load stats - the most recent I can find, for April, mentions a 76.4% PLF and an average seat size per movement of 197.6.
I don't have time to do the seat size distribution sums right now, but if anyone wants to, here's a breakdown of yesterday's pax ATM arrivals by type:
A306:1
A318:1
A319:131
A320:158
A321:68
A332:8
A333:11
A343:5
A345:1
A346:13
A388:10
B733:4
B734:1
B735:4
B736:1
B737:6
B738:18
B739:2
B744:46
B752:5
B753:1
B762:1
B763:39
B764:8
B772:52
B77L:2
B77W:23
CRJ9:1
E190:4
F100:1
F70:4
RJ1H:1
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Covering up the figures
Pax is pointless as the number will change every flight.