Secret plans revealed for second Gatwick runway
 

Secret plans revealed for second Gatwick runway - Times Online

:}

There are already close parrallel runways at LGW. Other examples are at Seattle, Los Angeles & Atlanta. You could probably get about 63 movements per hour, around 15 more than currently possible in mixed mode operation. I'm no expert but I'm sure that a passing ATCO can help out. This could be achieved without laying any additional concrete and could be a relatively painless way of increasing SE runway capacity.

I remember that I did an M.Sc. thesis on the future role of Gatwick airport fifteen years ago and came to that conclusion then, but no ones taken any notice yet!

Clearly you failed or your thesis was crap because the two runways at Gatwick are way too close to be used simultaneously........hence the reason no one paid any attention to your suggestion.

Passing ATCO helps out (hopefully)

The two runways at Gatwick are definitely too close to be used simultaneously, and even if the technical restrictions could be changed (extremely unlikely) they would still be too close to be of much practical use. They cannot be defined as "close parallel runways" which is only applied when those runways are in use at the same time. Gatwick is currently a single runway airport (the busiest in the world, and significantly busier than many multi-runway airports).

The current runway regularly exceeds 50 movements per hour and in busy periods with the right mix of traffic, 52 to 56 movements is not uncommon. I remember BAA looking at lots of options for a second runway including one to the North, but the major problem in that direction is Horley, not to mention the administrative nightmare of dealing with 2 separate councils. Gatwick used to be in Surrey until the early 50's when the boundary was moved and I don't think they'd want it back!

:)

Hi there,excuse my ignorance as a SLF but can someone explain why there are two 'runways' at LGW if they cannot be used simultaneously?
They are parallel so I suppose offer no use regarding alternatives in weather conditions so what is their purpose together and why were they constructed like this(at no doubt high cost) if they cannot function independently?

They were NOT 'constructed' to be used together. The northern was built as a taxiway but sensibly made so it can be used if the main closes for repair. They are too close for use together.

I think the actual point; is that if BAA sell Gatwick to a new owner then the previous agreement would be null and void!

The new owner not being the BAA, could then plan anything they wish; given consent by Government, and thus a new runway to the south as already planned for and who knows, a new terminal too could well be built before 2019.

About time too! :ok:

I guess their "sin" too was to believe the BAA when it undertook not to build a second runway for forty years, just as we idiots who live near LHR believed the undertakings made with respect to T5 at the time of the enquiry!

Now, I'm certainly not a NIMBY; as an aviation enthusiast quite the opposite in fact - Bring em on, I say! - but I am appalled when large public sector bodies make extensive promises in order to get what they want without having the slightest intention to keep to them if it proves to be inconvenient.

And I'm still not really convinced that we ought to want or have London as a major European aviation hub if it means in the future that the it is the UK that takes the CO2 hit for all those Americans, continentals and others that will be merely "passing through". That's going to get rather expensive.....

What a total 'head in the sand, NIMBY please!' post! If you moved near a major international airport believing any financial promise or assurance about airport expansion could last 40 years, then you are too naive for this life! How can anyone predict that far ahead? Did you believe Blair's 'no new Income Taxes' assurance 10 years ago?

If we don't try and keep London as an aviation, customer friendly hub, then the ramifications will be severe. Numerous jobs will be exported to Europe, pilots, cabin crew, ground staff, local infrastructure, schools, shops, hospitals- all will gradually just not be there any more. All that spending and tax revenue will be absent. The gradual decline of good services which will go direct to Europe will mean City jobs will move over to europe. Financial, Insurance, manufacturing headquarters- they will all gradually and imperceptibly export themselves. We will barely notice it until one day Frankfurt or Amsterdam proudly announces it has overtaken London as the financial capital of Europe. By then it will be too late to arrest the decline. The pollution will still be created in Frankfurt or Amsterdam, not London, but what the hell- you will still be able to walk your dog in peace and quiet- you will certainly have time possibly being unemployed because your business is unsustainable in the UK.

We have to face it, the UK doesn't have a lot going for it. Highly taxed, grey weather, a loud troglodyte underclass, pollution, overpopulation, over priced, incredible crime, daft property prices. We have had employment and the chance to make something of yourself. Wooly-headed NIMBYs like you will consign us to a future of sliding down to the relative position of Greece if we don't make UKplc attractive to foreigners pretty quick, because it's getting GD ugly right now! Do not be alarmed- I will be watching from somewhere afar (and sunny) aghast how idiots threw it all away!

Er, interesting Rainboe - but probably best to read what I actually wrote before firing off the Christmas salvos!

Well you seem to have forgotten already what you wrote! Let me remind you:
You say you're not a NIMBY then write how you are. You're very mixed up. Leave it to the grown ups!

OK Rainboe, and in the spirit of Christmas, let's redefine NIMBY to make you happy again.

If someone who refuses to condone deliberate lying by organisations determined to over-rule democratic processes to achieve their own ends, and who is also less than certain that the financial equations of the post-2012 carbon economy will be so overtly positive towards aviation, then, yes, I guess I must be a NIMBY!

Such a moniker however would hugely amuse most of my acquaintanies who know what it really stands for...

Rainboe,

You say "If we don't try and keep London as an aviation, customer friendly hub, then the ramifications will be severe."

I hate to be critical but, assuming you're talking of LHR, your tense is wrong. LHR is certainly not customer friendly. Its terminals are distant and require a good mixture of hoof, bus and/or train - mini and/or Heathrow Express to connect - often on the same carrier!

Not to mention the primitive and 'unknown duration' of transfers twixt LGW and LHR.

I'm based in a secondary city in mainland Europe and do not connect through LHR. Why would I when I can go through MUC, AMS or even FRA- Paris is only marginally better than LHR.

Sorry but the rot has set in, for those of us with a choice, and big-league action is needed to counter the decline of which you speak. IMHO of course.

Happy Christmas.

Saman

problem is not extra runways in the South East ..its capacity in the air.

You can put as many runways down as you like but the airspace in the South East is already FULL !

Bagso, that is not correct. Critical at the moment is runway capacity at LHR.

Saman, one can't deny you are right. LHR has a positively repellent effect on more people than we realise. I would never arrange a journey to transit the place and hope to make a connection! It is a national disgrace, staffed by offensive troglodytes who bellow orders at passengers as if they were market traders bred from concentration camp guards. I've told people there not to shout orders at me. The traffic around the airport is a joke. The sad thing is there will be no change of direction- 'Supertanker Heathrow' will not change course for anyone! One can only despair.