3 new Runways London
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 new Runways London
Source: <a href="http://luchtvaart.pagina.nl" target="_blank">Ultimate Aviation Link Site</a>
London newspapers reported today that Britain's Transport Secretary Stephen Byers is considering proposals to build three new runways in the south-east of England.
An early draft of a government aviation study, published in the press, set out a range of options for dealing with an expected boom in air travel, which includes the three runways option.
The likelihood is that new runways would be built at three existing international airports in south-east England: Gatwick, Stansted and, most controversially, at Heathrow.
An alternative would be for two new runways at Stansted and one at Gatwick, or two at Gatwick and one at Stansted.
Some reports suggested that a completely new airport could be built.
Ministers apparently believe that despite the blip in air travel prompted by Sept 11, demand for air travel will continue to increase by 5 percent a year.
A decision to go for three runways would represent a significant shift in thinking - previously ministers were thought to be considering only one new runway over the next 30 years.
The Financial Times quoted one source as saying: "One extra runway would not be enough. It's a question of jobs and the contribution of aviation to the economy, and there's also a feeling that if you don't do something to meet demand the demand will go elsewhere. The general feeling is that a very high proportion of demand should be satisfied by 2030."
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: avt100 ]</p>
London newspapers reported today that Britain's Transport Secretary Stephen Byers is considering proposals to build three new runways in the south-east of England.
An early draft of a government aviation study, published in the press, set out a range of options for dealing with an expected boom in air travel, which includes the three runways option.
The likelihood is that new runways would be built at three existing international airports in south-east England: Gatwick, Stansted and, most controversially, at Heathrow.
An alternative would be for two new runways at Stansted and one at Gatwick, or two at Gatwick and one at Stansted.
Some reports suggested that a completely new airport could be built.
Ministers apparently believe that despite the blip in air travel prompted by Sept 11, demand for air travel will continue to increase by 5 percent a year.
A decision to go for three runways would represent a significant shift in thinking - previously ministers were thought to be considering only one new runway over the next 30 years.
The Financial Times quoted one source as saying: "One extra runway would not be enough. It's a question of jobs and the contribution of aviation to the economy, and there's also a feeling that if you don't do something to meet demand the demand will go elsewhere. The general feeling is that a very high proportion of demand should be satisfied by 2030."
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: avt100 ]</p>
Well, well, well. Here we go again! After the fiasco of waiting for T5 to get approval at LHR, can you imagine just how long this little lot will take to sort out? Was this not initially raised years (decades?) ago when various options were put up? Had it been sorted then it would have been quite a feat. Since then, how many sites have had housing estates etc put up which now further restricts development potential? Two new runways at LGW? You'll need an uplift of fuel by the time you have taxied to the nearest place where you could put another runway. Where the third runway would go is beyond me. It would be closer to LHR than LGW! How much more of a problem is this issue today since successive Governments have left it in the air for so long?
Now, our friends across in France seem to have got their act sorted when it comes to Transport planning. Maybe the Brits should take a leaf out of their book. No messing - just get it sorted!!!! But here in Blighty, oh no! Endless rounds of reviews, Inquiries, NIMBY-pandering etc. And the end result is too little, too late. Perhaps, rather than T5, the wider runway issue should have been addressed and a shift away from LHR could have been intiated - based on economic and logistics I hasten to add, rather than the anti-LHR lobby. All we will end up with is another hub-type airport the way things are going. Now, I am not a transport strategist but like to think I have half a brain cell to my name (no witty comments from the peanut gallery please) and it just seems to make sense to have made a step change a while ago rather than this "pick at this, now pick at that" approach. But that is UK plc through and through.
Now, I could start on the state of the UK railways!!!! But one rant from H 'n' H is enough for my fellow PPRuNers. All I can say is "Here we go again". And, no, H 'n' H is definitely not going to hold his breath on this one!
H 'n' H toddles off to darkened room to calm down again! <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
PS Mmmmm, a good rant makes you feel loads better!
[ 30 January 2002: Message edited by: Hot 'n' High ]</p>
Now, our friends across in France seem to have got their act sorted when it comes to Transport planning. Maybe the Brits should take a leaf out of their book. No messing - just get it sorted!!!! But here in Blighty, oh no! Endless rounds of reviews, Inquiries, NIMBY-pandering etc. And the end result is too little, too late. Perhaps, rather than T5, the wider runway issue should have been addressed and a shift away from LHR could have been intiated - based on economic and logistics I hasten to add, rather than the anti-LHR lobby. All we will end up with is another hub-type airport the way things are going. Now, I am not a transport strategist but like to think I have half a brain cell to my name (no witty comments from the peanut gallery please) and it just seems to make sense to have made a step change a while ago rather than this "pick at this, now pick at that" approach. But that is UK plc through and through.
Now, I could start on the state of the UK railways!!!! But one rant from H 'n' H is enough for my fellow PPRuNers. All I can say is "Here we go again". And, no, H 'n' H is definitely not going to hold his breath on this one!
H 'n' H toddles off to darkened room to calm down again! <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
PS Mmmmm, a good rant makes you feel loads better!
[ 30 January 2002: Message edited by: Hot 'n' High ]</p>
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: At the foot of the Lammermuirs
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]Two new runways at LGW? You'll need an uplift of fuel by the time you have taxied to the nearest place where you could put another runway. <hr></blockquote>
Would say the same for LHR. Where would you put another runway on that already congested site? Not to mention the uproar from the local residents. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
I think BAA and the Government have to bite the bullent and do what most other major Cities have done and move their main airport to a large greenfield site with plenty of room for expansion.
Would say the same for LHR. Where would you put another runway on that already congested site? Not to mention the uproar from the local residents. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
I think BAA and the Government have to bite the bullent and do what most other major Cities have done and move their main airport to a large greenfield site with plenty of room for expansion.
Trouble with a green field site is "Swampy" and his colleagues. Once thay have been winkled out of their hideyholes and the airport has been built, people will want to live closer to work. The developers will then build houses nearby and then schools, hospitals etc etc and within thirty years we would have a large town nearby and all the resultant noise complaints from the residents thereof!
Doc C.
Doc C.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A new runway at LHR. HMMMMMMM. That combined with T5 might enable LHR to grow a little and allow some new airlines to start service and compete with BA. That sounds like a great idea---oh but wait--BA is scared of competition--so forget that.
Thanks. Donkey Duke <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Thanks. Donkey Duke <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Essentially, plans for new runways are won or lost at LHR; when you talk about new runways at FRA, AMS or CDG, it's nonsense to suggest that a new one at LGW or even STN will compensate for not building one at LHR. Yes, of course, there are drawbacks, but LHR is the UK's most important economic engines; people - particularly sched carriers, only fly to LGW because they can't fly to LHR. Adding a third runway should bring acft capacity up to at least 600k movements p.a.
Of course, there'll be a Swampy brigade and environmentalists who suddenly discover a new species at the Waterside (as if we hadn't known for years!), legal action, even political arguments, but IT MUST GO AHEAD.
Of course, there'll be a Swampy brigade and environmentalists who suddenly discover a new species at the Waterside (as if we hadn't known for years!), legal action, even political arguments, but IT MUST GO AHEAD.
What is the closed airport, probably ex military, to the west of Gatwick? I saw it when I was a pax. into Gatwick for the Xmas GatBash.. . . .3 runways, relatively little development etc
Only catch seems to be that it's on long final for one of the Gatwick runways.
Still, if it was OK then, why not now for civil operations?
Also, what about the miriad of of ex- or soon-to-be-ex military aerodromes?
Only catch seems to be that it's on long final for one of the Gatwick runways.
Still, if it was OK then, why not now for civil operations?
Also, what about the miriad of of ex- or soon-to-be-ex military aerodromes?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Tinstaafl - The airfield to the west of Gatwick is Dunsfold - Ex Bae - used for final construction and test flying of Harriers built at Bae Kingston. Don't think it would be of as much use as a second runway at LGW; which as the busiest Single runway International airport in the world is well overdue. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the contrary Donkey Duke! If we had a third runway BA would have no problem with allowing US competition in, we'd have plenty of space for it then. What we do have a problem with is surrendering one sixth of our slots so that you and your Hillbilly Airlines can strut into LHR and undercut us all with your $10 billion dollars of federal aid and Chapter 11 protections, whilst maintaining your protectionist policies like "Fly America". I think we'd all welcome the day when you and your countrymen wish to compete on a level playing field.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It occurs to me that with the Advocate General's Opinion on Open Skies, today, pressure for slots at LHR is going to become more and more intense over the coming years. The crux, if I understand it, will be that airlines from other EU countries, technically, will have the right to fly LHR-US, and BA/VS/BD will have the right to fly from anywhere within the EU. However, LHR will clearly be a target for the likes of AF, KL, IB etc.
So, in the long term, with the likelihood of BA being willing to give up slots to competitors being zero, the only possible answer may well be a third runway?
Furthermore, if the US/UK do agree a deal before the ECJ delivers its final judgment, which gives rights to US carriers to LHR, in preference to EU carriers (such as BE, for example) which have been waiting longer, won't they also have a right of action.
Things are going to get very interesting re LHR over the coming years . . .
So, in the long term, with the likelihood of BA being willing to give up slots to competitors being zero, the only possible answer may well be a third runway?
Furthermore, if the US/UK do agree a deal before the ECJ delivers its final judgment, which gives rights to US carriers to LHR, in preference to EU carriers (such as BE, for example) which have been waiting longer, won't they also have a right of action.
Things are going to get very interesting re LHR over the coming years . . .
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: up north
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the North of England?Are runway developments restricted to the South?Seems to me that there is more room for development (and more demand for)runways north of the Watford Gap!
Just been perusing the posts and there seems to be a drift into the "3rd Runway at LHR" and what impact that would have on Slots, BA etc.
I guess the real question is, is further expansion at LHR or LGW a realistic way forward? Either option is going to run into stiff opposition from well-heeled Anti's. I mean, T5, even with the guarantees given on traffic levels, made "Watching Paint Dry" become a spectator sport overnight as it went through the various Planning hoops. Ten years I think it was. So, can you imagine the outcry over an extra runway at LHR? Still, the outcry would drown out the sound of those whisper-quiet 777s etc which have replaced the Conways, Speys and other older generation 'donkeys' from the likes of P&W and GE.
In addition to the Antis and the runway real estate issues, infrastructure is also vital to keep pax moving to/from the airports. Now, Mayor Ken, bless 'im, is into his "Congestion Charging" and has already made comments regarding charges for access to LHR. Anyone who partakes of the M4/25 will know and love the area - not! So, clearly, this is something else for the Greens to go ballistic over. And it is something the Government needs to ponder - I have already mentioned railways in my last post!!
I still feel T5 actually fudged the issue. Maybe the numbers crunched when T5 was first dreamed of made sense. However, I feel it will simply benefit existing throughput at LHR in terms of Slots plus the smallish increase in Pax as aircraft size increases with the likes of the A380. However, the step change in figures predicted even post Sept 11, '01 + the convenience factor of interlining make expansion of LHR and LGW something of a non-starter. I just feel we in the UK have, once again, missed the boat and that our chance to "greenfield" away from LHR has been lost. I know there is a view that even a new site would attract housing etc but, and a big "but" this, IF the planners use their heads for a change, keeping housing well away from a new airport + providing exceptional comms between the two areas, this would prevent the fracas we had over T5.
Truth is, I feel we have missed our chance to sort this. My view is that a move away from LHR should have happened years ago. Mind you, T5 is yet to take shape, so one could argue we DO have a chance to review even that. "Sunk costs" and all that for you guys with MBAs! This will only work if the Government make a fundamental decision on where additional/new runway capacity is to appear and actually make a STRATEGIC decision for a change and carry that out PDQ. It will also take a bit of a mind-set change in the likes of BA I expect! After all, as a Stakeholder, logic would suggest all they would like to see is LHR become a sole BA + alliance preserve. But the concept of strategic thinking is clearly something those in charge, whatever their political hue, are averse to from my humble foxhole! <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
For example, and sorry Newbury, why Greenham Common never got snapped up is beyond me. Just my humble view and there are probably issues there!!! <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> However, maybe you get my drift. Think WIDE! Oh, before anyone says, I DON'T own a house near LHR or LGW so I don't have an axe to grind, nor do I have much time for those who buy houses near airports and then complain. I just try and apply common sense to a relatively major issue which has grown every year successive Governments have dodged the REAL issues.
Sorry to go on but I'm still <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> even after some time in a darkened room!!!!!
Cheers, H 'n' H (or should that be H 'n' B - "B" for Bothered!!!!!!!) <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
I guess the real question is, is further expansion at LHR or LGW a realistic way forward? Either option is going to run into stiff opposition from well-heeled Anti's. I mean, T5, even with the guarantees given on traffic levels, made "Watching Paint Dry" become a spectator sport overnight as it went through the various Planning hoops. Ten years I think it was. So, can you imagine the outcry over an extra runway at LHR? Still, the outcry would drown out the sound of those whisper-quiet 777s etc which have replaced the Conways, Speys and other older generation 'donkeys' from the likes of P&W and GE.
In addition to the Antis and the runway real estate issues, infrastructure is also vital to keep pax moving to/from the airports. Now, Mayor Ken, bless 'im, is into his "Congestion Charging" and has already made comments regarding charges for access to LHR. Anyone who partakes of the M4/25 will know and love the area - not! So, clearly, this is something else for the Greens to go ballistic over. And it is something the Government needs to ponder - I have already mentioned railways in my last post!!
I still feel T5 actually fudged the issue. Maybe the numbers crunched when T5 was first dreamed of made sense. However, I feel it will simply benefit existing throughput at LHR in terms of Slots plus the smallish increase in Pax as aircraft size increases with the likes of the A380. However, the step change in figures predicted even post Sept 11, '01 + the convenience factor of interlining make expansion of LHR and LGW something of a non-starter. I just feel we in the UK have, once again, missed the boat and that our chance to "greenfield" away from LHR has been lost. I know there is a view that even a new site would attract housing etc but, and a big "but" this, IF the planners use their heads for a change, keeping housing well away from a new airport + providing exceptional comms between the two areas, this would prevent the fracas we had over T5.
Truth is, I feel we have missed our chance to sort this. My view is that a move away from LHR should have happened years ago. Mind you, T5 is yet to take shape, so one could argue we DO have a chance to review even that. "Sunk costs" and all that for you guys with MBAs! This will only work if the Government make a fundamental decision on where additional/new runway capacity is to appear and actually make a STRATEGIC decision for a change and carry that out PDQ. It will also take a bit of a mind-set change in the likes of BA I expect! After all, as a Stakeholder, logic would suggest all they would like to see is LHR become a sole BA + alliance preserve. But the concept of strategic thinking is clearly something those in charge, whatever their political hue, are averse to from my humble foxhole! <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
For example, and sorry Newbury, why Greenham Common never got snapped up is beyond me. Just my humble view and there are probably issues there!!! <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> However, maybe you get my drift. Think WIDE! Oh, before anyone says, I DON'T own a house near LHR or LGW so I don't have an axe to grind, nor do I have much time for those who buy houses near airports and then complain. I just try and apply common sense to a relatively major issue which has grown every year successive Governments have dodged the REAL issues.
Sorry to go on but I'm still <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> even after some time in a darkened room!!!!!
Cheers, H 'n' H (or should that be H 'n' B - "B" for Bothered!!!!!!!) <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow would be the best industry solution but there would be a revolution in the affluent and articulate areas of west London (probably SW1 and onwards) and the politicians would cave in.. .My bet is on STN (given that any politician has the courage to make a decision)as the land is there, the airport is designed to take it and there are relatively fewer people. LHR and STN will be the major airports and LGW will serve the market south of the river and those going to the West End of Central London.. .As a passing thought, if Maplin had gone ahead it would have opened in 1982 with initially one terminal, one runway and a highspeed rail and road link. It would have been capable of taking ten terminals and four runways. STN and LTN would have closed and LGW would have had one terminal and LHR three terminals. . .Oh yes, the north. You're going to get Finningly. What more do you want? <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Oops!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the answer is to tack on a few extra thousand metres onto EGLC then we can all just fly up the river onto 28, disturb no-one apart from the guys at the thames barrier and be home in time for tea!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: wales (new south)
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While i think that we all agree LHR would be the prefered economic location for another SE runway, i think it should be placed somewhere else (probably standsted) as more airplanes doing finals over central london cannot be a good idea, especialy in the light of 9/11.
sod the NIMBYS and noise lobbies, its simply not prudent to encourage more aircraft to fly low over 7 million people and lots of historic buildings!
or....place a CP order on windsor castle so LHR can be approached from the west
sod the NIMBYS and noise lobbies, its simply not prudent to encourage more aircraft to fly low over 7 million people and lots of historic buildings!
or....place a CP order on windsor castle so LHR can be approached from the west
There are plenty of quiet or unused long runways in Britain already. Brize Norton, Upper Heyford, Bedford, Wyton, Alconbury, Finningley, Bruntingthorpe, Elvington, etc etc. Surely common sense to start looking at these.