Heathrow expansion won't happen

[Dannyboy39]

Excuse my language, but all these reports and "suggestions" from self proclaimed experts and politicans are just total bo11ocks. The world is going mad.

[PAXboy]

No, no Dannyboy39. Not 'going' mad. Gone mad. It was sometime last century during the 1980s.

[jabird]

How does EHAM manage to do it?

Well they have 6 runways for a start, giving more usage permutations, and one of them is so far away from the terminal I'm surprised Ryanair haven't taken it as their own and called it Rotterdam.

What qualifications and/or experience in Aviation do any of the "experts" have? Are there real (not fantasy) pilots or ATCOs on here contributing to this thread?

Actually, airport development is largely a land use planning issue. The job of a pilot is to fly the plane. The job of the planner is to provide the pilots with a safe place to fly the planes to and from. Two very different roles, I would never expect a planner to bang on the cockpit door and offer to fly the plane, so why should pilots design airports?*

The job of the politicians is to let the planners plan, and every now and then to actually give the go ahead for those plans.

Does our government only seek wisdom from self proclaimed "experts"?

Government is about placating some of the people some of the time, for every forum thread there is here asking for more expansion, there is another elsewhere opposing it.

How do other governments manage to succeed in creating new multi runway transcontinental airports, without having 50 plus years of BS?

Like DXB or DWC? Well that is very simple. The government and developer are one and the same, and anyone who takes a different view gets a one way ticket out of there on a slow boat.

We have BS because we have a system that encourages BS. We only have two runways at LHR because the existing ones point directly at the centre of London, and there are land use conflicts which make expansion a tremendous challenge.

So I still hope that Vince "Genius" Cable is wrong, because for all the flaws with a 3rd runway at Heathrow, it is still our only proper hub airport, and that is a crown that my "local" at BHX can never claim.

However, that is my view, I fully understand why other people take different views, even if they are less likely to be regulars in this forum. If you question the authority of people on this thread, then try going over to any local politics or environmental forum and looking at the "informed" opinions about aviation there. Usually written by people who vehemently hate our industry, but happily use it twice per year to go on holiday in Spain.


*Unless, like Lord Foster, they happen to be an architect (with a planning department) AND a qualified pilot, although for some reason I can't quite understand, his Boris Island proposal is seriously flawed both in terms of planning AND the obstacles to the east of the southern runway.

[Heathrow Harry]

good post jabird

people talk about "planning " & "planners" as if they only listen to one set of opinions

in general they are trying to achieve a LONG TERM balance of land use - we don't have enough where we want it so it's use has to be effectively rationed. In the Uk they are influenced by our elected representatives and other pressure groups

In places like Hong Kong they only answer to the Head Man - effective at getting some things done but not encessarily a brilliant idea for long term outcomes.....

[jabird]

Well the planners can still only draw on the maps they have. The engineers still need to work out the alignments, and the builders need to build.

So can anyone explain why the Grauniad is now saying R3 will "only" cost £8bn, and the Torygraph is reporting £10bn?

For just over a MILE of concrete? Same again for supporting taxiways?

Isn't Sipson already largely CPd anyway?

I know this is private capital, but it is starting to make HS2 ("just" £145m per mile for ph1) and Fantasy Boris Island (who knows where the cost will end up, but 4 full length runways and totally new terminals) look good value now!

[On the beach]

Thames World Central is the only real, long term solution to the "Heathrow problem". Heathrow was a decent airport when it had more runways than it has now and fewer terminals and it did what it was supposed to do. However, times have progressed and Heathrow no longer has the ability to cope with the expansion in air travel which is in progress right now.

Talk of a third runway is fatuous for so many reasons. Traffic using this mythical proposal will have to cross 09L/27R to access 4 of the 5 current terminals unless a 6th. terminal and all it's associated infrastructure are added to the costs. Mixed mode operations will be necessary at all times. I can already hear the anti-noise uproar. The solution to this little conundrum being to build a 4th. runway. So, that means the M4 and probably the M25 being rerouted. Do you really seriously think that FGP TopCo Limited have the resources or more importantly access to the resources to finance all this?

Thames World Central or whatever you want to call the new Thames Estuary Airport and the associated infrastructure would have to be financed by central Government and if ever there was a time for a big infrastructure project spend, now would be the time for it.

The prospect of a third runway at Heathrow has been dismissed by all the political parties now so it ain't going to happen. Let's move on and discuss the reality of a totally new airport designed for the 21st. Century with 21st. Century facilities. 6 runways, spaced so that simultaneous parallel approaches and departures can be carried out in all weather.

The current designs being touted have obviously had no or very little input from those who will be using the airport operationally. The runway spacing is wrong, the alignment is wrong and the terminals need to be in the centre of the airport, not at the end of the runways. These are the aspects that need to be focussed on. A third runway at Heathrow doesn't solve any long-term problems. At best it would be a temporary sticking plaster solution only, requiring a proper solution later. It's a non-starter. Let's have some realism, please.

OTB

[PAXboy]

jabird

So can anyone explain why the Grauniad is now saying R3 will "only" cost £8bn, and the Torygraph is reporting £10bn?

For just over a MILE of concrete? Same again for supporting taxiways?

Isn't Sipson already largely CPd anyway?

on the beach

Talk of a third runway is fatuous for so many reasons. Traffic using this mythical proposal will have to cross 09L/27R to access 4 of the 5 current terminals unless a 6th. terminal and all it's associated infrastructure are added to the costs.

A new T6 IS included in the plans, as it is expected that the s/h machines would stay 'local' within the R3 area, unless there was a prob with R3 of course and that would include the crossing of 09L/27R.

Here's a list I prepared earlier in the main Heathrow thread:

• legal costs
• compulsory purchase + legal costs!
• the A4 road has to be dropped down.
• the road connecting to the M4 will have to have a roof on it for most of the way and a load bearing roof at that! Some buildings in the new area will have to be put on piles spanning the road
• the Northern perimeter road and related access roads?
• Access taxiways from the main area for a/c to cross the Northern runway when required.
• There are shops and a petrol station that have to be vaporised (and vaporisation machines are costly )
• It's not just a runway but all the intermediate space that is built up with hotels and ancilliary buildings.
• Security and other provision around an expanded site
• Taxi ways with their lighting, guidance control for auto landing, ground spanning radar may need to be moved, or have whole new units put in. etc.
• all the control systems have to be expanded to have the extra runway and taxiways integrated.
• etcetera."

Then Fairdealfrank added:
Excellent summary, but don't forget the fire station! There'll have to be another one.

[LN-KGL]

jabird:
Well they have 6 runways for a start, giving more usage permutations, and one of them is so far away from the terminal I'm surprised Ryanair haven't taken it as their own and called it Rotterdam.

Kaagbaan happens to be closer to Rotterdam than Polderbaan (3.2 km / 2 miles) - Rotterdam is to the South of AMS.

[Skipness One Echo]

Thames World Central or whatever you want to call the new Thames Estuary Airport and the associated infrastructure would have to be financed by central Government and if ever there was a time for a big infrastructure project spend, now would be the time for it.

We call it Fantasy Island. I have had a good look down the back of the couch, we don't appear to have the money to do this anymore than we have the money to renationalise BR. ( not EVA Airways, go to the bottom of the class whoever thought that was what I meant....kudos if you went "BCAL?")

Well they have 6 runways for a start, giving more usage permutations, and one of them is so far away from the terminal I'm surprised Ryanair haven't taken it as their own and called it Rotterdam.

Schiphol is constrained to two landing and two departure runways, effectively it's capped at four runways. Indeed the Green brigade is if anything, stronger than here.

[Ernest Lanc's]

PAXboy

Same for every major airport expansion..What about the benefits?. what are the alternatives that are cheaper..Should we move out air traffic to the continent now, or hang on a bit?.

[DaveReidUK]

Another flaw in the report is that the 346 is a QC2 on departure, as is the 773, yet the report says these aircraft should be banned!

The rationale for those two types is their arrival QC value.

[PAXboy]

Ernest Lanc's Sure, I was just responding to the list of items that had to be paid for. The benefits are well listed elsewhere, I think. I support R3 and have done for 20 years. But, as I have also said many times, it won't get built. Nor will any new hub and it's all too late! The traffic is both changing and moving to the continent.

The politicians have fiddled for 25 years and now LHR is 'burnt'.

[jabird]

Kaagbaan happens to be closer to Rotterdam than Polderbaan (3.2 km / 2 miles) - Rotterdam is to the South of AMS.

The point I was making before I was out-pedanted was that they have more options than we do, and those options are already in place. Since when have Ryanair allowed a bit of geographic licence to stop them from calling an airport by the name of another city?

Schiphol is constrained to two landing and two departure runways, effectively it's capped at four runways.

Well 4 is still 2 + 2!

Indeed the Green brigade is if anything, stronger than here.

Yes, the GreenLeft (NL) or Alliance 90 (DE) are certainly far bigger forces than the UK green party, although I think we've always done pretty well with the nimby element.

Having said that, neither FRA nor AMS have anywhere near the same noise footprint as LHR, so even though our stagnation plays into their hands, there are obvious reasons why it is so difficult to get anything done here.

And people think Fantasy Island will be easy?

[Flightman]

Dave Reid said

The rationale for those two types is their arrival QC value.

From the report

All planes would have to be QC 0.5 or lower on arrival, and narrow bodied departures should be QC1 or lower, while widebodied departures should be QC2 or lower

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Talk of a third runway is fatuous for so many reasons. Traffic using this mythical proposal will have to cross 09L/27R to access 4 of the 5 current terminals unless a 6th. terminal and all it's associated infrastructure are added to the costs. Mixed mode operations will be necessary at all times. I can already hear the anti-noise uproar. The solution to this little conundrum being to build a 4th. runway. So, that means the M4 and probably the M25 being rerouted. Do you really seriously think that FGP TopCo Limited have the resources or more importantly access to the resources to finance all this?"

If we are talking about £80bn for Boris's vanity project, then diverting and/or tunnelising the M25/M4 to allow two long runways to the north and west of Heathrow would cost peanuts in comparison.

This is the way forward: the status quo on the existing rwys, the two new rwys a little further away from the densly populated areas. The third runway is a stopgap.



Quote: "The point I was making before I was out-pedanted was that they have more options than we do, and those options are already in place. Since when have Ryanair allowed a bit of geographic licence to stop them from calling an airport by the name of another city?"

Almost correct, jabird, except that FR would name it "London north east".

Quote: "Yes, the GreenLeft (NL) or Alliance 90 (DE) are certainly far bigger forces than the UK green party, although I think we've always done pretty well with the nimby element."

The trouble is that over here it's the mainstream parties being obstructive, not the fringe Green party. AFAIK, the Greens don't have any councillors under the flightpath. Their "strongholds" are Brighton and Norwich, and that's it!

[Honeybuzzard]

Heathrow expansion

If/When these runways/Airports are built, say in 2020 at the very earliest. What will the aircraft be fueling up with? cos. it aint gonna be Jet A-1 as it will be in short supply as we will be at or near peak oil.

[Rivet Joint]

So why are BAA actively buying up all the residential property to the north?

[daz211]

Just like the did at Stansted !

[DaveReidUK]

All planes would have to be QC 0.5 or lower on arrival, and narrow bodied departures should be QC1 or lower, while widebodied departures should be QC2 or lower

Well OK then - technically the 346 and 773 (both QC1 on arrival and QC2 on departure) would be allowed to take off, but would be prohibited from landing.

That sounds like a pretty effective ban to me.

[jabird]

it aint gonna be Jet A-1 as it will be in short supply as we will be at or near peak oil.

All peak oil means is that production has, well, peaked. There are still several decades of transition during which production might decline, and alternatives will become available, albeit at a premium, for the time being at least.

The whole point to remember is that Heathrow caters for more business and connecting traffic than any other UK airport, so it isn't as threatened as other airports, which cater for a lot more discretionary traffic.

You could even have a scenario where the pie shrinks, but Heathrow grows by taking a bigger slice. For example, all those BA and Virgin flights to the Caribbean which currently operate from LGW, would use LHR if they could get the slots.