HEATHROW

[DaveReidUK]

In the great scheme of things, 30% transferring pax is not that muchI don't know what great scheme of things you're referring to here, but I'd be interested to know how many load factor percentage points you think makes the difference between a route being viable and not.

Rather less than 30, I'd suggest.

[pax britanica]

Interesting point you make. I spent 40 years in telecoms and the Economist was seldom right about anything in that industry. Over time I have chatted to others in major industries Aviation and Finance among them and they had a similar view of the august publication -interesting to read about other industries than their own but never believed what it said about their own industry-bit of a theme there.
At Uni my Business management economics lecturer told us that when studying economics always remember that economists do not know how to forecast because they are historians not scientists and like historians seldom have a consistent analysis of past events.
Having said all that LHR needs a third parallel and if the Government tried to make it clear that the folks in Sipson would get honest and fair compensation as opposed to the normal practice of cheating people in that position it would all go smoothly.
The dimwit NIMBYS in Kew and Richmond will soon change their views when they understand that when LHR goes further into decline and they have to travel 90 miles to the Kent coast for a flight or mix with those awful Essex people at Stanstead.
PB

[anothertyke]

I thought Fairdealfrank's point was that 30% is a low number relative to AMS, ORD and other top league airports, not low in some absolute sense. So there is plenty of headroom for that % to rise if capacity increases. The questions for Davies are --- if we put more capacity in,(a) how will it get used, and (b) how will the punters respond and then (c) how will it cope with growth? As an observer of the scene, not an expert, I think a weakness of the exposition of the case, perhaps inevitable because of the way slot allocation works is that it is treated as kind of obvious that we need more capacity but we never quite commit to what we would do with it. What would be the balance between strengthening ( frequencies on core routes), widening (Chongqing, Chengdu etc), transfers from LGW and elsewhere, and regional feeders? Davies needs to come up with a proposition--- this is what you could have ---which is not necessarily going to be what any individual airline would ideally want.

[DaveReidUK]

Davies needs to come up with a proposition--- this is what you could have ---which is not necessarily going to be what any individual airline would ideally want. I don't see that happening - it would represent a massive change compared to how things are done at present.

The conventional wisdom is that, were there to be a step increase in capacity (i.e. from a new runway), then it would be market forces that would determine who flies where and how often, to make use of the additional capacity.

You can't tell BA, for example, that it's going to have to operate a daily service to, say, Chengdu, when the airline's view is that a better use of that particular aircraft is to add another daily JFK rotation.

[anothertyke]

Thanks, hmmm I wonder if the'conventional wisdom' is going to end up winning the day. Maybe another version of the question is--- faced with a large number of slots to auction and a lot of possible ways of doing it, will they go for just letting the chips fall where they may? Suppose BA isn't very rich that year.....
By the way, for the very large capacity increases are there forecasts around of the effect on existing slot values on the airlines' books?

[Bagso]

Transfer Traffic is 34% according to CAA figures 2011, it's even higher now !

This from AIRPORT magazine January where I suspect The Spectator took their byline.


The most recent CAA figures for 2011 provide an interesting analysis of the UK's three largest intercontinental gateways Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester. In 2012 Heathrow handled a total of 69 million passengers, by way of comparison over the same period, Manchester the largest long haul airport outside the South East handled 20million pax but curiously it is Manchester where the impact of APD is felt most. Unlike the South East most international long haul passengers using Manchester will either originate or terminate their journey in the NWest, some transfer to a short domestic flight to another UK destination, on that basis and using the Government formula all will pay APD.


Contrast that situation with the the South East and specifically Heathrow where a whopping 34% of total passenger numbers is purely international transfer traffic, the definition is important “International transfer passengers” are deemed to be those who simply fly in from one “international location” and then fly out to another “international destination”.

Had they been destined for another UK domestic airport they would of course have been subject to APD, but the simple fact is that this type of passenger totally escapes that tax and in effect pays nothing.

In effect, of the 69m pax who used Heathrow in 2011, a staggering 24million transfer passengers fell into this very specific category and paid no APD at all. This massive loop hole allows Heathrow to benefit from what in effect is a significant hidden subsidy compared to other UK airports.

At Manchester of course where domestic transfer traffic is significant but international transfer traffic is modest 87% of passenger pay a level of APD. This anomaly raises even more questions and impacts on the wider issue of the clamour for additional runway capacity at Heathrow. Often held up as a bastion of UK economic activity, it's really difficult to see what contribution the 24m tfr passengers are actually making to the UK economy, hopefully they might buy a burger between the jog to a international connecting flight but far from actually contributing to the UK economy by spending money like the humble businessman, holidaymaker or tourist using Manchester, all they actually appear to be doing is clogging up Heathrow's runways.

[Skipness One Echo]

In effect, of the 69m pax who used Heathrow in 2011, a staggering 24million transfer passengers fell into this very specific category and paid no APD at all. This massive loop hole allows Heathrow to benefit from what in effect is a significant hidden subsidy compared to other UK airports.

Or these lucky people avoid being slammed against a wall and having their pockets emptied by Gideon Osborne on the pretence of being green.

[DaveReidUK]

In effect, of the 69m pax who used Heathrow in 2011, a staggering 24million transfer passengers fell into this very specific category and paid no APD at all.That doesn't ring true.

The 24 million figure is all transfer traffic, not merely international/international transfer passengers (the ones who don't pay APD). Although the proportion of transfer traffic that's domestic/international has been gradually falling over many years, it still accounts for around 20% of that figure, i.e about 5 million.

Heathrow: Facts and figures (http://www.heathrowairport.com/about-us/company-news-and-information/company-information/facts-and-figures)

[North West]

At Manchester of course where domestic transfer traffic is significant but international transfer traffic is modest 87% of passenger pay a level of APD. This anomaly raises even more questions and impacts on the wider issue of the clamour for additional runway capacity at Heathrow. Often held up as a bastion of UK economic activity, it's really difficult to see what contribution the 24m tfr passengers are actually making to the UK economy, hopefully they might buy a burger between the jog to a international connecting flight but far from actually contributing to the UK economy by spending money like the humble businessman, holidaymaker or tourist using Manchester, all they actually appear to be doing is clogging up Heathrow's runways.

So by logical extension, passengers embarking in MAN and travelling to a long haul destination via Dubai, Doha, Istanbul etc are adding absolutely nothing to the local economies in Turkey and the Middle East? It seems odd that so much investment has been made in these emerging economies in airport infrastructure and hub capability if there was no wider economic benefit beyond burger sales.

Come to think of it, the Dutch seem quite keen on the idea too.
And the Germans.
And the French.

[Bagso]

North West

In fairness I think the article was eluding to the cost of additional runways with reference to the APD mix.

In France, Germany, Holland etc they have either scrapped or lowered APD to fairly low rates, we havn't therefore I "think" it was more about context.

UK passengers pay APD, but those who are in transit INT-INT do not !

Personally I think we should have had a 4 runway system at LHR years ago, adding one runway will make bugger all difference as the capacity will have been used up by the time it is built !

BUT having said all that I have to agree it seems perverse that we are leveling half of West London to in effect, put in an extra runway where no cost is bourne by a significant proportion of the people using it !

I think it was more about UK pax being penalised !

[Libertine Winno]

@ North West

The International/International transfer PAX add nothing to the local economy through tax or spending locally, but the point is that without them it would mean that many routes are unviable because they wouldnt have enough PAX to make it economical. This is the basic premise on which a hub works, and is the key difference between London having a lack of runway capacity (which it doesn't) to a lack of hub capacity (which it does!)

The reason they add to the economy is that, with a far greater choice of flights to be able to sustain, means that many more companies will do business here, tourists from far and wide will be able to visit easily and international students can come to study here with direct flights back to their home cities. This is hugely beneficial to the economy as a whole, with estimates varying at somewhere around the UK losing £13bn a year in lost business due to LHR's capacity issues (though this is, by definition, very difficult to accurately state!)

In summary, that is why the middle east is investing so heavily in hub airports, and why AMS, CDG and FRA are so keen to retain their status.

[Hand Solo]

International transfer passengers add plenty to the local economy by buying their tickets on the local carrier. That money ultimately goes into the pockets of the local employees and the local industries that service the carrier. It's no different to the City (which Cameron is bending over backwards to protect) taking revenues from international deals which have little or nothing to do with the UK.

[North West]

BUT having said all that I have to agree it seems perverse that we are leveling half of West London to in effect, put in an extra runway where no cost is bourne by a significant proportion of the people using it !

True to a degree if the 3rd runway will be publicly funded - but are you confident that's the plan? The government has to give the green light from a planning perspective, but the construction cost would be borne by HAHL and recovered through income generated by the additional business.

Airlines are charged passenger handing fees by HAHL for connecting traffic and pax in transit make a sizeable contribution to retail and catering revenues, a share of which goes to HAHL.

[Libertine Winno]

The point about demolition of houses is actually an interesting one; the previously agreed/now not agreed 3rd runway at Sipson would result in the demolition of around 700 properties, including one grade 1 listed church. The Policy Exchange proposal (referred to in the Economist) would result in around 710 properties demolished, none grade 1 listed.

Seems much more logical to go for an extra runway if it is basically the same amount of destruction, and more importantly no new people affected by an additional approach path from the runway 3 at Sipson?

It also shows that 'half of West London' might be something of an exaggeration :ok:

[davidjohnson6]

Hadn't noticed this for a while, but Tarom are launching a 2x weekly Heathrow-Iasi route in north-east Romania later in April.

I note separately that the 2x weekly Gatwick-Chisinau route is moving to Stansted, and Blue Air fly Luton-Bacau 5x weekly

I'm somewhat dubious that a route into Heathrow like this can work, particularly when Cluj and Timisoara have to rely on Wizzair to Luton. Can anyone see a strong reason as to why this Heathrow-Iasi route might work ?

[WHBM]

the previously agreed/now not agreed 3rd runway at Sipson would result in the demolition of around 700 properties.....
Having been involved in various road etc projects over time, as soon as it gets into the programme (long before work starts) the roads budget/local authority start buying up the properties affected as they come on to the market in the normal course of events. They can then be rented back out in the interim. By the time you come to start the project the vast majority are typically in your ownership, and compulsion cases end up being very few.

Has Heathrow not beeen buying up the Sipson houses in this manner over the years ?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "The point about demolition of houses is actually an interesting one; the previously agreed/now not agreed 3rd runway at Sipson would result in the demolition of around 700 properties, including one grade 1 listed church. The Policy Exchange proposal (referred to in the Economist) would result in around 710 properties demolished, none grade 1 listed.

Seems much more logical to go for an extra runway if it is basically the same amount of destruction, and more importantly no new people affected by an additional approach path from the runway 3 at Sipson?"

The Policy exchange proposal involves diverting/tunnelising the M25 and the demolition and resiting of a reservoir. That makes it an expensive long term project. trouble is, we don't have the luxury of time.

So we may need the third rwy scheme as well, as a stopgap, unless we keep the existing LHR rwys and have 2 more parallel rwys crossing the M25. That means not touching the reservoir, and forgetting about ALL four rwys being west of the M25.

Apart from that, the principle (keeping LHR as a 4-rwy airport and using land west of the M25 to expand it) is sound.

Quote: "It also shows that 'half of West London' might be something of an exaggeration"

No change there: never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Fear is always a good motivator.


Quote: "Having been involved in various road etc projects over time, as soon as it gets into the programme (long before work starts) the roads budget/local authority start buying up the properties affected as they come on to the market in the normal course of events. They can then be rented back out in the interim. By the time you come to start the project the vast majority are typically in your ownership, and compulsion cases end up being very few.

Has Heathrow not beeen buying up the Sipson houses in this manner over the years ?"

Indeed it has, for a long time. The village community was ripped out of Sipson many years ago as many the long-standing residents moved out, expecting their houses would soon be be demolished for the rwy. Most of its current residents are transient as a result of being on 6-month leases, consequently the whole area is blighted.

[Bagso]

Whatever the merits of extra capacity a few less informed observers keep jumping on the bandwagon, this week it was an engineering consortium who claimed that there was a requirement to connect with new markets.

On this occasion I agree, BUT is it neccessary to connect JFK every 45 minutes, Hong Kong every hour, etc etc etc ......could these slots not be released, we don't need flights to long haul destinations every hour!

Many flights also seem to fly half empty, if you check the pax figures, many seats appear ringfenced and bought on a "just in case basis".

Both premise seem barmy !

[DaveReidUK]

Many flights also seem to fly half emptyWelcome to the airline business. :O

Average load factor for flights to/from Heathrow last year was 75.6%, which by industry standards is pretty good going.

So for every flight that arrives or departs almost full, there are likely to be others that fly with 50% or fewer of the seats filled.

That's how scheduled operations work, particularly on short- and medium-haul where you can't realistically expect loads on each half of an inbound/outbound rotation to be equal because of time-of-day considerations.

[Libertine Winno]

@ Bagso

The North Atlantic routes are some of the most lucrative in aviation, hence why BA runs most frequency on them.

If the Government were running the slots at LHR under a 'best for the UK as a whole' principle then absolutely, more flights would go to emerging economies. However, BA are controlling the train set so will ultimately do what is best for their profits!

[Skipness One Echo]

Bagso the only shuttle type long haul service is LHR-JFK. Hong Kong has two a day from BA and five from based Cathay, much like Dubai and Emirates does. A commercial business has a duty to put assets where the profits are.
Many depart less than full yet make money if they are busy up front. This allows good deals in Y for the likes of poor old non status me.

[rogera]

on a visit to heathrow yesterday morning 27R was being used for departures and 27L for arrivals. however every 10 minutes or so an aircraft landed on 27R - is this usual procedure ?

[DaveReidUK]

on a visit to heathrow yesterday morning 27R was being used for departures and 27L for arrivals. however every 10 minutes or so an aircraft landed on 27R - is this usual procedure ?You don't say what timeframe you are referring to, but what you saw is fairly normal.

Firstly, the Cranford Agreement no longer applies, but even when it was in force it only affected easterly operations.

Landings on the departure runway are standard between 0600 and 0700 local, yesterday morning there were 21 of them. After 0700 they are not as common, but there is provision for up to 6 per hour if arrival delays have built up - yesterday there were 13 between 0700 and 1000.

[rogera]

thanks, it was between 8am and 9am so I saw a number of the arrivals which you had recorded. I flew home to MAN with BA departing from 27L at 8pm and saw an aircraft in the vicinity of terminal 4 whose nosewheel appeared to have collapsed - but I couldn't make out the name of the airline ?

[Fairdealfrank]

Did anyone go to Boris's anti-Heathrow rally in Barnes the other day (week?)?

Who knows why it was held in Barnes, perhaps because it's the furthest point from Heathrow within Zac Goldsmith's constituency.

If Heathrow was on easterly operations, it would have been silent overhead, if Heathrow was on westerly operations, it would not have been very noisy (too far out).

On the other hand, had it been held in Cranford, close to the runway threshold, there would have been some noise on both easterly and westerly operations and Boris's point may have been made.

Unfortunately the rich vocal anti-Heathrow lobby would not be seen that close to the airport, unless boarding a plane of course.

[vctenderness]

Unfortunately the rich vocal anti-Heathrow lobby would not be seen that close to the airport, unless boarding a plane of course.

But you can't hear the Aircraft noise from the First and Business lounge either!

[Rivet Joint]

I can confirm that BAA has been, and is in the process of, purchasing multiple properties in Sipson Road and the surrounding roads. Bunches and bunches of them in fact.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Unfortunately the rich vocal anti-Heathrow lobby would not be seen that close to the airport, unless boarding a plane of course.

But you can't hear the Aircraft noise from the First and Business lounge either!"

Good point!


Quote: "I can confirm that BAA has been, and is in the process of, purchasing multiple properties in Sipson Road and the surrounding roads. Bunches and bunches of them in fact."

Good, hope they're offering decent packages. Much of Sipson is rented out on 6-month lets as Heathrow Airport PLC already owns most it.

[WHBM]

Quote: "I can confirm that BAA has been, and is in the process of, purchasing multiple properties in Sipson Road and the surrounding roads. Bunches and bunches of them in fact."

Good, hope they're offering decent packages. Much of Sipson is rented out on 6-month lets as Heathrow Airport PLC already owns most it.
It would be more effective if BAA bought up the properties, offering generous additional packages which actually aren't that much more in the overall scheme of things, and just demolished them, clearing the land for what they want and a nice buffer around. It's actually surprising how much of the land for R3 etc is already just fields.

[PAXboy]

May have already been mentioned: BBC News - Heathrow school gets soundproof domes to block airport noise (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22418224)

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "It would be more effective if BAA bought up the properties, offering generous additional packages which actually aren't that much more in the overall scheme of things, and just demolished them, clearing the land for what they want and a nice buffer around. It's actually surprising how much of the land for R3 etc is already just fields."

Yes, most of the land north of LHR is open country, the towns of Hayes and West Drayton are north of the M4. This open land extends west accross the M25 as well, leaving plenty of room for a fourth parallel rwy as well as additional airport infrastructure.



Quote: "May have already been mentioned: BBC News - Heathrow school gets soundproof domes to block airport noise (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22418224)"

Nice view of easterly operations from Hounslow Heath in the piece. This is very near the eastern end of 09R/27L.

Maybe this is where Boris should have held his rally if he has a point to make about noise, and not at Barnes for Pete's sake!

[Skipness One Echo]

A little late I know but the first A380 gate at Pier 5 has been opened with Stand 342 now a lot bigger than before. This means that they can manage SQ319, EK004, EK006, and QF002 on Pier 6 with SQ321 loading somewhere near Reading....
That's the fifth gate at T3 that's A380 capable and means four A380s depart for Dubai in short order every evening!

[DaveReidUK]

Nice view of easterly operations from Hounslow Heath in the piece.AT&T's DH4As, presumably. :O

[nigel osborne]

From someone who lives outside of London, it initially looks like LHR make rules up as they go along.

Even in Cat 3 conditions they seem to land 27L and 27R now did they used to do that ?

When there are EAT long delays airlines like BA now seem to simply cancel less lucrative short haul outbounds to make sure more long hauls get in and out.

Airlines seem able to change inbounds approaches in times of delay ie a BA 319 last winter heard via the scanner gave his slot up to a BA 747 lower on fuel.

Similarly a BA 77W seemed able to take the slot of a BA 321 well infront as he stated he didn't have much fuel.

A decade ago if there was fog a plane could either hold or had to divert.


Im sure LHR has the strictest and safest rules of all our airports, but for some reason they seem to have far more leeway than other airports in the UK into procedures now.

Can the experts who know far more about LHR procedures tell me if things have changed as much as it seems ?

Nigel

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Even in Cat 3 conditions they seem to land 27L and 27R now did they used to do that ?

Why not? 27L/R both have Cat III ILS and have had for many, many years.

Airlines seem able to change inbounds approaches in times of delay ie a BA 319 last winter heard via the scanner gave his slot up to a BA 747 lower on fuel.

Again, BA have been doing that for a very long time. (And you should a) not be listening on a scanner and b) you must not publish anything you hear - two offences under the WT Act).

Similarly a BA 77W seemed able to take the slot of a BA 321 well infront as he stated he didn't have much fuel.

See previous answer. Bottom line is that it is up to the captain of the a/c which will pick up the delay to agree. This procedure does not affect any other flights, just the two participating.

A decade ago if there was fog a plane could either hold or had to divert.

What else, may I ask, would be the alternative? They hold but if the delay is too long they go elsewhere. Has been like that for 50 years or more.

[Skipness One Echo]

(And you should a) not be listening on a scanner and b) you must not publish anything you hear - two offences under the WT Act).
Wow! What are you hiding?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Not hiding anything; just stating facts.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "When there are EAT long delays airlines like BA now seem to simply cancel less lucrative short haul outbounds to make sure more long hauls get in and out."

Could it be because there are more short haul flights (higher frequency)?

The cancellation of a once/day long haul flight is more disruptive than say one or two of several flights/day, especially if a larger aircraft can be used for the remaining flights.

[compton3bravo]

Police State then Heathrow Director as I always have suspected. As I understand iyou can listen to ATC as long as it is for you personally. Strange you can listen to transmissions across the world with no problems but apparently not in UK according to you. I did it for 40 years and nobody ever told me not too - I would have ignored them anyway. I would have thought the police would have more serious things to worry about - there again!

[Gonzo]

Here we go again.

HD is correct, please read the sticky at the top of the ATC forum, or search for "OFCOM airband legal UK" using a popular Internet search engine.

[Skipness One Echo]

He's technically correct however like a lot of laws on the statute books, it would be very unlikely to pass the public interest test for prosecution which is why Police don't blink at the thousands of scanners they see at airshows and why planefinder and flightradar apps are not illegal.

In fact given that you can listen in on ATC on some airlines own flight entertainment, AND our on society is much more open than the post war one which passed the act, it's passing into irrelevance over time.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

When this question arises there are always those who will argue that black is white. It's pointless arguing - it's LAW. Whether one chooses to ignore it - like the clowns who drive at 60 in 30 limits - it's up to the individual.

[Skipness One Echo]

No, read what I said. It's nuanced. The particular law is now archaic and irrelevant due to it's having fallen out of use and never having been used. In the same way that monitering aircraft movements can be seen as spying. In the world of planefinder, liveatc and the internet, there is no reasonable chance of a peacetime prosecution taking place.

Rules is rules is best left to parking attendants. What circumstances would ever realistically warrant a prosecution? Worth remembering that although you have signed the Offical Secrets Act I bet there's one or two of your enjoyable anecdotes that you technically ought not to have shared on pprune?

[Bagso]

My God Skippy here is a first...we agree on something !

The law re listening is totally out of touch !

When the media at Royal International Air Tattoo, Waddington, Luechars etc are prosecuted for providing a list of "todays airshow freqs" AND stop traders from selling airband radios I'll stop listening , but not before !

[ericlday]

Taxis are supposed to carry a bale of straw for the horse - still active in law but unlikely to be used. So HD and Skip1E you are both correct.

[Gonzo]

OFCOM considers that when organisers publish a display frequency at an airshow to be implicit consent to allow the public to listen to that frequency.

I'm not saying that the law is not broken, but I do think there are valid reasons for it to exist.

[Heathrow Harry]

" The particular law is now archaic and irrelevant due to it's having fallen out of use"

That doesn't change things one iota - there are lots of laws on the statute book that are old and rarely used but are very useful when Mr Plod is looking to fit you up

The Treason Act dates back to about 1710 I think..................

[WHBM]

Can we please take this stuff about Scanners off to a separate thread, maybe in the Spotters section. It's nothing specifically relating to Heathrow and the same participants just cut-and-paste the same comments about it repeatedly whenever anyone even mentions the S****** word.

[Bagso]

I agree

May I lead the charge or "stroll" to another thread with a very outdated, threadbare , red flag in hand !

[point5]

Stand 340 is also Code F so we can take 6 380s in T3.

[Heathrow Harry]

BA are planning to work up their 380's on domestic routes and short haul - presumably they'll only be able to load the lower deck if they are going domestic?

Aberdeen doesn't have a flight of steps that big.......

[Heathrow Harry]

BA re planning to work upp their A380's on domestic and shorthaul

presumably they'll only load the lower decK?

Or has someone told Aberdeen they're going to need a lot bigger set of steps??

[PAXboy]

London industry leaders tell Heathrow Airport: We want 136 more departures and arrivals a day - and more night flights - News & Advice - Travel - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/london-industry-leaders-tell-heathrow-airport-we-want-136-more-departures-and-arrivals-a-day--and-more-night-flights-8609641.html)

[DaveReidUK]

Link to full public report:

http://londonfirst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/London-First-submission_Airports-Commission-9-May-2013-PUBLIC-VERSION.pdf

And an example of their researchers' attention to detail:

Heathrow has around 650 flights each day between 7am-11pm

[VentureGo]

Thames airport 'should be rejected' - MPs report

BBC News - Thames airport 'should be rejected' - MPs report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22469502)

[Junkjet]

How long are 27R and 27L intended to be? (see map).

Is there sufficient lateral separation between the runways for full IFR ops?

Oh to be a Government London Airport Ctte paper shuffler, job for life. Good pension too.

JJet

[Libertine Winno]

Quite interesting to see the amount of people in London adversely affected by noise from road traffic is actually far more than from LHR, and a similar story from pollution. Not something I had thought about before, and the first time I've seen it compared and displayed in direct comparison.

[LNIDA]

Increasing the glide path angle to 3.2 might help, but probably more go arounds?

[DaveReidUK]

Increasing the glide path angle to 3.2 might helpThat would put inbounds over, say, Fulham Broadway 200 feet higher than they are at the moment. Hard to see that making much difference to anyone.

[Libertine Winno]

The Policy Exchange proposal (the one with 4 runways 2 miles directly to the west of the current ones) proposes increasing the angle of descent, as currently happens at LCY. It does acknowledge, though, that this could only be achieved for narrow bodies, being currently too much of a safety risk for wide bodies

[DaveReidUK]

It does acknowledge, though, that this could only be achieved for narrow bodies, being currently too much of a safety risk for wide bodies It also points out some other inconvenient facts:

a) No aircraft larger than the A318 has been certificated for a 5.5 degree approach

b) The A318 itself could only be certificated following mods to the flight control system and spoiler deployment, and specific training for crews in using the technique

c) ICAO permits steeper descents only for obstacle clearance reasons, not for noise abatement.

Steep approaches at Heathrow are a non-starter.

[Gonzo]

It all depends what you mean by 'steep' though, doesn't it?

[Flightman]

Maybe steeper, not steep.

[DaveReidUK]

It all depends what you mean by 'steep' though, doesn't it?Quite so. We're talking here about the Policy Exchange proposal, which specifically refers to 5.5° approaches for all narrow-bodies using LHR.

"We anticipate that by the time the new Heathrow airport opens it would be possible to have a standard descent approach for narrow bodied planes of 5.5 degrees."Bigger and Quieter: The right answer for aviation (http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/bigger-and-quieter-the-right-answer-for-aviation)

[Experian]

5.5 degrees? An A318 can be modified to get into LCY so any 'narrow' body can do it too? What an egghead conclusion.
Out of their way, they know what they're doing.
Let them try that with a 737-800 (if they can get a crew).
I'll be outside to watch, never seen a crash.

[DaveReidUK]

It would appear that no qualifications or experience are considered necessary by those dreaming up crackpot schemes like this.

But the annoying part is that all those assorted Commissions and Committees looking at the expansion issue seem to be singularly devoid of any individuals possessing even a modicum of aeronautical knowledge, who could ensure that a minimum of taxpayers' money is wasted on considering the more lunatic proposals.

[Heathrow Harry]

I just have this feeling that a lot of money would suddenly become available to allow 5.5 degree on a bundle of aircraft if it was the cost to expand LHR

Arthur C Clarke always said that engineers will tell you something is impossible - tell them it has to be done and they come up with a better solution in less time than you thought was possible

[Libertine Winno]

Agree with Heathrow Harry, especially when you consider that this would not come into effect for another 10 years so plenty of time to design and test any solution.

Consider as well, that there will only be a few airlines who this will actually affect (BA, Virgin, Aer Lingus...) as most operate widebodies into LHR anyway.

Not saying I agree with it, just that the hurdles aren't insurmountable

[WHBM]

I just have this feeling that a lot of money would suddenly become available to allow 5.5 degree on a bundle of aircraft if it was the cost to expand LHR

Arthur C Clarke always said that engineers will tell you something is impossible - tell them it has to be done and they come up with a better solution in less time than you thought was possible
The 5.5 approach at LCY comes with a considerable number of restrictions. For a number of operators it is a Commander Only landing. The decision heights, given that at n seconds before touchdown you are correspondingly higher, are thus higher as well, which leads to a reduction in reliability in poor visibility. Cat 3 is not possible. Over time one aircraft has been written off and others significantly damaged in heavy landings.

[Tagron]

I suspect the recertification of all the types of aircraft using LHR to permit autoland and Cat 3 operations from a 5.5 degree glideslope would involve more than a little expenditure , to put it mildly.

[DaveReidUK]

I suspect the recertification of all the types of aircraft using LHR to permit autoland and Cat 3 operations from a 5.5 degree glideslope would involve more than a little expenditure, to put it mildly.Not to mention 40 carriers having to retrain their crews ...

[Stuffy]

This is news, but I don't know whether or not it should be in the airport section?

I would like to hear the views of Aviation People, rather than people who move into the area, then complain about aircraft noise. Knowing full well they were moving near a flight path.

BBC News - Hounslow, Richmond and Hillingdon residents against Heathrow expansion (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22604001)

[Agaricus bisporus]

Its about as meaningful as a headline stating that turkeys have voted against Christmas.

What would anyone expect them to do?

The economic need for more capacity has become critical, it has to happen somewhere. Seagulls will probably vote against one on the Thames estuary but we still have to have one.

Preferably in the Thames estuary, not a half-baked fudge to allow Heathrow to hobble along ever further behind like a three legged dog.

[Libertine Winno]

They should include a question in the questionnaire that asks how long you have lived in the Borough, and if it is any less than 15 years then your opinion is null and void as you knew full well what you were getting into!

[Heathrow Harry]

no - because people are planning to INCREASE the size of the airport - that's what everyone is against

it's been a botched job pretty much since the early 60's - everyone knows it - grotty layout, central terminals, poor connections to public transport for generations, criminally crowded at times - and you want to EXPAND it?

[DaveReidUK]

Hmmm, something doesn't quite add up.

Heathrow Airport (statement today to BBC):

"The council has carried out a consultation on an out-dated runway proposal which is not being promoted by Heathrow." Heathrow Airport (evidence submitted last week to the Davies Commission):

"Only a hub airport with at least three runways can deliver the economic growth we need to compete globally."

[Stuffy]

Terminal 5 has been operational since 2008.

The new Terminal Two is almost finished.

The two runways are operating at 90+%.

AIRLINES WANT HEATHROW.

I have lived in the Borough of Richmond and Twickenham, all my life.

I can imagine Mick Jagger saying when he moved to Richmond Hill -
"Oi, move that airport, I'm Mick Jagger !"

Lots of influential people live in Richmond. Yet, they never complain about Heathrow when they want to fly somewhere. Double standards.

It was never really properly thought out. This is UK.

When LAP was first built, it was in the countryside, literally. There were no jets, Just piston engined aeroplanes that made a lovely noise.

There was also another runway in the original plans, just about where they want the Third one now.

Unless one is thinking Milton Keynes. You are stuck with it. Forget about 'Boris Island'. Maplin was rejected in the 1960's.
Boris is a Cambridge academic who rides a push bike. He understands little about transport, except pedaling his bike and cracking pretty good one-liners.

If a solution is not soon found, jobs will be lost and so will the economy.

Mind you, when has anybody taken notice of the public, right or wrong.

My guess is that there WILL be a third runway, and possibly a fourth !

Terminals 6 & 7 are already planned. The steel and concrete was ordered years ago.

[pabely]

Cublington could have solved everything years ago!:uhoh:

[adfly]

Boris tweeting about his 'survey' currently,

'1/2 - Hillingdon & Richmond residents referendum rejects Heathrow expansion - Hillingdon 66% & Richmond 80% against'

'2/2 A 3rd runway at LHR means a 4th which is lunacy & will blight the lives of Londoners - the case for a new hub airport is overwhelming'

The irony of course being that, in the same survey 62% of respondents did not support closing Heathrow in favour of Boris Island! (Which also says something about the respondents double standards!).

[DaveReidUK]

The irony of course being that, in the same survey 62% of respondents did not support closing Heathrow in favour of Boris Island!You seem to be saying that not wanting Heathrow to expand, while not wanting it to close either, is mutually contradictory.

If so, please explain how - it seems a perfectly valid point of view to me.

[adfly]

The survey was basically questioning residents about the future of a hub in Britain and whether this should be at Heathrow or Boris Island, suggesting there are two options (for that survey at least). The fact that Boris has used this to big up his idea of a Thames Estuary airport also links back to this point. While the participants could say to 'change nothing' the way in which the survey has been talked about suggests all of the participants are either for one or the other, which of course is not the case.

[Skipness One Echo]

The cheating, lying, two-timing and serially dishonest Mayor of London asked the electorate :
"I say, do you agree that it would be jolly spiffing if there was less noise and pollution and all this bally aircraft noise was out to sea?"
Not surprisingly the electorate thought this was just spiffing.

Note : Boris has admitted all of the above character flaws, they're a matter of public record.

In other news, it seems the Church of Rome has elected a Catholic to lead it....

[DaveReidUK]

The survey was basically questioning residents about the future of a hub in Britain and whether this should be at Heathrow or Boris IslandActually it wasn't.

The Hillingdon and Richmond surveys only asked 2 questions:

1. Should a third runway be built at Heathrow? Yes/no
2. Are you in favour of more flights into and out of Heathrow? Yes/no

The Hounslow survey asked the same two questions, plus another 9 covering topics including runway alternation, night flights, noise insulation and the importance of LHR to the local economy.

I don't think the aim was to get the public to do the work of the DfT, Commons Transport Select Committee and Airports Commission in determining the UK's hub strategy. :O

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "I would like to hear the views of Aviation People, rather than people who move into the area, then complain about aircraft noise. Knowing full well they were moving near a flight path."

.....and as house prices are so expensive in the area, paying one hell of a lot of money for the "priviledge"! If it's so bad, why would they do that?


Quote: "They should include a question in the questionnaire that asks how long you have lived in the Borough, and if it is any less than 15 years then your opinion is null and void as you knew full well what you were getting into!"

Make that 60 years, then they'll have experienced the really noisy jets of the 1960s/1970s and will know how much quieter today's aircraft are.


Quote: " My guess is that there WILL be a third runway, and possibly a fourth !"

Hope you're right and hope it's soon!

Quote: "Terminals 6 & 7 are already planned. The steel and concrete was ordered years ago."

Good, they should have got the steel and concrete cheap back then.


Quote: "Cublington could have solved everything years ago"

Not really relevant, Cublington was intended (like Foulness) to be a third London airport not a replacement for Heathrow, so it would probably have been a bit like Stansted had it gone ahead.


Quote:"The Hillingdon and Richmond surveys only asked 2 questions:

1. Should a third runway be built at Heathrow? Yes/no
2. Are you in favour of more flights into and out of Heathrow? Yes/no

The Hounslow survey asked the same two questions, plus another 9 covering topics including runway alternation, night flights, noise insulation and the importance of LHR to the local economy.

I don't think the aim was to get the public to do the work of the DfT, Commons Transport Select Committee and Airports Commission in determining the UK's hub strategy."

Hounslow's aked more questions because it has residents under the flightpath, Hillingdon doesn't. Hounslow also asked if they wanted Heathrow to close, and guess what, the answer was no, what a surprise!

Does anyone know the turnout of these referendums? This critical but apparently unreported. Perhaps it tells a different story, who can say?

These referendums are not a particularly good use of ratepayers' money, we are dealing with proposed improvments to infrastructure of national significance, not a little local difficulty.

[DaveReidUK]

Hounslow also asked if they wanted Heathrow to close, and guess what, the answer was no, what a surprise!Yet again, surprise being expressed that people can simultaneously want the airport to stay open, but not want more flights.

Those sound like two perfectly valid points of view to me, and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be held simultaneously.

Or am I missing something?

[Skipness One Echo]

We're making the classic mistake of thinking everyone can be a winner. In the real world, for the greater good, there must be losers and they will have to endure pain. We're in a fantasy bubble at the moment.
We nearly ran out of gas over the winter and we're heading straight for an energy crisis. Do we build new nuclear powered stations or give money to millionaires to build pretty windfarms?

It's not about what people *want* it's about what the country *needs* to start paying off the frankly enormous debts that our forerunnners have wracked up and left to us. That means more flights, tourists, trade and frankly more controlled pollution.

Look at France electing Hollande on a fantasy he could never deliver, reality is catching up with these numpties.

[ArtfulDodger]

Both runways at Heathrow airport are reportedly closed as smoke is seen coming from the rear of a plane on the Northern runway......


More here..... Heathrow?s Runways Closed as Smoke Seen Coming From Plane: Sky New | The Airport Informer (http://wp.me/p2jrV4-HT)

[DaveReidUK]

Extensive thread here: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/515531-incident-heathrow.html

[Skipness One Echo]

BBC News - Heathrow 'would need to close' under airport plans (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22694466)

[canberra97]

Heathrow will never close, with all the recent investment plus there are too many local jobs at stake if it ever did and the majority of those are unskilled and would never be able to relocate, it would cause a major headache for the local politicians and Goverment far more then building the 3rd runway.

The only REAL outcome to all this is to build the third runway that was origionally planned at Heathrow plus an upgrade to the rail link between Liverpool St Stn and Stansted Airport offering a faster service making the airport more attractive to future airline growth there.

A second runway at Gatwick would also be an advantage to the airport for lots of reasons but as your always bashing LGW I would assume you would think otherwise (Skipness)

[Libertine Winno]

I always feel that people should clarify the "Heathrow is in the wrong place" argument as well.

It's only in the wrong place in terms of approaches flying over the centre of London, which adversely affects a large amount of the populace with noise and is inherently dangerous if there were to be an 'incident'.

However, in terms of accessibility it's pretty much spot on, having our nation's only hub airport readily accessible by a huge number of the general population. The road access could certainly be improved, but if the rail infrastructure is improved (which is it being with Crossrail and the direct mainline access from Reading) then that wouldn't be so much of an issue. In addition, with an extra couple of runways the short haul connectivity to the regions will become much better.

In an ideal world I suppose Heathrow would probably be repositioned something like 5 - 10 miles due West of where it is now, something which the Dr Tim Leunig Policy Exchange proposal certainly tries to make an effort at (although 2.7km falls somewhere short...!)

[Skipness One Echo]

Heathrow: The new Terminal 2 (http://www.heathrowairport.com/about-us/company-news-and-information/improving-heathrow/heathrow%27s-new-terminal-2)

With the coutdown to opening well and truly underway this is worth a read. One thing I did notice was the claim that T2B will have open gates like T4 and T5 (Page 28). Currently they are closed off gate rooms on T2B so I assume they are going to refurb them before the grand opening?

[Heathrow Harry]

Oh no!

The PR people are in charge - 1 year to go so let's start building up the "excitement" with press releases

Surprised they haven't put a count down clock in Trafalgar Square

At least we have a date - make sure you plan to avoid the place like the plague for June & July 2014........................

[Torquelink]

His sculpture is the size of an A400 jumbo jet set inside a cavernous
space on the scale of the Tate Modern’s Turbine Hall.

Glad that the PR is in the hands of knowlegable aviation types!

[Skipness One Echo]

The key take out is that it will be a stepped opening as opposed to the farce that was T5 Day One, only a subset of the intended tennants will be in the door on day one.

It would be pretty dumb not to have PR involved though wouldn't it? Spend billions on CapEx and forget to tell anyone? Hmmmmm

[DaveReidUK]

The latest lunatic proposal is to try to shoe-horn a runway in the space south of 09R/27L and north of the Staines/KGVI reservoirs.

The fact that this would appear to necessitate pulling down both Terminal 4 and the Cargocentre seems to have escaped the planners' attention.

EXCLUSIVE: New Heathrow runway plan is revealed - Transport - News - London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/exclusive-new-heathrow-runway-plan-is-revealed-8647410.html)

[Libertine Winno]

Surely there must come a point where it is economically viable for Heathrow to offer to purchase all the houses in the surrounding area (at 20% premium on the market rate, say) meaning that there will be no further objections from residents, because all the ones who don't like it will have sold up, and those who have chosen to stay obviously aren't bothered enough by the increase in noise another couple of runways would bring?!

[goldeneye]

VS are to suspend its Accra flights from September, citing high fuel costs in Ghana and limited slots in LHR.

Source (http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?c=setreg&region=2&m_id=_rbT_bY!s~&w_id=9022&news_id=2006727)

[Skipness One Echo]

VS are to suspend its Accra flights from September, citing high fuel costs in Ghana and limited slots in LHR.
Wonder if the slots will be flown by aircraft with Widget painted fins and US crews? Not sure what US capacity VS would want to add in going into the winter.

[Fairdealfrank]

Another example of sloppy journalism!

The article mentions the demolition of Stanwellmoor, but in reality, Stanwell village would also have to go as well as some of the estates to the south of Stanwell village, an area where the majority work on the airport.

The article states that fewer houses would be demolished than at Sipson. Not so, this scheme could involve demolition of up to 5,000 houses depending on how far south of 09R/27L the new rwy would have to be to allow simultaneous operations.

The number of houses to be demolished at Sipson is considerably less, and that area is already blighted.

This plan has nothing to do with house demolition.



Going as far south 09R/27L as possible without reservoir demolition, a rwy a little under 2 mi. long could be fitted in from the River Colne at Hithermoor Farm in the west to just short of the oil terminal at West Bedfont in the east. This would not take out the cargo areas and LHR-4, although the oil terminal may have to move and much of Stanwell would be lost. On the other hand some LHR-4 and LHR-5 movements could be taken off the existing rwys.

The reality is that 2 more rwys are needed, and in the end it is likely that land north and north west of LHR will have to be used, with both the M25 and the A4 tunnelised in part, and relatively little house demolition.

[Wycombe]

It looks to me like that proposal to the SW would need a runway with a WNW/ESE alignment to fit it in (avoiding the cargo area), which would mean the westerly departure track would go straight across those for 27L and R.

[M62]

Surely there would be issues with planning as Stanwell is in Surrey, not Hillingdon like the rest of the airport.

[DaveReidUK]

This would not take out the cargo areas and LHR-4You must be looking at a different map from mine.

Even if a runway was pushed as far south as possible, i.e. right up to the northern edge of the reservoirs, it would still point directly at T4 assuming it was oriented 09/27, as it would need to be.

This is a ludicrous plan, as will become apparent if and when we finally see a version that actually shows the runway itself, rather than the Evening Standard's "close-your-eyes-and-stick-a-pin-in-the-map" graphic.

[DaveReidUK]

See also today's Independent:

"Much of the land needed for the runway is occupied by airport-related buildings, including a cargo village and car parks"

Heathrow?s latest plan for third runway would be ?plane crazy? for one village - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/heathrows-latest-plan-for-third-runway-would-be-plane-crazy-for-one-village-8650168.html)

On the other hand, Simon Calder also tells us

"In addition, the eastern end would be located about a mile further from London than the existing two runways. Arriving and departing aircraft would therefore be significantly higher when flying over the capital."

so it's quite possible that all of the above is b*ll*cks :O

[jabird]

Surely there must come a point where it is economically viable for Heathrow to offer to purchase all the houses in the surrounding area (at 20% premium on the market rate, say) meaning that there will be no further objections from residents, because all the ones who don't like it will have sold up, and those who have chosen to stay obviously aren't bothered enough by the increase in noise another couple of runways would bring?!

Not really. There are two entirely separate challenges - finding land on which to lay down the concrete for a new runway. Unlike a few infamous motorway diverts, where single houses have been built around, the runway is all or nothing, so the compulsory purchase system would be the only option.

The other issue is noise, and I suggest people fall roughly into 3 camps - people who work at or are heavy users of the airport, who accept the noise, people who are seriously bothered by it, and then a middle group, who aren't that fussed.

So the only you might be able to buy out some of the latter 2 groups, but to what end? You'd be left with a patchwork of houses with no real continuity. So all you could do is insulate them heavily and sell them on, but it is much cheaper just to offer an insulation grant scheme, which I'm sure will come with a third runway as one of the many planning conditions.

As for Surrey, it is quite common for major schemes to cross two admin boundaries, and not unheard of for them to take very different views (we had this at CVT for a 2m pax pa terminal!), but either way, this would have to be determined by an even longer public inquiry than the one that approved T5, unless it was done by hybrid bill / Act of Parliament - not sure about the technicalities of that, it has historically been used more for railways.

[Fairdealfrank]

LHR is still on easterly operations! Appears to have been so for most of the year.


Quote: "Surely there would be issues with planning as Stanwell is in Surrey, not Hillingdon like the rest of the airport."

Doesn't this get treated as "infrastructure of national significance" and get fast-tracked planning? If not we've got another 50 years of enquiries and litigation.



Quote: "It looks to me like that proposal to the SW would need a runway with a WNW/ESE alignment to fit it in (avoiding the cargo area), which would mean the westerly departure track would go straight across those for 27L and R."

If it isn't parallel, there's no point!



Quote: "You must be looking at a different map from mine.

Even if a runway was pushed as far south as possible, i.e. right up to the northern edge of the reservoirs, it would still point directly at T4 assuming it was oriented 09/27, as it would need to be."

OK, concede that Southampton Road and parts of Shoreham Road would have to go, but not LHR-4. It is to the east of this proposed rwy. Final approaches for it on westerly operations would be over what is now the oil terminal, and south of LHR-4.

If the rwy went through LHR-4, it would not be far enough away from 09R/27L for simultaneous operations, and would therefore be about as much use as an ashtray on a motorcycle.

If it did not take out Stanwell, but just Stanwellmoor and went right up to the M25, it would be a very short rwy, just about 1 mi.

Either way going south of LHR is not particularly practical. As mentioned in post #2,610, using land north and northwest of LHR would result in less house demolition and provide land for 2 more rwys, taxiways, additional airport infrastructure and another fire station.


Quote: "This is a ludicrous plan, as will become apparent if and when we finally see a version that actually shows the runway itself, rather than the Evening Standard's "close-your-eyes-and-stick-a-pin-in-the-map" graphic."

Agreed, it is ludicrous, and where does the 4th rwy go with expansion to the south?

[DaveReidUK]

OK, concede that Southampton Road and parts of Shoreham Road would have to go, but not LHR-4. It is to the east of this proposed rwy. Final approaches for it on westerly operations would be over what is now the oil terminal, and south of LHR-4.No. Read the ES article again.

"The Standard has been told the favoured new option is to build on land stretching from the existing airport towards Stanwell Moor village and north of local reservoirs"

But a runway that started west of the Bedfont oil terminal would point directly at the Staines Reservoir, and could only be about 1200m long, which is clearly ridiculous.

If the rwy went through LHR-4, it would not be far enough away from 09R/27L for simultaneous operations, and would therefore be about as much use as an ashtray on a motorcycle.Agreed.

If it did not take out Stanwell, but just Stanwellmoor and went right up to the M25, it would be a very short rwy, just about 1 mi.Agreed.

Either way going south of LHR is not particularly practical.That's an understatement. :O

I think the fact that, unlike all the previous proposals, we haven't seen a published plan that actually shows the runway position/alignment tells us all we need to know about how well it has been thought through.

One might even conclude that the whole scheme is a red herring, not intended to be taken seriously, the object being simply to mobilise the maximum opposition to it and thereby "prove" that the northern option wasn't so bad after all.

[Fairdealfrank]

"Quote: "No. Read the ES article again.

"The Standard has been told the favoured new option is to build on land stretching from the existing airport towards Stanwell Moor village and north of local reservoirs"

But a runway that started west of the Bedfont oil terminal would point directly at the Staines Reservoir, and could only be about 1200m long, which is clearly ridiculous."

No, it's just north of the Staines Reservoir, that's why Hithermoor Farm was suggested as the western end. It also allows some room between the rwy end and the M25 and the bank of Wraysbury reservoir. A length of 1 mi. east takes it past Stanwellmoor village and as far as Stanwell village. Another mile east takes it to the Longford river (would need diverting) and the southern end of the cargo area. So it's longer than your suggested 1,200m./0.75 mi.. If being seriously considered, the rwy would probably have to be shorter than the 2 mi. originally mentioned, so let's split the difference at 1.50-1.75 mi.!

However it's not practical and is not going to happen: Stanwell will not be demolished. Was listing this particular third rwy as a hypotheitical example of how it could be crammed in after studying a proper map. The ES map is particularly useless for this purpose.

Quote: "I think the fact that, unlike all the previous proposals, we haven't seen a published plan that actually shows the runway position/alignment tells us all we need to know about how well it has been thought through.

One might even conclude that the whole scheme is a red herring, not intended to be taken seriously, the object being simply to mobilise the maximum opposition to it and thereby "prove" that the northern option wasn't so bad after all."

Think that you are spot on with this analysis!

[LGS6753]

From Travel Mole:

Heathrow launches fight-back campaign after poll shows local support for expansion (http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?c=setreg&region=2&m_id=s~_rvY!s~m&w_id=9033&news_id=2006795)

BAA (sorry, Heathrow Airport Ltd) will want to make much of this, but opposition to expansion will come from further afield, where livelihoods are less likely to be dependent on the airport.

Still, it's a nice bit of spin for them to play with.

[DaveReidUK]

Two-minute feature on the 6pm BBC News this evening (may or may not be repeated at 10pm) on the current LHR runway resurfacing programme. Also viewable on the BBC website: BBC News - Heathrow runway gets £20m makeover (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22863507)

Slightly misleading comment implying that the first LHR landings of the day are at 6am, whereas they actually start at 0430 on the other runway, but interesting nevertheless.

[GT3]

Slightly misleading comment implying that the first LHR landings of the day are at 6am, whereas they actually start at 0430 on the other runway, but interesting nevertheless.

I think they were inferring the first landing on the runway that is being resurfaced.

[ArtfulDodger]

Heathrow Airport's CEO Colin Matthew announces new royal name for Terminal two.....


Full story here..... A Royal Name For The New Heathrow Terminal 2: Airport Informer | The Airport Informer (http://wp.me/p2jrV4-IN)

[DaveReidUK]

Today, on the day before the Queen celebrates her official birthday, we are announcing that our new Terminal 2 will be known as 'Terminal 2: The Queen's Terminal', in honour of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/58/20/582000_f2297b94.jpg

[PAXboy]

Another bunch of PR people justifying their existance. Wasting money on signage and a name that will not be used in everyday visits by PAX. :yuk:

Actually, it might make things worse if pax think there is a terminal called The Queen's Terminal and a T2. They may be looking for a building very few know as the QT. :D

[DaveReidUK]

If you think that's bad, wait till it dawns on some bright overpaid spark that you can't have the other Terminals numbered non-consecutively.

So, T3 will now become T2, T4 will become T3 and T5 will become T4.

This will have the added advantage that no promises will have been broken when the new T5 is built. :O

[jabird]

If you think that's bad, wait till it dawns on some bright overpaid spark that you can't have the other Terminals numbered non-consecutively.

Won't be the first airport (JFK's terminal refurb rotations) or other facility not to be consecutive or in an apparently logical format.

Now without consulting the wiki referee, I guess there are:

* Various M2's or local equivalents without an M1. There is also no M7.
* Several cities with subway lines 2,3 and so-on but no 1.

And so on. Now if anyone wants to start naming them we could keep the thread busy for a day or two, or we could get back to the key issues.

If the latter, I think the new survey won't be taken that seriously because it was commissioned by the airport. The first rule of PR club is surely - do not conduct your own surveys, as they will always get you the answer you want, but nobody else will take them seriously.

Which is a shame, because, as with any development proposal, we rarely hear from the side of those who live near the airport, and do want it to survive and thrive.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Another bunch of PR people justifying their existance. Wasting money on signage and a name that will not be used in everyday visits by PAX. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

Indeed, just like the morons who renamed Staines to "Staines-upon-Thames", apparently because it sounds "posher". Waste of time and money really, the name will just be shortened as is the case with Richmond, Kingston, Sunbury, Henley, etc.


Quote: "If you think that's bad, wait till it dawns on some bright overpaid spark that you can't have the other Terminals numbered non-consecutively.

So, T3 will now become T2, T4 will become T3 and T5 will become T4.

This will have the added advantage that no promises will have been broken when the new T5 is built."

Yes, it will be the new LHR-1, as it would have been anyway, or arguably the new LHR-1/2. (since "2" becomes "Queens").

[DaveReidUK]

Now without consulting the wiki referee, I guess there are:

* Various M2's or local equivalents without an M1. There is also no M7.
* Several cities with subway lines 2,3 and so-on but no 1.You forgot hotels without a Floor 13. :O

I wasn't being serious, of course, but we shouldn't underestimate the ability of the PR industry to come up with ludicrous ideas.

I think the new survey won't be taken that seriously because it was commissioned by the airport.Interestingly, there was a comment made on the Evening Standard website by one of residents who was interviewed for the survey, suggesting that the Heathrow press release and the backing Populus report did not properly present the context in which the questions were asked, and that neither made any mention of the responses to other questions that were asked, for example about noise mitigation measures.

[DaveReidUK]

Heathrow has now submitted its planning application for the second phase of taxiway changes to allow full, post-Cranford, alternation on easterlies.

Last year's application covered the RETs on 09R, which are currently being built in conjunction with the 09R/27L runway resurfacing programme.

The latest application is to facilitate sustained departures on 09L, with an additional access taxiway (A13E) to be built between A12 and A13, plus a new link between Alpha and Bravo taxiways immediately to the south of the new RAT. Minor additions will also be made to the fillets on A12 and A13 "to enable A380 aircraft to access and exit the runway to meet the safety requirements of the CAA" (how do they manage at present?).

The plan also includes a 5 meter high Longford noise barrier along the line of the Duke of Northumberland River.

http://planning.hillingdon.gov.uk/OcellaWeb/viewDocument?file=dv_pl_files%5C41573_APP_2013_1288%5C10000-XX-GA-100-000192+Site+Plan.pdf

[jabird]

Staines to "Staines-upon-Thames"

It will always be stains, sorry Staines - the butt of numerous jokes, not to mention the association with BEA 548.

Rebrands are pointless if they are only adding in something to the name. If they wanted to rename the place entirely, then fine.

Back to LHR and the "Queen(')s" terminal - it raises the question again about the naming of the whole airport. Now the Queen's Terminal in Diana (no, not Dana) International would have the tabloids in a spin for decades! :ugh:

[Phileas Fogg]

I was born upon the banks of the river, in a hospital I hasten to add, in Hampton Court in the borough of Twickenham.

Does this mean I can call myself "Phileas Fogg Upon Thames"?

[edi_local]

Was there any need to name T2 after the Queen?

Perhaps they felt that she didn't have quite enough things named after her already, especially in London (hell, they even named the Olympic Park after her even though she looked miserable as sin at her night out to the opening ceremony).

Or maybe it was the only way Heathrow Airport LTD were able to get the Palace to let her out to open the new terminal next year?

Anyway, a total waste of time, effort and money. Nothing wrong with plain old "Terminal 2" which is what 99.9% of people will refer to it as anyway. In fact if anyone does refer to it as "Queen's Terminal" I am in half a mind to deliberately pretend I have no idea what they are on about. I may even direct them to the Royal Suite!

On the subject of Staines...One friend of mine just asked on facebook where exactly Staines-Upon-Thames was...she has known it was Staines her whole life and was asked to go to SUT for something but wasn't sure if it was the same place.

[jabird]

One friend of mine just asked on facebook where exactly Staines-Upon-Thames was...she has known it was Staines her whole life and was asked to go to SUT for something but wasn't sure if it was the same place.

Works both ways - I have always lived in or in villages around ROYAL Leamington Spa - Harbury, Flecknoe and then Coventry ;) :mad:

That is still the official name of the town, but the railway station, part of Gawd's original Wonderful Railway has always (to my knowledge) just been Leamington Spa, and ROYAL Mail also don't use one's royal prefix.

I just worry that instead of having to double check something on Google maps, this terminal confusion is going to lead to a whole load of missed flights. What about the tube maps? Will they just say "Heathrow Central" or Heathrow Queen's Central"?

I just hope we don't have to resort to royal terminology, because T2 might then just become "One's Two".

[edi_local]

The Tube maps at the moment say " Heathrow Terminals 1,2 & 3" and then "Heathrow Terminal 4" and "Heathrow Terminal 5". So even though T2 is not open right now, they never took it off the maps.

I would imagine it'll just stay that way. "Heathrow Central" is a term, as far as I am aware, that is only applied to the bus station at T123.

[DaveReidUK]

The acid test will be when the GDSs and Star Alliance carriers start to compile schedules for flights to/from the new terminal - which may already have happened as it's less than a year now until it opens.

IATA defines 1-2 character alphanumeric codes to denote terminals (where an airport has more than one), so "QT" or "Q" could legitimately be used, or alternatively just "2" to be consistent with the other LHR terminals.

Given that the official announcement talks about "Terminal 2: The Queen's Terminal", my money is on the status quo.

[davidjohnson6]

The queen is 87 years old. T2 presumably has a design life well beyond 30 years ago. Is it really a good idea to overly emphasise the name of the terminal after Liz rather than a number ?

[compton3bravo]

It couldn´t possibly named after the popular music combo which was very popular a few years back!

[jabird]

What about the "All England" Club with its Centre Court and others numbered from 1 onwards?

Or Haymarket Station (there are others) with Platform 0?

[DaveReidUK]

Is it really a good idea to overly emphasise the name of the terminal after Liz rather than a number ?Her Majesty is probably hoping that BAA, having now rediscovered the apostrophe after forty-odd punctuation-free years, may not have quite got the hang of it and we'll end up with "the Queens' Terminal", which has entirely different connotations ... :O

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "I was born upon the banks of the river, in a hospital I hasten to add, in Hampton Court in the borough of Twickenham."

Sounds like St Mary's Cottage Hospital, now closed down of course.

Quote: "Does this mean I can call myself "Phileas Fogg Upon Thames"?

Maybe, but does it also mean that the borough of Twickenham can be Twickenham Upon Thames?


Quote: "On the subject of Staines...One friend of mine just asked on facebook where exactly Staines-Upon-Thames was...she has known it was Staines her whole life and was asked to go to SUT for something but wasn't sure if it was the same place."

It's a place best avoided. If they want to "posh it up", how about calling it "Ashford West". What a waste of public money!



Quote: "Or Haymarket Station (there are others) with Platform 0?"
London-King's Cross comes to mind. Probably to avoid having to renumber all platforms. Should have been "1A" in both cases.

At Twickenham, there's only platforms 3, 4 and 5. Again, it's to avoid having to renumber all the platforms.

[jabird]

London-King's Cross comes to mind.

Well Phileas can catch a train to Newcastle there and be Fogg on the Tyne (sorry, couldn't resist). :D

And there's a permanent location for Platform 9 3/4 too:

http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/global/news%20stories/kings_cross_map_march2012.pdf

Now anyone want to have ago at explaining the logic behind the (otherwise very orderly, naturally) Zurich HB? 26 platforms, but the numbers go to 51...

[LN-KGL]

Not 51 jabird, it's 54. Zürich HB has many levels, and I bet you only looked at the terminating upper level.

[jabird]

Not 51 jabird, it's 54.

When I realised I got that wrong, I thought shall I correct it or wait for a fellow pedant to beat me to it.

Official platform count is 26, including the lower levels, and suggesting the new tunnel will take #s 31-34.

At least it does start at 1 - and after all, hotels usually number 1xx, 2xx according to the floor, not a direct sequence, so it isn't entirely illogical.

[DaveReidUK]

The FT is reporting that Heathrow plans to propose to the Airports Commission next month building a third runway ASAP, followed by a fourth after an unspecified interval.

No surprises there, of course, but interestingly it suggests that Heathrow is still considering whether to outline more than one option for the location of R3 in its submission to Davies.

[118.70]

interestingly it suggests that Heathrow is still considering whether to outline more than one option for the location of R3 in its submission to Davies. The air quality assessments included in the planning application for the works for the end of the Cranford Agreement that you linked to are instructive.

Now that vehicle emission factors have changed following the findings that the new Euro standards are not delivering real world improvements for diesel engines, the modelled exceedances of the air quality limits for 2015 are now much, much worse than they were anticipated to be in the modelling that accompanied the previous third runway consultation in 2008.

What were narrow yellow bands over the 40ug/m3 annual limit (Fig 10.15 2015SM predicted total NO2 concentrations around Heathrow in the CERC : Air Quality Studies for Heathrow - November 2007) are now wide swathes and extend much further (e.g. down the A30 to Staines) in Fig 7.8 Annual Mean NO2 Ground level concentration (All emission sources) 2015 baseline - February 2013 in the documents submitted to Hillingdon).

Accordingly, they would need to be very creative to get a third runway in the Sipson area between the M4 and A4. It may be much easier to get something to the southwest of the airport......

[jabird]

new Euro standards are not delivering real world improvements for diesel engines

This is interesting, because over time these outputs should all be coming down. Diesel should be yielding to natural gas and hybrids, and petrol engines should also be getting far more efficient.

Whilst it has always been acknowledged by many that it is the traffic around airports, rather than the airports themselves which is the biggest cause of (local) pollution, the long term trend should still be downwards.

[118.70]

It may come down over time - but progress is pretty glacial currently.

Incentives are all pushing for increasing diesel penetration of the fleet (good for CO2 emissions) but appalling for urban air quality. At some stage the authorities will be forced to act to protect health and the regimes will change. If you want a car mainly for town driving, I wouldn't buy a diesel.

A lot of hope had been invested in successively tighter Euro standards reining in emissions resulting in lower pollution levels. In practice the test cycles were not good indicators of the ways that cars were used on the road, The recent remote sensing report on thousands of measurements taken in Ealing and the City of London last summer is fascinating.

http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/reports/cat05/1305201434_130514_DefraRemoteSensingReport_Final.pdf

Of course, Heathrow could help to improve matters by choosing to ban some or all of cars/diesel cars/ diesel buses/taxis from its premises and ensure workers/passengers rely on clean public transport. It would be interesting to see if this would give sufficient headroom for a third runway at Sipson.

[jabird]

Of course, Heathrow could help to improve matters by choosing to ban some or all of cars/diesel cars/ diesel buses/taxis

I have argued this before re: Heathrow with Lord Adonis, and I've also argued in Jet Blast about the need to encourage more transport that takes the air pollution away all together (walking / cycling) or at least offsets it well out of the city (GW line will be electrified by then / electric buses or buses with flywheels etc.

The simple fact is that if there's going to be any chance of a 3rd runway at LHR, it has to come with some extremely tight air quality regulations. The airport cannot dictate to people that drive past it what sort of vehicles they use, but it can provide money, essentially through the largest Section 106 (planning bribe) agreement in history, to improve local transport.

The key to this is a good working relationship with TfL. Sadly, through being at the beck and call of Boris Jonhson, they remain wedded to the Fantasy Island project, and have recently sent reps round on an humiliating national tour to see this scheme.

The means are there to make it happen, and central London is already leading the way in terms of emissions zones and providing the cycle infrastructure. This is the only way a 3rd runway can happen, and it is going to take a serious rethink about how London's suburbs are ordered.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "No surprises there, of course, but interestingly it suggests that Heathrow is still considering whether to outline more than one option for the location of R3 in its submission to Davies."

Would expect nothing less!



Quote: "Accordingly, they would need to be very creative to get a third runway in the Sipson area between the M4 and A4. It may be much easier to get something to the southwest of the airport......"

South west of the airport will not be easy, many more houses to be demolished than at Sipson which is already blighted. West of Sipson may be the answer, crossing the M25.





Quote: "Of course, Heathrow could help to improve matters by choosing to ban some or all of cars/diesel cars/ diesel buses/taxis from its premises and ensure workers/passengers rely on clean public transport. It would be interesting to see if this would give sufficient headroom for a third runway at Sipson."

Public transport to/from Heathrow still isn't good enough.

For example, there is no rail access from the west. Which numpty designed airport junction without a chord linking the airport spur to/from the west and who approved this half measure?!

Why is there no rail link between Heathrow-4 and Heathrow-5 so that trains and tubes can call at all three terminal sites in turn?

Why is there no rail link from Heathrow to the southwest mainline at Feltham? (this has been mooted since 1966).

Why are there no direct bus links from Heathrow-5 to the south where many airport workers live?

There is much to be done on the public transport, and it has to be ultra-reliable: people catching flights and going to work must have confidence.



Quote: "I have argued this before re: Heathrow with Lord Adonis, and I've also argued in Jet Blast about the need to encourage more transport that takes the air pollution away all together (walking / cycling) or at least offsets it well out of the city (GW line will be electrified by then / electric buses or buses with flywheels etc."

Interestingly, it is no longer possible to walk/cycle onto the airport. They are banned from the former pedestrian/cyclist tunnels which have been converted for vehicles.

Quote: "The key to this is a good working relationship with TfL. Sadly, through being at the beck and call of Boris Jonhson, they remain wedded to the Fantasy Island project, and have recently sent reps round on an humiliating national tour to see this scheme."

Wouldn't the "planning gain" be between Heathrow and the government as this is infrastructure of national significance? It should be possible to work with all transport providers/operators including TFL. Boris won't be there forever, he apparently has bigger plans.

[DaveReidUK]

Interestingly, it is no longer possible to walk/cycle onto the airport. They are banned from the former pedestrian/cyclist tunnels which have been converted for vehicles.If that's the case, BAA don't seem to have cottoned on to it - they are still showing cycle access to Terminals 1-3 on their website:

http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/Heathrow/Downloads/PDF/Cycle_Motorcycle.pdf

I believe it's only pedestrians that are banned from the tunnel - they can of course travel free through it on local buses.

[anothertyke]

Fairdeal

I don't see how without spending an ocean of public money public transport at Heathrow can be 'ultra-reliable'. Via Feltham, via Piccadilly Line, via Paddington all have their downsides. Major improvements are required but people will always have to leave a safety margin. Like everyone, I have sweated on stationary trains (not) going to the airport in various cities, it comes with the territory. Once you are committed, if something goes seriously wrong you are stuck.

I do agree with you re the western rail chord though. Even one an hour to Birmingham for the next twelve years and after HS2 one an hour to Bristol would make a big difference and I have been told the timetable and layout at Heathrow allow for that. Bizarre not to have done that.

Could I ask you and DaveReid in particular as knowledgeable people. Suppose that Boris's Island is a non-starter and suppose that in the end the politics is just too difficult or if you prefer the next Govt is just too feeble at Heathrow. What is Plan B? Would a second runway at Gatwick and send one of the alliances there en masse, ie split the hub, be remotely conceivable?

[PAXboy]

anothertykeWhat is Plan B?
You mean - there actually IS a Plan A???!!! :ooh:
I fear that no such plan exists. :hmm:

[anothertyke]

Yes very good you are probably right. But to clarify let's say an obvious contender for Plan A is a third runway at LHR and keep the hub operations located in one place where billions of existing investment are sunk. That must be a strong runner with numerous option variations (runway location, allow for future fourth runway or not....). Then my question is---suppose that's ruled out by politics,Zak, Justine,HACAN etc, the impossibility of getting things done in this great society of ours, what then?

[jabird]

I believe it's only pedestrians that are banned from the tunnel - they can of course travel free through it on local buses.

In which case they are not pedestrians. I only got that same map - dated 2008, but also talking of 400+ cycle parking spaces around the site, including the central area.

I doubt they'd be able to just ban all cyclists from coming in - there's be a forum thread on that somewhere, we're an angry bunch when we get shut out!

Also, there's the Equality Act, under which someone could argue that if they (through disability, health condition etc) were unable to drive a car, they had a basic right to the next most flexible means of getting around, which is the bike.

The "left turn" issue has been discussed before, either on this thread or others (Fantasy Island & so on). There are two key problems:

1) The entire airport complex is in tunnels and not designed for diesel stock. Therefore the left turn is a non-starter until the line is electrified - now under way.
2) Long distance trains have traditionally been 8-10 coaches long. The HX is 5-coach, does anyone know the platform length at each of the 3 stations?

My understanding is that the current Vomiter, sorry, Voyager fleet will be lengthened by adding on a coach with pantograph, so this would take the super-voyagers to 6. I think most of the HST replacements are also 7+.

So a regional service would be more likely in the interim, perhaps terminating at Oxford?

After that, is there not supposed to be a direct link from the GW line into T5, enabling a continuation from there in to Paddington? Announced a few months ago, not seen any details. This would presumably allow for full length (10-11 coaches?) trains.

Beyond this is the prospect of an HS2 link, but only in Phase 2. Frankly, even though I admit to being sceptical about the whole HS2 deal (who wouldn't be with another £10bn on last week), I really can't see the link into LHR happening.

For these trains, you are talking double length, even double height. The tunnelling requirements would be huge, so the talk is just of serving T5. Then you have the issue of track paths - the most important destination from LHR is central London, which is served by 4x5 coaches hourly. The West Midlands are what - 2-5% of volume? So you are already spread very thin. Brum's trumpeting of HS2 blows up in their face if there's a direct link sucking more people into LHR, but would these trains be viable? Even if there is a business case - based on £4bn for an hourly service, v £20bn+ for Phase 1, but an eventual capacity of 18 trains / hour, what would Beardie / Delta / Star / basically all the other airlines say about the unfair advantage going to BA?

Maybe they wouldn't be bothered because that's balanced out by T5 already being further from London than the other terminals. Maybe they wouldn't be bothered because they just wouldn't see a threat.

Either way, none of the "obvious" rail answers are as obvious as they seem when you deal with UK rail economics.

[c52]

Wonder if anyone has a notion what One World might pay one of the other alliances to quit Heathrow, or what might be demanded - say it happens after another runway is built at LGW or STN.

[jabird]

what One World might pay one of the other alliances to quit Heathrow, or what might be demanded

I think that would be deemed a bribe by the various competition powers.

The only hope would be that a dual runway LGW could offer one of the networks (assuming VS are fully in Skyteam by then) a huge midfield hub to their own specifications - but even if they gave it away (say for 10 years), LHR is where they want to be, and reducing hub costs wouldn't make up for lost yield.

[DaveReidUK]

In which case they are not pedestrians.I knew some clever clogs would say that. :O Well they become pedestrians again when they get off the bus ...

I doubt they'd be able to just ban all cyclists from coming in - there's be a forum thread on that somewhere, we're an angry bunch when we get shut out!It's many years since I cycled through the tunnel, and even longer since I last walked through it. It's mainly taxis and car drivers in the know who use it nowadays.

I'm not sure I'd be brave enough to cycle through, though reportedly most drivers are considerate, and bikes are encouraged to use the middle of the road to dissuade them from overtaking:

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/pics/docs/00/00/45/53/small/hell?

[jabird]

I knew some clever clogs would say that. Well they become pedestrians again when they get off the bus ...

No seriously, they are two quite different concepts in transport terms.

Also, for any kind of modelling, the most "senior" type of transport tends to get the credit - so if you cycle to the station to catch a train, that's a train journey. Bus to station - train gets credit, and if you fly somewhere, well, you don't need me to tell you that one.

Transport bigwigs tend to forget just how important walking is in its own right. Every journey - from a trip to the shops to a honeymoon down-under, starts with a walk.

I might be a fully paid up lycra lout, but the fittest and slimmest people I know are the ones who walk. They don't just go to the closest shops, they walk across town or between towns / village and town or they walk across London. If they have to get on a bus, that defeats the whole point.

I know we're talking about a very exceptional case here, but Heathrow is a place of work as well as a transport hub. By definition, you should be able to walk into and out of it. I understand that there's a free shuttle bus, but that is still a failure on the walkability front.

The CTA may be a lost cause, but if a third runway is going to have any hope of being passed, there has to be a massive reduction in air pollution in the area around the airport, and this has to come through providing genuine improvements in the way the streets are configured. Also, this can't just be imposed on these areas, otherwise they will object to the measures meant to mitigate their objections!

It all has to be done through consultation and through best practice design, and this is why TfL are so key. That is perhaps the lost tragedy in them going on the "Boris Island" promotion tour. We all know the island airport is a regurgitated fantasy, but instead of making LHR R3 look positively rosy in comparison, it is drawing attention away from genuine mitigation methods.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “If that's the case, BAA don't seem to have cottoned on to it - they are still showing cycle access to Terminals 1-3 on their website:

http://www.heathrowairport.com/stati...Motorcycle.pdf (http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/Heathrow/Downloads/PDF/Cycle_Motorcycle.pdf)

I believe it's only pedestrians that are banned from the tunnel - they can of course travel free through it on local buses.”

OK point taken, cyclists are now on the roads with the heavy traffic as their former segregated tunnels (shared with pedestrians) have now been turned over to traffic.
　
　
Quote: “Fairdeal

I don't see how without spending an ocean of public money public transport at Heathrow can be 'ultra-reliable'. Via Feltham, via Piccadilly Line, via Paddington all have their downsides. Major improvements are required but people will always have to leave a safety margin. Like everyone, I have sweated on stationary trains (not) going to the airport in various cities, it comes with the territory. Once you are committed, if something goes seriously wrong you are stuck.”

You are right, anothertyke, we either have to attempt to emulate the best or accept that most road journeys to/from LHR will be by car.

Quote: “I do agree with you re the western rail chord though. Even one an hour to Birmingham for the next twelve years and after HS2 one an hour to Bristol would make a big difference and I have been told the timetable and layout at Heathrow allow for that. Bizarre not to have done that.”

Just trains to Reading would help, there’s a wealth of connections available there. Failing that, having some of the West Country/South Wales long distance trains stop at Hayes would have been beneficial.

Think we can forget about HS2, this is not France. There the TGV serves the airports on “through routes” while the city bound services eventually join the "conventional" tracks to serve existing city centre stations for interchange opportunities. A couple of examples that come to mind are airport stations at CDG and LYS on the “through” lines and Paris-Lyon/Paris-Nord and Lyon-Partdieu/Lyon-Perrache for the city services.

Quote: “Could I ask you and DaveReid in particular as knowledgeable people. Suppose that Boris's Island is a non-starter and suppose that in the end the politics is just too difficult or if you prefer the next Govt is just too feeble at Heathrow. What is Plan B? Would a second runway at Gatwick and send one of the alliances there en masse, ie split the hub, be remotely conceivable?”

Thanks for the comment, think there's many more knowlegable than me on this forum!

Boris Island remains a complete non-starter and a diversion (sorry Silver!), there is no question.

The danger is that the Government will be feeble over LHR. Plan B is probably the very unsatisfactory option: “do nothing”, and more carriers unable to acquire LHR slots at affordable rates would be off to AMS, CDG, FRA, etc.. On the other hand, that appears to be Plan A as well!

No alliance or even a single airline can be “sent” to LGW from LHR. Major UK airports are in the private sector so no one can “direct” airlines to use certain airports. Any attempts to do so would result in years of litigation.

It’s all based on commercial considerations. For any airline to leave LHR for LGW would be commercial suicide, there's not enough premium business or sufficient connectivity at LGW.
　
　
Quote: “The only hope would be that a dual runway LGW could offer one of the networks (assuming VS are fully in Skyteam by then) a huge midfield hub to their own specifications - but even if they gave it away (say for 10 years), LHR is where they want to be, and reducing hub costs wouldn't make up for lost yield.”

Exactly, never going to happen, certainly not for VS. VS’s move from LGW to LHR in the 1980s saved it from following BUA, BCAL, Laker, etc., down the tubes. VS won’t leave LHR, and it’s not clear cut that it will join Skyteam.



Quote: "It all has to be done through consultation and through best practice design, and this is why TfL are so key. That is perhaps the lost tragedy in them going on the "Boris Island" promotion tour. We all know the island airport is a regurgitated fantasy, but instead of making LHR R3 look positively rosy in comparison, it is drawing attention away from genuine mitigation methods."

As mentioned above, major UK airports are not publicly owned, not by central government and not by local government, also, Boris Island is well beyond TFL's geographical remit.

The ""Boris Island" promotion tour" sounds like a "jolly boy's" outing and yet another typical waste of public money.

[DaveReidUK]

OK point taken, cyclists are now on the roads with the heavy traffic as their former segregated tunnels (shared with pedestrians) have now been turned over to traffic.Hardly "heavy traffic", the side tunnels are shared between cycles and cars/taxis. Anything that's much bigger won't fit.

And, as I pointed out in my previous post (which has mysteriously disappeared), cyclists have priority anyway:

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/pics/docs/00/00/45/53/small/hell?v=9G

[jabird]

Hardly "heavy traffic", the side tunnels are shared between cycles and cars/taxis. Anything that's much bigger won't fit.

Well this looks like the first UK example I've seen of what our Dutch friends call a "fietsstraat" or bike street. The concept is quite well used there, but the circumstances are quite different.

In both cases, the bike lane goes down the centre, and cars are not allowed to overtake bikes, but that's where the similarities end.

In the Dutch cases, the street might typically have a VERY high number of bikes on it - even by Dutch standards, as it might form part of a through route for bikes, but it is only used by cars to access properties on that street.

So let's say, for example, there was a north-south cycle route instead of the foot path which runs along the River Crane, and it then connected towards Bath Road via Waye Ave. If this formed part of a busy cycle route (fat chance at the moment, but say this was just to the east of Schiphol) - you might get as much as 90% of traffic on that road being bicycles, as there's no through road traffic.

So some bright spark has taken this concept and said - let's change a traffic free route and allow cars on it. Except that these cars want to get to an airport. Fast. I've only glanced a few comments in cycle forums and views seem to be mixed - some say the cars / taxis "behave", others say it is very intimidating.

If I was a driver with a flight to catch and the main tunnels were moving like treacle, then I'd see the "left" tunnel as a bit of a gamble. We used to have a level crossing like this - cut through and it will save you 3 minutes, but every now and then you'd get fast then local westbound and local then fast east, with the station being just to the west of the crossing, and that combo could cost you 25 minutes.

Either way - non-motorised access to Heathrow is a dog's breakfast.


And, as I pointed out in my previous post (which has mysteriously disappeared), cyclists have priority anyway:

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/pics/...mall/hell?v=9G

That link seems to have vanished too.

[DaveReidUK]

BBC News is reporting that Heathrow has agreed to brief the residents of Stanwell Moor re the southern R3 option on 18th July, the day after the proposals are to be formally published.

In the meantime, still no indication of how the proposed runway is to be shoehorned in between the existing 09R/27L and the reservoirs.

BBC News - Stanwell Moor meeting over Heathrow 'blight fears' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23159683?goback=.gde_2850053_member_255337769)

http://www.standard.co.uk/incoming/article8647582.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/6heathrow20606.jpg

[DaveReidUK]

The Mayor of London yesterday submitted his response to the Airport Commission, arguing that anything less than a four-runway hub would still leave many important business destinations and emerging markets without direct flights from the UK.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/airports-commission-discussion-paper-operational-models-tfl-response.pdf

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/airports-commission-discussion-paper-operational-models-tfl-response-with-evidence-base.pdf

[Skipness One Echo]

The Mayor of London yesterday submitted his response to the Airport Commission, arguing that anything less than a four-runway hub would still leave many important business destinations and emerging markets without direct flights from the UK.
He's actually making the case for LHR in spite of himself. The eventual reult will be we need a four runway hub airport but we can't afford to concrete over Essex or the Thames estuary, lose tens of thousands of blue collar jobs in West London, close LHR and move the centre of business focus to the other side of London. Clever chap Bojo in spite of himself. Cripes! Time for whif whaf

[jabird]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/Tfl_logos.png

Since when did TfL have an airports directorate? Mass transport executives should be there to provide the links to the airports, not to decide where these airports should be. TfL deserve a lot of respect for a lot of what they do, but they are clearly well out of their depth (or more like wading in sinking sands) on this one.


Well it is quite a wordy report, but it seems to be focussed on the case for creating extra demand, rather than satisfying latent demand. Of course, more transfer traffic is good business for the airline(s) that handle(s) it, but I just don't get the virtuous cycle.

Sure, a leads to be which in turns leads back to more of a, but there doesn't seem to be any appreciation of how the additional costs and declining yields of this model would lead to an economic case.

Let's just say, for argument's sake that LHR max (no new runways) can expand out to 90m ppa, and a third runway takes this to 120m. Let's give Fantasy Boris Island 150m pppa. So net gain for R3 is 30m, but the problem with FBI is that you need to build out for the 90m just to replace what LHR can handle anyway. So the net gain for FBI is actually just 30m ppa, albeit with shiny new facilities and a smoother layout.

Problem is, Boris has already said FBI is going to come in at £80bn (+?), compared to around £8bn for R3, the latter still likely to be largely from private sources.

So the net gain using my very crude back of an E-Lites packet maths is that FBI is going to cost you 10x as much for twice the net gain in passengers.

Then you weigh in that many flights which aren't dealt with by LHR will still take place, but just from LGW instead. So Gatters gets the crums - those services which are largely leisure, and mainly O&D. So the diminishing returns from providing extra capacity over and above what could be done at LHR just make the case for FBI even weaker.

[Fairdealfrank]

TFL do not have an airports brief, it's simply a renamed LRT (London Regional Transport).

jabird, your analysis is spot on. A 4-rwy LHR makes rwy expansion at LGW unnecessary in the short-medium term, so "Gatters can deal with the crumbs" quite adequately.

Exactly right, Skipness One Echo, Boris has made the case for a 4-rwy LHR. Indeed the first 19 pages or so are a good-ish analysis, but the last 7 pages lose it big time.

A few examples:

The idea that if BA and/or VS won't leave LHR for Fantasy Island then a foreign airline will move in is nonsense: if BA stays at LHR, so will all the other airlines so as (1) not to lose competitive advantage, and (2) not to get stung by airport charges even more eye-wateringly high than those at LHR.

It maintains that Fantasy Island would be in an unpoulated area. For how long do they imagine it would remain so? Airport workers have to live somewhere nearby, they won't be commuting from Middlesex for Pete's sake!

It rightly criticises the New York airports system for too many rwys too close to eachother and, consequently, too many delays. Fantasy Island (intended to be much bigger and busier than LHR) would replicate this because of the relative closeness of LCY, MSE, SEN and STN. This means 8 rwys in the area (not all parallel) rather than 4 at present. Air traffic have stated that this is untenable.

Any attempts to "run down" or close LHR as suggested in the report (or SEN, MSE, LCY or STN for that matter) would certainly be very expensive and probably illegal. It would doubtless result in years of litigation and so will probably never happen, and that means that Fantasy Island is unviable.


Silver, what do you think?

[jabird]

Any attempts to "run down" or close LHR as suggested in the report (or SEN, MSE, LCY or STN for that matter) would certainly be very expensive and probably illegal.

I can accept close, as was first suggested, but with all the problems you mention. I just don't get how this has now been watered down to "reduce", as some kind of acceptance that the FBI argument is nonsense.

How exactly would you pay BAA/FV to "tone down" their business operations? How exactly do you calculate the net present value of fees lost by halving their movements?

Then you have the nonsense idea that BA might accept a reduction in volumes there too, or perhaps even have 3 hubs (LHR, LGW & STN)? On top of this, you'd have the reverse nimby "close fights over my back yard" argument between the two approach paths, resulting in another legal battle over who is affected most, and almost certainly a legal fudge which actually kept both runways open.


Also, how exactly do you redevelop half an airport site? This becomes even more of a fantasy than FBI itself. So either LHR stays open, in which case the case for FBI is completely undermined by its lack of anchor tennant and increased distance from key passengers' homes/offices, or LHR is forced to close through some lengthy legal process. At least by the latter option you get some "cash back" on the development site, but not the £10bn+ Silver has previously suggested, as LHR is already an extremely compact airport form, worth far more open than it would be closed.

Meanwhile, TfL talk (correctly) of there being little by way of a model for a twin hub, but then fail to mention that opening new airports tends to leave the original one open (KUL, YUL, NRT, PVG, ICN, TPE, CDG and so on...............) far more often than it closes it (HKG, DEN, MUC, JED still waiting on BER). In fact, as we all know too well, in Montreal, it was the NEW airport (Mirabel) that closed, not Trudeau.

[nigel osborne]

Fairdealfrank.

Boris Island is surely unviable for many reasons, firstly many of the LHR workers live around the West . Wouldn't be too far for many to travel if its way east ?.

Perhaps the only viable option would be to have a 4 runway airport to the west or north west of London. You already have road and rail connections close by and the workers could stay put.

However Im not from the London area and have no idea if there is such a location with enough land free ??

Nigel

[jabird]

Wouldn't be too far for many to travel if its way east ?.

I don't think distance is problem per se. I do see too issues:

1) The sheer scale - no airport has been closed and moved on this scale before - biggest to date being HKG? At time, Kai-Tak was just under the 30m mark, LHR broke the 70m mark last year, and T2/"Queens" is still a big shell.

2) The movement through central London. One advantage of airports in transport terms is that they are often moving people against the flows - ie morning departures are going away from the city centre. For FBI, you'd be bringing people by train into the middle of London, often making them change at already very busy stations, and then on out to the new terminal.


Perhaps the only viable option would be to have a 4 runway airport to the west or north west of London.

Between the 2003 White Paper and the weekly have-a-go-architect stories that have been all over the place this year, I think we've seen enough options. Part of the problem here is that architects are the ones who create the buildings, most of the ones that have commented on the airport issue, Foster included, really aren't up to speed on the masterplanning issues.

[WK622]

It's no big deal going through the tunnels on a bike; there are rubber speed bumps every 30 ft or so, with a wide slot right in the middle for your two wheels to pass through `unbumped'. Mind you, if you get a head start and are mid tunnel before the traffic lights release the traffic behind you, it can be tad disconcerting to hear the bump-bumps steadilly getting closer to your back wheel! But the tunnel is simply not wide enough for a car to pass a bike so inevitably, when you pop out the other end, you are leading a convoy.

It has to be said that while around T4 & T5 there are good cycle paths that is not the case for most of the airport. On the Northside the T5 paths just fizzle out and you are left mixing it with everyone else, with the added hazard of a tired road surface with many cracks and holes. Aside from a pamphlet showing the routes, Heathrow actually does little for the cyclist - probably because they can't find a way to make money out of us.

[jabird]

Aside from a pamphlet showing the routes, Heathrow actually does little for the cyclist - probably because they can't find a way to make money out of us.

The problem with cycling is that the money is never a direct financial benefit, so anything that helps us out comes via planning bribes or greenwash policy statement.

At an airport we have an additional problem that very few people will actually cycle to the airport to catch a flight - and that's the same even at airports in cities with very high cycling rates (AMS, CPH etc). You just don't stuff a 23kg suitcase in your panniers, and even if you're going on a cycling holiday, chances are bike goes in a box, then car or taxi to airport.

So that's why cycling has been brought up in the context of R3. Reading through the TfL document, together with known policies of the 3 main parties, there is a widely held view that the air and noise pollution problems around LHR make the idea of a 3rd runway impossible.

This then gets countered back with all the economic arguments about why LHR R3 is the only option, and why doing nothing is also not on the menu.

So they only way to break the stalemate is a significant reduction in local air pollution, the majority of which is caused by road vehicles.

You can't take out the through traffic very easily, nor can you do much to discourage people from driving to the airport - for example, if the airport were made to raise parking charges, the off-site operators would just cash in.

So the only real hope to get this through is a significant reduction in local traffic, and that includes staff movements to and from the site. Some of this will come through bus and rail improvements, but these are all very capital intensive. Hence, the cycling schemes can help towards the case for a third runway, and they are the cheapest way of doing so.

[BBK]

I think the country missed its chance back in the 70s when it might have developed the site at Wing between Aylesbury and Leighton Buzzard. It will have to be best UK fudge now so my money's still on runway 3 at LHR and a second at LGW.

Watch this space.

[PAXboy]

I'm not a betting man but I bet:


R3 - but started in the next 5 years, possibly closer to 10.
LGW x2? = Never.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Fairdealfrank.

Boris Island is surely unviable for many reasons, firstly many of the LHR workers live around the West . Wouldn't be too far for many to travel if its way east ?."

Er Nigel, have been arguing consistently over the years that Silver Fantasy Island is a non-starter for a variety of reasons.

You are right, people wouldn't be able to commute, it's much too far and it would not be a difficult, long and expensive commute anyway (accross London, many changes).

They either move (unlikely) or Silver/Fantasy Island wouldn't have an experienced work force (more likely). This would involve the recruitment and training expenses of starting from scratch, while simultaneously creating an unemployment and redeployment problem in the Thames valley. Brilliant!

Quote: "Perhaps the only viable option would be to have a 4 runway airport to the west or north west of London. You already have road and rail connections close by and the workers could stay put.

However Im not from the London area and have no idea if there is such a location with enough land free ??

Nigel"

Yes this is correct and was recomended in 1971, when they were looking at a third London airport and recommended Cublington (Bucks, near Aylesbury).

We already have a large 2-rwy airport west of London: Heathrow. It makes sense to build on what we have, there is sufficient land around Heathrow, to the north of the airport and spreading west from there. Tunneling part of the M25 and A4 would be necessary, but probably preferable to demolishing Stanwell and Stanwellmoor. Sipson is already blighted and has been for years (because of the dithering).

Bear in mind that a 3rd and 4th rwy at Heathrow don't have to be as long as the existing 2.



Quote: "At an airport we have an additional problem that very few people will actually cycle to the airport to catch a flight - and that's the same even at airports in cities with very high cycling rates (AMS, CPH etc). You just don't stuff a 23kg suitcase in your panniers, and even if you're going on a cycling holiday, chances are bike goes in a box, then car or taxi to airport."

Would imagine that it would be employees/staff cycling on to the airport rather than pax.



Quote: "I think the country missed its chance back in the 70s when it might have developed the site at Wing between Aylesbury and Leighton Buzzard. It will have to be best UK fudge now so my money's still on runway 3 at LHR and a second at LGW.

Watch this space."

No, that was one of the sites looked at for in 1971 when they recommended Cublington. As mentioned above they were looking for a site for a "third" London airport.

This implies that it would have been a relatively small 1-rwy job not a 4-rwy Heathrow replacement. In the end neither site was chosen and Stansted took over the role of being the "third" London airport.

What Luton was supposed to be at that time who knows!

Think Heathrow will have 4 parallel rwys before Gatwick sees a second. A 4-rwy Heathrow makes another at Gatwick unnecessary.

Wouldn't like to put a timescale on it, just hope to live long enough to see it, and reap the benefit (as a pax)!

[anothertyke]

From memory Wing and Cublington were pretty much the same option. But they were certainly not a one runway concept. From distant memory they were a two runway concept with capacity to expand to four.

The world then was very different. The Govt/planners owned the slots, no alliances, heavily regulated model. The whole concept of hub and spoke and frequent flier miles really came out of US deregulation at the end of the 70s. It's interesting to speculate on how a third London airport would have panned out but that's like wondering what would have happened if Churchill hadn't come to power in 1940. It's history.

[BBK]

FDF/anothertyke

I'm not young but not old enough to remember the debate that well.:)

Regarding it being a third London airport and not a LHR replacement I'm not sure anyone would have envisaged the huge growth in air travel that we take for granted now. In those days a holiday for my family was a week on the south coast. My late father had mixed views about the issue. He realised that had the plan gone ahead it would have meant the destruction of a lovely part of rural Bucks. However, as an aviation tech author he would have had no problem finding work.

Wing/Cublington are indeed next to each other! Wasn't the pressure group against the scheme called W.A.R.A or something similar.

Edited to add:

History - London's Third Airport (http://www.aston-abbotts.co.uk/history6.htm)

It was Wing Airport Resistance Association. Power of google!

[DaveReidUK]

From memory Wing and Cublington were pretty much the same option. But they were certainly not a one runway concept. From distant memory they were a two runway concept with capacity to expand to four.Correct.

http://www.stewkleyfilms.org/press/downloadimages/BucksCCMap.jpg

[keel beam]

The third and/or fourth runway for LHR is all very well to cope with increased air traffic but significant expenditure is required on the infrastructure surrounding LHR and beyond.

The route in to London would need at least an 8 lane or 10 lane motorway, further lane expansion for the M25, M4 from the west and M3 from the south west. That will mean a lot of houses will required to be knocked down to make way for all this development.

I think the east London Hub Airport proposal would not give the substantial benefits to the economy that an expanded LHR would.

[DaveReidUK]

I can accept close, as was first suggested, but with all the problems you mention. I just don't get how this has now been watered down to "reduce", as some kind of acceptance that the FBI argument is nonsense.Bit of a non-sequitur there.

The TfL paper posits two options, were a Thames hub airport to be developed. One, obviously is the closure of Heathrow, releasing the land from reuse.

The other is what TfL term "a significant reduction in size and scope" of LHR - in effect transforming it into a West London equivalent of LCY:


reduced runway length
aircraft size limit
local O&D traffic only

I don't understand how proposing either of those options constitutes "acceptance" that the Thames hub scenario is "nonsense".

[racedo]

There are Pros and Cons in relation to planning for an Island airport and also for LHR

Pro
-Massive Capital infrastructure project that would create 100,000 jobs across a 5 year time frame potentially many more in spin off maybe another 250,000
-Opportunity for airport operators to plan in a new airport with minimum staffing requirements to keep costs down. Knock on effect of 40,000 additional jobless in West London is a big issue.
-Opportunity of Govt to focus land around LHR for business / housing
-Remove the log jam of traffic on M25

Con
-Too Bloody far. Businesses all along M3/M4 are not going to want to spend an extra hour or two getting out to the Thames Island no matter how attractive it is. BHX /LGW /LTN and BRS potentially become a viable option.
-Staffing...........If you have a specialised occupation where you can only work in an airport then you will travel out to the Island or go to work at another airport. However the majority of people at LHR have a job not an occupation (not trying to be condescending looking at reality) where then can work elsewhere not in same industry but elsewhere.

LHR is too crowded and takes ages to get to But unfortunately its what you got and without causing major employment and other issues expanding it will be what occurs.

[jabird]

I'm not sure anyone would have envisaged the huge growth in air travel that we take for granted now.


do you mean the growth to where we are now, or continued exponential growth ad infinitum? This seems to be the basis on which the FBI concept is propagated, and this is highly unlikely. Yes, we have reasons why people will continue to fly, and there will be the growth areas in Asia and Latin America, but markets like the USA, on which much of LHR's dominance lies, are pretty mature.

I can accept a case for a 3rd short runway, but not one for a new airport on the scale being suggested in the Thames, or at least not without depending on the huge volumes of "virtuous circle" transfer passengers mentioned in the model. Somehow they've forgotten that the transfer pax are not as valuable as o&d, so an airport relying on ever-larger numbers of them is a financial house on the sand as well as a technical one.

The third and/or fourth runway for LHR is all very well to cope with increased air traffic but significant expenditure is required on the infrastructure surrounding LHR and beyond.


Except that there is infrastructure already in place around LHR, whereas a new airport means starting from scratch, so a far bigger problem.

I don't understand how proposing either of those options constitutes "acceptance" that the Thames hub scenario is "nonsense".

No, when they are proposing that LHR merely "tones itself down" instead of their original plan to close it, it demonstrates that the arguments for the fantasy airport are getting weaker. Either way - tone down or close, both scenarios present huge problems for the new airport. Obviously, leaving LHR open as it is cannot happen either.

Would imagine that it would be employees/staff cycling on to the airport rather than pax.

Yes, and this is the problem. For any other type of development, you can say "we will generate x,000 vehicle movements per day, so we will mitigate this by adding 0.5x worth of road improvements, and we will also improve the local pedestrian / cycle / public transport system to the point that there's a reduction in vehicles of another 0.5x - thus there's no net change in traffic.

You can't do this so easily for an airport, as very few passengers will cycle, but you can provide a comprehensive cycling network around your site and you can provide money for a network in the nearby areas, thus reducing traffic and air pollution.

These are the biggest challenges LHR faces if it wants to expand - not the pollution from the aircraft, which is largely dispersed at height, but ground level air pollution and traffic congestion caused by road vehicles.

[Dannyboy39]

No doubt BoJo and the NIMBYs in Hounslow and the rest of West London will use yesterday's tragedy to enhance their political anti-Heathrow aims.

Worth remembering that the occurance at KSFO is about 1 to 10 million event, if not less likely.

[DaveReidUK]

Ah, but expect the plan to built R3 sticking out into the Bay, sorry Staines Reservoir, to now be scrubbed. :O

[jabird]

No doubt BoJo and the NIMBYs in Hounslow and the rest of West London will use yesterday's tragedy to enhance their political anti-Heathrow aims.

Well our friend Silver is active on that thread, so can anyone tempt him over here for an opinion?

[DaveReidUK]

Well our friend Silver is active on that thread, so can anyone tempt him over here for an opinion? I would expect that the reason he hasn't is that he doesn't consider it remotely relevant ...

[vctenderness]

Heathrow's two runways should be extended and then cut in half to add capacity think tank says

The move would nearly double capacity at the airport which currently handles 480,000 flights a year but is already 99 per cent full, it argues.

Full Story:
Divided runways 'to fix Heathrow' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2357932/Divided-runways-fix-Heathrow.html)

MailOnline (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/)




Would this actually work? I guess Jock knows what he's talking about.

[fatmed]

How would this work in the case of a last minute go around if aircraft were taking off further down the strip?

[FRatSTN]

I think the biggest concern is aborted landings but I'd think that aborted landings would easily get 1000ft above departures from the runway in front and not only that, they would probably turn away before they reach the threshold of the new runway anyway.

I can't see why though they can't just build two more runways to the north of the airport just south of the M4 motorway parallel to the existing runways. Much of that land is flat fields anyway, perfect for runway construction and there would be less of a need to divert major roads under tunnels.

Whilst it would be awful for the people of Harmondsworth, Sipson and Harlington to lose their homes, it's not like they didn't know what they were getting into.

Look at places like Dubai. If they want new infrastructure, whether it be airports, runways, 7 star hotels, 2,000ft high skyscrapers or new land out at sea in the shape of a palm, they just get on and build it!!! In Britain, we just debate it for years or end up just doing the typical British "do nothing" policy, all because some people in West London are worried about more noise.

To be fair, if you don't like noise, pollution and congestion, you shouldn't be living near Heathrow, or in London at all for that matter!

I've stayed in West London loads in areas like Acton and been through areas like Brentford and rarely do you even know that there's an airport there in terms of noise and pollution, so it must only be areas very close, literally a mile or 2 who are so severely affected.

Also, people need to understand that adding more runways would potentially reduce noise and pollution as aircraft won't be waiting at holding points for departure and stuck in holding patterns over London! It's not necessarily about doubling the size of Heathrow, it's about increasing the capacity to reduce delays, pollution, congestion, noise etc.

This solution is the wisest way to add capacity since the branding, competitive, financial, economic aspect of expanding Heathrow is far better than expanding elsewhere and as awful as it may sound, this shouldn't even be comparable to or prevented by the people of West London being frightened they could get more noise or congestion!

[DaveReidUK]

Heathrow's two runways should be extended and then cut in half to add capacity think tank saysThis is hardly news - it was first floated (and commented on here) back in March:

http://interactive.ftdata.co.uk/features/2013-03-08_Heathrow_Runways/_media/chart3.gif

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/200585-heathrow-124.html#post7737947

It was a lunatic proposal back then, and it is now. :ugh:

[Fairdealfrank]

Stand corrected on Cublington/Wing, but don’t think for a minute that all 4 rwys would ever have been built. Eventually, Stansted took on the role intended for Cublington/Wing and it has ……ONE rwy.




Quote: “The third and/or fourth runway for LHR is all very well to cope with increased air traffic but significant expenditure is required on the infrastructure surrounding LHR and beyond.

The route in to London would need at least an 8 lane or 10 lane motorway, further lane expansion for the M25, M4 from the west and M3 from the south west. That will mean a lot of houses will required to be knocked down to make way for all this development.”

Much of the infrastructure is already there, though clearly improvements would be necessary, such as better rail connections (some are already planned), and improved road/motorway junctions, and doubtless this would be done incrementally. An 8/10 lane M4 up to London won’t ever happen and would be pointless. There’s nowhere to channel the traffic at Chiswick/Hammersmith already with just 6 lanes.

Quote: “I think the east London Hub Airport proposal would not give the substantial benefits to the economy that an expanded LHR would.”

100% agreement!!

Quote: “The TfL paper posits two options, were a Thames hub airport to be developed. One, obviously is the closure of Heathrow, releasing the land from reuse.

The other is what TfL term "a significant reduction in size and scope" of LHR - in effect transforming it into a West London equivalent of LCY:
reduced runway length
aircraft size limit
local O&D traffic only
I don't understand how proposing either of those options constitutes "acceptance that the Thames hub scenario is "nonsense".

Very simple: for the “Thames hub scenario” to work, there has to be no Heathrow.

The two scenarios proposed for Heathrow takes no account of the views of the Shareholders of Heathrow. As a private company, these have to be taken into account ….. otherwise it’s off to the High Court.

Heathrow reduced to a “West London equivalent of LCY” would guarantee premium business the ability to fly to AMS, CDG and FRA for long haul flights (easier than going to Silver Island). This would great for AF, KL and LH, catastophic for BA and VS.

So even a cut-down Heathrow makes Silver Island unviable, but obviously TFL aren‘t going mention that are they!

Quote: “Heathrow's two runways should be extended and then cut in half to add capacity think tank says”

This one’s been reheated from a proposal from a retired pilot.

Another stumbling block would be the loss of segregated mode and rwy alternation, which is actually quite important!

Maybe try it at LGW first, they're already on mixed mode.


Quote: “I can't see why though they can't just build two more runways to the north of the airport just south of the M4 motorway parallel to the existing runways. Much of that land is flat fields anyway, perfect for runway construction and there would be less of a need to divert major roads under tunnels.

Whilst it would be awful for the people of Harmondsworth, Sipson and Harlington to lose their homes, it's not like they didn't know what they were getting into.”

Exactly, and it’s still fewer homes demolished overall, and the retention of segregated mode and rwy alternation.

[DaveReidUK]

I can't see why though they can't just build two more runways to the north of the airport just south of the M4 motorway parallel to the existing runways.Have you tried looking at a map ?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “I can't see why though they can't just build two more runways to the north of the airport just south of the M4 motorway parallel to the existing runways."

Quote: “Have you tried looking at a map ?"

It can be done, BUT the M25 has to be crossed and the A4 diverted for the 4th.

[DaveReidUK]

It can be doneHere we go again. No it can't. :ugh:

Yes, of course you could pour two fresh strips of concrete between 09L/27R and the M4.

But would they be usable runways? No.

Think about it. Let's call the new runways 08L/26R and 08R/26L (using the next available number, as is the convention when you have 4 parallel runways), and assume that the two new runways and the existing 09L/27R are equally spaced (giving about 800 metres separation between each).

Explain how an operating mode would work that would allow the retention of runway alternation, provide for simultaneous independent parallel approaches to a pair of runways, and minimise the number of runways crossings to and from the terminals.

Then I'll believe you.

[Fairdealfrank]

OK, let’s have a go.

The existing rwys are about 2.5 mi. long and about 1.0 mi. apart. At present, Heathrow Airport Ltd. have 2 schemes for extra rwys.

South of the airport:
This rwy would take out Stanwell and Stanwellmoor and could be no further than 0.5 mi. south of 09R/27L because the King George and Staines reservoirs are in the way. It could also not cross the M25 because the Wraysbury reservoir is in the way. A rwy from Hithermoor Farm to the cargo area, for example, would be about 2 mi. long.

North of the airport:
This is the long-standing well-known “third rwy” scheme that would take out Sipson. This rwy would be about 1 mi. north of 09R/27L and would be about 1.4 mi. long.


　
Two rwys north of the airport:
There could be a 2.0 mi. rwy about 0.5 mi. north of 09R/27L, heading west on mostly open land from just south of Sipson to a point beyond the M25. This rwy would only take out relatively few houses (compared to south of the airport) and some other buildings around Hatch Lane, and possibly the relocation of Waterside. It would also require a diversion of the A4.

Let’s call it 10R/28L to be more accurate.

Another 0.5 mi. north of this of this could be the original “third rwy” scheme that takes out Sipson.

Let’s call it 10L/28R.
　
On westerly operations, this would allow landings on 27R and 28R and vice versa and take offs on 27L and 28L and vice versa.

On easterly operations, this would allow landings on 09L and 10L and vice versa and take offs on 09R and 28R and vice versa.

This could retain segregated mode and alternation.

It would allow two streams of aircraft either 1.0 mi. apart (this already happens in the 0430-0600 period on westerly operations when there are no takeoffs, and would happen all the time in the unlikely event of permanent mixed mode), or 1.5 mi. apart.

Why would this prevent simultaneous independent parallel approaches? Does this not happen at other airports?



As for aircraft taxiing accross rwys, this would be occur in both of Heathrow Airport Ltd.’s proposed rwy schemes. The extent would depend on whether new terminals and other infrastructure were built (likely), and their various locations.

With so much extra capacity provided by a 4-rwy airport, this should not be a problem.

[DaveReidUK]

At present, Heathrow Airport Ltd. have 2 schemes for extra rwys.No, they don't. The only proposal that Heathrow have put their name to, to date, is the long-established northern (Sipson) scheme.

The southern (Stanwell Moor) runway proposal, complete with its pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey map, comes to us courtesy of the Evening Standard, though it's true that the ES is generally regarded as an unofficial mouthpiece for Heathrow because of its editor's links with BAA's PR machine.

Anyway we will find out one way or another in a week's time when Heathrow make their submission to the Davies Commission

But back to the northern runway(s). Nobody, present company excepted, has ever proposed two northern runways.

There could be a 2.0 mi. rwy about 0.5 mi. north of 09R/27L, heading west on mostly open land from just south of Sipson to a point beyond the M25. This rwy would only take out relatively few houses (compared to south of the airport) and some other buildings around Hatch Lane, and possibly the relocation of Waterside. It would also require a diversion of the A4.

Let’s call it 10R/28L to be more accurate.

Another 0.5 mi. north of this of this could be the original “third rwy” scheme that takes out Sipson.

Let’s call it 10L/28R.How they would be designated is irrelevant. Their proximity isn't.

On westerly operations, this would allow landings on 27R and 28R and vice versa and take offs on 27L and 28L and vice versa.

On easterly operations, this would allow landings on 09L and 10L and vice versa and take offs on 09R and 28R and vice versa.

This could retain segregated mode and alternation.Look at any 4-parallel-runway airport. You will find that, for a number of good operational reasons, almost all use the two outers for landings and the inners for takeoffs, and the same arguments would apply at LHR, such as minimising the need for aircraft to cross the landing runway. That, of course, means no alternation.

As for aircraft taxiing across rwys, this would be occur in both of Heathrow Airport Ltd’s proposed rwy schemes.Not so. The only scheme proposed to date (see above) has been a single, new northern runway operating in mixed-mode and serving (mainly) a new T6, with a minimal requirement for traffic to cross either of the current runways.

Two northern runways would, presumably, also serve a proportion of T1/T2/T3/T5 traffic (otherwise why bother with two?) and would greatly increase the number of crossings of 09L/27R compared to the single-runway proposal.

Or are you now proposing T7 as well as T6? Where will that go?

[goldeneye]

Heathrow shut after Boeing Dreamliner 787 Fire

BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760)

[goldeneye]

Heathrow shut after Boeing Dreamliner 787 Fire

BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760)

[ericlday]

Now open again DLH3UT first to land.

[ArtfulDodger]

All reopened now....... Update here....

Heathrow reopens after Boeing Dreamliner 787 fire: BBC News | The Airport Informer (http://wp.me/p2jrV4-Jc)

[ArtfulDodger]

As investigators probe 787 fire at Heathrow, Boeing’s shares fell sharply on Friday after a 787 Dreamliner made by the US passenger jet manufacturer caught fire at London’s Heathrow airport.


Investigators probe 787 fire at Heathrow - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e41824c-eb0f-11e2-bfdb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2YrSWp2uH)

[Skipness One Echo]

I am guessing the fire damaged Ethiopian B787 is in the former BMI hangar under the care of BA now? It unusually closed on the hottest day of the year so far.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “Look at any 4-parallel-runway airport. You will find that, for a number of good operational reasons, almost all use the two outers for landings and the inners for takeoffs, and the same arguments would apply at LHR, such as minimising the need for aircraft to cross the landing runway."

Looking at the largest and busiest airports, there aren’t that many with four parallel rwys: CDG, LAX come to mind and ATL (with 5 parallel rwys). Many others have pairs of intersecting parallel rwys which in some cases cannot be used simultaneously.

If one looks at LHR’s competitor airports, only one has four parallel rwys (CDG). The others, like LHR have been enlarged incrementally. AMS’s six rwys cannot all be used simultaneously, and of FRA’s four rwys, one is for takeoffs only and one is for landings only. Both airports’ configurations require aircraft to taxi accross “live” rwys and LHR is no different. Rwy crossing is a fact of life and LHR-4 would not have been built where it is if this was not the case.

Your ideal of the two outers for landings and the inners for takeoffs could be applied if starting from scratch with a blank sheet of paper as in the case of CDG (in 1974), and Fantasy Silver Island (never).

Quote: “That, of course, means no alternation.”

Even with 4 parallel rwys, no alternation is a non-starter at LHR!

Quote: “Two northern runways would, presumably, also serve a proportion of T1/T2/T3/T5 traffic (otherwise why bother with two?) and would greatly increase the number of crossings of 09L/27R compared to the single-runway proposal.”

Indeed that is the case, one has to work with what is available, and what is available is mostly open land north and north west of the airport, and that will mean rwy crossing and, in some cases, an element of long AMS-style taxiing between terminal and rwy.

A southern rwy at LHR would certainly minimise rwy crossing by taking LHR-4 and some LHR-5 movements, but the requirement to demolish Stanwellmoor and most of Stanwell north of the “Happy Landing” pub makes it untenable, and land north of the airport would still be required (to relocate the cargo area for example).

Quote: “Or are you now proposing T7 as well as T6? Where will that go?”

LHR-1 will be demolished soon and LHR-3 may also be demolished later on. Maybe one or both of those could end up north of the present airport, so that makes five terminals. Heathrow Airport Ltd. envisage a sixth terminal, so don’t where your “T7” comes from!


　
You appear to be suggesting that 2 parallel rwys north of the airport should not be built simply because taxiing aircraft would have to cross live rwys. Is this correct?

[Spitfire boy]

Any truth in gossip that IAG may ask Iberia to stop LHR-MAD flights later this year?

Makes sense if over capacity and a bonus for BA if secures new slots for new longhaul routes.

[DaveReidUK]

In the meantime, still no indication of how the proposed runway is to be shoehorned in between the existing 09R/27L and the reservoirs.

And the answer of course (it now appears) is that it won't be.

Instead, we appear to have Heathrow's own version of Schiphol's Polderbaan, to be built over the filled-in northern half of the KG VI reservoir, J13 of the M25 and the Staines-Windsor railway line.

[DaveReidUK]

You appear to be suggesting that 2 parallel rwys north of the airport should not be built simply because taxiing aircraft would have to cross live rwys. Is this correct?No, I'm suggesting that the number of runway crossings resulting from two new runways north of the existing ones and which are also used by T1/T2/T3/T5 traffic would be significantly higher than at present. That's the issue.

But it's all rather irrelevant now that we have seen Heathrow's proposals which, strangely, don't include your 2 northern runway option.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Instead, we appear to have Heathrow's own version of Schiphol's Polderbaan, to be built over the filled-in northern half of the KG VI reservoir, J13 of the M25 and the Staines-Windsor railway line."

My thoughts exactly having seen the graphic on the television.

Shades of Tim Leunig.....

Think this idea is fraught with difficulty, it makes little difference whether part or all of a reservoir is demolished. It adds time (that we don't have!) to the construction and who knows how much expenditure.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "No, I'm suggesting that the number of runway crossings resulting from two new runways north of the existing ones and which are also used by T1/T2/T3/T5 traffic would be significantly higher than at present. That's the issue."

Have never said it was ideal, but as mentioned previously, one has to work with what one has. Also, as mentioned previously, rwy crossings are also a feature of 2 of LHR's competitor airports.

Quote: "But it's all rather irrelevant now that we have seen Heathrow's proposals which, strangely, don't include your 2 northern runway option."

Nothing strange about it at all, Heathrow Airport Limited have made a case for a third rwy, not a case for a third and a fourth rwy.

A mistake in my opinion, they need to make the case now if they think a fourth rwy is needed in 2040. Get it built, be ahead of the game for once.

Interestingly, Heathrow Airport Limited's "north west option" is only a little further north than my suggested 10R/28L, and their "north option" is virtually the same as my suggested 10L/28R.

Now if Heathrow Airport Limited were making a case for both a third and a fourth rwy.......

[Gonzo]

Guys, about runway crossings; you've seen the maps, right?

There are ATETs.

[Heathrow Harry]

will never happen

The legal process will take longer than the election/fiscal cycle and there are more votes in No LHR expansion than for it so it's a constant temptation to politicians to do a Boris -and we all know how politcians are proof against temptation........

I strongly suspect we will not build any new civil runways in this country and we will have to figure out how to make the best of what we have now

Bigger planes carrying more people is the obvious answer

[anothertyke]

Jury is out for a while yet-- too long in my view. But it won't be just one thing in that scenario. Could be a combination of

bigger planes on the hub to hub routes

increased market share for point to point from LGW,MAN,BHX using 787s etc as market size expands. No-one goes through a hub just for fun, maybe traffic will spread out a bit naturally if there's more choice.

More hub competition-- maybe more DXBs are coming anyway.

get the break even point between air and high speed train out to 500 miles for business and S France, Barcelona etc for leisure

more capacity (if not more runways) around the fringe of London and SE to cater for point to point growth

Not saying that's a good solution but might be the sort of thing which happened if it's a pig in a poke.

Is there a good book on the New York airline/airport system? Strikes me we are in a not dissimilar position to New York. Great city, legacy airports, very difficult situation

[Skipness One Echo]

Bigger planes carrying more people is the obvious answer
How does that one work to Leeds then? It doesn't, that's the whole reason BA were forced to do a 180 degree turnabout on the policy of all B737s to LGW and only B757s and B763s at LHR. Lost them a fortune, feed needs smaller aircraft and frequency to match O&D and connectivity. If you can't get that balance, you lose money. LHR is not DXB.

So, not that obvious then?

[Heathrow Harry]

answer is it doesn't - Leeds falls by the wayside as so many other UK destinations from LHR have done - I suspect NCL will be next t go after Leeds

Leeds may retain a service to City or Gatwick unless the runway is extended - same at ABZ tho th fares charged on the LHR-ABZ route and the interchanging will probably keep it going for a long time

Remember that the Japanese fly 747's on domestic routes due to shortage of capacity at Tokyo

[Skipness One Echo]

answer is it doesn't - Leeds falls by the wayside as so many other UK destinations from LHR have done - I suspect NCL will be next t go after Leeds
Then this is clearly not the answer to effective hub capacity then is it? The UK's regional airports unable to access the UK's main hub. Only in Britain.....

There are only a handful of UK destinations left btw! GLA, EDI, NCL, MAN and recently the return of LBA. Five in all, it would barely make an impact if all UK connectivity was removed from LHR, the answer is not less frequency and bigger aircraft which would force flexible businessmen to use another London airport and damage LHR but more capacity.

We need to stop living in LA LA pretendy land and get the economic growth to pay the bills and debt our selfish and brain dead politicians allowed us all to vote for.

* laughs at the great clunking fist abolishing boom and bust

There is a slow realisation that the UK should not be held to ransom by a bunch of NIMBY's who own property and spend some time in West London.

[BFS101]

GLA, EDI, NCL, MAN and recently the return of LBA. Five in all
Don't forget about us... BHD

[LAX_LHR]

There are only a handful of UK destinations left btw! GLA, EDI, NCL, MAN and
recently the return of LBA. Five in all



Don't forget about us... BHD


And Aberdeen. 9 flights a day on BA.

[SWBKCB]

answer is it doesn't - Leeds falls by the wayside as so many other UK destinations from LHR have done - I suspect NCL will be next t go after Leeds

Then this is clearly not the answer to effective hub capacity then is it? The UK's regional airports unable to access the UK's main hub. Only in Britain.....


Quote from NCL CEO:

“This year we’ve had the benefit of the bigger aircraft from Emirates that just keeps breaking passenger records every month. That route has done so much for the region - business have been created as a result of it.

“At the moment the record is about 9,960 passengers in a month, but in July there’s a possibility that we could reach the 10,000 mark.”

You couldn't make it up...

[Fairdealfrank]

　
Quote: “The legal process will take longer than the election/fiscal cycle and there are more votes in No LHR expansion than for it so it's a constant temptation to politicians to do a Boris -and we all know how politcians are proof against temptation.....…”


Is there not is a fast-track procedure for “infrastructure of strategic national significance”? If so, best use it!

There’s not enough votes on this issue. Airport expansion is the number one political issue for just a handful of people so there’s not enough of them to make a constituency change hands. It’s no co-incidence that the anti-airport lobbying groups have never fielded candidates for election either at local or Parliamentary level. Moreover, there are only two marginal seats around the airport: Brentford and Isleworth and Richmond and Barnes.

Quote: “I strongly suspect we will not build any new civil runways in this country and we will have to figure out how to make the best of what we have now

Bigger planes carrying more people is the obvious answer”

In theory, yes, but in practice, business demands frequency on shorthaul routes and therefore smaller aircraft. They pay the premium fares that make profits for the airlines, so their needs have to be met.
　
Quote: “get the break even point between air and high speed train out to 500 miles for business and S France, Barcelona etc for leisure”

It’s not "either/or", and if there’s to be planning delays and judicial reviews just for 1 or 2 more rwys at LHR, imagine what it will be like for high speed rail. Suspect that there are marginal seats on that route, and many more people affected.

Quote: “Remember that the Japanese fly 747's on domestic routes due to shortage of capacity at Tokyo”

Indeed, in a country that’s had high speed rail since 1964! As mentioned above, it’s not "either/or".
　
　
Quote: “* laughs at the great clunking fist abolishing boom and bust”

Be fair! The great clunking fist abolishing Tory (sic) boom and bust, Shame it couldn’t do the same for Labour boom and bust. Ho hum.


Quote: “There is a slow realisation that the UK should not be held to ransom by a bunch of NIMBY's who own property and spend some time in West London.”

Exactly right, and these people are nowhere near the rwy thresholds where it could be argued that there is a noise problem.

If Call-Me-Dave is correct about Labour being in the pocket of UNITE, can we assume that Labour will support LHR expansion, bearing in mind that. UNITE, (or in other words, the former T&GW), is very big on the airport.

[Calmcavok]

Hopefully, as Labour were the only party in the last election to support LHR expansion.

Cross party agreement is essential for expansion to proceed as all the legal, planning, NIMBY and environmental processes will comfortably take us into the next parliament if not the one after too.

[Baltasound]

The Courts will have the last word on LHR expansion. And it will almost certainly be a combination of the ECHR/ ECJ and the British Supreme Court.

[davidjohnson6]

Was rather hoping that the UK might get its act together about air transport capacity, but seems as if we've lost the desire as a society to make money any more. If you have more than about 10 years before you retirement, best make a start on this now
SOAS Language Centre in London - Chinese Language Courses & Activities - SOAS, University of London (http://www.soas.ac.uk/languagecentre/languages/chinese/)

[Skipness One Echo]

Don't forget about us... BHD
Knew I forgot one, ABZ :), the Belfast train service to London involves getting wet, but glad to see BA kept it on.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "The Courts will have the last word on LHR expansion. And it will almost certainly be a combination of the ECHR/ ECJ and the British Supreme Court."

Very depressing if this is the case, are we no longer an independent country? Are we now a "judocracy" (government by judicial review) rather than a democracy? Has one person one judge replaced one person one vote?



Quote: "Was rather hoping that the UK might get its act together about air transport capacity, but seems as if we've lost the desire as a society to make money any more."

The EU's to blame, it's sapped any entrepreneurial spirit out of us. Can't do a thing without permission from Brussels, it's pathetic. We should be trading with the world, not just the sclerotic eurozone.

Apart from the BRICs there are up and coming countries that we need to do business with and we need direct transport links to these, and these need feeder routes to be viable.

It's ludicrous that there are only 7 domestic airports linked to LHR and scandalous that only 2 UK carriers have access to it.

[DaveReidUK]

Now if Heathrow Airport Limited were making a case for both a third and a fourth rwy....... Actually they do, sort of:

"We believe Heathrow can accommodate four runways successfully if required to do so and that the impacts of such a plan can be successfully mitigated."

In fact the proposal illustrates three different four-runway options (plus the Policy Exchange proposal, which they dismiss):

A. north + southwest
B. northwest + southwest

and, you will be pleased to hear

C. dual northwest

Although HAL agree with my assessment that you can't fit two runways between the A4 and M4 - the northernmost runway runs along the line of the M4, which would now run in a tunnel underneath it.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Guys, about runway crossings; you've seen the maps, right?

There are ATETs."

Very good point!!


Quote: "Now if Heathrow Airport Limited were making a case for both a third and a fourth rwy....... " (apologies for quoting myself!)

Quote: “Actually they do, sort of:

"We believe Heathrow can accommodate four runways successfully if required to do so and that the impacts of such a plan can be successfully mitigated."

In fact the proposal illustrates three different four-runway options (plus the Policy Exchange proposal, which they dismiss):

A. north + southwest
B. northwest + southwest

and, you will be pleased to hear

C. dual northwest

Although HAL agree with my assessment that you can't fit two runways between the A4 and M4 - the northernmost runway runs along the line of the M4, which would now run in a tunnel underneath it."

Yes, noticed that, and was very pleased to read it in the submission.

My original idea had the two new rwys staggered, with my third roughly along the line of the original third and therefore shorter than proposed by Heathrow Limited in this document. Their arguments for a longer third (and eventually fourth?) rwy(s) cannot be faulted!

A longer third rwy followed by a longer fourth rwy would require, as a minimum, diverting and/or tunnelising roads, the A4, M4, M4 spur and the M25 being the prime candidates. If they go south west of the airport, reservoir demolition will be needed as well.

So Heathrow Airport Limited need to start on a fourth rwy at the same time as a third if they reckon it will be needed in 2040. It's going to take longer to complete.

[Fairdealfrank]

Anyone fancy a laugh?

Have a look at this:

Could Cardiff Airport form a new UK hub alongside Birmingham and Heathrow? - Wales Online (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/could-cardiff-airport-form-new-5144093)


This is Heathwick writ large: HEATHRHOOMDON (Heathrow, Rhoose, Elmdon).

What are they on? Can I have some (man)?

It is apparently proposed by an "entrepreneur", an "economist" a "transport expert" and a "management consultant" - that says it all!

Why does no one appear to understand how a hub airport works?

[DaveReidUK]

Why does no one appear to understand how a hub airport works?Great quote in that linked article:

"Whilst the development of the new Heathrow link into our soon to be electrified Great Western mainline will make the journey much smoother, it remains to be seen whether passengers would accept a transfer of 150 miles between terminals..." :ugh:

[Fairdealfrank]

Yes, a brilliant quote. You couldn't make it up.


What they don't mention is that Rhoose does not have a railway station, nor is one soon to be built, so the question of electrification is irrelevant.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Very depressing if this is the case, are we no longer an independent country? Are we now a "judocracy" (government by judicial review) rather than a democracy? Has one person one judge replaced one person one vote"

No - it's called a balanced constitution - the Yanks have had separation of powers for 250 years. In the past we elected a bunch of monkeys and then they give the one with the bluest (or reddest) bum all the power with no checks or balances

[Heathrow Harry]

"Is there not is a fast-track procedure for “infrastructure of strategic national significance”? If so, best use it!"

yeah - they were talking about it - then the Tory MP's (whose leaders thought the thing up) realised that it would be used to impose HS2, Gatwick Runway2, windfarms, new M ways right through their constituencies, the Green Belt and their homes in the country so it sort of hit a large brick wall called self-interest

besides it is so sweeping it will be tied up in the courts for donkey's years

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “No - it's called a balanced constitution - the Yanks have had separation of powers for 250 years. In the past we elected a bunch of monkeys and then they give the one with the bluest (or reddest) bum all the power with no checks or balances”

The USA’s “separation of powers” is not as separate as many believe, for example:
the president (executive) appoints the supreme court (judicial);
the vice president (executive) is chairman of the senate (legislative);
presidential appointments (executive) have to approved by the senate (legislative);
if a senator becomes president, his/her seat is not filled by a by-election, the state governor (executive) appoints a senator (legislative) until the election is due (Obama was a case in point).

These are checks and balances up to a point, but to refer to them as separation of powers is an exageration.

It is true that members of the government (excutive) cannot be members of Congress (legislative) so that’s separate, but it also means that they’re not elected (apart from the president of course).

If comparing constitutions, it’s not true to say that their’s is better than ours, or vice versa, they are completely different systems.
　
　
Quote: “yeah - they were talking about it - then the Tory MP's (whose leaders thought the thing up) realised that it would be used to impose HS2, Gatwick Runway2, windfarms, new M ways right through their constituencies, the Green Belt and their homes in the country so it sort of hit a large brick wall called self-interest

besides it is so sweeping it will be tied up in the courts for donkey's years”

Suspect it’s not just LHR rwys that will be “tied up in the courts for donkey's years”.

It’s almost certain that HS2 will be too and for longer (if it isn’t scrapped), as it’s a much bigger project and likely to upset a whole lot more people, as many more people could lose their homes and/or businesses than in the case of LHR. Plus there‘s those who‘ll be adversely affected by HS2 (noise, house price falls, etc.), but just a little too far away to be compensated.

We can therefore forget about the nonsense that HS2 (with a spur to LHR) will remove the need for more rwys.

Excellent, now back on-thread.

[anothertyke]

Never forget, an Englishman's home is his castle.

Actually, with HS2 proceeding via Hybrid Bill, that scheme is more JR proof than it otherwise would be. That's if it gets through! It is a bizarre feature of our system that there is nothing in between Hybrid Bill and Uttlesford District Council for granting planning permission. The failure of both colour Governments to create some form of Infrastructure Planning Commission says a lot.

[Porrohman]

Air India flight AI112 from LHR to Delhi reached the Dutch coast tonight (at FL310), did a descending loop north of Amsterdam, continued descent to FL150 at a fairly normal descent rate, continued up the north sea towards Denmark/Norway at FL150, then returned to LHR. Replay of the flight profile is available via this link;

Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! (http://www.flightradar24.com/2013-07-27/21:36/180x/AIC112)

I don't have any further information; just happened to notice the unusual flight profile on the flightradar24 web site.

Aircraft was a Boeing 777-337ER.

[yeo valley]

sounds like a tech issue . the track up the north sea was fuel dumping b4 landing back in lhr.

[Heathrow Harry]

T3 departures was a real zoo yesterday - one baggage line broke down and the place looked like a third world airport in about 10 minutes..........

pathetic response from BAA staff as well

[jdcg]

Could someone explain to me the recent competition ruling regarding LHR-PHL flights? Apparently, US and AA have to give up slots on this route. US have one flight per day. AA has none. How does that work?? Or is it the BA codeshare?

[toledoashley]

BA/AA already have a slot between them, adding US to BA/AA would mean 2x daily, and create a monopoly on the route.

[BCALBOY]

BA actually fly 2x777 daily to PHL.

US have 1x333 daily.

AA/US have offered to provide a slot for a competitor to fly the route on a daily basis.

This doesn't necessarily mean the combined AA/BA/US will reduce the daily frequencies ,as the competitor slot could be sourced from elsewhere.

It could be very tough for any competitor taking up this slot as both LHR and PHL will be Oneworld hubs , and a once a day service against 3 Oneworld services could struggle.

[DaveReidUK]

BA actually fly 2x777 daily to PHL.Not quite. BA067/066 is usually a B772, but BA069/068 is a B763 on 5 out of 7 days.

[Heathrow Harry]

very so often I see a small Air Canada Airbus at T3 - any idea what the hell it does?

[LAX_LHR]

very so often I see a small Air Canada Airbus at T3 - any idea what the hell
it does


Its an A319LR used for St. Johns-Heathrow summer service. Not enough demand for a B767 or larger, so, the airbus is used.

[Rivet Joint]

What I don't get about the expansion argument re London is the root of the opposition for a 3rd runway at LHR compared to a completely new airport in London. Is there even such an argument? It seems to be the general consensus is that LHR is in the wrong place (probably true) and that rather than keep expanding a slightly flawed airport (although a massively successful and progressive one) we should build a brand new one that creates less noise. Just of the top of my head some quick cons for each: -

LHR 3rd Runway

CONS

- Will create more noise
- Enviro mentalists see air travel as one of the biggest polluters and therefore are against a 3rd runway purely because this will increase as a result.

New airport/Boris Island :rolleyes: etc

CONS

- Hugely expensive, astronomically so!
- Years and years away, possibly even decades!
- Will almost certainly be built on an existing greenfield site which in it self will have to be a fairly massive plot not to mention all the drainage, services, roads, trains/tubes etc that come with it.
- There will still be noise, don't buy the argument that aircraft will come up the Thames (lets not forget loads of people live on the banks of the Thames!) as air traffic/fuel economy will dictate that aircraft will inevitably have to fly over some part of London (probably a part that up until now has been free of noise!).
- When the enviro mentalists stop bleating for the sake of it and realise a new airport is inherently more damaging to the environment than a 3rd runway (which would be built mainly over land that already has been built upon) and on so many more levels.
- It would completely undermine private sector investment (BAA on terminal 5/2 etc) which is something that is massively important to help bring the national economy back to life and that the government is hugely supportive of.
- Its mere existence as a credible option is preventing the UK from keeping up with the other big airports in the race to serve emerging markets and in doing so further undermine the fight to reignite our flagging economy. It's not even a case of hanging on to the coattails of the likes of AMS any more but at least still be in the race!
ETC
ETC
ETC
ETC

Honestly the list is endless. Most tellingly of all, whenever I see a programme on LHR (BBC recently spent a few nights live there) or indeed even meet someone who lives under LHR's flightpath people always just brush of the concept of noise as they either say they are use to it or they appreciate it is massively important to sustain jobs. So if the surrounding area seems to be largely supportive of LHR and its future success then who is against the 3rd runway? The enviro mentalists possibly but then once a whole new airport becomes tangible in any way shape or form then they will soon cause a far bigger uproar. It's the dog with a bone mentality. Plus as far as I can see they are against air travel increasing as a concept not anything specific like a 3rd runway at LHR. That just leaves Boris, surely the UK will not gamble its future on this fallacy to purely please his ego?

I gather I have rambled a bit but it would be interesting to get to the bottom of who actually is against LHR?!

[Bagso]

The pax figures on nearly every flight quoted on that BBC prog were appalling !

Yes its all about yield but the ATC guys and Gals seemed to be going thru hoops to shift an awful lot of tin with very few punters on-board !

[Skipness One Echo]

The pax figures on nearly every flight quoted on that BBC prog were appalling !

Yes its all about yield but the ATC guys and Gals seemed to be going thru hoops to shift an awful lot of tin with very few punters on-board !
I agree bagso, quite why they don't up sticks and concentrate 101% on your local airport at "Manchester" is an incredible mystery we shall never solve.
If only we knew (!)

There are actually some really good reasons against expanding LHR which are vote winners. After a while economic reality kicks in and the lack of pragmatic alternative is painfully all too aware. Boris is Hell bent on taking all the benefit without any of the pain, Boris Island would not be in London, it's all about the politics and all politics is local.

[North West]

The pax figures on nearly every flight quoted on that BBC prog were appalling !

Yes its all about yield but the ATC guys and Gals seemed to be going thru hoops to shift an awful lot of tin with very few punters on-board !

Proof that silly season has truly arrived.

At what point did you think, rather than reading this....

Heathrow - Press releases - Heathrow traffic and business commentary June 2013 (http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/Heathrow-traffic-and-business-commentary-June-2013-5d5.aspx)

...I will base an assessment of the load factors of 40,000 ATMs based on being told the occupancy of 5 of them. A statistical sample of 0.01%.

[onyxcrowle]

LHR should be already digging to build runway 3 and planning a fourth.
Its idiocy on a monumental scale to STILL be spending money on planning all this and yet spending money on surveys to level it all and move it somewhere else.
The world didnt end when Manchester opened its second runway.
LHR needs A fourth and two more Terminals.
A Runway dedicated to be the busiest short haul domestic runway possible with its own dedicated terminal.
Covering Uk and Irish flights. Runway needs to be long enough to allow faster throughput.
This would allow all these struggling domestic airports direct links to Lhr. Setup code shares for all landing airlines.
Then The extra runway and terminal (rwy4).
Make it Europe/Russia etc only.
Then leave the rest to long haul.
The other two runways can be finaly have enough slots to bring in thise much needed routes..
The domestic terminals must allow interlining from all carriers and perhaps even cater for slower prop traffic.
Our economy needs this . If it gets this wrong Boris and The tories will go down in history as another beeching the guy who singled handedly crippled the nation of lifeline services for which tho nation has a basic right to.
Bring back Ba to all our regional airports.
Id bet if done and priced right youd have a real shake up and fight back from the locos.
And maybe then we can have an air travel system we can be proud of.
So come on Boris n Cameron quit dithering get on n give us two new runways and the terminals we need.
Before every airport in the uk ends up being a pick up point for Klm and diverts all that money and custom into european hands.

[LN-KGL]

Before venting brilliant ideas here onyxcrowle, start by checking the actual passengers flows first. As an example the passengers to and from EU airports made out 44.1% of the international passengers at LHR in 2012, and you want to assign only one of four runways to it? To make it even worse. The aircraft used for these flights have usually less capacity than the longhaul aircraft and with that the movements share would easily be more than 50%.

[DaveReidUK]

The aircraft used for these flights have usually less capacity than the longhaul aircraft and with that the movements share would easily be more than 50%. Quite so. Two-thirds of movements at Heathrow are flights on routes of 1500sm or less.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “What I don't get about the expansion argument re London is the root of the opposition for a 3rd runway at LHR compared to a completely new airport in London. Is there even such an argument?”

It’s a story of half a century of short-sightedness and dithering, and a government scared to death of small vocal minority.

Quote: “It seems to be the general consensus is that LHR is in the wrong place (probably true) and that rather than keep expanding a slightly flawed airport (although a massively successful and progressive one) we should build a brand new one that creates less noise. Just of the top of my head some quick cons for each: “

No consensus that LHR is in the wrong place: 20 mi. west of London, near several major motorways and a main railway line (the fact that long distance trains cannot access LHR at airport junction is hardly the fault of the airport), sounds like a relatively good location, accessible from most of the UK. It can't be any nearer to London because of the urbanisation that surrounds London.
　
Quote: “Just of the top of my head some quick cons for each: “

LHR 3rd Runway

CONS

- Will create more noise
- Enviro mentalists see air travel as one of the biggest polluters and therefore are against a 3rd runway purely because this will increase as a result.

New airport/Boris Island etc

CONS

- Hugely expensive, astronomically so!
- Years and years away, possibly even decades!
- Will almost certainly be built on an existing greenfield site which in it self will have to be a fairly massive plot not to mention all the drainage, services, roads, trains/tubes etc that come with it.
- There will still be noise, don't buy the argument that aircraft will come up the Thames (lets not forget loads of people live on the banks of the Thames!) as air traffic/fuel economy will dictate that aircraft will inevitably have to fly over some part of London (probably a part that up until now has been free of noise!).
- When the enviro mentalists stop bleating for the sake of it and realise a new airport is inherently more damaging to the environment than a 3rd runway (which would be built mainly over land that already has been built upon) and on so many more levels.
- It would completely undermine private sector investment (BAA on terminal 5/2 etc) which is something that is massively important to help bring the national economy back to life and that the government is hugely supportive of.
- Its mere existence as a credible option is preventing the UK from keeping up with the other big airports in the race to serve emerging markets and in doing so further undermine the fight to reignite our flagging economy. It's not even a case of hanging on to the coattails of the likes of AMS any more but at least still be in the race!
ETC
ETC
ETC
ETC”

Your list of “cons” for each says it all!

In the case of a third rwy, “will create more noise” is listed as a con, but it applies equally to new rwys anywhere, also, and this is an important point, by the time this rwy is built (if ever) aircraft will be even quieter, cleaner and more fuel efficient than now.

As for the anti-aviation environmentalists (sic), let's face it, they are equally opposed to an estuary airport, or any airport anywhere.


Quote: “I gather I have rambled a bit but it would be interesting to get to the bottom of who actually is against LHR?!”

Some eco-warriors from outside the area;
some “celebrities” jumping on the bandwagon;
some politicians (both local and national) out to make a name for themselves;
some residents but not as many as one might think;
the Libdems and the Greens;
a small vocal group of fairly well-off people who live miles from the airport, and believe, wrongly, that their property prices will fall.
　
　
　
Quote: “There are actually some really good reasons against expanding LHR which are vote winners. After a while economic reality kicks in and the lack of pragmatic alternative is painfully all too aware. Boris is Hell bent on taking all the benefit without any of the pain, Boris Island would not be in London, it's all about the politics and all politics is local.”

No, it’s not a vote winner/loser. Almost no voters will switch their allegiances on the issue of LHR expansion, Let‘s say that a “handful” may do so, but certainly not enough for a seat to change hands (that is the role of UKIP). There are plenty of issues much further up the list of priorities.

If it really was a vote-changing issue, do you not think that at least one of the various anti-airport expansion groups would have put up candidates for election (either at council or Parliamentary level) somewhere in the country?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “LHR should be already digging to build runway 3 and planning a fourth.
Its idiocy on a monumental scale to STILL be spending money on planning all this and yet spending money on surveys to level it all and move it somewhere else.
The world didnt end when Manchester opened its second runway.
LHR needs A fourth and two more Terminals.”

If LHR did not need “permission” to do it from dithering politicians, 2 more rwys would almost certainly have been built years ago, after all, LHR expansion is a very good business case.

Quote: “A Runway dedicated to be the busiest short haul domestic runway possible with its own dedicated terminal.
Covering Uk and Irish flights. Runway needs to be long enough to allow faster throughput.
This would allow all these struggling domestic airports direct links to Lhr. Setup code shares for all landing airlines.
Then The extra runway and terminal (rwy4).
Make it Europe/Russia etc only.
Then leave the rest to long haul.
The other two runways can be finaly have enough slots to bring in thise much needed routes..
The domestic terminals must allow interlining from all carriers and perhaps even cater for slower prop traffic.”

It’s more likely that 4 rwys would be 2 for landing and 2 for takeoffs for most of the time, as segregated mode and alternation would need to be retained.

If the the two streams of landing and taking off traffic were to be separated by type, it might be better to do it by aircraft size (to minimise differential separation requirements between aircraft) or by proximity to terminals (to minimise taxiing times). Frankly, can’t see separation by destination being suitable.

Quote: “Our economy needs this . If it gets this wrong Boris and The tories will go down in history as another beeching the guy who singled handedly crippled the nation of lifeline services for which tho nation has a basic right to.”

Our economy needs this desparately!

Quote: “Bring back Ba to all our regional airports.
Id bet if done and priced right youd have a real shake up and fight back from the locos.”

Don’t think BA would necessarily have routes to every regional airport, though expect it would be more than 7! More importantly, other smaller UK carriers would have access to a 3/4-rwy LHR, and on the busier routes, there could be more than one carrier.

With smaller aircraft, they might be better placed to serve the thinner routes, providing for both commuter traffic and for feeding the longhaul routes. They would be codeshare/interlining opportunities with BA/VS and/or the alliances. This would be a massive boost to some struggling smaller airports.

Could see some smaller carriers at an expanded LHR, perhaps BD regional, BE, T3, WX (if still around), etc., as was the case back in the day.

As for the no frills carriers at LHR, maybe U2, doubtful FR, and think that the likes of BY, TT and ZB would stay at LGW.

All conjecture, of course.

Quote: “And maybe then we can have an air travel system we can be proud of.
So come on Boris n Cameron quit dithering get on n give us two new runways and the terminals we need.
Before every airport in the uk ends up being a pick up point for Klm and diverts all that money and custom into european hands.”

Exactly!

[gorter]

I normally don't peddle to these types of questions, but i guess like all humans I'm fairly curious. I was flying back through Maastricht airspace earlier this evening when all Heathrow bound aircraft were told to come back to min clean. The controller told everyone that an aircraft had had a bird strike which had caused a fire and one runway was closed pending investigation. Everyone was told to expect a 25-30 min delay, however when a/c were hitting LAM they were given significantly longer EAT's. I don't operate to LHR so have nothing else to add, but would normally expect to read something like this on the BBC app or pprune, but nothing.

Again apologies, but my interest got piqued.

[Heathrow Harry]

"If LHR did not need “permission” to do it from dithering politicians"

terrible thing democracy eh Frank???

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "If LHR did not need “permission” to do it from dithering politicians"

terrible thing democracy eh Frank???"

That was in response to a poster, onyxcrowle, who stated that LHR should already be building.

It's not about "democracy", it's about "dithering".

There are many countries with "democracy" that are able to build and/or extend large hub airports.

Three examples are within a few hundred miles of LHR: France, Germany, Netherlands.

Hope this helps.

[Rivet Joint]

Frank: Great post. The groups you listed as people against a 3rd runway were the same ones I came up with. Having a clear, totally unbiased viewpoint I guess I stupidly overlooked the possibility such wannabes/bureaucrats would be given sufficient time of day when the issue of stimulating a national economy on its knees was up for debate.

As I have stated before, no where else would this preposterous situation arise. If it were Japan, USA or wherever workers would be working day and night to get that 3rd runway constructed ASAP. The fact that our country's hub airport handles more international passengers than any other airport around the globe should be heralded and of national pride. We should certainly not want all the hard work to be thrown away. I know for a fact BAA have/are in the process of buying property to the north of the airport so it really does just seem a case of a politician giving it the green light but of course with an election round the corner this is not going to happen any time soon :ugh:.

For the record, personally, I do not think LHR should be concerned with domestic routes, serving the emerging economies is of far more critical importance to the country as a whole.

[Skipness One Echo]

Japan's just as bad. The construction of Narita provoked actual riots and one of the runways is too much short as a local farmer wouldn't sell up.

[Aksai Oiler]

I have not lived in the UK for a long time, but there did used to be something called compulsory purchase, whilst I realise this would no go down well with local residents... Mind you looking at all the problems Cuadrilla are having to drill a hole in the ground in the the southern parts of suburbia, god knows what the local loons would do?

[Baltasound]

Quote: "If LHR did not need “permission” to do it from dithering politicians"

terrible thing democracy eh Frank???"

That was in response to a poster, onyxcrowle, who stated that LHR should already be building.

It's not about "democracy", it's about "dithering".

There are many countries with "democracy" that are able to build and/or extend large hub airports.

Three examples are within a few hundred miles of LHR: France, Germany, Netherlands.

Hope this helps.


Those countries had politicans who were in favour of extending, rebuilding and increasing airport capacity at specific loactions. This country does not at present. Therefore there is no increase in capacity at Heathrow. This is called the democratic process as they were elected on that (and are holding to it). I hope the above easy to understand guide helps you tell the difference between dithering and democracy.

If you want a bigger heathrow vote for a party which promises one, if more people vote the opposite way then it will not get built. Very easy concept to understand even for patronising keyboard warriors who bemoan that others cannot understand their grand concept.

[Skipness One Echo]

If you want a bigger heathrow vote for a party which promises one, if more people vote the opposite way then it will not get built. Very easy concept to understand even for patronising keyboard warriors who bemoan that others cannot understand their grand concept.
Democracy in practice does not work like that. Only a handful of constituencies matter, the remainder are tribal (Millibands, Benns, Sarwars in way that would disgrace a bannan republic), and often have the equivalent of a monkey with a rosette elected. These are safe seats. The seats in play get 90%+ of the attention, as swing seats decide elections. Given the number fo swing seats near LHR, parties come out with any old garbage just to get someone elected so they can form a government and do 25% of all the other stuff they think needs doing.
People being people, they would like all the benefits of LHR with none of the costs, hence they vote for growth "elsewhere" and some blonde idiot suggests a floating island offshore costing billions outside his electoral area. Hence a democratic system slowly over time destroys a strategic national asset for the sake of NIMBYs.

No one can vote for an expanded LHR because people won't vote for it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done ASAP, it just means localism is put before national interest in order to get elected at all.

[jdcg]

Erm... FRA and AMS both have a fraction of the population of London living close to the airport so far fewer people to upset. Even at FRA they blocked night flights. They are much more similar to MAN in that respect. The local population have only one airport to rely on. London is very different.
CDG is a dump - awful for transfer etc in a notoriously centralised country that is hardly a beacon for economic liberalism.
Comparisons are facile. The coalition would fall if it supported LHR expansion. Airport expansion is only one policy area. There is clearly going to be expansion in the southeast. The question remains where.

[Rivet Joint]

I don't think politics needs to be made such an issue especially on an aviation forum. While yes it looks like the stumbling block seems to stem from politicians I don't think dithering full stop from these people is anything but surprising. Indeed on every issue it seems to be the case. Look at the situation with Trident and the renewal of our nuclear deterrent. This proves that if an issue is of significant national importance it will be pushed through by the people who matter (Not the hairbrained blonde one) regardless of the outcry. I think we could all agree that a 3rd runway at LHR, being the quickest/cheapest option for growth, is of a similar case to Trident and no where near as controversial surely than anything involving the word nuclear!

I also believe people are making too much of an issue of a local outcry. People will campaign against anything usually because they have too much time on their hands and it gives them a purpose, this should not effect our national economy. Asking people who stand to lose their house or business is obviously a bit bias but I bet most of the people have at least one friend or family member who depends on LHR for employment. It is clear also that the 3rd runway would run parallel with the existing ones so in theory the noise should effect relatively the same area. Surely after all this time most the people under the flightpath bought their properties with the knowledge that this noise existed and on balance still chose to buy. I guess you could hypothetically say they are therefore LHR's guests not the other way round ;)

[SamYeager]

People will campaign against anything usually because they have too much time on their hands and it gives them a purpose, this should not effect our national economy.


Nowadays in this country we have "professional" protesters backed up by people who know all the ins and outs of slowing down/increasing the costs/killing proposals even, or especially, when they are not directly affected. You only have to witness all the recent brouhaha about fracking for an example of this. :{

Bottom line; it's a mistake to think that all, or even most, of the opposition is local. :( Do I think that a third, and fourth, runway should go ahead? Yes. Is there anything I can do to help it go ahead? Not really apart from emailing my MP (Lib Dem :rolleyes:).