New Thames Airport for London

[silverstrata]

Frank:

Does or could BE's business model include feeding the nation's hub airport? Is it just the cost of acquiring enough landing slots that stops Flybe offering feeders at LHR (bearing in mind their links with BA)? Put it another way, would an expanded, less slot-constrained LHR attract other UK airlines?

I think so. That is the primary role of an international hub, and the reason LHR needs to move and expand. I have used Flybe on many occasions for routes such as Manch to regional airports in Spain and Italy, where we interlined through Brussels of all places, if I remember correctly.

Ok, nowadays some unmentionable Locos go direct to many odd places in Europe (but I refuse to go with them, as a matter of principle.) But if not, you have to go via a hub.

So you could go via another European hub, like AMS or BRU. But you should be able to go via LHR, and you simply cannot at present - and I am sure Flybe would love to pick up more international traffic from a UK hub. With an expanded Thames-based Silver-Foster you should be able to interline through this new hub to many regional airports in Europe (picking up onward international passengers en-route).



Think of this the other way around too. A Frenchman wants to go from Lyon to Exeter. At present this is not possible through LHR as there are no Exeter-LHR flights. (In fact, to get from EXT to LHR, you have to go via CDG !). So the only option is Lyon-EXT via Air France and CDG. So UK airlines and UK Plc loses out yet again.

There must be so many similar interline connections that are not really possible through the UK, because there is no one large hub with enough routes and enough regional airlines to accommodate this traffic. And if regional passengers cannot interline, then think of the problems that international passenger have, if they arrive at LHR and want to go to the likes of Exeter or Lyon.



.

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

Because the amount of space is constrained, the airport will be too - although I had assumed airports like HKG & KIX would have been built for parallel ops. So ATL too - can only do so on the two outers - correct? Surely, tht is what Foster is thinking of?

I don't think even the outers are far apart enough, with the original Foster proposal. But even if they were, you could not use them for quick parallel approaches, because you would have to hold all outbounds until the inbounds had landed (because of the potential conflict for go-arounds) - which defeats the whole idea of an efficient high capacity airport.

If the landings are on the inners, then the outers can take off with a 15 degree turn away from the centerline, because the inbound on the inner now has enough clearance for any go-arounds.

But if you are in Foster's Isle of Grain site, you would have to check when the left runway can make that initial left turn, because there is some higher ground to the SE of the climb-out. The right runway is not so constrained in its right turn, and can operate simultaneous on the inner with no problem.

This means the inner runways need to be at least 1.5km apart. And if we are to prevent the taxiway/terminal overcrowding that we see at LHR, then they need to be at least 2km apart. And to really prevent overcrowding and improve flow, we need a domestic/short-haul runway another 2km to the NW (with its own terminal, and a really fast rapid-transit).


.

[Gonzo]

If the landings are on the inners, then the outers can take off with a 15 degree turn away from the centerline, because the inbound on the inner now has enough clearance for any go-arounds.

Care to expand your thinking on that one?

[Geffen]

I have a vague memory that ICAO stipulates 30 degree turns for missed approaches but stand to be corrected.

[EGCA]

I know this will upset Silverstrata somewhat, but on the BBC Midlands news this evening Transport minister Justine Greening, visiting BHX today commented that with the runway extension and more long-haul destinations served, passengers from Heathrow might want to hop on HS2 and be at BHX quicker that using the Piccadilly line to London. Or at least words to that effect.

Dont shoot the messenger. I am only reporting this, not passing an opinion.

[silverstrata]

Gonzo:

Can you expand your thinking on that one?

Sure.

Aircraft on finals to the left outer, and one ready for take off on the left inner. Once the inbound is within 5nm the outbound cannot take off, as there will be a less-than-5nm conflict if the inbound goes around instead of landing. nb ... The left outbound will have a SID that includes a left turn, because it will need that for separation from the right runway. If there is no turn in SID, then the two runways cannot do simmultaneous departures.

But if the inbound is bound for the left inner, the aircraft ready for take off on left outer can depart if its SID has an immediate turn away from the centerline. So if the inbound goes around (straight ahead), they will be on diverging tracks.

Geffen has said this difference in track has to be 30 degrees, but I am sure I have done SID departures where the stipulation was a 15 degrees turn. Anyone know differently?

And you might ask about sites like LGW, where the guy in front takes off only 2nm in front of you. But as I understand it, this is ok because if you go around ATC will give you an immediate turn away from the aircraft just airborne. But ATC cannot do that at a multi-runway airport, when there are aircraft opperating simultaneously on the right runway.

I hope this sort of makes sense.

.

[silverstrata]

EGCA.

I know this will upset Silverstrata somewhat, but on the BBC Midlands news this evening Transport minister Justine Greening, visiting BHX today commented that with the runway extension and more long-haul destinations served, passengers from Heathrow might want to hop on HS2 and be at BHX quicker that using the Piccadilly line to London.

Are you (thus the Transport Minister) suggesting that people will fly into BHX to get to London?? I think not. Are international passengers going to interline into Europe via BHX? I think not. Are international passengers going to use BHX twice, after suffering a 35-knot cross-wind, which is usual at BHX? I think not.

As far as air travel is concerned HS2 will only carry passengers to and from either LHR or Silver-Foster.


And I hope that the Transport Minister was implying that people would fly in international to LHR, and then catch the HS2 to go to BHX in order to catch their 'domestic' flight to Denmark or some other small 'regional' place not currently served by LHR !!

What passengers want, is to fly in international into Silver-Foster, and find a nice little Flybe turbo-prop sitting at the 'domestic' terminal next door (perhaps under some code-sharing agreement with BA), and waiting to whisk them into Europe.


.

[Fairdealfrank]

That comment along with the less than impressive appearance on "Sunday Politics" suggests that Justine may be out of her depth.

Wasn't there a comment in this thread about her cutting the grass? She could cut mine and realise that aircaft noise under the flightpath isn't that bad - unless you're at Colnbrook, Cranford, Hatton Cross or Stanwellmoor. But at Putney? or Clapham Junction? Do me a favour!

What happened to "no new runways in the south east"? Now it appears to be "maybe four more runways in the south east". Pity that two of them won't be at LHR.

[ZOOKER]

silverstrata,
Why can't the inbound on the left outer execute a 140 degree left turn at the R/W threshold or 500 ft AAL, (whichever is the later), when it goes around? This would be similar the standard missed approach at EGCC, where the R/W centre-lines are 390m apart.

What passengers want is to fly into a big airport in the country that they're going to, and then get a domestic flight, bus, train, tram, hire-car, taxi, bicycle, camel or donkey*, (*delete as applicable) to take them to where they want to be.

[controlx]

‘Real’ commuting time to BHX from London

‘Real’ commuting time to BHX from London pre and post HS2 (2026)
From 2026, assuming HS2 is on time, one should be able to get from Euston station to the proposed Birmingham Interchange station to the east of the National Exhibition Centre in 38 minutes. A proposed new extension to the current SkyRail (AirRail) people-mover train link to the Airport terminal will go via the current Birmingham International Rail station. That link today runs at around every two minutes and takes around 2 minutes from the terminal to the current train station.
However, the extension to the new HS2 Birmingham Interchange Station will make that whole run about 1.4 miles, so the trip from the HS2 station (Birmingham Interchange) to the terminal could take 8-10 minutes with the drop-off/stop at the Birmingham International Station and/or outside the NEC, if there was another stop there. Accordingly, allowing for walking off the HS2 platform to the people-mover/SkyRail platform, waiting up to 2-3 minutes, then getting to the terminal’s SkyRail platform, the London Euston station to BHX terminal journey will take at least 50 minutes – not the ‘40 minutes’ that has been quoted by BHX directors (Paul Kehoe & others).
Today, trains take 1hr10mins from Euston to Birmingham International rail station, so perhaps 1hr 15 mins from London Euston to the BHX terminal if you are lucky.
The question therefore is whether shaving 25 minutes off a commute from London to an International Airport most likely in the opposite direction to where most travellers are going (south or east) will change the habits of those travellers? Living/staying in central London, you’ll need to give yourself arguably three hours perhaps from leaving your front door to take-off time to catch that BHX flight, even post HS2. Why would anyone do that, especially if the plane they are about to take is likely to be flying back over the top of London in 3.5 hours time?
Sorry, not going to happen, even post HS2

[EGCA]

Silverstrata: To be honest I didn't understand Ms Geening's logic, comparing the tube journey into London from LHR to the HS2 journey to BHX. You dont journey into central London to catch an ongoing flight!

I'll try and find the programme on the BBC news website and listen to her again. See if I can get a better understanding of what her point was.

[Fairdealfrank]

Why would anyone go via BHX, an airport with far fewer destinations than LHR, whether by HST or not, when one can go via LHR or several other London airports.

Obviously the idea of flying to/from BHX would only ever apply to someone starting/ending their journeys in the centre of London and Controlx mentions that 3 hours would be needed. It would realistically have to be more than 3 hours, unexpected events have to be allowed for.

Anyone travelling from the conurbation can forget it, as it could easily take up to 2 hours just to get to Euston.

Even in the unlikely event of the flight being dirt cheap, this would be more than wiped out by the high train fare.

Think again Justine.

[EGCA]

I have not been able to find the Midlands News item on iplayer or whatever, but on reflection Ms Greening made her strange comment after saying something about new destinations in the Far East from "BHXplus". Surely she doesn't think that pax only fly "one-way" round the World? ie Fly into Heathrow from the West and then HS2-it to an expanded BHX for a long-haul flight to the Far East?

On reflection I am not sure she was sure what she was saying, but without a transcript we had better leave her to it!

[silverstrata]

Zooker:

Why can't the inbound on the left outer execute a 140 degree left turn at the R/W threshold or 500 ft AAL, (whichever is the later), when it goes around? This would be similar the standard missed approach at EGCC, where the R/W centre-lines are 390m apart.

Well, I suppose you could. There are not that many international airports that have such large close-in turns, but if it works and everyone is happy, then I suppose it is possible. In which case, the arrival runways would be the outers.

Manch approach plates:
http://www.fly-sea.com/charts/EGCC.pdf

Zooker:

What passengers want is to fly into a big airport in the country that they're going to, and then get a domestic flight, bus, train, tram, hire-car, taxi, bicycle, camel or donkey*, (*delete as applicable) to take them to where they want to be.

Not if it is half the price to fly into a neighbouring country, and catch the 'local' connection from there. Check out the interlining possibilities worldwide on a search engine, and see the differences in price.


.

[jabird]

I know this will upset Silverstrata somewhat, but on the BBC Midlands news this evening Transport minister Justine Greening, visiting BHX today commented that with the runway extension and more long-haul destinations served, passengers from Heathrow might want to hop on HS2 and be at BHX quicker that using the Piccadilly line to London. Or at least words to that effect.

Then she really is more clueless than her previous utterances have metioned - and all because she's bought a few clumps of grass near Heathrow to show her solidarity with the local antis.

Let's face it - I still don't agree with Boris Island, but it is a London answer to a London problem. BHX management need to stop pursuing long haul fantasies and serve the local market - but that is for the BHX thread!

As FDF points out - even if someone were ill-informed enough to compare travel times to Heathrow on the Picadilly line with HS2 to Birmingam (err, hello Justine, have you not heard of the Heathrow 'Express'?) - they could still have to fork out £100 rtn for a peak train fare to match an early morning or mid afternoon departure.

The other problem is that afaik, LHR, LGW & STN expresses + trains from NCL down to MAN run 24/7 - ok, big gaps in service in the dead of night, but you can still make a 6am flight. The first HS2 won't leave Euston until around 5, arriving M42 station 5:38, then imagine the panic waiting for the people mover to turn up, and rushing through security to arrive at the gate at 5:59. Sorry - gate well and truly closed!

Also, there's the small question of frequency. If there's problems with the tube, usual consequence is wait a few more minutes for the next one, suffer like sardines, but still get there. Allowing 30 mins leeway should cover it, but an hour is best. Now here's the part they don't mention - if HS2 is built to phase 2, and if it runs according to projections (two big ifs) - there's going to be huge pressure between M42 and Old Oak Common. How do you shove so many trains through a busy line? Answer - don't have any stations. They've done that - but M42 station will have a through line, so only some will stop there. An ICE train needs 30k to reach 300kmh, on HS2 they want 400kmh. So to cater for the rail equivalent of the wake turbulence this will create, departures from M42 will be spaced within 2-3 minutes of each other. So you'll get the train from Curzon St whizzing through (why would it stop?) - then they'll stop one from York, Leeds, Manchester and Glasgow respectively. Yeah - four trains per hour is the sell, but the reality is dash for the 10:00, if you miss it, you've got 10:02, 10:05 and 10:08 - then 52 minutes to the next one.

As a faster link from Brum to London, northern England and Scotland, hs2 can be useful - but as an airport shuttle, forget it.

[jabird]

Think of this the other way around too. A Frenchman wants to go from Lyon to Exeter. At present this is not possible through LHR as there are no Exeter-LHR flights. (In fact, to get from EXT to LHR, you have to go via CDG !). So the only option is Lyon-EXT via Air France and CDG. So UK airlines and UK Plc loses out yet again.

Silver, not the best example, but let's run with it.

Why are there no flights from EXT to LHR or any other LON airports? Simply not worthwhile, far too short a sector. So going via CDG would be pointless, we have these things called trains. Also, for that route in question, I'd do LYS - CDG by train, then CDG-EXT.

Now BE have a major presence at EXT, SOU, BHX and a few routes from NWI too. All of these airports are too close to London to feed it by air - but apart from NWI, they are also to the west of London, so any fast rail link is going to work far better going into LHR, not Boris Island. Same also for BRS, BOH etc.

So there's no point in bleating about the hub traffic 'lost' to CDG or AMS - London would never handle them anyway. And I also totally refute your point about interlining - people want to go direct, the Q400s interiors may look a bit cheap and nasty, and some people will grumble about turboprops, but most people just look at the headline price and go for the direct route if it is there. You are right in that sometimes an interline fare is cheaper than a direct service on a loco, especially during busier terms, but these are the exceptions not the norm.

Most pax don't give a damn about BHX's crosswinds either.

Now to go back to what I asked you about the island size - I will continue to base my critique on the proposal as it stands, not the alternatives you have suggested, but are not in a position to cost.

So I put it to you that, in their present form, Foster's plans might provide 2 extra runways, but they do little to provide enough terminal space to handle the extra flights. Therefore, it is hard to imagine the new airport handling over 100m pax pa (lets say 105m for good measure), and even if it does, they will have to use the largest aircraft available (ok, A380 is longer and fatter than a Q400, but they both have wings. As A380 is double deck, it surely offers the best pax# to space ratio?) - a method of adding capacity which LHR could also use.

Now do the maths - even if you were building on terra firma - why would you invest £xx billion in infrastructure to grow capacity from 70m pax pa to 105 m pax pa, when you are spending as if you are growing from zero? In other words, for every £3 spent, only £1 is going on new passengers?

[jabird]

Also, re: transfer pax.

I think their benefits are over-stated. They aren't spending money outside the airport unless there is a major delay. I have done a same day transfer (ATL), and headed downtown for a bit of sightseeing. IIRC, I spend about $3 on metro fares and $8 in a fast food joint. Visited the MLK memorial, which was free. Maybe airports themselves prefer the transfer crowd - usually a little more dwell time, and maybe an overnight? Would love to see the stats of who actually stays in airport hotels. I know airlines usually charge for 2 sets of PSC, but what are they actually paying? If they also don't have to be screened, then it starts to look juicy - except that there's one thing airports love more than anything else, and transfer pax never use them - cars! No parking charges, no hire cars to pick up, no cab fees.

Surely what we want is o&d, and really more d than o, as o sucks money out of UK plc. Forget the willy waving about who's airport is biggest - let Beijing take that crown from Atlanta. So what - Atlanta is nowhere on the world cities list, and it never will be. The world's most 'useful' airport - ie with the most O & D - not transfers? Somewhere near you perhaps SS?

I've never seen a figure on which airport actually brings in the most visitors (outright, not as a %age - saying 95% of passengers at LDE are inbound in meaningless). One figure is that for every £1 tourists spend in the UK, £3 is spent abroad. I think the scales are more balanced in London.

Of course I don't want to put people off from visiting. The govt are perfectly good at that as it is - and the fact they are even looking at this is totally inconsistend compared with their no runways in SE & APD policies - almost to the point of being bizarre, or as if no-one can resist the temptations of a megaproject.

So the French can keep their transfer passengers, and we can just muddle by letting LGW fill up, then STN, then LTN and so on. Sexy it ain't, reality it is.

[Fairdealfrank]

Amazed that Justine has bought "a few clumps of grass" near LHR to "show solidarity" with the anti-expansion lobby and the so-called tree-huggers. It smacks of one of the worst examples of gesture politics of recent times!

Could it be that "transport secretary makes killing out of Heathrow compulsory purchase" doesn't make a good headline?

With reference to the LYS-CDG-EXT journey it's a pity that CDG cannot be avoided at all costs, it's a truly awful airport. Considering that it is purpose-built from scratch, there is no excuse. It's strange because the French are usually top-notch when it comes to infrastructure.

It's tragic that a LYS-LHR-EXT journey cannot be made. It's not just a question of a short hop (there were LHR-BHX flights 20 odd years ago), there is also the question of whether it is just the astronomically high cost of acquiring slot pairs that keeps non-LHR based UK airlines from operating thin domestic routes to/from LHR.

Put it another way, LHR had become a 4 runway airport back in the day and slot availability was not an issue, would there be a business case for connecting regional UK airports to the main hub, for example, BE feeding BA's long haul routes or WW feeding BD? Would the no-frills big boys have moved in?

Who knows in years to come, with increasingly unreliable journey times because of road congestion and rail overcrowding/engineering works, short hop feeder routes and thin domestic routes may once again become viable.

These questions would, of course, apply equally to a potential Shivering Sands (or should that be "SILVERing Sands"?) island airport.

As for transfer pax and their usefulness, from an airline point of view, they allow it to offer routes from its hub that may not be viable solely on origin-destination traffic. For example, would BA's BLR and HYD routes be viable without transfer traffic to/from North America? Would it be able to serve 20 or so North American destinations without transfer traffic to European destinations not directly served from there?

Transfer pax are good business and there are many carriers that would not exist without them. EK, EY, QR, SQ, etc., come to mind, but there are many others.

[jabird]

FDF,

CDG cannot be avoided at all costs, it's a truly awful airport.

I always love airport I can look up at and say 'wow' - and that applies to both terminals at CDG. But airports loved by passengers AND architects are rare. What makes you dislike it so much - at least LYS-CDG-EXT would be within T2 - BE used to use T1.

Put it another way, LHR had become a 4 runway airport back in the day and slot availability was not an issue, would there be a business case for connecting regional UK airports to the main hub, for example, BE feeding BA's long haul routes or WW feeding BD? Would the no-frills big boys have moved in?

Of course there would - it is always natural for carriers to use regional routes to feed their home market. National pride / loyalty / - more likely language for one, and there is latent demand for o&d on these routes too.

But the simple reality is that domestic routes in the UK are under threat from too many angles. Trains get overcrowded because our system allows people to board without reservation - the French would just make all long distance services reservation only - but doing that here would send fares through the roof! Most people will still take standing like cattle for the first hour or so (many trains empty as they head away from London) over all the hassles of domestic flying - train must have about 80% market share by now on MAN-LON?

More likely is that eventually, as HS2 turns into something useful and evolves into HS3 & 4 (if all the optimistic predictions turn true) - then routes like NCL & then EDI & GLA from LHR will become much thinner too.

[jabird]

As for transfer pax and their usefulness, from an airline point of view, they allow it to offer routes from its hub that may not be viable solely on origin-destination traffic.

I don't doubt that. My question was about whether or not it was worth building a superhub just to server more transfer passengers, as opposed to making do with what we have, and ending up with more point to point routes moving in to LGW & others. As long as it remains open, LHR is always going to have a certain %age of transfer pax, and a lower number will also pass through LGW. Afaik, even at STN, where the locos officially want nothing to do with people making connections, 16% of traffic is air-air transfer.

Transfer pax are good business and there are many carriers that would not exist without them. EK, EY, QR, SQ, etc., come to mind, but there are many others.

All those airlines are focused on long haul. LHR-SYD would need a tech stop anyway, so much less difference between 'direct' and 'connecting'.

So whilst BA may well feed, say PHX from various points in Europe, they would much rather have o&d. Why? a) They are only paying one set of airport charges, and b) they will get much higher yields on the direct traffic as they are the only airline doing the route (from UK).