HEATHROW

[LGS6753]

From Travel Daily:

Qatar Airways has announced plans to launch a new daily service to London, using an aircraft only equipped with business class.

Commencing on 15 May 2014, the new service will be the only scheduled flight of its kind between the UK and Middle East, and will be operated using an Airbus A319 aircraft fitted with 40 business class seats in a 2-2 configuration.

All seats recline into fully flat beds and come equipped with the latest in-flight entertainment systems and SMS connectivity.
Qatar Airways currently operates five daily flights to Heathrow, with the new premium service becoming the sixth. This means that from May, Qatar Airway will offer 42 weekly flights between London and Doha.

“Today’s announcement reaffirms our determination to continue the expansion drive by improving an already superior in-flight product,” said Qatar Airways’ chief executive officer, Akbar Al Baker “The Doha-London Heathrow route is one of our most popular international routes and it was only fitting that we introduce an all business class service on this key route.”

[NWSRG]

The scheme includes a new Terminal (T6), located just to the west of Terminal 5, serving the 3/4 satellites. There will also be access to them from T2.

Ah, see it now...nestled just behind T5. Also looks like the T2 is now extended also (although a different shape) and the Irish Gates replaced with a proper pier. Although I'm guessing there's a lot of artistic licence in there!

[edi_local]

That image looks as though there will only be 4 terminals, with T1 and T2 becoming one big building and T3 apparently not existing, but with several piers in it's place.


Surely if such a future does lie for LHR then they will need to renumber all the Terminals at some point!

[Libertine Winno]

Just curious, but how does T4 fit into all this? It sits outside the 'toast rack' layout that LHR is progressing towards, so I'm wondering if three terminals i.e. T5, expanded T1/2 and a new T6 could handle all the pax from 3 runways...?!

[Skipness One Echo]

That image looks as though there will only be 4 terminals, with T1 and T2 becoming one big building and T3 apparently not existing,

Terminal 1 is to be demolished and once that's gone, they can finish buiding T2 to it's originally intended size.

[DaveReidUK]

I'm wondering if three terminals i.e. T5, expanded T1/2 and a new T6 could handle all the pax from 3 runways...?

No, not according to the projections contained in Heathrow's proposals:

"Terminal 2 (c55-60mppa) – terminal building is extended to the north of the Phase 1 building currently under construction, serving both the eastern apron within the current airport boundary and a redeveloped rectilinear apron on the old Terminal 3 site

Terminal 4 (c10mppa) – continues to operate as it does today.

Terminal 5 (c30-35mppa) – continues to serve the existing Terminal 5 apron and piers (T5B and T5C)

Terminal 6 (c20-25mppa) – a new terminal building to the west of Terminal 5 to serve the new north-west apron"

[Libertine Winno]

Thanks Dave.

So essentially, without T4, they would be 10mppa short of the capacity that 3 runways would provide (130mppa).

I wonder if an extension to T5 will ever be forthcoming, particularly with BA/Iberia running out of space over there? Could make up for the 10mppa from T4, which will be 40 years old by 2026 and certainly requiring an update one way or another by then...?

Not sure what they would do with the space if T4 was demolished instead of being updated, of course, but sure there's plenty of options!

[Skipness One Echo]

which will be 40 years old by 2026 and certainly requiring an update one way or another by then...?

Landside departures were refurbished to a fairly high standard but they ran out of money to bring arrivals up to the same level.

[Fairdealfrank]

No, not according to the projections contained in Heathrow's proposals:

"Terminal 2 (c55-60mppa) – terminal building is extended to the north of the Phase 1 building currently under construction, serving both the eastern apron within the current airport boundary and a redeveloped rectilinear apron on the old Terminal 3 site

Terminal 4 (c10mppa) – continues to operate as it does today.

Terminal 5 (c30-35mppa) – continues to serve the existing Terminal 5 apron and piers (T5B and T5C)

Terminal 6 (c20-25mppa) – a new terminal building to the west of Terminal 5 to serve the new north-west apron"

I wonder if an extension to T5 will ever be forthcoming, particularly with BA/Iberia running out of space over there? Could make up for the 10mppa from T4, which will be 40 years old by 2026 and certainly requiring an update one way or another by then...?

Interesting, am amazed that the eventual capacity of LHR-1/2 (both phases) will be almost double that of LHR-5. As large as it is, LHR-5 does appear to have significant use of remote stands and bussing, indicating the need for further satelites.

As there's to be no LHR-3 in future, it looks as if the site will be used for LHR-5D/E/F. With more satelites, could the Oneworld section of the current LHR-3 be accomodated in LHR-5? Or would it have to go in LHR-6 which could be linked to LHR-5 by transit train? Maybe that would be the new LHR-3.

If there was room for 10mppa extra in an extended LHR-5, would expect the Oneworld carriers (including a little of BA) currently in LHR-3 to grab it. Wouldn't it make more sense, bearing in mind that the only extension to LHR-5 can be satelites on the current LHR-3 site?

Linking the transit train to the new LHR-1/2 and its satelites would make airside flight transfers at LHR so easy (except to/from LHR-4). It would also allow the satelites built on the current LHR-3 site to be used by pax at LHR-1/2 as well as LHR-5.

A landside transit running parallel (LHR-6; LHR-5 (and stations); central
bus/railway/tube stations; LHR-1/2) would be the icing on the cake.

Unlikely, but stick it on the wish list.

[DaveReidUK]

Of course it will all have to go back in the mix if the Southeast's new runway ends up being built at Gatwick instead.

[Libertine Winno]

Indeed! I can't see why they couldn't just give permission for LGW and LHR to BOTH build an extra runway and let them have at it...best man (airport) wins! But that's a discussion for another thread, I suspect

[Fairdealfrank]

Of course it will all have to go back in the mix if the Southeast's new runway ends up being built at Gatwick instead.

The word "instead" would make this a catastophe. The result: LHR, the UK's hub airport, would remain hampered and LGW would have oodles of capacity like STN. Traffic that wants to use LHR would end up at AMS, CDG and FRA.

Agree that it's a possibility that should not be discounted, but what exactly would be the point?

Indeed! I can't see why they couldn't just give permission for LGW and LHR to BOTH build an extra runway and let them have at it...best man (airport) wins! But that's a discussion for another thread, I suspect

No question who would come out on top: LHR would wipe the floor with LGW because it is the UK's hub. This implies no disrespect for LGW!

[DaveReidUK]

Even before the Airports Commission first convened, the "LHR R3 and LGW R2" option was never a realistic scenario in anybody's book.

[BasilBush]

And Davies is being realistic that only one runway will get the go-ahead. If LHR and LGW were both given permission then neither would be financeable (actually LHR might still be given its attractiveness to the airlines). But the quickest way to kill LGW R2 would be to make it compete with a third runway at LHR.

[Libertine Winno]

FDF; I agree, all the evidence suggests that LHR is competing with AMS/CDG/FRA and not LGW...however, whether the politicians see that or not is quite something else!

Dave; is there any reason it was never an option? I've never read of the both scenario ever being proposed, but can't understand why? It would seem logical that HAL wouldn't oppose a second rwy at LGW given that, as long as they got their own third rwy, probably couldn't give a proverbial what anyone else does! Of course the flip side is also evident i.e. that MAG would certainly oppose LHR getting its third rwy, well aware that even if LGW got a second it couldn't compete...

[Skipness One Echo]

I've never read of the both scenario ever being proposed, but can't understand why?

Growth forecasts at LGW upon which the business case for a second runway depend upon, are based on there not being an overnight huge capacity increase at LHR and consequently losing a substantial part of their existing traffic to LHR.
There's two sets of LHR carriers with existing and concurrent operations at LGW, those who are there simply because they can't grow at LHR and those who offer service in a complimentary fashion.
Virgin and BA long haul fall into pot one, BA short haul probably into pot two. (debateable). Aer Lingus serve the region in addition to LHR, whereas Air China, Icelandair and TAP might be expected to consolidate to LHR. Vietnam would also be a better fit for LHR Ithink. There is then the danger that LGW would remain doing what it has always done so well, taking holidaymakers to the sun, with a core easyJet, Monarch, Thomson and Thomas Cook operation. I suspect Norwegian might be tempted by LHR. In any case, constrained capacity at LHR drives LGW growth, if that restriction goes, much of the strength of LGW's growth, perhaps all of it in the short term, is lost.

[DaveReidUK]

Both airports have stated publicly that they would be at a competitive disadvantage if the other was given permission for a new runway.

Of course you could argue that they would say that, wouldn't they ?

But, given a Heathrow R3, Gatwick's business case for a second runway goes up in smoke, and arguably the reverse applies almost equally.

[Libertine Winno]

I agree on everything you're saying, and understand perfectly why one wouldn't want the other to get a new runway.

However, it does seem a little bit like LGW are saying "I want one, but not only that, I don't want them to have one"...I suppose having their cake and eating it?!

If, for example, Davis Commission/Government were to say "OK, you can have a new runway IF you can fund it" and that includes STN/LTN as well, then we would soon be in the position where only LHR gets a new runway because it is the only one that can fund one in terms of private investment?

That way, Government can claim it's tried to be open for everyone and let market forces decide, no bias anywhere!

[davidjohnson6]

Based on current schedules, it seems that a new runway will not be ready for use until 2024 or later. If we assume modest growth of London area traffic - say an average of 2% per year, then we're looking at an extra 25m or 30m passengers by 2024 - the equivalent of Luton *plus* Stansted combined.

Would it really hurt Heathrow / Gatwick financially that much if there were 2 new runways to be complete by about 2025 ?

[anothertyke]

#3088 A variant on that theme would be for Govt to say 'Either LHR R3 or LGW R2 is worth doing. Let's have a preferred option but keep the other one in play just in case something goes wrong with the numbers on the preferred one.' There's a lot more work to be done to nail down the costs of the Heathrow and Gatwick schemes ; the relative costs and the relative public funding component could yet be significant to the decision. Everything has its price-- or almost everything!

#3089 Another variant is to say for example ' On the modest growth scenario, we need one more runway in each of the next two decades, so the financial cases should assume (say) R3 by 2026 and R2 by 2036.' Just because R3 and R2 simultaneously is out doesn't imply that sequentially is out. And I presume R3 and R4 at Heathrow would be a sequential plan anyway.