SE England - new mega-airport required soon!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
capt waffoo
I don't know what your definition of "true simultaneous runway ops" is, but at MAN we certainly do operate simultaneous operations on two runways without reference to each other. Fair enough, we have to cross a runway to get to the other, but that doesn't cause us too many headaches.
We just need more apron space to park aircraft, then the movement rate could be increased from 57/hr to something more befitting a dual runway airport.
I don't know what your definition of "true simultaneous runway ops" is, but at MAN we certainly do operate simultaneous operations on two runways without reference to each other. Fair enough, we have to cross a runway to get to the other, but that doesn't cause us too many headaches.
We just need more apron space to park aircraft, then the movement rate could be increased from 57/hr to something more befitting a dual runway airport.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The major problem with any new airport in SE England will be the NIMBYs - the 'Not In My Back Yard' brigade. (I have to admit in all honesty that I was unfortunate enough to have my peaceful rural idyll about to be shattered by a new major airport right across the road, I'd probably be out there on the picket lines and in the courts with the best of 'em.)
Just as with Terminal 5 at Heathrow, local pressure groups, wherever they may be, will delay any planned new construction for decades with environmental impact studies, protests, local member's bills et al.
One answer, which would be enormously costly, but perhaps 'do-able', (but which would still meet concerted resistance from some quarters), would be a really huge floating airport in the Thames Estuary, similar to what has been suggested for San Franscisco (and somewhere in Japan?).
A reclaimed airport may also be possible, but I have no idea how shallow the water is in any such suitable areas. My first impression would be to say it's doubtful. I imagine a century or so of dumped munitions from two World Wars woulld have to be a serious consideration in any such reclaimation scheme.
Just as with Terminal 5 at Heathrow, local pressure groups, wherever they may be, will delay any planned new construction for decades with environmental impact studies, protests, local member's bills et al.
One answer, which would be enormously costly, but perhaps 'do-able', (but which would still meet concerted resistance from some quarters), would be a really huge floating airport in the Thames Estuary, similar to what has been suggested for San Franscisco (and somewhere in Japan?).
A reclaimed airport may also be possible, but I have no idea how shallow the water is in any such suitable areas. My first impression would be to say it's doubtful. I imagine a century or so of dumped munitions from two World Wars woulld have to be a serious consideration in any such reclaimation scheme.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Out of Trim
What do you find so offensive about my submission? It can't be the FACT that the Romans gave the British Island's the name "Great" to distinguish them from Brittany. Perhaps you would have liked them to be named just Britain and Brittany given the prefix "Petite". Oh I forgot, that is used for your inteligence quotient. :-))
------------------
Every man has his price and the incorruptible man the highest price of all.
[This message has been edited by AOG-YYZ (edited 02 June 2001).]
What do you find so offensive about my submission? It can't be the FACT that the Romans gave the British Island's the name "Great" to distinguish them from Brittany. Perhaps you would have liked them to be named just Britain and Brittany given the prefix "Petite". Oh I forgot, that is used for your inteligence quotient. :-))
------------------
Every man has his price and the incorruptible man the highest price of all.
[This message has been edited by AOG-YYZ (edited 02 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks dallas dude, however I must point out that R6 has just been approved and that the C$4. billion "Terminal New" which will be capable of handling 60 million + pax per annum is about 9 months ahead of schedule and the Air Canada "State of the Art" cargo facility is now operational.
I think the above news may put "Out Of Trim" OUT OF SORTS. :-))
------------------
Every man has his price and the incorruptible man the highest price of all.
I think the above news may put "Out Of Trim" OUT OF SORTS. :-))
------------------
Every man has his price and the incorruptible man the highest price of all.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Spot on, PT.
Quote: wot about
Upper Heyford
A car park
and Greenham Common
Dug up
And Bentwaters
Moonies/business park/houses
And Wattisham
Where?
And Finningley
A bit inconvenient for London.
And.....you name em, there all there rotting away
Yup. I am as sad as you, but reality supervenes.
Quote: wot about
Upper Heyford
A car park
and Greenham Common
Dug up
And Bentwaters
Moonies/business park/houses
And Wattisham
Where?
And Finningley
A bit inconvenient for London.
And.....you name em, there all there rotting away
Yup. I am as sad as you, but reality supervenes.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's always been a mystery as to why BA and the BAA or similar partners dont bite the bullet, and make an investment in one of the former military bases available North of London. Sure - it is a big injection of cash, but the in the long term they would see a massive return on the investment and have their own airport nearer to Central London.
The development at Finningly is subject to final planning enquiries, and has only been held back by government interference from Jonny 2 Jabs/Jags.
As he's highly likely to be a cabinet cast off in the next government, let's hope it succeeds.
A bit inconvenient for London? I don't think so - right at the end of a motorway, has it's own railway station, require very little further development as the infrastructure is in place, (apart from a terminal), and in fact it's probably better placed for Central London than Bristol, Cardiff, Manston et al. I'm not a potential employee of the organisation - just stating the reality - which is cauing much worry at Humberside and Leeds Bradford.
------------------
It wasn't me.
The development at Finningly is subject to final planning enquiries, and has only been held back by government interference from Jonny 2 Jabs/Jags.
As he's highly likely to be a cabinet cast off in the next government, let's hope it succeeds.
A bit inconvenient for London? I don't think so - right at the end of a motorway, has it's own railway station, require very little further development as the infrastructure is in place, (apart from a terminal), and in fact it's probably better placed for Central London than Bristol, Cardiff, Manston et al. I'm not a potential employee of the organisation - just stating the reality - which is cauing much worry at Humberside and Leeds Bradford.
------------------
It wasn't me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My solution to Londons congestion is to plus through Amsterdam or Dublin, if my UK destination is other than South East England. I get a far better choice of UK destinations from either of these airports than I would flying to any UK destination other than inconvenient LHR.
PS: Usually cheaper too!
PS: Usually cheaper too!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ah yes,
We have the "magic" word here...LONDON
Admittedly it is the "political" capital of England, [that's it since Mr Blur]
Last time I used the x-channel ferry, I drove past "London-Lydd" airport.
Best choice foe a 4th/5th/6th London runway is Brum
. Or at a pinch EMA:
we aim to please [otherwise, it upsets the cleaners]
We have the "magic" word here...LONDON
Admittedly it is the "political" capital of England, [that's it since Mr Blur]
Last time I used the x-channel ferry, I drove past "London-Lydd" airport
.Best choice foe a 4th/5th/6th London runway is Brum
. Or at a pinch EMA:we aim to please [otherwise, it upsets the cleaners]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Onan
There must have been extenuating circumstances to your delayed crossing. Normally there is minimal delay at the crossing points (when I'm on 118.62 anyway )
You may have to wait a while once you're across there, but I bet you didn't hold in the air on arrival. Air holding is much reduced.
Ground holding waiting for a stand, now that's a different story!
There must have been extenuating circumstances to your delayed crossing. Normally there is minimal delay at the crossing points (when I'm on 118.62 anyway
)You may have to wait a while once you're across there, but I bet you didn't hold in the air on arrival. Air holding is much reduced.
Ground holding waiting for a stand, now that's a different story!
Guest
Posts: n/a
From (long and sometimes faulty) memory, Maplin was a no-go due to insufficient bedrock. Didn't stop the Japanese though - is KIX still above water ?
Also flooding was perceived as a very real danger, the Thames Barrier being one of the byproducts of Roskill.
Also flooding was perceived as a very real danger, the Thames Barrier being one of the byproducts of Roskill.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just had a look at a site called ACI, which lists the world's busiest airports in terms of pax, movements and freight, together with growth rates. Heathrow is as follows:
Pax 64.607m (up 3.8%)
Frt 1.402m tons (up 3.4%)
Movements 466,185 (up 1.9%)
If you take a growth rate of 4% over 20 yrs, you're looking at 141m pax. So where are they all going to go?
Gatwick? Stansted? Remember, this growth rate is well below the likely rate if constraints are minimised. Air transport is expected to grow at around 5-6% over the next 20 years. If the UK's transport infrastructure is unable to deal with it, tourism, trade and (perhaps less importantly) the UK's standing as an aviation centre will suffer.
So, looking at the growth potential we have now (such as it is) and what we need, a new airport may well be the best solution. Not too easy to find a 15-20,000 acre green field site, but this may well be what is needed. It's better, to the greatest extent possible, to find a way, once and for all, for the next 20-30 or more years to find a way to provide the aviation growth the economy needs, without the perennial planning concerns, investigations and reports that seem to be required for every inch of growth now.
Time to start thinking long term . . .
Pax 64.607m (up 3.8%)
Frt 1.402m tons (up 3.4%)
Movements 466,185 (up 1.9%)
If you take a growth rate of 4% over 20 yrs, you're looking at 141m pax. So where are they all going to go?
Gatwick? Stansted? Remember, this growth rate is well below the likely rate if constraints are minimised. Air transport is expected to grow at around 5-6% over the next 20 years. If the UK's transport infrastructure is unable to deal with it, tourism, trade and (perhaps less importantly) the UK's standing as an aviation centre will suffer.
So, looking at the growth potential we have now (such as it is) and what we need, a new airport may well be the best solution. Not too easy to find a 15-20,000 acre green field site, but this may well be what is needed. It's better, to the greatest extent possible, to find a way, once and for all, for the next 20-30 or more years to find a way to provide the aviation growth the economy needs, without the perennial planning concerns, investigations and reports that seem to be required for every inch of growth now.
Time to start thinking long term . . .
Guest
Posts: n/a
I believe that the easyJets, Ryanairs etc. have found a way around the present and future congestion, not to mention costs, associated with Heathrow and that is to operated from "near UK" airports and offer cheap flights to where passengers want to go.
For example, someone travelling from a North American gateway to Preston, Lancs. would be far better using Amsterdam and plussing to Liverpool or the same passenger trying for Nottingham would find it easier to connect through AMS for EMA. I believe airports like Amsterdam, Antwerp and Dublin have a very bright future ferrying UK destined international passengers to their closest destination airport. And for airline proffesionals I would think that passenger convenience would be the criteria, rather than the jingoistic "my airport is busier than yours" attitude.
It would be interesting to know just what the figures are for SE England destined versus connecting passengers through Heathrow.
------------------
Every man has his price and the incorruptible man the highest price of all.
For example, someone travelling from a North American gateway to Preston, Lancs. would be far better using Amsterdam and plussing to Liverpool or the same passenger trying for Nottingham would find it easier to connect through AMS for EMA. I believe airports like Amsterdam, Antwerp and Dublin have a very bright future ferrying UK destined international passengers to their closest destination airport. And for airline proffesionals I would think that passenger convenience would be the criteria, rather than the jingoistic "my airport is busier than yours" attitude.
It would be interesting to know just what the figures are for SE England destined versus connecting passengers through Heathrow.
------------------
Every man has his price and the incorruptible man the highest price of all.
Guest
Posts: n/a
AOG-YYZ
Are you suggesting that someone should decide to overfly Great Britain and then fly back to LPL and then travel from there to Preston when that person can (a) fly to LHR and connect on the BA shuttle (why bother?), (b) fly to LGW and connect on the BA pseudo-shuttle (why bother?) or (c) fly to an airport that has daily flights from these US hub airports:
Newark (Continental), Chicago (American + bmi/United), Atlanta (Delta), Washington (bmi/United) and Philadelphia (USAirways).
In addition, there are daily plus flights from this airport to JFK from both BA and Pakistan International.
This particular airport having been placed 5th in overall customer satisfaction in the 2000 IATA Global Monitor Airport survey.
Time for people to understand that "North Britain"-bound passengers have a growing number of intercontinental destinations from Manchester, and that the accompanying railway station offers destinations both near and far!
Are you suggesting that someone should decide to overfly Great Britain and then fly back to LPL and then travel from there to Preston when that person can (a) fly to LHR and connect on the BA shuttle (why bother?), (b) fly to LGW and connect on the BA pseudo-shuttle (why bother?) or (c) fly to an airport that has daily flights from these US hub airports:
Newark (Continental), Chicago (American + bmi/United), Atlanta (Delta), Washington (bmi/United) and Philadelphia (USAirways).
In addition, there are daily plus flights from this airport to JFK from both BA and Pakistan International.
This particular airport having been placed 5th in overall customer satisfaction in the 2000 IATA Global Monitor Airport survey.
Time for people to understand that "North Britain"-bound passengers have a growing number of intercontinental destinations from Manchester, and that the accompanying railway station offers destinations both near and far!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm with 'flyboyuk' on this one.
This country needs to stop trying to please all of the people all of the time and make some decisions that will benefit our future prosperity. Everywhere you look on every bl@@dy issue there are people protesting about this or complaining about that. Whatever happened to live and let live.
This echoes the complete shambles that was(is) the new runway at Manchester. At my local flying club we have express instructions not to fly anywhere near certain villages/towns because someone might complain to the CAA. Don't these people have anything better to do with their lives!!
Apparently they sit with binoculors looking for tail numbers. WHAT IS THEIR PROBLEM!
You'll probably find that some EU directive has stated that Heathrow has been world leader for too long and its about time some other European country had the largest european destination.
This country needs to stop trying to please all of the people all of the time and make some decisions that will benefit our future prosperity. Everywhere you look on every bl@@dy issue there are people protesting about this or complaining about that. Whatever happened to live and let live.
This echoes the complete shambles that was(is) the new runway at Manchester. At my local flying club we have express instructions not to fly anywhere near certain villages/towns because someone might complain to the CAA. Don't these people have anything better to do with their lives!!
Apparently they sit with binoculors looking for tail numbers. WHAT IS THEIR PROBLEM! You'll probably find that some EU directive has stated that Heathrow has been world leader for too long and its about time some other European country had the largest european destination.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My bets on Stansted as its the least environmentally damaging option and most cost effective,(STN T3 in 15 years anyone?) Heathrow will get T5, and possibly a growth cap of xx million pax per annum. In the London area Gatwick has the village of Charlwood?, in the way to the northwest of the airport, far too costly to pull that down!, ooh look green fields at Stansted!
Manston: wrong side of London, no suitable infrastructure for cost effective use.
Brize/Fairford: too far out of London, same as Manston re infrastructure.
Bedford: now partially immigration and motorsport centre, lack of infrastructure.
Alconbury: well placed, road and rail infrastructure, already failed due lack of support as a cargo airfield, to be sold for non-aviation industrial use.
Finningley: too far north for London, the size of the development means it was always goint to end up as a public enquiry, the fact that 2 jags lives down the road, means he might actually look at something he's employed to do!.
Environmental considerations mean that existing facilities will be used first, no government or private company will bank roll a completely new airport, its too expensive to recover costs for GBPLC or the shareholders in a reasonable time frame. Infrastructure in terms of road and rail links are essential so any development would naturally gravitate towards those with existing links.
Finally consider this: we are 4 years into the current government's 10 year transport programme,and with what results?, funny that no party has made tree hugging an important issue this election!
Manston: wrong side of London, no suitable infrastructure for cost effective use.
Brize/Fairford: too far out of London, same as Manston re infrastructure.
Bedford: now partially immigration and motorsport centre, lack of infrastructure.
Alconbury: well placed, road and rail infrastructure, already failed due lack of support as a cargo airfield, to be sold for non-aviation industrial use.
Finningley: too far north for London, the size of the development means it was always goint to end up as a public enquiry, the fact that 2 jags lives down the road, means he might actually look at something he's employed to do!.
Environmental considerations mean that existing facilities will be used first, no government or private company will bank roll a completely new airport, its too expensive to recover costs for GBPLC or the shareholders in a reasonable time frame. Infrastructure in terms of road and rail links are essential so any development would naturally gravitate towards those with existing links.
Finally consider this: we are 4 years into the current government's 10 year transport programme,and with what results?, funny that no party has made tree hugging an important issue this election!