Runway rumours

[akerosid]

Both the BBC and the London Evening Standards (and no doubt a few of tomorrow's papers) are speculating about the government's plans for new runways. The BBC speculates about BHX and the London Evening Standard, about LHR.

Apparently, the Transport Minister, John Spellar, has pointed to the possibility of a 3rd runway at LHR in a speech to the UK Aviation Club (or at least that's how the LES has chosen to interpret it). The plans are due to be published in 3 weeks' time.

Excellent news if true, particularly LHR. It wouldn't need to be anything more than 6,000'(min.) - just enough to keep the short haulers off the two main runways.

I can also imagine that intense bilateral pressure - not least by the US, for increased LHR access - together with intense political pressure by the likes of BA, coupled with new legislation to avoid a repeat of the T5 debacle, will contribute to the decision.

[120.4]

For safety's sake, let's hope you 're right. Take some of the pressure off the entire TMA!!
Point 4
:)

[A320Flyer]

What will the people in the LHR area think of this?
If they are against terminal 5, imagine a new runway!!! :eek:

Regards
Pedro

[ORAC]

Reported in the Times yesterday:

July 04, 2002

Third Heathrow runway back on agenda
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

THE Government is considering expanding Heathrow further as one option for relieving congestion at airports in the South East.
John Spellar, the Transport Minister, gave the clearest indication to date yesterday that the Government is prepared to sanction a third runway at the West London airport. He said that Heathrow played a crucial role in London’s economic success and was a key reason why so many of the world’s biggest companies had their headquarters in the capital.

He added that Heathrow had been “the UK’s premier airport for half a century. It handles 20 million more international passengers per annum than any other airport in the world.”

Other runways are also likely to be sanctioned, including up to two more at Stansted in Essex. However, ministers believe that expanding Stansted alone would not address the huge demand for more flights from Heathrow. Stansted is three times as far from London and lacks a local workforce to support a major hub in the short term.

Mr Spellar said: “Many large and international companies chose to have corporate headquarters within a stone’s throw of Heathrow.” Business groups argue that those companies could relocate elsewhere in Europe if told that the only expansion will be at Stansted.

Mr Spellar told an audience of aviation industry leaders in London that the “Government does recognise that there are very distinct benefits in having a major hub airport, capable of serving the widest range of destinations”. Heathrow’s main European competitors had understood the need for one very large airport. Amsterdam’s Schiphol, Frankfurt, and Paris’s Charles de Gaulle had all been allowed to build extra runways and had far greater capacity than Heathrow.

Mr Spellar added: “The issue of Heathrow is highly significant and at the centre of any discussion about capacity at South East airports.”

The Department for Transport plans to publish consultation papers on aviation growth in different regions within the next three weeks. The paper covering the South East will be by far the most controversial because that is where runways are most congested and community groups fiercely oppose any expansion.

Mr Spellar has already made clear that several new runways will be needed in the South East during the next 30 years to accommodate a threefold demand for air travel in the region by 2030 to 300 million a year. He said that ticket prices would rise by an average of £100 each in real terms by 2030 unless new runways were built.

Mr Spellar’s comments indicate that he has accepted arguments offered by British Airways, which says that the overwhelming demand from passengers and businesses is for expanding Heathrow.

BA has proposed a short runway north of the existing twin runways at Heathrow and for short-haul jets. At least 100 homes would have to be demolished to accommodate a new 2,000 yard runway between Harmondsworth and Sipson. The Government last year approved a fifth terminal at Heathrow, allowing the airport to handle an extra 30 million passengers a year. A new runway would require a sixth terminal and would push Heathrow’s capacity to more than 100 million passengers.

Mr Spellar acknowledged that any airport expansion plans would include measures to limit noise pollution and congestion on surrounding roads. He added, however: “It’s true to say that the number of people affected by noise at Heathrow has dramatically reduced over the past 20 years.”

[Electric Sky]

I cannot see the point in building another runway at LHR at the moment as there is no capacity on the ground prior to T5. Also, where at LHR would they put another runway? It would make sense to have it parallel to 09/27 for flow rates but I always understood that the limiting factor on the numerous occasions that this subject has been studied is that it is very built up. 100 homes :confused: .... that will go down a treat with the local action groups ... glad I am up at nice little EMA :D

ES ;)

[skippyscage]

both BA and the BAA said that they woulbn't persue another runway, on the premise that T5 was built.

There goes my house :mad:

[unwiseowl]

A 6000' runway, intensley used by 737s etc, all throgh the English winter? Yes, I know you can take a 73 into GUR, but that's without the "rush-rush-rush" of LHR. Someone will end up in the mud! We need 8000' for safety.

[spekesoftly]

IF you're building another runway, don't p**s about, make it 12,000'. Plan ahead!

[Rob_L]

I went to pick up my daughter from Heathrow recently at about
7 pm, came out on to the M25 and slowed to 5 mph for 30 mins. Another runway at Heathrow, how about another motorway first!!!!!

[MarkD]

you could implement a "Heathrow levy" and coax pax to use BHX, MAN, GLA, EDI or even STN and LGW. BA's policy seems to be geared to bloating LHR to unsustainable sizes by denying regional airports a decent number of connections.

I'm flying ORK-LHR-YYZ soon but wouldn't have any problem flying ORK-MAN-YYZ or ORK-BHX-YYZ !

[Hand Solo]

Unfortunately the regions don't generate the volume of premium pax to sustain long haul routes from the UK. To make some cash you have to be clever with cargo sales and other things, but BA management don't do that very well. Most of the succesful long haul services from regional airports feed into the operating airlines hubs overseas and get a lot of their business from transfer passengers.

I dont know why the BBC think BHX could get a second runway. They'd either have to demolish most of the NEC or take down the Land Rover factory!

[Woodman]

The government are doing what all governments do when faced with a difficult decision. They are throwing out all sorts of options, most of which are unlikely to happen, such as another runway at LHR, LGW or BHX, a whole new airport at Cliffe, etc. They will then back off because of public pressure and end up with a minimum decision that will upset the fewest people - a runway at Stansted. And that will put the capacity problem on the back burner until someone else is in power.

[canberra]

a new runway at heathrow, you could build a runway near the a40. hold on theres already one there its called northolt! but seriously as its mod policy to let civvies use military airfields why not open up northolt to civvy airliners? and on the subject of heathrows runways i always thought there was a short runway there anyway.

[HOODED]

Canberra, I think you'll find Northolts runway a little too short and yes LHR does have a short runway. If you call 7700 ft short that is! Trouble is its across the two main runways and would not help in increasing the capacity by much. What they are talking about is a new 6000+ ft runway parallel and to the north of the others for short haul routes. This I think would work well along with terminal 5. Would upset the residents a little and be rather expensive I feel with London house prices being what they are, 100 houses to demolish!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its dificult to soar with eagles when you work for turkeys!

[Ian Farquharson]

All the local press and news here in the Midlands is reporting a new runway at BHX, the current site is restricted with the A45 to the South and the West Coast Mainline to the North.
However, the airport management have been very quite on an extension to the current runway (15/33) which is 8600', building a brand new runway maybe more cost effective, but would probably mean diverting or tunneling under the A45 either way.
There has also been talk of a brand new airport to the East of Coventry alongside the M45, it would effectively be London's 4th airport, with excellent transport links M1/M6/M45 and the West Coast Mainline all close.

The report is due to be published in three weeks.

Ian

[akerosid]

I couldn't help being slightly amused by the story in today's Sunday times (back page, Section 1); it lists the various options, but gives diagrams of the runway proposals. For Cliffe, off the Kent coast, they have two parallel runways (OK, fine), then two more in a kind of "crossed swords" pattern - no obvious room for terminals. (One would assume any new runway would have parallel runways a la Atlanta/DFW/CDG).

For LHR, they have an extension to 23/05 and the new runway, north of 27R, running from the "new" threshold of 23. Obviously, they're into guesswork. Still, the editorial and the story itself is very positive.

R3 at LHR seems to be very much in the running . . .

[unwiseowl]

err, sorry to be picky, but thats not the West Coast Mainline which goes past BHX.

[spud]

In the meantime, isn't a fast rail link between LHR & LGW too obvious for words? At the moment transferring from one to the other realistically takes hours and is a most unpleasant experience.

[sclub99]

Spud,

Had that idea myself for a while - remove some duplicate services and use larger aircraft. Effectively using them as one airport.

I guess the reality is that it will probably take longer and cost more than another runway.

Anyone else think there is merit in this idea?

[canberra]

on the subject of northolt, it can take 146's so its not that restricted. as i recall its just under 6000', does heathrows short ever get used? also on the subject of runways in the south east i can recall a freight company wanting to use the old rae airfield at bedford and theres also been talk about alconbury. i personally think gatwick will get a second runway, which will mean it wont be the worlds busiest single runway airport. mind you the owners of biggin and blackbushe must be rubbing their hands. and finally there was talk(the department of transport only ever seems to talk) of a rail link between lhr and lgw a few years ago, anyone know anything?

[Young Paul]

Northolt has taken 737's in the past - although not with many passengers, I suspect.

There are all sorts of things that could be done rail-wise for Heathrow. Any connection into the main rail network would be a good idea!

Heathrow's short does get used, when there's a strong southerly, which makes the approach really uncomfortable, but there you go.

Why, why, why, why, why don't we use the lovely long MOD runways more?

[Nopax,thanx]

A new airport East of Coventry?

With a long runway???

All I've got to say is..........


EGWZ!!!!

[akerosid]

Most of the Sundays are carrying stories about Darling's announcement, expected on Tuesday, which is expected to call for a second STN and third LHR runway and a new LGW runway in or about 2019(?). Some rumours suggest Cliffe is likely to be proposed; most think it's for the birds.

Ominously, the Swampy brigades are lining up against ANY airport expansion and are threatening legal action; expect LHR, which will be the real battleground, to be the focus of this. A new lobby group, rather aggressively called "Airport Watch" has been set up and advocates controls being put on aviation growth.

Let battle commence . . .

[ETOPS773]

Does EGKK really need a new runway??? I thought 1 was enough there.

[Lost_luggage34]

As an ex airline employee and someone who lives under the LHR flight paths I think we have to accept the expansion of Heathrow.

Yes, I feel bad about the potential of having to bulldoze houses and relocate people. But the expansion to Heathrow simply has to be done if we are not to lose it's very coverted status as THE international hub in Europe if we haven't lost it already.

Yes, due to it's location the flight paths mean overflying densely populated areas and despite quieter aircraft, disturbance has got much worse in the past 5 years or so. I live with it, but I also live with the fact that Heathrow provides employment for thousands of people in the locality. As one of the posts above states - many companies have located themselves in order to make the most of Heathrow.

The major problem is that it will take so much time - T5 had a 2 or 3 year long inquiry (correct me if I am wrong) and will not be operational until 2008.

What we really need is a decent transport infrastructure. The Paddington - LHR link is excellent. I have used it many times. The Tube is not geared up for passengers with luggage - it takes an age to travel into Central London. So why not run non-stopping Tube trains into Central London ? Because the track layout does not permit this - well address that issue. Why not extend the proposed London Crosslink (now an active project I believe) via Reading or on to Gatwick (as suggested above). As for the roads/M25 - there we have another problem.

Crews travel from a very large catchment area and need to travel by car due to the nature of shift hours etc. So Mr. Darling, lets see see some plans to beef up transport to and from Heathrow for both passengers and employees in addition to these grandiose plans to expand Heathrow which I fully support.

Soap box put away now !

[CHUUK]

I haven't been through LHR since 1993... but what ever happened to that slab of concrete north of 27R/09L? It looked about 5,000-6,000 feet long. Was the the beginning of a failed exapnsion project, or left overs from the previous layout that was LHR?

If there were a shorter 3rd runway at LHR, why limit it to just smaller aircraft? Wouldn't the most efficient use of it be a dedicated arrivals runway? This would leave 27/R09L as a runway dedicated to departures, and arrivals in VMC... plus the southern runway with both arrivals and departures. 8,000 feet is all you need... LAX's north complex is proof of the concept.