Northolt could become Heathrow's 3rd runway

[LTNman]

Ministry of Defence considering selling off all or parts of one of its oldest airfields, which could become Heathrow satellite


RAF Northolt may be sold to raise defence funds | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/25/raf-northolt-may-be-sold?newsfeed=true)

[goldeneye]

This could be a very good idea, Let Northolt take short haul / domestic and connect to Heathrow with a high speed rail link/monorail. It could route out toward Uxbridge then alongside M25 towards junction 15.

Much better sense than building a new airport in the Thames estuary.

[waco]

Far too sensible.........

Probably too many rich people living under the arrival and departure routes for it to be approved by todays politicians.

[The SSK]

My God ! How come nobody ever thought of that! All you would need is a dedicated hi-speed underground/overground shuttle.

Hang on, maybe it has been thought of already, let me check these papers [shuffle, shuffle] - Yes - no - that one was about Redhill being used as Gatwick's second runway.

That particular stone has been re-turned, more than once.

[Skipness One Echo]

This could be a very good idea, Let Northolt take short haul / domestic and connect to Heathrow with a high speed rail link/monorail. It could

In the real world, people HATE, HATE, HATE with a PASSION beyond reason, connecting from T5C as it's too far to T5A. Have you read the feedback if busses are used to remote parking? It's utterly beyond the pale! You'd think that they'd had to sacrifice their first born male child.
So suggesting that LHR passengers should connect over the horizon in Northolt via a train, many times longer than the T5 shuttle is not realistic.

Similar tantrums are thrown at LGW if one has to connect to the North Terminal, over there, out that window, in plain sight.

[pabely]

Satellite for Heathrow - Never in a million years!
This reporter does not live in the area! A big increase in VVIP traffic like Farnborough - YES!

[jabird]

Skipless,

In the real world, people HATE, HATE, HATE with a PASSION beyond reason, connecting from T5C as it's too far to T5A

Considering that the planes themselves often park almost next to each other, has there ever been consideration to providing an airside link from T5C directly into the Central complex, thus avoiding such a detour?

Or is joined up thinking between airlines which would far rather compete with each other than co-operate (although still no shortage of Oneworld from T3 etc) too much to hope for?

[Facelookbovvered]

It seems to me that the majority of people on here pedalling the idea of LGW or Northolt being part of a super hub have no idea how transit traffic works?

Whilst it might just be possible to create a secure network between these locations and treat the train/mono rail as airside, it would be very expensive and difficult in practice because you would have non EU pax and domestic trying to move between terminals.

We must not forget that CDG & AMS do all this on site and yes 18R at AMS is a bloody long way from the terminal but it's still on site.

The only sensible solution has be excluded ie R3, Boris island has merit, but it's a twenty year 50bn programe that the UK can't fund right now,R3 meanwhile could be up and running by 2016 without a penny of tax payers money creating a lot of jobs in the current parliament.

How they would deal with the U turn is another matter!

[jabird]

FLB,


How they would deal with the U turn is another matter!

They couldn't. Justine Greening has bought a token piece of land to show her support for anti-LHR campaigners. She could be moved on, but.....

There is a deluded belief very high up in govt that HS2 is a replacement for LHR3, even through the former improves the case for the latter!

However, I still don't think LHR can get its third runway, partly because of the huge noise footprint it already has, but also because there are too many marginal seats that would scream blue murder if it went ahead.

They are going to consult on Boris Island and the utterly pointless Heathwick - but they may well find that doing so will result in challenges to re-open the case for expansion at all London airports.

Whatever the technical merits, a runway at Gatwick would not cause the same political backlash, as seats around it are already blue - and afaik reasonably safe. So what will they do - run to UKIP?

Even with all the outrage over HS2, I think UKIP have picked up maybe 3 councillors?

LGW's footprint is tiny, but I don't think the idea of a megahub would work. Where else does it work? Twin hubs do work in places, and they have to be more acceptable than the domestic-international theme that seems quite popular in Asia - although these are getting watered down too.

If the £5bn earmarked for Heathwick was put towards a faster through connection from LGW to the other side of Zone 1 - then LGW's otherwise disadvantageous position could be neutralised.

I just can't see how two totally detached sets of runways and terminal could work, but this government will consider anything (and I say that as one of them).

[PAXboy]

Never going to happen and it has been well chewed over in the past.


The Nimby's of Northolt are well healed and if you think the citizens of Sipson whipped up a storm - wait to see this lot!
As Skipness says, folks have no idea about how much time to leave getting across one terminal, leave alone a T1-T4/5 connection. Asking them to take a fast train to Terminal N, that takes a bit longer? Nah. They will belly ache all day long and spread very bad publicity for EGLL.

It's a pity about the above, because I thought it was the best idea when I first heard of it over five years ago. It makes sense for many reasons.

I can only repeat, no new runway will be built in the South East of England in the next 15 years and probably longer.

[european130]

Looking at Northolt's stats - it shows the runway length as 5535 feet, and if my memory serve me right i do not think there is any room for expansion, plus the local residents would be up in arms i am sure if a proposal for a runway extension was made..

[PAXboy]

IIRC, the last time I read about this idea, was for Northolt to be the UK domestic terminal. So if folks were just coming down from the North to London, then straight into town on A40 or the Central Line etc. If needing to Hub, then express above/below link into the central area.

If just serving as Domestic or other SH to near neighbouring places like AMS etc, then the runway might suffice?

That's why I think it makes sense as a kind of La Guardia - only not as close to the City !

If you wanted to extend SW, then you have to drop the A40 and a railway line into tunnels, if you tried to expand NE then you start ploughing houses.

That's why I think it will not happen.

[Barling Magna]

jabird - you're one of the government? Well for pity's sake get them to listen to leading economists and re-think their fast cut/no growth policies which are leading us back into recession. And I speak as one who voted for them, and now isn't so sure.... Gordon Brown's 2.1% growth in 2010 doesn't look so bad now...

Also, get the government to re-think LHR's third runway. The enquiry must, surely, decide that is the best solution. Maybe Northolt could be used by flyBE and other airline's turboprops providing schedules from regions which have lost their LHR schedules over the years? Those customers might be prepared to travel the four miles from Northolt to Heathrow if it meant getting a useful London schedule back......

[Groundloop]

If you wanted to extend SW, then you have to drop the A40 and a railway line into tunnels,

There is no railway line to the SW, the nearest railway is about 500m to the NE.

Current problem with Northolt:-

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/LJ25,_Northolt_London_UK,1996_(RE_HF)

[Skipness One Echo]

Considering that the planes themselves often park almost next to each other, has there ever been consideration to providing an airside link from T5C directly into the Central complex, thus avoiding such a detour?

I think T5C is just as close to T5A as it is to an already overcrowded T3. I am not sure whether the trains have the capacity to manage the volumes going both ways. In an ideal world T5 and T3 might be linked they have to put the fire station somewhere so a T5D is apparently out, added to the fact the current transit may not have the capacity.

[Fairdealfrank]

Jabird, suspect that the long term plan is probably to link the transit from Heathrow 5A/B/C to a potential "5D" and to a rebuilt Heathrow 3 (particularly for BA/oneworld transfers) and eventually to the new Heathrow1/2 and its various satelites.

A parallel landside route including the central bus/railway station would also make sense. It would certainly be far more convenient than ferrying pax around on a fleet of buses. On the other hand this may be just a bit too much joined-up thinking, or just too expensive.

Barling Magna, your comments about domestic turboprops such as Flybe using NHT to restore thin domestic routes that used to operate out of LHR could be a "permanent" temporary arrangement, until such time as LHR gets its two extra runways (could be a very long wait regretably).

Could NHT be a shared military/civil airport, like Newquay and Frankfurt used to be, and Don Muang (Bangkok) still is?

NHT is limited in growth potential so any monorail over the A312 between LHR and NHT would need to also link in to existing rail and underground lines at both ends and to the HS2 at the Northolt end.

Anyone notice the pigs flying overhead!

[nigel osborne]

Um..I can just see it now."Ladies and gentleman welcome to Heathrow England please now queue to board your coach to Northolt 7 miles away for your connecting flight.:confused:

Just for that reason with airline alliances it will never happen.

Nigel

[Walnut]

I believe this is a very sensible idea, It is much cheaper than Boris Island and much closer to either the capital or the current main London airport.

It should be purely domestic only, helping the immigration headaches, and have a high speed monorail transit to LHR terminals. ie a loop through the central area T4 & T5.
The runway is long enough for the operations envisaged.

People suggest that distances are too great, but just go to Atlanta for example. Boris Island pax, even with the speedy communications envisiged would take far longer to reach the capital & most importantly it is out on a limb re its catchment area. Imagine having to transit the capital to go to almost anywhere else in the UK.

The HS2 whilst difficult to justify would make more sense if a terminal was created at Northolt, so traffic could come up from LHR via the monorail to then connect onwards.

Lastly I believe this project could be up and running within 5yrs

[nigel osborne]

Walnut,

There is enough congestion in the air around LHR and LCY as it is, Now its being suggested to hugely increase air traffic in the form of airliners into Northolt with all the extra spacing, and airspace ?:ugh:

A large amount of passengers using LHR connect with their alliance partners and now its being muted to bus them 7 miles through heavy road traffic from LHR to Northholt after a long flight,... and thats going to be acceptable to business passengers.:confused:

Nigel

[Groundloop]

There is enough congestion in the air around LHR and LCY as it is, Now its being suggested to hugely increase air traffic in the form of airliners into Northolt with all the extra spacing, and airspace

Why would that be any different to a 3rd runway at Heathrow?

[Skipness One Echo]

It should be purely domestic only
Nowhere near enough traffic to justify a runway on it's own.

[twentypoint4]

Interesting idea which I hadn't thought about before. Nightmare from an ATC point of view however...

Consider easterly operations with Northolt's runway 07 extended approach centreline cutting right through Heathrow's 09L/09R approach.

I won't go into the details of current procedures and how they get around this nowadays. However, all I'll say is that it wouldn't be at all practical with a constant flow of traffic to both Northolt's and Heathrow's easterly runways.

[Dan Dare]

it wouldn't be at all practical with a constant flow of traffic to both Northolt's and Heathrow's easterly runways

Why not? It works now doesn't it? Not really ideal, but not beyond the wit of mankind to work out procedures for more movements. Curved approaches already technically possible.

On the other hand I don't believe it will ever be Heathrow north for political and financial reasons.

By the time HM government have decided what to do there will be a new lot in and a new consultation for another 8 years (reapeat ad-infinitum until we run out of fuel or don't want airports any more).

[Walnut]

I was not suggesting busing pax between the airports, A high speed monorail could speed people in 10min between airports.
There would not really be a problem with ATC, Just go to New York where you have 4 airports within much the same separation ie JFK, EWR, Le Guardia & Teteborough.
If you make it domestic only I believe there would be plenty of traffic, ie Northern Island. Channel Islands. Eire. Scotland. various Northern England airfields, It would also allow more direct flts to be developed from the North with easy conections compared to now with L/H & S/H flts.
As there would be no immigration or customs the terminal could be simple. with automatic trains running through the terminal direct to the main airport.
If we could steal ourselves to sign up to Schengan then even more traffic would develop.
Surely rather than plonking a large housing estate on the land with all the congestion this would produce, this could be a progressive way of making a linked transport system, with the HS2 stopping on its way to Birmingham and beyond.
W Walsh has already said he is not prepared to move from his swanky new terminal, so as he will shortly have 50% of LHR slots there is not much future in building "Boris Island" at a cost of circa £50B, for it to only have half occupany

[twentypoint4]

Why not? It works now doesn't it? Not really ideal, but not beyond the wit of mankind to work out procedures for more movements. Curved approaches already technically possible.It works now, but only because Northolt isn't very busy. The approach being flown on easterly ops is a talkdown (or SRA) approach. This involves a lot of controller workload and wouldn't be practical for arrivals landing every few minutes. This type of approach also has less leeway when it comes to bad weather.

I agree that curved, precision approaches are possible (MLS, P-RNAV) but only really if flown in isolation i.e. not 3 miles north of another busy instrument approach.

There would not really be a problem with ATC, Just go to New York where you have 4 airports within much the same separation ie JFK, EWR, Le Guardia & Teteborough.
Except each of their airports have multiple runways (and not just parallel) allowing much greater flexibility when it comes to sequencing the busy traffic between them.
We're talking about trying to hugely improve runway capacity/utilisation in London. All I'm saying is that with this scenario a third of the time (when easterly ops are in force), trying to achieve this greater utilisation would be a big headache.

[Cyrano]

Never going to happen and it has been well chewed over in the past.


As Skipness says, folks have no idea about how much time to leave getting across one terminal, leave alone a T1-T4/5 connection. Asking them to take a fast train to Terminal N, that takes a bit longer? Nah. They will belly ache all day long and spread very bad publicity for EGLL.



One of these (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transrapid_M%C3%BCnchen) would get you from NHT to LHR fairly fast. This was the proposed Munich Airport maglev link (cancelled in 2008) - 37 km, journey time 10 minutes, final cost estimate €3bn. So if we transpose that to LHR-NHT, we get - what? 13 km, 4 min?, maybe €1.5bn?

Whilst it might just be possible to create a secure network between these locations and treat the train/mono rail as airside, it would be very expensive and difficult in practice because you would have non EU pax and domestic trying to move between terminals.

IIRC the Skytrain in Frankfurt Airport consists of 2-car trains, one of which is for airside passengers, one for landside. Something like this could theoretically be done in this case too (airside/landside, or airside domestic/airside-but-not-yet-through-UK-immigration).

Expensive? Yes? Complicated? Yes? Feasible? Don't know. But IMHO it still seems more feasible than building a new island... :(

[PAXboy]

The Munich Transrapid project was being formulatee when I worked in the city for 18 months. The S-Bahn was very good and I used it all the time. I could land at MUC at 23:00 on a Sunday night, be on the train 25 mins later and then 40 mins to the centre and it was ALWAYS there.

However, I expect that they will have to build something faster soon as the car traffic out to there is grim.

[racedo]

No chance as why bother when HS2 is being built will be attitude of Govt.

As for marginal seat loss....................irrelevant when Scottish Independence is considered.

[Fairdealfrank]

Let's not worry too much about marginal constituencies, by their nature they flip between parties, a Labour marginal will go Conservative one election then later on it's back to Labour, and vice versa.

A marginal seat will probably change several times before LHR gets a third/fourth runway, NHT is developed for domestic flights, Heathwick links are built, Silver Island/Isle of Grain is built, and adequate public transport/motorway links are provided for any of these.

Another flock of pigs flies by.....

[jabird]

Barling Magna - when I said one of them, as in I voted Tory, I consider myself a conservative thinker - I don't work for the govt or a party.

Re: marginals - these are exactly the kind of seats that elections are fought over - no point in putting resources into seats you either can't win, or are going to win anyway.

Also, I know this is for another thread - but just because Scotland is going to have a referendum, doesn't mean they will get independence, so all political planning has to assume business as usual.

If we're going to talk New York, let's talk twin hubs - LHR T5 & 3 remodelled for Oneworld, looks like Star are getting T2. Terminate HS2 at LGW, spur at OOC onto line to Reading for Home Counties traffic. Both airports then have similar times to reach central London, give Skyteam swanky midfield terminal @LGW - Flybe provide the feeders.

Maybe not the third runway LHR wants, which we know would only lead to a fourth, but it would be workable politically.

[Skipness One Echo]

give Skyteam swanky midfield terminal @LGW
They'll all be delighted at being sh1fted off to Gatters I suppose? The North Terminal at Gatwick used to beat Terrible One at LHR hands down for 20 years before BA moved to T5, it's NOT the Terminal facilities that's the issue.

We have one (almost) functional hub airfield, spliiting it between two counties is a commercial non starter, like "Heath-wick". How many of the politicians blethering on about this have any commercial experience outside politics?
Who IS Justine Greening? Would I even hire her to cut my grass?

The problem is the electorate, WE are all morons. We want continued economic growth with no aircraft noise, fast trains though NIMBY, cheap power via a trillion wind-farms and no nuclear and discipline in schools where teachers have no recourse that would scare anyone. Honestly, I do sometimes have sympathy for politicians. To top it all, pprune has recently become completely fixated with trains ! This madness has no end....

[jabird]

Skipless,

Like I said, it is not the perfect solution, but it is more likely to be workable than either a fantasy island or adding more runways on to already noisy Heathrow, not to mention the political challenges.

They'll all be delighted at being sh1fted off to Gatters I suppose? The North Terminal at Gatwick used to beat Terrible One at LHR hands down for 20 years before BA moved to T5, it's NOT the Terminal facilities that's the issue.

Well, if it is access to central London, see above. If it is the prestige / Heathrow is biggest, so I just want to be there argument, not much can be done about that. I ask - what is the 'prestige' airport for NYC - I suggest it is still JFK. But which is the biggest and easiest hub? EWR, surely?

We have one (almost) functional hub airfield, spliiting it between two counties is a commercial non starter,

My assumption is that Oneworld would move their LGW flights into LHR - so let's not pretend that current arrangement doesn't already split the hub in two.

I'd love to see some figures - I would assume that, even if a lot of BAs LGW is ptp, there is still a fair bit of interlining going on. Most interlining at LHR must be within same airline or grouping?

like "Heath-wick".

All Heath-wick does is provide a fast connection which might be needed less if all airline groups could serve their customers under one roof - or 2 in the case of BA + Oneworld @ LHR.

How much LGW-LHR traffic is DIY connections, involving a loco leg anyway - hardly the ones to pay for a premium rail service.

But the real flaw of Heathwick is that it provides zero extra capacity, yet it has a £5bn price tag, the sort of figure which would almost pay for a 2nd runway and midfield terminal at LGW. :D

The problem is the electorate, WE are all morons. We want continued economic growth with no aircraft noise, fast trains though NIMBY, cheap power via a trillion wind-farms and no nuclear and discipline in schools where teachers have no recourse that would scare anyone. Honestly, I do sometimes have sympathy for politicians.

Very well put Skipless, that is the reality they face - the people you want with commercial experience are to busy still getting that commercial experience as they know what a headache it would be to become a politician!

Having said that, Ms Greening is an accountant. How she accepted HS2 without modifying it surprised me, but maybe she saw that it might actually bring some useful benefits once the second bit gets built - if it gets built....

o top it all, pprune has recently become completely fixated with trains !

The parallel thread on Thames Airport has been, I started a Jetblast thread about HS2 a couple of weeks ago, and if chugged to a halt after a few days.

I think the reason that thread is so full of stuff about trains (apart from the diversionary stuff about running HS2 through Crossrail) is quite simple - I don't think the aeronautical issues of Boris Island would pose that many challenges (birdstrike perhaps) - but the surface access is going to need to rotate London completely.

Northolt on the other hand poses significant aerospace challenges - and a few surface access ones too. OK, back to playing aerosexuals then?

[Fairdealfrank]

Can't really see NHT as an alternative to expansion at LHR, it's too constrained. Easterly landings into the east could be problematic.

However, NHT could be used for thin domestic routes, those that have lost their links to LHR over the years such as LPL, LBA, MME, INV, JER, etc., and allow new destinations such as NQY, CWL, BLK, IOM, CAX, DND, etc..

Some of these areas desperately need regeneration and improved connectivity is essential, and let's face it, none of these destinations will ever see an HST.

Being thin routes, smaller jets and turbo props would be used. Trunk routes such as MAN, NCL, BHD/BFS, GLA, EDI and ABZ would remain at LHR because of the use of larger aircraft.

Advantages:
As mentioned above, the provision of greater connectivity and assisting in regeneration;
More regions would have improved access to a world hub, with an easier transit than from LGW, for example;
A 17 minute link to London (Chiltern Railways, as mentioned in a previous post) make it as suitable as the increasingly overcrowded LCY for domestic traffic headed to/from London;
Links to/from LHR would need to be "landside" only, as immigration and customs would be at LHR for pax. arriving from overseas;
A skytrain or monorail between LHR and NHT would benefit commuters and other travellers apart from pax., by linking various underground and rail routes;
It would bring in extra income for the military.

All this depends on whether one or more carriers (such as BE or U2, or a "cityflier" type operation) can see business potential. NHT can never be a busy airport like LGA in New York, and civil aviation would have to share with the RAF as was the case at NQY, but more use could certainly be made of this facility.

All Longhaul and most shorthaul European operations are out of the question at NHT, so LHR expansion would remain essential.

It's all probably pie in the sky, but the above does have considerable merit, at least until LHR expansion is completed.

[jabird]

FDF,

However, NHT could be used for thin domestic routes, those that have lost their links to LHR over the years such as , etc., and allow new destinations such as etc..

Some of these areas desperately need regeneration and improved connectivity is essential, and let's face it,

But in many of the cases you mention, there are other reasons why the routes don't exist, nothing to do with LHR - APD and fuel prices being the obvious two.

LPL

When was LPL last served from LHR? Gone from LCY - train & APD?

LBA, MME

LCY-LBA lasted a month or two? Iirc, BE tried LGW-LBA & MME - short lived.

CWL,

V train - what that needs is Reading to LHR link, which should come with XRail.

BLK, CAX

For BLK, read Preston - both do nicely out of being on the WCML route, because of Glasgow, many more trains stop here than otherwise would - hence very difficult for competing air services to work.

INV, JER, NQY, IOM, DND,

Yes, would be good to have at LHR - not to mention places in Ireland, maybe EIN, GRQ, LIL etc.

HOWEVER - SEN could take this as ptp. For connections, that's a lot of movements to get any kind of volume + infra costs + airspace etc.

Don't quite see it working I'm afraid - but apart from DND, all the above could feed in to an expanded hub at LGW

none of these destinations will ever see an HST.

Not so - Leeds is one of the major destinations of Phase2, and by then there should also be a join from HS2 onto the classic line around Preston, good for both BLK & CAX. There will also be a join around York for Darlington (MME).

[Fairdealfrank]

Yes, did say that it could be pie in the sky.

The HST will never reach places like CAX, BLK, MME, etc., areas that need the connectivity that can help with regeneration. The HST is unlikely to go north of Birmingham in our lifetime. If it does, Manchester will be probably be the limit. The long way round to Leeds via Birmingham on an HST will not be that much shorter in time than the existing 2 hour journey time.

Even if the HST eventually went all the way to Glasgow, the whole point is to eliminate the stops, else the journey times cannot be maintained. The 50 minutes London-Birmingham HST journey time is nonstop. The present 3 stop journey is 1 hour 20. Take out the stops and the journey time may reduce to 1 hour 5 or 1 hour 10. It's an awful lot of money and disruption to save 15-20 minutes.

The likes of Preston, Blackpool, Carlisle, York, Darlington and Middlesbrough will never see it. Preston, York and Darlington have some fairly quick rail journey times as it is, if central London is the origin/destination. If an HST network is ever built most of the UK will see it pass by without the ability to access it.

The point of expanding domestic routes is to provide much needed capacity to relieve chronic road congestion and rail overcrowding in a more comprehensive way and at a fraction of the cost of the HS2 and to provide consumer choice.

Because of premium fares, most of us won't be able to afford to ride the HST, if aviation can compete on fares it will. As mentioned previously, it depends on whether one or more carriers can see business potential.

[PAXboy]

It's nice pie in the sky, if only brit govts of the last 40 years had thought such things. By the way, until late 2001 (if memory serves) IOM was also direct to LHR with three rotations a day. Manx Airlines had four pairs of slots and it was the prime reason that Big Air bought them out. It was also the second time that Big had dumped the IOM.

Nowadays, people link through LTN, MAN for longer haul and LCY for biz. There are a number of other routes from the island. But, just like Brymon, they used to have LHR pairs and that made them valuable and vulnerable.

Sorry, just a small hobby horse but no new govt is going to do better than those of the past in respect of British airline business.

[Skipness One Echo]

so let's not pretend that current arrangement doesn't already split the hub in two.

The hub is not split in two, BA don't hub at Gatwick which is overwhelming point to point leisure. It's not about prestige and LHR being bigger, it's about pound for pound under legacy long and short haul, yields are higher at LHR.

jabird, the Skyteam airlines, Continental before they left and in particular Delta spent years fighting to get out of LGW and have LHR access. There is no commercial case for them moving back, you'd need to force them.

[jabird]

FDF,

For the technical stuff re: HST, please see the thread on JB. But the current plan is that York & then NCL inc Darlington + Preston, Carlisle etc would all be served as extensions from the end of Phase 2, which stops at Leeds and Manchester. Planned date is 2033, give or take, but I certainly hope to still be around by then :)

With regards to:

The point of expanding domestic routes is to provide much needed capacity to relieve chronic road congestion and rail overcrowding in a more comprehensive way and at a fraction of the cost of the HS2 and to provide consumer choice.

You have to remember that when the Tories came out with the firm 'No R3 @ LHR' policy, they needed to be seen to be doing something in its place. Theresa Villiers then came up with the ridiculous idea that HS2 was the substitute for this runway. So the idea that there's be any support for using NHT to compete with HS2, into which they are pumping billions, would be just as daft.

If, on the other hand, they see NHT as serving routes onto the Continent, and to Ireland + IOM, CI etc - ones that HS2 can't reach, then maybe.

[jabird]

SOE,

The hub is not split in two, BA don't hub at Gatwick which is overwhelming point to point leisure.

Yes, I accept that is the bulk, but still a few Med destinations which are also sizeable cities - VLC, GOA for example. Maybe yields not so high from the UK, but as feeders to LH?

It's not about prestige and LHR being bigger, it's about pound for pound under legacy long and short haul, yields are higher at LHR.

I don't question that, but why do people pay more? Two factors - 1) quality of terminals (although only really relevant for T5) and 2) transfer time to central London could be addressed with new facilities and a big surface access upgrade at LGW.

There is no commercial case for them moving back, you'd need to force them.

As LHR currently stands, I agree entirely. LGW could only expand if it overcame the time advantage LHR has.

As for forcing, I cannot answer that - after all, theey are separately owned now. However, whatever drawback LGW may have, they are tiny compared to Boris Island. If BI is indeed just a smokescreen for LHR R3, then it wouldn't be surprising, but I still think there's a major political headache in getting it through. Especially, looking how many things Ed Miliband has apologised for / backtracked from the last government - can you see a U-turn on this (without the extra 40+ seats they would gain from Scotland)?

[Jet2LBA]

Whilst I agree it's an interesting discussion to speculate on the viability of Northolt for thin domestic links, I can't see how money would be spent on this by a government when it wouldn't help resolve the issue at hand - the ability to free up slots ar LHR for expansion. Links to Northern Ireland, Scotland, etc currently flown on the 320 family would likely need to stay at LHR due to the runway length at Northolt. There seems little political will to encourage new domestic hops out of London on thin routes, the current APD costs being evidence of this.

[Skipness One Echo]

I don't question that, but why do people pay more? Two factors - 1) quality of terminals (although only really relevant for T5) and 2) transfer time to central London could be addressed with new facilities and a big surface access upgrade at LGW.
Terminal facilities at LGW North and a rail link in place faster than LHR's into London were superior to anything at LHR until recent years. The market prefers LHR.

[jabird]

Terminal facilities at LGW North and a rail link in place faster than LHR's into London were superior to anything at LHR until recent years. The market prefers LHR.

The market may prefer LHR, but what if they only offer on the table is expansion at LGW or nothing?

As already discussed, LHR would have a 4th runway if it could, and maybe if planes were silent, that would be an option. It is one thing to demolish a small number of houses (Sipson) to make space to lay concrete, but quite another to further enlarge what must already be Europe's biggest noise footprint.

I think we're agreed that Boris Island is a non-starter, and the only market interested in STN or LTN is the low cost one.

[Peter47]

I've always thought that if Heathrow is to have a third runway then its has to be at Northolt. You would need to realign the existing runway so that it is parrallel with the the two at Heathrow. This could be done within the existing perimeter.

You could then build a terminal over the existing Central Line depot which could be replaced by some underground sidings - as has already happened at White City. This would then be opposite the Central Line (which could be extended to Uxbridge) & Chiltern Lines. At 1850 m it would be as long as DCA (Washington Reagan National) & you could reach most of Europe.

Problems

Noise & pollution - might need to wait for the next generation of aircraft.

ATC congestion - no worse than a third runway at LHR.

Getting between terminals - not much worse than LHR T6 if an underground railway is built. The larger the airport the longer the taxi (JFK comes to mind but there are others). With a single runway & terminal taxi times should be shorter. There is no reason why a transit system cannot cope with international & domestic - Frankfurt & Seattle have separate vehicles for the two in transit trains.

More ground congestion. However you would get a terminal adjacent to two rail lines. You would need to encourage some users of the A40 to switch to rail as it is not feasible to widen the road. No worse than LHR Runway 3 / T6 though.

Advantages

You effectively get an extra runway & terminal without having to acquire any extra land other than from the MoD & LUL. Just imagine the protesters having a field day if some old dears refuse to vacate homes acquired through compulsory purchase.

Verdict

Currently complaints about noise from locals would make it a non starter. Boris Island with LHR remaining open would appear to be the best option. £10bn to build an airport is affordable, £50 bn including all kinds of infrastructure, four track high speed lines, etc, would be hard to justify. It might make sense if you could use existing spare capacity on HS1 (and there is plenty).

However as other posts have said it might only work if LHR were closed. What would that do for the economy of west London. It might give local MP John McDonnel and the London Borough of Hillingdon pause for thought. If airport workers have to move and support workers are likely to move their jobs people will start getting worried. (You could start on threat on whether you could have a two hub airport strategy for London. New York manages it but thats about the only example I can think of.)

In that scenario a backdoor third runway for Heathrow with a strict night curfew and limited to quiet aircraft might be preferable to moving LHR to Boris Island.

You will remember that LCY was limited to propjets when it opened and was on no account to accommodate jets. We know what happened. Similarly start with domestic only. Then add Ireland. Then CDG / BRU / AMS and go from there.

Perhaps its a shame that BEA moved to LHR in the 50s. If a railway tunnel between the two was built we would have a third runway at the moment!

[jabird]

Peter,

I've always thought that if Heathrow is to have a third runway then its has to be at Northolt. You would need to realign the existing runway so that it is parrallel with the the two at Heathrow. This could be done within the existing perimeter.

That is a more interesting suggestion. But I think the locals would smell a rat, and they'd see that as a brand new runway, which it effectively would be.

Afaik, aircraft like the 320neo claim a reduction in fuel burn around 15% compared to predecessors, but is there a corresponding reduction in noise? I know the Q400 claims a noise footprint of just 5% of a 732, but they've all long gone, and you'd need double the movements for the same volume of pax. Not what LHR needs.

As for airside-airside, this wouldn't be anything like as easy as at FRA, where the link is above ground, and presumably designed into the terminal from the start.

As LHR has 3 main terminal areas (anyone got a plan for where T6 would go?) - that would be one hell of a challenge as you'd be dealing with a complex quiltwork of tunnels. And I think it would be equally difficult to retrofit the existing rail and tube stations. But probably still cheaper than BI :D