Heathrow Plans (Merged)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<london city is close to heathrow and that works - i'm sure with some re-organisation, northolt could get more flights in an out, lots more.>>

Amen brother... Have you looked at the runway configurations at Heathrow and Northolt? On easterly operations, the Northolt approach path is kinked to keep it clear of Heathrow landers. This could present problems!

[betpump5]

With regards to a new airport in the Thames Estuary, that is just a piece of propaganda whenever someone talks about a new runway at LHR.

Lets get something straight. London is not Dubai. You can not just ship over 200'000 Asians to build the airport 24/7 over 3 years, dirt cheap and with no 'elf 'n' safety' regime. A new airport in a country like the UK would be the most expensive infrastructure project in the Western World, will go well over budget and will probably take the best part of 20 years to build. It is not going to happen.

You will never ever be able to justify that amount of money being spent when the capital already has 4 airports - or is it 5 airports now with "London" Oxford!

Common sense will prevail - i.e Stansted/ Gatwick/ Heathrow will get a new runway, regardless of what Greenpeace think or say. London needs a new runway and adding a runway to an existing airport is by far the cheapest and most sensible option to building a whole new airport.

A new airport will not happen. If environmental groups and/or airport neighbours succeed in stopping a new runway being built, then that is it. There will be no new airport.

[Uncle Fred]

Common sense will prevail - i.e Stansted/ Gatwick/ Heathrow will get a new runway, regardless of what Greenpeace think or say

I appreciate the optimism and hope that it is true! Be careful however, with the extending the proposition to other areas of life that common sense will prevail! It seems to suffer brutal defeats at almost every turn and seldom finds itself wearing the victor's laurels. It often has to fight battles not only on all sides, but more often than not, uphill as well. Knowing its humble station in life has made it modest and unexpecting of too much other than the very basics

Surprsingly though, concrete can and does still get poured even in the Western World. SEA, DEN, ORD, and IAD all opened new runways on the same day a number of months past so it can be done even thought it seemed impossible.

Of course the determination of those who like Uncle Vanya wish to "go back to the trees" is fierce!

[Amen_Brother]

sure, i understand that northolt and heathrow are close, i just dont believe its not possible to make it work (it works at the moment after all, albeit with very few movements at northolt). if you built a new runway, just to the south of the A40, it could be almost exactly east/west, parallel to the LHR approach - just like the third runway being suggested for LHR itself... if that can work - why not this solution? the empty space is there waiting to be used, the infra structure is largely there and we wont have to knock anyone's semi down.

betpump 5, i agree, the time for building an all new airport with a better location than heathrow was in the seventies.

Skipness, its not simplistic to me, the reason the pax/airlines stay at LHR is because it has no proper competition - i'm just floating an expansion of northolt as an idea, but in parallel to that stansted could be DRAMATICALLY improved and then i believe that airlines will move from heathrow, leaving it for BA etc. it would only take a small reduction of the traffic going into LHR to make it run much more efficiently. Also, we're talking about the long term here, you’re assuming that the status quo with BA/STAR running the show is going to continue and although i wish them well, that may not be the case.

[tc_atco]

As previously mentioned a new airport in the thames estuary is such a difficult and expensive proposition it practically makes it a non-starter. Think cost, logistics and then airspace changes that'll be so heavily contested it'll make the current legal challenges to proposed runways seem like minor squabbles.
Also who's going to pay for it with BAA investing so much money in LHR they won't be interested, the government is hardly awash with cash and anyone with a spare billion or two looking to get involved in aviation will buy Gatwick before they pour it down a black hole in the thames estuary.
Northolt similarly has its problems, it is extremely close to LHR and the fact that its runway is not parallel to heathrows' means that integration of more flights becomes more tricky. Other obstacles include the fact that the RAF are incredibly unlikely to sell it as it is an extremely useful base for them and they can simultaenously make a few quid out of it. If I remember rightly landing fees and movements are strictly regulated by the CAA as they were lobbied hard by farnborough and biggin as the RAF were undercutting them and taking business.
Whichever way you look at it another runway at one of the existing airports is the more likely option, although how likely that is is another matter altogether. The country as a whole needs to have a serious debate over what role air transport will have in the future in this country and whether we want to remain a major international hub or not.

[Skipness One Echo]

Skipness, its not simplistic to me, the reason the pax/airlines stay at LHR is because it has no proper competition

The proper competition is Amsterdam with the KLM hub, Frankfurt with the Lufthansa / STAR hub and Paris CDG with the Air France hub. In London, Heathrow competes with Gatwick, London City, Stansted and Luton for business, the market has seen to it that each has it's own area of success.

So there is shed-loads of competition there, I fail to see what your point is. What competition is lacking and how do you intend to make it happen? With four major competing airports your solution is a fifth at Northolt to fragment things further?

[Amen_Brother]

clearly the foreign airports are in competition, i was referring to the other london airports. if one of them were expanded; could take traffic from heathrow and become a proper hub airport, then the airlines remaining at LHR would benefit from reduced delays. you're suggesting that london can only have one hub airport, plus some also-rans (LGW STN LTN), otherwise the whole thing wont work. i disagree. i think spreading the traffic out (planes and cars) would be a good thing. spreading the risk of disruption due to terrorism, major incidents at LHR or on the M25/M4 etc would be a very good thing.

BA and one world could still have its hub at LHR. Other airlines can go elsewhere. i don’t see the problem, i see benefits.

Northolt is a side issue - i have just always been surprised that we were prepared to build a runway on a small east end dock and yet northolt, with all its potential to serve the city of london, is virtually idle.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Amen brother. With great respect, I'm not sure that you understand how the air traffic system works. Developing Northolt would not necessarily make any difference to delays at Heathrow as it's an airspace problem. The same aircraft are going to have to fly the same routes so the same problems arises when they get airborne. Inbound aircraft to Northolt which fly the airways system are treated like Heathrow inbounds so, far from reducing landing delays, the problem would be exacerbated if Northolt had a significant increase in traffic.

Northolt is far to close to Heathrow to make any significant difference to road problems - have you tried driving through Hayes at rush hour?

Also, as mentioned earlier, the runway configuration is far from ideal and would be unsuitbale for anything heaver than the existing business jets and military aircraft which frequent the place.

[Monkey Madness]

HD has pretty much covered most things, but just to add some other info:

Civilian movements at Northolt are capped by the government (Think it's around the 7k/year mark), but there are no restrictions on Mil/Govt sponsored flights.

Landing fees for MoD airfields are set by the MoD as per Joint Service Publication (JSP) 360. Northolt do charge higher fees, but that is set to be competitive with the other London airports rather than trying to undercut them (we like to make cash too).

Runway configuration/airspace issues will always be a problem. a 40 deg dogleg at 4nm from TD on Rwy 07 is sporting on a bad weather day as Northolt only has SRA or PAR approaches available (no ILS, as you can't bend it). Any increase in movements when on Easterlies causes more work for Heathrow's INT Directors. If LHR get their 3rd runway then they would have to effectivly loose a landing spot on the new 09L in order to vector a Northolt 07 arrival. BTW there is an onging study into the potential of an ILS to 07.... with a few airspace changes

Building a new runway south of the A40 would cause the same airspace prediciment as having a 3rd at LHR - minimum horizontal seperation would be lost (currently 3.2nm between LHR 09L and NHT 07).

Re-alligning Northolt with LHR could potentially work - increase length at the Ichkenham end, but it too has it's own airspace issues (SID/STAR's)

Re-activating Rwy 12 instead of using 07 - LDA would be around 4700', which is bloody short, so big jets are out - not to mention the fact that a postal sorting office has been built at the end of it!

The short of it - IMHO - Northolt could handel more flights, (if it were permitted/given government funding), but to do this at the level they are looking at to get the 3rd at LHR, I don't think it's possible.

Also, as HD said, "have you tried driving through Hayes at rush hour", traffic around the Polish War Memorial junction of the A40 is far from ideal at current levels, let alone if we expanded that much!

MM

[Sir George Cayley]

er, i've said this b4, so at the risk of boring tout:

LHR's 3rd RWY is located to the south - just next to the 2 existing ones at Gatwick.

LHR struggle to meet today's air quality targets, which have as much to do with vehicles as planes and are st to tighten in years to come. The recent fudge in seeming to lengthen the proposed 3rd rwy from the original 2500m or so for 'comuter' a/c to 3000m just strengthens my argument.

After a good fight the Govt of the day will capitulate on LHR and go for LGW instead. Don't let the 2019 embargo fool you either. It took Manchester 10 years to get a 2nd runway, so even today LGW's won't be ready till 2022 (10 + LHR public inquiry) Funny, thats, just when it will be really needed.

The Cranford Agreement will go and hence the introduction of independent mixed mode ops at LHR will offer some short term relief.

Sir George Cayley

[Traffic is...]

The Cranford Agreement has gone, it's just that no procedures have been developed yet to take this into account. It was ditched with the approval of the 3rd runway.

[cheesycol]

If LGW is such a realistic option, then why have so many long haul carriers upped sticks and moved ops to LHR post Open-Skies? LGW at the mo is mainly LoCo and charter.

It's the status of and brand of LHR that ensures it's popularity with airlines. We know it as chaotic, at capacity and in need of investment, but it's popularity is due to the same reasons that Kennedy is more popular than Newark, de Gaulle vs Orly, Malpensa vs Linate etc. The secondary airports have a role, but expansion will be concentrated at the most established.

LHR will get it's next runway, irrespective of the party in charge, and I would expect LGW to get another one in the fullness of time. UK Plc simply doesn't have the funds, or the stomach to build a an estuary airport, and it doesn't need to.

Northolt however.......you don't know west London very well if you think that's going to happen!

[Amen_Brother]

thanks for the replies Re: Northolt

i do appreciate how the air traffic system works (pilot, not ATC) and how congested the London area is. However, if expanded operations at Northolt, perhaps on a new 2500m runway parallel to LHRs would cause more congestion in Londons terminal airspace, wouldn’t a third runway at LHR will achieve the same result? it further strengthens the case for giving it to LGW or wherever?

i've run out of suggestions anyway, its a shame this was not thought about pre-terminal 4 / stansted etc, a different location is what was really needed..

[The Real Slim Shady]

London's 3rd,4th and 5th runways are already in existence and have the capacity and terminal capacity to cope.

They are connected via high speed rail to central London and the beer and chocolate is great.

London Brussels: how about it?

[Sir George Cayley]

Picking up on the drift from LGW to LHR. Heathrow have known that LGW was to be sold and hence grabbed the premium traffic and developed the Loco business model.

BA were a willing partner in this as part of their future London Air Ways plan.

The public disorder that could follow a decision to go ahead with R3 would make Narita's conflict look like scuffle. No Govt will be willing to see injuries and deaths over the demolition of so many houses etc. On the other hand, a closely spaced parallel runway to the south of LGW affects relatively few homes. It's not too difficult to see the game plan, shurely?


SGC

[NWSRG]

I'm not ATC or even professional pilot, but I am someone who uses the airports.
Heathrow is always busy, always congested, and except for the Heathrow Express, an hour away from the city centre.
I used to like Gatwick...but the South terminal seems to have become intolerably cramped over the last couple of years. And again, you're about 45 minutes out of the city centre.
Stansted is dull...but effective! Feels spacious, but again, an hour away.

Why not cap LHR at 2 runways, and properly commit to STN. A proper high speed rail link would cut the journey into London to around 20 minutes. And there's room, without upsetting too many people, for runways 2,3 and 4, and terminals to match.

Some genuinely strategic thinking needed...

[ConstantFlyer]

I have had the pleasure of changing terminals at London Heathrow and think of it not as one airport, but as three: One is formed by T1, T2 & T3; there is a second at T4; and now a third at T5. All three airports are served by two runways quite near each other. Building a third runway north of the M4 motorway will not change that.

Why do I think it's three separate airports? The published minimum connecting times (MCTs) would seem to confirm it:

• LHR T1 to T4 = 1h 30m
• LHR T1 to T5 = 2h
• LHR T4 to T5 = 2h
• LHR to LGW = 2h 30m
• GLA to PIK = 2h
• FCO to CIA = 1h 30m
• OTP to BBU = 1h 40m
• ARN to BMA = 2h

CDG and MAD also suffer from some long inter-terminal changes. But MCTs at AMS are 50m and at FRA 45m. LHR seems to have lost out, probably a victim of its original design. Time to make a fresh start at STN, I think, as other posters have suggested. Keep LHR as a regional airport for West London and Berkshire.

[Peter47]

There is an obvious solution. Build a transit system between all the Heathrow terminals and extend it to Northolt. Add a station where it crosses the Great Western Main Line. Run a combination of "airside" and "landside" transits, as they do at Frankfurt. Sure it would cost a lot but probably no more than projects such as the Heathrow Express, and it would remedy Heathrow's greatest weakness - as ConstantFlyer says, it is three airports (four if/when Heathrow North gets built). You could also move car parks away from the Central Area.

As an aside, there is a cargo tunnel between Terminals 1 & 4. I often wonder how much it would have cost to have engineered it to run passenger transits. OK, its not really needed now BA is a T5 plus a bit of T3 operation but it would have been useful when they ran a split T1/T4 operation.

[CaptJ]

T5 to T4 is by far the worst.

I don't know why they quote


LHR T1 to T5 = 2h
LHR T4 to T5 = 2h

When T5 to T4 is by far the worst landside.
Perhaps the published Minimum Connecting Times are only referring to Airside.

Yes they are far too long. I have been forced to wait and EXTRA 21/2 hours because a 1Hr 50Min connection was too tight!!! (T1 to T5)

[betpump5]

Left-whingers really need to grow up for the sake of the county I once loved. I left blighty 10 years ago and I am amazed at how far behind London has gone compared to the world. Things here in HK are as bad as I have seen it but I would never request a base back in the UK and would never dream about going back – apologies.

Tall skyscrapers and developments have been refused planning permission because some environmentalist is worried about the effect on the planet or some brown-nose on Hampstead Heath is worried about their view of St Pauls Cathedral being blocked etc.

The point is Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted can cope with Domestic flights into and out-of London and can cope with resident British people flying internationally on their holidays. Also bear in mind that Rail is very much becoming the preferred mode of domestic travel. So why the need to expand? Well any major western city and even in South East Asia needs a hub - The flagship of the country. And the London is at serious risk from being outdone by Schipol, CDG and Frankfurt.

Those opposed to Heathrow expansion would argue that these transit passengers (apart from the travel taxes etc) would be of no use to the economy as they are within the terminal building and not spending their cash in London shops etc. But this is clutching at straws in order to provide an opposing argument. Countries have been made great by ports – shipping ports or airports. If people travel there, you make the location attractive for investment and business and this is what is worth billions of pounds to the UK.

I know we need to look after the environment and planes are pouring out tons of CO2 blah blah blah. Fair enough. But guys listen. We have two choices. Do we maintain a strict environmental policy that hampers the UK economy and development and hope other countries like China and USA follow suit so things balance out? Or do we say to hell with what might happen in 25’000 years time and let’s look after what’s happening now. Remember, when the end of the world comes, whether it is down to zero-resources or China using up all of our fuel, then the whole world dies. UK won’t be sitting pretty just because they never bought a third runway or because they didn’t build a skyscraper blocking tower of London views.

The UK needs to stop all this mumbo-jumbo living in the 50s BS and start living in the 21st Century.

I remember during my GCSE history that Christopher Wren had drawn a layout of how he wanted to develop London once St Pauls had been built.. All streets were widened, the road/path layouts were in grids (like Manhattan is now) and were straight and it looked brilliant. It seemed though that even back then, many were opposed to this type of development. Seems cultures haven’t changed in the last 400 years so I doubt they will change anytime soon.

I fear for Britain. I really do. I’ll be there Thursday morning. I wonder what good news there will be in the Daily Mail when I get there.