LHR Third runway

[jcx]

Is the runway really worth the Hastle, Views and Opinions please!


If plans for a third runway go ahead at Heathrow the entire village of Sipson could disappear off the map by 2020.

At least 700 homes would be demolished, according to the British Airports Authority's estimation, but campaigners claim some 1,600 people would have to be evicted and thousands more affected by a rise in air and noise pollution.


Sipson village faces an uncertain future

[Globaliser]

Yes, it is. Otherwise it could get increasingly difficult for people to get to the places they need to get to, and (even more importantly) increasingly difficult for people to connect via Heathrow to get to the places they need to get to. It's really as simple as that.

[Hermano Lobo]

Without the Third runway(it was planned at the airport's time of origin) the airport will drop down the European league of importance.
Very harsh on the residents but it is vital for many reasons.
http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/environment/planning/heathrow_airport/third_runway/lhr_third_runway_lg.jpg

[Skipness One Echo]

West London is already blighted by Heathrow, another runway means an incessantly noisy area is...............still an incessantly noisy area. However should proper compensation be paid to those affected the benefit will be immense.
Particularly important IMHO that the capital's main airport regain access to Inverness for the Highlands, Jersey and Guerney for the finance markets and possibly others so that the whole UK may benefit. Perhaps BA et al should have this as a stipulation of their new runway.
It is needed, badly needed, more so than destroying the unspoiled countryside around Stansted is needed.

[akerosid]

It is absolutely vital. However, the one concern I would have is that although it's optimised for short haul flights, the pressure on slots - for example as a result of EU/US Open Skies - is likely to have a downward effect on this, at least as far as UK domestic services are concerned.

When the White Paper consultation document was issued 2-3 years ago, one of the points made in favour of LHR having a third runway was that it was not just London's main airport, but the UK's most important generator of economic growth. However, with more and more regional flights being pushed out and more - the likes of MME, LBA, NCL and probably more (incidentally, while MAN still has about 20 per day), how many will be left by the time R3 is built.

I have to say that it's quite galling that the likes of EK, QR, EY and others can buy new slots and the big American carriers (although they're now moaning quite ferociously about it) will do likewise, while the DFTR (the R, incidentally, standing for "Regions" for whose development it's also responsible) does absolutely nothing, either to understand the regions' need for access to major hubs or to facilitate access.

It's becoming very readily apparent that the DFTR's approach is very much London (and BA-) centred.

Personally, if it were my choice, I'd cordon off the area between the M4 and A4, apply the same security that applies to major military facilities, give a very good compulsory purchase package and start building the thing, parallel with the public inquiry, which would be finished by July. The new runway could then open for next Summer. :ok: :D

[Re-Heat]

I have to say that it's quite galling that the likes of EK, QR, EY and others can buy new slots and the big American carriers (although they're now moaning quite ferociously about it) will do likewise, while the DFTR (the R, incidentally, standing for "Regions" for whose development it's also responsible) does absolutely nothing, either to understand the regions' need for access to major hubs or to facilitate access.
For goodness sake - anyone can buy slots from anyone else there, and if nobody can afford or is willing to use them on lower margin business, then so be it. It means that the whole airline business is at least profitable rather than a state-supported bloated life support machine for routes that cannot make money. If you want a regional service, then be prepared to pay for it, or fly on someone else to another airport where the economics make sense.

Surely the fact that such purchases take place is a sign of lack of capacity and not that dated state-run economics should proliferate? The point of it would appear to allow the development of those regional flights - yes - but there should be absolutely no restriction on their use at all.

[captain_flynn]

I'm just abit curious here. The new runway looks set to be another 27. Wouldn't it have been better to have either a South West/North East (05/23 - like whats just closed) or a North/South runway to cater for all wind directions?

Also, with runway 23's closure recently what will happen when the wind exceeds a constant 35kts or more?

[Globaliser]

I'm just abit curious here. The new runway looks set to be another 27. Wouldn't it have been better to have either a South West/North East (05/23 - like whats just closed) or a North/South runway to cater for all wind directions?Then how would they operate all three runways simultaneously?

[VHF FLYER]

while the DFTR (the R, incidentally, standing for "Regions" for whose development it's also responsible) does absolutely nothing, either to understand the regions' need for access to major hubs or to facilitate access.

but the regions do have access to major hubs...Amsterdam, Paris etc.
Heathrow is to be avoided at all costs - the hub of last resort. :yuk: you could have four or five runways there and it would still be horrible.
London is such a large point to point destination that it would generate its own indiginous traffic without the hubbing.
Hubbing - what's the big deal? I just hubbed through Frankfurt and (like many others) didn't spend a single eurocent there - where's the economic benefit in that? I suspect it is only the vanity of numbers (my airport's bigger than your airport therefore I'm more important than you).

[captain_flynn]

Then how would they operate all three runways simultaneously?

I honestly wasn't being cocky, it's just that with the strong winds that would normally bring runway 23 into use, they would have to close now wouldn't they?

[jongeman]

but the regions do have access to major hubs...Amsterdam, Paris etc.
Heathrow is to be avoided at all costs - the hub of last resort. :yuk: you could have four or five runways there and it would still be horrible.
London is such a large point to point destination that it would generate its own indiginous traffic without the hubbing.
Hubbing - what's the big deal? I just hubbed through Frankfurt and (like many others) didn't spend a single eurocent there - where's the economic benefit in that? I suspect it is only the vanity of numbers (my airport's bigger than your airport therefore I'm more important than you).

Good points, Jersey doesn't have direct access to any of the major hubs though. Everywhere else has.

[Gonzo]

Captain_flynn,

Against the one day every five years that a strong crosswind might preclude landing on E-W runways, you have 599 days out of 600 where a third parallel runway can be used. A commercial decision at the end of the day. A cross runway at Heathrow would not increase capacity.

[apaddyinuk]

Living in Windsor I had to laugh a few weeks ago when some local busy body arrived at my doorstep insisting I sign a petition against the third runway sighting that the increased noise would make Windsor an intolerable place to live. I had to contradict her and say that I do not really think the third runway will effect Windsor as much as it would places like Slough, Langley and West Drayton!!!!
I also asked her if she knew there was an airport near by and if she considered this BEFORE moving to the area???? She seemed genuinly shocked that she could be silenced so quickly!!! Just a funny little story I thought I should share with you all!!! :}
However, I do feel for the people of Sipson. I know a few of my own family are to be shifted from the surroundings of Dublin Airport in a few years when the new runway is created there and I accept that it is a rather harrowing ordeal but at the same time I do understand the importance of maintaining our national gateways. Its a tough call really but you cant stop progress!!! But also on that note, I still believe LHR should be bulldosed and started all over again! Or indeed create that offshore airport in the Thames estuary!!! The asians can do it so why cant we?

[PAXboy]

Whilst listing the many regional UK fields that have been edged out from EGLL due to the desire for the richer pickings of long haul, please don't forget IOM. BA bought Manx just to get the EGLL slots (4 x 365 pairs, as I recall).

[Groundloop]

"Without the Third runway(it was planned at the airport's time of origin)"

Actually when LHR was built in the 40's it had SIX runways - three parallel sets at sixty degrees to each other in a Star of David pattern. Gradually 4 of them got built on!

[DTVAirport]

I haven't read all the replies so this may have already been said, but if you look at aerial photos of LHR, you will realise there already is a 3rd runway, even if it is disused, why not just develop and then reopen that one?

[spanishflea]

I haven't read all the replies so this may have already been said, but if you look at aerial photos of LHR, you will realise there already is a 3rd runway, even if it is disused, why not just develop and then reopen that one?

Because of the reasons it was never used over the last five years and was finally turned into a taxiway. The reasons why have already been explained in this thread.

[Groundloop]

Also if you look at the proposed "Heathrow East" development, which includes the demolition of Terminals 1 and 2 and replacement with a whole new complex, this new complex stretches right across the old 23 nearly to the BA maintenance area.

[WHBM]

"Without the Third runway(it was planned at the airport's time of origin)"
Actually when LHR was built in the 40's it had SIX runways - three parallel sets at sixty degrees to each other in a Star of David pattern. Gradually 4 of them got built on!
Actually ACTUALLY what got designed was 9 runways, 3 of them north of the M4 (where the new one is proposed). Only the 6 surrounding the central area got built but the area they contained was far too small. Much of T3 is on ones taken out of service in the 1950s.

Anyone who thinks you can't work with 6 intersecting runways in a star configuration, all of them in use simultaneously and managing 200 movements per hour, please report to Chicago O'Hare tower to see how to do it - in a place that gets much worse winter weather than Heathrow.

Heathrow is indeed a national asset, in the light of which the number of housing units to be lost in Sipson/Harmondsworth looks rather small for the benefit gained. If BAA had started buying houses up there over the years as they come onto the market, and just renting them out short term in the meantime, much of the opposition could have been contained.

Reinstating the UK short-haul services which have been lost over the years would be a huge gain for BA and they should be supporting it actively, to pick up the connecting traffic which gets forced through Amsterdam (particularly)
and other near-Continent points. At the national policy level the Government should be encouraging UK traffic from the regions onto UK airlines, rather than allowing slot sales which let in the tenth me-too 3-class traditional service carrier to New York.

[Trinity 09L]

What would be the glide slope on easterlies, with the height of the M4/M25 intersection on the approach? Do the aircraft get to the CTA or just remain in the "new" area, so if the runway became non operational for any reason, would aircraft be stranded?:hmm:

[Flightlevel001]

Could they not just extend RW23 into Cranford park and use that as thier 3rd? Would this be possible even though its not really parallel with the prevailing winds? I'm sure it would be cheaper to extend an existing one and re-route/build a new taxiway to save levelling a whole village.

[PAXboy]

One of the reasons the old '23' was taken out of use because the extended centre line crosses both the main runways. The options for missed approach and go-rounds would not fit - even if a new 23 was North of the mains. Further, as has been stated, the number of days per year that 23 was really useful was minimal.

[myrtleman]

As I understand it, then, with the third runway, we'll be keeping the two main runways (27 / 09) as departure / arrival runways and the third will be used for both take-off and landing.

Will the new runway remain a 27 / 09 designation? Presumably the heading for the third runway will be significantly different from the current 27L / 09R.

If it does retain its 27 / 09 designation, perhaps we'll see a 27 M[iddle] as well?

Interested to see what people think.

MM

[WHBM]

perhaps we'll see a 27 M[iddle] as well?
The norm in the US, where 3 parallel runways are not unknown (eg Detroit) is to use C for Centre (or of course Center) for the one in the middle, in Heathrow's case the present North runway.

If the new runway handles the shorter distance traffic this will of course free up the present pair for more heavy traffic, which is where the demand growth really is.

[Groundloop]

"One of the reasons the old '23' was taken out of use because the extended centre line crosses both the main runways"

Not so, extended CL of 23 did NOT cross 27R. When 23 was in use, 23 was used for landings and 27R for take-offs with no conflicts. Aircraft requiring a landing run longer than 23 would use 27L, with a suitable gap left in the 23 approach traffic.

[TopBunk]

Presumably the heading for the third runway will be significantly different from the current 27L / 09R.

Why/what makes you presume that? In many respects having truly parallel runways makes it simpler to manage the traffic flows.

A runway number is just that - a number. Agreed convention has it that is the 2 digit number closest to the QDM, and this could result in 27L, 27C [present 27R] and 27R [new runway], but not necessarily. LAX for example has 4 runways with the same QDM but numbered 25L, 25R, 24L and 24R from south to north.

[Lost_luggage34]

Would it not be posible to make use of Northolt in some way - short-haul/domestic operations ? Have some type of rapid transit system ?

Probably a mad idea but is Northolt really utilised [I]that[I] much either for exec jets or military purposes ?

Surely with the ongoing rationalisation of RAF bases it could play some part.

[HZ123]

LL34 you have approached this with what is obviously the best choice. The third runway as is will surely be a 30 minute taxy to T4 and Heathrow East. Ideal for use for EU routes. All these fixes show as we all know that the UK has no futuristic policys on any type of travel. We have and will slip futher behind EU hubs whatever we do. LHR is a dump and irrespective of how many runways and new terminals are created nothing will improve with regard to infrastructure and access..

[Geffen]

If you look at the Interim Masterplan it indicates a Terminal 6. I'm guessing that would negate the need to taxi to T4 or Heathrow East(if they build it). Again looking at the plan it would appear that the third runway would almost be a stand alone airport compared to the rest of LHR.

[ebenezer]

Would it not be posible to make use of Northolt in some way - short-haul/domestic operations ? Have some type of rapid transit system ?

Probably a mad idea but is Northolt really utilised [i]that[i] much either for exec jets or military purposes ?

Surely with the ongoing rationalisation of RAF bases it could play some part. On the contrary, Northolt - from an ATC perspective - should be closed. The airfield was never designed to operate as an 'airport', it impacts significantly on Luton and Heathrow (and any expansion of civil-style flying there would make matters even worse) so the best option would be to close it down. A third runway 09/27 at Heathrow would probably render its operation virtually impossible anyway because Northolt's runway isn't precisely parallel with Heathrow's and the interactions would be difficult to cater for. The RAF doesn't anymore need an under-utilised military base close to London; for 'transport' flights they could just as easily utilise a small military enclave at an expanded Heathrow, whilst there are several other options available for its corporate aviation activity (i.e. Biggin Hill, Farnborough, Luton and for those types certified, London/City).

As a 'brown field' site it could then be better utilised for housing, light industrial use and to provide recreational facilities for the local population.

[chevvron]

Northolt would need expanding to accomodate the types envisaged; now where is there a runway of the correct length about 30min drive from Heathrow? Especially one which is already configured for B737/A321 types?

[G-AZUK]

30 mins drive from LHR most days wont even get you to the M25!!

[captain_flynn]

Could they not just extend RW23 into Cranford park and use that as thier 3rd? Would this be possible even though its not really parallel with the prevailing winds? I'm sure it would be cheaper to extend an existing one and re-route/build a new taxiway to save levelling a whole village.

I like that idea as my dad lives in southall and always had the planes coming over his house when Runway 23 was used. However, if they did extend it, that would mean the planes would be passing over Southall lower, but would they be within the minimum clearance when flying over the Southall gas works?

[chevvron]

The disused 23 wouldn't need extending; they're only planning for a 2000m runway.

[point5]

Runway 23 no longer exists. Its taxiway Alpha!

[AUTOGLIDE]

Only in the UK would a 60 Million passenger plus airport have only 2 runways. This should have been sorted years ago. As the clock cannot be turned back, the next best thing for the local residents would be a quick decision and planning enquiry, the longer this goes on and the more waiting in the dark, the worse it becomes.
As I'm wearing my asbestos coat, it should be pointed out that the UK cannot build a Hong Kong style airport in the Thames estuary with fast rail links etc, simply because the UK is incapable of that level of infrastructure planning and development. Also the area around LHR is already blighted, in fact a lot of it is an utter dump, I know because I'm from there. Adding a 3rd runway there is the least damaging place to build a new runway (and they could always ask MAN for advice on how to do it properly).
Do UK Regions need that many flights to LHR for hubbing anyway? I think most have discovered the efficiency of AMS by now if you can't go direct, and the new faster 2hr 20 min train is now taking passengers from MAN-LHR flights.