Yes to third runway at LHR!!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know for sure, not being a flyboy. I would guess, as they would be domestics operating light, anything up to about a B757. (Of course the boys in blue have put the C17s in there but then that hardly counts does it? Short field performance as good as a 146 and about 8 times the weight. 15,000fpm max rate of descent!)
Point 4
Point 4
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: swanwick
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could I just ask what sort of time frame we are looking at for any expansion at any airport? Just from an area(Swanwick LACC, not LATCC)point of view, I'm not sure we could cope with any increase in traffic due to no's, for quite a long period of time.
Just a thought from a different angle...
roger
Just a thought from a different angle...
roger
The next runway will be at Stansted, Northolt is too impractical for any environmental consideration, noise, ground pollution, and poorly placed to take the additional pax traffic by road into that area of west London. In my opinion the descision has already been made, being at STN regularly over the past few weeks the amount of ground infrastructure under construction at the moment, in advance of last weeks announcement of further development just adds to the development case. Under the Rucatse study STN was again the key player in the SE's development.
In terms of time a public enquiry and hearings etc will take about 2 yrs so next new runway arriving about 2005/6 is my guess. STN's airspace could relatively easily be enlarged to the north of the airfield nicking some off London Mil et al!
In terms of time a public enquiry and hearings etc will take about 2 yrs so next new runway arriving about 2005/6 is my guess. STN's airspace could relatively easily be enlarged to the north of the airfield nicking some off London Mil et al!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Gonzo,
I was part of the Mixed Mode Working Group and we looked at the GMC operation in detail. It can be made to work as long as certain standard routeings are adhered to - these are not necessarily logical according to the routeings we use today. We considered choice of landing and departure runway by both Terminal geographical situation, e.g., T1 and T3 Northerly runway, T2 and T4 Southerly runway, and routeing criteria, i.e. Northbounds from the Northerly runway and Southbounds from the Southerly runway. We considered break out procedures for final approach, and SIDs with stepped climbs which could be flown independently from each runway with limited conflictions. Mixed mode can be made to work and there is a (slight) capacity benefit. Also don't forget with T5 there will be three GMC Controllers, so the workload even with mixed mode should be manageable. But I'll leave all that to you youngsters!
I was part of the Mixed Mode Working Group and we looked at the GMC operation in detail. It can be made to work as long as certain standard routeings are adhered to - these are not necessarily logical according to the routeings we use today. We considered choice of landing and departure runway by both Terminal geographical situation, e.g., T1 and T3 Northerly runway, T2 and T4 Southerly runway, and routeing criteria, i.e. Northbounds from the Northerly runway and Southbounds from the Southerly runway. We considered break out procedures for final approach, and SIDs with stepped climbs which could be flown independently from each runway with limited conflictions. Mixed mode can be made to work and there is a (slight) capacity benefit. Also don't forget with T5 there will be three GMC Controllers, so the workload even with mixed mode should be manageable. But I'll leave all that to you youngsters!
Paxing All Over The World
I don't think that anyone is in ANY doubt that the announced STN strip is the next for service. But, eventually, a politician will have to be prepared to make themself unpopular and talk about LHR and the satellite operation of EGWU is one possibility that sits to be taken.
Although traffic is already heavy in the area, do consider that on it's doorstep it has the A40 in dual carriageway and a Tube station.
When a new underground access is provided for the LHR Express, thy can dig a tunnel across to the tube with two travelators in it, as is done for LHR Central to T1/2/3.
Some expansion is required, some housing may have to go BUT the amount that has to go will be considerably less than any expansion of LHR main.
By the way - C17 dropping at 15,000 feet per MIN? That would sort out which pax had not yet secured their seat belt!
Although traffic is already heavy in the area, do consider that on it's doorstep it has the A40 in dual carriageway and a Tube station.
When a new underground access is provided for the LHR Express, thy can dig a tunnel across to the tube with two travelators in it, as is done for LHR Central to T1/2/3.
Some expansion is required, some housing may have to go BUT the amount that has to go will be considerably less than any expansion of LHR main.
By the way - C17 dropping at 15,000 feet per MIN? That would sort out which pax had not yet secured their seat belt!
PB the problems in integrating the ATC side for Northolt are not insurmounable, as one or two correspondants have indicated. The environmental/infrastructure issues will be the hurdle which will not make this viable. Youare right the airfield is on the A40 which is dual cariageway.
Most pax nowadays and for the forseable future will travel by car, therefore you already need to be looking at a major upgrade of a system already over its capacity at peak times. With the M25 already (now),in problems the extra traffic generated with associated rat-running would quickly bring gridlock to west London. Many pax use domestics to connect with International flights at LHR, there would be no economic sense in taking those pax to an airport 7 miles away from where they need to be. Schipol and Paris would love this idea however!. The rail link is sort of there, but on the wrong lines. London Underground's system is already stretched to capacity, and the Chiltern Line from Marylebone would not cover a sufficient catchment area for this proposal. We are after all talking in the millions of pax per year.
Most pollution emmisions immediately around airports is from ground operations, and again the pax's vehicles therefore again making this unsustainable in environment terms.
Noise, first you have to determine who lives 'close' to an airport. This can be done by noise modelling. Looking at the amount of housing required to be protected under a typical contour, you better have deep pockets! Plus you need someone to stand in front of people and say, 'We're going to increase the number of aircraft over your houses by 200(guess)%', we all know thats not going to be a vote winner. Now the same bloke saying 'This governments policy is to direct all future growth in the London Area to Stansted' is going to get quite a lot of votes, from those around Heathrow in particular. STN is the least worst option, a further runway at Heathrow, be it Northolt, Heathrow itself or Wisley
, is in my opinion highly unlikely, but are likely to be used as a bargaining chip to ensure major further developmet at Stansted.
Most pax nowadays and for the forseable future will travel by car, therefore you already need to be looking at a major upgrade of a system already over its capacity at peak times. With the M25 already (now),in problems the extra traffic generated with associated rat-running would quickly bring gridlock to west London. Many pax use domestics to connect with International flights at LHR, there would be no economic sense in taking those pax to an airport 7 miles away from where they need to be. Schipol and Paris would love this idea however!. The rail link is sort of there, but on the wrong lines. London Underground's system is already stretched to capacity, and the Chiltern Line from Marylebone would not cover a sufficient catchment area for this proposal. We are after all talking in the millions of pax per year.
Most pollution emmisions immediately around airports is from ground operations, and again the pax's vehicles therefore again making this unsustainable in environment terms.
Noise, first you have to determine who lives 'close' to an airport. This can be done by noise modelling. Looking at the amount of housing required to be protected under a typical contour, you better have deep pockets! Plus you need someone to stand in front of people and say, 'We're going to increase the number of aircraft over your houses by 200(guess)%', we all know thats not going to be a vote winner. Now the same bloke saying 'This governments policy is to direct all future growth in the London Area to Stansted' is going to get quite a lot of votes, from those around Heathrow in particular. STN is the least worst option, a further runway at Heathrow, be it Northolt, Heathrow itself or Wisley
, is in my opinion highly unlikely, but are likely to be used as a bargaining chip to ensure major further developmet at Stansted.
Paxing All Over The World
jumpseater - I don't deny the existing traffic problems in the Northold area are bad. Nor will I imagine that this govt is going to produce an integrated transport policy whereby people can transfer from one mode to another with ease ...
I think that many pax would use the an extended Heathrow Express direct to Paddington. Or use the link to Heathrow central to transfer to Piccadilly line.
By the way, "Many pax use domestics to connect with International flights at LHR, there would be no economic sense in taking those pax to an airport 7 miles away from where they need to be."
Not sure what you think I said?! What I thought I had said was that all domestic flights use Northolt. Thus if an internal flight only - they never touch LHR main. If they are starting their international journey in London, naturally, they go directly to LHR Main. Some pax might use public/private transport to be dropped off at the LHR Express terminal at Northolt to connect to LHR main. If they arrive domestically at Northolt, then they use a the Express to shuttle across to T1/2/3/4/5.
Do I think the policitians are going to go for this? No. Am I aware of the considerable cost of compensating people for the drop in value of their houes? Yes.
The question is: Are they going to take fresh green grass and make it tarmac or use tarmac that alreday exists? Answer, they will take new grass.
STN will be expanded in the hope that the tidal wave can be held back until the second runway at LGW becomes available.
In the meanwhile, we all hope the hardworking folks at the radar screens are able to hold it together. It may also be that enough traffic will move over to AMS, CDG, FRA to take the pressure off. However, I doubt that it will be enough to notice.
Of course, if there is prang, they will then be able to do anything. Just look at how British Railways (or whatever they are calling it this month) gets the politicos attention when they have a smack. The history of experience in this country is that we have to wait for people to die - King's Cross, Herald of Free Enterprise, there is a horribly long list. Sorry to be so 'down' and brutal about this but that is how I see it from the sidelines.
I think that many pax would use the an extended Heathrow Express direct to Paddington. Or use the link to Heathrow central to transfer to Piccadilly line.
By the way, "Many pax use domestics to connect with International flights at LHR, there would be no economic sense in taking those pax to an airport 7 miles away from where they need to be."
Not sure what you think I said?! What I thought I had said was that all domestic flights use Northolt. Thus if an internal flight only - they never touch LHR main. If they are starting their international journey in London, naturally, they go directly to LHR Main. Some pax might use public/private transport to be dropped off at the LHR Express terminal at Northolt to connect to LHR main. If they arrive domestically at Northolt, then they use a the Express to shuttle across to T1/2/3/4/5.
Do I think the policitians are going to go for this? No. Am I aware of the considerable cost of compensating people for the drop in value of their houes? Yes.
The question is: Are they going to take fresh green grass and make it tarmac or use tarmac that alreday exists? Answer, they will take new grass.
STN will be expanded in the hope that the tidal wave can be held back until the second runway at LGW becomes available.
In the meanwhile, we all hope the hardworking folks at the radar screens are able to hold it together. It may also be that enough traffic will move over to AMS, CDG, FRA to take the pressure off. However, I doubt that it will be enough to notice.
Of course, if there is prang, they will then be able to do anything. Just look at how British Railways (or whatever they are calling it this month) gets the politicos attention when they have a smack. The history of experience in this country is that we have to wait for people to die - King's Cross, Herald of Free Enterprise, there is a horribly long list. Sorry to be so 'down' and brutal about this but that is how I see it from the sidelines.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: ---------->
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Local Gazette today carries a frontpage showing a map put on display by the Department of Transport showing an alarmingly large area of housing that will have to be vacated should Heathrow push ahead with another runway
It is estimated some 35,000 people will have to move. Purely from a selfish and personal point of view, I hope it doesnt go ahead. Yes us local residents are happy to reap the rewards of living near to such a thriving source of employment, and you wont here me complaining about night flights, or another terminal if it could be contained within the current runway operations, but this is a step too far, and I would personally rather they took advantage of some of the huge masses of open land further out.
Oh and BTW, the runway is shown running in a 27/09 direction !!!! further towards the M4 creating 3 paralell runways
It is estimated some 35,000 people will have to move. Purely from a selfish and personal point of view, I hope it doesnt go ahead. Yes us local residents are happy to reap the rewards of living near to such a thriving source of employment, and you wont here me complaining about night flights, or another terminal if it could be contained within the current runway operations, but this is a step too far, and I would personally rather they took advantage of some of the huge masses of open land further out.
Oh and BTW, the runway is shown running in a 27/09 direction !!!! further towards the M4 creating 3 paralell runways
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAXboy, some good thoughts.
I personally cannot conceive that a third runway at or near LHR will ever be acceptable, not just because of the environmental impacts and demolition in the immediate vicinity but because of the impact on a much bigger area such as increased surface transport and flight paths that go over half of the capital.
My concern (and I do work in the industry so have some interest), is do we really need it. Many arguments seem to focus on "keeping up with the Jones's", that is Paris, Frankfurt etc. The argument goes that, the UK has been very successful in attracting international business because of the pre-eminence of LHR and the ability to move people, products and services around the globe quickly and effectively. However, it does not follow that having the biggest and best airport in Europe is either necessary or sufficient to maintain the country's economic status. I have more faith in the qualities and strength of the UK business environment that to be solely reliant on having the biggest airport.
We should learn to live with what we have got and plan to make the best use of it. Yes, there will need to be expansion at Stansted but there is the opportunity there to build a decent surface transport infrastructure around it - which of course we wont!
2 further points, the Heathrow Express is a very nice "grand scheme" but of no significance to the surface transport issue. Someone do the numbers and prove me wrong but I expect it accounts for only 1% or 2% of passenger/staff journeys to and from the airport. Finally, Paxboy is probably correct in that whatever happens in this review will be the minimalist solution with a view to a second LGW runway in 2019. As has been raised elsewhere, what is the point of not building a second runway at LGW if you are going to build one eventually anyway?
I personally cannot conceive that a third runway at or near LHR will ever be acceptable, not just because of the environmental impacts and demolition in the immediate vicinity but because of the impact on a much bigger area such as increased surface transport and flight paths that go over half of the capital.
My concern (and I do work in the industry so have some interest), is do we really need it. Many arguments seem to focus on "keeping up with the Jones's", that is Paris, Frankfurt etc. The argument goes that, the UK has been very successful in attracting international business because of the pre-eminence of LHR and the ability to move people, products and services around the globe quickly and effectively. However, it does not follow that having the biggest and best airport in Europe is either necessary or sufficient to maintain the country's economic status. I have more faith in the qualities and strength of the UK business environment that to be solely reliant on having the biggest airport.
We should learn to live with what we have got and plan to make the best use of it. Yes, there will need to be expansion at Stansted but there is the opportunity there to build a decent surface transport infrastructure around it - which of course we wont!
2 further points, the Heathrow Express is a very nice "grand scheme" but of no significance to the surface transport issue. Someone do the numbers and prove me wrong but I expect it accounts for only 1% or 2% of passenger/staff journeys to and from the airport. Finally, Paxboy is probably correct in that whatever happens in this review will be the minimalist solution with a view to a second LGW runway in 2019. As has been raised elsewhere, what is the point of not building a second runway at LGW if you are going to build one eventually anyway?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGLD.
I quite understand the locals reluctance to accept another runway and it is entirely reasonable to suggest that the load be spread around but that still leaves the unanswered question of what is going to be done about the overbearing of traffic which ALREADY exists at LHR? It is a 2 runway airport handling 3 runway traffic and that cannot be left unaddressed.
Jumpseater.
True enough, there is plenty of airspce north and east of STN, so it will be fine when they are on westerlies. What about easterlies? If you are an approach ATCO, how would you feel about vectoring into a short (12nm) cul-de-sac surrounded by other traffic, with a single level and no way out when a thunderstrorm goes through? No room to orbit.
PB. Yep, you read correctly. The C17 will do 15,000fpm max rate of descent with the boards out and the engines in reverse.
Point 4
I quite understand the locals reluctance to accept another runway and it is entirely reasonable to suggest that the load be spread around but that still leaves the unanswered question of what is going to be done about the overbearing of traffic which ALREADY exists at LHR? It is a 2 runway airport handling 3 runway traffic and that cannot be left unaddressed.
Jumpseater.
True enough, there is plenty of airspce north and east of STN, so it will be fine when they are on westerlies. What about easterlies? If you are an approach ATCO, how would you feel about vectoring into a short (12nm) cul-de-sac surrounded by other traffic, with a single level and no way out when a thunderstrorm goes through? No room to orbit.
PB. Yep, you read correctly. The C17 will do 15,000fpm max rate of descent with the boards out and the engines in reverse.
Point 4
Paxing All Over The World
Yes, I know it's not going to be expansion at Northolt ... STN now and then this bunch of politicians will leave it to the next lot to try and bring forward the LGW No 2.
Four of the Points, "15,000 fpm sink".
That is not so much an aeroplane as a rollercoaster! It also introduces the phrase "Cabin secured for descent"
Four of the Points, "15,000 fpm sink".
That is not so much an aeroplane as a rollercoaster! It also introduces the phrase "Cabin secured for descent"
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for the record (and in response to Paxboy's question), Northolt will quite happily take 737/757 and A320 types. can't quote useable payload/range etc but certainly within Continental Europe.
Regarding the C17, it would be fair to say that the sky does go rather dark when one of those approaches this sleepy hollow. Unfortunately, the RAF haven't done it yet, until now we have to rely on our American colleagues to provide the entertainment.
Regarding the C17, it would be fair to say that the sky does go rather dark when one of those approaches this sleepy hollow. Unfortunately, the RAF haven't done it yet, until now we have to rely on our American colleagues to provide the entertainment.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi ATCO Two,
So if we go mixed mode, does that mean no towers to ease GMC?
I did it bandboxed today and had over half a sheet of towers active, Without counting the number of T4 ins who had no stand! Which of the variants was decided would bring the most capacity? T1 and T3 27R, or Northerly deps 27R?
Are we not meant to have 2 GMC controllers as it is now?
Gonzo.
So if we go mixed mode, does that mean no towers to ease GMC?
I did it bandboxed today and had over half a sheet of towers active, Without counting the number of T4 ins who had no stand! Which of the variants was decided would bring the most capacity? T1 and T3 27R, or Northerly deps 27R? Are we not meant to have 2 GMC controllers as it is now?
Gonzo.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Any Bar
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add to the complicated situation.
The drive seems to be all round London and its airports.
Now while i understand the need for extra capacity the problem will not get better but worse if the powers that be insist in putting almost all their eggs in the London (area) basket.
I realise that the majority of airports in the UK are not going to be big hub airports but as an example why not develop Manchester more and help with the problems of London (now and in the future).
There are huge numbers of people who travel to LL or fly on KLM UK etc from all over the country to get long haul flights when maybe CC could help more than it already does.
A lot is said about Paris/Amsterdam/Frankfurt taking over from LL if it is not developed and it being knocked off top spot.
Well the fact is so what let CC become another big hub and overall the whole country is better off because of it.
The no frills airlines will continue to grow and service more regional airports but we should have a more open mind when it comes to the long haul stuff.
The drive seems to be all round London and its airports.
Now while i understand the need for extra capacity the problem will not get better but worse if the powers that be insist in putting almost all their eggs in the London (area) basket.
I realise that the majority of airports in the UK are not going to be big hub airports but as an example why not develop Manchester more and help with the problems of London (now and in the future).
There are huge numbers of people who travel to LL or fly on KLM UK etc from all over the country to get long haul flights when maybe CC could help more than it already does.
A lot is said about Paris/Amsterdam/Frankfurt taking over from LL if it is not developed and it being knocked off top spot.
Well the fact is so what let CC become another big hub and overall the whole country is better off because of it.
The no frills airlines will continue to grow and service more regional airports but we should have a more open mind when it comes to the long haul stuff.
120.4, I know exactly what you mean about the cul de sac issue LTN has had a similar issue for years, as you are probably aware, still, if the Orange order were given a big enuff bung to go to STN in a few years time, BAL and MON go to MAN for their maintenance with a similar 'incentive' then that might free up a bit of westerly airspace!.
Sclub, one problem with LGW is you HAVE to demolish Charlwood to do it, (fancy footing that bill?), and the airport will still be poorly placed to capture the 'London' market, particularly that from the west and north. By that time, 2019, STN will I predict be on its third runway planning inquiry!.
Sclub, one problem with LGW is you HAVE to demolish Charlwood to do it, (fancy footing that bill?), and the airport will still be poorly placed to capture the 'London' market, particularly that from the west and north. By that time, 2019, STN will I predict be on its third runway planning inquiry!.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You all know nothing!!!
LYDD!!! the ONLY choice for a major new runway!!
(nurse?????)
Seriously. I assume that this residents pact at LGW states that no extra runway can be built? being as the there are already 2 there? Can't they just increase the gap between the 2 and have operate them simultaniously??
LYDD!!! the ONLY choice for a major new runway!!
(nurse?????)
Seriously. I assume that this residents pact at LGW states that no extra runway can be built? being as the there are already 2 there? Can't they just increase the gap between the 2 and have operate them simultaniously??
