Yes, there are three runway options that are part of the consultation launched today. One is the originally-planned 3500m NW runway and the two others have 300m removed from either the eastern or western end (the consultation also makes reference to chopping a bit off both ends, though that's not quantified).

Whatever the length of the runway, it would have a hump in the middle - the thresholds would be at ground level, rising by between 3m and 5m where it passes over the M25.

Lots of other interesting stuff in the (29!) consultation documents, not least the different options proposed for realigning many of the local roads.

https://www.heathrowconsultation.com

The backers of the “Heathrow Hub” rival Heathrow expansion scheme are considering legal action against the Government in the wake of the airport’s move to propose potential revisions to its plans. Heathrow Hub, fronted by former Concorde pilot Jock Lowe, has criticised the Government for allowing Heathrow to now consult on new ideas for its 3rd runway because this could change the eventual scheme from what was originally submitted and considered by the Airports Commission. Heathrow’s consultation (started 17th Jan, ends 28th March) is considering 3 different runway options, two of them for a 3,200 metres and one at 3,500 metres, slightly differently sited. This is in spite of the Government’s own documents on the expansion stipulating the need for a runway of “at least 3,500 metres”. Heathrow has to try to keep costs down, as its airlines are bitterly opposed to the cost of its proposals. The consultation also outlined potential plans for how to deal with the runway crossing the M25 motorway. Heathrow Hub said if it did launch legal proceedings, it would aim to get the money it spent submitting its proposals for expansion to the Government refunded. Heathrow airport said it thought that “providing some flexibility on the specification of the precise runway length would not undermine the NPS and its objectives”.

All three runway options are on the same line.

The two shorter options are within the footprint of the original 3,500m runway plan - it's only the thresholds that are shifted (obviously) to give the different lengths.

COBALT to launch daily LHR-LCA effective 27 March. Allocated T3 15:45/17:20.

I'll bet they are, as a 50% increase in capacity would principally serve to draw in rivals - both EasyJet (especially) and Ryanair have said they would consider slots if newly available. This would be all well and good, provided that Heathrow, not the current airlines, had paid for it, but if the current operators are to be surcharged for years to benefit their rivals, that is unreasonable.


Given that Heathrow is regulated by the government, you can't be certain what they would cook up after plundering the current operators' pockets - some formula that says the current carriers only get 25% of the additional slots.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the incumbent airlines would sue if they were surcharged versus new entrants!

IAG will bide their time and not sit back and gently waive EZY and RYR in.

Such are the joys of deregulation. The big boys can stand in the way of the new boys. Just like they did with Laker Skytrain and Virgin Atlantic. :ugh:

Were Heathrow to expand, I'd be very surprised if either EZY or RYR had any real interest in operating from there.

It would be interesting. The hike in landing fees will in some cases be double the start point of most of the EZY and RYR fares. Not sure this will put them off.
With a lower overall cost structure in other areas eg Asset costs, salaries etc and a much younger fleet i still think they they would wipe out some areas of IAG.
Probaby BA but maybe not EI.

The problem is that this might then impact the hub concept as BA tend to discount UK domestic fares but ramp up the long haul element.

There could be quite a ripple.in UK aviation.

Without a monopoly at Heathrow BA could find themselves in trouble but that then undermines the framework and hub concept that Rw3 Is supposed to solve as BA are the main provider.

Wish they would make up their mind and get on with it.

Separately sure I read somewhere that Cathay Pacific are placing A350s on two of their Heathrow 77W rotations this year.

Anyone able to firm this up and which two ?

Thanks.

EZY have already sad publicly that they'd operate from EGLL post-third runway

Yes, I know that's what they said, after all it didn't cost them anything to say it.

But when push comes to shove, I still don't think they're serious.

If EZY did start operations from LHR, i'd imagine there would be a lot of route cannibalisation with other LON airports. I could see business orientated routes leaving LGW/STN and moving to LHR, then leaving room in other airports for new destinations or increased frequency on the more popular leisure orientated route.

The airports fees would be the scary part, but there must be a premium they could exploit by going the LHR. If BA can get A320's in/out, surely EZY can

If you ever wondered why “Your London Airport, Gatwick” ran such a visceral anti LHR in the recent review, losing a part of their biggest customer was a huge consideration.

I tend to agree with Dave - without serious positive changes in airspace management and resultant declines in airborne holding, start delays etc, EZY or any other LOCO would face significant challenges to their high utilisation models as well as on time performance. It would be entertaining to listen in to RYR on Demand versus Capacity meetings though!

It's never been hard, at any stage of the debate, to work out why Gatwick want LGW to expand. :O

When sitting in a stack for LHR, I always dream of a regulation that limits the stacks for reduced fuel (and subsequent pollution) as much as for time but, both for money. A fella can dream ... :{

Do you have a preference for where you'd like to divert to? :O

Joking aside, a stack is just another word for a queue. Queing Theory 101 says that in order to sweat the maximum utilisation out of an asset with finite capacity, by far the easiest (though not the only) way is to get the customers to form an orderly queue.

HAL used to publish a factsheet on stacking, but that was withdrawn some time ago, presumably because it was considered a controversial subject:

Serious hatchet job in the Times financial pages today on R3 by Alistair Osborne (who I think is a twerp but is widely held to be really influential)

"After half a century Heathrow doesn't know where to put it's third runway... so many crucial details are still up in the air it's hard to see what the consultation is actually about... having noticed the M25 is one of the busiest roads in the UK Heathroiw says it will ensure our proposals do not result in disruption ... this includes moving the carriageway 150m west, lowering it by 7m into a tunnel and raising the runway height by 5 m - so nothing disruptive about that

Cost? LHR have reduced the costs to £ 14 Bn - but TfL estimate another £18 Bn in additional transport costs - LHR are offering a £1 Bn towards it.

Two other crucial issues - illegal air quality & noise get no more than platitudes.... No-one knows where the flight paths will be (after 50 years) so they cant measure the detailed impact on local communities "

The consultation is a sham as there will have to be another consultation when these details are known.”

H Harry.
It is not a consultation but a road show by HAL. The events are in obscure places where less folks will turn up. Please do not forget that the A4 has several options including crossing a lake and the M25, or a tunnel.
No plans for how the runways will operate, that is. A separate roadshow in the future :ugh: