HEATHROW
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Gonzo,
The eastern limit of 27L and 27R ends at the zebra crossing marks; there are at present no taxiways East of these markings. However I understand Heathrow (BAA) are considering rearranging the eastern surface car parks to allow for taxiways to be added - as per the western arrangement of 09L and 09R.
The first opportunity for Heathrow to reveal its new taxiway proposals will be with its submission to Hillingdon BC planners later this month; time will tell.
The eastern limit of 27L and 27R ends at the zebra crossing marks; there are at present no taxiways East of these markings. However I understand Heathrow (BAA) are considering rearranging the eastern surface car parks to allow for taxiways to be added - as per the western arrangement of 09L and 09R.
The first opportunity for Heathrow to reveal its new taxiway proposals will be with its submission to Hillingdon BC planners later this month; time will tell.
I've worked in ATC at Heathrow for nearly 15 years now and the runways have alwas been the same length, the far western ends of the two runways have been the as long as I have worked there, I promise, the displaced thresholds did not move when T5 was built.
Here's a 1978 photo, well before T5:
AFAIK, the last runway extensions were completed in 1966 (10R/28L) and 1970 (10L/28R).
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Windsorian, the first 350m or so of runways 09L and 09R are called starter extensions, due to a displaced threshold. Calling them taxiways can confuse them with the actual taxiways.
Where does your understanding that HAL are proposing them to the east of the airport in the upcoming planning application come from?
Where does your understanding that HAL are proposing them to the east of the airport in the upcoming planning application come from?
Officially these are not part of the main runways, which begin with the pedestrian crossing type markings immediately before the marked runway numbers.
It shows the length of the two runways as 3902m (09L/27R) and 3660m (09R/27L), as measured from the point where the curved taxiways enter the two runways (the lines of reds on the aerodrome chart) at the 09 ends.
Those values are also the declared TORAs (takeoff run available) in the 09 direction. As has already been noted, the displaced thresholds of just over 300m mean that the LDAs (landing distance available) is correspondingly less on the 09s.
Incidentally the 27R TORA and LDA are both 18m short of the declared runway length - anybody know why ?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Been travelling a lot recently, other countries tend to laugh at our navel gazing NIMBY-ism."
Isn't that the truth!!
Quote: "AFAIK, the last runway extensions were completed in 1966 (10R/28L) and 1970 (10L/28R)."
Think you're right, IIRC (and it's a big "if"!), it was in preparation for the B747, along with rwy strengthening work at around the same time.
Isn't that the truth!!
Quote: "AFAIK, the last runway extensions were completed in 1966 (10R/28L) and 1970 (10L/28R)."
Think you're right, IIRC (and it's a big "if"!), it was in preparation for the B747, along with rwy strengthening work at around the same time.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 25th Mar 2013 at 14:50.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DaveReid
The end of TORA/LDA at many airports is often before the end of runway physical length, mainly for two reasons. In the case of TORA, obstacles in the climb out. In the case of both, to provide the required (90m) or recommended (240m) runway end safety area. At Heathrow it looks likely it's for the recommended 240m.
The end of TORA/LDA at many airports is often before the end of runway physical length, mainly for two reasons. In the case of TORA, obstacles in the climb out. In the case of both, to provide the required (90m) or recommended (240m) runway end safety area. At Heathrow it looks likely it's for the recommended 240m.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What lurks is the ILS localiser and cabin. Also runway end safety area starts beyond the runway strip which is 60m after end of TORA/LDA or ASDA if one is provided. So it's probably 300m or so from end of TORA/LDA to the ILS site.
Thanks again, that make sense - the 27 localiser arrays are certainly much closer to the ends of the runways than the 09 ones, presumably due to the site constraints.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Major article (headline & front page) in this week's Economist on expanding London airports they go for building (in stages) 4 replacement runways west of the current layout, taking out the reservoirs and building over the M25 - a good read
PS they also quote research showing that TRANSIT traffic adds very little to the economic case for an airport - it's the number of peopel coming & going that generates wealth
PS they also quote research showing that TRANSIT traffic adds very little to the economic case for an airport - it's the number of peopel coming & going that generates wealth
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article is rather comic on some levels. It's transit traffic that makes some routes viable, it may not add to wealth but try running a business without it. Why did US move LGW-CLT to LHR today? Connecting traffic.
Still what do all those airlines know.
Still what do all those airlines know.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 31st Mar 2013 at 09:54.
It's transit traffic that makes some routes viable, it may not add to wealth but try running a business without it.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually thought the proposal talked about in the Economist, originally proposed by the Policy Exchange think tank (I think?), made sense from the moment I first read it.
It does, of course, have its issues such as the fact that flights still go over central London, and the residents of Windsor are going to be none too pleased about it.
However, as a whole package it does seems to have far less of the drawbacks of the other proposals (environmental issues and cost in the Estuary; cost, location and ultimately still not fit for purpose when looking at 2 or 3 runway LGW or STN) makes a genuine attempt to mitigate the noise issues for local residents and will provide a 4 runway hub for a minimal cost, none of which will be borne by the taxpayer.
It does, of course, have its issues such as the fact that flights still go over central London, and the residents of Windsor are going to be none too pleased about it.
However, as a whole package it does seems to have far less of the drawbacks of the other proposals (environmental issues and cost in the Estuary; cost, location and ultimately still not fit for purpose when looking at 2 or 3 runway LGW or STN) makes a genuine attempt to mitigate the noise issues for local residents and will provide a 4 runway hub for a minimal cost, none of which will be borne by the taxpayer.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Strange that a publication called The Economist doesn't appear to understand airline economics"
read the article, check the research - it may be "obviously wrong" to all us flying types propping up the bar but we haven't got any numbers to back up the arguement I feel
given the fantastic record of airline management (and their economic models) at turning investors cash into dross I know which set of experts I'd back...................
read the article, check the research - it may be "obviously wrong" to all us flying types propping up the bar but we haven't got any numbers to back up the arguement I feel
given the fantastic record of airline management (and their economic models) at turning investors cash into dross I know which set of experts I'd back...................
read the article, check the research - it may be "obviously wrong" to all us flying types propping up the bar but we haven't got any numbers to back up the arguement I feel
It's an undisputed fact that, on average, around a third of all passengers getting on or off flights at Heathrow are connecting pax whose journey doesn't start or end in London. That information is freely available in the public domain, although we're not told how that figure varies from route to route.
If you reduce the number of connecting opportunities (fewer flights to fewer destinations) then it follows that you will lose a proportion of traffic that was previously connecting. Conversely, moving a flight from an airport with fewer connections to one with more routes (such as the above-mentioned London-Charlotte example) can be expected to result in increased loads.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems the argument about runway capacity vs hub capacity still needs to be won before the logical conclusion can be settled upon.
In my opinion, the best thing that could come from the Davies Commission's preliminary findings due before the end of 2013 is the conclusion that extra hub capacity is required, not extra runway capacity.
Therefore, the straight decision will be over expanding LHR (the cheapest and most logical option) or building a new airport such as the estuary proposal.
The Economist does come to the right conclusion (expanding LHR) but seems somewhat unsure about exactly how and why it has come to that!
In my opinion, the best thing that could come from the Davies Commission's preliminary findings due before the end of 2013 is the conclusion that extra hub capacity is required, not extra runway capacity.
Therefore, the straight decision will be over expanding LHR (the cheapest and most logical option) or building a new airport such as the estuary proposal.
The Economist does come to the right conclusion (expanding LHR) but seems somewhat unsure about exactly how and why it has come to that!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the great scheme of things, 30% transferring pax is not that much. Compare LHR to its peer airports overall such as ATL, PEK, ORD, HND, etc., and their large pax figures are built MAINLY on DOMESTIC connecting pax. At AMS its about 70%. Then look at DXB, DOH, AUH and IST. Connecting pax make routes viable that otherwise would not be, and therefore available to local pax. It's not a bad business model for heaven's sake.
Maybe the best idea for the Commission is to have 2 more parallel rwys at LHR but north of where Tim Leunig (The Economist article) suggests. This still allows the increased capacity to do westward landings over relatively unpopulated land, while keeping the existing rwys (and the status quo for existing flightpath residents), and it keeps rwy alternation. It would still require tunnelisation or diversion of the M25 and A4, but not the demolition and relocation of resevoirs.
We do not have the luxury of time or the public money for new estuary airports, so best to build on what we already have. The original "plan A", a rwy at Sipson, may still be neccessary in the short term.
Maybe the best idea for the Commission is to have 2 more parallel rwys at LHR but north of where Tim Leunig (The Economist article) suggests. This still allows the increased capacity to do westward landings over relatively unpopulated land, while keeping the existing rwys (and the status quo for existing flightpath residents), and it keeps rwy alternation. It would still require tunnelisation or diversion of the M25 and A4, but not the demolition and relocation of resevoirs.
We do not have the luxury of time or the public money for new estuary airports, so best to build on what we already have. The original "plan A", a rwy at Sipson, may still be neccessary in the short term.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 2nd Apr 2013 at 14:45.