Heathrow expansion won't happen
If LHR was closed and BJ International built ( EGBJ) a name that would readily remembered I am sure, then London will have fiver main airports LTN/STN/LCY/LGW and LBJ none of them west of a North south line through the centre of London.
So bearing in mind the huge population in west and west of London plus the concentration of hi tech business west of the city and the generally fairly affluent areas west of the city how is this market going to be served -in a word it isn’t so you now have a clamour to build an airport to serve this market or keep LHR going. For example if BA and all the majors were forced to shift to EGBJ why shouldn’t Ryanair shift half their business to the now empty LHR .
Sadly the whole thing is yet another joke at public expense like the delays to cross rail and the west coast main line fiasco because civil servants and pollies do not understand issues that result in actual concrete)( no pun) things being built as opposed to just lots of words. Perhaps one good thing to come out of the West Coast fiasco would have to be the opportunity to totally discredit the former Transport minister and her anti LHR views
PB
So bearing in mind the huge population in west and west of London plus the concentration of hi tech business west of the city and the generally fairly affluent areas west of the city how is this market going to be served -in a word it isn’t so you now have a clamour to build an airport to serve this market or keep LHR going. For example if BA and all the majors were forced to shift to EGBJ why shouldn’t Ryanair shift half their business to the now empty LHR .
Sadly the whole thing is yet another joke at public expense like the delays to cross rail and the west coast main line fiasco because civil servants and pollies do not understand issues that result in actual concrete)( no pun) things being built as opposed to just lots of words. Perhaps one good thing to come out of the West Coast fiasco would have to be the opportunity to totally discredit the former Transport minister and her anti LHR views
PB
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read those proposals from policyexchange and at first read looks exceptionally promising, with many of the benefits and far less of the drawbacks that other proposals have discussed.
Would be interested to know if anyone thinks of anything that would rule this option out? (aside from political inaction of course, which plagues any proposal other than 'do nothing'!)
Would be interested to know if anyone thinks of anything that would rule this option out? (aside from political inaction of course, which plagues any proposal other than 'do nothing'!)
I also have just read this interesting proposal from Policyexchange, prior to digesting the contents I would not have considered Luton as such a priority but with all the facts they present I must say its worth considering. Financial aspects aside it has possibilities.
Last edited by ericlday; 5th Oct 2012 at 10:18.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed. It would still necessitate the closure of LHR of course, which remains the elephant in the room when discussing anything other than an extension of LHR (in whatever guise that expansion comes) but certainly interesting nonetheless.
The LTN proposal may be compromised by the fact that the local councils own a large proportion of the airport I believe, so could get just as political as LHR but in a different way...but it wouldnt be fun without a political bun fight!
The LTN proposal may be compromised by the fact that the local councils own a large proportion of the airport I believe, so could get just as political as LHR but in a different way...but it wouldnt be fun without a political bun fight!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Page 46 - side note.
181 Emirates have argued that
they can begin their descent
at 5.5 degrees, before moving
to a 3 degree approach for the
last section. Although the idea
is worth exploring further, one
senior pilot commented to me
that “with enough training I think
I could land a plane like that
without loss of life 98 times out
of 100”.
And there you have it, a quieter future for all. Well apart from the boom as 2 out of every 100 arrivals ploughs into the runway!
181 Emirates have argued that
they can begin their descent
at 5.5 degrees, before moving
to a 3 degree approach for the
last section. Although the idea
is worth exploring further, one
senior pilot commented to me
that “with enough training I think
I could land a plane like that
without loss of life 98 times out
of 100”.
And there you have it, a quieter future for all. Well apart from the boom as 2 out of every 100 arrivals ploughs into the runway!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a done deal then! At least it will keep Airbus' A380 order book looking healthy with all those airframes they will have to keep replacing!
In all seriousness though, I am struggling to find a serious flaw in this proposal;
- It would have the 4 runways required, not making do with only one (shortened) extra.
- Noise issues to local residents seem to be placated.
- There would be no large scale destruction of existing dwellings, no more than what would be done at Sipson for runway 3, and none at all of any Grade 1 listed buildings.
- It seems to be an extremely cheap option (all things considered, and compared to a £50bn+ estuary airport)
- It is still on the right side of London, is easily accesible to large parts of the country and does not require the uprooting of the entire M4 corridor economy
The only issues I can see are those relating to relocating the reservoir and whether Thames Water get permission for one elsewhere...??
In all seriousness though, I am struggling to find a serious flaw in this proposal;
- It would have the 4 runways required, not making do with only one (shortened) extra.
- Noise issues to local residents seem to be placated.
- There would be no large scale destruction of existing dwellings, no more than what would be done at Sipson for runway 3, and none at all of any Grade 1 listed buildings.
- It seems to be an extremely cheap option (all things considered, and compared to a £50bn+ estuary airport)
- It is still on the right side of London, is easily accesible to large parts of the country and does not require the uprooting of the entire M4 corridor economy
The only issues I can see are those relating to relocating the reservoir and whether Thames Water get permission for one elsewhere...??
Willie Walsh on Question Time last night opined that Heathrow RW 3 or BJ International could not be built without all-party consensus.
Therefore it is not going to happen.
BA will soldier on at LHR. It will have economic repercussions for the country but not to the extent of being an economic catastrophe
Therefore it is not going to happen.
BA will soldier on at LHR. It will have economic repercussions for the country but not to the extent of being an economic catastrophe
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willie Walsh on Question Time last night opined that Heathrow RW 3 or BJ International could not be built without all-party consensus.
Therefore it is not going to happen.
Therefore it is not going to happen.
If Cameron says there is going to be a 3rd runway at heathrow, then there will be.
If labour ever get a majority again, and Militant wants a 3rd runway, then there will be.
I doubt political parties in the UK, could agree on the time - Even if they where looking at the same clock.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That report surely isn't suggesting that the existing runways be shut and are rebuilt behind T5? Madness.
Am I reading correctly that this report effectively bans the B744, B773 and A346?
We can and should go much further in refusing to allow the noisiest planes to arrive and depart from Heathrow. We propose new restrictions on noise classes that would apply at all times. 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.
Am I reading correctly that this report effectively bans the B744, B773 and A346?
We can and should go much further in refusing to allow the noisiest planes to arrive and depart from Heathrow. We propose new restrictions on noise classes that would apply at all times. 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.
Last edited by Dannyboy39; 5th Oct 2012 at 17:08.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it does. 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!
Just one more. Quote:
Departures would follow existing
flight paths, so unlike the third runway proposal, there is no new group would
be under the flight path for the first time.
How can that be, if you've moved the runways 4kms to the west?
Just one more. Quote:
Departures would follow existing
flight paths, so unlike the third runway proposal, there is no new group would
be under the flight path for the first time.
How can that be, if you've moved the runways 4kms to the west?
Last edited by Flightman; 5th Oct 2012 at 20:58.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This new iteration of LHR wouldnt be ready for another 15 years anyway, so as the report itself suggests it is hardly as if all the world's airlines dont have enough warning about which airframes would and wouldnt be allowed in...
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A comment was made that the transport links were £80M ?
Boris says LHR would be "full up" by time R3 opens, but by his logic, surely Fantasy Boris Island would also be full up very shortly after opening, as it is only providing 4 runways instead of 3, and not a huge amount of extra space for terminals between the runways.
So whatever WW says about the politics, the economic reality remains that R3 is a c. £3bn spend, all of it going on new capacity, whereas the FBI project is going to build two runways and at least half of the terminal space just to replace existing capacity. If this was corn fields fine, but at £20bn per runway and associated terminals (or almost 10x the cost for each new passenger served), who is going to want in?
The reality might well be that any hub facility is always going to operate at close to capacity, because London is never going to operate only one airport (unless the doomsday decline projections come true).
So as far as ROI goes, doing nothing means you get to keep the highest yielding traffic, but thinner routes go elsewhere. Adding a single runway as proposed means you get to serve some more shorthaul, in turn justifying extra long haul routes (remember, most of the emerging BRICS destinations would only be 2-3x per week). Moving from 3 to 4 runways simply means you get to serve more lower yielding leisure markets (eg Caribbean), which would still benefit from the feeders, but which are never going to pay for an £80bn airport.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This from the same think tank which two years ago proposed that the solution to regional wealth disparity was that everyone in the North should move to the South East. Well, this airport might be needed if that were to happen.
Rather illuminating statement in the opening Executive Summary along the lines of 'as wealth grows so will demand for travelling'. The standard pro-global capital argument is that we must grow airport capacity in order to grow wealth. We could just try being content with what we have, which is a lot.
Rather illuminating statement in the opening Executive Summary along the lines of 'as wealth grows so will demand for travelling'. The standard pro-global capital argument is that we must grow airport capacity in order to grow wealth. We could just try being content with what we have, which is a lot.
Last edited by roverman; 7th Oct 2012 at 07:34.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Reading
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What struck me on an admittrdly superficial reading of the full document was that it looks like a fantastic solution from a civil engineering viewpoint, but that on noise reduction it was a bit fingers-crossed, e.g. the supposition that airlines would just trade non-compliant planes for compliant ones and the highly complicated rules around which planes could use which runways when.
It was also an insight that they view a new Heathrow as a gain for the people working there because they'd still have jobs!
It was also an insight that they view a new Heathrow as a gain for the people working there because they'd still have jobs!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow could shrink to one runway to fund new hub airport
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow-Colne Valley
Again, this is a long term expensive proposal, albeit a more realistic one than Boris's white elephant vanity project. It does seem a shame to lose the 2 existing 2.5mi. rwys and have them replaced by rwys of just 1.8 mi..
Because of the time scale involved to construct "Heathrow-Colne Valley", a third and fourth rwy at LHR will still be necessary (as would be the case with the estuary proposals) to cope in the interim.
It may not be just the Wraysbury reservoir that has to go, the Queen Mother reservoir looks vulnerable too. The costs of this plus road diversions and tunneling plus railway and shuttle construction on such a large scale may make it uneconomic for BAA to contemplate on its own.
However, keeping LHR in tact and adding two narrow spaced rwys north of the airport, parallel to, but further west of the existing rwys seems to be the best remedy. This maintains the status quo for those currently under the flightpath, keeps road diversions/tunnelling to a minimum, and keeps aircraft higher over populated parts of the new flightpaths. This may be affordable and practical for BAA.
However, if, and it's still a big if, we decide to go down the road of an "entirely new hub airport in the UK", this or something similar is the way forward.
Forget about Heathrow with just one rwy. How would the proceeds of the sale of the land go towards funding the vanity project? If BAA sold the land, they would receive the income, it's as simple as that! Apart from anything else, years of litigation would ensure this will never happen.
Because of the time scale involved to construct "Heathrow-Colne Valley", a third and fourth rwy at LHR will still be necessary (as would be the case with the estuary proposals) to cope in the interim.
It may not be just the Wraysbury reservoir that has to go, the Queen Mother reservoir looks vulnerable too. The costs of this plus road diversions and tunneling plus railway and shuttle construction on such a large scale may make it uneconomic for BAA to contemplate on its own.
However, keeping LHR in tact and adding two narrow spaced rwys north of the airport, parallel to, but further west of the existing rwys seems to be the best remedy. This maintains the status quo for those currently under the flightpath, keeps road diversions/tunnelling to a minimum, and keeps aircraft higher over populated parts of the new flightpaths. This may be affordable and practical for BAA.
However, if, and it's still a big if, we decide to go down the road of an "entirely new hub airport in the UK", this or something similar is the way forward.
Forget about Heathrow with just one rwy. How would the proceeds of the sale of the land go towards funding the vanity project? If BAA sold the land, they would receive the income, it's as simple as that! Apart from anything else, years of litigation would ensure this will never happen.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 7th Oct 2012 at 22:27. Reason: clarity
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow could shrink to one runway to fund new hub airport - Telegraph
Councillor Daniel Moylan « Early Career
"You could also bring in services that are now at Northolt and free that up for development. It's a large site adjacent to the A40 – there must be value in that."
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 7th Oct 2012 at 23:01.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Houseville UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few questions
Looking at all these "solutions", are the runways not all far too close together for independent continuous operation in IFR and difficult to use in LVPs, and why do they all point the same way despite the fact that wind varies in direction?
Why did EGCC get a second 3000m runway, then find it was difficult to use both simultaneously?
How does EHAM manage to do it?
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?
Does our government only seek wisdom from self proclaimed "experts"?
How do other governments manage to succeed in creating new multi runway transcontinental airports, without having 50 plus years of BS?
Why did EGCC get a second 3000m runway, then find it was difficult to use both simultaneously?
How does EHAM manage to do it?
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?
Does our government only seek wisdom from self proclaimed "experts"?
How do other governments manage to succeed in creating new multi runway transcontinental airports, without having 50 plus years of BS?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why did EGCC get a second 3000m runway, then find it was difficult to use both simultaneously?
Suggest you read ICAO Doc 9643 Manual on Simultaneous Operations on Parallel or near parallel Instrument Runways (SOIR).
Then you can become an expert and offer your services to the Government
Suzeman