Heathrow Plans (Merged)

[PAXboy]

1. Day 1: 3rd Runway permission granted
2. Day 2: BAA have sold it's full capacity to maximise income
3. Day 3: CAA review what has happened and decide to take no action

That's it folks!!! In the past 20 years, the politicians (via the CAA) have declined to put any cap on the movements into EGLL and will not do so. If they really wanted to cut fuel burn, they would have put a time limit on inbound stacking but that would cause actual movement numbers to drop and they don't want that.

Fortunately, all of this is academic because, by the time permission is given for the 3rd - it will be too late and numbers will have stabilised to a bearable level. Meanwhile, the Euroports will have risen to reach their planned capacities. The reasons are many but the end result cannot be changed. Simple as that - it is too late to build suitable capacity in the SE of England. British Fudge wins again.

[LHR27C]

Regards Heathrow why are the considerations based on a reduced length runway.

Because it would be easier to build and get through the planning process, LHR doesn't need 3 full length runways.

When the runway is opened the new capacity will be rapidly taken up

No it won't. Heathrow has survived on 2 runways since 1946. This will increase it's capacity by almost 50%. There is no way all that extra capacity would vanish overnight. Yes it will fill up but not immediately.

Hence the ludicrous situation whereby LHR has 4 daily QANTAS flights, Manchester now has none; LHR has 4 daily Cathay flights, Manchester now has none. The list of ex-Manchester flights relocated to LHR goes on - SAA, MAS, BA, AC, and more. SIAs need to fill the A380 now threatens the continuation of their Manchester service.

Not ludicrous, it's called supply and demand. LHR has 4 CX flights because they can fill them, MAN couldn't support one. SIA has got such good loads on the A380 out of LHR that they rejigged their plans and are sending it double daily. There's no "need to fill it", they are sending it to LHR because it will fill it!

If MAN is such a great place with so much demand, how come it has recently been overtaken by STN so it is now the 4th busiest airport in the UK with the 3 major London airports ahead of it?

require airlines, including BA, to serve the UK via a proper distribution of traffic

Require airlines? Why should BA operate flights out of MAN that don't make any money? They're a public company reporting to their shareholders and they will operate routes that make them profits. The fact is that by and large the UK regions do not have the economic levels to support a sufficient amount of premium air travel, and there is much more demand for low-cost carriers. Not BA's fault, just the way it is.

Lufthansa has proved that a successful secondary hub can be established, as at Munich

In economic terms Germany is a completely different country to the UK, businesses and prosperity much more spread out hence LH can operate a MUC hub. Other European countries are very similar to the UK: consider AF whose activities are entirely focused around Paris.

Emirates now serves 5 cities in the UK direct from Dubai

Yup, and BA serves 5 cities in the UK from LHR. It's called hub and spoke. The only reason EK can fly such large aircraft to UK regions is because most of their passengers are connecting onwards from DXB. Just as BA's are through LHR.

this Tory position is worthy of discussion, where Boris' impetuous revival of Maplin-in-the-mud is not. The whole country would benefit from rail (and/or road) enhancement to bring Brum/Leeds/Man closer to London. LHR would benefit from bug-smasher 50-seat slots becoming heavy movements

Read reply 100. The Tories' high speed line would eliminate 3% of LHR's flights.

f regional transit then appeared likely to migrate even more then now to SPL, then more DL, CO, even BA 757/767 LH schedules would emerge at EDI/GLA/MAN/BHX

I think you mean AMS. And no, BA would not start flying longhaul out of the regions. People have to understand that air travel is mostly focused around hub and spoke and the only reason DL, CO etc fly out of the regions is because they are routing pax to their hub, it is not a point to point route. BA also route passengers to their hub from the regions, it just happens to be LHR rather than abroad.

And CDG despite those extra runways has longer average delays per aircraft.

I agree CDG is a ghastly place. And it doesn't surprise me that it has longer average delays than LHR but that's not for lack of capacity, just poor organisation. Look what happens when one of CDG's runways shuts or fog develops, and compare the ensuing delays to LHR in the same position, there'll be a huge difference.

[Skipness One Echo]

To be honest it's all hot air as the Tories need seats in West London. If David Cameron REALLY doesn't support and understand the economic arguments for Heathrow, then I hope Macavity Brown clings on until the last minute and the arrangements for Runway 3 are in place and Cameron has an attack of reason.

A high speed rail link in Britain on budget? Really? Do they KNOW what a fragmented calamity the railways are in.

[birdscarer]

Of course they do! It was the Tories that made them that way!

[Higher Archie]

Lhr R3 - Hsrl

Some thoughts, admittedly from a Northern Perspective ...

High Speed Rail: It's taken 10 years and Ł10bn to upgrade the WCML to 125mph. A promised 2 hours to London. Linking to LHR will add another hour via the Heathrow Express.

A new line: The Tories oppose the Planning Bill to speed the UK Planning System, so starting work in 2015, at present, is pie-in-the-sky. The T5 planning process took 15 years.

In an interview, the Tory Shadow Transport Secretary admiitted that there was no idea about the rail line routes. From my observations, there's hills betweem Mnanchester and Leeds. An expensive tunnel ...

The cost: Airports pay for their own infrastructure: If the cost of a new rail line is Ł20bn, who pays? The UK taxpayer. A LHR runway, BAA pays.

Overall, the Tory plan is electioneering bobbins. It won't happen. The more constraints at LHR will drive long-haul connecting pax to FRA/AMS/CDG sadly rather than to UK airports such as MAN/BHX/NCL.

HA

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

A comment was made above that LHR has survived on two runways since 1946. There was a point, I think in the 1950s, when the airport had 6 runways.

[manintheback]

There was a point, I think in the 1950s, when the airport had 6 runways.

True, but them old piston engined aircraft didnt need much of a runway to get up (and down again)

Wasnt too long ago that Heathrow dropped from 3 useable? to 2, guess 5/6 years back I landed on the runway that ran between the eastern ends of the 2 available now (was an exceptionally windy night)

[LHR27C]

A comment was made above that LHR has survived on two runways since 1946. There was a point, I think in the 1950s, when the airport had 6 runways.

Had 6 runways but they weren't all used at the same time, not least as they all intersected one other. They were arranged in a Star of David pattern and the main benefit was the layout could adapt to winds coming from any direction to within 60 degrees, an important point for earlier aircraft more vulnerable to crosswinds than today's aircraft.

The point I was trying to make is the airport has not had any new runway additions since 1946, in fact it has lost 4 of the 6 original ones, yet managed to cope with the astronomical increases in air traffic over that period. So the suggestion that a new runway that would increase capacity by nearly 50%, would immediately get filled up and a 4th runway demanded, seems implausible given the airport has survived so long on its current arrangement despite massive increases in traffic.

[HeathrowAirport]

Well when the new 27R is built and 27R becomes 27C, i do hope that Heathrow wont be turned into a Gatwick for Spotting. It probably will.


Regards,

Robbie

[PAXboy]

This letter appears in The Independent on Thursday 2nd October

I read with a chuckle and a shudder that your editorial (30 September) supports Boris Johnson's idea for an airport in the Thames estuary. We on the Isle of Sheppey are well aware of the S S Richard Montgomery resting on a sandbank between us and Southend with 3,173 tons of unexploded munitions on board. I'd seriously reconsider.

David Edser-Lands
Isle Of Sheppey, Kent

[Peter47]

If you build the third runway people will get unhappy - not just from bulldozing houses but from more polution, overcrowding, shortage of housing, etc. However if Boris gets the airport moved local flyers will not like having to travel to the Thames Estury, employees would have to move, the local economy would collapse & workers who have to move would have trouble selling their houses. The airport was never going to close so no one felt threatened by that, but with a third runway looking at least possible those affected feel very threatened - not surprisingly.

If both the third runway & total closure have downsides the obvious solution is to build a new airport in the Thames Estury in addition to, not instead of, Heathrow. Well you say, no airline would want to move there as it would take a minimum of five, maybe ten years to reach critical mass and become profitable. True. (Yes its much simpler when as with DEN, MUC & HKG the old airport closes).

Is there a solution? All I can think is that airlines are given incentives to move in term of reduced fees & the ability to realise large sums through slot trading. If BA could acquire BD's slots it would have the oportunity to expand & BD (probably by now owned by LH) could set up a rival hub. Even better if VS could join the party. More importantly those living in East London, Kent & Essex who have less far to go for long haul flights.

Wishfull thinking? Probably. However I think that we need a bit if blue sky thinking like this.

[NWSRG]

Building work - Heathrow East?

Folks,

What is the construction work going on between the ends of Pier 3 and the Europier? Is this the start of Heathrow East?

[HeathrowAirport]

Affirm, also according to the NATS AIP.

I can't access PDF's in School but on the BAA website there is a document also showing the plans. I'll try when i get home too see if i can find it for you.

But i do think that it's for Heathrow East.

[Skipness One Echo]

I asked this question a while back and no one seems to know, however I understand that plans for Heathrow East are still being tinkered with. Slap in the middle of the apron seems like an odd place to begin construction as Phase 1 involves the demolition of the more distant Terminal 2 which has been put back to the middle or possibly the end of 2009. Also I understand that the old international pier is being refurbished.

Seems a shame that the Europier itself will be demolished as part of this redevelopment as it's not that old.

[Prophead]

I think you will find the plans are being a bit more than just 'tinkered with'

The whole T5 fiasco has changed the scheme for Heathrow East.

[HeathrowAirport]

Heathrow 3rd Runway Given Go-Ahead Controversially

Ministers have approved a controversial plan to build a third runway at Heathrow, the BBC understands.
Despite opposition from residents, environmental campaigners and many of its own MPs, Labour is set to confirm the decision officially on Thursday.

Any thoughts on this, Proffesionally point of view.

[Pinkman]

Did they say how many extra shops would be created?

[girtbar]

My only hope now is that when they lay the tarmac for the new runway that they will hopefully use the members of Plane Stupid as the foundations for it!

[raveng]

Yes agreed.

[leeds 65]

Damn right girtbar well said.

Hopefully the security forces will be on red alert at all london airports as the eco loonies will surely be out to disrupt peoples lives on the back of this news.wankers cost me half a days pay at stansted before xmas.