Airport Development in the south east.

[Say again s l o w l y]

The consultation on the development of Air transport has recently finished.

What is everybody's opinion of how it should proceed? Do we have an expanded Heathrow? Is Cliffe a red herring? Should we expand Gatwick, Stansted, Luton or even build a new airport in the Severn estuary?

This will become (even more of) a hot potato in the next year, when the white paper is published.

What do the people who actually fly into and work at these airports actually think?

[akerosid]

I would be very surprised (let alone extremely disappointed) if LHR didn't get its third runway; ultimately, LHR is one of the biggest contributors to economic growth and with the additional demand for slots as a result of various issues - new bilaterals, US issues etc. - I think it has to be the No1 priority.

I think STN will get one, possibly two, with LGW getting its second, but probably not for completion/opening before 2019, as a result of the legal agreement.

Cliffe won't happen, but maybe other green-field sites like Abingdon will.

There should also be further emphasis on ground links between airports, with rail services to LHR being improved (hopefully from LGW as well - that's one route that really needs a rail link) to free up some slots. Also, I wonder if there will be pressure to maximise use of slots; for example, it hardly seems right to have c.20 flights a day from LHR-MAN, when many of these are 319/737 operations and other regional airports lose their access. Why not a Japanese style all Y configuration, using charter airlines' 757s/321s, releasing 4-5 slots for regional access.

When is the long spoken of change in runway usage (at LHR), which is estimated to produce an extra 6-10 flights per hour, supposed to be coming in?

[Gonzo]

Just off to work at Heathrow Tower,

When is the long spoken of change in runway usage (at LHR), which is estimated to produce an extra 6-10 flights per hour, supposed to be coming in?

Ummmmmmm, eh? What's this?

[Say again s l o w l y]

I assume Akerosid means the change to mixed-mode useage at Heathrow. Probably not a popular move with the locals tho'.

Akerosid, what is the Japanese Y configuration?

[akerosid]

Yes, that's what I meant - mixed usage. Sorry!

What I call the Japanese Y configuration is basically an all economy layout, as operated by Japanese domestic carriers on peak routes; you certainly wouldn't get 737s operating 20 a day from Tokyo to Osaka. What I mean is, make best use of the slots available. If you can get the same capacity from 12-15 flights (which is a perfectly reasonable frequency) as you can get from 20 flights with smaller aircraft, then use the larger one and create more flights from regional airports.

[chiglet]

Say Again,
Since when has the Severn been in the SouthEast:confused: ?
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[Gonzo]

Not popular with me!

Ever seen that programme 'It'll never work' ????

[LGS6753]

The very thought of flying from LGW or LHR gives me the screaming willies. Distant, overcrowded, dirty, and I'm afraid with staff who often betray the frustration of working in such an environment.
The south east has various under-utilised runways which should be used fully before creating more mayhem on Hounslow Heath or the Sussex/Surrey border.
The first and most obvious contender is LTN. Rail link, 2 miles from M1, lots of capacity, under-utilised terminal capacity all point to an opportunity to better use an existing facility.
Then what about Northolt, Farnborough, Manston, Lydd, even Southend, Norwich and Southampton?

For anyone living north of the Thames (and that's most of us), Gatwick is a non-starter. Heathrow is fenced-off by M25 and its traffic, so we would prefer LTN or STN. Unfortunately, the east-west surface links in England are lousy, which disadvantages STN further. Also its rail link is essentially a branch line into London.

Another thought - is it right that the BAA should run LHR, LGW and STN? I would have thought everyone would gain from a competitive airport infrastructure rather than a near-monopoly.

So, what do y'all think about 'Fly Luton'?

[MerchantVenturer]

"Since when has the Severn been in the SouthEast ?"

chiglet,

It might become Ryanair's major south east base.
;)

[notice]

BAA is an astonishing anomoly and a malignant monopoly.

Control by one company of most our airport capacity (and the vast majority of it in the South-East) is not in the public interest.

Market forces are now the norm for everything except airports.
It should be illegal to own more than one airport of any significance. BAA (&TBI) should be broken-up into independant airport companies.

The obvious choices for SE expansion are Heathrow & Luton simply because they are nearer to most of the rest of England

[Say again s l o w l y]

I suppose it would be London West to Ryanair!!

I put Severnside in as an option to usual 'just expand heathrow.'
I'd never heard of Severnside until a few days ago and it seems a sensible option, well better than Cliffe anyway!

I agree that the BAA does seem to take the p*ss sometimes. I know they are a lot better up in Manchester now, but they had to be forced into it. Any company that has a profit margin of over 30% and yet still screams that charges should go up, is quite frankly having a laugh...

[AhhhVC813]

The fools removed the best runway in the south(eastish), when Greenham Common was dug up. Look at it's location. Good for the M4, in the heart of the South, and best of all, it was already there. It would certainly have been cheaper than any of the other current options. I guess the locals would have been a tad incensed though.

[Woofrey]

Interesting point about the BAA profit margin. However, the figure after interest, tax and dividends is around 8% I think. Their annual report shows £158m carried to reserves which goes toward funding the £11.9 billion investment programme, so it looks like there's a gap to be plugged somehow - more borrowing ?? And that's probably a big issue in any break up of the monopoly - who could afford to a) buy one of the airports and b) put in the investment required, without jacking up the charges still further - back to the old Retail vs Operations argument.

[MerchantVenturer]

Say again slowly,

The Severnside suggestion has been around for many years, sometimes as a replacement for CWL and BRS, sometimes as an adjunct to these airports.

Over the years various groups have put forward suggestions for an airport 'in the Severn', some vaguely serious, others just pie in the sky.

At present a consortium of business people and others is attempting to persuade the government that a brand new intercontinental airport should be built near Newport in South Wales. The runway would be on a man-made island in the estuary with the terminal buildings on part of the Corus steelworks property at Llanwern.

Last January this consortium submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport a 92-page proposal prepared by HOK, one of the world’s largest firms of architects and airport planners. The proposal envisages a £2 billion airport that would in effect be Britain’s third major intercontinental airport, but away from the crowded south-east skies.

They believe that BRS and CWL would co-exist as European airports alongside their younger but infinitely bigger brother.

See: http://www.severnside-airport.com/

The government’s own consultation document talks vaguely of a new major airport at Pilning, which is on the English side of the Severn estuary just to the north-west of Bristol, but this would only be considered if no meaningful increase in runway capacity could be achieved in the south-east.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I do like the idea of Severnside. All the positives (apart from being next to London) are there, Airspace, Workforce, Transport links (M4/5 and railway) aswell as space for future expansion. If there was ever an area in need of regeneration.....

That is another problem with somewhere like Heathrow, what happens in a few years time, do you expand again??

Do we have to expand at all? Apart from BA, is there really a need for extra capacity. I know BA are seeing their world market share shrink at Heathrow with the expansion of places such as CDG and Frankfurt. They won't entertain the idea of a split-hub after what happened with Gatwick. So they are the real driving force behind the desire for expansion.

[LGS6753]

In reply to Woofrey:
The BAA could be broken up in a number of ways - it doresn't necessarily have to be 'bought'. Debt associated with (for example) the gold-plated terminal at Stansted would go to the company operating Stansted, likewise with LHR and LGW. Shareholders could initially receive shares in three (or more)separate companies, and the markets would do the rest, in terms of valuations. Government would have to intervene, but not necessarily legislate a) to start the process, and b) to ensure that the companies were prevented from merging in future.
In the case of TBI, I don't consider that a threat. Its three UK airports are in very different parts of the country (Luton, Belfast & Cardiff) and don't operate as a cartel. Neither do Manchester Airport's operations, or Peel.

In reply to Say - Again - S l o w l y:
For a new airport on Severnside to succeed, you would need to close both Lulsgate and Cardiff, and perhaps also Filton. Apart from the destruction of existing runways, there is the immense cost of new infrastructure, possibly reclaimed land, and compensation to the above three airport operators. Is that really going to happen? More important - who will be willing to pay? Also, Bristol is a very vibrant labour market, and labour would be both scarce and expensive. To say nothing of the fact that it's 120 miles from London, and the M4's very long and thin! Ryanair may view it as London - West, but no-one else will.

Chris

[HZ123]

For confirmation: I read at the time that the possible construction of runway 3 at LHR would put pay to RAF Northolt due to converging landing paterns from the west. Which indeed appears to be the case as often the Northolt a/c can be seen and a Kingair pilot told me it was hairy getting in sometimes. To confuse the situation the locals according to my free rag are agreeing to more flights from Northolt.

I always felt to that are greaters and betters will always want the RAF to remain there just in case they need to run for it.

[Say again s l o w l y]

There was/is a plan to use Northolt as a feeder runway for Heathrow, utilising the rail-link that already exists between them to move pax. This would probably mean the reorientation of Northolts runway, which would slightly defeat the object!!

In replyto LGS 6753, I don't believe that both Cardiff and Lulgate would be closed, I can't see an awful lot of use for them but I'm sure they would find a role. As to the workforce, I know Bristol has no problem with unemployment, but what about South Wales?? There is still massive unemploment in the area and there would be no problem finding labour there. The Severnside plan would only work if there was an expansion of the transport links, but the basics are already there....

[frb98mf]

Given that the SERAS team (civil service guys running the consultation) got 150,000 responses, I'd hazard the following:

1. A whole lot of people wrote in to voice objections to one or many of the existing options, especially LHR as it will blight another few hundred thousand homes, and LGW because (familiar?) the government will be reneging on a promise if they build there.

2. Government's decision will be very much more political than the forum debates on here seem to reflect - they'll take the line that offers the least public resistance and does the minimum to get airlines off their backs ie one new runway at STN to start with, then delay other decisions for say 5 years - typical cop-out.

3. There are many more ideas being considered by them than have been released into the public arena. For example Redhill went as far as getting their MP to get the DfT to state on public record that their submission would be treated as confidential. Given that this site seems to be the home of the airline industry's free thinkers, I'm sure we could ask around and come up with quite a few neat ideas.

4. Further to the above, I think Cliffe is a smokescreen designed to split the NIMBY lobby - historic building people are against 4 runways at STN, eco-warriors against Cliffe, legal eagles against LGW, London liberties people against LHR. Divide and rule!

Any thoughts?

[zed3]

And while we're at it , with such a time scale , why not plan for a high speed or other , circular , connecting rail link between Heathrow , Gatwick, Stansted and Luton with two directional services every 15 minutes , or so. Just a thought!

[eng123]

More runways at EGSS please! Stuff the do-gooder's.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Good idea Z3. It would be great to have a decent link between all the airports, a sort of giant hub airport. It brings back memories of the short lived Heli service between Gatwick and Heathrow of many years ago. This would allow more of the current capacity to be utilised, rather than just building more. Alot of people are very against Heathrow expansion, even with 'just' a short extra runway.
It does fly in the face of the BAA's promises at the T5 enquiry when they stated "We believe no other runway at Heathrow is a practical proposition." This is a a direct quote from the then BAA Chief Exec. in 1995.

Heathrow is an absolute nightmare for all concerned. Any extra runway would also need another terminal (T6?) since nearly all T5 capacity will be taken up with the existing runways.

I think we have to find a new and possibly radical solution for transport, and it may not necessarily be in expanding airport capacity. (gasps...)
:uhoh:

Unfortunately I think any Government solution will be as frb98mf says, a bit of a committee, try not to annoy anyone type of solution. We really should take major long term decisions such as these away from politicians, who only have a relatively short shelf life compared to projects such as this which may take 20 years to bring to fruition.

[Chef]

I believe that EGSS needs a second runway, slot 1 departures are a nightmare on 23 even more so on 05, however there needs to be better rail links, STN Express is unreliable and services are often canx, after 0030 that's it until the morning.

I do feel that there are a lot of smoke screens going up with the application for "several" runways at EGSS when in fact they eventually propose to build only one the locals and the "do gooders" feel that they have won the battle.

[frb98mf]

I think the best bet would be to do all of the following:

- 1 new runway at EGSS and maybe that realignment at Luton, would cope with foreseeable low-cost growth
- switch LHR to mixed use runways, make sure T5 actually gets used to capacity
- some real incentives for airlines to fly direct from the provinces to more destinations and avoid travelling through London; some of the "hopper" services seem to have been very successful ie BA runs EDI-BHX-DUS, double-hats as a domestic shuttle as well
- one of a few very bright ideas I know were submitted to SERAS as an alternative to the existing options, which will solve all the problems discussed and more (I'm sworn to secrecy, sorry lads!)
- eventually that second runway at LGW but not before the promised period
- a decent effort to improve rail, both domestic and via Eurotunnel, Lufthansa now codeshare the fast trains from Frankfurt and Cologne to a number of places and take the planes out of the sky

In 20 years we could revisit more runways at EGSS or the crazy Cliffe/Marinairport/Severnside/LHR 3rd runway ideas, but I think the above options would add enough capacity on their own, without totally obliterating homes and wildlife.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Oh frb go on.....

I'd really be interested to know the idea, as I'm writing a project on all this at the moment, and I'm stuck for any really good ideas myself. Obviously I wouldn't claim the idea as my own;) ;)

[brabazon]

I don't know if Luton is a good reference case or not, but it's interesting to read the Airport's submission to the Consultation process - they seem to question some of the fundamental assumptions used in the preparation of the initial DfT studies and even put forward the idea that a realignment is not necessary. On that basis what do you believe?

http://www.london-luton.co.uk/pdf/download/SERAS2-NoDiagrams.pdf

http://www.london-luton.co.uk/pdf/download/SERAS2-Diagrams.PDF

[frb98mf]

Brabazon – I’d reckon the Luton thing is in part because they have to be seen to do something to strengthen their position. If they don’t act, it sends out a message of resignation to BAA’s continued dominance in London, which will whittle down their advantage with the low-costs as Stansted and maybe Gatwick expand. Also, realignment allows future terminal construction, a rail link right next to any new buildings on the west side of the strip, and a fast road running towards the A1, larger planes, less risk of flying straight into that damn hillside, and less overflight of the local towns.

S L O W L Y – I was privy to a couple of potential schemes, even came up with one myself, had to sign a very nasty Non-Disclosure Agreement, I suppose any new ideas that rock the world might also rock some share prices! Hopefully I can tell you in a month or so...

[Say again s l o w l y]

Fair enough frb. Those non-disclosure agreements can be pretty nasty and its not worth getting into bother over someone who's just too lazy to come up with a good idea themselves!!

I'm focusing mainly on Heathrow, simply because I feel that it is the most likely expansion scenario. All have there merits and problems and the project can only be 2000 words and I'm struggling to get within 4000 words of that as the subject is so broad.

frb, were these schemes from the government, BAA or individual airport?? If you'd rather not say, don't worry. I'm just curious.
:rolleyes:

[brabazon]

frb

I understand your viewpoint, but it doesn't get away from the fact that the initial DfT report may have been based on some "questionable" assumptions, which could feed through the whole consultation process.

[frb98mf]

Met with a couple of individuals and private companies with bright ideas, also a couple of existing airports have ideas not made public, and all the major ones including BAA, TBI etc, will no doubt have good fall-back plans so they can leverage some value out of the opportunity to expand, even if it's not at the places of their choosing (ie BAA's stated position is 3rd runway at LHR primary concern, but they'll also be pressing more subtlely for the LGW and STN options just in case, or for example TBI could try and exploit talk of breaking up the virtual BAA monopoly if Luton doesn't work out).

Don't bet on government coming up with anything imaginative - as far as I understand, all their ideas have been published in that consultation paper, and they were obliged to reveal all the areas they considered (ie Northolt, Redhill) before settling on the options presented.

Also if I were BA or any other carrier/alliance, I'd have submitted something, again with first choice but some second preferences too (ie if no 3rd runway at LHR, maybe it best suits BA to go for Cliffe or Stansted and move everything over).

If I were a betting man, I'd have my money pretty much anywhere but Heathrow. Look at it from a political perspective, it's the biggest problem. By the time a decision is made and an appeal is lodged and fought, we'll be nicely up to the next general election, with LHR and coincidentally a whole bunch of the other airports in marginal seats.

For industry, LHR seems the easiest solution but as I said, there are things going round that haven't been made public that might be a very credible alternative for both BAA and the airlines.

Brabazon's right, one might even say the DfT assumptions may have been, to use the current jargon, "sexed up", as were some of the clearly unviable options, so they can manufacture a decision that appears to please everyone but in the long term probably helps nobody. I'd cut them more slack - this is the kind of evil problem the Civil Service are asked to fix all the time, with minimal resources and often no specialist expertise.

S L O W L Y, happy to try and answer some specifics on LHR or anything else off-line if it helps (I work in strategic consulting and entrepreneurial solutions - quick plug!).

[brabazon]

frb

Sorry to prolong this, but I think in answer to your point: .this is the kind of evil problem the Civil Service are asked to fix all the time, with minimal resources and often no specialist expertise - the issue is that the DfT does not have sufficient resources in house to do this work and hence used a number of consultancy companies - at least one of which is named in Luton's submission

[frb98mf]

Strikes me as a slight conflict of interest there! Especially if the same consultants will now be helping with the selection process...

[Gonzo]

Mixed mode at LHR will not work unless there are wholesale airspace changes and noise/environmental considerations go out the window.

[frb98mf]

True, but I reckon that's exactly what will happen as a sop to BAA/BA for not doing the 3rd runway. Also any expansions, and an eventual move to open skies-type ideas, will presumably require the rethink you suggest. Add to that the fact that planes are getting quieter, can handle a slightly steeper and shorter final approach, and I reckon it's do-able. But point taken - it's not ideal.