Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21216 posts, RR: 19 Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4409 times:
FWIW, ORD once had 7 (until 18-36 was decommissioned around 2001 or so). AMS has 6. It's the only airport in Europe that I'm aware of with 6. CDG has 4, LHR 2, and FRA 3. YYZ has 5, but I would bet its the only one even over 3 in the Western Hemisphere outside of the USA, so you've probably got all of them on this side of the world. Heck, ORD, DEN, DFW, DTW, and AMS may be it in the whole world.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
8herveg From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1105 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4091 times:
I really don't understand why all these airports need so many runways. For example, why is Boston opening another one? Heathrow manages to get away with having just 2 runways, and it is the 3rd busiest in the world!! Boston doesn't see nearly as much traffic as Heathrow. In fact it sees about 30 million pax a year doesn't it? About the same as Gatwick....which has just 1 runway!!
I know a lot of the UK airports ARE fighting for new runways, but they seem to be coping without them at the moment anyway.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4074 times:
IAH will have 7 according to the master plan. I have no idea of the timeframe.
Quoting 8herveg (Reply 7): For example, why is Boston opening another one? Heathrow manages to get away with having just 2 runways, and it is the 3rd busiest in the world!!
You are kidding right?
Heathrow is severely limited by having 2 runways. To claim otherwise is naive.
And you obviously don't understand geography or meteorology if you believe that just because certain airports can get away with 2, others don't need more. BOS is one of the windiest major cities on the planet (windier than Chicago).
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
8herveg From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1105 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3995 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8): And you obviously don't understand geography or meteorology if you believe that just because certain airports can get away with 2, others don't need more. BOS is one of the windiest major cities on the planet (windier than Chicago).
Obviously I don't. If you could explain it instead of just making me out to be a complete fool, it would be much appreciated!!!
PavlovsDog From Norway, joined Sep 2005, 655 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3962 times:
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 6): Heathrow *had* 6 runways originally, but I dont think that counts here
And they were arranged in a Star of David form. As the stronghold of the Rothschild family (who's red hexagram later became the blue star of Israel) and the global centre of Freemasonry that should give conspiracy theorists plenty of food for thought.
Carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2769 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3825 times:
To come to think of it Tokyo Haneda has the most runways at 3 (at least civil) in Asia.
Sapporo Chitose technically has 4 runways (LAX style) but two are for military ops.
Soon enough some of the major Chinese airports such as CAN, PEK, & PVG will have at least 3 or more runways.
With the exception of AMS & Dubai, the chances of seeing 6 or more runways at an airport outside of North America are highly unlikely.
HT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6471 posts, RR: 27 Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3721 times:
Quoting 8herveg (Reply 10): Obviously I don't. If you could explain it instead of just making me out to be a complete fool, it would be much appreciated!!!
I will try to step in here with some basic facts:
Aircraft prefer to take off and land into the wind, as the airflow (known as wind) can be added to the motion of the airplane over ground.
An airplane needs to get a flow of air over its wings at a speed of 150 kts (example values) in order to get enough lift to lift off the griund (= take off).
If there is a steady wind from the front of 50 kts, the a/c needs to move at only 100 kts against the ground to reach the required airflow over the wing (50 + 100 = 150).
The same applies for landing.
So, if you reverse this (= a 50 kts TAIL wind), the aircraft need to move at 200 kts against the ground before lift off ( -50 + 200 = 150 kts).
Another fact: Winds (especially gusty winds) from the side, can make a take-off roll instable to dangerous.
So, if you are in an area, where gusty winds from various directions occur frequently, you want to have as much options runway-wise as possible.
Plus you need to make sure that operations on one runway do not have a negative influence on another runway ...
In contrast to this, winds in Western and Central Europe usually blow from the west and are rather steady (I disregard any storm systems here). So, having runways oriented simply East-West is sufficient in many locations (in Europe).
As a result, the 2 operational parallel runways at LHR can handle much more traffic than 2 runways that are placed at an angle (or even cross eachother).
Is this basic explanation sufficient and understandable ?
Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
GQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3685 times:
Ah, I see. Didn't know she moved, and could move for that matter. My good ole lappy just can't run Google Earth... Waiting for my new Intel Duo Core 2 Extreme with Dual ATI Crossfire vid cards to get here. (AutoCAD and 3DMax....not to mention a good gaming machine... )