HEATHROW
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could see the third T5 satellite being built even while the stupid nimbys/putney woman get their own way, as it means BA will be able to consolidate their operations into one terminal and depending on how many gates there are it may even allow AA to move in with BA/IB.
Jabird
I've heard a annual terminal capacity of just over 90m quoted once the new T2 is complete with no increase in movements. This equates to c200 pax / movement or an average aircraft size of 250 seats.
This is about the same as Narita before the second runway opened but compares with c150 pax / mvmnt at LHR now.
I reckon that if the traffic is there then airlines will put on larger aircraft, if its not they will user lower frequency rather than surrender (in)valuable slots. Could that be a use for AA's 77Ws? Replacing BMI Regional jets to Aberdeen with 380 movements will obviously have an effect.
Another way of looking at it is 250,000 pax/day, though obviously more on a peak day. I don't know what the declared hourly capacity of the new T2 will be, but assuming c5,000/direction/hr giving a total airport declared capacity of close to 15,000 /d/hr so it looks achievable given that long haul departures now start at 0800 and go on throughout the day.
I was looking at schedules from regional airports, particularly MAN & see that there are now seven daily flights to the Middle East including an A380? Flights have also been started from DUB.
I read in a CAA report somewhere (I'm afraid that I don't have it to hand) that c35% of passengers at LHR were transferring. Does anyone know if this figure is changing over time?
I've heard a annual terminal capacity of just over 90m quoted once the new T2 is complete with no increase in movements. This equates to c200 pax / movement or an average aircraft size of 250 seats.
This is about the same as Narita before the second runway opened but compares with c150 pax / mvmnt at LHR now.
I reckon that if the traffic is there then airlines will put on larger aircraft, if its not they will user lower frequency rather than surrender (in)valuable slots. Could that be a use for AA's 77Ws? Replacing BMI Regional jets to Aberdeen with 380 movements will obviously have an effect.
Another way of looking at it is 250,000 pax/day, though obviously more on a peak day. I don't know what the declared hourly capacity of the new T2 will be, but assuming c5,000/direction/hr giving a total airport declared capacity of close to 15,000 /d/hr so it looks achievable given that long haul departures now start at 0800 and go on throughout the day.
I was looking at schedules from regional airports, particularly MAN & see that there are now seven daily flights to the Middle East including an A380? Flights have also been started from DUB.
I read in a CAA report somewhere (I'm afraid that I don't have it to hand) that c35% of passengers at LHR were transferring. Does anyone know if this figure is changing over time?
Last edited by Peter47; 20th Mar 2012 at 21:23.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A third satelite (5D) for LHR-5 is very likely, as IB are moving into LHR-5 and several BA services really need to brought accross from LHR-3 ASAP. Otherwise BA remains in a split terminal operation situation (as was the case when it was based in LHR-1/LHR-4) that the LHR-5 development was intended to resolve.
It would be sensible to extend the underground transit to LHR-3 to facilitate easy transfers between Oneworld alliance carriers, and indeed on to the new LHR-1/2 as well to improve most transfers. A parallel landside transit should be on the wish-list as well with an additional stop at the central bus, rail and tube station!!
Meanwhile, back in the real world.....
Without extra runway capacity this terminal development would still be needed as there will be a trend towards the use of larger aircraft to compensate for the lack of available slots.
Of course if the "stupid nimbys/putney woman get their own way" (to quote adfly) it could be a massive own-goal. At present, there is a half-day respite from noise for those under the flightpath. Alternating runways between takeoffs and landings with a changeover at 1500 ensures this.
Without runway expansion there will be unstoppable pressure for mixed-mode, it has already started on a "limited" and "experimental" basis. Apparently mixed mode could raise the 480,000 annual movements to 540,000.
With runway expansion, annual movements go up to 702,000 AFAIK. However those currently under the flightpath would not be affected.
The truth is that, ironically, these residents could actually benefit from runway expansion, because they can then ensure that alternation is maintained on the existing runways as part of the conditions for allowing the expansion. This is where their efforts should be directed.
It would be sensible to extend the underground transit to LHR-3 to facilitate easy transfers between Oneworld alliance carriers, and indeed on to the new LHR-1/2 as well to improve most transfers. A parallel landside transit should be on the wish-list as well with an additional stop at the central bus, rail and tube station!!
Meanwhile, back in the real world.....
Without extra runway capacity this terminal development would still be needed as there will be a trend towards the use of larger aircraft to compensate for the lack of available slots.
Of course if the "stupid nimbys/putney woman get their own way" (to quote adfly) it could be a massive own-goal. At present, there is a half-day respite from noise for those under the flightpath. Alternating runways between takeoffs and landings with a changeover at 1500 ensures this.
Without runway expansion there will be unstoppable pressure for mixed-mode, it has already started on a "limited" and "experimental" basis. Apparently mixed mode could raise the 480,000 annual movements to 540,000.
With runway expansion, annual movements go up to 702,000 AFAIK. However those currently under the flightpath would not be affected.
The truth is that, ironically, these residents could actually benefit from runway expansion, because they can then ensure that alternation is maintained on the existing runways as part of the conditions for allowing the expansion. This is where their efforts should be directed.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is the small matter of where to put the fire station if you put in 5D. Aside from the fact it will be closer to T3 than T5. Having all BA ops under one roof is not going to happen, never mind add in AA. Iberia moving to T5 is one to two narrow bodies at a time, max an A340. AA is an awful lot more.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terminal 5
It is all well and done saying that BA should concentrate all of their flights at Terminal 5 but T5 WAS orgionally intended to take all of BA flights at it's planning stage but by the time it was eventually built it was already obvious T5 would be full when it was completed so several BA flights had to be in T3.
Now saying that BA currently have a split terminal operation which T5 was supposed to eliminate what is going to happen when BA absorb BMI those flights will not really be able to be accomodated in T3 untill the remaining Star Alliances airlines move to the new T2 in 2014.
So on completion of the BMI takeover BA will have flights from T1, T3 and T5 and BA will be right back to where they were before T5 was opened having flights from three separate terminals.
Now saying that BA currently have a split terminal operation which T5 was supposed to eliminate what is going to happen when BA absorb BMI those flights will not really be able to be accomodated in T3 untill the remaining Star Alliances airlines move to the new T2 in 2014.
So on completion of the BMI takeover BA will have flights from T1, T3 and T5 and BA will be right back to where they were before T5 was opened having flights from three separate terminals.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Kingfisher will pull out of LHR. DEL cancelled from 10th April and BOM from 16th April.
Does Kingfisher lease the slots from someone else, or if they are up for grabs who's likely to be bidding ?
Are there any particular constraints that keep the slots to an Indian route, or is it open to all comers ? If the slots are likely to go to Indian routes, are there any constraints as to who can bid from the main UK and Indian airlines due to bilateral agreements ?
Kingfisher will pull out of LHR. DEL cancelled from 10th April and BOM from 16th April.
Does Kingfisher lease the slots from someone else, or if they are up for grabs who's likely to be bidding ?
Are there any particular constraints that keep the slots to an Indian route, or is it open to all comers ? If the slots are likely to go to Indian routes, are there any constraints as to who can bid from the main UK and Indian airlines due to bilateral agreements ?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then there's a third satellite for T5 and a second for T2 also in the long term plan. But without the runway capacity, would they ever be needed?
Last edited by FlyingEagle21; 13th Mar 2012 at 09:51.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do I detect the start of a campain to reverse the decision re the third runway ?
BBC News - Time to change Heathrow runway policy, says Tim Yeo
Time to change Heathrow runway policy, says Tim Yeo
A former Conservative environment minister is calling on the government to drop its opposition to a third runway at Heathrow Airport.
Tim Yeo, chairman of the energy and climate change committee, said new EU rules on aviation meant it would not lead to an increase in emissions.
BBC News - Time to change Heathrow runway policy, says Tim Yeo
Time to change Heathrow runway policy, says Tim Yeo
A former Conservative environment minister is calling on the government to drop its opposition to a third runway at Heathrow Airport.
Tim Yeo, chairman of the energy and climate change committee, said new EU rules on aviation meant it would not lead to an increase in emissions.
I'm all for LHR expanding, but surely as soon as Runway 3 becomes full, we're back to square one aren't we?
There is no way while Justine Greening is in charge of transport, we'll get a change in transport policy anyway. There's as much chance as this changing, as APD being scrapped, despite we lose more money than it brings in!
There is no way while Justine Greening is in charge of transport, we'll get a change in transport policy anyway. There's as much chance as this changing, as APD being scrapped, despite we lose more money than it brings in!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Age: 51
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim Yeo MP for Suffolk
It would be interesting to know how Tim Yeo's voting record was on STN expansion. He can talk about LHR all he likes but I bet he was no advocate of STN being expanded with it being so close to its constituency. It would also be interesting to know how many shares or other interests he has in BAA. With HS1 connecting to Birmingham so rapidly in the near future, BHX can quite easily take up the slack, with such fast connections to London. BA should look at expanding at MAN and creating a secondary hub, similar to the likes of Lufthansa in Germany; spreading the wealth around the UK a little. Second runways at LGW and STN should be reconsidered as their environmental impact, and by that I mean the lives of Londoners will not be made worse that what it is already.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote "I'm all for LHR expanding, but surely as soon as Runway 3 becomes full, we're back to square one aren't we?
There is no way while Justine Greening is in charge of transport, we'll get a change in transport policy anyway. There's as much chance as this changing, as APD being scrapped, despite we lose more money than it brings in!"
Dannyboy39, it will take a long time, so plan and build a fourth now as well. That will spread the load nicely for many years. Aircraft are increasingly cleaner, quieter and more fuel efficient, (the noisiest and dirtiest are already banned from the EU), so these issues will become increasingly less significant in the long term. The railways and roads are full to bursting, we have to take to the air to get around, so domestic commuter links are important as well. HS2 (if it is ever built) is complementary to existing forms of transport, not a substitute.
As for Justine, she won't be there for ever and she can be promoted out of the way if necessary. Having made her personal views so plain, she will not be able to make any decisions on this issue, that will be someone else's job. The policy will change, let's get on and do it now.
Ironically, a third runway will actually benefit those currently under the flightpath, who currently get daily noise-free half days as alternation takes place. Without a third runway, the pressure for mixed mode will become unstopable, (somehow they reckon they can squeeze in another 60,000 or so annual movements), and thel noise-free half days will be a thing of the past. Justine and her Putney constituents should be careful what they wish for!
bcn_boy, Tim Yeo admitted on The Daily Politics that he had been unenthusiastic about STN expansion, but that is irrelevant to this issue. Rightly or wrongly pax and airlines want to use LHR, and pax that cannot do so will migrate to AMS, FRA, even CDG, etc., rather than STN, BHX or MAN. It's a fact of life.
Regretably, BA can no longer make money out of BHX and MAN even with just with a shorthaul network, hence the sale of BA Connect. Consequently, BHX, MAN and GLA are no longer focus cities for BA. The point is that the likes of AF, KL and LH feed their hubs from these UK cities (and others) just as BA feeds LHR from places like BOD, LYS, MRS, NCE, TLS, (and to a lesser extent ORY), etc. in France, or CGN, DUS, HAM, MUC, and TXL, etc. in Germany, and so on.
Tim Yeo, is correct about LHR expansion and made the point that because of new EU rules on aviation (ETS), runway development at LHR would not lead to an increase in emmissions. He should know, he is the chairman of the House of Commons "energy and climate change" select committee.
There is no way while Justine Greening is in charge of transport, we'll get a change in transport policy anyway. There's as much chance as this changing, as APD being scrapped, despite we lose more money than it brings in!"
Dannyboy39, it will take a long time, so plan and build a fourth now as well. That will spread the load nicely for many years. Aircraft are increasingly cleaner, quieter and more fuel efficient, (the noisiest and dirtiest are already banned from the EU), so these issues will become increasingly less significant in the long term. The railways and roads are full to bursting, we have to take to the air to get around, so domestic commuter links are important as well. HS2 (if it is ever built) is complementary to existing forms of transport, not a substitute.
As for Justine, she won't be there for ever and she can be promoted out of the way if necessary. Having made her personal views so plain, she will not be able to make any decisions on this issue, that will be someone else's job. The policy will change, let's get on and do it now.
Ironically, a third runway will actually benefit those currently under the flightpath, who currently get daily noise-free half days as alternation takes place. Without a third runway, the pressure for mixed mode will become unstopable, (somehow they reckon they can squeeze in another 60,000 or so annual movements), and thel noise-free half days will be a thing of the past. Justine and her Putney constituents should be careful what they wish for!
bcn_boy, Tim Yeo admitted on The Daily Politics that he had been unenthusiastic about STN expansion, but that is irrelevant to this issue. Rightly or wrongly pax and airlines want to use LHR, and pax that cannot do so will migrate to AMS, FRA, even CDG, etc., rather than STN, BHX or MAN. It's a fact of life.
Regretably, BA can no longer make money out of BHX and MAN even with just with a shorthaul network, hence the sale of BA Connect. Consequently, BHX, MAN and GLA are no longer focus cities for BA. The point is that the likes of AF, KL and LH feed their hubs from these UK cities (and others) just as BA feeds LHR from places like BOD, LYS, MRS, NCE, TLS, (and to a lesser extent ORY), etc. in France, or CGN, DUS, HAM, MUC, and TXL, etc. in Germany, and so on.
Tim Yeo, is correct about LHR expansion and made the point that because of new EU rules on aviation (ETS), runway development at LHR would not lead to an increase in emmissions. He should know, he is the chairman of the House of Commons "energy and climate change" select committee.
Paxing All Over The World
canberra97
So on completion of the [Dan Air/B-Cal/Brymon/Manx/etc.] takeover BA will have flights from T1, T2 and T3 and BA will be right back to where they were before T4 was opened having flights from three separate terminals.
I sit to be corrected.
So on completion of the BMI takeover BA will have flights from T1, T3 and T5 and BA will be right back to where they were before T5 was opened having flights from three separate terminals.
So on completion of the [Dan Air/B-Cal/Brymon/Manx/etc.] takeover BA will have flights from T1, T2 and T3 and BA will be right back to where they were before T4 was opened having flights from three separate terminals.
I sit to be corrected.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quotes: "So on completion of the BMI takeover BA will have flights from T1, T3 and T5 and BA will be right back to where they were before T5 was opened having flights from three separate terminals."
"So on completion of the [Dan Air/B-Cal/Brymon/Manx/etc.] takeover BA will have flights from T1, T2 and T3 and BA will be right back to where they were before T4 was opened having flights from three separate terminals.
I sit to be corrected."
That may sort itself out in the long run as LHR-1 is due to be demolished and rebuilt once the new LHR-2 opens. If (as is likely) BD has been completely subsumed by then, it will not be an issue and BA will still be split between LHR-3 and LHR-5. So it's little different from the days when they were in LHR-1 and LHR-4.
It was a bit silly not to have LHR-5 big enough for all of BA (suspect it's a lack of stands rather than the main building itself), but they have manged to squeeze IB in there.
"So on completion of the [Dan Air/B-Cal/Brymon/Manx/etc.] takeover BA will have flights from T1, T2 and T3 and BA will be right back to where they were before T4 was opened having flights from three separate terminals.
I sit to be corrected."
That may sort itself out in the long run as LHR-1 is due to be demolished and rebuilt once the new LHR-2 opens. If (as is likely) BD has been completely subsumed by then, it will not be an issue and BA will still be split between LHR-3 and LHR-5. So it's little different from the days when they were in LHR-1 and LHR-4.
It was a bit silly not to have LHR-5 big enough for all of BA (suspect it's a lack of stands rather than the main building itself), but they have manged to squeeze IB in there.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no way while Justine Greening is in charge of transport, we'll get a change in transport policy anyway.
As for Mr Yeo, I never took him too seriously after the back to basics lectures! Didn't realise he gave a child up for adoption too! Not wanting to moralise, but wasn't he the one dishing it out at the time?
Business interests include Eurotunnel, nothing aviation:
Yeo is chairman of Univent plc, Chairman of TMO Renewables and non-executive chairman of Eco City Vehicles plc and AFC Energy plc.
He writes articles for Golf Weekly and Country Life magazines and, occasionally, the Financial Times.
He occupies a seat on the board of Eurotunnel
He writes articles for Golf Weekly and Country Life magazines and, occasionally, the Financial Times.
He occupies a seat on the board of Eurotunnel
There's as much chance as this changing, as APD being scrapped, despite we lose more money than it brings in!
My expectation would be that for each £10 you put on APD, that is more likely to put tourists off - and thus increase the defecit further, as they will choose other destinations, whereas it will have less effect on UK outbound, as people still want to get away.
Now as for BA & BHX / MAN v Germany, this comes up time and again, and it is just not relevant. Germany has a completely different population structure to the UK - many cities in the 1-5m bracket, no single city dominates. When was the last time AF operates serious long haul from the regions? (Yes, they have added some short haul routes recently, but that market is totally distorted by French labour laws which keep the likes of MOL out).
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"As for Mr Yeo, I never took him too seriously after the back to basics lectures! Didn't realise he gave a child up for adoption too! Not wanting to moralise, but wasn't he the one dishing it out at the time?"
Do remember something like this at the time, wasn't it John Major banging on about back to basics while sleaze reigned supreme.
Greenpeace and co. have an ideology to stick to and will never waiver from it irrespective of the facts. That's the nature of dogma as opposed to pragmatism.
"As for Mr Yeo, I never took him too seriously after the back to basics lectures! Didn't realise he gave a child up for adoption too! Not wanting to moralise, but wasn't he the one dishing it out at the time?"
Do remember something like this at the time, wasn't it John Major banging on about back to basics while sleaze reigned supreme.
Greenpeace and co. have an ideology to stick to and will never waiver from it irrespective of the facts. That's the nature of dogma as opposed to pragmatism.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wasn't it John Major banging on about back to basics while sleaze reigned supreme.
Greenpeace and co. have an ideology to stick to and will never waiver from it irrespective of the facts. That's the nature of dogma as opposed to pragmatism.
IIRC, Yeo came out with a big Tory green document a few years ago, and I recall reading it and thinking "this is totally vacuous, full of hyperbole and of little workable benefit to anyone".
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willie Walsh is also pressuring the Government into seeing sense when it comes to South East airport expansion!!
BBC News - UK aviation policy 'unholy mess' - says top businessman
BBC News - UK aviation policy 'unholy mess' - says top businessman