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 5th Jul 2015, 12:45
  #381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Teevee
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.
It depends.

Pollution - are you talking noise or emissions?
Noise - factors to consider are quieter aircraft (A380 v B747), steeper approaches, RNAV, displaced thlds against more airframes;
Emissions - factors to consider here are cleaner aircraft (A320NEO, B787, A350), steeper approaches and reduced engine taxiing against more airframes;
Holding/taxi times - consider A-CDM (smarter, efficient sequencing), slowing arrivals beyond UK FIR, efficient turnrounds, more stands meaning less holding on taxiways, more runway capacity to absorb disruptions (slow to vacates, long landers, runway inspections following birdstrikes);
Capacity - 3rd runway gives you more slots but airline demand is unlikely to use all of them on day 1 so then it's a conversation between airlines, airport & regulator as to how much resilience you want - hold back slots to recover and improve punctuality or cram them in to improve commercial revenues?

Look at the airports that have spare capacity during the day (eg AMS, LGW) and you see their ability to recover punctuality.
Trash 'n' Navs is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2015, 13:38
  #382 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 66
Posts: 9,875
Received 13 Likes on 10 Posts
Well summarised Trash 'n' Navs. I've had 40 minut taxi/idle out and 30 mins taxi/idle in on numerous occaisions and that emiision pollution is all at ground level.

I would place a limit on the total movements so as to spread the load across the three as we currently (probably) have about 2.5 runway's worth of traffic. Which is why we actually need four runways to absorb the 'over capacity' we currently have.

The fact that none of this will happen, and the reasons for that, are well understood and (repeating myself) LHR was long doomed to be in the second tier of European hubs - as it already is.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2015, 13:57
  #383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
3rd rwy

teevee you appear not to be aware that the 3rd rwy is to cater for an increase in movements of 280000 each year ie 140000 arrivals and 140000 departures so of course you are right, the status quo will be maintained. also there WILL be clamour for a 4th rwy at lhr despite what Sir Howard says and it too will be accompanied by another increase in aircraft movements and so it goes on....
portmanteau is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2015, 19:18
  #384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by portmanteau
teevee you appear not to be aware that the 3rd rwy is to cater for an increase in movements of 280000 each year ie 140000 arrivals and 140000 departures so of course you are right, the status quo will be maintained. also there WILL be clamour for a 4th rwy at lhr despite what Sir Howard says and it too will be accompanied by another increase in aircraft movements and so it goes on....
So where are those 140,000 flights coming from to maintain the status quo?

No, it'll be many years before you get back to where you are now but don't forget that you're in this situation to start with because successive governments failed to put the national interest ahead of party-political, self-interest. So LHR will again fill up undoubtedly and probably sooner than 2040 if the current trend continues of the middle classes & business travellers flying more. Regardless, that's no reason NOT to build the 3rd.

Like it or not, an expensive, independent commission has considered the evidence so rather than fighting the umpire, I suggest you get your elected government to make a decision! Agree to it or not. But don't pass the buck.

Last edited by Trash 'n' Navs; 5th Jul 2015 at 19:20. Reason: Fonts
Trash 'n' Navs is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2015, 21:52
  #385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
trashnnav: I dont know where 140000 extra flights are coming from, you need to ask Sir H who states in his report that the 3rd rwy will enable the airport to handle 740000 movements per year which give-or-take a few is 280000 more than now. teevees point ( I think) is that adding another rwy while increasing the no. of movs simply maintains the present level of congestion. actually it must increase it since the airspace doesnt increase to accomodate more flights.
portmanteau is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2015, 23:02
  #386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So where are those 140,000 flights coming from to maintain the status quo?

No, it'll be many years before you get back to where you are now but don't forget that you're in this situation to start with because successive governments failed to put the national interest ahead of party-political, self-interest. So LHR will again fill up undoubtedly and probably sooner than 2040 if the current trend continues of the middle classes & business travellers flying more. Regardless, that's no reason NOT to build the 3rd.
Indeed it's not. It is, however, a reason to build the third rwy as soon as, and to start planning for a fourth for several years down the line.


Like it or not, an expensive, independent commission has considered the evidence so rather than fighting the umpire, I suggest you get your elected government to make a decision! Agree to it or not. But don't pass the buck.
Elected government make a decision? You are having a laugh aren't you? Why are we surrounded by flying pigs?


trashnnav: I dont know where 140000 extra flights are coming from, you need to ask Sir H who states in his report that the 3rd rwy will enable the airport to handle 740000 movements per year which give-or-take a few is 280000 more than now. teevees point ( I think) is that adding another rwy while increasing the no. of movs simply maintains the present level of congestion. actually it must increase it since the airspace doesnt increase to accomodate more flights.
Clearly it's not going to be full from day one: the day the 3rd rwy opens (hypothetical of course because doing nothing, dithering, and delay are likely to prevail) LHR would go from operating at 100.00% rwy capacity to 66.67% at a stroke.

Queues for take off and landing would end, again at a stroke.

There would probably be a glut of new activity (as the 20 new carriers come in and incumbents increase frequencies) then a gradual but steady increase in movements.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2015, 23:05
  #387 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 66
Posts: 9,875
Received 13 Likes on 10 Posts
As I understand it, all three will be able to operate simultaneously? So different (more) air space is being used. I sit to be corrected.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2015, 06:13
  #388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 75
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All these extra movements over central London will increase the noise disturbance over the capital, plus it is only a question of time before there is an incidence hopefully minor which will cause the 8 million Londoners to ask "are we safe"?
It is just plain daft to increase that risk however minor.
Walnut is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2015, 07:32
  #389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,915
Received 47 Likes on 27 Posts
As I understand it, all three will be able to operate simultaneously?
The alternation schemes in the R3 proposals show, at any given point in time, one runway dedicated to departures, one to arrivals and one of the two outer runways operating in mixed-mode (interleaved takeoffs and landings).

So different (more) air space is being used.
In the absence of any published flightpaths, it's reasonable to assume that most, if not all, landing traffic would follow conventional straight-in approaches from a minimum of 8-10 nm and departing aircraft would join the existing SID/NPRs. Curved and/or steeper approaches will no doubt come in time (with or without R3).
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2015, 11:21
  #390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
rwy approaches

hm... am wondering about whether parallel or even non-parallel approaches will be made simultaneously to the two outer runways. distances between centrelines look to be 27L to 27C 0.85 statute miles, and 27C to 27R 0.8 smls so thats 1.65 smls between 27L and 27R. if nothing else it shows that the flight path of aircraft using the new 27R will introduce a whole new bunch of people to aircraft passing directly overhead on finals ( and on take-offs from the new 09L as well of course). atcos could be juggling with two parallel approach paths in use at the same time which should make life interesting for them.
somebody must know already, back to the commission reports...
portmanteau is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2015, 13:38
  #391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I work at LHR - behind the scenes it is a maintenance nightmare and the subject of some serious underinvestment in favour of prestige projects. T1 was mothballed on 29th June and will not be demolished until 2019 because HAL have run out of cash (they overspent on the new T2 by 2 billion). T4 has comfortably exceeded it's design life of 25 years and is falling apart (T1 was in a better material condition IMHO) but will only receive a facelift because, again, there is no money to rebuild.


The Government do not want to build a third runway at LHR, but they could probably get away with extending the northern runway and getting a new runway built at LGW too. Semantics is the key to this and an extension at LHR is not a new build - I suspect that Zac Goldsmith, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Philip Hammond et al could just about live with this and it would get Cameron off the hook with BA, HAL and the CBI...
Failed_Scopie is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2015, 14:15
  #392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,915
Received 47 Likes on 27 Posts
Originally Posted by portmanteau
atcos could be juggling with two parallel approach paths in use at the same time which should make life interesting for them.
I'd have though that was stating the obvious, though I'm not sure ATC would agree with the term "juggling".

The alternative - building a third runway but only being able to use one at a time for landing - would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?


Originally Posted by Failed_Scopie
The Government do not want to build a third runway at LHR, but they could probably get away with extending the northern runway
Davies put the final nail in the coffin of that hair-brained idea, which AFAIK had no supporters at all apart from the promoters of the scheme. HAL, CAA and NATS were, at best, lukewarm about the concept and community groups were dead against it as it would have meant a complete end to alternation.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2015, 16:11
  #393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Various at the moment
Posts: 1,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This project is a non starter, always has been, always will be. Why on earth anyone would try and cram more congestion into LHR wants their head examining in the first place.

As someone else said, we'll be having this discussion in another 7-10 years and by that time, European airports would have built new runways and maybe even new airports and LHR will still be dragging it's heels.

Utter waste of time when there is already a suitable runway at other London airports that can be used immediately and without having to tear down streets of houses and ruin the lives of those who reside in them.
dc9-32 is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2015, 16:27
  #394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The one distinct advantage of an extended northern runway is this - it provides outstanding political cover for Cameron; he can back it without reneging upon his 'No Third Runway' pledge by spinning it as an upgrade. Zac Goldsmith could probably just about live with it as could Hammond, May and Johnson. Politics is everything. And the fact that it is cheap i.e. 12 billion helps too, especially when rail electrification at 38 billion was seen as too expensive...


Davies knows this, which is why it what his second preferred option. And I think that probably this was the intent all along.
Failed_Scopie is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2015, 22:34
  #395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Government do not want to build a third runway at LHR, but they could probably get away with extending the northern runway and getting a new runway built at LGW too. Semantics is the key to this and an extension at LHR is not a new build - I suspect that Zac Goldsmith, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Philip Hammond et al could just about live with this and it would get Cameron off the hook with BA, HAL and the CBI...
...But not flightpath residents.

They cannot get away with it for one simple reason: that scheme requires permanent mixed mode to be used if the number of movements is to be increased, and if not, there's no point.

That means no alternation and therefore no half-day respite for anyone under the flightpath, ever.

That alone makes this scheme un-doable. Who knows why it was included in the shortlist.


Utter waste of time when there is already a suitable runway at other London airports that can be used immediately and without having to tear down streets of houses and ruin the lives of those who reside in them.
NHT?


The one distinct advantage of an extended northern runway is this - it provides outstanding political cover for Cameron; he can back it without reneging upon his 'No Third Runway' pledge by spinning it as an upgrade. Zac Goldsmith could probably just about live with it as could Hammond, May and Johnson. Politics is everything. And the fact that it is cheap i.e. 12 billion helps too, especially when rail electrification at 38 billion was seen as too expensive...
If you really think that, please explain why flightpath residents would put up with no respite whatsoever (see above).

Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 8th Jul 2015 at 00:11.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2015, 07:21
  #396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Exactly, fdf for Mayor - let there be some common sense!

If this crystal clear recommendation is kicked into the long grass like so many others in UK infrastructure, then we might as well forget our collective aspirations to solve Britains coagulated transport problems.

It is exasperating when 40mins away in Schipol, there's not two but three more runways than LHR. Not to mention their trams, rail links (straight to the airport - egads), bicycle lanes.... It's not as if Holland is sparsely populated...

Boris, Goldsmith and Greening may voice their objection, but I hope and suspect the noises are self-protection.

Somewhat ironically, as Frank so aptly illustrated, the third runway allows for respite. Coupled with steep(-er) approaches and the next gen 787, 350 320neo and 777X the low noise contours would be worth the enormous economic benefit - Trying to explain this to the local political groups is another matter though!
indie cent is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2015, 08:04
  #397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
EZY have identified what I "think" was 50 routes they would potentially start out of LHR. There were listed at the runwaysUK debate Monday.

That would impact on LGW dramatically, LTN, etc would it not, why would you duplicate , would they really operate from all bases ?

Would it also impact where they would cherry pick juicy routes jeopardising the much vaunted BA connections, does that not then undermine the whole ethos of connectivity ex LHR ?
Bagso is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2015, 10:13
  #398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Various at the moment
Posts: 1,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
fdf

NHT ? Are you smoking the same substance as the politicians
dc9-32 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2015, 10:50
  #399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the much vaunted BA connections
Not a supporter then? Do you support BA maintaining the Shuttle to MAN or is your love of the Qataris and ME3 so great because they use "proper" aircraft and give your local airport the respect it deserves?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_..._Arab_Emirates
Still, all hail the ME3 eh?
would they really operate from all bases ?
I think so, but not at the same levels, they would rebalance. No one, me included thought they'd win when they went up against Gatwick's biggest airline. The difference here is that BA LGW was perpetually loss making and LHR isn't. EZY arriving at LHR would be exactly what IAG would need to force through productivity improvements across short haul, so whilst not ideal, BA do have a loyal market out of LHR and there's an upside to be had.
Utter waste of time when there is already a suitable runway at other London airports that can be used immediately and without having to tear down streets of houses and ruin the lives of those who reside in them.
Unless airlines want to fly from somewhere, there's no point expanding the facilities. Think Mirabel, Stansted and the empty airports in Spain. It's not simply a need for a runway, it needs to be supported by a commercially effective group of operators using the facilities, any serious legacy long haul operator chooses LHR and ignores Gatwick, alliance members tend to pick additional services into alliance hubs, Garuda being the exception as they fly (recycled) fresh air between LGW-AMS-CGK, except on weekends....

It is just plain daft to increase that risk however minor.
Best close LCY immediately too as the flight path is over a World Heritage Site in the Tower of London, the Shard and the Houses of Parliement no less. Sounds risky.
Won't the amount of traffic grow exponentially so the same problems will remain?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
Traffic growth won't be quite that rapid. However in terms of pollution and noise, a big difference will be apparent over the next few years as the last of the B757/B767/ B744s / A330s are rolled over in favour of more B787 / A380/ A350s. They're much quieter than the old favourites, the RB211 powered BA noise machines. The BA B744s on long haul are painful by comparison.

Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 7th Jul 2015 at 11:03.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2015, 13:23
  #400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Skipness - Another dose of the old "pots and kettles" from you there. I truly doubt that there is a more ardent "supporter" on PPRuNe than your good self, BA and LHR being the objects of your own unswerving devotion.

And once again, you attempt to introduce your human rights agenda. Please keep this out of aviation debate. Most nation states in the world attract disapproval from some quarter ... do you favour a trading environment of bans and petty agendas driven by attention-seeking politicians? I suppose you've considered that all the nations whose carriers you would like to sanction are quite capable of reciprocation?

Now, let's look closely at the MEB3 specifically since they attract disapproving comments from you at every opportunity. EMIRATES employs around 400 staff in Greater Manchester. And those staff support families and spend in the local economy. And they pay taxes ... to the same exchequer as BA & LHR workers. You often seem to overlook that. ETIHAD is also a major employer in the NW. And, alongside partner companies domiciled in Abu Dhabi has invested vast sums in the regeneration of depressed districts of East Manchester in particular. QATAR AIRWAYS, to the best of my knowledge, is not a large-scale employer / investor in the NW, but like the two aforementioned carriers they do offer excellent service, competitive fares and an outstanding selection of global connections to travellers originating in this region.

To me, British Airways is just another airline, one choice amongst many in the air travel sector. But all their flights from MAN require a change over LHR. Where we can look forward to a duplicated full security search and big queues on arrival. And that is on the good day when they haven't cancelled your Shuttle connection in the first place.

Be as cynical as you like. The MEB3 offer those of us in the NW a superior travel proposition.
Shed-on-a-Pole 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.