Airport Development in the south east.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good idea Z3. It would be great to have a decent link between all the airports, a sort of giant hub airport. It brings back memories of the short lived Heli service between Gatwick and Heathrow of many years ago. This would allow more of the current capacity to be utilised, rather than just building more. Alot of people are very against Heathrow expansion, even with 'just' a short extra runway.
It does fly in the face of the BAA's promises at the T5 enquiry when they stated "We believe no other runway at Heathrow is a practical proposition." This is a a direct quote from the then BAA Chief Exec. in 1995.
Heathrow is an absolute nightmare for all concerned. Any extra runway would also need another terminal (T6?) since nearly all T5 capacity will be taken up with the existing runways.
I think we have to find a new and possibly radical solution for transport, and it may not necessarily be in expanding airport capacity. (gasps...)
Unfortunately I think any Government solution will be as frb98mf says, a bit of a committee, try not to annoy anyone type of solution. We really should take major long term decisions such as these away from politicians, who only have a relatively short shelf life compared to projects such as this which may take 20 years to bring to fruition.
It does fly in the face of the BAA's promises at the T5 enquiry when they stated "We believe no other runway at Heathrow is a practical proposition." This is a a direct quote from the then BAA Chief Exec. in 1995.
Heathrow is an absolute nightmare for all concerned. Any extra runway would also need another terminal (T6?) since nearly all T5 capacity will be taken up with the existing runways.
I think we have to find a new and possibly radical solution for transport, and it may not necessarily be in expanding airport capacity. (gasps...)
Unfortunately I think any Government solution will be as frb98mf says, a bit of a committee, try not to annoy anyone type of solution. We really should take major long term decisions such as these away from politicians, who only have a relatively short shelf life compared to projects such as this which may take 20 years to bring to fruition.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that EGSS needs a second runway, slot 1 departures are a nightmare on 23 even more so on 05, however there needs to be better rail links, STN Express is unreliable and services are often canx, after 0030 that's it until the morning.
I do feel that there are a lot of smoke screens going up with the application for "several" runways at EGSS when in fact they eventually propose to build only one the locals and the "do gooders" feel that they have won the battle.
I do feel that there are a lot of smoke screens going up with the application for "several" runways at EGSS when in fact they eventually propose to build only one the locals and the "do gooders" feel that they have won the battle.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Age: 44
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
watch this space!
I think the best bet would be to do all of the following:
- 1 new runway at EGSS and maybe that realignment at Luton, would cope with foreseeable low-cost growth
- switch LHR to mixed use runways, make sure T5 actually gets used to capacity
- some real incentives for airlines to fly direct from the provinces to more destinations and avoid travelling through London; some of the "hopper" services seem to have been very successful ie BA runs EDI-BHX-DUS, double-hats as a domestic shuttle as well
- one of a few very bright ideas I know were submitted to SERAS as an alternative to the existing options, which will solve all the problems discussed and more (I'm sworn to secrecy, sorry lads!)
- eventually that second runway at LGW but not before the promised period
- a decent effort to improve rail, both domestic and via Eurotunnel, Lufthansa now codeshare the fast trains from Frankfurt and Cologne to a number of places and take the planes out of the sky
In 20 years we could revisit more runways at EGSS or the crazy Cliffe/Marinairport/Severnside/LHR 3rd runway ideas, but I think the above options would add enough capacity on their own, without totally obliterating homes and wildlife.
- 1 new runway at EGSS and maybe that realignment at Luton, would cope with foreseeable low-cost growth
- switch LHR to mixed use runways, make sure T5 actually gets used to capacity
- some real incentives for airlines to fly direct from the provinces to more destinations and avoid travelling through London; some of the "hopper" services seem to have been very successful ie BA runs EDI-BHX-DUS, double-hats as a domestic shuttle as well
- one of a few very bright ideas I know were submitted to SERAS as an alternative to the existing options, which will solve all the problems discussed and more (I'm sworn to secrecy, sorry lads!)
- eventually that second runway at LGW but not before the promised period
- a decent effort to improve rail, both domestic and via Eurotunnel, Lufthansa now codeshare the fast trains from Frankfurt and Cologne to a number of places and take the planes out of the sky
In 20 years we could revisit more runways at EGSS or the crazy Cliffe/Marinairport/Severnside/LHR 3rd runway ideas, but I think the above options would add enough capacity on their own, without totally obliterating homes and wildlife.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh frb go on.....
I'd really be interested to know the idea, as I'm writing a project on all this at the moment, and I'm stuck for any really good ideas myself. Obviously I wouldn't claim the idea as my own
I'd really be interested to know the idea, as I'm writing a project on all this at the moment, and I'm stuck for any really good ideas myself. Obviously I wouldn't claim the idea as my own
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if Luton is a good reference case or not, but it's interesting to read the Airport's submission to the Consultation process - they seem to question some of the fundamental assumptions used in the preparation of the initial DfT studies and even put forward the idea that a realignment is not necessary. On that basis what do you believe?
http://www.london-luton.co.uk/pdf/do...NoDiagrams.pdf
http://www.london-luton.co.uk/pdf/do...2-Diagrams.PDF
http://www.london-luton.co.uk/pdf/do...NoDiagrams.pdf
http://www.london-luton.co.uk/pdf/do...2-Diagrams.PDF
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Age: 44
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brabazon – I’d reckon the Luton thing is in part because they have to be seen to do something to strengthen their position. If they don’t act, it sends out a message of resignation to BAA’s continued dominance in London, which will whittle down their advantage with the low-costs as Stansted and maybe Gatwick expand. Also, realignment allows future terminal construction, a rail link right next to any new buildings on the west side of the strip, and a fast road running towards the A1, larger planes, less risk of flying straight into that damn hillside, and less overflight of the local towns.
S L O W L Y – I was privy to a couple of potential schemes, even came up with one myself, had to sign a very nasty Non-Disclosure Agreement, I suppose any new ideas that rock the world might also rock some share prices! Hopefully I can tell you in a month or so...
S L O W L Y – I was privy to a couple of potential schemes, even came up with one myself, had to sign a very nasty Non-Disclosure Agreement, I suppose any new ideas that rock the world might also rock some share prices! Hopefully I can tell you in a month or so...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough frb. Those non-disclosure agreements can be pretty nasty and its not worth getting into bother over someone who's just too lazy to come up with a good idea themselves!!
I'm focusing mainly on Heathrow, simply because I feel that it is the most likely expansion scenario. All have there merits and problems and the project can only be 2000 words and I'm struggling to get within 4000 words of that as the subject is so broad.
frb, were these schemes from the government, BAA or individual airport?? If you'd rather not say, don't worry. I'm just curious.
I'm focusing mainly on Heathrow, simply because I feel that it is the most likely expansion scenario. All have there merits and problems and the project can only be 2000 words and I'm struggling to get within 4000 words of that as the subject is so broad.
frb, were these schemes from the government, BAA or individual airport?? If you'd rather not say, don't worry. I'm just curious.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
frb
I understand your viewpoint, but it doesn't get away from the fact that the initial DfT report may have been based on some "questionable" assumptions, which could feed through the whole consultation process.
I understand your viewpoint, but it doesn't get away from the fact that the initial DfT report may have been based on some "questionable" assumptions, which could feed through the whole consultation process.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Age: 44
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Met with a couple of individuals and private companies with bright ideas, also a couple of existing airports have ideas not made public, and all the major ones including BAA, TBI etc, will no doubt have good fall-back plans so they can leverage some value out of the opportunity to expand, even if it's not at the places of their choosing (ie BAA's stated position is 3rd runway at LHR primary concern, but they'll also be pressing more subtlely for the LGW and STN options just in case, or for example TBI could try and exploit talk of breaking up the virtual BAA monopoly if Luton doesn't work out).
Don't bet on government coming up with anything imaginative - as far as I understand, all their ideas have been published in that consultation paper, and they were obliged to reveal all the areas they considered (ie Northolt, Redhill) before settling on the options presented.
Also if I were BA or any other carrier/alliance, I'd have submitted something, again with first choice but some second preferences too (ie if no 3rd runway at LHR, maybe it best suits BA to go for Cliffe or Stansted and move everything over).
If I were a betting man, I'd have my money pretty much anywhere but Heathrow. Look at it from a political perspective, it's the biggest problem. By the time a decision is made and an appeal is lodged and fought, we'll be nicely up to the next general election, with LHR and coincidentally a whole bunch of the other airports in marginal seats.
For industry, LHR seems the easiest solution but as I said, there are things going round that haven't been made public that might be a very credible alternative for both BAA and the airlines.
Brabazon's right, one might even say the DfT assumptions may have been, to use the current jargon, "sexed up", as were some of the clearly unviable options, so they can manufacture a decision that appears to please everyone but in the long term probably helps nobody. I'd cut them more slack - this is the kind of evil problem the Civil Service are asked to fix all the time, with minimal resources and often no specialist expertise.
S L O W L Y, happy to try and answer some specifics on LHR or anything else off-line if it helps (I work in strategic consulting and entrepreneurial solutions - quick plug!).
Don't bet on government coming up with anything imaginative - as far as I understand, all their ideas have been published in that consultation paper, and they were obliged to reveal all the areas they considered (ie Northolt, Redhill) before settling on the options presented.
Also if I were BA or any other carrier/alliance, I'd have submitted something, again with first choice but some second preferences too (ie if no 3rd runway at LHR, maybe it best suits BA to go for Cliffe or Stansted and move everything over).
If I were a betting man, I'd have my money pretty much anywhere but Heathrow. Look at it from a political perspective, it's the biggest problem. By the time a decision is made and an appeal is lodged and fought, we'll be nicely up to the next general election, with LHR and coincidentally a whole bunch of the other airports in marginal seats.
For industry, LHR seems the easiest solution but as I said, there are things going round that haven't been made public that might be a very credible alternative for both BAA and the airlines.
Brabazon's right, one might even say the DfT assumptions may have been, to use the current jargon, "sexed up", as were some of the clearly unviable options, so they can manufacture a decision that appears to please everyone but in the long term probably helps nobody. I'd cut them more slack - this is the kind of evil problem the Civil Service are asked to fix all the time, with minimal resources and often no specialist expertise.
S L O W L Y, happy to try and answer some specifics on LHR or anything else off-line if it helps (I work in strategic consulting and entrepreneurial solutions - quick plug!).
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
frb
Sorry to prolong this, but I think in answer to your point: .this is the kind of evil problem the Civil Service are asked to fix all the time, with minimal resources and often no specialist expertise - the issue is that the DfT does not have sufficient resources in house to do this work and hence used a number of consultancy companies - at least one of which is named in Luton's submission
Sorry to prolong this, but I think in answer to your point: .this is the kind of evil problem the Civil Service are asked to fix all the time, with minimal resources and often no specialist expertise - the issue is that the DfT does not have sufficient resources in house to do this work and hence used a number of consultancy companies - at least one of which is named in Luton's submission
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Age: 44
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, but I reckon that's exactly what will happen as a sop to BAA/BA for not doing the 3rd runway. Also any expansions, and an eventual move to open skies-type ideas, will presumably require the rethink you suggest. Add to that the fact that planes are getting quieter, can handle a slightly steeper and shorter final approach, and I reckon it's do-able. But point taken - it's not ideal.
