View Full Version : New Airport for London?
brownstar
18th Jul 2002, 19:14
BBC news were discussing the posibility of either buiding a new airport at Cliffe (?) in north Kent, building a new runway at Gatwick or developing at Manston.
They seemed to favour a new airport at Cliffe. This would be an air traffic nightmare i think. Cliffe is fairly near Dartford close enough to the approach for London City. Traffic outbound from here would affect the LAM hold for LHR, Departing Traffic from LUT and STN.
What do you ' ATC Radar Heads' think of this?
Well, for starters, if would have made more sense to post it in "ATC issues" where they might read it, rather than here.
brownstar
18th Jul 2002, 19:34
oooooooooohhhh - slap my legs you bitch
overstress
18th Jul 2002, 19:58
There was a perfectly good airport next to the M4 at Newbury but they DUG IT UP!
Can anyone explain why that happened?!
foo fighting
18th Jul 2002, 20:45
atc radar head here - please do not insert dick anywhere in that !
New airport around London, can't say it is a great idea with the present airspace limitations. LTMA controllers are screaming for increases in airspace under the current workload and procedures let alone bringing in new holds, sids, stars, zones etc.
The ppl, gliding and parachuting community have far too great a say in the allocation of controlled airspace in the SE of England. I think many airline people would be astonished at what you have to be vectored around and why. That comment is bound to upset some but ...
Extra runway(s) at existing sites could possibly be accomodated with reference to capacity in the air although airborne delay's might well increase. The busier the sky gets the more we have to work to standard procedures and not put in the odd shortcut or climb/descent to make the sector flow that little bit easier.
By far the favoured tma controller option is the closure of the odd airport or 3 !
By the way, I think most of the Greenham Common runway is now working undercover as the Newbury bypass.
Wycombe
18th Jul 2002, 20:47
foo...
yep, but it still looks pretty much like an airfield (some hangers, aprons - covered in stored cars & the tower are still there).
overstress...
...because it would have made far too much sense to make use of an existing airfield with a 10000ft E-W runway, good road links (A34/M4 both close), rail links (Great Western London-Penzance with HST's passes about 1.5m North), right in the middle of Central Southern England (from which many of us travel to LHR, LGW, LTN, STN, SOU, BRS etc) but with only one town of reasonable size in immediate proximity (Newbury).
Hey..ho
...also has some interesting monuments (well....mounds :D :D ) to the cold war in it's SW corner!
Brizzo
18th Jul 2002, 20:52
Because the site was originally common land. Using common land for other purposes is a great idea - unless it is in your back yard.
Wycombe
18th Jul 2002, 20:58
Brizzo....it is in my backyard (almost) and I wouldn't have minded.
Point taken, but there can't be too many more ideal sites left in S/SE England.
zkdli
18th Jul 2002, 21:27
The next london runway will be at stansted!!!
they already have the land for it
they have the tower built in the centre of the extended airfield
they have a terminal and transport complex that is in the centre of the new airfield
All they need is for darling alistair to announce the prefferred sight tomorrow:D :D
Oh, and atc is already examining the development of airspace to allow the fastest growing airfield in the southeast to grow more:D :D
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
19th Jul 2002, 07:05
What they REALLY want to do is get the scheduling right. I don't know how many minutes of movements are lost per day at LL, KK, SS and GW but there must be a significant number. In the middle of summer we get great gaps in Heathrow inbounds late morning and during the afternoon.... and the whole place often dies at 2030z with and hour and a half to go to night restrictions!
WX Man
19th Jul 2002, 07:43
As far as pax are concerned (particularly those from SE England) Stansted is NOT a London airport- it's in the middle of bloody East Anglia (OK, from an ATC POV I can appreciate that it's very much a London airport).
However until the :mad: :mad: transport to/from Stansted :mad: :mad: and central London becomes reliable (i.e. it's as easy to get to London as it is from EGKK) it's not a viable option IMHO.
From someone who has tried to use Stansted on a number of occasions, and been f***ed every single time.
PS: when are they going to sort out the absolute FARCE that is that bloody train thing that allegedly transports people to their gates?
PPS: this is not a dig at ATC! It is a dig at Stansted's location and accesibility.
Euroc5175
19th Jul 2002, 08:35
The SERAS report has apparently been delayed until Christmas this year, despite originally being scheduled for release in the June/July timeframe. The draft has been available for a while and the fast-time modelling to look at the impact of the various proposals was completed a while ago.
The simple fact of the matter is that whichever option is selected, it is going to have a huge impact upon the current ATC procedures and airspace in the SE. The consultation exercise alone will need a substantial amount of effort, inevitably holding up any decisions for several years.
Current planning for TC airspace does not take any of the options into account. Considerable planning effort will be required once a decision has been made.
canberra
19th Jul 2002, 18:01
personally id close heathrow, i know that the metropolitan polices nightmare is two 747s colliding over north london between 1400 and 1800 local on cup final day, now obviously that wont happen until wembley is rebuilt! but seriously , why was an international airport built in a river valley? even now there are still problems with fog i believe. has anyone been on the railway from st pancras to luton? if you look to your left you will see radlett aerodrome, the old handley page aerodrome. i cant believe no one hasnt looked at that as a new airport site. also what about the old rae airfield at bedford or what about alconbury? and finally on the subject of greenham common, the bloke was right about common land!
055166k
19th Jul 2002, 19:38
ten thousand foot runway countryside quarter mile from motorway railway line within ATZ accessible from midlands and London mmmmmmm Upper Heyford Dont build airports that only serve a half circle catchment area , its stupid. I am surprised that the holiday operators and the low fares chaps havent thought of building their own airport by now . Good luck.
jumpseater
20th Jul 2002, 23:00
zkdli has it right!, lots of work being/already done to accomodate STN's second runway, Cliffe is a red herring so that the guverment can more easily get the public to accept STN on environmental issues. Also Cliffe is under/adjacent to the Dover sectors which are a nightmare for ATC restrictions in todays climate, never mind the future.
Greenham Common was too far out and did not have sufficient infrastructure or easily provided infrastructure to make work. You will probably find the county structure plan may specify that development is concentrated at Heathrow, rather than a new airport.
Radlett, If you look to your left you will see a big big hole, long ago bit the dust as a gravel extraction site, and was also restricted by the M25 which cut across part of the site. Herts county council always wanted LTN to develop (so long as it didnt expand into Herts), and would not have supported any Radlet proposal.
Alconbury, a developer tried to start it as a cargo airport, it went to early stages of public enquiry and was turned down on environmental grounds. Having said that for cargo it was well placed just off the A1/A14 and east coast main line. Current status is it might become a rail/road interchange, but highly unlikely to become an operational airfield again.
Thurleigh/RAe Bedford, in the wrong place, way to expensive to develop the infrastructure road/rail links to the site. Beds county council structure plan concentrates airport development at Luton, game over.
Upper Heyford, in the wrong place, Birmingham too close, no easy access for a rail link, too far from other significant pax catchmenty area. Suurounding area way too asthetically pleasing for even the maddest of mad politicians to consider developing. Besides where else would you park all those shiney new cars?
Lost_luggage34
20th Jul 2002, 23:48
Won't the new MLS at EGFF resolve some of the fog problems ? Providing of course carriers have the relevant on-board avionics. I believe it is partially u/s until December but it's installed and presumably been tested to some extent. Just curious as always.
Radio Kent 12:00 Tuesday 23rd
REX:)
foo fighting
22nd Jul 2002, 21:03
further to my last...
I did hear a rumour that the new car parks built at EGSS on the right hand side of the road as you drive past the tower all had foundations laid to runway strength.
Can't imagine why
This was from a source in civil engineering and not aviation. Don't know the lie of the land that way but perhaps some goodly SS twr person could look over their shoulder in the next couple of days and let us know if that is a feasible option.
120.4
22nd Jul 2002, 21:25
My guess:
Cliffe won't happen. From the airspace point of view it would not be possible to service 1 runway there, never mind 4. Every time you open a new airport you multiply the conflictions between them and the system's actual capacity becomes less than the sum of the individual parts.
The politically easy choice is Stansted and they will go "big" whilst they are at it - 2 runways, at least. It will require a significant expansion to the airspace.
It has also, finally, been recognised that Heathrow is DESPERATELY over pressurised at times. It is also the "national prestige" option for the Minister and clearly the government is now prepared to do the unthinkable and build here too. (Why are we 10 years late?) However, to ease concerns they willl start at about 6000' and then, once it is in operation, extend it and 23 to full length. Additional runway capacity at LL will also have the effect of reducing the amount of airborne holding which currently tends to choke the TMA. This will help the TMA to 'breath' and should help to get the most out of the airspace.
Point 4:)
canberra
23rd Jul 2002, 15:12
didnt know that radlett had been dug up, shows the last time i went past it. what with leavesden and hatfield going thats a lot of airfields gone for biz jets. as for alconbury, alastair darling has said they are looking at it as a cargo airport. mind you the french opened a cargo airport and it had 6 movements in 3 months! as for cliffe does anyone else get deja vu, remember foulness? they also looked at thurleigh for that as well! moving away from the south east, i see thyre talking about a new airport between rugby and coventry, remember bitteswell? and as for a new runway at either glasgow or edinburgh what about prestwick? at least its got a railway station in the terminal!
ATCO Two
23rd Jul 2002, 23:37
Hi point 4,
They will not lengthen 23; its future will be as the outer taxiway. On the new airport maps with the revised taxiway designators, there is a "telling" big gap in the designators where 23 is currently. Politically they cannot be seen to remove a runway in the South East yet, but it will go in due course - mark my words!