Gutless Goverment?
Freight flights at LHR on a typical day can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Almost all cargo that passes through Heathrow is carried in the holds of passenger aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets have a look from aircrew perspective. Do you really want to be Heathrow based. What with astronomical property prices and rents, what is the effect on disposable income. What about FTL, clock ticking away whilst snarled up in traffic jams. Third runway means increase in traffic capacity and that`s not just the runway, maintenance, catering, handling and road traffic as well. Along with the new runway, best build a few ugly high rise monoliths to house air crews, airport workers and not least of all graffiti artists.
Look what the Turks have done, the construction of a brand new 21st Century airport to handle 150 million passengers annually, is nearly completed for Istanbul before you can say wibble. If we were to have a go, there would be a big fuss as to what kind of celebrity is to pick up the first shovel load of muck and the laying of a trillion of traffic cones would take at least a half a century. By the time the whole thing is done and dusted we would all be using the beam me up Scotty method and the damn thing will be obsolete.
Look what the Turks have done, the construction of a brand new 21st Century airport to handle 150 million passengers annually, is nearly completed for Istanbul before you can say wibble. If we were to have a go, there would be a big fuss as to what kind of celebrity is to pick up the first shovel load of muck and the laying of a trillion of traffic cones would take at least a half a century. By the time the whole thing is done and dusted we would all be using the beam me up Scotty method and the damn thing will be obsolete.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Willy Walsh's comments are a tad misleading. Of course BA are going to move out of Heathrow - by far their biggest and most profitable hub and where they have grandfathered slots worth millions of pounds. There is only one stakeholder WW and IAG care about and that's IAG and IAG alone. Its self interest and rightly so in business. Opening up the airport to easyJet and all-comers threatens British Airways very existence, especially on short haul.
"Heathrow is not IAG's only hub. We can develop our business via Madrid, which has spare capacity, and Dublin, where there are plans for a cost-effective and efficient second runway".
I'm surprised IAG's "operations" don't currently reside in Dublin anyway due to the number of aviation organisations already based in the country due to their considerably attractive business rates.
As for Madrid, Iberia suffers from overcapacity, a relatively poor reputation for service and its biggest market struggling to stay afloat in the Eurozone.
"Heathrow is not IAG's only hub. We can develop our business via Madrid, which has spare capacity, and Dublin, where there are plans for a cost-effective and efficient second runway".
I'm surprised IAG's "operations" don't currently reside in Dublin anyway due to the number of aviation organisations already based in the country due to their considerably attractive business rates.
As for Madrid, Iberia suffers from overcapacity, a relatively poor reputation for service and its biggest market struggling to stay afloat in the Eurozone.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People want to fly into LHR. If BA moved out the void would soon be filled and they know it. This is just WW trying to protect BA's position as the main player at the airport.
As for building a new airport elsewhere and putting houses on the Heathrow site? Tens of thousands of people within a wide area around LHR work at either the airport or businesses that rely on the airport to survive. Closing Heathrow would have such a detrimental effect on that whole area. It isn't going to happen. Crossrail will go to Heathrow, the western rail access tunnel looks like it will go ahead. a second world class terminal has recently opened.
Heathrow isn't going anywhere. It needs better transport links and these are being upgraded eventually. It also needs the new runway and hopefully this will eventually go ahead.
Regarding the environmental concerns and air quality. We are talking about an opening date of around 2030 depending when someone actually makes a decision. The A380's and Dreamliners will be close to getting retired off by then. Aircraft, cars, trains, buses etc will all be far more economical. How can current air pollution levels be a factor when the timescales are so long?
Add to this the reduced stacking of aircraft awaiting landing slots and the fact that the plan, should it go ahead will allow the hub and spoke operation across the UK, using lower numbers of larger aircraft to operate the long haul services and be fed using efficient short haul aircraft from the regions.
As for building a new airport elsewhere and putting houses on the Heathrow site? Tens of thousands of people within a wide area around LHR work at either the airport or businesses that rely on the airport to survive. Closing Heathrow would have such a detrimental effect on that whole area. It isn't going to happen. Crossrail will go to Heathrow, the western rail access tunnel looks like it will go ahead. a second world class terminal has recently opened.
Heathrow isn't going anywhere. It needs better transport links and these are being upgraded eventually. It also needs the new runway and hopefully this will eventually go ahead.
Regarding the environmental concerns and air quality. We are talking about an opening date of around 2030 depending when someone actually makes a decision. The A380's and Dreamliners will be close to getting retired off by then. Aircraft, cars, trains, buses etc will all be far more economical. How can current air pollution levels be a factor when the timescales are so long?
Add to this the reduced stacking of aircraft awaiting landing slots and the fact that the plan, should it go ahead will allow the hub and spoke operation across the UK, using lower numbers of larger aircraft to operate the long haul services and be fed using efficient short haul aircraft from the regions.
Here's a thought?
What about Northolt?
Put in a monorail between the two, built a decent pax terminal there, move a lot of the smaller A320/737 sized jets there.
De fact you then have a third LHR runway, without having to bulldoze anything.
Not that I don't also think that the government is spineless for refusing to make a decision. Even if that decision was Boris Island or a 2nd runway at LGW - at least the industry could then start planning for it.
The big issue is the lack of a decision.
G
What about Northolt?
Put in a monorail between the two, built a decent pax terminal there, move a lot of the smaller A320/737 sized jets there.
De fact you then have a third LHR runway, without having to bulldoze anything.
Not that I don't also think that the government is spineless for refusing to make a decision. Even if that decision was Boris Island or a 2nd runway at LGW - at least the industry could then start planning for it.
The big issue is the lack of a decision.
G
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What about Northolt?
Existing runways would cause aircraft to cross the flightpaths of those using Heathrow,
From an earlier thread:
The Captain of the Pan Am B707 which landed at Northolt instead of Heathrow was (allegedly) asked by ATC for his intentions. "I guess I'll take up Chicken Farming" was the reply.
Picture of N725PA departing RAF Northolt here:
Boeing 707-321, N725PA, Pan American World Airways (PA / PAA)
The Northolt 'state intentions' story was still part of Pan Am lore three decades later along with that of Captain 'Fifi' Miler habitually stealing the inflight cutlery and his wife periodically returning it.
Another fix :
1. All long haul traffic to go from Heathrow
2. All short haul including Europe etc to go from Gatwick, Luton etc.
1. All long haul traffic to go from Heathrow
2. All short haul including Europe etc to go from Gatwick, Luton etc.
As it was, we barely caught the second flight - even with a 1.5-hour layover - in the same terminal.
Are you really proposing that we'd have had to fly to Gatwick, exit the secure area, cross London, repass security - just to fly two legs with the same carrier? How many hours would that take?
________
Anyway, as a Yank, far be it from me to offer advice. Just some observations.
Denver got a big, new, greenfields airport 20+ years ago. Mostly because it was the Mayor's own baby (Federico Peña, later US SecTrans), and he had the political clout and connections at all levels of government (local, state, federal), and was willing to cash them in, to get it done.
About like Ancient Geek's proposal - 6 runways.
(We are only now (well, Spring 2016) getting the rail connection, after 20+ years - but we know the US is a desert as regards passenger rail).
But-
1. We literally had green fields (well, yellow) - 300-500 miles of nothing but wheat farms between us and the next big city (depending on how you define "big" - Topeka or Kansas City).
Which was good, because given the requirements for long runways (5,280-foot-elevation plus summer temps nudging 38°C makes for - interesting - density altitudes); and wide spacing (specs called for the capability to handle 3 simultaneous ILS approaches), the present KDEN would more or less fill the whole area between BHX and the outskirts of Coventry (53 square miles).
The first doesn't apply to London - the second might.
2. There was a reasonable positive economic argument in favor of the new airport. Not just more traffic to Denver, but as a hub, more jobs as United and Continental (as was) moved more people through Denver.
Seems like, for London, expanded airport capacity is more a question of keeping up than jumping ahead (which I mean as a compliment - London is already and will always be a world-class City, with or without new airport capacity - Denver needed the help.)
I don't see that there is a better solution, given that the UK is full right up with people, hedgehogs, castles and chalk men, than expanding Heathrow. Someone's ox gets gored, in any case.
And (back to the thread title) it will take someone to be a political sugardaddy and make it his or her mission to push that through, expending political capital as needed.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're very arrogant and aggressive person, David. Ever been told that?
There would be plenty of demand for night slots - a lot of airports around the work have peak times in the middle of the night.
I think increasing capacity at LHR is nigh on impossible. Transport links and parking are already a problem. Any method of increasing flights is going to run into legal challenges, whether it be extra runways, changes in operating hours or anything else, especially if the air quality issues are correct.
LGW is ripe for expansion, but is too remote, as are STN and Manston. LTN would have been a good choice - good geographical position, close to the M1 and A1 and the main rail route through London and LGW. A new apron and terminal to the south of the existing runway, with a second runway south of that, as per the plans a decade or so ago, would work. There is already a lot of improvement going into the road links, the M1 has already been widened and the area involved is countryside, not town. Stevenage might be unhappy and Luton Hoo would suffer noise increases, but everyone else would win. The biggest issue would be the rail link, which could be sorted I'm sure.
There would be plenty of demand for night slots - a lot of airports around the work have peak times in the middle of the night.
I think increasing capacity at LHR is nigh on impossible. Transport links and parking are already a problem. Any method of increasing flights is going to run into legal challenges, whether it be extra runways, changes in operating hours or anything else, especially if the air quality issues are correct.
LGW is ripe for expansion, but is too remote, as are STN and Manston. LTN would have been a good choice - good geographical position, close to the M1 and A1 and the main rail route through London and LGW. A new apron and terminal to the south of the existing runway, with a second runway south of that, as per the plans a decade or so ago, would work. There is already a lot of improvement going into the road links, the M1 has already been widened and the area involved is countryside, not town. Stevenage might be unhappy and Luton Hoo would suffer noise increases, but everyone else would win. The biggest issue would be the rail link, which could be sorted I'm sure.
I'm sorry if your feelings have been hurt, but if you want to make wild claims like that then it's a good idea to see if the numbers add up first, which they demonstrably don't.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets face it almost all other 'major' UK airports already connect to the European hubs. This has already effectively diluted demand for using EGLL as a hub (albeit demand is still above capacity - thereby 'forcing' people to fly from those other UK airports via European hubs to their destinations).
The dithering over a decision combined with the amount of time any solution would take to build means that this situation will continue.
Perhaps the dithering is actually benefitting the other UK airports by using their capacity to meet passenger demand. This could also assist in building the economies of regions outside of London through better connectivity.
The other London airports (EGSS, EGGW, EGLC) have seen some pretty astounding increases in flights & passengers this year. However, given the dithering over the big decision, will these airports still have any spare capacity in 15 years time? In the interim shouldn't we be unlocking available capacity at these airports (increasing terminals, building aircraft stands, etc.)?
I foresee a gradual shift to more business pax, paying higher fares, through EGLL (& EGLC) with the other London airports absorbing more of the leisure pax. Regional airports will start to increase both business & leisure pax.
Maybe it's not such a bad thing environmentally too. More smaller, lighter, short-haul flights spread over a number of London & regional airports?
Leave our European neighbours to deal with most of the heavy long-haul stuff?
The dithering over a decision combined with the amount of time any solution would take to build means that this situation will continue.
Perhaps the dithering is actually benefitting the other UK airports by using their capacity to meet passenger demand. This could also assist in building the economies of regions outside of London through better connectivity.
The other London airports (EGSS, EGGW, EGLC) have seen some pretty astounding increases in flights & passengers this year. However, given the dithering over the big decision, will these airports still have any spare capacity in 15 years time? In the interim shouldn't we be unlocking available capacity at these airports (increasing terminals, building aircraft stands, etc.)?
I foresee a gradual shift to more business pax, paying higher fares, through EGLL (& EGLC) with the other London airports absorbing more of the leisure pax. Regional airports will start to increase both business & leisure pax.
Maybe it's not such a bad thing environmentally too. More smaller, lighter, short-haul flights spread over a number of London & regional airports?
Leave our European neighbours to deal with most of the heavy long-haul stuff?
Fairford??
In all the years of New Airport talk I have never seen Fairford mentioned. Long runway (Concorde), near the M4, close to the GWR railway line. Green fields all around, together with masses of people in Bristol, Swindon, etc etc. There must be a problem??
The reality is that Manston was available for years, and the interest shown by airlines in that time was virtually nil. That tells it's own story.
One thing that seems to have been overlooked is Heathrow's deep rooted integration with the regional economy. Obviously it generates a lot of direct employment. But it also supports a lot of secondary industry serving freight and passengers, and then you have to consider the businesses that have located themselves in the Thames Valley area due to proximity to LHR. Heathrow isn't just a couple of runways and terminal buildings that can simply be replicated in a bigger and better fashion elsewhere. There's a massive amount of infrastructure, real estate, employment, expertise and economic activity many miles beyond the perimeter which is inextricably bound to Heathrow, most of which isn't mobile.
For all it's imperfections, I'm starting to wonder whether Heathrow is the only game in town.
One thing that seems to have been overlooked is Heathrow's deep rooted integration with the regional economy. Obviously it generates a lot of direct employment. But it also supports a lot of secondary industry serving freight and passengers, and then you have to consider the businesses that have located themselves in the Thames Valley area due to proximity to LHR. Heathrow isn't just a couple of runways and terminal buildings that can simply be replicated in a bigger and better fashion elsewhere. There's a massive amount of infrastructure, real estate, employment, expertise and economic activity many miles beyond the perimeter which is inextricably bound to Heathrow, most of which isn't mobile.
For all it's imperfections, I'm starting to wonder whether Heathrow is the only game in town.
Manston, Fairford, Northolt, etc
The Airports Commission examined proposals in respect of pretty well every alternative solution to the hub capacity issue that was remotely feasible (and many that weren't).
So the answers to all those "What about [insert name of favourite airport]?" questions are readily available in its evaluation reports, freely downloadable from the AC website.
From memory, the Commission supported the concept of "reliever" airports, and Manston was mentioned in that context, but purely as short- and medium-term options. They were not considered to be solutions to the long-term capacity/connectivity issue.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...appendix-1.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...appendix-2.pdf
So the answers to all those "What about [insert name of favourite airport]?" questions are readily available in its evaluation reports, freely downloadable from the AC website.
From memory, the Commission supported the concept of "reliever" airports, and Manston was mentioned in that context, but purely as short- and medium-term options. They were not considered to be solutions to the long-term capacity/connectivity issue.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...appendix-1.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...appendix-2.pdf
Air pollution
The technology does not exist to remove the air pollution from Thiefrow. Not only does it not exist, it is not on the horizon.
So a third runway at LHR is not going to happen, unless they close the M4 and M25.
Whilst the BAA folk buried in the DfT might not agree, LHR will not expand in the next 20 years.
I think we need to be brave, now, and start building Boris Island and the new airport.
So a third runway at LHR is not going to happen, unless they close the M4 and M25.
Whilst the BAA folk buried in the DfT might not agree, LHR will not expand in the next 20 years.
I think we need to be brave, now, and start building Boris Island and the new airport.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis opines in #47: "What about Northolt?"
The main objection is CO2 and pollution in the London area, not only from a/c but also from all those people turning up in their taxis and cars.
The former could be addressed by the work NASA has done on using hydrogen in gas turbines, if only there were to be a way of storing it without either pressure vessels or refrigeration. Progress continues. The latter could be dealt with using legislation.
The main objection is CO2 and pollution in the London area, not only from a/c but also from all those people turning up in their taxis and cars.
The former could be addressed by the work NASA has done on using hydrogen in gas turbines, if only there were to be a way of storing it without either pressure vessels or refrigeration. Progress continues. The latter could be dealt with using legislation.
Yeah, yeah, Northolt, Luton, Fairford, Filton, Manstone, Birmingham, Manchester, Greenham Common, Woodbridge/Bentwaters, Southend etc etc all have features favouring them as possible relief airports for the South-East.
Except demand. Well, OK Northolt would qualify if it weren't for all the insuperable problems of developing Northolt, whose owner I sat next to giving evidence to Gwynnith Dunwoody's Select Committee in its inquiry into London's airport capacity, which coincided with the 2003 White Paper.
But how about a 2000m runway (plus full RESA etc) parallel to LGW, about 7,500m to the North? It could have been up and running by now. For all I know it's still in contention. It would have been totally privately financed, have a fast rail link to London (linked with Crossrail), direct access to M23, and 8-minute transit to LGW for connecting traffic.
Its capacity, allowing for some noise restriction, would be at least 125,000 ATM/year.
It was defeated, of course, by the usual British mix of resistance to a new idea, dishonesty on the part of public officials and politicians pursuing a different agenda than the pubic good, undue influence of very wealthy individuals, and commercial self-interest at the expense of everything else.
I mentioned it in a previous post, so I won't bore you again with the name. But wouldn't it have been nice to have it up and running today?
Except demand. Well, OK Northolt would qualify if it weren't for all the insuperable problems of developing Northolt, whose owner I sat next to giving evidence to Gwynnith Dunwoody's Select Committee in its inquiry into London's airport capacity, which coincided with the 2003 White Paper.
But how about a 2000m runway (plus full RESA etc) parallel to LGW, about 7,500m to the North? It could have been up and running by now. For all I know it's still in contention. It would have been totally privately financed, have a fast rail link to London (linked with Crossrail), direct access to M23, and 8-minute transit to LGW for connecting traffic.
Its capacity, allowing for some noise restriction, would be at least 125,000 ATM/year.
It was defeated, of course, by the usual British mix of resistance to a new idea, dishonesty on the part of public officials and politicians pursuing a different agenda than the pubic good, undue influence of very wealthy individuals, and commercial self-interest at the expense of everything else.
I mentioned it in a previous post, so I won't bore you again with the name. But wouldn't it have been nice to have it up and running today?
Last edited by old,not bold; 13th Dec 2015 at 11:15.