LHR given permission to build 3rd runway?
Perhaps you should have a word with them.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes we need more capacity but we also need competition hence LGW should get the nod
One other point it is being assumed it will be a new N r/w the statement just said a new r/w Chris Grayling has expressed interest in an extended N r/w. That may just meet the environmental objections
One other point it is being assumed it will be a new N r/w the statement just said a new r/w Chris Grayling has expressed interest in an extended N r/w. That may just meet the environmental objections
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as per my previous post on the Heathrow thread...
"Everyone's a winner babe and thats OK"
Grayling unequivocal ...
"the taxpayer will not pay a penny"
Was asked twice and a firm rebuttal
M25 tunnel remodelling etc all paid for by Heathrow !
BUT there was then an assumption that fares would rise to pay for the work instead. That also drew a blank.
"Nope, fares not expected to rise either "
This is sensational news. I wish all investment was like this!
Given the airport Commission indicated it will cost billions for the additional surface work otherwise the whole area will come to a grinding halt, can anybody suggest.
WHO IS ACTUALLY PAYING ?
"Everyone's a winner babe and thats OK"
Grayling unequivocal ...
"the taxpayer will not pay a penny"
Was asked twice and a firm rebuttal
M25 tunnel remodelling etc all paid for by Heathrow !
BUT there was then an assumption that fares would rise to pay for the work instead. That also drew a blank.
"Nope, fares not expected to rise either "
This is sensational news. I wish all investment was like this!
Given the airport Commission indicated it will cost billions for the additional surface work otherwise the whole area will come to a grinding halt, can anybody suggest.
WHO IS ACTUALLY PAYING ?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it wouldn't. It would be a complete disaster and just about the worst possible outcome. Not to mention the nimbies on this fast rail route would never let it happen.
Over which years exactly? When was the last time you transited through LHR? You are basing a proposed new project on the past case. LHR is in the middle of a complete rebuild and it is becoming a world class airport.
Over which years exactly? When was the last time you transited through LHR? You are basing a proposed new project on the past case. LHR is in the middle of a complete rebuild and it is becoming a world class airport.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the time all the protests with bunches of guys and gals taking up residence up in trees, in shrubs, hedges and all manner of vegetation around the site, debates, consultations, judicial reviews and every other kind of row are over and done with there will be lots of Scotties beaming people up all over the place. After all that`s the way things are done over here in our model village, Great Britain. Or should I say our Potemkin Village.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vectisman: Why on earth would you take such offence to someone criticising an inanimate object? I think you might want to address that problem before getting worked up by someone's 'opinion'. In my eyes LGW is a dump, in the sense that it only exists to serve overflow. When LHR has added capacity watch everyone apart from FR and the tour operators leave in a heartbeat. I strongly suspect EZY will form a large domestic/European base at LHR and be the main occupier of terminal 6. This will bring some competition to BA domestically and please the pedants in the north (eventually!).
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, Heathrow once had six runways (numbered 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 on the map I saw, so even then they didn't have runway #3).
I thought the justification for the third runway was to let a lot of the smaller aircraft use it and save them spending time burning fuel in the hold. No doubt they'd end up at capacity again with three runways and the same amount of delay though.
I thought the justification for the third runway was to let a lot of the smaller aircraft use it and save them spending time burning fuel in the hold. No doubt they'd end up at capacity again with three runways and the same amount of delay though.
At a meeting with HAL.
Q What is that building alongside the proposed new runway is it Terminal 6?
Ans No. It is an extension to Terminal 5
Q Will the tube or rail have access this extension?
Ans No.
Q. Why is terminal 5 doubling in size back towards the M25 - will passengers have to go through two terminals?
Ans. Yes
Q Will Terminal 5 extension accept wide body aircraft or just short haul?
Ans Don't know.
Q What is that building alongside the proposed new runway is it Terminal 6?
Ans No. It is an extension to Terminal 5
Q Will the tube or rail have access this extension?
Ans No.
Q. Why is terminal 5 doubling in size back towards the M25 - will passengers have to go through two terminals?
Ans. Yes
Q Will Terminal 5 extension accept wide body aircraft or just short haul?
Ans Don't know.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Airport and continuing construction work, Harmondsworth, 1946 | Britain from Above
In this 1946 aerial shot you're looking down runway #1 aka10L ( now 27R/09L), #3 is already effectively disused ( it ran through the location of the planned central tower) and in use as a parking ramp for aircraft and in the distance the first of the second triangle is built across runway #2 (23L/05R,which did have a long and useful life)...........and it was all determined by the location of the sewage plant in the foreground which Middlesex County Council wouldn't move :-) ......and over time Heathrow got 3 runways in the NW/SE direction where the wind is least common
In this 1946 aerial shot you're looking down runway #1 aka10L ( now 27R/09L), #3 is already effectively disused ( it ran through the location of the planned central tower) and in use as a parking ramp for aircraft and in the distance the first of the second triangle is built across runway #2 (23L/05R,which did have a long and useful life)...........and it was all determined by the location of the sewage plant in the foreground which Middlesex County Council wouldn't move :-) ......and over time Heathrow got 3 runways in the NW/SE direction where the wind is least common
Last edited by A30yoyo; 25th Oct 2016 at 20:41.
I live in Somerset, not far from Yeovilton and helicopters. My "local" airports are about an hour away. Extending the runway at Bristol is, I believe impossible, same at Southampton/Eastleigh, not sure about Exeter but I doubt the traffic base is there. As a child I lived in Chiswick right under the 28R (as it then was) approach Viscounts, 707s, Tridents, VC10s - you don't know noise until you experience them. Most of my working life was spent in Maidenhead which suffered but not as badly.
That means if I want to fly long haul I have to go somewhere in Europe and then pick up my long haul. I like flying (!) but I also recognise that take-off and landing are probably the riskiest bits. So, to avoid the hassle I take the train up to Reading and then RailAir to Heathrow or another train to Gatwick. Depending on flight times I might spend a night at an airport hotel.
Personally, I'm happy to see Heathrow given the opportunity to expand. Quite apart from personal preference I think it's the right solution for UK PLC. However, I also believe it should be part of a much wider plan relating to airspace planning and airport planning for the UK as whole. That in turn should be part of a wider infrastructure plan so that when an airport expands it gets rail links as well as road.
Oh, one last thing. The airlines should be told that their use of an airport is dependent on some kind of accommodation with the railways and bang a few heads together at ATOC (or ROG as it is now known). Coming home from San Francisco last week I couldn't book "advance" tickets because I couldn't reliably predict which train I would be able to catch. In fact we landed on time (after a 40 minute delay to departure) at 1330 and caught the 1530 from Reading but because I couldn't predict which train I'd catch we had to buy expensive rather that (slightly) cheaper tickets.
That means if I want to fly long haul I have to go somewhere in Europe and then pick up my long haul. I like flying (!) but I also recognise that take-off and landing are probably the riskiest bits. So, to avoid the hassle I take the train up to Reading and then RailAir to Heathrow or another train to Gatwick. Depending on flight times I might spend a night at an airport hotel.
Personally, I'm happy to see Heathrow given the opportunity to expand. Quite apart from personal preference I think it's the right solution for UK PLC. However, I also believe it should be part of a much wider plan relating to airspace planning and airport planning for the UK as whole. That in turn should be part of a wider infrastructure plan so that when an airport expands it gets rail links as well as road.
Oh, one last thing. The airlines should be told that their use of an airport is dependent on some kind of accommodation with the railways and bang a few heads together at ATOC (or ROG as it is now known). Coming home from San Francisco last week I couldn't book "advance" tickets because I couldn't reliably predict which train I would be able to catch. In fact we landed on time (after a 40 minute delay to departure) at 1330 and caught the 1530 from Reading but because I couldn't predict which train I'd catch we had to buy expensive rather that (slightly) cheaper tickets.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The blasted heath
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Jonnymac
You are aware I take it that UK governments and their acolites are not aware of life outside the M25; unless of course when it's the result of a referendum and they want to keep their own party in power.
Scotland may have attracted the notice of the government (due to recent events such as said referendum) but take it seriously? I do think that'd be too much to ask
You are aware I take it that UK governments and their acolites are not aware of life outside the M25; unless of course when it's the result of a referendum and they want to keep their own party in power.
Scotland may have attracted the notice of the government (due to recent events such as said referendum) but take it seriously? I do think that'd be too much to ask
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a 3 lane super highway ending in a 2 car garage...
too bad about Gatwick, that made far more sense.
Hartington, it is far better to book into San Jose, far less delays and very little fog.
too bad about Gatwick, that made far more sense.
Hartington, it is far better to book into San Jose, far less delays and very little fog.
Last edited by underfire; 25th Oct 2016 at 21:46.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will need to alternate (technically not mixed mode, as you are not using the gap between two arrivals for a departure) one runway to balance daily capacity if you have three runways. It also works better with arrival and departure peaks (AMS uses this). As a departure runway has more capacity than one used for arrivals, departure mode will need to be used less often than arrival mode. This does not work as well for closely spaced parallels (for example CDG, LAX and ATL 08/26 + 09/27) as departures can only be released after the arrival on the parallel has touched down due to the possibility of missed approaches / go arounds.
It also works better with arrival and departure peaks (AMS uses this). As a departure runway has more capacity than one used for arrivals, departure mode will need to be used less often than arrival mode.
Heathrow has today unveiled a new video animation that shows the world beneath Terminal 5 and Terminal 6 as it could look with expansion and rail upgrades.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm at the other end of the UK, and have a strange detachment from this discussion.
LHR may be the only Hub airport in the UK, but it is not the Hub airport for the large majority of the country. Even after R3 is built, only 14 UK airports will have links to it. At the present time, 26 have flights to AMS, which has become, de facto, our hub. Maybe this should never have happened, but it has. The ship has sailed.
The enlargement of LHR is not a National project, as I can't see how it will benefit anyone outside its local catchment area in the south.
LHR may be the only Hub airport in the UK, but it is not the Hub airport for the large majority of the country. Even after R3 is built, only 14 UK airports will have links to it. At the present time, 26 have flights to AMS, which has become, de facto, our hub. Maybe this should never have happened, but it has. The ship has sailed.
The enlargement of LHR is not a National project, as I can't see how it will benefit anyone outside its local catchment area in the south.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Gatwick made far more sense.." Except it's just in the wrong place, needing the full M25 experience even for residents of the South East. That said, we ought to expand LGW AS WELL
"Only" 14 ?
That figure seems wildly optimistic compared to other forecasts for domestic connectivity, including the Airport Commission's - where did you get it from ?
I would struggle to name 14 UK airports that have ever had links to LHR, even in the days when slots were 10 a penny, or could support services in the future with or without the proposed "ring-fencing".
That figure seems wildly optimistic compared to other forecasts for domestic connectivity, including the Airport Commission's - where did you get it from ?
I would struggle to name 14 UK airports that have ever had links to LHR, even in the days when slots were 10 a penny, or could support services in the future with or without the proposed "ring-fencing".
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't see how it benefits anyone outside the south as well as being plugged into every major UK airport beyond sensible train usage range? You just contradicted yourself man. AMS is a good option but the double back coming back from tbe US is a pain.