New Thames Airport for London
Paxing All Over The World
So they got the figures for HS 1 terribly, terribly wrong:
BBC News - HS1 Channel link leaves £4.8bn debt, says MPs
Will they do better with HS 2 and what about forecasts for airline pax growth...?
By the way, the above £4.8bn is going to be picked up by the UK tax payer. Also, don't forget that the combined British/French company that built the Chunnel had to be saved from bankruptcy.
Now, back to talking of that shiny new slab of infrastructure in the middle of the river ...
International passenger numbers on HS1 are a third of the original 1995 forecast and two-thirds of the DfT's 1998 forecast, it stated.
Will they do better with HS 2 and what about forecasts for airline pax growth...?
By the way, the above £4.8bn is going to be picked up by the UK tax payer. Also, don't forget that the combined British/French company that built the Chunnel had to be saved from bankruptcy.
Now, back to talking of that shiny new slab of infrastructure in the middle of the river ...
HS2 will definitely perform better than HS1. The simple reason is that the HS1 route stops off no where of interest in terms of business, additional transport (ie. airports/ports) or big residential towns and cities. (we can't really call Ebbsfleet and Ashford big areas)
HS2 will call at North London (Old Oak Common), and then spur off to LHR, then off to Birmingham and then possibly Manchester, Leeds and Scotland.
HS2 will call at North London (Old Oak Common), and then spur off to LHR, then off to Birmingham and then possibly Manchester, Leeds and Scotland.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
The Sunday Times has a report today, confirming the government's intent to investigate the possibility of building Silver-Boris airport in the Thames estuary.
"Chocks Away for Heathrow by the Sea"
Heathrow | Search | The Sunday Times
Sorry, article is behind the S.T. paywall
Quote:
Justine Greening, the transport secretary says she is: 'determined to find a long term solution to Britain's airport crisis'.
In reality, my sources say that the government wants Silver-Boris to go ahead, but they are scared sh!tless of the political fallout.
On the plus side, they need to find a worthwhile project for all that 'quantitatively eased' printed money (Q.E.). The public perception is that Q.E. is simply propping up bankrupt banks and funding the bonuses of bankers. And instead of being grateful for this largesse, and contrite about their loosing so much money and jepardising the entire economy, bankers are simply sticking two fingers up at both parliament and the public, and paying themselves big bonuses for failure - at our expense, using our money.
In addition, a BoE report last week said that Q.E. was not getting money into the economy anyway, and was merely rewarding banks for failure. The report urged that money should go directly from the government to businesses and be used for infrastructure projects - just as I said in my previous postings.
Bearing the above in mind, Silver-Boris airport would definitely be seen as a worthwhile project. But would the population back it - with all the disruption it would entail? That is the government's biggest worry. Labour won three elections based upon the fundamental premise of never making any big and controversial decisions that would scare the electorate. David Ca-moron is a true heir to Blair, and is similarly scared of bold decision-making, or of upsetting the Lib-Dems.
Thus the government are not kicking the Silver-Boris project into the long-grass, they are putting out more and more feelers to see what happens. If there are riots on the street, they will look the other way, whistling softly, and pretend they had nothing to do with Silver-Boris in the first place. However, if the omens look positive, they will put out more feelers in the autumn, to see what the public reaction is again. If that goes well, expect a decision to go ahead next year.
What the government wants, is an election bathed in the accolades of a bold new infrastructure project, but before any of the messy disruption to people's lives starts. So they have two years, between the announcement and the election, to capture this honeymoon period.
What they would really like, of course, is for the pampered pilots of BA to go on strike, complaining about having to leave Windsor to go and live in Sheerness or Canvey Island. Daaarrrling, this is so not acceptable.... This would be a golden opportunity to swing public opinion behind a project that is rapidly becoming a class war. Toffs who don't want jobs and opportunities to go to the deprived East End, let alone having to live there with the 'great unwashed'.
Standby for more updates, but I imagine we shall get an announcement to build Silver-Boris within a year.
.
The Sunday Times has a report today, confirming the government's intent to investigate the possibility of building Silver-Boris airport in the Thames estuary.
"Chocks Away for Heathrow by the Sea"
Heathrow | Search | The Sunday Times
Sorry, article is behind the S.T. paywall
Quote:
Justine Greening, the transport secretary says she is: 'determined to find a long term solution to Britain's airport crisis'.
In reality, my sources say that the government wants Silver-Boris to go ahead, but they are scared sh!tless of the political fallout.
On the plus side, they need to find a worthwhile project for all that 'quantitatively eased' printed money (Q.E.). The public perception is that Q.E. is simply propping up bankrupt banks and funding the bonuses of bankers. And instead of being grateful for this largesse, and contrite about their loosing so much money and jepardising the entire economy, bankers are simply sticking two fingers up at both parliament and the public, and paying themselves big bonuses for failure - at our expense, using our money.
In addition, a BoE report last week said that Q.E. was not getting money into the economy anyway, and was merely rewarding banks for failure. The report urged that money should go directly from the government to businesses and be used for infrastructure projects - just as I said in my previous postings.
Bearing the above in mind, Silver-Boris airport would definitely be seen as a worthwhile project. But would the population back it - with all the disruption it would entail? That is the government's biggest worry. Labour won three elections based upon the fundamental premise of never making any big and controversial decisions that would scare the electorate. David Ca-moron is a true heir to Blair, and is similarly scared of bold decision-making, or of upsetting the Lib-Dems.
Thus the government are not kicking the Silver-Boris project into the long-grass, they are putting out more and more feelers to see what happens. If there are riots on the street, they will look the other way, whistling softly, and pretend they had nothing to do with Silver-Boris in the first place. However, if the omens look positive, they will put out more feelers in the autumn, to see what the public reaction is again. If that goes well, expect a decision to go ahead next year.
What the government wants, is an election bathed in the accolades of a bold new infrastructure project, but before any of the messy disruption to people's lives starts. So they have two years, between the announcement and the election, to capture this honeymoon period.
What they would really like, of course, is for the pampered pilots of BA to go on strike, complaining about having to leave Windsor to go and live in Sheerness or Canvey Island. Daaarrrling, this is so not acceptable.... This would be a golden opportunity to swing public opinion behind a project that is rapidly becoming a class war. Toffs who don't want jobs and opportunities to go to the deprived East End, let alone having to live there with the 'great unwashed'.
Standby for more updates, but I imagine we shall get an announcement to build Silver-Boris within a year.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 8th Jul 2012 at 15:42.
Paxing All Over The World
... but I imagine we shall get an announcement to build Silver-Boris within a year.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Let's suspend diss-belief for a moment.
The method of constructing airports surrounded by water is understood, tried, tested and works. Land raising is a muck shifting job until you want to do something with your island
Putting a multi-runway airport with all the necessary infrastructure and integrated transport links has been done both on land and sea.
Designing airspace with STARS and SIDs is a matter of following ICAO Doc 8168 taking account of existing airspace, geographic constraints and noise. NATS and DAP can do this at a world class level. RNAV/GNSS ops can only help.
But (and it's such a big but its bigger than Vordeman's) there is statutory method to compel commercial entities to move from one airport to another. Airlines based at LHR have, over the years, made huge financial investments.
In order to close Heathrow, or at least down grade it, the compensation owed to those entities has to be factored into the Boris Island project. How will this happen?
Furthermore, the construction is a PFI so the burden of paying airlines to move will push the return on capital employed beyond economic reality.
So can we consign Boris Island to the same backwater as Cliffe, Maplin Sands at Foulness and Cublington (Wing) purleeeze.
Even Boris now seems to accept that another runway at Stansted or Gatwick would be cheaper and viable.
Lastly, what about tearing up the Cranford Agreement (not that exists on paper) Without alternation and the night flight ban there is substantial capacity to unlock.
Mixed mode on both runways has been modeled and with quiet a/c doing CDFA (controlled descent final approach) even a couple of extra hours would help.
Whatever is decided it will be too little too late, except Emirates have the right idea - direct services from regional airports. Southend is next
SGC
The method of constructing airports surrounded by water is understood, tried, tested and works. Land raising is a muck shifting job until you want to do something with your island
Putting a multi-runway airport with all the necessary infrastructure and integrated transport links has been done both on land and sea.
Designing airspace with STARS and SIDs is a matter of following ICAO Doc 8168 taking account of existing airspace, geographic constraints and noise. NATS and DAP can do this at a world class level. RNAV/GNSS ops can only help.
But (and it's such a big but its bigger than Vordeman's) there is statutory method to compel commercial entities to move from one airport to another. Airlines based at LHR have, over the years, made huge financial investments.
In order to close Heathrow, or at least down grade it, the compensation owed to those entities has to be factored into the Boris Island project. How will this happen?
Furthermore, the construction is a PFI so the burden of paying airlines to move will push the return on capital employed beyond economic reality.
So can we consign Boris Island to the same backwater as Cliffe, Maplin Sands at Foulness and Cublington (Wing) purleeeze.
Even Boris now seems to accept that another runway at Stansted or Gatwick would be cheaper and viable.
Lastly, what about tearing up the Cranford Agreement (not that exists on paper) Without alternation and the night flight ban there is substantial capacity to unlock.
Mixed mode on both runways has been modeled and with quiet a/c doing CDFA (controlled descent final approach) even a couple of extra hours would help.
Whatever is decided it will be too little too late, except Emirates have the right idea - direct services from regional airports. Southend is next
SGC
Lastly, what about tearing up the Cranford Agreement (not that exists on paper)
Without alternation and the night flight ban there is substantial capacity to unlock.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standby for more updates, but I imagine we shall get an announcement to build Silver-Boris within a year.
He actually thinks that not only are they building this fantasy, but we're going to name it after him. Nurse?
How does the presence or absence of alternation affect capacity ?
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 8th Jul 2012 at 19:54.
Capacity is higher with continuous mixed mode at LHR
Without alternation and the night flight ban there is substantial capacity to unlock.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:"HS2 will definitely perform better than HS1. The simple reason is that the HS1 route stops off no where of interest in terms of business, additional transport (ie. airports/ports) or big residential towns and cities. (we can't really call Ebbsfleet and Ashford big areas)
HS2 will call at North London (Old Oak Common), and then spur off to LHR, then off to Birmingham and then possibly Manchester, Leeds and Scotland."
As proposed at present, it is another potential white elephant in the making: let's hope it is kicked into the "long grass" sooner rather than later. Let's waste no more public money on this nonsense.
Quote: "Quote:
Justine Greening, the transport secretary says she is: 'determined to find a long term solution to Britain's airport crisis'.
Long term does not mean a new airport in the Thames estuary, maybe it means one in the Thames valley, but there is still the problem of convincing pax and airlines to use it.
Allegedly, Justine Greening has also acknowledged that the country needs a four-runway airport. She is a politician, so unlikely to be thinking long term, so one would assume she means now or very soon indeed, not in 30 years time, and that she means LHR.
Quote: "In reality, my sources say that the government wants Silver-Boris to go ahead, but they are scared sh!tless of the political fallout.
Ha ha, that's very funny! Time to name your sources, Silver, otherwise this statement is meaningless.
Quote: "Standby for more updates, but I imagine we shall get an announcement to build Silver-Boris within a year."
Not a chance!
Quote: "But (and it's such a big but its bigger than Vordeman's) there is statutory method to compel commercial entities to move from one airport to another."
No, there is not!
Quote: "Airlines based at LHR have, over the years, made huge financial investments."
Precisely, so they will not move to the estuary.
Quote: "In order to close Heathrow, or at least down grade it, the compensation owed to those entities has to be factored into the Boris Island project. How will this happen?"
Yet another reason that it will not happen!
Quote: "Furthermore, the construction is a PFI so the burden of paying airlines to move will push the return on capital employed beyond economic reality."
No, there will be no public sector involvement, so it therefore cannot be a PFI/PPP deal.
Quote: "So can we consign Boris Island to the same backwater as Cliffe, Maplin Sands at Foulness and Cublington (Wing) purleeeze."
Yes, indeed we can.
Quote: "Whatever is decided it will be too little too late, except Emirates have the right idea - direct services from regional airports. Southend is next"
Of course more long haul out of regional airports is desirable, no one would argue with that, but it is not related to Heathrow expansion or capacity in the south east generally.
Quote: "Capacity is higher with continuous mixed mode at LHR, it's a quick win on growth but a complete loss of any quiet around Hounslow."
Continuous mixed mode squeezes in more capacity, but this will not address delays. Obviously, delays on takeoff and landing will increase.
Permanent mixed mode and/or all-night operations may eventually be a harder sell to those under the flightpath than a third/fourth rwy. Some MPs have recently come out in favour of a third and fourth rwy. Maybe they have the continuation of alternation in mind.
HS2 will call at North London (Old Oak Common), and then spur off to LHR, then off to Birmingham and then possibly Manchester, Leeds and Scotland."
As proposed at present, it is another potential white elephant in the making: let's hope it is kicked into the "long grass" sooner rather than later. Let's waste no more public money on this nonsense.
Quote: "Quote:
Justine Greening, the transport secretary says she is: 'determined to find a long term solution to Britain's airport crisis'.
Long term does not mean a new airport in the Thames estuary, maybe it means one in the Thames valley, but there is still the problem of convincing pax and airlines to use it.
Allegedly, Justine Greening has also acknowledged that the country needs a four-runway airport. She is a politician, so unlikely to be thinking long term, so one would assume she means now or very soon indeed, not in 30 years time, and that she means LHR.
Quote: "In reality, my sources say that the government wants Silver-Boris to go ahead, but they are scared sh!tless of the political fallout.
Ha ha, that's very funny! Time to name your sources, Silver, otherwise this statement is meaningless.
Quote: "Standby for more updates, but I imagine we shall get an announcement to build Silver-Boris within a year."
Not a chance!
Quote: "But (and it's such a big but its bigger than Vordeman's) there is statutory method to compel commercial entities to move from one airport to another."
No, there is not!
Quote: "Airlines based at LHR have, over the years, made huge financial investments."
Precisely, so they will not move to the estuary.
Quote: "In order to close Heathrow, or at least down grade it, the compensation owed to those entities has to be factored into the Boris Island project. How will this happen?"
Yet another reason that it will not happen!
Quote: "Furthermore, the construction is a PFI so the burden of paying airlines to move will push the return on capital employed beyond economic reality."
No, there will be no public sector involvement, so it therefore cannot be a PFI/PPP deal.
Quote: "So can we consign Boris Island to the same backwater as Cliffe, Maplin Sands at Foulness and Cublington (Wing) purleeeze."
Yes, indeed we can.
Quote: "Whatever is decided it will be too little too late, except Emirates have the right idea - direct services from regional airports. Southend is next"
Of course more long haul out of regional airports is desirable, no one would argue with that, but it is not related to Heathrow expansion or capacity in the south east generally.
Quote: "Capacity is higher with continuous mixed mode at LHR, it's a quick win on growth but a complete loss of any quiet around Hounslow."
Continuous mixed mode squeezes in more capacity, but this will not address delays. Obviously, delays on takeoff and landing will increase.
Permanent mixed mode and/or all-night operations may eventually be a harder sell to those under the flightpath than a third/fourth rwy. Some MPs have recently come out in favour of a third and fourth rwy. Maybe they have the continuation of alternation in mind.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 8th Jul 2012 at 22:29.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if Im wrong, but latest figures suggest that a third runway and sixth terminal at LHR will cost something like £9bn, which will mostly be funded by BAA and the airlines i.e. NOT the taxpayer.
Boris island will cost upwards of £50bn, funded at least in a sizeable part by the taxpayer.
Surely the only thing that a third runway needs is political will to give it the go ahead, whereas Boris island needs political go ahead AND a large chunk of taxpayers cash?!
Let the taxpayer focus on HS2 (and link it to LHR!!!) and just give BAA the go ahead to build runway 3 and terminal 6
Boris island will cost upwards of £50bn, funded at least in a sizeable part by the taxpayer.
Surely the only thing that a third runway needs is political will to give it the go ahead, whereas Boris island needs political go ahead AND a large chunk of taxpayers cash?!
Let the taxpayer focus on HS2 (and link it to LHR!!!) and just give BAA the go ahead to build runway 3 and terminal 6
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cayley:
Furthermore, the construction is a PFI so the burden of paying airlines to move will push the return on capital employed beyond economic reality.
Furthermore, the construction is a PFI so the burden of paying airlines to move will push the return on capital employed beyond economic reality.
It will not be a PFI project. Read my post again, it will be a Q.E. project, effectively paid for by future inflation. Same kind of deal, but no need for a private-company middle man, who does nothing but make fat profits at our expense.
Cayley:
Even Boris now seems to accept that another runway at Stansted or Gatwick would be cheaper and viable.
Mixed mode on both runways has been modeled and with quiet a/c doing CDFA (controlled descent final approach) even a couple of extra hours would help.
Even Boris now seems to accept that another runway at Stansted or Gatwick would be cheaper and viable.
Mixed mode on both runways has been modeled and with quiet a/c doing CDFA (controlled descent final approach) even a couple of extra hours would help.
An extra runway at another airport does not help whatsoever. We need an aviation world hub, not international passengers stranded at LHR because their domestic flight departs from LGW, in 40 minutes time.
Mix mode at LHR is technically not possible, without breaking the law. Simultaneous approaches require 1.5 km between the runways, which LHR does not have.
Frank:
Long term does not mean a new airport in the Thames estuary ... Justine Greening has also acknowledged that the country needs a four-runway airport. She is a politician, so unlikely to be thinking long term, so one would assume she means now or very soon indeed, not in 30 years time, and that she means LHR.
Long term does not mean a new airport in the Thames estuary ... Justine Greening has also acknowledged that the country needs a four-runway airport. She is a politician, so unlikely to be thinking long term, so one would assume she means now or very soon indeed, not in 30 years time, and that she means LHR.
Read the title of the Sunday Times article - "Chocks away for Heathrow by the Sea". Does that suggest 'LHR' to you? You can misinterpret the meaning as much as you like, but the S.T. understood it to refer to the Silver-Boris airport in the Thames estuary.
Skip:
He actually thinks that not only are they building this fantasy, but we're going to name it after him. Nurse?
He actually thinks that not only are they building this fantasy, but we're going to name it after him. Nurse?
That is a bit disingenuous of you, Skip. As you know, we ended up with dozens of proposed alternate sites in this thread. The designation Silver-Boris or Silver-Foster is to denote a modification of their current proposals - because neither Boris' nor Foster's proposals are workable in their present state.
Aero:
Not a problem, fetch the helicopter.
Not a problem, fetch the helicopter.
As you well know, that was tried back in the 80s. It was too expensive and too noisy. And why run an expensive helicopter shuttle, with all the inherent risks, when you can have the entire aviation hub under one roof, as it were?
At Silver-Boris, you only need a driverless tram-train between the two terminals, a 5-minute hop at the most. More importantly, you are already half way to Paris or Brussels on the TGV.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 9th Jul 2012 at 00:49.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mix mode at LHR is technically not possible, without breaking the law. Simultaneous approaches require 1.5 km between the runways, which LHR does not have.
Simultaneous approaches most certainly are possible. They most certainly are not 'against the law', whatever that means. What law do you think we'd be breaking?
Last edited by Gonzo; 9th Jul 2012 at 04:38.
Simultaneous approaches most certainly are possible. They most certainly are not 'against the law', whatever that means. What law do you think we'd be breaking?
Free Enterprise Group's proposal
"Proposition: The Government should grant planning permission for both a third and fourth runway at Heathrow.
Britain's hub airport Heathrow is currently at 99% capacity, and London's other airports are nearly as full. Demand is predicted to double over the next few decades. If new aviation capacity is not found, London's position as a world business hub will be damaged. Heathrow is almost unique among major world airports in only having two runways, with no plans for further construction.
Two proposals for increasing capacity have dominated the debate: expanding Heathrow and building a new airport. The first, a third runway at Heathrow has the advantage of private funding, industry support, and already existing infrastructure. However, critics argue that it would only provide a stopgap solution. Britain needs in the order of at least three new runways to accommodate demand. Concentrating these runways in the same location allows the facility to enjoy the benefits of a hub airport.
One solution is to grant planning permission for both a third and fourth runway at the same time, allowing Heathrow to upgrade itself to a truly world class hub. A fourth runway could be located either north of the airport by the M4, or to the south at the current locations of the villages of Bedfont and Stanwell. A fourth runway to the south would be situated A30 (the Staines Road) and incorporate Ashford Football Club.
Another possible location could be to place the two extra runways alongside, to the west, of the existing runways. This would mean placing the runways through Poyle (next to the north runway), south of the A4, the Colnbrook bypass, and just north of Stanwell Moor (next to the south runway).
Compensation would have to be commensurate to the upheaval. While Britons whose houses are compulsorily purchased by the government get market value, the French get another 25% on top of that. We should pay such a premium to facilitate these developments in Britain. The rapid expansion of Charles de Gaulle airport at Roissy, 14 miles (23 km) to the north-east of Paris, was also eased through the help of large grants for community facilities and improved transport links.
No option for aviation expansion is perfect, but this option would allow Britain to rapidly build on its strengths, rather than take the speculative risk of a completely new facility. BAA would have the option either to build both runways simultaneously, if this proved cost efficient, or to stagger the construction. This would both give the industry more strategic certainty about its future, and be more honest with locals about what to expect."
Britain's hub airport Heathrow is currently at 99% capacity, and London's other airports are nearly as full. Demand is predicted to double over the next few decades. If new aviation capacity is not found, London's position as a world business hub will be damaged. Heathrow is almost unique among major world airports in only having two runways, with no plans for further construction.
Two proposals for increasing capacity have dominated the debate: expanding Heathrow and building a new airport. The first, a third runway at Heathrow has the advantage of private funding, industry support, and already existing infrastructure. However, critics argue that it would only provide a stopgap solution. Britain needs in the order of at least three new runways to accommodate demand. Concentrating these runways in the same location allows the facility to enjoy the benefits of a hub airport.
One solution is to grant planning permission for both a third and fourth runway at the same time, allowing Heathrow to upgrade itself to a truly world class hub. A fourth runway could be located either north of the airport by the M4, or to the south at the current locations of the villages of Bedfont and Stanwell. A fourth runway to the south would be situated A30 (the Staines Road) and incorporate Ashford Football Club.
Another possible location could be to place the two extra runways alongside, to the west, of the existing runways. This would mean placing the runways through Poyle (next to the north runway), south of the A4, the Colnbrook bypass, and just north of Stanwell Moor (next to the south runway).
Compensation would have to be commensurate to the upheaval. While Britons whose houses are compulsorily purchased by the government get market value, the French get another 25% on top of that. We should pay such a premium to facilitate these developments in Britain. The rapid expansion of Charles de Gaulle airport at Roissy, 14 miles (23 km) to the north-east of Paris, was also eased through the help of large grants for community facilities and improved transport links.
No option for aviation expansion is perfect, but this option would allow Britain to rapidly build on its strengths, rather than take the speculative risk of a completely new facility. BAA would have the option either to build both runways simultaneously, if this proved cost efficient, or to stagger the construction. This would both give the industry more strategic certainty about its future, and be more honest with locals about what to expect."
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I were offered 125% of my house's value to move away from the noise and flight path of LHR then I definitely would!
LHR is only in 'the wrong place' because of all the houses around it, so removing that problem would solve all the issues...genius
LHR is only in 'the wrong place' because of all the houses around it, so removing that problem would solve all the issues...genius
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that is true for many of the houses affected in Harmondsworth & Sipson for a potential RW3, but the complications will come if a RW4 is proposed south of the current site, with many more houses potentially affected in Stanwell and Feltham
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dannyboy39,
Ah, yes, but that isn't using simultaneous parallel approaches. Simultaneous parallel approaches is when two aircraft are coming down their respective final approach tracks abeam each other, not staggered.
And when there are significant delays during peak periods, the departure runway is also used for arrivals, as explained earlier in this thread.