HEATHROW
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways, don’t confuse local government and geographical locations. Trust me, geography is much easier!
Our discussions about LHR expansion are very much about geography, not councils, ... and demolition, of course.
Our discussions about LHR expansion are very much about geography, not councils, ... and demolition, of course.
…..and Berkshire. Oops, Berkshire no longer exists.
Berkshire still exists in legal from, its just that since the Mid-90s, it no longer has a County Council running things, its powers are now with LGAs
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick 5 minute analysis by myself and Microsoft paint.
If LHR was to be kept and expanded as the UK's Hub airport. Use the area to the southwest over the reservoirs. Minimal movement of thousands of people. (by either bulldozing homes or moving the hundreds of thousands of jobs across London)
Obviously my 'plan' has some flaws and parts of the M25 would have to be tunneled and most of the current south-side/T4/A30 demolished and rebuilt. I'm no civil engineer or urban planner but I still think this would be cheaper than a boris island.
and of course some people will criticise this, but I'm probably thinking more about this than the current commission set up on the future of airport infrastructure..
If LHR was to be kept and expanded as the UK's Hub airport. Use the area to the southwest over the reservoirs. Minimal movement of thousands of people. (by either bulldozing homes or moving the hundreds of thousands of jobs across London)
Obviously my 'plan' has some flaws and parts of the M25 would have to be tunneled and most of the current south-side/T4/A30 demolished and rebuilt. I'm no civil engineer or urban planner but I still think this would be cheaper than a boris island.
and of course some people will criticise this, but I'm probably thinking more about this than the current commission set up on the future of airport infrastructure..
Paxing All Over The World
FlyingEagle21 Set yourself up as a Consultant and start pitching ideas. All the people talking about the problems of expanding LHR and the folks proposing various fantasies - don't talk about the extra cost of going elsewhere.
The cost of staying where everyone knows the story and all the comms links (of all categories) are already in place, must be lower. For the folks that say they are going to be blighted by the noise - then agree some one-off compensation. It is far easier to pay them, than to build on mud in an estury! When they come to sell, yes their house prices will be lower than before due to the expanded LHR but they will have been compensated. Or their house prices will remain high due to the expanded LHR.
The cost of staying where everyone knows the story and all the comms links (of all categories) are already in place, must be lower. For the folks that say they are going to be blighted by the noise - then agree some one-off compensation. It is far easier to pay them, than to build on mud in an estury! When they come to sell, yes their house prices will be lower than before due to the expanded LHR but they will have been compensated. Or their house prices will remain high due to the expanded LHR.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "When Greater London was formed, it never took any part of Berkshire, only Hertfordshire, Essex and nearly all of Middesex"
Don't forget Surrey and Kent. Greater London was/is accurately described as a "pig's breakfast", forget by who exactly, but it's proved an expensive one for sure, ask any ratepayer.
The Berkshire part came later. If had not have been for more nonsensical changes in 1974, it would have been Buckinghamshire. Poyle and Colnbrook (east of the river Colne) came under Berkshire Council from around the early 1990s(?). A few years later Berkshire Council was scrapped.
Told you that geography is easier!
Quote: "Berkshire still exists in legal from, its just that since the Mid-90s, it no longer has a County Council running things, its powers are now with LGAs"
What does this actually mean?
Over the years, Berkshire, Greater London and Middlesex all have had their councils scrapped. No county (except Fife) has a county council that coincides with its geographical boundaries.
What's the common denominator: every reorganisation sees the rates soar and services slashed.
Now back to LHR....
Quote: "Obviously my 'plan' has some flaws and parts of the M25 would have to be tunneled and most of the current south-side/T4/A30 demolished and rebuilt."
Looking at your map, FlyingEagle21, don't think that LHR-4 and the cargo area need to be demolished, indeed, with 2 rwys south of it, LHR-4 could actually be expanded.
Certainly parts of Stanwell centre would have to demished, and the wrath of the "Staines Moor Preservation Society" would have to be faced.
Alternatively, again looking at FlyingEagle21's map, a fourth rwy could go on open land west of Harmondsworth, crossing the M25, which would need to be tunnelised and/or diverted, as would the A4 north of Colnbrook.
That way, no reservoirs and no towns need to be demolished, which means a quicker completion date.
Quote: "I'm no civil engineer or urban planner but I still think this would be cheaper than a boris island."
Agreed, it's clearly got to be a great deal cheaper!
On the other hand, FlyingEagle21's rwys could be moved south and slightly east, and do what all washing powders promise.........obliterate Staines.
Don't forget Surrey and Kent. Greater London was/is accurately described as a "pig's breakfast", forget by who exactly, but it's proved an expensive one for sure, ask any ratepayer.
The Berkshire part came later. If had not have been for more nonsensical changes in 1974, it would have been Buckinghamshire. Poyle and Colnbrook (east of the river Colne) came under Berkshire Council from around the early 1990s(?). A few years later Berkshire Council was scrapped.
Told you that geography is easier!
Quote: "Berkshire still exists in legal from, its just that since the Mid-90s, it no longer has a County Council running things, its powers are now with LGAs"
What does this actually mean?
Over the years, Berkshire, Greater London and Middlesex all have had their councils scrapped. No county (except Fife) has a county council that coincides with its geographical boundaries.
What's the common denominator: every reorganisation sees the rates soar and services slashed.
Now back to LHR....
Quote: "Obviously my 'plan' has some flaws and parts of the M25 would have to be tunneled and most of the current south-side/T4/A30 demolished and rebuilt."
Looking at your map, FlyingEagle21, don't think that LHR-4 and the cargo area need to be demolished, indeed, with 2 rwys south of it, LHR-4 could actually be expanded.
Certainly parts of Stanwell centre would have to demished, and the wrath of the "Staines Moor Preservation Society" would have to be faced.
Alternatively, again looking at FlyingEagle21's map, a fourth rwy could go on open land west of Harmondsworth, crossing the M25, which would need to be tunnelised and/or diverted, as would the A4 north of Colnbrook.
That way, no reservoirs and no towns need to be demolished, which means a quicker completion date.
Quote: "I'm no civil engineer or urban planner but I still think this would be cheaper than a boris island."
Agreed, it's clearly got to be a great deal cheaper!
On the other hand, FlyingEagle21's rwys could be moved south and slightly east, and do what all washing powders promise.........obliterate Staines.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 15th Nov 2012 at 22:09.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "The cost of staying where everyone knows the story and all the comms links (of all categories) are already in place, must be lower. For the folks that say they are going to be blighted by the noise - then agree some one-off compensation. It is far easier to pay them, than to build on mud in an estury!"
Exactly, it's a lot cheaper too!
Quote: "When they come to sell, yes their house prices will be lower than before due to the expanded LHR but they will have been compensated. Or their house prices will remain high due to the expanded LHR."
Not so, house prices around LHR are among the highest in the country, irrespective of the presence of the flightpath. If any residents had to move to the area today, most of us would not be able to afford it!
Exactly, it's a lot cheaper too!
Quote: "When they come to sell, yes their house prices will be lower than before due to the expanded LHR but they will have been compensated. Or their house prices will remain high due to the expanded LHR."
Not so, house prices around LHR are among the highest in the country, irrespective of the presence of the flightpath. If any residents had to move to the area today, most of us would not be able to afford it!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 15th Nov 2012 at 22:16.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAXboy
I am part of a group lobbying for greater aviation development (Ideally the best options) from a well known organisation.
Fairdealfrank Before I started flying Scarebuses I worked Ramp/Cargo LHR. The cargo infrastructure needs to go! A lot of wasted space and temporary buildings from the 60's still in use! T4 is a heap of ****e, more toast racks!
it's either LHR all out expansion (3+ RWY's) or nothing. Any other ideas may increase London's capacity but will remove any hub status. By the time any island is built I think the bus would have left..
Set yourself up as a Consultant and start pitching ideas. All the people talking about the problems of expanding LHR and the folks proposing various fantasies - don't talk about the extra cost of going elsewhere.
Fairdealfrank Before I started flying Scarebuses I worked Ramp/Cargo LHR. The cargo infrastructure needs to go! A lot of wasted space and temporary buildings from the 60's still in use! T4 is a heap of ****e, more toast racks!
it's either LHR all out expansion (3+ RWY's) or nothing. Any other ideas may increase London's capacity but will remove any hub status. By the time any island is built I think the bus would have left..
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Fairdealfrank Before I started flying Scarebuses I worked Ramp/Cargo LHR. The cargo infrastructure needs to go! A lot of wasted space and temporary buildings from the 60's still in use! T4 is a heap of ****e, more toast racks!"
Got the impression that LHR-4/cargo area had to for the rwys. These are quite different reasons, and your point is taken.
Quite like LHR-4, wouldn't call it "****e", although appreciate your point about realignment.
Got the impression that LHR-4/cargo area had to for the rwys. These are quite different reasons, and your point is taken.
Quite like LHR-4, wouldn't call it "****e", although appreciate your point about realignment.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairdealfrank Before I started flying Scarebuses I worked Ramp/Cargo LHR. The cargo infrastructure needs to go! A lot of wasted space and temporary buildings from the 60's still in use! T4 is a heap of ****e, more toast racks!
One Hub or None
BAA's initial submission to the commission is now posted on their website:
http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.c...1105&SizeId=-1
http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.c...1105&SizeId=-1
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "The growth is not at BA per se, they feed IB and vice versa. It works well for both airlines."
The two carriers certainly have a complementary route structure!
The two carriers certainly have a complementary route structure!
Extend LHR runways to 20,000ft
From a surprising source, reproduced in full (long post):
"The two existing runways at Heathrow are longer than and twice as wide as required. By extending both existing runways to the west, towards but not as far as the M25, the length of both runways can be 20,000ft or more. This would allow the simultaneous use of each runway, the first part being used for landing whilst, at the same time, the second part is used for take-offs.
The four segments of the runways can be of different lengths to accommodate varying aircraft requirements and a large section in the middle will be the “safe zone”, to accommodate over-runs etc. Further amelioration of safety concerns can be introduced such as using the left side of the runway for landing and the right side for take-offs, high speed turn-offs and operational procedures.
The significant increase in landing and take-off slots will provide expansion for decades to come and, for some considerable time, will provide operational flexibility to allow non-mixed mode for periods of the day which will provide some noise relief.
One further advantage would be available for the early morning arrival bulge. As there are no departures, the second part of the runway could be used for landings. This would serve to further reduce the arrival noise footprint at a troublesome time by moving it westwards for the majority of arrivals.
There do not appear to be any regulations which would preclude the adoption of this suggestion.
The intermediate approach height of aircraft into Heathrow currently has a base of 4,000ft. This can be raised to approximately 7,000ft. This alone will reduce the noise levels for a large part of London.
The approach slope to Heathrow can then be divided into two segments. The first, steeper segment, will start at 7,000ft and be at approximately five or six degrees as opposed to the current three degrees.
The steeper slope will translate into a normal three degree slope at approximately 1,500ft. This gradual transition will ensure that the stabilised approach gate required by many airlines at 1,000ft will be achieved.
This will mean that the aircraft engines will be close to idle power and by changing the operating procedures, the drag features of the aircraft can be spoilers/speed brakes which are located on the top side of the wing which reflects the noise upwards, rather than large flap settings and undercarriages which send noise downwards.
This should preferably be an autopilot flown procedure although this is not essential.
Additional electronic guidance will need to be provided, using microwave landing systems (already installed at Heathrow) and/or GPS.
For a number of reasons, overall safety levels will be improved by the adoption of this procedure, in addition to the reduction in noise.
Modern guidance systems, such as MLS or GPS allow curved approaches to be flown although they are more difficult to integrate into the long established air traffic control procedures. By adopting the use of curved lateral approaches with the two segment vertical approaches, further noise mitigation can be achieved.
Once the intermediate approach height is raised for approaches, steeper initial climbouts are also possible. This, too, would also significantly reduce noise, except for those under the immediate take-off path (1-2 miles from the airport)."
Does anyone know whether this is a serious proposal, or simply mischief-making from someone with too much time on his hands?
"The two existing runways at Heathrow are longer than and twice as wide as required. By extending both existing runways to the west, towards but not as far as the M25, the length of both runways can be 20,000ft or more. This would allow the simultaneous use of each runway, the first part being used for landing whilst, at the same time, the second part is used for take-offs.
The four segments of the runways can be of different lengths to accommodate varying aircraft requirements and a large section in the middle will be the “safe zone”, to accommodate over-runs etc. Further amelioration of safety concerns can be introduced such as using the left side of the runway for landing and the right side for take-offs, high speed turn-offs and operational procedures.
The significant increase in landing and take-off slots will provide expansion for decades to come and, for some considerable time, will provide operational flexibility to allow non-mixed mode for periods of the day which will provide some noise relief.
One further advantage would be available for the early morning arrival bulge. As there are no departures, the second part of the runway could be used for landings. This would serve to further reduce the arrival noise footprint at a troublesome time by moving it westwards for the majority of arrivals.
There do not appear to be any regulations which would preclude the adoption of this suggestion.
The intermediate approach height of aircraft into Heathrow currently has a base of 4,000ft. This can be raised to approximately 7,000ft. This alone will reduce the noise levels for a large part of London.
The approach slope to Heathrow can then be divided into two segments. The first, steeper segment, will start at 7,000ft and be at approximately five or six degrees as opposed to the current three degrees.
The steeper slope will translate into a normal three degree slope at approximately 1,500ft. This gradual transition will ensure that the stabilised approach gate required by many airlines at 1,000ft will be achieved.
This will mean that the aircraft engines will be close to idle power and by changing the operating procedures, the drag features of the aircraft can be spoilers/speed brakes which are located on the top side of the wing which reflects the noise upwards, rather than large flap settings and undercarriages which send noise downwards.
This should preferably be an autopilot flown procedure although this is not essential.
Additional electronic guidance will need to be provided, using microwave landing systems (already installed at Heathrow) and/or GPS.
For a number of reasons, overall safety levels will be improved by the adoption of this procedure, in addition to the reduction in noise.
Modern guidance systems, such as MLS or GPS allow curved approaches to be flown although they are more difficult to integrate into the long established air traffic control procedures. By adopting the use of curved lateral approaches with the two segment vertical approaches, further noise mitigation can be achieved.
Once the intermediate approach height is raised for approaches, steeper initial climbouts are also possible. This, too, would also significantly reduce noise, except for those under the immediate take-off path (1-2 miles from the airport)."
Does anyone know whether this is a serious proposal, or simply mischief-making from someone with too much time on his hands?
Those Concorde pilots uh?
For a start "extending both existing runways to the west, towards but not as far as the M25, the length of both runways can be 20,000ft or more" is a physical impossibility.
Extending either of the 27s to 20,000' would take them way beyond the M25, and in the case of 27L would end up in the middle of Wraysbury reservoir.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20,000 ft rwys
Interesting idea, but it still involves reservoir demolition (and demoltion of Stanwellmoor village in the case of 10R/27L).
Wouldn't there be some serious safety considerations somewhere in the middle of the extended rwys?
Even if it is possible, would it not only double capacity if segregated mode was abandoned?
How would the prospect of permanent mixed mode go down with flightpath residents?
For example on westerlies:
landing on the eastern 10,000 ft of 27L and 27R
taking off on the western 10,000 ft of 27L and 27R
and vice versa on easterlies.
If segregated mode is retained, there is no point!
Wouldn't there be some serious safety considerations somewhere in the middle of the extended rwys?
Even if it is possible, would it not only double capacity if segregated mode was abandoned?
How would the prospect of permanent mixed mode go down with flightpath residents?
For example on westerlies:
landing on the eastern 10,000 ft of 27L and 27R
taking off on the western 10,000 ft of 27L and 27R
and vice versa on easterlies.
If segregated mode is retained, there is no point!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 19th Nov 2012 at 20:03.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just start the expansion now.if heathrow was in china it's capacity would be doubled in 12 months !!
the UK economy is on a knife edge,get the construction jobs going,relocate the odd villager or two,with suitable compensation and we can have an airport to rival the best in the world.
sadly,i know this will not happen,yet another opportunity missed by UK PLC.
lets just sit back and watch all our near neighbours benefit from the huge expansion in air travel.rant over !
the UK economy is on a knife edge,get the construction jobs going,relocate the odd villager or two,with suitable compensation and we can have an airport to rival the best in the world.
sadly,i know this will not happen,yet another opportunity missed by UK PLC.
lets just sit back and watch all our near neighbours benefit from the huge expansion in air travel.rant over !