HEATHROW
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howard Davies's Commission
Just a thought: the commission has to make recommendations for "immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity" within one year.
Does this mean squeezing a quart out of a pint pot by ending segregated mode and rwy alternation at Heathrow and move to permanent all-day (everyday) mixed mode?
This would:
(1) increase available movements by 10-15%(?);
(2) do nothing to address congestion and delays;
(3) end the daily half-day of quiet for those under the flightpath.
It would also mean, ironically, that vocal opposition to airport expansion from miles away from Heathrow (Goldsmith, Greening, Johnson, etc.) would actually result in more noise for flightpath residents!
A spectacular own-goal if this the case!
Does this mean squeezing a quart out of a pint pot by ending segregated mode and rwy alternation at Heathrow and move to permanent all-day (everyday) mixed mode?
This would:
(1) increase available movements by 10-15%(?);
(2) do nothing to address congestion and delays;
(3) end the daily half-day of quiet for those under the flightpath.
It would also mean, ironically, that vocal opposition to airport expansion from miles away from Heathrow (Goldsmith, Greening, Johnson, etc.) would actually result in more noise for flightpath residents!
A spectacular own-goal if this the case!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 8th Sep 2012 at 23:01.
Why would Ferrovial, a massive construction company, not be in favour of building a new airport? Even if they only built one runway and one terminal, it would net them many millions.
Why would BAA not leap at the chance of managing a four-runway airport near London? It could be the outcome of negotiations to close LHR.
I'd have thought both shareholder and airport operator would want a new airport.
Why would BAA not leap at the chance of managing a four-runway airport near London? It could be the outcome of negotiations to close LHR.
I'd have thought both shareholder and airport operator would want a new airport.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see where this leads.
By "no third runway" does Vince mean "for the term of this (coalition) government."
The answer to SE capacity surely changes dependent upon the timescale you set.
If you require expansion and the criteria is 3-5 years; then mixed-mode or third runway is the simplest answer. *Discounting Stanstead and Luton at this point.
The problem with Heathrow is not the location of the Airport; what the objection boils down to is the West London flight path.
Personally, I believe a third runway, steeper approaches, RNAV/MLS coordination and partly inset thresholds would be win-win for proponents and opposers.
Others have mentioned the irony of the stance of Goldsmith and his ilk arguing to reduce noise and achieving wantonly wasteful holding times and the necessity for mixed mode to be considered! ...Bonkers.
If the Government choose to write-off Heathrow development indefinitely, then the timescale required to allow for new airport planning, protests inquiries and development would undoubtedly be to the detriment of UK plc.
The Thames Airport is the wrong side of London as long as London stays in the bottom right hand corner of the UK map. It's not inconceivable that this proposal could work as a hub: building the runways, parking the aeroplanes and routing flights is workable. But! ...the infrastructure required to move a significant number of passengers around the capital is the trick.
What cost (time and financial) of the high speed rail network linking the UK south to the terminals in the estuary??? Can we even afford this right now. Without being flippant, people do like to drive to airports with luggage rather than get a bus to the train station to get a train and change trains and arrive at the terminal - you get what I mean I'm sure.
A new airport to the West would be a sensible long term plan, after the third runway has solved our immediate crisis. The economics should really shine through and common sense should prevail...(?)
How about 2 parallel perpendicular(ish) runways over the reservoirs on the far side of the M25?
As long as crosswinds permit you'd lose the approach noise problem. Not sure how you'd coordinate take-offs on the westerlies with go-around traffic - but I'm not an airport designer....
By "no third runway" does Vince mean "for the term of this (coalition) government."
The answer to SE capacity surely changes dependent upon the timescale you set.
If you require expansion and the criteria is 3-5 years; then mixed-mode or third runway is the simplest answer. *Discounting Stanstead and Luton at this point.
The problem with Heathrow is not the location of the Airport; what the objection boils down to is the West London flight path.
Personally, I believe a third runway, steeper approaches, RNAV/MLS coordination and partly inset thresholds would be win-win for proponents and opposers.
Others have mentioned the irony of the stance of Goldsmith and his ilk arguing to reduce noise and achieving wantonly wasteful holding times and the necessity for mixed mode to be considered! ...Bonkers.
If the Government choose to write-off Heathrow development indefinitely, then the timescale required to allow for new airport planning, protests inquiries and development would undoubtedly be to the detriment of UK plc.
The Thames Airport is the wrong side of London as long as London stays in the bottom right hand corner of the UK map. It's not inconceivable that this proposal could work as a hub: building the runways, parking the aeroplanes and routing flights is workable. But! ...the infrastructure required to move a significant number of passengers around the capital is the trick.
What cost (time and financial) of the high speed rail network linking the UK south to the terminals in the estuary??? Can we even afford this right now. Without being flippant, people do like to drive to airports with luggage rather than get a bus to the train station to get a train and change trains and arrive at the terminal - you get what I mean I'm sure.
A new airport to the West would be a sensible long term plan, after the third runway has solved our immediate crisis. The economics should really shine through and common sense should prevail...(?)
How about 2 parallel perpendicular(ish) runways over the reservoirs on the far side of the M25?
As long as crosswinds permit you'd lose the approach noise problem. Not sure how you'd coordinate take-offs on the westerlies with go-around traffic - but I'm not an airport designer....
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are no sites to the West that a new airport could be built without moving lots of people or concreting loads of greenbelt. It's not likely someone is about to exclaim, "Blimey! Who knew all this spare land was here! Let's build an airport."
Vince, the lefty, is not known as the anti Business Secretary for nothing. He's putting Twickenham before the country, no great surprise.
Vince, the lefty, is not known as the anti Business Secretary for nothing. He's putting Twickenham before the country, no great surprise.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's what I don't get, yes we need a big new hub airport ideally just west of London in the long term, with room for further expansion but that won't be built until well into the next decades, or if they use the same workers as they do on the roads then the 2050's!!! To stay competitive until then Heathrow needs Runway 3, then it can be closed when a new hub is opened.
An article in today's Sunday Times showed the public preferring Boris Island and the usual Bowis rants etc, including a quote from an MP saying Heathrow will have 2 1/2 (really 3) runways, Amsterdam has 7 (Really 6 or 5 1/2 with MP logic) and Frankfurt has 3 (really 4)!! The Half a Runway argument is beyond pathetic, I would have thought the principals of moving the smaller aircraft to the short runway to allow more larger aircraft on the other 2 was simple enough for even an MP to understand but clearly not!! By that logic a significant proportion of airports in the UK don't have 'a whole runway'.
An article in today's Sunday Times showed the public preferring Boris Island and the usual Bowis rants etc, including a quote from an MP saying Heathrow will have 2 1/2 (really 3) runways, Amsterdam has 7 (Really 6 or 5 1/2 with MP logic) and Frankfurt has 3 (really 4)!! The Half a Runway argument is beyond pathetic, I would have thought the principals of moving the smaller aircraft to the short runway to allow more larger aircraft on the other 2 was simple enough for even an MP to understand but clearly not!! By that logic a significant proportion of airports in the UK don't have 'a whole runway'.
Paxing All Over The World
Just to repeat for the nth time: It does not matter what happens next - as it is already too late.
- The traffic has moved and that which has not - is already thinking about it.
- The M.E. is moving forward in a way that was not anticipated 25 years ago (when the 3rd should have been built)
- Look at the dramatic QF move away from LHR.
- So just sit back and chill, the fight is over - and lost through 50 years of govt inaction by all parties.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richmond by-election?
Wrote in post #2001 (6-9-12):
-------------
"Actually a by-election in Richmond would be interesting, it is a Consevative-Libdem marginal, Labour don't stand a chance.
Possibly, Goldsmith might be tempted to fight it as a Green (after a deathbed conversion?) or as an anti-LHR independent.
Boris may be tempted to seek nomination as the Conservative candidate in order to already be in the Commons when the time comes for Call-me-Dave to "fall on his sword". "
-------------
And today Boris has apparently denied it strongly! does he read PPRUNE? Surely these denials must make it a strong possibility?
-------------
"Actually a by-election in Richmond would be interesting, it is a Consevative-Libdem marginal, Labour don't stand a chance.
Possibly, Goldsmith might be tempted to fight it as a Green (after a deathbed conversion?) or as an anti-LHR independent.
Boris may be tempted to seek nomination as the Conservative candidate in order to already be in the Commons when the time comes for Call-me-Dave to "fall on his sword". "
-------------
And today Boris has apparently denied it strongly! does he read PPRUNE? Surely these denials must make it a strong possibility?
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 9th Sep 2012 at 14:43.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Definitely no 3rd runway at LHR according to Vince Cable this morning on the Andrew Marr programme.
The commission's job is too look at alternatives only."
He would say that, he's a Libdem, and he has to save face. What he should have said to clarify the Libdem position: "no new rwys in the southeast - ever".
Quote: "Why would Ferrovial, a massive construction company, not be in favour of building a new airport? Even if they only built one runway and one terminal, it would net them many millions.
Why would BAA not leap at the chance of managing a four-runway airport near London? It could be the outcome of negotiations to close LHR.
I'd have thought both shareholder and airport operator would want a new airport."
Because its more profitable to build on on what they already have. Also, could BAA persuade the airlines to leave LHR to pay even higher airport charges elsewhere?
If so, then all their current investment in LHR would be wasted. For BAA to close LHR would require one hell of a bribe from the govt. - they don't have that kind of money spare. It's not going happen.
Quote: "A new airport to the West would be a sensible long term plan, after the third runway has solved our immediate crisis. The economics should really shine through and common sense should prevail...(?)"
Once a third rwy has solved the immediate crisis, there'll be an application for a fourth and that will be it. All talk of a new hub will cease as it will not be necessary, and is too fraught with difficulty anyway.
By the time the 4th rwy is built technological advances will ensure that aircraft are so quiet and clean (it's an-going process) that it will not be an issue.
Quote: "How about 2 parallel perpendicular(ish) runways over the reservoirs on the far side of the M25?
As long as crosswinds permit you'd lose the approach noise problem. Not sure how you'd coordinate take-offs on the westerlies with go-around traffic - but I'm not an airport designer.... "
If expansion accross the M25 is being considered then someone has to pay the cost of diverting/tunnelising the M25 and the A4. Does it remain cost-effective with the added expenditure?
If so, and it is practicable, we might as well have the 2 rwys referred to as parallel with the existing ones rather than perpendicular. This will allow all four to be used simultaneously and the retention of segregated mode and alternation.
Quote: "That's what I don't get, yes we need a big new hub airport ideally just west of London in the long term, with room for further expansion but that won't be built until well into the next decades, or if they use the same workers as they do on the roads then the 2050's!!! To stay competitive until then Heathrow needs Runway 3, then it can be closed when a new hub is opened."
Won't happen for the same reasons as the estuary airport. The "big new hub airport ideally just west of London" is an expanded LHR.
LHR will get its extra rwy(s) and its required expansion, the only question is - when? Let's hope is not so late that it isn't needed because the country has become a backwater.
The commission's job is too look at alternatives only."
He would say that, he's a Libdem, and he has to save face. What he should have said to clarify the Libdem position: "no new rwys in the southeast - ever".
Quote: "Why would Ferrovial, a massive construction company, not be in favour of building a new airport? Even if they only built one runway and one terminal, it would net them many millions.
Why would BAA not leap at the chance of managing a four-runway airport near London? It could be the outcome of negotiations to close LHR.
I'd have thought both shareholder and airport operator would want a new airport."
Because its more profitable to build on on what they already have. Also, could BAA persuade the airlines to leave LHR to pay even higher airport charges elsewhere?
If so, then all their current investment in LHR would be wasted. For BAA to close LHR would require one hell of a bribe from the govt. - they don't have that kind of money spare. It's not going happen.
Quote: "A new airport to the West would be a sensible long term plan, after the third runway has solved our immediate crisis. The economics should really shine through and common sense should prevail...(?)"
Once a third rwy has solved the immediate crisis, there'll be an application for a fourth and that will be it. All talk of a new hub will cease as it will not be necessary, and is too fraught with difficulty anyway.
By the time the 4th rwy is built technological advances will ensure that aircraft are so quiet and clean (it's an-going process) that it will not be an issue.
Quote: "How about 2 parallel perpendicular(ish) runways over the reservoirs on the far side of the M25?
As long as crosswinds permit you'd lose the approach noise problem. Not sure how you'd coordinate take-offs on the westerlies with go-around traffic - but I'm not an airport designer.... "
If expansion accross the M25 is being considered then someone has to pay the cost of diverting/tunnelising the M25 and the A4. Does it remain cost-effective with the added expenditure?
If so, and it is practicable, we might as well have the 2 rwys referred to as parallel with the existing ones rather than perpendicular. This will allow all four to be used simultaneously and the retention of segregated mode and alternation.
Quote: "That's what I don't get, yes we need a big new hub airport ideally just west of London in the long term, with room for further expansion but that won't be built until well into the next decades, or if they use the same workers as they do on the roads then the 2050's!!! To stay competitive until then Heathrow needs Runway 3, then it can be closed when a new hub is opened."
Won't happen for the same reasons as the estuary airport. The "big new hub airport ideally just west of London" is an expanded LHR.
LHR will get its extra rwy(s) and its required expansion, the only question is - when? Let's hope is not so late that it isn't needed because the country has become a backwater.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 9th Sep 2012 at 20:28. Reason: typo
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would Ferrovial, a massive construction company, not be in favour of building a new airport? Even if they only built one runway and one terminal, it would net them many millions.
With FBI, they would be tendering out with several other contractors, and they may also be just part of a conglomeration of contractors to do one particular part of the job - although more likely all the foundations, all of the runway or the terminal complex, rather than a bit of either.
Why would you want to be in favour of something you might get a partial benefit from when its very existence would trash a very valuable asset that is all yours?
And today Boris has apparently denied it strongly! does he read PPRuNe?
Just one of many examples, the building of the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff effectively bankrupted the long-established "massive construction company" who had done it (well, it was sold for £1, which is the same thing).
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one of many examples, the building of the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff effectively bankrupted the long-established "massive construction company" who had done it
Now the question is, given that the government won't be putting a penny into any new airport, what sort of tender process is the new airport going to have? I suggest you have a double risk - not just the risk of incurring unforeseen extra costs, but also the equally large risk that the airport holding company goes out of business.
Now what was that about the government not putting a penny in?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This Government is a complete joke.
Every minister has a different policy on the 3rd runway. Osborne Yes, Cable says no. You'd think they would have a common policy.
We All know what the 3 year report will say. It's all tacticle politics running up to the next general election. This is the next T5, years of pointless reports And good old British red tape. By the time it's built it's still not enough.
Someone needs to stand up and do what's best for Our country. Stop with the bull****.
Every minister has a different policy on the 3rd runway. Osborne Yes, Cable says no. You'd think they would have a common policy.
We All know what the 3 year report will say. It's all tacticle politics running up to the next general election. This is the next T5, years of pointless reports And good old British red tape. By the time it's built it's still not enough.
Someone needs to stand up and do what's best for Our country. Stop with the bull****.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "This Government is a complete joke.
Every minister has a different policy on the 3rd runway. Osborne Yes, Cable says no. You'd think they would have a common policy.
We All know what the 3 year report will say. It's all tacticle politics running up to the next general election. This is the next T5, years of pointless reports And good old British red tape. By the time it's built it's still not enough."
Well, that's coalition politics, there is no question that Cameron should have formed a minority government. A more experienced political operator (e.g. Harold Wilson) would have realised this.
Quote: "Someone needs to stand up and do what's best for Our country. Stop with the bull****."
Correct. A more experienced politician in Cameron's position would not have revoked Labour's permission for a third rwy (2009) and let them take any flak that may or may not be forthcoming. Pretty obvious really!
Every minister has a different policy on the 3rd runway. Osborne Yes, Cable says no. You'd think they would have a common policy.
We All know what the 3 year report will say. It's all tacticle politics running up to the next general election. This is the next T5, years of pointless reports And good old British red tape. By the time it's built it's still not enough."
Well, that's coalition politics, there is no question that Cameron should have formed a minority government. A more experienced political operator (e.g. Harold Wilson) would have realised this.
Quote: "Someone needs to stand up and do what's best for Our country. Stop with the bull****."
Correct. A more experienced politician in Cameron's position would not have revoked Labour's permission for a third rwy (2009) and let them take any flak that may or may not be forthcoming. Pretty obvious really!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 9th Sep 2012 at 20:40.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one seems to have gone under the radar but the ET710 / 711 tonight was a B787 which, I think, may have been the first scheduled commercial service to the UK?
I wondered why there were a load of spotters out for a cloudy Monday evening. It was of course very late and arrived in darkness some three hours later! Looked awesome coming down the 27R approach, those slow on/off anti collision lights are very distinctive.
I wondered why there were a load of spotters out for a cloudy Monday evening. It was of course very late and arrived in darkness some three hours later! Looked awesome coming down the 27R approach, those slow on/off anti collision lights are very distinctive.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TransCom aviation inquiry
On 13th September the Commons Transport Select Committee (TransCom) launched their own Inquiry into the government's (proposed) aviation policy -
Transport Committee pledges to scrutinise the Government
The composition of the Inquiry members should ensure a national rather than a limited SE local view of the options.
Informed comments by 19th October, please!
Transport Committee pledges to scrutinise the Government
The composition of the Inquiry members should ensure a national rather than a limited SE local view of the options.
Informed comments by 19th October, please!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TransCom aviation inquiry
Allegedly Boris is running his own inquiry as well, and finacing a referendum on the third rwy in Richmond.
If one examines the army of very highly paid managers and the bureaucracy of equally well-paid deputy mayors, accountants, lawyers and paper shufflers that accompanies the Greater London Assembly/City Hall set up, the public may conclude that Boris is good at wasting ratepayers' money.
PS To avoid party political points, the same may also be said for his predecessor, Ken.
If one examines the army of very highly paid managers and the bureaucracy of equally well-paid deputy mayors, accountants, lawyers and paper shufflers that accompanies the Greater London Assembly/City Hall set up, the public may conclude that Boris is good at wasting ratepayers' money.
PS To avoid party political points, the same may also be said for his predecessor, Ken.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until the powers that be destroy Heathrow with their dithering..It might increase capacity, if the agreement not to use the runways in mixed mode which is damping Heathrows capacity as a two runway airport, was shelved for the time being.
Last edited by Ernest Lanc's; 22nd Sep 2012 at 20:08.