HEATHROW

[Fairdealfrank]

Just a thought: the commission has to make recommendations for "immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity" within one year.

Does this mean squeezing a quart out of a pint pot by ending segregated mode and rwy alternation at Heathrow and move to permanent all-day (everyday) mixed mode?

This would:
(1) increase available movements by 10-15%(?);
(2) do nothing to address congestion and delays;
(3) end the daily half-day of quiet for those under the flightpath.

It would also mean, ironically, that vocal opposition to airport expansion from miles away from Heathrow (Goldsmith, Greening, Johnson, etc.) would actually result in more noise for flightpath residents!

A spectacular own-goal if this the case!

[Local Variation]

Definitely no 3rd runway at LHR according to Vince Cable this morning on the Andrew Marr programme.

The commission's job is too look at alternatives only.

[c52]

Why would Ferrovial, a massive construction company, not be in favour of building a new airport? Even if they only built one runway and one terminal, it would net them many millions.

Why would BAA not leap at the chance of managing a four-runway airport near London? It could be the outcome of negotiations to close LHR.

I'd have thought both shareholder and airport operator would want a new airport.

[indie cent]

Interesting to see where this leads.

By "no third runway" does Vince mean "for the term of this (coalition) government."

The answer to SE capacity surely changes dependent upon the timescale you set.

If you require expansion and the criteria is 3-5 years; then mixed-mode or third runway is the simplest answer. *Discounting Stanstead and Luton at this point.

The problem with Heathrow is not the location of the Airport; what the objection boils down to is the West London flight path.
Personally, I believe a third runway, steeper approaches, RNAV/MLS coordination and partly inset thresholds would be win-win for proponents and opposers.
Others have mentioned the irony of the stance of Goldsmith and his ilk arguing to reduce noise and achieving wantonly wasteful holding times and the necessity for mixed mode to be considered! ...Bonkers.

If the Government choose to write-off Heathrow development indefinitely, then the timescale required to allow for new airport planning, protests inquiries and development would undoubtedly be to the detriment of UK plc.

The Thames Airport is the wrong side of London as long as London stays in the bottom right hand corner of the UK map. It's not inconceivable that this proposal could work as a hub: building the runways, parking the aeroplanes and routing flights is workable. But! ...the infrastructure required to move a significant number of passengers around the capital is the trick.

What cost (time and financial) of the high speed rail network linking the UK south to the terminals in the estuary??? Can we even afford this right now. Without being flippant, people do like to drive to airports with luggage rather than get a bus to the train station to get a train and change trains and arrive at the terminal - you get what I mean I'm sure.

A new airport to the West would be a sensible long term plan, after the third runway has solved our immediate crisis. The economics should really shine through and common sense should prevail...(?)

How about 2 parallel perpendicular(ish) runways over the reservoirs on the far side of the M25?
As long as crosswinds permit you'd lose the approach noise problem. Not sure how you'd coordinate take-offs on the westerlies with go-around traffic - but I'm not an airport designer....

[Skipness One Echo]

There are no sites to the West that a new airport could be built without moving lots of people or concreting loads of greenbelt. It's not likely someone is about to exclaim, "Blimey! Who knew all this spare land was here! Let's build an airport."
Vince, the lefty, is not known as the anti Business Secretary for nothing. He's putting Twickenham before the country, no great surprise.

[adfly]

That's what I don't get, yes we need a big new hub airport ideally just west of London in the long term, with room for further expansion but that won't be built until well into the next decades, or if they use the same workers as they do on the roads then the 2050's!!! To stay competitive until then Heathrow needs Runway 3, then it can be closed when a new hub is opened.

An article in today's Sunday Times showed the public preferring Boris Island and the usual Bowis rants etc, including a quote from an MP saying Heathrow will have 2 1/2 (really 3) runways, Amsterdam has 7 (Really 6 or 5 1/2 with MP logic) and Frankfurt has 3 (really 4)!! The Half a Runway argument is beyond pathetic, I would have thought the principals of moving the smaller aircraft to the short runway to allow more larger aircraft on the other 2 was simple enough for even an MP to understand but clearly not!! By that logic a significant proportion of airports in the UK don't have 'a whole runway'.

[PAXboy]

Just to repeat for the nth time: It does not matter what happens next - as it is already too late.



The traffic has moved and that which has not - is already thinking about it.
The M.E. is moving forward in a way that was not anticipated 25 years ago (when the 3rd should have been built)
Look at the dramatic QF move away from LHR.
So just sit back and chill, the fight is over - and lost through 50 years of govt inaction by all parties.

[Fairdealfrank]

Wrote in post #2001 (6-9-12):
-------------
"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". "
-------------

And today Boris has apparently denied it strongly! does he read PPRUNE? Surely these denials must make it a strong possibility?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Definitely no 3rd runway at LHR according to Vince Cable this morning on the Andrew Marr programme.

The commission's job is too look at alternatives only."

He would say that, he's a Libdem, and he has to save face. What he should have said to clarify the Libdem position: "no new rwys in the southeast - ever".

Quote: "Why would Ferrovial, a massive construction company, not be in favour of building a new airport? Even if they only built one runway and one terminal, it would net them many millions.

Why would BAA not leap at the chance of managing a four-runway airport near London? It could be the outcome of negotiations to close LHR.

I'd have thought both shareholder and airport operator would want a new airport."

Because its more profitable to build on on what they already have. Also, could BAA persuade the airlines to leave LHR to pay even higher airport charges elsewhere?

If so, then all their current investment in LHR would be wasted. For BAA to close LHR would require one hell of a bribe from the govt. - they don't have that kind of money spare. It's not going happen.


Quote: "A new airport to the West would be a sensible long term plan, after the third runway has solved our immediate crisis. The economics should really shine through and common sense should prevail...(?)"

Once a third rwy has solved the immediate crisis, there'll be an application for a fourth and that will be it. All talk of a new hub will cease as it will not be necessary, and is too fraught with difficulty anyway.

By the time the 4th rwy is built technological advances will ensure that aircraft are so quiet and clean (it's an-going process) that it will not be an issue.

Quote: "How about 2 parallel perpendicular(ish) runways over the reservoirs on the far side of the M25?
As long as crosswinds permit you'd lose the approach noise problem. Not sure how you'd coordinate take-offs on the westerlies with go-around traffic - but I'm not an airport designer.... "

If expansion accross the M25 is being considered then someone has to pay the cost of diverting/tunnelising the M25 and the A4. Does it remain cost-effective with the added expenditure?

If so, and it is practicable, we might as well have the 2 rwys referred to as parallel with the existing ones rather than perpendicular. This will allow all four to be used simultaneously and the retention of segregated mode and alternation.



Quote: "That's what I don't get, yes we need a big new hub airport ideally just west of London in the long term, with room for further expansion but that won't be built until well into the next decades, or if they use the same workers as they do on the roads then the 2050's!!! To stay competitive until then Heathrow needs Runway 3, then it can be closed when a new hub is opened."

Won't happen for the same reasons as the estuary airport. The "big new hub airport ideally just west of London" is an expanded LHR.

LHR will get its extra rwy(s) and its required expansion, the only question is - when? Let's hope is not so late that it isn't needed because the country has become a backwater.

[jabird]

Why would Ferrovial, a massive construction company, not be in favour of building a new airport? Even if they only built one runway and one terminal, it would net them many millions.

It isn't just the fact that they have already invested billions into LHR, which they own, it is a simple question of probability.

With FBI, they would be tendering out with several other contractors, and they may also be just part of a conglomeration of contractors to do one particular part of the job - although more likely all the foundations, all of the runway or the terminal complex, rather than a bit of either.

Why would you want to be in favour of something you might get a partial benefit from when its very existence would trash a very valuable asset that is all yours?

And today Boris has apparently denied it strongly! does he read PPRuNe?

Hardly - bookies have had Boris as favourite for next Tory leader for several years now, despite him being not even in the cabinet, but not an MP either. Therefore every time a possible seat comes up for him to take we get the same speculation. The other oft-speculated option is that BoJo's brother Jo yields his Orpington seat for him.

[WHBM]

Why would Ferrovial, a massive construction company, not be in favour of building a new airport? Even if they only built one runway and one terminal, it would net them many millions.
Oh no, just because you build something big, by NO means you make anything from it.

Just one of many examples, the building of the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff effectively bankrupted the long-established "massive construction company" who had done it (well, it was sold for £1, which is the same thing).

[jabird]

Just one of many examples, the building of the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff effectively bankrupted the long-established "massive construction company" who had done it

Well that's what happens when you build a £120m stadium when London gets a £1bn one.

Now the question is, given that the government won't be putting a penny into any new airport, what sort of tender process is the new airport going to have? I suggest you have a double risk - not just the risk of incurring unforeseen extra costs, but also the equally large risk that the airport holding company goes out of business.

Now what was that about the government not putting a penny in?

[FlyingEagle21]

This Government is a complete joke.
Every minister has a different policy on the 3rd runway. Osborne Yes, Cable says no. You'd think they would have a common policy.

We All know what the 3 year report will say. It's all tacticle politics running up to the next general election. This is the next T5, years of pointless reports And good old British red tape. By the time it's built it's still not enough.

Someone needs to stand up and do what's best for Our country. Stop with the bull****.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "This Government is a complete joke.
Every minister has a different policy on the 3rd runway. Osborne Yes, Cable says no. You'd think they would have a common policy.

We All know what the 3 year report will say. It's all tacticle politics running up to the next general election. This is the next T5, years of pointless reports And good old British red tape. By the time it's built it's still not enough."

Well, that's coalition politics, there is no question that Cameron should have formed a minority government. A more experienced political operator (e.g. Harold Wilson) would have realised this.

Quote: "Someone needs to stand up and do what's best for Our country. Stop with the bull****."

Correct. A more experienced politician in Cameron's position would not have revoked Labour's permission for a third rwy (2009) and let them take any flak that may or may not be forthcoming. Pretty obvious really!

[Skipness One Echo]

This one seems to have gone under the radar but the ET710 / 711 tonight was a B787 which, I think, may have been the first scheduled commercial service to the UK?
I wondered why there were a load of spotters out for a cloudy Monday evening. It was of course very late and arrived in darkness some three hours later! Looked awesome coming down the 27R approach, those slow on/off anti collision lights are very distinctive.

[FlightPathOBN]

Did the 787 come in OEI?

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, landed from FCO at 2145 LT, departed back to ADD 2355 (as ETH701).

Did the 787 come in OEI?

No, that would have been just showing off. :O

[Windsorian]

On 13th September the Commons Transport Select Committee (TransCom) launched their own Inquiry into the government's (proposed) aviation policy -

Transport Committee pledges to scrutinise the Government (http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/news/aviation---tor/)

The composition of the Inquiry members should ensure a national rather than a limited SE local view of the options.

Informed comments by 19th October, please!

[Fairdealfrank]

Allegedly Boris is running his own inquiry as well, and finacing a referendum on the third rwy in Richmond.

If one examines the army of very highly paid managers and the bureaucracy of equally well-paid deputy mayors, accountants, lawyers and paper shufflers that accompanies the Greater London Assembly/City Hall set up, the public may conclude that Boris is good at wasting ratepayers' money.

PS To avoid party political points, the same may also be said for his predecessor, Ken.

[Ernest Lanc's]

Until the powers that be destroy Heathrow with their dithering..It might increase capacity, if the agreement not to use the runways in mixed mode which is damping Heathrows capacity as a two runway airport, was shelved for the time being.

[DaveReidUK]

It might increase capacity, if the agreement not to use the runways in mixed mode which is damping Heathrow's capacity as a two runway airport, was shelved for the time being.

It would indeed, to the tune of about 60,000 extra movements a year.

Whether it will happen is another question.

[onyxcrowle]

Forgive my ignorance as I don't live near heathrow and if I'm near I tend to be driving so can't watch the planes etc .
But do they not already have one runway for landings and one for take offs at the same time ? After all they ate quite far apart So surely no danger of conflicts ?

[DaveReidUK]

Sorry, I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

[PAXboy]

Mixed Mode

Currently, LHR uses one runway for departures and one for landings, so as to spread the noise of approach and departures. The alternations depend on a weekly rota and, of course, the wind direction.

Mixed mode allowes either runway to be used for take offs or departures as required. UK govt to trial mixed-mode operations at Heathrow (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-govt-to-trial-mixed-mode-operations-at-heathrow-359602/)

Currently, in the early morning, both runways are used for landings simultaneously due to the large number of long haul arrivals. Not to mention that the airport cannot operate

During the main part of the day, if there are ten a/c waiting to depart but only three due to land. The ten have to queue one behind the other and the 'landing' runway goes unused.

[Skipness One Echo]

During the main part of the day, if there are ten a/c waiting to depart but only three due to land. The ten have to queue one behind the other and the 'landing' runway goes unused.

There are two fixed periods, 7-3 and 3-11 where one runway is designated for arriving and the other for departing. After 11 and up to 6am, one runway is used for both arrivals and departures amd the other is closed. However in practice, when the Southern runway is used for departures, a fair few arrivals are landed as well, as it's much easier for T4. I have rarely if ever seen the approach to the landing runway empty, even late at night there's generally four on the approach.

[PAXboy]

Thanks for confirmation SOE, I was plucking numbers for the example but did think I'd never seen the approach 'empty'. Mebbe they need another runway ... :rolleyes:

[Skipness One Echo]

Good point PAXBoy! Actually I have never seen the approach empty except when changing runways but I have seen the departure runway with nothing at the holding point last winter on a Sunday afternoon. As soon as I did the double take, I saw a couple of aircraft heading there but there was no queue at the hold.
Traffic flow can have some odd peaks and troughs!

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Until the powers that be destroy Heathrow with their dithering..It might increase capacity, if the agreement not to use the runways in mixed mode which is damping Heathrows capacity as a two runway airport, was shelved for the time being."

Indeed this is the case. Mixed mode can, apparently, increase capacity by about 10%, allowing Heathrow to squeeze a quart out of a pint pot, so it is only a stop gap remedy. It does present another problem: running an airport at 110+% capacity.

In the absence of rwy expansion, it is the only way that capacity can be marginally increased. However, the amount of congestion and delays will increase substantially, both on the ground and in the air.

At present, mixed mode will only be allowed at times of "disruption" and to clear "backlogs". So what does this tell us? It tells us that mixed mode will slowly increase by stealth until or unless rwy expansion is completed.

Mixed mode will end the daily half-day of quiet for those who live under the flightpath that is curently provided by segregated mode and rwy alternation, so residents are unlikely to be very happy about it.

Those under the current flightpaths have a choice: support rwy expansion and have the status quo prevail for them (i.e. a daily half-day of quiet) or object to rwy expansion and lose this. It's really quite simple.

Ironically, it appears that if the small vocal anti-expansion NIMBY lobby are sucessful in their efforts, residents under the flightpath will actually have more noise not less!

[DaveReidUK]

In the absence of rwy expansion, it is the only way that capacity can be marginally increased. However, the amount of congestion and delays will increase substantially, both on the ground and in the air.

You have missed out one assumption that's implicit in your scenario.

Increased capacity can be applied in either (or both) of two different ways.

If traffic is increased in line with capacity, in other words if LHR continues to operate at 99%, then delays and congestion would undoubtedly increase.

If, on the other hand, capacity is increased but traffic isn't (or at least not by the same amount) then the result is more resilience, because the airport is no longer operating at 99%, and so not only are delays and congestion reduced, but when they do occur the airport is able to recover more rapidly.

The latter, of course, is precisely what is being done with the current mixed mode trials. Having said that, the conclusions and consequences of the trial may well turn out to be as you forecast.

[onyxcrowle]

I watched a documentary on YouTube the other night from 1989/90 ish and while it was about the railways called " off the rails " , the real eye opener and worrying thing is was the fact that in 22 years of mainly Tory rule nothing has changed , the program spoke of how Britain looked poor to the rest of Europe as it had no HS link to the new tunnel , Infrastructure was grinding to a halt as was London .
Here we are in 2012 STILL dithering about the HS links and the exact same story with airports .
It seems that the only sensible solution is to look at a new site close to motorway links , which in themselves have the parallel land needed to widen them to take traffic generated by a new four runway airport with room for more , And build some kind of rapid transit link into London . Now do we use upper Hertford or alternatively is it possible to turn it round altogether can gatwick or stansted be expanded to ' super airport status ' and turn heathrow into some kind of domestic /low cost airport with a very high speed link to say gatwick. Turning the idea on its head downgrading heathrow and making either of the others ' super hubs '

[Aero Mad]

22 years of mainly Tory rule nothing has changed

Within the period you specify:

1990 - 1997: Con
1997 - 2010: Lab
2010 - : Con/Lib

So nine years of Conservatives (two in coalition with Liberal Democrats), thirteen years of Labour. Check your facts :8

[bcn_boy]

If the authorites want Mixed Mode to be a success, they will need to provide concrete proposals to residents around Heathrow which will lessen their opposition to it.

1) Only allowing mixed mode between the hours of 8am to 9pm
2) 9pm to 8am daily, only one runway allowed for landings and the other for take-offs which will alternate from week to week as it does now
3) No increase in night flights
4) No third runway

Speaking with residents in the community meetings in the Brentford area of West London, this seems to be a consensus.

[A30yoyo]

Interesting about T4 arrivals....so if and when R3 and T6 get built you might expect choice of runway to be determined more by terminal proximity than by other considerations (hence more mixed use?)

[DaveReidUK]

Interesting about T4 arrivals....so if and when R3 and T6 get built you might expect choice of runway to be determined more by terminal proximity than by other considerations (hence more mixed use?)

The scenarios published to date envisage R3 being used in mixed mode, presumably mostly or exclusively for T6 arrivals and departures, with the two main runways continuing to be used in segregated mode.

[BAladdy]

AeroMexico are to launch a 3 x weekly service to Mexico City starting 14th December. Flights will be operated by a 767

AM007 MEX 22:25 LHR 15:00+1 357
AM008 LHR 17:35 MEX 00:35+1 146

AeroMexico to Launch London Heathrow from mid-Dec 2012 | Airline Route – Worldwide Airline Route Updates (http://airlineroute.net/2012/10/12/am-lhr-w12/)

Aeromexico Set to Bring Competition to Mexico City (http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/165537/aeromexico-set-to-bring-competition-to-mexico-city-a-london-route/)

[canberra97]

Well its been a long time coming so I am glad to hear that Aeromexico are finally going to start flights between MEX and LHR although I am rather surprised it has taken them this long especially considering they were competing with Mexicana a few years ago for traffic rights on the route and had not subsequently taken up the route on the demise of that airline.

I was in fact expecting Aeromexico to fly from Gatwick but I guess with them being in Skyteam and obviously the suitable slots they obtained they opted for LHR.

[Gonzo]

DaveReidUK, the trials at the moment are not mixed mode trials.

From BAA's own website..."In the context of this trial, Heathrow has undertaken to only use two runways for arrivals or two runways for departures at any one time and not to test two operating scenarios concurrently."

[DaveReidUK]

DaveReidUK, the trials at the moment are not mixed mode trials.

From BAA's own website..."In the context of this trial, Heathrow has undertaken to only use two runways for arrivals or two runways for departures at any one time and not to test two operating scenarios concurrently."

I'm getting a strong feeling of deja vu here - didn't we have this discussion back in February ?

It's true that the trial doesn't include the use of mixed mode on both runways at the same time, but clearly what is happening - using the same runway for both takeoffs and landings - corresponds to what most people understand by "mixed mode", even if the BAA are avoiding use of the term for PR reasons.

In ICAO-speak, what is being trialled is "semi-mixed parallel operations".

Government announces mixed-mode trial to combat delays at Heathrow | CAPA - Centre for Aviation (http://centreforaviation.com/news/government-announces-mixed-mode-trial-to-combat-delays-at-heathrow-111622)

[Fairdealfrank]

That's how it starts: mixed mode is used only to clear backlogs.

Gradually, a bit of "mission creep" ensures that the use of mixed mode is extended, because they are prevented from expanding any other way. They increase movements by 10%, the delays and congestion return. By then the half day of quiet for flightpath residents is nothing but a memory.

The vocal minority that is the anti-expansion lobby, miles away from the airport of course, will ensure that residents under the flightpath experience more noise in the long run.

Ironic, isn't it!?

[DaveReidUK]

Ironic, isn't it!?

Well only in the sense that "if you don't concede X, you'll end up with Y, which is worse" has been used as a negotiating tactic since time began. :O

[Gonzo]

DaveReidUK,

I disagree. I think most people would think that 'mixed mode' at Heathrow would refer to using both runways for arrivals and departures at the same time.

What would you call the trials if that was the mode of operation?

[DaveReidUK]

DaveReidUK,

I disagree. I think most people would think that 'mixed mode' at Heathrow would refer to using both runways for arrivals and departures at the same time.

What would you call the trials if that was the mode of operation?

Well in that case I'd refer to them using the same term as ICAO - "mixed parallel operations”. Or possibly "fully mixed parallel operations” to avoid the kind of confusion that we're experiencing here. :O

I appreciate that BAA prefer to use a narrower definition of "mixed mode" (i.e. only when both runways are used thus, in other words TEAM and TED at the same time) in order to be able to say that the trial doesn't include this type of operation, and therefore isn't mixed mode.

But that distinction is one that's lost on the man in the street.

Think about it - nobody can be simultaneously under the arrival and departure flightpath. So someone seeing arriving aircraft over their head on the "wrong" runway (i.e. TEAM), isn't affected by whether or not aircraft are being departed on both runways at the same time over someone else's head (TED), or vice versa.

[chinapattern]

With Aeromexico starting services it reminded me that a few years back it was strongly rumoured that Avianca were coming back with their new A330's. If memory serves me correct they'd even got the slots and schedules sorted. What happened? Or was it just purely speculation?

[Macbainz1]

http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/560362_10151106705711964_1483051617_n.jpg

I took this shot from the LHR ATC Tower September 2012.

I'm flight crew and not a spotter! Just thought it would be cool to share it.

[A30yoyo]

Good view up there! Is that St Paul's Cathedral showing apparently under the port wingtip of the 747 (which is actually over Cranford?)?

[Airlift21]

Nice! I think the 747 is a much better looking aircraft than the A380 "Slaphead" or whatever it's nickname is!

I'm not a spotter by the way, just to make that clear.

[Macbainz1]

Is that St Paul's Cathedral showing apparently under the port wingtip of the 747

Yes it is.

You can also see the top of Big Ben and one of the clock faces. Although quite faint. It is just to the right of the Shard in front of a larger building. It looks tiny!

[PAXboy]

FAB photo. Many thanks. The view is fantastic in every sense. :ok:

<off topic>
I agree that the 74 will ALWAYS be beautiful. As to the 380 - I like the observation in sn SLF thread that, "the only reason for the 380 to crash would be that it was rejected by the sky for being too ugly." :}

[ZOOKER]

Macbainz1,
pedant mode selected ON, but you cannot see the top of Big Ben, as it is enclosed within St. Stephen's Tower, or The Clock Tower Of The Palace Of Westminster.
Big Ben is actually the name of the bell that strikes the hour. It has a crack in it too, and if you stand near the tower, you can 'hear' the crack. The other bells chime a sequence known as 'The Westminster quarters'.
Pedant mode now selected OFF (and cross-checked). That is a cracking photograph, - a belter! Like the slight heat-shimmer too.
Been up in the old VCR a couple of times, but not in the new one. Hope NATS or one of the ATC staff will produce an annotated panorama one day.

[DaveReidUK]

Simon Burns, 17th October 2012:

"As stated in a written ministerial statement on 7 September 2010, the coalition Government remains committed to runway alternation at Heathrow airport and will not be reviving the plans for mixed mode considered by our predecessors."

[Skipness One Echo]

It appears that with Emirates now using the A388 on most LHR flights, Emirates Skycargo are operating a weekly B777F to make up some of the lost capacity.

Seems to be Saturday only at the moment.

[Hotel Tango]

I find it kind of amusing that some of you feel the need to add that you're not spotters to your posts? Does it matter? Worried it will put a stigma on your reputation? ;)

[chaps2011]

Just out of interest Macbainz 1 was that a standard lenses you used or a telephoto
Love the shot by the wayhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

chaps

[FlightPathOBN]

Just came back from the Wakenet conf..interesting deatils regarding the Time based separation simulation done with LHR controllers...any of you here, would like to get your thoughts on this...

On a side note, I was under the impression, but not sure why, that most operations in Europe, including LHR, were VFR or CVFR...I was corrected that almost all operations at LHR are IMC, and that is typical around Europe as well....is this the case?

Interesting to note, that under RECAT I, visual separation is not allowed....

[Skipness One Echo]

Commercial aviation is very much IFR, VFR is mainly used by PPLs. What's CVFR? Do you mean Special VFR? Maybe one for the ATC forum?

[FlightPathOBN]

Thanks, wilco...CVFR is VFR with controller direction

[Macbainz1]

ZOOKER Yes yes, we all know it's the bell. Do me a favour type in Big Ben in google images.. How many photo's until you see the bell?

Just out of interest Macbainz 1 was that a standard lenses you used or a telephoto
Love the shot by the way

Chaps. I was offered the visit from my friend who works up the tower. I fly abroad and so I only had my Lumix TZ30 with me. A great little compact camera. Just look at the result!

Hotel Tango Not so much, just don't want the image moved to the spotter forum!

[WHBM]

I think Macbainz's photo demonstrates far better than any amount of political waffle why Heathrow is the RIGHT location for a London airport, as far as the real customers, the passengers, are concerned, and why Boris Island, halfway to Amsterdam, is definitely NOT.

[FlyingEagle21]

I think Macbainz's photo demonstrates far better than any amount of political waffle why Heathrow is the RIGHT location for a London airport, as far as the real customers, the passengers, are concerned, and why Boris Island, halfway to Amsterdam, is definitely NOT.

I think it demonstrates Heathrow is the RIGHT distance from London, not necessarily in the right location. Aircraft turning onto final approach over central London isn't ideal for a few reasons.
It took me 20 minutes to drive from Central London to Heathrow Friday evening. How long would it take to drive to Boris Island?

Ideally the best move would be a new 4 runway airport with the capability to expand to 6 overtime. located within 30 minutes drive of C. London. Ideally to the West, and with an East-West flight path not overflying central London. We can always dream..

Political Suicide written all over it. I also think this would be impossible.

Gatwicks is just not close enough. Boris Island? has it worked for Seoul/Incheon? If it happens it has to be done properly and by then it will most likely be too late..

[WHBM]

has it worked for Seoul/Incheon?
Not really. As in so many of these grand, remote schemes (Montreal, Tokyo, Osaka, etc) the Korean domestic operators have refused to move and stay at the old airport, the internationals were forced to move, but there was then pressure to allow key regional points (Tokyo, Beijing) to creep back in, exactly as happened elsewhere. One result is that international transfer traffic to domestic points is then lost to the country's national airlines, it goes to nearby transfer points instead like Japan where passengers can transfer within one airport.

At Montreal this not only created a nonsense aviation structure with exactly this division, but killed the whole city commercially as the Canadian aviation focus moved down the road to Toronto. Montreal was the No 1 Canadian commercial centre until the 1970s, not any more, that went to Toronto as well.

[FlyingEagle21]

Has anyone mentioned this idea yet? Completely nuts.

The Policy Exchange, which says it is a leading think tank to deliver a stronger society and a more dynamic economy (nothing about care of the environment) have put forward a proposal to expand Heathrow, by building 4 new runways. And moving the existing two a mile or two to the west, on top of the M25. Then there would be a two more runways, one parallel to each of the shifted runways. The Policy Exchange then says that if this cannot be built, 4 runways could be be built at Luton instead. They claim around 700 properties (in Poyle) would need to be demolished compared to the 1,400 that would need to go to make way for the estuary airport, and its purpose would be to send a “much needed signal to people that Britain is open for business.” They dismiss the problem of carbon emissions by presuming that all homes in the UK will be insulated, so leaving fossil fuel for transport – and that travelling is much more appealing so we can “have the money and carbon allocation to see the world.” A very odd report, with some very dubious logic ….. and contorted arguments.


http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/PolicyExchange-proposal.jpg

[Skipness One Echo]

Heathrow East/Terminal 2 | Heathrow Airport | London | U/C - Page 32 - SkyscraperCity (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=403697&page=32)

Seems T2B has been postponed due to uncertainty over the future of LHR.

[PAXboy]

FlyingEagle21 This is featured in: http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/495141-heathrow-expansion-wont-happen-12.html
starting about #260 I think it is. Of all the cock-a-mamie schemes put forward, this is very smart. I'm not joking. Of course, it won't get built but as a way to maximse the existing site? Clever. but, as I say (all to often, I know) its doesn't matter about R3 or any other scheme now, as it's already way too late. The traffic has and is moving Eastwards.

[Windsorian]

The growth in flights from Europe to the East has nothing to do with lack of capacity at Heathrow; there is a simple geographic answer in the fact that China, India, SE Asia are all to the East of Europe.

Meanwhile there are 191 weekly flights ( > 9,000 per annum) from Heathrow to New York; with the slow introduction of the A380 there is plenty of potential for some of the New York flights to be re-allocated to the growing East.

[DaveReidUK]

Sounds of furious backpedalling by the Coalition after the Aviation Minister appeared to make a commitment at the AOA conference yesterday that the Goverment would back and implement the findings of the Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, when it reports in 2015.

Though that's not necessarily saying a great deal - it's now seven weeks since the commission was announced, but neither its terms of reference nor details of who the other members are have yet been announced.

[TSR2]

Sounds of furious backpedalling by the Coalition

Can't think why I am I not surprised.

[Skipness One Echo]

with the slow introduction of the A380 there is plenty of potential for some of the New York flights to be re-allocated to the growing East.

The reallocation of a handful of slots is not a strategic solution, especially given that means replacing a money maker with a loss making start up.

[Windsorian]

The reallocation of a handful of slots is not a strategic solution, especially given that means replacing a money maker with a loss making start up.


I'm not suggesting fewer passengers, just questioning whether New York really needs an average of 27 daily flights from Heathrow, at a time when there is a claimed shortage of slots to new destinations; there is plenty of opportunity for the existing slots to be used more efficiently.

Fully agree that all the new 21 business destinations listed in the BAA commissioned report may not be commercially viable. That is why work on the Heathrow "Toast Rack" must continue and the new A380 stands used for maximum effect as ever increasing numbers of these aircraft are introduced.

[DaveReidUK]

I'm not suggesting fewer passengers, just questioning whether New York really needs an average of 27 daily flights from Heathrow, at a time when there is a claimed shortage of slots to new destinations; there is plenty of opportunity for the existing slots to be used more efficiently.

So, other than market forces, what mechanism do you envisage being used to produce a more "efficient" distribution of slots vs routes ?

[Dannyboy39]

Whenever I go transatlantic (on BA), especially UK-bound, the aircraft are rarely full in economy. Don't know what its like in business/first, but if they fill these cabins, they couldn't care less about the load in the back.

Kudos to British Airways for making difficult decisions on high profile routes. A lot of speculation regarding the Kangaroo route. If it isn't making money, don't run the service - simple business sense. I wish equally high profile carriers (especially in the USA) would do the same thing.

[Windsorian]

So, other than market forces, what mechanism do you envisage being used to produce a more "efficient" distribution of slots vs routes ?


Personally I think there are several :-

1. BAA should be told that in the short to medium term that there will be no R3 at Heathrow, no full mixed mode and no more night flights; instead they should concentrate on their "Toast Rack" rebuilding. In order to restore confidence, BAA must be assured the government has absolutely no intention at any time of closing Heathrow.

2. In the short term the use of larger more fuel efficient aircraft must be encouraged to accommodate the expected growth in passenger numbers; this will free up some slots for new destinations.

2. In the medium term the government should encourage the development of competing hub airports, both in the SE and nationally. The reason the Competition Commisssion ordered BAA to sell Gatwick, Stansted and either Glasgow or Edinburgh was to increase competition between the airports and was ruled to be in the public interest.

4. There should be positive discrimination in favour of implementing the Competition Commission ruling in terms of the timing of the construction of new runways. Also there should be a government priority for introducing reciprocal 5th Freedom rights to airports allowing them to operate as virtual hub airports.

5. It is the introduction of genuine competition between competing hubs that will encourage the development of flights to new destinations and cause the Heathrow airlines to consider re-allocating some existing slots.

[DaveReidUK]

Sorry, but I don't see how any of those strategies is going to cause airlines to open up new routes from Heathrow if that necessitates (as it would) reducing frequency on existing, profitable routes.

In the short term the use of larger more fuel efficient aircraft must be encouraged to accommodate the expected growth in passenger numbers; this will free up some slots for new destinations.

As traffic grows on existing routes, of course airlines will use larger aircraft - but not at the expense of frequency.

[cumbrianboy]

Hey, apologies if I've missed this but where is the report which details the 21 business destinations? I'd be interested to read it

Thanks.

[WHBM]

Appears to be 27 destinations actually

http://www.aef.org.uk/downloads/Business_Connectivity_Report_August2011.pdf

[Windsorian]

Hey, apologies if I've missed this but where is the report which details the 21 business destinations? I'd be interested to read it

This is the report I was thinking about, published September 2011 :-

http://www.frontier-economics.com/_library/publications/Connecting%20for%20growth.pdf

However it needs qualifying as the main IAG connection to South America is, and is likely to remain (for historical & language reasons) Madrid; this may be a stop-over for flights from Heathrow.

Also identifying possible routes does not guarantee their economic success; a slow start up of say one flight a week may be necessary to test the water; time will tell !

[Windsorian]

As traffic grows on existing routes, of course airlines will use larger aircraft - but not at the expense of frequency.


I fully respect there will be differing opinions; this is what the Davies Commission has been asked to resolve. However it must be noted that today Heathrow airlines fly to fewer destinations than before T5 was built.

Also the recent Policy Exchange report claims the immediate effect of a Heathrow R3, is that IAG and Virgin will move their existing Gatwick services to Heathrow; this mirrors what has already happened after T5 opened.

I think the real danger of an early R3 is that the existing Heathrow airlines will decant their small aircraft to the new short runway; but new airlines will not gain access to long haul slots at Heathrow due to "a shortage of terminal capacity" at the existing terminals. Also the existing airlines will lay claim to any new slots on a R3 after they have completed their decantation.

I think it really comes down to whether there should be a single or multiple UK hubs; this is where the Competition Commission comes in and the Davies Commission must decide.

[Libertine Winno]

My opinion, for what its worth, is that the UK cannot sustain 2 separate hubs. Reason being that those countries that do (Germany with Frankfurt and Munich, NYC with JFK and Newark) are able to do so for reasons that are absent in the UK.

Germany (Lufthansa) is able to run two hubs because both Munich and Frankfurt are viable to do so, Frankfurt because of its finance economy and Munich because of its economy and its location far further East to take advantage of traffic. The UK does not have a similar advantage, with the likes of Manchester or Birmingham not benefitting from location nor a big enough economical base to justify a hub.

In NYC, both Newark and JFK are the hub airports for two different national long haul carriers (United at Newark and American at JFK). However, both of the UK's long haul carriers (BA and Virgin) are hubbed at LHR. London certainly has the economy and demand for two competing hubs, but it would take either BA or Virgin to move all operations to a two-runway LGW which shows absolutely no sign of happening.

[Windsorian]

Seems that Branston is in a pickle over the CAA decision to allow EasyJet to fly from Gatwick to Moscow :-

Virgin Atlantic slams CAA ruling on Bmi Moscow routes - www.travelweekly.co.uk (http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2012/10/25/42036/virgin-atlantic-slams-caa-ruling-on-bmi-moscow-routes.html)

I presume that EasyJet will not be able to fill two daily aircraft simply with point to point passengers from Gatwick's catchment area; which suggests the CAA are thinking about some transfer passengers and Gatwick's development as a hub in competition to Heathrow.

This appears to re-inforce the 2009 Competition Commission ruling that BAA's ownership of 3 London airports was not in the public interest; it will be interesting to see what the CAA tell the Davies Commission of their thoughts of where (if any) additional SE runways should be built.

[LGS6753]

Aeromexico has announced it will launch flights between Heathrow and Mexico City from 14 December. The airline will fly three times a week from Heathrow’s Terminal 4 and will offer connecting flights throughout Mexico including Puerto Vallarta, Los Cabos, Guadalajara and others. For inbound passengers the airline will use its SkyTeam partners to broaden its connections throughout Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
“The beginning of operations between Mexico and London is a great achievement for all of us who work at this airline, as this destination is very important to the national economy and several key sectors that will also
benefit from this new connection,” said Andres Conesa

[Gonzo]

FlightPathOBN,

Regardless of RECAT, we don't use visual separation when there is a wake turbulence separation requirement. In the UK the only cases where ATC leave wake turbulence separation to the discretion of the following crews in on approach, when the following aircraft is following the visual flight rules (VFR), in which case ATC would advise of the recommended spacing.

Can you explain more about what you mean regarding ops being IMC? IMC/VMC refer only to the current weather conditions. Ops into LHR follow IFR, but that could be in IMC or VMC. As far as operations are concerned, it makes no difference what the weather conditions are until you get down to a cloud base of 200ft or visibility of 600m (approximately!).

[jabird]

I presume that EasyJet will not be able to fill two daily aircraft simply with point to point passengers from Gatwick's catchment area

They are claiming a starter fare of £125 return, so no reason why they shouldn't be able to fill 2x daily rotations. MOW is a huge growth market, no shortage of places Easy already serve with multiple daily services.

Weren't VS proposing an A330 on this route? So offer twice the frequency, use aggressive YM, plug into the already sizeable business and leisure user base they have at LGW, where's the problem, apart from in the unfair gospel according to the Bearded one? Or are there gremlins out to get him in the CAA aswell as the DfT?

[Windsorian]

They (EasyJet) are claiming a starter fare of £125 return

Unlikely to mean every seat will be £125 return, rather it will be for a limited number of tickets bought months in advance.

"Return fares will start from £125 ($201), the airline says." Flightglobal 25.10.12

[davidjohnson6]

Eaayjet will likely price London-Moscow roughly the same as London-Tel Aviv.
There is the very rare return to Tel Aviv for about 125 or 150 pounds but they are rare. Most cost rather more cash - do a dummy booking for yourself

[jabird]

Unlikely to mean every seat will be £125 return

That is why I referred to it as a starter fare, ie starts at £125, goes up from there. I expect this fare to be year round - if I meant a fare for the start of route, I'd have called it an introductory offer.

Of course they won't sell more than a couple of rows at this price, but it is still lower than what Virgin would have offered, and that has to be weighed against the opportunities for onward connections, which BA already do on a much greater scale.

Beardie might not like hearing this, but I rather suspect the CAA was more interested in the perception of Easyjet as being better value than his airline, than they would have been about onward connections, which do not directly benefit London passengers.


In fact, if we assume that Virgin would have offered a daily A330 with similar seat numbers as a twice daily A320, then offering connections means they are selling seats which would otherwise go to the London market, quite possibly at a lower price.

I'm not sure the difference in departure airport would have been that significant.

[compton3bravo]

I see in the latest BAA blurb passenger numbers at Heathrow for July and August 2012 were 400,000 down on last year the company stating the ´´Olympic´´ factor. I thought they were expecting an increase of passengers with one forecast saying that every seat on every aircraft would be taken! It just goes to show that some people running the world´s busiest international airport haven´t got a clue but are on nice little earners!

[DaveReidUK]

China's sovereign wealth fund CIC has bought a 10% stake, partly from Ferrovial, in the holding company which owns Heathrow:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20163907 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20163907)

[ajamieson]

I see in the latest BAA blurb passenger numbers at Heathrow for July and August 2012 were 400,000 down on last year the company stating the ´´Olympic´´ factor. I thought they were expecting an increase of passengers with one forecast saying that every seat on every aircraft would be taken! It just goes to show that some people running the world´s busiest international airport haven´t got a clue but are on nice little earners!
Oh, come on. Even a little reading around the subject would inform you that the 'displacement effect' associated with every Olympic games is well known. Even the official tourism agencies predicted overall season numbers would be down. And which is the forecast of every seat taken to which you refer? If it exists at all, I'd guess it refers to the peak inbound dates and peak outbound dates surrounding the games.

[WHBM]

China's sovereign wealth fund CIC has bought a 10% stake, partly from Ferrovial, in the holding company which owns Heathrow.
It's a bit difficult to unpick the finances, because even the original purchase price by Ferrovial of BAA was concealed by only declaring the net price of the shares acquired rather than the gross, including all the additional finance costs and fees paid (and boy, were those substantial), but since then there has been the fire sale of Gatwick and Edinburgh, and more recently selling off parts of the overall BAA ownership, but it appears that Ferrovial have lost an absolute packet on the whole Heathrow purchase thing. Which is not to say that their directors of the time and their financial backers (Santander ?) have not pocketed a bomb for themselves along the way.

10% of the Heathrow Topco for £450m values it at £4.5 bn. How much did Ferrovial pay for BAA some years ago ? £11bn plus all the costs ?

[jabird]

If it exists at all, I'd guess it refers to the peak inbound dates and peak outbound dates surrounding the games.

And in which case, by definition, those flights should be going back (then out again) totally empty. Lots of predictions get made in the hype of something like the Olympics, y.o.y. figs for Sept / Oct onwards would be more interesting.

values it at £4.5 bn

Was that sum not spent on T5 alone? At that price, maybe Silver has a point about sending in the asset strippers and it being worth more closed than open. Surely LHR is a safe, long term bankable yield, unlike the fantasy projects these wealth funds are "supposed" to be interested in?

[DaveReidUK]

figs for Sept / Oct onwards would be more interesting.

Sept 2011: 6.31m Jan-Sep: 52.6m
Sept 2012: 6.35m Jan-Sep: 53.0m

[racedo]

I see in the latest BAA blurb passenger numbers at Heathrow for July and August 2012 were 400,000 down on last year the company stating the ´´Olympic´´ factor. I thought they were expecting an increase of passengers with one forecast saying that every seat on every aircraft would be taken! It just goes to show that some people running the world´s busiest international airport haven´t got a clue but are on nice little earners!

It was only ever hype that London would be full and no rooms to be had anywhere.

I spent a weekend night in London just before the games and paid less than I would have at any other time I can remember, OTOH the hotel was looking to charge £300+ per night basic rate during Olympics.

As been said there was displacement as Athletes and those attending the games displaced the thousands who would normally come to London in July / August.

[DaveReidUK]

it's now seven weeks since the commission was announced, but neither its terms of reference nor details of who the other members are have yet been announced.

Details of the commissioners released today:

"Services Authority chief Sir Howard Davies today introduced his five-strong team that will form the Government-ordered Airports Commission.

Sir Howard, who is also a former CBI boss, joked that his fellow commissioners were acting "for the love of it" as all have chosen not to be paid.

These are the other commissioners:

Sir John Armitt – has had the massively high-profile job as chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority and is a former chief executive of rail infrastructure company Network Rail. Previous posts have included boss of Union Railways, the company responsible for developing the HS1 – the high-speed Channel Tunnel rail link.

Professor Ricky Burdett – Professor of Urban Studies at the London School of Economics and director of the LSE Cities research centre. He was chief adviser on architecture and urbanism for the London 2012 Olympics and architectural adviser to the Mayor of London from 2001 to 2006.

Vivienne Cox – A former chief executive and executive vice president of BP Alternative Energy and a former member of the BP Executive Management Team. She is the lead independent director on the board of the Department for International Development.

Professor Dame Julia King – Vice Chancellor of Aston University and a member of the Committee on Climate Change. She held a number of senior business and engineering posts at Rolls-Royce, in both the aerospace and marine businesses, between 1994 and 2002.

Geoff Muirhead – The former chief executive of the Manchester Airport Group. He was responsible for leading the planning and delivery of Manchester Airport’s second runway – the only full-length runway constructed in the UK since the Second World War.

The commissioners will be assisted by a panel of experts and can call on Government departmental funds to cover any extra work involving consultants if necessary."

(Terms of Reference to follow)

[DaveReidUK]

Davies Commission terms of reference:

"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; and it will identify and evaluate how any need for additional capacity should be met in the short, medium and long term.

It should maintain a UK-wide perspective, taking appropriate account of the national, regional and local implications of any proposals.

It should engage openly with interested parties and members of the public, providing opportunities to submit evidence and proposals and to set out views relevant to its work.

It should seek to engage with a range of stakeholders, including with local and devolved government as well as the Opposition, to build consensus in support of its approach and recommendations.

The Commission should report no later than the end of 2013 on:

o Its assessment of the evidence on the nature, scale and timing of the steps needed to maintain the UK’s global hub status; and
o Its recommendation(s) for immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity in the next five years – consistent with credible long term options;

The assessments and recommendations in the Commission’s interim report should be underpinned by a detailed review of the evidence in relation to the current position in the UK with regard to aviation demand and connectivity, forecasts for how these are likely to develop, and the expected future pattern of the UK’s requirements for international and domestic connectivity.

Its assessments of potential immediate actions should take into account their economic, social and environmental costs and benefits, and their operational deliverability. It should also be informed by an initial high-level assessment of the credible long-term options which merit further detailed development.

The Commission should report no later than summer 2015 on:

o Its assessment of the options for meeting the UK’s international connectivity needs, including their economic, social and environmental impact;
o Its recommendation(s) for the optimum approach to meeting any needs; and
o Its recommendation(s) for ensuring that the need is met as expeditiously as practicable within the required timescale.

The Commission should base the recommendations in its final report on a detailed consideration of the case for each of the credible options. This should include the development or examination of detailed business cases and environmental assessments for each option, as well as consideration of their operational, commercial and technical viability.

As part of its final report in summer 2015, it should also provide materials, based on this detailed analysis, which will support the Government in preparing a National Policy Statement to accelerate the resolution of any future planning applications for major airports infrastructure."

[Heathrow Harry]

As you know I'm against expanding LHR but this team looks like a real Sir Humphrey stitch - up

Sir Howard = a safe pair of hands

These are the other commissioners:

Sir John Armitt – a railway man through & through - not likely to support expansion

Professor Ricky Burdett – no-one has ever found a planner who thinks LHR is in the right place

Vivienne Cox – Alternative energy people don't like LHR either

Professor Dame Julia King – Climate change academic - not likely to support LHR

Geoff Muirhead – The former chief executive of the Manchester Airport Group. - now there is man who will back expanding LHR rather than a regional strategy - I don't think

[DaveReidUK]

And no prizes for guessing what deliverable no 2 of the interim (2013) report "recommendation(s) for immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity in the next five years" is going to say.

[ETOPS]

the only full-length runway constructed in the UK since the Second World War.



Er don't think so :=

Liverpool, Edinburgh and East Midlands spring to mind ..........:ugh:

[WHBM]

Er don't think so

Liverpool, Edinburgh and East Midlands spring to mind ..........
Yep, keep going - Gatwick, Bristol Lulsgate (both 1950s) and Abbotsinch (1960s) as well. Any others ?

With such inaccuracy (presumably taken from his CV), the committee is sure off to a good start.

[ericlday]

How does one interpret ''full-length'' runway ? What distance does a runway become a ''full length''

[DaveReidUK]

With such inaccuracy (presumably taken from his CV), the committee is sure off to a good start.

Even Manchester Airport, in its own Report and Accounts, makes the rather more modest claim that when the parallel runway was opened in 2001 it was "the first full-length runway built in the UK for commercial use for over 20 years".

Still, he wouldn't be the first person to embroider his CV. :O

In a previous discussion on this topic here

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/482991-last-full-length-runway-built-uk.html

LSG6753 helpfully pointed out that the Government has in the past used 3000m+ as the criterion for defining a "full-length" runway.

[jabird]

Any others ?

Manchester R2 was a "full" length parallel runway.

The others were main runways - ie without them you wouldn't have an airport?

this team looks like a real Sir Humphrey stitch - up

Yes Moderator, I think we all agreed on that before!

Unless:

railway man through & through

If he is part of the HS2 lobby, he will have worked out by now that offers almost zero alternative to short haul flying, but bringing it into LHR might help each project boost the other - far more so than Fantasy Island

Professor Ricky Burdett – no-one has ever found a planner who thinks LHR is in the right place

I doubt even WW thinks it is in the right place. It is just in the least wrong place, and in particular it is in a much better place than Estuary Airport.

Vivienne Cox – Alternative energy people don't like LHR either

Depends if they are real alternative people or just oil stooges who have switched to the non fossil stuff.

Professor Dame Julia King – Climate change academic - not likely to support LHR

Nope. Except again, if we put forward an argument of relatives, R3 is primarily about meeting latent demand, whereas Fantasy Island would be creating new demand - if users could ever pay for it.

Of course, far easier to do nothing, or to play on her Aston connections and promote the Birmingham "Solution".

Geoff Muirhead – The former chief executive of the Manchester Airport Group. - now there is man who will back expanding LHR rather than a regional strategy - I don't think.

Nope, million years, not in a.

So not a single person who has actually worked for one of those companies that operates those new fangled metal bird thingies?

[Dannyboy39]

Selecting a panel is not going to be an exact science is it. How many aviation experts, that don't have vested interests, are there?

Who would be in your panel? Mr Silverstrata?

[DaveReidUK]

All may not be lost - according to ITV News "The commissioners will be assisted by a panel of experts and can call on Government departmental funds to cover any extra work involving consultants if necessary".

Stand by your phones, chaps. :O

[PAXboy]

"... involving consultants if necessary".
Ooooh,Sir? Sir? Me Sir. Please Sir, Pleeeease.
Ker-Ching!

[PAXboy]

Reported on the BBC from The Times:

The prime minister says London Mayor Boris Johnson is wrong to dismiss a third runway at Heathrow and he will not be given a veto on the issue. (edit) "In the end the decision is a national decision that the government has to lead."BBC News - Boris Johnson wrong on Heathrow third runway, says Cameron (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20191564)

[akerosid]

Ah yes, the same David Cameron who did in fact veto it on his first day in office, two years ago.

And when are we actually going to see this leadership?

Still, good to see DC say this; just pity he had to waste two years before recognising this. It seems to me that the govt knows exactly what it wants to do, but it just needs to get rid of the LDs, hence this committee to mark time until after the next election.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Who would be in your panel? Mr Silverstrata?"

Can I be on Silver's panel? It would be fun!


Quote: "Still, good to see DC say this; just pity he had to waste two years before recognising this. It seems to me that the govt knows exactly what it wants to do, but it just needs to get rid of the LDs, hence this committee to mark time until after the next election."

Time for Dave to show some leadership and face down the Libdems, let's face it, they ain't going anywhere, not now have their snouts in the trough for the first time in 100 years.



By the way, we know the terms of reference (sic) of the commission, we now know the membership thereof, but does anyone know how much this waste of taxpayers' money is expected to cost?

Isn't there a White Paper on aviation (e.g. 2003) that they can refer to? A bit of copy-and-paste, how hard can it be?

[Dannyboy39]

Its still deeply frustrating that there are many people in the media who are commenting on this story that have just no idea of the issues.

There was a bloke on BBC Breakfast yesterday morning who commented that STN should grow yet admitted he didnt know what a hub was!

Lets make it clear - the UK and the SE in particular has a vast shortage of HUB capacity. In other words airlines such as British Airways filtering all their short and long haul flights into one central airport; providing connectivity and additional choice for their existing and potential customers. Some flights arent viable without a hub. And actually hubbing is good for the environment. Otherwise you'd get point to point services from every airport in the country and probably half empty planes!

Why do I get the feeling this is just going to be a whitewash/deliberate fudge (delete as appropriate), and they're just going to go for Heathwick. :mad:

[Heathrow Harry]

I thought the trend was away from hubs these days............

[Dannyboy39]

Re: The four runway option at Heathrow - would that mean the £1bn spent on the new T2 would be completely wasted?

[Windsorian]

The 1st question the Davies Commission needs to decide is whether the UK wants a single hub airport or multiple hubs; this will set the framework on which SE airport expansion and additional runways can be decided. Common sense dictates this decision should be made in the 2013 Interim Report, as LHR's owners need certainty as to whether it will be closed if a Thames Estuary airport is built and/or if they will be allowed to build any new runways.

Even if Davies rules against any additional LHR runway(s) there is still huge potential for increasing its passenger numbers arising from the "Toast Rack" rebuild of the terminals and stands. In fact BAA are cutting off their nose to spite their face in delaying the toast rack work, as they will want the additional passenger capacity; a possible short R3 is not intended to reduce the existing 480,000 atms on the two main runways, which will be filled up sooner or later with larger capacity aircraft requiring better facilities.

The owner(s) and airlines of LHR naturally want it to remain the only UK hub; though the Competition Commission did not agree when it ordered BAA to sell both LGW & STN. The new owners of LGW have no intention of allowing it to be used as a LHR annex; rather they want it to develop as a freestanding hub in its own right with improved rail links to London.

[Skipness One Echo]

Wrong, and a common mistake. It is NOT about what the UK wants, that is really an emtpy statement, it can only be about what the market can support.

That's demonstrably a single hub. Every few years someone with zero commercial experience investigates "other" options, somehow the answer is always the same.

[Heathrow Harry]

a quick look a the OS map shows that to build 2 or 4 new runways immediately west of LHR would mean th demolition of Colnbrook, Poyle and probably Datchett plus the removal of some of the reservoirs

You would effectively be putting it in Slough and Windsor (home of our beloved Queen of course) and moving the noise big time over the Maidenhead, Reading, Bracknel triangle

There are some very very rich people around there who would fight this tooth and nail - it would never happen - all teh terminals exceot 5 would be inteh wrong palce and you'd have to spend a fortune on ne w roads - cheaper to go to Boris island and start with a clean slate

[WHBM]

In fact BAA are cutting off their nose to spite their face in delaying the toast rack work, as they will want the additional passenger capacity.
This is nothing to do with any runway indecision; it's because Ferrovial have run out of cash.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "The 1st question the Davies Commission needs to decide is whether the UK wants a single hub airport or multiple hubs; this will set the framework on which SE airport expansion and additional runways can be decided. Common sense dictates this decision should be made in the 2013 Interim Report, as LHR's owners need certainty as to whether it will be closed if a Thames Estuary airport is built and/or if they will be allowed to build any new runways."

It's not for the Davies Commission, or the government, to decide where the hubs are. Those days are over!

It's the airlines who decide (a) whether to operate a hub (e.g. BA and VS at LHR) or a base (e.g. U2 at LGW), and (b) where the hub or base should be located.

LHR's owners do not "need certainty as to whether it will be closed if a Thames Estuary airport is built": LHR is not closing, even Boris now concedes this.

Quote: "Even if Davies rules against any additional LHR runway(s) there is still huge potential for increasing its passenger numbers arising from the "Toast Rack" rebuild of the terminals and stands. In fact BAA are cutting off their nose to spite their face in delaying the toast rack work, as they will want the additional passenger capacity; a possible short R3 is not intended to reduce the existing 480,000 atms on the two main runways, which will be filled up sooner or later with larger capacity aircraft requiring better facilities."

Terminal capacity is not an issue at LHR (for the time being), and there will be even more terminal capacity when the new LHR-1/2 is complete. Would expect the "toastracking" of what is now LHR-3 to take place sometime after the existing LHR-1 is rebuilt as part of the new LHR-1/2.

Quote: "The owner(s) and airlines of LHR naturally want it to remain the only UK hub; though the Competition Commission did not agree when it ordered BAA to sell both LGW & STN. The new owners of LGW have no intention of allowing it to be used as a LHR annex; rather they want it to develop as a freestanding hub in its own right with improved rail links to London."

TheCompetition Commission's rulings have nothing to do with hubs, or whether LHR is "the only UK hub", it is not their remit. They deal with competition, and it is/was their belief that LHR, LGW and STN should not be under the same ownership.

Whether these 3 airports compete with eachother is a moot point. Frankly, LHR competes with CDG, FRA and AMS, not LGW and STN.

[Windsorian]

@ Fairdealfrank I refer you to #2079 on 24th October 2012

One option is to base planes with <100pax at Northolt and bus transfers on single or double deckers; thus quickly freeing up LHR capacity.

Where only a handful pax transfer, an electric taxi or mini-cab may suffice !

[FR-]

Windsorian - are you for real? How many a/c actually land at LHR with less than 100 seats? All the paxs will have to be screened again, as will the pax.

fr-

[Skipness One Echo]

Northolt has no part here. Some people are mixing up airport capacity with maintaining a profitable hub structure.

[DaveReidUK]

It's not for the Davies Commission, or the government, to decide where the hubs are. Those days are over!

It's the airlines who decide (a) whether to operate a hub (e.g. BA and VS at LHR) or a base (e.g. U2 at LGW), and (b) where the hub or base should be located.

Then you had better get your submission to Davies in PDQ, you could save us taxpayers a lot of money.

"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"

[Windsorian]

I hope the Davies Commission is more receptive to alternative ideas for expanding LHR passenger capacity than FR- and Skipness One Echo !

Way back in 1952 Northolt handled 50,000 atms, so they should be able to handle the same today. All I am suggesting is decanting the smallest existing LHR aircraft, requiring the largest wake separation distances, to NHT; thus freeing up capacity for additional larger aircraft on LHR main runways.

And I don't think we should be side tracked by talk of an expensive rail line from NHT to LHR as the A312 is a perfectly good dual carriageway road from the A4 at Cranford to the A40 Target Roundabout (or the Polish War Memorial). There is a tube station nearby at Ruislip Gardens for direct access to London and an A312 taxi or bus service should be adequate for transfer pax to LHR.

Publically available information is available at RAF Northolt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Northolt)

Then we could free up some more capacity by decanting the LHR holiday charter flights to LGW &/or STN !

[Windsorian]

@ DaveReedUK

I suggest you read the published info that refers to London being one of the best connected cities in the world; this is a reference to all London's airports - Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, London City, Luton (& possibly now Southend) acting together as a multi-hub.

It's only BAA/IAG/supporters who falsely claim LHR is and must remain the UKs only hub airport; then there is the question of regional dispersal !

[Libertine Winno]

@ Heathrow Harry

The proposal to shift LHR runways westward and build over the reservoirs will actually result in less destruction of housing than the current proposal for runway 3 north of the current two.

It also still makes full use of current terminal infrastructure, including the redeveloped 1/2, and only results in the need to construct one new terminal (I think they called it west terminal).

If you read the whole proposal (it is quite long...but interesting!) it certainly looks the least bad option to me, being far cheaper than the estuary airport, giving the 4 runways that LHR probably needs instead of just 3 and even makes an attempt to deal with noise issues over local residents.

[DaveReidUK]

I suggest you read the published info that refers to London being one of the best connected cities in the world; this is a reference to all London's airports - Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, London City, Luton (& possibly now Southend) acting together as a multi-hub.

Sorry, you'll have to explain that one to me - what on earth is a "multi-hub" ? Are you seriously suggesting that LGW, STN, LCY, LTN or SEN have more than a minuscule proportion of transfer pax (definition of a hub) ?

It's only BAA/IAG/supporters who falsely claim LHR is and must remain the UKs only hub airport; then there is the question of regional dispersal !

Well anyone who knows me will understand that I'm no apologist for either of those organisations.

But the first part of your statement is undeniably true - LHR is currently the UK's only hub airport.

And as for the second part - that it should remain so, I have no view on that either way. I do however agree with the proposition that the UK is too small a country to support more than one hub airport, wherever that ends up.

[Mr A Tis]

Air New Zealand to drop LHR-HKG from March 2013.

[Windsorian]

Sorry, you'll have to explain that one to me - what on earth is a "multi-hub" ?


When a conurbation is ringed with several airports, they are not separate entities acting in isolation, but act together as a multi (or dispersed) hub. Yes you can critise poor connectivity or lack of capacity at individual locations, but the problem needs looking at "in the round".



I do however agree with the proposition that the UK is too small a country to support more than one hub airport


That is a matter of personal opinion, not a statement of fact; BAA were ordered by the Competition Commission to sell LGW & STN in the public interest, thus allowing them to develop in competition to LHR. BAA's call for R3 at LHR is a last desperate throw of the dice to try and get in quick before any of the other London airports are allowed a second runway.

[Libertine Winno]

As discussed before, it seems that the only place that could support a hub would be London. Manchester does not have the economy nor the location to support a hub status, and as long as BA and VS are focussing basing on LHR then LGW won't succeed as a hub in the true sense.

Talk of multi hubs is all well and good, but have you ever tried to get from one airport from another via surface transport?! Connectivity between even London airports is woeful, and would require some kind of high speed ring railway connecting LHR, LGW, STN and LTN to properly connect them. However, given that this would cost probably as much as a new estuary airport you can begin to see how likely it would be to happen...

[DaveReidUK]

Talk of multi hubs is all well and good, but have you ever tried to get from one airport from another via surface transport?! Connectivity between even London airports is woeful, and would require some kind of high speed ring railway connecting LHR, LGW, STN and LTN to properly connect them.

Exactly.

No-one disputes that London is served by multiple airports from which, collectively, you can fly to lots of places. But to argue that they somehow constitute multiple hubs, or form part of some kind of combined hub arrangement that is greater than the sum of its parts, is ludicrous for the reasons you have described.

You could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of pax per day who get off a flight at one of London's airports and continue their journey from a different one.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “@ Fairdealfrank I refer you to #2079 on 24th October 2012

One option is to base planes with <100pax at Northolt and bus transfers on single or double deckers; thus quickly freeing up LHR capacity.

Where only a handful pax transfer, an electric taxi or mini-cab may suffice ! !”

NHT’s present VIP travel, Queen’s flight and military traffic as well as its distance (6 mi.) make it unsuitable as a proxy LHR third rwy.

However, there is considerable merit in having NHT as a small regional airport for thin domestic routes, no frills, and leisure charter holiday business, and general aviation, just like the success story that is SEN.

Or to put it another way, to handle traffic that cannot afford LHR charges and slot prices. It would add capacity by providing a small point-to-point airport to the west of London (for a change!).

It would need a station adjacent to the terminal, as envisaged in the NHT-as-third-rwy proposal, on the Central Line underground and on Chiltern railways (to provide a 17 minute link to London), as well as a decent link to LHR, fast bus perhaps.


Have checked out # 2079 as per your suggestion, Windsorian.
　
Quote: “1. BAA should be told that in the short to medium term that there will be no R3 at Heathrow, no full mixed mode and no more night flights; instead they should concentrate on their "Toast Rack" rebuilding. In order to restore confidence, BAA must be assured the government has absolutely no intention at any time of closing Heathrow.”

Strongly disagree, extra rwys are needed urgently at LHR, now.

Quote: “2. In the short term the use of larger more fuel efficient aircraft must be encouraged to accommodate the expected growth in passenger numbers; this will free up some slots for new destinations.”

Business requires frequency, so it can’t always be done. Pretty sure that where it is practical, it’s already being done.

Quote: “2. In the medium term the government should encourage the development of competing hub airports, both in the SE and nationally. The reason the Competition Commisssion ordered BAA to sell Gatwick, Stansted and either Glasgow or Edinburgh was to increase competition between the airports and was ruled to be in the public interest.”

Carriers have to be able to make money: if sufficient demand is there at the right price, carriers will provide services, for example, EK at LGW, BHX, MAN, NCL, and GLA.

Quote: “4. There should be positive discrimination in favour of implementing the Competition Commission ruling in terms of the timing of the construction of new runways. Also there should be a government priority for introducing reciprocal 5th Freedom rights to airports allowing them to operate as virtual hub airports.”


No such thing as “positive” discrimination. All discrimination is wrong.

Quote: “5. It is the introduction of genuine competition between competing hubs that will encourage the development of flights to new destinations and cause the Heathrow airlines to consider re-allocating some existing slots.”

There’s already competition: BA/VS at LHR v. AF at CDG v. LH at FRA v KL at AMS. No disrespect to LGW and STN, but they’re not in the same league.



Quote: "Way back in 1952 Northolt handled 50,000 atms, so they should be able to handle the same today. All I am suggesting is decanting the smallest existing LHR aircraft, requiring the largest wake separation distances, to NHT; thus freeing up capacity for additional larger aircraft on LHR main runways."

No, NHT makes sense as a small regional airport, NOT as an overflow from LHR. Very few LHR movements are by small aircraft now, especially since the demise of the Embraer BD services to ABZ, LBA and MME.

Quote: "The proposal to shift LHR runways westward and build over the reservoirs will actually result in less destruction of housing than the current proposal for runway 3 north of the current two.

It also still makes full use of current terminal infrastructure, including the redeveloped 1/2, and only results in the need to construct one new terminal (I think they called it west terminal).

If you read the whole proposal (it is quite long...but interesting!) it certainly looks the least bad option to me, being far cheaper than the estuary airport, giving the 4 runways that LHR probably needs instead of just 3 and even makes an attempt to deal with noise issues over local residents."


Agreed that is the "the least bad option", however, a modified version could be even better.

Rather than abandoning two long (10,000+ ft) rwys conveniently located near the terminals as suggested, keep the existing infrastructure and status quo.

Put just two new rwys on the open land west of the M25 but north of the existing rwys. That way, although some roads may need to be diverted/tunnelised, there's no need to obliterate any resevoirs.

[Windsorian]

there is considerable merit in having NHT as a small regional airport


NHT is in the London Borough of Ealing, in the GLA area and within the M25; to describe it as a regional airport is a bit far fetched.

Also it is already there, ready to go and capable of handling at least 50,000 atms / year. No need to build anything new or bulldoze anyones homes, just relocate the troublesome smaller planes to an existing airport just a few miles away.

Like days of old (and the Olympics), BAA could erect some tents at NHL for temporary terminals and a fast taxi / bus link along the A312 will not be much different to getting from R3 / T6 to the other terminals; perhaps BAA could pay for a bus lane ?

If the Davies Commission is to include quick short term alternatives for increased capacity in its Interim Report due late 2013, then NHL should be in the mix !

[FR-]

What smaller planes are you on about?

fr-

[Skipness One Echo]

Windorsian, again, do you understand the key difference between capacity and connectivity? Just because you can build something doesn't mean it will be profitable. Does your cunning plan for Northolt assist LHR in the fight against FRA/AMS/CDG? No, it does not, which is why it won't happen.

[Windsorian]

What smaller planes are you on about ?

LHR holiday charter flights, except to FRA/AMS/CDG, do nothing to promote competition with these airports and can be decanted to other UK airports with spare capacity; this will free up some valuable slots for new routes.

Private aircraft should be banned from LHR, again freeing up slots for new routes.

A progressive programme of relocating to NHT aircraft with <100 pax.
This could start with <50pax, then <75pax and then <100pax. This would give BAA time to erect their tents and install the A312 bus lane(s).

The removal of small aircraft from LHR will have two effects; it will allow larger aircraft carrying a greater number of passengers to use the existing slots and will increase resilence within the existing 480,000atm limit.

[chaps2011]

So you are saying remove B737 now because very lttle smaller than that operates
to LHR
What charter flights do you mean, didn`t know there were any and have not been for many years

Chaps

[Heathrow Harry]

Libertine

you may well demolish fewer hosues but you are extending LHR dramatically westwards - I just can't see how you'd ever get over all the legal and political obstacles -

Just look at how the rich inhabitants of Sonning have fought to avoid a minimal upgrade their bridge across the Thames to see what a swamp you're getting into

these people are well off, well briefed and they are very very very stubborn

[FR-]

So please do tell me how many a/c a day fly into LHR with less than 100 seats. And how many holiday charters a day. I also would like to know how many privert jets fly into LHR.

fr-

[Windsorian]

Just look at how the rich inhabitants of Sonning have fought to avoid a minimal upgrade their bridge across the Thames to see what a swamp you're getting into; these people are well off, well briefed and they are very very, very stubborn.

... and Theresa May lives near the bridge !!

[Windsorian]

So please do tell me how many a/c a day fly into LHR with less than 100 seats, how many holiday charters a day, also would like to know how many private jets fly into LHR.

I referred to pax rather than seats, but both figures would be useful; what we need is for the UK CAA to put this information into the public arena for the Davies Commission to take into account during their aviation inquiry, or BAA Heathrow will claim it's commercially sensitive information.

I can still remember the T5 Inquiry when BAA refused to release the recorded noise measurements of landing B747 aircraft, on the grounds they were flying too low over its mobile noise monitors !!

[FR-]

Pax is pointless as the number will change every flight. I think you will find, very few a/c that fly into LHR will have less than 100 seats. Even BAs 319s have 132 seats.

fr-

[DaveReidUK]

Also it is already there, ready to go and capable of handling at least 50,000 atms / year. No need to build anything new or bulldoze anyones homes, just relocate the troublesome smaller planes to an existing airport just a few miles away.

Er, no, it isn't.

Ever wondered why the clever chaps who designed Heathrow in the 1940s arranged the runways parallel to each other ?

Northolt's runway, on the other hand, is aligned at 20° to Heathrow's, which is another way of saying that the ILS approaches to 09s at LHR and Northolt's 07 intersect at about 10 nm (or rather they would if Northolt actually had an ILS on 07).

So how exactly is that novel arrangement going to work ? By the time you have ensured sufficient separation between traffic landing at the two airports, you will probably end up with less capacity from the 3 runways combined than you currently have at LHR alone.

That's why all the plans floated for using Northolt for short-haul traffic are predicated on building a new 09/27 runway (euphemistically referred to as "realigning the existing runway") and even that won't wholly solve the potential ATC problems.

"Ready to go" ? I think not.

[DaveReidUK]

I referred to pax rather than seats, but both figures would be useful; what we need is for the UK CAA to put this information into the public arena for the Davies Commission to take into account during their aviation inquiry, or BAA Heathrow will claim it's commercially sensitive information.

If you mean load factors per airline, or per route, then yes - that information is considered commercially sensitive.

BAA does, however, publish overall load stats - the most recent I can find, for April, mentions a 76.4% PLF and an average seat size per movement of 197.6.

I don't have time to do the seat size distribution sums right now, but if anyone wants to, here's a breakdown of yesterday's pax ATM arrivals by type:

A306:1
A318:1
A319:131
A320:158
A321:68
A332:8
A333:11
A343:5
A345:1
A346:13
A388:10
B733:4
B734:1
B735:4
B736:1
B737:6
B738:18
B739:2
B744:46
B752:5
B753:1
B762:1
B763:39
B764:8
B772:52
B77L:2
B77W:23
CRJ9:1
E190:4
F100:1
F70:4
RJ1H:1

[Windsorian]

Pax is pointless as the number will change every flight.

From individual flight / pax numbers the CAA can produce a statistical average. All I'm asking for is indepentant information to be published so the public can have confidence in the Davies Commission proposals, otherwise a stitch-up will be suspected.

[Windsorian]

Northolt: Er, no, it isn't.

There are various techniques that could be used for co-ordinating LHR and NHT operations including differential glide slope angles and parallel co-ordination between 07/25 and 09R/27L which would widen up the airport runway spacings; insisting 07/25 conficts with 09L/27R is a red herring.

The idea of the tents, taxis & buses is a short term solution whilst a long term solution is implemented. It may well be for the long term the NHT runway needs re-orientating parallel with LHR's two main runways, but as a temporary expedient it should be fine for 50,000atms/annum.

And let's not forget the curved arrivals and departures already in operation at LHR; surely 2 LHR runways with a 3rd at NHT cannot be a problem when our EU competitors have 4, 5 and 6 closer spaced together !

Competition issues suggest for the longer term, the other London airports deserve second runways, before Heathrow gets a third.

[Gonzo]

There are various techniques that could be used for co-ordinating LHR and NHT operations including differential glide slope angles and parallel co-ordination between 07/25 and 09R/27L which would widen up the airport runway spacings; insisting 07/25 conficts with 09L/27R is a red herring.

I'm curious about these techniques.....please expand...

[DaveReidUK]

I'm curious about these techniques.....please expand...

D*mn, you beat me to it ! :O

Though I was going to ask about the "curved arrivals already in operation at LHR" too.

[Windsorian]

Though I was going to ask about the "curved arrivals already in operation at LHR" too.

When I referred to curved arrivals I was meaning the existing technique of allowing planes to join the glide slope closer to the airport.

If the decanted smaller aircraft were to land at a 50,000 atm capacity NHT (i.e. no heavy/super heavy planes) then a shorter final straight glide slope could be combined with a further out curved approach for planes using SatNav /GPS.

[DaveReidUK]

When I referred to curved arrivals I was meaning the existing technique of allowing planes to join the glide slope closer to the airport.

Well according to the BAA's annual and quarterly Flight Performance Reports, any aircraft not established on the ILS at least 8nm from the threshold (10 nm at night) is classified as a "late join".

Perhaps Gonzo could expand on the ATC challenges posed by sticking 50,000 movements per year into Northolt with or without its current runway alignment ?

[Windsorian]

any aircraft not established on the ILS at least 8nm from the threshold (10 nm at night) is classified as a "late join"

Perhaps you should start thinking outside the box and not apply unnecessary rules to a small NHT airport with no heavy / super heavy aircraft and only 11% of the LHR atms?

[Aero Mad]

Why is DaveReidUK so keen to trash what could be quite a good idea? Rather than trying to brick-wall it, why not at least consider it seriously? Endless excuses about military traffic, rules and regs, runway alignment; all of these are not in the least insurmountable because the rules are not set in stone, the military/royalty can (and would probably be happy to) fly elsewhere and many airports have runways of different alignments which are far closer together, and distances are such that traffic conflicts can be avoided without too much hassle anyway.

So far there has been no evidence presented which shows the use of NHT as a small-scale airport to take some of the smaller aircraft (like CRJs/Fokkers/Embraers/ATRs/RJs) which currently use LHR - it doesn't even need to be point to point - to be an impossibility. So please don't get high and mighty and dismiss it as ridiculous... because so far nobody has managed to show it as such.

[DaveReidUK]

Perhaps you should start thinking outside the box and not apply unnecessary rules to a small NHT airport with no heavy / super heavy aircraft and only 11% of the LHR atms?

Well I'll leave it to our ATC experts to judge what rules are necessary and which unnecessary.

And my reference to joining points was in relation to Heathrow, as was yours re curved approaches:

And let's not forget the curved arrivals and departures already in operation at LHR

[DaveReidUK]

So far there has been no evidence presented which shows the use of NHT as a small-scale airport to take some of the smaller aircraft (like CRJs/Fokkers/Embraers/ATRs/RJs) which currently use LHR

Are you saying that yesterday wasn't a typical day at Heathrow, then ?

To save you adding up the stats in post #2148, the aforesaid regional jets and turboprops accounted for 1.7% of LHR ATMs (22 out of 1260).

I agree that it would be wonderful if some way could be devised of filling certain flights exclusively with point-to-point passengers who don't care (within reason) which London airport they travel to/from, but alas life isn't that simple.

[Skipness One Echo]

so keen to trash what could be quite a good idea?
It's a stupid idea in that it is trying to solve a problem that does not exist. We are not all that short of capacity in getting people into London. The core issue is one of making the hub and spoke work the best we can.
Lufthansa, KLM and to a lesser extent Air France have effective hub connectivity up against LHR. Using Northolt and mucking about with magic/special sterile and sealed buses between airfields fails on the key question of keeping the product competitve against the competition.

Have a look on flyertalk. Joe Public gets into a hysterical strop when the connection lacks an airbridge direct to the F'Lounge and the connecting aircraft ideally parked on the next stand. We need to get as close to that ideal as possible(!)

Perhaps you should start thinking outside the box
That's a lazy expression. Sometimes it's genius to do so, however much of the time, it's just whizzing off on a tangent.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "NHT is in the London Borough of Ealing, in the GLA area and within the M25; to describe it as a regional airport is a bit far fetched."

Sorry if this appears rude (it's not meant to), but this is a silly comment:

NHT is actually in Ruislip (Borough of HILLINGDON). A "small regional airport" is a (non-technical) description of an airport type. Its geographical location or the local government district it is situated in is irrelevant. For example, LCY is a "small regional airport" despite being in the middle of London.

Quote: "Also it is already there, ready to go and capable of handling at least 50,000 atms / year. No need to build anything new or bulldoze anyones homes, just relocate the troublesome smaller planes to an existing airport just a few miles away."

Not quite "ready", but could be quite quickly - but only as a small regional airport to expand capacity in general, NOT a LHR overflow to expand hub capacity.

Quote: "Like days of old (and the Olympics), BAA could erect some tents at NHL for temporary terminals and a fast taxi / bus link along the A312 will not be much different to getting from R3 / T6 to the other terminals; perhaps BAA could pay for a bus lane ?"

No, tents, etc., will not do these days. Why assume that BAA will buy NHT if it is put up for sale? Any evidence?

A bus lane on the A312 is impractical, it's only a 2-lane dual carriageway and the dual carriageway doesn't go all the way to NHT.

Quote: "If the Davies Commission is to include quick short term alternatives for increased capacity in its Interim Report due late 2013, then NHL should be in the mix ! "

Agreed (at last!) that NHT should be looked at by the Davies Commission, but not as a LHR overflow.


Quote: "A progressive programme of relocating to NHT aircraft with <100 pax.
This could start with <50pax, then <75pax and then <100pax. This would give BAA time to erect their tents and install the A312 bus lane(s).

The removal of small aircraft from LHR will have two effects; it will allow larger aircraft carrying a greater number of passengers to use the existing slots and will increase resilence within the existing 480,000atm limit"

Not enough small aircraft to make a difference, why would any airline flying to/from LHR agree to this in the first place? The investment at NHT only works if it attracts new and separate business.



Quote: "So how exactly is that novel arrangement going to work ? By the time you have ensured sufficient separation between traffic landing at the two airports, you will probably end up with less capacity from the 3 runways combined than you currently have at LHR alone.

That's why all the plans floated for using Northolt for short-haul traffic are predicated on building a new 09/27 runway (euphemistically referred to as "realigning the existing runway") and even that won't wholly solve the potential ATC problems.

"Ready to go" ? I think not."

For the reasons mentioned above and more, NHT is not suitable as an overflow for LHR. It could only work as a small regional airport, and as such it is not ready, even without a rwy re-alignment, but could be quickly.

NHT needs a (small) terminal and an adjacant station and related infrastructure, otherwise forget it.

[jerboy]

Windsorian

Location: Windsor


Says it all! Although moving the rather tiny numbers of <100 seat a/c would just mean more large jets over Windsor in the long run.

the other London airports deserve second runways, before Heathrow gets a third.

LGW is the only airport that anywhere near needs a second runway. Even then what would it turn into? Another 2 runwayed airport... Like LHR. It is fairly well established (except by NIMBYs) that a double runway LON hub is not big enough. TWO double runway hubs separated by an hour+ long coach journey on one of the busiest roads in the land just doesn't cut it.

There are a huge number of major/capital cities where huge hub capacity exists, with more opening all the time in the Middle and Far East. With IAG already murmuring about moving some of their (particularly South American) capacity down to MAD... London is going to start losing out BIG style.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "LGW is the only airport that anywhere near needs a second runway. Even then what would it turn into? Another 2 runwayed airport... Like LHR. It is fairly well established (except by NIMBYs) that a double runway LON hub is not big enough. TWO double runway hubs separated by an hour+ long coach journey on one of the busiest roads in the land just doesn't cut it."

Exactly right, but would say that 2 more rwys at LHR takes preference over 1 more at LGW.

Once LHR has expanded, the LGW case becomes less urgent (but probably still neccessary long term). This is because BA and VS could be expected to move everything to LHR (to save money). Other longhaul carriers, most of which are in the LGW "waiting room", would be likely to do likewise.

Quote: "There are a huge number of major/capital cities where huge hub capacity exists, with more opening all the time in the Middle and Far East. With IAG already murmuring about moving some of their (particularly South American) capacity down to MAD... London is going to start losing out BIG style."

With the exception of BA EZE/GIG/GRU services ex-LHR, all IAG's South America capacity already is ex-MAD on IB. That said, completely agree that failure to expand LHR will cost London to lose out big-style.

[jabird]

act together as a multi (or dispersed) hub.

Airports are not vitamins! You need to distinguish not just between the concept of a "multi airport city" (of which London is a prime example), or even a "multi" (or really just dual) hub city (of which London is not - New York and Moscow are a couple of examples) and the concept of a single hub city that also has other airport.

To translate that verbage back into English:

A - A - A = lots of airports, point to point service, not connected. Remember - you can take "connecting" flights at Stansted, but even if you transfer Ryan to Ryan, they are still two entirely separate travel contracts, and there is no liability or through checking of luggage, implied or otherwise between them.

H - H - a city with two hubs. This is rare, but it does happen. However, like above, these hubs still operate as SEPARATE entities - connections between carriers are few and far between.

H=H - two hubs, connected seamlessly airside. Well actually, that doesn't exist anywhere. For all the good reasons mentioned above.

Now even if you have a BA-BA flight into LHR, out from LGW & vv, you still have to make your OWN way between the two, landside, and with luggage.

So why would an operation at NHT work any differently to this, when all that is being proposed is a Heathwick version 2, dismissed as bonkers by anyone who knows the industry.

So far there has been no evidence presented which shows the use of NHT as a small-scale airport to take some of the smaller aircraft (like CRJs/Fokkers/Embraers/ATRs/RJs) which currently use LHR - it doesn't even need to be point to point - to be an impossibility.

Err, evidence based reasoning doesn't work that way.

My real name is Herzog Bladdermeister. I assure you it is true because none of you have put forward any evidence to say it isn't. So I am right, so there, good night.

Perhaps you should start thinking outside the box
That's a lazy expression.


That isn't a very blue sky, solutions oriented, dynamically persuaded, paradigm shifting response. Maybe we should touch base some time and hook up some out of the box methodologies to connect with the upcoming realities of the transportational logistics marketplace? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

LCY is a "small regional airport" despite being in the middle of London.

I wouldn't call LCY "regional". I would call it a niche commuter airport, aimed primarily at the business market. The whole point of regional airports is that they server the regions, ie not the capital or largest city/cities.

However, in terms of the thin destinations NHT would serve as a ptp facility, then it could still be described as "regional".

[johnnychips]

Now even if you have a BA-BA flight into LHR, out from LGW & vv, you still have to make your OWN way between the two, landside, and with luggage.

Opodo frequently suggests this, which always amused or annoyed me. It's bad enough going from one terminal to another with only hand-baggage in a lot of airports. Now MAN-LGW finished I think it will throw up this option more if I want to go from MAN to somewhere not served directly, but is served from LGW . :ugh:

[Windsorian]

NHT is actually in Ruislip (Borough of HILLINGDON).

My apologies, NHT is in the London Borough of Hillingdon, within the M25 and (like Heathrow) within the GLA area; though I cannot agree with either NHT or LCY being described as, or compared with, regional airports.

LGW is the only airport that anywhere near needs a second runway.

That is because LGW's new owners have had time to get their feet under the table, assess the situation and now support a second runway; this always was the view of the Competition Commission (CC) when they ordered BAA to sell it. I think most people agree that LGW has improved since the dead hand of BAA was removed.

However STN which BAA was also ordered to sell on competition grounds, BAA have used the CC appeals process and the courts to try and reverse the decision; it is only recently that BAA have given up. As STN is not expected to be sold until next year, it's more than a little presumptive for LHR supporters to decide what is or is not in the new owners business plan for developing the airport in the next 10 - 30 years.

Location: Windsor. Says it all !

Yes I live in Windsor, but I don't object the LHR and most certainly don't want to see it closed; nor am I opposed to aviation expansion, if the government confirms the aviation/shipping recomendations of the Climate Change Committee.
However I recognise the true potential of BAA's Toast Rack re-building; my estimate is we could see pax numbers increase from the present 70mppa to 125+mppa within the existing 480,000 atm limit, without full mixed mode being introduced or runway alternation being abandoned.

But in order to improve LHR resilience and to facilitate more pax / larger aircraft, I believe the smaller aircraft should be decanted to Northolt. Let's remember we are not talking about a R3 or the Toast Rack re-build, the latter work will be required anyway for either the R3 or NHT proposals.

Also I recognise the importance of Crossrail and Network Rail's J2 and J3 options for Western rail access to LHR; 125+mppa is going to require some serious surface access improvements including Crossrail, HS2 and the Piccadilly Line upgrade.

Finally the figures I've seen suggest R3 may cost £8+Billion and take up to 10 years, whilst my cheap and cheerful proposal for tents, taxis & buses could be implemented within 12 months at minimal cost; BAA could lease the land required from the RAF until the Davies Commission's long term proposals can be implemented.

[DaveReidUK]

my estimate is we could see pax numbers increase from the present 70mppa to 125+mppa within the existing 480,000 atm limit

Hmmm. That implies an average of 260 pax per movement or, assuming a PLF of 75%, an average aircraft size of around 350 seats.

I don't see that happening.

[Windsorian]

Hmmm. That implies an average of 260 pax per movement or, assuming a PLF of 75%, an average aircraft size of around 350 seats

Either a R3 or the NHT option would remove the small planes from the 2 main LHR runways; assuming the full Toast Rack went ahead with larger aircraft, what is your assessment of what is feasable in the mid to long term?

The A380 has suffered birthing problems and it's introduction slower than anticipated; some time ago BAA suggested A380's would make up 10% of atms within 10 years and 20/25% in the longer term.

Remember because of wake separation distances you can fly 2+ A380's in the space at present taken up by a single small aircraft; assuming the terminal capacity is there !

[DaveReidUK]

Either a R3 or the NHT option would remove the small planes from the 2 main LHR runways

Neither of those scenarios is consistent with your 125 mppa, 480K ATM LHR.

If R3 went ahead, it would inevitably be accompanied by a hike in the ATM limit, otherwise there would be no point in building it.

If no R3/no ATM increase, then the only way of getting the average aircraft size to anywhere near the figure that you imply would be to shift all narrow-body ATMs (around 300,000 pa) to Northolt, which is clearly impossible.

[Windsorian]

If R3 went ahead, it would inevitably be accompanied by a hike in the ATM limit

R3 is a proposal to add to LHR existing 480,000 atm limit and displace all the smaller planes from the two main runways on to it.

However the existing 480,000 atm capability will remain on the existing two main runways; because of smaller wake separation distances between larger aircraft, resilience on the main runways would be improved. All I'm pointing out it would be quicker and cheaper to decant the small planes to NHT.

As I have pointed out before, BAA told the 2011 GLA Plane Speaking Inquiry they already had planning permission to increase LHR pax numbers to 95mppa; this is from the T5 / Heathrow East proposal (T2A, T2B & T2C). However since then BAA have revealed further plans for T2D, T5D & T5E, not to mention Toast Racking the eastern end for T3/T4; if you look at BAA's long term proposals 125mppa looks achievable.

[DaveReidUK]

I think we're going round in circles here.

if you look at BAA's long term proposals 125mppa looks achievable.

I'm not disputing that, leaving aside the fact that BAA have had to shelve T2 Phase 2 for at least 5 years.

All I'm pointing out it would be quicker and cheaper to decant the small planes to NHT.

And all I'm pointing out is that, using your own figures and ignoring ATC constraints and runway realignment issues, Northolt today could still only accommodate around 20% of LHR's current narrow-body movements.

[Windsorian]

leaving aside the fact that BAA have had to shelve T2 Phase 2 for at least 5 years.

There have been several opinions as for this; the suggestions seem to be BAA have run out of money or have down graded their growth forecasts or its just a ploy to get R3 and possibly a R4.

Today in the FT is an article suggesting BAA are calling on the Davies Commission to seriously consider the Policy Exchange 4 runway plan to the West of the existing runways - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8064eaa-2840-11e2-afd2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2BWCcY08s

All I'm suggesting is a cheap, quick and easy NHT proposal to improve LHR pax in the short term i.e. for consideration by the Davies Commission for their Interim Report due to be published by the end of 2013; we all know their main report will not be published until after the May 2015 General election.

[DaveReidUK]

Today in the FT is an article suggesting BAA are calling on the Davies Commission to seriously consider the Policy Exchange 4 runway plan to the West of the existing runways

For those who, like me, don't have access behind the FT's paywall, here's a summary:

Heathrow demands govt to look at four runway mega-hub | News | Travel Trade Gazette (http://www.ttgdigital.com/news/heathrow-demands-govt-to-look-at-four-runway-mega-hub/4685780.article)

The article implies that BAA also deem the Free Enterprise Group's plan to obliterate Stanwell and West Bedfont as another 4-runway option to be considered: http://www.freeenterprise.org.uk/sites/freeenterprise.drupalgardens.com/files/FEG%20Policy%20Bites.pdf

[Gonzo]

Remember because of wake separation distances you can fly 2+ A380's in the space at present taken up by a single small aircraft; assuming the terminal capacity is there !

Are you sure?

How would you achieve that?

because of smaller wake separation distances between larger aircraft,

Err, it's the other way around.

[Windsorian]

@ Gonzo

We all know there will be increasing numbers of super heavy A380 aircraft coming in to land at LHR in future; the sepation distance a small aircraft following behind requires is considerably greater than for another heavy or super heavy.

If we can decant the small aircraft off LHR's main runways their resilience / productivity will be improved; this is the logic behind R3 and applies just as well to the NHT option.

[DaveReidUK]

Ignore Gonzo, those air traffic controllers don't understand all this separation stuff. :O

[jabird]

If we can decant the small aircraft off LHR's main runways their resilience / productivity will be improved; this is the logic behind R3 and applies just as well to the NHT option.

No it does not.

Landing on a different runway (even a Polderbaan) and then continuing to the same terminal (or at least complex of terminals) is a completely different concept to landing at another airport.

You can't just build a pop up airport on the cheap. We did this here at CVT, but still got in trouble with planning issues. The airport also opened with the ridiculous situation of having no on-site parking - EVERYONE had to come in by shuttle bus for the first few months. No bus service from the city centre for the first few months either.

All we ever tried to do here was run a no-frills operation - from the ultimate Ryanairportakabin terminal (although Ryanair never popped in, runway length being a key issue). I also note 07/25 is 1684m. How long would the re-aligned runway be?

Are you seriously suggesting that some temporary operation, designed to cater for some A321/738 ops but not others is just going to appear by magic within a year?

BA have had enough difficulty juggling which destinations they can't fit under T5. If they need to move aircraft (and baggage) to operate from another terminal, they can still do so. How many LHR-NHT movements would be needed just for positioning?

Is there a case for a Flybe type operation at NHT - to feed in from the regions but still be closer to London for domestic hops to CAX, NQY etc than SEN and other airports are? Maybe, but might I respectively suggest that should be on a separate NORTHOLT thread (if it doesn't already exist)?

[jabird]

Ignore Gonzo, those air traffic controllers don't understand all this separation stuff.

Well wake turbulence is probably something most passengers don't think about, unless they are ACI junkies.

However, they most certainly DO care about separation between the plane they come in on and the one they depart on for their onward flight.

Even p-t-p passengers care about the separation between the door they walk through to exit the aircraft and the door they walk through to get onto transportation to their destination.

Now if you are dealing with passengers who are being picked up by a private car, taxi who have parked their own or who are using a hire car, then you can have a dispersed terminal pattern and still serve these customers (although rental operations are more likely to use shuttle buses to a central point).

However, we aren't talking about some airport out on the prairies at the end of a huge freeway. We're talking about London, and the only way any new facility is going to get planning approval is if it has the best possible SAS (this time I mean surface access strategy).

The best way to do this is to keep the planes sufficiently far apart from each other to be able to land and take off safely, but to get as many planes packed in to as tight a space as possible so people can use a high frequency, high speed (ie minimal stops) train service.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “I wouldn't call LCY "regional". I would call it a niche commuter airport, aimed primarily at the business market. The whole point of regional airports is that they server the regions, ie not the capital or largest city/cities.

However, in terms of the thin destinations NHT would serve as a ptp facility, then it could still be described as "regional".

Fair point about LCY, in reality it’s probably a bit of both.




Quote: “Yes I live in Windsor, but I don't object the LHR and most certainly don't want to see it closed; nor am I opposed to aviation expansion, if the government confirms the aviation/shipping recomendations of the Climate Change Committee.
However I recognise the true potential of BAA's Toast Rack re-building; my estimate is we could see pax numbers increase from the present 70mppa to 125+mppa within the existing 480,000 atm limit, without full mixed mode being introduced or runway alternation being abandoned.”

Sorry to be tedious, but at the risk of being repetitive, LHR’s critical problem is a lack of rwy capacity. For now, terminal capacity is not a problem - hence the ability to actually do the “toastracking” at this time.

Quote: “But in order to improve LHR resilience and to facilitate more pax / larger aircraft, I believe the smaller aircraft should be decanted to Northolt. Let's remember we are not talking about a R3 or the Toast Rack re-build, the latter work will be required anyway for either the R3 or NHT proposals.”

No, it is not desirable: business needs the frequency, particularly on shorthaul, hence the use of smaller aircraft of the A320/B737 families (approx. 130-180 pax range). The amount of aircraft smaller than these at LHR is insignificant.

To arbitrarily decant some flights to NHT would be illegal, so to do as you suggest would need huge financial inducements. So if that kind of money is available, best spend it on rwys on open land west of the M25 and consequent required road diversions/tunnels, and keep LHR's hub status in tact.

Quote: “Also I recognise the importance of Crossrail and Network Rail's J2 and J3 options for Western rail access to LHR; 125+mppa is going to require some serious surface access improvements including Crossrail, HS2 and the Piccadilly Line upgrade.

Finally the figures I've seen suggest R3 may cost £8+Billion and take up to 10 years, whilst my cheap and cheerful proposal for tents, taxis & buses could be implemented within 12 months at minimal cost; BAA could lease the land required from the RAF until the Davies Commission's long term proposals can be implemented.“

LHR with 125mppa will need 4 rwys, no getting away from it, so let’s do it now. Your figures for a third rwy (as approved in 2009) are almost certainly wrong.

Your proposals for NHT do not cut it in this day and age, but again, at the risk of being repetitive and tedious, as a small SEN-type operation with a station on the airport, NHT could be viable and desirable.

Why would the BAA want to lease NHT, or indeed, be allowed to: they’ve just had to sell 2 airports in England and 1 in Scotland.




Quote: “The article implies that BAA also deem the Free Enterprise Group's plan to obliterate Stanwell and West Bedfont as another 4-runway option to be considered: http://www.freeenterprise.org.uk/sit...cy%20Bites.pdf (http://www.freeenterprise.org.uk/sites/freeenterprise.drupalgardens.com/files/FEG%20Policy%20Bites.pdf)”

Yes, this one’s been doing the rounds for some time, but they‘re correct about approving two more rwys at the same time. It also suggests very generous compensation to displaced residents.

Why not spend the equivelant on 2 rwys west of the M25 (see above) and save the the two towns (and Ashford Football Club!) from demolition. Bedfont and stanwell are both much much bigger than Sipson, and not blighted. Sipson is blighted because of 20 years of indecision.




Quote: “Is there a case for a Flybe type operation at NHT - to feed in from the regions but still be closer to London for domestic hops to CAX, NQY etc than SEN and other airports are? Maybe, but might I respectively suggest that should be on a separate NORTHOLT thread (if it doesn't already exist)?”

Yes there is a case for exactly this, jabird, hence my description of it as a “small regional airport”, and your use of the word “commuter airport”, but only with a proper terminal (not a tent), and a station on the airport.

As a LHR overflow, forget it!

There was a NHT thread when the LHR overflow idea was first aired, go back a few months, was around April the first, IIRC...

[Gonzo]

Windsorian,

Regarding the 'joining point'....that is a rule applied by ATC, but it is not ATC's rule, it is a noise mitigation measure. It is not within ATC's power to ignore/change it.

Also, even without considering the interaction between LHR and Northolt traffic, any inbounds via airways into Northolt use the same arrival routes and holding patterns as LHR traffic. So without a wholesale redesign of the whole of the SE of England, just moving a proportion of LHR traffic to Northolt won't gain you anything. In fact, it will be worse...what happens when LHR has delays but Northolt, doesn't, and vice versa? It would be rather challenging to attempt to get a Northolt inbound arriving at 13000ft at Lambourne into Northolt when there is LHR traffic holding at 12, 11, 10 and 9.


Yes, we have to provide 5 miles for a H-M pair on approach, or 7 for a J-M pair....but part of our job is to maximise the order in terms of efficiency, so we group them. H-H-H-H-M-M-M etc. H-H is 4nm, J-J is usually around 5nm. M-M is either 3nm or 2.5nm depending on wind.

[DaveReidUK]

Why not spend the equivalent on 2 rwys west of the M25 (see above) and save the the two towns (and Ashford Football Club!) from demolition.

No, you haven't read the proposal properly.

It says "A fourth runway to the south would be situated A30 [sic] (the Staines Road) and incorporate Ashford Football Club".

Presumably that means they will be allowed to set up their goalposts on the runway in between movements.

[Rivet Joint]

I don't think BAA have given up just yet going on the rate they are buying up the surrounding real estate ;).

LHR might not be in the ideal place but just like a river everything around it including London has adapted around it. Locating the UK's hub in another part of London is surely going to cause more trouble than an extra lane of tarmac at LHR. Regardless of whether aircraft fly up the Thames or not the change in flight paths would surely bring more nimbys to the surface :ugh:.

[DaveReidUK]

I don't think BAA have given up just yet going on the rate they are buying up the surrounding real estate

Of course not. BAA would be failing in its duty to its shareholders if it didn't take any steps available to it with a view to securing the continuing growth of its business.

Though AFAIK it's only properties to the north of the airport that are being bought up, in the area proposed for R3.

[Windsorian]

When will some of you wake up to the difference between the short term solutions for quickly increasing capacity on which the Davies Commission is due to report on by the end of 2013, and the mid to long term projects like building new runways which will take 8+ years to develop ??

My tents, taxis & buses proposal is a short term proposal to quickly free up capacity at LHR; in essence moving its small aircraft to NHT and allowing the re-use of the freed up main runway slots.

One way may be a massive increase in LHR landing charges for small aircraft; perhaps they should pay the same as an A380, after all each only uses ONE atm ? Added to which the wake separation distance between A380's is considerably smaller than for following smaller aircraft.

I must say I am bemused by Gonzo who accepts that a LHR R3 is perfectly operational BUT appears obsessed by inventing problems for a NHT runway >6miles away.

[Windsorian]

LHR with 125mppa will need 4 rwys, no getting away from it

I don't know where you dredge your figures up from, but mine come from BAA !

As I have pointed out before, BAA told the 2011 GLA Plane Speaking Inquiry they already have planning permission to increase LHR pax numbers to 95mppa; this is from the T5 / Heathrow East proposal (T2A, T2B & T2C). Tackling air and noise pollution around Heathrow | Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/tackling-air-and-noise-pollution-around-heathrow)

However BAA have revealed further plans for T2D, T5D & T5E (not to mention Toast Racking the eastern end for T3/T4); if you accept BAA's proposals 125+mppa looks achievable.

Using BAA figures the present T5A, T5B & T5C have a maximum capacity of 35mppa. In addition to which we now know BAA / IAG want an enlarged T5A + T5D + T5E and are making provision for a T2D; working on the basis each extra satellite will add 10mppa this will add another 30mppa to the existing planned 95mppa giving a total of 125mppa.

Then adding on an eastern airfield redevelopment it comes to 125+mppa; I'm only using this low figure due to the slow increase in passengers / plane; to speed this up I am proposing the decantation of small planes to NHT which will additionally free up main runway slots for new destinations !

[Skipness One Echo]

Are you going to remove domestic connectivity?
Will KLM be asked to fly their ERJ190s from Notholt but the B737s from LHR?

Which airlines fly "small planes" through LHR? I bet you don't know. Your idea is commercially absurd, you must see that?

How do you sell "tents and busses" into a highly competitive market with fussy users? Sure you could do it, and sure, Mirabel was built. Are you perhaps, a local politician? You have the practicality of one. Your idea is nonsense in the real world, people would connect over FRA, CDG and AMS. No tents you see.

[DaveReidUK]

@Windsorian

Can we assume from the above that you have abandoned your previous proposition:

my estimate is we could see pax numbers increase from the present 70mppa to 125+mppa within the existing 480,000 atm limit

and that you now accept that at least a third runway (albeit not a fourth) would be required to accommodate that number of pax ?

If so, at least we've made some progress. :O

[Windsorian]

Are you going to remove domestic connectivity?

Domestic connectivity has been falling for years, mainly due to improvements in mainland rail and airlines desire to move slots to more proffitable destinations. Despite T5 opening, LHR today serves less destinations than before, and the rail improvements are due to continue long into the future.


Can we assume that you have abandoned your previous proposition and that you now accept that at least a R3 (albeit not a R4) would be required

No, absolutely not. BAA's 125mppa proposals were based only on the 2 main runways operating within the present 480,000atm limit and no R3 or R4.

NHT is an existing underused runway just 6 miles North of LHR; as far back as 1952 it operated 50,000 atms / year. All I'm trying to point out is that BAA's claim LHR is full, needs taking with a large pinch of salt !!

[pwalhx]

'Domestic connectivity has been falling for years, mainly due to improvements in mainland rail and airlines desire to move slots to more proffitable destinations. Despite T5 opening, LHR today serves less destinations than before, and the rail improvements are due to continue long into the future.'

A comment like that could only come from someone who has obviously never tried to connect to Heathrow from the regions. There is no train connectivity apart from central London.

Speaking as someone who has been on the BA shuttle from Manchester 3 times in the last few weeks I can assure you that the majority of passengers on those flights turned left for flight connections rather than right for the exit in Terminal 5.

I should confess in ideal circumstances I would avoid connecting at Heathrow like the plague sometimes circumstances such as meeting colleagues from the south to fly on means I do. If I had to fly to Northolt then get to Heathrow then that would cease and it would become a case of I will meet you at the destination. Maybe if you didnt live on the doorstep of Heathrow you would understand why your idea simply wont work.

[DaveReidUK]

BAA's 125mppa proposals were based only on the 2 main runways operating within the present 480,000atm limit and no R3 or R4.

Not so. Please provide a citation to support your assertion.

BAA's proposals were/are to provide terminal capacity of 125 mppa.

Runway capacity is a completely separate issue. Nobody, except you apparently, believes that you can almost double the passenger throughput with the existing two runways.

SERAS reckoned that the absolute maximum for a 2-runway Heathrow was 105 mppa, and that assumed both runways operating in mixed-mode (86 mppa in segregated mode).

[Windsorian]

There is no train connectivity apart from central London.

Yes, I know there are at present flights from MAN to LHR, but for how long they will continue is another matter. Before Xmas (within 6 weeks) the HS2 Phase 2 consultation will begin with a HSR line between central Manchester and a new railway station outside of T5 on the Agenda. .

This is a link to Hansard for Monday 29th October 2012 House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 29 Oct 2012 (pt 0001) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121029/text/121029w0001.htm) and scroll down to "High Speed 2 Railway Line" to read the proposals.

It is well believed that the dinosaurs died out because they were unable to adapt to the developing planet !

[Windsorian]

BAA's proposals were/are to provide terminal capacity of 125 mppa.

Yes, 125mppa terminal capacity between the main runways. This has nothing to do with a possible R3 and T6 (+ T7, T8 ?).

BAA's proposals for the additional terminal extensions (+ satellites) is in BAA's published documents including its annual CIPs and annual / half yearly results.

Or are you suggesting Ferrovial etc misled BAA's new investors (China, Qatar etc.) that R3 was a given ?

[Skipness One Echo]

Domestic connectivity has been falling for years, mainly due to improvements in mainland rail and airlines desire to move slots to more proffitable destinations. Despite T5 opening, LHR today serves less destinations than before, and the rail improvements are due to continue long into the future.
You are mixing up point to point domestic travel with international connectivity over a hub. ABZ/GLA/EDI/NCL/MAN/BHD and now LBA play an important part in plugging those regions into the world over LHR. This is a major part of BA's business model and feed to maintain viability of some long haul. It would be foolish to have them arrive in tents and be bussed given the current huge unpopularity of the current T5/T3 slog at a fraction of the distance. Be realistic.
Just to clarify, what airlines and what "small planes" are you removing from lounge access and existing terminals? It's not as easy in the practice as the suggesting.

[Libertine Winno]

@ Windsorian

I must confess that I love your optimism about HS2, but the initial line only goes to Birmingham and that won't be ready until the middle of the next decade, let alone the extension to Manchester! In addition, I'm not sure that it has been definitely agreed that the line will go via LHR anyway?!

You can be rest assured that flights from the regions will continue into LHR for the foreseeable future, especially as Virgin are launching services from there into LHR. I believe it was also a condition of the sale of bmi that BA retains some of the routes to the likes of Aberdeen, Glasgow etc?

[jabird]

Before Xmas (within 6 weeks) the HS2 Phase 2 consultation will begin with a HSR line between central Manchester and a new railway station outside of T5 on the Agenda

Err, the HS2 consult keeps getting pushed back. There have been proposals for running the line right under the toastrack, now it seems the GWML will take that route. There have been proposals for a loop into T5, and for a spur only from the north.

Now let's have a look at the reality. The current Phase 1 proposal has a very low BCR (ROI if you were UK PLC). If they are dropping a spur into T5, that will have an even lower BCR. How do you spend £4bn to serve a terminal that cost the same, and then expect a return when less than 10% of passengers come from the areas served by HS2?

Now you think Beardie, * and Skyteam will be happy with BA getting a subsidised shuttle service into their terminal when they don't?

It is well believed that the dinosaurs died out because they were unable to adapt to the developing planet !

Well the intellectual dinosaurs are the ones who go round thinking that high speed rail, as proposed, is the cure to all ills. It is deeply flawed in so many ways which have been done other threads, but just put the LHR context across - where else in the world do you have a major investment in airport to rail infrastructure that doesn't also serve the city centre?

I can think of one hulking great white elephant of a high speed rail station that does this, and oddly enough, many people have said it looks like a dinosaur skeleton, however beautiful a skeleton it may be!

[jabird]

"at the risk of sounding repetitive"

Err, aren't we now being doubly repetitive? Silver sinking sands never gives up v Windsor Northolt tents? The connection between the two?

Maybe we could shave £1bn off the cost of sinking sands airport by building it out of tents? It worked for Denver! Pitching tents in the sands has quite a nice ring to it.

[DaveReidUK]

Or are you suggesting Ferrovial etc misled BAA's new investors (China, Qatar etc.) that R3 was a given ?

As the saying goes, "You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment"

[Gonzo]

I must say I am bemused by Gonzo who accepts that a LHR R3 is perfectly operational BUT appears obsessed by inventing problems for a NHT runway >6miles away.

No, I was trying to make the point that using Northolt, instead of a third runway, involves just as much, if not potentially more, work than that third runway.

Please do point out which problems I have invented.

[Windsorian]

.... about HS2, the initial line only goes to Birmingham in middle of the next decade .... let alone the extension to Manchester!

Earlier this year the Commons Transport Select Committee held an Inquiry into Phase 1 of HS2; BAA were interviewed and BAA asked whether they were satisfied with the LHR HS2 link being included in Phase 2 - and BAA replied YES; so there is no point now moaning about the late connection.

Personally I was (and still am) a supporter of the Arup Heathrow hub proposal for an interchange / terminal on the GWR between Iver & West Drayton. Interestingly Heathrow hub Ltd are one of the parties in the HS2 judicial review due to take place before Xmas.

With a further HS2 Phase 3 extension past Manchester, Leeds & Newcastle now being considered by the new Transport Secretary, it is possible (Glasgow / Edinburugh) by HST will take under 3 hours.

In terms of train substitution it is thought HSR (HS1+HS2) could eventually take between 10% and 20% of LHR's existing atms to UK and near EU airports.

[pwalhx]

Windsorian I do not doubt your correct about hS2 as and when it finally starts to run, but as had been said at best this is a medium term solution, I thought your suggestion was a short term one?

It also relies on the fact that people will take the train. Personally I think what will happen is even more people will shift to fly MAN/LBA/GLA/EDI ETC continental/middle eastern hubs rather than catch the train but I have no evidence to support it.

I can, currently, but not for much longer I admit, go on to ba.com and be given options to fly MAN-LGW-LHR - XYZ(Wherever that may be), I would not consider flying to Gatwick getting my bags and then trolling to Heathrow to connect, the same would be true for most if the option was Northolt my contention remains that your proposition is a non starter.

[jabird]

BAA asked whether they were satisfied with the LHR HS2 link being included in Phase 2 - and BAA replied YES; so there is no point now moaning about the late connection.

The only way they would reply an unqualified "yes" would be if they really didn't think it would make that much difference. Otherwise, of course they would want the link asap.

Personally I was (and still am) a supporter of the Arup Heathrow hub proposal for an interchange / terminal on the GWR between Iver & West Drayton. Interestingly Heathrow hub Ltd are one of the parties in the HS2 judicial review due to take place before Xmas.

With a further HS2 Phase 3 extension past Manchester, Leeds & Newcastle now being considered by the new Transport Secretary

I have always been deeply critical of HS2 as it stands, namely because, from the point of view of air to rail modal shift, it delivers next to nothing. I have always felt that going to EDI / GLA in this respect would be a game changer. However, all I have seen so far is that PM wants to speed up the build process (who wouldn't apart from the builders)?

I have seen so suggestion that there will be a phase 3, so we have to continue to evaluate HS2 for what is being proposed, not what might happen by 2112.

Also, for clarification - HS2 PH2 will go to Leeds + join ECML somewhere around York, not Newcastle either, although that bit has at least been costed.

In terms of train substitution it is thought HSR (HS1+HS2) could eventually take between 10% and 20% of LHR's existing atms to UK and near EU airports.

There is no such thing as "it is thought". Either you do some modelling and come up with a range of figures for the spin doctors to massage or you otherwise might as well just roll a dice.

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, 125mppa terminal capacity between the main runways. This has nothing to do with a possible R3 and T6 (+ T7, T8 ?).

BAA's proposals for the additional terminal extensions (+ satellites) is in BAA's published documents including its annual CIPs and annual / half yearly results.

OK, enough of this nonsense.

Firstly, have a read of this from the 2012 BAA CIP (or Strategic Capital Business Plan, as it's now termed);

"Changing airline business models, most noticeably a shift in network strategies which has slowed the trend from smaller to larger aircraft. New aircraft have allowed airlines to achieve lower unit costs per seat with smaller planes. Airlines have also benefited from greater flexibility or shorter lead times in making capacity decisions. These changes have allowed network carriers to respond to the challenge of short haul low cost carriers and increased network competition. The need to maintain a viable network with a mix of short and long haul connections also slows the overall trend at Heathrow to switch from short haul to long haul flights. In the last couple of years, premium traffic has become a larger portion of many network airlines’ business also resulting in lower seat densities."

And the previous year's CIP points out that, over the last decade, the average seat size of aircraft using Heathrow has actually decreased (to under 200 seats), and yet you want us to believe that it could grow to 350 seats per ATM (which would be necessary to achieve your 125 mppa in 480,000 movements).

Let's do some simple arithmetic.

Supposing, for the sake of argument, you were able to decant 50,000 A320 movements from LHR to Northolt, and replace every one of those with an A380. That would still only generate another 17m or so seats per year, bringing the average seat size per ATM up to about 235 (way short of your required 350) and the pax pa up from 70m to about 83m (assuming a 75% PLF).

So how are another 42m passengers on top of that figure (your 125m less my 83m) going to be accommodated on the two runways without any additional movements ?

Answers on a postcard, please.

[Libertine Winno]

There will always be a requirement for short haul aircraft to feed the long haul network, particularly at the largest hubs, simply because it cannot be possible to fill all the seats on the long haul networks purely with transfer traffic from other long haul flights, or from the locality around the hub itself.

In the longer term, presuming that the improvements are made to the railway network westwards and northwards, then LHR may become slightly less reliant on the short haul feeder network than it currently is.

However, that is a big IF and and even bigger WHEN...!

[Windsorian]

(Passengers per plane = ppp)

Can we agree todays average of 70mppa divided by 480k = 145 ppp

BAA already have planning permission (T2) for 95mppa = 197 ppp

So 3 extra satellites T2D, T5D & T5E (30mppa) 125mppa = 260 ppp

So how do you make this 350 ppp ??? I think you are confused !!!

The reason I have stated a max of 125+ mppa is because I cannot see the plane loadings beyond 260 ppp in a reasonable timescale.

CIP 2011 was written when the coalition had firmly ruled out R3 /T6, whilst CIP 2012 has one eye on hopes of changing government policy as the result of all the £M it has spent on lobbying.

A380 maximum certified carrying capacity is 853 passengers in an all-economy-class layout !!!

[Skipness One Echo]

it is possible (Glasgow / Edinburugh) by HST will take under 3 hours.
Or three times as long(!) as flying?

[Haven't a clue]

Doesn't these calculations assume a) 100% load factor which while desirable is not always possible, and if not achieved pushes the average ppp downwards and b) no cancellations due to low viz, ash cloud, blocked runway etc, which pushes the movements downwards and thus the average ppp up assuming rebooking. Suspect that they don't cancel each other out, and average yield (BA is something like 80% I think) wins....

Factor that in and you are looking the need for more movements to fill these terminals.

[DaveReidUK]

So how do you make this 350 ppp ??? I think you are confused !!!

No, you are the one who is confusing two different metrics.

PPP (passengers per plane) isn't the same as seats per plane (unless you are assuming that every arrival and departure has 100% of the seats filled, which clearly isn't going to happen). The mix of traffic and markets at Heathrow mean that a ratio of pax to seats (load factor) of 75% is more realistic, so that's what I've used.

The reason I have stated a max of 125+ mppa is because I cannot see the plane loadings beyond 260 ppp in a reasonable timescale.

OK - and your 260 passengers per plane (compared to the current average of just under 150) at 75% load factor gives an average aircraft seat size of 350, which was the figure I calculated too.

So we're in agreement on the maths, where we differ is that you think you can run a hub operation with 350-seat aircraft, whereas nobody else does.

[Gonzo]

Windsorian, where are all these nothing-but-heavy aircraft going to park? Many stands at LHR are for small aircraft. Taxiway restrictions abound for the larger aircraft types, especially A380s. You might find that if you resize all possible stands, you just don't have the capacity to cope with 1380 movements a day.

I would argue that 100% load factors are not desirable, as that shows the airline that they have underpriced the tickets. Ideally, you'd want a few empty seats on each flight to prove that the pricing was just ever so slightly high to fill up the aircraft. If every seat was full you would have no idea what prices the market could take.

[Gonzo]

Windsorian, if you think that a current LHR long haul airline could make money filling an A380 with 850 economy passengers, then you need to think again.

Emirates have seating capacities of 480-520, and I believe QANTAS 440-480, Singapore has 470.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “No, you haven't read the proposal properly.

It says "A fourth runway to the south would be situated A30 [sic] (the Staines Road) and incorporate Ashford Football Club".”


Indeed I have read the Free Enterprise Group’s proposal (including the bit about over 65’s still at work having to pay NIC’s), but don’t agree with all of it.

My point is that if there is enough money available for the very generous compensation they recommend for 20,000 people (combined populations of Bedfont and Stanwell), then spend it on road diversions and build the two rwys on open land west of the M25.

Incidentally, the A30 is not parallel with the existing rwys.

[Fairdealfrank]

Think that Windsorian and good old Silver may be one and the same!

Never see both on the same thread.

Having exhausted the Boris Vanity Project, it's now Northolt as third rwy with tents.

Is a strong advocacy of Heathwick next?



Windsorian, a few points for you to consider:

(1) It will not take 8 years to build a third rwy, it can be done quickly.

(2) Tents (at NHT or anywhere else) will not cut it in the 21st century. This is not LHR 1946.

(3) Landing charges at LHR are more than high enough already for small aircraft. They need to be reduced not increased.

(4) We need more domestic connectivity to help make the new longhaul viable, and to relieve road congestion and lack of trunk rail capacity. London-Heathrow is linked to 7 UK airports, and London-Schiphol to 23.

(5) NHT’s role in increasing capacity is obviously as a small regional/commuter airport and as a possible no frills base, not as a LHR overflow.

(6) NHT would also need an on-airport station at the terminal to provide a quick link to London.

(7) Obviously LHR cannot accommodate 125 mppa without 2 more rwys and more than 480,000 annual movements, ("you do the math" as they say in the USA). Terminal capacity for this will not be a problem once all the redevelopment is completed.

(8) Business requires frequency, hence the large number of flights on small aircraft to many destinations. This is why, despite the opening of LHR-5, there are fewer destinations from LHR than from CDG and FRA, and why LHR remains Europe's premier airport (for now).

(9) Forget about HS2, it goes to Birmingham only, so is irrelevant to Heathrow expansion issues. Either way there will be years of procrastination before we see it (if ever).

(10) LHR needs a third and a fourth rwy so both should be approved simultaneously to avoid another 50 years of dithering. This would also end the artificial market in slot trading at exhorbitant rates.

[ZOOKER]

"Taxiway restrictions abound for the larger aircraft types, especially A380s".

I'm sorry, I thought EGLL was the word's busiest international airport, a leader in 'collaborative decision making'.
The airport's ANSP is "A global leader in air traffic control and airport performance".
So, what's gone wrong? Why isn't the infrastructure, for these wide-bodied aircraft types, in place?
It's not rocket science. The clues are out there, mainly in 'Flight International', published weekly, see your newsagent for details.

[DaveReidUK]

Incidentally, the A30 is not parallel with the existing rwys.

I would assume that the missing words in the proposal are: "A fourth runway to the south would be situated [to the north of the] A30 (the Staines Road)".

It doesn't say anywhere that either the existing or proposed runways are parallel to the A30, clearly they aren't.

[DaveReidUK]

Why isn't the infrastructure, for these wide-bodied aircraft types, in place?

On a site that's only 60% of the size of FRA, and less than half that of AMS/CDG, it's surprising they can accommodate A380s at all. :*

[jabird]

Is a strong advocacy of Heathwick next?

Oh please no!

[Windsorian]

PPP (passengers per plane) isn't the same as seats per plane (SPP)

SPP is about as variable as the length of a piece of string; at the moment you can pick any number between ONE and 853. Next thing you will be claiming is that the buses between NHT and LHR will require empty seats for the non-existant passengers.

Let's stick to the fact that at present the average figure is just 146 ppp. At this lowly figure you don't have to be brain of Britain to work out that with some of LHR's aircraft seating between 300ppp and 500ppp there must be an awful lot seating < 100 ppp.

All I'm suggesting is decanting the small aircraft to NHT; we start with <50ppp, then <75ppp and finally <100ppp until NHT returns to its 1952 usage of 50,000atms.

Why isn't the infrastructure, for these wide-bodied aircraft types, in place?

The timescale for the Toast Rack redevelopment of LHR is down to BAA; realistically it will take 20+ years to fully complete. Instead of day dreaming about a R3 or R4 it would make much more sense if BAA forgot about any additional runways until the Toast Rack and the necessary surface access electric rail projects are complete.

[DaveReidUK]

SPP is about as variable as the length of a piece of string; at the moment you can pick any number between ONE and 853. Next thing you will be claiming is that the buses between NHT and LHR will require empty seats for the non-existant passengers.

OK, that's it, I give up.

I honestly don't know how to have a meaningful debate with someone who appears to display zero knowledge of how the air transport industry operates.

You've beaten me into submission, you win. :ugh:

[FR-]

Quote: All I'm suggesting is decanting the small aircraft to NHT; we start with <50ppp, then <75ppp and finally <100ppp until NHT returns to its 1952 usage of 50,000atms

A few days ago we were given the different a/c types that used LHR on 05/11/12, these are the only a/c with 100 seats or less.

CRJ9:1 - 90pax
E190:4 -100pax
F100:1 - 100pax
F70:4 - 80pax
RJ1H:1 -100pax

Even if you forced these flights to move else where, it would only free up 11 slots for bigger a/c.

FR-

[Aero Mad]

If NHT has a total runway realignment, it could have a TODA of 1800m - plenty enough for anything up to 737-900s. If you include 737/A320 series movements in the possibilities of what could use Northolt (and there's no reason not to at least consider a total realignment considering the huge cost savings which could be derived from doing so) and move just some of them across, you've got something going.

On a different note, I still think LBA-LHR is a waste of three daily slot pairs.

[WHBM]

it is possible (Glasgow / Edinburgh) by HST will take under 3 hours.
Only from leaving a platform at Euston.Which I doubt many on here live close to, and it possibly takes several hours to get there, there being no M4/M25 close by. Arriving at Euston reliably from outside London requires much more padding to your time allowance than going to Heathrow does.

One of the things noticed when Eurostar moved over from Waterloo to St Pancras was how additionally inconvenient it now was for those from SW London, Surrey, etc, to get to it, compared to hopping across platforms at Waterloo. BA experienced a significant increase in Paris traffic from Heathrow after this happened.

[Torquelink]

My point is that if there is enough money available for the very generous compensation they recommend for 20,000 people (combined populations of Bedfont and Stanwell), then spend it on road diversions and build the two rwys on open land west of the M25.

A brief look at Google Earth shows that it's not just the unimagineable cost of compensating these communities, which are much bigger than Sipson and Harmondsworth, but also draining the reservoirs which are elevated compared to the surrounding areas. The reservoir capacity would have to be replaced - where? Just not practical.

Same thing applies to the open land west of the M25 - not to mention turning Windsor into the runway overrrun area!

A third runway as originally proposed seems feasible and sensible but a fourth runway? Nah.

[Windsorian]

@WHBM

At one time it was suggested the main crossover between rail and air was 2.5 - 3.0 hours, I say main as some will always choose to fly; also it is good for competition / prices. However emerging thinking suggests such is the quality improvement of rail over air that up to 5 hrs may be acceptable.

Assuming HS2 is built, it is planned to connect to Crossrail at Old Oak Common, giving its initial connection through central London / East and Heathrow / West; its only in Phase 2 when a direct Heathrow spur or loop is planned.

Its also suggested that the Heathrow Express will be retired from Platforms 6 & 7 at Paddington when its present contract expires which would free up 2 fast line platforms for extra long distance trains going West past Reading; it's proposed Crossrail will provide the new LHR service on the slow lines.

[Windsorian]

Since BAA were forced to sell LGW on competition grounds and GIP have taken over the reins, there appears to be no support for the HSR Heathwick plan; particularly as LGW want to develop in competition to LHR and are now asking for a R2 of their own.

However there is a good case for improving LHR's rail connection to LGW via Staines; the original Airtrack plan included a T5 - Guildford route which opened up an improved link to LGW. Unfortunately in 2011 BAA threw this baby out with the bath water and withdrew the proposal; though hopefully when Crossrail takes over the present HEx route, they will extend it to Staines as an incremental step towards a semi-fast LHR - LGW rail link.

[Libertine Winno]

I personally think that the connectivity between our airports could, and perhaps should, be far better than what it currently is. Getting even from STN to LTN is pretty tough, let alone any further...and I live between the two!

However, this is probably something separate from current airport capacity, and should very much be kept that way. Improving links between our airports will improve connectivity, in addition to taking quite a number of car journeys off the road presumably, but will do nothing to improve the hub status. I would imagine it will also be rather costly, and given that London's airports are owned by different operators with no desire or incentive to improve connectivity between them, would have to be almost entirely tax payer funded...

[Libertine Winno]

Just a thought, and not sure this is necessarily the right thread, but if (presuming it happens) there is expansion at LHR, would it not make sense for BA to pull all their LGW operations back to LHR and consolidate there (as has happened a lot anyway) and then look at basing a proper operation out of somewhere like MAN?

Would mean they could operate some direct MAN - NYC (either airport) flights and take some transfer traffic from LHR, freeing up even more slots?

[WHBM]

Can anyone suggest ANY metropolitan area which has made a success of connections between different airports ?

New York, where the various airports JFK-LGA-EWR are much closer to each other, is just as bad and chaotic, although taxis are more affordable than at London. However, last year at JFK I queued 60 minutes outside the BA terminal for a cab, as well as just having spent over 90 minutes inside getting through the various processes. It's this sort of thing that wrecks connections.

[Windsorian]

would it not make sense for BA to pull all their LGW operations back to LHR and consolidate there ?

This in essence is the LHR R3 plan; to get the small planes off the 2 main runways and for IAG & Virgin to relocate their LGW flights back to LHR; it's spelt out in the recent Policy Exchange proposal which has the sticky fingerprints of LHR's R3 & R4 supporters all over it. But it would also either delay or prevent the construction of a R2 at LGW, which is no doubt what is intended.

This would fly in the face of the 3 year old Competition Commission report that blamed BAA for failing to allow LGW & STN to develop freely, and so ordered them to sell both within 2 years. However BAA have used the appeals process including the courts to delay the STN sale, which is now not expected until 2013.

[Libertine Winno]

I don't see how BA and VS removing from LGW is a bad thing, especially if it means more competition and routing going to MAN. Heaven forbid, it might also leave room at LGW for an ambitious LCC to branch out into long haul...wonder if Carolyn McCall at EZY is keeping an eye on the situation?!

[Skipness One Echo]

Would mean they could operate some direct MAN - NYC (either airport) flights and take some transfer traffic from LHR, freeing up even more slots?
I wonder if there's ever been a thread on BA and MAN-JFK. I wonder....

Long haul loco is tricky as legacy loco is already there in that space, cross subsidised by the front cabins.

However there is a good case for improving LHR's rail connection to LGW
Why? What are you basing this on? Is this linked with your cunning plan of "small planes" to Northolt with tents for terminals and busses to LHR? Do you fly much Windsorian?

[Libertine Winno]

@ Skipness

I realise a LoCo doing long haul is fraught with problems, but they are trying it out in Asia so I can't imagine it will have escaped the notice of EZY and RYR. Just a thought though, I suppose.

As for MAN-NYC, I've not seen it mentioned recently but may have been discussed at length in previous threads. However, it does seem a little unnecessary that BA and VS operate flights from MAN to LHR just to feed long haul (and probably only one or two specific long haul routes I would be willing to bet) when they could operate a couple of 777's or even 787's out of MAN and free up some slots.

I'm sure there are reasons they don't, of course, but could change if expansion is allowed at LHR and operations are moved from LGW. Means they won't have to operate a large presence at LGW, and could instead have a smaller one at MAN?

[davidjohnson6]

Oh well - here we go again...
BA used to have a large operation at Manchester - for a while they were pretty much the sole occupant of one the terminals. This included long haul flying to NYC.

Slowly, this operation was cut and offloaded because it lost money. One of the very last routes (the last route ?) was Manchester-NYC. Again, it just wasn't making money.

Have a search through some of the previous threads on here for all the times when Mancunians have bemoaned London Airways not giving Manchester a fair chance.

[Libertine Winno]

I realise that there used to be a service, but I thought that was axed quite a number of years ago rather than in the last few, when the world was a very different place.

Not really sure what my argument is here to be honest, I'm sure BA have considered it and written it off! Was just a thought, to be considered against the rising value of slots at LHR

[Windsorian]

@ Skipness
LHR's rail connection to LGW: Why? What are you basing this on?


A semi-fast rail link from LHR to Guildford (via Staines & Woking) was one of the routes on BAA's Airtrack proposal for pax & staff modal shift from car to train. There is already a train from Reading to LGW via Guildford, however as part of their expansion plans LGW are also calling for improved train services for pax and staff.

The Climate Change Committee reported 60% growth in aviation can be permitted within the Climate Change Act target of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gasses by 2050; though this is subject to government approval.

All I'm suggesting is that a semi-fast train service via Guildford would combine both LHR & LGW requirements. Simple really !

[Skipness One Echo]

All I'm suggesting is that a semi-fast train service via Guildford would combine both LHR & LGW requirements. Simple really !
Sorry what market does a LHR/LGW rail connection serve?

However, it does seem a little unnecessary that BA and VS operate flights from MAN to LHR just to feed long haul (and probably only one or two specific long haul routes I would be willing to bet) when they could operate a couple of 777's or even 787's out of MAN and free up some slots.
Don't bet, you'd be wrong. The domestic connections offer service across most BA short and long haul connections, that's the whole business model. Read the threads on MAN and BA, and MAN long haul. The main point is that BA's MAN operation died as it was point to point whereas all other long haul at MAN is spoke to HUB. Clear and apparent difference and a huge driver on profitability.
They operate feed to LHR as they HAVE to feed long haul.

Means they won't have to operate a large presence at LGW, and could instead have a smaller one at MAN?
There is almost no link between moving from London's second airport into the premier facility and expanding long haul out of MAN. It's all been tried before and there are numerous threads on why it ended.

[DaveReidUK]

as part of their expansion plans LGW are also calling for improved train services for pax and staff

I'm sure they are, and very commendable too. Of course that doesn't extend to actually contributing to the cost (à la BAA/Airtrack).

But are you seriously suggesting that an appreciable part of the demand will be pax arriving at LHR and continuing their journey from Gatwick ?

I'm losing track here - have we stopped at Heathwickholt, or have we already progressed to Heathwickholtsted ?

In answer to WHBM's question

Can anyone suggest ANY metropolitan area which has made a success of connections between different airports ?

I certainly can't think of any examples where that's been done. Hopefully UK plc won't have to spend millions to find out why not.

[Windsorian]

Sorry what market does a LHR/LGW rail connection serve?

Guildford - LHR was the BAA Airtrack proposal for improving connectivity whist encouraging modal shift; Guildford - LGW would do the same and both could be effected by a semi-fast though service between LHR -LGW.

This would also cater for any LHR - LGW transfer passengers; at the moment both airports advise HEx to/from Paddington, tube to/from Victoria and GEx to/from LGW.

Such a solution would help effect modal shift from car to electric train, speed up transfer times and be far cheaper than Heathwick.

[Dannyboy39]

How many LGW-LHR transfer passengers are there? <1%?

[Skipness One Echo]

This would also cater for any LHR - LGW transfer passengers
Who in their right mind does that? Put a number on it, then once we've done that, we'll send someone round and explain what they're doing wrong.....

[davidjohnson6]

Skipness - there are some routes for which either Gatwick is the main European hub point, or another major European hub does not have a flight at a similiar time, or the routing via another hub costs significantly more.
An example might be someone flying from Newquay via London to somewhere else - yes they can go take a train to Exeter and then go via somewhere else, but it's probably simpler to do a LGW-LHR transfer.

[Windsorian]

Can anyone suggest ANY metropolitan area which has made a success of connections between different airports ?

There I was thinking the £6 Billion ThamesLink project will connect Luton & LGW, whilst the £15 Billion Crossrail project will connect LCY and LHR !! Perhaps you should visit Farringdon which is being built as an underground interchange station between these two lines.

If Boris gets his way on Crossrail 2 then the Crossrail 1 re-build of Tottenham Court road is already making passive provision for it, as a Crossrail 1/2 interchange. It's also worth remembering that Crossrail 1 will run through Liverpool Street station, home of the Stansted Express.

Of course that doesn't extend to LGW actually contributing to the cost (à la BAA/Airtrack).

Well, they are contributting to the present Gatwick Airport station upgrade, and I have no doubt Network Rail would ask them for a LGW - Guildford contribution, if BAA contributed towards the Guildford - LHR section.

[Dannyboy39]

The Thameslink project was no way, built to connect LTN and LGW. The travel time between the two airports is still 1hr 30mins and choc-a-bloc during the peak hours.

Its to serve the many commuters and p2p travellers at both airports.

[DaveReidUK]

How many LGW-LHR transfer passengers are there? <1%?

According to DfT stats, even LGW-LGW transfers account for less than 10% of Gatwick's pax traffic. The proportion who hop on a train or get in a taxi heading to/from LHR is going to be less than minuscule.

[WHBM]

I'm astounded to encounter pax from time to time at LCY who are doing an LCY-LHR transfer, especially given that they have come in to LCY from places like Amsterdam (actual recent example) which have substantial operations to Heathrow. I can't imagine what combination of travel organiser incompetence and/or fare benefit that leads to this.

[Windsorian]

travel time between the two airports is still 1hr 30mins and choc-a-bloc during the peak hours

We are not just facing road gridlock but also rail gridlock due to the high volumes and lack of capacity. It's why the government is advocating HS2 and Boris Crossrail 2. The truth is we need to encourage modal shift and substantial extra capacity throughout our transport system.

The Davies Commission will look at the alternatives including promoting a London multi-hub system along with regional airport development. I'm encouraged by the appointment of Sir John Armitt, former chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority and former chief executive of Network Rail.

[Dannyboy39]

HS2 won't affect 90% of people that travel into London.

Although extra rail capacity is positive and I agree a modal shift between domestic aviation to rail is the way forward in the very very long term, should capital investment be made available, it wouldn't affect the vast majority of passengers travelling into the city for work (yet). It must be connected to LHR.

[DaveReidUK]

The Davies Commission will look at the alternatives including promoting a London multi-hub system along with regional airport development. I'm encouraged by the appointment of Sir John Armitt, former chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority and former chief executive of Network Rail.

Well only if they can find someone to explain to them what a "multi-hub" airport system is supposed to mean.

I don't know what sort of background an appointee would need to have in order to be able to do that, possibly a science fiction writer ?

[PAXboy]

WindsorianWe are not just facing road gridlock but also rail gridlock due to the high volumes and lack of capacity. <snip> The truth is we need to encourage modal shift and substantial extra capacity throughout our transport system.So true. The only real expansion has been motorways and it's been true for the 35 years of my adult life and I do not expect to see it change in any significant way. We adopted the American idea of personal car above public transport and now we are stuck sitting in the traffic jam.

No need to get excited about imminent change, the very fact that yet another commission is cranking up tells you all you need to know about British politicians.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “Arriving at Euston reliably from outside London requires much more padding to your time allowance than going to Heathrow does.

One of the things noticed when Eurostar moved over from Waterloo to St Pancras was how additionally inconvenient it now was for those from SW London, Surrey, etc, to get to it, compared to hopping across platforms at Waterloo. BA experienced a significant increase in Paris traffic from Heathrow after this happened.”

Indeed, one can be as little as 12 mi. outside London and still need a time allowance of 2 hours to Euston, Kings Cross/St Pancras, etc., not to mention carting luggage on buses, trains, tubes, etc.. Much easier, convenient, and often cheaper to fly from LHR.

Quote: “A brief look at Google Earth shows that it's not just the unimagineable cost of compensating these communities, which are much bigger than Sipson and Harmondsworth, but also draining the reservoirs which are elevated compared to the surrounding areas. The reservoir capacity would have to be replaced - where? Just not practical.

Same thing applies to the open land west of the M25 - not to mention turning Windsor into the runway overrrun area!”

Had said that if the money is available for compensating the 20,000 residents of both Bedfont and Stanwell, it’s better spent on a second rwy north of LHR and extending across the M25. This area is north of the reservoirs. Additional LHR rwys do not necessarily need to be 2.5 mi. long.

This idea is different from the plan to have four new 1.8 mi. long rwys west of the present airport, demolishing reservoirs, and abandoning both the existing 2.5 mi. long rwys.

Quote: “Its also suggested that the Heathrow Express will be retired from Platforms 6 & 7 at Paddington when its present contract expires which would free up 2 fast line platforms for extra long distance trains going West past Reading; it's proposed Crossrail will provide the new LHR service on the slow lines.”

What a waste of an opportunity to open up a huge rail catchment area for LHR by providing a one-stop change over the massive Reading rail hub.

It’s a classic lack of joined-up thinking: another spur off the mainline, allowing some long distance trains to stop at LHR 1-2-3 and LHR-5 is needed (not a “Heathrow hub“ (sic) at Iver!), and Crossrail should obviously extend to Reading.

Quote: “However there is a good case for improving LHR's rail connection to LGW via Staines; the original Airtrack plan included a T5 - Guildford route which opened up an improved link to LGW. Unfortunately in 2011 BAA threw this baby out with the bath water and withdrew the proposal; though hopefully when Crossrail takes over the present HEx route, they will extend it to Staines as an incremental step towards a semi-fast LHR - LGW rail link.”

No there isn‘t, National Express buses link the two airports several times/hour. Even with bad traffic it would still be quicker than LHR-LGW via Guildford by train on local lines (as this would always be a slow and arduous journey!).

Staines to LGW by train involves a change at Clapham Junction. The
Airtrack proposal was never intended to go to LGW and was scuppered because there are too many level crossings west of Staines. Upping the frequencies without addressing this would lead to unacceptable traffic congestion in places like Egham. Two trains/hour each to Reading and Guildford were proposed in addition to the existing services.
　

Quote: “Long haul loco is tricky as legacy loco is already there in that space, cross subsidised by the front cabins.”

A very good way of putting it!

Quote: “I'm sure they are, and very commendable too. Of course that doesn't extend to actually contributing to the cost (à la BAA/Airtrack).

But are you seriously suggesting that an appreciable part of the demand will be pax arriving at LHR and continuing their journey from Gatwick ?

I'm losing track here - have we stopped at Heathwickholt, or have we already progressed to Heathwickholtsted ?”

Exactly, it is the stuff of fantasy. We’re back in the Thames estuary. Am losing the will to live.

“Heathwickholtsted-borisle” anyone?

Quote: “There I was thinking the £6 Billion ThamesLink project will connect Luton & LGW, whilst the £15 Billion Crossrail project will connect LCY and LHR !! Perhaps you should visit Farringdon which is being built as an underground interchange station between these two lines.

If Boris gets his way on Crossrail 2 then the Crossrail 1 re-build of Tottenham Court road is already making passive provision for it, as a Crossrail 1/2 interchange. It's also worth remembering that Crossrail 1 will run through Liverpool Street station, home of the Stansted Express.”


If Crossrail had been designed properly, it would be Reading-Southend (on existing track west of Maidenhead and east of Shenfield), and SEN would also be on the network.

[BKS Air Transport]

If no passengers are transferring Heathrow to Gatwick, who is using those NX coaches that seem to run about every 10 minutes?

[WHBM]

I've long said that the most effective way to link Heathrow and Gatwick by train is to combine the Heathrow Connect from Heathrow into London, which runs all the way into Paddington but duplicates the Heathrow Express in so doing, with the train from Brighton and Gatwick to Watford, which carries very few passengers north of Kensington, and which crosses the Connect route at Acton, where there is plenty of spare railway land for a link.

This would then provide trains from Heathrow to Clapham Junction and Croydon, and also from Gatwick to Ealing and Southall, as well as linking the two airports directly. None of these flows individually justifies their own train, but put them all together in the same train and you do so.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "I've long said that the most effective way to link Heathrow and Gatwick by train is to combine the Heathrow Connect from Heathrow into London, which runs all the way into Paddington but duplicates the Heathrow Express in so doing, with the train from Brighton and Gatwick to Watford, which carries very few passengers north of Kensington, and which crosses the Connect route at Acton, where there is plenty of spare railway land for a link.

This would then provide trains from Heathrow to Clapham Junction and Croydon, and also from Gatwick to Ealing and Southall, as well as linking the two airports directly. None of these flows individually justifies their own train, but put them all together in the same train and you do so."

Certainly makes more sense than going via Guildford.

[PAXboy]

BKS Air TransportIf no passengers are transferring Heathrow to Gatwick, who is using those NX coaches that seem to run about every 10 minutes? The people who got stitched up by their travel agents, or misunderstood what a website and/or consolidator was telling them. Most will swear NEVER to be taken for that ride again.

[jabird]

One of the things noticed when Eurostar moved over from Waterloo to St Pancras was how additionally inconvenient it now was for those from SW London, Surrey, etc, to get to it, compared to hopping across platforms at Waterloo. BA experienced a significant increase in Paris traffic from Heathrow after this happened.

Did they really? Eurostar has grown since moving to SPI - there is an inevitable trade-off with the areas you mention losing out, but anywhere to the north (including the Midlands etc) gaining. The reduction in journey time ensures a net gain - but I'm sure BA did indeed pick up pax from the Surrey area - again, LHR's location is a double bonus for them there, but LGW-BRU & CDG long gone.

I realise a LoCo doing long haul is fraught with problems, but they are trying it out in Asia so I can't imagine it will have escaped the notice of EZY and RYR. Just a thought though, I suppose.


Easy have already stretched beyond Europe - TLV, SAW, AMM and so on. FR do Morocco + also various locos do the Canaries and Turkish Med.

I suspect Easy are happy pushing the limits of the A320 series, but don't want to go beyond that for reasons for fleet management as much as anything else. Also, legacy can feed long haul through their networks, airport costs become far less significant, and locos don't get any discounts on fuel, or more significantly in the UK, APD.

Perhaps you should visit Farringdon which is being built as an underground interchange station between these two lines.

Perhaps you should also visit Farringdon and take a look outside. There is this huge thing called the City of London just outside, and I have heard a rumour that this place employs one or two people, and some of them earn a bit of money. Can anyone verify whether or not that rumour is true?

If no passengers are transferring Heathrow to Gatwick, who is using those NX coaches that seem to run about every 10 minutes?


People who get onboard elsewhere, and have flights booked from LGW. My parents have a place in Warwick, but spend most of their time abroad, in a destination they can only reach direct from LGW. So they go through the LHR complex on the way there. There aren't huge numbers getting on for the LGW-LHR leg, but remember even a 10 min headway coach service is less than an hourly full length train in terms of capacity.

which crosses the Connect route at Acton, where there is plenty of spare railway land for a link.


LEt's see if DaFt wise up over HS2. Whatever the other merits / flaws of the project, Old Oak Common could be a major interchange, and a BriRead link through this point - which just happens to also incorporate Heathwick - may well make a lot more sense at this time. Also, they have so far failed to include the Central Line on the OOC slate, but we know a lot of these drawings were done in a hurry (hey, they only have 20 years to get this thing right)! <over to ptdrune for this one>

Can anyone suggest ANY metropolitan area which has made a success of connections between different airports ?

Only as a bi-product. Most cities built airports first and foremost to serve their own population and visitors. So those cities which build hubs where they really want to capitalise on transfer traffic (DXB, SIN, HKG, ATL etc) nearly always follow a single airport model. If there is another airport, it is very much secondary.

The only rail service I am aware of that links TWO airports in the same city area WITHOUT going through the city centre is the AREX in Seoul.

Now I don't want to beat Gimpo up too much (sorry, couldn't resist) - but it is primarily a domestic airport, with a few regional connections.

Given the choice - similar timings, similar fares - why would you fly via the Incheon-Gimpo combination, say to reach KIX if you could transfer through SIN, HKG etc?

The only reason I can think of is you fall for the marketing campaign that "Gimpo gets you to KIX".

[Haven't a clue]

I'm one of those who frequently fly into LGW (or LCY) and transfer to LHR, and reverse the journey on the return leg. I do it not because of some inane travel agency or web booking, but simply because there are no flights to LHR from where I live. JER, GCI and even INV pax face the same problem. I suspect there are also many in the regions and even in Europe who hop on a cheap orange 'bus to LGW and then fly out of LHR simply because at the price point they are prepared to pay such a routing is the cheaper option.

I'd like to think that LHR R3 would enable me to transit through LHR, but that is wishful thinking.....

[Windsorian]

I'd like to think that LHR R3 would enable me to transit through LHR, but that is wishful thinking.....

Most unlikely the existing LHR airlines will allow any new start-ups on BAA's proposed R3; what's planned is a transfer of IAG/Virgin services from LGW and LHR's smaller aircraft moved from the main runways onto R3. The freed up slots on the main runways will then be used for more larger aircraft, and new start-ups on the main runways prevented by a claimed lack of terminal space.

Even if there was a (temporary) improvement in regional connectivity, it would only be a matter of time before the slots were reallocated to other more profitable routes; life keeps repeating itself and the greed and self interest of the LHR airlines is so predicable as to be boring; hopefully the Davies Commission will see through their trickery.

The answer for LGW is the new owners (GIP) plan to build a R2 after 2019; this should be combined with a refusal for R3 at LHR on competition grounds, at least until after BAA have completed their Toast Rack works in 20 - 30 year time.

[DaveReidUK]

Most unlikely the existing LHR airlines will allow any new start-ups on BAA's proposed R3

Could you explain to those of us who don't understand how these things work - what is the mechanism whereby Heathrow's incumbent airlines are able to exercise a veto over new entrant carriers, and/or determine which runway(s) they are allowed to use ?

[Windsorian]

.... another spur off the mainline, allowing some long distance trains to stop at LHR 1-2-3 and LHR-5 is needed

The T5 rail station is best used for maximum efficiency by utilising through trains, rather than as a terminus station; there is unlikely to be sufficient demand for terminating trains from the West of Reading.


The Airtrack proposal was never intended to go to LGW

One of the proposed BAA Airtrack routes was 2tph semi-fast service to Guildford via Staines. LGW is also crying out for improved train connectivity and LGW to Guildford would help to achieve this.

Of course you would need to be capable of joined up thinking, let alone joined up writing, to understand the logic of a semi-fast LHR-Staines-Woking-Guildford- Reigate-Redhill-LGW train service over mainly existing lines.

[Windsorian]

What is the mechanism whereby Heathrow's incumbent airlines are able to exercise a veto over new entrant carriers

Thank you for your enquiry, however we shall be restricting our detailed evidence until our submission to the Davies Commission.

However let me ask you to consider whether you (and others) would support a LHR R3 if it was to be a no-frills operation built and operated by EasyJet or Ryanair ? A short runway and short haul fights is what these two airlines specialise in and would be ideal in providing the regional connectivity that has disappeared from LHR as the big beasts have withdrawn these links.

[Skipness One Echo]

Windsorian answer DaveReid's question please. Incidentally you know that the full BA and LGW flying programs wouldn't fill a runway 3 at LHR? Not even close.


Do you even understand how this market performs??? Locos like easyJet operate point to point, they don't do connections. Hence they're a bogus issue here, the business question is how to increase the capacity of a hub airport. Hence point to point is a side issue here.
BA have brought back LBA as they got a once in a generation growth opportunity with BMI coming on board. Runway 3 could be ring fenced to have some slots for UK connectivity, allowing BA or VS to re-connect IOM, INV and JER into LHR. It would be small price to pay for additonal long haul profits, which still need to be fed to be viable.

[Windsorian]

@ Skipness One Echo

Windsorian answer DaveReid's questuon please

I don't mean to be rude, but I understand a detailed 20 year analysis of Heathrow's performance is being prepared and will be submitted to the Davies Commission; it will cover statements made by BAA & BA at the T5 Inquiry and the outcome since T5 opened!

I am well aware that to support their case for a R3 at LHR, IAG and Virgin are desperately trying to reinstate some regional routes; however I understand these will not be ring fenced. Can I suggest you confirm that any ring fenced regional routes will only apply to new R3 slots and not existing slots including the BMI package?

Then we have the question of what will apply to any R3 ring fenced slots when HS2 opens? Will they be returned to the pool for redistribution or retained on the basis of grandfather rights?

Incidentally you know that the full BA and LGW flying programs wouldn't fill a R3 at LHR?

It's why I keep pointing out that from the outset R3 will be populated by a combination of resettlements from LGW plus discards from LHR two main runways.

After the DfT decision to award the WCML to First, Virgin rushed out a proposal to fly from MAN to LHR; do you really think the competition authorities will allow them to control both the plane and rail links? I suspect something will have to give.

Also the 12 pairs of BMI slots to be reallocated by the EU may not go to Virgin or BA; it seems Aer Lingus is also bidding and we all know who wants to take-over them!