Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5256718/

Topic: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: readytotaxi
Posted 2011-09-16 09:27:19 and read 13608 times.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...o-keep-third-runway-hopes-alive.do

It appears that last week BA made a formal submission to the local council not to approve development of local land
incase it "jeopardise future development of a third runway".

The local council dismissed the airlines request.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: btblue
Posted 2011-09-16 09:50:14 and read 13489 times.

...and two stories above it the need for a new airport in the Thames estuary:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...hnson-island-ministers-are-told.do

This is going to be one hell of a puzzle. Build on Heathrow or, stop Heathrow expansion and focus on a new airport in the Thames estuary?

Sounthend is starting ops with easyJet... possibility to expand maybe? Saying that, it is way out east but, the glide path is over the sea and with high speed rail... (we have Cross rail going in as far as Canary Wharf) fastforward 15 years and anything could be possible...

[Edited 2011-09-16 09:52:23]

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: Revelation
Posted 2011-09-16 13:11:09 and read 13013 times.

The only thing that can work is what was done in Hong Kong:
- Build a new greenfield airport with enough land for future growth
- Build the road and high speed rail links at the same time as the airport
- Close the old airport so it doesn't undermine the new airport

But it's extremely unlikely that there will be the money or the political will for all this to happen in the UKany time soon.

Interesting how it was the UK that got the ball rolling on the HKG replacement, eh?

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2011-09-16 14:44:25 and read 12794 times.

It's not the "only" option believe me. The UK does not have the money or the political will, or frankly the track record to build a new island on the wrong side of London and the wealth of the M4 corridor, on Western European labour costs, in an undisturbed area full of birds???? That is NOT the only option. Besides which, they'd have to force the closure of LHR to make the business case. I love Boris but he doesn't do detail!

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2011-09-16 15:04:54 and read 12712 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
The only thing that can work is what was done in Hong Kong:

I agree with everything in your post except it has to been a new greenfield airport. While that is more likely, BHX and LTN seem to have enough land around them for a LHR replacement *assuming* the ground transportation was built (high speed rail and a major road expansion).

The A320NEO and 737MAX will bring a new low CASM TATL competition that will benefit whatever hub 'hosts' the flights. IAD, CHL and other potential hubs in the USA will grow. CDG, BER, MUC, and MAD seem to be ready for that level of growth. The extra runway at FRA is nice, but not enough. I'm guessing UA and US should be sending the Green party thank you cards.   This will be analogous to the mid-east hubs; under-expansion of the European hubs pushes the growth from secondary European cities to elsewhere.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: Dano1977
Posted 2011-09-16 15:52:35 and read 12577 times.

This is one thing that dissapoints me with the UK, anything that might improve links to the UK and improve its business position is interefered with politically and ends up with years of consultations and public enquiries, and by the time it gets some sort of approval its out of date and you end up back at square one.

It seems and i'm not saying it is, but if another european country wants a new high speed rail line or increase airport capacity and runways, the politicians get it and understand at what benefits it could bring , and the process seems to take half the time and the relevent populations understand what it means to them , despite what the negatives could be.

Having been invovled in local politics at a planning level, some of the negativities that i've heard against local planning issues are a farce at best. I know you can't compare local politics to national politics, but some of the arguments are the same and attitudes will not change.

Until we get a government that understands that spending money/allowing expansion on infrastructure is a good thing, and helps British based companies pay more tax, then the UK will be left in the dark ages. But unfortunatly we have a governments thats afraid to upset the greenies and lose votes.

Sorry for the rant... probably had one to many glasses of Rioja

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: Aesma
Posted 2011-09-16 16:45:48 and read 12450 times.

I vote green in my country regularly, but I really don't understand the problem with the third runway. Unless you believe you can limit worldwide aviation industry battling it, which seems foolish. Surely, building a new airport on the Thames would be far worse, environmentally speaking !

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: JHCRJ700
Posted 2011-09-16 18:21:11 and read 12270 times.

While the new parts of Heathrow are great and things somehow work there with two runways...a third runway is desperately needed. I think that building a new airport is a great idea. Hopefully they can work something out in the near future.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: Revelation
Posted 2011-09-16 19:09:11 and read 11927 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3):
The UK does not have the money or the political will, or frankly the track record to build a new island on the wrong side of London and the wealth of the M4 corridor
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):

I agree with everything in your post except it has to been a new greenfield airport. While that is more likely, BHX and LTN seem to have enough land around them for a LHR replacement *assuming* the ground transportation was built (high speed rail and a major road expansion).

Greenfield, not really, but we are really talking about a place that would start with three runways with room for a fourth, and LTN isn't that:

Quote:

In 2004 the airport management announced[7] that they supported the government plans to expand the facilities to include a full-length runway and a new terminal.[8] However, local campaign groups, including Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (LADACAN)[9] and Stop Luton Airport Plan (SLAP)[10] opposed the new expansion plans, for reasons including noise pollution and traffic concerns; LADACAN also claimed that various sites, including Someries Castle, a Scheduled Monument, would be threatened by the expansion. On 6 July 2007, it was announced that the owners of London Luton Airport decided to scrap plans to build a second runway and new terminal due to financial reasons.[11]
Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 5):
This is one thing that dissapoints me with the UK, anything that might improve links to the UK and improve its business position is interefered with politically and ends up with years of consultations and public enquiries

That's pretty much everywhere these days.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: luganopirate
Posted 2011-09-17 01:11:42 and read 10304 times.

I'm not sure there's really room to expand at BHX, though Luton would be a possibility, but I seem to recall there is also opposition to any expansion there. Mind you, where isn't there opposition to expanding airports?

My idea is more radical, would be a fantastic infrastructure project, provide thousands of jobs and free up valuable development land by closing three airports. That would be to build an airport in the N. Sea, roughly inside a triangle formed by Southend, Ostend and Felixstowe.

I would envision 8+ runways with Road / High Speed rail links to AMS, Brussels and of course London, using a combination of tunnels and bridges. Those airports could then close for use as housing or whatever other use Governments decide on.

No greenfields or housing nearby. No-one close to be disturbed by noise. Travel between those cities by air would be eliminated and travel time LON - AMS would be less than an hour by HST.

A crazy idea perhaps, with many technical challenges to overcome, but what a project it would be!

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: superhub
Posted 2011-09-17 01:36:48 and read 10118 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
The only thing that can work is what was done in Hong Kong:
- Build a new greenfield airport with enough land for future growth
- Build the road and high speed rail links at the same time as the airport
- Close the old airport so it doesn't undermine the new airport

But it's extremely unlikely that there will be the money or the political will for all this to happen in the UKany time soon.

Interesting how it was the UK that got the ball rolling on the HKG replacement, eh?

HKG is already exploring the idea of building a third runway and another terminal north of the current 25R / 7L - but it's also facing significant opposition mainly because of environmental concerns and the expensive cost of reclaiming land. I hope this doesn't get scrapped like what happened to LHR.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: gingersnap
Posted 2011-09-17 03:01:18 and read 9587 times.

Quoting luganopirate (Reply 9):

I'm not sure there's really room to expand at BHX, though Luton would be a possibility, but I seem to recall there is also opposition to any expansion there. Mind you, where isn't there opposition to expanding airports?

Luton is also right on top of a large mound/hill whatever, which could complicate matters.

BHX I believe are about to extend the runway at the Northern end, but that's about it. BHX could probably allow for expansion, but the old Elmdon side would need to be demolished and facilities replaced to allow that expansion IMO.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2011-09-17 05:15:35 and read 8761 times.

It's a pity that the conservative government axed the third runway and it is even worse now that local councils seem to establish facts that make it impossible in the future to pick up the lans again.

A green field airport, or better, a blue water airport in the Thames estuary is nothing more than a dream. The environmentalists will kill that project instantly. But even if, closing LHR would mean that thousands of businesses would be at the wrong location from one day to the next. Starting from small shops, petrol stations, hotels, warehouses, freight forwarders and many more would have their investments zeroed and many except the large corporations would not have enough money to buiuld new on the other side of London. Oh, I almost forgot the tens of thousands employees who have centred their lives on the present location.

The only positive thing I could see is that the tax base of the councils that oppose the third runway would be zeroed as well. Unfortunately, they don't care, the council employees and the councillors would not personally suffer. Something is wrong in our societies.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: itsonlyme
Posted 2011-09-17 05:31:56 and read 8649 times.

Still think there needs to be much more discussion of STN. Tons of land around it, much easier than an Estuary airport. Can also be part of a North/South High Speed Rail network from London, unlike Heathrow or an Estuary Airport.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: vhtje
Posted 2011-09-17 06:54:14 and read 8136 times.

Has not privatisation of the airports complicated this beyond comprehension?

Heathrow is not positioned optimally for London - we all know this - it forces too many aircraft movements over areas of population, etc. Moving to a greenfields site in the east, be it in the Thames estuary or redevelopment of STN, would be the ideal solution.

But my question is, how would BAA need to be compensated for the loss of Heathrow? Would the compensation needed to be paid price the project out of possibility? What guarantees are written into the BAA contract with the Civil Aviation Authority?

If the airport was still under government control, this would be easy. With it privatised... how would it work?

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: Revelation
Posted 2011-09-17 08:01:13 and read 7719 times.

Quoting superhub (Reply 10):
HKG is already exploring the idea of building a third runway and another terminal north of the current 25R / 7L - but it's also facing significant opposition mainly because of environmental concerns and the expensive cost of reclaiming land.

The opposition is a concern, but on the flip side, the desire to add another runway and terminal so soon shows what a great economic stimulus a well-designed airport is.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 12):
A green field airport, or better, a blue water airport in the Thames estuary is nothing more than a dream. The environmentalists will kill that project instantly. But even if, closing LHR would mean that thousands of businesses would be at the wrong location from one day to the next. Starting from small shops, petrol stations, hotels, warehouses, freight forwarders and many more would have their investments zeroed and many except the large corporations would not have enough money to buiuld new on the other side of London. Oh, I almost forgot the tens of thousands employees who have centred their lives on the present location.

Agreed, it's a consideration, but we've seen examples of greenfield airports like HKG and DEN that show it can be dealt with. In particular, I doubt the investments will be zero'd: there's always need for hotel space et al in the greater London area. It's not like the LHR area will magically be transported to Siberia.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2011-09-17 08:52:06 and read 7332 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
Agreed, it's a consideration, but we've seen examples of greenfield airports like HKG and DEN t

HKG and DEN are different situations, specially HKG which had no room for needed expansion. DEN was close enough to the city for redevelopment.

What reason should be there for hotels around a vacated Heathrow airport? What sort of re-development would sustaoin the number of hotels, there is neither industry nor other suitable transport infrastructure for the number of warehouses and transport firms around Heathrow. A closure and relocation of that airport would be a similar waste of resources as what Germany is doing with its nuclear power plants and like in Germany the users of transport services or energy would have to pay for the waste.

Developing STN and keeping Heathrow at capacity would make more sense. The question is how to distribute the routes - the second hub did not work with LGW, why should it at STN? Best would be to provide room for needed expansion at LHR.



.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: kaitak
Posted 2011-09-17 09:01:15 and read 7291 times.

The real trouble here is that the Conservative government is hostile to aviation per se and it's policies are designed to limit the growth of aviation; this is purely on environmental grounds. Thus, less aviation means less demand and less need (as it perceives it) for new runways. The government recently said that NO new runways would be built in the UK until 2050.

So, no 2nd runway at Gatwick, 3rd at Heathrow, Boris Island or anywhere else.

Basically, current government policy of a country which is experiencing serious economic difficulty is to limit the growth of a sector which could contribute positively to that growth.

As long as this govt is in office, just say goodbye to any policy that would help aviation in any way.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: SUNRISEVALLEY
Posted 2011-09-17 10:08:20 and read 7046 times.

In my view the solution is in the airline's own hands. They must reduce the frequencies between LHR and destinations in about a 500nm radius . A quick check shows 112 flights weekly to CDG/ORY; 103 to AMS; 77 to FRA ; 54 to BRU; 40 to TXL and 44 to CPH. Most are operated with 150 to 180 seat aircraft.
BAA should be telling the carriers that they are going to reduce the takeoff/landing slots at peak periods and if the carriers want to maintain the present seat counts they will have to put on bigger aircraft. BA would probably be affected most and , as an example, may be forced to convert some 757's or 767's to higher density. With reduced frequency turn around times can afford to be a little longer.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2011-09-17 10:52:46 and read 6983 times.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 17):
this is purely on environmental grounds.

But they are ok with planes burning jet-a while on "hold", which happens constantly at LHR....

Real bright they are..  ...

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: jetblast
Posted 2011-09-17 11:34:35 and read 6907 times.

Quoting SUNRISEVALLEY (Reply 18):
as an example, may be forced to convert some 757's

BA does not have 757s in the fleet anymore.

Quoting SUNRISEVALLEY (Reply 18):
or 767's to higher density

The European birds already seat 247 I believe, how many more seats should they cram in there?

I figure if BA starts putting larger aircraft on many of these frequencies many of the A320-series airplanes will just be sitting at Heathrow, taking up even more much-needed room.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: Navion
Posted 2011-09-17 11:40:31 and read 6883 times.

A third runway at Heathrow is an environmentally wise solution. I continue to be amazed at the relative lack of discussion regarding the environmental cost of frequent holding patterns of aircraft arriving at LHR during IFR conditions, and the environmental cost of the long lines of aircraft burning jet fuel waiting to depart. A third runway will have significant positive effect on both of these necessary (currently) inefficient and wasteful practices.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: bojangles
Posted 2011-09-17 11:45:05 and read 6874 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19):
But they are ok with planes burning jet-a while on "hold", which happens constantly at LHR....

Real bright they are..  ...

Yeah, but as everyone knows. the new runway would simply 'fill up' and you'd be back to square one with lots of 'planes circling and people calling for a 4th runway!

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: SUNRISEVALLEY
Posted 2011-09-17 11:59:30 and read 6849 times.

Quoting jetblast (Reply 20):
The European birds already seat 247 I believe, how many more seats should they cram in there?

Boeing show a 290- seat configuration but I would expect this would require 3 exit doors. Not sure how BA's 767's are configured in this respect.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: polot
Posted 2011-09-17 12:11:06 and read 6817 times.

Quoting SUNRISEVALLEY (Reply 23):
Boeing show a 290- seat configuration but I would expect this would require 3 exit doors. Not sure how BA's 767's are configured in this respect.

I believe that they can be configured with 299 seats max. BA's 767s have the mid cabin type A doors as oppose to a pair of overwing exits, which allows for slightly more seats.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: jetblast
Posted 2011-09-17 12:12:51 and read 7078 times.

Quoting SUNRISEVALLEY (Reply 23):
Boeing show a 290- seat configuration but I would expect this would require 3 exit doors. Not sure how BA's 767's are configured in this respect.

I work the longhaul birds (seating 189) and I believe it is the same door configuration - we have three doors on each side as well as one exit door per side just aft of the wing in row 27. These longhaul birds do occasionally do some Europe flying though.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2011-09-17 22:58:36 and read 6798 times.

Quoting jetblast (Reply 20):
I figure if BA starts putting larger aircraft on many of these frequencies many of the A320-series ai

we had a good number of 767s on FRA/LHR, that is reduced to 1 flight a day, FRA/LHR is an important route with a good mix of local and hub feeding traffic. That goes for LH and BA.

Quoting SUNRISEVALLEY (Reply 18):
BAA should be telling the carriers that they are going to reduce the takeoff/landing slots at peak periods and if the carriers want to maintain the present seat counts they will have to put on bigger aircraft. BA would probably be

That would not be in the interest of the travelling public and certainly, a servic eprovider should not tell his customer how to run his business.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: Vasu
Posted 2011-09-18 02:06:40 and read 6792 times.

I was on an SU flight from SVO to LHR and we had to circle for ages in a turbulent part of southern UK due to congestion at LHR... a lot of the passengers were rather angry about the situation and I heard at least one nearby person mention the LHR runway situation!

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: LJ
Posted 2011-09-18 02:39:04 and read 6725 times.

Quoting SUNRISEVALLEY (Reply 18):
In my view the solution is in the airline's own hands. They must reduce the frequencies between LHR and destinations in about a 500nm radius . A quick check shows 112 flights weekly to CDG/ORY; 103 to AMS; 77 to FRA ; 54 to BRU; 40 to TXL and 44 to CPH. Most are operated with 150 to 180 seat aircraft.

If so, how would you get all the pax from London to AMS or CDG? Those 103 or 112 flights carry not only connecting traffic but a lot of it is point-to-point. LCY is no option as it's full, LGW and LTN are full at peak times and STN is not popular with the passengers. Moreover, how would BA be able to compete with AF/KL or LH and SN if BA can't feed into their hub? Finally, given that demand exceeds supply, the airlines (other than BA) don't have much to gain (it will erode their yields) with this policy, hence why they won't accept this.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: lhr380
Posted 2011-09-18 02:45:23 and read 6700 times.

Quoting Vasu (Reply 27):
I was on an SU flight from SVO to LHR and we had to circle for ages in a turbulent part of southern UK due to congestion at LHR... a lot of the passengers were rather angry about the situation and I heard at least one nearby person mention the LHR runway situation!

If you were in turbulent conditions, it could have been the flow rate for arrivals had been reduced due to the weather, hence the holding?

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: lofty
Posted 2011-09-18 04:13:47 and read 6579 times.

How about building a TTS between Heathrow and Northholt. or even a High Speed Rail link between LGW and LHR we already have trains from Reading and Woking to LGW with a coach link to LHR.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: Navion
Posted 2011-09-18 06:08:38 and read 6435 times.

Quoting bojangles (Reply 22):
Yeah, but as everyone knows. the new runway would simply 'fill up' and you'd be back to square one with lots of 'planes circling and people calling for a 4th runway!

At that point you build a 4th runway! It's called growth and progress. Artificially stunting fluidity in a system has negative side effects. If we want environmental friendliness, then close a runway at Heathrow, hell, close the whole field. Naturally that will be too big a step backward but that is what is happening in a less obvious manner when you don't properly plan and prepare for growth. Get a 3rd and 4th runway Heathrow. It will work better.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: yenne09
Posted 2011-09-18 06:25:39 and read 6420 times.

The problem with London airports is not a problem that arise recently. When the government decided long time ago that Croydon will not be acceptable anymore they choose Heathrow because it was already there as a military airport. But the configuration and the access was already a problem. When Gatwick was choose as a reliever airport nobody planned a second runway. Even with a third runway Heathrow will be the preferred airport for British Airways for how long? The reswt is patchwork because the situation of London is no more competitive in front of new airports. Even Paris-Charles-de-Gaulle, Dallas-Forth Worth, Kansas City-Mid Continent, Munich and Singapore among others have been opened in the 70's. What the UK did during this time? Patchwork, so that the situation of London is in array for a long time.

Only two airports in Uk have been built as brand new airport since WWII: London City and Sheffield City (now closed). All the actual airports in the London area have been built either for WWI or WWII: Heathrow (1929), Gatwick (1930), Stansted (1943), Luton (1938), Southend (1914), Manston (1916), Southampton (1917). So what UK expect from that situation? Even some African countries have been built new airports recently or will open some in the future? I don't understand why there is no vision in the UK for such a long time. Sorry folks but this is the reality and it will no be easy to visit London for the Olympics next year. I remember while ago that Amsterdam advertised itself as «London's third airport?» Considering all the regional UK destinations from Amsterdam it's almost the case.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2011-09-18 15:40:09 and read 6061 times.

Quoting bojangles (Reply 22):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19):
But they are ok with planes burning jet-a while on "hold", which happens constantly at LHR....

Real bright they are.. ...

Yeah, but as everyone knows. the new runway would simply 'fill up' and you'd be back to square one with lots of 'planes circling and people calling for a 4th runway!

Flights could be capped at say 75%-80% of the current maximum. That would prevent "fill up".

At least the Cranford Agreement has ended after 57 years....now lets see how that works out. Of course, with the expansion plans canceled, I'm not so sure if it will make a difference.

[Edited 2011-09-18 15:40:34]

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: SUNRISEVALLEY
Posted 2011-09-18 19:16:35 and read 5863 times.

Quoting lhr380 (Reply 29):
If you were in turbulent conditions, it could have been the flow rate for arrivals had been reduced due to the weather, hence the holding?

On the matter of holding it would reduce the aggravation to those below the holding pattern areas if they were moved further to over the English channel off Brighton and west of Bristol over the mouth of the Severn . No need in my view for them to be as close as they are to Heathrow.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2011-09-18 20:53:48 and read 5762 times.

It is no secret that any community around any airport will usually oppose any expansion of that airport. LHR is no exception. The problem for the UK is there are very few options to expand existing airports or build a new one to keep pace with the growth of passenger and cargo traffic over time. The number of people on this planet continues to increase and development in Asia, Africa and elsewhere will drive an increase in air traffic to connect businesses and people around the world. If the UK can't get its act together to remain competitive, other airports will simply take the traffic and the income it provides away. We've all seen the shift in traffic patterns wrought by DXB as well as other airports in the Middle East.

It is equally true that the carbon emitted/fuel burned by aircraft holding for take off and circling for landing likely have a bigger negative effect on the environment than building a third runway at LHR. Apparently the local councils and other "interested parties" either ignored this issue or it simply was dismissed in favor of a hysterical rant about non-stop jumbos over people's homes 24/7.

LHR used to be the king of the hill in terms of transfers and still handles a ton of traffic. However, the constraints of the airfield coupled with increasing competition from other airports around the world for connecting traffic will continue to siphon off passengers and cargo. Of course, O&D traffic and UK (close-in) connecting traffic might remain with LHR but that is not a recipe for economic growth and that growth is what will help the UK maintain a high standard of living.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: SKAirbus
Posted 2011-09-19 02:01:34 and read 5546 times.

Unfortunately we have a government that is obsessed with austerity and has very little forsight when it comes to stimulating economic growth... Tourism and international business brings in a LOT of money to the country and not only have the Con-Dems whacked on huge aviation taxes, they have also ruled out any airport expansion and are also discussing leaving the EU which will just destroy our economy.

Look at Heathrow, although passenger numbers are up airlines are starting to see the benefits of other European hubs and some airlines (eg. Olympic and CSA) have withdrawn from the airport.

I think in the next quarter we will see negative growth then at the beginning of next year will be back in recession. That is what all the signs are pointing at anyway. I think a huge construction project (3rd runway) will not only give LHR the opportunity to handled more aircraft and expand to compete with other hubs, it will also provide jobs to the area.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2011-09-19 03:29:41 and read 5412 times.

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 36):
Look at Heathrow, although passenger numbers are up airlines are starting to see the benefits of other European hubs and some airlines (eg. Olympic and CSA) have withdrawn from the airport.

They left the London market, the biggest in Europe, that's a clue as to their finances.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: UAL777UK
Posted 2011-09-19 03:49:54 and read 5341 times.

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 36):
Tourism and international business brings in a LOT of money to the country and not only have the Con-Dems whacked on huge aviation taxes, they have also ruled out any airport expansion and are also discussing leaving the EU which will just destroy our economy.

I think actually it was Labour that brought in those taxes but in any event I do agree, I am really disappointed that the Cons have said not to a third runway at LHR, its crying out for it, it will bring further jobs, boost the economy etc, exactly what we need at this moment!

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: slinky09
Posted 2011-09-19 04:29:54 and read 5270 times.

Quoting vhtje (Reply 14):
But my question is, how would BAA need to be compensated for the loss of Heathrow?

That assumes that LHR would be forced to close, in which case there'd be massive compensation - but if it were not to close, why would BA or anyone else wish to move to somewhere far away, with all their staff optimized to travel to Heathrow, etc.?

Quoting kaitak (Reply 17):
The real trouble here is that the Conservative government is hostile to aviation per se and it's policies are designed to limit the growth of aviation; this is purely on environmental grounds.

That, and that they are playing to their constituencies to the West of London.

Quoting SUNRISEVALLEY (Reply 18):
In my view the solution is in the airline's own hands. They must reduce the frequencies between LHR and destinations in about a 500nm radius . A quick check shows 112 flights weekly to CDG/ORY; 103 to AMS; 77 to FRA ; 54 to BRU; 40 to TXL and 44 to CPH. Most are operated with 150 to 180 seat aircraft.

Even assuming there was a fast train link to FRA direct, it's amazing that with the Chunnel and Eurostar that flights to Paris are still so many ... I never got that, but then I don't see why anyone would take the plane over the train from New York to Boston ...

Quoting Navion (Reply 21):
A third runway at Heathrow is an environmentally wise solution.

Of the options, you are absolutely right - the amount of Ozone expended in producing the concrete for a Thames estuary airport sounds like many years of aviation across the whole of the UK!

Quoting lofty (Reply 30):
How about building a TTS between Heathrow and Northholt.

That's been examined before, I believe the problem is that Northholt's runway is short, and aligned in the wrong direction for parallel traffic into the airport there and at Heathrow.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 35):
The problem for the UK is there are very few options to expand existing airports or build a new one to keep pace with the growth of passenger and cargo traffic over time.

And that's why political will is needed, I don't see Dave Cam the Man having the will to do something that is right, he plays to too many constituencies.

Really it's just pragmatically right for LHR to meet demand and expand - the options just aren't there, and with relatively little disruption the land can be made right for a short haul runway (yes, for some, it'll be dire).

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: DFWHeavy
Posted 2011-09-19 10:03:12 and read 5008 times.

Ugh, people need to get off this darn environmental kick in London. Building a new airport or runway is not going to make the world end or raise Earth's temperature. Just Build the darn thing and quit constraining the growth.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: DCA-ROCguy
Posted 2011-09-19 10:19:02 and read 4986 times.

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 40):
Just Build the darn thing and quit constraining the growth.

  
It has long amazed me that business interests in a historically mercantile country like Britain have never been able to push through a third runway at Heathrow. Whether a greenfield airport should have been built elsewhere years ago, it was not done, and it's not an economical or political possibility now. Heathrow it is. So therefore, if LHR wants to remain competitive with CDG, FRA, and AMS long term, *at the very least* it needs a third runway. Something is really broken about the system, that that runway wasn't built a long time ago.

Jim

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2011-09-19 15:26:14 and read 4741 times.

Meanwhile other places in the world just keep moving forward:

"Beijing to overtake London as world’s largest aviation hub. Massive new airport planned"

http://www.centreforaviation.com/ana...-massive-new-airport-planned-58776

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: readytotaxi
Posted 2011-09-22 09:29:35 and read 4273 times.

Now the BAA join the chase with a new report they have commissioned.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-britain-will-be-cut-off-island.do

"Boost Heathrow 'or Britain will be cut-off island'
"The centre of gravity in the world economy is shifting and Britain should be forging new links,"   

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: Zkpilot
Posted 2011-09-22 09:43:12 and read 4253 times.

Quoting superhub (Reply 10):

HKG is already exploring the idea of building a third runway and another terminal north of the current 25R / 7L - but it's also facing significant opposition mainly because of environmental concerns and the expensive cost of reclaiming land. I hope this doesn't get scrapped like what happened to LHR.

Its not REAL opposition... It will be built... the bigger issue is whether they build 1 or 2 more runways and their configuration... My thoughts are the better option is a close parallel runway (1 for take off 1 for landing ie not for parallel ops) as this still provides the same capacity as a fully separated runway in overall movements. The new terminal could be built on the other side of that and eventually a 4th fully separated runway built on the other side of that.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2011-09-22 10:09:15 and read 4207 times.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 41):
It has long amazed me that business interests in a historically mercantile country like Britain have never been able to push through a third runway at Heathrow.

Mixing up past and present there, the last Labour government moved the politics of this country quite far to the left, so much so that the ability to make tough strategic decisions is almost lost in a fog of confusion and self interest.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: gingersnap
Posted 2011-09-22 10:15:00 and read 4198 times.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 44):
My thoughts are the better option is a close parallel runway (1 for take off 1 for landing ie not for parallel ops)

How close do you mean? As you can't operate two runways too close regardless of their operation (unless one is closed of course).

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: Zkpilot
Posted 2011-09-22 15:01:45 and read 4057 times.

Quoting gingersnap (Reply 46):
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 44):
My thoughts are the better option is a close parallel runway (1 for take off 1 for landing ie not for parallel ops)

How close do you mean? As you can't operate two runways too close regardless of their operation (unless one is closed of course).

like LAX or similar airports for example...
so in LAX case they have 2 parallel pairs of runways... 1 runway in each pair handles landings whilst the other handles takeoffs allowing simultaneous operations (they recently spaced the runways slightly wider to allow a gap inbetween IIRC for an aircraft to hold on).
For HKG that would mean the runway closest to Lan Tau island would be by itself, whilst the one out to sea would be joined by another in close proximity. Eventually a 4th runway would be built but separated to allow for simultaneous operations.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: YTZ
Posted 2011-09-23 08:54:57 and read 3821 times.

I get the pressures on LHR. But would it not be easier politically to fix the 2 runway situation at LGW?

The problem that I find with London airports whenever I'm visiting is the challenge of access to the airports. Not so much when getting in. But quite often when departing. Early flight out of anywhere but LHR and LCY are an utter pain to get to.


LHR is well served by the Tube and by the Heathrow Express/Connect to Paddington. Heathrow Connect is half the price of the Gatwick and Stansted Express trains and still gets in faster than both. The Gatwick Express is a 30 min ride to Victoria. And Stansted Express is a 45 min to Liverpool St. Luton won't even get anytyhing decent till Thameslink has run its course.

And then there's the issue that all the trains to the core terminate at different points, which prevents the ability to easily transfer between airports. And none of them terminate at St. Pancras to allow for a quick transfer to the Eurostar.

Fixing these connection issues, and reducing the travel times and costs from the outlying airports would go a long way towards redistributing loads away from LHR.

In the meantime, my vote would still be to work on making LGW more functional with two proper runways to act as a solid reliever for international traffic. And perhaps there's room for some throughput improvements at LCY? Maybe redevelop the terminal. Put in underground walkways leading to airstairs at aircraft parking spots. Just imagine the service a fleet of CSeries aircraft could provide from LCY. The CS100/CS100ER almost seem built for LCY and the CS300XT almost looks purpose built as an LCY capable A319 alternative (not sure...but I think it could get in here). And this is an airport that easily accessible and 2 hrs by air to any point in western Europe and most of Eastern Europe as well. Instead of running Q400s here as many operators do. Passenger throughput and service quality could be improved by upgauging. Might be a drop in the bucket. But London is fast approaching a situation where every drop will count. And LCY could be a decent option for relieving regional traffic needs.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: YTZ
Posted 2011-09-23 10:21:19 and read 3733 times.

Addendum to my last post. I know there's a masterplan for LCY. Perhaps they should consider dramatically accelerating the thing. Right now the plan takes them out to 2030. Why not try to do the lot of it by 2020?

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: slinky09
Posted 2011-09-23 12:00:53 and read 3663 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 45):
Mixing up past and present there, the last Labour government moved the politics of this country quite far to the left, so much so that the ability to make tough strategic decisions is almost lost in a fog of confusion and self interest.

That's an amazing comment - not least because the business unfriendly last Labour government took the tough strategic decision and approved R3 at Heathrow, then the amazingly business friendly Conservative government ditched it ...

Quoting YTZ (Reply 48):
I get the pressures on LHR. But would it not be easier politically to fix the 2 runway situation at LGW?

There's a legal block on that, until at least 2025 I believe.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 48):
Fixing these connection issues, and reducing the travel times and costs from the outlying airports would go a long way towards redistributing loads away from LHR.

Crossrail will address some of that, for Heathrow at least.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 44):
Its not REAL opposition... It will be built... the bigger issue is whether they build 1 or 2 more runways and their configuration...

You need to look at aerial shots of Heathrow and the surroundings, you can see how a shorter R3 would work, but parallel runways or R4 would not ...

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-09-23 12:41:07 and read 3626 times.

Stansted is pretty much surrounded by farmland and is no further from London than the estuary airport would be...what are the issues with expanding Stansted?

There looks to be lots of room for expansion, isn't built on a swamp, isn't in the middle of London, already exists as an international airport and would no doubt cost less to expand than the Thames estuary concept, or perhaps even than building a third runway at Heathrow.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: par13del
Posted 2011-09-23 13:24:29 and read 3547 times.

So the fact that all and sundry are lining up to get into LHR and slots are so expensive makes no never mind in there wanting to maintain that exclusivity and sense of being "The One"?

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 37):
Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 36):
Look at Heathrow, although passenger numbers are up airlines are starting to see the benefits of other European hubs and some airlines (eg. Olympic and CSA) have withdrawn from the airport.

They left the London market, the biggest in Europe, that's a clue as to their finances.

I think the key here will be the airports on the continent becoming more "English" friendly, when the former colonist feel welcome travelling thru AMS or CDG versus LHR then numbers will start to fall, until then...............

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: YTZ
Posted 2011-09-23 13:47:18 and read 3511 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 52):
I think the key here will be the airports on the continent becoming more "English" friendly, when the former colonist feel welcome travelling thru AMS or CDG versus LHR then numbers will start to fall, until then...............

I don't know about this. I think a huge part of the reason why LHR is so busy is because London is in and of itself a huge destination for travellers. Much more so than say the other Europeans hubs (Paris aside). Next, LHR functions as the sole hub for one of the world's largest airlines, anchoring one of the world's major airline alliances. As long as Oneworld keeps feeding BA, LHR will be packed.

It's not just about being English friendly. Indeed, most Canadians will tell you that they have no issues with flying through MUC or FRA as has become routine with AC routing pax through its *A partner: Lufthansa.

Quoting par13del (Reply 52):
So the fact that all and sundry are lining up to get into LHR and slots are so expensive makes no never mind in there wanting to maintain that exclusivity and sense of being "The One"?

This is one thing I wonder about. For all the worrying maybe market mechanisms will find the equilibrium that solves the problem. The slots will be pricey enough that smaller airlines and smaller aircraft themselves will be displaced to other airports. LHR will stop serving Londoners travelling to Europe and UK destinations. Instead, any Europe and UK flights will be largely meant for connecting pax. In 10-15 years, it might become perfectly normal that widebodies at LHR won't be any smaller than 300 seats and narrowbodies will all be close to 200 seats.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-09-23 17:00:36 and read 3415 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 52):


I think the key here will be the airports on the continent becoming more "English" friendly, when the former colonist feel welcome travelling thru AMS or CDG versus LHR then numbers will start to fall, until then...............

I have travelled extensivelly through FRA and it is very 'English' friendly...in fact I much prefer transiting through that airport than LHR.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: Zkpilot
Posted 2011-09-24 11:24:37 and read 3192 times.

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 50):
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 44):
Its not REAL opposition... It will be built... the bigger issue is whether they build 1 or 2 more runways and their configuration...

You need to look at aerial shots of Heathrow and the surroundings, you can see how a shorter R3 would work, but parallel runways or R4 would not ...

Read again... my quote was referring to HKG in reply to superhub in 10.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: fcogafa
Posted 2011-09-24 11:55:32 and read 3144 times.

It is quite difficult to find employees at any major European airports that don't speak English well these days, plus all the signs are duplicated in English so I don't think the 'English friendly' problem applies - in fact they are probably friendlier than the UK staff!

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: Bennett123
Posted 2011-09-24 12:57:11 and read 3049 times.

IMO, if Hillingdon Council had agreed tp take any step to facilitate further expamsion, then BAA would have fallen off their seats.

Regrettably, any expansion of aviation is poison at present.

Topic: RE: BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.
Username: gingersnap
Posted 2011-09-24 14:26:03 and read 2964 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 52):
I think the key here will be the airports on the continent becoming more "English" friendly, when the former colonist feel welcome travelling thru AMS or CDG versus LHR then numbers will start to fall, until then...............

Don't be so sure. I've connected through AMS & FRA (hell I connected through FRA on a flight in from LHR ironically), and I know plenty of others who have done similar. Most guys and gals I know despise using LHR for connections, and will happily fly east before heading west over the pond if it means a more relaxed journey.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/