Gatwick-2

[BAengineer]

You say that wholly private enterprise is impractical but isn't that exactly what the 'Heathrow hub' proposal is?. All funding comes from the private sector and will be paid for by those actually benefiting from the development. I dont usually have a great deal of sympathy for the anti-noise protesters but I think it rubs it in if you you increase the pollution that they are exposed to and then expect them to pay for it through their taxes as well.

I can see an argument for Government finance if there is no private sector group wiling to step forward, but in this case there is.

[Fairdealfrank]

I'll tell you what I do think. Over many years BAA and then Lhr after the split, has done a fantastic job at convincing this nation that they are full and that only Lhr should be expanded. I could go back 20+ years , probably more and recall going around in circles waiting to land. I can recall waiting 20+ minutes to take off. So what has changed? A previous poster mentioned churn, name some airlines who have left Lhr and where slots have become available, not one or two but a decent number. There has been a lot of new services announced recently to China, where have all the slots come from?

Of course this nonsense was going on 20+ years ago. Heathrow was declared "full" by the government (who owned and ran it at the time) in 1977, yes 1977.

It needed a third rwy in 1977, instead the government tried forcing carriers to shift to LGW. The reality is that LHR now needs a third and a fourth rwy.

Many of you come on here and joke about Lgw being the waiting room for Lhr and rejoice when a service leaves Lgw to move to Lhr.

Not a joke and no reason to rejoice, it is a fact. Carriers in the "waiting room" want to be at Heathrow, it's as simple as that.

You want Lhr expanded, not Lgw.

If it's one OR the other but not both, then obviously. A second rwy at LGW does not solve the capacity crunch at LHR. Some say build a rwy at both, have no problem with that, but would a 2nd rwy at LGW be viable with 3rd at LHR bearing in mind that some LGW carriers will move over to LHR en masse? Would the expected influx from LTN and STN to fill the gap be put off by high charges at LGW?

Explain your meaning of full".

Is "operating at 99+% capacity" a good enough explanation for you?

There is another argument for providing an additional runway at Heathrow, AND Gatwick and Stansted.....and a few extra stands for that matter....:resilience.

Maybe not STN, that's not a good commercial prospect.

If there is that much demand for flights out of LHR then I fail to see why the taxpayer should pay for any of the expansion. I would allow LHR (and LGW) to expand as much as they want but only if it is privately financed - after all why shouldn't those getting the benefits of expansion (the passengers) pay for those benefits.

Airports in the UK are mostly privately owned hence expansion is privately financed. The government's only role should be to facilitate it, NOT TO STAND IN THE WAY.

You say that wholly private enterprise is impractical but isn't that exactly what the 'Heathrow hub' proposal is?. All funding comes from the private sector and will be paid for by those actually benefiting from the development. I dont usually have a great deal of sympathy for the anti-noise protesters but I think it rubs it in if you you increase the pollution that they are exposed to and then expect them to pay for it through their taxes as well.

You're falling into the usual trap. Noise and pollution levels (plus fuel-efficiency levels for that matter) will be much much better with several generations of newer aircraft available by the time the rwy is in use. Don't judge by today's standards. That's too easy .......... and sloppy. No one's paying through their noses in taxes for the rwy.

I can see an argument for Government finance if there is no private sector group wiling to step forward, but in this case there is.

That's a contradiction of your comments in post #359: "... I fail to see why the taxpayer should pay for any of the expansion..."

[Dannyboy39]

I spent 20+ minutes in a stack over LGW last night so they definitely need a new runway, however it should be noted many similar UK airports are using innovative ways to manage runway capacity as much as possible. But they shouldn’t need to be doing that.

[virginblue]

LGW-CGN 4x/weekly (MoThSaSu) on BA to start on Nov 16, 2018. Apparently seasonally

Route served in the past for a long time by easyJet and for a short period also Germanwings.Competition is EW und FR from STN, EW from LHR and BE/RE from SEN.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy39

however it should be noted many similar UK airports are using innovative ways to manage runway capacity as much as possible.

What ways are those ?

[compton3bravo]

I did hear it was one on top of the other so that two could land at the same time cutting out the holding by 50 per cent!!!!

[EIFFS]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy39

I spent 20+ minutes in a stack over LGW last night so they definitely need a new runway, however it should be noted many similar UK airports are using innovative ways to manage runway capacity as much as possible. But they shouldn’t need to be doing that.

With work in progress on going at night on the main runway it takes around 10 minutes to switch to the back up or to be more precise there is no runway available for a 10 minute period during the switch, this can mean 20 minutes holding if you catch it wrong, its normally around 10.30 11.00pm but the time isn’t set in stone, it depends on amount of traffic and looking for a gap to switch, the back up (08L-26R) is RNAV only shortish and no centre line lighting

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

When using the spare runway on 26R, the parallel taxiway is constrained by it's proximity to the now active runway. Last time I did this we had to detour via the North and under the bridge to get to Pier 2, hence bottlenecks and delays.

[True Blue]

The fares to Singapore on Norwegian have been increased substantially from mid January 2019. I wonder if this is to deter bookings as they intend cutting the route?

[toledoashley]

Norwegian have the HiFly 380 arriving tomorrow, will be on LGW to JFK for the next three weeks.

[toledoashley]

Originally Posted by TangoAlphad

You can't be serious?

I am 100% being serious.

[Musket90]

Let's hope it doesn't conflict with EK otherwise they'll be a lot of busses needed.

[canberra97]

Originally Posted by Musket90

Let's hope it doesn't conflict with EK otherwise they'll be a lot of busses needed.

That doesn't make any difference as EK use the airports current single A380 gate on Pier 6 at the North Terminal whereas DY use the South Terminal so no conflict really.

I should imagine that an A380 could ''possibly'' use Pier 2 at the South Terminal probably taking up two stands otherwise it will be on a remote stand and bussing involved.

[AirportPlanner1]

Originally Posted by Musket90

Let's hope it doesn't conflict with EK otherwise they'll be a lot of busses needed.

Surely it’s only going to have a Dreamliner load, unless Norwegian flood the market with cheap seats to make up the numbers?

[Wycombe]

Surely it’s only going to have a Dreamliner load

Possibly not, as a Wamos 744 has been operating the route recently and maybe it's be sold on the basis of that capacity?

[strawberry Ribena]

[QUOTE=canberra97;10213200]

That doesn't make any difference as EK use the airports current single A380 gate on Pier 6 at the North Terminal whereas DY use the South Terminal so no conflict really.

I should imagine that an A380 could ''possibly'' use Pier 2 at the South Terminal probably taking up two stands otherwise it will be on a remote stand and bussing involved.


Remote stands 170’s. delayed to 9pm already

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

The AIP chart for the A380 http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/pamslight/pdf/4e415453/EG/C/EN/Charts/AD/EG_AD_2_EGKK_2-5_en only shows the runway holds as well as Taxiways J and Q as A380. The 170s are not, on this chart, A380 approved, and the only stand you can taxi to on the approved taxiway is 110 on the North Teminal. Be interesting to see what they do.

[strawberry Ribena]

[SteveHP7]

Landed at 1706 at LGW, just happened to be looking out of a window where I live and saw it on final approach just crossing Balcombe road. (-:

[vctenderness]

Anyone know how the cabins are configured?