LHR given permission to build 3rd runway?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to place a bet that in 2050 there will be a new airport offshore and that Heathrow will stay in business to serve local demand at Europe's biggest city.
Anyone know a bookie who'd quote for that?
P.S. It took Singapore 6.5 years from start of land reclamation to the official opening of Changi airport.
Anyone know a bookie who'd quote for that?
P.S. It took Singapore 6.5 years from start of land reclamation to the official opening of Changi airport.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listening to Mr Grayling this morning, it seems the tunnel beneath the M25 is now dead. The plan now is for a sloping runway, rising to 8m on a bridge over the M25.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand the distinction you seem to be trying to make. Interleaving arrivals with departures is exactly how one of the three runways would be used for most of the time. That's mixed mode in anybody's book.
Other than in the early morning and late evening, departure and arrival demand at Heathrow is pretty evenly matched. That, of course, is how the airport currently operates with its two runways, one designated as the landing runway and one for departures throughout most of the day (though on most days there are some arriving aircraft that land on the departure runway)
Other than in the early morning and late evening, departure and arrival demand at Heathrow is pretty evenly matched. That, of course, is how the airport currently operates with its two runways, one designated as the landing runway and one for departures throughout most of the day (though on most days there are some arriving aircraft that land on the departure runway)
That it is matched now does not mean the new slots will also be matched. It could very well be there will be 90 minutes of (~45) arrival slots and then 60 minutes of (~45) departure slots on the new runway. NATS will probably have a big say in this.
Not sure why the extended northern runway proposal (Heathrow Hub) hasn't had more consideration - cheaper, quicker, fewer homes lost, less noise, less pollution.
It's as if someone's got something against Harmondsworth
It's as if someone's got something against Harmondsworth
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
According to today's "Times", the plot will be to elevate the western end of the runway so that it clears the M25. The picture accompanying it shows a wonderfully sloping runway along it's full length. What a wonderful idea, until:
a. the slope prevents aircraft departing with sufficient fuel to reach their destinations, resulting in fuel stops.
b. an aircraft running off the "down" end, because of the slope.
c. an aircraft departing the runway, and landing on the M25 during rush hour.
However, I have full trust that the planners know exactly what they are doing.
a. the slope prevents aircraft departing with sufficient fuel to reach their destinations, resulting in fuel stops.
b. an aircraft running off the "down" end, because of the slope.
c. an aircraft departing the runway, and landing on the M25 during rush hour.
However, I have full trust that the planners know exactly what they are doing.
First proposed in 1974, the HK CLK airport opened in 1998 following a six-year construction that cost US$20 billion.
Enormous transport linkage including rail and road bridges was also built.
Source: Wiki (and Bas was there from 1997-2002)
Pretty impressive, eh?
Enormous transport linkage including rail and road bridges was also built.
Source: Wiki (and Bas was there from 1997-2002)
Pretty impressive, eh?
With 'real' mixed mode, interleaving arrivals and departures, you can get up to 30 arrivals and 30 departures per runway per hour. Alternating means you get a linear trade off between 50 departures and 36 arrivals per hour. 'Real' mixed mode is complex (especially in combination with multiple runways) and is not possible if visibility is low, as visual confirmation is required to see if the preceding arrival has left the runway before the next aircraft departs.
That it is matched now does not mean the new slots will also be matched. It could very well be there will be 90 minutes of (~45) arrival slots and then 60 minutes of (~45) departure slots on the new runway. NATS will probably have a big say in this.
That it is matched now does not mean the new slots will also be matched. It could very well be there will be 90 minutes of (~45) arrival slots and then 60 minutes of (~45) departure slots on the new runway. NATS will probably have a big say in this.
Interesting idea, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that a 3-runway LHR would or could operate in that way.
On the contrary, Heathrow's published plan specifically quotes hourly runway capacities for the mode of operation I described in my earlier post:
Arrival runway: 38 movements per hour
Departure runway: 42 movements per hour
Mixed mode runway: 48 movements per hour
According to today's "Times", the plot will be to elevate the western end of the runway so that it clears the M25. The picture accompanying it shows a wonderfully sloping runway along it's full length. What a wonderful idea, until:
a. the slope prevents aircraft departing with sufficient fuel to reach their destinations, resulting in fuel stops.
b. an aircraft running off the "down" end, because of the slope.
c. an aircraft departing the runway, and landing on the M25 during rush hour.
However, I have full trust that the planners know exactly what they are doing.
a. the slope prevents aircraft departing with sufficient fuel to reach their destinations, resulting in fuel stops.
b. an aircraft running off the "down" end, because of the slope.
c. an aircraft departing the runway, and landing on the M25 during rush hour.
However, I have full trust that the planners know exactly what they are doing.
Manchester manages OK with more than double that amount.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the numbers! The departure rate seems a bit conservative, while the arrival rate is a bit high, especially considering how many heavy's and super's Heathrow gets.
Mixed mode with 48 an hour, means 24 arrivals with an average separation time of 150 seconds. Gatwick has managed 55 movements an hour.
AMS uses two arrivals + one departure for arrival peaks and switches to one arrival and two departures for departure peaks. It can also operate 2+2 for a short time while switching (which is mostly limited by politics). This fits nicely with a hub and spoke system with banks of arriving and departing flight with passengers transferring in between.
I'm very surprised they have come up mixed mode, as the mixed mode trails a couple of years ago was a bit of a farce. I can also imagine it is somewhat of a trading chip. Hopefully we'll see in a few years what they finally come up with...
It there any idea on how the new slots will be distributed between BA and other carriers?
Mixed mode with 48 an hour, means 24 arrivals with an average separation time of 150 seconds. Gatwick has managed 55 movements an hour.
AMS uses two arrivals + one departure for arrival peaks and switches to one arrival and two departures for departure peaks. It can also operate 2+2 for a short time while switching (which is mostly limited by politics). This fits nicely with a hub and spoke system with banks of arriving and departing flight with passengers transferring in between.
I'm very surprised they have come up mixed mode, as the mixed mode trails a couple of years ago was a bit of a farce. I can also imagine it is somewhat of a trading chip. Hopefully we'll see in a few years what they finally come up with...
It there any idea on how the new slots will be distributed between BA and other carriers?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Durham
Age: 79
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the numbers! The departure rate seems a bit conservative, while the arrival rate is a bit high, especially considering how many heavy's and super's Heathrow gets.
Mixed mode with 48 an hour, means 24 arrivals with an average separation time of 150 seconds. Gatwick has managed 55 movements an hour.
Mixed mode with 48 an hour, means 24 arrivals with an average separation time of 150 seconds. Gatwick has managed 55 movements an hour.
"We have reduced the landing and departure maximum capacities from today's scheduled limits of 44 landings and 46 departures to reflect anticipated growth in average aircraft size over time and to increase future operational resilience. Similarly, we have made a dual use runway capacity assumption of 48 movements per hour, which is about 10% less than other major dual use runways operating near to capacity today and reflects the larger average aircraft size in use at Heathrow. This provides a combined sustainable capacity for the three runway system of 128 movements per hour."
I would like to place a bet that in 2050 there will be a new airport offshore
Its called any other European airport.
People don't want to fly to the Essex estuary to get to London. If they want to do that they can already fly to Stansted or Gatwick in the South.
Heathrow is 20 miles to the West of London.
Changi is 16 miles to the West of Singapore Central
Lantau is 25 miles to the east of Hong Kong Central.
All congested locations and Heathrow is in the right place - not a bird marsh 50+ miles away through an entire city and congested routes which took a decade to get the Channel Tunnel link through.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An 8 metre elevation difference between each end of a 3500m runway represents a slope of 0.22%.
Manchester manages OK with more than double that amount.
Manchester manages OK with more than double that amount.
Curiously, in the last 24 hours Heathrow have removed references to R3 from its website:
Third runway plans (bad link)
Airports Commission timeline (bad link)
Future plans (R3 and Commission links lead back to the same page)
Third runway plans (bad link)
Airports Commission timeline (bad link)
Future plans (R3 and Commission links lead back to the same page)
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about capacity on the ground though? I was on a day trip yesterday from T5: 42 min taxy, a significant proportion of which was holding for a slot, not sitting in the queue for 09R followed by a 43 min leg and 6 min taxy at the other end. Return last night included the usual +-10 min hold at LAM then 15 min holding on Bravo waiting for a stand. 15 mins is not unusual following an arrival on 27R (parking on 511 so reasonably close to the runway and in the direction of travel). Parking at one of the satellites typically takes an hour without bags to get to the MSCP so that 20 min high-speed rail link with LGW following transit via Heathrow Connect to the central area would likely take in excess of 180 mins reclaim to check-in.
I appreciate that the Heathrow East project is underway which, when completed will increase stand capacity, as much of the old T1 parking is unavailable, but with BA increasingly using T3 these days how will LHR cope with all these anticipated additional movements in terms of parking?
I appreciate that the Heathrow East project is underway which, when completed will increase stand capacity, as much of the old T1 parking is unavailable, but with BA increasingly using T3 these days how will LHR cope with all these anticipated additional movements in terms of parking?
What a go on forever story.
If you live in Sipson or Harmondsworth it cannot have escaped you notice there was ahuge airport a mile down the road and since LHR inception much of the land north of LHR was left as agricultural because one day it would be a runway. A great many residents there are renters working at LHR. Peoplel should be properly compensated-Government always try an fiddle people on this one but it is no surprise.
People complaining about noise in west London mostly cannot hear the aircraft because of traffic noise, any incremental decibels due to aircraft noise would in these areas be tiny.
Gatwick is useless because with two runways it would only expand to what LHR is now and we would have two airprots neither fit for purpose.
A high speed rail link from LHR to LGW would have to be all underground (high speed trains cannot go around corners at high speed) and would cost about treble to the cost of a new runway at both airports .
The new runway would allow enourmous expansion of feeder flights from regional airports -oddly these are North of LHR and therefore all dowmstics can sue the new runway allowing more flights to MAn and EDI etc and new flights to places like Teesside, Humberside , Liverpool etc giving people in those areas realistic and wide ranging access to long haul flights
If you live in Sipson or Harmondsworth it cannot have escaped you notice there was ahuge airport a mile down the road and since LHR inception much of the land north of LHR was left as agricultural because one day it would be a runway. A great many residents there are renters working at LHR. Peoplel should be properly compensated-Government always try an fiddle people on this one but it is no surprise.
People complaining about noise in west London mostly cannot hear the aircraft because of traffic noise, any incremental decibels due to aircraft noise would in these areas be tiny.
Gatwick is useless because with two runways it would only expand to what LHR is now and we would have two airprots neither fit for purpose.
A high speed rail link from LHR to LGW would have to be all underground (high speed trains cannot go around corners at high speed) and would cost about treble to the cost of a new runway at both airports .
The new runway would allow enourmous expansion of feeder flights from regional airports -oddly these are North of LHR and therefore all dowmstics can sue the new runway allowing more flights to MAn and EDI etc and new flights to places like Teesside, Humberside , Liverpool etc giving people in those areas realistic and wide ranging access to long haul flights
People complaining about noise in west London mostly cannot hear the aircraft because of traffic noise, any incremental decibels due to aircraft noise would in these areas be tiny.
I agree, having lived in West London for a while. The major sources of noise were lorries, cars (with huge stereos), motorbikes with what seemed like no silencers, police cars, ambulances, fire engines, helicopters (police ones at night) and so on. The aircraft coming in and out of LHR were barely audible above that lot...