Bagso
2nd Apr 2012, 20:43
This from another thread, but does anybody have any facts on the total number of ATMs that the London TMA can handle now and also with a 3rd RW at LHR.
LHR, LGW, STN , LTN, LCY, are all competing for a slice of the traffic, business or Leisure, as they all have their own unique vested interests.
We also now have Southend in the mix.
Farnborough and Biggin also have a substantial level of business movements !
All the forecasts I have seen deal with capacity restrictions based purely on lack of runways, the natural arguement therefore is build another runway at LHR and hey presto you can put more aircraft in !
BUT what about ATC capacity in the air , some people think this is infinite, it appears to be !
So why not put 2 runways in LHR , add another at LGW, and why not throw in a second at Luton and Stansted .....on that basis everybody is happy, each has bags of capacity, all the delays, restrictions seemingly dissolve .... !
BUT hang on capacity cannot be infinite, as a case in point we have the Olympics coming up, all the reports on ATMs relating to the increased traffic levels regarding that event suggest a different story, they suggest a very delicate managed flow to prevent massive slot restrictions, delays etc, so they are in effect saying that the marginal extra movements relating to the Olympics cannot be handled without a trade off somewhere else ....!
..... if you build another runway at LHR will this not simply constrain movements in another location i.e. are we not simply shuffling round the problems that ATC have to then manage ?
A case in point is the Stansted/ Southend equation, EZY have in effect moved 30 daily flights that previously served STN to Southend, instead of all these movements originating at 1 airport, we clearly now have airspace issues around movements in/out of STN plus Southend and even LCY as slots in/out must conflict with each other !
That problem in itself will now grow as the owners of Southend have aspirations to grow their own business by 2m pax a year !
I just cannot see how this the piecemeal approach of an extra runway is actually going to maintain the status of LHR unless the ATMS are reduced elsewhere..
Could somebody in ATC offer a view in terms of how to rationalise this ?
LHR, LGW, STN , LTN, LCY, are all competing for a slice of the traffic, business or Leisure, as they all have their own unique vested interests.
We also now have Southend in the mix.
Farnborough and Biggin also have a substantial level of business movements !
All the forecasts I have seen deal with capacity restrictions based purely on lack of runways, the natural arguement therefore is build another runway at LHR and hey presto you can put more aircraft in !
BUT what about ATC capacity in the air , some people think this is infinite, it appears to be !
So why not put 2 runways in LHR , add another at LGW, and why not throw in a second at Luton and Stansted .....on that basis everybody is happy, each has bags of capacity, all the delays, restrictions seemingly dissolve .... !
BUT hang on capacity cannot be infinite, as a case in point we have the Olympics coming up, all the reports on ATMs relating to the increased traffic levels regarding that event suggest a different story, they suggest a very delicate managed flow to prevent massive slot restrictions, delays etc, so they are in effect saying that the marginal extra movements relating to the Olympics cannot be handled without a trade off somewhere else ....!
..... if you build another runway at LHR will this not simply constrain movements in another location i.e. are we not simply shuffling round the problems that ATC have to then manage ?
A case in point is the Stansted/ Southend equation, EZY have in effect moved 30 daily flights that previously served STN to Southend, instead of all these movements originating at 1 airport, we clearly now have airspace issues around movements in/out of STN plus Southend and even LCY as slots in/out must conflict with each other !
That problem in itself will now grow as the owners of Southend have aspirations to grow their own business by 2m pax a year !
I just cannot see how this the piecemeal approach of an extra runway is actually going to maintain the status of LHR unless the ATMS are reduced elsewhere..
Could somebody in ATC offer a view in terms of how to rationalise this ?