HEATHROW

[Gonzo]

FlyingEagle21; eventually, but no time frame.

[NWSRG]

With T2 opening in June, I'm assuming the Europa pier stretching over taxiway Kilo from T1 will be knocked down and the eventual toast rack will become as designed with a straight through Kilo taxiway.

Anyone have a time frame for knocking this down? I'm assuming it is still there?

Think it will be as part of the T2 handover, or very soon after...with that pier still in place, some of the T2B stands (234, 235?) will be inaccessible. Also, the 'blocking' of Kilo will make operations more complicated.

[edi_local]

I've heard there is no official time frame as to when the remainder of the Europier will be demolished.

Indeed the gates 39 and 41 which are still in use there have been re-branded as B28 and B29 which makes them numerical order with the new B gates on T2B, so that, to me anyway, suggests they aren't going anywhere for a while yet.

Terminal 1 will still remain open for some time after T2 becomes operational. The airlines which aren't moving over (FI, CY, JJ, LY and BA) will still be using it. I know the non Star carriers (apart from BA) will be relocated to T4, but I'm not sure when that will be happening. The space made from merging all of UA to T2 will presumably free up some space for the smallerops of FI, CY, JJ services. I've not heard anything about whats happening to LY or the current T1 BA services.

Will T2 remain solely for Star Alliance carriers (plus VSLR and EI) once it's fully completed or is that just to start with? It seems like it will be awfully big and if the plan is to eventually knock down T3 as well then that will leave a lot of airlines needing somewhere to go.

[jackieofalltrades]

Did all BMI departures for BHD not leave from the gate 8 area?

I can't say 'all' but certainly some did. I certainly boarded a flight there from gate 8 a number of years ago.

[118.70]

Avianca volverá a volar directamente desde Bogotá a Londres , Economía - Edición Impresa Semana.com (http://www.semana.com/economia/articulo/avianca-volvera-volar-directamente-desde-bogota-londres/375822-3)

Coming later in the year ?

[DaveReidUK]

Twitter post here

https://twitter.com/TrafficAirColom/status/429490458436198400

suggesting that seats go on sale tomorrow for the service starting 1st July.

[CabinCrewe]

wonder if this will kickstart a previous BA service rumour ?

[DaveReidUK]

wonder if this will kickstart a previous BA service rumour ?Looks like you just have. :O

[ConstantFlyer]

T1 is a real mess

You said it, Dannyboy. Every major airport has its good bits and bad bits, but much of Heathrow is an embarrassment. Fortunately, the low cost revolution has meant that travelling from regional airports has become easier.

[DaveReidUK]

Now reportedly starting on Friday 4th July with a 4-per-week A332 arriving/departing on TuFrSaSu.

No sign of it yet on the Avianca website, which is still showing LHR-BOG for July as connecting over JFK/IAD/MIA.

[LGWAlan]

Amadeus shows:
Mon/Thur/Sat AV120 BOGLHR 2159-1440+1
Fri AV120 BOGLHR 2324-1605+1

Tue/Fri/Sat/Sun AV121 LHRBOG 2235-0309+1

[davidjohnson6]

The 2159 and 2324 departure and 0309 arrival times at Bogota seem to have been deliberately chosen. Anyone able to elaborate as to what night restrictions or other rationale there may be ?

While a 3 am arrival initially sounds a bit grim, I'm guessing that after considering the time zone difference, these are actually very suitable timings for those who want to avoid wasting a day in the air - it's a shame that there are so few red eye westbounds apart from MAD-MEX or to GRU and the southern cone. Personally, I think these are fantastic flight times. No, I'm not being sarcastic.

Does Bogota airport have some sort of *civilised* arrivals lounge or pay-by-the-hour-hotel to allow people to snooze a little and wait for it to get light before heading into the city or onto connecting flights ?

[EI-A330-300]

BA are moving DUB flights to T5 in October, not sure if BHD are moving.

[_IRL_Flyer]

BA's BHD-LHR flight's are moving to T5 as well.

City Airport BA flights to land at Terminal 5 - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/city-airport-ba-flights-to-land-at-terminal-5-29987815.html)

[Fairdealfrank]

BA are moving DUB flights to T5 in October, not sure if BHD are moving.




BA's BHD-LHR flight's are moving to T5 as well.


Makes sense, to have all of BA's domestic and common travel area flights at LHR-5, both for transfer pax and for BA (no need for the expense of a small operation in a third terminal).

The date sounds significant: demolition time for LHR-1, or at least that part of it? Guess that EI and VS will go to the new LHR-2?

[DaveReidUK]

The date sounds significant: demolition time for LHR-1, or at least that part of it?Heathrow's website currently suggests that Little Red and Germanwings will be the last to vacate T1 for T2 in "November 2014 or later", although SAS's move is shown as "to be confirmed" so it could conceivably be they who turn the lights out.

Heathrow: Airline moves | Heathrow terminal changes (http://www.heathrowairport.com/flight-information/airline-moves)

[rutankrd]

although SAS's move is shown as "to be confirmed" so it could conceivably be they who turn the lights out.

SAS are in T3 and have been for some years by choice !

[DaveReidUK]

SAS are in T3 and have been for some years by choice !Good point, maybe somebody should tell Heathrow that. :O

[edi_local]

SAS don't fly from Terminal 1, the LHJR website is wrong. They are in T3 at the moment!


Even after all of the T2 carriers move out, there will still be UN, CY, FI, JJ, US and LY in T1 as well as whatever BA haven't shift over to T5 yet (AMM, CAI, BEY, BAK, MRS, HAJ, RTM etc).

T1 will still be around for a while, but what I can see maybe happening is the old Irish pier either being demolished first, or perhaps changing that to allow international arrivals/departures (shouldn't be too hard) and knocking down the parts of T1 which currently restrict T2/T2B from being able to operate as planned. However, if they were going to do that then why bother renumber some gates in T1 for such a short time?

[Gonzo]

old Irish pier

...will be going.

The issue to be factored in is the A380. Taxiways A and B to the north of T3 and T1 are too close to each other, and B is too close to the terminals to have the required Code F clearances.

That needs to be sorted, and to do that you have to move B to the south. To do that you have to knock things down.

[Surreyman]

Methinks BA are going to have to move some flights from T5 to T3 to make room!
I would also hazard a guess that most of the current BA T1 destinations will move to T3.
I am of course assuming that current T5 stand utilisation is close to 100%,
unless anyone with inside knowledge is able to correct me?

[Heathrow Harry]

Will start in 2016 and open in 2021 - spur of the main line ant Langley allowing trains from Reading and apparently Bristol & S Wales direct access

Quite why it wasn't built 10 years ago no-one knows

[MerchantVenturer]

Will start in 2016 and open in 2021 - spur of the main line ant Langley allowing trains from Reading and apparently Bristol & S Wales direct access

Quite why it wasn't built 10 years ago no-one knows

By then the lines from Paddington to both Bristol Temple Meads via Bath and to South Wales via Bristol Parkway will be electrified, or should be - nothing can be taken as read with any government of any political colour - but the entire South West England west of Bristol will carry on in the diesel age.

Part of the electrification rationale was a speeded-up service to that currently provided by the 40-year old First Great Western HST sets. It's not made clear how passengers will access LHR via the proposed spur. It would be nonsensical for the mainline trains themselves to divert in and out because the overall journey to London itself would then be no quicker than it is now.

Presumably passengers will change trains at Reading but the LHR press release is short on detail anyway although the notes to editors might give a clue. It goes into specifics about how much time will be saved on journeys from South Wales stations but says nothing about those from the West Country and South West, perhaps because the latter will remain firmly entrenched in the railway 20th Century.

Heathrow - Press releases - Heathrow western rail access to benefit millions (http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/Heathrow-western-rail-access-to-benefit-millions-7f2.aspx)

[Fairdealfrank]

Go ahead for Reading T5 railway
Will start in 2016 and open in 2021 - spur of the main line ant Langley allowing trains from Reading and apparently Bristol & S Wales direct access

Quite why it wasn't built 10 years ago no-one knows


Indeed, they knew that LHR-5 would be built where it is. Equally stupid was (1) no chord at airport junction to allow trains to go west, (2) not having some trains stop at Hayes to avoid the "doubling back" from London, and (3) not having the Crossrail terminate at Reading (that is almost criminal stupidity).

They really have no idea about integrated transport and connectivity!




By then the lines from Paddington to both Bristol Temple Meads via Bath and to South Wales via Bristol Parkway will be electrified, or should be - nothing can be taken as read with any government of any political colour - but the entire South West England west of Bristol will carry on in the diesel age.

Part of the electrification rationale was a speeded-up service to that currently provided by the 40-year old First Great Western HST sets. It's not made clear how passengers will access LHR via the proposed spur. It would be nonsensical for the mainline trains themselves to divert in and out because the overall journey to London itself would then be no quicker than it is now.

Presumably passengers will change trains at Reading but the LHR press release is short on detail anyway although the notes to editors might give a clue. It goes into specifics about how much time will be saved on journeys from South Wales stations but says nothing about those from the West Country and South West, perhaps because the latter will remain firmly entrenched in the railway 20th Century.


A sensible way would be to have some trains from Reading and points west run via LHR-5 and LHR-1/2/3, and others as at present, perhaps alternating trains where there is a half-hourly service.

[DaveReidUK]

Presumably passengers will change trains at ReadingWell yes, at the risk of stating the obvious, clearly most of the eastbound trains calling at Reading will continue to Paddington, and therefore Heathrow-bound passengers will need to change, but that certainly doesn't rule out at least some through trains to LHR from Bristol, Wales and the southwest.

Or, as FDF suggests, via LHR - though it's not immediately obvious where they would continue to or what would be the point in that.

[ETOPS]

A few more details from Notwork Rail..

Proposals for a direct rail link from the west to Heathrow

05 February 2014

The future rail link, subject to planning permission, will give passengers a direct rail service from Reading via Slough, to Heathrow airport. Currently, passengers wishing to access Heathrow by rail have to travel into London Paddington station before changing to dedicated airport services.


Economic growth

Direct rail access to Heathrow from the west could deliver an increase in business productivity, quicker journeys to the country’s busiest airports and a boost to economic growth.


“Our plans for a new rail link to Heathrow from the west will dramatically improving rail links, reduce congestion on existing rail services and provide a boost to the local economy.

It’s important that we take the opportunity to discuss these plans so we can ensure the investment made in a bigger, better railway delivers maximum benefit.”

Patrick Hallgate, Network Rail route managing director Western route

Western Rail Access Programme proposal

We met with MPs and other local stakeholders to discuss the detailed plans – known as the Western Rail Access Programme – that would provide significant economic benefits for the growing number of businesses in the Thames Valley, M4 corridor and south west England and south Wales.

The proposals would see a new junction created between Langley and Iver stations, linking with a 5km tunnel for trains to access Heathrow Terminal 5.

We will need to secure a Development Consent Order to deliver the Western Rail Access Programme. A steering group of industry leaders, from organisations including Network Rail, Department for Transport, Thames Valley Berkshire LEP, Slough Borough Council and Heathrow Airport, is working together to progress the proposals.

If planning permission is granted, we would begin initial highways enabling work at the end of 2016, with tunnel enabling work starting in early 2018.

The project would be complete in 2021.


So 7 years before trains are running.........

[Libertine Winno]

As a UK taxpayer does it not perplex others that they're spending millions of taxpayer £££'s on a link that, post-Davies review in 2015, could be completely redundant if LHR is not chosen to construct R3?!

A private company wouldn't countenance that kind of spend with such uncertainty... or maybe Network Rail know something we don't!

[upandoffmyside]

Thanks for that gen Gonzo.

We all look forward to the removal of the inner taxiway past T1 as it's been bashing the hell out of nose wheel oleos and spilling cups of tea in cup holders for far too long.

I just hope that the BAA get the new taxiways right this time and not end up with cracks in the concrete sections all over the place, and having to dig it all up and then re-lay it, as seemed to happen with the new sections for T5 on the north side, on Alpha.

I mean they wouldn't ever get the construction of shops in the new terminals wrong at all, would they ?. Oh no!

[PAXboy]

via ETOPS“Our plans for a new rail link to Heathrow from the west will dramatically improving rail links, reduce congestion on existing rail services and provide a boost to the local economy.

Funny thing ... when I lived in Bristol and had to take the train to Reading and the coach to LHR (along with numerous others) we knew that.

Of course, it was 1975 and wouldn't have expected anything to done for 100 years ... :rolleyes:

upandoffmysideand having to dig it all up and then re-lay it, as seemed to happen with the new sections for T5 on the north side, on Alpha.
Like a Council building I know in Buckinghamshire: It's been open about seven years but has had to be closed for the main floor tiles to be lifted and relaid by hand. TWICE for the same thing. Lucky that Councils don't have to accept the lowest bidder... :mad:

[Fairdealfrank]

Or, as FDF suggests, via LHR - though it's not immediately obvious where they would continue to or what would be the point in that.


Maybe Reading-London nonstop alternating with Reading-London via LHR-5 and LHR-1/2/3, the latter being similar to the way that trains from south of Amsterdam do a stop at Schiphol on the way to Amsterdam.

Alternatively the trains could terminate on the airport (LHR-5, LHR-1/2/3 then LHR-4), but they may as well miss LHR-4 and continue up to London and pick up some Heathrow-London pax.

Much would depend on the numbers of pax using this, but expect those who use the bus from Reading and those who double-back from London may find a through train convenient, and who knows, the conveniece may even generate some new traffic.

Having spent millions on building the link, it would be crazy NOT to use it in this way (even so, don't hold your breath!).

That, to me, would be the point.





As a UK taxpayer does it not perplex others that they're spending millions of taxpayer £££'s on a link that, post-Davies review in 2015, could be completely redundant if LHR is not chosen to construct R3?!

A private company wouldn't countenance that kind of spend with such uncertainty... or maybe Network Rail know something we don't!


Good, all that's needed now is for the government to grow a pair.

[DaveReidUK]

Maybe Reading-London nonstop alternating with Reading-London via LHR-5 and LHR-1/2/3Sounds like you have just reinvented the Heathrow Express, which is just about the last link that needs any more capacity. :O

[anothertyke]

A propos which, what is the future for Heathrow Express once Crossrail gets going?

I predict either a shuttle from Heathrow to Reading or if HAL and operators put the boat out an hourly train to Reading continuing alternately to Bristol and Cardiff. That will cost somebody though.

[Heathrow Harry]

FDF wrote "Equally stupid was (1) no chord at airport junction to allow trains to go west, "

Absolutely correct frank - worse than that it was originally planned to build the chord but not connect it at tthe time - then they sold the site so BMidland could build an office there......

Todays Times suggest that Heathrow Express would like to run the Reading service - I'll bet they would at their prices!

Crossrail is a dog for LHR services - it is a stopping (everywhere) service from Maidenhead to Essex (tho the good folk of Maidenhead don't realise they 'll be getting a much slower service when it starts)

[ETOPS]

It's just struck me that the WRA announcement effectively blows the whole Davies report (and its 2015 date) to bits. I think we can see that the decision to build a 3rd runway at LHR has been taken and that infrastructure projects are being progressed on that basis.

As if to back this up I just found this map....

http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/PDF/3R-masterplan-northwest_LHR.pdf

which I'm going to predict will be very close to the actual announcement - after the General Election.

[DaveReidUK]

As if to back this up I just found this map....

http://www.heathrowairport.com/stati...thwest_LHR.pdf (http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/PDF/3R-masterplan-northwest_LHR.pdf)I'm not sure what the presence of a map on Heathrow's website actually proves, if anything. It would be very surprising if you weren't able to find maps of all 3 of the Davies Commission's shortlisted options on the Net.

The NW option is the one favoured by Heathrow Airport, so it would be very strange if there were no details of it on their own website.

Ditto the shortlisted Heathrow Hub and Gatwick proposals on their respective websites.

[Heathrow Harry]

The idea and versions of that map have been around for the last 5 years IIRC - pretty much ever since people realised the impossibility of running a line from Staines - that involved a new elevated chord in the middle of Staines and about a dozen sets of level crossings along the route - it would have gummed up SW London well and good

[DaveReidUK]

The idea and versions of that map have been around for the last 5 years IIRCThe north runway option was first mooted many years ago, in fact runway(s) north of the A4 were being proposed in the late 1940s.

But you would be hard pressed to find versions of the current northwest runway proposal, or indeed any schemes that extend west of the M25, that are more than a couple of years old.

[PAXboy]

Everyone knew (and knows) that it HAS to be LHR3. We only have to wait for the politicians to catch up.

Equally, no turf will be turned UNTIL the announcement is made.

[Heathrow Harry]

it will be at least 5 years in the courts before a single spade is taken up

Lawyers are already leafing through their Bentley brochures as we speak.............

[Fairdealfrank]

The north runway option was first mooted many years ago, in fact runway(s) north of the A4 were being proposed in the late 1940s.


Yes, it was for three rwys: an east-west parallel with the current rwys, a SW-NE rwy, and a SE-NW rwy intersecting eachother and forming a triangle. At the time there were 6 rwys south of the A4, as above, but with 2 rwys in each of the directions.

At that time capacity was less important, so parallel only rwys were not needed, crosswinds were more of an issue than today hence the need for multi-directional rwys that could not all be used simultaneously.



Everyone knew (and knows) that it HAS to be LHR3. We only have to wait for the politicians to catch up.

Equally, no turf will be turned UNTIL the announcement is made.


Indeed. They could make a start now, do it at night, and tell everyone it's a taxiway or M25 diversion.......

Seriously though, the M25 tunnelling (and associated preparatory work) does need to start now, so that they are ready to go after Davis reports in favour and the court cases are over.


it will be at least 5 years in the courts before a single spade is taken up

Lawyers are already leafing through their Bentley brochures as we speak.............



Thought that there some new fast-track process for "infrastructure of national significance" and that legislation was pending for more of the same to thwart the eco-warriors, the "swampy"s and the litigators.

Maybe the Libdems thwarted it(?).

[Fairdealfrank]

Sounds like you have just reinvented the Heathrow Express, which is just about the last link that needs any more capacity.


With all the changes going on, western access to LHR, crossrail, Great Western electrification, etc., it is likely that the franchises will need to be altered. Who knows if there will even be a Heathrow express in its present form.

[WHBM]

With all the changes going on, western access to LHR, crossrail, Great Western electrification, etc., it is likely that the franchises will need to be altered. Who knows if there will even be a Heathrow express in its present form.
Well HAL are absolutely determined it will continue in pretty much its present form, notwithstanding that it will become an irrelevant nonsense once Crossrail starts. HAL marked up huge costs against the construction of HEx, including some dubiously allocated to it, and is still looking for their excessive rate of return on this that the Spanish seem to want.

One of the many stupidities is that there will be far more Crossrail trains through Central London than will be going down the western arms of the system, so many of them will be turning round at Paddington. Meanwhile HEx will be starting from Paddington, to run out to Heathrow duplicating what Crossrail does at n (where n is quite a large number) times the fare. It will never be worth changing trains at Paddington between Crossrail and HEx, as the time taken changing to platforms at the opposite side of the station, buying fresh tickets, waiting for the next departure, and the inconvenience if with baggage/children/etc, will more than absorb the time spent waiting for the next through Crossrail.

[BasilBush]

A couple of points for info, WHBM.

Firstly Heathrow Express predates the current franchising system. I recall it has a track access agreement (for 4 train paths per hour, each way) for a period of 25 years.

Secondly, HEX has never earned anything like an adequate return on investment. But it was never expected to, based on fare revenues alone. Instead, the investment in HEX is included in Heathrow's regulatory asset base (RAB), such that any shortfall against the target regulated return is effectively made up by the airlines through airport charges.

Thirdly, "the Spaniards" only own around 25% of Heathrow now, having sold down to a range of sovereign wealth funds, pension funds etc. Not really relevant, but just for info!

[Porrohman]

BA163 to Tel Aviv tonight departed 1hr 50 mins late, got as far as overhead Dunkirk, did a couple of orbits overhead and looks like it's returning to LHR.
A321 G-MEDJ according to Flightradar24.com

[Porrohman]

Following on from my post yesterday, according to BA Source (http://www.thebasource.com/);

British Airways A321 G-MEDJ BA163 Heathrow Technical Return.
February 15, 2014
British Airways A321 G-MEDJ operating last night’s delayed BA163 London Heathrow – Tel Aviv reached Dunkirk in the early hours of this morning whilst still at 12,000 ft, circled to troubleshoot a technical issue and then returned to London Heathrow. The flight and the return BA162 were subsequently cancelled.

Perhaps a pressurisation problem?

[Bagso]

This all presupposes that the Governement "of the day" will run with Davies !

Heathrow Expansion ;

Lib dems are against

Conservative lukewarm

Labour well God knows

UKIP Against (I have included as they could severely dent Liberals/Tory vote)

If the flooding issue goes badly for the present Government as the New Orleans Hurricane did for George Bush what then.

Could be a real mish mash !

---------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't the flooding near Wraysbury a bit close for comfort, especially if land to North is reclaimed as it will be !

According to the BBC flood alert The Riverside cargo centre is surrounded by "the possibility" of flooding that's only 500yds from T5.

Was there not talk of removing reservoirs as well ?

[BasilBush]

Was there not talk of removing reservoirs as well ?

I think the idea was to build over the reservoirs, with them remaining as effectively underground reservoirs. But this option was not one of the schemes that Davies is taking forward.

[Skipness One Echo]

This all presupposes that the Governement "of the day" will run with Davies !
Politicians lie.
The last Labour government bit the bullet and approved LHR expansion.
Cameron vetoed it for political gain then when in office understood why it needs to happen. Hence Davies gives Tory and Labour cover to make a touch choice forty years too late. We need to pay our way and to do that we need to trade, to do that we need to loosen the constraints on our hub connectivity.
Follow the money :
Crossrail is funded and coming soon.
Further rail enhancements are planned.
Terminal 2 is nearly complete. Terminal 2C is in the planning stages.
Terminal 5 is world class.

Zac Goldsmith (billionaire, nice house under the flightpath), Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Boris is his stage name, (clever guy, lazy, repeatedly fired, never had a real job), Edward Milliband, theoretical academic socialist, never had a real job, and whatever's left of the Lib Dems can bleat all they like. Follow the money. See what's happening on the ground and in the planning. Red Ed needs *some* credibility with business and he's not in a position to fund Boris Island or fudge the issue for another decade.

It's not beyond the wit of man to prevent Heathrow flooding in expceptional weather, it's really, really not. It's also somewhat cheaper than spening BILLION of pounds building a magical floating island on the wrong side of London, distant from the M4 corridor and all the jobs it supports. Follow the money, ignore the hot air from windbag opportunist politicians who say what you want to hear then do what they were going to do anyway.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Thought that there some new fast-track process for "infrastructure of national significance" and that legislation was pending for more of the same to thwart the eco-warriors, the "swampy"s and the litigators."

maybe but people will fight THAT legislation through every court in the UK & Europe as well as an infringement of their rights to sue - and everything will be put on hold

And the lawyers and judges will of course back them and the legal eagles grow fat on all these appeals

parliament is no longer sovereign, even without the European dimension - just like the USA - checks & balances

[anothertyke]

Follow the money--totally agree. Who is going to fund it (whichever it is) is the single most interesting question. That's the ball to watch.

But also follow the politics. Suppose we have a four party election next year, the result will not be nailed on. Another close result of any kind could make life difficult. The number of marginal seats is not necessarily where it's at as a political favourable wind indicator.

[Northbound A1]

Heathrow news.
Spain's Ferrovial has offered to buy three British airports from its partners in Heathrow Airport Holdings.
Maybe they would like to buy DTV as well? :E

Yahoo News UK & Ireland - Latest World News & UK News Headlines (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/spain-39-ferrovial-offers-800-million-pounds-three-075726137--sector.html#1T5o35W)

[EMB-145LR]

Surprised no one has mentioned yesterdays announcement of a new daily service to Chicago operated by Delta.

[Fairdealfrank]

This all presupposes that the Governement "of the day" will run with Davies !

Heathrow Expansion ;

Lib dems are against

Conservative lukewarm

Labour well God knows

UKIP Against (I have included as they could severely dent Liberals/Tory vote)

If the flooding issue goes badly for the present Government as the New Orleans Hurricane did for George Bush what then.

Could be a real mish mash !



Of course it is possible that Davies would be ignored after 2015, fantastic waste of taxpayers' money (no change there) if this does turn out be the case.

However, Skipness's "follow the money" advice is sensible and makes good sense.

Be in doubt that UKIP will take votes from Labour as well as Con-Lib, it's just that Labour haven't woken up to this yet, but the main point is that the Heathrow issue is not going to determine any election results, and no seats, even those around Heathrow, will change hands because of it.


Isn't the flooding near Wraysbury a bit close for comfort, especially if land to North is reclaimed as it will be !

According to the BBC flood alert The Riverside cargo centre is surrounded by "the possibility" of flooding that's only 500yds from T5.


It will concentrate minds if expansion happens, everything will that little bit higher than originally planned. Chances are that the airport authorities will have chat with their counterparts at Schiphol.



Was there not talk of removing reservoirs as well ?


Yes, (1) for the original scheme of four rwys to the immediate west of Heathrow, (2) for Jock Lowe's idea to double the length of both rwys and use them as four rwys, and (3) for Heathrow Airport Ltd's own "south west rwy" proposal.

However for the Commission's option of extending only 09R/27L does not involve reservoir demolition.

[Bagso]

What other infastructure improvmenst are in the pipleine?

Widening M25, additional junction to North near T6 ?

[DaveReidUK]

However for the Commission's option of extending only 09R/27L does not involve reservoir demolition.It would, if that was the runway they were considering extending. :O

But of course it's the 09L/27R extension that's been shortlisted.

[KelvinD]

On Sunday, I was talking with a chap who lives in Stanwell. He told me the residents have now received a "consultation paper" re the new runway and this refers exclusively to a new runway, NW of the airport, heading toward Datchet. The M25 will go in a tunnel and a reservoir will be filled in. Still, the way these things go in the UK, I doubt many of us on this forum will live long enough to see the eventual outcome!

[DaveReidUK]

He told me the residents have now received a "consultation paper" re the new runway and this refers exclusively to a new runway, NW of the airport, heading toward Datchet.http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/PDF/HAL_Community_Consultation_FINAL.pdf

The M25 will go in a tunnel and a reservoir will be filled in.I suspect you may be thinking of the former gravel pits just to the SW of the M4/M25 junction.

They would certainly be under the proposed runway and need to be filled in, but neither the original nor the revised NW runway proposal go anywhere near either the Queen Mary or Wraysbury reservoirs:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/7/17/1374068079358/Heathrow-airport-option-1-010.jpg

[NWSRG]

The drawings currently being shown are obviously only conceptual at this stage, but it looks like there are only satellites, and no core terminal, for the new runway.
Is it planned to service the satellites directly from T2 or T5?

[Fairdealfrank]

It would, if that was the runway they were considering extending. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/embarass.gif

But of course it's the 09L/27R extension that's been shortlisted.


yes, of course it is, apologies!


The drawings currently being shown are obviously only conceptual at this stage, but it looks like there are only satellites, and no core terminal, for the new runway.
Is it planned to service the satellites directly from T2 or T5?


Hopefully LHR-5, else it's a very long train ride!

Also, there's no LHR-3 on the conceptual drawing.

[DaveReidUK]

Is it planned to service the satellites directly from T2 or T5?The scheme includes a new Terminal (T6), located just to the west of Terminal 5, serving the 3/4 satellites. There will also be access to them from T2.

[LGS6753]

From Travel Daily:

Qatar Airways has announced plans to launch a new daily service to London, using an aircraft only equipped with business class.

Commencing on 15 May 2014, the new service will be the only scheduled flight of its kind between the UK and Middle East, and will be operated using an Airbus A319 aircraft fitted with 40 business class seats in a 2-2 configuration.

All seats recline into fully flat beds and come equipped with the latest in-flight entertainment systems and SMS connectivity.
Qatar Airways currently operates five daily flights to Heathrow, with the new premium service becoming the sixth. This means that from May, Qatar Airway will offer 42 weekly flights between London and Doha.

“Today’s announcement reaffirms our determination to continue the expansion drive by improving an already superior in-flight product,” said Qatar Airways’ chief executive officer, Akbar Al Baker “The Doha-London Heathrow route is one of our most popular international routes and it was only fitting that we introduce an all business class service on this key route.”

[NWSRG]

The scheme includes a new Terminal (T6), located just to the west of Terminal 5, serving the 3/4 satellites. There will also be access to them from T2.

Ah, see it now...nestled just behind T5. Also looks like the T2 is now extended also (although a different shape) and the Irish Gates replaced with a proper pier. Although I'm guessing there's a lot of artistic licence in there!

[edi_local]

That image looks as though there will only be 4 terminals, with T1 and T2 becoming one big building and T3 apparently not existing, but with several piers in it's place.


Surely if such a future does lie for LHR then they will need to renumber all the Terminals at some point!

[Libertine Winno]

Just curious, but how does T4 fit into all this? It sits outside the 'toast rack' layout that LHR is progressing towards, so I'm wondering if three terminals i.e. T5, expanded T1/2 and a new T6 could handle all the pax from 3 runways...?!

[Skipness One Echo]

That image looks as though there will only be 4 terminals, with T1 and T2 becoming one big building and T3 apparently not existing,
Terminal 1 is to be demolished and once that's gone, they can finish buiding T2 to it's originally intended size.

[DaveReidUK]

I'm wondering if three terminals i.e. T5, expanded T1/2 and a new T6 could handle all the pax from 3 runways...?No, not according to the projections contained in Heathrow's proposals:

"Terminal 2 (c55-60mppa) – terminal building is extended to the north of the Phase 1 building currently under construction, serving both the eastern apron within the current airport boundary and a redeveloped rectilinear apron on the old Terminal 3 site

Terminal 4 (c10mppa) – continues to operate as it does today.

Terminal 5 (c30-35mppa) – continues to serve the existing Terminal 5 apron and piers (T5B and T5C)

Terminal 6 (c20-25mppa) – a new terminal building to the west of Terminal 5 to serve the new north-west apron"

[Libertine Winno]

Thanks Dave.

So essentially, without T4, they would be 10mppa short of the capacity that 3 runways would provide (130mppa).

I wonder if an extension to T5 will ever be forthcoming, particularly with BA/Iberia running out of space over there? Could make up for the 10mppa from T4, which will be 40 years old by 2026 and certainly requiring an update one way or another by then...?

Not sure what they would do with the space if T4 was demolished instead of being updated, of course, but sure there's plenty of options!

[Skipness One Echo]

which will be 40 years old by 2026 and certainly requiring an update one way or another by then...?
Landside departures were refurbished to a fairly high standard but they ran out of money to bring arrivals up to the same level.

[Fairdealfrank]

No, not according to the projections contained in Heathrow's proposals:

"Terminal 2 (c55-60mppa) – terminal building is extended to the north of the Phase 1 building currently under construction, serving both the eastern apron within the current airport boundary and a redeveloped rectilinear apron on the old Terminal 3 site

Terminal 4 (c10mppa) – continues to operate as it does today.

Terminal 5 (c30-35mppa) – continues to serve the existing Terminal 5 apron and piers (T5B and T5C)

Terminal 6 (c20-25mppa) – a new terminal building to the west of Terminal 5 to serve the new north-west apron"




I wonder if an extension to T5 will ever be forthcoming, particularly with BA/Iberia running out of space over there? Could make up for the 10mppa from T4, which will be 40 years old by 2026 and certainly requiring an update one way or another by then...?


Interesting, am amazed that the eventual capacity of LHR-1/2 (both phases) will be almost double that of LHR-5. As large as it is, LHR-5 does appear to have significant use of remote stands and bussing, indicating the need for further satelites.

As there's to be no LHR-3 in future, it looks as if the site will be used for LHR-5D/E/F. With more satelites, could the Oneworld section of the current LHR-3 be accomodated in LHR-5? Or would it have to go in LHR-6 which could be linked to LHR-5 by transit train? Maybe that would be the new LHR-3.

If there was room for 10mppa extra in an extended LHR-5, would expect the Oneworld carriers (including a little of BA) currently in LHR-3 to grab it. Wouldn't it make more sense, bearing in mind that the only extension to LHR-5 can be satelites on the current LHR-3 site?

Linking the transit train to the new LHR-1/2 and its satelites would make airside flight transfers at LHR so easy (except to/from LHR-4). It would also allow the satelites built on the current LHR-3 site to be used by pax at LHR-1/2 as well as LHR-5.

A landside transit running parallel (LHR-6; LHR-5 (and stations); central
bus/railway/tube stations; LHR-1/2) would be the icing on the cake.

Unlikely, but stick it on the wish list.

[DaveReidUK]

Of course it will all have to go back in the mix if the Southeast's new runway ends up being built at Gatwick instead. :O

[Libertine Winno]

Indeed! I can't see why they couldn't just give permission for LGW and LHR to BOTH build an extra runway and let them have at it...best man (airport) wins! But that's a discussion for another thread, I suspect

[Fairdealfrank]

Of course it will all have to go back in the mix if the Southeast's new runway ends up being built at Gatwick instead.


The word "instead" would make this a catastophe. The result: LHR, the UK's hub airport, would remain hampered and LGW would have oodles of capacity like STN. Traffic that wants to use LHR would end up at AMS, CDG and FRA.

Agree that it's a possibility that should not be discounted, but what exactly would be the point?


Indeed! I can't see why they couldn't just give permission for LGW and LHR to BOTH build an extra runway and let them have at it...best man (airport) wins! But that's a discussion for another thread, I suspect


No question who would come out on top: LHR would wipe the floor with LGW because it is the UK's hub. This implies no disrespect for LGW!

[DaveReidUK]

Even before the Airports Commission first convened, the "LHR R3 and LGW R2" option was never a realistic scenario in anybody's book.

[BasilBush]

And Davies is being realistic that only one runway will get the go-ahead. If LHR and LGW were both given permission then neither would be financeable (actually LHR might still be given its attractiveness to the airlines). But the quickest way to kill LGW R2 would be to make it compete with a third runway at LHR.

[Libertine Winno]

FDF; I agree, all the evidence suggests that LHR is competing with AMS/CDG/FRA and not LGW...however, whether the politicians see that or not is quite something else!

Dave; is there any reason it was never an option? I've never read of the both scenario ever being proposed, but can't understand why? It would seem logical that HAL wouldn't oppose a second rwy at LGW given that, as long as they got their own third rwy, probably couldn't give a proverbial what anyone else does! Of course the flip side is also evident i.e. that MAG would certainly oppose LHR getting its third rwy, well aware that even if LGW got a second it couldn't compete...

[Skipness One Echo]

I've never read of the both scenario ever being proposed, but can't understand why?
Growth forecasts at LGW upon which the business case for a second runway depend upon, are based on there not being an overnight huge capacity increase at LHR and consequently losing a substantial part of their existing traffic to LHR.
There's two sets of LHR carriers with existing and concurrent operations at LGW, those who are there simply because they can't grow at LHR and those who offer service in a complimentary fashion.
Virgin and BA long haul fall into pot one, BA short haul probably into pot two. (debateable). Aer Lingus serve the region in addition to LHR, whereas Air China, Icelandair and TAP might be expected to consolidate to LHR. Vietnam would also be a better fit for LHR Ithink. There is then the danger that LGW would remain doing what it has always done so well, taking holidaymakers to the sun, with a core easyJet, Monarch, Thomson and Thomas Cook operation. I suspect Norwegian might be tempted by LHR. In any case, constrained capacity at LHR drives LGW growth, if that restriction goes, much of the strength of LGW's growth, perhaps all of it in the short term, is lost.

[DaveReidUK]

Both airports have stated publicly that they would be at a competitive disadvantage if the other was given permission for a new runway.

Of course you could argue that they would say that, wouldn't they ? :O

But, given a Heathrow R3, Gatwick's business case for a second runway goes up in smoke, and arguably the reverse applies almost equally.

[Libertine Winno]

I agree on everything you're saying, and understand perfectly why one wouldn't want the other to get a new runway.

However, it does seem a little bit like LGW are saying "I want one, but not only that, I don't want them to have one"...I suppose having their cake and eating it?!

If, for example, Davis Commission/Government were to say "OK, you can have a new runway IF you can fund it" and that includes STN/LTN as well, then we would soon be in the position where only LHR gets a new runway because it is the only one that can fund one in terms of private investment?

That way, Government can claim it's tried to be open for everyone and let market forces decide, no bias anywhere!

[davidjohnson6]

Based on current schedules, it seems that a new runway will not be ready for use until 2024 or later. If we assume modest growth of London area traffic - say an average of 2% per year, then we're looking at an extra 25m or 30m passengers by 2024 - the equivalent of Luton *plus* Stansted combined.

Would it really hurt Heathrow / Gatwick financially that much if there were 2 new runways to be complete by about 2025 ?

[anothertyke]

#3088 A variant on that theme would be for Govt to say 'Either LHR R3 or LGW R2 is worth doing. Let's have a preferred option but keep the other one in play just in case something goes wrong with the numbers on the preferred one.' There's a lot more work to be done to nail down the costs of the Heathrow and Gatwick schemes ; the relative costs and the relative public funding component could yet be significant to the decision. Everything has its price-- or almost everything!

#3089 Another variant is to say for example ' On the modest growth scenario, we need one more runway in each of the next two decades, so the financial cases should assume (say) R3 by 2026 and R2 by 2036.' Just because R3 and R2 simultaneously is out doesn't imply that sequentially is out. And I presume R3 and R4 at Heathrow would be a sequential plan anyway.

[Libertine Winno]

The benefit to LGW is that their proposal says the new runway would cost £5-9bn (quite why that margin is so wide I'm not sure...but still!) whereas LHR north west option is £17bn, so double the cost.

Therefore, although the business case is nowhere near as good as LHR's (especially if LHR gets a third runway) I agree with davidjohnson6 that there must still be a very good case for extended capacity by 2025, even with a third runway at LHR?

IMHO LGW would be better focussing on distancing itself further from competitors such as LTN/STN, rather than trying to catch up to LHR.

But I suppose it's all moot anyway, as we have already said that the Davis Commission will only propose one option, not two...

anothertyke; I thought similar; LHR has needed a third runway for at least a decade now, and even if it were agreed tomorrow it would be another decade before it was operational, so in reality if LGW were to be allowed a second runway but not before 2030 then surely the traffic will be there by then, even accounting for some of their current operators moving services back to LHR as discussed above?

[Fairdealfrank]

Growth forecasts at LGW upon which the business case for a second runway depend upon, are based on there not being an overnight huge capacity increase at LHR and consequently losing a substantial part of their existing traffic to LHR.
There's two sets of LHR carriers with existing and concurrent operations at LGW, those who are there simply because they can't grow at LHR and those who offer service in a complimentary fashion.
Virgin and BA long haul fall into pot one, BA short haul probably into pot two. (debateable). Aer Lingus serve the region in addition to LHR, whereas Air China, Icelandair and TAP might be expected to consolidate to LHR. Vietnam would also be a better fit for LHR Ithink. There is then the danger that LGW would remain doing what it has always done so well, taking holidaymakers to the sun, with a core easyJet, Monarch, Thomson and Thomas Cook operation. I suspect Norwegian might be tempted by LHR. In any case, constrained capacity at LHR drives LGW growth, if that restriction goes, much of the strength of LGW's growth, perhaps all of it in the short term, is lost.


Exactly, with LHR’s third rwy operating, BA longhaul, VS, and carriers in the "waiting room" would leave LGW for LHR. BA shorthaul would remain as would carriers serving both LGW and LHR as a matter of choice, such as EI, EK, etc., just as BA visits HND and NRT, ORY and CDG, JFK and EWR.

Also think this exodus from LGW would be negated by an influx of services from LTN and STN, along the lines of what U2 has done in recent years.
Would also expect the holiday “bucket and spade” business to remain at LGW.

LGW would save money by not having the immediate expense of a second rwy, but the management may have to revisit its policy on charges for smaller aircraft.


#3088 A variant on that theme would be for Govt to say 'Either LHR R3 or LGW R2 is worth doing. Let's have a preferred option but keep the other one in play just in case something goes wrong with the numbers on the preferred one.' There's a lot more work to be done to nail down the costs of the Heathrow and Gatwick schemes ; the relative costs and the relative public funding component could yet be significant to the decision. Everything has its price-- or almost everything!


Not to have a third rwy at LHR, whether there’s a second at LGW or not, would be an unmitigated disaster for the UK, and Christmas plus all birthdays at once for AMS, CDG and FRA.



#3089 Another variant is to say for example ' On the modest growth scenario, we need one more runway in each of the next two decades, so the financial cases should assume (say) R3 by 2026 and R2 by 2036.' Just because R3 and R2 simultaneously is out doesn't imply that sequentially is out. And I presume R3 and R4 at Heathrow would be a sequential plan anyway.



Yes, on a phased arrangement it is sensible to have a third and fourth at LHR before a second at LGW.



But I suppose it's all moot anyway, as we have already said that the Davis Commission will only propose one option, not two...


…let’s hope it’s the correct one!



anothertyke; I thought similar; LHR has needed a third runway for at least a decade now, and even if it were agreed tomorrow it would be another decade before it was operational, so in reality if LGW were to be allowed a second runway but not before 2030 then surely the traffic will be there by then, even accounting for some of their current operators moving services back to LHR as discussed above?


LHR was declared “full” by the government in 1977, so it is arguable that it has needed extra rwy capacity since then.

[Seljuk22]

QR will launch a sixth daily flight - operated by an all business class A319 (40 seats)
Press Release | Qatar Airways (http://www.qatarairways.com/global/en/press-release.page?pr_id=pressrelease_180214-a319-businessclass&locale_id=en_gl)

[Heathrow Harry]

25 February 2014 (http://www.e-tid.com/heathrow-blames-caa-ruling-for-200-job-cuts/95388/)
Heathrow Airport is planning to cut a fifth of its core workforce despite turning its first profit since 2006, reports The Daily Telegraph.


The airport is undergoing a ‘major’ restructuring to cut costs, said the Telegraph.


This is in order to meet what Heathrow has previously described as a ‘draconian’ ruling by the Civil Aviation Authority that it must reduce charges for airlines in real terms from April.


Colin Matthews, Heathrow’s chief executive, said the cuts are likely to affect around 200 staff but no front-line roles, such as security, will be affected.
Results out yesterday showed that Heathrow had swung to a £426m pre-tax profit last year from a £33m loss previously, helped by the £1.5bn sale last February of Stansted.


Heathrow employs 7,000 people in total but 1,000 of those roles are part of its ‘central’ head office structure, which is the focus of the restructuring, said the Telegraph.


Matthews told the Telegraph: ‘We are talking about people who used to work in our headquarters.


‘We used to be a company that ran more airports.
‘We have been reducing the costs and we need to do so significantly now to get in line with the amount of money we are allowed to make from airlines.’


From April, Heathrow’s airport charges will be reduced in real terms by 1.5% below the rate of inflation every year until 2019.


The airport is examining whether to appeal against the CAA’s ruling but has already started to push through a cost-cutting programme, which has also involved management agreeing to pay freezes, said the Telegraph.




Apparently they make around £ 21 per passenger from "aviation" related charges plus £ 6.80 from parking, shops etc

[ETOPS]

Pictures of the new T2 released..

First look at Heathrow's £2.5bn Terminal 2 - Transport - News - London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/first-look-at-heathrows-25bn-terminal-2-9172799.html)

[DaveReidUK]

First look at Heathrow's £2.5bn Terminal 2 - Transport - News - London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/first-look-at-heathrows-25bn-terminal-2-9172799.html)Another brilliant bit of journalism by the Standard, renowned for its accuracy when it comes to aviation affairs:

"When the [original T2] opened in 1955, with the red tape cut by the Queen when she was just 29, check-in took place in large tents with wooden floors. A dining table at the back hosted stacks of newspapers under a banner bearing the name 'WH Smith'."

"Terminal Five opened with a big bang and tried to deal with 1700 passengers on its first day"

[Heathrow Harry]

it's not just aviation affairs they are "expert" in Dave

It's a now a free advertising free sheet and gave up on "news" about 40 years ago

[Fairdealfrank]

Turns out that it is not high airport charges that keeps U2 out of LHR.

easyJet debunks Gatwick's Heathrow myth - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10728483/easyJet-debunks-Gatwicks-Heathrow-myth.html)


Have always suspected that it's the high costs of slot acquisition and delays (queues to take off, stacking to land) that keeps no-frills carriers out of LHR.

Rwy expansion would eliminate this.

[PAXboy]

article quoted by Heathrow Harry:
This is in order to meet what Heathrow has previously described as a ‘draconian’ ruling by the Civil Aviation Authority that it must reduce charges for airlines in real terms from April.Ah yes, the sweet smell of de-regulation. The Tories must be so proud to be able to interfere with their great god 'the free market'.

[anothertyke]

'Runway expansion would eliminate this.'

Is it the consensus that slot values at LHR will fall to zero with R3 in place?

Is it the consensus that enough taxiways and gates can be provided to balance with the additional runway capacity and eliminate 'normal' operating delays?

At the opening year of R3, how much will charges need to rise for cost recovery reasons? What's the commercial model look like?

Actually I agree with FDF or even go further--- entry at LHR by the likes of Easyjet is an essential part of the rationale. But there are questions...

[davidjohnson6]

In 10 years time, demand for LHR slots will likely be considerably greater now, balanced of course by a likely R3. A normal airport should have peak and offpeak periods - LHR right now has only peak (except for 10 pm on Saturday night)

By thd time R3 opens, peak time slots should still trade at a high price - the only difference is we might see space at off peak times for a few extra not-so-wealthy destinations. If Easyjet want into LHR and do not get slots from an open application to ACL in 2025, they will have to pay heavily for commercially useful slots

[globetrotter79]

Remember that with the IAG/BMI merger 'remedy' slots being available for another couple of years until the 3-year period for applications is up, there is still a way easyJet could pick up LHR slots for free if they really wanted to...the only constraint being the destinations to which they could fly with them.

[compton3bravo]

Me thinks it is quite a clever ploy by Ms McCall to the Gatwick management to say that just because we have over 50 aircraft based it doesn´t mean we are not loooking at other options so do not try and and blackmail us on fees etc.
Unfortunately I do not believe a third runway at Heathrow or a second at Gatwick or Boris Island etc. will ever be built - kicked into the long grass whoever is in power.

[Airlift21]

Gatwick will never get a second runway. It just doesn't make sense spending anything expanding an airport, where given the choice, most of it's airlines would rather fly from to Heathrow.

If a third runway was built at Heathrow (the only realistic option), then Gatwick would become pretty empty. I suspect Easyjet would have no problem leaving Gatwick if there was space at Heathrow.

One runway and two terminals is ample for Gatwick.

[Nextprop]

One runway and two terminals is ample for Gatwick.

You don't anticipate any growth in demand for air travel in the next few decades then??

[Skipness One Echo]

No but he does understand what is happening in the market. Growth at Gatwick is partially driven by restricted capacity at LHR.

[Nextprop]

Growth at Gatwick is partially driven by restricted capacity at LHR.

Absolutely, however it is in my view a little extreme to suggest that on that basis alone expansion at Gatwick isn't justified, third runway at Heathrow or not.

[DaveReidUK]

Absolutely, however it is in my view a little extreme to suggest that on that basis alone expansion at Gatwick isn't justified, third runway at Heathrow or not.

Gatwick's owners are on record as having said exactly that.

[Airlift21]

Maybe I was a little too harsh on Gatwick. I do actually think that the traffic levels and passenger throughput will increase, but not necessarily in the way that Mr Wingate predicts. In a perfect world, both Heathrow and Gatwick should have runways built and at the same. The airports should be then left to develop in their own rights.

However, I think there is still too much concentration on stealing business from Heathrow (Long Haul), without carving out a niche which is specific to Gatwick. I thought Flybe was an important part of Gatwick's business model and I really had to "double take" when I read of the entire "fees" saga, forcing the airline out. I think the board at Gatwick need to work to keep airlines, even those operating turboprops.

Heathrow has it's niche, Long haul and transfer... it's a hub. Gatwick isn't... except for Norwegian. It's point to point. And it's good at it. Keep building on that and maybe the second runway is more justified. I don't see the point of attracting a load of business which may move around the M25 in a few years. Attract the airlines who will stay and don't have one eye on Heathrow. There are plenty of airlines out there who don't want Heathrow.

[Fairdealfrank]

If a third runway was built at Heathrow (the only realistic option), then Gatwick would become pretty empty. I suspect Easyjet would have no problem leaving Gatwick if there was space at Heathrow.

One runway and two terminals is ample for Gatwick.


Would be very surprised if U2 left LGW in the event of an expanded LHR. Would expect U2 to start LHR ops as it is chasing business customers, perhaps by providing competition on domestic and near abroad trunk routes.

Do not see U2 quitting LGW where it is "number one". Under those circumstances, could see U2 quitting STN and/or LTN in the long term.



However, I think there is still too much concentration on stealing business from Heathrow (Long Haul), without carving out a niche which is specific to Gatwick.


Yes, it's pie in the sky. No carrier will leave LHR for LGW, some do LHR and LGW. The movement, where there is movement, is always from LGW to LHR. Always has been, always will be.


I thought Flybe was an important part of Gatwick's business model and I really had to "double take" when I read of the entire "fees" saga, forcing the airline out. I think the board at Gatwick need to work to keep airlines, even those operating turboprops.


Yes, it was shocking and disgraceful but, apparently, that's business. Think it was a mistake which may rebound in the medium to long term.

[Bagso]

re easyJet debunks Gatwick's Heathrow myth - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10728483/easyJet-debunks-Gatwicks-Heathrow-myth.html)

It does beg the Q how much capacity will RW3 add.

Are we not in danger of moving pieces around on same board ?

[Fairdealfrank]

re easyJet debunks Gatwick's Heathrow myth - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10728483/easyJet-debunks-Gatwicks-Heathrow-myth.html)

It does beg the Q how much capacity will RW3 add.

Are we not in danger of moving pieces around on same board ?


Not especially, there will also be some "churning", but a third rwy represents a huge increase in available capacity and the "churning" is a relatively small part of this.

For U2 and other UK carriers to establish LHR operations is a natural progression. Existing and new carriers, both UK and overseas, will be able to add new destinations.

Some of these may be thin routes between LHR and smaller UK airports, and that will give many of them a lifeline.

All sorts of possibilities open up with extra rwy capacity.

[hawkeye456]

can someone tell me why the three runway option at heathrow increases capacity while not affecting other london airfield. Yet as soon as it goes to 4 runways at heathrow, GW, SS and LC all see a drop in capacity (one of which would see a 75% drop). This may seem an obvious answer to some people but im struggling to make sense of where the bottlenecks are that produce these results

[118.70]

Around message 2800 in September 2013, people were all talking about the CAA Safety Notice on changes to wake turbulence separations for heavy-heavy departures.

The Heathrow UK AIP document

EG_AD_2_EGLL_en_2014-04-03.pdf

still seems to refer to the old standards :

(iii) Departures – Wake Vortex separation.
Wake vortex separations are in accordance with the 5 Group Scheme and are as detailed in UK AIC P 072/2010. On
departure, when in receipt of line up clearance, the pilot must inform ATC if greater wake vortex separation will be
required behind the preceeding aircraft than that laid down in UK AIC P 072/2010. Failure to do so may resut in
additional delay.but those standards were cancelled on 20th February and superseded by

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1166.pdf

Does Heathrow operate now with the "new" ICAO standards ?

Has a case to do anything else, as was surmised previously, been put forward ?

[Heathrow Harry]

Today's "Times" carries a report on a poll of the Great British Public on infrastructure for the CBI

1. more than 2/3 think development projects should be delayed until local views are heard properly & extensively

2. 50% think there is no need for ANY improvements to national transport, energy, water & comms infrastructure

3. They do not believe any "lights will go out arguments" on any issues

4 Most believe promoters of new infrastucture projects are not objective and ministers are not to be trusted

5. Half thought all infrastructure decisions should be decided by local communities

No exactly a great base to start arguing for any new runways anywhere at all TBH...............................

[Trash 'n' Navs]

118.70

I heard that the 'new' standard would've killed LHR's flow rate so after significant work by NATS, BA & BAA demonstrating the 'old' Hvy/Hvy standard was safe, the safety case for not moving to the new standards was accepted by the CAA.

Seems a good result.
:ok:

[Airlift21]

I saw the results of that poll the other day. Bit strange though, as a good proportion of the British public are pretty naffed off with the roads and railways.... and a good moan about an airport is never far away. Load of rubbish.

[Skipness One Echo]

Local views should not be allowed to overturn strategic national interests. We'd never have another infrastructure project built if we had to extensively consult everyone whose garden might be affected. No more power stations or airports? Ah we'll just print some money.

[Nicholas.kelly]

When Terminal going to close to the public and what terminal will Transaero fly from in future and terminal 1 BAs destinations will go from in future ?

[Heathrow Harry]

"We'd never have another infrastructure project built if we had to extensively consult everyone"

Indeed - but every Tory MP is in favour of "infrastructure projects" in general but not (say) HS2 or Heathrow expansion when it comes anywhere near them

Fortunately/unfortunatley we're not living in Singapore or Hong Kong so we have to work on the assumption that small-minded NIMBYism is an integral part of the fabric

and please don't start on about the need for "leadership".............. there isn't any any more :{:{

[DaveReidUK]

When Terminal going to close to the publicThe most recent announcement I've seen from Heathrow (made about a year ago) was that T1 would close in 2016.

[upandoffmyside]

Terminal 1 departure ..

With the new Terminal 2 shopping centre opening up from later this summer things will start changing around T1, allegedly.

Some BA services (Belfast & Dublin ?) will go to T5 towards the end of this year, and the other BA services that can't be fitted in to T5 will all be at T3. So from some point in 2015 it'll just be T5 and T3 for BA, apparently.

Perhaps then they'll get rid of the worst bits of bumpy taxiways in Europe .. .

[racedo]

Perhaps then they'll get rid of the worst bits of bumpy taxiways in Europe .. .

Always figured they were the bodies of NIMBYs from the 1950's .

[ETOPS]

I see that Etihad will introduce their new A380 by serving Heathrow first.

http://www.skyclub.com/news/2014/04/29/etihad-boosts-middle-east-flights-qatar-to-debut-a380-at-heathrow

[DaveReidUK]

Heathrow airport will tell the Airports Commission later this month that there “may be a case for introducing a congestion charge” for people travelling to the airport.

Heathrow airport proposes congestion charge plans (http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/0922408-heathrow-airport-proposes-congestion-charge)

[Heathrow Harry]

what's the pricing on those ETIHAD 3 room + butler suites??

[crewmeal]

Having done a 'booking' for January 2015 a one way fare from LHR - AUH came out at 77200 Dirhams which is around £12,481.00.

The return fare works out at £25,134 based on a 2 day stay in AUH.

[Heathrow Harry]

thanks - cheaper than using my BBJ then................... :hmm::hmm:

[racedo]

Does one have to bring ones own Butler ?

[Heathrow Harry]

Apparently they provide one - one's own Butler travels in Business with m' wife's ladies maid

[adfly]

Heathrow Harry - is one inferring that one places ones maids and butlers in Business Class with all of the riff raff? That is a disgusting way to treat them, I always have mine travel in 'regular' First, so they are nearer to me if I require their assistance!

[Fairdealfrank]

I see that Etihad will introduce their new A380 by serving Heathrow first.

It's appears to have become a tradition.

Started by EK, QF and SQ a few years ago.



Heathrow airport will tell the Airports Commission later this month that there “may be a case for introducing a congestion charge” for people travelling to the airport.


Had gotten the impression that this was:
(1) a drop off/pick up charge; and
(2) it was way into the future, after the third rwy was in use (so more than likely never!).

If it is going to be implemented, (and other airports do it), it would need to be after the public transport improvements have been completed, especially from the south. Also, the first ten minutes needs to be free.

[rutankrd]

Had gotten the impression that this was:
(1) a drop off/pick up charge; and
(2) it was way into the future, after the third rwy was in use (so more than likely never!).

If it is going to be implemented, (and other airports do it), it would need to be after the public transport improvements have been completed, especially from the south. Also, the first ten minutes needs to be free.

If the proposals are about traffic management within the central zone and I would imagine they are and face it, it would be very easy and cheap to implement - Cameras already exist and access is strictly controlled through tunnel.

I would be pretty sure there would be no "free" time.
Just a flat daily charge similar to the London central zone only worse - At least residents their get discounts and electric cars are free.

I believe this is inevitable and certain within a few years with or without T6/R3.

Just more reason for anyone in the UK to avoid this airport more and more.

[crewmeal]

According to press releases about 'Residence' class Butlers will be trained at the famous Butler training establishment in London. Probably this one -

British Butler Institute (http://www.britishbutlerinstitute.com/)

How they bring their skills to an aircraft who knows. However I can't imagine a Butler wafting around with one hand behind his back carrying a decanter of port on a tray in the other. Hope they pass their SEP course though.

Whose going to be the first to ask for an upgrade :-p

[joy ride]

RADA and RSC produce the best Butlers, none finer than John Gielgud!

[DaveReidUK]

If it is going to be implemented, (and other airports do it), it would need to be after the public transport improvements have been completed, especially from the south.That's what the article says:

"Once improvements to public transport to the airport have been delivered we believe there may be a case for a congestion charge"

Also, the first ten minutes needs to be free.That would rather defeat the object of the exercise. Again, from the article:

"Heathrow said a congestion charge would help to 'discourage drop off and pick up'"

[FlyingEagle21]

Heathrow alters runway plans to avoid digging up the M25 - Transport - News - London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/heathrow-alters-runway-plans-to-avoid-digging-up-the-m25-9343352.html)

Makes sense, have a look at the old plan to the new one keeping the current M25/M4 Junctions.

Original NW Option:

http://www.heathrowairport.com/file_source/Heathrow/Images/Content_images/option-1-third-runway-north-west_788px.gif

New NW Option:

http://www.heathrowairport.com/file_source/Heathrow/Images/Content_images/option-2-third-runway-north-west_788px.gif

[DaveReidUK]

Heathrow alters runway plans to avoid digging up the M25 - Transport - News - London Evening StandardThe Evening Standard might consider this news, but the revised NW runway option was actually announced back in January:

http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/PDF/a_new_approach_2014.pdf (page 51)

Still, good to see that the ES's Transport Editor has a good grasp of vertical topography:

"Heathrow will build a 600-metre tunnel taking traffic under the M25" :ugh:

[chinapattern]

Quote:
I see that Etihad will introduce their new A380 by serving Heathrow first.
It's appears to have become a tradition.

Started by EK, QF and SQ a few years ago.


Not quite the case; EK first flew the A380 DXB-JFK, QF MEL-LAX and SQ SIN-SYD.

[WHBM]

Makes sense, have a look at the old plan to the new one keeping the current M25/M4 Junctions.
The traffic engineer in me (but evidently not at BAA) tells me that the revised road plan will never be accepted. The high level links from the eastbound M4 to the southbound M25 (think doing Reading to T5), which is the top level in the M4/M25 junction, will never be able to be got down beneath the runway level in the space shown. It is already at maximum descending gradient for a motorway.

[118.70]

It would also make a good white-knuckle ride for the HS2 spur if it was to follow the indicative route in

http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/130116%20heathrow%20route%20description%20for%20ehs%20final% 20policy%20approved%20text.pdf

Over the top of the M25/M4 interchange, then racing down to go under the runway. FUN !!

[DaveReidUK]

The high level links from the eastbound M4 to the southbound M25 (think doing Reading to T5), which is the top level in the M4/M25 junction, will never be able to be got down beneath the runway level in the space shown.The future of the A4/Colnbrook Bypass seems to be in doubt too. The original NW plan had the A4 arcing south to the new roundabout east of Poyle, then heading east in a tunnel under the taxiways to join the current Bath Road at the West Ramp entrance (though how it would cross the M25 is anybody's guess).

The revised NW plan appears to sever the Colnbrook bypass, leaving no route for existing A4 E-W non-motorway traffic other than through the middle of Poyle and Colnbrook. It's hard to believe that's what the planners intend.

[Heathrow Harry]

Heathrow's planners are just interested in the airport extension and how people will get there - I'd expect the DoT and the local Council will be all over them if they really suggest cutting the A4 in the final proposal

[FlyingEagle21]

http://your.heathrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/TBF_new_Technicaldrawing.jpg

[compton3bravo]

Personally, I cannot see why so much time, money and energy is being spent regarding a third runway at Heathrow, second runway at Gatwick and Boris Island. None of them will ever be built because whoever is in power will not sanction any of them because of the environmental and business backlash, so can we just concentrate all our efforts on the maximum use of the existing five London airports please.

[racedo]

Doubt this is going to happen because anything that causes the M25 to be dug up or covered will take years, cost a fortune and have West London Motorways as congestion hell for 5 years.
Economic impact of 24 hr traffic jams make it a non starter.

[Aluminium shuffler]

I don't see a runway that is lined up with Windsor Castle getting the go ahead, and nor do I think it should. The planners chose a bad location when they decided on a new London airport to replace Croydon - it was good for transport links but too limited for physical expansion and growth of traffic. This extension is not going to work well - what's the point in increasing the runway capacity by 50% at a curfewed airport if you can expand LGW by 100% with no curfew?

My biggest doubt over LHR is a simple safety one - I don't think it's a great idea having so many arrivals and departures over such a congested area. BA038 was very lucky with its energy profile that it came down in a clear area. Then there are the departures - remember the STN 747 cargo accident? I don't think increasing an airport buried in conurbation is sensible - airports should generally have relatively clear undershoots if possible, and at LGW and STN it is possible.

[Skipness One Echo]

Except people seem to prefer flying to LHR, so you need to pay for it's closure in order to do that and still build at LGW or STN. The market doesn't want that, it wants LHR, so either put in appropriate infrastructure or shut it down and add further to out debt to pay for a new grand design "somewhere else". We've been p***ing about putting off this decision for decades. Sort it out please.

[DaveReidUK]

Interesting graphic, FE21, thanks for that.

As befits the somewhat dumbed-down approach of the your.heathrow.com website (whose Heathrow?) that it's from, the low-resolution image is rather lacking in detail, in fact it doesn't show any ground transport infrastructure at all other than present-day roads, so we're none the wiser about the proposed M25/M4/A4 layout.

Some interesting changes to the airside layout, though, compared to the previously published NW Option 2 proposal:

a) the T5/T6 complex is now shown as occupying an "island", with taxiways on all 4 sides

b) all 6 runway ends now show significantly displaced landing thresholds, presumably for noise mitigation reasons

[FlyingEagle21]

Interesting graphic, FE21, thanks for that.

As befits the somewhat dumbed-down approach of the your.heathrow.com website (whose Heathrow?) that it's from, the low-resolution image is rather lacking in detail, in fact it doesn't show any ground transport infrastructure at all other than present-day roads, so we're none the wiser about the proposed M25/M4/A4 layout.

Some interesting changes to the airside layout, though, compared to the previously published NW Option 2 proposal:

a) the T5/T6 complex is now shown as occupying an "island", with taxiways on all 4 sides

b) all 6 runway ends now show significantly displaced landing thresholds, presumably for noise mitigation reasons

No problem. It is on the your.heathrow website somehere

Also notice a new access point to the CTA via the south using the cargo tunnel.

[Skipness One Echo]

b) all 6 runway ends now show significantly displaced landing thresholds, presumably for noise mitigation reasons
Given how far the long haul heavies can roll on landing, is that wise or just slapdash graphics?

[rutankrd]

Quote:
b) all 6 runway ends now show significantly displaced landing thresholds, presumably for noise mitigation reasons
Given how far the long haul heavies can roll on landing, is that wise or just slapdash graphics?

Probably last comment crap graphics

However current declared lengths are

09L/27R 3,900m 12,795' grooved asphalt
09R/27L 3,660m 12,008' grooved asphalt

At current elevations and with current and known future aircraft you could easily displace the thresholds of both by 500 metres without impeding any operations if its primarily for noise abatement purposes.

There really aren't that many under performing DC-8 srs 61F or Tridents with go-cart engines in service these days :sad:

[DaveReidUK]

... to quote a rather surprising statement by Heathrow in their latest bit of PR:

http://your.heathrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Taking-Britain-Further-Summary-Pages-200dpi_easyread.pdf (page 22)

Call me pedantic, but I don't think that's what they actually meant to say. :O

[DaveReidUK]

Given how far the long haul heavies can roll on landing, is that wise or just slapdash graphics?You would have to ask a heavy driver whether it's prudent, but it's clearly intentional - the document I linked to in my previous post includes the statement that "aircraft touch down 700m further along runway".

That's consistent with the displaced landing thresholds shown for the NW runway, though the current runway ends appear to have been given rather larger displacements, particularly 09L where the LDA appears to be reduced by about 800m to 2800m (it's currently just under 3600m).

A landing threshold displaced by 700m, all other things being equal, makes about 120' difference to the height of an aircraft at any point on a 3° ILS (though said document also makes a reference to "steeper landing approaches").

[SamYeager]

A landing threshold displaced by 700m, all other things being equal, makes about 120' difference to the height of an aircraft at any point on a 3° ILS (though said document also makes a reference to "steeper landing approaches").


I believe they were intending to use a 3.2 degree approach in addition to the displaced threshold to reduce noise disturbance. The summary document includes an estimated noise profile chart. I certainly remember reading that 747's and the like would not be allowed at Heathrow by the time the third runway, if approved, was built.

[DaveReidUK]

I believe they were intending to use a 3.2 degree approach in addition to the displaced threshold to reduce noise disturbance. The summary document includes an estimated noise profile chart. I certainly remember reading that 747's and the like would not be allowed at Heathrow by the time the third runway, if approved, was built.Yes, the revised proposal contains the following assumption:

"all approaches will be steeper than today at 3.2 degrees in 2030 and 3.5 degrees in 2040".

[Maulkin]

Heathrow to rebrand world's busiest terminal as 'Terminal Samsung Galaxy S5' - Brand Republic News (http://www.brandrepublic.com/go/news/article/1294694/heathrow-rebrand-worlds-busiest-terminal-terminal-samsung-galaxy-s5/)

Oh dear.

[22/04]

LDA 2500m is enough for anything I think.

29 at DEL is 4000m but displaced threshold reduces LDA 2500m - doesn't seem to cause any problem

In this case I think it placates a temple - jets 500' higher over it as a result.

[NWSRG]

Can we take it from the graphic that the 'toast rack' will be complete before (or alongside) R3? That's a lot of building work...

Also, is the new R3 pier served by a new T6? The building just west of T5?

[DaveReidUK]

Can we take it from the graphic that the 'toast rack' will be complete before (or alongside) R3? That's a lot of building work...No, we can't.

The current proposals show around 10 years' worth of terminal construction in the years after R3 would become operational:

Runway operational (2025)
T6A Phase 1 (J) (2026)
T6B Phase 1 (K) (2026)
T6A Phase 2 (J) (2027)
T6B Phase 2 (K) (2027)
T2A Phase 2 (C) (2032)
T2E (D) (2033)
T2D (E) (2034)
T2A Phase 3 (C) (2036)
T2C (A) (2036)

The letters A to J indicate the elements of the "toast-rack" (terminals and satellites) in order reading east to west. K is the T6 satellite adjacent to R3.

Also, is the new R3 pier served by a new T6? The building just west of T5? Yes, that's the plan.

[Heathrow Harry]

someone on the SLF thread says they're going to rebrand T5 with Samsung phone logos and names throughout.... wonderful............

[pax britanica]

This thread is a graphic demonstration of why we in the UK are just so hopeless at major projects and decisions. As one poster pointed out for all its faults LHR is the destination of choice and for some very good reasons, ground and air connectivity.
It has been a big airport for all my lifetime,I am 60, and I grew up next to it when ublike the 777s and A380s off today, there really was such a thing as aircraft noise, try a PW powered 707 fan jet on approach screaming like the banshees of hell. Or that otherwise lovely but dreadfully un-neighbourly craft, the VC 10, which shook building foundations on take off-no reduced thrust departures back then. So people living relatively nearby-let’s say a 10km circle have all moved their or grown up their knowing there was a massive airport close by. Many of them liked it because it gave those good jobs and many more because it was easy to get to and from.
Others may have notices the huge empty space just north of the ‘field’ where the LON VOR sits and wondered or deduced why it hadn’t become a housing estate in that time period.
Flying over Queenies house is actually a good thing since Windsor Great part has no population and a couple of immense open spaces where a dist4ess airline could attempt a desperation landing –or aim just to the north for the runway like Olympic rowing park which would be a perfect runway in distress.
So as everyone want to use it leave it where it is , even the lovies from Kew and Richmond who have the most influence if not the most sense will flip from environmentally (and house price) related opposition once they realise how far the alternatives are along with the £100 each way train fare to Boris island.
So in essence just get on and build R3 north of the airport as shown, no one lives in Sipson except transient airline staff and for any longer term residents just give them a fair compulsory purchase settlement, as opposed to the normal parsimony shown by the Government in these circumstances.
I could go on, transition to Boris Island-how long would that take, six months, a year, longer-perfect for a hub.
80, 000 jobs gone in West London, Surrey and Berks, if you live in say Camberley or Chalfont St G even if you are long haul crew Boris Island is just too damn far, for the army of skilled airline specialists are they all going to move ?? What is going to happen when it’s gone, houses?? Sure , that’s easy just get rid of the three fuel depots and the 100 square Km of 6-10 foot think reinforced concrete in the ramps runways and taxiways and it will be a delightful tree less and features desert.
So it has to be LHR . love it or hate it, just get on and build the bloody thing before we are eclipsed completely by FRA CDG AMS DXB IST and become a peripheral player in civil aviation just like we are in most every other field of commerce except finance and gambling and they are much the same thing today right?

[Heathrow Harry]

don't understand WHY we have to be bigger than CDG, AMS etc etc - why are we sweating to get bigger?

If LHR stays exactly the same size then there is the same number of jobs, the same number of flights to the same places and a steady growth in passengers as larger planes replace the smaller ones................... even maybe a long term reduction in noise and pollution for the same reason

Most people wouldn't suggest we had to have the worlds tallest building just because they've built one in Dubai so why do we have to have the worlds largest airport???

[pax britanica]

HH

You are right , we do not need to be the biggest just for the sake of it, but we need to be comparable or competitive -real estate alone means CDG is and always will be bigger than LHR. However we have to allow for reasonable expansion-preservation and growth of the BA hub, rather than just giving the game to Emirates, and avoiding the long holding and ground manouvering delays endemic at present.

LHR has already started a slide downwards and unless it is arrested it will end up as a sort of Gatwick or Orly on Euro standards. Economically that's not good for UK inc and certainly not good for London and the South east. If I was promoting the idea of a really big airport -biggest in Europe- then I would be a Boris fan
PB

[Donkey497]

"..... we have to allow for reasonable expansion-preservation and growth of the BA hub, rather than just giving the game to Emirates....."


A) Do we really?


B) We? Surely this is a purely commercial concern between two Anglo-Spanish companies (IAG & Heathrow Airports/Ferrovial)?


C) Surely if expansion was in the plans then building major infrastructure and housing all round about the boundaries of the airport would not have been permitted, either by local authorities or by national government way back when it was a national asset before privatisation in 1987.

[Skipness One Echo]

You want to handle economic growth without expanding capacity at our only hub airport? You know, the one airlines and people really want to fly from?
We really know how to gift a lead to others in Britain in commercial aviation. Yes let's give it to the French and Germans and the Desert Rats. Then we can close LHR and move to Boris' super hub where we will have clean air and everyone can cycle to work. Super.

Actually why do we need economic growth at all. We're good as we are surely?
Oh hang on, are we in debt? Our kids even more so? Mortaged to the hilt on a house price bubble with a growing split between haves and have nots?

That might be why......
Or :
Job creation? Construction? Re-connect to markets that were squeezed out?
Integrated transport policy?
Try and put our last hub carrier on a level playing field with protectionist French and determined Germans?

Harry you're assuming a lot that sitting back and being complacent will keep London at the forefront. However today LHR has very poor access to emerging markets and even China is under served in comparison to FRA/CDG. One day, the model will break and we'll all be wondering why no one took necessary steps before it was too late.

[DaveReidUK]

Two interesting newly-published books on Heathrow:

Heathrow Airport - Operations Manual (Haynes) is a glossy, accessible insight into the day-to-day workings of the airport. Given the extensive access clearly granted to the author, it's not surprising that parts read like they were written by Heathrow's PR department, but it's fascinating nevertheless.

Heathrow - From Tents to Terminal 5 (Amberley) is written by a civil engineer and concentrates on the buildings and infrastructure. Illustrated with (mostly) B&W photos and line drawings, it's essential reading for those who know their beam soffites from their secant piles.

Both available from Amazon.

[Una Due Tfc]

As an outsider looking in, I think your government would be mad not to build RWY #3 at LHR. It's not just a hub for the U.K. or at least it wasn't. The amount of people using AMS instead over the last few years is huge. Then there's the people from BRS,BHX,EDI,GLA,LBA etc now going through DUB. Over 15% of pax crossing the Atlantic from Dublin every day originated in the U.K. and that number is growing.

If you don't innovate then you stagnate. The argument that by doing nothing and leaving LHR as it is means it won't start losing pax big time is in my view dangerous and wrong. The U.K. as a whole will lose out the longer the expansion is delayed. Other hubs are growing massively at LHR's expense. Those 80,000 direct jobs can only be protected by expansion.

[NWSRG]

Then there's the people from BRS,BHX,EDI,GLA,LBA etc now going through DUB. Over 15% of pax crossing the Atlantic from Dublin every day originated in the U.K. and that number is growing.

I suspect that APD has something to do with that...I have actually flown from DUB to LHR before going transatlantic. Booking on a through ticket from DUB rather than BFS was £1000 cheaper for a family of three to Toronto. All because of APD. And the same works the other way...fly from the UK to DUB on a short-haul flight paying low level APD, then international from DUB with zero APD.

[onyxcrowle]

Post deleted due to typical abuse from someone .
Just because I floated an idea about why could the UK national Hub not be in the Centre of the UK
And linked to Central London By High Speed rail.
My idea was Expand East Midlands and the Journey time from the right to the capital is about 40 mins if not less by HS2.
The response below is about par for the course.
Folk being deliberately RUDE.
Just for posting an idea.
I wonder if he'd be so ignorant to someone face to face but somehow on PPrune it's fine.
So thank you for that polite (Not response)

[CaptainDoony]

Just my take on our national hub

This has to be a wind up surely?! :eek:

[DaveReidUK]

This has to be a wind up surely?Whether it is or not, the OP might wish to reflect on the fact that, of the 52 proposals made to the Airports Commission, not one mentioned EMA.

That shouldn't come as any surprise, given that EMA's owners also operate a rather larger airport just outside the M25. :O

[Heathrow Harry]

Skipness

What is the connection between economic growth and airport capacity?

A very large portion of passengers at LHR are in transit - the only contribution they make is at WH Smith's

What you actually mean is that BA want to have a single hub at LHR and it is in THEIR economic interest to expand LHR

[DaveReidUK]

A very large portion of passengers at LHR are in transit - the only contribution they make is at WH Smith'sBy golly, I think you've cracked it.

If all arriving passengers were frog-marched to the Tube or coach station to ensure that they couldn't board another departing flight, that would solve the capacity problem at a stroke, because many routes would no longer be viable.

Now why hasn't the Airports Commission thought of that?

[Skipness One Echo]

Harry, as the economy grows, and we try to pay our debts off, we encourage more trade, which drives more travel. In a competition for new business in terms of emerging markets, we lose out against our competitors if they can't fly direct.

I know you enjoy knocking BA, but doing so just helps Air France, KLM and Lufthansa even more. I would prefer to have inward investment come to the UK bringing jobs and capital with it. If you don't think the rest of our competitors are fighting dirty and laying out the red carpet for their money, you're being naive.

None of the players capable of delivering this are interested in using Gatwick save Air China who maintain a summer shuttle for students. Korean were the latest to give it a go and that didn't last.

As for transit passengers contributing "nothing", that beggars belief.
How many routes are not viable without feed?
How many routes would see frequency collapse without feed?
How much more would we pay with capacity costraints that come with the points above?
How many pilots would BA need to pay off?
Suppliers? White van drivers? WHSmith workers even?
From AB1s to DEs, it would affect a lot of jobs. I imagine you consider we have too many jobs and can afford to relax??!

May I suggest you re-consider?

[pax britanica]

Mr or Ms Onyx

I am sorry someone was rude enough to abuse you for making a reasonable suggestion-I do not understand why people get so emotive on here on what is meant to be a friendly discussion on a project

With high Speed rail the problem is not so much time as cost, this also applies to the rail link from the LHR catchment area west of the airport to Boris Island.

At present the LHR express is £21 one way to go about 12 miles. If you were to have a hub built around East Midlands a central for the country you would need two southern termini-one in London and one in Reading- joining up somewhere en route to the airport line -maybe somewhere like Northampton. The route to the south then needs two new lines as existing tracks have neither cap city nor capability- probably as much real estate involved as expansion of LHR and probably a similar number of people affected.
Now comes the real killer , the journey length is 116 miles which to all intents and purposes is ten times the Heathrow Express length.-that makes the SINGLE FARE , certainly by the time its built, £200. And that kills it in one

[Heathrow Harry]

"In a competition for new business in terms of emerging markets, we lose out against our competitors if they can't fly direct."

I'm afraid there is absolutely no evidence to show it

There have been more direct flights from LHR to the rest of the world than from Frankfurt for years and yet the Germans have persistently out sold UK industry world wide

[DaveReidUK]

There have been more direct flights from LHR to the rest of the world than from Frankfurt for years and yet the Germans have persistently out sold UK industry world wideWhich in turn neither proves, nor disproves, the original proposition.

The Germans might simply be better salesman, with better products. :O

[Skipness One Echo]

I'm afraid there is absolutely no evidence to show it
There have been more direct flights from LHR to the rest of the world than from Frankfurt for years and yet the Germans have persistently out sold UK industry world wide
FRA has more destinations than LHR.
CDG has more destinations than LHR.
AMS has more destinations than LHR.

That's only going to get worse if as you wish, we sit on our bums and allow LHR to stagnate further. That's no way to run a business.
Your idea that the way to beat the Germans is to allow the number of hub destinations to wither further has no logic.

[davidjohnson6]

Skipness - while I agree with your argument, how many of those destinations at AMS, CDG and FRA have a non trivial proportion of connecting passengers ? If the flights on a route are largely carrying north Europeans to a Greek island (for example) I suspect the destination adds little to the airport's overall network connectivity

[Skipness One Echo]

Look at the Air France, KLM and Lufthansa presence going to the Far East and compare to BA with BKK, SIN, HKG, PVG, PEK, ICN, Chengdu and SYD. Under ten, not great. (bet I missed a couple!)

Our hub airport faces overwhelmingly to the US which is essential for BA to make money but constrains growth into important markets at the same time. We are being marginalised, albeit slowly, but it appears unmistakeable I think.

[Logohu]

And look at the huge losses AF/KL and LH are currently making compared to BA.

I believe BA currently also operates to NRT and HND. But more to the point BA previously operated to many more Far East points than they do now - TPE, JKT, KUL, BNE, MEL, ADL, PER, AKL, CHC, CMB and probably others I've forgotten. All those destinations ceased because BA couldn't compete with other carriers on the routes and as a result each was making huge losses. Are those destinations suddenly going to become viable again and be added to BA's route map just because of a third runway ?? I don't think so. How many other viable new destinations from LHR are really out there ??

I don't doubt the need for a third runway, however the days of BA flying to everywhere on the planet with a long enough runway are long gone. More likely the extra slots would be used to add yet more flights to current gateways, especially those where their Oneworld mates are dominant.

[Una Due Tfc]

KLM were extremely profitable until they got in to bed with AF.

Lufthansa made a profit of €313 million last year, €1.228 billion the year before.......

[Skipness One Echo]

I believe BA currently also operates to NRT and HND.
Knew I'd missed some annoying as I have actually been to NRT with er....BA.
All those destinations ceased because BA couldn't compete with other carriers on the routes and as a result each was making huge losses. Are those destinations suddenly going to become viable again and be added to BA's route map just because of a third runway ?? I don't think so. How many other viable new destinations from LHR are really out there ??
After 9-11 BA re-deployed onto more profitable US routes with a laser like focus on profitability, putting exising assets where they can make the most yield. Also with Alliance traffic, some routes like Osaka could be served with a JAL codeshare, however as the economy recovers, focus moves East and next gen B787s and A350s arrive, there is a case for growth into these markets. Of course the ME3 can handle a lot of the traffic going East (Australia and New Zealand for sure) but there is still a fairly large point to point market to London. Indeed CMB has since resumed albeit from Gatters and many are still pressing for KUL (axed because of a hugely expensive airport and a dominant Malaysia Airlines, now a oneworld partner).
Of course a third runway is not a panacea however the idea that we shouldn't bother to try?? Come off it, ever wondered why Toulouse and Hamburg still build commercial airliners whereas Filton is very much closed? How much more is the British disease of apathay, dither and nonsense going to surrender?

[pax britanica]

Well said Skipness 1E-are your a STAR or SID btw?

Your last sentence sums up my whole point that in UK we just faff about on infrastructure projects and a 'real' economy until whoops the opportunity has gone .

[Skipness One Echo]

A long gone Prestwick SID :)

[DaveReidUK]

A long gone Prestwick SIDAs indeed is the SKP VOR itself, though its former location can be discerned (just) on GE.

[Heathrow Harry]

"why Toulouse and Hamburg still build commercial airliners whereas Filton is very much closed?"

maybe because the returns on investment aren't wonderful and it's a prestige project?

EADS 1.2 Bn profit on a turnover of 53 Bn = 2.2% and AIrbus aims for a cash neutral 2014 & 2015 ..... not a wonderful investment TBH

[Skipness One Echo]

maybe because the returns on investment aren't wonderful and it's a prestige project?

EADS 1.2 Bn profit on a turnover of 53 Bn = 2.2% and AIrbus aims for a cash neutral 2014 & 2015 ..... not a wonderful investment TBH
So your point is why bother? How many jobs? How much tax paid in wages versus benefits? National prestige? Influence?
Nahhhh sounds like hard work innit? Dude, you make me look like an optimist and that's not something I see every day....
Your way is just plain lazy and lacks any form of aspiration or ambition, if the worst thing you come back with it's not making quite enough money? As prestige projects go, it allows an economy to be less dependent on B(w)ankers than ours was, and I should point out, that did not work out well which is why the're desperate to grow the real economy now. Sorry if that's not sexy enough for your tastes (!)

[Una Due Tfc]

Heathrow Harry

How much of that 52 billion do you think went to the French and German governments directly? Then how much tax did the workers pay on their wages? Then how much VAT did they pay on all the nice things they can buy? Road tax? Then there's the indirect benefits. Fuelers for the test aircraft, third party companies (Honeywell, RR, CFM, BAE etc etc) who employ more workers as a result of a company as massive as Airbus being in existence.

How much extra tax revenue does the British government get from non UK residents transitting through Heathrow? How many extra immigration officers/Pilots/Cabin Crew/Cleaners/Shop Workers/Mechanics/ATC/Caterers/Fuelers/Security/Baggage Handlers/Bus Drivers etc etc are employed because of them? How much Tax do they contribute to the UK economy?

[WHBM]

How much extra tax revenue does the British government get from non UK residents transitting through Heathrow? How many extra immigration officers/Pilots/Cabin Crew/Cleaners/Shop Workers/Mechanics/ATC/Caterers/Fuelers/Security/Baggage Handlers/Bus Drivers etc etc are employed because of them? How much Tax do they contribute to the UK economy?
It's not just that. There is an enormous economic benefit to the whole region from being a hub location. Look at Dallas or Dubai. The transit passengers fill say half the plane. The other half gets taken by O&D passengers from the local region. Neither flow would justify the density of flights on their own, but each supports the other and then there is an economic cascade process that rises from that, because the place gets so well connected internationally.

[DaveReidUK]

The transit passengers fill say half the plane. The other half gets taken by O&D passengers from the local region. Neither flow would justify the density of flights on their own, but each supports the other and then there is an economic cascade process that rises from that, because the place gets so well connected internationally.Exactly. I've never understood why some people appear unable to grasp what is, after all, a fairly simple concept.

Granted, hubbing isn't universally popular - most passengers would prefer to fly direct, if such a service existed, rather than via a hub, but the point is that in many cases there probably won't be the demand to make a direct flight viable.

While some of Heathrow's current PR campaign is dire, bordering on disingenuous, they have actually made a rather good video explaining the dynamics of hubs, which should be required viewing for contributors to the debate:

What is a hub airport? - YouTube

Apart from the inexplicable reference to some place called "Dyce", wherever that is (it's actually the original name of what is now Aberdeen Airport).

Of course nothing in the video is specific to Heathrow, it would apply to UK plc's hub wherever that ends up being located.

[DaveReidUK]

Can some one confirm that the new T2 has been built without a baggage system and that every bag is conveyored to T1 for containerizing?? Yes and no.

"Arriving baggage

Terminal 1's baggage system will process Terminal 2's departing and transfer baggage. To give passengers the reliability they expect, we're strengthening and upgrading the Terminal 1 baggage system so that it can handle Terminal 2 bags with ease. For example, we're replacing 17 of Terminal 1's hold-baggage screening machines.

Terminal 2's arriving baggage will be processed in Terminal 2. The spacious new baggage reclaim hall will contain eight international and two domestic carousels. They'll be easy to identify and easy to reach so that passengers can collect their bags for their onward journey.

The carousels will be installed during 2013, ready for passengers to use when it opens in 2014.

Departing baggage

In a later stage of development, we'll be building a new system for departing baggage in Terminal 2. This baggage system will incorporate new technologies to reduce manual handling and improve baggage delivery performance."

http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/Heathrow/Downloads/PDF/terminal-2-brochure_LHR.pdf

[T250]

Why was the baggage system designed in this way? Why was T2 not built with associated baggage system for departures like any airport :bored:

[PAXboy]

Why was T2 not built with associated baggage system for departures like any airport
One possibility is that there was not the physical space to do it in the primary construction.
Another is that new technology might be about to emerge and they want to wait for it to be ready.
or they just found a way to save money on this phase.

Many other possibilities are possible!

[Surreyman]

Returned from Dublin on tuesday, as I walked from the Irish pier to the domestic arrivals, knowing that Aer Lingus are moving to T2 soon, I remember thinking, this is probably the last time I will do this, however while T1 is scheduled to close (presumably sometime in the next 12 months) I assume that that the aircraft stands/Gates etc will remain even if the access is changed.
Can anyone provide more info?

[DaveReidUK]

I remember thinking, this is probably the last time I will do this, however while T1 is scheduled to close (presumably sometime in the next 12 months) I assume that that the aircraft stands/Gates etc will remain even if the access is changed.I haven't seen any definite announcement yet re the date that T1 will finally close, but clearly the apron space, minus the piers, will be used as remote stands otherwise there won't be enough stands available at peak times.

In due course the new T2 will expand northwards, in two phases, but the first of those isn't due to open until around 2030.

[MaximumPete]

In the Sunday Times American Airlines has bought a pair of take-off and landing slots from Cyprus Airways for £20million.

It looks as though IAG got the deal of the century when they bought parts of the bmi group from LH

[DaveReidUK]

for £20millionEconomics Basics: Supply and Demand | Investopedia (http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp)

[Una Due Tfc]

Some airlines make quite a bit of money by leasing some of their pairs. I'd love to know how much EI have made over the years from doing it.

20 million pounds is about the cost of 2 D checks on a widebody though, doesn't sound so bad when you put it like that eh?

[Heathrow Harry]

"There is an enormous economic benefit to the whole region from being a hub location."

can you point me to an academic study proving this?

[Suzeman]

can you point me to an academic study proving this?

Try this for starters

http://www.britishchambers.org.uk/assets/downloads/policy_reports/BCC_Economic_Impacts_of_Hub_Airports.pdf

[Heathrow Harry]

hardly unbiased I'm afraid - that's why I asked for ACADEMIC papers...........

[Skipness One Echo]

hardly unbiased I'm afraid - that's why I asked for ACADEMIC papers...........
Are you seriously looking for an academic study that's unbiased in a politically loaded subject matter like this? Not possible Harry, that's a loaded question.

"There is an enormous economic benefit to the whole region from being a hub location."
Harry are you seriously questioning this? Almost every post we see from you is anti-Heathrow, one suspects you may have worked there and perhaps left under unhappy circumstances? You clearly liked the place well enough when you chose the username?
If you don't think that Heathrow's hub status brings benefits in terms of jobs and connectivity to the world to London and the wider region then I honestly feel you're denying a clear and apparent reality. The only winner if the anti Heathrow brigade wins will be Lufthansa / FRA, Air France / CDG and KLM / AMS.
Half the businesses I have worked for are located exactly where they are because we can get people in and out of Heathrow and into Europe at a decent pace, it's not rocket science.

[WeeJeem]

Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask, or indeed if it's being covered elsehwere, but I did look (promise!) but couldn't find anything anywhere :8


Has anyone got any update info about the current hold-luggage fiasco at T2?
I flew out of T2 yesterday afternoon as slc with Swiss to ZRH, and am still bagless 24 hours on, with bag just confirmed as still in LHR. (According to a somewhat stressed customer services assistant, virtually no baggage had made it to ZRH yesterday or Saturday on Swiss a/c.)

Is it just an unfortunate (for me) bijou Swiss/ZRH-related microshambles that's playing out, or is it on a larger scale but BAA have learned to manage the PR better since the T5 "opening"?

[Skipness One Echo]

T2 are still using the existing T1 baggage system, and Swiss temain in T1 until October (!) #confused
Having said that Swiss have been using T2B for over a year, usually Gate B47, (247L/247R) but more recently Gate B36 which is new. Not sure why that should make an impact aside from it's one Hell of a walk from T1....

[DaveReidUK]

can you point me to an academic study proving this?At the risk of stating the obvious, and notwithstanding BAA's propaganda, it might be argued that any enterprise supporting 70,000 or so jobs provides benefits that are apparent without requiring the help of academia to spell them out. :ugh:

[anothertyke]

But unless we are talking about the Boris's Island scenario, the issue is not the base level of activity and jobs. The prime choice is between a development at Gatwick with no taxpayer funding and a development at Heathrow with a significant public funding component. The issue is whether the extra benefits to the economy outside the perimeter fence of LHR3 justify that public funding contribution. Words like enormous and obvious don't really cut it. This is why the hub argument and trying to put some numbers to it is so important.

[Heathrow Harry]

"any enterprise supporting 70,000 or so jobs provides benefits that are apparent without requiring the help of academia to spell them out"

Hmmm......

The coal mines? Shipyards??? British Leyland???? The Civil Service?????

Just because it employs people doesn't mean it's a great idea :confused::confused:

[Midland1]

You're right, there's nothing about the current baggage fiasco at T1/T2 anywhere on PPrune, or anywhere else. Except, that is, for a brief paragraph on the BBC News website which covered the Queens' official opening of the new T2/Queens terminal on Monday the 23rd. The brief report states there has been severe baggage problems in T1 with many passengers departing without their baggage.

The problems started on Saturday and continued all day Sunday. By Sunday evening there were reports of app. 25,000 bags having been left behind affecting all T1/T2 departures. Many flights departed T1/T2 with no hold baggage at all. Apparently, by Monday lunchtime the airlines and handling agents had 'rushed' about 17,000 bags to their destinations but the baggage system then suffered further issues and the problems started again. Haven't heard what the figures are currently for missed bags.

There is most definately a concerted effort to keep the story out of the press. I'm guessing journalists who are enquiring are being told it's a minor issue and it's all under control. After all, with the Queen arriving to open the shiny new terminal and with the T5 opening fiasco still a recent memory, Heathrow managers must be doing everything they can to keep this out of the news.

T2 does not in fact have it's own baggage sort area. T2 checked in bags are conveyored through a connecting tunnel into the T1 baggage sort area and taken to the relevant stands from there so any problems in T1 will impact in T2.

Did hear it was a software issue.

[dochealth]

I'm on my third night in Calgary without bag. Air Canada have NO info bout the cock up which affected bout 100 people on Sundays AC 851.

Why complete lack of progress report? Have bags gone into blackhole?
All a bit strange...

[crewmeal]

probably end up here:-

Auctions: Baggage Battles: Travel Channel (http://www.travelchannel.com/tv-shows/baggage-battles)

[Skipness One Echo]

Heathrow managers must be doing everything they can to keep this out of the news.
Like what? If the press scent a real story then they'll print it, it's just the usual operational cock up that happens all too often. I think with BA and T5, it's a more iconic target with a proper hook. T2 doesn't have the focus and hook to hang the story on in the same way. Has it been fixed yet?

[daz211]

NAIROBI, Kenya July 12 – The Kenyan government on Saturday warned its citizens against travelling through Heathrow Airport, London following a potential terror threat, officials said and urged travelers to go through alternative routes.
A statement from the Foreign Affairs Ministry said the warning was issued following information provided by US officials who have warned that terrorists were planning to bring down a plane in London. :oh:

[daz211]

From Capital news Kenya.

NAIROBI, Kenya July 12 – The Kenyan government on Saturday warned its citizens against travelling through Heathrow Airport, London following a potential terror threat, officials said and urged travelers to go through alternative routes.
A statement from the Foreign Affairs Ministry said the warning was issued following information provided by US officials who have warned that terrorists were planning to bring down a plane in London.

[Brian Abraham]

Don't be so dramatic. You forgot the rest of the article.
According to information provided by US officials, Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen and Syria were developing sophisticated bombs that could bring down a plane,” the statement issued by Foreign Affairs Principal Secretary Karanja Kibicho stated, “The information states that Britain would be the most likely country to be affected.”

Based on this information, he said “Kenyans are advised NOT to travel through London Heathrow where there is substantial threat of a possible attack.”

He urged Kenyans travelling to the United States and other destinations in Europe to go through alternative routes like Doha, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Amsterdam and Addis Ababa “in order to minimize the risk and avoid possible delays.”

And even as the government warned its citizens against travelling through Heathrow airport, Britain was also warning its citizens to limit their travel while in Kenya, following threats from the Al Qaeda-linked militant group Al Shabaab.

It particularly warned it citizens to avoid areas around Lamu, Tana River, Eastleigh in Nairobi as well as several areas in Mombasa.

“If you’re currently in an area to which the FCO advise against all but essential travel, you should consider whether you have an essential reason to remain. If not, you should leave the area,” the advisory available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) website which was updated on Saturday warned.They're just upset the Brits have issued a travel warning to Kenya I'd say. No one else has a London warning it seems.

[daz211]

I am not being dramatic ...

The news article states terrorists are planning to bring down a plane in London
And they are reporting this information has come from officials in the US.

So have officials in the US said this might happen or are the Kenyans making things up ?

But more to the point why have UK and US officials not took action over this report and advice.

[Andy_S]

But more to the point why have UK and US officials not took action over this report and advice.

Have you not been reading the news this past week?

[davidjohnson6]

Air China seem to have raised their Heathrow-Beijing service from 1x daily to 2x daily effective late October.
Where did the extra slots come from ?

[Fairdealfrank]

Rumours abound that Boris is applying to be the Conservative candidate in Uxbridge at the next election.

It's would be an interesting choice for Boris: half of Uxbridge works on the airport!

Some companies are headquartered in the town because of the proximity of Heathrow; and, of course, residents have the convenience of an airport on the doorstep with plenty of destinations available for their leisure and business trips.

Uxbridge is not under the flightpath and wouldn't be with 3/4 parallel rwys.

There was an interesting piece on LBC (regional radio station recently gone "national") earlier today, they sent a reporter to talk to Uxbridge locals, and Boris's idea of closing Heathrow went down like a lead balloon.


So will the local Conservatives select Boris? probably.
Will he win the seat? probably.
Will his airport policy change? almost certainly.

[JonnyH]

I've also heard those rumours that he will be trying to take the opportunity of being a candidate next year. He will be continuing his post as Mayor until 2016 though, so not sure how it'll work.

[ManAtTheBack]

The Davies Commission, with Heathrow still in the running, will report shortly after the next election. This could allow Boris to make a "pragmatic" decision to support the Commission's conclusion.

Of course, if he were to be elected for Kensington, he could maintain his "Boris Island" plans.

[Fairdealfrank]

The Davies Commission, with Heathrow still in the running, will report shortly after the next election. This could allow Boris to make a "pragmatic" decision to support the Commission's conclusion.
Indeed!



Of course, if he were to be elected for Kensington, he could maintain his "Boris Island" plans.
Not so, a proportion of the airline premium business that is so wedded to Heathrow must be Kensington residents.

Not sure where he could stand and still promote the estuary airport - the residents of Kent and Essex certainly don't want it.

[anothertyke]

Caithness and Sutherland perhaps?

[BCALBOY]

Notice BA have taken out 1 rotation tomorrow on a lot of short haul routes midday to early afternoon ,presume due to anticipated weather conditions ?

ABZ , BHD ,EDI ,GLA, MAN ,NCL ,AMS,ORY,BRU,DUS,FRA,ZRH ,MAD,MXP all lost a flight .

[118.70]

Uxbridge is not under the flightpath and wouldn't be with 3/4 parallel rwys.But doesn't the constituency also include South Ruislip (and Northolt Aerodrome) ?

And don't some of the flightpaths in options included in

http://your.heathrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/01-Heathrow-3RNW-Air-and-Ground-Noise-Assessment.pdf

show curving flight paths around Uxbridge which would impact on South Ruislip ?

[DaveReidUK]

But doesn't the constituency also include South Ruislip (and Northolt Aerodrome) ?Correct, the clue is in the name of the constituency since 2010: "Uxbridge and South Ruislip"

[MANFOD]

Out of interest, can anyone explain the reason for the long delays into LHR this afternoon and evening? I assume yesterday was weather related but was that the issue today? I was just surprised the holding was so extensive over a long period.

Judging by the relatively few flights that had to divert, it would seem a/c were forewarned and were carrying plenty of extra fuel.

Thanks for any info.

[DaveReidUK]

Thunderstorms.

[PAXboy]

A MAJOR thunderstorm group meandered across London and the Home Counties. Much rain and wind that was bad enough whilst driving on roads. I was watching it whilst driving down the M1 into North London and thought it must have been causing long delays.

[Skipness One Echo]

Boris Johnson: third runway at Heathrow would be a 'disaster' | Environment | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/01/boris-johnson-third-runway-disaster)

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson has taken time out from having sexual relations with women who are not his wife, his part time mayoralty and full time ego massaging to decry the barbaric and health risking possibility of not building the airport he sees cementing his name in history.
As a mere pleb who has been forced to undertake real work to make ends meet, I can only gaze with astonishment at the man's famed intellect.

I did not know LHR was 100 times noisier than CDG. Must be all those Tridents.... It really bugs me when people misuse stats like that. It's lying, plain and simple.

[jdcg]

Johnson's tenuous link to truth -telling is legendary. Ego gone wild.

[BasilBush]

While I agree with you, Skip, on the clear case for LHR expansion I don't think we should be glib about the noise issues. LHR is vastly worse on this issue than other London airports and this has to be faced. It is a difficult issue.

While Boris is being a bit apocalyptic in his comments I'm not sure we can accuse him of lying. An airport's noise impact is normally measured by the number of people who live within specific noise contours. I don't have the figures for CDG, but if we look at the LEQ57 noise contour for example Heathrow is 65 times worse than LGW and 192 times worse than STN. For higher levels of noise exposure LHR comes out even worse, ie 90 times LGW or 230 times STN at the LEQ60 noise level.

Again I'm not trying to argue against LHR expansion but we can't pretend this isn't a real problem.

(Source 2012 data at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/noise-exposure-contours-around-london-airports)

[DaveReidUK]

While Boris is being a bit apocalyptic in his comments I'm not sure we can accuse him of lying.He's quoted as saying: "Heathrow is already by far the noisiest airport in Europe, about a hundred times worse than Paris."

While the first part of his statement can't be disputed, I can't think of any metric that supports the 100x assertion.

In round terms, there are about 5x as many people living within Heathrow's 55db Lden contour than within CDG's (roughly three quarters of a million vs about 150,000)

[BasilBush]

Yes, I see now that CDG wasn't the best comparator for Boris to use. It's the third worst airport in Europe from a noise perspective, after LHR and FRA. Not much evidence of fact checking in his Telegraph article then...

[Skipness One Echo]

I was having a chat on the Northern Perimeter Road on Sunday as a B788 accelerated past on take off power. I did not have to as much as raise my voice. Boris is being selective as this is all about him and his place in history.
LGW had no one living on either approach, nor has STN but hard choices need to be made. You know, actual real and grown up decisions. Pfeffel is being wholly misleading for his own ends. Again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/11068568/Boris-Island-airport-plan-dumped-by-Davies-Commission.html

* sounds of dummy being spat out
Despite the setback, Daniel Moylan, chief aviation adviser to London’s Mayor, suggested Mr Johnson would not surrender over a Thames Estuary airport, hinting that he would resurrect the battle next year if he gains a seat in Parliament. Mr Johnson is seeking to become the Conservative candidate for Uxbridge and South Ruislip at the next general election.
Again, why is this millionaire politician and former banker, allowed to call himself an adviser on aviation?
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/06/daniel-moylan-salary-boris/
Cos it's who you know...

[davidjohnson6]

Boris has been defeated - for now at least

BBC News - Boris Island airport plan 'to be rejected' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29021459)

[WHBM]

I see that Sky News (the television version) this morning is describing Boris Island as a proposed airport "In East London".

Do journalists have the faintest idea what they are writing about nowadays ?

[pwalhx]

Boris just claimed on Radio 5 it would cost as much to build a new runway at LHR as build Boris Island.

[FlyingEagle21]

Any timeline for the demolition of the CTA primary radar tower? I'm guessing it's going with T1 post 2015.. Bring on the 3rd runway ;). Also are there any plans to upgrade the CTA tube station?

[Fairdealfrank]

While I agree with you, Skip, on the clear case for LHR expansion I don't think we should be glib about the noise issues. LHR is vastly worse on this issue than other London airports and this has to be faced. It is a difficult issue.

While Boris is being a bit apocalyptic in his comments I'm not sure we can accuse him of lying. An airport's noise impact is normally measured by the number of people who live within specific noise contours. I don't have the figures for CDG, but if we look at the LEQ57 noise contour for example Heathrow is 65 times worse than LGW and 192 times worse than STN. For higher levels of noise exposure LHR comes out even worse, ie 90 times LGW or 230 times STN at the LEQ60 noise level.

Again I'm not trying to argue against LHR expansion but we can't pretend this isn't a real problem.



I was having a chat on the Northern Perimeter Road on Sunday as a B788 accelerated past on take off power. I did not have to as much as raise my voice. Boris is being selective as this is all about him and his place in history.
Look at the long time-line proposed for the third rwy as suggested by the Commission. Noise won’t be a problem by the time the rwy(s) is/are built, if they ever are, all the aircraft we now consider to be “noisy” (e.g. B747-400s) will be long gone.




Yes, I see now that CDG wasn't the best comparator for Boris to use. It's the third worst airport in Europe from a noise perspective, after LHR and FRA. Not much evidence of fact checking in his Telegraph article then... No change there then.





LGW had no one living on either approach, nor has STN but hard choices need to be made. You know, actual real and grown up decisions. Pfeffel is being wholly misleading for his own ends. Again.
Exactly.




Again, why is this millionaire politician and former banker, allowed to call himself an adviser on aviation?
My guess is that no “aviation advisor” who actually knew anything about aviation would tolerate this drivel.

How much public money has been wasted on this nonsense?





I see that Sky News (the television version) this morning is describing Boris Island as a proposed airport "In East London".

Do journalists have the faintest idea what they are writing about nowadays ?
Typical sloppy journalism, they are more interested in political correctness rather than geographical correctness, there is also no word for “geography” in Journalese.





Boris just claimed on Radio 5 it would cost as much to build a new runway at LHR as build Boris Island.
…and there are going to be 200,000 residents in the “redeveloped” Heathrow. That would mean several living on the streets, the Heathrow site isn’t that big.

Maybe the tune will change once Boris is the candidate in Uxbridge, many residents work on the airport and would probably quite like to keep their jobs.

[Bagso]

...and now we may be building another runway to service "the regions" , slight problem those regions may be in a new Country in 2 weeks.

Will Scotland really want to use LHR as much as those who want RW3 say they will, I doubt it given tonight's news. It's arrogance to think so.

And where on earth is Davies this has to be a significant change !

[Heathrow Harry]

the sole purpose of Davies is to delay until after the next election

If Scotland goes out we can then have another commission which will report in 2021 after the NEXT election

[DaveReidUK]

Will Scotland really want to use LHR as much as those who want RW3 say they willWhatever the result of the referendum on the 18th, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen are all going to be the same distance from London as they are today (roughly as far as Cologne/Bonn and Frankfurt, respectively).

Why would you expect the loads on those routes to reduce just because you need to start carrying your passport?

[nivsy]

why would you need to carry passport....am sure agreement will be struck on that similar to inter euroland...and anyway most pax ex scotland probably all carry passport to LHR as on connecting flights...and just about all who fly EZY etc are passport carriers ex Scotland to LUT/LGW/STN etc etc...

[Donkey497]

Nivs..... There may be no option,but to carry your passport if the vote goes for independence.


Part of Alex's aim is to re-join the EU, so signing up to the Euro is mandatory for ALL new entrants - non negotiable. (Which he conveniently forgets). Plus a whole host of other conditions, some negotiable, some not, including Schengen. Hence it may well be necessary to carry your passport, or national ID card to fly between the two.
I don't claim to be an expert on all the implications of the Schengen Agreement on border controls, but I believe that there are different, probably bi-lateral, arrangements at land borders than operate at air or sea ports. So it's possible that there may be no need for a passport to drive across the border, but it will be needed to fly.
The corollary is also that a yes vote might well force the issue for a UK-wide introduction of ID cards.

[fjencl]

Branson U-turn as new British airline to shut | The Sunday Times (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Companies/article1455799.ece)

[crewmeal]

If that's the case I'm sure SRB will cry foul and blame everybody else for unfair competition as he always does when things go wrong.

[Fairdealfrank]

...and now we may be building another runway to service "the regions" , slight problem those regions may be in a new Country in 2 weeks.

Will Scotland really want to use LHR as much as those who want RW3 say they will, I doubt it given tonight's news. It's arrogance to think so.

And where on earth is Davies this has to be a significant change !



It’s not a significant change for the Airports Commission, Scottish secession has no bearing on the need for LHR expansion.



Whatever the result of the referendum on the 18th, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen are all going to be the same distance from London as they are today (roughly as far as Cologne/Bonn and Frankfurt, respectively).

Why would you expect the loads on those routes to reduce just because you need to start carrying your passport?




why would you need to carry passport....am sure agreement will be struck on that similar to inter euroland...and anyway most pax ex scotland probably all carry passport to LHR as on connecting flights...and just about all who fly EZY etc are passport carriers ex Scotland to LUT/LGW/STN etc etc...




Nivs..... There may be no option,but to carry your passport if the vote goes for independence.

It's not been debated, but the chances are that a breakaway Scotland would be part of the Common Travel Area with the UK and Ireland.



Part of Alex's aim is to re-join the EU, so signing up to the Euro is mandatory for ALL new entrants - non negotiable. (Which he conveniently forgets). Plus a whole host of other conditions, some negotiable, some not, including Schengen. Hence it may well be necessary to carry your passport, or national ID card to fly between the two.


Nothing is "non-negotiable". If a separated Scotland was re-admitted to the EU (i.e. Spain or any other country did not use a veto), would imagine that Salmond would ask for a very similar deal to that of the UK.

If it was not granted, Salmond could walk away. After all, two out of the three countries in the so-called "arc of prosperity" which he wishes to be part of, are outside the EU.





I don't claim to be an expert on all the implications of the Schengen Agreement on border controls, but I believe that there are different, probably bi-lateral, arrangements at land borders than operate at air or sea ports. So it's possible that there may be no need for a passport to drive across the border, but it will be needed to fly.



A country can be a recent member of the EU and not in the eurozone (by never joining the ERM) and not in Schengen (by never having secure borders) even if in theory they're obliged to join both.




The corollary is also that a yes vote might well force the issue for a UK-wide introduction of ID cards.



Both Labour and Conservative governments have tried to introduce identity cards (encouraged by the EU of course) and both came badly unstuck, and rightly so.

[BHX5DME]

7.03m busiest ever month

[c52]

If it's OK to have an enormously long runway and use one half for landing and the other half for take-off (the "runway extension" proposal that's on the Airports Commission's shortlist), what would the prospects be for dividing one existing runway into 2 * 6000' runways and using them for aircraft of a suitable size?

[DaveReidUK]

If it's OK to have an enormously long runway and use one half for landing and the other half for take-offIt hasn't yet been established if it's "OK". Even the proponents of the scheme admit that the safety case is far from proven.

And aside from that, the proportion of Heathrow movements that could operate satisfactorily from an 1800m runway is pretty small.

[c52]

I hadn't realised it wasn't yet OK.

I read that a fully laden A321 can manage on such a short runway, but I would think the absolute length had a lot to do with the risk level.

[FRatSTN]

CY346, the last Cyprus Airways flight to London Heathrow has just landed. From tomorrow it will operate as CY326 to London Stansted.

[Fairdealfrank]

If it's OK to have an enormously long runway and use one half for landing and the other half for take-off (the "runway extension" proposal that's on the Airports Commission's shortlist), what would the prospects be for dividing one existing runway into 2 * 6000' runways and using them for aircraft of a suitable size?




It hasn't yet been established if it's "OK". Even the proponents of the scheme admit that the safety case is far from proven.

And aside from that, the proportion of Heathrow movements that could operate satisfactorily from an 1800m runway is pretty small.



What happens when an aircraft is taking off on the western end at the same time as an aircraft landing on the eastern end gets into trouble and needs to do a "go around"?

If landings and takeoffs are not simultaneous on this system, there's no point, as the overall increase in movements will be insufficient to justify the investment costs.

[yurski]

Here you can see how busy Heathrow airport. 3rd runway is essential London Heathrow airport consecutive take-offs "TIME LAPSE" - YouTube (http://youtu.be/1CB8qZ2aaRU)

[Heathrow Harry]

"What happens when an aircraft is taking off on the western end at the same time as an aircraft landing on the eastern end gets into trouble and needs to do a "go around"?"

they are several kms apart - if they are both still moving the one in trouble executes a standard Missed Approach and the other is instructed to turn the other way if there is any problem

The only issue is if the one in front rejects a takeoff below V1 - but if the runway is long enough he'll be in Slough when he stops while the other guy will be turning off the runway to the terminal before the spot the western aircraft joined the runway before starting his run

[Fairdealfrank]

they are several kms apart - if they are both still moving the one in trouble executes a standard Missed Approach and the other is instructed to turn the other way if there is any problem


...and the aircraft taking off on 27L?

If you are correct, then why is there still a safety issue?

The main objection AFAIK is the need for permanent mixed mode and consequently the ending of respite for existing flightpath residents.

[On the beach]

The main objection AFAIK is the need for permanent mixed mode and consequently the ending of respite for existing flightpath residents.

Which is what you'll get with a third runway and why with the only sensible solution (the Estuary Airport) you'll sleep peacefully whilst planes fly 24 hours a day on the other side of London, like a proper hub airport

[SamYeager]

Which is what you'll get with a third runway and why with the only sensible solution (the Estuary Airport) you'll sleep peacefully whilst planes fly 24 hours a day on the other side of London, like a proper hub airport


OTOH the taxpayers i.e. us will be on the hook for the (rather high) cost of building this new airport whereas the third runway will mostly be funded privately with the exception of the new rail and changed road links AIUI.


In principle I support the idea of a new four runway airport for London. Regrettably it seems there would be too many financial, commercial and environmental issues with the proposed location and that's without accounting for the massive delay before such a new airport would even be partially open.