New London Runways? Place your bets!

[ETOPS]

The UK government will shortly announce their proposals for increasing runway/terminal capacity in the face of both increasing traffic and environmental hostility.

Any bets as to the likely number of runways for the London area?
I am going to guess that STN gets one with land reserved for another mid-century, LTN gets an extension ( but probably no parallel taxiway!) and LGW stays as is until 2019.
The third runway at LHR will in fact be formed by using Northolt and linking terminals by train.

The proposal for a new airport at Cliffe to the east will be left on the table just in case an opportunity arises in the future to get it built......

Any better ideas?

[WeatherJinx]

I think there is a strong case for cargo ops to be moved out to Manston, thus helping to free slots at the other airports. There is already an established cargo base there, a RWY the size of a small Kingdom (http://www.ais.org.uk/uk_aip/aip/pdf/ad/32MH0201.pdf) :D and reasonable transport links.

Manston's owners, Wiggins Group, (http://www.wigginsplc.co.uk/manston.html) are also pretty confident of this happening too - they are apparently carrying out major upgrades to aprons, taxiways and terminal bdgs.

I don't pretend that this will solve all the problems but it would be a step in the right direction, the 'creative thinking' solution, if you will - relieving the pressure on the 'big four' rather than over-extending them - something which, with all the NIMBYism around (esp. the wealthy and powerful 'Richmond' lobby at LHR), is going to prove politically extremely difficult.

WxJx:cool:

[VIKING9]

My money is on STN, west side. As for LTN's runway being extended..... where to? Unless they build up the Vauxhall land (near impossible) I don't think that will happen. Hertfordshire still don't want a runway in their back garden. Parallel taxiway, yeh right.....:(

[Andy_S]

"I think there is a strong case for cargo ops to be moved out to Manston"

I think this would actually be very difficult. I understand that the vast majority of cargo at both Heathrow and Gatwick arrives in the holds of passenger aircraft. In fact I think that the number of daily cargo only flights at each is in single figures. Moving these ain't going to create a whole lot of slots.

To move a significant amount of cargo to Manston, you're also going to have to move the passengers, and I'm not sure they would accept that.

[DeepC]

LTN

I don't fully understand the problem Hertfordshire have with an aeroplane rolling along 800m of Blacktop at Ground Level as opposed to flying along for 800m at 200m Level. I know that it moves the whole glide path 800m into Herts but that seems a small price to pay.

Anyone got any ideas?

[brabazon]

This one is going to run and run.

Listened to the Today programme today and Sir Michael Bishop was asked about aircraft noise and started going on about how much quieter aircraft are than in the old days, e.g. Trident and Comet. There are quite a few people out there who don't remember those aircraft and one aircraft no matter how quiet can disturb you at night. I'm not saying that we shouldn't expand airport capacity, but we've got to think about the way we back up our arguments.

Stansted sounds the best site for development, anyone know what the original plans for the airport were?

Luton is limited, being perched on the hill with a cliff at the westerly end and a dip at the easterly which almost runs into Hertfordshire - so a battle would run there.

Alastair Darling came up with a statistic this morning on Today that half the UK population travelled at least once last year - this seems rather high given the number of people who don't have passports (ok they could be flying domestically, but I don't think that would cover it). Anyone know the source of this?

[rentaghost]

Apparently this question was answered a good few months ago internally within the Government, but has been sat on and not made public.

STN will get THE new second runway.

No change at LTN, LGW or LHR.

[akerosid]

The Transport Secretary and Junior Minister - the former, quite directly - have said that LHR expansion is a necessity.

It's quite possible that they are trying to float the idea of R3 and if it's shot down, just say they did their best. However, at the end of the day, it's a case of LHR-v- FRA, AMS, CDG; it is the UK's main international gateway. Foreign carriers, particularly those from Asia and the US don't want to know about LGW or STN; Heathrow is, to them, the only game in town.

The new plan needs to encompass expected demand over the next 20-30 years and frankly, if they try to do this without dealing with the LHR situation, they might as well throw their hat at it; I would also question the credibility of Labour in the business community if its backs down on the LHR plan.

Of course, runways will only be part of the solution; high speed rail links to LHR (including one from LGW) and through check in at regional rail stations need to be considered.

Whatever they propose, they're going to get flak from the greens and other assorted Swampies and Luddites, so they might as well be hung for a sheep (or an entire flock) as for a lamb and go for as much growth as they can possibly get away with.

[tailscrape]

Bookies odds:

STN 4/9 fav
LHR 11/10 2nd fav
LGW 100/30
LTN 8/1
Cliffe 20/1

Manston being a major player.......50/1

Or something like that I would imagine...............

I think STN will be London's SECOND airport in the next 20 years.

[Low-Pass]

akerosid : Whatever they propose, they're going to get flak from the greens and other assorted Swampies and Luddites, so they might as well be hung for a sheep (or an entire flock) as for a lamb and go for as much growth as they can possibly get away with.

That may be all well and good, but there are some pilots out there who don't want to live on a cement block. This island is only so big, you know?What are the realistic alternatives? ie lets find more options.

Manston seems to be popular and is often mooted. But what about RAF bases? Military/civil co-habitation is an optioon. Security has to be considered, of course, but it does work in other countries like the USA and France.

I agree with you that high speed rail links need to be implimented, but you must consider their endpoint - Central London. Please remember that the Gatwick Express rolls over the same rails as the rest of the commuter traains in and out of Victoria Station. This in itself limits the capacity of such rail services.

[clipstone]

Lovely, Stansted, the airport that no one other than those in East Anglia can get to!

Lets put more runway space there that no one wants to use!

[PaddyOpants]

Looking at the amount of money spent on upgrading the road network around STN and the government hinting last week that they are looking to build new "affordable housing" in Essex in the Stansted area raises an eyebrow or two to upgrade this small regional airport makes more sense than to cram another runway into LHR. And lets face it LTN is just in the wrong place in the middle of a town. Manston might be a good freight hub but it’s on the south coast and limited overstretched road/rail links. Alconbury would be my first choice on the A1M/A14 perfect.

Paddy

[canberra]

lgw, no developlment is allowed there until 2019. northolt, government has said no, dont forget its main role is as the military airport for london. lhr, where can you put a 3rd runway? im suprised that no one hasnt mentioned trying to make it a 24hr airport! stn definetly should have a second rwy. as for using raf bases, good idea. my last posting was leuchars, as i was leaving(this time last year) there was a project going on to build a civil terminal simialr to newquay. only problem with most raf bases, and a lot of civil airports is the road and rail infrastructure. to give an example has anyone driven to exeter, is the road from the motorway $hit or what? what i would also like to see at all airports both civvy and military having cat 3 ils on all runways. moving from the south east, what do people think should happen in rest of uk?

[HotCarb]

Breaking news on BBC website - 3 extra runways at STN...

[rupetime]

Would'nt it be an idea to look at the airports that are currently
slot restricted and its a safe bet that these are the ones that
are targets for expansion - i really dont believe that STN is in
such great demand.

LGW and LHR have to be the targets for expansion - more so LGW
then install a high spead [reliable] rail link between LGW and LHR.

rt

[BahrainLad]

3 New for STN, 'Desire' for one more at LHR.......but a shorter one.

I say demolish Harmondsworth, everything north of 27R and build right up to the M4. No more M4 spur.....and especially no more Waterworld!!!

I would have thought that an extra runway at LHR (full-size) would allow more arrivals - leading to less aircraft holding over London. So, theoretically, a 3rd runway would lead to less noise over large parts of London. Perhaps an ATCO could advise?

Is is therefore not surprising that HACAN have not made this connection!!??

[ORAC]

DOT Consultation Paper (http://www.aviation.dft.gov.uk/consult/airconsult/index.htm)

The following airports feature in the consultation for the South East and East of England:

Alconbury (New Site)
Biggin Hill
Cambridge
Cliffe (New Site)
Farnborough
Gatwick
Heathrow
Luton
Lydd
London City
Manston
Norwich
Shoreham
Southampton
Southend
Stansted

[akerosid]

I am actually surprised, in one way, at the extent to which STN seems to be favoured as the main focus of new runways. On the one hand, the government has rightly noticed that lo-cos are the biggest growth area in aviation, BUT by their very nature, low cost airlines do not hub and no "conventional" airlines (and probably very few other lo-cos) are going to go into competition against FR/EZY at STN.

As far as hubbing is concerned, LHR really is the only answer; it is the nation's most important economic engine and access to LHR is seen as vital to many local economies around the UK as well as to the Channel Islands and IOM. The new runway won't be a Concorde capable runway; it'll about about 6-7,000', capable of taking anything up to 757/321 size, possibly a landing widebody. The anti-noise protestors would do well to consider the importance to the local economy of LHR and one would wonder how many people living within a 20 mile radius of LHR are economically dependant on it?

From the government's point of view, one has to wonder how the business community across the UK would view backing down on the LHR option - not just airlines, but the City, exporters, etc.
It wouldn't look good for its business credentials . . .

[WeatherJinx]

Andy_S

I concur with you re. the overall proportion of bellyhold cargo, but even with the present spilt (see figs below), moving all-cargo to Manston whilst not being a panacea in itself, would free up quite a few slots (particularly from Stansted - 13,500 all-cargo flights from there alone last year), which appears to be the favoured site for expansion).

BAA London Cargo Stats
'Heathrow is the main air cargo gateway, with 95% of cargo carried in the bellyhold of passenger aircraft. At Gatwick cargo is 90% bellyhold, 10% scheduled freighters and at Stansted cargo is 50% scheduled air freighters and 50% bellyhold.'

WxJx

[Oscar Duece]

Surely the answer is to get people to depart nearer to where they live. But life is never that simple is it.

Just looking at the South East, with its high earning population (more holidays). Most of us don't want to haul up to London just for a couple of weeks in the sun, twice a year.

As for Stanstead, it's just not an option for us folks South of the river. Have you ever tried to cross London, especially by tube with a bloody great case and carry on.

We need to make better use of what we have to the South and South West. Pitty its just not viable at present.

Just look at what we have along the coast here.

Southampton= fantastic road and rail links, even pleanty of parking a stones throw from the terminal. But only one runway, to short by 500 mtrs, lying in the wrong direction, with obstructions to the South also meaning no ils that way. Also restrictive opening hours.

Bournemouth (Hurn).= Crap road link (how long have you had to wait at that T junction). No rail link. Not the best parking. But has the space and runway already.

Exeter= About the same as Bournemouth.

So what ar ewe going to do. Keep up the British tradition and wait to the seems do actually burst and the trade moves across the channel or act NOW and with some conviction.

As for a new airport, unlikely to work without huge govenment aid. After all what sort of traffic would you get. All the big players moving across from Heathrow or one lost cost that will only want to pay 50p a body. Howz that gonna work.

Footnote: Only an idea but has any tour operator ever tried to run a say Weekend only services from Bournemouth with a 742 or Dc10 across to Florida. Afer all that must be where a great number of us go every year.

[A4]

What is all this about STN having poor access and being in deepest East Anglia ? From the M25 it's about 15 minutes - granted the road works at STN at the moment make it a bit longer but when complete they will make it even better. It's no different than the M23 from the M25 to LGW.

Additionally, the comment regarding coming from "south of the river" to STN can be turned round - it can be a right pain in the proverbial trying to get to LGW for all those "north of the river"!

It seem to be too obvious that STN is the best option for expansion. Four runways is really going to get the locals going:eek:

[A Very Civil Pilot]

A new airport is proposed for Kent.

Would that be Headcorn International then? ;)

[Stan Sted]

Report suggests that growth at STN (with three extra runways) would raise flight volumes to 756,000 a year, overtaking Heathrow. STN would also become the nation's busiest freight centre.

Could be time to move, I live a little too close for comfort.

[AlphaCharlie]

Various comments on what I have heard and read about all this over the last few days, weeks, months:

Wouldn't expansion at STN be bad for the low cost carriers (the ones that will give the UK this massive expansion in air travel over the next 30 years). You give STN 3 new runways, and make it into a major hub airport, and BAA will surely raise the costs, stop doing special deals with the low cost carriers and force them else where (i.e LTN or LGW).

Secondly, if they build a new airport at Cliffe (unlikely I reckon) but can you really imagine Mr Darling sitting down and telling Mr Eddington - Hey Rod, how's it going, oh by the by Cliffe is now London's main airport so if BA want to stay in touch they better move there!! Can you really imagine BA not operating from the city's main airport, in which case can you see BA transferring its operations from LHR to Cliffe (hangars, maintenance, ground crew, flight crew, HQ, the lot)!!!! Not likely!!

LHR has motorway access, the tube, LHR express, founded businesses, housing, supply of employees. Building a 3rd runway would unfortunately require the relocation of some families but compared to building at Cliffe ....

Cliffe would destroy xxxx acres of green field land, ruining natural habitats. However, what about all the land destroyed to build new motorway links, train links, houses and all that go with them. The list goes on and will cause unspoken devastation to the area. Why destroy somewhere new? Harmondsworth and the area surrounding LHR are hardly anything special when compared with open marsh land!!

Also, whilst the government say the industry will pay the costs of new runways, who would pay for Cliffe? No airline really wants to operate/move there, so there is no way BAA would offer the buy and run the airport, meaning that if the government want this airport, they would surely have to pay. At least with LHR and STN, BAA would gladly pay.

My reckoning: Third runway at LHR (giving option for extension of new runway and more terminals)

Open permission to expand STN (BAA own huge quantities of land around the area, meaning no need to bulldozer the surrounding community).

Finally to those complaining about expansion, I have asked this before but:

How many people have lived in the LHR area since it was a small airfield and when air travel on this scale was a fantasy? These people have the right to complain!

To those who moved to the area knowing that LHR was a major airport, looking for cheap housing, good transport, and guaranteed source of employment, good access to London - WAKE UP, YOU LIVE NEAR AN AIRPORT, NOISE GOES WITH THE TERRITORY!! ALSO, IF YOU WORK AT LHR, HOW DARE YOU BITE THE VERY HAND THAT FEEDS YOU!!!

[EGTE]

Canberra & Oscar

Have you been to Exeter recently?
The A30 from the M5 is now dual carriageway (except for the last half mile of country lane)!

[Out Of Trim]

New Runway for LGW needed Now!

The way I see it; LGW is the only Airport in the the UK that actually needs an extra runway right now!

Despite things being a little quieter since September 11th 2001, traffic is steadily building yet again with many extra flights / routes being served by Easyjet and the like and, of course the usual horde of Charter Flights are never ending and unlike LHR operate around the clock.

These Charter passengers are unlikely to trek around to an expanded STN when LGW is on their doorstep; so I fail to see the need for more than one extra runway at STN in the near future.

Of course, there is that old thorn of a so-called local agreement with local councils pledging not to build another runway until after 2019, which in the light of the latest trend in passenger statistics will look increasingly stupid and untenable causing increasing flight delays.

Government needs to make a long term judgement now and in my view should dictate when and where extra runway capacity is needed without 10 to 15 year negotiations with planning commitees.

In my view the environmental damage should be shared and one extra runway for LHR, LGW and STN would seem the best solution for the forseeable future.

[Kilted]

Just a local rumour, but doesn't STN already have a second runway under the grass? Locasl sugest it was built at the same time as the first, but covered with turf.

Odd, I know, but stranger things have happened!

[topunicyclist]

It was my understanding that a while ago BAA did have sufficient land to build a second runway at STN, but that they sold it to local farmers as it was deemed to be "surplus to requirements" - or am I missing something here?

Hi ETOPS (if you read this thread again!); hope you're well!

[sclub99]

As the reporter on BBC news said last night, the ideas in this report could have been written (and probably was) on the back of a fag packet in a pub 6 or more months ago. It is just a shopping list with no creative ideas or solutions – where is the integrated transport policy?

All that is going to come out of this is a single new runway at Stansted and a very long drawn out argument about a third at LHR.

Apologies to the regions (with which I am not familiar), regional development should of course be promoted but this is not the big problem.

Accepting that Stansted will be expanded, the real demand problem is south and west of London – not east or north. Therefore, only LGW, LHR and beyond can provide the solution.

I have not seen anything in the way of creative solutions or transport integration, LHR’s public transport links to anywhere other than central London are appalling and let’s not pretend the Piccadilly line is a pleasant journey either. This problem needs addressing before further growth can be considered.

The only clear decision seems not to pursue a second runway at LGW. From what I have seen I do not think there would be that much resistance to a reasonable expansion of LGW and perhaps West Sussex County Council should be asked if they want the non-expansion “agreement” enforced. This might be a bit naïve but would the runway be in West Sussex anyway – wouldn’t it be north of the county boundary?

[Nopax,thanx]

Kilted - there is an emergency strip here at STN alongside the main runway - the rumour mill went into overdrive when it was laid down. It's there in case of WIP or an aircraft in distress.

Brussels had a similar feature, (still there??) but I believe that theirs is a full-blown 'crash strip' for use by aircraft with landing gear trouble, fire, etc.

Like many others, I think this is a case of asking for a lot more than you are likely to receive; if you ask for one runway you'll get opposition to it, if you ask for three and settle on one, then it could be perceived as a compromise to keep all parties happy.

Bit like buying a carpet in Morocco......how much? Fifty! I'll give you twenty....then you settle on thirty!

[DamienB]

Brabazon - "Stansted sounds the best site for development, anyone know what the original plans for the airport were?"

Kill lots of Germans was the original plan, wasn't it? :D

clipstone - "Lovely, Stansted, the airport that no one other than those in East Anglia can get to!"

We've got these new-fangled things called motorways now you know. And Stansted is right next to one that is about 20 minutes away from the M25. Hell, only North Weald is closer!

[brabazon]

DamienB

Thanks for reminding me that the US Air Force operated from it during World War 2, but I was actually referring to its reincarnation as a passenger airport.

For years Stansted was a White Elephant with Air UK being the main carrier in an echoy terminal, now it's thriving in a role it was not designed for or even envisaged - a low cost airport.

If the government seriously think that STN should be a new hub, perhaps they ought to think of it's probability of success if Heathrow remains a major airport too. I doubt that BA will split operations, they've admitted that the LHR/LGW split didn't work and will other international carriers consider moving if LHR is still open? Look at the Milan Linate / Malpensa situation, where the authorities tried to force airlines to move from LIN to MXP.

The only way to guarantee the success of Stansted would be to restrict entry to or even close LHR (now that would be a radical decision) or force airlines to move to STN - they tried it before and it didn't work.

At the end of the day the government can give a view, but it is down to the privately run airports to make the investment decisions and if the BAA decide that STN is not the right location for a major hub, what can the government do to change the situation? The airlines will continue to insist on LHR while the yields they get there are better than any other airport, unless they are incentivised to move.

[jumpseater]

When this government was elected part of their manifesto was an integrated transport policy promise. I think it was to be active within ten years, well this is year six and we know all about road and rail policy failures, now its aviations turn!

Stansted wouldnt be a problem for LCA's they are already there Ryanair,Buzz and easy/go, and would they force them to go to LTN/LGW? they are already there too!. With LCA's being the fastest growing sector at the moment, why on earth would an Airport authority try to turn them away? The Airports make more money out of the PAX going through the terminal and the shops/services there, than they ever do out of landing fee's etc. Always have and always will!.

LGW as part of the planning process for the extended/relief runway and new terminal had to agree to no new runway till at least 2019 if my memory is right. The location for the runway would be parrallel and to the north west, i.e. over the village of Charlwood, and with landing and taking off traffic over Horley, so a significant environmental and social impact in anyones eyes. Sussex county council will not let that happen, they are elected by locals after all!.

I have never seen any evidence that the main demand for traffic is from the south and west. It is the greater London area as a whole, and a region from around Nottingham, Birmingham down to Oxford and Reading which STN can easily capitalise upon, and where the bulk of the London Airports traffic has come from in the past and future. Therefore the fact that STN is geographically to the north of the South east area gives it an advantage. That advantage is a relatively low environmental/social impact cost, and that with the A14/M11/improved rail links makes it well placed to catch traffic from the midlands too. The well documented infrastructure problems of LHR also add to its (STN),advantages. Think about the terminal and railway and ATC tower placing at STN and you can easily see the gradual emphasis of the development there over the past few years.

Finally for those of you who say if you dont like it move just spare a thought:
This is significant and major new development, many of these areas have not been affected significantly in the past, and now will be. Imagine if where ever you live next week your authority announces a new industrial waste incineration plant being built 1 mile down wind from your house, would you complain?, or would you immediately put your house on the market and move whatever the reduction in property value,cost to yourself, family or job? Then again you might be a nurse or bus driver, single parent who can't afford to move, not a very nice prospect is it?

[sclub99]

Jumpseater,

Good post but 2 clarifications -

My point regarding demand being south and west of London was merely meant to indicate that demand is not being met to the south and west whereas, assuming a Stansted expansion, demand to the north should not exceed supply. I agree that the major demand stems from greater London but traffic will migrate outwards via its easiest route and preferably not across London. Therefore, if expansion is only funnelled through Stansted, surface transport around/through London will get worse - integrated transport policy, I don't think so!

Secondly, just a technical correction, Horley is not in West Sussex.

[ajamieson]

At the end of the day the government can give a view, but it is down to the privately run airports to make the investment decisions

Not when the operator is expecting the goverment to fork out large amounts of cash to help its investments.

[jumpseater]

sclub you are generally speaking correct regarding choosing the easiest route, this is exactly how LTN and STN have made such significant recent strides. Up until comparatively recent times it was a trek to get all the way round/through London to LGW for people north of the river, both the above airports made significant marketing strategies on just that issue.The 'northern' sector from say the M4 corridor round to STN will always have the greater potential market to capture. Bear in mind the size of the Stansted proposal, we are looking at another LHR almost, possibly two extra runways and all the associated infrastructure that will go with that. If that goes ahead I think we will probably find some traffic migrating from LGW to STN to capitalise on the new airport, and possibly use it as a connecting hub. If for example there are plenty of LCA's, and 'regular' airlines offering potential connections into europe and the UK for their customers, from the 'new' STN, that might help sway their choice of airport, and I'm not thinking of code share or similar. LGW will not become a back water but its development short to medium term is certainly hindered by the current planning constraints.

Re your second point the county boundary is not an issue, you only have to look at the history of LTN to see the impact a neighbouring county/council, herts in their case, can have on the fuuture development of an airport. Its where the impact will be felt that is the crucial element in these developments. And yes I agree the current policy is about as integrated as a plate of spaghetti! The proposals are not unfamiliar to those in the RUCATSE study (runway capacity for the south east) of about ten years ago, wonder if they'll do anything this time?.

[luoto]

Nopax,thanx

WIP??

[jumpseater]

Work in Progress, i.e. digging chuffing big holes

[luoto]

Thanks.. I thought it wasn't VIP (they pronounce and often spell it wip here as v and w have the same tone)

Rgds

[outofsynch]

well being a Stansted native, I am convinced that this is where all the action will be. Plenty of room for at least two more runways, as well as all the ground-based infrastructure. Not to mention the rail link already in place.

As said above, all the current roadworks giving Stansted its own M11 exit etc show that this has been the plan for some time now.

Once a new runway is commenced, I think you will see more of the major operators looking seriously at STN, and once one comes, credibility will rise rapidly.

Here's hoping that the law changes required to squash all the greenies comes soon, before all the NIMBY's get vocal. Someone has gotta have more aircraft in their back yard, and I'm more than happy with them in mine! :p

Watch and see where the 'new' easyJet HQ will be.

[Nopax,thanx]

I'm with you on that, outofsynch we need some good news in the industry. Looking at what's gone on here at STN in the 14 years that I've been working here, there's no doubt in my mind that the greater plan has always been to make this place a very major airport. Whether it's all been done above board is open to speculation, of course, but it is going to happen - just to what level is all that's in question.

I do sincerely feel for people who may be losing their homes in the plan - although not for the guy on TV last night who has only lived here for 9 months - he must have known what was going on. Hopefully the Govt will recompense these people properly; they have been quite generous with local residents so far, in providing triple-glazing, etc.

Also, I'm sure that the good citizens of Hertfordshire and Essex don't complain when they fly off for their two weeks in the sun from their local airport!

BTW, thanks for explaining my abbreviation, jumpseater.. :cool:

..and to the VC10 that just departed.....lovely noise!!!!!!

[luoto]

./..lets hope they have a decent, high-speed, connected rail link for the Midlands and other parts of the world *including* check-in facilities.. The last thing I want to do in the UK is travel 3-4 hours by slow rail and then check-in 2 hours ahead to be treated worse that cattle...

[Woodman]

No-one seems to have said that you can get a free copy of the 60 page summary document of the consultation on south east airports by calling 0845 100 5554 or e-mail [email protected]. There are separate documents for other regions and these are also free. If you want the whole consultative document you can have that as well.

There is a huge amount of information on www.airconsult.gov.uk

[akerosid]

I've just received the document referred to and would STRONGLY recommend all interested people (i.e. all of us!) to get it. Fascinating reading and well thought out.

What concerns me about STN is that even if more runways are built, it will be difficult for it to become more than a low cost airlines' base. No "conventional" airline is going to go into battle against FR/EZY (how many non lo-co scheduled flights have opened to STN recently?), these airlines don't do "hubbing" and long haul airlines won't want to fly into airports where they can't connect.

Also, aeropolitical issues need to be taken into account. Foreign govts want their airlines to get into LHR (the US for example); they're not going to settle for STN and failure to increase access to LHR is going to undermine British carriers' ability to expand overseas.

So, as far as hubbing is concerned, LHR is the only game in town.

[stevobeevo]

Oscar Deuce ~ in reply to your posting here of 23/07.

Bath Travel a local T/Agents are operating a B742 of EAL to New York this november see www.bathtravel.com with a 440 seat configuration. Apparently the runway is long enough for trans atlantics to the east coast as they will not have to carry a full fuel pay load.

The point regarding access to BOH terminal is extremely valid. The plan, as mentioned in the Govs recent paper, is to have a direct access road built off the dual carriage way that runs through to the M27 & M3. At present it can take 30mins to get from the terminal to the western entry to Bournemouth during peak times. The main route however is much quicker accessing the dual carriageway. Once the new terminal is built and access road BOH will be more attractive to operators and will def gain new routes.

Since Manchester took over PAX nos have soared
2001 - 266600
2002 - 385000 estimated
2003 - 420000 est if nothing else announced.

Hope this is of interest to you!

Regards Stevobeevo

[luoto]

Leg room is slightly less than on scheduled services, and this is reflected in the low price of this holiday

Don't you just love marketing speak... how much is less..?

[ORAC]

The Times - 02 Aug:

August 02, 2002

Airport risk to 10,000 homes
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

MORE than 10,000 homes may have to be demolished around Heathrow because of a massive increase in air pollution if a proposed new runway is built.

The Government concealed the true potential impact of the extra runway when it announced last week that it was seriously considering expanding the airport to meet a tripling in demand for air travel by 2030. It stated then that only 260 homes would have to be pulled down to make way for the 2,000-metre runway, which would allow 500 extra flights a day over London.

Buried in more than 1,000 pages of regional consultation documents released by the Government last week, however, is a section on local air quality at Heathrow. This states that people exposed to air pollution above EU limits may also have their homes demolished. The document for the South East states: “By 2015 some 35,000 people could be exposed to an exceedence of the annual average EU limit for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) if a third runway was built.” It says this could be reduced to 5,000 people, but only if the aviation industry made much faster improvements in engine technology.

Oxides of nitrogen cause lung diseases and breathing problems. At Heathrow, which is British Airways’ preferred site for a new runway, the main sources of NO2 are aircraft engines and the vehicles and machinery associated with the airport. The areas facing the greatest potential exposure to NO2 are Harmondsworth, Sipson, Harlington, Hayes and West Drayton.

The document adds: “Meeting the EU limits for NO2 at Heathrow will be challenging, even without the addition of a third runway . . . It remains clear that another runway at Heathrow could not be considered unless the Government could be confident that levels of all relevant pollutants could be consistently contained within the EU limits.”

The document states that manufacturers and airlines would need to give “convincing reassurance” that they were dealing with the pollution. This could include undertaking “fully to fund the purchase (and, if necessary, demolition) of properties which would otherwise be made subject to exceedences, and to properly compensate the owners”.

The only alternatives the Government offers to demolition are banning from Heathrow thousands of aircraft that fail to meet “the most exacting emissions standards”, or introducing technology that is unlikely to be widely available until after 2020. Ministers have indicated that a third Heathrow runway, between Harmondsworth and Sipson, could be open within ten years.

BA is planning meetings with local communities about the environmental impact, but believes that the Government, rather than the industry, should compensate residents. Rod Eddington, BA’s chief executive, said: “There needs to be a debate with the community, but I don’t want to give anybody a blank cheque.”

John Stewart, chairman of Clearskies, which opposes the expansion of Heathrow, said: “Ministers must come clean and state which homes could have to be demolished. Jo Moore would be proud of the way the Government has buried this information.”

John McDonnell, MP for Hayes and Harlington, said: “Nobody believes that only 260 homes will go. If a new runway is built many more homes will become unliveable because of the noise and the pollution.”

The Department for Transport said: “In answer to the question whether the Government would be prepared to see the purchase and demolition of the houses of 35,000 people, or how many houses we would accept being demolished, we have made clear that we want to minimise the adverse impacts of growth in aviation. Minimising the impact on people’s homes is an important part of this objective.”

[Jet II]

Have any of you who are proposing the 3rd runway at LHR actually tried to get there recently? - LHR is in the most congested part of the South East and the infrastructure is totally unable to cope now, let alone when they build Terminal 5.

Surely the only reasonable proposal is to spread the load amongst all the major airports - if BA don't like it, tough.

What is the point of the LGW agreement not to build any new runway untill 2019 - if its coming it doesn't matter when its built. If all the main London airports were 2 runways and there were expansion of the other airports up north then the infrastructure of the country as a whole would be able to cope.

:)

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

In these sort of discussions, it always amuses me slightly that Heathrow was after all built with 6 runways in the old star of David shape. Now we're down to 2 runways, well, maybe 2 1/2. And they talk about a 'third' runway - ROFL.

[goatgruff]

Sorry if it comes as shock to you neanderthals in the South of the UK, but there is life north of the M25.:rolleyes:

Expansion at Stansted is a certainty, however long it may take.

Development of a pure freight airport in the UK is essential to the economy, the passenger market and demand is expanding to
the detriment of the ability of mainstream carriers ability to carry freight. Alconbury is the obvious answer, (that's north of London by the way:p).

There is also ample room for the likes of the Finningly development, which will be a major player in the North of the UK, and will hopefully be a wake up call to the sedintary airports in the vicinity. :rolleyes:

[Caslance]

Fair enough points, Goatgruff.

I wonder, though, whether any of the "pros" out there can give us some idea of what proportion of freight that leaves the country by air does so in dedicated freight aircraft, and how much is carried in the holds of passenger aircraft?

If the latter is significant (and I suspect that it is), then a "pure" freight airport may not have quite the impact that some believe.

[Nopax,thanx]

When Alconbury was first mooted as a Freight-only airport, the local NIMBYs went into overdrive, talking about a 747-100 every 15 minutes - if only!

Alconbury has a huge potential, with even the possibility of becoming the new base for Marshall Aerospace, if enough forward-thinking individuals can get their voices heard above the din of the protesters. Like it or not, to remain a viable economy within Europe, we need growth. An airport in the sea is a daft idea, it didn't work in Japan and it would be worse here.

Although I only live five miles from the runway at Alconbury (and therefore support the scheme 100%) I would support an ex-military field being turned into an airport anywhere that it made sense to do so. Interestingly, our local paper did a high street survey, and most locals were not against the idea............