Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LHR: Would 3rd Runway Mean More Domestic Routes?  
User currently offlineCapital146 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2125 posts, RR: 44
Posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4645 times:

I know its a few years off yet, but if the proposed 3rd runway IS built at LHR, would it actually be used to open up more domestic routes to feed the long-haul traffic of would it just be swallowed up by increased numbers of 737/A320 european flights?

Just look at the British airports which have lost their LHR links over the past 20 years due mainly to slot restrictions and their airlines therefore wishing to use larger aircraft from LHR (which in most cases are not viable for the routes):

Belfast International
Jersey
Guernsey
Plymouth
Newquay
East Midlands
Birmingham International
Humberside
Norwich
Carlisle
Dundee
Liverpool
Isle of Man


I can see a few from the list which would really benefit from restarting if slot restrictions were not so tight and airlines were not so afraid of using something smaller that a 100-seater at LHR.

What does anyone else think?

[Edited 2004-02-29 18:05:51]


Like a fine wine, one gets better with age.
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4625 times:

Well, a new runway is equal to an almost 50% increase in capacity (ok not quite, but you know what I mean). So I would hope there would be more space.

IMHO though, a new runway should be complemented by fast trains running in a circle: LGW-LHR-LUT-STN. Now THAT would improve the transfer experience, and create a large "virtual" hub.

These trains would need to do LHR-STN in less than 30 minutes. Maglev comes to mind  Smile



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineHorus From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 5230 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4614 times:

Another question- Would the 3rd runway mean that the current Bermuda agreement with US being scrapped for a new open sky policy where Northwest, Continental, Delta, US Airways and of course BMI flying to US destinations from LHR?


EGYPT: A 7,000 Year Old Civilisation
User currently offlineScottishLaddie From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 2384 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4605 times:

Would someone like to tell me where this runway is meant to go!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Catchpole



User currently offlineEGFFbmi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4590 times:

Would a CWL-LHR x2 daily.. be any good?

Air Wales already operates a CWL-LCY service..

Regards,

Milo


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4581 times:

Current plans call for a third parallel runway to the north of 27R/09L (north of the current airport grounds). It would also be shorter than the current ones but adequate for Domestic/European routes with for example B737/A320. This would minimize the number of people who would have to relocate.

There are diagrams lying around the web, but I forget where.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4574 times:

Found the diagram: http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/environment/planning/heathrow_airport/third_runway/runway_proposal.php.

It's at the bottom of the page.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4542 times:

Yes, a new runway at LHR would probably mean an openskies with the US. Even going to a mixed mode operation on the existing runways at LHR would probably bring an openskies or at the least a liberalizing of Bermuda II.
However, it is my belief and others, that BA,LHR and the UK can not wait until a new runway is built to have an openskies with the US.
AMS,CDG,FRA are taking too much transfer business away from LHR and now with the KL/AF merger being approved, BA will start to lose even more ground without being in a US antitrust immunity alliance with a US carrier.


User currently offlineScottishLaddie From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 2384 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4493 times:

Thanks, for the link, so the plan is to put in the top right of this photo:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Catchpole



Not particularly long though is it, what about for some of the longer flights with GB that are around 5hrs?


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4394 times:

Just use the other 2 runways for those? I'm sure plenty of capacity will be freed up.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1619 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4292 times:

Starlion is right that the idea of the third runway, is for (mostly) shorthaul use, which will free up the main runway for more longhaul useage.

Mixed mode operation will come before this, which will allow a few more slots in peak times (VS were very vocal about getting mixed mode operations agreed).

Bermuda II is separate to the construction of the third runway (which is still a long way off). Political pressures and the EU could actually force Bermuda II out of the window before the third runway is built.

Buying LHR slots now could be a very wise investment!



User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4279 times:

Sign me up for a slot then!

What is "mixed-mode" exactly?



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2485 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4226 times:

@ Starlionblue
Mixed mode is basically a runway operation using the same runway both for departures and arrivals [like LGW operation]. At LHR this would mean that both runways could be utilized for arrivals and both runways also for departures. This is generally seen as the most efficient operation for a two widely spaced parallel runway airport system such as LHR.
PHX was able to generate like almost 600000 movements from a similar runway configuration prior to their third parallel runway, although their aircraft mix was mostly small aircraft with very few wide-bodies.

At LHR, both runways could handle independent arrivals. For each runway, inbound aircraft would receive a little extra separation, allowing a take-off after each landing prior to the next landing. This way LHR would be able increase aircraft movements by 15-35%, depending on aircraft mix and peak inbound/outbound operations.

I've always wondered why LHR does not use their runways mixed mode, cause this would solve most slot capacity problems [in the short term at least]. This would create the capacity to slash Bermuda II, and could open the way to [limited] open skies UK-USA.
I see two reasons why BAA/BA/UK authorities would not allow mixed mode:
* they have no real interest in extra capacity in order to maintain BA's position and maintain Bermuda II;
* public outrcry would carry lots of weight in limiting LHR runway capacity. No runway switch at 15.00, but aircraft noise during the full day. This is not going to be a popular Government, dont think anyone would like to burn their hands [let alone a third parallel runway].

AMS/CDG/FRA won't mind the LHR slot problem . . .

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2091 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4177 times:

PW100 I don't think BA has a vested interest in maintaining the current runway operations. Going mixed mode would allow BA to gain extra slots and Bermuda II isn't that much protection to BA. I'd say BA has more to gain than fear from that agreement going.


Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2485 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4145 times:

@FlyCaledonian
Might be so, but [I think] BA would probably have mixed feelings on sharing their home turf for full access of the likes of VS, BD, DL, CO, US, NW etc.

However I agree that BA has an awful lot to gain with lots of new destinations and increased services/frequencies from LHR, not to mention [full??] anti-trust immunity in their relationship with AA. Though mixed mode would not provide sufficient capacity for BA to take full advantage. There is more to gain for BA competitors than for BA itself. Only a third runway will really help BA.


Does anybody know how real mixed mode is for LHR, or is that just one of those things that is just not going to happen [like a third parallel runway . . . ]

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineTrident2e From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4128 times:

I think virtually all the routes mentioned were withdrawn because they didn't make money, not because of slot issues (except that the airlines could use the slots more profitably elsewhere). Belfast is a good example - BA had been operating the route without making a profit on it for more than 20 years!

User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2485 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4111 times:

. . . except that the airlines could use the slots more profitably elsewhere . . . BINGO ! ! !

These routes don't have to make [much] money, as long as they bring in the long haul feed, and make money on these long haul stretches.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4069 times:

PW100: Thanks!

I think I know why they don't do this: noise.

LHR uses one of the 27s until 1500 every day for landings, then shifts to the other one for the next 24 hours (given prevailing winds). Since approaches are for the most part over west London, there are lots of NIMBYs in the way. There is a quota for the number of overflights per day, and also the use of only one runway for arrivals every every evening means half the NIMBYs get a relatively quiet evening.

Starlionblue
(who lives under the approach to 27R)



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4050 times:

I would hope that the decision to approve a third runway would be conditional upon it being used at least in part to provide enhanced domestic air connections, with certain minimum service guarantees for Scotland, Wales, NI and distant English regions e.g. Tyneside and Devon/Cornwall. Yes, LHR is privately owned, but if the Govt recognises the need to override local public opinion because of perceived national economic benefit, they should insist on this national economic benefit being at least partly offered in its most direct form to the UK regions, and not just allow BA to offer more connecting services from Europe to the US.

I'm all for the 3rd runway at LHR - if LHR had been built as originally planned, it would have had 4 runways already (if I remember correctly) - only a criminally short sighted lack of planning allowed LHR to be hemmed in as it has, and somebody needs to have the guts to say sorry folks, but we need to make our biggest airport bigger - get over it, move on. Like they manage to do in FRA, AMS, CDG etc. I would hope very much that once this new runway is in place (probably after another 10 years of NIMBY bitching), LHR can finally be opened up to more US carriers, and we can have proper Open Skies.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4038 times:

If those distant regions can hold up the market, the airlines will come. If they cannot, they won't. Regulating that sort of thing is just a waste of my tax money. And it certainly is not a "national economic benegit". For that, you want more intercontinental connecting flights.

Totally agree with the lack of planning. When Arlanda started gaining importance in the early 70's, everyone was always bitching about how it was in the middle of nowhere. But now they have opened a third runway and a fifth terminal, a rail link for both mainline and fast city connection. No real problems with space. As you say, London planners could have done a much better job if they had looked past their upturned noses.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4015 times:

Starlion - re: "If those distant regions can hold up the market, the airlines will come"

Yes, that's true to an extent - the reason these domestic services were dropped in the first place was because the scarce LHR slots they occupied could be more profitably used to serve other markets. With more slots made available by a new runway, especially one that can only be used for short and medium haul flights, these domestic services could again become viable.

There is still an argument for what could be termed essential air services from the UK regions, especially to London, being at the same time the principle air transport hub for the country, as well as both the capital and principle commercial city. These services could be encouraged by offering for the start up period at least a minimum guarantee of availablity of suitable slot times to carriers willing to operate the service - only if no offer is made to operate the service (which after all, you can't really force airlines to operate if they don't want to), would the slots set aside be made available generally. You would find I'm sure a great willingness amongst smaller regional airlines such a Air Wales, Eastern Airways, Air South West, to operate LHR services if they could get the necessary slots.

LCC may argue that they already offer services from these regions to London, but the critical difference is that these services do not offer the possibility to connect onto international services, not in any convenient and timely way anyway. This is very important as part of the effort by the regions to attract inward investment, and this type of provision would be a way to provide the necessary infrastructure at virtually no cost to the taxpayer.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 21, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3980 times:

"Essential air services"? Why are they essential? Any tampering skews the market, and the taxpayer ends up subsidizing those who can take advantage of the tax breaks/subsidies/guarantees. Essentially you are punishing people who live in, for example, London. If you want to live in the country, part of the price you pay is less good infrastructure.

"At virtually no cost to the taxpayer". You think? Those slots can be used by someone else. Any such argument could be refuted by a first year economics student.

On the other hand, if some city council wants (after a vote) to buy a slot and allow it's use only for services to that city, fine by me. Just don't use my tax money for it. I live in London. I pay my taxes and breathe my polluted air, deal with congestion and all that. I've "paid the price" for direct connections to the entire world.




"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3932 times:

Starlion - if I may say so, your statements reflect a certain London-centric viewpoint. By your argument, everyone should just move to London and the problems of Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and English regional unemployment, lack of infrastructure and heightened social deprivation will magically disappear. The type of capitalist utopia to which you appear to subscribe does not exist, not even in America, and it is the role of an elected government to address as far as possible the macroeconomic needs of ALL its constituents, wherever they happen to reside.

Yes you may argue that no air service is in fact 'essential' - people have feet, let them walk. But economic reality is such that fast convenient air transport is now 'essential' to global commerce, and infrastructure needs to be put in place, by whatever duly constituted authority, to allow this to take place as far as is possible and economically responsible - nobody is saying we need twice daily jet services between London and Lerwick, but areas with concentrated population and the economic need for convenient air connections with the outside world should be assisted to obtain them when lack of proper infrastructure planning in the past has caused these services that used to be available, to be denied.

BAA and NATS may have been privatised (for better or worse), but simply allowing market forces to dicate and concentrate supply geographically wherever demand is most focussed without at least attempting to balance this with the needs of other parts of the country, is abrogating the basic responsiblity of any civilised government to service the entire country, not just a wealthy and conveniently located West London minority.

No doubt we could argue Keynes vs Marx for ever - political reality would seem however to indicate that in order to be able to bypass a radically hostile segment of public opinion ie Richmond and Windsor Nimbys, whatever goverment it is that wishes to approve a new runway for LHR is going to have to emphasise the economic benefit to the country as a whole, and how this benefit outweighs the individual loss of comfort to those most directly affected. The most visible way to emphasise this benefit (however illusory or fleeting this benefit might in reality be) is to attempt to restore services to LHR that have been lost over time due to the capacity constraints that this new runway is suppose to alleviate. If these services should prove economically unviable in the long term, and are subsequently discontinued, so be it - the market will always ultimately decide in any but a radically socialist economic model.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 23, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3854 times:

Yes let's not argue economic standpoints. I am sure that would make the moderators mad if nothing else.

For the record, I'm from Sweden, and I have paid many a tax-krona in regional subsidies to out-of work northeners who insisted on not moving even though there were jobs in the big cities. Pah.

To paraphrase another statement: Capitalism is the worst system, except for all the other ones.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12476 posts, RR: 34
Reply 24, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3837 times:

As someone who prepared a submission to the DoT for the third runway proposal (strongly in favour), I have to say that LHR is recognised as being one of the biggest engines of economic growth - much moreso than LGW, LTN or STN. Sure, low cost carriers are a good idea and I hope they grow, but LHR gives access to a huge number of world markets and that can only be a good thing.

I live in Jersey and BA took our LHR slots in 2000. We regarded these as a lifeline as they gave us access to so many international markets and as a financial centre, we needed these. Our best hope is (a) that mixed mode will yield extra slots, which can then be used for short haul flights and (b) R3. That won't be for at least 10 years yet, but at least the door is open to it.

I think it will also be important to improve rail/transport links between airports. The coach trip from LGW to LHR is a nightmare; why shouldn't there be a quick rail link? The line is already in place and could cut the journey time considerably AND could allow straight through check in (a big benefit) to those pax transferring from LGW to LHR, i.e. even if your airport didn't have direct links, you could still check in at (say) JER for a flight to anywhere from LHR.



Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Mexicana Needs More Domestic Routes. posted Thu May 20 2004 08:38:41 by Anthsaun
AirLib Express To Add More Domestic Routes posted Sat Oct 12 2002 13:13:02 by Thomas_Jaeger
Delta Moving 777s & MD-11s To More Domestic Routes posted Sat May 20 2000 17:15:01 by DeltaAir
LHR 3rd Runway: They Had Owned The Land posted Sun Oct 22 2006 08:20:11 by Kaitak744
BA: LHR 3rd Runway Sooner Than Later posted Thu Jun 8 2006 00:26:25 by Scotron11
LHR 3rd Runway 'Ruled Out In Short Term' posted Sat Nov 29 2003 10:35:29 by Planesarecool
3rd Runway At LHR-Public Meeting To Be Held posted Thu Jul 18 2002 10:35:11 by Qantas744
Can LHR Ever Add A Runway? posted Sun Nov 26 2006 06:42:00 by SSTsomeday
Lack Of Star Alliance In Oz Domestic Routes! posted Mon Nov 6 2006 06:36:01 by ThaiA345
Cubana IL6 On Cuban Domestic Routes? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 02:18:06 by Patroni