LHR given permission to build 3rd runway?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure why the extended northern runway proposal (Heathrow Hub) hasn't had more consideration - cheaper, quicker, fewer homes lost, less noise, less pollution.
I note lots of worries about how to deal with the M25 but absolutely nothing about what happens to the A4 Bath Road, its hotels and it goes over the M25.
Oh and is BA's HQ - Waterside being demolished?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe they should have taken over Greenham Common when it was vacated
However, there's no evidence of any joined-up thinking or long-term planning by successive UK governments; what a surprise. not
All of the Airports Commission's reports are on their website, readily available for anyone to read why their favourite option was one of the 55 proposals not shortlisted and agree/disagree with the Commission's analysis.
West London?
Can the area to the west of the airport be considered, ie 70% of departures overfly and 30% arrivals. These arrivals in majority use the northern runway only, so noise from 4.45am till midnight.
No mention of the planning request by HAL to use the 09L for departures. The planning inspector finished his hearing in August 2015 and no result. If and when this is used together with R3 for departures, Ealing will wake up to the noise footprint they do not have now.
No mention of the planning request by HAL to use the 09L for departures. The planning inspector finished his hearing in August 2015 and no result. If and when this is used together with R3 for departures, Ealing will wake up to the noise footprint they do not have now.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never understood why Manchester was never in the mix,
I'm in Ealing and you hardly hear aircraft on Westerlies and even on Easterlies we're only overflown by a third or so of departures - plus modern aircraft are so much quieter than before. I'm never bothered by aircraft noise
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is safety never mentioned in this debate? It seems obvious to me that an extra runway at each of the London airports would improve safety margins, reduce congestion and stress and why would providing extra runway capacity of itself increase the number of flights into the London area?
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Location
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If, as some suggested, easy jet and others move from Gatwick to Heathrow can't Gatwick sue the government for 'picking a winner' and stifling their business. There's a real chance that this governmental decision directly hurts Gatwick. The conservatives generally like a free open economy without government getting in the way. This is the exact opposite. Surely giving them both a runway would have headed off that problem somewhat.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DaveReidUK and skipness one echo
Thanks for your comments.
As I have said in other postings, I am a transport geek, not a frequent flyer. I am well aware that some other posters have access to data which I do not.
1. I understand that at present 8 UK airports have LHR flights, and that yesterday the Gov promised another 6. That made 14 when I was at school.
2. Scotland, where I live, has a wide choice of Hub airports to choose from, depending on one's destination.
North America: Some will use LHR, others AMS, which is little further in the wrong direction - in either case you are likely to end up flying over my house - while others will use EWR or JFK. Those in search of a low cost route will use Icelandair or WOW to access a wide range of destinations from Reykjavik.
The Far East, S Asia and Australasia: we are spoilt for choice. Helsinki? Stockholm? CPH? AMS? Istanbul? The ME3? I think the latter are particularly popular because they split a very long flight into two survivable chunks.
Africa: I think most people do use LHR, but Istanbul and the ME3 also . And for W Africa, Paris gives access to the francophone countries.
S and Central America: Madrid reaches more places than LHR, I believe.
All of the above applies, to some extent, to everywhere from Birmingham N, and to flight only traffic. Package and cruise traffic will tend to take the train coach or car to MAN.
To be blunt, and I am aware that this is difficult to understand for those living in foreign parts (ie London), if LHR shut down tomorrow it would only cause mild inconvenience to long haul passengers from Scotland and the north of England. I suggest that posters read today's postings in the Manchester thread.
As I have said in other postings, I am a transport geek, not a frequent flyer. I am well aware that some other posters have access to data which I do not.
1. I understand that at present 8 UK airports have LHR flights, and that yesterday the Gov promised another 6. That made 14 when I was at school.
2. Scotland, where I live, has a wide choice of Hub airports to choose from, depending on one's destination.
North America: Some will use LHR, others AMS, which is little further in the wrong direction - in either case you are likely to end up flying over my house - while others will use EWR or JFK. Those in search of a low cost route will use Icelandair or WOW to access a wide range of destinations from Reykjavik.
The Far East, S Asia and Australasia: we are spoilt for choice. Helsinki? Stockholm? CPH? AMS? Istanbul? The ME3? I think the latter are particularly popular because they split a very long flight into two survivable chunks.
Africa: I think most people do use LHR, but Istanbul and the ME3 also . And for W Africa, Paris gives access to the francophone countries.
S and Central America: Madrid reaches more places than LHR, I believe.
All of the above applies, to some extent, to everywhere from Birmingham N, and to flight only traffic. Package and cruise traffic will tend to take the train coach or car to MAN.
To be blunt, and I am aware that this is difficult to understand for those living in foreign parts (ie London), if LHR shut down tomorrow it would only cause mild inconvenience to long haul passengers from Scotland and the north of England. I suggest that posters read today's postings in the Manchester thread.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh! Here we go!
BBC is now reporting a gently sloping runway as a "ramp over the M25" and in the news headlines even referred to planes taking off up this ramp! Usuall, it is only the 3 morning savages (Humphrey, Robinson and Monatgue) that get me exercised but it seems the BBC are trying harder to get me effing and blinding at the bloody wireless!
BBC is now reporting a gently sloping runway as a "ramp over the M25" and in the news headlines even referred to planes taking off up this ramp! Usuall, it is only the 3 morning savages (Humphrey, Robinson and Monatgue) that get me exercised but it seems the BBC are trying harder to get me effing and blinding at the bloody wireless!
The problem is "the Government promised ..." bit.
No government can tell airlines where to fly to. All it can do is to cajole and encourage them to serve favoured destinations. Whether the airlines play ball is largely down to how they view the potential profitability of a route or, as in the case of some internal Scottish routes, if there's a government subsidy for operating them (which clearly isn't going to apply to Heathrow routes).
The best that Westminster can come up with is a rather dubious offer to "ring-fence" a handful of slots for domestic routes (out of the 120,000 or so extra slot pairs that R3 would provide).
Hmmm ...
If shutting LHR would make difference to Scots LH pax why do BA run all those shuttle flights to GLA EDI BFS etc just for internal travel-I don't think so. The reason people do not transit in LHR is because there are not enough feeder flights and a new Northern runway allows for much much more usage of UK domestics.
You almost have to be over the average life expectancy to claim you were in richmond or Hounslow or Windsor before LHR was built and as has been pointed out we are not talking about 707s and VC10s here but huge fan engines witha very low and non intrusive noise signature -if you dont belive me drive round the southern perimeter road at LHR when they are on easterlies, park up for ten minutes at the gas station opposite T5 and close to the line up end of 09. Then reflect for a minute that you can barely , if at all, hear a fully loaded triple 7 or A380 with engines pretty much at max thrust above the traffic noise. Noise is a complete red herring these days unless you live under the 27R approach in Cranford.
So onto pollution. yes aircraft contribute to the greenhouse gas effect but how much of it is actually close to an airport. On approach engines are at flight idle until close in and take off while at high power is onlya small segment of the whole flight. So its not an unreasonable assumption that most 'pollution' occurs in the cruise -upto 12-14 hours these days . These flights will still take place whether from LHR or not and with another runway a lot of the time in the hold will be reduced making some savings. So its another fallacy, road traffic is far far worse and if you do not like pollution don't live near a huge airport and don,t live in London. Another specious argument to allow unethical law firms to play out for years and years earnign them plots of money some of which they will spend flying on holidays and business from LHR since they tend to like living in Chiswick, Kew Fulham Putney etc
You almost have to be over the average life expectancy to claim you were in richmond or Hounslow or Windsor before LHR was built and as has been pointed out we are not talking about 707s and VC10s here but huge fan engines witha very low and non intrusive noise signature -if you dont belive me drive round the southern perimeter road at LHR when they are on easterlies, park up for ten minutes at the gas station opposite T5 and close to the line up end of 09. Then reflect for a minute that you can barely , if at all, hear a fully loaded triple 7 or A380 with engines pretty much at max thrust above the traffic noise. Noise is a complete red herring these days unless you live under the 27R approach in Cranford.
So onto pollution. yes aircraft contribute to the greenhouse gas effect but how much of it is actually close to an airport. On approach engines are at flight idle until close in and take off while at high power is onlya small segment of the whole flight. So its not an unreasonable assumption that most 'pollution' occurs in the cruise -upto 12-14 hours these days . These flights will still take place whether from LHR or not and with another runway a lot of the time in the hold will be reduced making some savings. So its another fallacy, road traffic is far far worse and if you do not like pollution don't live near a huge airport and don,t live in London. Another specious argument to allow unethical law firms to play out for years and years earnign them plots of money some of which they will spend flying on holidays and business from LHR since they tend to like living in Chiswick, Kew Fulham Putney etc
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said in my post, I don't have access to the data regarding the proportion of domestic LHR passengers who are feeding longhaul. Perhaps another poster knows. Certainly the extra flights on a Friday, and the reduction at the weekend, suggests a lot of domestic?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR vs the Silver-Boris Thames Airport.
LHR vs the Silver-Boris Thames Airport.
This has already been debated at great length in this thread. All the problems and benefits, and more besides, have been fully mulled over.....
http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...-london-9.html
Silver
This has already been debated at great length in this thread. All the problems and benefits, and more besides, have been fully mulled over.....
http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...-london-9.html
Silver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it is to be used as a hub, why is Gatwick in the wrong place?
Inoban, I was also looking for the stats on LHR throughput as a hub, how many people destination is LHR vs how many use as a hub connection point.
When engines are at reduced thrust in the landing cycle (below 3000 feet), this is when the most pollution occurs, with lower temp and incomplete burn. The primary issue here is Nitrogen Oxides. As noted in the report, High levels of NOx, particularly NO2, are a matter of concern for air quality near major airports. For example, current NO2 concentrations breach the UK annual mean air quality objective (40 mg m#3) at some locations around Heathrow, (2006)
Santoni et al. (2011) measured N2O emissions from a CFM56-2C1 engine and concluded that at low thrust EI N2O were 110 ± 50 mg kg Fuel#1 (mean ± standard deviation), while a drop of emissions was observed at higher thrust levels (32 ± 18 mg kg Fuel#1).
In the beginning of RNP procedures, they were touted as polluting less due to idle thrust on final, until it was shown that idle thrust produces far more pollutants. Then they were touted as saving fuel...
I thought this was interesting as well, as this was actually brought up in a meeting about increasing throughput with RECAT DEP...
According to Airports Council International, 62% of airport revenue comes from passengers paying for concessions, and only 38% comes from the airlines themselves.
"There's a clash of motives or interests in designing these airports," Gidei said. "People running them want them efficient and easy to manage, travellers ideally probably want to bypass them altogether, the people that spend the money to build them want to get their investment back, so it's a divergent set of requirements that you just can't get a good result out of."
Inoban, I was also looking for the stats on LHR throughput as a hub, how many people destination is LHR vs how many use as a hub connection point.
So onto pollution. yes aircraft contribute to the greenhouse gas effect but how much of it is actually close to an airport. On approach engines are at flight idle until close in and take off while at high power is only a small segment of the whole flight.
Santoni et al. (2011) measured N2O emissions from a CFM56-2C1 engine and concluded that at low thrust EI N2O were 110 ± 50 mg kg Fuel#1 (mean ± standard deviation), while a drop of emissions was observed at higher thrust levels (32 ± 18 mg kg Fuel#1).
In the beginning of RNP procedures, they were touted as polluting less due to idle thrust on final, until it was shown that idle thrust produces far more pollutants. Then they were touted as saving fuel...
I thought this was interesting as well, as this was actually brought up in a meeting about increasing throughput with RECAT DEP...
According to Airports Council International, 62% of airport revenue comes from passengers paying for concessions, and only 38% comes from the airlines themselves.
"There's a clash of motives or interests in designing these airports," Gidei said. "People running them want them efficient and easy to manage, travellers ideally probably want to bypass them altogether, the people that spend the money to build them want to get their investment back, so it's a divergent set of requirements that you just can't get a good result out of."
Last edited by underfire; 26th Oct 2016 at 23:23.