Another runway at Heathrow
but I have and its enough to drive you to insanity?
Tooting?
I moved to Staines in 1973 until 1996, when the cross runway was still used.
VC10 Tridents 707 etc. Moved to Windsor under 09L, Concord until now.
My sanity is still present, to object to the huge land grab for a new runway & terminal expansion, and the increased air and land traffic.
Oh worked in 24/7 in Tooting and was more concerned about safety than any concern about air noise, drowned out by the emergency services dashing around.
I also believe that Hounslow & Ealing residents have concerns about LHR expansion
Tooting?
I moved to Staines in 1973 until 1996, when the cross runway was still used.
VC10 Tridents 707 etc. Moved to Windsor under 09L, Concord until now.
My sanity is still present, to object to the huge land grab for a new runway & terminal expansion, and the increased air and land traffic.
Oh worked in 24/7 in Tooting and was more concerned about safety than any concern about air noise, drowned out by the emergency services dashing around.
I also believe that Hounslow & Ealing residents have concerns about LHR expansion
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hs2 connection to lhr
bagso/fdfrank
could be worse than you think. if Hub's proposal wins you will have to connect to Iver first and then on to lhr. barmy of course. my money is on new rwy at lgw plus continued development at lhr. hs2 pax from North to choose between getting off at OOC or euston for lhr. more direct connection would be nice to have but unaffordable and surely not enough pax to justify it?
could be worse than you think. if Hub's proposal wins you will have to connect to Iver first and then on to lhr. barmy of course. my money is on new rwy at lgw plus continued development at lhr. hs2 pax from North to choose between getting off at OOC or euston for lhr. more direct connection would be nice to have but unaffordable and surely not enough pax to justify it?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to todays popular press gatwick will sue if the decision goes against them on the grounds that LHR is just adding to smog city and the decision is thus in breach of the legal requirement to cut UK airborne pollution
The lawyers must be ordering their new Bentley's as we speak......
The lawyers must be ordering their new Bentley's as we speak......
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hs2 connection to lhr
bagso/fdfrank
could be worse than you think. if Hub's proposal wins you will have to connect to Iver first and then on to lhr. barmy of course. my money is on new rwy at lgw plus continued development at lhr. hs2 pax from North to choose between getting off at OOC or euston for lhr. more direct connection would be nice to have but unaffordable and surely not enough pax to justify it?
bagso/fdfrank
could be worse than you think. if Hub's proposal wins you will have to connect to Iver first and then on to lhr. barmy of course. my money is on new rwy at lgw plus continued development at lhr. hs2 pax from North to choose between getting off at OOC or euston for lhr. more direct connection would be nice to have but unaffordable and surely not enough pax to justify it?
Also, crossrail would be up and running and the missing link from LHR-5 to the Great Western main line would be completed allowing pax to access LHR-5 and LHR-1/2/3 from the east and from the west (change at LHR-1/2/3 for LHR-4).
Is it not possible that HS2 could be scrapped?
Who will they sue? There will either be a Hybrid Bill or a National Policy Statement, quite possibly both.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hub proposal
davereiduk, unfortunately zero chance may not be the case. if it was, the option would never have made it to the shortlist. remember there is no one with aviation experience on the commission and govt is desperate for a solution, any solution. plus when it is part privately funded all the better. its got to be lgw but am not holding my breath.
unfortunately zero chance may not be the case. if it was, the option would never have made it to the shortlist
IMHO the split-runway proposal is there purely as a makeweight - it's never been done before, the safety case is unproven and it has no support from the airport and ANSP that are somehow expected to implement and operate it.
remember there is no one with aviation experience on the commission
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Who will they sue? There will either be a Hybrid Bill or a National Policy Statement, quite possibly both."
they'd sue the Governmment for not following the recent judgement from the European Court that the UK was ignoring the agreed targets on air pollution... could run for years
they'd sue the Governmment for not following the recent judgement from the European Court that the UK was ignoring the agreed targets on air pollution... could run for years
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGW doesn't make sense
- it's awkward for UK travellers unless they're in London or the SE
- It's not the main hub and wont work as a hub-let to LHR
It's just a shame that all around LHR is so built up, but even if LHR had bought the land years ago they'd have wasted it building cargo terminals and whatnot and still want more rather than demolish their own 'essential buildings' (do they really need more terminal buildings or could they cope with what they have if they'd not filled it with overpriced retail outlets)
- it's awkward for UK travellers unless they're in London or the SE
- It's not the main hub and wont work as a hub-let to LHR
It's just a shame that all around LHR is so built up, but even if LHR had bought the land years ago they'd have wasted it building cargo terminals and whatnot and still want more rather than demolish their own 'essential buildings' (do they really need more terminal buildings or could they cope with what they have if they'd not filled it with overpriced retail outlets)
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGW doesn't make sense
- it's awkward for UK travellers unless they're in London or the SE
- It's not the main hub and wont work as a hub-let to LHR
- it's awkward for UK travellers unless they're in London or the SE
- It's not the main hub and wont work as a hub-let to LHR
It's just a shame that all around LHR is so built up, but even if LHR had bought the land years ago they'd have wasted it building cargo terminals and whatnot and still want more rather than demolish their own 'essential buildings' (do they really need more terminal buildings or could they cope with what they have if they'd not filled it with overpriced retail outlets)
Since the opening of LHR-5, terminal capacity is about right, and terminal development now is more about replacement, updating and consolidation than about expansion.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fdfrank: can't agree. another rwy at lhr is wrong on so many counts; consideration for residents, wasted expenditure by demolition/rebuilding on a grand scale of recently completed infrastructure, eg m 25 between juncs 15 and 14, and a ginormous waste treatment plant to name just two, considerable congestion on m25 during years of reconstruction and forever afterwards, I could go on... as I trundled round m25 yesterday afternoon at 5 to 10 mph from junc 12 to junc 15 I wished I had sir howard davies and his merry team with me to witness what happens on a normal day before a brick has been laid.
turns out the delay was due to a solitary small panel van stopped in lane 2 and roped off. no signs of an accident, no one in attendance. meanwhile thousands of vehicles confined to 2 lanes miles back.
turns out the delay was due to a solitary small panel van stopped in lane 2 and roped off. no signs of an accident, no one in attendance. meanwhile thousands of vehicles confined to 2 lanes miles back.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fdfrank: can't agree. another rwy at lhr is wrong on so many counts; consideration for residents, wasted expenditure by demolition/rebuilding on a grand scale of recently completed infrastructure, eg m 25 between juncs 15 and 14, and a ginormous waste treatment plant to name just two, considerable congestion on m25 during years of reconstruction and forever afterwards, I could go on... as I trundled round m25 yesterday afternoon at 5 to 10 mph from junc 12 to junc 15 I wished I had sir howard davies and his merry team with me to witness what happens on a normal day before a brick has been laid.
turns out the delay was due to a solitary small panel van stopped in lane 2 and roped off. no signs of an accident, no one in attendance. meanwhile thousands of vehicles confined to 2 lanes miles back.
turns out the delay was due to a solitary small panel van stopped in lane 2 and roped off. no signs of an accident, no one in attendance. meanwhile thousands of vehicles confined to 2 lanes miles back.
You forgot to mention the aircraft queueing up to take off, engines idling wasting fuel.
You forgot to mention the aircraft stacking over the Home Counties and the Thames Valley queueing up to land.
You forgot to mention the utter chaos caused by operating at 100% capacity when there is an incident or bad weather.
You forgot to mention the carriers that start operations to/from LHR's competitor airports because of the lack of availble slots.
You forgot to mention the horrendous expense of the secondary slot market that keeps all but 2 UK carriers out of Heathrow.
You forgot to mention the lack of UK destinations available from Heathrow because of the lack of and cost of available slots.
You forgot to mention the lack of trade between the upcoming new economies and the UK because of a lack of direct flights.
Could also go on.
Dithering and delay comes with a price. Had the rwy(s) been built when needed, forty years ago, there would have been much less urbanisation and no need to divert/tunnelise the M25. There would also have been no need for the many commissions, reviews, studies, etc. that report the same thing over and over again ad nauseum just to be ignored.
So, where would YOU put the rwy?
Gatwick? - won't solve the hub rwy capacity crunch problem
Stansted? - ditto
Birmingham? - ditto
Boris Fantasy Island? - ditto
Nowhere? - ditto (official Libdem/Green party policy)
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 4th Jun 2015 at 22:52.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 75
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You ask where to expand our transport network?
Airlines and manufacturers are moving towards point to point operations, thus to concentrate on a hub is going against the market. Look how successful the B787 has become 0 to 900 already. Why should people travel from the North to connect, much better to fly from a nearby airport?
My money would to go for LGW, this would produce genuine competition in the SE where lets face it most of the demand is coming from
I am not convinced gridlocking the road system around LHR is in the interests of the country, the airlines, or the millions who live and travel around the area.
Just because it suits a small number of air pax is not a reason to proceed.
Airlines and manufacturers are moving towards point to point operations, thus to concentrate on a hub is going against the market. Look how successful the B787 has become 0 to 900 already. Why should people travel from the North to connect, much better to fly from a nearby airport?
My money would to go for LGW, this would produce genuine competition in the SE where lets face it most of the demand is coming from
I am not convinced gridlocking the road system around LHR is in the interests of the country, the airlines, or the millions who live and travel around the area.
Just because it suits a small number of air pax is not a reason to proceed.
Last edited by Walnut; 5th Jun 2015 at 11:36.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fdfrank: as mentioned in my earlier posts its lgw for me. its a london airport now and there is no reason why it should not become as well used as lhr particularly since that airport has long since reached saturation. the idea that lhr must be the only airport to serve london is nonsense. I think a chinese businessman who wants to come to london will not be bothered by which airport he goes through, he has more important matters on his mind.
Airlines and manufacturers are moving towards point to point operations, thus to concentrate on a hub is going against the market. Look how successful the B787 has become 0 to 900 already. Why should people travel from the North to connect, much better to fly from a nearby airport?
The Boeing 787 has been used by and large to replace existing aircraft, either end-of-life 767s or, in a notable number of instances, 777s that were proving too large for the route. And they pretty much all operate spokes out of their owner's hub.
What has happened is that the number of hub operators has increased at the various spoke points, the most evident being the ME3 which have developed large hub-based networks from their own closely-adjacent bases, and thus diluted the market to an extent, thus from "the North" you can fly to any of Dubai, Abu Dhabi or Doha, and thence onward to India, far East, Australia etc. But they are all very much hub-based operations, it has just diluted previous hubs like Amsterdam for such journeys.
Heathrow's lack of runway capacity is what makes it more difficult for them to challenge with a true hub operation of their own, and indeed this increasing hubbing trend makes expansion away from Heathrow, at Gatwick etc, laughable.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hub concept
the hub concept as it applies to lhr mostly concerns BA . no one else comes close. the following comes from heathrow's schedules of 2nd june 2015 as shown by wikipedia .
87 passenger airlines use lhr. of which 54 go to one destination only (from lhr), 17 go to 2, 5 go to 3, 2 go to 4, 3 go to 5, 2 go to 6, 0 go to 7, 1 goes to 8, 1 goes to 18 (virgin) and BA goes to 143.
figures for cargo : 11 airlines fly to 24 destinations in total.
so there are some hub activities by smaller players but essentially improvements to "maintain lhr's position as a hub" perhaps will disproportionately favour one airline.
87 passenger airlines use lhr. of which 54 go to one destination only (from lhr), 17 go to 2, 5 go to 3, 2 go to 4, 3 go to 5, 2 go to 6, 0 go to 7, 1 goes to 8, 1 goes to 18 (virgin) and BA goes to 143.
figures for cargo : 11 airlines fly to 24 destinations in total.
so there are some hub activities by smaller players but essentially improvements to "maintain lhr's position as a hub" perhaps will disproportionately favour one airline.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That hasn't happened at all for long distance routes, and it was sheer marketing guff by Boeing's 787 sales team some years ago to claim so. In fact carriers still are consolidating to routes from their hub only.
The Boeing 787 has been used by and large to replace existing aircraft, either end-of-life 767s or, in a notable number of instances, 777s that were proving too large for the route. And they pretty much all operate spokes out of their owner's hub.
The Boeing 787 has been used by and large to replace existing aircraft, either end-of-life 767s or, in a notable number of instances, 777s that were proving too large for the route. And they pretty much all operate spokes out of their owner's hub.
#mostlygonenow
so there are some hub activities by smaller players but essentially improvements to "maintain lhr's position as a hub" perhaps will disproportionately favour one airline.
the hub concept as it applies to lhr mostly concerns BA . no one else comes close
Practically all the carriers serving any hub airport benefit from the fact that it's a hub, even if it isn't their own hub.
Heathrow is actually a significant hub for other than BA, as there are a substantial number of route operated by Star Alliance carriers who interchange there, with each others' codeshares on flights, and are progressively building up a nice single-terminal connecting facility at the new T2.
Unfortunately for them, their big loss was the end of BMI, which offered the connections to other UK trunk destinations, and to those European points which did not have other incoming Star Alliance flights. However, it was Star Alliance's own arrangements that were a significant part of the BMI downfall, as under established interlining division of revenue, BMI having the short part of say a LAX-LHR-DUB from United, or JNB-LHR-EDI from South African AW, through ticket, and just got a pittance for carrying the connecting passengers. Lufthansa, their principal backers, just thought such passengers should connect through Frankfurt instead.
Unfortunately for them, their big loss was the end of BMI, which offered the connections to other UK trunk destinations, and to those European points which did not have other incoming Star Alliance flights. However, it was Star Alliance's own arrangements that were a significant part of the BMI downfall, as under established interlining division of revenue, BMI having the short part of say a LAX-LHR-DUB from United, or JNB-LHR-EDI from South African AW, through ticket, and just got a pittance for carrying the connecting passengers. Lufthansa, their principal backers, just thought such passengers should connect through Frankfurt instead.
