Heathrow expansion won't happen
Psychophysiological entity
Thread Starter
Heathrow expansion won't happen
quotes this news item.
BBC News - Heathrow expansion won't happen, says Vince Cable
They also mention getting higher utilization out of the existing airport, but how?
I would have thought an investment in customs and immigration would be a major step. Security, obviously. Also, innovative ideas like remote baggage collection the day before departure - hubs all over the UK. Imagine not having to lug baggage. I'd pay extra for that. Furthermore, it would give more time for scanning the cases.
It's not bad as it is, given human nature, but it could flow much more . . . fluidly. That only leaves air traffic.
BBC News - Heathrow expansion won't happen, says Vince Cable
They also mention getting higher utilization out of the existing airport, but how?
I would have thought an investment in customs and immigration would be a major step. Security, obviously. Also, innovative ideas like remote baggage collection the day before departure - hubs all over the UK. Imagine not having to lug baggage. I'd pay extra for that. Furthermore, it would give more time for scanning the cases.
It's not bad as it is, given human nature, but it could flow much more . . . fluidly. That only leaves air traffic.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: any town as retired.
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pax on top, freight below
A new version of POSH...
Most airliners carry as much freight as passengers, or perhaps more in terms of revenue.
so to be a cnx for freight is just as important as cnx for pax....
Most airliners carry as much freight as passengers, or perhaps more in terms of revenue.
so to be a cnx for freight is just as important as cnx for pax....
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 71
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, innovative ideas like remote baggage collection the day before
departure
I don't think there are many pure freighters using Heathrow these days.
You could move them all out but the gain in slots would be negligible.
And opening Heathrow H24 for passengers would mean persuading British Rail, the underground and bus companies to start night operations. It's not going to happen.
You could move them all out but the gain in slots would be negligible.
And opening Heathrow H24 for passengers would mean persuading British Rail, the underground and bus companies to start night operations. It's not going to happen.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new short northern runway at Frankfurt certainly seems to speed up european connections. I can't see any reason to visit Heathrow for connections instead. The same might be true for Amsterdam, if their satellite runway wasn't in Denmark.
I understand that Heathrow could squeeze out a bit more capacity by mixing takeoffs and landings simultaneously on north and south during times that are more heavily used by one than the other.
But what it does need is an extra runway, or two. An HS2-3-... train station inside wouldn't have been a bad idea either, slightly mitigating the sorry lack of a third runway. Amsterdam and Paris and Frankfurt and Zurich have all that sorted out already.
I understand that Heathrow could squeeze out a bit more capacity by mixing takeoffs and landings simultaneously on north and south during times that are more heavily used by one than the other.
But what it does need is an extra runway, or two. An HS2-3-... train station inside wouldn't have been a bad idea either, slightly mitigating the sorry lack of a third runway. Amsterdam and Paris and Frankfurt and Zurich have all that sorted out already.
free up daytime slots by only accepting freighters between midnight and 0600
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, but if you want approval for a third runway the threat of night operations as the alternative would change the attitude of many of the local objectors.
A referendum with these two options would have interesting results.
OTOH, a third runway is only a short term fix at best. AMS has seven and has capacity issues handling less traffic. The real problem is ATC and crowded airspace, the best solution is a new build at least 30 miles out of town.
A referendum with these two options would have interesting results.
OTOH, a third runway is only a short term fix at best. AMS has seven and has capacity issues handling less traffic. The real problem is ATC and crowded airspace, the best solution is a new build at least 30 miles out of town.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AG has a valid point re.3rd runway being less than optimal.
What might be worth considering is taking a look at the bigger picture, factor in capacity across the South-East and if there is potential to re-locate slots to other airports, give appropriate incentives to do so.
Ramp up rail links and/or road networks to offset the extended journey times, this extra capacity also has benefit to the wider community.
IMO, LGW needs another runway before Heathrow.
What might be worth considering is taking a look at the bigger picture, factor in capacity across the South-East and if there is potential to re-locate slots to other airports, give appropriate incentives to do so.
Ramp up rail links and/or road networks to offset the extended journey times, this extra capacity also has benefit to the wider community.
IMO, LGW needs another runway before Heathrow.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H24
And opening Heathrow H24 for passengers would mean persuading British Rail, the underground and bus companies to start night operations. It's not going to happen.
Even a third runway will happen if it must. Politicians have a nasty habit of saying 'it will not happen' but after they have been rejected by the voters (or reshuffled or sacked) it does happen. You might even suggest that Justine Greening, a fierce opponent of a third runway, has been moved to where she no longer has a say, which allows for a more conciliatory Transport Secretary to take a forward step in this case.
LHR is such a case and IMHO I think a third runway will be built. When is another matter!
The mad Mayor's idea of another airport is an absurd option given the huge expansion at SND, with probably more to come, would create massive ATC headaches and cost far too much. Anyway, Stobarts are growing at a huge rate and will be seeking more return on their investment. They will not sit still and ignore such growth around them. Unlike Boris they are not fools.
Watch this space, as they say...but watch the flak too, it will be immense.
Last edited by Surrey Towers; 10th Sep 2012 at 09:44.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AG has a valid point re.3rd runway being less than optimal.
What might be worth considering is taking a look at the bigger picture, factor in capacity across the South-East and if there is potential to re-locate slots to other airports, give appropriate incentives to do so.
Ramp up rail links and/or road networks to offset the extended journey times, this extra capacity also has benefit to the wider community.
IMO, LGW needs another runway before Heathrow.
What might be worth considering is taking a look at the bigger picture, factor in capacity across the South-East and if there is potential to re-locate slots to other airports, give appropriate incentives to do so.
Ramp up rail links and/or road networks to offset the extended journey times, this extra capacity also has benefit to the wider community.
IMO, LGW needs another runway before Heathrow.
Expanding Heathrow - No business case.
I have no idea why the meeja repeat the nonsense about UK plc not having enough flights to various cities in China, Brazil and so on.
At lhr the airline have the slots. If BA, for one, decides to have flights to holiday destinations such as the Caribbean, it is BA that is denying businessmen the chance to fly to Chinese cities, not BAA, and not the Government.
BA also use their slots to fly to places like Prague. Prague could easily be serviced from lgw. Take the lhr slot and fly to Shanghai instead.
There is a lot of drivel talked about lhr. Some sensible business thinking would cut down on the drivel.
All power to Boris and Boris Island.
At lhr the airline have the slots. If BA, for one, decides to have flights to holiday destinations such as the Caribbean, it is BA that is denying businessmen the chance to fly to Chinese cities, not BAA, and not the Government.
BA also use their slots to fly to places like Prague. Prague could easily be serviced from lgw. Take the lhr slot and fly to Shanghai instead.
There is a lot of drivel talked about lhr. Some sensible business thinking would cut down on the drivel.
All power to Boris and Boris Island.
I'm sure someone will explain to me why this is a bad idea, but......
Why not expand Stansted to a 4 runway airport? It's close to London, geographically the right side of the city (i.e. accessible from the Midlands as well as the South East), not constrained by urban sprawl and already has links to the motorway and railway networks.
What am I missing?
Why not expand Stansted to a 4 runway airport? It's close to London, geographically the right side of the city (i.e. accessible from the Midlands as well as the South East), not constrained by urban sprawl and already has links to the motorway and railway networks.
What am I missing?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 71
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What with all the defence cuts et al why not utilise some of the government owned land for the purpose of building another airport?
Salisbury Plain? Rail/road connections could be easily modified for north and south access to this vast piece of real-estate.
Salisbury Plain? Rail/road connections could be easily modified for north and south access to this vast piece of real-estate.
I have no idea why the meeja repeat the nonsense about UK plc not having enough flights to various cities in China, Brazil and so on.
China and Brazil are irrelevant as far as the airlines and the airport operator are concerned - their responsibility is simply to maximise value for their shareholders, and if that's better done with flights to the Caribbean rather than to the Far East then that's what will happen.
But red herrings makes good press.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK, sometimes USA
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re; losing the Prague slot. I think you'll find it's a good feeder for USA services as there aren't so many direct Prague-USA direct flights.
As for Stansted, I agree to a point but the key reason is the massive problem of what to do with the West London/M4 corridor businesses and employment, which rely on Heathrow nearby. We're talking a huge number of thousands of people (over 100,000 I believe).
Salisbury - interesting. If a new home could be found for the Boscombe Down test work, that airfield sits right next to the A303 (potentially M303?) and close to the Waterloo-Salisbury railway line. No idea if it's truly feasible though.
In a similar vein to Boscombe Down, perhaps Lyneham or Wroughton are viable?
Whatever, they are no simple answers and the decision (if the politicians could ever make one) would probably only be on a 'least damage' rather than ideal basis.
As for Stansted, I agree to a point but the key reason is the massive problem of what to do with the West London/M4 corridor businesses and employment, which rely on Heathrow nearby. We're talking a huge number of thousands of people (over 100,000 I believe).
Salisbury - interesting. If a new home could be found for the Boscombe Down test work, that airfield sits right next to the A303 (potentially M303?) and close to the Waterloo-Salisbury railway line. No idea if it's truly feasible though.
In a similar vein to Boscombe Down, perhaps Lyneham or Wroughton are viable?
Whatever, they are no simple answers and the decision (if the politicians could ever make one) would probably only be on a 'least damage' rather than ideal basis.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been wondering why there has been less promotion of a site just norht of the M4 between Reading and Maidenhead, or just south of it between Maidenhead and Bracknell.
There is space there for a 4 runway airport, plus it would have;
- Simple connections to the West Coast mainline and Crossrail, providing a truly integrated transport hub for the benefit not just of London but also the South coast, West country and Wales.
- Direct links to the M4 and either M3 or M40, meaning that traffic from the south and west could stay off the M25 car park.
- Flights could be routed to take off and land between the major population centres, meaning that less people would be affected by a 4 runway super airport than currently are by 2 runway LHR.
- There is no need for reclaiming land from the Thames, nor to uproot the entire economy along the M4 corridor to Kent.
- The LHR site could be made into 'Heathrow Garden City' which I have seen proposed elsewhere, creating dwellings for thousands of people
Problems? Well of course there are some;
- Inevitable demolition of some existing dwellings (but probably no more than at Sipson which provides only one extra runway, not 2)
- The still unanswered solution of how you force the closure of a private airport which just so happens to be the world's third busiest?!
Of course the solution is not perfect, but as far as I can see it the country desperately needs a 4 runway airport (which cannot be built on the current LHR site) but which is on the west side of London (ruling out, among other reasons, the estuary option).
Thoughts?!
There is space there for a 4 runway airport, plus it would have;
- Simple connections to the West Coast mainline and Crossrail, providing a truly integrated transport hub for the benefit not just of London but also the South coast, West country and Wales.
- Direct links to the M4 and either M3 or M40, meaning that traffic from the south and west could stay off the M25 car park.
- Flights could be routed to take off and land between the major population centres, meaning that less people would be affected by a 4 runway super airport than currently are by 2 runway LHR.
- There is no need for reclaiming land from the Thames, nor to uproot the entire economy along the M4 corridor to Kent.
- The LHR site could be made into 'Heathrow Garden City' which I have seen proposed elsewhere, creating dwellings for thousands of people
Problems? Well of course there are some;
- Inevitable demolition of some existing dwellings (but probably no more than at Sipson which provides only one extra runway, not 2)
- The still unanswered solution of how you force the closure of a private airport which just so happens to be the world's third busiest?!
Of course the solution is not perfect, but as far as I can see it the country desperately needs a 4 runway airport (which cannot be built on the current LHR site) but which is on the west side of London (ruling out, among other reasons, the estuary option).
Thoughts?!
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
Of course the solution is not perfect, but as far as I can see it the country desperately needs a 4 runway airport (which cannot be built on the current LHR site) but which is on the west side of London (ruling out, among other reasons, the estuary option).