Gutless Goverment?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some thoughts
Heathrow is a hub airport, that means airlines can use it as an interchange between long and short haul but also between transcontinental and transoceanic. They will move (and are moving) to other hubs if the capacity is not available. Telling passengers that they are going to fly into Heathrow then get on an hour long train journey to Gatwick/Stanstead/Luton or a 3 hour journey to Birmingham or Manchester will not work. You would not fly into JFK to pick up a connection at PHL. Nor will any SLF.
A European hub is a business operation, Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt, all want the traffic that is currently being refused slots at Heathrow. Heathrow will die if new capacity is not added. Leaving BA with its own private airport and the rest of the UK airports being regional feeders to the favoured hub in Europe. This is happening already ably assisted by the Governments Air Passenger Duty.
UK by geography is in a good position for transatlantic flights to interchange but with the longer range of the newer widebodies that is ceasing to be such an advantage.
A new airport can be built from scratch - i.e. from first design to operation in 10 years (as was the case with Hong Kong). An airport outside the 12 mile limit but inside the Thames Estuary with road/rail tunnel access to both North and South banks could have as many 'Mulberry harbour' type runways of whatever length as it wanted. No noise abatement problems, no continual overflights of central London, no planning issues outside the 12 mile limit apart from the North and South bank terminals. The South terminal linked into the TGV network. There could even be interchange with merchant shipping and river boats to central London. There is lots of money looking for a reliable long term investment more than enough for a private venture to be able to achieve full funding. The new SESAR/EUROCONTROL Step 2 plan envisages no air routes from TMA exit to TMA entry so the current mass of air routes will cease to exist around the time that the airport would go operational if started next year.
This should not be a government decision its a business and currently BA and Ferrovial are controlling the government for pure business reasons. BA (IAG) do not want any new slots at Heathrow as that could lead to more competition. I expect the can to be kicked down the road repeatedly on Heathrow. Then when a decision is made the planning battles will continue for decades.
Heathrow is a hub airport, that means airlines can use it as an interchange between long and short haul but also between transcontinental and transoceanic. They will move (and are moving) to other hubs if the capacity is not available. Telling passengers that they are going to fly into Heathrow then get on an hour long train journey to Gatwick/Stanstead/Luton or a 3 hour journey to Birmingham or Manchester will not work. You would not fly into JFK to pick up a connection at PHL. Nor will any SLF.
A European hub is a business operation, Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt, all want the traffic that is currently being refused slots at Heathrow. Heathrow will die if new capacity is not added. Leaving BA with its own private airport and the rest of the UK airports being regional feeders to the favoured hub in Europe. This is happening already ably assisted by the Governments Air Passenger Duty.
UK by geography is in a good position for transatlantic flights to interchange but with the longer range of the newer widebodies that is ceasing to be such an advantage.
A new airport can be built from scratch - i.e. from first design to operation in 10 years (as was the case with Hong Kong). An airport outside the 12 mile limit but inside the Thames Estuary with road/rail tunnel access to both North and South banks could have as many 'Mulberry harbour' type runways of whatever length as it wanted. No noise abatement problems, no continual overflights of central London, no planning issues outside the 12 mile limit apart from the North and South bank terminals. The South terminal linked into the TGV network. There could even be interchange with merchant shipping and river boats to central London. There is lots of money looking for a reliable long term investment more than enough for a private venture to be able to achieve full funding. The new SESAR/EUROCONTROL Step 2 plan envisages no air routes from TMA exit to TMA entry so the current mass of air routes will cease to exist around the time that the airport would go operational if started next year.
This should not be a government decision its a business and currently BA and Ferrovial are controlling the government for pure business reasons. BA (IAG) do not want any new slots at Heathrow as that could lead to more competition. I expect the can to be kicked down the road repeatedly on Heathrow. Then when a decision is made the planning battles will continue for decades.
Surprised the mods haven't moved this thread by now. 
I don't think anybody disputes that measures like permanent mixed mode and relaxing/removing the night quota would increase capacity, it's hardly rocket science.
But the likely political fallout from those, measured on the "aggro vs benefit" scale, is the reason they aren't going to happen in the foreseeable future.
But the likely political fallout from those, measured on the "aggro vs benefit" scale, is the reason they aren't going to happen in the foreseeable future.
The UKPLC case for a new runway at Heathrow is compelling compared to the alternatives.
But no one can credibly explain how an expanded Heathrow will achieve legally binding air quality standards.
The day the report was published pollution levels on the Bath Road were four times EU limits.
In my industry a fatal flaw of this kind is called a silver bullet: you don't need to do any more thinking, the idea is dead.
But no one can credibly explain how an expanded Heathrow will achieve legally binding air quality standards.
The day the report was published pollution levels on the Bath Road were four times EU limits.
In my industry a fatal flaw of this kind is called a silver bullet: you don't need to do any more thinking, the idea is dead.
Originally Posted by SLF3
But no one can credibly explain how an expanded Heathrow will achieve legally binding air quality standards.
The day the report was published pollution levels on the Bath Road were four times EU limits.
The day the report was published pollution levels on the Bath Road were four times EU limits.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manston? First it's closed, then it's in one of the few spots in the UK that's worse to get to than Gatwick.
It's enormously irritating that this decision which is pivotal to all the UK is apparently based on what suits, or doesn't London's mayor and co.
..and how come air quality is suddenly an imperative. If that's really a deal-breaker why has nobody suggested restricting traffic on Bath Rd?
It's enormously irritating that this decision which is pivotal to all the UK is apparently based on what suits, or doesn't London's mayor and co.
..and how come air quality is suddenly an imperative. If that's really a deal-breaker why has nobody suggested restricting traffic on Bath Rd?
Last edited by ShotOne; 11th Dec 2015 at 13:02.
You don't have to attribute the pollution sources. Air quality in the area is already above legal limits. Would a third runway make it better or worse?
If worse, no third runway.
If worse, no third runway.
I thought that the only valid excuse for not proceeding with the Thames Estaury solution was bird strikes, but I do not know how serious a problem that would be.
Does anyone really know?
With the envisaged number of flights per annum, even a small statistical risk would generate quite frequent headlines.
Does anyone really know?
With the envisaged number of flights per annum, even a small statistical risk would generate quite frequent headlines.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simple fact is that LHR is in the wrong place and any of the alternatives in the southeast are inaccessible to most of the nation.
There is a solution which has not been given due consideration - build a complete new airport near BHX with 6 runways. Alter the route of the proposed HST link to pass through (under) the terminal and add motorway spurs from the M5 and M42. This can easily be financed by selling LHR to property developers who would rent the site to the existing user until the new airport is complete and then cover the site in nice expensive housing. Travel time from Paddington to this new airport by HST would not be much different to the existing rail route to LHR so not a problem.
LGW then becomes a regional airport for the southern part of the southeast with LTN serving those north of the thames.
Sorted.
There is a solution which has not been given due consideration - build a complete new airport near BHX with 6 runways. Alter the route of the proposed HST link to pass through (under) the terminal and add motorway spurs from the M5 and M42. This can easily be financed by selling LHR to property developers who would rent the site to the existing user until the new airport is complete and then cover the site in nice expensive housing. Travel time from Paddington to this new airport by HST would not be much different to the existing rail route to LHR so not a problem.
LGW then becomes a regional airport for the southern part of the southeast with LTN serving those north of the thames.
Sorted.
Last edited by The Ancient Geek; 11th Dec 2015 at 14:20. Reason: spelling
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that the only valid excuse for not proceeding with the Thames Estaury solution was bird strikes, but I do not know how serious a problem that would be.
Does anyone really know?
With the envisaged number of flights per annum, even a small statistical risk would generate quite frequent headlines.
Does anyone really know?
With the envisaged number of flights per annum, even a small statistical risk would generate quite frequent headlines.
Putting the nation's primary airport in the extreme southeast is just plain daft.
This was never credible, just an "anywhere but here" suggestion from Boris.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Ancient Geek. Probably the best "blue sky" thinking I've seen for a long time. In any other country we could go from your idea to fully functioning, inc. the rail and road links in 10 years. Being Britain, in 10 years the leaders will still be waiting to make a decision.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
face it - the opposition to just about any new runway in the UK is so high that no politician can stand up for it and get re-elected
The latest "study" conveniently ignored the pollution issue
The airline business does not help itself - every time more slots are created at LHR the number of destinations served drops and the extar slots are allocated to trans atlantic flights. People outside London see their connectivity at LHR disapearing.......
It's not too bad - we can use larger aircraft for the available slots, make more use of regional airports, divert shorthual to teh Chunnel
The latest "study" conveniently ignored the pollution issue
The airline business does not help itself - every time more slots are created at LHR the number of destinations served drops and the extar slots are allocated to trans atlantic flights. People outside London see their connectivity at LHR disapearing.......
It's not too bad - we can use larger aircraft for the available slots, make more use of regional airports, divert shorthual to teh Chunnel
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also consider the simplification of the current ATC congestion in the southeast, this is a serious problem which will not go away with extra runways and can only become worse.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always favoured an artificial island in the Thames Estuary (right in the middle, not the Isle of Grain), built Kansai style (or like the Chinese in the South China Sea, who are causing aggravation). It would be expensive but the HS2 train could be scrapped since people can get to Brum 20mins earlier by setting off 20mins earlier. It would need some type of high speed hover type transport to get into central London.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the crow flies it's further from Frankfurt to Hamburg than Frankfurt to Munich. Would we have a major hub at East Midlands or L&B?
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'll never happen. It's political suicide, regardless of how needed it is. Of course, capacity can be hugely increased without another runway - bin the curfew and it'll increase capacity more than adding the runway. Cite the lower noise of modern equipment versus the noise of types in use when the curfew was implemented, and restrict the curfew hours to the quietest types as an alternative to the runway and see what Londoners go for, but give them the choice of one or the other, not neither.
R3 would add around 240K ATMs per year to the existing 480K capacity. That equates to around 650 daily movements.
The night quota operates for 6½ hours, from 23:30 to 06:00, so that would require 100 movements per hour.
Apart from the fact that LHR can't sustain anything like 100 movements/hour, how many routes do you seriously think would support arrivals or departures in the middle of the night?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it one of the reasons for expanding Heathrow is the lack of fast passenger links between Heathrow and Gatwick or Stansted... but does a slightly longer journey time matter so much for freight? How much freight goes through Heathrow? Would it be possible to move the freight traffic to another airport to increase the passenger capacity at Heathrow?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One issue is that the government is already in trouble for not meeting pollution targets..
Air quality in urban areas: Key issues for the 2015 Parliament - UK Parliament
If the government just pressed on regardless their decision could be challenged in court. It probably will be anyway but a lengthy legal challenge will make a 6 month delay seem short.
Air quality in urban areas: Key issues for the 2015 Parliament - UK Parliament
... in February 2014 the EU Commission began infraction proceedings against the UK. These could take several years and could result in the UK Government being fined. Should this occur, it would be the first time the UK Government has been fined by the EU for breaching legislation.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another fix :
1. All long haul traffic to go from Heathrow
2. All short haul including Europe etc to go from Gatwick, Luton etc.
The Government say they cant do this because they do not control slots at these 'private airports'.
If the above was instituted there would be no need for any extra runways.
1. All long haul traffic to go from Heathrow
2. All short haul including Europe etc to go from Gatwick, Luton etc.
The Government say they cant do this because they do not control slots at these 'private airports'.
If the above was instituted there would be no need for any extra runways.