New London airport
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why has no one mentioned Northolt as a domestic feed for LHR, it has a totally underused R/W, with plenty of space for a new terminal. I appreciate its used by the military and polititions but I don't see R/W sharing to be a security problem.
It would be very easy to build a high speed monorail into LHR, say into the new T1. Surely this would cause less upheaval than destroying a 1000+ houses north of 27R. in order to build the planned 3rd R/W. It would also be up and running much sooner.
It would be very easy to build a high speed monorail into LHR, say into the new T1. Surely this would cause less upheaval than destroying a 1000+ houses north of 27R. in order to build the planned 3rd R/W. It would also be up and running much sooner.
Paxing All Over The World
EGLL has FAR too much of it's customer base out in Berkshire, Wiltshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Surrey etc. for this to work. You have companies that have spread out along the M4 corridor BECAUSE of LHR.
There are 60 years of commercial and domestic development based on EGLL. No one is going to change that. Perhaps it was possible 20 years ago to instigate a new international field in the South East but not now. Further, that new field was never going to be east of London due to the massive amounts of pax in the central and southern part of the UK.
Secondly, the development of 'PrivatAir' type operations will take load away from EGLL and free up capacity. Also, the development of CO using 75s from BRS and 76s (I think) from GLA and the expansion of MAN have reduced load from them, as much as the LCCs using regional fields. Yes, of course, much of this is new traffic but much of it removed from Heathrow.
Thirdly, Northolt has been discussed in here a number of times and the military keep a very firm hold on it and, IIRC, their flight paths do not intersect in a good way with LTMA. They are OK for the small number of operations that they have now but NOT for a mainstream operation. (I sit to be corrected) Not to mention the considerable number of wealthy people in that area who will successfully bellyache if Northolt were to be seriously put forward as the third runway. Personally, I think it was the obvious answer. Domestic services pax would never go to LHR and a rapid transit system could link the place to LHR. But it will not happen.
What will happen is that the status quo will be maintained. We have missed the chance to be an AMS, CDG, FRA and will just mosey along with dear old LHR as grotty as always. The objective of all concerned is just to slightly expand LHR but never too much in one go, so as to produce a really serious opposition. Slowly, slowly, they are catching the monkey.
Lastly, this is just electioneering by Boris. He knows that big biz will never allow LHR to close or be replaced. He is saying this because he is standing for an election in London. Therefore, there is no discussion to be had!
There are 60 years of commercial and domestic development based on EGLL. No one is going to change that. Perhaps it was possible 20 years ago to instigate a new international field in the South East but not now. Further, that new field was never going to be east of London due to the massive amounts of pax in the central and southern part of the UK.
Secondly, the development of 'PrivatAir' type operations will take load away from EGLL and free up capacity. Also, the development of CO using 75s from BRS and 76s (I think) from GLA and the expansion of MAN have reduced load from them, as much as the LCCs using regional fields. Yes, of course, much of this is new traffic but much of it removed from Heathrow.
Thirdly, Northolt has been discussed in here a number of times and the military keep a very firm hold on it and, IIRC, their flight paths do not intersect in a good way with LTMA. They are OK for the small number of operations that they have now but NOT for a mainstream operation. (I sit to be corrected) Not to mention the considerable number of wealthy people in that area who will successfully bellyache if Northolt were to be seriously put forward as the third runway. Personally, I think it was the obvious answer. Domestic services pax would never go to LHR and a rapid transit system could link the place to LHR. But it will not happen.
What will happen is that the status quo will be maintained. We have missed the chance to be an AMS, CDG, FRA and will just mosey along with dear old LHR as grotty as always. The objective of all concerned is just to slightly expand LHR but never too much in one go, so as to produce a really serious opposition. Slowly, slowly, they are catching the monkey.
Lastly, this is just electioneering by Boris. He knows that big biz will never allow LHR to close or be replaced. He is saying this because he is standing for an election in London. Therefore, there is no discussion to be had!
Guest
Posts: n/a
YOU ARE ALL MISSING A POINT!!
I make no apologies for shouting as I said this more than 5 years ago.
If you subtract the passengers originating in the UK mainland who are forced to travel to Heathrow because they can't fly direct to the continent of their choice (or because the numpty tavel agent knows no better) then the London Airports would work.
Africa, South America, Australia and New Zealand. Can you commence your journey from the UK without a change of guage other than from Heathrow?
Vested interests from Government, Financial Institutions and the Travel Industry have failed to deliver effective Open Sky policies to the greater UK population for years. It's a bloomin' scandal.
I'm so angry now I need a shag!
Sir George Cayley
I make no apologies for shouting as I said this more than 5 years ago.
If you subtract the passengers originating in the UK mainland who are forced to travel to Heathrow because they can't fly direct to the continent of their choice (or because the numpty tavel agent knows no better) then the London Airports would work.
Africa, South America, Australia and New Zealand. Can you commence your journey from the UK without a change of guage other than from Heathrow?
Vested interests from Government, Financial Institutions and the Travel Industry have failed to deliver effective Open Sky policies to the greater UK population for years. It's a bloomin' scandal.
I'm so angry now I need a shag!
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD67,
Using the old 23 cut down the airport's capacity significantly. Also, to be able to use it in the first place, we had to clear eight stands of all aircraft, and another two of large aircraft.
Using the old 23 cut down the airport's capacity significantly. Also, to be able to use it in the first place, we had to clear eight stands of all aircraft, and another two of large aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can build as many airports as you like but if you havn't got the capacity in the air there is little point...... !!!!!!!
Look at the South East - Stansted, Luton, Heathrow, City, Gatwick, not to mention Northolt, Farnborough, Biggin etc.
If a number of flights had been allowed to originate in that part of the UK where the original demand existed we would not be in the situation where we are now.
In the 60s,70s,.and 80s, Pan Am, TWA, by way of example plus numerous other carriers all applied and failed to serve MANCHESTER, bilateral agreements at the time forced them all into Heathrow (..there was the option of Prestwick would you believe which through historical precedent was the ONLY designated "other" UK gateway.
Result - we now have a situation where it is more ecomonic to put a minimum of 20+ flights a day from Australia, India, Africa, China, Hong Kong into the Soth East. This despite 25% of these pax travelling to the North of England and indeed Scotland.
We reap what we sow !
Look at the South East - Stansted, Luton, Heathrow, City, Gatwick, not to mention Northolt, Farnborough, Biggin etc.
If a number of flights had been allowed to originate in that part of the UK where the original demand existed we would not be in the situation where we are now.
In the 60s,70s,.and 80s, Pan Am, TWA, by way of example plus numerous other carriers all applied and failed to serve MANCHESTER, bilateral agreements at the time forced them all into Heathrow (..there was the option of Prestwick would you believe which through historical precedent was the ONLY designated "other" UK gateway.
Result - we now have a situation where it is more ecomonic to put a minimum of 20+ flights a day from Australia, India, Africa, China, Hong Kong into the Soth East. This despite 25% of these pax travelling to the North of England and indeed Scotland.
We reap what we sow !
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
G. Cayley,
Indeed. Maybe the arrival of the 787 will change the economic playing field a bit.
Bagso,
Also That is why Emirates now operate A330s from any non-London runway which will take one, into Dubai - where they then connect with zillions of points East and South.
If I am coming from, say, Birmingham, going to, say, Hong Kong, then no matter what I do, I will have to make a connection. Hmmm.... do I want to have (what will become) a one-hour flight to the crowded flea-pit that is Heathrow before joining my crowded 14-hour jaunt to HK, or will I do everything in the relative calm of BHX, have a better-organised and smoother and less-walking change in DXB, plus break the journey and maybe have a swim or a shower on the way... Hmmm.....
DXB getting too crowded? Oh, ok, no problem, I'll try EY or Qatar. All beating down my door for business.
This is why EK can fill two flights a day from DXB to each of Sydney and Melbourne and are now the biggest non-Australian operator into Australia. And why there's still room for Etihad and Qatar to come in. Much as I love London, not everyone who travels from the UK lives within the M25.
If BA were to arrange for regular trains to run from Birmingham to Stansted and put some meaningful L/H ops there, they would open up a whole new catchment which is currently going to the opposition.
The easy way to do this is to get BAA to change its charging structure. That is, LHR becomes the hub for long-haul - so keep charges low for long-haul and passengers connecting to/from long-haul, but ramp them up for short-haul point-to-point pax (eg. someone flying from Edinburgh or Brussels to London and not then connecting).
Then, drop charges for such point-to-pointers at other airports - eg. Stansted and Gatwick. The idea is to encourage point-to-point services away from LHR.
Also, keep charges for new long-haul entrants to Stansted low - so if, for example, Air Asia or Jetstar decide to come to London, the go to Stansted rather than try to get into LHR (or even LGW).
Why do airlines think there's a 'prestige' to operating to LHR? The place is a pit! The only reason I can think is so that they can then 'show off' their home airport with a stark comparison!
Indeed. Maybe the arrival of the 787 will change the economic playing field a bit.
Bagso,
Also
That is why Emirates now operate A330s from any non-London runway which will take one, into Dubai - where they then connect with zillions of points East and South.If I am coming from, say, Birmingham, going to, say, Hong Kong, then no matter what I do, I will have to make a connection. Hmmm.... do I want to have (what will become) a one-hour flight to the crowded flea-pit that is Heathrow before joining my crowded 14-hour jaunt to HK, or will I do everything in the relative calm of BHX, have a better-organised and smoother and less-walking change in DXB, plus break the journey and maybe have a swim or a shower on the way... Hmmm.....
DXB getting too crowded? Oh, ok, no problem, I'll try EY or Qatar. All beating down my door for business.
This is why EK can fill two flights a day from DXB to each of Sydney and Melbourne and are now the biggest non-Australian operator into Australia. And why there's still room for Etihad and Qatar to come in. Much as I love London, not everyone who travels from the UK lives within the M25.
If BA were to arrange for regular trains to run from Birmingham to Stansted and put some meaningful L/H ops there, they would open up a whole new catchment which is currently going to the opposition.
The easy way to do this is to get BAA to change its charging structure. That is, LHR becomes the hub for long-haul - so keep charges low for long-haul and passengers connecting to/from long-haul, but ramp them up for short-haul point-to-point pax (eg. someone flying from Edinburgh or Brussels to London and not then connecting).
Then, drop charges for such point-to-pointers at other airports - eg. Stansted and Gatwick. The idea is to encourage point-to-point services away from LHR.
Also, keep charges for new long-haul entrants to Stansted low - so if, for example, Air Asia or Jetstar decide to come to London, the go to Stansted rather than try to get into LHR (or even LGW).
Why do airlines think there's a 'prestige' to operating to LHR? The place is a pit! The only reason I can think is so that they can then 'show off' their home airport with a stark comparison!
Last edited by Taildragger67; 29th Feb 2008 at 08:23.
Paxing All Over The World
There is no 'decision' to be made. As beautifully exampled by Taildragger67, the regional options are now very good and breaking a long journey in the middle may be much better than breaking it after only one hour.
However, there is no possibility that train services between the main UK fields are going to happen and just look at how long it took to build the high speed line to the Chunnel for Eurostar??!!!
Nope, the 'decision' was to do nothing and it was taken repeatedly across the last 30 years. New routings have presented themselves and there is no desire or market for a new (and massive) international hub in the UK. So we can all relax.
However, there is no possibility that train services between the main UK fields are going to happen and just look at how long it took to build the high speed line to the Chunnel for Eurostar??!!!
Nope, the 'decision' was to do nothing and it was taken repeatedly across the last 30 years. New routings have presented themselves and there is no desire or market for a new (and massive) international hub in the UK. So we can all relax.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is far cheaper to run a UK-Far East/Australasia service from the middle (i.e. Dubai or similar) than it is from one end. The savings on crew costs alone must be incredibly high.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Gonzo,
Hence the only European carriers flying to Oz are BA and VS: BA because it's one route they could never be seen to be abandoning, and VS because BA go there! And they both only go to one port (BA having gone to MEL, BNE and PER in the recent past, plus all the hop-stops in the very early days). Even QF have a BKK CC base and very few CC from SYD and LHR bases do the whole trip (hence they are essentially operating matching point-to-point services as far as CC are concerned).
Hence the only European carriers flying to Oz are BA and VS: BA because it's one route they could never be seen to be abandoning, and VS because BA go there! And they both only go to one port (BA having gone to MEL, BNE and PER in the recent past, plus all the hop-stops in the very early days). Even QF have a BKK CC base and very few CC from SYD and LHR bases do the whole trip (hence they are essentially operating matching point-to-point services as far as CC are concerned).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Protest against LHR 3rd runway
More power to their elbow(s) Absolutely right. With all the alternative airports that ring London (see previous posts to this thread) there is absolutely no need to rip out whole communities and wreck peoples lives in order to satisfy greed.
Absolutely right. With all the alternative airports that ring London (see previous posts to this thread) there is absolutely no need to rip out whole communities and wreck peoples lives in order to satisfy greed.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right too. I've always found these environmentalists to be most consistent in their arguments and are very reasonable. Jolly good of their bosses to give them the day off work too. I mean the only reason that they want to expand Heathrow is that the free market wants it. Better to regulate the market and fragment the traffic across the UK, that way those nasty airlines will make less money. Hounslow as we all know is an area of outstanding beauty, and that horrid new Terminal 5 was build upon a traditional sewage works of historical interest. How we miss the smell.
Better to concrete over a whole new part of England rather than work with what we already have. I look forward to the day that I can get the train to New York and cycle to Dubai.
Leave the nice people of Sipson alone. It's a jolly quiet place full of community spirit, spoilt slightly by the noise of the occasional aeroplane. How it will be missed! We must NOT destroy a village ( one village ) for the greater good of the UK. That's just insane.
I'm off to hug a polar bear. I hear they like that. Listen to the voice of Thailand in the post above. He must be in the loop knowing my country SO well bless him.
Better to concrete over a whole new part of England rather than work with what we already have. I look forward to the day that I can get the train to New York and cycle to Dubai.
Leave the nice people of Sipson alone. It's a jolly quiet place full of community spirit, spoilt slightly by the noise of the occasional aeroplane. How it will be missed! We must NOT destroy a village ( one village ) for the greater good of the UK. That's just insane.
I'm off to hug a polar bear. I hear they like that. Listen to the voice of Thailand in the post above. He must be in the loop knowing my country SO well bless him.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Skippy! Got back yesterday after 3 months in the UK . Heathrow very passenger unfriendly as usual. The neanderthal bellowing "get yer shoes orf 'ere" whilst leaning against a barrier said it all really.
We do not need a third runway at Heathrow. There are some very good arguments against it in this thread. Only a small percentage of passenges actually arrive from central London to depart via Heathrow. Putting to one side the proposal for a new airport in the Thames estuary, using the many peripheral airports that already circle the city most of which have adequate runway capacity will make it more convenient for the majority of UK passengers proceeding overseas. Why waste money when the basic infrastructure is already in place?
PS - it's good to be back in a land of sanity
PPS - and I am a Brit actually
. Heathrow very passenger unfriendly as usual. The neanderthal bellowing "get yer shoes orf 'ere" whilst leaning against a barrier said it all really.We do not need a third runway at Heathrow. There are some very good arguments against it in this thread. Only a small percentage of passenges actually arrive from central London to depart via Heathrow. Putting to one side the proposal for a new airport in the Thames estuary, using the many peripheral airports that already circle the city most of which have adequate runway capacity will make it more convenient for the majority of UK passengers proceeding overseas. Why waste money when the basic infrastructure is already in place?
PS - it's good to be back in a land of sanity
PPS - and I am a Brit actually
Last edited by Xeque; 27th Feb 2008 at 12:34.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's what BA thought when they moved en masse into Gatwick. They lost a fortune as the revenue stayed at Heathrow and used other carriers. Needless to say the aircraft were moved back to Heathrow.
"Why waste money when the basic infrastructure is already in place?" Because the daft b******* still use LHR. As did you.
"Why waste money when the basic infrastructure is already in place?" Because the daft b******* still use LHR. As did you.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What infrastructure is it that I have missed working at LHR for 40 years. Is it the M25 car park very shortly to get even worse, is it the tube which is bursting at the seems during rush hour and only favours those with no baggage. Is it the rail link or A4 / A30 ? I am amazed that we in the UK transport think that by continually tacking things on it will improve business, please lets not go with this imaginary infrastructure that are in place. Some of you are BA flight crew coming to LHR about twice a month so I doubt you are qualified to comment on what it is like for everyone else on a daily basis and some of you probably have never used it.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA also used to let you check in at Victoria before boarding the Gatwick Express, was a great service, you got rid of the luggage early and went straight to departures at the airport.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
BA had a full check-in at Victoria, in the shopping mall to the south of, and attached to, the main station concourse, until about 2002 or 2003. Just outside the check-in area there was an escalator down to the Gatwick Express platform so you could check in and go straight down to the train. Excellent facility.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a thought. Why don't we just have one giant check-in in central London and then despatch passengers with their carry-on bags on dedicated trains, coaches or limo's to whichever peripheral airport their chosen carrier happens to be sitting at? We used to have the West London Terminal (which operated in just the way I suggest) as well as the check-in desks at Victoria and Paddington (??? not really sure about Paddington). Anyway - no need for a third runway at Heathrow and we make better use of the airports we already have - Luton, Stansted, Gatwick, Northholt, Biggin Hill even Farnborough.
Last edited by Xeque; 29th Feb 2008 at 08:18. Reason: typo - always one more typo :-(
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Building a new airport presupposes that they then shut down Heathrow , Gatwick, Stansted and Luton and City ....which is not going to happen.
Would one major airport similar to say Chicago or Atlanta at least provide massive improvements in flow rate, which at the moment is governed by traffic trying to climb/descend and pass each other in opposing directions.
As has been mentioned numerous times you can build as many runways and terminals as you like but it is impossible to increase the main governing factor which is airspace. The CAA and NATS have indicated that there are no dramatic technical improvements on the horizon which will improve that situation.
...things might improve for you Southerners if you wernt so burdened with the Scots, Irish, Geordies and Mancunians all being forced into the South East.
Would one major airport similar to say Chicago or Atlanta at least provide massive improvements in flow rate, which at the moment is governed by traffic trying to climb/descend and pass each other in opposing directions.
As has been mentioned numerous times you can build as many runways and terminals as you like but it is impossible to increase the main governing factor which is airspace. The CAA and NATS have indicated that there are no dramatic technical improvements on the horizon which will improve that situation.
...things might improve for you Southerners if you wernt so burdened with the Scots, Irish, Geordies and Mancunians all being forced into the South East.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yes there was a full check-in at Paddo. Another victim of the post-Sep 2001 downturn.
The 'giant central check-in' you suggest - it's called online check-in these days.
The 'giant central check-in' you suggest - it's called online check-in these days.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The birds
As some people may be aware the migration pattern of our feathered friends tends to follow the east coast. They have been doing this for rather a long time and it is one of the reasons why Cliffe was turned down.
It is also as well to remember that airspace is in rather short supply, particularly in The Clacton sector.
It is also as well to remember that airspace is in rather short supply, particularly in The Clacton sector.