Crazy Gov't and ridiculous plans! over rwy's
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crazy Gov't and Ridiculous Plans!
What a complete and total ba**s-up and whitewash! To publish a white paper largely relating to airport developments for the years 2010-2030 is doing no more than writing a post-dated cheque.
RULE 1 in politics: Create the illusion that you are calmly in control while you're fire-fighting.
RULE 2: Make sure that when questions have to be answered, someone is there to carry the can.
Is it any wonder that folks choose not to vote... I've never been cynical, but dear God! Happy Christmas every body. bm
RULE 1 in politics: Create the illusion that you are calmly in control while you're fire-fighting.
RULE 2: Make sure that when questions have to be answered, someone is there to carry the can.
Is it any wonder that folks choose not to vote... I've never been cynical, but dear God! Happy Christmas every body. bm
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The White Paper
Thanks for the summary - but you make no mention of the possibility of mixed mode op of LHR's runways - is this too politically difficult (and therefore likely to be dealt with separately from the White Paper) do you think?
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Perhaps its time to move BRS to Filton."
under_exposed
Should have happened decades ago but it won't, and we have gone over the reasons before in these forums.
BEagle
As to runway extension I presume it will be at the eastern (A 38) end, and I guess that the recently diverted A 38 will be sunk into the long-discussed cut and cut cover tunel. If it ever happens at all, that is.
Like you I can remember Whitchurch, and what a pity the city council did not move to Filton then when they had the chance in the 1950s instead of going south to Lulsgate.
I cannot see a link with the M 5 or the Bristol to Exeter railway line coming into being - too expensive and too many environmental difficulties. Mind, I lived near the airport in the 1950s long before the M 5 was built and the A 38 was far busier then than it is now. It had hundreds of long-distance lorries trundling along each day for a start, which it doesn't have these days.
under_exposed
Should have happened decades ago but it won't, and we have gone over the reasons before in these forums.
BEagle
As to runway extension I presume it will be at the eastern (A 38) end, and I guess that the recently diverted A 38 will be sunk into the long-discussed cut and cut cover tunel. If it ever happens at all, that is.
Like you I can remember Whitchurch, and what a pity the city council did not move to Filton then when they had the chance in the 1950s instead of going south to Lulsgate.
I cannot see a link with the M 5 or the Bristol to Exeter railway line coming into being - too expensive and too many environmental difficulties. Mind, I lived near the airport in the 1950s long before the M 5 was built and the A 38 was far busier then than it is now. It had hundreds of long-distance lorries trundling along each day for a start, which it doesn't have these days.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could have been an awful lot worse (i.e. with regard to Heathrow); 12 years is, however, a long time, but at least the door isn't closed. There is general recognition that LHR has huge economic importance. HOWEVER, what I didn't see (and maybe it will be announced in the coming weeks) is any proposal or announcement in relation to LHR operating in mixed mode, which is likely to add around 6% (?) to the number of slots available.
Hopefully, at least some of these extra flights can be used to boost internal/regional flights.
Still, with FRA, LHR and CDG each getting/having already got new runways, you can't help thinking that LHR was hard done by.
What can they do about N02 emissions? Restrict access? Electric ground vehicles? New electric rail links (for example to LGW)?
Hopefully, at least some of these extra flights can be used to boost internal/regional flights.
Still, with FRA, LHR and CDG each getting/having already got new runways, you can't help thinking that LHR was hard done by.
What can they do about N02 emissions? Restrict access? Electric ground vehicles? New electric rail links (for example to LGW)?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mixed mode operation hasn't been dealt with really here, they mention a seperate public consultation to discuss that!
Some of the think-tanks have some quite radical ideas about N02 emissions, including further restrictions on the types of aircraft/engines allowed to operate into the UK.
Some of the think-tanks have some quite radical ideas about N02 emissions, including further restrictions on the types of aircraft/engines allowed to operate into the UK.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear all,
What this White Paper seems to fail to solve is the actual issue at hand. The expected rise in passenger numbers over the period in question is 300%. The population of this country will not increase by even 10% of that amount in the same time. So where is everyone going? The government states that air travel is essential to our economy. Why is it essential that 3 times as many people vacation abroad in 20 years. That is only helping the economies of whereever these people are going. As for business travellers, with e-mail, phones and increased capability video conferencing why the need to fly to Paris to meet your banker. Why the need to jet across the pond to talk to the VP in charge of purchasing?
This small island has a limit to its airspace and its landspace. This White Paper does nothing to solve any of the problems facing this country, it simply kicks the problem down the road for a future generation to deal with.
I am not some mad tree-hugging, sandal wearing, tofu-eating nimby. This White Paper deals with the symptoms not the disease. Typical of politicos and big business.
Cheers
BHR
What this White Paper seems to fail to solve is the actual issue at hand. The expected rise in passenger numbers over the period in question is 300%. The population of this country will not increase by even 10% of that amount in the same time. So where is everyone going? The government states that air travel is essential to our economy. Why is it essential that 3 times as many people vacation abroad in 20 years. That is only helping the economies of whereever these people are going. As for business travellers, with e-mail, phones and increased capability video conferencing why the need to fly to Paris to meet your banker. Why the need to jet across the pond to talk to the VP in charge of purchasing?
This small island has a limit to its airspace and its landspace. This White Paper does nothing to solve any of the problems facing this country, it simply kicks the problem down the road for a future generation to deal with.
I am not some mad tree-hugging, sandal wearing, tofu-eating nimby. This White Paper deals with the symptoms not the disease. Typical of politicos and big business.
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A change to mixed mode at LHR would increase runway capacity by about 10 ATM an hour, coming to around 90 per HR. If this was the case then the annual ATM's would increase to a possible 551,000. Far in excess of the 480,000 cap imposed in the T5 enquiry.
A brand spanking new airport off the coast a la Chep Lak Kok would have been the bold plan, but instead that monstrosity of an airport at heathrow may get another addition that it can't cope with properly.
Long term Heathrow is unsustainable and if airlines such as BA want to compete long term then there needs to be an integrated plan involving high speed rail links and some decent access, rather than the car park that is the M25 and the god awful rail links. (Heathrow express is O.K if you are going to central London, but it's pricy and a trek across London with cases, jet lag and sqauling brats is a horrible prospect if you are going to any other part of the U.K)
A brand spanking new airport off the coast a la Chep Lak Kok would have been the bold plan, but instead that monstrosity of an airport at heathrow may get another addition that it can't cope with properly.
Long term Heathrow is unsustainable and if airlines such as BA want to compete long term then there needs to be an integrated plan involving high speed rail links and some decent access, rather than the car park that is the M25 and the god awful rail links. (Heathrow express is O.K if you are going to central London, but it's pricy and a trek across London with cases, jet lag and sqauling brats is a horrible prospect if you are going to any other part of the U.K)
Seems to me that the problem that is not being addressed by the white paper is airspace capacity. Building new runways is all very well but if the airspace around them is saturated what's the point. I spend a great deal of my time climbing and descending in the London TMA and it feels, looks and sounds pretty close to bursting most of the time. It's hard to see how the forecast increases in traffic are going to happen without a drastic change in the way airspace is controlled and managed.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Liverpool & Luton
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expansion at Luton a reality
Goforfun,
As Olney One Bravo has already pointed out Alistair Darling has in fact approved expansion at Luton by sanctioning maximum use of a full-length runway (extension to existing implied) - and therefore the potential to handle up to 30 million pax per annum by 2030 (from the present 6.7 million).
This has all been "washed away" a bit in the media / public's attention being concentrated on NEW runways...
Excellent news for LTN then - but as has also been pointed out elsewhere in this string already, this is just the beginning of a very long process.
Eddie Gumshoe Ginley
As Olney One Bravo has already pointed out Alistair Darling has in fact approved expansion at Luton by sanctioning maximum use of a full-length runway (extension to existing implied) - and therefore the potential to handle up to 30 million pax per annum by 2030 (from the present 6.7 million).
This has all been "washed away" a bit in the media / public's attention being concentrated on NEW runways...
Excellent news for LTN then - but as has also been pointed out elsewhere in this string already, this is just the beginning of a very long process.
Eddie Gumshoe Ginley
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There does seem to be some changes to the airspace in and around the LTMA, I was chatting to a chap from NATS who mentioned that airspace around Essex was certainly going to change as a part of a bigger shake up.
Don't know all the details but hopefully this may help to alleviate some of the problems around London.
Don't know all the details but hopefully this may help to alleviate some of the problems around London.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,373
Received 119 Likes
on
86 Posts
On the lighter side of the debate re. new Runways, a truly insightful comment on C4 News last night from "on the ball " reporter---" Stansted will have the first new Runway in the UK since the War"----or words to that effect-----thus demonstrating her knowledge of Aviation matters -----and that little stretch of concrete that appeared overnight at MAN. 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick note about theoretical runway capacity at heathrow. At the moment you are looking at approx 42 inbounds and 45 plus outbounds in a busy hour. Now by my thinking gatwick and stansted are running about 55+ an hour when very busy so that really means about an extra 15-20 movements an hour at heathrow. Which would potentially allow an extra 225-300 ATM's a day or 82125-109500 flights a year. Again this is assuming 15 hrs of open time at heathrow a day. All theoretical as Ground would become an absolute nightmare unless the SIDS were abolished and we went more down the route of firing of on headings and letting someone on radar catch them and point them in the right direction. Another point to note is that at the moment there is not the excess stand capacity to allow for that many more movements an hour maybe when T5 is fully operational.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sydney Oz
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey people
At least you don't have to put with our MANS (major air needs of Sydney) committee to fix everything for you. As far as I know they have been sitting for over 30 years and recently they finally made a decision
They finally decided where they were NOT going to build the new airport
Imagine all the things they couldn't do for you too.
Heat
At least you don't have to put with our MANS (major air needs of Sydney) committee to fix everything for you. As far as I know they have been sitting for over 30 years and recently they finally made a decision
They finally decided where they were NOT going to build the new airport
Imagine all the things they couldn't do for you too.
Heat
