Heathrow Plans (Merged)

[bcn_boy]

runway switch

Having lived down the road from LHR for many years this arguement over a third runway has been runnign for a long time and all local communites are against it. However, one thing that rarely gets a mention is the rebuilding of the runways to run from North to South. Also there is much space for another north south runway to the West of T5 if they did that. North/south take off and landing patterns would remove the flight paths from over the vast majority of London. Am not sure our Royal Family would appreciate having a runway in their back yard at windsor but then again neither to millions of west londoners. Is there any viable reason why this has not been considered?

[LHR27C]

2019. Which isnt disimilar to runway 3 at LHR

Yes it is. LHR could, theoretically, be given government approval for a 3rd runway tomorrow. LGW has a longstanding agreement which forbids expansion for another 11 years. The two are not remotely similar.

given that Gatwick Airport is surrounded by green fields in all directions

LGW has a large town to the south, residential areas to the north, and a motorway to the east. I agree that putting another runway in there, post-2019, would be easier than LHR but no doubt it would still encounter a huge amount of anti-expansion protests.

[HZ123]

I cannot agree that a third runway will see the likes of Jersey, regional airport routes back at LHR. If it was feasable there would be far less narrowbody a/c than there are at the moment and why the F50 KLM is allowed in / out I cannot understand. It surely must be a loss leader. LHR and its surroundings are and have been at a standstill during the peak rush hours since the 70's. Its time for a lot of us to start thinking outside the box and to consider exactly what the state of aviation will be like in 10 / 20 years. There might be no requirement for any improvements as the UK might be bankrupt by then anyway and surely other countrys services will enable transfer pax to miss out the UK. I fail to see that we actually earn anything from them and once the airlines start paying the proper price for fuel that to will make a difference.

[skyman771]

Why can't he just think about the amount of people who will loose Jobs and how hard it will be for those who mostly live Near Heathrow to travel across not just one side of London but that and Kent.

When I read response such as this it is little wonder that nothing ever gets done. Heathrow has unfortunately outgrown the site it occupies, not only that but excepting T5 (and to a lesser extent T4) then the place is a complete mess both on pax & airside which ever way one looks at it. Other than on historical reasoning and that greater opposition to expansion exists elsewhere, then the place should have been run down years ago. But politics go on & no one has had the bottle / power to take on the task ! Those that have 'head in the cloud' mentalities making statements such as that above do no one any good, and to every such argument there is on a human basis an equal & opposite argument against expansion. Basically the place is now land locked and there really is no practical & convenient solution. From a safety side mercifully there have been no major accidents, but is the place really much more safe than say Congohas ? On taking your heads out of the sand and taking a trip around Europe to say AMS,CDG, MAD to name but three and each one makes LHR central area seem like a cess pit. All have large sites located sufficiently far away from the major population centres and are a lesson to be learned from. Maplin was rejected too many years ago to remember and everyone has an opinion on STN expansion, so what now. Well I guess guys you all need to take a reality check & hope that the govt. has the bottle to build at a new remote site perhaps using the redundant labour force after the 'Olympic site construction folly' has run it's course. Failing this all you locals & LHR commuters will in any event find your jobs under threat when it finally dawns on airlines & pax alike that perhaps LHR is not actually worth bothering with.

[Seat62K]

CaptJ,

You ask why I think Montreal is a poor comparison. Montreal is not one of the small number of "world cities" and for many years the local economy was stagnant with major financial services companies moving away (to Bay Street in particular) as a result of the Quebec language laws. The local geography - especially the fact that Montreal is on an island - militated against Mirabel's success. Affluent residents in West Island communities such as Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue and those living farther west in places like Hudson and St-Lazare found getting to Mirabel a pain in the neck, especially in bad winter weather.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Seat62K

You ask why I think Montreal is a poor comparison. Montreal is not one of the small number of "world cities" and for many years the local economy was stagnant with major financial services companies moving away

I wonder how much this was influenced by carriers preferring Toronto to Montreal in the first place. All the international flights into Toronto could offer connections to the rest of Canada. Any flights into Mirabel - nothing. Don't forget that Montreal was, pre-Mirabel the pre-eminent Canadian air hub. After Mirabel it lost it. I notice now everybody is back at Dorval/Trudeau it seems to be regaining lost ground again.

Affluent residents in West Island communities such as Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue and those living farther west in places like Hudson and St-Lazare found getting to Mirabel a pain in the neck, especially in bad winter weather.

Isn't this EXACTLY what all the heavy premium-class users who live in the Thames Valley and west of London (precisely because they are near Heathrow) would think about an airport halfway to Dover like the one proposed here.

How long do you think it would take to get to the new airport from say Maidenhead on a Friday afternoon ? I'd give about 4 hours. Maidenhead to Exeter might be quicker.

[tristar500]

Nebpor

All things being equal, heres why...

ONE CENTRAL AIRPORT - with airlines concentrating on one site, not 2 as currently is the case GLA and EDI. Cost savings to the airlines = cost savings to the passengers in a general sense.

GLA - Hampered by the available surrounding land and motorway at one end, and river at the other, not to mention the 'sinking runway' which has to be sorted yearly.

EDI - Hampered by general road access. Railwayline at one end and motorway at the other.

There is a motorway called the M9 currently running right past the proposed site. It would need upgraded obviously... This runs from Newbridge in Edinburgh right up to Stirling. The M8 from GLA terminates at Newbridge and joins into the M9... There is also access from GLA to the Falkirk area along the M80 / A80 which would again probably need upgrading, but is available. In fact Newbridge in EDI and the beloved Kingston Bridge in GLA are pure nightmares during rush hour, and the Kingston is a nightmare most of the time - any time...

Cant see your point really... Any new-build aiport or extended airport requires the infrastructure surrounding it to be upgraded too. Any cost-saving in terms of ''one airport in the middle'' (lets face it, the width of Central Scotland is hardly a factor...) is a benefit - any day of the week.

PIK isnt in the frame. Its available now, with ample runway capacity and terminal capacity but sadly isnt favoured by the majors, and only FR in all reality make proper use of it.

''30 miles approx from GLA'' and 25 miles approx from EDI... Do you think the people that live in the east end of London, enjoy having to make their the way out to LHR, whether by car, bus train or tube... when going on trips that determine LHR as their departure point... I think not and its a damn site longer and more complicated for them, as it would be for passengers travelling from EDI or GLA to a new central airport in Scotland.

Cost, choice and frequency of flights is what its all about. Iam sure BA, bmi, flybe etc etc would welcome with open arms 1 single airport. All the airlines could streamline their operations and offer better and more efficient services.
FACT, Simple economies of scale...

Suggest you buy shares in the construction industry if thats the only way you think you might make a fast buck... Will need major infrastructure improvements all round so get in there quick!

[Gonzo]

HZ123,

and why the F50 KLM is allowed in / out I cannot understand.

Not quite sure what you mean here....KLM have got the slots, and they choose to use F50s flying to Eindhoven and Rotterdam in those slots. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

[Skipness One Echo]

Cost, choice and frequency of flights is what its all about. Iam sure BA, bmi, flybe etc etc would welcome with open arms 1 single airport. All the airlines could streamline their operations and offer better and more efficient services.
FACT, Simple economies of scale...

One could make the same argument about London City and Heathrow being combined except City serves the local business population. Having to go twice as far from both Edinburgh and Glasgow to this airport than we do right now is remniscent of 1970s central planning. The people of Glasgow have an airport, as do the people of Edinburgh. I frequently use both and they work quite well. Grandiose schemes of a hub airport in the middle of nowehere with amazing transport links to everywhere.......? I mean come on. Have you ever visited the UK after 10 years of the Nanny Party in power?

[CaptJ]

Logic?

It is difficult to detect a shred of logic in the arguments espoused here for a Heathrow replacement. I'm not a particular fan of LHR having suffered the kind of misery that Heathrow does so well only last Thurs!

I'm familiar with all of the epitomes of airport delight that are frequently espoused here, MAD, AMS, CDG. I don't rate any of them as overall significantly better than Heathrow so as to make me want to go there. esp CDG! ok it's got 4 runways and the iconic terminal 1, but what else? It is a mess, difficult to get around and few facilities.

With Heathrow we have to be realistic as to what can be achieved.
a. We can't afford a new airport
b. We can't afford the transport links a new airport would need.
c. The Thames valley area needs an airport close by.

So Heathrow isn't going away anytime soon.
What to do then?
The sooner the wrecking ball is unleashed on T2 the better. Can I do it? Please?
Third runway? I'll pass on that one.
Second runway at Gatwick? More sensible than a third at LHR.

Lets get the Heathrow sorted asap

[Seat62K]

WHBM,

I don't think Montreal's loss of aviation pre-eminence in eastern Canada is directly related to Mirabel's opening, tempting as it might be to see a causal link. Its heyday had, I believe, more to do with the fact that it was the financial capital of Canada, a position it has since ceded to Toronto. I also think the ICAO headquarters may have had something to do with so many intercontinental flights choosing Montreal over Toronto.

Montreal never needed another airport, unlike London. Powerful city notables had big dreams (Expo, the Olympic games, a "CDG-style" airport). These were seen as expressions of "national" ambition (by "nation" I mean Quebec not Canada!). In Europe, Barcelona is similar, only more successful. Sending intercontinental traffic to Mirabel only exacerbated existing problems by discouraging connecting traffic.

Returning to London, I think that the days of its pre-eminence might be numbered, not least because of transportation problems (not just its airports, but also the tube, roads and trains). I wouldn't be surprised if there's a drift away to European cities which seem more attractive. Of course, I could be wrong. Just look at New York - similar transportation problems, high cost of living etc. yet still very much the "world city". Perhaps that's it: world cities prosper despite themselves!

[jabird]

Tristar,

"Cost, choice and frequency of flights is what its all about. Iam sure BA, bmi, flybe etc etc would welcome with open arms 1 single airport."

Have you tried asking them? Just when they are crying out for the BAA monopoly to be breaking up, the LAST thing they would want is for 4 central Scottish airports to merge into one super airport!

[ORAC]

The Times: Third runway at Heathrow ‘is a done deal’ - even though public consultation goes on

Ministers are pressing ahead with plans for a highly controversial third runway at Heathrow and intend to approve the expansion before Christmas, The Times has learnt. Although the Government is still sifting through tens of thousands of public submissions on the airport’s proposed expansion, it is understood that senior figures have already decided to sanction it.

Transport sources told The Times that the Government was determined to make the third runway happen, despite widespread opposition from the environmental lobby and the possibility of an independent review delaying the project.................

[HeathrowAirport]

Would a third runway and Terminal 6 not increase capacity too about 900,000? If 24 hours Ops happen?

3 x an average runway use of 40 ATM, = 120 per hour x by 24 = 2880 average movements per day. 1,051,200 a Year according to an average of 40 movements per hour.. Obviously this would not happen but that's life.Making it the busiest airport in the world. Look at Atlanta. 5 Runways over 900,000 movements annualy.

At the moment if it was 24 hours OPS they could handle 40 x 2 = 80 x 24 = 1920 flights a day. From the current 1250 rite? = 700,080 rite?

Regards,

R..

[manintheback]

24 hour ops over London - never going to happen.

Labour will approve the 3rd runway (they need all the plus points rom business they can get at the moment) but it will only get pulled after the next election.

LHR could, theoretically, be given government approval for a 3rd runway tomorrow. LGW has a longstanding agreement which forbids expansion for another 11 years. The two are not remotely similar.

2nd runway from Gastwick can operate from 2019, planned opening date of runway 3 at LHR is 2019/2020 - more or less the same

LGW has a large town to the south, residential areas to the north, and a motorway to the east. I agree that putting another runway in there, post-2019, would be easier than LHR but no doubt it would still encounter a huge amount of anti-expansion protests.

Crawley is a couple of miles to the south but runways are East West. Going north you could go 12 miles up the M23 and over the M25 before you land on someones house - make a heck of a single runway. I would suspect looking at a map 3 additional runways E/w could be put down and at least 1 N/South and barely touch anyones property and not overfly crowded areas anything like the same extent now.

Wont the need for expansion be rendered academic anyway if the era of cheap flight is over?

[Curious Pax]

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo

Landing the Glasgow shuttle on a short runway at Northolt and then making a five mile connection isn't going to win you high yield business passengers.

Schiphol seem to have got away with it!!

[Skipness One Echo]

Schiphol seem to have got away with it!!

Oh very good point!Actually I have taxied a few times along the LONG journey to and from the Terminal at AMS and it's not actually that bad. How far is it I wonder? Northolt I think, is actually noticeably further though? Anyone know?

[Xeque]

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo
Landing the Glasgow shuttle on a short runway at Northolt and then making a five mile connection isn't going to win you high yield business passengers.

Last time I tried it, getting from T4 to either T1,2 or 3 took something like 30 minutes - bus or underground. How long does it take to get to any other terminal from T5?
Think about the aircraft taxiing time (and associated waste of fuel) that's going to be involved by adding a third runway to the north of the existing ones.
As for the computer nerds in the M4 corridor (CaptJ's post) - they are already using Farnborough to great advantage.

[nebpor]

Tristar,

"Cost, choice and frequency of flights is what its all about. Iam sure BA, bmi, flybe etc etc would welcome with open arms 1 single airport. All the airlines could streamline their operations and offer better and more efficient services.
FACT, Simple economies of scale...

Suggest you buy shares in the construction industry if thats the only way you think you might make a fast buck... Will need major infrastructure improvements all round so get in there quick!"

I'm sure there will be many cost efficiencies for the airlines, leading to a £2 reduction per passenger fair, but I think the extra effort involved for a large percentage of the population in getting to your new wonder airport would far outweigh any air ticket savings.

Do you think petrol is free? Rail travel?

Where do the funds to widen the M80/90 etc all come from if not the public purse?

It's people like me who are at folk like you it seems - drop your silly attitude on here.

For the record I take about 50 flights per year and so do the other 100 people I work with, all based across Central Scotland and all happy we've got a good choice of airport right now. I'll take that above more direct flights to Europe that a single airport might support anyday.

I'll also point out one of my good friends was an architect student, who in his final year conducted a wholesale study into something very similar to what you are talking about - as I helped review his work for him I saw the passenger figures, volumes, transport information and everything else - I'm not just writing this because I'm throwing stones at your argument, I'm writing it as I'm a professional consultant who makes decisions and recommendations on the available facts .... and the facts seem to indicate that a central airport isn't benefitting anybody here except maybe business - and I care more about the public, being a member of it.

[Curious Pax]

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo

Oh very good point!Actually I have taxied a few times along the LONG journey to and from the Terminal at AMS and it's not actually that bad. How far is it I wonder? Northolt I think, is actually noticeably further though? Anyone know?

Looking at Google Maps as the crow flies I would say 5 miles from Northolt to LHR as you say, and 2.5 miles from 36L/18R to the main terminal area at Schiphol.

As I understand it the idea of using Northolt is for a separate terminal/runway, with a fast transport of some sort to shift passengers to the existing LHR terminals. Maybe a better solution would be a taxiway between the 2 (a la Schiphol) - would that be any more environmentally disruptive than the proposed 3rd runway? In order to generate more terminal space in the main area, the maintenance areas could be moved out to Northolt, and a new terminal 6, a mirror image of terminal 5, built on the site of the current maintenance area.

Northolt would then just provide a runway/maintenance area whilst the current LHR site would contain 2 runways and all the passenger terminals. Built with sufficient speed (like that will happen!) a T4/5/6 could be large enough to allow the complete closure of T1/2/3 for demolition. Extra remote terminal capacity could then be added like Atlanta, with parallel midfield terminals all the way between T5 and T6.