HEATHROW
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAA Capital Investment Plans
@ Dannyboy 39
You can find the CIPs here; note in 2012 the name changed :-
BAA Airports: Capital investment plans
You can find the CIPs here; note in 2012 the name changed :-
BAA Airports: Capital investment plans
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 10 years will almost be as much as it will take any new runway to be built.
I understand the idea is that LHR runway 3 will be sold as a "necessary evil" until the new airport is built. What you cannot say is that we can do nothing for the decade and a half until Fantasy Island may open. That's understood to be a stupid idea by enough people that ways are being looked at to U-turn without U-turning.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most people agree that in order for a new mega airport of some description (location TBD) then LHR would have to close, mainly as two hub cannot be justified and most airlines would stay at LHR rather than move.
Surely, then, a third runway at LHR makes it even less likely that it will close, given that asking BAA to drop £10bn on it only to close it in 15-20 years is going to go down like the proverbial pint of sick.
I've still not seen any reasonable way that you can possibly force BAA to close LHR anyway? Forcing the sale of Stansted is one thing (on competition/monopoly grounds) but forcing them because, well, we want you to...?! The only way would be to sweeten it with giving them ownership of the new airport, but how would you then finance the construction of said new airport?!
Still looks like runway 3 at LHR OR new fictional airport to me, not both...?
Surely, then, a third runway at LHR makes it even less likely that it will close, given that asking BAA to drop £10bn on it only to close it in 15-20 years is going to go down like the proverbial pint of sick.
I've still not seen any reasonable way that you can possibly force BAA to close LHR anyway? Forcing the sale of Stansted is one thing (on competition/monopoly grounds) but forcing them because, well, we want you to...?! The only way would be to sweeten it with giving them ownership of the new airport, but how would you then finance the construction of said new airport?!
Still looks like runway 3 at LHR OR new fictional airport to me, not both...?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I've still not seen any reasonable way that you can possibly force BAA to close LHR anyway"
the English legal system doesn't go back 900 years for nothing
treason, illegal occupation of goat grazing pasture, a £1000 tax on every passenger using LHR, increase security so it takes 4 hours to get on a plane......., cut off the fuel supply for "environmental" reasons, close the M4 for repairs
easy...............
the English legal system doesn't go back 900 years for nothing
treason, illegal occupation of goat grazing pasture, a £1000 tax on every passenger using LHR, increase security so it takes 4 hours to get on a plane......., cut off the fuel supply for "environmental" reasons, close the M4 for repairs
easy...............
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2/3 or 1/2 rwy
Quote: "2/3 of a runway, to be pedantic!
I realise its going to be used for smaller aircraft, but is there a reason why its only 2km long rather than 2.5km for example? What difference would an extra 500m make? There's been a lot of discussion on the LTN thread about safety and runway lengths."
AFAIK there isn't enough room for another 12,000 ft rwy, especially if they want to squeeze in a fourth. The m4/m25 junction and Harlington are at each end. So it's about 7,000 ft, so what? Doesn't make it a "half runway", it will be perfectly adequate for what it is intended to do. Justine Greening is appears to be doing a very good impression of a minister not being quite accross their brief.
Quote: "Off the top of my head:
Updated and expanded later;
Quote: "It won't be possible to have a new aiport in the Thames estuary up and working by 2022, it would be 15 years to phase 1, 20 to phase 2. Heathrow runway 3 was already approved remember, so it needs dusting off and re-approved. Realistically that is do-able in under ten years, particularly now the rules have been streamlined.
I understand the idea is that LHR runway 3 will be sold as a "necessary evil" until the new airport is built. What you cannot say is that we can do nothing for the decade and a half until Fantasy Island may open. That's understood to be a stupid idea by enough people that ways are being looked at to U-turn without U-turning."
Bearing in mind that LHR needed expansion in the 1970s and it's now 2012, think you're being very optimistic suggesting that Fantasy Island could be up and running in 15-20 years! They won't have settled on who's paying for it by then. There's plenty of long grass for this one, we just haven't found it yet!
I realise its going to be used for smaller aircraft, but is there a reason why its only 2km long rather than 2.5km for example? What difference would an extra 500m make? There's been a lot of discussion on the LTN thread about safety and runway lengths."
AFAIK there isn't enough room for another 12,000 ft rwy, especially if they want to squeeze in a fourth. The m4/m25 junction and Harlington are at each end. So it's about 7,000 ft, so what? Doesn't make it a "half runway", it will be perfectly adequate for what it is intended to do. Justine Greening is appears to be doing a very good impression of a minister not being quite accross their brief.
Quote: "Off the top of my head:
Updated and expanded later;
- legal costs
- compulsory purchase + legal costs!
- the A4 road has to be dropped down.
- the road connecting to the M4 will have to have a roof on it for most of the way and a load bearing roof at that! Some buildings in the new area will have to be put on piles spanning the road
- the Northern perimeter road and related access roads?
- Access taxiways from the main area for a/c to cross the Northern runway when required.
- There are shops and a petrol station that have to be vaporised (and vaporisation machines are costly
) - It's not just a runway but all the intermediate space that is built up with hotels and ancilliary buildings.
- Security and other provision around an expanded site
- Taxi ways with their lighting, guidance control for auto landing, ground spanning radar may need to be moved, or have whole new units put in. etc.
- all the control systems have to be expanded to have the extra runway and taxiways integrated.
- etcetera."
Quote: "It won't be possible to have a new aiport in the Thames estuary up and working by 2022, it would be 15 years to phase 1, 20 to phase 2. Heathrow runway 3 was already approved remember, so it needs dusting off and re-approved. Realistically that is do-able in under ten years, particularly now the rules have been streamlined.
I understand the idea is that LHR runway 3 will be sold as a "necessary evil" until the new airport is built. What you cannot say is that we can do nothing for the decade and a half until Fantasy Island may open. That's understood to be a stupid idea by enough people that ways are being looked at to U-turn without U-turning."
Bearing in mind that LHR needed expansion in the 1970s and it's now 2012, think you're being very optimistic suggesting that Fantasy Island could be up and running in 15-20 years! They won't have settled on who's paying for it by then. There's plenty of long grass for this one, we just haven't found it yet!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 30th Aug 2012 at 00:58.
AFAIK there isn't enough room for another 12,000 ft rwy, especially if they want to squeeze in a fourth. The m4/m25 junction and Harlington are at each end. So it's about 7,000 ft, so what? Doesn't make it a "half runway", it will be perfectly adequate for what it is intended to do. Justine Greening is appears to be doing a very good impression of a minister not being quite across their brief.
Regardless of the length of R3, there is no way more than one runway could be accommodated between the current LHR and the M4, so I don't think that's a consideration in determining how long it is.
If R4 were to go anywhere, the only feasible (if not exactly realistic) scheme I've seen is the one that involves obliterating Stanwell and West Bedfont and moving the reservoir.
Apropos the length of R3, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that it was being planned as a 2500m (8200') strip with a declared length of 2200m (7200') in each direction. If that sounds a bit odd, it's similar to the setup they have at LCY.
One thing that gets overlooked is that if nothing is done at LHR-and as has been pointing out there are no other options short term because LHR is a lobal hub - the traffic will just go elsewhere. Boris island will be a huge modern airport with limited traffic because all of the interline stuff has disappeared to Schipol, FRA and CDG leaving London as an O&D airport only .
Oddly enough there is a very good site just west of LHR which would only impact one family and has acres and acres of space. This is called Windsor Great Park and it is close to M4 and has good rail connection possibilities.It would also mean that aircraft approaching from the east would be much higher over London thus sparing the soirees of the hypocrits in Richmond and Putney who dont like aircraft noise but are big users of conveniently located Heathrow.
is there no lateral thinking in this country?
Oddly enough there is a very good site just west of LHR which would only impact one family and has acres and acres of space. This is called Windsor Great Park and it is close to M4 and has good rail connection possibilities.It would also mean that aircraft approaching from the east would be much higher over London thus sparing the soirees of the hypocrits in Richmond and Putney who dont like aircraft noise but are big users of conveniently located Heathrow.
is there no lateral thinking in this country?
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New offices, hotel and conference
In BAA's submission to Hillingdon Council's Core / Spatial strategy consultation, Andy Wadham (HAL Head of Planning) raised the possibility of new offices, a hotel and conference facilities to be built in the CTA and linked to the new T2A.
http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media/p..._FS048.002.pdf (starts page 5/16)
Presumably these will be built on the site of T3 after it is demolished. BAAs "Toastrack" plans show T5's new satellite T5E being built over Piers 5 & 7, so there will be no room for T3 to have its own satellite at this location. That is unless T3 / T4 are relocated to the area between and beyond the runways at the eastern end of the airport ?
http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media/p..._FS048.002.pdf (starts page 5/16)
Presumably these will be built on the site of T3 after it is demolished. BAAs "Toastrack" plans show T5's new satellite T5E being built over Piers 5 & 7, so there will be no room for T3 to have its own satellite at this location. That is unless T3 / T4 are relocated to the area between and beyond the runways at the eastern end of the airport ?
BAAs "Toastrack" plans show T5's new satellite T5E being built over Piers 5 & 7, so there will be no room for T3 to have its own satellite at this location. That is unless T3 / T4 are relocated to the area between and beyond the runways at the eastern end of the airport ?
Paxing All Over The World
WHBM
Please do let me know when you are going on a public stage to present this plan to local residents? Then I can sell tickets! 
And I promise to book St. John's Ambulance in advance. 
As I have said before it is Game Over:
They do fit between the M4 and ther A30!
And I promise to book St. John's Ambulance in advance. As I have said before it is Game Over:
- R3 will be built.
- It's ALREADY too late to make any serious difference.
- The interline traffic has already started to move and will continue to do so long before R3 is ready.
- The middle eastern carriers will take (are taking) another chunk of long haul direct from the regions.
- However, R3 is still needed just as much as it was 25 years ago. The loss of domestic connections (all pushed out to LGW) has already ensured that one block of the traffic has gone and the chance of getting it back is slim.
- HOWEVER, the positive is the development of the many regional fields used by the LCCs and connections by some North American and the many Euro carriers. This is a real good thing. Eventhough it happened by accident!
- The failure of UK railways (ie govt failure) of the past 50 years has also ensured that Euro hubs have the regional connecting traffic.
- No Thames estury island (of any description) will be built as, quite apart from the fact that LHR will not close, the country is too broke. Remember that the Chunnel bankrupted the private enterprises and had to be bailed out by govts. Also, the developer of Canary Wharf in the 'good days' of the the 1980s went broke too. That fate awaits whoever gets a deal to float planes on the river.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing that gets overlooked is that if nothing is done at LHR-and as has been pointing out there are no other options short term because LHR is a lobal hub - the traffic will just go elsewhere. Boris island will be a huge modern airport with limited traffic because all of the interline stuff has disappeared to Schipol, FRA and CDG leaving London as an O&D airport only
UK PLC would probably get a better return on investment expanding services at one or more airports well away from SE England, EDI or MAN, for example. Both have hinterlands with significant commercial and industrial communities that would use an enhanced range of services if they were available. To some extent we are already seeing this at several UK regional airports, where passenger and freight loads to a variety of destinations in North America and the Middle East (and beyond) are apparently enough to make the services commercially viable. There are even rumours of growing interlining between NA and ME services at MAN.
However, almost all these services are long-haul and operated by non-UK carriers. For greatest benefit to the UK, we need a large UK-based airline in the mix. And to get the hub really working, we would need short-haul links from elsewhere in the UK as well as points in Europe.
Of course a secondary hub would not replace Heathrow, and would not duplicate all Heathrow services. But it could provide alternative services on routes where there are multiple choices daily from London. For example, a well-timed direct Manchester-New York service could probably attract good enough loads to justify dropping one Heathrow-New York rotation and using the slots so released for a service from Heathrow to some new destination in South Aerica or the Far East.
So rather than Nick Clegg's idea of offloading some Heathrow services to other South-East airports, lets look at a bigger, UK-wide, picture and find more productive ways of servicing UK air transport demand.
If UK Treasury and EU rules permit, a UK hub complementing Heathrow could be established and in full operation well before the bulldozers move in on Sibson or anyone agrees on exactly where to relocate the Thames Estuary mud to form Fantasy Island.
Think UK, not just SE England!
Dairyground - if you can convince an airline to start a hub at Machester, that would be great. The last one run by BA lost money and was closed, with the main vestiges going to Flybe, and the leisure component (ie GB Air) to Easyjet
Flybe is losing money right now as an airline and I doubt they are in the mood for any great expansion at Manchester or anywhere else.
Easyjet, Ryanair and Jet2 have decided they want to be point-to-point.
So who do you have in mind to set up this hub ?
If airlines want to co-operate / interline / codeshare privately amongst themselves, there's very little stopping them from doing so
Flybe is losing money right now as an airline and I doubt they are in the mood for any great expansion at Manchester or anywhere else.
Easyjet, Ryanair and Jet2 have decided they want to be point-to-point.
So who do you have in mind to set up this hub ?
If airlines want to co-operate / interline / codeshare privately amongst themselves, there's very little stopping them from doing so
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 30th Aug 2012 at 15:40.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always thought that LGW could be turned into a 'rival' hub to LHR, in similar fashion to JFK/Newark in NY.
It would take Govt to improve the transport links into London, but a spur to the HS1 line would be relatively simple from there and in 2019 agreement could be got for a second runway.
If I'm not mistaken there are already some Chinese airlines offering direct routes from LGW to Asia, if someone like Virgin could be convinced to become an 'anchor tenant' at a new improved LGW then it could provide proper competition to BA's transatlantic routes. It could even sell some of its highly prized LHR slots to fund the expansion (though not to BA, of course!)
NB this isnt an alternative to RW3 at LHR by the way, I still think that is a necessity that needs approval ASAP, but a genuine rival to LHR at LGW could only be a good thing for passengers?!
It would take Govt to improve the transport links into London, but a spur to the HS1 line would be relatively simple from there and in 2019 agreement could be got for a second runway.
If I'm not mistaken there are already some Chinese airlines offering direct routes from LGW to Asia, if someone like Virgin could be convinced to become an 'anchor tenant' at a new improved LGW then it could provide proper competition to BA's transatlantic routes. It could even sell some of its highly prized LHR slots to fund the expansion (though not to BA, of course!)
NB this isnt an alternative to RW3 at LHR by the way, I still think that is a necessity that needs approval ASAP, but a genuine rival to LHR at LGW could only be a good thing for passengers?!
Last edited by Libertine Winno; 30th Aug 2012 at 15:17.
Paxing All Over The World
Dairyground
Sorry not a chance. This is England! 
Libertine Winno
Ummmm, if you read the thread about the Islands http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...rt-london.html You'll find plenty of information about why NOT!
Briefly:
Eh? From where? From St. Pancras in North London or from Kent????
Oh yes, that's going to be a shoo-in. Bear in mind that the citizens around LGW have had 20+ years to be ready with their No campaign! I'll bet they are actively monitoring every move of STN, LHR R3 and the islands!
Sorry but it was tried in the 1980s and 90s. Again, it's all in the thread.
Sorry to be a wet blanket but the incompetence of successive UK govts in the transport field for the last 50 years mean that, we're stuffed - and that's the polite term!
Think UK, not just SE England!
Libertine Winno
I've always thought that LGW could be turned into a 'rival' hub to LHR, in similar fashion to JFK/Newark in NY.
Briefly:
- It's been tried and failed - and it's all in that thread.
- Carriers ONLY use LGW because LHR is full.
- As soon as slots become available at LHR - they move and start making some profit.
- Many folks would LIKE LGW to have more point to point long hauls but the carriers know they have to be at LHR and cannot afford the costs of running a second operation in the back yard.
... a spur to the HS1 line would be relatively simple from there ...
... and in 2019 agreement could be got for a second runway.
... if someone like Virgin could be convinced to become an 'anchor tenant' at a new improved LGW then it could provide proper competition to BA's transatlantic routes.
Sorry to be a wet blanket but the incompetence of successive UK govts in the transport field for the last 50 years mean that, we're stuffed - and that's the polite term!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....Two hubs work in Germany
The airspace around Frankfurt was full so they moved the capacity partially to where demand originated, Munich hit 37M pax last year from a standing start because there was the will to make it happen.
It's the same in the UK, 40% of LHR pax do actually originate or complete there journeys in the NWest, but historically Heathrow grew as the mega hub and now everybody is so interwinned it cannot be unravelled.
Here in the UK the two hub concept is dead simply because there are to many vested interests.
As an example BA talk about a "UK Aviation Policy" its hogwash, if they get a 3rd runway it will add more profit to the bottom line and even if the return is totally dispproportinate to the impact then so be it...
It's not even going to be a proper runway for goodness sake.
Plus as I keep saying what about the airspace capacity, NATS have indicated that they will make it work once they know what the structure on the ground will be like, but that sounds suspiciously like " we actually havnt got a clue".
What it will mean is a reduction in slots elsewhere so hands up Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, London City, Southend sorry you are going to have to give way !
One thing we can all agree in ..its an utter shambles !
The airspace around Frankfurt was full so they moved the capacity partially to where demand originated, Munich hit 37M pax last year from a standing start because there was the will to make it happen.
It's the same in the UK, 40% of LHR pax do actually originate or complete there journeys in the NWest, but historically Heathrow grew as the mega hub and now everybody is so interwinned it cannot be unravelled.
Here in the UK the two hub concept is dead simply because there are to many vested interests.
As an example BA talk about a "UK Aviation Policy" its hogwash, if they get a 3rd runway it will add more profit to the bottom line and even if the return is totally dispproportinate to the impact then so be it...
It's not even going to be a proper runway for goodness sake.
Plus as I keep saying what about the airspace capacity, NATS have indicated that they will make it work once they know what the structure on the ground will be like, but that sounds suspiciously like " we actually havnt got a clue".
What it will mean is a reduction in slots elsewhere so hands up Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, London City, Southend sorry you are going to have to give way !
One thing we can all agree in ..its an utter shambles !
- The airlines dont want split cost so want LHR expanded
- The proposal for RW3 is pisspoor if you are going to expand LHR at least put 3 RWs in !
- Boris Island, great but who will move, nobody from LHR will unless forced and that will fall down in the courts
- We built a new airport 15 years ago at Stansted, complete and utter waste of space in terms of fixing this problem
Last edited by Bagso; 30th Aug 2012 at 16:08.
40% of LHR pax do actually originate or complete there journeys in the NWest
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Libertine Winno
This is the link for the press release issued with 19.3.09 Competition Commission Report ordering BAA to sell Gatwick & Stansted airports and giving the reasons why:-
http://www.competition-commission.or.../mar/pdf/11-09
The new Gatwick owners (GIP) have stated they will comply with the 1979 BAA agreement not to build a second runway before 2019:-
http://web.archive.org/web/200707220..._Agreement.pdf
You can find the 2012 Gatwick Masterplan here:-
Gatwick Airport
and note Section 10.3 (pages 122 - 126) deals with a second runway after 2019.
This is the link for the press release issued with 19.3.09 Competition Commission Report ordering BAA to sell Gatwick & Stansted airports and giving the reasons why:-
http://www.competition-commission.or.../mar/pdf/11-09
The new Gatwick owners (GIP) have stated they will comply with the 1979 BAA agreement not to build a second runway before 2019:-
http://web.archive.org/web/200707220..._Agreement.pdf
You can find the 2012 Gatwick Masterplan here:-
Gatwick Airport
and note Section 10.3 (pages 122 - 126) deals with a second runway after 2019.
Last edited by Windsorian; 31st Aug 2012 at 03:19.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"For greatest benefit to the UK, we need a large UK-based airline in the mix."
Really?? Why??? The crews can come from the UK, the ground services are UK provided and the aircraft are built in bits everywhere these days...............
And if as someone else posted Middle Eastern airlines are already siphoning off long haul traffic from regional airports why isn't our large UK based airline offering competition??
Lets face it BA have always claimed to lose money on any flight that isn't out of LHR or even on any flight anywhere period (eg London Aberdeen)
Really?? Why??? The crews can come from the UK, the ground services are UK provided and the aircraft are built in bits everywhere these days...............
And if as someone else posted Middle Eastern airlines are already siphoning off long haul traffic from regional airports why isn't our large UK based airline offering competition??
Lets face it BA have always claimed to lose money on any flight that isn't out of LHR or even on any flight anywhere period (eg London Aberdeen)
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "So rather than Nick Clegg's idea of offloading some Heathrow services to other South-East airports, lets look at a bigger, UK-wide, picture and find more productive ways of servicing UK air transport demand."
Forget about Clegg, the man has no credibility and anyway won't be around much longer.
Quote: "If UK Treasury and EU rules permit, a UK hub complementing Heathrow could be established and in full operation well before the bulldozers move in on Sibson or anyone agrees on exactly where to relocate the Thames Estuary mud to form Fantasy Island."
The questions are:
(1) who pays! Obviously not the private sector, it's not a good business proposition and they have their own which is blocked by the govt. Clearly not the govt: they're scint.
(2) if the airlines won't use Fantasy Island (because of the expense and because pax don't want to), how to convince them that they should.
The development of Fantasy Island cannot start before these questions are answered.
Advocates of Fantasy Island appear to be in no hurry to answer them!
Quote: "Think UK, not just SE England!"
Quite right, but you have to persuade the airlines to "think UK, not just SE England!"
And there is your problem: airlines, apparently, can no longer make money operating from the "regions". Ridiculous? maybe, but regretably it appears to be a fact.
Even if there was a functioning Munich-style secondary hub at Ringway and more longhaul activity at BHX, GLA, etc., we would still need Heathrow expansion. It's not a case of "either/or".
Quote: "Now I've sometimes wondered, in idle moments, if we are going to rebuild all the Heathrow terminals, how much extra effort will it be to build new runways north-south as well, adequately separated for parallel operations standards, and avoiding any air traffic movements over London, which seems the nub of the argument. They do fit between the M4 and ther A30"
No, the idea is for parallel rwys so that all can be used simultaneously. A north-south rwy between the M4 and A30 would (1) prevent 09L/27R and 09R/27L being used at the same time (so completely pointless), and (2) Stanwell and/or a reservoir would have to be demolished.
Quote: "....Two hubs work in Germany"
Yes, LH have a major presence at MUC so it has become a secondary hub. The same was the case at MAN with BA back in the day. Didn't BA end this because they were losing money?
Forget about Clegg, the man has no credibility and anyway won't be around much longer.
Quote: "If UK Treasury and EU rules permit, a UK hub complementing Heathrow could be established and in full operation well before the bulldozers move in on Sibson or anyone agrees on exactly where to relocate the Thames Estuary mud to form Fantasy Island."
The questions are:
(1) who pays! Obviously not the private sector, it's not a good business proposition and they have their own which is blocked by the govt. Clearly not the govt: they're scint.
(2) if the airlines won't use Fantasy Island (because of the expense and because pax don't want to), how to convince them that they should.
The development of Fantasy Island cannot start before these questions are answered.
Advocates of Fantasy Island appear to be in no hurry to answer them!
Quote: "Think UK, not just SE England!"
Quite right, but you have to persuade the airlines to "think UK, not just SE England!"
And there is your problem: airlines, apparently, can no longer make money operating from the "regions". Ridiculous? maybe, but regretably it appears to be a fact.
Even if there was a functioning Munich-style secondary hub at Ringway and more longhaul activity at BHX, GLA, etc., we would still need Heathrow expansion. It's not a case of "either/or".
Quote: "Now I've sometimes wondered, in idle moments, if we are going to rebuild all the Heathrow terminals, how much extra effort will it be to build new runways north-south as well, adequately separated for parallel operations standards, and avoiding any air traffic movements over London, which seems the nub of the argument. They do fit between the M4 and ther A30"
No, the idea is for parallel rwys so that all can be used simultaneously. A north-south rwy between the M4 and A30 would (1) prevent 09L/27R and 09R/27L being used at the same time (so completely pointless), and (2) Stanwell and/or a reservoir would have to be demolished.
Quote: "....Two hubs work in Germany"
Yes, LH have a major presence at MUC so it has become a secondary hub. The same was the case at MAN with BA back in the day. Didn't BA end this because they were losing money?
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 30th Aug 2012 at 21:20.