View Full Version : 3 new Runways London

30th Jan 2002, 14:38
Source: <a href="http://luchtvaart.pagina.nl" target="_blank">Ultimate Aviation Link Site</a>

London newspapers reported today that Britain's Transport Secretary Stephen Byers is considering proposals to build three new runways in the south-east of England.

An early draft of a government aviation study, published in the press, set out a range of options for dealing with an expected boom in air travel, which includes the three runways option.

The likelihood is that new runways would be built at three existing international airports in south-east England: Gatwick, Stansted and, most controversially, at Heathrow.

An alternative would be for two new runways at Stansted and one at Gatwick, or two at Gatwick and one at Stansted.

Some reports suggested that a completely new airport could be built.

Ministers apparently believe that despite the blip in air travel prompted by Sept 11, demand for air travel will continue to increase by 5 percent a year.

A decision to go for three runways would represent a significant shift in thinking - previously ministers were thought to be considering only one new runway over the next 30 years.

The Financial Times quoted one source as saying: "One extra runway would not be enough. It's a question of jobs and the contribution of aviation to the economy, and there's also a feeling that if you don't do something to meet demand the demand will go elsewhere. The general feeling is that a very high proportion of demand should be satisfied by 2030."

[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: avt100 ]</p>

Hot 'n' High
30th Jan 2002, 15:38
Well, well, well. Here we go again! After the fiasco of waiting for T5 to get approval at LHR, can you imagine just how long this little lot will take to sort out? Was this not initially raised years (decades?) ago when various options were put up? Had it been sorted then it would have been quite a feat. Since then, how many sites have had housing estates etc put up which now further restricts development potential? Two new runways at LGW? You'll need an uplift of fuel by the time you have taxied to the nearest place where you could put another runway. Where the third runway would go is beyond me. It would be closer to LHR than LGW! How much more of a problem is this issue today since successive Governments have left it in the air for so long?

Now, our friends across in France seem to have got their act sorted when it comes to Transport planning. Maybe the Brits should take a leaf out of their book. No messing - just get it sorted!!!! But here in Blighty, oh no! Endless rounds of reviews, Inquiries, NIMBY-pandering etc. And the end result is too little, too late. Perhaps, rather than T5, the wider runway issue should have been addressed and a shift away from LHR could have been intiated - based on economic and logistics I hasten to add, rather than the anti-LHR lobby. All we will end up with is another hub-type airport the way things are going. Now, I am not a transport strategist but like to think I have half a brain cell to my name (no witty comments from the peanut gallery please) and it just seems to make sense to have made a step change a while ago rather than this "pick at this, now pick at that" approach. But that is UK plc through and through.

Now, I could start on the state of the UK railways!!!! But one rant from H 'n' H is enough for my fellow PPRuNers. All I can say is "Here we go again". And, no, H 'n' H is definitely not going to hold his breath on this one!

H 'n' H toddles off to darkened room to calm down again! <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

PS Mmmmm, a good rant makes you feel loads better! :)

[ 30 January 2002: Message edited by: Hot 'n' High ]</p>

30th Jan 2002, 16:18
may not a change of plan, they may be expecting the enquiry to take 90 years thus giving one runway per 30 years. :) :)

30th Jan 2002, 16:55
[quote]Two new runways at LGW? You'll need an uplift of fuel by the time you have taxied to the nearest place where you could put another runway. <hr></blockquote>

Would say the same for LHR. Where would you put another runway on that already congested site? Not to mention the uproar from the local residents. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

I think BAA and the Government have to bite the bullent and do what most other major Cities have done and move their main airport to a large greenfield site with plenty of room for expansion.

Greg Baddeley
30th Jan 2002, 17:04
Use the A4!!! BA do! :) :) :)

Doctor Cruces
30th Jan 2002, 18:07
Trouble with a green field site is "Swampy" and his colleagues. Once thay have been winkled out of their hideyholes and the airport has been built, people will want to live closer to work. The developers will then build houses nearby and then schools, hospitals etc etc and within thirty years we would have a large town nearby and all the resultant noise complaints from the residents thereof!

Doc C.

Donkey Duke
30th Jan 2002, 20:34
A new runway at LHR. HMMMMMMM. That combined with T5 might enable LHR to grow a little and allow some new airlines to start service and compete with BA. That sounds like a great idea---oh but wait--BA is scared of competition--so forget that.

Thanks. Donkey Duke <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

30th Jan 2002, 23:08
Gaza. .There was talk of building 3rd runway to the north of existing airport but south of M4, flatenning all in sight including a whole village

30th Jan 2002, 23:38
If they built Maplin wouldn't that bypass everybody/thing (including swampy cos he'd drown).

31st Jan 2002, 00:10
Essentially, plans for new runways are won or lost at LHR; when you talk about new runways at FRA, AMS or CDG, it's nonsense to suggest that a new one at LGW or even STN will compensate for not building one at LHR. Yes, of course, there are drawbacks, but LHR is the UK's most important economic engines; people - particularly sched carriers, only fly to LGW because they can't fly to LHR. Adding a third runway should bring acft capacity up to at least 600k movements p.a.

Of course, there'll be a Swampy brigade and environmentalists who suddenly discover a new species at the Waterside (as if we hadn't known for years!), legal action, even political arguments, but IT MUST GO AHEAD.

31st Jan 2002, 00:58
What is the closed airport, probably ex military, to the west of Gatwick? I saw it when I was a pax. into Gatwick for the Xmas GatBash.. . . .3 runways, relatively little development etc

Only catch seems to be that it's on long final for one of the Gatwick runways.

Still, if it was OK then, why not now for civil operations?

Also, what about the miriad of of ex- or soon-to-be-ex military aerodromes?

Out Of Trim
31st Jan 2002, 01:56
Tinstaafl - The airfield to the west of Gatwick is Dunsfold - Ex Bae - used for final construction and test flying of Harriers built at Bae Kingston. Don't think it would be of as much use as a second runway at LGW; which as the busiest Single runway International airport in the world is well overdue. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

Hand Solo
31st Jan 2002, 20:46
On the contrary Donkey Duke! If we had a third runway BA would have no problem with allowing US competition in, we'd have plenty of space for it then. What we do have a problem with is surrendering one sixth of our slots so that you and your Hillbilly Airlines can strut into LHR and undercut us all with your $10 billion dollars of federal aid and Chapter 11 protections, whilst maintaining your protectionist policies like "Fly America". I think we'd all welcome the day when you and your countrymen wish to compete on a level playing field.

31st Jan 2002, 21:47
It occurs to me that with the Advocate General's Opinion on Open Skies, today, pressure for slots at LHR is going to become more and more intense over the coming years. The crux, if I understand it, will be that airlines from other EU countries, technically, will have the right to fly LHR-US, and BA/VS/BD will have the right to fly from anywhere within the EU. However, LHR will clearly be a target for the likes of AF, KL, IB etc.

So, in the long term, with the likelihood of BA being willing to give up slots to competitors being zero, the only possible answer may well be a third runway?

Furthermore, if the US/UK do agree a deal before the ECJ delivers its final judgment, which gives rights to US carriers to LHR, in preference to EU carriers (such as BE, for example) which have been waiting longer, won't they also have a right of action.

Things are going to get very interesting re LHR over the coming years . . .

31st Jan 2002, 22:48
What about the North of England?Are runway developments restricted to the South?Seems to me that there is more room for development (and more demand for)runways north of the Watford Gap!

Hot 'n' High
31st Jan 2002, 23:29
Just been perusing the posts and there seems to be a drift into the "3rd Runway at LHR" and what impact that would have on Slots, BA etc.

I guess the real question is, is further expansion at LHR or LGW a realistic way forward? Either option is going to run into stiff opposition from well-heeled Anti's. I mean, T5, even with the guarantees given on traffic levels, made "Watching Paint Dry" become a spectator sport overnight as it went through the various Planning hoops. Ten years I think it was. So, can you imagine the outcry over an extra runway at LHR? Still, the outcry would drown out the sound of those whisper-quiet 777s etc which have replaced the Conways, Speys and other older generation 'donkeys' from the likes of P&W and GE. :)

In addition to the Antis and the runway real estate issues, infrastructure is also vital to keep pax moving to/from the airports. Now, Mayor Ken, bless 'im, is into his "Congestion Charging" and has already made comments regarding charges for access to LHR. Anyone who partakes of the M4/25 will know and love the area - not! So, clearly, this is something else for the Greens to go ballistic over. And it is something the Government needs to ponder - I have already mentioned railways in my last post!!

I still feel T5 actually fudged the issue. Maybe the numbers crunched when T5 was first dreamed of made sense. However, I feel it will simply benefit existing throughput at LHR in terms of Slots plus the smallish increase in Pax as aircraft size increases with the likes of the A380. However, the step change in figures predicted even post Sept 11, '01 + the convenience factor of interlining make expansion of LHR and LGW something of a non-starter. I just feel we in the UK have, once again, missed the boat and that our chance to "greenfield" away from LHR has been lost. I know there is a view that even a new site would attract housing etc but, and a big "but" this, IF the planners use their heads for a change, keeping housing well away from a new airport + providing exceptional comms between the two areas, this would prevent the fracas we had over T5.

Truth is, I feel we have missed our chance to sort this. My view is that a move away from LHR should have happened years ago. Mind you, T5 is yet to take shape, so one could argue we DO have a chance to review even that. "Sunk costs" and all that for you guys with MBAs! This will only work if the Government make a fundamental decision on where additional/new runway capacity is to appear and actually make a STRATEGIC decision for a change and carry that out PDQ. It will also take a bit of a mind-set change in the likes of BA I expect! After all, as a Stakeholder, logic would suggest all they would like to see is LHR become a sole BA + alliance preserve. But the concept of strategic thinking is clearly something those in charge, whatever their political hue, are averse to from my humble foxhole! <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

For example, and sorry Newbury, why Greenham Common never got snapped up is beyond me. Just my humble view and there are probably issues there!!! <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> However, maybe you get my drift. Think WIDE! Oh, before anyone says, I DON'T own a house near LHR or LGW so I don't have an axe to grind, nor do I have much time for those who buy houses near airports and then complain. I just try and apply common sense to a relatively major issue which has grown every year successive Governments have dodged the REAL issues.

Sorry to go on but I'm still <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> even after some time in a darkened room!!!!!

Cheers, H 'n' H (or should that be H 'n' B - "B" for Bothered!!!!!!!) <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

David Hurst
31st Jan 2002, 23:35
Heathrow would be the best industry solution but there would be a revolution in the affluent and articulate areas of west London (probably SW1 and onwards) and the politicians would cave in.. .My bet is on STN (given that any politician has the courage to make a decision)as the land is there, the airport is designed to take it and there are relatively fewer people. LHR and STN will be the major airports and LGW will serve the market south of the river and those going to the West End of Central London.. .As a passing thought, if Maplin had gone ahead it would have opened in 1982 with initially one terminal, one runway and a highspeed rail and road link. It would have been capable of taking ten terminals and four runways. STN and LTN would have closed and LGW would have had one terminal and LHR three terminals. . .Oh yes, the north. You're going to get Finningly. What more do you want? <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

31st Jan 2002, 23:48
I think the answer is to tack on a few extra thousand metres onto EGLC then we can all just fly up the river onto 28, disturb no-one apart from the guys at the thames barrier and be home in time for tea!! :)

1st Feb 2002, 00:32
While i think that we all agree LHR would be the prefered economic location for another SE runway, i think it should be placed somewhere else (probably standsted) as more airplanes doing finals over central london cannot be a good idea, especialy in the light of 9/11.

sod the NIMBYS and noise lobbies, its simply not prudent to encourage more aircraft to fly low over 7 million people and lots of historic buildings!

or....place a CP order on windsor castle so LHR can be approached from the west :) :) :)

Dan Winterland
1st Feb 2002, 03:23
There are plenty of quiet or unused long runways in Britain already. Brize Norton, Upper Heyford, Bedford, Wyton, Alconbury, Finningley, Bruntingthorpe, Elvington, etc etc. Surely common sense to start looking at these.

Nearly Retired
1st Feb 2002, 09:21
Anyone seriously considered Manston, with a monorail link to London? The current owners are trying to develop it, judging by the 'London-Manston Airport' and 'Kent International Airport' signs!! What's next; 'London-Manchester'?

LTN man
1st Feb 2002, 10:22
Luton still has an under used runway which still doesn’t require a full parallel taxiway yet. Also room for 20 million passengers within the existing boundaries according to an airport study.

Anti Skid On
1st Feb 2002, 11:30
LTN - where they can't clear snow?

The big problem is that BA (and Oneworld) use LHR as a tourist gateway, filling shuttles with Joe Public to fill their long haul fleet. Services from EGCC & EGBB on their (and other long haul) are compromised by this (e.g. Malaysia & Cathay reducing flights from EGCC) - is R2 at EGCC actually generating more business.

Anyway unlike H & H it is the SE that gets me mad!!! (Smelly over populated dump, full of southerner - nuff said!)

David Hurst
1st Feb 2002, 11:38
'Nearly retired' mentioned Manston. If you look at a map of the immediate area it would be relatively easy to add a second runway on the ground as few people would be directly moved out. The approaches would make life rather horrid in Broadstairs and Ramsgate at one end and Whitstable and Herne Bay at the other but most of the approach is over the sea. . .The Channel Tunnel Rail Link goes through Ashford to the south and there is already a low-quality rail link from Thanet to Ashford. . .There is dual carriageway road all the way from the M25 which could be upgraded.. .On the down side it is further from the rest of the UK so it would be less convenient for anyone travelling from other places other than London.. .Interesting thought, though.

1st Feb 2002, 11:46

What do you mean "doesn't require a full parallel taxiway" ???????????????

1st Feb 2002, 12:06
From an historical perspective it is likely that H'n'H is closest to reality - hope your BP is back to normal now! This subject has cropped up periodically since before I started flying, 34 years ago. The solution has invariably been a botched compromise which has coped, barely adequately, and always retrospectively.

In the mean time many of our productive industries have dwindled to minor or non-existent status, mostly through lack of national cohesion or sound leadership. By all accounts the UK has already been allocated the primary role of Service Industry centre in the EU Master Plan, so that's alright then. While Cunard's latest mega-liner is under construction at St Nazaire, I often see the the empty shipyards of Tyne, Clyde and Belfast and wonder how such a prototype democracy allowed itself to throw so much away. Our once nearly self-sufficient agricultural industry is rapidly heading in the same direction with much political, and even popular, blessing. The list of further examples would make an essay.

The infrastructure of southeast England is already overstretched demographically, and here I disagree with akerosid about the importance of LHR. Apart from the insoluable problem of removing and relocating local communities, why pour more and more into one funnel? Even if you could destroy half of Hounslow, etc, it wouldn't improve access to and around the place. I think T5 has already taken care of the practical side of this issue, as intimated by under_exposed. It will probably be built one day and put even more pressure on LHR's resources. A third runway is highly ulikely.

LGW, which is often easier to reach than LHR, built a terminal on the only practical site that could have accommodated a second runway. North or south, and however much the local economy depends on the airport, the residents (and therefore their elected reps) would not allow the development. The solution would be to raize the North Terminal. I think not. Careers at BAA (the owning company) are far too short to worry about long-term strategy!

STN is the nearest existing "London" airport to Gaza's greenfield site, as it was about 30 years ago when the Maplin alternative was under discussion. It is still highly suitable. LTN has a useful shorthaul role but is limited by its location, local residents (good bye Vauxhall) and owners. As the song goes, " You don't know what you've got till it's gone." It works both ways.

As a "Maplin" would be probably out of the financial and ecological picture these days, I really believe that the future of our UK airport industry lies in dispersal rather than in funnelling. In respect of southeast UK, and its population density, Manston and Lydd are within these bounds as they almost have a ground infrastructure that could be improved relatively cheaply. Having flown out of both in my distant past, I would suggest that administrative inertia will see neither come to pass but would be delighted to be proved wrong. I only have to think of how long and how over-schedule the upgrade of the Thanet Way was to reinforce my hunch that the elected worthies of Kent fail to grasp reality. I continue to wish those entrepreneurs at MSE and LYX the best of luck.

I fully agree with madge about "north of the Watford Gap", as it fits my dispersal theory. I don't believe that the correct solution will happen. On the basis of recent history, we will just muddle on in our usual fashion ("Well, it's worked since 1945 . . .?"). I do hope I am wrong. Time is running out.

1st Feb 2002, 12:43
Excuse me Madge but didn't Manchester recently open a new R/W or was I only dreaming <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

Hot 'n' High
1st Feb 2002, 15:30
Thanks DrSyn, feeling much better Ta! <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

In the history books of the future, I wonder how they will describe the UK today? Stone Age ... Bronze Age ... Industrial Age ... Monumental C**k-up Age! :)

Ho hum!!!!!!!! H 'n' H

1st Feb 2002, 16:13

An existing runway in excess of 10,000', oodles of space for terminals, taxyways etc, dual carriageway access to the motorway system, on a main railway line with an existing station and less than one hour from central London. A planner's dream n'est ce pas?.

Only Britain could have spent five years reclaiming Greenham Common's runway for hard core and then set about deciding where to build three new runways in the South East!

Flip Flop Flyer
1st Feb 2002, 17:37
It is obvious, from a transit passengers point of view, that LHR is long overdue for modernization and in dire need of extra runway / terminal capacity. In it's present state, I am amazed that LHR is indeed capable of attracting such a vast number of transit pax. I understand the 30 million who use LHR as a gateway to the UK, but for the remaining 30 mill or so I can not for the life of me comprehend why they use LHR, unless they are deeply in love with BA (FQTV miles).

As developments go, LHR has been lacking far behind CDG, FRA and AMS for years. Now, CDG is not the best in the world, and neither is AMS or FRA. But both AMS and CDG beats LHR any day for transfer pax, whereas FRA is only slightly better. I do hope that LHR will continue developing, but as the case was with T5 I have my doubts.

1st Feb 2002, 21:47
I don't understand why people are so convinced that LHR needs a new runway/terminal etc. As far as i'm concerned, LHR is finished as far as expansion is concerned. Same as Gatwick. We should have grabbed the land while we had it, but now it's residential land, so to try and develop will mean 5+years of legal battles with the NIMBY's who probably moved into said houses because they wanted jobs at LHR/LGW!. .Now, Standsted is a different matter. It's a lot less developed, and is about equidistant North from the centre of the great smog as LHR is west and LGW is south. The best solution is get REALLY good transport links to London and possibly LHR in place, and develop the hell out of it while they still can! Even if they have virtually untouched terminals, runways etc sitting there for a few years, I guarantee that they won't stay that way.. .The end result? Londons 3rd MAJOR airport, ready to reduce the load on LGW,LHR, and with room to grow

Or have I got it completely wrong!


LTN man
1st Feb 2002, 22:49

Luton will only get a full parallel taxiway when traffic levels increase to a sufficient level to warrant the expense. Not my words but the airports.

1st Feb 2002, 22:57
Extra terminals and runways at LHR are all well and good, but where will the extra sky needed to accommodate the extra a/c movements come from?

Additional expansion at LHR can only exacerbate the existing problem of ATC congestion in and around "The Great Wen", or am I missing something here? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Lots of room at Stansted, this townie would have thought! :)

1st Feb 2002, 23:40
I am afraid it all seems part of a great British malaise - in 20 years, it will be in the same condition as the railways: under-regulated and under-coordinated mess, and I'll take a bet with anyone that there are no new runways, and Heathrow is painted easyJet orange (and good luck to them).

Anybody with a spine in Parliament to get the whole lot sorted? Thought not. Any of us want to have a go instead?

[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: Lucifer ]</p>

1st Feb 2002, 23:59
Surely it would make sense to make more use of regional airports. Thus freeing-up space at Gatwick and Heathrow to allow for the projected increase in trans-Atlantic travel etc. More charter flights could certainly be operated out of Southampton or Bournemouth and I'm sure that the story is similar in other parts of the country. What we need to do is get rid of these high supplements that encourage use of certain airports while driving passengers away from regionals. £100 extra to fly to Majorca from Bournemouth with Airtours in August is daft. Luckily for us we have the worlds 3rd best airline (voted for by a Which! survey) Palmair operating flights. They don't add a supplement and therefore have little trouble filling their flights.

2nd Feb 2002, 03:07

I accept they are not your words.

But they're still wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!

The time to build is now, BEFORE the traffic levels increase..........not WHEN or AFTER.

2nd Feb 2002, 19:31
Flaps One is entirely correct!

Anyone who flies into EDI on a regular basis (another BAA mess, incidentally!) will bear witness to the fact that you need the infrastucture in place BEFORE the traffic arrives. Manchester, Liverpool, etc. seem to realize this - why can't BAA (and the Government, for that matter!).

Surely the best (last/only) option has to be new runways at Stansted, with the existing rail link upgraded and connected to the Eurostar network.

Notwithstanding that, I fear we've already lost the battle on this. In ten years' time Heathrow will be way down the European table (maybe 5th, or even 6th). It's already shockingly below par by comparison with any major airport I can think of. As mentioned above, UK PLC has squandered yet another opportunity!

Now, I think I'm going to learn French and move to Paris! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ 02 February 2002: Message edited by: 1261 ]</p>

Red Four
3rd Feb 2002, 00:42
Does anyone know of any web links to proposed (or past)Maplin/Thames Estuary airport developments?