Birmingham Airport Runway extension
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Birmingham Airport Runway extension
Had this from a friend in the midlands.
any one able to verify ? or explain why the extension isn't in use for heavies.
Yesterday I was talking to a chap I know who was made redundant from the airport earlier this year, I asked why the big jets like the airbus double decker and jumbo jets where still not using the airport even though the runway extension as been open for months. His reply took me by surprise, its all hush hush but the biggest jet that can land and take of fully laden is still the 777 and the reason why is because someone cocked up the new extension and if a fully laden airbus A380 or jumbo tried to land or take of then the new extension is in danger of collapsing as the foundations aren’t strong enough, it seems they are looking to see if they can underpin it. If its true it could only happen in Brum
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oldoberon.
Your friend may speak some truth regarding problems with the runway.However how much is truth and how much is mud slinging is another matter.
True,problems were encountered during the resurfacing work last winter,exactly what I am not sure.Many rumours were doing the rounds,some suggest the extremely wet weather was a factor.Others say inferior products were used in the runway surface materials.This is the reason why the runway is being resurfaced again this winter as well As well as iron out some other long standing issues.I was told that the aim was to flatten out the runway.If you look from one end to the other you can see a series of 'waves' all the way down the length of it.
However none of this has anything to do with the type of aircraft using it.2014 has been a record breaking year in terms passengers using the airport,with many months being the best ever.
Also new routes and airlines for 2015 show that BHX s on the radar of many companies.Vueling,Icelandair and Norwegian to start by the spring.Norwegian in particular is a major coup,especially as it has been suggested elsewhere a large base could be set up with long haul flights to follow(USA permitting).
Add to that American A/L daily to JFK,and a 3rd daily to Dubai,as well as further charter flights to China(perhaps)would suggest an airport on the up.Not bad for a regional,which would not necessarily need large aircraft anyway,just a long enough runway for twin jets to use.
Your friend may speak some truth regarding problems with the runway.However how much is truth and how much is mud slinging is another matter.
True,problems were encountered during the resurfacing work last winter,exactly what I am not sure.Many rumours were doing the rounds,some suggest the extremely wet weather was a factor.Others say inferior products were used in the runway surface materials.This is the reason why the runway is being resurfaced again this winter as well As well as iron out some other long standing issues.I was told that the aim was to flatten out the runway.If you look from one end to the other you can see a series of 'waves' all the way down the length of it.
However none of this has anything to do with the type of aircraft using it.2014 has been a record breaking year in terms passengers using the airport,with many months being the best ever.
Also new routes and airlines for 2015 show that BHX s on the radar of many companies.Vueling,Icelandair and Norwegian to start by the spring.Norwegian in particular is a major coup,especially as it has been suggested elsewhere a large base could be set up with long haul flights to follow(USA permitting).
Add to that American A/L daily to JFK,and a 3rd daily to Dubai,as well as further charter flights to China(perhaps)would suggest an airport on the up.Not bad for a regional,which would not necessarily need large aircraft anyway,just a long enough runway for twin jets to use.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much did the runway extension cost? If you divide that cost by the number of movements that actually need that extension rather than just using it because it is there I wonder if the airport will actually ever get their investment back?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The runway extension is a long term investment.Once in place the airport authority can look at attracting airlines to use it.
Personally I would like to see more European cites added as well as long haul.
As I said earlier BHX is on the up,we will have to see if 2015 brings any further developments,but at least the potential is there.I am sure most who use these forums would agree that it is better to have something available than not have it at all.
Personally I would like to see more European cites added as well as long haul.
As I said earlier BHX is on the up,we will have to see if 2015 brings any further developments,but at least the potential is there.I am sure most who use these forums would agree that it is better to have something available than not have it at all.
How much did the runway extension cost? If you divide that cost by the number of movements that actually need that extension rather than just using it because it is there I wonder if the airport will actually ever get their investment back?
One of the problems with the UK is it fails, time after time, to invest for the future, be it railways, roads or airports - infrastructure development has always been to catch up with current demand, rather than to cater for future demand. That's how we've wound up with the cesspit that is LHR.
As for the original assertion that BHX runway can't handle the 380 / 747 because the runway hasn't been made long enough is, I suppose, in part true.
Better informed people than I may be able to confirm, but I imagine that 3000m may still be inadequate for a 380 or 747 at max take off weight to operate from BHX, but that doesn't preclude operators using them on shorter long haul routes such as Dubai, New York, Chicago, Miami. What precludes that is firstly, Emirates prefers to operate the more cargo friendly 777 on DXB, and the market for US services from the UK is overwhelming one for the big twins. Aside of BA / VS how many 380 / 747 movements are there a day between LHR and US destinations. Answer: very few, if any.
For many years, long after it ceased to be true, there was an urban myth around Birmingham that you couldn't fly non stop transatlantic from the airport - even after AA, CO and BA had proved otherwise the travelling public still believed it to be true.
Let's please not start another urban myth regarding the extended runway!
but I imagine that 3000m may still be inadequate for a 380 or 747 at max take off weight to operate from BHX
As an illustration, the proposed new NW runway at Heathrow, which would have no restrictions on the aircraft types that could operate from it, would be 3500m.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys, so in summary
There is some problem waiting for the associated groundworks to stabilise (not the extension itself).
It isn't long enough for the heavies to use for full long range flights ie west coast USA or far east but ok for middle east and east coast USA.
Finally as said most pilots prefer more rather than less, understandably. I see on the virgin thread that with the reduced braking capability Gatwick was very tight on length for it's landing.
Good to see airline use is on the up
Re undulations I imagine most runways slope one end to other and many have undulations,no doubt there are specifications covering this for new runways.
There is some problem waiting for the associated groundworks to stabilise (not the extension itself).
It isn't long enough for the heavies to use for full long range flights ie west coast USA or far east but ok for middle east and east coast USA.
Finally as said most pilots prefer more rather than less, understandably. I see on the virgin thread that with the reduced braking capability Gatwick was very tight on length for it's landing.
Good to see airline use is on the up
Re undulations I imagine most runways slope one end to other and many have undulations,no doubt there are specifications covering this for new runways.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but I imagine that 3000m may still be inadequate for a 380 or 747 at max take
off weight to operate from BHX
Though in terms or TORA 05R/23L is the longer
the BHX runway is 3050m long, interestingly the MAN runways are the same length and easily handle A380s & B747s
West Lakes
The key phrase in my earlier posting was "max take of weight" which, given DaveReidUK's subsequent posting suggests my imagination doesn't need so much checking. Must admit I overlooked that extra 50m though. Not bad considering the old brain cells are decaying faster than reproducing at my age!!!
So according to NATS-AIS the BHX runway is 3050m long, interestingly the MAN runways are the same length and easily handle A380s & B747s so check your imagination!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The length of the runway tarmac is only partially a factor, you also have to consider the position of the thresholds, are they displaced as this will reduce the take off run available, but the big killer is obstacles and the ability of the aircraft to climb in the event of an engine failure.
I image the latter is the reason for restrictions at BHX given the many obstacles in the take off flight path.
That said, an A380 to Dubai is going to be no where near it's max take off weight as I should imagine the limiting factor is the zero fuel weight and so I can't imagine that for 6-7 hour hops it would make that much difference, but then I don't know what the OEI performance is like on the ugly bus
I image the latter is the reason for restrictions at BHX given the many obstacles in the take off flight path.
That said, an A380 to Dubai is going to be no where near it's max take off weight as I should imagine the limiting factor is the zero fuel weight and so I can't imagine that for 6-7 hour hops it would make that much difference, but then I don't know what the OEI performance is like on the ugly bus
When I last departed BHX on 33 on a short haul flight we still used the original length as I am guessing, it is a shorter taxi than going to the end of the extension. What proportion of 33 departures actually use the full length? I am willing to bet it is only the EK flights.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: west midlands
Age: 53
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doors to Automatic. New runway extension.
It really depends on many factors on the day, especially the flight crews/ captains preference.
Some don't like Tarmac behind them, thus use the full length. Some departures may require a 5 minute engine warm up ,if starting from cold. May as well use full length. If you are heavy more runway is useful, less engine wear or simply getting away quicker beating any ques, use E .If an aircraft wants to use E for it's departure and is holding at E,an aircraft behind is not able to get past and make its way to S. I often do performance for both.
Basically the extension is great, be glad when the current works are completed.
Some don't like Tarmac behind them, thus use the full length. Some departures may require a 5 minute engine warm up ,if starting from cold. May as well use full length. If you are heavy more runway is useful, less engine wear or simply getting away quicker beating any ques, use E .If an aircraft wants to use E for it's departure and is holding at E,an aircraft behind is not able to get past and make its way to S. I often do performance for both.
Basically the extension is great, be glad when the current works are completed.
