Northolt could become Heathrow's 3rd runway
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting idea which I hadn't thought about before. Nightmare from an ATC point of view however...
Consider easterly operations with Northolt's runway 07 extended approach centreline cutting right through Heathrow's 09L/09R approach.
I won't go into the details of current procedures and how they get around this nowadays. However, all I'll say is that it wouldn't be at all practical with a constant flow of traffic to both Northolt's and Heathrow's easterly runways.
Consider easterly operations with Northolt's runway 07 extended approach centreline cutting right through Heathrow's 09L/09R approach.
I won't go into the details of current procedures and how they get around this nowadays. However, all I'll say is that it wouldn't be at all practical with a constant flow of traffic to both Northolt's and Heathrow's easterly runways.
it wouldn't be at all practical with a constant flow of traffic to both Northolt's and Heathrow's easterly runways
On the other hand I don't believe it will ever be Heathrow north for political and financial reasons.
By the time HM government have decided what to do there will be a new lot in and a new consultation for another 8 years (reapeat ad-infinitum until we run out of fuel or don't want airports any more).
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walnut
I was not suggesting busing pax between the airports, A high speed monorail could speed people in 10min between airports.
There would not really be a problem with ATC, Just go to New York where you have 4 airports within much the same separation ie JFK, EWR, Le Guardia & Teteborough.
If you make it domestic only I believe there would be plenty of traffic, ie Northern Island. Channel Islands. Eire. Scotland. various Northern England airfields, It would also allow more direct flts to be developed from the North with easy conections compared to now with L/H & S/H flts.
As there would be no immigration or customs the terminal could be simple. with automatic trains running through the terminal direct to the main airport.
If we could steal ourselves to sign up to Schengan then even more traffic would develop.
Surely rather than plonking a large housing estate on the land with all the congestion this would produce, this could be a progressive way of making a linked transport system, with the HS2 stopping on its way to Birmingham and beyond.
W Walsh has already said he is not prepared to move from his swanky new terminal, so as he will shortly have 50% of LHR slots there is not much future in building "Boris Island" at a cost of circa £50B, for it to only have half occupany
There would not really be a problem with ATC, Just go to New York where you have 4 airports within much the same separation ie JFK, EWR, Le Guardia & Teteborough.
If you make it domestic only I believe there would be plenty of traffic, ie Northern Island. Channel Islands. Eire. Scotland. various Northern England airfields, It would also allow more direct flts to be developed from the North with easy conections compared to now with L/H & S/H flts.
As there would be no immigration or customs the terminal could be simple. with automatic trains running through the terminal direct to the main airport.
If we could steal ourselves to sign up to Schengan then even more traffic would develop.
Surely rather than plonking a large housing estate on the land with all the congestion this would produce, this could be a progressive way of making a linked transport system, with the HS2 stopping on its way to Birmingham and beyond.
W Walsh has already said he is not prepared to move from his swanky new terminal, so as he will shortly have 50% of LHR slots there is not much future in building "Boris Island" at a cost of circa £50B, for it to only have half occupany
Last edited by Walnut; 26th Jan 2012 at 21:10.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not? It works now doesn't it? Not really ideal, but not beyond the wit of mankind to work out procedures for more movements. Curved approaches already technically possible.
I agree that curved, precision approaches are possible (MLS, P-RNAV) but only really if flown in isolation i.e. not 3 miles north of another busy instrument approach.
There would not really be a problem with ATC, Just go to New York where you have 4 airports within much the same separation ie JFK, EWR, Le Guardia & Teteborough.
We're talking about trying to hugely improve runway capacity/utilisation in London. All I'm saying is that with this scenario a third of the time (when easterly ops are in force), trying to achieve this greater utilisation would be a big headache.
Last edited by twentypoint4; 26th Jan 2012 at 18:06.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never going to happen and it has been well chewed over in the past.
- As Skipness says, folks have no idea about how much time to leave getting across one terminal, leave alone a T1-T4/5 connection. Asking them to take a fast train to Terminal N, that takes a bit longer? Nah. They will belly ache all day long and spread very bad publicity for EGLL.
Originally Posted by Facelookbovvered
Whilst it might just be possible to create a secure network between these locations and treat the train/mono rail as airside, it would be very expensive and difficult in practice because you would have non EU pax and domestic trying to move between terminals.
Expensive? Yes? Complicated? Yes? Feasible? Don't know. But IMHO it still seems more feasible than building a new island...
Paxing All Over The World
The Munich Transrapid project was being formulatee when I worked in the city for 18 months. The S-Bahn was very good and I used it all the time. I could land at MUC at 23:00 on a Sunday night, be on the train 25 mins later and then 40 mins to the centre and it was ALWAYS there.
However, I expect that they will have to build something faster soon as the car traffic out to there is grim.
However, I expect that they will have to build something faster soon as the car traffic out to there is grim.
No chance as why bother when HS2 is being built will be attitude of Govt.
As for marginal seat loss....................irrelevant when Scottish Independence is considered.
As for marginal seat loss....................irrelevant when Scottish Independence is considered.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not worry too much about marginal constituencies, by their nature they flip between parties, a Labour marginal will go Conservative one election then later on it's back to Labour, and vice versa.
A marginal seat will probably change several times before LHR gets a third/fourth runway, NHT is developed for domestic flights, Heathwick links are built, Silver Island/Isle of Grain is built, and adequate public transport/motorway links are provided for any of these.
Another flock of pigs flies by.....
A marginal seat will probably change several times before LHR gets a third/fourth runway, NHT is developed for domestic flights, Heathwick links are built, Silver Island/Isle of Grain is built, and adequate public transport/motorway links are provided for any of these.
Another flock of pigs flies by.....
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barling Magna - when I said one of them, as in I voted Tory, I consider myself a conservative thinker - I don't work for the govt or a party.
Re: marginals - these are exactly the kind of seats that elections are fought over - no point in putting resources into seats you either can't win, or are going to win anyway.
Also, I know this is for another thread - but just because Scotland is going to have a referendum, doesn't mean they will get independence, so all political planning has to assume business as usual.
If we're going to talk New York, let's talk twin hubs - LHR T5 & 3 remodelled for Oneworld, looks like Star are getting T2. Terminate HS2 at LGW, spur at OOC onto line to Reading for Home Counties traffic. Both airports then have similar times to reach central London, give Skyteam swanky midfield terminal @LGW - Flybe provide the feeders.
Maybe not the third runway LHR wants, which we know would only lead to a fourth, but it would be workable politically.
Re: marginals - these are exactly the kind of seats that elections are fought over - no point in putting resources into seats you either can't win, or are going to win anyway.
Also, I know this is for another thread - but just because Scotland is going to have a referendum, doesn't mean they will get independence, so all political planning has to assume business as usual.
If we're going to talk New York, let's talk twin hubs - LHR T5 & 3 remodelled for Oneworld, looks like Star are getting T2. Terminate HS2 at LGW, spur at OOC onto line to Reading for Home Counties traffic. Both airports then have similar times to reach central London, give Skyteam swanky midfield terminal @LGW - Flybe provide the feeders.
Maybe not the third runway LHR wants, which we know would only lead to a fourth, but it would be workable politically.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
give Skyteam swanky midfield terminal @LGW
We have one (almost) functional hub airfield, spliiting it between two counties is a commercial non starter, like "Heath-wick". How many of the politicians blethering on about this have any commercial experience outside politics?
Who IS Justine Greening? Would I even hire her to cut my grass?
The problem is the electorate, WE are all morons. We want continued economic growth with no aircraft noise, fast trains though NIMBY, cheap power via a trillion wind-farms and no nuclear and discipline in schools where teachers have no recourse that would scare anyone. Honestly, I do sometimes have sympathy for politicians. To top it all, pprune has recently become completely fixated with trains ! This madness has no end....
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipless,
Like I said, it is not the perfect solution, but it is more likely to be workable than either a fantasy island or adding more runways on to already noisy Heathrow, not to mention the political challenges.
Well, if it is access to central London, see above. If it is the prestige / Heathrow is biggest, so I just want to be there argument, not much can be done about that. I ask - what is the 'prestige' airport for NYC - I suggest it is still JFK. But which is the biggest and easiest hub? EWR, surely?
My assumption is that Oneworld would move their LGW flights into LHR - so let's not pretend that current arrangement doesn't already split the hub in two.
I'd love to see some figures - I would assume that, even if a lot of BAs LGW is ptp, there is still a fair bit of interlining going on. Most interlining at LHR must be within same airline or grouping?
All Heath-wick does is provide a fast connection which might be needed less if all airline groups could serve their customers under one roof - or 2 in the case of BA + Oneworld @ LHR.
How much LGW-LHR traffic is DIY connections, involving a loco leg anyway - hardly the ones to pay for a premium rail service.
But the real flaw of Heathwick is that it provides zero extra capacity, yet it has a £5bn price tag, the sort of figure which would almost pay for a 2nd runway and midfield terminal at LGW.
Very well put Skipless, that is the reality they face - the people you want with commercial experience are to busy still getting that commercial experience as they know what a headache it would be to become a politician!
Having said that, Ms Greening is an accountant. How she accepted HS2 without modifying it surprised me, but maybe she saw that it might actually bring some useful benefits once the second bit gets built - if it gets built....
The parallel thread on Thames Airport has been, I started a Jetblast thread about HS2 a couple of weeks ago, and if chugged to a halt after a few days.
I think the reason that thread is so full of stuff about trains (apart from the diversionary stuff about running HS2 through Crossrail) is quite simple - I don't think the aeronautical issues of Boris Island would pose that many challenges (birdstrike perhaps) - but the surface access is going to need to rotate London completely.
Northolt on the other hand poses significant aerospace challenges - and a few surface access ones too. OK, back to playing aerosexuals then?
Like I said, it is not the perfect solution, but it is more likely to be workable than either a fantasy island or adding more runways on to already noisy Heathrow, not to mention the political challenges.
They'll all be delighted at being sh1fted off to Gatters I suppose? The North Terminal at Gatwick used to beat Terrible One at LHR hands down for 20 years before BA moved to T5, it's NOT the Terminal facilities that's the issue.
We have one (almost) functional hub airfield, spliiting it between two counties is a commercial non starter,
I'd love to see some figures - I would assume that, even if a lot of BAs LGW is ptp, there is still a fair bit of interlining going on. Most interlining at LHR must be within same airline or grouping?
like "Heath-wick".
How much LGW-LHR traffic is DIY connections, involving a loco leg anyway - hardly the ones to pay for a premium rail service.
But the real flaw of Heathwick is that it provides zero extra capacity, yet it has a £5bn price tag, the sort of figure which would almost pay for a 2nd runway and midfield terminal at LGW.
The problem is the electorate, WE are all morons. We want continued economic growth with no aircraft noise, fast trains though NIMBY, cheap power via a trillion wind-farms and no nuclear and discipline in schools where teachers have no recourse that would scare anyone. Honestly, I do sometimes have sympathy for politicians.
Having said that, Ms Greening is an accountant. How she accepted HS2 without modifying it surprised me, but maybe she saw that it might actually bring some useful benefits once the second bit gets built - if it gets built....
o top it all, pprune has recently become completely fixated with trains !
I think the reason that thread is so full of stuff about trains (apart from the diversionary stuff about running HS2 through Crossrail) is quite simple - I don't think the aeronautical issues of Boris Island would pose that many challenges (birdstrike perhaps) - but the surface access is going to need to rotate London completely.
Northolt on the other hand poses significant aerospace challenges - and a few surface access ones too. OK, back to playing aerosexuals then?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't really see NHT as an alternative to expansion at LHR, it's too constrained. Easterly landings into the east could be problematic.
However, NHT could be used for thin domestic routes, those that have lost their links to LHR over the years such as LPL, LBA, MME, INV, JER, etc., and allow new destinations such as NQY, CWL, BLK, IOM, CAX, DND, etc..
Some of these areas desperately need regeneration and improved connectivity is essential, and let's face it, none of these destinations will ever see an HST.
Being thin routes, smaller jets and turbo props would be used. Trunk routes such as MAN, NCL, BHD/BFS, GLA, EDI and ABZ would remain at LHR because of the use of larger aircraft.
Advantages:
As mentioned above, the provision of greater connectivity and assisting in regeneration;
More regions would have improved access to a world hub, with an easier transit than from LGW, for example;
A 17 minute link to London (Chiltern Railways, as mentioned in a previous post) make it as suitable as the increasingly overcrowded LCY for domestic traffic headed to/from London;
Links to/from LHR would need to be "landside" only, as immigration and customs would be at LHR for pax. arriving from overseas;
A skytrain or monorail between LHR and NHT would benefit commuters and other travellers apart from pax., by linking various underground and rail routes;
It would bring in extra income for the military.
All this depends on whether one or more carriers (such as BE or U2, or a "cityflier" type operation) can see business potential. NHT can never be a busy airport like LGA in New York, and civil aviation would have to share with the RAF as was the case at NQY, but more use could certainly be made of this facility.
All Longhaul and most shorthaul European operations are out of the question at NHT, so LHR expansion would remain essential.
It's all probably pie in the sky, but the above does have considerable merit, at least until LHR expansion is completed.
However, NHT could be used for thin domestic routes, those that have lost their links to LHR over the years such as LPL, LBA, MME, INV, JER, etc., and allow new destinations such as NQY, CWL, BLK, IOM, CAX, DND, etc..
Some of these areas desperately need regeneration and improved connectivity is essential, and let's face it, none of these destinations will ever see an HST.
Being thin routes, smaller jets and turbo props would be used. Trunk routes such as MAN, NCL, BHD/BFS, GLA, EDI and ABZ would remain at LHR because of the use of larger aircraft.
Advantages:
As mentioned above, the provision of greater connectivity and assisting in regeneration;
More regions would have improved access to a world hub, with an easier transit than from LGW, for example;
A 17 minute link to London (Chiltern Railways, as mentioned in a previous post) make it as suitable as the increasingly overcrowded LCY for domestic traffic headed to/from London;
Links to/from LHR would need to be "landside" only, as immigration and customs would be at LHR for pax. arriving from overseas;
A skytrain or monorail between LHR and NHT would benefit commuters and other travellers apart from pax., by linking various underground and rail routes;
It would bring in extra income for the military.
All this depends on whether one or more carriers (such as BE or U2, or a "cityflier" type operation) can see business potential. NHT can never be a busy airport like LGA in New York, and civil aviation would have to share with the RAF as was the case at NQY, but more use could certainly be made of this facility.
All Longhaul and most shorthaul European operations are out of the question at NHT, so LHR expansion would remain essential.
It's all probably pie in the sky, but the above does have considerable merit, at least until LHR expansion is completed.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FDF,
But in many of the cases you mention, there are other reasons why the routes don't exist, nothing to do with LHR - APD and fuel prices being the obvious two.
When was LPL last served from LHR? Gone from LCY - train & APD?
LCY-LBA lasted a month or two? Iirc, BE tried LGW-LBA & MME - short lived.
V train - what that needs is Reading to LHR link, which should come with XRail.
For BLK, read Preston - both do nicely out of being on the WCML route, because of Glasgow, many more trains stop here than otherwise would - hence very difficult for competing air services to work.
Yes, would be good to have at LHR - not to mention places in Ireland, maybe EIN, GRQ, LIL etc.
HOWEVER - SEN could take this as ptp. For connections, that's a lot of movements to get any kind of volume + infra costs + airspace etc.
Don't quite see it working I'm afraid - but apart from DND, all the above could feed in to an expanded hub at LGW
Not so - Leeds is one of the major destinations of Phase2, and by then there should also be a join from HS2 onto the classic line around Preston, good for both BLK & CAX. There will also be a join around York for Darlington (MME).
However, NHT could be used for thin domestic routes, those that have lost their links to LHR over the years such as , etc., and allow new destinations such as etc..
Some of these areas desperately need regeneration and improved connectivity is essential, and let's face it,
Some of these areas desperately need regeneration and improved connectivity is essential, and let's face it,
LPL
LBA, MME
CWL,
BLK, CAX
INV, JER, NQY, IOM, DND,
HOWEVER - SEN could take this as ptp. For connections, that's a lot of movements to get any kind of volume + infra costs + airspace etc.
Don't quite see it working I'm afraid - but apart from DND, all the above could feed in to an expanded hub at LGW
none of these destinations will ever see an HST.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, did say that it could be pie in the sky.
The HST will never reach places like CAX, BLK, MME, etc., areas that need the connectivity that can help with regeneration. The HST is unlikely to go north of Birmingham in our lifetime. If it does, Manchester will be probably be the limit. The long way round to Leeds via Birmingham on an HST will not be that much shorter in time than the existing 2 hour journey time.
Even if the HST eventually went all the way to Glasgow, the whole point is to eliminate the stops, else the journey times cannot be maintained. The 50 minutes London-Birmingham HST journey time is nonstop. The present 3 stop journey is 1 hour 20. Take out the stops and the journey time may reduce to 1 hour 5 or 1 hour 10. It's an awful lot of money and disruption to save 15-20 minutes.
The likes of Preston, Blackpool, Carlisle, York, Darlington and Middlesbrough will never see it. Preston, York and Darlington have some fairly quick rail journey times as it is, if central London is the origin/destination. If an HST network is ever built most of the UK will see it pass by without the ability to access it.
The point of expanding domestic routes is to provide much needed capacity to relieve chronic road congestion and rail overcrowding in a more comprehensive way and at a fraction of the cost of the HS2 and to provide consumer choice.
Because of premium fares, most of us won't be able to afford to ride the HST, if aviation can compete on fares it will. As mentioned previously, it depends on whether one or more carriers can see business potential.
The HST will never reach places like CAX, BLK, MME, etc., areas that need the connectivity that can help with regeneration. The HST is unlikely to go north of Birmingham in our lifetime. If it does, Manchester will be probably be the limit. The long way round to Leeds via Birmingham on an HST will not be that much shorter in time than the existing 2 hour journey time.
Even if the HST eventually went all the way to Glasgow, the whole point is to eliminate the stops, else the journey times cannot be maintained. The 50 minutes London-Birmingham HST journey time is nonstop. The present 3 stop journey is 1 hour 20. Take out the stops and the journey time may reduce to 1 hour 5 or 1 hour 10. It's an awful lot of money and disruption to save 15-20 minutes.
The likes of Preston, Blackpool, Carlisle, York, Darlington and Middlesbrough will never see it. Preston, York and Darlington have some fairly quick rail journey times as it is, if central London is the origin/destination. If an HST network is ever built most of the UK will see it pass by without the ability to access it.
The point of expanding domestic routes is to provide much needed capacity to relieve chronic road congestion and rail overcrowding in a more comprehensive way and at a fraction of the cost of the HS2 and to provide consumer choice.
Because of premium fares, most of us won't be able to afford to ride the HST, if aviation can compete on fares it will. As mentioned previously, it depends on whether one or more carriers can see business potential.
Paxing All Over The World
It's nice pie in the sky, if only brit govts of the last 40 years had thought such things. By the way, until late 2001 (if memory serves) IOM was also direct to LHR with three rotations a day. Manx Airlines had four pairs of slots and it was the prime reason that Big Air bought them out. It was also the second time that Big had dumped the IOM.
Nowadays, people link through LTN, MAN for longer haul and LCY for biz. There are a number of other routes from the island. But, just like Brymon, they used to have LHR pairs and that made them valuable and vulnerable.
Sorry, just a small hobby horse but no new govt is going to do better than those of the past in respect of British airline business.
Nowadays, people link through LTN, MAN for longer haul and LCY for biz. There are a number of other routes from the island. But, just like Brymon, they used to have LHR pairs and that made them valuable and vulnerable.
Sorry, just a small hobby horse but no new govt is going to do better than those of the past in respect of British airline business.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so let's not pretend that current arrangement doesn't already split the hub in two.
jabird, the Skyteam airlines, Continental before they left and in particular Delta spent years fighting to get out of LGW and have LHR access. There is no commercial case for them moving back, you'd need to force them.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FDF,
For the technical stuff re: HST, please see the thread on JB. But the current plan is that York & then NCL inc Darlington + Preston, Carlisle etc would all be served as extensions from the end of Phase 2, which stops at Leeds and Manchester. Planned date is 2033, give or take, but I certainly hope to still be around by then
With regards to:
You have to remember that when the Tories came out with the firm 'No R3 @ LHR' policy, they needed to be seen to be doing something in its place. Theresa Villiers then came up with the ridiculous idea that HS2 was the substitute for this runway. So the idea that there's be any support for using NHT to compete with HS2, into which they are pumping billions, would be just as daft.
If, on the other hand, they see NHT as serving routes onto the Continent, and to Ireland + IOM, CI etc - ones that HS2 can't reach, then maybe.
For the technical stuff re: HST, please see the thread on JB. But the current plan is that York & then NCL inc Darlington + Preston, Carlisle etc would all be served as extensions from the end of Phase 2, which stops at Leeds and Manchester. Planned date is 2033, give or take, but I certainly hope to still be around by then
With regards to:
The point of expanding domestic routes is to provide much needed capacity to relieve chronic road congestion and rail overcrowding in a more comprehensive way and at a fraction of the cost of the HS2 and to provide consumer choice.
If, on the other hand, they see NHT as serving routes onto the Continent, and to Ireland + IOM, CI etc - ones that HS2 can't reach, then maybe.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOE,
Yes, I accept that is the bulk, but still a few Med destinations which are also sizeable cities - VLC, GOA for example. Maybe yields not so high from the UK, but as feeders to LH?
I don't question that, but why do people pay more? Two factors - 1) quality of terminals (although only really relevant for T5) and 2) transfer time to central London could be addressed with new facilities and a big surface access upgrade at LGW.
As LHR currently stands, I agree entirely. LGW could only expand if it overcame the time advantage LHR has.
As for forcing, I cannot answer that - after all, theey are separately owned now. However, whatever drawback LGW may have, they are tiny compared to Boris Island. If BI is indeed just a smokescreen for LHR R3, then it wouldn't be surprising, but I still think there's a major political headache in getting it through. Especially, looking how many things Ed Miliband has apologised for / backtracked from the last government - can you see a U-turn on this (without the extra 40+ seats they would gain from Scotland)?
The hub is not split in two, BA don't hub at Gatwick which is overwhelming point to point leisure.
It's not about prestige and LHR being bigger, it's about pound for pound under legacy long and short haul, yields are higher at LHR.
There is no commercial case for them moving back, you'd need to force them.
As for forcing, I cannot answer that - after all, theey are separately owned now. However, whatever drawback LGW may have, they are tiny compared to Boris Island. If BI is indeed just a smokescreen for LHR R3, then it wouldn't be surprising, but I still think there's a major political headache in getting it through. Especially, looking how many things Ed Miliband has apologised for / backtracked from the last government - can you see a U-turn on this (without the extra 40+ seats they would gain from Scotland)?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I agree it's an interesting discussion to speculate on the viability of Northolt for thin domestic links, I can't see how money would be spent on this by a government when it wouldn't help resolve the issue at hand - the ability to free up slots ar LHR for expansion. Links to Northern Ireland, Scotland, etc currently flown on the 320 family would likely need to stay at LHR due to the runway length at Northolt. There seems little political will to encourage new domestic hops out of London on thin routes, the current APD costs being evidence of this.