Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Airlines, Airports & Routes
Reload this Page >

Another runway at Heathrow

Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Another runway at Heathrow

Old 2nd Jul 2015, 12:27
  #361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 53
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Manchester tweeted their spare capacity not so long back, that is where I got the 40% from, infact recently they have been mentioning being able to handle 50m pax now (currently 22m+), which as you correctly point out mention at times would seem impossible, but there are large chunks of the day where much more could be handled.
This was related to 'runway capacity' not terminal capacity. In its own submission to the Airports Commission in 2013 MAG stated its current terminal capacity is "around 27 million"; do the maths. In its submission to the Manchester Local Plan process in 2010, terminal capacities were given as 11m for T1, 8m for T2 and 5.8m for T3 = 24.8m.

Increasing the size of T2 by 140% would take you to around 20 million annual capacity. Add T3 you get 26 million...so with a 'predicted throughtput' of 30m by 2030 the new terminal is full before it opens if they proceed to demolish T1 as proposed to make more space for Airport City.

As for flying from your local airport, would that be Liverpool ? So we'll use new slots at LHR to add more domestic air traffic, start LPL-LHR flights when MAN just 30 miles away has plenty of shuttles already, and I am sure LPL is also well connected by trains, to London.
Yes, it is but it could equally be one of a dozen regional airports in the UK that have lost connectivity via Heathrow over the last 20 years. The frequency of the Virgin Trains service is irrelevant here as I am talking about connecting via Heathrow, not point-to-point. It is also, perhaps more importantly about worldwide connectivity to places such as Liverpool. Economic growth is underpinned by infrastructure, connectivity and skills. The easier you make it for business people from overseas to travel to their preferred destination the more inclined they are to do so. Kicking them out at Heathrow, Gatwick or Manchester and expecting them to bus or train it the rest of the way means in most instances they won't bother getting on the plane in the first place.

MAN is just up the road from LPL, and in the interest of the NW / North I'd rather support growth there than supporting a new runway at LHR just so LPL can get shuttles to LHR.
I travel through Manchester and Liverpool depending on where I want to get to. I'd be delighted to have more non-stop long haul options from MAN. The point is having the choice.

No doubt LHR can also have a JFK flight every half hour with a new runway, with more flights there in a few hours than from the rest of the country combined, and ironically fairly well populated by folk connecting on shuttles, that would rather quite possibly fly direct.
This point has already been admirably addressed by Jamie2k9...

Hopefully the politicians will remain scared to death of making the call on their watch, then maybe the Northern powerhouse may stand a chance in terms of aviation
I think you ought to read back through the various speeches and transcripts around Northern Powerhouse...aviation barely gets a mention as it is about improving connectivity between core northern centres to increase levels of agglomeration, so increasing economic activity.

Last edited by AndyH52; 2nd Jul 2015 at 13:30. Reason: Amended my maths...
AndyH52 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 12:28
  #362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 52
Posts: 1,184
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Even if the runway ever gets built () I do not believe that much effort would be put into using it to serve UK destinations. The prestige of airlines from all over the world operating big airliners into LHR will always beat regional jets and, let's be honest, the airport will earn more revenue from bigger aircraft and the greater number of passengers they carry.

National interest will not enter into it, unless it is that blinkered Londoncentric national interest alluded to earlier.
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 13:26
  #363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Jamie, I'll leave others to comment on some of your other points but I would question the above assertion.

In recent years, GLA & EDI have seen the ME3 start services; NCL has EK and now a UA flight to New York. BHX is seeing EK expand and AI have regular flights. MAN now has non-stop flights to HKK and Saudi started last year. Now personally, I hope those flights have started because of demand from local business and communities that can make those services viable, thereby making it either unnecessary to use LHR if flying p2p, or providing alternative hubs to fly to and greater choice for passengers. However, it is conceivable I suppose that some of these developments only happened because of LHR being almost full.

So regional airports are progressing even for long haul, albeit slower than some of us would like. Cause and effect though may not be clear cut.
Correct but all these carriers are growing capacity at LHR at the same time so they are just serving market demands across the UK. If anything it's the likes of EK/EY/QR which could be the biggest problem for regional s attracting carriers as they will bleed passengers and money form such carriers.

I've not had time to look at the figures but it would be interesting to see the growth in passengers (and freight) for the likes of AMS, CDG and FRA compared to LHR over the last 5 years, and any specific examples of airlines starting new routes or increasing frequency at those 3 airports because slots at LHR were not available. It does surprise me that there are still B757s being operating on some TATL flights into LHR. If demand is so great, why are larger a/c not being used?
Carrier's such as United don't have the fleets to increase capacity and as the UK is 752 range they will stay that way. It will happen in time but UA for example have always been frequency driven and that won't really change.
Jamie2k9 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 14:48
  #364 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 66
Posts: 9,832
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
I am delighted by the outcome of the Davies report so that, when the Tories don't do what market forces say, we will know that their choice for KK is wrong.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 12:27
  #365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The elephant in the room is that everyone is asking the wrong question.

Should Britain's principal airport be located in the southeast corner ?
Surely our principal airport should be located closer to the centre, with good motorway and high speed rail links. A large swathe of open country will be needed together with a planning restriction to keep all new housing at least 5 miles away.

BHX would be a stong candidate for a new airport with 4 runways, an M42/M6 spur and a station on the new planned high speed rail link. The best future for LHR is closure for redevelopment on the very valuable land. Boris Island is a stupid idea, it is in the wrong place for everybody, even londoners.

This leaves London with 4 regional airports on the periphery which should be more than enough. None of these are candidates for a NATIONAL airport, they all take far to long to reach from anywhere other than London. For example it takes longer to drive from Bristol to LGW than to drive to MAN. For most of the country the southeast corner is a nightmare.
The Ancient Geek is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 16:02
  #366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Under my cap
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ancient Greek - I agree, Australia's "National Airport" should be centrally located too as should the USA's, Russia's and China's - that would be so convenient for so many people

The airport is located in the south east because thats where the people with the greatest propensity to fly are located (and by a significant margin) - now it can be argued, of course, that those with a high propensity to fly have congregated around the biggest provider of flights thus creating a gravity spiral of demand and supply - which is true, but that is the economic history of the UK over that last 6-7 decades and has already been written. One additional runnway (if we get it) can only address the demands of today and the immediate future, it is nowhere near sufficient to re-map the economic geography of the UK and even if it could that would take many decades. Show me a government with that kind of vision if you can..!

Last edited by Itchin McCrevis; 3rd Jul 2015 at 21:43.
Itchin McCrevis is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 16:17
  #367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,781
Received 34 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by The Ancient Geek View Post
The elephant in the room is that everyone is asking the wrong question.

Should Britain's principal airport be located in the southeast corner ?
Surely our principal airport should be located closer to the centre, with good motorway and high speed rail links. A large swathe of open country will be needed together with a planning restriction to keep all new housing at least 5 miles away.

BHX would be a stong candidate for a new airport with 4 runways, an M42/M6 spur and a station on the new planned high speed rail link. The best future for LHR is closure for redevelopment on the very valuable land. Boris Island is a stupid idea, it is in the wrong place for everybody, even londoners.
Actually, Birmingham expansion was one of the options that Davies considered.

His Catch-22 verdict was that its only chance of being viable would be if HS2 goes ahead, thereby giving BHX the largest catchment of people within 2 hours of any of the other options - but that HS2 also would make the London airport system easier to access for passengers from Birmingham's core aviation market.

Out of interest, given that extending the current single runway required rerouting the A45, where would they fit the other 3 in?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 17:45
  #368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Actually, Birmingham expansion was one of the options that Davies considered.

His Catch-22 verdict was that its only chance of being viable would be if HS2 goes ahead, thereby giving BHX the largest catchment of people within 2 hours of any of the other options - but that HS2 also would make the London airport system easier to access for passengers from Birmingham's core aviation market.

Out of interest, given that extending the current single runway required rerouting the A45, where would they fit the other 3 in?
It would probably mean replacing the existing airport with a new one on farmland somewhere south of the existing site to line up with HS2 and the motorway network. A proper 4 runway airport needs a lot of land to keep the runways far enough apart (1km ?) to allow full simultaneous operation.

One of the problems of a 3rd LHR runway is that it will be too close to the others and be of resrticted use.

Last edited by The Ancient Geek; 3rd Jul 2015 at 18:09.
The Ancient Geek is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 19:36
  #369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA) welcomed (01-Jul-2015) news that of the three schemes shortlisted for expanding aviation capacity in the UK, the UK Airport Commission has unanimously concluded that the proposal for a new northwest runway at Heathrow Airport, presents the strongest case and offers the greatest strategic and economic benefits. LJLA has been a supporter of this proposal for some time, recognising Heathrow Airport’s expansion plans as the best proposal for the country. CEO Andrew Cornish commented: "Liverpool John Lennon Airport welcomes this news and now urges the Government to give the go ahead of this important expansion of Heathrow so that regional airports such as Liverpool can soon benefit too by the opening up of access to the UK’s hub airport for improved worldwide connectivity"
NCL also support LHR3 as does Glasgow.

If there's such demand at MAN for P2P L/H flights, why are there 20 airlines lined up to operate from LHR? Surely they'd go where the money is?

None of you have picked up on Davies comments about air freight either - it gets 180 mentions! LHR doesn't need cargo-only aircraft to handle 1.5m tonnes - STN, MAN & EMA can't do that. Perhaps the lack of revenue from cargo is why MAN doesn't get the flights and never will.

Last edited by Trash 'n' Navs; 3rd Jul 2015 at 19:42. Reason: Adding quotation code
Trash 'n' Navs is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 21:55
  #370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ah Skip glad you are still with us.

My remarks seemed plausible as BA would simply see there market share diminished, so little enthusiasm in that area.

Flybe mentioned Northolt so they seem lukewarm as well do they not ?
Not so, BA would be entitled to a share of the new slots: itís 50% to incumbents and 50% to new entrants. Some of the new entrants may be smaller carriers offering feeder flights on thin routes, this benefits BA (and other incumbent carriers) as well.

Clearly BE wants to tap into the rich catchment area of the Thames Valley, something it cannot do at LCY, LGW or STN. As LHR is not currently available to BE, it makes sense for it to want to start an operation at NHT to take advantage of this. If/when the LHR situation changes, the NHT operation could shift there.



"Leadership requires courage"

"well - a bold decision will probably cost you your job, a brave decision will cost you the next election" - Sir Humphrey Abbleby
Ah, a man who really knew how to run the country!


LGW has already proved itself by evolving to become the busiest single-runway commercial airport in the world.
Which is the busiest 2-runway commercial airport in the world?


Hub transfer traffic is a bonus, a luxury which should only be pursued if the cost of doing so makes economic sense. The cost basis for expanding LHR to this end is absolutely prohibitive (for reasons amply discussed earlier in this thread). The capacity which is truly essential is that serving indigenous demand from Southern England itself, and LGW can address that need at a far lower cost than LHR in terms of both finance and disruption.
The point about hub traffic is that it makes the difference between a route being viable or not. A route that is not viable solely with point to point pax, may well become viable with the addition of transfer traffic.

This applies equally on a thin route to/from a domestic regional airport as on new routes to/from developing and expanding markets which are vital for future trade links.


I don't think that the Government will sit on this for two long, they know they need to get all the difficult stuff cleared within a 2 year span, most people forget about what happened 3 years ago or who was to blame, Boris & Zac are problems for sure.
It is said (for obvious reasons) that difficult decisions are best made in the first year of Parliament. Perhaps the decision should be made on a busy news day, or over the summer recess.

A lot is argued from the local MPs re. Residents inconvenienced by noise, congestion etc.. Well, surely common sense would tell you if you decide to live near the World's busiest airport, it is likely to grow. Offer compensation and their tune suddenly changes!
Yes you would think so! Not only are the majority of residents, incuding the NIMBYs, fully aware of the presence of a major airport and the implications thereof.

Recent arrivals pay a hell of a lot of dosh for the "priviledge" of living under the flight path, as house prices are so expensive.

Why would they do this if it is so awful as some imply?!

Gatwick would only have worked if a second large UK carrier existed in competition to BA, with worldwide alliance partners providing connectivity eg. Star Alliance - but the chance of this has long gone since BA swallowed up the competition (BUA/B Cal, Dan Air, BMi), although they were never the size to dominate a second hub, as the likes of AA, Delta & UA do in the States.
Actually, no. It was tried in the days when the government ran everything aviation-related. A sucession of LGW-based carriers went bust, and being bought by BA saved jobs.

BTW, BD was never at LGW, and VS survived only because it moved to LHR.

It works in the USA (JFK and EWR) because they are huge domestic hubs with a few (relatively speaking) international flights tagged on. So it's not comparable with LHR/LGW in any way.


Or how about moving the capacity elsewhere in the country. If APD was reduced for Birmingham and Manchester the airlines would soon follow the money. The astronomic cost of any additional London runway would cover a massive reduction in APD and probably a load of advertising overseas..
Why? the airlines donít pay the APD, they just collect it on behalf of the government.

Airlines "following the money" means following their business/premium pax and that means LHR. Simple as.



I'd buy into that if AA and BA weren't so insistent on the need for practically hourly shuttles to JFK. If the regions have to make do with a daily service, then LHR should make do with 4 or 5 A380s. The freed up slots can then be used for the "new and emergent markets". And given this is NATIONAL boost, don't forget that when someone sneezes at LHR, BA decide to wipe out the domestic links. A surefire way to help the UK's regions, don't you think?
Even if this was possible and/or desirable, by re-using the slots on other routes, you are not addressing the problem of LHR operating at 100% capacity. The delays (and the consequent waste of fuel and pollution) to take off and land continue.

Only a third rwy addresses this, allowing "hourly shuttles to JFK" to continue, as demanded by business; allowing flights to the "new and emergent markets"; and allowing thinner routes to smaller regional airports to be restored.



The maglev doesn't serve Shanghai. It arrives in some random neighbourhood far from any international hotels or downtown. It's pointless. A good example of why it's important to plan properly before spending billions on infrastructure.
Indeed, it stops above a metro station a few miles from Shanghai centre. Itís more of a tourist attraction then a serious bit of transport infrastructure.

Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 3rd Jul 2015 at 22:07.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2015, 08:41
  #371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 76
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting that Peter Hendy puts the LHR surface access bill at £10bn and LGW at £6bn in today's Guardian.
anothertyke is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2015, 10:06
  #372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 3 Posts
Two points to add to the mix...

Before I retired as a 747 Capt at LHR I noted how much holding I did before landing over a year. It came to just over 10 hours - 10 to 15mins on average 5 times a month for 10 and half months.

That's the best part of 120,000 litres of Jet A and Jet A1 burnt by this one Pilot in a year - that's out of 21 years at LHR. Take a look at FR24 some mornings and have a guess how much fuel is being wasted at the holding stacks......

And another thing..........

Failure to meet pollution targets at ground level is predicted on surface traffic usage - cars, buses and trucks. By the time this development is up and running the shift to electric, hybrid and hydrogen will render those forecasts meaningless.
ETOPS is online now  
Old 4th Jul 2015, 11:38
  #373 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 66
Posts: 9,832
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
I could not locate who said this originally:
... BA swallowed up the competition (BUA/B Cal, Dan Air, BMi)
One of the reasons they swallowed them up was to get the slots at EGLL, they then booted the routes out to EGKK, where they withered.

ETOPS
That's the best part of 120,000 litres of Jet A and Jet A1 burnt by this one Pilot in a year
EXACTLY!!! I've been saying that for years and I could not see the Davies people, or the protesters EVER point this out! The time wasted and the fuel wasted is ignored AND those that protest about too many a/c over London forget that the holds are still over someone's house!! Those people will have reduced pollution and risk.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2015, 11:43
  #374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What also should be added to the mix is that the technology exists to completely rewrite arrival and final approach paths. These should incorporate RNAV and GBAS capability to spread the arrival noise over a much wider area.
There is no need to remain with 1950s technology and long streams of arriving aircraft following a single path over central London.
The current situation of arrival stacking and radar vectors to the ILS wastes tonnes of fuel. Using computer aided 4D NAV and the new technology would show that the Airport and the Industry are serious about being a good neighbour.
topoverhaul is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2015, 12:54
  #375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
holding

yes fr24 should have been on 24/7 in the commissions offices.....
have just watched uae 1 a380 arrive at lhr. 1243 LT crossed coast at foulness
track 275 alt 15000 ft. 1252 made 360 turn over chigwell 271 / 8000. 1258 179 /6650. 116 /5325. stratford tr onto 172/4050. isle of dogs 239/3650. camberwell 269/3075. finals. 1308 touchdown 27R . an increase of 125000 arrivals per year doesnt sound the right answer to the current congestion...
portmanteau is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2015, 19:39
  #376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting that Peter Hendy puts the LHR surface access bill at £10bn and LGW at £6bn in today's Guardian.
"His Master’s Voice": he's just towing the mayoral line.

TFL is trotting out rubbish about a subject that is of no concern to it: diverting/tunnelling trunk roads and motorways is a Highways Agency matter, new railways is the business of Network Rail.

National, not local.



Before I retired as a 747 Capt at LHR I noted how much holding I did before landing over a year. It came to just over 10 hours - 10 to 15mins on average 5 times a month for 10 and half months.

That's the best part of 120,000 litres of Jet A and Jet A1 burnt by this one Pilot in a year - that's out of 21 years at LHR. Take a look at FR24 some mornings and have a guess how much fuel is being wasted at the holding stacks......

And another thing..........

Failure to meet pollution targets at ground level is predicted on surface traffic usage - cars, buses and trucks. By the time this development is up and running the shift to electric, hybrid and hydrogen will render those forecasts meaningless.
Excellent points, ETOPS!



One of the reasons they swallowed them up was to get the slots at EGLL, they then booted the routes out to EGKK, where they withered.
Not sure how that works in the case of BUA/BCAL and Danair! How would buying these three LGW-based carriers provide slots at LHR?

There were plenty of LGW slots available for BA had it wanted them at that time. So, no need to buy those carriers for the LGW slots.

More a case of reducing competition perhaps, or retieving the routes that BOAC had been forced to give up to those carriers (South America, West Africa, etc.) during the time of the "second force" policy.




ETOPS

Quote:
That's the best part of 120,000 litres of Jet A and Jet A1 burnt by this one Pilot in a year
EXACTLY!!! I've been saying that for years and I could not see the Davies people, or the protesters EVER point this out! The time wasted and the fuel wasted is ignored AND those that protest about too many a/c over London forget that the holds are still over someone's house!! Those people will have reduced pollution and risk.
It's mentioned in at least one submission to the Airports Commission!

Can't expect the protesters to point it out, it would completely undermine their already shaky case.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2015, 21:31
  #377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Under my cap
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What also should be added to the mix is that the technology exists to completely rewrite arrival and final approach paths. These should incorporate RNAV and GBAS capability to spread the arrival noise over a much wider area.
Ah but then we come up against another of the ironies of this industry - that it is much less controversial to put more noise over people who are already used to it than a little bit of noise over people who didn't have any before - that's why any attempts to change flight paths become so emotive.
Itchin McCrevis is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2015, 21:34
  #378 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 66
Posts: 9,832
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Yes Fairdealfrank, apologies for not giving the dividing line when they acquired competitors for the usual reason and when the slots provide a further incentive.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2015, 11:02
  #379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 76
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FdF --- I take seriously what Peter Hendy says, which by the way is far lower than the TfL political game numbers. And he has just taken over as CEO of Network Rail so will be deeply involved in the rail side of the development. If you read the article you will have seen that he was distancing himself by miles from Boris's Island --'You'll have to ask him about that'.

There are some people who are worth listening to and he's one.
anothertyke is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2015, 12:02
  #380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just a question as I don't live anywhere near EGLL but how will a third runway reduce pollution and waiting/holding times etc? Surely a third runway doesn't mean the same amount of traffic now using two runways using three? Won't the amount of traffic grow exponentially so the same problems will remain? AFAIK runways down that neck of the woods are like garden sheds ... the more there arer the more stuff gets stuffed into 'em.
Teevee is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.