HEATHROW

[Bagso]

Sorry to bang on about this but talking to professionals in ATC they say this will make little difference ...

Problem is one of capacity in the air, whether thats mixed mode on 2 or even 3 runways..........

Real answer is to close Stansted Gatwick etc and put 3 more runways /terminals into Heathrow!

...it will however create 000s of jobs and handily fill a big hole in the construction/housing industry at the moment which is bleeding jobs !

[LHR27C]

Sorry to bang on about this but talking to professionals in ATC they say this will make little difference ...

Problem is one of capacity in the air, whether thats mixed mode on 2 or even 3 runways..........

Not sure who you're talking to, but NATS would appear to disagree with you, having done detailed studies of different configurations for the 3rd runway and come up with two possible configurations capable of supporting 130 movements an hour. Department for Transport - Technical reports (http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/heathrowconsultation/technicalreports/)

[PAXboy]

Heathrow's third runway to fall foul of EU rules

Ministers will give a green light to the airport's extension, but critics say Europe's pollution targets could prevent it from being built
By Geoffrey Lean and Brian Brady
Sunday, 11 January 2009
Heathrow's third runway to fall foul of EU rules - Home News, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/heathrows-third-runway-to-fall-foul-of-eu-rules-1299667.html)
Heathrow's controversial third runway – due to be given the green light by ministers this week – is unlikely ever to be built because it will fall foul of new European pollution laws, environmentalists and senior government advisers believe.

The airport's two existing runways already cause air pollution which breaches compulsory European Union air-quality standards, which Britain will have to observe by 2015. Neither anti-runway campaigners nor the Government's Environment Agency see how these can possibly be met if the number of flights rises by 50 per cent as planned.
Article continues ...

(I am tempted to repeat my earlier observation that the third would never be built)

[Trinity 09L]

Small article in the D Tele on Sat mentions "Climate Rush" who plan to descend on LHR for a "peaceful picnic" On Monday evening (I assume this Mon). Strange time for a "picnic", why not last week when it we had better weather (temps):ugh:

[Skipness One Echo]

A way will be found, there's a lot of backroom give and take available. The rest of the EU has a load of opt outs on matters of national imprtance.

Lord Smith, the chairman of the Environment Agency, said yesterday that the runway could not go ahead unless "very strict pollution limits" were set. He was sceptical that the EU standards could be met, and would prefer that the runway was not built.

John Stewart, the chairman of Hacan Clearskies, which leads opposition to the project, said yesterday: "The runway will never see the light of day."

HACAN are a bunch or arrogant, selfish NIMBYs.

[answer=42]

PaxBoy
This is hardly new news. The original 2003 recommendation for the Heathrow 3rd runway was made subject to the EU air quality regulation being complied with. The only 'new news' is that compliance is apparently more difficult than was then expected. (I think that the original idea was that a few electrick omnibuses and some restrictions on car access to the central zone would do the trick).

Skipness1Echo
Air quality is not only a matter of NIMBYism. Airport workers have to breathe too (although I'm told not all managers).

[PAXboy]

answer=42 I did not suggest that it was new, just that it was back in the news.

I think that Labour are playing the bluff - they know that planning permission, Green issues and finance will almost certainly delay this for another decade - but are saying Yes so as to sound biz friendly and gain more votes than they lose through this issue. But the final result? I still don't think it will happen.

[Skipness One Echo]

gain more votes than they lose through this issue

No that's wrong, they stand to lose some marginals in London. Boris and the Tories are just playing for votes as in the long term national interest, a new runway at LHR is needed and one at STN sure as Hell isn't.

[PAXboy]

Sure, STN doesn't need one - that was always a smoke screen in my view. If I was a betting man, I would bet on LGW when their time limit expires.

The Future Heathrow Group warned in newspaper adverts "Heathrow's status as a global hub is at stake".I don't agree - that moment has already passed. It's just that the tipping point has not yet been reached but the quality of European hubs removing traffic from LHR are now joined by some Middle Eastern Hubs too.

BBC 13th January
Protesters buy up Heathrow land
Land earmarked for the construction of Heathrow's third runway has been bought by anti-expansion protesters.
Land the size of a football pitch near Sipson village - which would lose hundreds of homes in the expansion - was bought by a Greenpeace coalition.
They have pledged not to sell the land to the government or BAA if the airport expansion gets the go-ahead. Greenpeace director John Sauven said: "We've thrown a massive spanner in the engine driving Heathrow expansion."

BBC NEWS | England | London | Protesters buy up Heathrow land (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7825169.stm)

[cjhants]

the area the size of a football pitch will probably be named grass area 3c, an airside area with no access to the celebrity owners between the runway and a taxiway. should save the government and BAA a few bob in compulsory purchase, and give the celebs someting to look at from their first class seats.

[stormin norman]

Narita i believe already has (or did have in the eartly 80's) one of these plots inside the airfield boundry.

[WHBM]

How on earth can land in the new runway area, which was for sale, not have been bought already by BAA, they should have been buying up all the land, houses etc available as they came on the market for years now. Has their fabled "market acumen" once again been shown by them being cheeseparing with buying the land required, and they have let it fall into the hands of their enemies ? Heads should roll in their estates department if they have done this to save a bit of cash.

[felixflyer]

If the runway is given the go ahead there would be a CPO. Why would BAA buy any land before that at a possibly inflated price.

Also maybe the land wasnt up for sale and was owned by someone in Sipson who is against heathrow expansion. They wouldn't sell to BAA but did to Greenpeace for their little publicity stunt.

Of course non of these celebrity supporters would be bothered about the amount of jobs created in the local area as a result of the expansion, as long as their west London homes dont lose much in value.:rolleyes:

[manintheback]

I would bet on LGW when their time limit expires.



And the time limit on preventing an application for a 2nd runway expires as soon as BAA sell (the agreement is with the current owners only I believe) - effectively a few months away.

[GroundBunnie]

I used to live in Sipson 20 odd years ago. Anyone know if the King Willy will be saved if this goes ahead?

GB

[cjhants]

heard a radio interview with the landlord yesterday, says its going to be an aircraft stand!

[davidjohnson6]

Clearly proves that beer truly is a form of fuel :}

[GroundBunnie]

Shame - 600 years of history there - and the fuel was good!

GB

[13 please]

I can see the King Willy from my house. Yes, it will be gone.

[liquid sunshine]

Once again Govt procrastination is dragging the aviation industry down again. Is it not a bit of deja a vue as per T5? History will repeat itself because at the end of the day none of these elected parliamentarians don't give a toss about a 3rd runway but are soley concerned with self preservation. It is similar to the issue of nuclear power...it is required, will be built, but nobody in Govt wants to be the one to break the bad news. Everybody is very quick to slate BAA but once again here is another example of how succesive Govt policy is letting everyone associated with aviation down very badly. :ugh:

[GroundBunnie]

13P - What about your house? And Russell Gardens, where I used to live?

GB

[Walnut]

How right you are, at PMQ's in the House of Commons today, GB in response to a question re the 3rd R/W, said "That the decision would be made on the floor of this house and only after that debate would the Transport Minister seek the compulsory purchase orders"

So there you have it, Parlimentary time has to be found for the debate which is less and likely to be found as the election draws nearer.

[befree]

With a very large fall in pax since the summer the case for a 3rd runway is not strong at the monment. LHR december traffic figures have only been kept up by airlines switching flights from gatwick, stansted, birmingham and machester. With BAA selling of other airports the game will change. Whoever buys gatwick will want the pax back. BAA will need to keep the fees down at LHR and will find it hard do anything more than keep with 2 runways. I cannot see any tax money left for the airport

[davidjohnson6]

I cannot see any tax money left for the airport

befree - maybe I'm just very naive, but my understand is that the construction costs of a 3rd runway or 6th terminal would be paid for by BAA out of its own resources (or borrwing money), rather than the taxpayer forking up for it. Sure there may be things like an enquiry or planning consideration by Govt, but I'm guessing this shouldn't cost the taxpayer a particularly huge amount. Could you elaborate as to how you think the tax money wil be spent at LHR ?

[befree]

I do not think the tax money will go on the 3rd runway which is why it will never get built. For BAA to fund it they would need to increase income. If the london airports are fighting for airlines that option will be very hard. While LHR can demand a higher fee than the other airports it will lose airlines if it goes too high. If Virgin are part of group buying Gatwick then things will be even harder.

[13 please]

Hi GroundBunnie, the whole of Sipson will be gone.

[Skipness One Echo]

It works like this. The economy dives, traffic falls at Heathrow, slots open up, some traffic flees the other London airports into Heathrow. There is a degree of churn but given the choice of LHR / LGW / STN the major players all choose LHR. Airlines going LHR to LGW tend to REALLY need the money that the LHR slot will bring.

Newcomers at LHR include Arik Air and Oman Air, where Aer Lingus is building an operation at LGW to fill some of the slots left by the departure of the US airlines to LHR and the demise of XL. Churn continues, life goes on.

If BAA cannot build runway 3 then the maximisation of mixed mode is the full stop end of growth at Heathrow Airport. Hence all that remains is managed decline and maintenance and no business wants that, especially as they will no longer be running Gatwick. I have read some really biased arguments about LHR in the media where everyone has an opinion. I sometimes honestly wonder if the public live in some kind of fantasy world.

Do serious people think that an imaginary super rail link being bulldozed through the countryside is going to happen? As yet undefined and unbuilt with a myriad of local authorities suddenly looking at high speed trains blasting through built up areas? I used to live next to a railway and they are bloody noisy let me tell you. Are we really saying that the UK, with the workforce and bureaucracy that we have is going to concrete over an area of the North Sea, through an area of unusual wildlife, genuine unspoilt views replicating Hong Kong Chep Lap Kok on Western European labour costs and so in my lifetime, Our people believed house prices would go up forever and that you can remove demand for domestic air travel by building another high speed rail line, THROUGH SOMEONE ELSE'S BACKYARD. Just ignore the West Coast Mainline Debacle then.
We are fast becoming, IMHO, a deluded nation living a fantasy existence on credit we could never afford led by people who have little strategic vision.

If Crossrail had been built in the last recession, many of London's transport issues would have been fixed. That's exactly why a world class Heathrow with a third runway, room to function comfortably and access to the rail network proper is the best decision for the UK Gordon Brown could make.

One last thing, with mixed mode, the Cranford Agreement is nullified? You can't increase the capacity and divert if the wind changes to the 09s.....

[befree]

It will not stagnate as it could get lots of A380s while 787s provide more direct routes to BHX and Manchester from east coast and asia. It will change,

[beamender99]

It will not stagnate as it could get lots of A380s


Under present regs the A380s do NOT increase passenger numbers.
They need extra separation thus negating the apparent benefit of extra seats.

[Skipness One Echo]

BBC reporting that the go ahead for Runway 3 is a go for tomorrow.

[harrogate]

Hoon's green lighting it tomorrow.

[Max Tow]

If so, that would be good news.

An indication that in some quarters at least there is a recognition that if the UK population wishes to carry on enjoying a reasonable standard of living (by which I mean not just the luxuries of high employment, state pensions, healthcare and education, but at its most basic, the ability to house and feed oneself and family which for most of the world's population is not taken for granted), there has to be the means of creating that wealth.

What does UK plc have left? Very little manufacturing industry either high or low tech, production of coal,oil and gas are almost gone, and the remaining eggs of the 1980s Thatcherite revolution were placed in the basket of a smoke and mirrors finance industry whose profits have proved to be somewhat nebulous and which is being kept afloat only by a most unThatcherlike binge of state aid.

There's no magic - comfortable living standards, the welfare state, the trade deficits, the billions to keep the banks afloat - all of these have to be paid for, and that can only be done by finding ways to massively increase economic activity. The alternative is spending cuts or the slow death of squeezing higher taxes from a reducing income pot. In simple terms, our living standards will fall, those of successful nations will rise. To the delight of some, we can then begin to tear down our shopping malls, skyscraper office blocks,airports and hospitals because there will be no employment or revenue to support them, and we can all go back to pre-industrial subsistence farming. And by the way, 80 per cent of the population will have to go because that's all that the organic unmechanised farming of our disconnected island will support.

Hardly a great prospect. Amidst all this, we have been standing in the way of one of the few remaining industries in which Britain has been a world leader - air transport - by denying it infrastructure, increasing its costs and engaging in the farces of various T5-like planning sagas whilst France and numerous others have got on and demonstrated what can be done where there is determination to build and support a successful transport infrastructure including a wealth creating aviation sector. Above all, as Dubai and Singapore have shown (as two states which either trade or die), the existence of high quality airport and airline infrastructure does not bring success to just those sectors but is a prerequisite for expanding finance,tourism,trade and many other strategic sectors.

This is not to say that there should be a blank cheque to concrete and pollute, but the economic activity needed to keep 60m people in the style to which we are accustomed requires an acceptance that there are problems to be overcome and compromises to be made. I sympathise with the villagers of Sipson as I do with those of the original village of Heath Row and those disrupted by every straight road built since the Romans, but the job of government is to make the hard choices and and to minimise disruption, not to opt out of its responsibilities to the nation as a whole. The lack of a coherent policy over the years has produced a situation which pleases no-one and has left Britain with a creaking transport system over-reliant on polluting road vehicles for freight & passengers, and a capital city which distributes its six runways over 5 separate airports, none of which is connected to a high speed national or international rail network. Thus we have the replication of a mass of infrastructure and feeder routes which produce an aggregate environmental effect and degree of economic inefficiency far greater than would just one or two large integrated hubs, not to mention the extra pollution caused by the the ATC air and ground holding delays which result from this bodge of unnecessary quintuplication. The procrastination of the last two decades has caused planning blight not just around existing airports but over a vast area of SE England from from Foulness to Cublington.

In conclusion, growth isn't an "either..or" issue. By all means let's recognise the dangers of environmental damage but work to ensure that we can have growth whose positives benefit the vast majority and whose negative effects can and will be minimised with human ingenuity through technology and sensible regulation. The tremendous recent advances in noise and emissions reduction, together with fuel efficiency, show that within a framework of government regulation and support of technological innovation, and in response to economic factors such as fuel price and competition, the air transport industry can manage its growth responsibly.

[PAXboy]

I agree that the 3rd should have been built ten years ago - but I still say it won't have been built in another ten years. Yes, this country is that stupid.

[davidjohnson6]

Will a 3rd runway get built by 2011 ? Doubtful.

If you lived in Sipson and were told that you had to leave the home in which you'd lived for the last 20 years and uproot your family away from your friends for the sake of making others richer, wouldn't you feel aggrieved by it ? Or those who get increased noise pollution ?

Some may want a 3rd runway built immediately, but we would not be a civilised society if we did not give those who see an injustice the right to be heard and challenge any decision. If that means a legal challenge to the highest level, so be it.

[WHBM]

Some may want a 3rd runway built immediately, but we would not be a civilised society if we did not give those who see an injustice the right to be heard and challenge any decision. If that means a legal challenge to the highest level, so be it.
It's notable how the Greens/Aviation Haters want every opportunity to wreck any airport development proposal through the whole panoply of political challenges, planning enquiry delays, court action, yadda yadda yadda, yet when they manage to get their own pet decisions taken on things like the "Kyoto Agreement" and all that stuff, which seem to be sneaked through completely on the nod, it just suddenly gets imposed on the rest of us and we have no opportunity to dispute that before we end up getting hypertaxed for being "not compliant" with some aspect of a regulation we were never even aware of.

Does anyone recall the slightest discussion or opportunity for rebuttal about the CO2 level regulations round Heathrow that the EC immediately used as a brake on the airport mounting any commercial challenge to Amsterdam, CDG, etc ?

[davidjohnson6]

A compulsory purchase order on one's own home is a major event. Does wanting to protest eviction from your home really make you into an immediate aviation hater ?

Give people the right to protest, and if the decision goes against them, the rest of the society will say 'Oh well, they had a chance to say their stuff'. Deny people that right and the rest of society vents its anger against those who compel

Kyoto affects everyone in the UK, so nobody is particularly disadvantaged compared to others. Eviction from one's home has a major effect on a few about whom most do not particularly care. Grant them at least the right to protest even if you think their objections are of no value.

Where were the protests against the Kyoto Protocol when Parliament passed the bill ? Were you on the news waving a banner against it ?

I support a 3rd runway at LHR - but I support far more strongly the right to be heard

[WHBM]

A compulsory purchase order on one's own home is a major event. Does wanting to protest eviction from your home really make you into an immediate aviation hater
I've probably got more experience of compulsory purchase (from the other side of the transaction) than most here. Firstly, unlike the clearing of inner-city areas in the 1950s-60s, which was indeed done ineptly, major infrastructure projects nowadays normally buy up all the property involved as it comes onto the market years in advance, by the time you start thinking about starting work on site most of it is in your hands.

For the remainder, the "issues" that seem to galvanise the local media are pretty much always nothing more than a non-contractural means of getting more compensation. It is amazing how after offering that extra £20k they were asking for, the opposition melts away. So offer it in the first place. A competent organisation* would set up a little liaison team who did all the arranging of new/nicer home purchase, sorted the compensation adequately, did all the admin hassle, and generally avoided any issues at all.

* : Unfortunately I can't bring myself to include "competent organisation" and BAA in the same sentence. They don't even know how to run an airport nicely so it's most unlikely they could get this one right.

[AndyH52]

Often when properties are compulsarily purchased the owner gets a set percentage over current market value anyway (say 105% or 110%) plus a lump sum towards relocation costs. It would probably be cheaper in this instance for BAA to pay for a 'new' Sipson to be built north of the M4 so the community could stay together if it so wished. Building them bespoke new homes would probably be more cost effective than paying the market value! However no doubt Greenpeace and FoE would be there complaining about the loss of open space again...

I do find it bizzare though that, at a time when we berate politicians for ducking difficult decisions, when such a decision is taken we're surprised as a country by the furore that follows. IMHO the Governemnt should have taken the view that if they are to take a controversial decision they should make it a decent one. For once in my life I might actually be finding myself in agreement with Boris...(time for a lie down in a darkened room...)

[Techman5]

Just used T5 for the first time last week. What a disgrace!!!

For those who haven't been there, it is only half finished. Our plane parked at a building that had its steel frame up, but that was it. We were then bussed from this building site to the terminal building. The luggage came an hour later, presumably by donkey.

Its as if BAA wanted to build a shopping mall, and forgot the aircraft.

If Wembley and T5 are anything to go by, I hate to think what London will do with the olympics.

Ryanair, Easyjet and the other profitable airlines have woken up to there being a country outside the M25. When will the government also wake up and move expansion to Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle?

[MUFC_fan]

Techman5,

I don't know how you can bring Wembley into this! Having visited some of the greatest stadiums in the world including the homes of Manchester United, AC Milan, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich etc. Wembley tops this list. I think that when the FA decided to build a new Wembley, they were making a huge mistake as how could you replace the towers which welcomed you to the home of football? It may have been late and over priced but now we have a national stadium to be proud of and those precious words of "We're going to Wembley" can finally be heard form the stands once again.

T5 has been a problem child for BAA, BA and the nation's reputation but look that is happening in the long run at LHR. When R3 is open and T6 is available and T5 settles in with all satellites are open it SHOULD work very well.

London is currently the capital of the financial and transport sectors for the world and we need to keep this going. By trying to improve on LHR and help it grow to stay ahead of competition we aim to keep London's titles.

We should be proud of our country and look further into the future. If you are worrying about the Olympics, look at Manchester. It now has the world's most equipped cycling arena and we can clearly see this by last summers successes. We should look at what we have done and what we are going to do and not just look at what we have failed in.

Sorry to moan but it does annoy me when people complain about the country I love and I wouldn't swap for any other.:ugh:

[Skipness One Echo]

Techman 5 you are surely aware that due to the space constraints at Heathrow bussing is necessary. Terminal 5 was build in a modular format with the first two parts always intended to open ahead of the final part due in 2010.

I too have been parked at Terminal 5C and bussed but unlike the split ops between T1 and T4 the buses seem to be a Hell of a lot better at being there on time. The delay in the baggage is pretty poor though, I agree.

Ryanair, Easyjet and the other profitable airlines have woken up to there being a country outside the M25. When will the government also wake up and move expansion to Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle?

It's incredibly naive to think that. The government doesn't order airlines to serve Heathrow at the expense of the rest of the country. The market dictates that. What role does the government have in telling people to expand Newcastle Airport? If the airport attracts a lot of business and needs to expand then great but please stop whinging about London getting a half decent airport at last. It is after all 30 years late (!)

As to the Terminal facilities experienced at a typical Ryanair airport, T5 beats them hands down every time.

[Techman5]

The response to my experience of T5 appears to be that it was designed to be poor. Well, no wonder that this country is fast disappearing when we design our hyper expensive and much flaunted infrastructure to be rubbish from the outset, and then use this as an excuse.

I think the point that they built a shopping mall and forgot about the planes is valid. Other airports at least appear to put travelling on a level with shopping.

Tony Adams and Phil Scolari will tell you that the excuses don't matter, its the results that count, and that is what I think about T5.

Other countries will be laughing even more at T5 than they have been at our response to 2" of snow (and haven't they). I haven't heard of any far eastern country deliberately designing poor facilities.

Luckily I can get to Europe from my regional airport (via a host of (sometimes) low cost airlines, and for long haul, my first port of call in future will be either Emirates (East) or Continental (West) who both fly from my regional airport to see if I can avoid LHR.

Sorry BA, its nothing against your service, but your management were presumably heavily involved in the T5 project, and they got it wrong.

[TSR2]

Well said MUFC.

I have not personally experienced T5 yet but my daughter and her husband have just returned from a holiday in the far east travelling between MAN and HKG via LHR T5.

Their experience was very positive in both directions and they described T5 as a 'nice experience, far better than HKG and equally as good as Singapore'. On the return journey, due to the late arrival into T5, they had only 55 minutes between touch down and departure of the flight to Manchester. Despite having to clear security,they made it with 10 mins to spare although their baggage obviously did not. Regarding the baggage, they received a text message the following morning stating that it would be delivered to their home at 13.35 that day. Sure enough the doorbell rang at exactly 13.35.

As I see it, the point of a good air terminal is the efficient throughput of passengers in comfort and safety. T5 seems to meet this criteria quite nicely.

[rpmac]

Good to hear postive comments re:T5 and much in line with comments from colleagues, etc who find the experience first class. Can´t wait myself to use it after some grim experiences at some other foreign airports.

[PAXboy]

beamender99Under present regs the A380s do NOT increase passenger numbers. They need extra separation thus negating the apparent benefit of extra seats.In which case that will probably get changed in a couple of years, once experience has come to bear.

The idea of rebuilding Sipson so that folks could stay together and the talk about the rebuilding of London in the 50s, reminds me of the countless families being forcibly moved out to the New Towns and then finding - just how fabulous it was to be in a new house! I have met hundreds of families that moved out from Paddington/Marylebone/Euston/Kings Cross (and other North London points) to Hertfordshire and Middlesex and 99% thought it was fantastic.

Sipson is not not just houses and it's not just money. Everyone has piled in and LHR will never get a fair trail.

[cesare.caldi]

Lufthansa Italia from 30 march increase frequency MXP-LHR from 4x to 6x daily
Now LHI have more frequency then BA on MXP-LHR

[Seljuk22]

Why do they have so many slots at LHR? I can't understand this because everyone is telling me that these slots at LHR are NOT from bmi.

[Flightrider]

Think you'll find that three of the six daily slots for the Heathrow-Milan are coming from bmi. Two are the ones used for Heathrow-Jersey up to the end of March and the other one is a spare due to discontinued routes ex LHR (I think Naples and Palma, but can't tell which one is which). For the other three, I strongly suspect that Lufthansa is about to chop Heathrow/Cologne.

[airhumberside]

Palma flights on sale in April, Naples doesn't appear in the booking engine so presume its Naples which has got axed

Surprised BD havent started codesharing on LHR-MXP yet

[virginblue]

Think you'll find that three of the six daily slots for the Heathrow-Milan are coming from bmi. Two are the ones used for Heathrow-Jersey up to the end of March and the other one is a spare due to discontinued routes ex LHR (I think Naples and Palma, but can't tell which one is which). For the other three, I strongly suspect that Lufthansa is about to chop Heathrow/Cologne.


Any hard facts for this? Lufthansa is selling those flights. The only change is that they revert back from a Boeing 737-500 to a Avro RJ85 again with effect summer schedule.

Lufthansa will also need three pair of slots for the TXL-flights that will be shifted from LCY to LHR. So in total they will need 9 pair of slots, 6 for MXP and 3 for TXL.

[ptr120]

I'm curious why you think that LHR / CGN may be axed. It wasn't too long ago that the London / Cologne route was served by 2xEZY ex LGW, 3xBA 319 (even saw a 757 once after irropps) and 3xLH CRJ's, as well as a gaggle of Germanwings flights to Stanstead. Now the route is down to 3xLH 737, 1xEZY, plus the associated Germanwings flights.

[SWBKCB]

Any connection with the expected dropping by bmi of LHR-MME? How many slot pairs will that release??:suspect:

[ChalfontFlyer]

The BMI discontinuations releases 24.5 slot pairs on the MME route (the .5 is because there are 3 flights upto MME on a Saturday but only 2 coming into LHR) & on LBA 25.5 slot pairs (again 1 less flight southbound on a Sunday), so a total of 50 available for LH to expand in other directions!

[Seljuk22]

Clickair is moving all flights from Gatwick to Heathrow effective 1st June.

[Xeque]

From todays London Daily Telegraph

Business leaders question third runway plan for Heathrow Airport - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/5383844/Business-leaders-question-third-runway-plan-for-Heathrow-Airport.html)

Some common sense?

[Skipness One Echo]

Watching Theresa Villiers not being pressed on the Tories "policy" on Heathrow on BBC London tonight as she wittered on about trains being the answer to free up much needed capacity.

What percentage of movements per business day ( Mon-Fri ) is UK domestic of the total available movements?

Taking UK mainland domestic flights per day :

Aberdeen = 13
BA 7
BD 6

Edinburgh = 19
BA 11
BD 8

Glasgow = 18
BA 10
BD 8

Newcastle = 6
BA 6

Manchester = 16
BA 9
BD 7

_____________
72 Daily Flights
_____________

So I guess that's *roughly* 144 daily slots at Heathrow that go into the mainland UK domestic. What's the daily total number of slots please?
I want to vote Tory to get that strange man out of Downing Street but I honestly think this policy is dishonest as the mechanism for freeing up splace makes no sense when you look at the small mumber of flights.

I have excluded Belfast as being an part of this policy as the train option is patently not realsitic. I guess we could also add Paris and Brussels as direct Eurostar options.


NOTE

Domestic routes abandoned since Heathrow was opened up to competition again in the 1990s include :

Inverness
Leeds-Bradford
Teesside
Birmingham
East Midlands
Newquay
Plymouth
Isle of Man
Jersey
Guernsey

[vkid]

Just wondering what airlines currently run services from Heathrow to Toulouse (apart from BA, are there any more?)
Cheers!

[davidjohnson6]

vkid - details can be found at Let me google that for you (http://tinyurl.com/mtvt2w)

[Walnut]

I believe the percentage is about 10%, about 4yrs growth in normal times.
However I believe a large proportion are transfer pax, so the option of using a train would be very inconvienient.

[befree]

Quite a lot of routes have been moved to Heathrow from other airpots to keep the slots. Manchester & Birmingham would have more direct flights if airlines did not need to fly from Heathrow just to keep slots.

The big rise in air travel has been driven by a sharp reduction in ticket prices. The system cannot last as airlines need higher prices to make profits given that we will never have very cheap fuel again.

When BAA monoply ends we could see Gatwick fight for more routes and under cut heathrow.

[BCALBOY]

What routes have been moved fm BHX or MAN ?

Don-t understand the logic of what you are saying.

If they are holding slots , this means the routes and aircraft resources were already operating at LHR .They d6n-t need to move anything to cover these .

If they obtained additional new slots at LHR you could argue they move aircraft resources fm BHX or MAN to utilise these slots , but getting slots
at LHR is almost impossible , so can-t think what you mean ?

[rutankrd]

Not so veiled reference to Oneairline (Oneworld) and their influence on the long lost Cathay Pacific/Qantas and Iberia regional services and the case of Air India transferring the YYZ -UK - India services through LHR which IS a slot baby sitter.
Singapore cutting back MAN-Sin to just 3 weekly whilst INCREASING capacity at LHR to two A388 and a B77W per day.

BA relinquishing direct regional operations forcing passengers to route via LHR even on short hops to Paris and Frankfurt for instance (Well they actually still code share with FlyBe but do they advertise this NO !)

OH and how many times do you here this getting slots at LHR is impossible.

NO its NOT its slot restricted (at certain times of the day) however its not full, and airlines such as Arik, Oman, Jet and Kingfisher have gotten slots for daily flights.

[BCALBOY]

These are virtually all commercial decisions by the airlines involved.

Nothing to do with slot hldg at LHR.

The BA regional services were losing BA loads of money and were basically taken over by BA. Forcing psgrs via LHR was not the aim....no connections fm BHX and very extended journey time fm MAN plus the yield received when fare prorated and cost to BA of transferring a psgr at LHR make this uneco nomic .Plus with Flybe replacing a lot of the services and the various National carriers continuing non-stop service little hope of getting any and especially high yield traffic to route via LHR.

If QF+CX+IB didn-t think it was in their own best interest they would not reduce regional services to direct psgrs to their LHR services. They are all in l put themseves first. Hence QF commenced LHRHKG which neither BA or CX were keen on

[electradeltic]

Domestic services excluding Belfast and Aberdeen (which will never be time competitive with high speed rail aka HS2) take up about 8% of slots at LHR with the majority of traffic being transfer. Only if HS2 runs direct to LHR will it capture these transfer passengers. If HS2 services LHR and other major UK cities such as Birmingham then more passengers from the West Midlands et al will hub at LHR rather than at AMS and CDG as at present.

See British Chamber of Commerce Report out today on Hub airports http://tinyurl.com/l6gujl (http://tinyurl.com/l6gujl)

[WHBM]

A few comments on the above.

Firstly, are the domestic services profitable ? The answer is entirely dependent on how the arithmetic is done by the accountants to apportion the revenue from connecting passengers between the two services. I can show you several ways to do this, one will demonstrate the domestic services to be extremely profitable, another will show them as substantial loss makers. It all depends what the accounting team want to do (or are told to do by whichever management team is dominant at the time).

As I understand it BA have their own reasons for allocating connecting passenger revenue by attributing whatever the equivalent fare would be from London to the overseas destination to the main flight, and anything left over to the connecting domestic flight. If the fares are the same, as they often are, from London and (say) Manchester then a notional £1 is allocated to the domestic sector. You will see that working this way it does not take many connecting passenges before the domestics show a loss.

Of course if there is no connecting service then the passenger will likely travel via Amsterdam or elsewhere and then the whole revenue will be lost to BA. So it becomes a management judgement.

Revenue attribution is an age-old problem in the transport industry, not just confined to airlines, it afflicts the railway equally.

Regarding slots, these are generally not available at Heathrow except at very off-peak times, late evening and a bit more at weekends. Goodness, why else do you think that the majority of inbound flights need to hold around London so that the absolute optimum landing rate per hour can be achieved. It really is a complete waste to see slot-sitters, from several carriers, contributing to this.

Regional direct long-haul services have never done well for a variety of commercal reasons.

For a start there's not enough demand - Emirates could not come near filling an aircraft to Dubai alone, only by offering onward connections to 101 other points. Someone like Qantas does not have this available. Emirates probably also have a revenue attribution algorithm for multiple flights significantly different to BA.

Secondly the proportion of the overall demand which is for the high-yielding premium classes is far less from the provincial points than from London, which leads to standard configuration aircraft having unfilled seats at the front end. No need to go looking for why, it is just fact.

Thirdly, while say 30% of the potential UK-originating demand to a long-haul destination might be effectively handled through, say, Manchester, the proportion of inbound-originating pax heading for those points is far lower than that - maybe down to 10%. Incoming demand overwhelmingly favours London. This just doesn't give enough demand to get to a critical mass of capacity for, say twice daily to Singapore, and thus more passengers divert to the greater frequency at Heathrow, because some want a morning flight, some an evening flight, and Manchester, unlike Heathrow, could not provide both.

The airlines have long experience and know all this, and many have lost money along the way learning it. Why did Malaysian, for example, give up at Manchester ? Not part of an alliance. No connecting Heathrow flights to push people onto. It just didn't work commercially. Accept it.

[rutankrd]

If QF+CX+IB didn-t think it was in their own best interest they would not reduce regional services to direct psgrs to their LHR services

This is a naive statement and plainly misses the point of business strategy and business models.

CX have stated they wanted to return to Manchester however have been frustrated by third parties.

Qantas left so long ago its not worth discussing anymore beyond the fact that the Hong Kong - LHR sectors flights (QF29/30) are under review.

As for Iberia well its true to say that the flexible fares operators have terminally damaged them especially in the regions and at Bareclona.

I do not hold or agree with the earlier poster (excepting the Air India operation) that LHR consolidation is simply about slot protection. Its far more complicated it includes resource commercial and financial considerations.

As for BA they have absolutely made a decision that even the short inter European traffic be routed over LHR and in preference to the codeshare agreement with Flybe. This at the very least this is a PR mistake and at worst a denigration of responsibility and the potential of easy revenue stream.
Sell ticket mark up and no operating costs. BA should be stating they ARE still in the regions, however their sales teams have always been instructed to sell via LHR even when direct services are available via codeshare and OW partners-FACT.

Try to book Manchester- Helsinki with BA they WILL route you via T5/T3 rather than on the twice daily and direct Finnair services still carrying BA codeshares. (You may even find that the LHR-HEL sector is a Finnair flight but that okay they got you via LHR), or Man-Chicago again they will route you through LHR (unnecessarily) rather than on the near daily AA flight and this is Only Trans-Atlantic service they codeshare on currently because they don't need Anti Trust protection for it- This is just Stupid !

[mickyman]

WHBM

Whilst your analysis is quite interesting as too the viability of
long-haul from the regions,you seem to think that your logic
only works one way.You state that Manchester cannot support
twice daily Singapore flights which is quite so......but you fail to
realise that Heathrow could not support its Singapore flights
without the feeders from the regions(flight/train/coach).
The business reason Singapore is gradually leaving Manchester
is because they need to utilise their VLA's at Heathrow and in
this un-economic time as always shrinkage occurs.
Why would they fly direct to Singapore from Manchester if they
didnt fill the plane (Ok yield is an issue)but from my limited
investigations they seemed to always fill the aircraft ex MAN pre VLA.
Emirates looks likely to go three daily in the near future without
feeders.......why is this.......it is as you state for onward travel
-which again cuts into the above airlines (SIA)business ex MAN- The
reasoning you use for Manchester can also be used for Heathrow
in that the daily tally ex LHR to Dubai would not be so many if it
was not for onward travel - Dubai is a hub as is Heathrow.

It makes me wince when I see BMI using amazonjets on some
services to Heathrow.

The points raised by others about BA's funneling of passengers
is valid in my opinion.

You seem a bit Heathrow'centric as opposed to my Man'centric
counter.

Business is business and has been proven in the last year to
operate in an entirely seperate way to most things in life.

Im going for a snooze.........

MM

[Skipness One Echo]

So are we saying that axing all LHR domestic in this idealised Tory policy world would free up 10% of the slots?

IS it really that high?

[Dairyground]

rutankrd says:


Try to book Manchester- Helsinki with BA they WILL route you via T5/T3 rather than on the twice daily and direct Finnair services still carrying BA codeshares. (You may even find that the LHR-HEL sector is a Finnair flight but that okay they got you via LHR), or Man-Chicago again they will route you through LHR (unnecessarily) rather than on the near daily AA flight and this is Only Trans-Atlantic service they codeshare on currently because they don't need Anti Trust protection for it- This is just Stupid !


This is incorrect, I've just looked on ba.com. MAN-HEL shows only the direct Finnair codeshares, perhaps because the timing of the BA LHR-HEL flights are such that it is not possible to connect with them from MAN. For MAN-ORD, the first five outbound options shown are via LGW, with a note that you pay your own bus fare from LGW to LHR. Then come two options via LHR, and only in eighth place the direct MAN-ORD codeshare, even though it has the earliest arrival and a later departure than the seven options that precede it.

The excuse is possibly that everything is ordered by departure time, but there may be more to it than that, perhaps an attempt to make the LGW services look better.

[AndyH52]

According to an article at timesonline from last July around there are around 1300 arrivals and departures at Heathrow on an average day, so if the estimate of domestic slots is 144 that is indeed over 10%.

I still personally believe that the Tories premise for scrapping domestic air services to London is fundamentally flawed because, as others have mentioned, it ignores the needs of passengers on connecting flights.

[Skipness One Echo]

So if we wereto get the holding down to environmenatlly friendly levels with only TWO runways, ie no more round and round BNN / LAM / OCK / BIG, we would need to cut roughly 10% from exisiting traffic I suspect, so we have no more room for growth at Heathrow ever in this scenario.

Is that fair?

Given that the advantage of direct access to LHR into the rail network would ATTRACT passengers, surely this is incoherent. This bloody Villiers woman is a numpty!

[mickyman]

The idea that growth goes on and on is a capitalists dream.

MM

[MUFC_fan]

Conservatives deny Heathrow policy change : Heathrow Airport News Stories (http://uk-airport-news.info/heathrow-airport-news-230709b.html)

I know this is a MASSIVE subject and the figures involved are truly gigantic but is it feasible for the runway NOT to be built?

What I currently don't understand is why the government want to increase flights from the mega-hub yet they are also increasing charges. That doesn't seem to work, surely?:confused:

However, for the Conservatives to keep pushing for the abandonment of the project, surely this is quite possibly the biggest suicide decision to make when it comes to aviation in the UK. T6 and a third runway will push the airport more towards Atlanta and Chicago and further from Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris. This is key. It is stupidly clear to every person with any little knowledge on Heathrow that it is the airport that every airline wants to serve. If you offered O'Leary a third runway and low cost terminal at Heathrow he would not only bite off your hand but your complete arm. The airport is big bucks to the UK and Continental airlines paying all those millions of pounds sterling for such a small number of slots clearly shows the continued potential the airport has.

We are currently in an economic decline, especially in the airline industry, but you will certainly not find ANY airline at Heathrow giving up it's slots because they are simply worth too much.

We are seeing hubs across the world growing quickly - Dubai's two airports being the main two which will add greater rivalry to Heathrow over the coming years. Heathrow is situated perfectly - US to the West, Europe on it's doorstep and Far East, obviously, to the East. What more could an airport ask for? Heathrow needs to compete and at the moment it's has so many restrictions against it.

I am all for high speed trains similar to those in France and Japan to deal with domestic flights. It will affect domestic airports but as more and more passengers head abroad to transit (AMS, CDG, FRA, MUC, DXB, DOH, HEL etc.) Heathrow - our main money spinner, is going to face the fall. It is clear to see that not only the trains, but also these competing bases have reduced flights dramatically around the UK. Added to that the number that have been chopped by mainly BA as the slots are more lucrative elsewhere.

Surely the Tories have it right in reducing the number of domestic services which in turn will increase the number of slots available at Heathrow but to do this it would involve a new enquiry, new discussions, more planning etc. and then another ten years added onto the development. By that time other hubs will have been and gone and Heathrow will still be struggling. It is right to reduce the domestic flights but there simply still won't be enough slots at Heathrow. It needs a third runway!

And don't get me started on the amount of time it takes to get things done in this country. I have a very good friend who works in New York. In the time it took for them to plan, discuss and build a block of flats, I only just received confirmation I could put in the foundations for a conservatory! Both projects were designed within a week of each other!:eek: I find it amazing how this country takes so long to build anything.

If we were in any other country, the Tories wouldn't have time to change the decision if/when they come into power as it would already be half built!

Anyway...rant over!:ok:

[SWBKCB]

electrification of the GWR to Swansea is going to take eight years - is high speed rail really an alternative to domestic air in this country?

[davidjohnson6]

SWBKCB - I wasn't aware that there were any regular scheduled flights from Bristol or south Wales to London, so I'm not sure I understand what the time it takes to electrify the London-Swansea rail route has on flights within the UK. Perhaps you could clarify the point you're trying to make ?

[SWBKCB]

Ok, if it is going to take eight years to upgrade an existing route, the prospect of gettting any other major rail infrastructure project up and running in a shorter time frame seems remote, so what is the prospect of having any sort of high speed rail alternative to the third runway?

Living in Newcastle, the train will currently get me into central London in 3 hours or so, so for me and my colleagues it's personal preference between the plane and the train for central London - however if you want to go on by plane from LHR, the train isn't really an option because of the trek between stations and out to LHR.

For high speed train to replace domestic air as a feeder into the LHR hub, the train would either have to go direct to LHR or be a through train extension of a London service - ain't going to happen soon, so the regional traffic will increasingly go to CDG, AMS, DXB, FRA, etc, etc...

[racedo]

Aside from Passenger numbers at Heathrow what do transiting passengers really contribute to the UK ?

[Skipness One Echo]

what do transiting passengers really contribute to the UK ?

Well they keep BA going but that's just a big airline, used to be the national carrier. They spend money in the shops which is always good for a country to have some income. Oh and they support the thousands of workers in support, engineering, pilots, cabin crew, ATC, cleaners, drivers and the whole set up who deal with the additional flights that transit passengers bring. It's not as if we're in a recesssion and we're a well off country that can afford to be picky!

Wow racedo you're right, not much really. I mean there's loads of other jobs right?

Let's just hand all the transit passengers to AMS / FRA / CDG and we can happily watch aviation go the way of manufacturing and then all fly with your employer Ryanair from good old Essex.

[racedo]

Well they keep BA going but that's just a big airline, used to be the national carrier. They spend money in the shops which is always good for a country to have some income. Oh and they support the thousands of workers in support, engineering, pilots, cabin crew, ATC, cleaners, drivers and the whole set up who deal with the additional flights that transit passengers bring. It's not as if we're in a recesssion and we're a well off country that can afford to be picky!

Wow racedo you're right, not much really. I mean there's loads of other jobs right?

Then show some of the stats that proves how much they do pay.

Billions have been spent by UK Government on road and rail links into Heathrow and support for the airport supposedly to support the industry but transiting passengers don't pay taxes, may or may not spend some money.

The net cost of a new runway and terminal while claiming it supports job just doesn't wash unless you can prove that there is a real benefit.


Let's just hand all the transit passengers to AMS / FRA / CDG and we can happily watch aviation go the way of manufacturing and then all fly with your employer Ryanair from good old Essex.

I have stated before I don't work for FR, don't have any reason to lie.

[MUFC_fan]

It is so simple to see that without all the transferring passengers there would be less overall meaning there would be less people employed etc. etc.

You seriously think there are 68m O&D passengers for London? A high percentage of these will be transiting through the hub - one of BA's main sources of business and a growing number of BMI's.

The third runway is needed simply to keep up with the growth at other airports on the continent. Would you rather they put the money into the Dutch, French or German economy opposed to ours?


Billions have been spent by UK Government on road and rail links into Heathrow and support for the airport supposedly to support the industry but transiting passengers don't pay taxes, may or may not spend some money.


I don't know exact figures and it is impossible to say exactly how much they benefit. The reason OUR government has spend billions on accessing the airport is for US who pay OUR taxes to have them built. That is a ridiculous comment to make.

Oh - transiting passengers do pay for a ticket - money for the airline PLUS pay all the ADP etc.

It is very simple to see that more passengers at Heathrow is good for the economy. Jobs and businesses rely on it.

[Seljuk22]

Just 2 interesting route news:
Kingfisher cancels LHR-BOM from 15th Sep. and starting from winter United introduce a daily flight LHR-BRU B777 :ok:

[CJ1234]

Is that a joke? A 777 on LHR-BRU? with bd & ba doing it too?

If so, apologise for slow uptake.:uhoh:

1234

[SWBKCB]

Presumably an extension of a Trans Altlantic flight - aren't LH developing BRU as a mini-hub for African flights using SN, so might make sense from a Star Alliance viewpoint.

[Dominic Nortney]

It can work out cheaper to do transfer flights rather than booking separately on short european routes. So they may get good custom

[Skipness One Echo]

claiming it supports job just doesn't wash unless you can prove that there is a real benefit.

Wouldn't that be the taxable contribution from all those jobs? I mean I'd rather have people in work than on the dole. Perhaps in your ivory tower, jobs for people mean little but the economy needs people in work paying taxes as a general rule. Sorry if I'm making this too complex....

As for United on LHR-BRU, it would just be a double drop on a transatlantic route in the queit season with fifth freedom rights. The amount of passengers joining and leaving within Europe would be close to zero. One forgets how common this used to be, indeed United had a based fleet of B727-200s at LHR to do just that in the 1990s

[racedo]

Wouldn't that be the taxable contribution from all those jobs? I mean I'd rather have people in work than on the dole. Perhaps in your ivory tower, jobs for people mean little but the economy needs people in work paying taxes as a general rule. Sorry if I'm making this too complex....

I want people in jobs but not where the cost of keeping them in jobs is economically unjustifiable. If spending £1 Billion saves 5000 jobs great but if you took that money and invested in elsewhere and created 20,000 jobs then clearly second option is better for country as a whole.

I have seen nothing that convinces me that 3rd runway is economically justifiable other than the We will lose passengers to FRA / CDG.

[Skipness One Echo]

racedo what figures would convince you that the third runway was economically justified?
More importantly I assume you want the runway at Stansted to help your employer Ryanair?

I might add that today there were ninety minute delays on all outbounds after three o'clock due to a thunderstorm and the airport operating with no leeway on the runway capacity. Even with a cap in movements the airport needs Runway Three to function today.

[babybaby]

which would be fine but their plans are to fill the third runway to capacity as well :ugh:


babybaby :{

[MUFC_fan]

which would be fine but their plans are to fill the third runway to capacity as well


Hell of an expensive overspill facility. Surely for the third runway to be filled up it shows that the runway is actually needed more than ever?:confused:

[Skipness One Echo]

Yes both true but a measured increase to something well below max capacity on three runways would be best for the airport. Whether the morons in charge will allow that to happen is anyone's guess. Seems Cameron is under a lot of pressure to backrtrack on his position.

[racedo]

racedo what figures would convince you that the third runway was economically justified?
More importantly I assume you want the runway at Stansted to help your employer Ryanair?


Fully independent report not paid for either by BAA / HMG or vested interested interested airline that justifies economic impact.

I'm not convinced a new runway is required at Stansted and as stated a number of occasions I don't work for Ryanair.

[Skipness One Echo]

http://w09.hillingdon.gov.uk/images/dv_pl_files/62360_APP_2008_3080/Design%20Report%20v3%20Sept%2008.pdf

This is the latest view on Terminal 2A, the renamed Heathrow East project. It's quite interesting as the new Satellite, T2B is going to be ready for the 2012 Olympics. Indeed the structure is up and most of the glazing is in.

I have a few questions, given that Terminal 2 and the Queens Building will be demolished by the start of next year. I guess access to the new pier will be from Terminal 1 so that it can be used while the new terminal is built?
Does anyone know when the Europier is due to be demolished?

The pictures in the plans above seem to show the T1 Terminal building surviving and being connected to the old Novembers, the Republic of Ireland gates. Surely that's all getting the chop as well.
Also the report refers to the old Control Tower remaining in situ.

Anyone know?

( schoolboy typo on P28, looking "Noth East" )

[MUFC_fan]

Can I ask are the models to scale with aircraft as if so, the terminal does not look that big...

[Skipness One Echo]

BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Heathrow terminal revamp unveiled (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8192795.stm)

For a busy airport this is a bloody quiet thread! Anyhoo, new views on the Star Alliance hub Terminal at Heathrow. As has been known for a while, will be Terminal 2A rather than Heathrow East.

[AndyH52]

The terminal looks, to me, about 2/3 the size of T5 with a much larger satellite pier. Some of the models are A380s so the terminal is actually pretty big! I also understood that initially the new facilities were there to replace existing capacity not add to it in order to ease the planning process? Amazed to hear of the speedy progress being made to be honest - it shows what can be done in the UK when the will is there.

Quite frankly it's not before time either. As many visitor's first practical glimpse of the UK, LHR has been far from the ideal for some time...

[globetrotter79]

From the models and pictures seen, I'd assume this is actually a phased development with a second section of the T2 new build to be added once the first section is up and running...which will, in turn, enable them presumably to close and demolish T1.

[AndyH52]

Skipness, this extract is taken from Contractjournal.com and should answer some of your questions.

"The first phase of BAA's £2.2bn Heathrow East project will not be finished until 2013.

The airport operator had hoped to have the scheme ready for the 2012 Olympics but confirmed the delay today as designs for a new £1bn Terminal 2 were unveiled.

Mike Brown, Heathrow Airport’s Chief Operating Officer, said: "The new Terminal 2 is part of a major programme of work already underway. Passengers travelling through Heathrow will be using new and extensively refurbished facilities which provide us with an excellent platform from which we can provide a better service to our customers than ever before."

Construction is taking place in two phases. The first stage will see the creation of a terminal building with 185,000m2 of floor space on the site of the existing Terminal 2 and Queen’s Building, both buildings are being demolished later this year. Construction on the first phase is due for completion in 2013.

Phase two is scheduled to run consecutively and will extend the new Terminal 2 into the existing Terminal 1 site. This phase, which also includes the construction of a second satellite building, is set to increase the capacity of Terminal 2 to 30 million passengers a year. Terminal 1 will close when phase two is complete in 2019, however it will remain open throughout construction.

Terminal 2 is one element of a £2.2bn investment on the eastern part of the airport. A satellite pier for the new terminal has been under construction since 2008. It is set to provide Heathrow with 16 additional stands and will be connected via an underground link to the main terminal building."

[Seljuk22]

July traffic up 0.9% to 6,477,542.

winter route news:
Oman Air: from 1st Oct LHR-MCT daily A330-300 (with first class) instead of A330-200
BA: from 2nd Oct LHR-LAD up from once weekly to twice weekly, B777
Sri Lankan Airlines: LHR-CMB up from 4 weekly to 8 weekly, MLE-CMB-LHR stays at 4 weekly, A343
Biman: will add a 5th weekly service DAC-DXB-LHR with A310, plan: B777 in the future
Jet Airways: LHR-DEL daily with B773ER (instead of 3 weekly A332 + 4 weekly B773ER)
Aegan Airlines: will move double daily flights to ATH from STN to LHR, A321
American: from 19th Nov LHR-BRU

[englishrob]

I think one of the problems is BAA's reluctance to fully commit to R3/T6 at this time. They "say" that they want to start the project asap and have approached partners and airlines including BA for some funding to bring the scheme forward. However I think the reality is that they are delaying the project because of the prospect of a Conservative win at the next election and their promise that they will scrap R3/T6.
When the Government gave the "green light" for the 2nd runway at Stansted some years ago, BAA started buying properties within a few weeks.
At Heathrow, they have done absolutely nothing and it is causing even more unrest among the local residents.

[Seljuk22]

JAL will cease flight JL 403/404 from 7th December. From that JL only daily NRT-LHR.
Gulf Air will cease flight GF 003/005 from 29th March. From that GF only double daily BAH-LHR.

[WHBM]

I understand the Dot2Dot minibus shuttle service from Heathrow to Central London has closed down.

DOT2DOT ARE NO LONGER TRANSFERRING PASSENGERS (http://www.dot2.com/)

[Seljuk22]

Arik Air Abuja-LHR 5 weekly B 737-800 from 26th November
Eva Air increases LHR-BKK-TPE B77W to daily flights from 25th Jan
Gulf Air will operate trice (not double) daily LHR-BAH during summer

Traffic figures
August: 6,393,321 +0.2%
September: 5,783,724 -0.3%
October: 5,687,755 +1.0%

[Seljuk22]

bmi cancels Tel Aviv, Aleppo, Kiev and Brussels (flights transfered to SN) at 10th January, LHR-AMS will be canceled at 28th March, CAI down from A330 to A321 from April

Swiss/bmi will start 6 daily flights between LHR and GVA with A320/A319 starting 10th January 2010.
From that date GVA-LCY down from 6 to 4 daily flights.

[WHBM]

Item on the news that T2 has finally closed today.

BBC News - Last call for Heathrow terminal 2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8373630.stm)

[Serenity]

Walsh slams runway opposition | ABTN (http://www.abtn.co.uk/news/0913511-walsh-slams-runway-opposition)

SO it seems that the incoming government and the businesses that actually work and live at LHR daily have differing opinions!

Things could get awefully messy in the coming years!!



"The economic case for a third runway simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
"We are aware that BA does not share our view but we are part of a widening coalition of business leaders, local authorities, charities, environmentalists and community groups who realise that Heathrow should be better not bigger," Ms Villiers said.


So it is better for the enviroment that every inbound aircraft to LHR has to hold for 20 minutes burning extra fuel, than having a third runway and letting them land straight away???????
:confused::confused:

[TURIN]

No sympathy at all!

If WW insists on putting all his eggs in an already bursting basket then expect it to fail.

Plenty of other baskets around with runway/slots available.

As for environmental impact.

Anywhere between 2% and 6% (depending on where you get your stats from) of TOTAL CO2 production is from aviation. Totally insignificant if a handfull have to orbit for a few minutes Expensive, yes. But zero impact on the environment.

[Sir George Cayley]

What length has been proposed for the 3rd runway? The sketch plans I've seen so far indicate a shorter runway of 2000m ish.

As the environmental analysis has been published, presumably the actual planned length and hence traffic to suit has been modeled.

It's just that I've a feeling that there will be pressure for it to 'grow':eek:

Sir George Cayley

[MAN777]

The argument that the 3 rd runway will reduce holding time is a false one, initially it may help but as BAA try to milk the runways for as much revenue slots as possible, it will quickly fill to capacity and you are back to square one.

I think a much better way of helping ease the capacity problems is provide financial incentives for airlines to invest in mini hubs away from London. And link them all with high speed rail. Germany started this in the 80s and look at their system.

Conservatives will bin it anyway next year :rolleyes:

[ab33t]

This is a very political issue , I doubt whether this will be resolved by dialogue, politics seems to be the deciding factor here . Both arguments hold merit , which way to decide though . I agree that all capacity at existing airports be used and then look at expanding other airports , do you think the transport infrstructure could handle more at LHR

[Skipness One Echo]

If WW insists on putting all his eggs in an already bursting basket then expect it to fail. Plenty of other baskets around with runway/slots available.

You MUST be aware that with BA's legacy cost base they had NO hope of making money outside Heathrow. It was a necessity of survival that BA got out of regional flying. They had been bleeding money for years charging three figure sums for short flights in old aircraft. Exactly how that is supposed to win against easyJet or Ryanair I would be delighted to hear.

Legacy flying outside London is mainly spoke to hub as you well know. KLM, Lufthansa and Air France serve their hubs from the regions, as do BA. Point to point is a loco operation these days. Your sour grapes belong to another age.

agree that all capacity at existing airports be used and then look at expanding other airports , do you think the transport infrstructure could handle more at LHR
Done strategically and properly yes. It is our only hub airport, it plugs the UK into the world. Already a lot of UK traffic is forced to fly via AMS / CDG / FRA / DXB. A HELL of a lot more buinesses in London rely on Heathrow than comparably in the regions. My last two employers used it extensively, it was WHY THEY WERE UK BASED. I don't mind if they never build another inch of tarmac at Stansted, Luton or Gatwick, the pressing need has been for a runway three at Heathrow sine it was closed to new traffic in 1977. The Tories outside the Enviro-Mentalists know this but they need the West London seats so they're peddling an incoherent strategy involving the most expensive railway line in history top connect to Heathrow and Scotland...to encourage more flying from Heathrow.

I live nearby. Heathrow is not some urban paradise about to have the bulldozers destroy green fields. Stansted is. The Thames Estuary is a nature reserve for God's sake. There seems little reality in this policy. The only reason that it has garnered support outside the green lobby is that West London is home to many wealthy influential poeple who have discovered the real meaning of NIMBY. More flightsn in Essex is one thing but over my house in Fulham? I don't think so old boy!
As to the guy below, classic northern chip on your shoulder. You've got more flights to more places than BA ever did and yet you still chuckle at the real threat to thousands of UK based workers? Utterly bigoted and pathetic.

[AUTOGLIDE]

That being the case with BA, and the apparent opposition by the likely incoming government, it doesn't look like much of a future for BA. Something that matters not one toss outside of the SE.

[TURIN]

I could have bet my house that Skipness O.E. would pop up on this thread spouting the same old mantra. :zzz:

Virgin seem to be doing very nicely from certain regional airports, without feeding a hub.

Lufthansa use more than one hub.

Still plenty of bums on seats from UK regions, passengers who do not want to use LHR.

[Skipness One Echo]

Air France have one hub. KLM have one hub. Cathay have one hub. BMI have one hub. Emirates have one hub. Lufthansa have more due to Germany being much bigger and not having the concentration of wealth in one area like the UK. Virgin have the same number of aircraft at LGW as BA have on long haul. The vast bulk of their fleet is where the real profits are. HEATHROW. Manchester has one VS flight most days to Disneyland. Not to a world city. Apples and pears mate. Had you read my post you would have seen that MAN is thriving without BA. Get over it.

[TURIN]

Did anyone actually mention MAN? Mate!:yuk:

Your vitreol over all things not LHR does you no credit. Get over it.

[Skipness One Echo]

When you said "certain regional airports" I assumed you didn't mean the fifteen or so departures each YEAR from Glasgow so you were referring to Manchester. MAN is a great airport and still has an excellent route structure. I am not a LHR fan boy, I just despair of the ability we have in the UK to procrastinate and avoid big decisions. We let our aircraft building and assembly go abroad. I suspect that LHR's usefullness will go the same way.

[Seljuk22]

CAA stats November: 5,028,985 +1.1%

Air Canada: from 27th May to 26th September LHR-St. John's (Canada) daily A319
The Telegram - St. John's, NL: Local News | Air Canada to launch daily non-stop seasonal service between St. John?s and London Heathrow (http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=311661&sc=79)

Brussels Airlines: from 11th Jan 4 daily LHR-BRU

[Seljuk22]

AF on 21st/22nd Dec and LH on 22nd/23rd Dec using B744 from/to CDG/FRA cause of the snow problems.

Qantas: LHR-SIN-MEL with A380

From 18 January, the A380 will operate one to two flights per week on the route (QF9 on Mondays and Sundays and the return QF10 on Fridays and Saturdays), with regular twice-weekly flights to commence on 29 March.

About Qantas - Media Room - Media Releases - Qantas to Grow A380 Fleet and Launch Melbourne-London A380 Services (http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn/au/publicaffairs/details?ArticleID=2009/dec09/3996)

[Donkey497]

Air Canada: from 27th May to 26th September LHR-St. John's (Canada) daily A319

Wish to hell they'd give LHR a bodyswerve & do EDI, GLA or even ABZ instead.

[chuboy]

At this stage it is almost too late - it is coming to a point among travellers that Heathrow is no longer a transiting hub - too stressful an experience. It can't be expanded any more, despite that not making business sense. Another runway would ease congestion but as has been mentioned, if it was EVER built, BAA would fill it up to the brim once again, intensifying the problem.

Eventually demand for regional flights ex LHR will drop as consumers lose interest in flying to or through LHR. It is much much easier to fly via DXB or AUH, or CDG or FRA than LHR. At best I see it as becoming the final destination, competing only with other London airports for airlines. Etihad for instance has opened routes to many cities which normally you would have to connect in Europe to access first - e.g. Kiev or Almaty, thereby removing the necessity to transit in Europe.

I realise I am talking about a very specific part of LHR's userbase - i.e. those on the Kangaroo route. I regularly travel from Australia to Ireland, for instance, and what I've noticed is that AUH-DUB is almost always full. There definitely seems to be demand among consumers to avoid the congested mess that is Heathrow and fly direct to the destination, even if it means paying a little more for a ticket.

Middle East hubs are becoming very viable and in my opinion Heathrow's days as a transit hub are limited. Therefore, I think the wisest option would be to develop other London area airports and upgrade the rail links between them. This maximises the number of ways pax can use London airports in transit and eventually means more money overall. Concentrating on milking one airport is doomed to failure, which can be seen on any day at Heathrow.

But those are just my 2 cents and I'm sure I've overlooked hugely important detail.

[MUFC_fan]

I'm transferring at LHR in February.

Basically, I will be landing at T5 and want to get to T3. Having only transferred at LHR through one terminal, I want to know whether I will have to check in again in T3 and vice versa on the return leg?

I am on one return ticket with BA/IB.

Thanks.

[Currock Base]

MUFC,
Providing your bags are tagged straight through there should be no reason to check in again. Follow the Flight Connections signs and use the connections desk. You will then use the airside transfer bus between terminals.

CB

[Seljuk22]

China Airlines will start 3 weekly flights with A340-300 to Taipeh from 28th March
China Airlines launch Taipei – London AIRLINE ROUTE UPDATES (http://airlineroute.net/2009/12/31/ci-tpelhr/)

Etihad 017/018 daily A330-300 instead of A340-600 from 1st Jan
Egypt Air 077/078 daily A330-300 instead of B777 from 1st Sep

[theflyingbus]

Hi

I have just landed at Oslo, minus 21, with snow and ice everywhere airside, as it has been for the last five weeks at least. I am trying to get out of here on the first BA flight tom Morning to see the wife and kid for a few days. Seeing the forecast (and knowing the UK) It does not seem too likely! Could anyone give an update as to the conditions at LHR please?

Many thanks

[backseatjock]

Flyingbus - just done a quick check and Heathrow is currently operating ok, but with delays ranging from 30 mins to a few hours. That said, this evening's Stockholm flight has an eta that is a few minutes early.

I live in Camberley, not too far from LHR and although it is currently snowing, it is little more than a a light flurry at the moment. I lived in Sweden for a couple of years and in Central Europe for four. This is not snow as they, or you would know it.

Good luck and safe travels.

BSJ

[theflyingbus]

All right ta

The news report on yahoo says all of transport for Londons thirty something gritters are out (just as well its not a huuugggee city with more than a couple of roads) and basically we should all call our bosses and give ourselves the day off tom! They should be expecting it and appreciate it!

How I miss home!!

Those health & Stupidity departments must be creaming themselves at the thought of all those risk assessments that they will have to do tom!

[backseatjock]

My base is Farnborough airfield and that has been operating ok for most of the day. Snow now stopped on the Surrey/Hampshire border.

That said, if you watch local and even national news bulletins, they are predicting we will all be at a standstill for the rest of the week. Collegue popped to local supermarket at lunchtime today and reported that it was like we were expecting a long war and/or food rationing to start.

Those of us who have lived and worked in countries where it really does snow, can only smile at the chaos which reigns here at times.

Cheers,

[Flightman]

I live on the Surrey/Hants border and it's snowing like buggery here!

[backseatjock]

Let's blame Gordon Brown......light snow shower just started again in Camberley/Frimley Green area. LHR still operating, it seems. Soon be summer.

[MAN777]

Watching radarvirtuel.com at the moment, seems LGW is struggling, So the snow is on the way !

[LGS6753]

Radarvituel showing 2 Aer Lingus A320 and a Monarch A321 diverting in to LHR from LGW.

[HeathrowAirport]

Theres a few BA 734's at LHR, I bet they havent been there in ages.

[Tuckerr]

Heathrow took quite a few LGW diverts last night, including a few Monarch 757A320s (G-DALB, G-OZBG etc). Transavia 737 (PH-XRV) and a few others.

[Seljuk22]

China Eastern: 4 weekly PVG-LHR A330-200 from 28th March
Lufthansa: DUS increased from 4 daily to 5 daily (double daily DUS-LCY will be cancelled)
Austrian: 3 daily B738 + daily A321/320 during summer to VIE

[MUFC_fan]

How well that PVG flight would have would have worked from MAN...

Oh well...

[Skipness One Echo]

Wasn't this dropped last winter?

[nigel.hayes007]

skipness
yes it was,i was told it was an A340 but i could be getting mixed up with the China Airlines to Taipei which start the same day.


MUFC fan
I thought Manchester were down for either Air China or Hainan in 2010.

[Seljuk22]

BD: double daily VIE A320 and A321 replaces A330 to CAI from 28th March
MS 777/778: B77W 1st April-31st August
CX 257/256: B77W replaces A340 from 1st May
EK 003/004: A380 replaces B77W from 1st July

[Seljuk22]

Continental adds a fourth daily flight to EWR on 28th March and fifth daily flight on 31st October

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Continental Airlines Announces Additional Heathrow-New Yorkflights For Summer, Winter 2010 | TradingMarkets.com (http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/press-release/cal_continental-airlines-continental-airlines-announces-additional-heathrow-new-yorkflights-for-summer--737702.html)

[MUFC_fan]

CO are obviously VERY pleased with their LHR operations! I think their development epitomises to anyone wondering why BA won't send the A380s to NYC - the route is very much frequency orientated.

On another note, and a question that most will find stupid, but what exactly is it that makes LHR Mecca for airlines? It can't be increased revenue can it? As all flights I have looked for out of London have shown very similar fares from LHR as from LGW etc. Is it mainly down to connections?:confused:

Thanks!:ok:

[Seljuk22]

-having Slots at LHR > 5 daily but 4 daily with B757 (3 daily with B767 or B777 should be enough)
CO has 5 daily slots and will use them. Maybe some years later CO will use this 5 daily slots with B777.
-NY-LON > should be high yield cause of the biggest banking places in the world
-CO > Star Alliance > connections with BD, LH... (FRA, MUC..gets new flights/capacity and on the other hand frequenies/capacity to CDG, AMS..will be reduced)

Look at AMS and the amount of flight to DTW or MSP (just to name two) and compare the flights from LHR, FRA or MAD to DTW or MSP. It's all about hub to hub.

[ConstantFlyer]

I see that in February Air France has scheduled ATR 42s on two of its LHR-CDG services. The flights concerned are the 1505 and 2115 arrivals at T4, and departures at 0820 and 1710. I understand these have previously been operated by an ATR 72. KLM also has an F50 for the tea-time AMS flight. Nice to see some more prop aircraft on regular schedules there. Any other props regularly seen now at LHR? I think my last prop flight out of LHR was on a Manx ATP!

[Seljuk22]

AF will keep ATR42 on CDG-LHR during summer.


AF2380 CDG1415 – 1440LHR AT5 D
AF1480 CDG2045 – 2110LHR AT5 D
AF1481 LHR0830 – 1055CDG AT5 D
AF2381 LHR1640 – 1905CDG AT5 D


bmi double daily A321 (was A320) to DME from 28th March

BIMAN will introduce B777 to Dhaka the following days.

[Skipness One Echo]

Yes I thoroughly enjoyed a trip in the F50 on LHR-AMS last year. Flying on a prop from LHR was something I thought I'd never do, though the last F50s are to be retired at the end of March alas.

[WHBM]

I think my last prop flight out of LHR was on a Manx ATP!
Me too.

Then I thought about it a bit more and realised that it was also my FIRST prop flight through Heathrow. And yet my first trip through there ever was on a British Eagle One-Eleven, in 1968. It's been pretty much all jet for a long, long time.

[Seljuk22]

Turkish will introduce a fouth daily flight to IST from 28th March. Services operated by A330-200 and A321.
Turkish adds 4th Daily Istanbul – Heathrow AIRLINE ROUTE UPDATES (http://airlineroute.net/2010/02/12/tk-istlhr-s10/)

[Alan Tracey]

With China Airlines starting next month, which terminal have they been allocated to?

[jdcg]

T4 I believe

[Seljuk22]

MS 777/778: B77W 1st April-31st August
B77W enters operation on 15th March.
EGYPTAIR 777-300ER Update 2 AIRLINE ROUTE UPDATES (http://airlineroute.net/2010/02/17/ms-77w-update2/)

Kingfisher from 28th March will fly daily DEL-LHR with A330-200
Kingfisher launch Delhi – London S10 AIRLINE ROUTE UPDATES (http://airlineroute.net/2010/02/17/it-dellhr-s10/)

SAS will fly up to 7 times a day to ARN next summer.

[Seljuk22]

BMI: 3 daily to CGN (former LH flights), 1 daily to HAM (LH flight op. by BD) and 1 additional flight to TXL (4 in total - 3 LH op. by BD).
bookable Monday: DRS 1 daily from 12th April (LH flight op. by BD)

Blue1 will add a second daily flight to HEL from 25th April.

Air Canada: Ottawa from daily B763 to daily A333 from 1st June-4th September.

[SWBKCB]

I can't remember a time, but then I am only 50...

[Seljuk22]

Nice analysis
London Heathrow still attracting new services; bmi, China Airlines and Kingfisher celebrate route launches; British Airways now serves 104 destinations | anna.aero (http://www.anna.aero/2010/03/30/london-heathrow-still-attracting-new-services/)

[Playamar2]

Royal Jordanian to introduce A330 as from 1st June, Daily ex.Mon.

[Random Flyer]

Been informed by someone flying from LHR today that there flight has been cancelled due to a fire at T5. Anyone able to confirm?

[Twitcher]

something happened this morning as some BA aircraft were temporarily showing as diverted to Manston but they cancelled before arriving.

[Rampmole]

Was told there was a an evac at the tower at heathrow, at one point we had air nz, ethiopean, diverting to manchester but they canx, a continental, and us airways did divert in though.

[Charley B]

Some went to STN and a few to LGW- i saw Sri Lankan and 2 x BA and CO depart LGW for LHR at 11.00 ish.

[mathers_wales_uk]

South Wales Aviation Group reported that BA JFK-LHR diverted to Cardiff

[IFixPlanes]

Fyi ;)
.
twr At Egll Is Being Evacuated Due To Smoke In The Building.
.
A Zero Rate Regulation For Arrivals Has Been Applied. Reg Id:
Eglla03m, Valid Until 1000 Utc.
.
A Reduced Landing Rate Will Be Imposed After 1000 Utc. Departures
Are Also Stopped Until The Emergency Facility Is Open.
.
Operators Are Required To Update Eobts To Late Than 1000 Utc. Any
Ctots Issued For Departures After 1000 Utc Will Be Extended
Wherever Possible By Cfmu/ukfmp.
.
We Are Monitoring The Situation And Will Advise Of Any Possible
Improvements.
.
Cfmu Nod, Brussels

[Skipness One Echo]

Photos: - Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo//1659198/L/&sid=850e2eda11c41064c9c9de3407c56fb6)

The last time I was down the (soon to be demolished) Europier it was a pleasantly open plan area like T4 and T5. Has it now been divided up into segregated gates like T3? Anyone know why this is and if the whole new T2B will be a similar layout?

Thanks

[ConstantFlyer]

There are some additional Air Algerie flights timetabled due to a big gas conference taking place in Oran.

On Sat 17 April, the regular AH2054 flight from Algiers to Heathrow is planned to arrive a couple of hours earlier at 1135 with 738 equipment instead of the usual 736. It will then depart as AH2055 at 1230 to Oran.

On Thu 22 April, AH2054 is scheduled to arrive from Oran at 1405 using a 767. It will then leave for Algiers as AH 2055 at 1550.

Flights will be to/from Terminal 4 as usual.

[helen-damnation]

As and when things start moving, do you think BAA/UK DoT will relax the LHR or other curfews to allow extra movements and get people moving?

[1985]

Yes.

NATS are already considering how to man the night shifts for when it gets started. ie as a day shift, and how that will impact the normal day ops aswell as the staff that don't do nights work days normally.

[Flightman]

There are quite strict rules on who/what can operate during the night. However repatriation flights should be allowed.

Interesting times.

[Richard J.]

There is no curfew at LHR. There are limits on movements and noise quota at night, but these are applied by season (winter or summer*). So the lack of any night flights during the period of closure will effectively build up 'credits' in numbers of movements and noise quota, which can be used when flights are resumed.

As far as I can see, no special permission is needed to allow an increased number of night flights by permitted aircraft, though obviously there would need to be availability of ATC, ground handling and other resources. Surface transport would be a problem if a large number of flights arrived between 01:00 and 05:00.

* summer season is defined as the period during which British Summer Time operates, i.e. last Sunday in March to last Sunday in October.

[clunckdriver]

Britain has a Summer?

[Skipness One Echo]

Took a wander out with the camera yesterday from Myrtle Avenue to T5 via Hatton Cross. Nothing to disturb the horses at the 27L approach lights except the suddenly noticeable sound of birdsong. There was some great excitement when a couple of BA A320s needed towing but that was pretty much it until the BA test flight called for start. The northern runway was checked by a large crowd of people in yellow jackets, I assume as it had been closed for so long?

BAW9156 then spent ages waiting for CAA permission before departing from 27R for Cadiff just before 6pm.

Oddly enough it was watched from T5 departures by a large crowd of BA staff, no wonder ! Out on a Compton 3F up to FL100 then planned to take it up to FL350 in 5000 ft increments.

Never seen the place like that, it was really surreal. It seems we never stopped being an island nation!

[jedigtr]

I was at work airside at Heathrow on saturday and sunday and it was, quite simply weird! Got so bored at one point that a few of us went to the control tower for a visit, loads of others had the same idea as when we got there, there was about 20 other visitors there! Had a good chat but we had to leave just before the BA flight went up.

[bucko]

Would anyone here have a rough idea of how many aircraft are grounded in LHR at the mo?

[The_green_penguin]

What is the general opinion of the proposed/rumoured 3rd runway expansion at Heathrow. How will it impact the industry in terms of UK pilot job opportunities / recruitment in the future??

I note 2 out of the 3 main political parties oppose expansion plans, therefore, I wonder whether this will be a significant factor come the General Election for people invovled in this industry....

Interested to hear your thoughts and apologies if it has been discussed before.

GP

[Max Angle]

I fly out of LHR so would welcome a third runway, my general opinion is it will not happen.

[MATELO]

I cant ever envisage LHR getting a 3rd runway. It will cost far too much and the fuss people will kick up being evicted from their homes will drag on and on.

[BEagle]

Surely runway capacity isn't the most significant issue regarding London Airport's congestion?

Every time I've been into the place (as a passenger), I vow never to use it again. Arrival often includes several minutes observing the Essx countryside whilst stacked in the hold. Then a lengthy taxy; even if the processing time through customs and immigration is swift (unlikely), there's often a loooong wait for luggage and then 20 minutes of traffic jams in the Long Term car park bus before I can finally escape.

So any additional runway capacity is only going to make things worse.

Better use of regional airports should be considered first.

LHR usage is 'red car theory'. "Why do we make red cars?" "Because people buy them!" "Why do people buy them?" "Because we make them!" - which translates into "Why do people use LHR?" "Because that's where the airlines fly from!" "Why do airlines fly from LHR?" "Because that's where passngers fly from!"......:\

[Basil]

Either a third runway or a new airport in the estuary - which would not suit me at all. No worries there, though. I'll be long gone before one is built.
My last couple of times through LHR, both T3 and T5 went very well.
Fast and efficient; couldn't find anything to complain about - buggah! :ok:

[demomonkey]

Arrival often includes several minutes observing the Essx countryside whilst stacked in the hold.

Surely the whole idea of building a 3rd runway is to increase the arrival rate? This alone would massively reduce wasted fuel and CO2 emissions. From the plans I have seen it would be more of a small satellite airport to the north rather than a 3rd runway for the existing airport.

The key issue would be to restrict maximum slot usage to between 75-80% for example of the theoretical maximum so that the current saturation problem is avoided in future.

[Dan Dare]

Sadly there would be no reduction of holding times from the creation of a 3rd runway. Any freed capacity would be very quickly filled. Holding is a necessay evil to make most use of the runways. No holding - no maximum throughput. The only way to reduce holding is to mandate that airports can only operate at a a proportion of their theoretical maximum movement rate (I recon about 90% should do it). No airport will willingly do this as they want more flights and more passengers in order to pay for their heavily leaveraged businesses. Heavy-handed regulation is really the only way to achieve this despite £BNs being spent to reinvent the wheel to get better throughput.

[Defruiter]

The only way holding will ever be reduced is if the airlines don't all arrive at once. There is only so much airspace Heathrow can vector in before they have to hold people.

[Seljuk22]

From 24th June Royal Brunei will fly Brunei-DXB-LHR with B772ER instead of B763ER.
PIA has increased flights to Karachi from 3 weekly to 4 weekly with B772ER.
Tunis Air will increase service to Tunis from 4 wekly to 6 weekly next winter.

just to remember:
Royal Jordanian: from 3 weekly A310 + 4 weekly A321 to 6 weekly A332 + 1 weekly A321 to Amman from 1st June

[WHBM]

If the third runway is built, it will be in the commercial interest of the current mainstream operators (especially BA, but also BMI, Virgin, etc) to fill it up as rapidly as possible. Smaller aircraft and more frequencies on established routes is the best way to do this. This is the principal way to prevent competition from coming in to your existing territory and getting a proportion of your market.

Likewise if you are a operator who does not serve Heathrow yet (for example the few remaining mainstream carriers who work through Gatwick) then be in there from day one of the new runway. Leave it a moment longer and you will find all the slots have gone again.

This only works at a few places; you could not for example do it at Teesside, you would never get the revenue to cover the costs. But it is the only way to work at Heathrow.

The only way holding will ever be reduced is if the airlines don't all arrive at once.Not really practical because the airport is up to its maximum runway capacity for both arrivals and departures hour after hour all through the day, and has been for years. It is not a "peak and trough" situation which can be rebalanced by smoothing things out, or like a US hub operation where they all come in together, then depart together.

[Seljuk22]

from 12th June 3 weekly / 4 weekly in July/August but I don't now the dates:

AF 1980 CDG-LHR 10:05 - 10:25 A380
AF 1981 LHR-CDG 12:50 - 15:25 A380

No first class sold on these flights.

[PAX richi]

BBC News channel reporting that plans for third runway at Heathrow have been cancelled. :mad:

edit: buried on this page: At-a-glance: Cameron coalition's policy plans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677088.stm)

[HXdave]

so i hear. that, together with no new runways for Gatwick & Stansted too.

also a 'plane tax' to replace APD! exactly how would this work, and how would airlines charge this to the pax (ie, you might have 50 pax on plane one day, but 200 the next!)

[anotherthing]

The idea was flawed from the very beginning due to lack of airspace in an already congested TMA. A second runway at Gatwick is more feasible as far as actually working is concerned

[turbine100]

Does the operator pay the plane tax then based on MTOW?

Would it affect someone doing GA / public transport, things like aerial photographic work.

Perhaps the airlines will lobby against this if its not a good idea :bored:

[HeathrowAirport]

ENVIRONMENT
Aviation passenger duty replaced by plane tax (Flights become more expensive -Airlines will not be able to operate domestic flight's without making a loss.)
No new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted (Just great - Aviation in UK will never expand - but reduce as airlines use CDG, AMS..)
High-speed rail network to be built (Ok that's fine by me - who's paying?)


Does anyone know what this mean's for people like me doing my PPL - does the GA industry get hit?

[buzzc152]

This shouldn't be a suprise. It has always been Conservative (and Lib Dem) policy to oppose expansion of any London airport IN THIS PARLIAMENT (ie next 5 years). I believe however they are in favour of looking at a new airport in the Thames estuary.

[lander66]

Well this government may not last anywhere near 5 years. There are predictions that we may have another general election within 1-2 years if the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats fall out.

You never know, if Labour somehow got back in they might set the plans going again, doubt it though...

I wouldn't expect it to have an effect on GA, although whether there are going to be seperate taxes for GA remains to be seen.

[Sir George Cayley]

There is a way to increase throughput at LHR without building a 3rd runway.

It involves mixed mode on both runways and hence would end the alternation process currently used under the Cranford Agreement.

Reduced separation, increased monitoring and trajectory management would all contribute. Not sure if it would ever get to parity with R3 though.

Sir George Cayley

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<increased monitoring and trajectory management >>

Don't understand your banter, George. Please explain.

[jackieofalltrades]

Great, so once again the hippy brigade have jumped on the bandwagon and doing what they can to stifle the UK's economy. When are those in authority going to realise that we need to expand the London airports to prevent losing massive economical trade to the likes of EHAM and LFPG?

Whilst there may not be dire need for extra runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted today, there certainly will be in years to come. It is better to build now to be prepared for future growth, than trying to play catch up when it's too late.

Just look at our cousins across the pond, and the proposed expansions of say KDTW, KSLC, KORD to meet future demand, and the recent new runways opening at KIAD and KSEA for example.
Salt Lake City International Airport > Doing Business with the Airport > Aerial Photos, Master Plan & Layout Plans (http://www.slcairport.com/plans.asp)
OHare International Airport Master Plan (http://www.ohare.com/MasterPlan/)

[fireflybob]

It really is about time all those employed either directly or indirectly in air transport protested in no uncertain terms about this archaic approach to aviation in this country.

On our own we will achieve little but together we can achieve much. Question is how do we got about this? Media campaign, mass protest one day in London? Ideas?

[dead_pan]

Can't they use the old third runway, whatever it was? Tried googling it but just found a million sites campaigning against the new third runway.

I'm all in favour of making LHR an integrated hub hooked up to our brand new high speed rail network. I'm just not sure I can wait 50 years for it to happen...

[Rusland 17]

Excellent news. This country can do without an increase in the pollution and destruction that airport expansion brings. And perhaps now that the additional runway is out of the question BAA will concentrate on trying to make Heathrow a better airport rather than a bigger one.

As for the 'plane tax' - makes perfect sense. It might encourage airlines to use their aircraft more efficiently if even empty seats cost them money.

I didn't vote Conservative, but this is one of the things that makes me happy to see the chinless toff in No. 10.

[mixture]

Can't they use the old third runway, whatever it was? Tried googling it but just found a million sites campaigning against the new third runway.

Have you not discovered Google Earth ? :rolleyes:

Doesn't take long to ID the "old third runway" and figure out why it can't be used.

[AirportsEd]

A long-term kick in the teeth for the UK aviation industry and its suppliers, but what an opportunity for Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam and their respective nation carriers...

[glad rag]

Is this changed from their (Conservative) manifesto?
Were they in favour before the coalition??

[green granite]

"If you mix Blue and Yellow policies, you get Green" actually if you mix blue light with yellow light, you get white light. :cool:

[demomonkey]

By being 'green' and not building a third runway many more aircraft will continue to circle London on a hourly/weekly/yearly basis. How green is that? A much better idea would have been to have built a third runway but capped usage at 80% so that congestion/holding was eliminated. This way the UK only loses out to Frankfurt and Schipol.

Runways by Major European Air Traffic Hubs:

Heathrow: 2
Amsterdam: 6
Charles de Gaulle: 4
Frankfurt: 3 (plus one in building)
Rome: 3

[Baron buzz]

Demomonkey,

I quite agree. Building a third runway but capping movements would allow the airport to significantly reduce both airborne and ground aircraft holding. And from an aircraft pollution point of view, would be much more environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, that plan involves thinking outside of the box which historically, governments are not very capable of.

Cheers,
BB

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<many more aircraft will continue to circle London >>

How can someone who is apparently an ATPL write such stuff?

[Spadhampton]

Personally I think Briton has long lost it’s competitive attraction as an international air transfer point, new runway or not. The Gatwick to Heathrow shuttle bus? Please. Redundant as hell for decades.
We actively seek Frankfurt, or, Amsterdam when ticketing our people. London is just a big pain in the rear.

[West Coast]

Demomonkey hit it on the head. Claiming not to build additional infrastructure is a green decision is a red herring. A well crafted, believable argument could be made for or against building the runway.

[Rusland 17]

Building a third runway but capping movements would allow the airport to significantly reduce both airborne and ground aircraft holding. And from an aircraft pollution point of view, would be much more environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, that plan involves thinking outside of the box which historically, governments are not very capable of.One of the most compelling objections to airport expansion is the destruction of villages, woodland and farmland that it necessitates.

I challenge any pro-expansion contributor on this forum to state, honestly, that they would be in favour of expansion if it were their village that were going to be destroyed or blighted.

I think Briton has long lost it’s competitive attraction as an international air transfer point... We actively seek Frankfurt, or, Amsterdam when ticketing our people. London is just a big pain in the rear.And please keep on doing just that.

Transit passengers add vitually nothing to the UK economy, but increase the number of aircraft in our skies.

[Re-Heat]

Runways by Major European Air Traffic Hubs:

* Heathrow: 2
* Amsterdam: 6
* Charles de Gaulle: 4
* Frankfurt: 3 (plus one in building)
* Rome: 3

How about - number of independent runways. It is all very well listing pieces of tarmac, but JFK cannot use its 4 runways all the time together (building work at present ignored), and neither can all those you have listed.

How about figures on utilisation of those runways, and cost to private and public sectors. It is not all about the number, and I can assure you that each side can prove it any way that it wants.

Sure, infrastructure reaps long-term benefits, but it certainly suits every airline that presently operates there to have just the present 2, and it also suits every present employee to perpetuate the crowded, monopoly-characteristic of the airport.

More scandelous is the complete lack of integrated transport-thinking in every sphere in the UK.

PS - I am actually pro-expansion, but I would support more an airport away from metropolitan areas, linked to HS1, linked to ports, linked to motorways, and with ring-fenced areas outside to prevent residential development, objections and noise complaints. Tough one though, as the Thames Estuary is one of the largest bird migration sites in the world...thinking caps on...

[Spadhampton]

My pleasure and you can take your criminal oil company back too.

[911slf]

...will soon be offering our American cousins cheap flights to London (Amsterdam):}

[TopBunk]

Whilst there may not be dire need for extra runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted today, there certainly will be in years to come. It is better to build now to be prepared for future growth, than trying to play catch up when it's too late.

There has been a dire need at Heathrow for over a decade already!

It will take a decade to build! (It took 7 years or so to approve T5 through the planning processes for heavens sake).

We are already playing catch up (and have been for years).

Heathrow expansion should be a immediate approval or it should be rellocated as an early decision in this Parliament and construction commenced this year, imho.

The greens and nimby's should be told where to go.

Having had my rant, I realise that the current political situation prevents any sensible pro-business / pro UK being taken.

Time to emigrate possibly.

[BAAlltheway]

[QUOTE]People on this site have wanted Labour out and the Tories in for ages - now they've got it. Suck it up./QUOTE]

Not sure we would have been in a better state if there was a Lib/Lab coalition. 3rd runway was one of the first things old Gordie offered up to the Libs to try and wangle a deal.

At least the Tories came out and said they would scrap OFCOM'S plans to charge users for use of Spectrum to make it more efficient (not that most aviation has a choice about using it). That was one of Mr G Browns plans from when he was in Number 11.

However i am resigned to the fact that aviation is going to be the big fat cash cow that gets milked to earn back some money for the deficit in the forseable future. I also predict within the next 12 months, a mandatory airline volcanic ash insurance that the airlines have to buy, which will be offset by an ash/acts of god surcharge charged to the passengers, much like fuel surcharge/PSC etc.

[call100]

London....Heathrow.....is that all that your minds can expand to..........If you contain the ideas in a box then nothing will move forward...Start thinking outside of it and a third runway is not really needed at Heathrow....:ugh:

[pwalhx]

I know I will be shot down in flames for this and I know one particular person will say there is no demand from the regions. However there are plenty of runways outside the south east and plenty of passengers who dont live in the south east. More direct flights from the regions maybe????

[Bagso]

A long-term kick in the teeth for the UK aviation industry and its suppliers, but what an opportunity for Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam and their respective nation carriers...

...er we could always use a major airport located in the middle of the UK, which already HAS 2 runways, 3 terminals.............

[MUFC_fan]

I personally feel this is a major kick in the teeth for LHR and the UK economy as a whole, especially that of the SE.

HOWEVER, as a Northerner, I have a hunch that this can only be beneficial to MAN. In the short term it will make little if any difference, but over time as it becomes apparent that we don't have the resources to maintain London's air traffic demand (which one day will come) then airlines down south with have to look at other ways to transfer passengers and as Bagso says, there is an airport about 200m north which has 2 runways, plenty of slots and 3 terminals...

As I say, this is in the long term. It could turn out that in 5 years time we see this decision turned around if Milliband and co. can get back into the driving seat!:ok:

[trafficnotsighted]

Rusland - In the name of progress villages have had to be destroyed in this country in the last couple of centuries. The need of water for our increasing population meant resevoirs had to be constructed and valleys with villages in flooded.
It is the price of progress.

[Rusland 17]

Rusland - In the name of progress villages have had to be destroyed in this country in the last couple of centuries. The need of water for our increasing population meant resevoirs had to be constructed and valleys with villages in flooded.
It is the price of progress.And look what it's done to our once-beautiful country.

These days, we measure progress differently. It's time to stop the destruction.

[trafficnotsighted]

You may and some others may measure progress differently but not WE , i think
you'll find the majority of people still measure it according to the old values, rightly or wrongly.
(its still beautiful where i live)

[MUFC_fan]

And look what it's done to our once-beautiful country.

These days, we measure progress differently. It's time to stop the destruction.


I would argue to my deathbed why economic development is beneficial. Just look at what it can produce:

Internet
Revoltionary healthcare technology
Life-saving drugs

Just three of a long list of what economic development can bring - that is real progress.

For Britain to maintain it's economic development with that of the other leading nations, a world class transport infrastructure must be in place.

London has the busiest airspace in the world, it is the city with more passengers than any other in the world, it is the leading World City for a number of reasons and for the city to have no plans for expansion of it's international transport links - from ANY OF IT'S AIRPORTS is completely unacceptable.

Or should we let our European counterparts take the traffic instead? It isn't going to reduce air travel overall - just only that within the UK, London specifically.

The UK's green efforts:

"Like turning up after a Tsunami with a dustpan and brush." (Sean Lock)

I'm all for leading the way in new ways to be green but it has to be of economical benefit.

[Rusland 17]

I would argue to my deathbed why economic development is beneficial. Just look at what it can produce:

Internet
Revoltionary healthcare technology
Life-saving drugsAre you familiar with the term "straw man"? Look it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

I am not against economic and scientific development. I am arguing against the wanton destruction of our planet and the polluting of its atmosphere. Thankfully, our new government appears to agree with me on this one.

[Rusland 17]

You may and some others may measure progress differently but not WE , i think
you'll find the majority of people still measure it according to the old valuesAh, yes... the "old values" of destroying beautiful old buildings in order to build multi-storey car parks, tower blocks and unloved offices.


(its still beautiful where i live)Only because there isn't an airport on your doorstep. I'm sure you'd feel differently if you lived in Sipson.

But it's academic now. The third runway will not be built (for now, at least).

[MUFC_fan]

I am arguing against the wanton destruction of our planet and the polluting of its atmosphere. Thankfully, our new government appears to agree with us on this one.


Apologise for the misunderstanding. However, whatever view we take, we cannot do it alone. Unless China and the USA get involved we have to continue to compete.

I agree with you, we are destroying our planet but we are only one small country when it comes to consumption. Obviously the other side of the coin is our influence politically is something very different - however, the Copenhagen talks clearly showed the major polluters simply not willing to make the cuts necessary.

Until our competing nations look to make similar decisions to that of our new government, we have to continue for the sake of our economy on the international stage.

[trafficnotsighted]

Once again i think you will find you are in a minority, the government will be more interested in sorting out the economic mess we are in than green issues.
You will have to accept that we just cannot save every Green sandal wearing lesbian
whale.

[skip.rat]

And not to mention the destruction that will be caused by the proposed high speed rail link close to some of the most unspoilt villages between London & the Midlands. Somehow I doubt that those in charge of this little project will listen to those affected. But hey, it doesn't involve aircraft so no doubt it will be waved through. Notwithstanding the hysteria surrounding emissions, etc. I'd be more prepared to accept the additional noise from aircraft movements than be within a mile of a high speed rail track. As far as I can remember the noise of a modern train ain't any different from one of 30 years ago; The noise from any modern jetliner compared with the 1-11s and 707s of the '70s is almost non existent. (I lived under the flightpath for 20 yrs or so, so I should know)

We'll all be told that it's the price of progress; well, without any disrespect to the residents surrounding LHR, as time goes on what was everybody expecting? Was it a surprise that the bl**dy great airport up the road wasn't always going to want to stay a certain size? If the immediate environs of LHR is so precious, what chance have they of getting this rail project through if there is a level playing field? Sorry, but the "villages" that surround Heathrow can't be compared with those potentially affected by the rail project above- the dreaming spires of Oxford or the cotswolds they ain't. (by the way I'm not saying so because it affects me, which it doesn't)

It's obvious that if the government of the day has a pet project then there's little most of us can do to stop it. I don't see a little community halting the building of the Olympic stadium - there was real will to push that one through. One has to hope that this next lot wake up soon. (don't hold your breath):ugh:

[DozyWannabe]

Let's be honest here though, when it comes down to the Tories holding onto a council and constituency by placating the NIMBYs versus potentially losing it by approving a third runway, you know which side of the argument is going to win.

I have no love for the Tories (to say the least), and I'm ambivalent on the third runway question, but sometimes self-interest isn't the way to go.

[roverman]

If this policy sticks it is the right one. Build another runway at Heathrow and we'll just be back here again in 10 years time wanting a 4th, so that Airline A can pull its single daily flight from MAN-JFK to add a seventeenth daily from LHR to compete with Airline B which has 18 a day. This madness must stop now. Feeding 'demand' in the endless and fruitless search for world 'competitiveness' pays no heed to people or the environment. We built a new runway at MAN 10 years ago, now let's get it used. MAN can fuflfil the role it was intended to do so before this industry lost any strategic control. It can be a spoke off many world hubs to compliment LHR in meeting the air travel needs of the UK. Emirates A380, daily from 01/09/10 shows the way. There IS a market from the regions - just ask all the people stuck in traffic jams on the M6. There may not be as much profit, but what is life for? London is already very well served with an unmatched range of routes and frequencies, it does not need more!

[Rusland 17]

Once again i think you will find you are in a minority, the government will be more interested in sorting out the economic mess we are in than green issues.I have no problem with being in a minority. My beliefs and opinions do not depend upon how many other people share them.

You seem to have missed the point that the government has already decided that there will be no third runway. They will be more interested in sorting out the economic mess we are in than in wasting time on the parliamentary debates and public consultations necessary to approve such a project.

[skip.rat]

There was a third runway up until 2005; it got closed to provide more parking, thus cutting down on airborne holding and, in the process reducing emissions, saving the lives of countless polar bears and sandal-wearing lesbian whales.
-Now can we have our runway back please?

[INKJET]

This will be very interesting and will effect diffrent sectors in diffrent ways, the losers i suspect will be the legacy carriers with low load factors the winners will be the IT carriers that can usually fill every seat.

The loCo's will be effected in a rather interesting way and one that i support, the loCo's currently charge APD (A goverment tax remember) but only hand it over if the pax fly, it is probably the case that Ryanair gain 10's of millions a year in gathering a goverment tax, but not handing it over or back if the pax doesn't travel, the admin fee's for reclaiming are higher than the refund in many cases.

Of course Ryanair are not the only one, just the biggest

Turning to the per plane replacement, the devil will be in the detail and i suspect that they will follow what has been done with vehicle Co2 tax.

This could or should mean that Ryanair and Easyjet will have a lower cost per seat cost (with per plane tax) because they operate more modern aircraft than say bmibaby or Jet2.

Sadly this will hurt Jet2 more than most because they own their aircraft and the value of classic 737's in the UK market will fall through the floor, most of bmibaby's fleet is up for renewal in the next 3 years (if the're still around) likewise bmi regionals fleet will cost far more to operate than Flybe's DH fleet untill fleet renewal later next year. Will freight and night mail flights be effected?

I suspect this will reduce flights into London Heathrow with AMS & CDG gaining, it will be a big boost for the A380.

At least we won't have Broon flying back to EDI to brood or breed every weekend:D

[MUFC_fan]

Sadly this will hurt Jet2 more than most because they own their aircraft and the value of classic 737's in the UK market will fall through the floor, most of bmibaby's fleet is up for renewal in the next 3 years (if the're still around)


I think that is should be calculated on the efficiencies of the aircraft. I also agree with you that it does some harm to Jet2, a great airline serving the community and the benefits it has brought to Leeds and Blackpool in particular has been fantastic.

If BMIbaby are here in three years then they will be here for the long haul and they have one of the largest players in the industry behind them...

[trafficnotsighted]

Rusland - I get the point, i know they have decided that there will not be a third runwway. I just believe that they will come under extreme pressure from big businesses to do a u-turn on such projects if the economic situation continues to worsen or the growth is not quick enough. Roverman is right we need more longhaul runway capacity in the regions which may give Heathrow a bit of time. That said the country will need to have more capacity in the South East in the long term in order to stay competitive with our European partners.

[Flying Lawyer]

Rusland 17
I challenge any pro-expansion contributor on this forum to state, honestly, that they would be in favour of expansion if it were their village that were going to be destroyed or blighted. Assuming the answer to that is either none or very few: What does it prove other than to confirm the well-known and irrefutable fact that most human beings are susceptible to NIMBY mentality? :confused:

Only because there isn't an airport on your doorstep. I'm sure you'd feel differently if you lived in Sipson.I wouldn't live in Sipson (nor anywhere else where there was a busy airport on my doorstep) if I was bothered about aircraft movements.
People who choose to live in Sipson choose to live not just near but virtually on one of the busiest international airports in the world:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Aviation/map-london-heathrow-airport.gif


I have some sympathy for the older residents but are we to assume that those who've moved to Sipson in the past few decades decades didn't notice the airport when deciding to live there? Or that, when deciding to live there, they didn't take into account the probability of increased traffic at an already very busy airport?

I live under the flight path in West London, and have done so (in three different places) for 32 years. I have no sympathy for those of my neighbours who choose to live under the flight path and then whinge about it.

FL

[jackieofalltrades]

Heathrow expansion should be a immediate approval or it should be rellocated as an early decision in this Parliament and construction commenced this year, imho.

The greens and nimby's should be told where to go.


TOPBUNK> I couldn't agree with you more.

The point I was aiming to make was that we need to start construction now, so that in 10 years time we have the extra runways and capacity at Heathrow, Stansted etc ready and prepared for the forecast future growth in traffic. Not to be caught thinking in 10 years time "damn, wish we had started buidling those runways!"

[johnnychips]

Not sure how to quote the quote above, but the new coalition in British politics both said, prior to the election, that they did not approve of the third runway. It isn't just 'Greens and Nimbys'.

And with the need to cut the budget deficit in the short-term, there is no way it could go ahead - and neither will the fast rail line, nor any suggestion of relocating Heathrow to the Thames Estuary - in the near future, assuming the state would have to input huge resources at a time when they are cutting what people consider to be vital services such as health and education.

The same problems apply to the Severn Barrage which could generate 10% of Britain's electricity - in the short-term it requires lots of capital which isn't available, and would not show a return for many years, but ultimately be for the nation and the environment's good.

I don't like it - London needs a new/expanded airport - but that's the way it is.

[tacr2man]

In these straightened times why not use an existing unused runway eg Upper Heyford ?
London Birmingham rail line less than 1 mile, M40 within 3miles , Plenty of brownfield site area for buildings .

[derelicte]

Or even RAF Lynham, that is not so far away, close to a direct motorway and rail link.

I understand they are all keen on aeroplanes flying over their heads there and don't know what will happen to them after 2012 (when they get shut), so the locals would probably be in favour of it - unlike Sipson!

[Charley]

I'm not afraid to admit that I'm pleased with the decision on the 'third runway'. I am a pilot and I fly for my living but the wholesale expansion of airports to complete with the CdG's and Schiphols of this world is just not viable (in my opinion) if they are surrounded by urban sprawl.

The reason why those airports have grown successfully is precisely because they are not constrained in the same way.

If we need more runways, I'd rather we look at utilising and improving existing sites like UH, Lyneham, Bentwaters/Woodbridge etc (or whatever remains of them).

And if the demand to fly is still too great for the supply, let's put the ticket prices back up and price the unwashed out of the market. After all, that's really what we're driving at here; destroying villages and ancient, irreplaceable woodland/wildlife sanctuaries (in the case of Stansted) for the sake of a flying a greater number of chavs to Tenerife for a fiver each way every summer...

{incoming} ;)

[Skipness One Echo]

if they are surrounded by urban sprawl.

There's a fair amount of room around LHR. In fact the problem is the flight path over influential rich people and marginal constituencies. Much better to demolish a load of villages with new railways rather than one half-empty village in a pretty drab part of West London. NOT!

This makes no sense, has no strategic planning, will kill domestic access to Heathrow and put the next government in the position of having to solve the problem which will only get worse.

[derelicte]

Is it good news for London's newest airport, the one formerly known as Oxford?

[Sir George Cayley]

Sorry Heathrow Director, been a tad busy,

Increased monitoring - refers to surveillance of the two arrivals streams to ensure separation is maintained and any blunders off are caught asap. There's a techy radar word which eludes me at the moment.

Trajectory Management - a new buzz phrase coming out of SESAR to denote the 4D control of flights. e.g. only push and start when the whole route is coordinated. Used to be called gate to gate but is now viewed as en-route to en-route.

Hope this helps.

Sir George Cayley

[controlx]

Quite aside from Cameron's local international hub (OXF in case you were wondering), best plan is to requisition Northolt (that is the 3rd LHR runway and ridiculously underutilised), take over RAF Benson (having moved pumas to Lynham or Odiham) and Upper Heyford and link the lot with HS2 on its way up to Birmingham and beyond. Three new west London runways in 10, 30 and 40 minutes high speed rail ride linked by a new line in a row up to the Midlands. No Boris Island which is the wrong side of London anyway, no new runways as they already there and no hassle - aside from the neighbours of course!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Increased monitoring - refers to surveillance of the two arrivals streams to ensure separation is maintained and any blunders off are caught asap. There's a techy radar word which eludes me at the moment.>>

OK Sir George. In fact such a system commenced trials at London Airport in the 60s and was still employed sporadically when I started there in Jan '72 so there is nothing new there. In December, 1965, I wrote a magazine article about parallel approaches which explained the need for two final directors plus PAR monitoring involved a total of 8 controllers. Nowadays the Heathrow Approach facility at TC functions with very considerably less than that number of staff.

Mixed mode ops were abandoned in the early days because they provided a) little benefit and b) much additional workload for ATC, especially with ground movement control.

In later years we found that one final director was capable of safely running landing streams to two runways, as frequently happens during the early morning rush (done it myself countless times). I do not know what procedures are currently employed but staff numbers might be a constraining factor if two final controllers were required on a regular basis.

[Gonzo]

skip.rat,

There was a third runway up until 2005; it got closed to provide more parking, thus cutting down on airborne holding and, in the process reducing emissions, saving the lives of countless polar bears and sandal-wearing lesbian whales.
-Now can we have our runway back please?

For most of the decade before Runway 23 was taken out of service, it was used on average for a handful of hours per year, and when it was used it decreased the capacity of the airport.

[Seljuk22]

Delta will launch a third daily flight to JFK with B764 from 19th September.
Delta Adding Flights Between New York and Key Business Markets - May 11, 2010 (http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=1028)

[Mr A Tis]

Also reported that Air France will use an A380 between LHR & CDG, to utilise the aircraft inbetween longhaul sectors, to save parking fees at CDG. Will it take longer to board than the actual flight?

[A30yoyo]

There was a plan for a set of 3 runways north of the A4 dating from the 1940s which was publicly abandoned in the 1950s with newspaper headlines and local rejoicing, so somewhere in Whitehall you can be sure that the PLANS i.e, drawings survive :) even if the current Government is opposed the the project (things change :))
What I would like to know from the professionals on this forum is whether air safety would be improved by having the 3rd parallel runway at Heathrow (increased separations?) similarly how much would safety be improved (and stress reduced) by giving Gatwick and Stansted 2nd parallel runways. Is there an ideal civil airport platform? e.g. 2 parallel runways with the terminal(s) laid down the centre?
Worth reading the Heathrow ATC book by Piket and Bish (and much input from one Brendan McCartney I believe) for the account of the interesting situations resulting from the use of 23L at LHR

[Skipness One Echo]

The next runway in the South East needs to go where it'll be worth most to the economy, surely that's not Stansted or Gatwick.

Quick question, is Northolt further from Heathrow than 18R / 36L is at Schiphol?

[skip.rat]

Gonzo,

For most of the decade before Runway 23 was taken out of service, it was used on average for a handful of hours per year, and when it was used it decreased the capacity of the airport.

-Absoloutely correct; I could probably count on two hands the No. of times that I've had to use it. 'Trouble is, once you demolish something it's a damn sight harder to get planning for a replacement than if it were still in existence. (maybe applying to "re-align" an existing R/W would throw up fewer restrictions than building an entirely new one).Perhaps we'll never know.

[Mr A Tis]

I think the eco argument would be that the UK is a small country. There is plenty of runway capacity in the UK at the likes of Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow etc. Until the existing capacity is used up via redistribution of air services, then there is no case for extra runway capacity.
I'm not saying I agree with that, but that will be the eco argument.

[davidjohnson6]

Mr A Tis - one could argue that with relatively unused runways in the south east of the UK at Manston, Southend and Oxford capable of handling short-haul flights, a partial redistribution of air transport demand to these airports could well be possible. Yes, Manston may be in the wrong place, but Oxford at the very least should be (and finally is showing itself to be) usable by commercial airlines

[pwalhx]

The problem I see is for example (strike permitting) 2 weeks today I am flying MAN-LHR-HKG.

When I booked one of the options was to fly MAN-LGW then by road to LHR-HKG.

Why on earth would I want to troll between 2 London airports, If I have to transit, as I do because no direct MAN-HKG then I want to transit 1 airport.

If domestic services were moved to say Manston, Oxford, et al then all I will do is transit via Europe or the Middle East.

And before anyone mentions I don't want to travel by road or rail to London, and dount I am alone in that.

[Bagso]

There is no problem with runway availability, surely the problem is one of airspace, and that is already full ! You can use or even add as many runways as you like in the SE but will it really make a measurable difference ?
In addition airlines will not dilute costs over two airports, hence the requirement to ram as many flights into Heathrow as possible.

Some years ago BAA offered a not inconsiderable 25% decrease in landing costs to airlines wishing to switch from Heathrow to Gatwick.....the number of airlines who took up the offer was nil so using Manston , Southend or indeed Stansted is not an option....although clearly something does have to give.

For years and for a variety of reasons "total UK demand" has by and large been forced into the South East, there is no incentive or appetite to do anything different, there are too many vested interests BUT something does have to change, we cannot carry on like this. My personnal belief is to develope Manchester, or start again with one airport and 6 runways.

Manchester is an airport located at the centre of the UK, its within an hour of many of the UKs major cities, it has excellent connections by road and rail and high frequency connections to the rest of the UK and Europe, these are already in place. With two runways three terminals Manchester could handle another 34m per annum and could even be expanded much much more ......

I do however fully take on board that an almost embarrasing number of airlines have tried and failed at MAN so why on earth should we go down this route again, well basically because going in the other direction and expanding in the SE is even less of an option...... something has to give !

[davidjohnson6]

pwalhx - I agree that transiting between airports is a pain and unrealistic. However, a substantial amount of the short-haul traffic from Europe to Heathrow is to travel to/from the south east of England
The LCCs at Gatwick, Stansted and Luton generally do not officially accept connecting passengers, but still seem to be fairly busy and have plenty of passengers. If anything, Stansted could probably do with an additional runway of its own this decade.

Thus, would it really be a bad thing if the private sector were to be encouraged to migrate some of their O&D traffic away from Heathrow towards Oxford ? If Continental can make transatlantic work to the likes of Belfast and Bristol, then increased constraints at Heathrow may well provide additional encouragement for long-haul routes at Manchester which presumably would make you happier. The words "if rather than action X you take action Y you can save time and money" seems to be remarkably effective on many people. British Airways may not want to open up in Oxford, but if the demand is big enough and the profits available, an entrpreneurial bod in an airline may well spot the opportunity.

At the very least, I'm not sure why for example a ski trip to Switzerland, or a day trip to Frankfurt by someone living in Berkshire needs to begin specifically at Heathrow.The people of the Thames Valley might even find this rather more convenient.

[Seljuk22]

Also reported that Air France will use an A380 between LHR & CDG, to utilise the aircraft inbetween longhaul sectors, to save parking fees at CDG. Will it take longer to board than the actual flight?

It will be the same times like the 'normal' flights:
CDG-LHR AF 1980 10:05 - 10:25 (A380 on day 1/6/7 from 12th June-30th August)
LHR-CDG AF 1981 12:50 - 15:25 (A380 on day 1/6/7 from 12th June-30th August)