Boris Island Rejected

[PAXboy]

I'd say that Heathrow is at least 150% full - because it has zero spare capacity. if anything goes wrong they shed 20/30/40% of the traffic.

Not to mention the incredile stacking that takes place for every hour that the airport is open. The waste of time and fuel is an enormous cost usually ignored as most folks don't look at the figures. If the airport had the correct capacity - then that would not be needed to anything like the same degree.

That's just part of the reason why two more runways shoud have been completed ten years ago.

[DaveReidUK]

The days of 10% domestic operations at LHR are long gone.

The proportion of Heathrow movements that are to/from domestic destinations is almost exactly 10%.

[Fairdealfrank]

I'd say that Heathrow is at least 150% full - because it has zero spare capacity. if anything goes wrong they shed 20/30/40% of the traffic.

Good observation, amazing that it can be reduced to 99% full through the judicious use of statistics.

Not to mention the incredile stacking that takes place for every hour that the airport is open. The waste of time and fuel is an enormous cost usually ignored as most folks don't look at the figures. If the airport had the correct capacity - then that would not be needed to anything like the same degree.

Yes, have wasted much time queueing up to take off and going round in ever-decreasing circles on landing, completely hacked off with the situation.


It's laughable that the allegedly environmentally friendly Libdems are happy for this nonsense to continue. They have once again re-iterated their opposition to new rwys anywhere in their "pre-manifesto" manifesto.

John McDonnell MP (Lab Hayes and Harlington), and the allegedly environmentally friendly Zac Goldsmith MP (Con Richmond Park) should also be ashamed of themselves.

That's just part of the reason why two more runways shoud have been completed ten years ago.

Indeed.

The proportion of Heathrow movements that are to/from domestic destinations is almost exactly 10%.

Are you sure, thought it was 8% a few years ago and lower now. Either way, it's probably too much for NHT to cope with at present. Airline operations at NHT would have to share with the military, VIP traffic, and GA.

NHT would also need some infrastructure investment, such as a terminal with access roads and a station on the adjacant railway.

[Walnut]

So clearly my guess of 10% domestic traffic at LHR was about right. A simple terminal at NHT and the existing R/w could easily cope with that. I am sure the ViIP s could easily fit in their limited movements.
I am not suggesting LHR could not be expanded, but cramming more & more into one area has no long term future. Almost every other major city now has several airports ie JFK IAD CDG/ORY Berlin IST etc this gives diversity & providing the links between them work then travel is hassle free
Why do the supporters of a bigger LHR not think that other parts of the Uk should not have good links too. London has a population of circa 10M about 1/6th of the Uk population so it should not call all the shots.

[DaveReidUK]

So clearly my guess of 10% domestic traffic at LHR was about right.

Yes, your guess was right.

But your proposal is a non-starter. If you're going to remove domestic feed traffic from Heathrow, there's little point in sticking it into Northolt or anywhere else.

A passenger getting on a flight from, say, Edinburgh or Glasgow who is now going to be looking at an MCT of at least 120 mins to a longhaul connection at "Heathholt", with a far from seamless transfer, is simply going to fly via Paris or Amsterdam instead. That, in turn, would impact on the viability of at least some of the longhaul routes from LHR.

I suspect that's not quite the solution you had in mind to the capacity problem.

[Walnut]

I believe you are wrong A monorail journey of 10 miles would take 15min from NRT to T5 with no customs or immigration to consider It would be like LCY where you can be on a train within 10min of disembarking it would just be like a spoke of T5

[Fairdealfrank]

Why do the supporters of a bigger LHR not think that other parts of the Uk should not have good links too. London has a population of circa 10M about 1/6th of the Uk population so it should not call all the shots.

We don't, at least this one doesn't.

Expansion should be allowed wherever a business case can be made.

Under the UK system it has to be a business case because most airports (certainly the major ones) are privately owned and the govt also doesn't have any spare dosh.

Realistically expansion away from LHR on it's own isn't going to solve the "LHR problem".

BTW, it's not about the proportion of the UK's population, LHR is a global airport, the UK's only one, and one of just four in Europe.

I believe you are wrong A monorail journey of 10 miles would take 15min from NRT to T5 with no customs or immigration to consider It would be like LCY where you can be on a train within 10min of disembarking it would just be like a spoke of T5

It's slightly more plausible than "Heathwick" because the distance is only 6 mi. and no international-international transfers would be involved, but it's still unfeasable.

There isn't going to be a monrail, the best you could achieve would be a dedicated bus link, but that would be proned to traffic congestion, road works, accidents, etc..

In the real world, you have to ask your self the following:

Is there a business case for at least a terminal and railway station at NHT (with a station and fast trains on Chiltern, NHT would be as convenient for London as LCY)?

Would any carriers be interested in NHT operations (it is in a very large and very rich catchment area)?

Would the military be happy with such arrangements (it could be a nice little earner)?

Would Boris try and have it shut down and 200,000 houses built (NHT is in his constituency)?

There could be potential for a small local airport at NHT, but as LHR's "domestic terminal", not a chance.