HEATHROW
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading other threads here and the news from around the world, I am forced to the following inevitable conclusions.
Ryanair is about to fold, soon to be followed by easyJet and other LOCOs because of their unsustainable business models, or so I am told.
With fuel now at $140.00 a barrel, soon to be $200.00 or more, all long haul carriers will be unable to attract passengers with fuel surcharges reaching $350.00 and will be making mass redundancies, followed by bankruptcy.
Oil rich Gulf airlines will continue to operate.
Established, non Gulf national carriers will be forced to curtail their operations due to the world-wide recession, followed by mass redundancies, followed by bankruptcy.
The deserts will overflow with unused and unsold aircraft. Airbus and Boeing will fail in the next twenty years.
Heathrow will soon be closed due to gross inefficiency when compared to FRA, AMS, CPH before they too will close due to lack of airlines.
So why, pray tell, does anyone in their right mind think that we need another runway in LHR, or anywhere else in the South East of UK? Or anywhere in UK come to that?
In a few years, when all of the above has come to pass, I will remind you that you read it here first!
Thinking of becoming a pilot? Try training in the black art of financial advice for the unemployed.
Ryanair is about to fold, soon to be followed by easyJet and other LOCOs because of their unsustainable business models, or so I am told.
With fuel now at $140.00 a barrel, soon to be $200.00 or more, all long haul carriers will be unable to attract passengers with fuel surcharges reaching $350.00 and will be making mass redundancies, followed by bankruptcy.
Oil rich Gulf airlines will continue to operate.
Established, non Gulf national carriers will be forced to curtail their operations due to the world-wide recession, followed by mass redundancies, followed by bankruptcy.
The deserts will overflow with unused and unsold aircraft. Airbus and Boeing will fail in the next twenty years.
Heathrow will soon be closed due to gross inefficiency when compared to FRA, AMS, CPH before they too will close due to lack of airlines.
So why, pray tell, does anyone in their right mind think that we need another runway in LHR, or anywhere else in the South East of UK? Or anywhere in UK come to that?
In a few years, when all of the above has come to pass, I will remind you that you read it here first!
Thinking of becoming a pilot? Try training in the black art of financial advice for the unemployed.
TwinAisle. How the hell would we get to Southend??
</p>Birmingham will suit me fine thanks! Just give me the route options.The rest of the country should not have to trek all the way to the bottom right corner for flights to any locations that are not major hubs in their own right.</p>
</p>Birmingham will suit me fine thanks! Just give me the route options.The rest of the country should not have to trek all the way to the bottom right corner for flights to any locations that are not major hubs in their own right.</p>
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, I pose the question - what benefit a 3rd runway at Heathrow?
It might reduce holding delays at particularly busy times -
it will not mean a huge increase in the amount of aircraft using it - the airspace cannot handle it.
BAA will not pay for a third runway unless they see any chance of a big increase in revenue - they are a business, they would be stupid to do otherwise.
Southend is not an option for an increase in the manner that is alluded to in the above posts - again the airspace cannot handle it.
Traffic in the LTMA is increasing as it is - trying to shoe horn extra traffic beyond the projected figures into an already full sky is not going to work...
It might reduce holding delays at particularly busy times -
it will not mean a huge increase in the amount of aircraft using it - the airspace cannot handle it.
BAA will not pay for a third runway unless they see any chance of a big increase in revenue - they are a business, they would be stupid to do otherwise.
Southend is not an option for an increase in the manner that is alluded to in the above posts - again the airspace cannot handle it.
Traffic in the LTMA is increasing as it is - trying to shoe horn extra traffic beyond the projected figures into an already full sky is not going to work...
Scourge of Bad Airline Management!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Global Nomad
Age: 55
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't Hang Up:
Nothing I would like more than to say no to Heathrow and use my local airport - but the fact remains that the economic powerhouse of the UK is London - not Birmingham, Manchester, Cardiff or Edinburgh, but London - and so unless we force airlines out of London (and risk them saying "Stuff you, UK, let's go to FRA/CDG/AMS") then London will be the prime hub of the UK for a very very long time to come.
TA
Nothing I would like more than to say no to Heathrow and use my local airport - but the fact remains that the economic powerhouse of the UK is London - not Birmingham, Manchester, Cardiff or Edinburgh, but London - and so unless we force airlines out of London (and risk them saying "Stuff you, UK, let's go to FRA/CDG/AMS") then London will be the prime hub of the UK for a very very long time to come.
TA
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<Again, I pose the question - what benefit a 3rd runway at Heathrow?>
You keep asking that! There are not many large cities in the US that do not have 3 or more runways. The airspace can handle it quick easily- you redesign the airspace to handle it! But if the UK wants to remain in the Business First World, we had better provide improved facilities quickly. that includes a smaller extra runway to handle feeder traffic and take the load off the big aeroplane part. The alternative is to become such a PITA place to fly to that we lose business in the UK, and that will have us in deep deep recession.
You keep asking that! There are not many large cities in the US that do not have 3 or more runways. The airspace can handle it quick easily- you redesign the airspace to handle it! But if the UK wants to remain in the Business First World, we had better provide improved facilities quickly. that includes a smaller extra runway to handle feeder traffic and take the load off the big aeroplane part. The alternative is to become such a PITA place to fly to that we lose business in the UK, and that will have us in deep deep recession.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't Hang Up
"I am forty minutes from Birmingham and have been extremely dischuffed recently to find myself in Luton to get to Vienna, and LHR to get to Bucharest"
I am off to Bucharest in July flying from Birmingham (10 minutes train journey from me). Flight is 5 hours via Frankfurt. Surely that can't be a lot different from a trip to Heathrow and then a direct flight.
"I am forty minutes from Birmingham and have been extremely dischuffed recently to find myself in Luton to get to Vienna, and LHR to get to Bucharest"
I am off to Bucharest in July flying from Birmingham (10 minutes train journey from me). Flight is 5 hours via Frankfurt. Surely that can't be a lot different from a trip to Heathrow and then a direct flight.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anotherthing. You asked a very fair question and we all ignored you. An extra runway, theoretically, allows you to launch and recover more aircraft per hour. Machines aren't then burning expensive AVTUR at the holding points or the inbound stacks for so long. It should also make the tree huggers happier (but it won't) because less unproductive Carbon Dioxide is generated.
ZULUBOY. Enjoy your visit. If a bloke calling himself the Coach of the Romanian Rugby Team offers you "special deal on change Lire Sterlina to Lei", tell him to sod off. Better still, nut him!
ZULUBOY. Enjoy your visit. If a bloke calling himself the Coach of the Romanian Rugby Team offers you "special deal on change Lire Sterlina to Lei", tell him to sod off. Better still, nut him!
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Investment which is 10-20 years too late is not investment, its keeping up!
The question should be,
"Does LHR need an extra TWO runways?"
It's a curious British phenomenon to p**s about for year after year trying to make do with the status quo, instead of getting off our asses and building the bloody infrastructure our country needs to avoid becoming a banana republic...run by the eco-nazis amongst us...
What a &&*^^%%$ shambles.
The question should be,
"Does LHR need an extra TWO runways?"
It's a curious British phenomenon to p**s about for year after year trying to make do with the status quo, instead of getting off our asses and building the bloody infrastructure our country needs to avoid becoming a banana republic...run by the eco-nazis amongst us...
What a &&*^^%%$ shambles.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not forget that the original and far sighted plan for LHR circa 1948 was up to 9 runways , with 3 between the A 4 and where the M 40 now is. In fact the then planned M40 was shifted north to accomodate this and its alignment past the airport represents where the airport boundary would have been. Think about that when you next drive along it. There was some vision in immediate post war Britain but unfortunately anything of that scale became unaffordable when the previously uncosted costs of the welfare state kicked in by the early 50s. Britain had chosen social engineering to real engineering and much of what has (not) happened since has its origins at that time.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Oh for f's sake do we have to have ANOTHER thread about this?
Reporting that Cameron had apparently said something about EGLL R3 is one thing; it's not an invitation to waste more bandwidth on it.
It's almost as bad as the plethora of threads on another board, about a year which dare not speak its name...
Skylion,
One assumes you mean the M4?
The M40 runs along the bottom edge of Northolt, rather to the north of Heathrow. It would have been one BIG airport...
's sake do we have to have ANOTHER thread about this?Reporting that Cameron had apparently said something about EGLL R3 is one thing; it's not an invitation to waste more bandwidth on it.
It's almost as bad as the plethora of threads on another board, about a year which dare not speak its name...
Skylion,
One assumes you mean the M4?
The M40 runs along the bottom edge of Northolt, rather to the north of Heathrow. It would have been one BIG airport...
Last edited by Taildragger67; 17th Jun 2008 at 16:55.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: kent
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what about manston ? yes i know its a long way east but if they got the digit removed from the preverbial and built the rail/road links, it could work.the infrastructure is already there.
as for heathrow, it is now part of greater london,fully surrounded by housing and industry, not in the same position as when first built with plenty of room to expand, so expansion now would be to the detriment of those around it, so why not bite the bullit, shut up shop and move.Look at Changi and Hong Kong, most of the worlds airports are far outside the city. think outside the box.
as for heathrow, it is now part of greater london,fully surrounded by housing and industry, not in the same position as when first built with plenty of room to expand, so expansion now would be to the detriment of those around it, so why not bite the bullit, shut up shop and move.Look at Changi and Hong Kong, most of the worlds airports are far outside the city. think outside the box.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of extra runways at Stansted and a dedicated high-speed rail link between it and Heathrow ought to do the trick. It'll cost a lot less than the public inquiry into the third runway at Heathrow, plus T6 when they decide that's necessary.
Now back to the real world...
Now back to the real world...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone tell me how many flights into Heathrow are freight?
Would it "improve" LHR if all freight was moved out to Stansted or somewhere else.
Bananas surely would not mind a longer journey to the shops. People might.
PS Not trying to stir anything by the way. It has always seemed odd to use a scarce resource for goods not people.
Would it "improve" LHR if all freight was moved out to Stansted or somewhere else.
Bananas surely would not mind a longer journey to the shops. People might.
PS Not trying to stir anything by the way. It has always seemed odd to use a scarce resource for goods not people.
There are very few pure freight flights into LHR. For the winter ahead, there are 28 flights (14 departures and 14 arrivals) per week using pure freighters, only operated by EVA Airways (2), Cathay (3), JAL (3), Korean (2), Royal Jordanian (1) and Singapore (3). Of those 28 flights, less than half operate on weekdays and the majority operate on weekends when slots are generally available anyway due to the scheduled service cutbacks by short-haul operators versus weekday flights. Throwing cargo flights out of Heathrow would perhaps free up a maximum of one daily pair of slots, which would undoubtedly help the lucky winner of those slots in the allocation lottery but not produce sufficient tangible benefit for UK PLC to justify the legal costs to support such a move.
Tories apparently prefer putting a new airport somewhere in the Thames Estuary rather than expanding LHR, but they stopped short of saying so.
Tories apparently prefer putting a new airport somewhere in the Thames Estuary rather than expanding LHR, but they stopped short of saying so.
Build an extra runway at LGW and put in a high speed shuttle train between LHR and LGW. That way you will easily be able to transit from one to the other and can remove some of the congestion around LHR.
The reason the airlines want a third runway at LHR is because thats where they get high yields. Why? Because thats where high yield traffic wants to fly. But, I do believe that there is an element of circularity in the argument.
Increase flights at LHR and it becomes even more of a monopoly supplier. Develop another airport such as LGW so that it matches the number of flights and its yields will start to match LHR. There are of course problems. A second runway would be politically difficult to build but what about close parrallels? Half a LAX or ATL. It wouldn't require much more concrete, although I can see a few comments on the ATC forum! (Thinking back I wrote an M.Sc. thesis on that topic fifteen years ago!)
No prizes for guessing a major problem. It would take a good few years to develop critical mass during which time airlines would lose a packet.
I have strong doubts about building a third runway for two reasons. Firstly, unless LHR became a totally separate airport taxi times would increase still further increasing costs and sector times (think of JFK and how you want to avoid connecting there). Secondly a lot of people travel long distances to get to LHR at inconvenience to themselves whilst creating road congestion. I myself live near the airport and get continually frustrated by poor local links. They want more local flights.
I certainly have doubts about building a high speed rail link to LHR. Wouldn't a better solution be more non stop services from Manchester avoiding the need to change at Heathrow. (Yes I know, airline economics will conspire against this).
Lastly a rather depressing thought. Can we extrapolate the growth of aviation over the last few years into the future? Pax numbers have been increasing due to higher load factors which can't continue rising, lower costs such as distribution, ditto and low fuel prices. One hopes that oil will come down. (I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the subject but from what I read some of the problem is lack of refining capacity and that there is a particular shortage of "sweet" oil and this may well ease over the next few years). However prices are most unlikely to go back to where it was before. Aviation has remained at around 1% of GDP was several decades. Is this likely to significantly increase? Sure it will go up in line with GDP and that means high growth in India & China, but maybe only an annual increase of 2-3% in the UK. We will certainly need a LHR with a capacity of 90m pax pa which is possible with two runways. We may not need a third runway for a while longer.
Increase flights at LHR and it becomes even more of a monopoly supplier. Develop another airport such as LGW so that it matches the number of flights and its yields will start to match LHR. There are of course problems. A second runway would be politically difficult to build but what about close parrallels? Half a LAX or ATL. It wouldn't require much more concrete, although I can see a few comments on the ATC forum! (Thinking back I wrote an M.Sc. thesis on that topic fifteen years ago!)
No prizes for guessing a major problem. It would take a good few years to develop critical mass during which time airlines would lose a packet.
I have strong doubts about building a third runway for two reasons. Firstly, unless LHR became a totally separate airport taxi times would increase still further increasing costs and sector times (think of JFK and how you want to avoid connecting there). Secondly a lot of people travel long distances to get to LHR at inconvenience to themselves whilst creating road congestion. I myself live near the airport and get continually frustrated by poor local links. They want more local flights.
I certainly have doubts about building a high speed rail link to LHR. Wouldn't a better solution be more non stop services from Manchester avoiding the need to change at Heathrow. (Yes I know, airline economics will conspire against this).
Lastly a rather depressing thought. Can we extrapolate the growth of aviation over the last few years into the future? Pax numbers have been increasing due to higher load factors which can't continue rising, lower costs such as distribution, ditto and low fuel prices. One hopes that oil will come down. (I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the subject but from what I read some of the problem is lack of refining capacity and that there is a particular shortage of "sweet" oil and this may well ease over the next few years). However prices are most unlikely to go back to where it was before. Aviation has remained at around 1% of GDP was several decades. Is this likely to significantly increase? Sure it will go up in line with GDP and that means high growth in India & China, but maybe only an annual increase of 2-3% in the UK. We will certainly need a LHR with a capacity of 90m pax pa which is possible with two runways. We may not need a third runway for a while longer.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: World
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yields are high at LHR due to the large affluent point to point market from the SE of the UK and the connectivity offered to the global market via the 5 terminals.
The real competition to LHR are the European hubs - and with the ever extending range of long haul aircraft - the Middle East hubs.
Simply linking LHR and STN with a high speed train or whatever misses the prize - a one stop world class single location for international connecting traffic that beats the best in the world.
LHR by it's historic location can never achieve this without huge social upheaval and disruption - the chance passed in the decades after the 1948 plan referred to earlier was let go.
BAA / Gordon Brown also cannot achieve a one stop world class single location for international connecting traffic by adding up runway capacity at LGW STN and LHR and claiming sufficient future capacity - this exercise simply misses the very core of the hub connectivity requirement.
If the UK wants to stay in the global game as a lead player it is time to map out the future of a 150m+ annual PAX single location without short term political influences.
The real competition to LHR are the European hubs - and with the ever extending range of long haul aircraft - the Middle East hubs.
Simply linking LHR and STN with a high speed train or whatever misses the prize - a one stop world class single location for international connecting traffic that beats the best in the world.
LHR by it's historic location can never achieve this without huge social upheaval and disruption - the chance passed in the decades after the 1948 plan referred to earlier was let go.
BAA / Gordon Brown also cannot achieve a one stop world class single location for international connecting traffic by adding up runway capacity at LGW STN and LHR and claiming sufficient future capacity - this exercise simply misses the very core of the hub connectivity requirement.
If the UK wants to stay in the global game as a lead player it is time to map out the future of a 150m+ annual PAX single location without short term political influences.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ruislip Middlesex,England
Age: 69
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering all the opposition/aggravation both the Government and BAA are having over the proposed 3rd runway at LHR,i personally have always believed that the simplest solution lies with the development of Northolt!
Anyone who has ever driven alongside Northolt on the A40 will know how long and straight this bit of road is....virtually the same length as the existing runway and parallel to those at LHR.
All that would be required,is for the A40 to be repositioned south through the mix of sports grounds/farmers fields etc.....The existing A40 relaid as a runway and the existing airfield developed accordingly!
As the "approach and departure profile" would be roughly in line with the remaining parts of the A40,then the noise problem would be allieviated to some degree. Throw in a fast rail link,(either a direct tunnel link or a monorail above the M25),to LHR and hey presto!!
This plan would also benefit both communities....No destruction of houses and homes in Harmondsworth/Sipson and no more aircraft flying over the built up areas of South Ruislip/Hillingdon etc!.
Anyone who has ever driven alongside Northolt on the A40 will know how long and straight this bit of road is....virtually the same length as the existing runway and parallel to those at LHR.
All that would be required,is for the A40 to be repositioned south through the mix of sports grounds/farmers fields etc.....The existing A40 relaid as a runway and the existing airfield developed accordingly!
As the "approach and departure profile" would be roughly in line with the remaining parts of the A40,then the noise problem would be allieviated to some degree. Throw in a fast rail link,(either a direct tunnel link or a monorail above the M25),to LHR and hey presto!!
This plan would also benefit both communities....No destruction of houses and homes in Harmondsworth/Sipson and no more aircraft flying over the built up areas of South Ruislip/Hillingdon etc!.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Golf Bravo Zulu
Thank you for your reply
Rainboe - thank you for yours even though it contains incorrect statements!
A third runway at Heathrow will not mean that even more aircraft will use the airport. There may be a tiny increase in percentage of users but not much... the main reason is that the airspace cannot handle it - Rainboe states that you just re-design the airspace... all very well but not simple. Certainly in the LTMA it is not possible, unless of course you advocate closing some of the surrounding airports that add to the complexity.
Believe it or not, handling large amounts of aircraft is easier on the ground than it is in the air (notwithstanding the complexity of such a small manouvring area at EGLL) - you can tell a/c to hold position... the problem with trying to increase numbers at EGLL is mainly down to airspace, or lack thereof.
Rainboe - it's not the fact that 3 runways on their own would cause a problem - it's the fact that within a small area you have so many busy major airports that causes the problem with airspace.
People (business suits) are advocating a 3rd runway to allow Heathrow to grow - a third runway will help in times when one of the other runways is out of use for whatever reason, but will BAA be prepared to pay that sort of money when there won't be a financial benefit? Of course not, and who can blame them??
Chinooker - Although Northolt may seem a good solution on paper, it does not solve the airspace issue.. you can lay as much tarmac as you want, the problem lies above the ground, not on it!
Thank you for your reply
Rainboe - thank you for yours even though it contains incorrect statements!
A third runway at Heathrow will not mean that even more aircraft will use the airport. There may be a tiny increase in percentage of users but not much... the main reason is that the airspace cannot handle it - Rainboe states that you just re-design the airspace... all very well but not simple. Certainly in the LTMA it is not possible, unless of course you advocate closing some of the surrounding airports that add to the complexity.
Believe it or not, handling large amounts of aircraft is easier on the ground than it is in the air (notwithstanding the complexity of such a small manouvring area at EGLL) - you can tell a/c to hold position... the problem with trying to increase numbers at EGLL is mainly down to airspace, or lack thereof.
Rainboe - it's not the fact that 3 runways on their own would cause a problem - it's the fact that within a small area you have so many busy major airports that causes the problem with airspace.
People (business suits) are advocating a 3rd runway to allow Heathrow to grow - a third runway will help in times when one of the other runways is out of use for whatever reason, but will BAA be prepared to pay that sort of money when there won't be a financial benefit? Of course not, and who can blame them??
Chinooker - Although Northolt may seem a good solution on paper, it does not solve the airspace issue.. you can lay as much tarmac as you want, the problem lies above the ground, not on it!