LHR Third runway

[jcx]

Is the runway really worth the Hastle, Views and Opinions please!


If plans for a third runway go ahead at Heathrow the entire village of Sipson could disappear off the map by 2020.

At least 700 homes would be demolished, according to the British Airports Authority's estimation, but campaigners claim some 1,600 people would have to be evicted and thousands more affected by a rise in air and noise pollution.


Sipson village faces an uncertain future

[Globaliser]

Yes, it is. Otherwise it could get increasingly difficult for people to get to the places they need to get to, and (even more importantly) increasingly difficult for people to connect via Heathrow to get to the places they need to get to. It's really as simple as that.

[Hermano Lobo]

Without the Third runway(it was planned at the airport's time of origin) the airport will drop down the European league of importance.
Very harsh on the residents but it is vital for many reasons.

[Skipness One Echo]

West London is already blighted by Heathrow, another runway means an incessantly noisy area is...............still an incessantly noisy area. However should proper compensation be paid to those affected the benefit will be immense.
Particularly important IMHO that the capital's main airport regain access to Inverness for the Highlands, Jersey and Guerney for the finance markets and possibly others so that the whole UK may benefit. Perhaps BA et al should have this as a stipulation of their new runway.
It is needed, badly needed, more so than destroying the unspoiled countryside around Stansted is needed.

[akerosid]

It is absolutely vital. However, the one concern I would have is that although it's optimised for short haul flights, the pressure on slots - for example as a result of EU/US Open Skies - is likely to have a downward effect on this, at least as far as UK domestic services are concerned.

When the White Paper consultation document was issued 2-3 years ago, one of the points made in favour of LHR having a third runway was that it was not just London's main airport, but the UK's most important generator of economic growth. However, with more and more regional flights being pushed out and more - the likes of MME, LBA, NCL and probably more (incidentally, while MAN still has about 20 per day), how many will be left by the time R3 is built.

I have to say that it's quite galling that the likes of EK, QR, EY and others can buy new slots and the big American carriers (although they're now moaning quite ferociously about it) will do likewise, while the DFTR (the R, incidentally, standing for "Regions" for whose development it's also responsible) does absolutely nothing, either to understand the regions' need for access to major hubs or to facilitate access.

It's becoming very readily apparent that the DFTR's approach is very much London (and BA-) centred.

Personally, if it were my choice, I'd cordon off the area between the M4 and A4, apply the same security that applies to major military facilities, give a very good compulsory purchase package and start building the thing, parallel with the public inquiry, which would be finished by July. The new runway could then open for next Summer.

[Re-Heat]

I have to say that it's quite galling that the likes of EK, QR, EY and others can buy new slots and the big American carriers (although they're now moaning quite ferociously about it) will do likewise, while the DFTR (the R, incidentally, standing for "Regions" for whose development it's also responsible) does absolutely nothing, either to understand the regions' need for access to major hubs or to facilitate access.

For goodness sake - anyone can buy slots from anyone else there, and if nobody can afford or is willing to use them on lower margin business, then so be it. It means that the whole airline business is at least profitable rather than a state-supported bloated life support machine for routes that cannot make money. If you want a regional service, then be prepared to pay for it, or fly on someone else to another airport where the economics make sense.

Surely the fact that such purchases take place is a sign of lack of capacity and not that dated state-run economics should proliferate? The point of it would appear to allow the development of those regional flights - yes - but there should be absolutely no restriction on their use at all.

[captain_flynn]

I'm just abit curious here. The new runway looks set to be another 27. Wouldn't it have been better to have either a South West/North East (05/23 - like whats just closed) or a North/South runway to cater for all wind directions?

Also, with runway 23's closure recently what will happen when the wind exceeds a constant 35kts or more?

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by captain_flynn

I'm just abit curious here. The new runway looks set to be another 27. Wouldn't it have been better to have either a South West/North East (05/23 - like whats just closed) or a North/South runway to cater for all wind directions?

Then how would they operate all three runways simultaneously?

[VHF FLYER]

Originally Posted by akerosid

while the DFTR (the R, incidentally, standing for "Regions" for whose development it's also responsible) does absolutely nothing, either to understand the regions' need for access to major hubs or to facilitate access.

but the regions do have access to major hubs...Amsterdam, Paris etc.
Heathrow is to be avoided at all costs - the hub of last resort. you could have four or five runways there and it would still be horrible.
London is such a large point to point destination that it would generate its own indiginous traffic without the hubbing.
Hubbing - what's the big deal? I just hubbed through Frankfurt and (like many others) didn't spend a single eurocent there - where's the economic benefit in that? I suspect it is only the vanity of numbers (my airport's bigger than your airport therefore I'm more important than you).

[captain_flynn]

Originally Posted by Globaliser

Then how would they operate all three runways simultaneously?

I honestly wasn't being cocky, it's just that with the strong winds that would normally bring runway 23 into use, they would have to close now wouldn't they?

[jongeman]

Originally Posted by VHF FLYER

but the regions do have access to major hubs...Amsterdam, Paris etc.
Heathrow is to be avoided at all costs - the hub of last resort. you could have four or five runways there and it would still be horrible.
London is such a large point to point destination that it would generate its own indiginous traffic without the hubbing.
Hubbing - what's the big deal? I just hubbed through Frankfurt and (like many others) didn't spend a single eurocent there - where's the economic benefit in that? I suspect it is only the vanity of numbers (my airport's bigger than your airport therefore I'm more important than you).

Good points, Jersey doesn't have direct access to any of the major hubs though. Everywhere else has.

[Gonzo]

Captain_flynn,

Against the one day every five years that a strong crosswind might preclude landing on E-W runways, you have 599 days out of 600 where a third parallel runway can be used. A commercial decision at the end of the day. A cross runway at Heathrow would not increase capacity.

[apaddyinuk]

Living in Windsor I had to laugh a few weeks ago when some local busy body arrived at my doorstep insisting I sign a petition against the third runway sighting that the increased noise would make Windsor an intolerable place to live. I had to contradict her and say that I do not really think the third runway will effect Windsor as much as it would places like Slough, Langley and West Drayton!!!!
I also asked her if she knew there was an airport near by and if she considered this BEFORE moving to the area???? She seemed genuinly shocked that she could be silenced so quickly!!! Just a funny little story I thought I should share with you all!!!
However, I do feel for the people of Sipson. I know a few of my own family are to be shifted from the surroundings of Dublin Airport in a few years when the new runway is created there and I accept that it is a rather harrowing ordeal but at the same time I do understand the importance of maintaining our national gateways. Its a tough call really but you cant stop progress!!! But also on that note, I still believe LHR should be bulldosed and started all over again! Or indeed create that offshore airport in the Thames estuary!!! The asians can do it so why cant we?

[PAXboy]

Whilst listing the many regional UK fields that have been edged out from EGLL due to the desire for the richer pickings of long haul, please don't forget IOM. BA bought Manx just to get the EGLL slots (4 x 365 pairs, as I recall).

[Groundloop]

"Without the Third runway(it was planned at the airport's time of origin)"

Actually when LHR was built in the 40's it had SIX runways - three parallel sets at sixty degrees to each other in a Star of David pattern. Gradually 4 of them got built on!

[DTVAirport]

I haven't read all the replies so this may have already been said, but if you look at aerial photos of LHR, you will realise there already is a 3rd runway, even if it is disused, why not just develop and then reopen that one?

[spanishflea]

Originally Posted by DTVAirport

I haven't read all the replies so this may have already been said, but if you look at aerial photos of LHR, you will realise there already is a 3rd runway, even if it is disused, why not just develop and then reopen that one?

Because of the reasons it was never used over the last five years and was finally turned into a taxiway. The reasons why have already been explained in this thread.

[Groundloop]

Also if you look at the proposed "Heathrow East" development, which includes the demolition of Terminals 1 and 2 and replacement with a whole new complex, this new complex stretches right across the old 23 nearly to the BA maintenance area.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Groundloop

"Without the Third runway(it was planned at the airport's time of origin)"
Actually when LHR was built in the 40's it had SIX runways - three parallel sets at sixty degrees to each other in a Star of David pattern. Gradually 4 of them got built on!

Actually ACTUALLY what got designed was 9 runways, 3 of them north of the M4 (where the new one is proposed). Only the 6 surrounding the central area got built but the area they contained was far too small. Much of T3 is on ones taken out of service in the 1950s.

Anyone who thinks you can't work with 6 intersecting runways in a star configuration, all of them in use simultaneously and managing 200 movements per hour, please report to Chicago O'Hare tower to see how to do it - in a place that gets much worse winter weather than Heathrow.

Heathrow is indeed a national asset, in the light of which the number of housing units to be lost in Sipson/Harmondsworth looks rather small for the benefit gained. If BAA had started buying houses up there over the years as they come onto the market, and just renting them out short term in the meantime, much of the opposition could have been contained.

Reinstating the UK short-haul services which have been lost over the years would be a huge gain for BA and they should be supporting it actively, to pick up the connecting traffic which gets forced through Amsterdam (particularly)
and other near-Continent points. At the national policy level the Government should be encouraging UK traffic from the regions onto UK airlines, rather than allowing slot sales which let in the tenth me-too 3-class traditional service carrier to New York.

[Trinity 09L]

What would be the glide slope on easterlies, with the height of the M4/M25 intersection on the approach? Do the aircraft get to the CTA or just remain in the "new" area, so if the runway became non operational for any reason, would aircraft be stranded?