HEATHROW
I think we're going round in circles here.
I'm not disputing that, leaving aside the fact that BAA have had to shelve T2 Phase 2 for at least 5 years.
And all I'm pointing out is that, using your own figures and ignoring ATC constraints and runway realignment issues, Northolt today could still only accommodate around 20% of LHR's current narrow-body movements.
if you look at BAA's long term proposals 125mppa looks achievable.
All I'm pointing out it would be quicker and cheaper to decant the small planes to NHT.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
leaving aside the fact that BAA have had to shelve T2 Phase 2 for at least 5 years.
Today in the FT is an article suggesting BAA are calling on the Davies Commission to seriously consider the Policy Exchange 4 runway plan to the West of the existing runways - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8064eaa-2...#axzz2BWCcY08s
All I'm suggesting is a cheap, quick and easy NHT proposal to improve LHR pax in the short term i.e. for consideration by the Davies Commission for their Interim Report due to be published by the end of 2013; we all know their main report will not be published until after the May 2015 General election.
Today in the FT is an article suggesting BAA are calling on the Davies Commission to seriously consider the Policy Exchange 4 runway plan to the West of the existing runways
Heathrow demands govt to look at four runway mega-hub | News | Travel Trade Gazette
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
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !
How would you achieve that?
because of smaller wake separation distances between larger aircraft,
Last edited by Gonzo; 7th Nov 2012 at 15:26.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wake separation distances
@ Gonzo
We all know there will be increasing numbers of super heavy A380 aircraft coming in to land at LHR in future; the sepation distance a small aircraft following behind requires is considerably greater than for another heavy or super heavy.
If we can decant the small aircraft off LHR's main runways their resilience / productivity will be improved; this is the logic behind R3 and applies just as well to the NHT option.
We all know there will be increasing numbers of super heavy A380 aircraft coming in to land at LHR in future; the sepation distance a small aircraft following behind requires is considerably greater than for another heavy or super heavy.
If we can decant the small aircraft off LHR's main runways their resilience / productivity will be improved; this is the logic behind R3 and applies just as well to the NHT option.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we can decant the small aircraft off LHR's main runways their resilience / productivity will be improved; this is the logic behind R3 and applies just as well to the NHT option.
Landing on a different runway (even a Polderbaan) and then continuing to the same terminal (or at least complex of terminals) is a completely different concept to landing at another airport.
You can't just build a pop up airport on the cheap. We did this here at CVT, but still got in trouble with planning issues. The airport also opened with the ridiculous situation of having no on-site parking - EVERYONE had to come in by shuttle bus for the first few months. No bus service from the city centre for the first few months either.
All we ever tried to do here was run a no-frills operation - from the ultimate Ryanairportakabin terminal (although Ryanair never popped in, runway length being a key issue). I also note 07/25 is 1684m. How long would the re-aligned runway be?
Are you seriously suggesting that some temporary operation, designed to cater for some A321/738 ops but not others is just going to appear by magic within a year?
BA have had enough difficulty juggling which destinations they can't fit under T5. If they need to move aircraft (and baggage) to operate from another terminal, they can still do so. How many LHR-NHT movements would be needed just for positioning?
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)?
Last edited by jabird; 7th Nov 2012 at 16:41. Reason: typo
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignore Gonzo, those air traffic controllers don't understand all this separation stuff.
However, they most certainly DO care about separation between the plane they come in on and the one they depart on for their onward flight.
Even p-t-p passengers care about the separation between the door they walk through to exit the aircraft and the door they walk through to get onto transportation to their destination.
Now if you are dealing with passengers who are being picked up by a private car, taxi who have parked their own or who are using a hire car, then you can have a dispersed terminal pattern and still serve these customers (although rental operations are more likely to use shuttle buses to a central point).
However, we aren't talking about some airport out on the prairies at the end of a huge freeway. We're talking about London, and the only way any new facility is going to get planning approval is if it has the best possible SAS (this time I mean surface access strategy).
The best way to do this is to keep the planes sufficiently far apart from each other to be able to land and take off safely, but to get as many planes packed in to as tight a space as possible so people can use a high frequency, high speed (ie minimal stops) train service.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 7th Nov 2012 at 20:40. Reason: clarity
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Windsorian,
Regarding the 'joining point'....that is a rule applied by ATC, but it is not ATC's rule, it is a noise mitigation measure. It is not within ATC's power to ignore/change it.
Also, even without considering the interaction between LHR and Northolt traffic, any inbounds via airways into Northolt use the same arrival routes and holding patterns as LHR traffic. So without a wholesale redesign of the whole of the SE of England, just moving a proportion of LHR traffic to Northolt won't gain you anything. In fact, it will be worse...what happens when LHR has delays but Northolt, doesn't, and vice versa? It would be rather challenging to attempt to get a Northolt inbound arriving at 13000ft at Lambourne into Northolt when there is LHR traffic holding at 12, 11, 10 and 9.
Yes, we have to provide 5 miles for a H-M pair on approach, or 7 for a J-M pair....but part of our job is to maximise the order in terms of efficiency, so we group them. H-H-H-H-M-M-M etc. H-H is 4nm, J-J is usually around 5nm. M-M is either 3nm or 2.5nm depending on wind.
Regarding the 'joining point'....that is a rule applied by ATC, but it is not ATC's rule, it is a noise mitigation measure. It is not within ATC's power to ignore/change it.
Also, even without considering the interaction between LHR and Northolt traffic, any inbounds via airways into Northolt use the same arrival routes and holding patterns as LHR traffic. So without a wholesale redesign of the whole of the SE of England, just moving a proportion of LHR traffic to Northolt won't gain you anything. In fact, it will be worse...what happens when LHR has delays but Northolt, doesn't, and vice versa? It would be rather challenging to attempt to get a Northolt inbound arriving at 13000ft at Lambourne into Northolt when there is LHR traffic holding at 12, 11, 10 and 9.
Yes, we have to provide 5 miles for a H-M pair on approach, or 7 for a J-M pair....but part of our job is to maximise the order in terms of efficiency, so we group them. H-H-H-H-M-M-M etc. H-H is 4nm, J-J is usually around 5nm. M-M is either 3nm or 2.5nm depending on wind.
Last edited by Gonzo; 7th Nov 2012 at 21:01.
Why not spend the equivalent on 2 rwys west of the M25 (see above) and save the the two towns (and Ashford Football Club!) from demolition.
It says "A fourth runway to the south would be situated A30 [sic] (the Staines Road) and incorporate Ashford Football Club".
Presumably that means they will be allowed to set up their goalposts on the runway in between movements.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think BAA have given up just yet going on the rate they are buying up the surrounding real estate 
.
LHR might not be in the ideal place but just like a river everything around it including London has adapted around it. Locating the UK's hub in another part of London is surely going to cause more trouble than an extra lane of tarmac at LHR. Regardless of whether aircraft fly up the Thames or not the change in flight paths would surely bring more nimbys to the surface
.
.LHR might not be in the ideal place but just like a river everything around it including London has adapted around it. Locating the UK's hub in another part of London is surely going to cause more trouble than an extra lane of tarmac at LHR. Regardless of whether aircraft fly up the Thames or not the change in flight paths would surely bring more nimbys to the surface
.
I don't think BAA have given up just yet going on the rate they are buying up the surrounding real estate
Though AFAIK it's only properties to the north of the airport that are being bought up, in the area proposed for R3.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the short term solutions ??
When will some of you wake up to the difference between the short term solutions for quickly increasing capacity on which the Davies Commission is due to report on by the end of 2013, and the mid to long term projects like building new runways which will take 8+ years to develop ??
My tents, taxis & buses proposal is a short term proposal to quickly free up capacity at LHR; in essence moving its small aircraft to NHT and allowing the re-use of the freed up main runway slots.
One way may be a massive increase in LHR landing charges for small aircraft; perhaps they should pay the same as an A380, after all each only uses ONE atm ? Added to which the wake separation distance between A380's is considerably smaller than for following smaller aircraft.
I must say I am bemused by Gonzo who accepts that a LHR R3 is perfectly operational BUT appears obsessed by inventing problems for a NHT runway >6miles away.
My tents, taxis & buses proposal is a short term proposal to quickly free up capacity at LHR; in essence moving its small aircraft to NHT and allowing the re-use of the freed up main runway slots.
One way may be a massive increase in LHR landing charges for small aircraft; perhaps they should pay the same as an A380, after all each only uses ONE atm ? Added to which the wake separation distance between A380's is considerably smaller than for following smaller aircraft.
I must say I am bemused by Gonzo who accepts that a LHR R3 is perfectly operational BUT appears obsessed by inventing problems for a NHT runway >6miles away.
Last edited by Windsorian; 8th Nov 2012 at 05:29.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toast Racking to 125+mppa
LHR with 125mppa will need 4 rwys, no getting away from it
As I have pointed out before, BAA told the 2011 GLA Plane Speaking Inquiry they already have planning permission to increase LHR pax numbers to 95mppa; this is from the T5 / Heathrow East proposal (T2A, T2B & T2C). Tackling air and noise pollution around Heathrow | Greater London Authority
However BAA have revealed further plans for T2D, T5D & T5E (not to mention Toast Racking the eastern end for T3/T4); if you accept BAA's proposals 125+mppa looks achievable.
Using BAA figures the present T5A, T5B & T5C have a maximum capacity of 35mppa. In addition to which we now know BAA / IAG want an enlarged T5A + T5D + T5E and are making provision for a T2D; working on the basis each extra satellite will add 10mppa this will add another 30mppa to the existing planned 95mppa giving a total of 125mppa.
Then adding on an eastern airfield redevelopment it comes to 125+mppa; I'm only using this low figure due to the slow increase in passengers / plane; to speed this up I am proposing the decantation of small planes to NHT which will additionally free up main runway slots for new destinations !
Last edited by Windsorian; 8th Nov 2012 at 07:08.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you going to remove domestic connectivity?
Will KLM be asked to fly their ERJ190s from Notholt but the B737s from LHR?
Which airlines fly "small planes" through LHR? I bet you don't know. Your idea is commercially absurd, you must see that?
How do you sell "tents and busses" into a highly competitive market with fussy users? Sure you could do it, and sure, Mirabel was built. Are you perhaps, a local politician? You have the practicality of one. Your idea is nonsense in the real world, people would connect over FRA, CDG and AMS. No tents you see.
Will KLM be asked to fly their ERJ190s from Notholt but the B737s from LHR?
Which airlines fly "small planes" through LHR? I bet you don't know. Your idea is commercially absurd, you must see that?
How do you sell "tents and busses" into a highly competitive market with fussy users? Sure you could do it, and sure, Mirabel was built. Are you perhaps, a local politician? You have the practicality of one. Your idea is nonsense in the real world, people would connect over FRA, CDG and AMS. No tents you see.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 8th Nov 2012 at 07:58.
@Windsorian
Can we assume from the above that you have abandoned your previous proposition:
and that you now accept that at least a third runway (albeit not a fourth) would be required to accommodate that number of pax ?
If so, at least we've made some progress.
Can we assume from the above that you have abandoned your previous proposition:
my estimate is we could see pax numbers increase from the present 70mppa to 125+mppa within the existing 480,000 atm limit
If so, at least we've made some progress.
Last edited by DaveReidUK; 8th Nov 2012 at 07:57. Reason: to make it clear which poster I was replying to !
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you going to remove domestic connectivity?
Can we assume that you have abandoned your previous proposition and that you now accept that at least a R3 (albeit not a R4) would be required
NHT is an existing underused runway just 6 miles North of LHR; as far back as 1952 it operated 50,000 atms / year. All I'm trying to point out is that BAA's claim LHR is full, needs taking with a large pinch of salt !!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Domestic connectivity has been falling for years, mainly due to improvements in mainland rail and airlines desire to move slots to more proffitable destinations. Despite T5 opening, LHR today serves less destinations than before, and the rail improvements are due to continue long into the future.'
A comment like that could only come from someone who has obviously never tried to connect to Heathrow from the regions. There is no train connectivity apart from central London.
Speaking as someone who has been on the BA shuttle from Manchester 3 times in the last few weeks I can assure you that the majority of passengers on those flights turned left for flight connections rather than right for the exit in Terminal 5.
I should confess in ideal circumstances I would avoid connecting at Heathrow like the plague sometimes circumstances such as meeting colleagues from the south to fly on means I do. If I had to fly to Northolt then get to Heathrow then that would cease and it would become a case of I will meet you at the destination. Maybe if you didnt live on the doorstep of Heathrow you would understand why your idea simply wont work.
A comment like that could only come from someone who has obviously never tried to connect to Heathrow from the regions. There is no train connectivity apart from central London.
Speaking as someone who has been on the BA shuttle from Manchester 3 times in the last few weeks I can assure you that the majority of passengers on those flights turned left for flight connections rather than right for the exit in Terminal 5.
I should confess in ideal circumstances I would avoid connecting at Heathrow like the plague sometimes circumstances such as meeting colleagues from the south to fly on means I do. If I had to fly to Northolt then get to Heathrow then that would cease and it would become a case of I will meet you at the destination. Maybe if you didnt live on the doorstep of Heathrow you would understand why your idea simply wont work.
BAA's 125mppa proposals were based only on the 2 main runways operating within the present 480,000atm limit and no R3 or R4.
BAA's proposals were/are to provide terminal capacity of 125 mppa.
Runway capacity is a completely separate issue. Nobody, except you apparently, believes that you can almost double the passenger throughput with the existing two runways.
SERAS reckoned that the absolute maximum for a 2-runway Heathrow was 105 mppa, and that assumed both runways operating in mixed-mode (86 mppa in segregated mode).