HEATHROW [Archive] - Page 8

Fairdealfrank

28th Jun 2012, 20:47

Quote: "I'm from Ireland so I dont know who's in charge of Heathrow/Gatwick/Stansted but I wish whoever is on charge would stop talking about all the long term risks/negatives/problems associated with a 3rd runway. We've heard it all before ! Hurry up and do something quickly ! I think the ideal solution is a 3rd and 4th runway and a terminal 6 at Heathrow, 2nd runway at Gatwick and Stansted. "

Agree with all this except for the need for another rwy at STN. STN is nowhere near capacity and, in fact, contracting. No one outside the no-frills and holiday charter market is interested in STN, so one rwy is sufficient. On the other hand, this market is not interested in Heathrow, so we have a sort of balance.

Quote: "No new estuary airport, it will take too long & has as much negatives about it as expansion at Heathrow. I know my idea is a bit... Far fetched but I think this will facilate the aviation needs for London for decades to come. Look at markets where London missing out on (Osaka, big cites in China, Santiago)"

Have to take issue with the comment that the estuary airport has "as much negatives about it as expansion at Heathrow", in truth the estuary airport has all the negatives, let's be honest, it is a non-starter. Expansion at Heathrow does not.

Apart from that, it isn't far-fetched at all, just exactly what is needed! Four rwys allows alternation to continue, and that provides a daily half day of quiet for those of us under the flightpath, which is reasonable.

The Transport Secretary, Justine Greening has, apparently, conceded that the UK will need a four rwy airport. That being the case, all she needs to do is join up the dots!

Quote: "How contstrained is T5 on domestic? Is it just stands 501, 502, 503, 505, 506 which have access to UK arrivals? Given they were flying GLA, EDI, ABZ, NCL and MAN, no one really expected any more domestic destinations to be added when T5 was built."

AFAIK, 507,508 and 509 also have access to UK arrivals, 510 (gate A10) is the "back to the 1960s gate", for those unfortunates taking a bus to a remote stand.

Quote: "I mean had you suggested BA would be flying LBA-LHR four daily on the A319 most would have scoffed at the thought."

Excellent, good to see that route revived! Hope it's not the only one.

FlightPathOBN

28th Jun 2012, 20:53

The latest wheeze for avoiding a third rwy is permanent mixed mode, which, apparently, can squeeze in another 120,000 movements, or 25% extra, (as reported on Radio Jackie news the other day).

If you look at the queue with wake separation, a blended queue could easily give you 25% more capacity, especially when coupled with ground ops...

We have the real time wake turbulence system, not that crap LIDAR, but all weather...with our system, monitoring shows that under most conditions, wake sep can be less than the other variables of ROT and radar sep...

DaveReidUK

28th Jun 2012, 20:58

If you look at the queue with wake separation, a blended queue could easily give you 25% more capacity, especially when coupled with ground ops...

NATS don't seem to think so.

FlightPathOBN

28th Jun 2012, 21:25

they are learning...they just didnt have a way to measure the vortex real time, but at every 2.7 seconds...we can show them the path to enlightenment!

(not necessarily mixed mode, but def with blended mode)

Fairdealfrank

28th Jun 2012, 21:41

Yes, it can squeeze in more movements, but will it address the congestion and delays, both on the ground and in the air?

FlightPathOBN

28th Jun 2012, 22:11

Well, there needs to be a combo of flight and ground ops.

Currently, when one brings in a group of heavies, it kills the ground ops. That is why mixed mode is only so successful.

A gate is a gate, it is full with 120 pass ac or 450 pass ac.

Blended ops bring in heavies and lights, so ground ops isnt hit with a large number of high occupancy aircraft at one time or a large number of smaller occ aircraft at the same time...that is where the real capacity enhancement can be realized.

The airspace is not optimized when you have a group in hold, while another group queues. A light should not be in a hold pattern while 10 heavies approach.

We need to move past the light/medium/heavy/et al, designations and blend the aircraft to optimize the airspace and ground ops, and not use, the 'worst case' as a foundation for aircraft operations.

WHBM

28th Jun 2012, 22:44

Currently, when one brings in a group of heavies, it kills the ground ops.
Heathrow gets about 625 arrivals per day. If we say it is two-thirds A320 size and one-third widebodies, that is about 210 widebody arrivals per day. This is not surprising when BA alone have 130 widebodies in the fleet, the majority of which arrive at Heathrow each day. This hasn't varied by much for many years.

So the arrival of a group of aircraft together is absolutely standard and to be expected. Excuses by the likes of the UK Border Agency or absent gate personnel that "several aircraft arrived together and we can't handle that easily" are a nonsense. All aspects of the airport should have got used to this long ago.

Gonzo

29th Jun 2012, 18:59

FlightpathOBN,

If you look at the queue with wake separation, a blended queue could easily give you 25% more capacity, especially when coupled with ground ops...

What do you mean by a blended queue?

What do you mean by ground ops? How could that increase capacity?

I assume you're aware of the work ongoing around Europe of time based arrival spacing and thence pair wise separation, but that's a long term initiative, it's not going to happen overnight.

FlightPathOBN

3rd Jul 2012, 15:44

My company has a real time wake turbulence measurement system. The measurements are about every 3 seconds, and the measurements are taken at 500m, 1500m, and 2500m from threshold. The system measures a grid up to 300m high at each location. When the ac passes over the array, it begins measuring the wake turbulence.
Since this is real time measurement, you can bring in the aircraft without guessing where the wake is, you know exactly where it is and the velocity, and when it is clear...(or where it has gone)

The ac is descending on the flightpath, and the wake is descending as well. This system is used in combination with a wind profiler, which is located at 3000, from threshold, and measures the wind column, real time as well, up 1000m. The profiler shows wind velocity and direction every 5m in altitude. It very distinctly shows wind direction changes, shear zones, and advection layers as they rise or fall. The great thing about this information is it provides winds right on final, and at real time. You will see the exact shear zone, the direction and velocity change, and be able to adjust. The system will also pick up microburst, downdraft/updrafts, and will broadcast on the windshear ADSB system.

Okay, so this system will show the approach path, when it is clear, when the conditions start to degrade and ATC needs to have greater separation distances, and when conditions improve, tighten the spacing up.
Should a gust or something else happen, an immediate warning is given to ATC with sufficient time to have the following aircraft do a go-around, and/or broadcast to the ac warning system for avoidance measures.

In short, after the system is up and operational for a period of time, ATC will be able to balance and blend the queue with the actual types of aircraft, and the associated loading, that are common for that runway.

Using this system fits within the ICAO framework of the RECAT, which allows for greater freedom of wake separation when monitored real-time.
ICAO Block upgrades support this, Global Initiatives, ACE, and the RECAT programs, and fits within many automated MET and ATM systems.

In reality, the wake turbulence currently is based on weight, with RECAT movement towards finite weight classes from the 3x3 matrix to 6x6 or 8x8, to the ultimate 64x64 matrix?!?! I really cannot see how anyone could track a 64x64 matrix and stay sane.....
After looking at thousands of flight datasets, it isnt about weight. A while back, there was a different system testing the Airbus ac with real time measurements, and the results were so unexpected, that they did not believe the LIDAR system worked. The system did work, what doesnt work is the mathematical approximations of the wake turbulence models.
As I noted before, 3 identical 737-8 in a row, all made very different vortex, simply because of the difference between flaps 20/30/40 with inboard flaps. A 737-4 makes a much different vortex as well, because that ac has outboard flaps as well.

The beauty of it is, the system is stand alone at this point, nothing is required to be added to the aircraft. For ATC, the system show the various locations as red, yellow and green for the clearance, so minimal training with situational awareness of the system is required.

We also have a similar system for single runway, cross runway and parallel runway departures.

FlightPathOBN

3rd Jul 2012, 17:07

Well, a great solution would be to implement GBAS. With that, you can get the mins down and open up the ops window a bit.
This would allow for the displaced threshold and variable glidepath, keep the aircraft that work better with 2.8GPA on threshold, and the 3.1 GPA on the displaced, this , if the speed gates are in the right place, could reduce ROT a bit as well.

Gonzo

3rd Jul 2012, 17:40

FPOBN,

My company has a real time wake turbulence measurement system. The measurements are about every 3 seconds, and the measurements are taken at 500m, 1500m, and 2500m from threshold. The system measures a grid up to 300m high at each location. When the ac passes over the array, it begins measuring the wake turbulence.

You need to have three installations under the approach for each runway, is that correct? (Or four, including the 'wind profiler at 3000' (metres?) from the runway')

So the furthest out you can monitor in real time is about 2nm? Not sure this will help, as the UK only provides wake turbulence separation to 4nm out, and it is accepted that there is catch up inside of that as spacing compresses due to the speed reduction to landing stabilisation speed.

In short, after the system is up and operational for a period of time, ATC will be able to balance and blend the queue with the actual types of aircraft, and the associated loading, that are common for that runway.

Again, I'm not really sure what you're proposing here. What is 'balancing and blending the queue'?

Well, a great solution would be to implement GBAS. With that, you can get the mins down and open up the ops window a bit.

Can you expand on that please? are you talking about the minimum visibility/decision height in CAT III ops? It's not the landing minima that is the capacity issue with CAT III, it's the spacing required to protect the integrity of the ILS/MLS.

FlightPathOBN

3rd Jul 2012, 18:24

The basic decision on those distances was the studies showed that the most critical phase of flight for a wake vortex encounter was about 300 feet above threshold or a wingspan.... This is where the ac is in final config, near stall, and a Wake vortex encounter would have disastrous effect.
Wake encounters further out are not fun, but there is much better chance of recovery.

The wind profiler going up to 1000m gives a better idea of the conditions of winds aloft, looking specifically for wind shear levels and inversion or marine layers. These layers can cause a vortex to hang or even bounce. The winds aloft is real time, and this system, to me has quite a bit ov value, with winds at 5m, really defining winds for that runway end, and a very good definition of wind shear levels, and direction for config settings...

For the queue there are really 3 variables that set the separation distances, ROT, radar Sep, and wake sep.
The real time measurements show how long it takes for the flightpath to clear of the wake. This allows for other variables to be the controlling factor for the spacing, such as radar sep. So depending on the local conditions, you may be able to have a 320 follow a 744 at radar sep.
Balancing and blending the queue, not specifically for LHR, but others as well,
again, LTH with the 2 runways, bring the mediums in pretty fast on final, and the larger ac slower on a different runway, so the benefit of the system would be when you have the inversion and marine layers, or even a tailwind, that hang the vortex on final. This is an issue even when following a similar aircraft at radar sep, and the system will warn of this, as well as windshear, updrafts, downdraft, and microbursts.
(looking at LHR, with the mediums coming on final at average of 170kts, flaps are probably what around 20/25? This will generate a large core and a small core vortex on a 738, small core disapate very quickly, and large core tend to stay around longer, so the MET conditions with this approach speed and radar sep, would appear to be critical to look for a marine layer rising at night that would hang the vortex, of an inversion layer that would hang or bounce it as well...)

The transition times between reduced/increased operations can be much more finite, knowing exactly when the front has moved into or cleared the approach path, providing the data for informed decision making, and taking the guesswork out of the situation.

Yes, the spacing required to maintain the integrity of the ILS is not an issue with GBAS, so the spacing can be reduced. A runway end can be used for arrival and departure, but that's lemming talk in many ways...

I jumped the gun a bit there, I meant to say if you are using GPS, ie RNP transitions to a GBAS final, you break the 250HAT for RNP, and get the minima down to CAT III autoland. This transition is seemless.

Fairdealfrank

4th Jul 2012, 23:25

Quote: "LHR needs to be a 24 hour airport.
Isn't it ridiculous, in the modern world, that the UK's main hub is closed for 7 hours a day?
Anybody brave (or stupid) enough to put forward ideas for bringing LHR into the 21st Century.

3rd (or even 4th) runway. Maybe North/South
Proper integrated national rail hub. More than the expensive paddington express.
Special nighttime approaches, using new technology. RNAV, GPS,etc.
Steeper approaches
Displaced landing threshold
Ban noisiest aircraft
Proper airfield winter ops and facilities.
Are we not dithering at the moment?
I'm sure there is a contingent who don't want any significant development.
Is that a good option?
Should the country's hub airport be determined by the few who live under the flight path?
For those who think LHR needs serious development but are unconvinced by
Boris's island, are there any 'outside the box' ideas that might just work?
Or are we destined to never ending public enquiries and squabbling."

Quite right, Contacted, it probably should be a 24 hour airport, but that is a long way off. A few more landings between 0500 and 0600 would need to be the first stage, as increased long haul flights would result in more overnight arrivals at this time.

LHR needs a third and a fourth rwy, parallel to the existing ones, to allow alternation to be kept. North-south rwys present too many problems.

Terminal capacity will need to be addressed. LHR5 was already too small for all of BA even before it was opened. A larger area north of the A4 trunk road than currently envisaged may be needed in the medium term.

Better rail access is essential, it was lunacy for airport junction not to have a facility to join LHR to the west, especially with the future crosrail and the massive rail hub at Reading some 20 miles west.

It was also lunacy that the original rail link to Feltham (first mooted in 1966) was never built! That would have linked the massive rail hub at Clapham Junction some 20 miles east. Had that link been built, LHR4 would have had a ready made railway underneath it.

Skipness One Echo

4th Jul 2012, 23:46

Now whereas Sipson is physically in the way for runway three, Terminal 4 would be in the way of runway four surely? Not impossible, however if they do stay with LHR, the LAX/CDG model of two pairs of parallel runways would be an option. Which makes runway three, too far North.

davidjohnson6

5th Jul 2012, 00:12

Perhaps the residents of Stanwell and East Bedfont could all be persuaded to sell their homes to BAA and allow for R4 to be build there instead ? All you need is to just reiterate the message that the needs of Heathrow come before all others...

DaveReidUK

5th Jul 2012, 08:28

Terminal 4 would be in the way of runway four surely?

I'd have thought that a runway going through the T4 site would be too close to 09R/27L to allow sufficient separation for independent operations.

A parallel southern runway with the same separation as between the two existing runways would run just to the north of the Esso fuel farm and then neatly bisect Stanwell and the northern of the two Staines Reservoirs.

FlightPathOBN

5th Jul 2012, 15:59

Unfortunately, we are likely all dreaming. The chances of a new runway virtually anywhere in Europe, USA, or AUS, is virtually none.

We can even get new procedures approved, let alone a new runway....this is why you dont see EO procedures, we have these for private RNP, but in the public realm, we tried this before, but as soon as the public needs to see is an EO procedure, with a "aircraft on fire with one engine" over their house...same for the missed, which is why they are mostly straight ahead to a certain alt...

The people moved in on the flightpaths, and all of a sudden, they hear jet noise, and they get to complain.

The airport facilities are like almost everything in aviation, by the time it is approved, it is out of date. If they had a good interconnecting rail system, and the airports were all owned by the same owner, then you could shift operations around between them to optimize air traffic in general....

Good luck with that...

Fairdealfrank

5th Jul 2012, 21:50

Quote: "I'd have thought that a runway going through the T4 site would be too close to 09R/27L to allow sufficient separation for independent operations."

So what is the exact minimum physical separation required for 2 parallel rwys for simultaneous operations? At Heathrow the 2 existing rwys are a little under 1 mi. apart, is this a lot more than required?

But these rwys pre-date any civil aviation regulations, the modern airport started as RAF Heathrow, and was built to military requirements. It is pure co-incidence that there was space for mid-field terminals.

FlightPathOBN

5th Jul 2012, 22:38

Under FAA guidelines, there are a few conditions.

For Visual and VMC, simultaneous operations are allowed if runways are at least 700 feet apart, with MVA +500 ceiling and 3nm vis.

Under IMC and IFR, the runways have to be at least 2500 feet apart for simultaneous ops. One of the approach paths will have a 3 degree offset.

They could always do this! Yahooo!

The dream....

http://www.theloweroad.com/storage/almaktoum.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1277762160738

I just want the contract for the signage.....

Skipness One Echo

5th Jul 2012, 22:48

Which is why we don't let engineers anywhere near the budget forecast....

DaveReidUK

5th Jul 2012, 23:04

So what is the exact minimum physical separation required for 2 parallel rwys for simultaneous operations? At Heathrow the 2 existing rwys are a little under 1 mi. apart, is this a lot more than required?

No, the separation between the two existing runways is less than required for simultaneous independent operations under ICAO rules.

FlightPathOBN

6th Jul 2012, 04:07

Again...

For Visual and VMC, simultaneous operations are allowed if runways are at least 700 feet apart, with MVA +500 ceiling and 3nm vis.

Under IMC and IFR, the runways have to be at least 2500 feet apart for simultaneous ops. One of the approach paths will have a 3 degree offset.

DaveReidUK

6th Jul 2012, 08:23

Under IMC and IFR, the runways have to be at least 2500 feet apart for simultaneous ops. One of the approach paths will have a 3 degree offset.

I think that statement needs to be qualified. Many of the world's airports have parallel instrument runways without offset approaches.

WHBM

6th Jul 2012, 09:37

Which is why we don't let engineers anywhere near the budget forecast....
Despite which we still manage to blow the budget on many occasions :)

FlightPathOBN

6th Jul 2012, 17:00

Dave,

The 3 degree offset is the from the FAA regulations....

http://www2.alpa.org/alpa/DesktopModules/imageview.aspx?id=255

I believe if the runways are more that 4300 feet apart, the 3 degree offset is not required, again, FAA regs.

Here is a link to ICAO 4444 Separation in the Vicinity of Aerodromes (http://www.servetbasol.com/Articles/ucuyorum/Parallel.htm)

WHBM

7th Jul 2012, 11:47

Maybe worth noting that the main M4 motorway from Heathrow towards central London has had a sudden structural failure, and has been closed for at least the next 5 days (Sat 7 Jul to Thu 12 Jul). This will cause considerable disorganisation to Heathrow access.

BBC News - M4 motorway London to Heathrow section closed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18751083)

Just 24 hours after it was marked out for Olympic Lanes :)

Seljuk22

7th Jul 2012, 14:13

EK007/008 will get A380 from 28th Oct and EK029/030 will switch to A380 from 1st Feb.

In total all 5 EK flight with A380 then.

FlyingEagle21

7th Jul 2012, 17:33

Maybe worth noting that the main M4 motorway from Heathrow towards central London has had a sudden structural failure, and has been closed for at least the next 5 days (Sat 7 Jul to Thu 12 Jul). This will cause considerable disorganisation to Heathrow access.

Maybe they should use the M4 as a temporary 3rd runway. Kind if like the BA Ad

TCX69

8th Jul 2012, 08:50

Apologies for posting something spitting related on here but I couldn't find a specific LHR spotting page. For those of U interested, Eurofly A330 I-EEZM will be arriving on the inbound BD776 from RUH as I don't suppose anyone saw it leave at stupid hours this morning! EI-EZL remains AOG. ETA is currently 1625.

Skipness One Echo

9th Jul 2012, 10:28

Todays Times is quoting Steve Ridgeway of Virgin Atlantic pushing BAA to make his airline the "anchor tennant" at the new T2. Also, apparently VS have always wanted to fly short haul from LHR. Apparently.

Dannyboy39

9th Jul 2012, 11:28

If they want short haul, why did they not bid for BMI then? For their aircraft and slots if not for their rubbish routes.

Fairdealfrank

9th Jul 2012, 14:54

Quote: "Todays Times is quoting Steve Ridgeway of Virgin Atlantic pushing BAA to make his airline the "anchor tennant" at the new T2."

Makes sense if they intend to join the Star Alliance. Suspect that BA will still be in LHR1 at the time and will move accross as well.

Quote: "Also, apparently VS have always wanted to fly short haul from LHR. Apparently."

This also makes sense: with a longhaul network, VS needs a feeder network, so what prevented them? AFAIK, VS wanted to buy BD back in the day, but Bishop refused to sell.

Quote: "If they want short haul, why did they not bid for BMI then? For their aircraft and slots if not for their rubbish routes."

Apparently they did, it just wasn't high enough.

canberra97

9th Jul 2012, 21:56

If VS made the move as anchor tenant at the new Terminal 2 this would at least free up gate space at Terminal 3 for the extra BA flights that would eventually have to move from Terminal 1, perhaps BA could use the current VS area.

If in the future VS joins any airline alliance I would place my bets on it being Star Alliance so the relocation to Terminal 2 would be a very good move, do it now rather then later because at least they can have the lounges, etc in place for the opening!

jdcg

12th Jul 2012, 19:52

Seems that £500 million of Govt money will now be spent on the western rail link from Heathrow to Reading (and Bristol / Cardiff). Makes total sense but surely this is a waste of money if you're planning to build a Thames Estuary airport which would necessitate closure of LHR if it is to work?

LGS6753

12th Jul 2012, 19:55

jdcg -

There's no such thing as Government money, it's taxpayers' money. And most of it is borrowed:ugh:

davidjohnson6

12th Jul 2012, 19:59

Based on the article on the BBC website, it seems the rail line from Slough to Heathrow will be complete in 2020 and ready for use in 2021.
Could someone explain why it will take almost 9 years to build and put what is approx 2 miles of track into operation ?

Fairdealfrank

12th Jul 2012, 20:11

Quote: "Seems that £500 million of Govt money will now be spent on the western rail link from Heathrow to Reading (and Bristol / Cardiff). Makes total sense but surely this is a waste of money if you're planning to build a Thames Estuary airport which would necessitate closure of LHR if it is to work?"

It makes sense also because it links to the huge rail interchange at Reading, making much more than Bristol and Cardiff accessable to/from LHR.

Who says LHR is closing? We've been over this enough times! BAA will not close LHR and no one else can. That's just one reason why the estuary airport will NOT be built.

The real question is why the western link wasn't built with the rest of the LHR rail link. Usual lack of joined-up thinking?

Quote: "Based on the article on the BBC website, it seems the rail line from Slough to Heathrow will be complete in 2020 and ready for use in 2021.

Could someone explain why it will take almost 9 years to build and put what is approx 2 miles of track into operation ?"

Ridiculous isn't it? Maybe it's less than 2 mi., it's only a short chord, but flyovers may be necessary. Perhaps work starts on this when the new rwys are up and running.....

FlightPathOBN

12th Jul 2012, 20:32

good luck, first off, getting a permit in an estuary,
second, building it,
third...bird strikes....

need solutions now, there are many ways to optimize existing operations before the construction will ever happen...

by the time construction is finished, it will be outdated anyways...

Skipness One Echo

12th Jul 2012, 23:30

Could someone explain why it will take almost 9 years to build and put what is approx 2 miles of track into operation ?"
In all honesty because in population terms, X% are wealth creators and XY% are regulators, lawyers, pressure groups and politicos. Not that we don't actually need the above but they are all a break on progress and the economy is well off balance. Each of the above is also an added cost which is why Hong Kong could build Chep Lap Kok on a whole new island in good time whereas our (alleged) "service" economy with millions on the dole cannot arrange several thousand minimum wage guys for the Olympics given seven years notice. I love my country but we've got too many good people on the wrong kind of jobs to be competitive.

Seljuk22

14th Jul 2012, 11:45

China Southern will increase CAN-LHR from current 3 weekly to daily starting 28th October!

EY will go all B77W from 1st February 2013 instead of planned 31st March.

Let's see what QR will do to face 5 daily A380 by EK and 3 daily B77W by EY also considering the fact that QR is about to join oneworld next year.

Dannyboy39

16th Jul 2012, 15:26

Today is the busiest day in Heathrow's history... until next week... and then the next week! Around 250,000 will travel through the 4 terminals.

Can't say in T1 I noticed any difference!

Fairdealfrank

16th Jul 2012, 22:29

Quote: "China Southern will increase CAN-LHR from current 3 weekly to daily starting 28th October!"

Excellent, it's good to see them doing well. Just as well, they waited long enough for the slots!

bcn_boy

17th Jul 2012, 11:20

Can anybody explain why there are a number of early morning landings on the northern runway around 5am even if the mode of operation is to land on the southerly for that part of the day?

DaveReidUK

17th Jul 2012, 12:26

Can anybody explain why there are a number of early morning landings on the northern runway around 5am even if the mode of operation is to land on the southerly for that part of the day?

The northern runway is used for landings at that time of day on two weeks out of every four (one week in each direction, though that part is subject to the wind direction).

Geffen

17th Jul 2012, 12:56

BCN,

The night alternation period could will determine the runway in use at that time of day, as DaveReidUK has explained.

bcn_boy

17th Jul 2012, 13:06

Thanks for the responses. Are they legally allowed to do that considering the alternating runways operation tht are in place?

DaveReidUK

17th Jul 2012, 13:37

Thanks for the responses. Are they legally allowed to do that considering the alternating runways operation that are in place?

What we have just described IS the runway alternation programme.

See http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/Heathrow_Noise/Downloads/PDF/rwy-alt-prog-2012.pdf

bcn_boy

17th Jul 2012, 13:44

@davidReid - thanks but this is for 06:00 onwards, these landings are prior to that and are not covered in the PDF. It is on a daily basis that the early birds are landing on the northerly runway regardless of wind direction but mostly coming in from the East.

DaveReidUK

17th Jul 2012, 14:04

thanks but this is for 06:00 onwards, these landings are prior to that and are not covered in the PDF

Are you looking at the same PDF ? The one that has Column A "Night Alternation Period" ?

Let's take an example - BAW26 from Hong Kong is one of the first arrivals, usually landing between 04:30 and 05:00.

Here is the landing runway that it has used for the last 28 days:

20/06/2012 27L southern runway westerly
21/06/2012 09R southern runway easterly
22/06/2012 27L southern runway westerly
23/06/2012 27L southern runway westerly
24/06/2012 27L southern runway westerly
25/06/2012 27L southern runway westerly
26/06/2012 27L southern runway westerly
27/06/2012 27L southern runway westerly
28/06/2012 27L southern runway westerly
29/06/2012 27L southern runway westerly
30/06/2012 27L southern runway westerly
01/07/2012 27L southern runway westerly
02/07/2012 27L southern runway westerly
03/07/2012 27R northern runway westerly
04/07/2012 27R northern runway westerly
05/07/2012 27R northern runway westerly
06/07/2012 27R northern runway westerly
07/07/2012 27R northern runway westerly
08/07/2012 09L northern runway easterly
09/07/2012 27R northern runway westerly
10/07/2012 27R northern runway westerly
11/07/2012 27R northern runway westerly
12/07/2012 27R northern runway westerly
13/07/2012 27R northern runway westerly
14/07/2012 27R northern runway westerly
15/07/2012 27R northern runway westerly
16/07/2012 27R northern runway westerly
17/07/2012 27L southern runway westerly

Can you see the pattern ? Two weeks using the northern runway, followed by two weeks' use of the southern runway.

bcn_boy

17th Jul 2012, 14:36

Thank you Dave, I can truly see a pattern emerging. Hence my question of why they were on the northerly which is happening on an almost nightly basis. The night time alternations are not being adhered too and last night was yet another example. The earlies were once again landing on the northerly.

FlightPathOBN

17th Jul 2012, 14:43

There is WebTrak (http://webtrak.bksv.com/lhr) for Heathrow....

rutankrd

17th Jul 2012, 14:48

Actually from 04:30 to 06:59 dual runway arrivals are operated and have been doing so for a very long time.

From 07:00 split operations resume as departures build up.

DaveReidUK

17th Jul 2012, 14:54

The night time alternations are not being adhered too and last night was yet another example. The earlies were once again landing on the northerly.

Sorry, but I beg to differ.

The first landing this morning on the northern runway (27R) was AAL100 at 06:02, conforming to the daytime alternation programme.

That was preceded by BAW26, BAW12, VIR201, BAW56, BAW28, QFA9, BAW16, UAL958, CPA251, MAS2, BAW64, SIA322, and CPA255, all on the southern runway (27L) as per the night alternation programme.

DaveReidUK

17th Jul 2012, 15:05

Actually from 04:30 to 06:59 dual runway arrivals are operated and have been doing so for a very long time.

Not quite. Heathrow normally operates with one runway closed until 06:00 - that's when dual runway arrivals start.

There are only around 15 flights scheduled/allowed to land from 04:30 to 06:00, so one runway is more than adequate during that period.

Fairdealfrank

17th Jul 2012, 15:28

Quote: "Not quite. Heathrow normally operates with one runway closed until 06:00 - that's when dual runway arrivals start.

There are only around 15 flights scheduled/allowed to land from 04:30 to 06:00, so one runway is more than adequate during that period."

This is to allow for longhaul overnight arrivals. AFAIK (but stand to be corrected!), no departures are allowed before 0600.

bcn_boy

17th Jul 2012, 15:42

Whilst one runway is adequate for the 04:30 to 06:00 my question is that it has constantly been the northerly for a very long period. Should this not switch to the southerly as an alternate on a rotating basis? Thanks for all the repsonses thus far.

DaveReidUK

17th Jul 2012, 16:02

rutankrd

17th Jul 2012, 16:10

Yes i am aware of those 15 (of a maximum 18) night slots up to 06:00 .

rutankrd

17th Jul 2012, 16:20

DaveReidUK

17th Jul 2012, 16:25

AFAIK (but stand to be corrected!), no departures are allowed before 0600.

I don't know if it's a ban (I haven't seen it documented anywhere), in fact the night quota restricts numbers of movements without differentiating between arrivals and departures.

But it's true that no carriers currently schedule departures before 06:00. BD used to have the occasional 05:55 departure to JED/MED, but it normally left late and rarely got airborne before 06:30.

It would make sense that those scarce pre-06:00 night quota slots are of more value to airlines for long-haul arrivals than for short-haul departures.

Fairdealfrank

17th Jul 2012, 16:43

Quote: "I don't know if it's a ban (I haven't seen it documented anywhere), in fact the night quota restricts numbers of movements without differentiating between arrivals and departures."

Thanks for the info.

Quote: "But it's true that no carriers currently schedule departures before 06:00. BD used to have the occasional 05:55 departure to JED/MED, but it normally left late and rarely got airborne before 06:30."

Makes sense, there would be little demand.

Quote: "It would make sense that those scarce pre-06:00 night quota slots are of more value to airlines for long-haul arrivals than for short-haul departures."

Exactly, and increasingly so with the projected growth of longhaul destinations.

DaveReidUK

17th Jul 2012, 17:11

There is a preference for 27R arrivals (in the said time frame) for operational reasons since the majority of landings at the time are coming off either Lambourne or Bovingdon holds.

That said the Kenya and few T4 long haul carrier may get 27L as may the QF/EK A388s for operational reasons.

If we're still talking about the 04:30-06:00 timeframe here, then I don't see much evidence of any preference, at least not recently.

Since the beginning of April, I can only count around 10 landings that haven't conformed to the published night time alternation programme.

That said, in the weeks when the southern runway was the designated one, there were, on average, around 2 fewer landings daily between 04:30 and 06:00 than there were in weeks when it's the northern runway.

Libertine Winno

24th Jul 2012, 15:12

Good article on the issues facing European hub airports, if anyone is interested;

IN FOCUS: Heathrow proves a poisoned chalice for UK government (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-heathrow-proves-a-poisoned-chalice-for-uk-government-373697/)

liquid sunshine

26th Jul 2012, 17:02

The duty runway during the night period is rotated on a fortnightly basis and is rigidly adhered to unless there is a particular issue (engineering fault etc) as to why the duty runway cannot be used. This does not happen very often. I'm afraid to say that your thought that the northern is used more often will not be backed up by the statistics. Sorry!

Evey_Hammond

26th Jul 2012, 21:31

Stupid kids I guess...

FlyingEagle21

26th Jul 2012, 21:47

rutankrd That said the Kenya and few T4 long haul carrier may get 27L as may the QF/EK A388s for operational reasons.

Is there any preference to airlines? I know Delta get a lot of departure runway landings.

Skipness One Echo

26th Jul 2012, 23:45

WHBM

27th Jul 2012, 09:44

I presume that when landings are on the northern runway, there is an operational benefit to putting T4 traffic onto the southern one because they don't then have to cross the southern departure runway during taxy in.

Does such crossing taxy traffic have any affect on the departure rate, or can it always be slotted in without impact ? It sometimes seems to have to hold for multiple departures.

DaveReidUK

27th Jul 2012, 09:58

hence T4 will get the Southern runway as will any A380

A380s, over the last few months at least, have used the northern and southern runways for arrivals in about equal measure, about 40:60 (09R:09L) on easterlies and 55:45 (27L:27R) on westerlies.

Skipness One Echo

27th Jul 2012, 10:07

I thought we were discussing the open period of landing aircaft before 7am?

DaveReidUK

27th Jul 2012, 10:46

I thought we were discussing the open period of landing aircraft before 7am?

Er yes, we were, weren't we ? :\

Though actually it doesn't make much different to the stats, around 55% of A380 landings before 0700 have been on the southern runway over recent months, so only a slight bias towards 27L/09R.

Gonzo

27th Jul 2012, 14:25

WHBM,

The overwhelming majority of the time we will not create artificial gaps to allow for the crossing of the the southern runway.

When it is the departure runway, we cross in the wake turbulence separation gaps, or the similar routeing separation gaps.

When it is the landing runway, and we cannot cross in the non-wake pair gaps, we will generally wait until a wake turbulence separation gap arrives.

However, if a 'natural' gap is not going to arrive for a while, then we might create one.

PAXboy

2nd Aug 2012, 08:30

Another fabulously clever idea from politicians ...

Planes may pay for noise over Heathrow - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/planes-may-pay-for-noise-over-heathrow-7999487.html)

It's great how the Tories say that 'the market must be allowed to take it's course' and then want to control the market at every turn. :rolleyes:

I appreciate, of course, that they are trying to look at another way to get people to agree to LHR3 - but if this were to work, it not work for long.

Windsorian

2nd Aug 2012, 19:55

Looking though the 25.7.12 press release for BAA's 6 month intrim results to 30.6.12 , I see the expansion of T5 is proposed with a new satellite T5E (page 6 para. 3 or 4) to follow on after the opening of T2 Phase 2 in 2019.

http://www.baa.com/static/BAA_Airports/Downloads/PDF/Financial_information/BAA(SP)-Limited-H1-2012-results-announcement(final).pdf

Though no mention of the expansion of T5A or a new satellite T5D; the latter would require the re-location of the northern fuel farm and the fire station. It seems that the FT were correcly briefed on BAA's T5 expansion plans when they published an article and diagrams on 17.2.12

http://im.media.ft.com/content/images/ea079178-598b-11e1-8d36-00144feabdc0.img?width=961&height=726&title=&desc

Dannyboy39

3rd Aug 2012, 06:58

Would it be worth now for BAA to force the government's hand on this - its obvious there is division. Go it alone without government support and let them make a planning decision yes or no, even for just political points.

Heathrow Harry

3rd Aug 2012, 07:51

at a cost of £££££££££££££££££££££££

really clever to spend that cash and make a point - and if it gets kicked into touch then they have burnt their boats for another 15 years

davidjohnson6

3rd Aug 2012, 09:05

If a planning application for R3 were to be submitted without David Cameron's advance blessing, the Department for Communities in Whitehall would likely consider 'calling in' or 'recovering' the application for decision by central Govt rather than the local borough.

The effect is that R3 is hopeless until David Cameron and Justine Greening (or whoever the transport secretary may be in the future) publicly support it

edi_local

3rd Aug 2012, 20:21

Not sure if this is going to be of interest to many, but it is LHR related. Today, the last edition of the In-house Heathrow newspaper, Skyport, was distributed.

Having not worked at LHR for very long I can't say I have become all that attached to the publication, but it was certainly a good read when it came out. Perhaps others have more memories of the paper, which is, I believe 36 years old.

Seems like a pretty nice thing to lose, certainly better than most workplace newsletters that are about these days. Good luck to all the staff involved. :D

DaveReidUK

4th Aug 2012, 08:23

Not sure if this is going to be of interest to many, but it is LHR related. Today, the last edition of the In-house Heathrow newspaper, Skyport, was distributed.

That's a shame. I haven't come across it much in recent years, but in its heyday under Bill Brenard it always used to be a good read.

Seljuk22

4th Aug 2012, 10:29

As of now EK plans to go 5 daily A380 from 10th December.

adfly

8th Aug 2012, 16:08

Will no longer transfer the daily LCA to LGW, it will remain at LHR and operate 6 weekly as of 28th Oct. (A320)

The planned 4 weekly ATH flights from LGW will now operate Daily (A321)

LHR-ATH reduced to 11 weekly vs 24 weekly last winter (A320/A321)

Aegean Airlines Further Revises Planned London Operation in W12 | Airline Route – Worldwide Airline Route Updates (http://airlineroute.net/2012/08/08/a3-lon-w12/)

Seljuk22

11th Aug 2012, 14:10

CZ plans to introduce A380 and B787 on its LHR-CAN-SYD route
China Southern to run Airbus A380, Boeing 787 on Sydney-London route - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller (http://www.ausbt.com.au/china-southern-to-run-airbus-a380-boeing-787-on-sydney-london-route)

LHR-CAN-SYD: 10575 mi
LHR-BKK-SYD: 10620 mi
LHR-SIN-SYD: 10672 mi
LHR-KUL-SYD: 10681 mi
LHR-DXB-SYD: 10901 mi

Skipness One Echo

11th Aug 2012, 15:10

To clarify, the LHR segment remains on the A330 for the moment.

greekphotog

15th Aug 2012, 15:20

Any info if tomorrow's rotation to Riyadh (BD775) will be operated by A332 via Athens?

Thanks a bunch :ok:

DaveReidUK

15th Aug 2012, 17:00

Any info if tomorrow's rotation to Riyadh (BD775) will be operated by A332 via Athens?

As far as I can see, when it's operated by an A332 it goes direct, and when it's an A321 it goes via Athens.

I don't know what tomorrow's flight will be.

fonejacker

15th Aug 2012, 17:04

It's on an A321 tomorrow.

greekphotog

15th Aug 2012, 17:19

Many thanks for your responses ,the fuel stop of the A332 didn't feel to be true.

Thanks again.

TRY2FLY

15th Aug 2012, 18:02

http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/british-airways-dublin-london-heathrow-559903-Aug2012/

Fairdealfrank

15th Aug 2012, 22:09

Quote: "CZ plans to introduce A380 and B787 on its LHR-CAN-SYD route
China Southern to run Airbus A380, Boeing 787 on Sydney-London route - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller (http://www.ausbt.com.au/china-southern-to-run-airbus-a380-boeing-787-on-sydney-london-route)

LHR-CAN-SYD: 10575 mi
LHR-BKK-SYD: 10620 mi
LHR-SIN-SYD: 10672 mi
LHR-KUL-SYD: 10681 mi
LHR-DXB-SYD: 10901 mi"

Don't forget the shortest route: LHR-HKG-SYD, 10,555 mi.(?)

ArtfulDodger

18th Aug 2012, 00:03

Ferrovial has just sold 20% of BAA to the Qatar sovereign wealth fund.

Full story here . . . . . . Qatar buys 20% stake in BAA « The Airport Informer (http://wp.me/p2jrV4-CJ)

Seljuk22

18th Aug 2012, 17:52

Don't forget the shortest route: LHR-HKG-SYD, 10,555 mi.(?)
It's (almost) the same like LHR-CAN-SYD (that's why I didn't mentioned it)
Great Circle Mapper (http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=LHR-HKG-SYD&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=&PATH-UNITS=mi&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE)=

TCX69

18th Aug 2012, 22:59

Any info if tomorrow's rotation to Riyadh (BD775) will be operated by A332 via Athens?

Due to A330 G-WWBD being released late from Maintenence & the leased A330 from Meridiana Fly being returned, the A321 had to be used with a tech stop in ATH or a crew change in BEY. G-WWBD, however, arrived back from MLA this evening & will therefore be operating the RUH schedule until the middle of Sept when it ends.

Fairdealfrank

19th Aug 2012, 19:21

Quote: "Heathrow's owners have a new business partner !!!
Ferrovial has just sold 20% of BAA to the Qatar sovereign wealth fund.

Full story here . . . . . . Qatar buys 20% stake in BAA « The Airport Informer (http://wp.me/p2jrV4-CJ)"

Looks like the Qatari Sovereign wealth Fund also thinks that LHR is not closing within the next 20 years, so another nail in the coffin of the Thames fantasy island airport.

ArtfulDodger

21st Aug 2012, 16:37

Flights may be affected, a thick pall of black smoke can be seen as far as the Olympic village.

Full story here . . . . . Huge fire rages near Heathrow, flights affected « The Airport Informer (http://wp.me/p2jrV4-CP)

PhilW1981

23rd Aug 2012, 21:27

I've read with interest much discussion on PPrune about boris island being a fantasy and the best way to grow is by expanding LHR. I am inclined to agree but I don't see where a 3rd runway could be accomodated given the local contraints of major roads? Could someone enlighten me as to what the proposal, if any, would be?

Fairdealfrank

23rd Aug 2012, 22:00

Quote: "I've read with interest much discussion on PPrune about boris island being a fantasy and the best way to grow is by expanding LHR. I am inclined to agree but I don't see where a 3rd runway could be accomodated given the local contraints of major roads? Could someone enlighten me as to what the proposal, if any, would be?"

The third rwy will be located on land north of Heathrow between the A4, which currently forms the northern boundary of LHR, and the M4 motorway. It will be about 1 mi. north of 10L/27R (the "northern runway"), and parallel to it. Although this area is relatively unurbanised, there are some villages and one of these, Sipson, will be demolished.

The link road between LHR and the M4 will be diverted and part of it may be tunnelised. Parts of the A4 will also need to be tunnelised to allow for taxyways to the expanded airport. There will also be another terminal and associated infrastructure including a railway station, and another fire station will be mandatory.

The new rwy is intended to be about 7,000 feet long, so a little over half the length of the 2 existing rwys, and will be used by smaller and quieter aircraft. The largest jets will remain confined to the two existing rwys.

Hope this helps.

PAXboy

23rd Aug 2012, 22:11

from The Guardian newspaper: Interactive: map of the planned third runway at Heathrow | Environment | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/jan/15/heathrow-third-runway)from January 2009 and still available at time of posting thislink.

WHBM

26th Aug 2012, 08:05

Interesting little leak planted by someone from the government in the Conservative Party's favourite newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, that The Girlie, alias UK Transport Secretary Justine Greening :rolleyes: may well be dumped from the job, principally it appears because of her opposition to Heathrow expansion.

Cabinet reshuffle is driven by plans for Heathrow expansion - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9493489/Cabinet-reshuffle-is-driven-by-plans-for-Heathrow-expansion.html)

What a narrow-minded government minister we have had in The Girlie for the last couple of years, who thinks the opinions of her Sunday morning cocktail party mates in their elegant houses up West Hill in Putney about Heathrow air traffic are more important than any national economic and transport decisions as the responsible Secretary of State, which of course is what she is paid her substantial salary to be.

Will Jeremy Hunt, MP for the Surrey Hills, be any better ? Let us hope so.

Gulfstreamaviator

26th Aug 2012, 08:17

will they get 20% of the slots.

glf

commit aviation

26th Aug 2012, 08:47

WHBM

Another couple of quotes from the Independant over the last couple of days:

Justine Greening could become the first Cabinet Minister to be removed from her job because she supports Government policy, it was suggested yesterday.

...&...

Change of heart on airport expansion

December 2003 Alistair Darling backs a third runway "to meet the pressures we know we'll face as a result of a growing economy".

June 2008 David Cameron burnishes green credentials to oppose third runway, declaring: "We are not going to drop the environmental agenda in an economic downturn."

January 2009 Government approves plans.

May 2010 Conservative manifesto pledges to "stop the third runway".

October 2011 Justine Greening, MP for Putney who opposes expansion at Heathrow, appointed Transport Secretary.

March 2012 IoS reveals George Osborne wants a third runway "back on the table".

I fully believe a third runway at LHR should be included as part of the discussions & JG will need to be moved to enable that to take place. However as the timeline above shows neither the govt not the opposition has a clear direction let alone anything resembling a policy on aviation, so it's perhaps a little unfair to blame the lady for doing what she was originally put there to do!!
As they say: a week is a long time in politics. Last weeks flavour of the month now appears to be highly poisonous!

Dannyboy39

26th Aug 2012, 08:48

Jeremy Hunt! For goodness sake.

On the politics - couldn't the Tories just go it alone without the Lib Dems rather than wait for the next election? The Labour MPs will support a 3rd runway won't they?

TSR2

26th Aug 2012, 09:30

Could this be the 39th u-turn ?

WHBM

26th Aug 2012, 11:21

On the politics - couldn't the Tories just go it alone without the Lib Dems rather than wait for the next election? The Labour MPs will support a 3rd runway won't they?
They won't support it if there's a chance of embarrassing the Conservatives in Parliament. That's much more important to them then the economics and the livelihoods of the country.

Bagso

26th Aug 2012, 12:23

Really cannot see what all the fuss is about re 3rd runway, it will be 10 years before its built and by then Paris, Frankfurt will be miles ahead...!

Heathrow is growing at 8% per annum.

Last year handled 70M , that 5.6m per year, demand on the new runway would be swallowed up in less than 3 years..... is it really worth it ?

Skipness One Echo

26th Aug 2012, 20:35

Last year handled 70M , that 5.6m per year, demand on the new runway would be swallowed up in less than 3 years..... is it really worth it ?
Of course it is, rather have part of something than all of nothing.
Heathrow is growing at 8% per annum.
No it's not, let me dig out the actual tomorrow, 8% is much too high (alas) :)

davidjohnson6

26th Aug 2012, 20:57

Bagso - where did you get the figure of 8% growth per year ?
Assuming that Heathrow largely reflects the state of the UK / European economy and the 8% growth is consistent over a few years as opposed to being down to a special blip in the figures, it would suggest we have left recession long behind...

Dannyboy39

28th Aug 2012, 06:47

Justine Greening just been on the BBC - hinting pretty strongly about Boris' Fantasy Island.

I do feel a bit sorry for her; she's going to be the sacrificial lamb in this issue. Runway 3 will probably go ahead and she'll lose her job in 3 years time. However, I say that, just another NIMBY MP.

compton3bravo

28th Aug 2012, 08:09

She was talking about half-a-runway(!) at Heathrow for the third runway. I would think she is going to lose her ministerial job in a matter of days.

Dannyboy39

28th Aug 2012, 08:14

2/3 of a runway, to be pedantic!

I realise its going to be used for smaller aircraft, but is there a reason why its only 2km long rather than 2.5km for example? What difference would an extra 500m make? There's been a lot of discussion on the LTN thread about safety and runway lengths.

DaveReidUK

28th Aug 2012, 08:23

I do feel a bit sorry for her; she's going to be the sacrificial lamb in this issue. Runway 3 will probably go ahead and she'll lose her job in 3 years time.

I suspect that Greening neither needs nor wants your sympathy.

The Transport portfolio normally turns over every couple of years or so, with incumbents destined either for political oblivion or (as seems likely in JG's case) for higher things. She is, after all, only supporting what is (current) government policy which, so far at least, coincides with the interests of her constituents.

Fascinating to speculate where she will be moved to, and who will be her successor, though - we'll find out next month.

Barling Magna

28th Aug 2012, 10:19

I heard the interview. She struggled to give a coherent reply to James Naughtie's question whether she could continue to serve in a cabinet which approved a third runway at LHR. In fact her overall performance was quite weak, so she must be destined for better things!

davidjohnson6

28th Aug 2012, 11:25

Googling around I've seen various reports indicating that a proposed R3 at Heathrow would cost about £10 bn - presumably paid for by BAA
This seems to be an awful lot of money for a private company to be spending.

Could someone explain where all this money would be spent ?
Is compulsory purchasing the land around Sipson the major cause of the cost or is there something else ?

PAXboy

28th Aug 2012, 12:04

Off the top of my head:
Updated and expanded later;

legal costs
compulsory purchase + legal costs!
the A4 road has to be dropped down.
the road connecting to the M4 will have to have a roof on it for most of the way and a load bearing roof at that! Some buildings in the new area will have to be put on piles spanning the road
the Northern perimeter road and related access roads?
Access taxiways from the main area for a/c to cross the Northern runway when required.
There are shops and a petrol station that have to be vaporised (and vaporisation machines are costly ;))
It's not just a runway but all the intermediate space that is built up with hotels and ancilliary buildings.
Security and other provision around an expanded site
Taxi ways with their lighting, guidance control for auto landing, ground spanning radar may need to be moved, or have whole new units put in. etc.
all the control systems have to be expanded to have the extra runway and taxiways integrated.
etcetera.

DaveReidUK

28th Aug 2012, 12:06

And then there's Terminal 6 ...

WHBM

28th Aug 2012, 12:34

Well we have to look at the huge amount spent in the late 1980s on Stansted, new terminal, all the access, etc, for it to be the new wonderport of London. Since then it has steadily declined towards being a Ryanair focus point only (I'm sure the Irish government is very grateful that we have allowed them to build up one of their major industries with our own money), and all the mainstream carriers who have tried service there have lost bucketloads of money so-doing and have left, because more than halfway to Cambridge is completely the WRONG PLACE for a London airport. The fact is that the market supports one major, close-in, accessible, near where people live, visit and work, hub, and it is being like King Canute to try and force things otherwise.

I do hope the £10bn includes doing things properly for all arrangements, no nonsenses like T5 being fully up to capacity the year it opened with BA flights then scattered awkwardly elsewhere (which looks set to get worse). I also very much hope that whoever came up with the silly Piccadilly Line Underground arrangement with half the trains going round by T4, the other half direct to T123, so the next one or even two manage to overtake the one waiting and waiting at T4 with everyone for T123 in it getting worried, has long retired. Of course, if BAA are allowed to have their own way T6 will be Heathrow Express only.

FAStoat

28th Aug 2012, 14:41

What on earth is going on with our disingenuous and half baked Government and the impending further rows over Heathrow needing another Runway.05/23 was used up until Concorde's operation deemed it unfeasible because it was not only too short but infringed Northolt's panhandle.The surroundings surely make this option a potential vote disaster,if domestic and industrial properties are to be sacrificed to build it.Similarly at Gatwick,the anger at a potential 2nd runway has been responsible for binning that option for some years;again a Tory stronghold area would be a certain vote loser!!?BUT having operated out of Stansted in its olden days and later with its posh new terminal and cargo centre,it is a natural option.In fact having been in Standby houses in Little Dunmow and Great Dunmow,and talked to the locals at some length about Stansted expansion,most were quite anxious,but resigned!.It was said at the time of the new Terminal being opened, that much land south of the new ring roads had been earmarked and actually bought for a new east/west runway to be parallel to the current active.The village of Elsenham,and its little Industry was to be spared so the construction activity was to be aligned further west towards the M11.We were told by local Farmers that excellent compensation had been agreed for "as and when" this might happen,and the land already acquired was and would be leased back until the developement began.All this was generally local gossip in the early 90s,and most seemed resigned to a new runway at Stansted.It has the M11,A14,M25 and other major routes close by ,plus the dedicated Rail service.It also has already ALL the approach aids for Cat3,and I think Cat3b,although I never experienced that level of low viz approach there.It also has Southend close by as a somewhat sleepy reasonably large Airport for Diversions,with an excellent weather record,which could open up Southend for greater things,and relieve Luton,Birmingham in the Bucket and Spade flights.Stansted is now recognised as London's 3rd Airport,and no longer has the Red Eye Arrivals from across the Pond asking "How to get into the City"?when all the buses and taxis have already gone.The Transport system is all there.I rest my case,as it seems all this flapping around is only for this Coalition of idiots to state all has been considered,before finally making Stansted the obvious choice.What do you all think????????????????????

green granite

28th Aug 2012, 14:52

I think they should do what Boris wants, build a 4 runway airport in the Thames Estuary, along with ultra high speed 'mag lev' trains and you could be in central London in about 20mins.

Manchester Kurt

28th Aug 2012, 17:22

Maglev would be pretty pointless given that you will be speeding up or slowing down all the way be it on traditional rail or maglev, the advantage of traditional rail is it could easily be linked to the high speed rail network that will exist before any new airport is built.

LGS6753

28th Aug 2012, 20:07

FAStoat -

Yes, Stansted has had shed-loads of (our) money spent on it, but still people aren't using it as their preference because it's IN THE WRONG PLACE. Sorry to shout, but previous posters have said the same.

During her interview, Ms G kept referring to a Hub airport, and unless LHR is actually closed - and who would do that? - it will remain the UK's only hub airport. So it needs to be expanded. The proposed 'short' runway would offer capacity for feeding short-haul passengers in from domestic and continental flights to connect to a growing network of long-haul services.

Boris Island is a non-starter because for it to succeed as a hub LHR would have to close, and as a stand-alone airport serving London and the south-east it is in the wrong place, has too much competition (LGW, LTN, STN, SEN, LCY), and has enormous political and economic hurdles to jump.

Skipness One Echo

28th Aug 2012, 20:26

The few serious politicians left took a very difficult decision to go with Runway 3 at the end of the last Labour government. It was never going to be wildly popular but was seen a necessary evil.
Cameron then pitches for votes in West London and backs local Putney MP Justine Greening (who?) in her campaign to have less noise for Putney.

This was to be a privately funded construction allowing organic growth for LHR and much needed space. Now a comedic egomaniac with no eye for detail or understanding of numeracy and statistics whom we elected to the non job of Mayor of London sees his place in history as Boris Island Airport. Telling people what they want to hear, all new airport, no noise nuisance, LHR doomed.

This is fantasy. Pre-condition ONE is that to have ANY business case for Fantasy Island, LHR must close.
The consequences :
T5 wasted and closed a fraction into its useful life.
T2 not complete and wasted.
Compensation to BAA ££££££
BA forced to move against their will, they want LHR.
Why? The market, something the Tories used to understand, demands LHR. Not likes, not enjoys, demands.

LHR supports tens of thousands of low paid, crappy jobs. Let's not mince words. Consequence of LHR closure?
xx,000s of people out of work or forced to move. It's difficult enough as a well paid professional to commute. Minimum wage bagges handlers have NO chance of commuting to this new airport.

Finally, the people talking today are well aware they will be gone by the time the s*** hits the fan. Given that we are bust as a country and getting deeper into debt, spending untold billions is beyond us.

We need to allow BAA to get cracking on runway 3 and create the jobs in construction NOW.

Manchester Kurt

28th Aug 2012, 20:34

Does a proportion of the infrastructure costs that are required to get people to and from the airport, be it the Piccadilly Line, Heathrow Express, motorway, road junctions etc not come from the general tax payer?

As such, yes, most of any R3 costs will come from private money, however, any subsequent increase in passenger numbers will see more demand on infrastructure to and from the airport and no doubt the tax payer will end up paying for motorway slip roads, road widening and rail improvements.

Not saying that is right or wrong, but to a certain extent the tax payer would be expected to partially subsidise the business model that BAA and BA operate, i.e. a hub and spoke model.

WHBM

28th Aug 2012, 20:38

Among several ludicrous grand hub airports built way away from the city they are meant to serve which have been complete fiascos, the worst has to be Montreal Mirabel.

Huge land area in the middle of nowhere razed in the 1970s. Vast public expenditure. Airlines refused to move. Why ? Because their CUSTOMERS didn't want to go there. Airlines are not stupid, if it was in their interests to go somewhere they will - and if they will just lose money, they won't.

Not one Canadian or USA service moved from the old airport. However Transatlantic flights were forced to, lost all their connections, and rapidly declined.

Meanwhile Toronto built up as the hub airport of Canada, which Montreal used to be. Air Canada kept their HQ in Montreal only for political reasons. Also, all the commercial businesses of Canada, banks etc, slowly but steadily moved their offices from a city losing accessibility to one gaining it. 50 years ago Montreal was the commercial centre of Canada. Now it's Toronto.

Too late, the international airlines were allowed back to the old airport if they wished. The whole lot left overnight and Mirabel was closed. The terminal buildings lie abandoned in the razed forest. But it was too late.

London beware and take note.

Skipness One Echo

28th Aug 2012, 20:38

Not saying that is right or wrong, but to a certain extent the tax payer would be expected to partially subsidise the business model that BAA and BA operate, i.e. a hub and spoke model.
True, compared to paying for a whole new airport in the sea on Western European Labour rates?

Manchester Kurt

28th Aug 2012, 20:53

Skipness One Echo

28th Aug 2012, 21:19

or doing neither, accepting that there is a limit on capacity in the south east and look at alternative options that do not include increasing capacity in the south east - question whether transiting passengers add much to the national economy and whether domestic flights could somehow be removed totally.
Given we need to trade out of debt and the companies involved are mainly in the South East and the London area, no. Transiting passengers allow multiple daily flights to be served and drive down prices due to decent economies of scale. BA could not serve as many destinations so often from LHR is it did not feed. Consider the reason VS is in trouble is that it lacks the transit flights you see as not important.
Removing domestic flights would simply cut off regional airports from the main UK hub. Exactly how does that help to connect the UK to the world? Or do you just throw your hands up and say what the Hell, let's just gift all that traffic, revenue, frequent flyer loyalty and business to Lufthansa, Air France, KLM and the rest.

Typically British, we don't appreciate how very lucky we are until we are on the point of losing it. Again.

FlightPathOBN

28th Aug 2012, 21:22

LHR supports tens of thousands of low paid, crappy jobs. Let's not mince words. Consequence of LHR closure?

The pilots would try to go elsewhere.

davidjohnson6

28th Aug 2012, 21:32

Skipness - might I gently point out that you are posting on a forum that is read by people who are mainly pro-aviation rather than anti - i.e. preaching largely to the semi-converted if not converted.

You seem pretty clued up and passionate on the issue - could I suggest getting out into the wider world, and doing some lobbying, or at least talking to professional lobbyists ?

It's not meant as a s*d off message - it's a genuine "plenty of journalists and opinion makers out there are making it up as they go along, we need people like you to explain the issues clearly to them...."

adfly

28th Aug 2012, 21:36

The bit that made me laugh in the interview was when 'The Putney Woman' tried to suggest that the new runway would be too short for new aircraft types!! If it is really the case that the C-series, 737 MAX and A32X NEO cannot take off with a good load off a 2000m runway then they might well lose a few orders!! What an ignorant and misleading comment, undoubtedly a poor attempt at masking the fact that a new runway will almost only be used for smaller narrowbody aircraft, which in turn tend to be a fair bit quieter than 747's, 777's and A330/40's and the like...

LGS6753

28th Aug 2012, 21:51

Does a proportion of the infrastructure costs that are required to get people to and from the airport, be it the Piccadilly Line, Heathrow Express, motorway, road junctions etc not come from the general tax payer?

Actually, it's often the other way round. Planning permission is often granted to developers but subject to a Section 106 clause which commits the developer to pay for road access, improved infrastructure, social housing, community centres, doctors surgeries and the like.
No doubt the beneficiaries of R3 (BAA) would be expected to incorporate into their scheme a raft of social/community benefits from which they make no direct gain. Section 106 is about to be changed, but the principle will remain that developers are expected to pay a social premium.

Facelookbovvered

28th Aug 2012, 23:21

FlyingEagle21

29th Aug 2012, 00:03

Hi, I know this a bit off topic and it is related to LHR expansion.

But does anyone know what the area to the West of T5 that would be included in the R3 Expansion plans be used for? Surley they would go over the M25? Would this be a new Engineering Base? I know the East Base is in dire need of being replaced.

Here are two separate diagrams showing this area

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45194000/gif/_45194126_heathrow_exp_466map.gif

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00658/news-graphics-2008-_658515a.gif

Windsorian

29th Aug 2012, 04:59

Over many years land has been taken off various local authorities and handed over to the London Borough of Hillingdon; this is to simplify the planning process, so all Heathrow's planning applications are considered by a single planning authority.

At present to the West of Heathrow in the area of M25/J14, the dividing line between Hillingdon & RBWM is the central reservation of the M25. The proposed land take from the RBWM would put the M25/J14/T5 Heathrow spur in Hillingdon; though the proposal appears to show a larger land take than required by the present T5 spur arrangement.

Windsorian

29th Aug 2012, 05:39

After the possiblity of a R3 is ruled out, the most likely site for a new engineering base is actually the present T4 site; the sprawling engineering base and surface car parks to the east of Heathrow are a poor land use for a constrained airport.

On 2.8.12 at 20.55 I posted a link (page 92) to a plan published in the FT showing BAA's new "Toastrack" proposals for Heathrow; these cover the rebuilding of T1 / T2 and a major expansion of T5.

However there still remains the sprawling waste of space at the East end of Heathrow between and beyond the present main runways; the proposal for T2C is far back from here.

This leaves plenty of room for new taxiway extensions to the eastern ends of the main runways (similar to the taxiways added at the western end during the construction of T5). This would allow construction of a major new terminal and attendant satellites in the most efficient way between the runways. T3/T4 could be moved here, allowing the present engineering base to be moved to the present T4 location.

Surreyman

29th Aug 2012, 06:37

I seem to recall that the Surrey County boundary used to run through LHR in & around T4.
Do you know if that is still the case or was this 'Tidied up' too?

Baltasound

29th Aug 2012, 06:52

Right old giggle this. That "Greening woman" (i.e. the elected MP for Putney who stood and was elected on a manifesto which included non expansion of Heathrow) standing in the way of expanding Heathrow and getting called all sorts of names for doing so. Despite expansion of Heathrow being ruled out in the coalition agreement, a system of cabinet government and the labour party also (currently) being against.

An easy way of getting a thrid runway is to vote for a party which favours expanding Heathrow. It is called democracy.

As an aside, apart from various studies comissioned by those who have a vested interest (i.e the non tax paying airline industry) are there any hard and fast figures which do not rely on supposition/if's, buts and the rest which in stark terms spell out how much UK plc will lose but not having a runway which basically interlines with a an already congested airport.

n.b My preference if anybody should ask is to have another new airport, with lots of room to expand and see Heathrow closed.

pax britanica

29th Aug 2012, 06:55

Surreyman
I grew up in Stanwell which is shown on the maps and adjoins the southern boundaries of LHR altho in those days it was open fields pre cargo centre. Stanwellwas in Middlesex as were Staines and Ashford

In the late sixties or early seventies Middx was done away with and most of it absorbed into various London boroughs but the area south of Heathrow became Surrey even though it was North of the Thames the previous Surrey Middx boundary.

At that time the bondary between Surrey and the GLC area became the LHR perimeter road until just east of Beacon road east of Stanwell where London started.
The western end is complicated because Berks (now Windsor and Slogh (Bucks) both have bits of land there but as far as I am aware Surrey neevr had any claim on any part of LHR itself.
PB

Baltasound

29th Aug 2012, 07:08

I can accept that a politician is neither strongly for or against a particular position, but surely Justine. Greening anti LHR stance disqualifies her from making an objective decision on the merits of LHR R3?

If she gets moved in the forth coming reshuffle then I think R3 is back on the agenda, it's worth remembering that had Labour got back in then 1000's of people would now be employed building R3 at no cost to HMG

The whole green thing is fast becoming a joke I must haven seen over 500 wind turbines this week static

Ah well take up the hold at BOV delay no more than 10 min or Holly Willo May it just doesn't happen at CDG or AMS

I seem to remember that the manifesto from the Labour party ruled oyut expansion at Heathrow, I could be wrong though.

And since when having a stance disqualifies anybody from taking an objective decision. Hunt had a stance on the digger's influence on television but it didn't stop him....Cabinet ministers have to make decisions per the Wednesbury rules otherwise they are subject to judicial review. Heathrow expansion is different in many cases, unlike the decision to stuff the Bearded one and award First Group the Franchise on the West Coast because the decision to proceed with it or not is innately political. A judge cannot force a politican to give the go-ahead to Heathrow because the heavy briefings by various very vested interests believe it to be the case.....

Nakata77

29th Aug 2012, 07:14

here here Baltasound,

Totally agree with the concept of building a whole new one with options for further expansion of that same field (ideally in the Thames esturary)

It's too late to save LHR now. 3rd runway should have been built in the same time frame as T5. That's when it was needed.

Windsorian

29th Aug 2012, 07:29

@ Surreyman et al.

You can find the present Hillingdon Council boundary either on the Hillingdon web-site or on the Ordinance Survey election maps web-site. I've looked myself and the present boundary between the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead (RBWM) in the area of M25/J14 is the central reservation of the M25.

In 2009 when Labour announced the go-ahead for R3, they proposed another tidying up of the Heathrow boundary - which is why the maps provided by FlyingEagle21 show a Hillingdon extension around M25/J14.

Interestingly at the public display for R3 at the Renaissance / Ramada Hotel another Heathrow extension was exhibited for the inclusion of the A4 Budget car depot to the East of 27R; when I asked why, I was told it was a security matter .

Later we were told that if BAA wished to extend Heathrow over the Budget car depot, then they should purchase it in the open market and not under the excuse of a R3.

airsmiles

29th Aug 2012, 08:04

New airport?

So how would you solve the small matter of massive social upheaval from the workers and businesses located around Heathrow and in the M4/M40 corridor?

If any new airport is built it theoretically needs to be located west of London and preferably slightly further north/south, so the predominantly east/west traffic flows by-pass London.

Birmingham is too far out, unless that's what HS2 is really about? Any other suggests? Upper Heyford?

Unfortunately successive governments have created this impossible situation and no amount of prevarication and dithering is going to result in an ideal solution.

felixflyer

29th Aug 2012, 08:28

I believe the area shown on the plan above to the west is just the new sliproad and infrastructure from the M25. This is an old plan that shows T5 as 'under construction'.

Regarding T2 etc. the whole of LHR is currently being redeveloped so that the airport is laid out parallel to the runways rather than the hexagonal design from the 50's. You can see this in the way both T5 & T2 have been designed and further taxiway improvements are/will be done also.

Lets be sensible here, people want to fly into Heathrow, yes everyone complains that it is a dump but that is exactly the reason it is being redeveloped. T5 & T2 are impressive terminals despite the typical British trait of trying to find fault in our own achievements. An expanded LHR could be a great asset to the country. It will help us build our way out of the recession and will be mostly financed privately, it seems like a win/win situation to me.

As has been said this is more than just an airport, the associated businesses and infrastructure as well as all the workers can not just be relocated to Kent. This is something that Boris fails to mention. He will talk about new jobs around the Thames Estuary but will not speak about the affect of closing LHR on the west of London. Many of the nimbies in these areas do not realise what affect this will have on their surrounding areas but it will have a huge affect on west London and the Thames corridor.

I believe what we are seeing now is the political wheel turning round to what was always going to be the inevitable conclusion, LHR expansion. The cost to the taxpayer both direct and indirect of these political games is what we should be complaining about. This has not been about finding out what is best for the UK but about getting in power and saving face.

Baltasound

29th Aug 2012, 08:45

Well, I am of half a mind to point out that any "new" airport will not be an overnight mushroom and will take 10 years in then planning and building. So, it is arguable that will give folk time to work out travel and other patterns.

The 10 years will almost be as much as it will take any new runway to be built. As there will have to be fresh planning permission for a start, a public inquiry, a hybrid bill for the inevitable land snatching and a more than inevitable trip to the ECJ in terms of how the new runway will affect various directives (after the domestic appeals process has been exhausted first).

So if a government was to bite the bullet then it would recognise that Heathell would inevitably shut (BAA trousering a fortune from the development of the site) and start consulting widely on where a nice 4 runway with room to expand, closeish to London and with suitable transport links could go.

Surreyman

29th Aug 2012, 08:53

Pax Britanica
Think I have answered my own question here:

"Between 1991 and 1994 a series of changes to the northern and western boundaries of the Borough were made. In 1991 changes to the western boundary with Windsor and Maidenhead resulted in all of the Wraysbury Reservoir coming within Spelthorne and other changes in the vicinity of the M25 Junction 13. In 1994 the Cargo Terminal of Heathrow and part of Terminal 4 were transferred from Spelthorne to the London Borough of Hillingdon and various changes were made along the boundary with the London Boroughs of Hounslow and Richmond upon Thames. In 1995 Poyle and Colnbrook were transferred from Spelthorne to Slough"

Dannyboy39

29th Aug 2012, 09:09

Are there any copies of the Capital Investment Plan or the pre-election LHR Masterplan, still knocking about?

Windsorian

29th Aug 2012, 09:36

@ Dannyboy 39

You can find the CIPs here; note in 2012 the name changed :-

BAA Airports: Capital investment plans (http://www.baa.com/investor-centre/document-centre/capital-investment-plans)

Heathrow Harry

29th Aug 2012, 13:44

how long did the last inquiry take?

and now we can also involve Europe.....

it will never happen

Skipness One Echo

29th Aug 2012, 14:40

The 10 years will almost be as much as it will take any new runway to be built.
It won't be possible to have a new aiport in the Thames estuary up and working by 2022, it would be 15 years to phase 1, 20 to phase 2. Heathrow runway 3 was already approved remember, so it needs dusting off and re-approved. Realistically that is do-able in under ten years, particularly now the rules have been streamlined.
I understand the idea is that LHR runway 3 will be sold as a "necessary evil" until the new airport is built. What you cannot say is that we can do nothing for the decade and a half until Fantasy Island may open. That's understood to be a stupid idea by enough people that ways are being looked at to U-turn without U-turning.

Libertine Winno

29th Aug 2012, 15:25

I think most people agree that in order for a new mega airport of some description (location TBD) then LHR would have to close, mainly as two hub cannot be justified and most airlines would stay at LHR rather than move.

Surely, then, a third runway at LHR makes it even less likely that it will close, given that asking BAA to drop £10bn on it only to close it in 15-20 years is going to go down like the proverbial pint of sick.

I've still not seen any reasonable way that you can possibly force BAA to close LHR anyway? Forcing the sale of Stansted is one thing (on competition/monopoly grounds) but forcing them because, well, we want you to...?! The only way would be to sweeten it with giving them ownership of the new airport, but how would you then finance the construction of said new airport?!

Still looks like runway 3 at LHR OR new fictional airport to me, not both...?

Heathrow Harry

29th Aug 2012, 21:44

"I've still not seen any reasonable way that you can possibly force BAA to close LHR anyway"

the English legal system doesn't go back 900 years for nothing

treason, illegal occupation of goat grazing pasture, a £1000 tax on every passenger using LHR, increase security so it takes 4 hours to get on a plane......., cut off the fuel supply for "environmental" reasons, close the M4 for repairs

easy...............

Fairdealfrank

30th Aug 2012, 00:34

Quote: "2/3 of a runway, to be pedantic!

I realise its going to be used for smaller aircraft, but is there a reason why its only 2km long rather than 2.5km for example? What difference would an extra 500m make? There's been a lot of discussion on the LTN thread about safety and runway lengths."

AFAIK there isn't enough room for another 12,000 ft rwy, especially if they want to squeeze in a fourth. The m4/m25 junction and Harlington are at each end. So it's about 7,000 ft, so what? Doesn't make it a "half runway", it will be perfectly adequate for what it is intended to do. Justine Greening is appears to be doing a very good impression of a minister not being quite accross their brief.

Quote: "Off the top of my head:
Updated and expanded later;

legal costs
compulsory purchase + legal costs!
the A4 road has to be dropped down.
the road connecting to the M4 will have to have a roof on it for most of the way and a load bearing roof at that! Some buildings in the new area will have to be put on piles spanning the road
the Northern perimeter road and related access roads?
Access taxiways from the main area for a/c to cross the Northern runway when required.
There are shops and a petrol station that have to be vaporised (and vaporisation machines are costly http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif)
It's not just a runway but all the intermediate space that is built up with hotels and ancilliary buildings.
Security and other provision around an expanded site
Taxi ways with their lighting, guidance control for auto landing, ground spanning radar may need to be moved, or have whole new units put in. etc.
all the control systems have to be expanded to have the extra runway and taxiways integrated.
etcetera."
Excellent summary, but don't forget the fire station! There'll have to be another one.

Quote: "It won't be possible to have a new aiport in the Thames estuary up and working by 2022, it would be 15 years to phase 1, 20 to phase 2. Heathrow runway 3 was already approved remember, so it needs dusting off and re-approved. Realistically that is do-able in under ten years, particularly now the rules have been streamlined.
I understand the idea is that LHR runway 3 will be sold as a "necessary evil" until the new airport is built. What you cannot say is that we can do nothing for the decade and a half until Fantasy Island may open. That's understood to be a stupid idea by enough people that ways are being looked at to U-turn without U-turning."

Bearing in mind that LHR needed expansion in the 1970s and it's now 2012, think you're being very optimistic suggesting that Fantasy Island could be up and running in 15-20 years! They won't have settled on who's paying for it by then. There's plenty of long grass for this one, we just haven't found it yet!

DaveReidUK

30th Aug 2012, 06:28

AFAIK there isn't enough room for another 12,000 ft rwy, especially if they want to squeeze in a fourth. The m4/m25 junction and Harlington are at each end. So it's about 7,000 ft, so what? Doesn't make it a "half runway", it will be perfectly adequate for what it is intended to do. Justine Greening is appears to be doing a very good impression of a minister not being quite across their brief.

"Squeeze in a fourth" ?

Regardless of the length of R3, there is no way more than one runway could be accommodated between the current LHR and the M4, so I don't think that's a consideration in determining how long it is.

If R4 were to go anywhere, the only feasible (if not exactly realistic) scheme I've seen is the one that involves obliterating Stanwell and West Bedfont and moving the reservoir. :O

Apropos the length of R3, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that it was being planned as a 2500m (8200') strip with a declared length of 2200m (7200') in each direction. If that sounds a bit odd, it's similar to the setup they have at LCY.

pax britanica

30th Aug 2012, 06:54

Windsorian

30th Aug 2012, 07:07

In BAA's submission to Hillingdon Council's Core / Spatial strategy consultation, Andy Wadham (HAL Head of Planning) raised the possibility of new offices, a hotel and conference facilities to be built in the CTA and linked to the new T2A.

http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/m/Heathrow_Airport_Ltd_-_FS048.001_to_FS048.002.pdf (starts page 5/16)

Presumably these will be built on the site of T3 after it is demolished. BAAs "Toastrack" plans show T5's new satellite T5E being built over Piers 5 & 7, so there will be no room for T3 to have its own satellite at this location. That is unless T3 / T4 are relocated to the area between and beyond the runways at the eastern end of the airport ?

WHBM

30th Aug 2012, 07:26

BAAs "Toastrack" plans show T5's new satellite T5E being built over Piers 5 & 7, so there will be no room for T3 to have its own satellite at this location. That is unless T3 / T4 are relocated to the area between and beyond the runways at the eastern end of the airport ?
Now I've sometimes wondered, in idle moments, if we are going to rebuild all the Heathrow terminals, how much extra effort will it be to build new runways north-south as well, adequately separated for parallel operations standards, and avoiding any air traffic movements over London, which seems the nub of the argument. They do fit between the M4 and ther A30 ! :)

PAXboy

30th Aug 2012, 12:43

WHBM They do fit between the M4 and ther A30!Please do let me know when you are going on a public stage to present this plan to local residents? Then I can sell tickets! :ok: And I promise to book St. John's Ambulance in advance. :ouch:

As I have said before it is Game Over:

R3 will be built.
It's ALREADY too late to make any serious difference.
The interline traffic has already started to move and will continue to do so long before R3 is ready.
The middle eastern carriers will take (are taking) another chunk of long haul direct from the regions.
However, R3 is still needed just as much as it was 25 years ago. The loss of domestic connections (all pushed out to LGW) has already ensured that one block of the traffic has gone and the chance of getting it back is slim.
HOWEVER, the positive is the development of the many regional fields used by the LCCs and connections by some North American and the many Euro carriers. This is a real good thing. Eventhough it happened by accident!
The failure of UK railways (ie govt failure) of the past 50 years has also ensured that Euro hubs have the regional connecting traffic.
No Thames estury island (of any description) will be built as, quite apart from the fact that LHR will not close, the country is too broke. Remember that the Chunnel bankrupted the private enterprises and had to be bailed out by govts. Also, the developer of Canary Wharf in the 'good days' of the the 1980s went broke too. That fate awaits whoever gets a deal to float planes on the river.

I could go on. Sorry it's a hobby horse but watching the total failure of transport policy (all types) in this country across my whole adult life leaves me with no confidence that anything good will happen. It is way too late.

Dairyground

30th Aug 2012, 14:26

One thing that gets overlooked is that if nothing is done at LHR-and as has been pointing out there are no other options short term because LHR is a lobal hub - the traffic will just go elsewhere. Boris island will be a huge modern airport with limited traffic because all of the interline stuff has disappeared to Schipol, FRA and CDG leaving London as an O&D airport only

The need for extra UK capacity is a current one, and leakage off interline traffic to the European mainland will increase over the years while we wait for LHR R3 and R4 or even one runway at Fantasy Island (disregarding the disparity in levels of APD - but that is a topic for another thread).

UK PLC would probably get a better return on investment expanding services at one or more airports well away from SE England, EDI or MAN, for example. Both have hinterlands with significant commercial and industrial communities that would use an enhanced range of services if they were available. To some extent we are already seeing this at several UK regional airports, where passenger and freight loads to a variety of destinations in North America and the Middle East (and beyond) are apparently enough to make the services commercially viable. There are even rumours of growing interlining between NA and ME services at MAN.

However, almost all these services are long-haul and operated by non-UK carriers. For greatest benefit to the UK, we need a large UK-based airline in the mix. And to get the hub really working, we would need short-haul links from elsewhere in the UK as well as points in Europe.

Of course a secondary hub would not replace Heathrow, and would not duplicate all Heathrow services. But it could provide alternative services on routes where there are multiple choices daily from London. For example, a well-timed direct Manchester-New York service could probably attract good enough loads to justify dropping one Heathrow-New York rotation and using the slots so released for a service from Heathrow to some new destination in South Aerica or the Far East.

So rather than Nick Clegg's idea of offloading some Heathrow services to other South-East airports, lets look at a bigger, UK-wide, picture and find more productive ways of servicing UK air transport demand.

If UK Treasury and EU rules permit, a UK hub complementing Heathrow could be established and in full operation well before the bulldozers move in on Sibson or anyone agrees on exactly where to relocate the Thames Estuary mud to form Fantasy Island.

Think UK, not just SE England!

davidjohnson6

30th Aug 2012, 14:40

Dairyground - if you can convince an airline to start a hub at Machester, that would be great. The last one run by BA lost money and was closed, with the main vestiges going to Flybe, and the leisure component (ie GB Air) to Easyjet
Flybe is losing money right now as an airline and I doubt they are in the mood for any great expansion at Manchester or anywhere else.
Easyjet, Ryanair and Jet2 have decided they want to be point-to-point.

So who do you have in mind to set up this hub ?

If airlines want to co-operate / interline / codeshare privately amongst themselves, there's very little stopping them from doing so

Libertine Winno

30th Aug 2012, 15:12

I've always thought that LGW could be turned into a 'rival' hub to LHR, in similar fashion to JFK/Newark in NY.

It would take Govt to improve the transport links into London, but a spur to the HS1 line would be relatively simple from there and in 2019 agreement could be got for a second runway.

If I'm not mistaken there are already some Chinese airlines offering direct routes from LGW to Asia, if someone like Virgin could be convinced to become an 'anchor tenant' at a new improved LGW then it could provide proper competition to BA's transatlantic routes. It could even sell some of its highly prized LHR slots to fund the expansion (though not to BA, of course!)

NB this isnt an alternative to RW3 at LHR by the way, I still think that is a necessity that needs approval ASAP, but a genuine rival to LHR at LGW could only be a good thing for passengers?!

PAXboy

30th Aug 2012, 15:28

DairygroundThink UK, not just SE England! Sorry not a chance. This is England! :sad:

Libertine WinnoI've always thought that LGW could be turned into a 'rival' hub to LHR, in similar fashion to JFK/Newark in NY.Ummmm, if you read the thread about the Islands http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/469575-new-thames-airport-london.html You'll find plenty of information about why NOT!

Briefly:

It's been tried and failed - and it's all in that thread.
Carriers ONLY use LGW because LHR is full.
As soon as slots become available at LHR - they move and start making some profit.
Many folks would LIKE LGW to have more point to point long hauls but the carriers know they have to be at LHR and cannot afford the costs of running a second operation in the back yard.

... a spur to the HS1 line would be relatively simple from there ... Eh? From where? From St. Pancras in North London or from Kent????

... and in 2019 agreement could be got for a second runway.Oh yes, that's going to be a shoo-in. Bear in mind that the citizens around LGW have had 20+ years to be ready with their No campaign! I'll bet they are actively monitoring every move of STN, LHR R3 and the islands!

... if someone like Virgin could be convinced to become an 'anchor tenant' at a new improved LGW then it could provide proper competition to BA's transatlantic routes.Sorry but it was tried in the 1980s and 90s. Again, it's all in the thread.

Sorry to be a wet blanket but the incompetence of successive UK govts in the transport field for the last 50 years mean that, we're stuffed - and that's the polite term! :}

Bagso

30th Aug 2012, 16:01

....Two hubs work in Germany

The airspace around Frankfurt was full so they moved the capacity partially to where demand originated, Munich hit 37M pax last year from a standing start because there was the will to make it happen.

It's the same in the UK, 40% of LHR pax do actually originate or complete there journeys in the NWest, but historically Heathrow grew as the mega hub and now everybody is so interwinned it cannot be unravelled.

Here in the UK the two hub concept is dead simply because there are to many vested interests.

As an example BA talk about a "UK Aviation Policy" its hogwash, if they get a 3rd runway it will add more profit to the bottom line and even if the return is totally dispproportinate to the impact then so be it...

It's not even going to be a proper runway for goodness sake.

Plus as I keep saying what about the airspace capacity, NATS have indicated that they will make it work once they know what the structure on the ground will be like, but that sounds suspiciously like " we actually havnt got a clue".

What it will mean is a reduction in slots elsewhere so hands up Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, London City, Southend sorry you are going to have to give way !

One thing we can all agree in ..its an utter shambles !

The airlines dont want split cost so want LHR expanded
The proposal for RW3 is pisspoor if you are going to expand LHR at least put 3 RWs in !
Boris Island, great but who will move, nobody from LHR will unless forced and that will fall down in the courts
We built a new airport 15 years ago at Stansted, complete and utter waste of space in terms of fixing this problem

DaveReidUK

30th Aug 2012, 16:19

40% of LHR pax do actually originate or complete there journeys in the NWest

Where does that statistic come from ? It represents nearly 30 million passengers p.a. - no wonder the M6 is so busy. :*

Windsorian

30th Aug 2012, 16:23

@ Libertine Winno

This is the link for the press release issued with 19.3.09 Competition Commission Report ordering BAA to sell Gatwick & Stansted airports and giving the reasons why:-

http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/assets/competitioncommission/docs/pdf/non-inquiry/press_rel/2009/mar/pdf/11-09

The new Gatwick owners (GIP) have stated they will comply with the 1979 BAA agreement not to build a second runway before 2019:-

http://web.archive.org/web/20070722083536/www.gacc.org.uk/1979_Gatwick_Agreement.pdf

You can find the 2012 Gatwick Masterplan here:-

Gatwick Airport (http://www.gatwickairport.com/masterplan)

and note Section 10.3 (pages 122 - 126) deals with a second runway after 2019.

Heathrow Harry

30th Aug 2012, 17:52

"For greatest benefit to the UK, we need a large UK-based airline in the mix."

Really?? Why??? The crews can come from the UK, the ground services are UK provided and the aircraft are built in bits everywhere these days...............

And if as someone else posted Middle Eastern airlines are already siphoning off long haul traffic from regional airports why isn't our large UK based airline offering competition??

Lets face it BA have always claimed to lose money on any flight that isn't out of LHR or even on any flight anywhere period (eg London Aberdeen)

Fairdealfrank

30th Aug 2012, 21:12

Quote: "So rather than Nick Clegg's idea of offloading some Heathrow services to other South-East airports, lets look at a bigger, UK-wide, picture and find more productive ways of servicing UK air transport demand."

Forget about Clegg, the man has no credibility and anyway won't be around much longer.

Quote: "If UK Treasury and EU rules permit, a UK hub complementing Heathrow could be established and in full operation well before the bulldozers move in on Sibson or anyone agrees on exactly where to relocate the Thames Estuary mud to form Fantasy Island."

The questions are:

(1) who pays! Obviously not the private sector, it's not a good business proposition and they have their own which is blocked by the govt. Clearly not the govt: they're scint.

(2) if the airlines won't use Fantasy Island (because of the expense and because pax don't want to), how to convince them that they should.

The development of Fantasy Island cannot start before these questions are answered.

Advocates of Fantasy Island appear to be in no hurry to answer them!

Quote: "Think UK, not just SE England!"

Quite right, but you have to persuade the airlines to "think UK, not just SE England!"

And there is your problem: airlines, apparently, can no longer make money operating from the "regions". Ridiculous? maybe, but regretably it appears to be a fact.

Even if there was a functioning Munich-style secondary hub at Ringway and more longhaul activity at BHX, GLA, etc., we would still need Heathrow expansion. It's not a case of "either/or".

Quote: "Now I've sometimes wondered, in idle moments, if we are going to rebuild all the Heathrow terminals, how much extra effort will it be to build new runways north-south as well, adequately separated for parallel operations standards, and avoiding any air traffic movements over London, which seems the nub of the argument. They do fit between the M4 and ther A30"

No, the idea is for parallel rwys so that all can be used simultaneously. A north-south rwy between the M4 and A30 would (1) prevent 09L/27R and 09R/27L being used at the same time (so completely pointless), and (2) Stanwell and/or a reservoir would have to be demolished.

Quote: "....Two hubs work in Germany"

Yes, LH have a major presence at MUC so it has become a secondary hub. The same was the case at MAN with BA back in the day. Didn't BA end this because they were losing money?

Skipness One Echo

30th Aug 2012, 23:08

Really?? Why??? The crews can come from the UK, the ground services are UK provided and the aircraft are built in bits everywhere these days...............

And if as someone else posted Middle Eastern airlines are already siphoning off long haul traffic from regional airports why isn't our large UK based airline offering competition??

Lets face it BA have always claimed to lose money on any flight that isn't out of LHR or even on any flight anywhere period (eg London Aberdeen)

Remember that many non UK based airlines show massive preference for their own local employees and treat the rest as second class in a wayt that is rightly illegal back home. Expat employees at Qatar and Cathay are good examples and there are examples at Singapore, Korean as well as many others. Western talent is "used" and not loved as it were.
The UK airline, BA in this case is clearly offering competition in an identical way to the large middle east airlines. One stop access to the world from the UK regions via a hub. With BA it is LHR, EK use DXB, QR use DXB, EY use AUH. What you are really saying is "It's sooooo unfair that like Emirates use B777s and A380s and BA have nothing but silly wee A320s from GLA/NCL/MAN/insert airport." It's the aviation equivalent of being a size queen.....

I think the core UK domestics do well out of LHR with BA, I am not aware that any are loss making, I understand EDI does rather well and ABZ has some serious oil traffic. GLA is now a LHR monopoly with the B767 returning on some flights and MAN has lost BMI allowing BA to consolidate flights and increase yields. I suspect you are misrepresenting that BA couldn't make point to point regional flying profitable. I think that is very true alas. They couldn't swing that if the fate of creation itself depended on it.

ETOPS

31st Aug 2012, 05:05

BAGSO wrote..

It's not even going to be a proper runway for goodness sake.

What on earth is it going to be? Banana shaped? Cobbled?

No it will be a bog standard 2500m strip - identical to 22L at JFK which I land 747s on regularly. It will suffice for a very large proportion of LHR traffic contrary to Ms Greenings ideas of Perf A......

DaveReidUK

31st Aug 2012, 05:46

No it will be a bog standard 2500m strip - identical to 22L at JFK which I land 747s on regularly. It will suffice for a very large proportion of LHR traffic contrary to Ms Greenings ideas of Perf A......

That's the first time I've seen that suggested, where are you getting your information from ?

AFAIK, as per my previous post, the strip would indeed be 2500m, but the declared distances will be 2200m (similar to the LCY arrangement).

ETOPS

31st Aug 2012, 08:07

In reality it doesn't matter as

a) it will never be built
b) 2200m is fine for all the Airbus/Boeing single aisle types

Libertine Winno

31st Aug 2012, 09:08

@ Windsorian

Thanks for the links, though I'm not entirely sure whether you agree with me or disagree?!

It is clear that BAA were forced to sell LGW in order to promote competition between it and LHR, which it implies had been stifled due to the interests of having the same owner.

Therefore, it would surely make sense that the new onwers of LGW turn it into a genuine rival hub? It can't be any coincidence that a nice big Emirates A380 is on the front cover, along with a BA aircraft in the background?!

Also I realise that the owners will not build a new rwy before 2019, but my point was that I would be amazed if they do not try once that deadline is up. It would also surely be far easier to get agreement for one at LGW than LHR seeing as local villages wouldnt be bulldozed, the noise footprint is far smaller and IF there is a RW3 agreed at LHR by then, surely any arguments on environmental grounds would have been blown out of the water?

@PAXboy

I am aware that alternative hubs were tried, in MAN and at LGW, but that was 20 or 30 years ago when the economic situation and world air travel were far different than what they are now. With the benefit of hindsight, I am fairly certain that one of those would have been persisted with if they had known that a third runway at LHR would STILL not be in place in 2012!

I guess my point is that the airlines are all waiting around for the Government to do something, when in reality we know how (un)likely that is to happen, so why dont they use some initiative and apply the economics of 2012 to plans that were written off 30 years ago? After all, isn't the plan for an eastuary-style airport just a re-writing of the Maplin Sands one of all those years ago?!

Skipness One Echo

31st Aug 2012, 10:02

If BAA and BA can't make LGW a commercially viable hub, by what mechanism can GIP? BA aren't making that mistake again, EZY are already dominant, nobody has ever willingly left LHR for LGW and made it a success.

Windsorian

31st Aug 2012, 10:58

@ Libertine Winno

I think we are missing some key information at present, in particular :-

1. Within the UK's Climate Change obligations, how much additional runway capacity can be built ?

I've read the CCC's International Aviation & Shipping Review (http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/international-aviation-a-shipping) and recognise their importance to the economy.

2. If the government allows runway expansion, how will it be allocated around the country in an attempt to re-balance the economy ?

In particular Birmingham airport, as Manchester has recently built a second runway.

3. In the SE where additional runways can be physically built, how these would fit into their competition policy ?

4. The relationship between runways and night flights and in particular the need to operate 24/7 ?

5. The true passenger potential at Heathrow following a complete transformation of the terminals and stands into a more efficient "Toastrack" ?

I'm trying hard to remain open minded, and follow people's coments with interest.

Libertine Winno

31st Aug 2012, 12:30

With regards the climate change obligations, it hasnt seemed to rear its head as a problem with people proposing the new 4-runway estuary airport, so one extra at LHR and LGW instead of the alternative of 4 extra and closing 2 (i.e. LHR) shouldnt be a problem.

In addition to that, we know that aircraft are far cleaner, quieter and more efficient than they were 10 years ago, with the 787, A380, A320neo, 737 Max and probably A350 all being either re-engined or carbon fibre construction (or both). Airlines are also seriously experimenting now with biofuels, I know Virgin and Lufthansa are but two, so that could show fruition in the next decade. This is all in addition to the constant little amendments being mooted such as electric motors on the landing gear to negate the need to the main engines to push aircraft round the taxiways.

Obviosuly I'm not an authority on the issue, but it seems the airline industry is seriously trying to reduce its carbon emissions...whether you think that is for environmental reasons or simply to become more fuel (and cash!) efficient is neither here nor there in terms of the outcome I suppose.

With regards the layout of LHR we all know it needs rationalising, and work is underway in order to progress that, though will of course take time.

With regards Brum, I think they need to concentrate on fully utilising their current runway capacity before making serious arguments for a second. Manchester seems the more obvious location for a hub of sorts, but would again require a large airline tenant. No signs of that being BA, so the alternative would be either Virgin or even one of the Middle Eastern airlines...Emirates already have a large presence there, so why not I guess?! My only suggestion would be that it would only work if LGW (or even STN) was not to be used as a secondary hub i.e. with 2 runways, as to have three 'hubs' (or one, and two smaller ones) would seem overkill. The closest comparison would be Germany (Frankfurt, Munich and what they are trying to do with Berlin), but I think we need to wait for the economy to sort itself out before justifying that!

And Skipness, I know nobody has ever made the transition before, but the requirement has never been as urgent as it is now. EZY have no intention of doing anything other than point to point, so can continue as they are, but I think to rule it out simply on the basis that "well, it didnt work in the 80's" seems like it should be better qualified to me.

WHBM

31st Aug 2012, 13:38

A few more points.

Firstly, for all those advocating Birmingham or Manchester as an alternative hub (generally the inhabitants of those two areas), past history has shown that the demand just isn't there. You may feel it suiits you, but there are key differences.

Firstly the premium class high-margin demand from those points just isn't there, in comparison to London. Any mainstream operator will tell you that of the premium demand from the UK, the vast majority is from London. People just don't book F or J from Manchester or Glasgow in anything like the proportions that they do from London, Paris or Frankfurt, which is a sure way of demonstrating they are very secondary business destinations. The relative demand at different places is just a fact of life - even in London, LCY and LHR are good for premium traffic, LGW and STN (especially) have shown that, even where it is provided, there just isn't the demand for it.

Secondly we hear all the stuff about the population of the UK that is closer to those points. Well, not only are they not travelling nearly as much (or in premium - see above), but for INBOUND passengers from overseas coming to the UK, the vast majority (I would guess 80% plus) are headed for London, and inbound pax are probably half or more the total load at Heathrow. You notice this with, say, American's flights from Chicago, 4 daily to London and one to Manchester. To London, US passengers predominate, to Manchester they are very much the minority, it's just Brits from the north.

Skipness One Echo

31st Aug 2012, 13:47

to rule it out simply on the basis that "well, it didnt work in the 80's" seems like it should be better qualified to me.
Lack of access to LHR and being stuck at LGW helped to kill off Laker, prevented BCal from challenging BA and allowed BA to swallow them up and nearly killed off VS. Read a couple of the biographies of SRB and this point is crystal clear, if they'd remained at LGW, they would not have survived.
As to working in the 80s, it didn't work under a decade ago when BA last tried it. Indeed Delta hung on at LGW until very recently but even they quit in April of this year. The only US long haul at LGW is US on LGW-CLT which I understand is mainly LGW-CLT-MCO leisure focussed so is a good fit for the LGW demographic. Indeed BA are adding LGW-LAS this year in addition to LHR.
Some things so work and work well at LGW, the trick is knowing what they are and sticking to them.
You cannot lead a market to where it won't go. I have seen nothing to change my opinion of this, recent long haul has seen Air Hong Kong come and go in six months and Korean and Air China play the waiting game until a suitable LHR slot opens up.

Libertine Winno

31st Aug 2012, 14:02

@Skipness

I'm not suggesting trying to force the market, which I agree is completely impractical (and impossible!) but it just surprises me that, with the unprecedented capacity constraints at LHR as they currently are, that there has not been some sort of 'coalition of the willing' (apologies for the wording!) seriously proposing LGW as an alternative, or even LGW themselves doing more to lobby for it. I will admit, however, that my knowledge of previous experiments is far from exhaustive and I am certainly no expert on the matter!

Could be that they are all holding out and waiting for runway 3 to be agreed I suppose?!

@WHBM

I agree with you, and whilst it would be nice for Manchester or Brum to become a 'secondary hub' in a similar vein to Munich, there just isnt the demand there currently.

Perhaps if the Government were serious about closing this north/south divide or realigning the economy then one of those airports could eventually benefit from the situation, but that would require joined up thinking across Government departments which, when they can't even join up transport policy in one department, seems like wishful thinking to me!

WHBM

31st Aug 2012, 14:15

I agree with you, and whilst it would be nice for Manchester or Brum to become a 'secondary hub' in a similar vein to Munich, there just isnt the demand there currently.
The most significant part of why Munich works as a hub whereas Manchester doesn't is that Munich is in the centre of Europe, with many routes south and east of there into Italy, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, etc, as well as north and west of there, for whom Munich is just as convenient as Frankfurt, and for many transits can be more convenient.

Manchester is, alas, on the periphery of Europe, with virtually no significant destinations in an arc from North to South-West. This is just how the geography is, and the demand isn't there.

Windsorian

31st Aug 2012, 14:50

The open consultation "Draft Aviation Policy Framework, July 2012" asks about extending Fifth Freedom Rights to Gatwick, Stansted and Luton. (pages 23/24 Sections 2.45 - 2.48).

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2012-35/draft-aviation-policy-framework.pdf

To my mind it begs the question if UK airlines are unprepared to develop hubs anywhere other than LHR, whether reciprocal 5th Freedoms would achieve the same purpose / be a stepping stone towards developing a range of London hubs ???

FQTLSteve

31st Aug 2012, 15:02

Paxboy I think Libertine was spot on when stating that MAN and LGW hubs were tried 20years ago. Indeed BA were partners with BHX and Laing construction with a purpose built hub terminal at BHX, with a very flexible design allowing quick xfer from dom to int etc. Despite a considerable investment, and BA put 11 of the first A319's they purchased straight into BHX, and a couple of transatlantic services together with AA, and franchise with Maersk (another 16 or so a/c) it was all pulled in 2007. I think a game changer happened when Walsh took over forget BA other than LHR.

davidjohnson6

31st Aug 2012, 16:03

FQTL - a game changer also happened around the late 1990s and early 2000s when Go/Easyjet, Ryanair and bmibaby started selling LCC fares at neighbouring East Midlands and Liverpool, taking away some of the leisure traffic and making life somewhat harder for BA at its less-than-primary hubs...

Fairdealfrank

31st Aug 2012, 23:38

Quote: "Therefore, it would surely make sense that the new onwers of LGW turn it into a genuine rival hub? It can't be any coincidence that a nice big Emirates A380 is on the front cover, along with a BA aircraft in the background?!"

Airport owners/operators do not create hubs! Hubs are created by "legacy" airlines, who operate a base at an airport and have all (almost all) of their routes start or end there. Crucially, they offer transfer services to pax: through ticketing and baggage handling.

At LGW, BA and VS do this on a limited scale, although most of their business is point to point. U2 have a huge base there, but as a "no frills" carrier, do not offer transfer services to pax.

Under these circumstances LGW's business will remain mainly point to point and its lack of connectivity will ensure that it does not become a hub airport. There is little that GIP can do about it.

Quote: "@ Libertine Winno

I think we are missing some key information at present, in particular :-

1. Within the UK's Climate Change obligations, how much additional runway capacity can be built ?

I've read the CCC's International Aviation & Shipping Review (http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/international-aviation-a-shipping) and recognise their importance to the economy.

2. If the government allows runway expansion, how will it be allocated around the country in an attempt to re-balance the economy ?

In particular Birmingham airport, as Manchester has recently built a second runway.

3. In the SE where additional runways can be physically built, how these would fit into their competition policy ?

4. The relationship between runways and night flights and in particular the need to operate 24/7 ?

5. The true passenger potential at Heathrow following a complete transformation of the terminals and stands into a more efficient "Toastrack" ?

I'm trying hard to remain open minded, and follow people's coments with interest."

1. Climate change obligations are now at EU level: emissions trading scheme, etc., so there is now a cap. If there is no expansion at LHR, traffic will go to other EU airports like AMS, CDG, FRA which are under the same arrangements.

2. It/they will be allocated to the airport operating at 99+% capacity. Elsewhere would be pointless.

3. It doesn't in UK terms. In global terms, the competition has already been expanded. LHR competes AMS, CDG, FRA, etc., not with MAN, BHX or LGW.

4. There will always be a night curfew at Heathrow. There is not an overwelming business need for full operations throughout the night. With more longhaul capacity there will be a need for more landings between 0500 and 0600, but these would be split between more rwys. Plenty of capacity for 24 hour operations at other airports for charter/holiday flights, etc..

5. The "toastracking" of LHR terminals is investment costing billions, that level of investment would not take place at an airport that will be closed or downsized within the next 30years (because of Fantasy Island). Would therefore expect that Heathrow expansion is very much on the cards. How long it takes for Cameron to grow a pair will determine the timescale.

Quote: "And Skipness, I know nobody has ever made the transition before, but the requirement has never been as urgent as it is now. EZY have no intention of doing anything other than point to point, so can continue as they are, but I think to rule it out simply on the basis that "well, it didnt work in the 80's" seems like it should be better qualified to me."

Forget it, it's not going to happen!

Quote: "The most significant part of why Munich works as a hub whereas Manchester doesn't is that Munich is in the centre of Europe, with many routes south and east of there into Italy, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, etc, as well as north and west of there, for whom Munich is just as convenient as Frankfurt, and for many transits can be more convenient.

Manchester is, alas, on the periphery of Europe, with virtually no significant destinations in an arc from North to South-West. This is just how the geography is, and the demand isn't there."

That is a very good point! It's geography gives MUC a huge advantage as a hub compared to MAN, or for that matter other peripheral (in terms of Europe) "secondary cities" such as BCN or LYS.

jabird

1st Sep 2012, 01:30

2. If the government allows runway expansion, how will it be allocated around the country in an attempt to re-balance the economy ?

Why has this term emerged so much in recent years? When was the UK economy ever balanced in the first place? Why would attempts to distort the existing distortions be any more workable now than they have been in the past?

London is the only game in town. The argument is about expanding LHR v. a major overhaul at LGW and then somehow asking the airlines if they would kindly like to move. Or we go down the third fantasy option of an island airport.

The only people who really think that BHX can act as LHR's third runway are a group of ill-informed Midlands politicians who have no concept of how this industry works. To think that an airport which can't even serve its own local market is suddenly going to blossom into a major hub is just daft.

To think that BHX will become "just as easy as Heathrow" when a 38 minute high speed rail link, which may not even happen, is going to drop passengers onto yet another people mover to take them to the terminal, is even more daft. This will still make BHX further from London than all "London" airports, except perhaps for SEN. Yet the new line isn't even planned to start early enough in the day to connect with the first wave of departures, and it is certain to cost far more to use than any other airport "express" service.

So the only people that talk about "re-balancing" have to be very unbalanced in their ability to analyse!

Windsorian

1st Sep 2012, 04:31

Little more than 30 years ago the London Docklands was an area of industrial desolation and poverty, so what changed to give us Canary Wharf, LCY and the Olympics? All these projects had difficult births and were heaped with cynicism, but today would anyone think they have been a total failure? And what about LHR which is only 66 years old, so what laid the seeds of its success? Government policy - of course!

I've no doubt some West Londoner's still look down their noses at East London, but without a political (Parliamentary) vision none of this would have come about.

Manchester today has a developing airport MAN with a second runway; after much support it has secured funding for the Northern Hub rail schemes designed to produce a step change in surface connectivity and employment prospects throughout the region. The importance of these investments should not be seen in the short term, but what is possible in the longer term.

Meanwhile Birmingham is keen to re-build itself, to develop BHX and recognises the essential ingredient of HS2 to see this come about. So is it really fair that government should ignore these aspirations, simply because West Londoner's have their heads up their bottoms and a blinkered view of life ??

Dannyboy39

1st Sep 2012, 07:27

Windsorian

1st Sep 2012, 08:10

I see the FT are reporting today the government (coalition) will announce an Independent Commission into expansion of the UK's airports.

The link is here, but pay-wall protected: Coalition to set up Heathrow inquiry - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/45a7ce7c-f387-11e1-b3a2-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2F www.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F45a7ce7c-f387-11e1-b3a2-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=#axzz259gNw9g6)

but free at many English libraries.

DaveReidUK

1st Sep 2012, 09:57

"David Cameron and Nick Clegg are set to intervene in the increasingly fractious row over whether Heathrow should have a third runway by asking an independent commission to review the future of Britain’s airports. The commission could provide the Conservative prime minister with the political cover to perform a U-turn and authorise Heathrow’s expansion, most likely if the Tories win the next election."

Conservative Home (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/frontpage/september-2012-newslinks/)

No definition offered re what constitutes "independent" in this context.

jdcg

1st Sep 2012, 10:33

The more independent the better maybe so as to maximise the political cover. Should this not have happened in 2010???

WHBM

1st Sep 2012, 11:06

I wonder how many of the Boris Island advocates realise that, when on easterlies, inbounds will start lining up overhead Canary Wharf and London City - pretty much the same points they do when Heathrow is on westerlies; Canary Wharf is at the midpoint between the two. So East London will be getting exactly the same noise effect that west London currently does.

DaveReidUK

1st Sep 2012, 11:14

So East London will be getting exactly the same noise effect that west London currently does.

Well 30% of the time, that is - unless the earth starts rotating in the opposite direction and we get prevailing easterly winds. :*

jabird

1st Sep 2012, 18:40

Edwina Currie demonstrating why politicians know absolutely naff all about aviation policy.

She says that Boris' Fantasy Island is needed; and the reason why is that it would be EASIER for "Eastern" flights, as they wouldn't have to travel over London. And transatlantic flights should remain at LHR as they wouldn't have to go over London.

You can't make this up.

Do you have a reference to that? All I get is her making stupid comments about Paralympic athletes.

Presumably, by her logic, "western" trains should all terminate at Paddington and "eastern" trains at Liverpool St or Fenchurch St? Thankfully, we're at long last trying to sort that relic of crap Victorian planning out!

jabird

1st Sep 2012, 18:45

Meanwhile Birmingham is keen to re-build itself, to develop BHX and recognises the essential ingredient of HS2 to see this come about. So is it really fair that government should ignore these aspirations, simply because West Londoner's have their heads up their bottoms and a blinkered view of life ??

This isn't about what West Londoners think. It is about a commercial decision by an airport operating company to develop what its core airline clients have been demanding for decades. Even Beardie and WW agree on this one!

If Birmingham thinks it can build a second runway, then get the local shareholders to stump up the cash. The fact is they had to use some AWM money for the runway extension, a pocket money project compared to a new runway.

Of course BHX should serve its local market, who would begrudge them that? However, pretending it can suddenly become London's second hub, and basing those hopes on a rail link which is far from certain is just daft.

DaveReidUK

1st Sep 2012, 19:43

Do you have a reference to that? All I get is her making stupid comments about Paralympic athletes.

BBC Breakfast programme this morning, I nearly choked on my Frosties when she started spouting that guff.

jabird

1st Sep 2012, 20:02

BBC Breakfast programme this morning, I nearly choked on my Frosties when she started spouting that guff.

You must have been the only one watching it, they don't seem to have previous versions viewable, and the comment hasn't been picked up, presumably because she is already on such good form with her patronising comments about Paralympians, and not knowing why there is an irony in an IT company called Atos sponsoring the event!

Fairdealfrank

1st Sep 2012, 22:06

Quote: “To think that BHX will become "just as easy as Heathrow" when a 38 minute high speed rail link, which may not even happen, is going to drop passengers onto yet another people mover to take them to the terminal, is even more daft. This will still make BHX further from London than all "London" airports, except perhaps for SEN. Yet the new line isn't even planned to start early enough in the day to connect with the first wave of departures, and it is certain to cost far more to use than any other airport "express" service.”

Yes, in the unlikely event of a high speed railway, the chances are that it will carry pax to Heathrow and/or Ringway, or, in other words, away from Elmdon.
　
　
Quote: “I've no doubt some West Londoner's still look down their noses at East London, but without a political (Parliamentary) vision none of this would have come about.”

Quote: “Meanwhile Birmingham is keen to re-build itself, to develop BHX and recognises the essential ingredient of HS2 to see this come about. So is it really fair that government should ignore these aspirations, simply because West Londoner's have their heads up their bottoms and a blinkered view of life ??”

Why the attacks on “west Londoners“? Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is a “west Londoner” (or for that matter, an “east Londoner“)?

Does this mean that someone whose postcode starts with the letter "W" hates someone whose starts with the letter "E"? Doesn't sound realistic.

This comment does not make any sense to me, surely one is either a Londoner or not.
　

Quote: “ Independent Commission on airports
I see the FT are reporting today the government (coalition) will announce an Independent Commission into expansion of the UK's airports.

The link is here, but pay-wall protected: Coalition to set up Heathrow inquiry - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/45a7ce7c-f387-11e1-b3a2-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2F www.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F45a7ce7c-f387-11e1-b3a2-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer= / axzz259gNw9g6)

but free at many English libraries.”

Oh dear they have found some really long grass! This long grass is more like jungle.

Quote: “The more independent the better maybe so as to maximise the political cover. Should this not have happened in 2010???”

Of course not, should have happened in the 1960s/1970s. One has to despair at their ability to waste even more public money on an issue that's been debated ad nauseum for 30 years.

BKS Air Transport

1st Sep 2012, 22:36

Do the people of Birmingham actually want large numbers of passengers landing at their airport, who would then promptly exit the region as fast as possible is a south easterly direction?

PAXboy

1st Sep 2012, 22:41

Independent Commission on airports
Translation

We know what has to be done.
We said what we originally said to win votes.
If we thought that we could win more votes by publically supporting this thing -we would.
But we aren't sure - so we are going to get some consultants to 'tell us' what to do.
By the time there is an answer, another election will have happened.

This is indeed a jungle of long grass and (to me) indicates that it's game over for R3.

AMS, CDG, FRA can crack open the champage (again).

Aero Mad

1st Sep 2012, 22:43

Agree with your translation but not your conclusion, PAXboy. If an independent commission finds that a third runway is the best answer, then who is David Cameron to turn down that recommendation? It is the easy way to go back on a manifesto pledge and that is the way he will do it.

jabird

1st Sep 2012, 23:04

Yes, in the unlikely event of a high speed railway, the chances are that it will carry pax to Heathrow and/or Ringway, or, in other words, away from Elmdon.

It could go either way. Consider:

* Old Oak Common junction will massively improve access to LHR, but:
* Direct link into LHR, costing £4bn+ - same as T5, highly unlikely to happen.
* Station serving MAN may or may not happen - consult not started on Ph2.

However, the "Y" will all convene on BHX, but there is no guarantee of how many trains will stop there. It might give an hour rail link to Leeds, but MAN can already offer that. Or, as you say, people just zap down to OOC.

Ultimately, HS2 is more of a gain for LHR than for either BHX or MAN, and as discussed elsewhere is neither a replacement for domestic flights nor for new airport capacity.

Not sure I'd call HS2 "unlikely", just far from certain. I'd give it odds of 60-40 in favour, shrinking all the time.

Fairdealfrank

1st Sep 2012, 23:14

Interesting comments, jabird, but suspect that the grass that "HS2" gets chucked into will be a great deal longer than that for the 3rd LHR rwy.

At present, reckon your 60-40 in favour is about right, but bearing in mind the 30 year dithering about the need for a mile-and-a-half of runway, expect a lot more for 140 mi. of track (yes, it's the long way to Brum).

jabird

2nd Sep 2012, 00:14

At present, reckon your 60-40 in favour is about right, but bearing in mind the 30 year dithering about the need for a mile-and-a-half of runway, expect a lot more for 140 mi. of track (yes, it's the long way to Brum).

HSR was a pipe dream until about 2007, then Network Rail changed their mind, I think Adonis had a lot to do with it.

I totally agree that we get completely worked up over a very short strip of asphalt, but it is the wider impacts that create the problem, not just the land take.

Flying is perceived as being dirty, and there is an automatic assumption that trains are "green", even if they just outsource the pollution to the Trent Valley, and even if the current HS2 proposal is CO2 neutral at best, due to the extra journeys it creates, and its energy consumption relative to existing lines.

I've always been in favour in principle, until they came out with the line that HS2 was the alternative to LHR3, even though it only goes to Leeds / Manchester!

Not sure what you mean about the long way to Brum? Surely all the fuss from the Chilterns is that it carves a straight line through their patch with barely a curve, before making a slight dip to the left to run between Kenilworth and Coventry and then past BHX. Only at that point does it take a longer route compared to the existing line.

I'm hearing less of the air v rail line now about HS2, presumably because people have got their calculators out and realised that it will make negligble difference to the domestic market - not enough time saving to EDI / GLA to kill those routes, whereas LBA / MAN markets already largely won by the train. Maybe LHR-NCL is the one domestic route which will be challenged, all four flights per day!

Dannyboy39

2nd Sep 2012, 07:15

So, who's going to be in this "independent" commission?

Surely the only people worthy of making a valid opinion on the future of aviation are past and present players/decision makers? Surely they'll be seen as more than a tad biased in one way or another?

Its been made clear throughout the second half of the Twentieth Century that politicians haven't got a clue when it comes to aviation policy.

FlyingEagle21

2nd Sep 2012, 10:39

BBC News - George Osborne says Heathrow third runway is an option (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19455195) roll on 2015

WHBM

2nd Sep 2012, 11:14

I've always been in favour in principle, until they came out with the line that HS2 was the alternative to LHR3, even though it only goes to Leeds / Manchester....... it will make negligble difference to the domestic market - not enough time saving to EDI / GLA to kill those routes, whereas LBA / MAN markets already largely won by the train. Maybe LHR-NCL is the one domestic route which will be challenged, all four flights per day!
Just to be clear about the route of the High Speed 2 proposed railway, it will run from London Euston to Lichfield, just north of Birmingham. Anything else will be a continuation on existing railways. Among other things this makes it impossible to get from London to Leeds or Newcastle in any meaningful manner by this route (the current trains from London on the current route would be faster).

The "Birmingham Airport" station on the line will be nowhere close to the airport, even the present rail station requires a somewhat infrequent shuttle rather than being done properly, under the terminal, in the style of Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Zurich, who all managed to design their airport stations properly. The new Birmingham station will be way east of the terminal, far beyond the current station, beyond the NEC, beyond the M42 motorway, and way off in the fields beyond, by the A452 Chester Road, maybe 1.5 to 2 miles from the terminal. The sort of location that Ryanair might call "Birmingham Airport". No idea what connection there might be. Possibly a shuttle bus.

Fairdealfrank

2nd Sep 2012, 13:06

London to Leeds and/or Manchester via Birmingham is the long way round! The "Y" if there is to one should be further east, perhaps nearer to the M1/M6 junction.

Many high speed rail stations (in several countries) tend to be out of the way at intermediate stops/interchanges when they should be central. Stratford is classic example, BHX will be another.

Time taken getting to/from a remote HS station, eliminates the benefit. If one has to go out of the way to travel on an HS train, it's probably cheaper to fly.

adfly

2nd Sep 2012, 13:09

The Sunday Times seemed to suggest that a third runway wouldn't be operational until 2024 (!) and that Boris Island would only take 2 years longer than that to finish (2026).

Fairdealfrank

2nd Sep 2012, 13:16

Does the Sunday Times say WHY it will take to 2024?

Don't believe the second.

If there's NIMBY opposition to Heathrow expansion now, imagine what it will be like for an entire new airport allegedy twice the size of Heathrow plus all the associated infrastructure and urbanisation that will be needed!

If the government cannot decide on Heathrow expansion now, imagine how it will dither on a decision for an entire new airport allegedy twice the size of Heathrow plus all the associated infrastructure and urbanisation that will be needed!

And then, even in 2026, the airlines and their pax have to be persuaded to use it rather than Heathrow......

adfly

2nd Sep 2012, 14:51

Planning permission, elections, building the thing. Hopelessly unrealistic claim which I believe originally came out of the mouth of a politician in support of Boris Island, hence the lunacy.

WHBM

2nd Sep 2012, 16:57

Many high speed rail stations (in several countries) tend to be out of the way at intermediate stops/interchanges when they should be central. Stratford is classic example, BHX will be another.
Stratford is such a classic example that it was built for the Eurostar trains to the continent, 95% completed, and then Eurostar as the commercial operator said it would never be economically worthwhile to use it.

So it lays there, next to the Olympic Stadium, bare concrete and abandoned ......

Isn't is just beyond belief that there was government support and money for useless infrastructure like this, but nothing for a new runway for the nation's premier airport and gateway which has been at 100% capacity for many years.

Fairdealfrank

2nd Sep 2012, 17:39

Quote: "Isn't is just beyond belief that there was government support and money for useless infrastructure like this, but nothing for a new runway for the nation's premier airport and gateway which has been at 100% capacity for many years."

Agreed, WHBM, you couldn't make it up!

Skipness One Echo

2nd Sep 2012, 17:50

Isn't is just beyond belief that there was government support and money for useless infrastructure like this, but nothing for a new runway for the nation's premier airport and gateway which has been at 100% capacity for many years.
Nicholas Clegg is Deputy Prime Minister. Think about that seriously for a moment. A more elitist arrogant buffoon you would struggle to find. An internationalist with no idea of how things actually work at the sharp end.

David Cameron, who has never actually had a proper job is PM. Edward Milliband, an academic and professional politician is the other realisitc option. The above is not beyond belief, it is now the norm. On one level, our democracy is breaking down. One does not have to be making a party political point to see that the talent rising to the top of politics is risible.
They have no track record of achievement and so each party, on finding itself in power, actually has little management ability. They coast and are at the mercy of events. Look at the end of the last government. They put a chap called Bob Ayling in charge of the nation's defence, he was the best man for the job in a stagnant talent pool. God help us.

We currently have the MP for Putney in charge of Transport, a woman with a clear conflict of interest at local level.

True Blue

2nd Sep 2012, 18:01

S1E

very well said. We now have a chattering political class who are just ignoring the ordinary working class. you will also notice that no Government want to make any difficult decisions now, they will farm it out to some committee/royal inquiry in the hope that it can be put in the long grass or someone else can be blamed if it goes wrong. All they are concerned about is getting re-elected again, meanwhile our country is going down the tubes. Look at long term care issues for another example. None of them will ever have the courage to make a decision on airport policy until it is far too late. Meanwhile we burn.

TB

Fairdealfrank

2nd Sep 2012, 18:06

NONE of them has had a proper job, never "run anything" as Ken Livingstone is fond of saying.

Many of today's MPs no longer come from business, the trade unions, the professions or local government, etc..

It tends to be:

A level politics
politics degree
work for a "think tank"
work at party HQ and research department
work for an MP
work for a minister as a "special advisor"
become an MP

Not surprising that they get it all wrong so much of the time. there is no substitute for experience of the real world.

Could we do with a few MPs who have been in the aviation industry?

A30yoyo

2nd Sep 2012, 18:36

Flickr shot of the subjecthttp://farm4.staticflickr.com/3211/2960284929_8c234fd638_z.jpg?zz=1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/giopac/2960284929/)
Egham and Heathrow Airport (http://www.flickr.com/photos/giopac/2960284929/) by giovanni paccaloni (http://www.flickr.com/people/giopac/), on Flickr

Fairdealfrank

3rd Sep 2012, 00:09

Good photo of Heathrow! It illustrates well the amount of open space to the north of the airport for airport expansion.

It also shows Staines Moor, a "site of special scientific interest" (SSSI)
to the south-west of LHR between the reservoirs.

It has been suggested that a north-south rwy could be built here. Apart from any other considerations, it would only be usable for crosswind take-offs to the south (or crosswind landings from the south), because of conflicts with the existing rwys.

As such it would be of limited use and not a good investment compared to parallel rwy(s) north of the airport.

jabird

3rd Sep 2012, 00:22

Its been made clear throughout the second half of the Twentieth Century that politicians haven't got a clue when it comes to aviation policy.

That's because in the first half they didn't need to have a clue, or were too busy working out how to defeat the Germans.

Just to be clear about the route of the High Speed 2 proposed railway, it will run from London Euston to Lichfield, just north of Birmingham. Anything else will be a continuation on existing railways.

WHBM, might I kindly suggest you do a little bit more research before commenting on the matter.

You are talking about Phase 1, the second phase will indeed continue to Manchester and Leeds, from where a connection to the existing line near York will enable a faster journey time to Newcastle, provisionally about 2 hours.

The sort of location that Ryanair might call "Birmingham Airport". No idea what connection there might be. Possibly a shuttle bus.

A people mover will be provided, just like the existing one, which usually runs every 2 minutes, or on call in quieter times. Allow around 5- 10 minutes for the wait + transfer.

So it lays there, next to the Olympic Stadium, bare concrete and abandoned

Again, untrue. How did people get in and out of the stadium? Where did the "Javelins" land? After the games, it will revert to domestic usage.

I for one have no doubt that once it starts operating, HS2 will be busy, and, just like the Olympics, people will declare it a roaring success. The problem will be when it comes to doing the final calculations, and they realise that so many billions put in can never be reclaimed.

An extra runway at Heathrow on the other hand should be a much easier call.

PAXboy

3rd Sep 2012, 00:24

Aero MadAgree with your translation but not your conclusion, PAXboy. If an independent commission finds that a third runway is the best answer, then who is David Cameron to turn down that recommendation? It is the easy way to go back on a manifesto pledge and that is the way he will do it.
Providing he wins the 2015 election? At this stage, I would say that it is still an open question. The next years are going to reveal him firmly wedded to his Chancellor - who has not been a success.

jabird

3rd Sep 2012, 00:30

I would say that it is still an open question. The next years are going to reveal him firmly wedded to his Chancellor - who has not been a success.

Doesn't he have to wait until the Gay Marriage bill has been passed before he can pop that question? Then he won't be able to keep asking Samantha about whether or not security queues at LHR are acceptable.

DaveReidUK

4th Sep 2012, 10:15

Interesting article by Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park MP) in the New Statesman:

New Statesman - The third runway is lazy thinking by those who should know better (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/third-runway-lazy-thinking-those-who-should-know-better)

Somewhat marred by a woolly proposal, a la Edwina Currie, to use Heathrow for routes to the west and Stansted for those to the east(!), but his take on U-turns is pretty unequivocal:

"So far, the government position hasn't actually shifted. This matters for a number of reasons. First, political promises need to mean something. As William Hague has said, there’s no justification in U-turns unless the facts change significantly. The facts around aviation haven’t changed. If we perform a U-turn, my colleagues - particularly those who are now calling for a U-turn – will struggle at the next election to persuade anyone who’ll listen to them that their manifesto is worth the paper it’s written on. If politicians drop their pledges, then why believe anything they promise?"

Skipness One Echo

4th Sep 2012, 11:13

Greening has gone and billionaire blonde child Zac Goldsmith has threatened to resign his seat if runway 3 is reconsidered. The words toys and pram have arrived to be arranged.

adfly

4th Sep 2012, 11:25

Interesting use of Photoshop in the picture for that article, the plane is flying under the power lines!

DaveReidUK

4th Sep 2012, 11:49

Interesting use of Photoshop in the picture for that article, the plane is flying under the power lines!

Looks pretty genuine to me, it's a stock image.

Hint: things farther away look smaller :O

FlyingEagle21

4th Sep 2012, 11:56

McLoughlin's role 'to rethink airports' | ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2012-09-04/mcloughlins-role-to-rethink-airports/)

jabird

4th Sep 2012, 19:17

Oh dear Zac, I thought you were quite an intelligent man. Clearly not when it comes to airports!

we need to stop clogging it up with point to point flights to places like Cyprus and Greece, which between them account for 87 weekly flights, and which contribute nothing to overall connectivity.

And why, per chance, would people from Cyprus or Greece, not want to connect onwards to the USA or elsewhere? It is not as if either home grown airline offers them much choice in the matter. Hasn't he realised that the real ptp flights already use Gatters & Co?

In addition, we need to encourage a shift from air to rail wherever possible. Every week, there are 78 flights to Brussels, 94 to Manchester, 37 to Newcastle, and 95 to Paris. All of these, and many others, can be reached easily by train. With a better high speed rail network, they will be easier still.

The train has already won this argument! Does he not know that Eurostar already carries more people to PAR & BRU than all the airlines combined? that 80% of London to Manchester journeys are by rail? Or 100% to LPL / MME etc! Has he actually looked at the HS2 plans? If he has, he'll see that they will make very little difference to these numbers, as HS2 does not go as far as EDI / GLA.

High speed rail also exists beyond PAR / BRU, but wit the change, convenience falls off. Through running to AMS / CGN may pick a few more passengers off. Anything beyond this is nothing to do with the UK govt.

There is no reason why we couldn’t facilitate a two-hub approach, with Heathrow catering (broadly speaking) for western-facing flights, and Stansted catering for eastern business flights.

More like there is no reason why this ridiculous proposal should work? Has he been having dinner with Eggwina? Is there a single airport system anywhere in the world that operates in this manner? I don't mean one airport for domestic / turboprop / business & commuter - actually lining up by east and west? No!

"Simply calling on government to double the size of Heathrow is lazy half-thinking by people who ought to know better"

Sorry Zac, but you need to go back to maths school. Since when does 2 + 1 = 4?

davidjohnson6

4th Sep 2012, 21:53

jabird - have you never heard of politicians putting out being selective in what they say for their own ends ?

jabird

4th Sep 2012, 22:23

jabird - have you never heard of politicians putting out being selective in what they say for their own ends ?

He's not being selective. He's just being (to paraphrase his tree hugging chums) "plane stupid".

Skipness One Echo

4th Sep 2012, 23:47

Actually he's Jemina Khan's brother, she who stood bail for Assange. Dad got the brains, the children got, well daddy's money. Zac is not that bright, lets not pretend he got to be an MP on merit alone. He's not in any way, a Conservative.

Also the son of a man who tried to destroy Private Eye. Tangent, but worth remembering. The words "chinless" and "wonder" still apply to the sons of the wealthy and uber powerful alas.

PAXboy

5th Sep 2012, 12:42

The title of the article says it all ...

100 suitcases drenched in raw sewage after pipe bursts at Heathrow Terminal 5 - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/100-suitcases-drenched-in-raw-sewage-after-pipe-bursts-at-heathrow-terminal-5-8106477.html)

A spokesman for the airport operator, BAA Heathrow, said: 'We appreciate this will be upsetting for passengers. The bags have now been cleaned and are being reunited with their owners.'
Upsetting for passengers?? No $hit Sherlock ...

davidjohnson6

5th Sep 2012, 13:01

Who is formally liable on this ? The airline to whom bags were entrusted or the airport ?

PAXboy

5th Sep 2012, 15:05

I would guess BAAplc as it's their item of infrastructure that broke - irrespective of which client carrier was using the terminal.

WHBM

5th Sep 2012, 18:05

Passengers' contracts are with the airline, that's who they pay their money to. If their suppliers/subcontractors get things wrong then the passenger deals with the airline* and it's up to them to sort things out operationally and financially with their service providers. The same is true about any other aspect of the service, lost bags, etc, it's irrelevant to the passenger "who did it", their remedy route is through their airline.

* : Except Ryanair, who tell every complainant to f-off and so it's not worth the effort.

Fairdealfrank

5th Sep 2012, 18:23

Quote: "The Sunday Times seemed to suggest that a third runway wouldn't be operational until 2024 (!) and that Boris Island would only take 2 years longer than that to finish (2026)."

At least the third runway won't be lying empty, it will be well used and prove to be value for money.

Yes, good point about "toys" and "pram", Skipness, will just add "throw" and "out of" for good measure.

Would be worth doing the U-turn on Heathrow just to see the back of Goldsmith, but bet Greening would not follow suit! It does appear like tedious gesture politics.

In scant regard for his constituents, he threatens resignation and a by-election, so he's not that different from Louise Mensch, who had the balls to do it without threats beforehand (although for different reasons). What is it with Cameron's "A-listers"?

Justine had to go because of her biased partisan attitude, because of it, she should never have been appointed to the transport job in the first place.

jabird

5th Sep 2012, 21:23

At least the third runway won't be lying empty, it will be well used and prove to be value for money.

Not just well used, built without risk to tax payer too. FBI is risky AND will need government money from the start - whether just for surface access, for the whole lot, or as a bail out pot.

Would be worth doing the U-turn on Heathrow just to see the back of Goldsmith

(Let's stick to the man, not his family!) Presumably he can't just do a Shaun Woodward and cross the floor to the greens, as people wouldn't accept that trick again. Might clear the way though for a more imaginative Tory leader this time though!

should never have been appointed to the transport job in the first place.

Yup, think a few of us said at the time it was a shockingly bad appointment, because the Heathrow issue was still unresolved at the time, just as it is now. Jeremy Clarkson would have made a more balanced transport secretary - at least he worships Brunel and even rides a bike now!

JWP2010

5th Sep 2012, 22:40

'Oh dear Zac, I thought you were quite an intelligent man. Clearly not when it comes to airports!'

Now really jabird, isn't that asking a little too much!

jabird

6th Sep 2012, 05:09

Now really jabird, isn't that asking a little too much!

Yup! Anyone got a prize for a politician of any colour who actually has credibility on the subject?

David Davis "we really need to think about building a brand new airport - and that means building it outside London".

Eggwina "East and West airports"

Another Tory MP yesterday - "it isn't a third runway, it is just half a runway"

DaveReidUK

6th Sep 2012, 07:03

Yup! Anyone got a prize for a politician of any colour who actually has credibility on the subject?

I don't know what you mean.

Every MP and ex-MP has been on an aeroplane, which makes him/her an expert on aviation strategy.

jabird

6th Sep 2012, 10:04

Every MP and ex-MP has been on an aeroplane, which makes him/her an expert on aviation strategy.

And of course, every MP has had at least one TGV train ride from CDG to Disney Paris, making them experts on trains too!

What we need on any big project is more scrutiny - not just aye v nay, but proper examination of the details - especially when public money is being spent. I

know that's what the TSC and other groups are supposed to do, but when ever I watch the Parliament channel (will need to have a guard on the TV on Monday), I'm always thinking just how many questions there are that just aren't being asked.

For example, on the subject of integrating rail and air, who ever allowed the Heathrow express to be built without a left turn, something that will have taken two decades to fix when they finally get it right.

DaveReidUK

6th Sep 2012, 12:39

For example, on the subject of integrating rail and air, who ever allowed the Heathrow express to be built without a left turn, something that will have taken two decades to fix when they finally get it right.

The HEX, being funded by the airport operator, was designed on the maximum-bang-per-buck principle.

When, if ever, do private finance and joined-up thinking ever go together ?

Fairdealfrank

6th Sep 2012, 21:40

Quote: "(Let's stick to the man, not his family!)"

Eh? never mentioned the family, jabird!

Quote: "Presumably he can't just do a Shaun Woodward and cross the floor to the greens, as people wouldn't accept that trick again. Might clear the way though for a more imaginative Tory leader this time though!"

Hmmm, crossing the floor is a thought! Actually a by-election in Richmond would be interesting, it is a Consevative-Libdem marginal, Labour don't stand a chance.

Possibly, Goldsmith might be tempted to fight it as a Green (after a deathbed conversion?) or as an anti-LHR independent.

Boris may be tempted to seek nomination as the Conservative candidate in order to already be in the Commons when the time comes for Call-me-Dave to "fall on his sword".

the results would also give an idea how unpopular the Libdems really are.

Quote: "Yup, think a few of us said at the time it was a shockingly bad appointment, because the Heathrow issue was still unresolved at the time, just as it is now. Jeremy Clarkson would have made a more balanced transport secretary - at least he worships Brunel and even rides a bike now!"

Clarkson at transport?...there's an idea, was thinking that Inspector ("Blakey") Blake of "On The Buses" would be better than Greening.

Thinking about it a little more, Arthur Daley at Business and Derek Trotter at Trade and Industry would get the economy going!

And while we're on a roll: Rupert Rigsby at Housing and Father Ted as minister of faith, the job Warsi is said to have turned down.

Skipness One Echo

7th Sep 2012, 00:28

Let's stick to the man, not his family!
Normally I would agree but Goldsmith is there on who he knows and who is Daddy is, let's not pretend the billionaire's son got there on merit. Bit like Euan Blair wanting to be an MP.

Let Boris stand, he was found wanting last time. Lazy and unable to master a simple brief in his shadow cabinet role. If he stands, he will be found out, he is very unlikely to be leader, regardless of what the papers say. He would be like Gordon Brown on one level, a one man calamity.

Windsorian

7th Sep 2012, 13:24

Written aviation statement issued by DfT today :-

Aviation - News - Department for Transport (http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/mcloughlin-20120907a/)

Fairdealfrank

7th Sep 2012, 20:09

Interestingly, no indication of who else will be on the commission and how much it will cost taxpayers.

jabird

7th Sep 2012, 22:10

FDF - I suspect the dollar cost of the committee will be pretty small, the external cost of 3 years of dithering is a different matter.

The Commission will:

examine the scale and timing of any requirement for additional capacity to maintain the UK’s position as Europe’s most important aviation hub

Or:

will - kick the ball around for three years before reaching the same conclusion of the public consultation done on airport capacity in 2003.

Reading between the lines, it does look like a done deal in favour of the runway though.

Eh? never mentioned the family, jabird!

Father and sister not family? You can't choose your parents and siblings!

Consevative-Libdem marginal, Labour don't stand a chance

Lib Dems don't stand a chance anywhere.
Tories not looking too hot either.

Think it could be anyone's race.

Green (after a deathbed conversion?) or as an anti-LHR independent

He was previously editor of "The Ecologist" magazine. What is the difference between Green and anti-(insert industry of your choice)?

Seljuk22

8th Sep 2012, 14:04

From April 2013 QF will operate its LHR services from SYD and MEL via DXB instead of SIN and therefore "The Kangaroo Route" will be re-named to "The Falcon Route".

In addition, Qantas will launch daily A380 services from both Sydney and Melbourne to London via Dubai for a combined unprecedented seven daily A380 flights to London Heathrow.
Dubai to Become New International Hub for Qantas European Operations | Emirates United Arab Emirates (http://www.emirates.com/ae/english/about/news/news_detail.aspx?article=972231&offset=0)

PAXboy

8th Sep 2012, 14:49

Yes indeed, Seljuk22. There is an established thread in this forum: http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/494851-qantas-emirates-partnership-april-2013-a.html

Fairdealfrank

8th Sep 2012, 22:12

Quote: "Father and sister not family? You can't choose your parents and siblings!"
Maybe, but not mentioned by me. Referred only to Zac Goldsmith and his anti-LHR stance/potential by-election "threat".

Quote: "Lib Dems don't stand a chance anywhere.
Tories not looking too hot either.

Think it could be anyone's race."

Not anyone's, not Labour's or UKIP's for example. Barring any wild-cards (such as an anti-LHR single issue independent), a by-election in Richmond would produce a Conservative or Libdem MP. With the Libdems so unpopular, it would be interesting to see the percentage of their support that swaps over to the Greens.

Quote: "Reading between the lines, it does look like a done deal in favour of the runway though."

Always has been, there is no alternative. Should have got on with it in 2003. The rwy would be up and running by now.

Quote: "He was previously editor of "The Ecologist" magazine. What is the difference between Green and anti-(insert industry of your choice)?

Very little, the first is an official political party (of sorts) as registered with the Electoral Commission, the second is a one man/woman band.