Aviation Review Predictions

[jdcg]

I don't know about you but I'm getting a bit bored with the endless arguments about future airport capacity in the South East. It's all in Howard Davies' hands now so how about a thread where we just make our predictions now as to what will be the outcome - then we can all see who was right in a year or so's time? (Probably no-one!). Rules as follows:

a) No debate or direct replies - just our hunches
b) No cynical quips
c) It's not what we think should happen - but what we think will be the outcome.

For what it' worth, I say:

1. Permanent mixed mode at LHR
2. New runway at LGW
3. New runway at STN
4. Detailed feasibility study into additional Thames Estuary airport

[DaveReidUK]

5. None of the above will be an outcome of the commission, which has no power to make anything happen, only to make recommendations.

Politicians will determine what, if anything, is done as a consequence of those recommendations. In order to predict that, it's necessary first to predict the result of the next election.

[jdcg]

Point taken; but I did actually mean what would the commission recommend.

[adfly]

We reach 2015 and following the discovery of a new, even longer breed of grass, it gets pushed back by another 5 years. :)

[LGS6753]

A shortlist of four sites for the "Third London Airport" (after Luton and City, obviously:}):

Foulness, Essex
Nuthamstead, Essex
Wing/Cublington, Bucks
Thurleigh, Beds.

What goes around, comes around...

[racedo]

Politicians will determine what, if anything, is done as a consequence of those recommendations. In order to predict that, it's necessary first to predict the result of the next election.

The recommendations have already been written, the review is only required to provide justification for the recommendations.

[PAXboy]

Very good adfly.

By the time there is a politician with the cojones to do ANYTHING, it will be too late. The hub traffic will have moved further east, Britain will be in the same financial black hole we are now. There won't be any money or any pax. Nothing will happen because LHR will be able to cope with the rump demand.

[DaveReidUK]

The recommendations have already been written

Care to share your knowledge with the rest of us ?

[racedo]

Care to share your knowledge with the rest of us ?

Do you actually think Cameroon would allow a situation where Govt's desire would not have already been communicated to a couple of the key influencers.........

[DaveReidUK]

Do you actually think Cameroon would allow a situation where Govt's desire would not have already been communicated to a couple of the key influencers.........

I was referring to what you know, not what they know.

[racedo]

I was referring to what you know, not what they know.

If I knew the recommendations I would be buying land....

[jabird]

Key point is that post 2015, the coalition as we know it will cease to exist.

Therefore -

Davies will push for the logical answer the industry wants, namely LHR R3. His committee will try and push the other options, including do nothing, STN or LGW R2, or even BHX as a hub.

Boris Island will remain a non-starter.

The problem then comes in whether findings are accepted. If Cameron gets re-elected, he will have a mandate for R3, and Goldsmith might be out of the way. Replacement of any current MP by Boris makes LHR 3 extremely unlikely - too much of a pledge and London is his current remit. He can always plump for STN R2 as a "stepping stone" to a Boris Island that we all know will never happen.

Under Labour, there is verbal agreement to accept Davies, but will Milibland agree to that post 2015? That's probably the biggest challenge.

Then you will have other mitigating factors - surface access will be defined by rail above road. So if Xrail is already going to be full, Boris / TfL will want another new route option as part of a Section 106 (planning gain) agreement.

Alternatively, given that Xrail will be built, they might back STN and a new route out that way - easier to push through than new capacity from LGW into central London - unless that feeds into an Xrail 2.

More worryingly, BHX might get pushed, because 4 shuttle trains an hour firing up HS2 will be a huge boost to the business case. Suddenly, Londoners will have a reason to back HS2. Expect a BHX terminal and BHX Through station "solution" to the problem.

So sorry I can't just give a list. As already commented on other threads, there are too many factors at play. This isn't about quips from Sir Humphrey anymore, you could write a whole series of YM on the subject.

You want me to put money on the outcome? Well tonight I'll go for STN2 + new moderate speed link in to it.

Tomorrow I'll stick my chips on LHR R3. Do any of us really know?

[Dannyboy39]

Do any of us really trust the commission to come to the correct decision?

There are going to be vested interests somewhere along the line.

[DaveReidUK]

Do any of us really trust the commission to come to the correct decision?

Have you never watched Yes, Minister ?

The commission was formed expressly for that purpose - to come to the "correct" decision.

Of course that includes deciding not to decide ... :O

[racedo]

Alternatively, given that Xrail will be built, they might back STN and a new route out that way - easier to push through than new capacity from LGW into central London - unless that feeds into an Xrail 2.


Thameslink upgrade is already happening and that will feed into XRail at Farringdon

[BALHR]

What this commission should so is suggest that LHR should get R3 and R4 and be allowed to operate all its runways simultaneously (the best solution overall)

If not, then it will suggest replacing London's main airports with a new purpose built one (the 2nd best solution overall)

[DaveReidUK]

and be allowed to operate all its runways simultaneously

Gosh, there's a novel idea, how come they haven't thought of that before ?

[BALHR]

What I am suggesting is not (if there where 4 runways at LHR) 2 runways operating at the same time (as some have suggested), but all 4

[DaveReidUK]

2 runways operating at the same time (as some have suggested)

Can you point us towards any proposal you have seen that involves having 4 runways but only operating half of them at a time ?

How would that provide more capacity than currently exists ?

[BALHR]

It has been at the end latter part of this thread

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/469575-new-thames-airport-london.html

Also using 4 runways at the same time means that more take-off and landing slots are available than when only 2 are being used

[DaveReidUK]

Are you by any chance referring to this:

A 4-rwy LHR would need to be on segregated mode: two rwys for takeoffs, two rwys for landings, using alternation with a changeover daily at 1500 to allow some quiet for those under the flightpath. Those with quiet in the morning, would have quiet in the afternoon the next day and vice versa and so on.

If so, you misunderstand.

You might want to take some time out and study what's meant by "alternation".

It doesn't mean leaving a runway idle for half the time.

[BALHR]

Apologies, I understand...

[fairflyer]

Once the dust has settled, this four runway proposal to the immediate west of Heathrow over the M25 makes most sense, still utilising much of LHR infrastructure. Right location, less noise, right capacity.


http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/bigger%20and%20quieter.pdf

We have to have one major hub, not more runway capacity shared around all the rest of the London airports or anything else in the SE UK. And that one major hub has to have four runways to work as a hub.

My prediction however is that no decisions will be reached for two more terms - 10 years by which time it's far too late with a minimum 15 year gestation period to actually build and then commission.

[BALHR]

I still think you can build another runway north of LHR and another one south of the airport, that will be cheaper than the PE idea (which will not solve the noise issues that will come up)

In fact LHR and the local area can fit a total of 6 runways (far enough to be able to be used simultaneously) without knocking down too many houses

[DaveReidUK]

Why do you think that Heathrow needs six runways ?

They tried that once, but gave it up as a bad idea:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Aerial_photograph_of_Heathrow_Airport%2C_1955.jpg/763px-Aerial_photograph_of_Heathrow_Airport%2C_1955.jpg

[jabird]

My prediction however is that no decisions will be reached for two more terms - 10 years by which time it's far too late with a minimum 15 year gestation period to actually build and then commission.

A decision was reached. The decision was to do nothing. Sometimes that is a perfectly respectable option. Whenever a transport proposal is being evaluated, at the very least, alternatives need to be weighed not just against each other, but against the status quo.

I think this is why so many people are unconvinced about HS2. The govt have put forward a case based on a very low BCR (benefit cost ratio). Then supporters turn round and say ignore BCR, that is just a measure to compare projects, the wider benefits go well beyond this.

In pure economic terms, it doesn't make sense to charge full steam ahead with an unproven rail project, and then to block an airport project which is already costed and funded.

However, political factors will always come into play. Post 15, we'll have run out of grass to kick the can into any more. So either they do something, or they make a decision to NEVER do anything. I know I'm starting to sound like a politician now, but choosing not doing something and avoiding making a decision to do something are quite different.

[Libertine Winno]

@fairflyer

I've been championing the Policy Exchange one since it came out, as it seems the best option of all those considered.

However, the OP was asking what we think will actually happen, not what we think SHOULD happen, and in answer to that question I think we will get a recommendation for a shortened R3 at LHR north of the current one, over what is currently Sipson.

Why? Because it is a classic Government fudge, which only partly solves the problem!

[DaveReidUK]

I think we will get a recommendation for a shortened R3 at LHR north of the current one, over what is currently Sipson.

Call me a cynic, but if the commission recommends that in their 2013 interim report (which is what we're being asked to predict), what's left for them to do for the remaining two years of their tenure ?

[PAXboy]

... what's left for them to do for the remaining two years of their tenure ? Expenses?
Hire consultants to do more research?
Make visits to many foreign fields for research?

I know, I'm too cynical for my socks. :hmm:

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “Davies will push for the logical answer the industry wants, namely LHR R3. His committee will try and push the other options, including do nothing, STN or LGW R2, or even BHX as a hub.

Boris Island will remain a non-starter.”

The trouble with recommending anywhere apart from LHR is that the airlines and pax won’t accept it, they‘ll use the competition instead: AMS, CDG, FRA.
　
　
Quote: “Do any of us really trust the commission to come to the correct decision?”

Depends what we/you/they think is the correct decision.

　
Quote: “Have you never watched Yes, Minister ?

The commission was formed expressly for that purpose - to come to the "correct" decision.

Of course that includes deciding not to decide …”

Of course, remember it well. Whenever good old Jim Hacker was disinclined to take the “long grass” option, Sir Humphrey would come out with something like: “a very brave decision, minister”. Excellent stuff!


Quote: “I still think you can build another runway north of LHR and another one south of the airport, that will be cheaper than the PE idea (which will not solve the noise issues that will come up)”

South of LHR is problematic, that strays into the “Free Enterprise Group’s” idea of demolishing Bedfont and Stanwell. Open land across the M25 is the answer.

Quote: “In fact LHR and the local area can fit a total of 6 runways (far enough to be able to be used simultaneously) without knocking down too many houses .”

Would love to see it, please explain how and where. You mentioned the word “simultaneously”, that implies all six rwys would be parallel.


Quote: “However, the OP was asking what we think will actually happen, not what we think SHOULD happen, and in answer to that question I think we will get a recommendation for a shortened R3 at LHR north of the current one, over what is currently Sipson.

Why? Because it is a classic Government fudge, which only partly solves the problem!”

Agreed, because otherwise the business goes abroad to the competition.

[Dannyboy39]

Quote: “Do any of us really trust the commission to come to the correct decision?”

Depends what we/you/they think is the correct decision.

Well there is only one correct decision and that is Rwy3/4 at LHR. The plan put forward for LHR by the Policy Exchange is growing on me to be honest; very much workable.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Well there is only one correct decision and that is Rwy3/4 at LHR. The plan put forward for LHR by the Policy Exchange is growing on me to be honest; very much workable."

Perhaps, at least it's not lunatic nonsense like some of the schemes. Have to admit that much sensible and practical thought has been put into this. Do have an issue in particular with losing the existing two good long rwys!

However, it is very long term (draining reservoirs, building 4 rwys, new terminals, new fire stations, new public transport routes and interchanges, etc.), and consequently, very expensive.

Two questions arise:

1. Could BAA afford it? Would the extra expense give a as much of a return return as keeping the existing rwys and adding two more?

2. What is to be done in the interim? A third rwy at Sipson?

PS it would be one hell of a long taxy (3 mi.?) from the new LHR-1/2 (which stays under these proposals) to the far end of one of the four new rwys on an easterly takeoff! Could rival AMS!

[jdcg]

Seems like everyone completely missed the point of this thread. :confused: Just reads like the Heathrow thread, the new Thames airport thread etc etc...

[Dannyboy39]

...well I'd say it was more workable than some of the other delusional schemes (Northolt, BoJo's Fantasy Island) that have been put forward. Every plan has its drawbacks and its barriers. We perhaps need to use a bit more imagination.

And its not going to be cheap is it! However, a 4 Runway Heathrow could probably cost £10-15bn? Fantasy Island could cost £100bn if you include all the ancillary services.

PS: Actually looking at the chart on the PE Report, the taxiway could be up to 5 miles from the new Terminal 2C!

[Libertine Winno]

Maybe we could put the aircraft on some of those travellator things that they have in the terminals, when you need to get to gate 846...!

[DaveReidUK]

Seems like everyone completely missed the point of this thread.

I'm afraid you're right, it has simply degenerated into another debate about the pros and cons of the various options, without adding anything to what's been said in the other threads on the subject.

I'm out of here.

[ATNotts]

OK, so my predictions are:-

That the report will be about how to provide capacity / infrastructure to the overbloated Southest.

The recommendations will set out to solve today's problems, rather than building for the future.

A few (fairly tenuous) crumbs will be thrown to "the north" to keep us quiet.

Whatever is proposed will be either a) rejected by the govt. worried about the effect on marginal seats or b) bogged down in never ending public enquiries.

[BALHR]

Why do you think that Heathrow needs six runways ?

They tried that once, but gave it up as a bad idea:


When LHR last had 6 runnways, they could not be all used at the same time, which is what I am suggesting, hence it made no diffrence capacity wise when they lost 4 of them (to expand the terminals and to deal with bigger planes)

[DaveReidUK]

When LHR last had 6 runways, they could not be all used at the same time, which is what I am suggesting

Sorry, but the idea of 6 runways being used at the same time is no less ludicrous if they are parallel. :ugh:

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "OK, so my predictions are:-

That the report will be about how to provide capacity / infrastructure to the overbloated Southest.

The recommendations will set out to solve today's problems, rather than building for the future.

A few (fairly tenuous) crumbs will be thrown to "the north" to keep us quiet.

Whatever is proposed will be either a) rejected by the govt. worried about the effect on marginal seats or b) bogged down in never ending public enquiries."

"The north", and indeed the rest of the UK, does not need any "crumbs". There are many excellent airports throughout the country with plenty of capacity, and generally, traffic rights are relatively easy to come by (subject to reciprocal arrangements of course).

Airlines need to be convinced that they can make money on routes to/from other UK airports. That's not for the Commission or the Government to determine.

The problem is one of UK hub capacity, and that means Heathrow, it's also nothing to do with "the overbloated Southest", which also has excellent airports with plenty of capacity.

There are also not that many marginal seats around Heathrow, only Brentford and Isleworth in Middlesex (Con-Lab) and Richmond Park in Surrey (Con-Lib) come to mind off the top of my head, and people tend not to vote on single issues such as airport expansion.



Quote: "When LHR last had 6 runnways, they could not be all used at the same time, which is what I am suggesting, hence it made no diffrence capacity wise when they lost 4 of them (to expand the terminals and to deal with bigger planes)"

But do you know why the rwys were organised this way? Military aircraft of the 1940s could not cope with crosswind takeoffs and landings as well as modern civil aircraft. Simultaneous use was not an issue then, today it is, hence the need for parallel rwys.

[DaveReidUK]

Military aircraft of the 1940s could not cope with crosswind takeoffs and landings as well as modern civil aircraft.

Nor the civil aircraft of the time, that it had really been built for. :O