Terminal 5 - Bittersweet Victory?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Terminal 5 - Bittersweet Victory?
Looks like T5 will be recommended but with serious strings attached that BAA are unlikely to accept.
Full article at FT.com
http://globalarchive.ft.com/globalar...ery=terminal+5
Full article at FT.com
http://globalarchive.ft.com/globalar...ery=terminal+5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting. It's outrageous isn't it when you look at the rest of Europe and how far behind we are now trailing. Four years of opposition! Look at CDG or MAD, build where and when they feel like it!
Just a thought - if T5 is scrapped surely we should be looking at alternatives to LHR for the UKs future. Even if it goes ahead, the limited space for runway expansion and a reluctance to increase landing rates will surely cast Heathrow's future in doubt in terms of expansion.
Just a thought - if T5 is scrapped surely we should be looking at alternatives to LHR for the UKs future. Even if it goes ahead, the limited space for runway expansion and a reluctance to increase landing rates will surely cast Heathrow's future in doubt in terms of expansion.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr Director Sir. I appreciate you do a fantastic job and I agree that the current system is utilised to a maximium. That was kind of my point ie there is no room for expansion at LHR.
The other system I had in mind which seems to be opposed is to implement the procedure being trialed at FRA. They have 2 parallel runways but now have a third runway some distance down 25L. This means that at peak times aircraft can make parallel approaches but as one glideslope is 'higher' than the other the aircraft can actually be closer together in terms of distance from the airport. Does that make sense? Or is the current system in place at LHR the best for getting the maxinmum flow rate? Interested to hear.
The other system I had in mind which seems to be opposed is to implement the procedure being trialed at FRA. They have 2 parallel runways but now have a third runway some distance down 25L. This means that at peak times aircraft can make parallel approaches but as one glideslope is 'higher' than the other the aircraft can actually be closer together in terms of distance from the airport. Does that make sense? Or is the current system in place at LHR the best for getting the maxinmum flow rate? Interested to hear.
Guest
Posts: n/a
At the risk of repeating myself, what is wrong with developing a certain airport to the north of London, less than a mile from the M11 motorway, with a good rail link to the city. The terminal, freight apron and sheds, and car parks are being expanded, and they are even going ahead with the "standby" runway. It's time someone bit the political bullet and decided on the proper second runway. It would cause a lot less disruption that any further expantion at heathrow.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was just wondering? How many people do you reckon have lived near LHR since it was a small airfield with a grass strip.
I'm guessing not many and in that case everyone who has moved to the area has done so knowing that it is a major international airport. I can imagine it isn't a pleasant environment to live in, but no one forced the people to live there!!
Why has it taken so long to try and get planning approval for T5!! It was first proposed in about 1987 that they would need a 5th terminal and soon - 14 years later and not a thing! The businesses around Heathrow and the M4 strip survive on their access to LHR - a major airport, but if it can't cope then the businesses WILL go else where. This country has too much red tape. They should build T5, build a 3rd runway and do so for the general good of the economy of the south-east!
[This message has been edited by splonguk (edited 01 June 2001).]
I'm guessing not many and in that case everyone who has moved to the area has done so knowing that it is a major international airport. I can imagine it isn't a pleasant environment to live in, but no one forced the people to live there!!
Why has it taken so long to try and get planning approval for T5!! It was first proposed in about 1987 that they would need a 5th terminal and soon - 14 years later and not a thing! The businesses around Heathrow and the M4 strip survive on their access to LHR - a major airport, but if it can't cope then the businesses WILL go else where. This country has too much red tape. They should build T5, build a 3rd runway and do so for the general good of the economy of the south-east!
[This message has been edited by splonguk (edited 01 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rinky,
Once all these aircraft have landed off parallel approaches what is going to happen to them ?? As I tell the aircraft when they ask me the reason for the delay at Heathrow - too many planes, not enough concrete.
As to another runway, don't the BAA own a lot of the land between the A4 & M4, and I think if you look carefully there are gaps in the A4 developments to allow taxiways from LHR to LHR North !!!!! In fact the BA complex (Ayling Island) would appear to be a ready built Terminal 6...
Wait and see...
Once all these aircraft have landed off parallel approaches what is going to happen to them ?? As I tell the aircraft when they ask me the reason for the delay at Heathrow - too many planes, not enough concrete.
As to another runway, don't the BAA own a lot of the land between the A4 & M4, and I think if you look carefully there are gaps in the A4 developments to allow taxiways from LHR to LHR North !!!!! In fact the BA complex (Ayling Island) would appear to be a ready built Terminal 6...
Wait and see...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Terminal 5 will be built. All that the decade of 'planning' has done is to allow a lot of political posturing and to earn a few quid for m'learned friends. Everybody in the area knew that it would be built 15 years ago. Any new limit on movements will gradually increase - they always do. The proposed new northern runway is a political impossibility, even though it would have the advantage of going slap through BALPA HQ!
Northolt will not become a civil airport, for reasons of politics, and because HMG likes to have a secure airfield close to Central London.
None of the above represents any particular insight. It is simply what the locals have known for a generation.
My preferred suggestion would be to demolish Hayes (where I grew up) and West Drayton, both of which are unspeakable dumps these days, and build LHR2 on the site. The existing inhabitants of Hayes and West Drayton would be relocated to Essex, which deserves them. (seriously, nothing personal guys).
Northolt will not become a civil airport, for reasons of politics, and because HMG likes to have a secure airfield close to Central London.
None of the above represents any particular insight. It is simply what the locals have known for a generation.
My preferred suggestion would be to demolish Hayes (where I grew up) and West Drayton, both of which are unspeakable dumps these days, and build LHR2 on the site. The existing inhabitants of Hayes and West Drayton would be relocated to Essex, which deserves them. (seriously, nothing personal guys).
