PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Airlines, Airports & Routes (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes-85/)
-   -   Feasibility for a New Airport in the South of England (Not Thames) (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/531705-feasibility-new-airport-south-england-not-thames.html)

The Dead Side 11th Jan 2014 12:38

Feasibility for a New Airport in the South of England (Not Thames)
 
The feasibility for the Thames airport in London has been discussed already on these forums, however whilst it has been recognised that additional capacity will be needed, I haven't seen much mention of other potential sites. I'm not dismissing Thames as a poor option, but it seems like other options haven't been discussed to the same length. (Obviously I'm willing to be proved wrong, but I have used the search function...:D)

I understand that realistically any potential site should to be in the southern regions of the UK, to be able to satisfactorily relieve congestion at Heathrow/Gatwick, and support Stansted/Luton.

For example, there seems to be a fairly open stretch between Biggin Hill and Rochester. To me, that would be able to integrate well into the traffic flows of City, Gatwick and Heathrow, better than the proposed Thames airport. Not to mention the advantageous position to HS1.

I know this is a very simple way of thinking at the most basic level, however this idea is firstly there to be shot down, secondly to promote some more ideas.

Bagso 11th Jan 2014 12:56

Best location has to be NWest of London, off the proposed HS line and near the M40.

It always amused me with Boris Island that no thought was given to this with the line stopping well short of the airport...you could not make it up !

Same with the STN option although that is now dead in the water.

The Davies commission kept harping on about a UK hub but seems to have completely forgotten about its remit.

In my view somewhere near White Waltham ?

Still commutable for Heathrow workers...!
Far enough away from London so no need to overfly
Close to M40 / A404M for Midlands
Next to M4 for West
Close enough to HS for short branch line re NWest

If its an airport for the UK make it, "for the UK" not just London !

jumpseater 11th Jan 2014 13:08


Best location has to be NWest of London, off the proposed HS line and near the M40.

That'll be 'Cublington' then. Done, dusted, opportunity missed. If it had gone ahead it would likely have met all the requirements we need today, and have had a beneficial impact on UK PLC. :ugh:

ATNotts 11th Jan 2014 13:17


That'll be 'Cublington' then. Done, dusted, opportunity missed. If it had gone ahead it would likely have met all the requirements we need today, and have had a beneficial impact on UK PLC.
That's exactly the problem with the UK, and why we don't have world class railways, roads or airports. If anyone dares to suggest that LHR is world class I'll metaphorically clock them one!

VC10man 11th Jan 2014 13:41

We need 2 new runways, they need to be near Heathrow because the airport staff live near there and that is where passengers want to fly to.

I was watching the film Midway over Christmas and noticed that the Japanese aircraft carriers were ordinary ships with runways stuck on top. This gave me the idea that 2 runways could be put on top of the 2 already at Heathrow. Planes taking off would use the lower runways and planes landing would use the upper runways. This would solve the runway capacity problem

Is this a daft idea and has anyone already thought of this?

Heathrow Harry 11th Jan 2014 14:08

no-one WANTS to fly to LHR - they go there because they have no choice

But anyone who thinks there is any chance of a new greenfield inland airport anywhere in Southern or Central England is off their rocker

They couldn't do it in the '60's and they certainly can't do it now

Jn14:6 11th Jan 2014 14:42

Is this a daft idea and has anyone already thought of this?

Yes it is.

VC10man 11th Jan 2014 16:56

People do have a choice where they fly. Many people fly to LHR because they want to go on to somewhere else. On a recent trip from Vancouver I spoke to several passengers who were going to get on other planes to go to Stockholm, Copenhagen, Moscow and Newcastle. So they don't want to fly to Stansted or Gatwick if they have to be transported to another airport in the UK.

I can't see why my double decker runway scheme could not work. As far as I can see it would save hundreds of houses and having to move the residents. If they can dig a tunnel under the Channel, why not dig 2 runways under the current ones?

I might ring Boris on monday and by tuesday it will be his idea!!!

DaveReidUK 11th Jan 2014 17:18


Is this a daft idea and has anyone already thought of this?
Happily, all manner of daft ideas are included in the 52 different proposals submitted to the Airports Commission, so the chances are that everyone will be able to find their favourite scheme in the Commission's report, together with the reasons why it didn't make the short-list.

Trossie 11th Jan 2014 17:44

Develop East Mids (EGNX). It already has one big runway with plenty of space to build more. It is just off the M1 and apparently HS2 will go nearby too. Uncluttered airspace, uncluttered with urban areas. Lots of 'hi-tech' industries already in the area. Far more suitable for most of the rest of Britain than anything near London.

Leave the airports that already exist in the south of England to become 'London regionals'.

Capetonian 11th Jan 2014 17:59

Develop BHX. It is under capacity, well served by road links and public transport and if HS2 happens, may be better served. It has a huge catchment area and loads of potential.
All they need to do is teach the natives to speak English so that the rest of us can understand them!

Jamie2k9 11th Jan 2014 18:21

Another threat discussing a problem in the SE but not actually addressing the problem. Build as many airports in the SE as you like but it won't solve anything. Hub being the word and that's what LHR is and both new runways should be build there. Locals have put up with so much noise already, more won't do any harm for the benefit they get and its not as if runways are active 24/7. Not sure if its already in place but a residential housing ban should be in place around the proposed flight paths for the new runways to stop problems in future as I believe at least 1 more runway will be build the only delay is MEP's are sacred to sanction it but instead are wasting taxpayers money prolonging the inevitable.

I have read such rubbish about expanding just about every airport in the UK apart form Scotland's at some point, capacity needs to be in area to run efficient hubs and not across the UK.

Quote:
no-one WANTS to fly to LHR - they go there because they have no choice

Everybody has a choice.

DaveReidUK 11th Jan 2014 18:50


Not sure if its already in place but a residential housing ban should be in place around the proposed flight paths for the new runways to stop problems in future
Given that the flightpaths for any of the proposed new runway options overfly central and west London, where are you planning to apply your residential housing ban?

Skipness One Echo 11th Jan 2014 19:04


Another threat discussing a problem in the SE but not actually addressing the problem. Build as many airports in the SE as you like but it won't solve anything. Hub being the word and that's what LHR is and both new runways should be build there. Locals have put up with so much noise already, more won't do any harm for the benefit they get and its not as if runways are active 24/7. Not sure if its already in place but a residential housing ban should be in place around the proposed flight paths for the new runways to stop problems in future as I believe at least 1 more runway will be build the only delay is MEP's are sacred to sanction it but instead are wasting taxpayers money prolonging the inevitable.

I have read such rubbish about expanding just about every airport in the UK apart form Scotland's at some point, capacity needs to be in area to run efficient hubs and not across the UK.
This, well said.

Now the rest of you, google "Montreal Mirabel".

pwalhx 11th Jan 2014 19:39

How many London airports are there already, and we still haven't got it right? Or have we, like it or lump it Heathrow remains the only logical place for new runways. So lets get on with it and not fall further behind.

PAXboy 11th Jan 2014 19:49

Capetonian

Develop BHX. It is under capacity, well served by road links and public transport and if HS2 happens, may be better served. It has a huge catchment area and loads of potential.
I lived near the Euston~Birmingham railway for 14 years (88~02). During that time, I was regularly travelling on biz and pleasure. My closest was LTN and LHR after that.

On mnay occaisions, I checked prices out of BHX and then included the cost of road or rail (I could have taken a taxi to Berkhamsted station and the direct train in under an hour to BHX station) and not once did the cost every add up. It was always cheaper in money - or easier in time, to use LTN and LHR.

I have lived within 90 minutes of STN and BHS (East and West) and used STN a couple of times but never BHX. To make it work, someone will have to change their prices.

Trossie 11th Jan 2014 20:35

Forget BHX. It doesn't have the space for extra runway capacity. EMA (EGNX) does.

Quote:
no-one WANTS to fly to LHR - they go there because they have no choice

Everybody has a choice.
Of course they have a choice. AMS. Beats other hubs in the area hands down. Who really needs those 'London regionals' other than Londoners?

EMA is the place to build a proper British hub.

DaveReidUK 11th Jan 2014 22:02


EMA is the place to build a proper British hub.
Though strangely its owners don't seem to share your view - they didn't bother submitting a proposal to the Airports Commission.

getonittt 11th Jan 2014 22:31

" EMA is the place to build a proper British hub"


If you are a parcel yes!


To be honest does a metropolis the size of London need another airport? It already has 6 not counting some that pretend to be by having London in front of their name. Do something about the overcapacity first. having 2 of the alliances hubbing at one airport does not help . New York has got it right with 3 airports and I think London could manage with the same.

Scrotchidson 12th Jan 2014 00:10

My idea:

The Government actually make a decision for once and allow LHR, LTN, LGW & STN to build 1 extra runway each. Forget noise issues and planning issues, forget only building a possible extra 1 runway at LHR or LGW or building a Thames Airport then closing LHR because whatever decision they make now is only going to be ready in 15-20 years time.

There probably isn't a huge need for 4 extra runways but there will be in years to come and if it's going to take another 15-20 years to build 1 runway we might as well put the work in now so we don't have a similar situation in years to come.

We don't need new airports, we just need the existing ones to develop further to help our economic growth. The longer it takes for our Government to finally make a decision the further we get left behind.

ZOOKER 12th Jan 2014 00:38

We don't need any more runways in the U.K.
I live up here in the sticks, near the foot of Mt. Belzoni. If I want to travel abroad, our local airport is a £20 taxi-journey away. One-way, obviously.
If I want to go East or South-East, EHAM, EDDF, LFPG, OMDB and now, even LTBA offers me all the connectivity I need.
Westbound, KJFK, KATL, KORD and CYYZ are the 'hubs' of choice.

Spare all that land for housing the Roma.

PAXboy 12th Jan 2014 01:00

Nice one ZOOKER!

getonittt

... It already has 6 ...
Ah, I think you've spotted the problem. ;)
Shall we rewind 30 years and not start new airports again? :p

DaveReidUK 12th Jan 2014 07:56


The Government actually make a decision for once and allow LHR, LTN, LGW & STN to build 1 extra runway each.
You don't work for a civil engineering company, by any chance?

Either way, you clearly have never been to Luton if you believe there is room for another runway on top of the hill.

ETOPS 12th Jan 2014 08:34


Either way, you clearly have never been to Luton if you believe there is room for another runway on top of the hill.
Short memory Dave?

http://www.propertyweek.com/pictures...ON_AIRPORT.jpg

From the 2004 2nd runway proposal...

handsfree 12th Jan 2014 08:47

EGNX may have plenty of land around it but the airport happens to be on top of a hill with the contours dropping quite steeply on all sides.
Housing and a large freight depot have now passed planning so the north side is unavailable for development, to the east is M1 and Kegworth, to the west Donington Park Racing Circuit
The original proposal for a second runway to the south would have involved re-scuplturing the landscape massively and anyway HS2 is now proposed to cut through exactly where the second runway was supposed to go.

DaveReidUK 12th Jan 2014 09:35


Short memory Dave?

http://www.propertyweek.com/pictures...ON_AIRPORT.jpg

From the 2004 2nd runway proposal...
No, I remember well the hilarity that accompanied Luton Airport's original 2002 proposal to built a second runway and terminal (in effect a second airport) in the valley to the south.

In fact, not content with that, they also suggested an alternative layout with parallel NNE/SSW-oriented runways. Apparently those little brown wavy lines on the map don't mean anything. :O

Anyway, have a read:

http://www.pavan.org.uk/Documents/2_runway_proposal.pdf

Scrotchidson 12th Jan 2014 10:27

I'm very familiar with Luton thank you.

If they think they can build an airport in the Thames Estuary then I'd like to think it's possible to build an additional runway further south of the airfield where there's a lot of green room to build on!

The main point I was putting across was that 1 additional runway given to either LHR or LGW isn't going to change anything. Once it becomes operational in 15-20 years and NATS have done the required airspace changes they'll be talk of needing additional capacity because we're already behind.

Make the enhanced changes now, whilst NATS are already working on London Airspace changes, and catch up with the rest.

DaveReidUK 12th Jan 2014 12:33


The main point I was putting across was that 1 additional runway given to either LHR or LGW isn't going to change anything.
Hmmm. Have you mentioned that to the owners of those two airports?

They both seem to be under the mistaken impression that an additional runway will provide around 250,000 ATMs pa of increased capacity.

Scrotchidson 12th Jan 2014 13:04

That's the obvious gain to the one airport who gets it, everybody knows that...

The wider picture is what the UK needs, not one airports financial gain, and the amount of planning and consultation it's taken us to come up with plan A or B with just one extra runway is ridiculous.

Think of the money that's already been spent and we're still not realistically closer to a conclusion. Whatever happens someone is going to get upset whether it's local residents, airport owners, airlines or 'Plane Stupid'.

To reiterate what I'm saying, say in 2030 when we have our extra runway at whichever airport, do you really think our capacity issues will be well and truly sorted or do you think the air travel industry will have continued to grow over the time it's taken us to build the runway and we'll start discussions again about the next solution.

I'm not saying I'm correct with my idea but I think our Government are being very short sighted and most likely scared to make a decision with the fear of losing public support when it comes to election time.

Skipness One Echo 12th Jan 2014 13:44


I'm not saying I'm correct with my idea
Agreed, you're mixing up runway capacity which is needed with hub caapcity which is needed more. There is plenty of spare runway capacity at Stansted and Luton for which the point to point market will fill as things improve. However the hub capacity, and there's only one of them, at Heathrow, is maxed out.

LGS6753 12th Jan 2014 13:49

As the management of Gatwick have implied, if a runway is built at Heathrow, they would struggle to make the financial case to build one there too.
The same applies, probably to a greater extent, at Luton and Stansted.
Runways are very expensive to build, and their owners need to make a return on their investment. Bearing this in mind, and the fact that the major London area airports are in different private ownership, I can't see any justification for new runway capacity (to create a sustainable hub) anywhere but Heathrow.

Although it's an academic point, the land to the south of Luton's runway is relatively flat farm land on the same plateau as the current airport site, and very sparsely populated. It is eminently developable but faces a lot of political opposition (It's in Herts, not Luton; it's not owned by the airport freeholder (LBC); it is greenbelt land; it could never take the place of LHR as a hub).

Mickey Kaye 12th Jan 2014 13:57

Blackbush?

why not shift some capacity to some of the smaller struggling to survive GA airports?

Scrotchidson 12th Jan 2014 14:32


However the hub capacity, and there's only one of them, at Heathrow, is maxed out.
100% - and construction of a 3rd runway at Heathrow should have started years ago.

Also something that does get overlooked is contingency. If Heathrow lose a runway and go single runway ops it puts pressure on pilots & controllers, not to mention the additional fuel pollution when the stacks get busy for the environmental friendly people! :ok:

jumpseater 12th Jan 2014 16:10


Dave Reid , I remember well the hilarity that accompanied Luton Airport's original 2002 proposal to built a second runway and terminal (in effect a second airport) in the valley to the south
Ah, Dave, you are showing a spectacular lack of knowledge of Lutons topography, well done mate. :ok:

The proposed Southern E-W runway isn't in a valley is it?
Appoaching the runway 26 threshold of London Luton Airport | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
I don't remember any hilarity at all, just significant concern from HCC as they realised the proposal was actually realistic as far as airfield construction and operation was concerned. The residents of Peters Green, Kimpton and Whitwell weren't laughing either. Don't remember the Consultative Comitteee laughing either, I presume you weren't part of HCC or LLACC or part of the earlier RUCATSE reporting team either, as your name isn't familar from the time. I'm sure we'd have recalled someone laughing.

The SW/NE alignment would have worked quite well, problems being the environmental impact on NE Luton, Hitchin and Harpenden who all would have been significantly affected by approach and departure, not to mention pointing most of Lutons departures and arrivals straight at the BNN hold. It is clearly explained in that report that the runway allignment annotation is indicative only. You did read and understand that I presume Dave? Because with slight changes to that allignment, the topographical picture improves 'considerably'.

DaveReidUK 12th Jan 2014 17:41


Ah, Dave, you are showing a spectacular lack of knowledge of Lutons topography, well done mate.

The proposed Southern E-W runway isn't in a valley is it?
OK, I'll settle for "dip" rather than valley, but the fact remains that the proposed second runway would be around 50 feet lower than the current one. That doesn't represent a very joined-up (literally) plan - in fact Abertis, the then owner, were telling the world in 2005 that the new runway and terminal would essentially be a new airport, with the current runway being relegated to emergency use only.


The SW/NE alignment would have worked quite well, problems being the environmental impact on NE Luton, Hitchin and Harpenden who all would have been significantly affected by approach and departure, not to mention pointing most of Lutons departures and arrivals straight at the BNN hold. It is clearly explained in that report that the runway allignment annotation is indicative only. You did read and understand that I presume Dave? Because with slight changes to that allignment, the topographical picture improves 'considerably'.
I can only conclude that you're looking at a different map, possible one that doesn't have any contours. Nor can I find any reference in the proposal to the NNE/SSW alignment being "indicative only", but assuming you're correct and I need a visit to Specsavers, I still fail to see how tweaking the orientation slightly can produce a pair of runways that don't each cross at least half a dozen contour lines.

Not that it hasn't been done before, of course. :O

http://www.akademifantasia.org/wp-co...-Airport-7.jpg

But then debating Luton R2 is all a bit academic now, isn't it?

runway08 12th Jan 2014 18:18

We cant even fill in the land to extend taxiways to each end of the runway as it is in the latest plan. If you think we could put a whole new runway up on the little hill and surrounding green belt you are living in la la land, not to mention its Hertfordshire and not Bedfordshire. They would be extremely opposed to that from day one and find a million ways to delay it for all eternity..

A new runway isnt even required, some days you can go hours and hours without airline movements at LTN. It would be a waste of time. If airlines really were so desperate they would have started flooding in years ago. Instead a couple of eastern european airlines picked up some routes and Flybe/Arann/Adria Left.

Fairdealfrank 12th Jan 2014 18:27


As the management of Gatwick have implied, if a runway is built at Heathrow, they would struggle to make the financial case to build one there too.
The same applies, probably to a greater extent, at Luton and Stansted.
Runways are very expensive to build, and their owners need to make a return on their investment. Bearing this in mind, and the fact that the major London area airports are in different private ownership, I can't see any justification for new runway capacity (to create a sustainable hub) anywhere but Heathrow.
A good and important point. LGW management appear to be indirectly acknowledging LGW's current role as a waiting room/overspill for LHR, and that if this traffic was lost because of adequate capacity at LHR, they would need to attract traffic from other airports e.g. LTN and/or STN, and that may mean lower charges.




Blackbush?

why not shift some capacity to some of the smaller struggling to survive GA airports?
Exactly which capacity do you have in mind? GA at LHR is minimal, it would make hardly any difference.




100% - and construction of a 3rd runway at Heathrow should have started years ago.

Also something that does get overlooked is contingency. If Heathrow lose a runway and go single runway ops it puts pressure on pilots & controllers, not to mention the additional fuel pollution when the stacks get busy for the environmental friendly people!
Indeed, the third rwy should have been opened before some of the younger readers were born, and the fourth should have been opened by now, but we live on a strange planet! "Single rwy ops" should not even be possible at an airport as busy at LHR!

jumpseater 12th Jan 2014 18:46


DR OK, I'll settle for "dip" rather than valley
Plateau would probably be a better description Dave. It, according to your quoted report would have been 30ft lower and horizontal, (quite a good thing for a runway).


DR Nor can I find any reference in the proposal to the NNE/SSW alignment being "indicative only", but assuming you're correct and I need a visit to Specsavers,
I am, you do.


DR I still fail to see how tweaking the orientation slightly can produce a pair of runways that don't each cross at least half a dozen contour lines.
And what did your quoted report say about this option? I assume you've read it. The 'practicalities' for that option and how they were going to be addressed/managed was clearly explained at the roadshows, do you not remember?:rolleyes:

I'm guessing you've not been involved a great deal in the hilarious and jovial pastime of airport planning/development, airport environmental issues and the consultations thereof. Am I right?


runway08not to mention its Hertfordshire and not Bedfordshire
Starter for ten, HCC is ....

DaveReidUK 12th Jan 2014 18:51


Exactly which capacity do you have in mind? GA at LHR is minimal, it would make hardly any difference.
Quite so. In fact following the ban on GA movements during the Olympics last year, there have been hardly any since, apart from the usual Middle Eastern royals with their Boeings, Airbuses and Gulfstreams.

Ditto for the often-quoted argument that removing all-freight flights from LHR would ease congestion - they currently account for about 1 movement in every 400 or so. :ugh:

On the beach 12th Jan 2014 19:28


"If I want to go East or South-East, EHAM, EDDF, LFPG, OMDB and now, even LTBA offers me all the connectivity I need.
Westbound, KJFK, KATL, KORD and CYYZ are the 'hubs' of choice.
"

And from 28th. May you can add DOH (centre of the unknown universe). And in a shiny new Dream-thingy (ooh, err). :E

OTB, who's off to see the World via Hamsterjam soon in a Fokker (mmm, nice).

Who needs Eefrow?, apart from those big, soft, Southern Jessie's.


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:57.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.