HEATHROW
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northolt: Er, no, it isn't.
The idea of the tents, taxis & buses is a short term solution whilst a long term solution is implemented. It may well be for the long term the NHT runway needs re-orientating parallel with LHR's two main runways, but as a temporary expedient it should be fine for 50,000atms/annum.
And let's not forget the curved arrivals and departures already in operation at LHR; surely 2 LHR runways with a 3rd at NHT cannot be a problem when our EU competitors have 4, 5 and 6 closer spaced together !
Competition issues suggest for the longer term, the other London airports deserve second runways, before Heathrow gets a third.
Last edited by Windsorian; 6th Nov 2012 at 14:07.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are various techniques that could be used for co-ordinating LHR and NHT operations including differential glide slope angles and parallel co-ordination between 07/25 and 09R/27L which would widen up the airport runway spacings; insisting 07/25 conficts with 09L/27R is a red herring.
I'm curious about these techniques.....please expand...
Though I was going to ask about the "curved arrivals already in operation at LHR" too.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curved arrivals ?
Though I was going to ask about the "curved arrivals already in operation at LHR" too.
If the decanted smaller aircraft were to land at a 50,000 atm capacity NHT (i.e. no heavy/super heavy planes) then a shorter final straight glide slope could be combined with a further out curved approach for planes using SatNav /GPS.
Last edited by Windsorian; 6th Nov 2012 at 14:26.
When I referred to curved arrivals I was meaning the existing technique of allowing planes to join the glide slope closer to the airport.
Perhaps Gonzo could expand on the ATC challenges posed by sticking 50,000 movements per year into Northolt with or without its current runway alignment ?
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another LHR not planned !
any aircraft not established on the ILS at least 8nm from the threshold (10 nm at night) is classified as a "late join"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is DaveReidUK so keen to trash what could be quite a good idea? Rather than trying to brick-wall it, why not at least consider it seriously? Endless excuses about military traffic, rules and regs, runway alignment; all of these are not in the least insurmountable because the rules are not set in stone, the military/royalty can (and would probably be happy to) fly elsewhere and many airports have runways of different alignments which are far closer together, and distances are such that traffic conflicts can be avoided without too much hassle anyway.
So far there has been no evidence presented which shows the use of NHT as a small-scale airport to take some of the smaller aircraft (like CRJs/Fokkers/Embraers/ATRs/RJs) which currently use LHR - it doesn't even need to be point to point - to be an impossibility. So please don't get high and mighty and dismiss it as ridiculous... because so far nobody has managed to show it as such.
So far there has been no evidence presented which shows the use of NHT as a small-scale airport to take some of the smaller aircraft (like CRJs/Fokkers/Embraers/ATRs/RJs) which currently use LHR - it doesn't even need to be point to point - to be an impossibility. So please don't get high and mighty and dismiss it as ridiculous... because so far nobody has managed to show it as such.
Last edited by Aero Mad; 6th Nov 2012 at 15:00.
Perhaps you should start thinking outside the box and not apply unnecessary rules to a small NHT airport with no heavy / super heavy aircraft and only 11% of the LHR atms?
And my reference to joining points was in relation to Heathrow, as was yours re curved approaches:
And let's not forget the curved arrivals and departures already in operation at LHR
So far there has been no evidence presented which shows the use of NHT as a small-scale airport to take some of the smaller aircraft (like CRJs/Fokkers/Embraers/ATRs/RJs) which currently use LHR
To save you adding up the stats in post #2148, the aforesaid regional jets and turboprops accounted for 1.7% of LHR ATMs (22 out of 1260).
I agree that it would be wonderful if some way could be devised of filling certain flights exclusively with point-to-point passengers who don't care (within reason) which London airport they travel to/from, but alas life isn't that simple.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so keen to trash what could be quite a good idea?
Lufthansa, KLM and to a lesser extent Air France have effective hub connectivity up against LHR. Using Northolt and mucking about with magic/special sterile and sealed buses between airfields fails on the key question of keeping the product competitve against the competition.
Have a look on flyertalk. Joe Public gets into a hysterical strop when the connection lacks an airbridge direct to the F'Lounge and the connecting aircraft ideally parked on the next stand. We need to get as close to that ideal as possible(!)
Perhaps you should start thinking outside the box
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 6th Nov 2012 at 15:40.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northolt
Quote: "NHT is in the London Borough of Ealing, in the GLA area and within the M25; to describe it as a regional airport is a bit far fetched."
Sorry if this appears rude (it's not meant to), but this is a silly comment:
NHT is actually in Ruislip (Borough of HILLINGDON). A "small regional airport" is a (non-technical) description of an airport type. Its geographical location or the local government district it is situated in is irrelevant. For example, LCY is a "small regional airport" despite being in the middle of London.
Quote: "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."
Not quite "ready", but could be quite quickly - but only as a small regional airport to expand capacity in general, NOT a LHR overflow to expand hub capacity.
Quote: "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 ?"
No, tents, etc., will not do these days. Why assume that BAA will buy NHT if it is put up for sale? Any evidence?
A bus lane on the A312 is impractical, it's only a 2-lane dual carriageway and the dual carriageway doesn't go all the way to NHT.
Quote: "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 ! "
Agreed (at last!) that NHT should be looked at by the Davies Commission, but not as a LHR overflow.
Quote: "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"
Not enough small aircraft to make a difference, why would any airline flying to/from LHR agree to this in the first place? The investment at NHT only works if it attracts new and separate business.
Quote: "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."
For the reasons mentioned above and more, NHT is not suitable as an overflow for LHR. It could only work as a small regional airport, and as such it is not ready, even without a rwy re-alignment, but could be quickly.
NHT needs a (small) terminal and an adjacant station and related infrastructure, otherwise forget it.
Sorry if this appears rude (it's not meant to), but this is a silly comment:
NHT is actually in Ruislip (Borough of HILLINGDON). A "small regional airport" is a (non-technical) description of an airport type. Its geographical location or the local government district it is situated in is irrelevant. For example, LCY is a "small regional airport" despite being in the middle of London.
Quote: "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."
Not quite "ready", but could be quite quickly - but only as a small regional airport to expand capacity in general, NOT a LHR overflow to expand hub capacity.
Quote: "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 ?"
No, tents, etc., will not do these days. Why assume that BAA will buy NHT if it is put up for sale? Any evidence?
A bus lane on the A312 is impractical, it's only a 2-lane dual carriageway and the dual carriageway doesn't go all the way to NHT.
Quote: "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 ! "
Agreed (at last!) that NHT should be looked at by the Davies Commission, but not as a LHR overflow.
Quote: "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"
Not enough small aircraft to make a difference, why would any airline flying to/from LHR agree to this in the first place? The investment at NHT only works if it attracts new and separate business.
Quote: "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."
For the reasons mentioned above and more, NHT is not suitable as an overflow for LHR. It could only work as a small regional airport, and as such it is not ready, even without a rwy re-alignment, but could be quickly.
NHT needs a (small) terminal and an adjacant station and related infrastructure, otherwise forget it.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 6th Nov 2012 at 22:06.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North East
Age: 37
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Windsorian
Location: Windsor
Location: Windsor
the other London airports deserve second runways, before Heathrow gets a third.
There are a huge number of major/capital cities where huge hub capacity exists, with more opening all the time in the Middle and Far East. With IAG already murmuring about moving some of their (particularly South American) capacity down to MAD... London is going to start losing out BIG style.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "LGW is the only airport that anywhere near needs a second runway. Even then what would it turn into? Another 2 runwayed airport... Like LHR. It is fairly well established (except by NIMBYs) that a double runway LON hub is not big enough. TWO double runway hubs separated by an hour+ long coach journey on one of the busiest roads in the land just doesn't cut it."
Exactly right, but would say that 2 more rwys at LHR takes preference over 1 more at LGW.
Once LHR has expanded, the LGW case becomes less urgent (but probably still neccessary long term). This is because BA and VS could be expected to move everything to LHR (to save money). Other longhaul carriers, most of which are in the LGW "waiting room", would be likely to do likewise.
Quote: "There are a huge number of major/capital cities where huge hub capacity exists, with more opening all the time in the Middle and Far East. With IAG already murmuring about moving some of their (particularly South American) capacity down to MAD... London is going to start losing out BIG style."
With the exception of BA EZE/GIG/GRU services ex-LHR, all IAG's South America capacity already is ex-MAD on IB. That said, completely agree that failure to expand LHR will cost London to lose out big-style.
Exactly right, but would say that 2 more rwys at LHR takes preference over 1 more at LGW.
Once LHR has expanded, the LGW case becomes less urgent (but probably still neccessary long term). This is because BA and VS could be expected to move everything to LHR (to save money). Other longhaul carriers, most of which are in the LGW "waiting room", would be likely to do likewise.
Quote: "There are a huge number of major/capital cities where huge hub capacity exists, with more opening all the time in the Middle and Far East. With IAG already murmuring about moving some of their (particularly South American) capacity down to MAD... London is going to start losing out BIG style."
With the exception of BA EZE/GIG/GRU services ex-LHR, all IAG's South America capacity already is ex-MAD on IB. That said, completely agree that failure to expand LHR will cost London to lose out big-style.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 7th Nov 2012 at 19:20. Reason: clarification
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
act together as a multi (or dispersed) hub.
To translate that verbage back into English:
A - A - A = lots of airports, point to point service, not connected. Remember - you can take "connecting" flights at Stansted, but even if you transfer Ryan to Ryan, they are still two entirely separate travel contracts, and there is no liability or through checking of luggage, implied or otherwise between them.
H - H - a city with two hubs. This is rare, but it does happen. However, like above, these hubs still operate as SEPARATE entities - connections between carriers are few and far between.
H=H - two hubs, connected seamlessly airside. Well actually, that doesn't exist anywhere. For all the good reasons mentioned above.
Now even if you have a BA-BA flight into LHR, out from LGW & vv, you still have to make your OWN way between the two, landside, and with luggage.
So why would an operation at NHT work any differently to this, when all that is being proposed is a Heathwick version 2, dismissed as bonkers by anyone who knows the industry.
So far there has been no evidence presented which shows the use of NHT as a small-scale airport to take some of the smaller aircraft (like CRJs/Fokkers/Embraers/ATRs/RJs) which currently use LHR - it doesn't even need to be point to point - to be an impossibility.
My real name is Herzog Bladdermeister. I assure you it is true because none of you have put forward any evidence to say it isn't. So I am right, so there, good night.
Perhaps you should start thinking outside the box
That's a lazy expression.
That's a lazy expression.
LCY is a "small regional airport" despite being in the middle of London.
However, in terms of the thin destinations NHT would serve as a ptp facility, then it could still be described as "regional".
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Doncaster
Age: 63
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now even if you have a BA-BA flight into LHR, out from LGW & vv, you still have to make your OWN way between the two, landside, and with luggage.
Last edited by johnnychips; 6th Nov 2012 at 23:56.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NHT is actually in Ruislip (Borough of HILLINGDON).
LGW is the only airport that anywhere near needs a second runway.
However STN which BAA was also ordered to sell on competition grounds, BAA have used the CC appeals process and the courts to try and reverse the decision; it is only recently that BAA have given up. As STN is not expected to be sold until next year, it's more than a little presumptive for LHR supporters to decide what is or is not in the new owners business plan for developing the airport in the next 10 - 30 years.
Location: Windsor. Says it all !
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Windsorian; 7th Nov 2012 at 09:00. Reason: surface access
my estimate is we could see pax numbers increase from the present 70mppa to 125+mppa within the existing 480,000 atm limit
I don't see that happening.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm. That implies an average of 260 pax per movement or, assuming a PLF of 75%, an average aircraft size of around 350 seats
The A380 has suffered birthing problems and it's introduction slower than anticipated; some time ago BAA suggested A380's would make up 10% of atms within 10 years and 20/25% in the longer term.
Remember because of wake separation distances you can fly 2+ A380's in the space at present taken up by a single small aircraft; assuming the terminal capacity is there !
Last edited by Windsorian; 7th Nov 2012 at 08:52.
Either a R3 or the NHT option would remove the small planes from the 2 main LHR runways
If R3 went ahead, it would inevitably be accompanied by a hike in the ATM limit, otherwise there would be no point in building it.
If no R3/no ATM increase, then the only way of getting the average aircraft size to anywhere near the figure that you imply would be to shift all narrow-body ATMs (around 300,000 pa) to Northolt, which is clearly impossible.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If R3 went ahead, it would inevitably be accompanied by a hike in the ATM limit
However the existing 480,000 atm capability will remain on the existing two main runways; because of smaller wake separation distances between larger aircraft, resilience on the main runways would be improved. All I'm pointing out it would be quicker and cheaper to decant the small planes to NHT.
As I have pointed out before, BAA told the 2011 GLA Plane Speaking Inquiry they already had planning permission to increase LHR pax numbers to 95mppa; this is from the T5 / Heathrow East proposal (T2A, T2B & T2C). However since then BAA have revealed further plans for T2D, T5D & T5E, not to mention Toast Racking the eastern end for T3/T4; if you look at BAA's long term proposals 125mppa looks achievable.