Heathrow expansion won't happen
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about build the third runway, tunnel the M25 west of LHR and build 1 or 2 more runways and associated infrastructure to the southwest of LHR where the reservoirs are. Lets build and airport where people want to fly to/from and make it big enough for 100 years of expansion.
If business expansion is not limited to London, demand for transport will expand where the business goes, and business will go wherer the transport connections are good. If both Boris and Ken believe that London is the only place for business in the UK, then the idea is almost certainly wrong.
As SLF on a few recent trips into Europe from Manchester, I have observed that load factors were very high, to the extent that, as a late booker, my choice of flights was limited. There are reports that passenger and freight loads on gulf flights from Manchester are good enough to justify 4-class configurations and multiple flights per day, and that hubbing takes place without active airline support. Perhaps its time for London Radial Airways to toke its head out of wherever it's stowed and consider transferring a small proportion of flights on fat routes to regional airports and using the capacity released at LHR for new services to long-haul destinations.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "In all of these discussions there appears to be no account taken of the independent commercial entities which have invested money in their Heathrow operations. And it's not just Ferrovial (can we stop calling them BAA - HAL would be better) or BA or Virgin or Emirates. There are thousand and thousands of SMEs that earn a living from LHR.
Where would the investment come from to fund construction a new airport in any part of the UK let alone the southeast of london?
And supposing that investment was available, the Govt facilitated approval to build and NATS found a way of integrating traffic, by what direction would a move out of LHR be enforced?
Can you really see BA walking away in any shape or form from T5? Would Ferrovial's investor say "Ho hum, goodbye money"?
Leaving the flights of fancy, the political infighting, the lack of CBA and the free market aside can we say Heathrow is too big now to scale back or close?"
A very good succint analysis, Sir George Cayley, some reality on this subject is very welcome!
Quote: "Better not bigger will produce capacity with very little capital spent on infrastructure. Removing operational constraints such as the Cranford Agreement to get rid of alternation, extending hours for ops and improving the ratio of seats per movement (eg more 380s) is worthwhile before committing billions to another site which all the major LHR operators have poo pooed."
Indeed, a permanent end to segregated mode and alternation may be the only way to go if the "do nothing" option is still pursued.
The "squeezing a quart out of a pint pot" strategy will:
(1) increase movements by 10-15%;
(2) do nothing to address congestion and delays both on take off and landing;
(3) end the daily half day of quiet for those under the flightpath;
Once the implications become apparent, this will go down like a lead balloon with local residents, and, most importantly, will prove that the anti Heathrow expansion lobby (funny isn't it, how they're all miles away from Heathrow!) do not act in the best interests of those under the flightpath.
Quote: "Yup, a fast shuttle underground to Northolt (or Terminal 6 as it may be known) for short haul connections must be a contender... and faster than Hartsfield E to T... "
The concept of Northolt as a small regional airport like Southend has merit, but as a third rwy for Heathrow, doubtful.
Quote: "Perhaps they should do it the other way around. i.e. reclaim the reservoirs for airport use (as someone has already suggested), then build new reservoirs for London in the estuary. That would leave the West London economy intact and the estuary habitat intact. Possible the new reservoir project could also address the replacement Thames Barrier/flooding of London risk?"
The costs may prove too much to produce a return, especially after the expense of moving a sewage works for Heathrow-5, so almost certainly not cost effective for BAA/Ferrovial/HAL. Investment in rwy(s) north of the airport, on the other hand, is a sound business proposition and will produce a good return.
Quote: "The idea of moving the airport further West is interesting.
Someone suggested between Reading and Maidenhead.
As their centres are both concrete dumps, maybe locate the airport on either Reading or Maidenhead. Very few would miss these towns/dumps.
In reality, any politician with Victorian Vision would back Boris Island, funded by flogging off the land around lhr."
Easier to demolish a few already blighted villages north of Heathrow, Ancient Observer, than two large thriving prosperous towns (whether concrete dumps or not).
Part of the area covers Home Secretary Teresa May's constituency, so that may (excuse the pun) provide an answer why not.
Quote: "No one seems to mention Manston, well rarely. What's the problem, apart from the locals moaning about noise? Enlighten me!!"
Location, location, location!
Quote: "Demolish the existing terminal buildings, rebuild the facilities underground and then build 27C between today's 27L and 27R.
Again,this would not be cost effective, Golf-Sierra. With Heathrow-5 open for just 4 years, Heathrow-2 under construction, and an extension (a new Heathrow-1) to follow, this investment would be money down the drain.
Where would the terminals and asociated infrastructure be relocated, and where would the engineering bases at "Heathrow east" go?
A great idea if it was done before 1955, but forget it once the midfield terminal opened.
Quote: ""..so Minister GYAIG"
Would say "so minister GYFO", but for very different reasons and for a completely different decision.
Quote: "Fat chance with the likes of "Dithering Dave", "Nervous Nick" and "Deadwood Merely-bland" supposedly leading this country and unable to make a decision to save their lives.
Now, if Boris were P.M.
Yes, they are a waste of space the lot of them, but does Boris have what it takes to be PM? Does he look prime ministerial once the Olympic hype dies down and Cameron takes his revenge and reduces central government grants/money for the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor's Office?
Quote: "In the meantime, the only quick way LHR can increase capacity is to lift the night-time restrictions, then move to simultaneous mixed-mode operations, although the lack of standardised RETs may make that somewhat more difficult."
Exactly, and how's that's going to go down with flightpath residents (voters)?
Quote: "Let's face it, the 3rd runway is never going to happen and it would only ever have been a "stop-gap" bodge job before a 4th. runway would have been needed."
A fourth rwy is needed NOW and we don't yet have a third.
It will happen, they're just waiting for the next generation of even quieter and even cleaner aircraft to come on-stream.
Quote: " So, let's hope one of the politicians has the g*nads to make a quick decision to start the reclamation work for a new state-of-the-art 4/6 runway airport east of London, aligned NE/SW. That way all noise is away from the City allowing full 24 hour operations. It might even be compatible with EGMC if a 5th./7th. runway was required."
Not going to happen, see your earlier comments about GYAIG! Having kicked the can down the road for so long, they've now kicked it into the very very long grass, thus making them ideal candidates to run the European Central Bank.
Where would the investment come from to fund construction a new airport in any part of the UK let alone the southeast of london?
And supposing that investment was available, the Govt facilitated approval to build and NATS found a way of integrating traffic, by what direction would a move out of LHR be enforced?
Can you really see BA walking away in any shape or form from T5? Would Ferrovial's investor say "Ho hum, goodbye money"?
Leaving the flights of fancy, the political infighting, the lack of CBA and the free market aside can we say Heathrow is too big now to scale back or close?"
A very good succint analysis, Sir George Cayley, some reality on this subject is very welcome!
Quote: "Better not bigger will produce capacity with very little capital spent on infrastructure. Removing operational constraints such as the Cranford Agreement to get rid of alternation, extending hours for ops and improving the ratio of seats per movement (eg more 380s) is worthwhile before committing billions to another site which all the major LHR operators have poo pooed."
Indeed, a permanent end to segregated mode and alternation may be the only way to go if the "do nothing" option is still pursued.
The "squeezing a quart out of a pint pot" strategy will:
(1) increase movements by 10-15%;
(2) do nothing to address congestion and delays both on take off and landing;
(3) end the daily half day of quiet for those under the flightpath;
Once the implications become apparent, this will go down like a lead balloon with local residents, and, most importantly, will prove that the anti Heathrow expansion lobby (funny isn't it, how they're all miles away from Heathrow!) do not act in the best interests of those under the flightpath.
Quote: "Yup, a fast shuttle underground to Northolt (or Terminal 6 as it may be known) for short haul connections must be a contender... and faster than Hartsfield E to T... "
The concept of Northolt as a small regional airport like Southend has merit, but as a third rwy for Heathrow, doubtful.
Quote: "Perhaps they should do it the other way around. i.e. reclaim the reservoirs for airport use (as someone has already suggested), then build new reservoirs for London in the estuary. That would leave the West London economy intact and the estuary habitat intact. Possible the new reservoir project could also address the replacement Thames Barrier/flooding of London risk?"
The costs may prove too much to produce a return, especially after the expense of moving a sewage works for Heathrow-5, so almost certainly not cost effective for BAA/Ferrovial/HAL. Investment in rwy(s) north of the airport, on the other hand, is a sound business proposition and will produce a good return.
Quote: "The idea of moving the airport further West is interesting.
Someone suggested between Reading and Maidenhead.
As their centres are both concrete dumps, maybe locate the airport on either Reading or Maidenhead. Very few would miss these towns/dumps.
In reality, any politician with Victorian Vision would back Boris Island, funded by flogging off the land around lhr."
Easier to demolish a few already blighted villages north of Heathrow, Ancient Observer, than two large thriving prosperous towns (whether concrete dumps or not).
Part of the area covers Home Secretary Teresa May's constituency, so that may (excuse the pun) provide an answer why not.
Quote: "No one seems to mention Manston, well rarely. What's the problem, apart from the locals moaning about noise? Enlighten me!!"
Location, location, location!
Quote: "Demolish the existing terminal buildings, rebuild the facilities underground and then build 27C between today's 27L and 27R.
Again,this would not be cost effective, Golf-Sierra. With Heathrow-5 open for just 4 years, Heathrow-2 under construction, and an extension (a new Heathrow-1) to follow, this investment would be money down the drain.
Where would the terminals and asociated infrastructure be relocated, and where would the engineering bases at "Heathrow east" go?
A great idea if it was done before 1955, but forget it once the midfield terminal opened.
Quote: ""..so Minister GYAIG"
Would say "so minister GYFO", but for very different reasons and for a completely different decision.
Quote: "Fat chance with the likes of "Dithering Dave", "Nervous Nick" and "Deadwood Merely-bland" supposedly leading this country and unable to make a decision to save their lives.
Now, if Boris were P.M.
Yes, they are a waste of space the lot of them, but does Boris have what it takes to be PM? Does he look prime ministerial once the Olympic hype dies down and Cameron takes his revenge and reduces central government grants/money for the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor's Office?
Quote: "In the meantime, the only quick way LHR can increase capacity is to lift the night-time restrictions, then move to simultaneous mixed-mode operations, although the lack of standardised RETs may make that somewhat more difficult."
Exactly, and how's that's going to go down with flightpath residents (voters)?
Quote: "Let's face it, the 3rd runway is never going to happen and it would only ever have been a "stop-gap" bodge job before a 4th. runway would have been needed."
A fourth rwy is needed NOW and we don't yet have a third.
It will happen, they're just waiting for the next generation of even quieter and even cleaner aircraft to come on-stream.
Quote: " So, let's hope one of the politicians has the g*nads to make a quick decision to start the reclamation work for a new state-of-the-art 4/6 runway airport east of London, aligned NE/SW. That way all noise is away from the City allowing full 24 hour operations. It might even be compatible with EGMC if a 5th./7th. runway was required."
Not going to happen, see your earlier comments about GYAIG! Having kicked the can down the road for so long, they've now kicked it into the very very long grass, thus making them ideal candidates to run the European Central Bank.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 11th Sep 2012 at 20:41.
It's here, ready made, at vast expense to the taxpayer (presently 8300' of parking space for unsold cars). Google Maps That's the existing rail link to London you can see just short of 026 threshold ... the motorway junction is just to the east. (Nice potential base for a future red- or orange-tailed hub and spoke expansion?). Too obvious? Too easy? ... or too little potential for large bungs to small people in high office? - Discuss...
Last edited by dogle; 11th Sep 2012 at 22:05.
Build the third runway the same size and with the same rules as LCY and you get noise levels suitable for a city-centre airport.
Would Londoners be interested in a deal that opened a third runway in exchange for closing the airport totally from 2300-0700? I'm sure I'd prefer that.
Would Londoners be interested in a deal that opened a third runway in exchange for closing the airport totally from 2300-0700? I'm sure I'd prefer that.
Perhaps the same principle could apply to Greenham Common near Reading/M4.
I'm afraid there is a little more to airfield planning than scouring Google Maps for a big bit of existing concrete.
For a start, there are those pesky little brown lines on the OS map (clue: you want as few of those as possible running through your proposed site, otherwise pilots get a bit upset).
Greenham is situated on a flattened hill-top - does that suggest anything about its expansion potential ?
It's also about a mile away from a town of over 30,000 people, but we'll let that pass.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's also about a mile away from a town of over 30,000 people, but we'll let that pass.
Regarding the reservoirs, they do not need to be open to the elements. There are many underground reservoirs around. You just build over the top of them. The runways could easily be built on piers over the top.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Upper Heyford sounds like a good idea.
Potentially more accessible to the rest of the UK outside of the SE corner and nicely clear of congested airspace.
The locals will no doubt object loudly but a new airport has to be build somewhere and this sounds like a least bad option.
Potentially more accessible to the rest of the UK outside of the SE corner and nicely clear of congested airspace.
The locals will no doubt object loudly but a new airport has to be build somewhere and this sounds like a least bad option.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 49
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the reservoirs, they do not need to be open to the elements. There are many underground reservoirs around. You just build over the top of them. The runways could easily be built on piers over the top.
short flights long nights
Ramps, bridges??? Like they have at Schiphol? Maybe? Just a suggestion.
My guess is that there WILL be expansion at LHR albeit on a modest level compared to building a brand new airport. There are, I'm quite sure, plans for a runway north of the A4 with a feeder terminal 6. Maybe 7000 feet long so adequate for regional jets etc. Mixed mode ops where ATC can use either runway for departures and arrivals can provide a small increase in capacity but the environmental lobby will fight that one tooth and nail.
At LGW there is as many of you will know an embargo on a second runway but that expires, I believe, around 2019. On the south side of LGW all but one of the old hangars have been demolished. Of course it wouldnt allow parallel approaches but maybe it could allow greater capacity over the single runway ops.
STN? Nobody wants to go there it seems.
I think if the Tories already have a plan that should they win the next election they will make an announcement along the lines that in the interests of UK plc this expansion is vital and by using new technology blah blah blah...
At LGW there is as many of you will know an embargo on a second runway but that expires, I believe, around 2019. On the south side of LGW all but one of the old hangars have been demolished. Of course it wouldnt allow parallel approaches but maybe it could allow greater capacity over the single runway ops.
STN? Nobody wants to go there it seems.
I think if the Tories already have a plan that should they win the next election they will make an announcement along the lines that in the interests of UK plc this expansion is vital and by using new technology blah blah blah...
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Upper Heyford not far too far out?! General consensus seems to be that the airport would need to enable travel into central London in around half an hour, can't see that happening from all that way out?
'Those reservoirs are quite high above the ground. How would you get the planes from elevated runway level back down to ground level and then up again?'
The reservoirs would need to be rebuild/deepened below ground level as part of the works or moved to another location.
The reservoirs would need to be rebuild/deepened below ground level as part of the works or moved to another location.
Carbon Bootprint, my apologies - I'd assumed that all here would be sufficiently savvy to use the map zoom facility (click on the little minus sign just north of the hamlet called Upper Heyford .... then you will see the M40 and the other existing rail link west of 080 threshold).
This former major airbase sits at the confluence of the Marylebone and Paddington lines on their way to the midlands (distinct lack of bung-potential from the construction industry, thus).
Exactly. An airfield since well before WW1, the former RAF Upper Heyford was, following the departure of the USAF's F-111s, closed to aviation at the behest of a handful of shrill (but highly effective) NIMBY incomers squealing "No more flying!" (the longstanding locals were used to it). In reality, the low density of population in the immediate area, and lack of conurbations in alignment, would seem in comparison with other non-littoral options to minimise the disturbance impact of the additional capacity.
This former major airbase sits at the confluence of the Marylebone and Paddington lines on their way to the midlands (distinct lack of bung-potential from the construction industry, thus).
The locals will no doubt object loudly but a new airport has to be build somewhere and this sounds like a least bad option.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Upper Heyford not far too far out?!
BTW, London is NOT the centre of the universe, the UK's major national airport needs to be accessible for the entire nation. This means that Boris Island is a non-starter.