HEATHROW
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Windsorian/Silver and fastasy land
Think that Windsorian and good old Silver may be one and the same!
Never see both on the same thread.
Having exhausted the Boris Vanity Project, it's now Northolt as third rwy with tents.
Is a strong advocacy of Heathwick next?
Windsorian, a few points for you to consider:
(1) It will not take 8 years to build a third rwy, it can be done quickly.
(2) Tents (at NHT or anywhere else) will not cut it in the 21st century. This is not LHR 1946.
(3) Landing charges at LHR are more than high enough already for small aircraft. They need to be reduced not increased.
(4) We need more domestic connectivity to help make the new longhaul viable, and to relieve road congestion and lack of trunk rail capacity. London-Heathrow is linked to 7 UK airports, and London-Schiphol to 23.
(5) NHT’s role in increasing capacity is obviously as a small regional/commuter airport and as a possible no frills base, not as a LHR overflow.
(6) NHT would also need an on-airport station at the terminal to provide a quick link to London.
(7) Obviously LHR cannot accommodate 125 mppa without 2 more rwys and more than 480,000 annual movements, ("you do the math" as they say in the USA). Terminal capacity for this will not be a problem once all the redevelopment is completed.
(8) Business requires frequency, hence the large number of flights on small aircraft to many destinations. This is why, despite the opening of LHR-5, there are fewer destinations from LHR than from CDG and FRA, and why LHR remains Europe's premier airport (for now).
(9) Forget about HS2, it goes to Birmingham only, so is irrelevant to Heathrow expansion issues. Either way there will be years of procrastination before we see it (if ever).
(10) LHR needs a third and a fourth rwy so both should be approved simultaneously to avoid another 50 years of dithering. This would also end the artificial market in slot trading at exhorbitant rates.
Never see both on the same thread.
Having exhausted the Boris Vanity Project, it's now Northolt as third rwy with tents.
Is a strong advocacy of Heathwick next?
Windsorian, a few points for you to consider:
(1) It will not take 8 years to build a third rwy, it can be done quickly.
(2) Tents (at NHT or anywhere else) will not cut it in the 21st century. This is not LHR 1946.
(3) Landing charges at LHR are more than high enough already for small aircraft. They need to be reduced not increased.
(4) We need more domestic connectivity to help make the new longhaul viable, and to relieve road congestion and lack of trunk rail capacity. London-Heathrow is linked to 7 UK airports, and London-Schiphol to 23.
(5) NHT’s role in increasing capacity is obviously as a small regional/commuter airport and as a possible no frills base, not as a LHR overflow.
(6) NHT would also need an on-airport station at the terminal to provide a quick link to London.
(7) Obviously LHR cannot accommodate 125 mppa without 2 more rwys and more than 480,000 annual movements, ("you do the math" as they say in the USA). Terminal capacity for this will not be a problem once all the redevelopment is completed.
(8) Business requires frequency, hence the large number of flights on small aircraft to many destinations. This is why, despite the opening of LHR-5, there are fewer destinations from LHR than from CDG and FRA, and why LHR remains Europe's premier airport (for now).
(9) Forget about HS2, it goes to Birmingham only, so is irrelevant to Heathrow expansion issues. Either way there will be years of procrastination before we see it (if ever).
(10) LHR needs a third and a fourth rwy so both should be approved simultaneously to avoid another 50 years of dithering. This would also end the artificial market in slot trading at exhorbitant rates.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Taxiway restrictions abound for the larger aircraft types, especially A380s".
I'm sorry, I thought EGLL was the word's busiest international airport, a leader in 'collaborative decision making'.
The airport's ANSP is "A global leader in air traffic control and airport performance".
So, what's gone wrong? Why isn't the infrastructure, for these wide-bodied aircraft types, in place?
It's not rocket science. The clues are out there, mainly in 'Flight International', published weekly, see your newsagent for details.
I'm sorry, I thought EGLL was the word's busiest international airport, a leader in 'collaborative decision making'.
The airport's ANSP is "A global leader in air traffic control and airport performance".
So, what's gone wrong? Why isn't the infrastructure, for these wide-bodied aircraft types, in place?
It's not rocket science. The clues are out there, mainly in 'Flight International', published weekly, see your newsagent for details.
Last edited by ZOOKER; 8th Nov 2012 at 21:10.
Incidentally, the A30 is not parallel with the existing rwys.
It doesn't say anywhere that either the existing or proposed runways are parallel to the A30, clearly they aren't.
Why isn't the infrastructure, for these wide-bodied aircraft types, in place?
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Length of piece of string ?
PPP (passengers per plane) isn't the same as seats per plane (SPP)
Let's stick to the fact that at present the average figure is just 146 ppp. At this lowly figure you don't have to be brain of Britain to work out that with some of LHR's aircraft seating between 300ppp and 500ppp there must be an awful lot seating < 100 ppp.
All I'm suggesting is decanting the small aircraft to NHT; we start with <50ppp, then <75ppp and finally <100ppp until NHT returns to its 1952 usage of 50,000atms.
Why isn't the infrastructure, for these wide-bodied aircraft types, in place?
SPP is about as variable as the length of a piece of string; at the moment you can pick any number between ONE and 853. Next thing you will be claiming is that the buses between NHT and LHR will require empty seats for the non-existant passengers.
I honestly don't know how to have a meaningful debate with someone who appears to display zero knowledge of how the air transport industry operates.
You've beaten me into submission, you win.
Last edited by DaveReidUK; 9th Nov 2012 at 06:24. Reason: typo
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: MIA-IBZ
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: All I'm suggesting is decanting the small aircraft to NHT; we start with <50ppp, then <75ppp and finally <100ppp until NHT returns to its 1952 usage of 50,000atms
A few days ago we were given the different a/c types that used LHR on 05/11/12, these are the only a/c with 100 seats or less.
CRJ9:1 - 90pax
E190:4 -100pax
F100:1 - 100pax
F70:4 - 80pax
RJ1H:1 -100pax
Even if you forced these flights to move else where, it would only free up 11 slots for bigger a/c.
FR-
A few days ago we were given the different a/c types that used LHR on 05/11/12, these are the only a/c with 100 seats or less.
CRJ9:1 - 90pax
E190:4 -100pax
F100:1 - 100pax
F70:4 - 80pax
RJ1H:1 -100pax
Even if you forced these flights to move else where, it would only free up 11 slots for bigger a/c.
FR-
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If NHT has a total runway realignment, it could have a TODA of 1800m - plenty enough for anything up to 737-900s. If you include 737/A320 series movements in the possibilities of what could use Northolt (and there's no reason not to at least consider a total realignment considering the huge cost savings which could be derived from doing so) and move just some of them across, you've got something going.
On a different note, I still think LBA-LHR is a waste of three daily slot pairs.
On a different note, I still think LBA-LHR is a waste of three daily slot pairs.
One of the things noticed when Eurostar moved over from Waterloo to St Pancras was how additionally inconvenient it now was for those from SW London, Surrey, etc, to get to it, compared to hopping across platforms at Waterloo. BA experienced a significant increase in Paris traffic from Heathrow after this happened.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point is that if there is enough money available for the very generous compensation they recommend for 20,000 people (combined populations of Bedfont and Stanwell), then spend it on road diversions and build the two rwys on open land west of the M25.
Same thing applies to the open land west of the M25 - not to mention turning Windsor into the runway overrrun area!
A third runway as originally proposed seems feasible and sensible but a fourth runway? Nah.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HS2 and the future
@WHBM
At one time it was suggested the main crossover between rail and air was 2.5 - 3.0 hours, I say main as some will always choose to fly; also it is good for competition / prices. However emerging thinking suggests such is the quality improvement of rail over air that up to 5 hrs may be acceptable.
Assuming HS2 is built, it is planned to connect to Crossrail at Old Oak Common, giving its initial connection through central London / East and Heathrow / West; its only in Phase 2 when a direct Heathrow spur or loop is planned.
Its also suggested that the Heathrow Express will be retired from Platforms 6 & 7 at Paddington when its present contract expires which would free up 2 fast line platforms for extra long distance trains going West past Reading; it's proposed Crossrail will provide the new LHR service on the slow lines.
At one time it was suggested the main crossover between rail and air was 2.5 - 3.0 hours, I say main as some will always choose to fly; also it is good for competition / prices. However emerging thinking suggests such is the quality improvement of rail over air that up to 5 hrs may be acceptable.
Assuming HS2 is built, it is planned to connect to Crossrail at Old Oak Common, giving its initial connection through central London / East and Heathrow / West; its only in Phase 2 when a direct Heathrow spur or loop is planned.
Its also suggested that the Heathrow Express will be retired from Platforms 6 & 7 at Paddington when its present contract expires which would free up 2 fast line platforms for extra long distance trains going West past Reading; it's proposed Crossrail will provide the new LHR service on the slow lines.
Last edited by Windsorian; 9th Nov 2012 at 09:15.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strong advocacy of Heathwick next?
Since BAA were forced to sell LGW on competition grounds and GIP have taken over the reins, there appears to be no support for the HSR Heathwick plan; particularly as LGW want to develop in competition to LHR and are now asking for a R2 of their own.
However there is a good case for improving LHR's rail connection to LGW via Staines; the original Airtrack plan included a T5 - Guildford route which opened up an improved link to LGW. Unfortunately in 2011 BAA threw this baby out with the bath water and withdrew the proposal; though hopefully when Crossrail takes over the present HEx route, they will extend it to Staines as an incremental step towards a semi-fast LHR - LGW rail link.
However there is a good case for improving LHR's rail connection to LGW via Staines; the original Airtrack plan included a T5 - Guildford route which opened up an improved link to LGW. Unfortunately in 2011 BAA threw this baby out with the bath water and withdrew the proposal; though hopefully when Crossrail takes over the present HEx route, they will extend it to Staines as an incremental step towards a semi-fast LHR - LGW rail link.
Last edited by Windsorian; 9th Nov 2012 at 09:49.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally think that the connectivity between our airports could, and perhaps should, be far better than what it currently is. Getting even from STN to LTN is pretty tough, let alone any further...and I live between the two!
However, this is probably something separate from current airport capacity, and should very much be kept that way. Improving links between our airports will improve connectivity, in addition to taking quite a number of car journeys off the road presumably, but will do nothing to improve the hub status. I would imagine it will also be rather costly, and given that London's airports are owned by different operators with no desire or incentive to improve connectivity between them, would have to be almost entirely tax payer funded...
However, this is probably something separate from current airport capacity, and should very much be kept that way. Improving links between our airports will improve connectivity, in addition to taking quite a number of car journeys off the road presumably, but will do nothing to improve the hub status. I would imagine it will also be rather costly, and given that London's airports are owned by different operators with no desire or incentive to improve connectivity between them, would have to be almost entirely tax payer funded...
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought, and not sure this is necessarily the right thread, but if (presuming it happens) there is expansion at LHR, would it not make sense for BA to pull all their LGW operations back to LHR and consolidate there (as has happened a lot anyway) and then look at basing a proper operation out of somewhere like MAN?
Would mean they could operate some direct MAN - NYC (either airport) flights and take some transfer traffic from LHR, freeing up even more slots?
Would mean they could operate some direct MAN - NYC (either airport) flights and take some transfer traffic from LHR, freeing up even more slots?
Can anyone suggest ANY metropolitan area which has made a success of connections between different airports ?
New York, where the various airports JFK-LGA-EWR are much closer to each other, is just as bad and chaotic, although taxis are more affordable than at London. However, last year at JFK I queued 60 minutes outside the BA terminal for a cab, as well as just having spent over 90 minutes inside getting through the various processes. It's this sort of thing that wrecks connections.
New York, where the various airports JFK-LGA-EWR are much closer to each other, is just as bad and chaotic, although taxis are more affordable than at London. However, last year at JFK I queued 60 minutes outside the BA terminal for a cab, as well as just having spent over 90 minutes inside getting through the various processes. It's this sort of thing that wrecks connections.
Last edited by WHBM; 9th Nov 2012 at 11:20.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Destroy LGW ?
would it not make sense for BA to pull all their LGW operations back to LHR and consolidate there ?
This would fly in the face of the 3 year old Competition Commission report that blamed BAA for failing to allow LGW & STN to develop freely, and so ordered them to sell both within 2 years. However BAA have used the appeals process including the courts to delay the STN sale, which is now not expected until 2013.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see how BA and VS removing from LGW is a bad thing, especially if it means more competition and routing going to MAN. Heaven forbid, it might also leave room at LGW for an ambitious LCC to branch out into long haul...wonder if Carolyn McCall at EZY is keeping an eye on the situation?!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would mean they could operate some direct MAN - NYC (either airport) flights and take some transfer traffic from LHR, freeing up even more slots?
Long haul loco is tricky as legacy loco is already there in that space, cross subsidised by the front cabins.
However there is a good case for improving LHR's rail connection to LGW
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 9th Nov 2012 at 13:01.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Skipness
I realise a LoCo doing long haul is fraught with problems, but they are trying it out in Asia so I can't imagine it will have escaped the notice of EZY and RYR. Just a thought though, I suppose.
As for MAN-NYC, I've not seen it mentioned recently but may have been discussed at length in previous threads. However, it does seem a little unnecessary that BA and VS operate flights from MAN to LHR just to feed long haul (and probably only one or two specific long haul routes I would be willing to bet) when they could operate a couple of 777's or even 787's out of MAN and free up some slots.
I'm sure there are reasons they don't, of course, but could change if expansion is allowed at LHR and operations are moved from LGW. Means they won't have to operate a large presence at LGW, and could instead have a smaller one at MAN?
I realise a LoCo doing long haul is fraught with problems, but they are trying it out in Asia so I can't imagine it will have escaped the notice of EZY and RYR. Just a thought though, I suppose.
As for MAN-NYC, I've not seen it mentioned recently but may have been discussed at length in previous threads. However, it does seem a little unnecessary that BA and VS operate flights from MAN to LHR just to feed long haul (and probably only one or two specific long haul routes I would be willing to bet) when they could operate a couple of 777's or even 787's out of MAN and free up some slots.
I'm sure there are reasons they don't, of course, but could change if expansion is allowed at LHR and operations are moved from LGW. Means they won't have to operate a large presence at LGW, and could instead have a smaller one at MAN?