Heathrow Plans (Merged)

[mickyman]

Considering that jetfuel burn is credited with 2% of the global
CO2 'problem' more aircraft flying/holding will not really dent
this statistic.

R3 will not be built within the next ten years.

Liberalism has taken over the asylum

Substitute 'Green' for 'PC' isms.

A curse be on the middle class liberals and all who
represent them.

MM

[Re-Heat]

Perhaps the answer to the missing "3" in the old map, is that there were in fact planned runways to the North already, in place of the other airfield that was in fact previously located over there...

[daved123]

Put a date to it..

This was the layout when I joined Pan Am in May 1961, working in telecoms upstairs from the International departure lounge in the building located by the pointer from 'London Airport North'
In the Central area the 'South East Pax Bldg' was used for domestic flights and later became Terminal 1
In early 1963 we re-located to a building adjacent to the Pan American hangar which does not exist on the map (bottom right) at this time, located between the small access road to the apron and the pointer line from the title, so this makes the map pre-1962 at least.
Incidentally, runway No 2 (NE-SW near BOAC hangars) was used for cross-wind landings from the NE but FD crews had to be aware when lining up for landing not to confuse the visual cue of the large gasometer at Southall with the similar large gasometer at Harrow which would lead to landing at Northolt airport, as a PanAm B707 skipper managed to do
Said gasometers later gained large white lettering NO and LH.

daved

[AirScrew]

Why Sipson??

As a PPL, I have no professional view as a site surveyor or ATC'er.

But I see there may be an alternate to Sipson (ie a // 3rd runway to the north)

Many of you will be familiar with EDDF/FRA, and the 3rd runway layout.
Could this work at LHR??

There is land to the west, // to the M25 in a 02/20 NNE/SSW layout, with what looks like a clear 4.5km.

Stanwell Moor would loose some houses, but in my estimation far fewer than Sipson, and without the old A4 Bath road impact.

Access appears possible either south or north of T5, or both.

Downside is that there would not be room for T6.

So;

Q. ATC, can this layout accommodate the same volume as the Sipson layout, or does the conflict significantly reduce the volume compared to // ops??

Q. Are the approach/takeoff areas more or less of an issue than Sipson??

Q. Is the wind/weather a serious issue for 02/20??

Q. Do we definitely need more terminal space, or is T5 and a redeveloped T2/3 enough??


Any other thoughts, pro or con??

[llondel]

Skipness One Echo:

Stansted as London's #1 is fantasy.

I know, it's just that it's only 30 minutes' drive from here, compared to Heathrow's 90+M25effect. It would make more sense than Heathrow for anyone who wasn't in London or the SE, but no one else matters. I used to work in Bishops Stortford so I'm well aware of the opinion of the locals. I have some sympathy, although the airport was there before they were.

That's the problem with a brand new site - it suddenly affects a load of people who might have chosen to live there because there were no main roads or low-flying aircraft nearby. The same goes for other things such as football stadia - if you move next to one then you've got very few grounds for complaint about matchday noise, but if they suddenly come along and build one in the big field next to your quiet house, you've got a lot more reason to be aggrieved.

EGLD:

The Tories will be elected and scrap this along with ID cards.

No, they'll manage to do nothing so that by default it happens and they get to blame it on the present Labour government, especially if they don't have to pay towards it. Hopefully not as true with ID cards.

Ultimately the greens will lose until they persuade enough people to stop flying (or the price goes up and people can't afford to fly). Only then will there be enough opinion on their side to influence politicians to the required degree.

[befree]

People are flying less. The pound is going to stay weak and expansion is dead.
The greenwash they are applying will cost billions and no one has the billions to pay for it. BAA is broke, BA is broke. A bigger LHR will mean BA having to expand to keep others out. Also BAA are going to waste billions on planning while the existing system collapse

[nuclear weapon]

If a third runway is needed then it nshoulld be built. I dont know why all these emotionally blinded environmental loonies are taken seriously. They talk of global warming yet Europe is going through the cooldest winter in decades. Modern aircraft are quieter more fuel efficient and safer. Perherps we should try driving across the atlantic if we're allowed to build a bridge that would do the job.
It is far more greener to fly 400 pax on a modern jummbo jet than than to have them drive if that were possible.

[Walnut]

After the New York A320 crash today maybe one should consider the effects of a similar incident off the end of the new proposed runway. The M25 would not be a pretty site.

[MUFC_fan]

After the New York A320 crash today maybe one should consider the effects of a similar incident off the end of the new proposed runway. The M25 would not be a pretty site.

Canary Warf would be less pretty than the M25, both to look at and for the economy as a whole.

Overall, there are a number of problems for the third runway including more flights, more pollution etc. BUT how does it benefit us?

Firstly, as has been said many times, this creates more jobs for the British economy which is fantastic however you look at it. It has been quoted at up to 100,000 people I believe?

Secondly, although we will probably see an increase in emissions in the short term due to increased flights, these will probably be reduced when the runway is completed when we would expect the 787 and 350 to be in full swing and new short haul aircraft in the air which should be more eco-friendly. Also, with a new runway it will reduce the time planes spent in the air waiting to line as smaller aircraft such as the A320 and B737 will be using the new runway which will make more room on the other runways increasing efficiency.

And, personally, I believe the most important factor is that Heathrow remains ahead of Paris CDG, Amsterdam Schiphol and Frankfurt Main. Heathrow is seen as the world's hub, although it is third in the list and it really needs to maintain it's status. This facility is a British necessity and no doubt benefits our economy most likely more than any other facility in the country. 000's of jobs are supported by Heathrow whether you are CEO of BAA or a taxi driver living in London.

The new runway will provide a number of problems but I believe for the sake of our economy, our welfare and our future, a third runway will pit the airport against Chicago and Atlanta for capacity and with Schipol and Changi for quality.

[PPRuNe Radar]

After the New York A320 crash today maybe one should consider the effects of a similar incident off the end of the new proposed runway. The M25 would not be a pretty site.

Take that to its logical conclusion and we should maybe close every airfield in the world ??

[Walnut]

The logical conclusion is you do not add to airport capacity in built up areas, look at Munich, Paris, Frankfurt etc, etc. This accident is a wake up call to airport planners, we had a very near miss at LHR recently, and they were very lucky yesterday in New York. All future planning should consider this problem, rural sites with high speed transit links like Hong Kong must be the way ahead.

[Michael SWS]

Originally Posted by llondel

I know, it's just that it [Stansted] i's only 30 minutes' drive from here, compared to Heathrow's 90+M25effect. It would make more sense than Heathrow for anyone who wasn't in London or the SE, but no one else matters.

I would guess that Heathrow is more convenient than Stansted for the majority of people in the UK. For everyone except those who live in Essex and East Anglia, Stansted is in the middle of nowhere, and difficult and expensive to get to.

There should be a complete stop to airport expansion in the UK. We need better airports, not bigger ones.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Does anyone know why mix-mode isn't used at Heathrow?

[6chimes]

F S

Re mixed mode. I was under the impression (could be wrong) that the runways are to close together and that is why the new runway is to be so far away (min 1km).

Even with modern technology the proximity of the runways and the possibility of Go rounds on each runway a mid air collision is still not out of the question.

Thats my understanding.

6

[Skipness One Echo]

Does anyone know why mix-mode isn't used at Heathrow?

The runways are used in mixed mode before 7am, however due to the massive number of houses under the flightpath, to give them a degree of respite from incessant heavies over their houses, the landing and departure runways are switched at 3pm when landing to the West. Until yesterday, this did not apply on the other end when landing was always on 09L and departure on 09R. This was known as the Cranford agreement, which Geoff Hoon announced yesterday was being abolished. Hence landings and departures will now swap over at 3pm when landing to the East in the future.

It is NOT an issue of the runways being too close together as you can see 747-400s shooting the approach in parallel most days.

[ORAC]

After the New York A320 crash today maybe one should consider the effects of a similar incident off the end of the new proposed runway. The M25 would not be a pretty site.

The east and west approaches to LHR are not renowned breeding sites or migration routes for geese or other fowl.

On the other hand, the alternate site of the Thames estuary being proposed is such an area. I would suggest that the chances of such an occurence happening would be far, far higher there than inside the M25.

[Gonzo]

Hence landings and departures will now swap over at 3pm when landing to the East in the future.

Great.

Can't wait.

Trying to get T4 outbounds to the 09L holding area will take hours!

[MUFC_fan]

There should be a complete stop to airport expansion in the UK. We need better airports, not bigger ones.

Economically, that is suicide.

Imagine, if American wanted to launch a new service from say, Phoenix to Europe, and naturally, LHR is the airport of choice but because of a new laws in the UK stating all airports cannot expand, they have to fly to BRU instead meaning less money coming into the UK with all those people on board ready to spend their money.

In a mixed market it is not possible to let airports refrain from growing at all. You can look at places such as Stansted who have had limits on the number of passengers but these have been limits set ahead of their current passenger numbers, well...when it was first introduced. It is like a dictatorship saying that an airport cannot do anything until they are improved - what right do the government have to tell business how to run unless it becomes a social cost that affects the government?

This is one of the reasons why the EU has not included aviation in the carbon trading scheme. If somebody was flying from Kuala Lumpar to New York. Their intention would be to fly KUL-LHR-JFK with BA but because they now have huge fees on pollution permits it is more cheaper to fly via DXB or DOH which again, takes business away from the UK and Europe. It also makes it less attractive for foreign airlines to fly into the EU.

We are in a global market and we need to keep up and in some cases stay ahead of the rest of the world.

[mickyman]

I am not a fan of the 'big-bang' theory of Economics.

MM

[13 please]

Incidently, there are numbers of Canada Geese residing in the park by Waterside.

They very regularly fly over my roof, I love watching them.You can hear them coming from quite a distance.

Funnily enough the route they take is the very route of the proposed 3rd runway..!! The park is just off what would be the end of the runway..