Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2235 posts, RR: 10 Posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4503 times:
LHR desperately needs a third runway, but the powers-that-be seem unwilling to give it to them. What the chances of them getting it? Would the idea of the short haul runway be enough?
£37 Aberdeen to Birmingham, £38 Birmingham to Watford => trains are rubbish!
They could shift a few houses out of the way. Aren't they considering it? I also think that there is enough room for a shorthaul runway to the north already. We have discussed this is the past, and there are some plans for this somewhere on the internet - but I don't have the link any more.
I believe that the airport should be given priority to be honest! I really think that they should concentrate on doing whatever they need to do to maintain the airport's status in the world - but then I'm biased!
Your talking a few hundred houses, couple of hotels, long stay car parks etc, etc. The cost of removing all this just for a little runway in my opinion is silly.
Babybus From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2182 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4377 times:
Maybe it is time for a Narita style remote international airport for London. But I would say to BAA, build the transport links first before starting on the airport as you know what they are like, they will have an express bus service that isn't express at all and charge £35 return till they can build a railway within 25years of the airport opening which no one can use as it will be too overpriced.
Sorry for the rant everyone.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
LeonB1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4262 times:
One of the options being considered is shown on the map above, and from what I can see, wouldn't cause disruption to most of the hotels on 'the strip' that is Bath Road. But clearly, houses would have to go and there'd be even more public opposition than there was towards T5! However, the slot situation at Heathrow is very bad and I suppose something needs to be done!
BA319-131 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 6119 posts, RR: 53 Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4236 times:
BAA are working towards approval for the 3rd runway, however they have significant amounts of work to do in terms of enviromental issues, such as, noise, vehicle emissions etc.
To help reduce vehicle emissions, new airport vehicles and those of associated airport operators will be LPG powered, the car parking is to be restricted to 64,000 spaces.
Many other programs are running along side this to get emissions down to allow the 3rd runway.
IADLHR From Italy, joined Apr 2005, 496 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4211 times:
I could go on and on and on on this favorite topic of mine,. I think that when the various authorities suddenly wake up and realize how FRA,AMS,CDG, etc have surpassed LHR in all kinds of ways than there will be a 3rd rundway at LHR and not before.
I think that 2015 is just too far away for a 3rd runway to open, but that there will be a new government in the UK and they will have different priorities.
Beofre 2015 there will be a US/EU openskies and that will only prove that LHR has fallen behind other airports in Europe.
I think that it is an absolute disgrtace the way the UK has not kept up the transportation infrastructure over the years.
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2235 posts, RR: 10 Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4185 times:
Quoting IADLHR (Reply 9): I think that it is an absolute disgrtace the way the UK has not kept up the transportation infrastructure over the years.
Indeed. Why are people so narrow minded?
Quoting BA319-131 (Reply 8): To help reduce vehicle emissions, new airport vehicles and those of associated airport operators will be LPG powered, the car parking is to be restricted to 64,000 spaces.
The LPG sounds like a good idea. Given that airport vehicles don't have to travel far, a bit of investment in electric propulsion could be a good thing, perhaps RTG powered. I'm not sure what the restriction on parking will do? Mind you, even my family, the kings of driving cars, take taxis to and from the airport nowadays. My dad prefers it to having to worry about driving home after a long return flight. The taxicab industry could become very lucrative.
£37 Aberdeen to Birmingham, £38 Birmingham to Watford => trains are rubbish!
EmiratesUK From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 282 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4186 times:
Can you imagine what taxing time would be to reach this third runway....if You are departing from terminal 4 you would have to cross both active runways. The longest taxi I have done at LHR (without any unexpected delays) is around 40mins at peak times. I reckon you would be looking at 50mins - 1 hour at peak times to get to the third runway. by the time you have boarded taxed and took off you would have been better off traveling up the M6 and flying out of BHX.....
If they did get approval then I'm sure we would need a big re-gig of the terminals....or Even better build a new Domestic/European terminal close to the third runway and demolish terminal 1 & 2 to make terminal 3 into a mega hub!
Or they could just expanded BHX, gave us a second runway, better terminal facilities and a new high speed rail link directly to Lon that would be fantastic! (I'm dreaming I know)
LeonB1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4163 times:
The point about taxi time is definetly very true. It's bad enough now without the added distance of getting to a 'new' 27L/09R! This will surely make people despise LHR even more - it's bad enough now, most people I speak to tend to fly out of there because it boasts the best connections and has the most routes, but people's views of LHR itself are always very bad.
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2235 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4151 times:
I think they'd build a T6 and use it exclusively for short haul traffic. T4 would be changed to purely long haul traffic. In any event, I think that short haul traffic would comprise more than a third of LHR traffc so it wouldn't be the third being the only runway short haul would use, merely that it would take most of the traffic away.
A taxi from T4 to what would become 09L would take ages.
£37 Aberdeen to Birmingham, £38 Birmingham to Watford => trains are rubbish!
Rtfm From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 321 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4030 times:
Quoting Glom (Reply 13): A taxi from T4 to what would become 09L would take ages.
It probably would... but then no longer than some of the taxi times at CDG or AMS (especially to the new runway there). But presumably they would not arrive or depart T4 flights from the new runway, they would use the other 2.
Quoting EmiratesUK (Reply 11): or Even better build a new Domestic/European terminal close to the third runway
Already been thought of... not sure where to find them now, but when the original proposals/options for new runways in the UK came out, there were a couple of LHR options with new short-haul terminals adjacent to the taxi-way to the new runway..
EmiratesUK From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 282 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4007 times:
Quoting Rtfm (Reply 14): It probably would... but then no longer than some of the taxi times at CDG or AMS (especially to the new runway there)
Very true, I flew to AMS back in Feb and we landed on the new runway.....it took us almost the same amount of time to taxi to the terminal as it did to fly from BHX-AMS.....haha, but it was an awfully long time....anyone know how this affects low cost carriers who like turn around times to be 30mins or less if they can?
Commavia From United States, joined Apr 2005, 6767 posts, RR: 59 Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3989 times:
I have said this before on these boards and I really mean it. I love the British, I love the country, the people, the friendliness and their general reciprocal love of Americans.
That being said, I think that England as a country is making one of the biggest mistakes of its history (perhaps short of the Battle of Saratoga!) by allowing NIMBYs and environmentalists to hold up the primary economic engine of the United Kingdom, namely Heathrow.
Heathrow is slowly but steadily losing out, losing its power, losing its influence, losing its dominance and leadership, and losing its economic might. But, this is not for lack of some big assets. LHR is the number one generator of both inbound and outbound O&D between Europe and North America, it has long been regarded as the favorite transitting point for many Americans because of the obvious language and cultural similarities, and it is arguably the highest-yielding -- and most prestigous -- airport on Earth, due largely to its severe capacity restraints.
But, unfortunately, these big pros cannot overcome the drawbacks LHR must face when confronted with competition from AF CDG, KL AMS, and LH FRA. These hubs, with more runways, more gates and more space, are slowly eroding away LHR's dominant position in Europe. They are new, modern, clean and have room to grow while LHR is still old, dingy (at least T3!) and has virtually no place to expand.
A new runway would go a long way in eliviating LHR's challenges -- it would not solve the problem completely, as LHR could probably support another three runways, but it would be a HUGE step in the right direction.
VS4ever From United States, joined Jun 2004, 104 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 3956 times:
The Nimby's as we affectionately call them (although I have a lot of other names, which I shan't mention) are the biggest preventor of Growth in the UK. You suggest ANYTHING to upset the current balance and they are writing to their local government in outrage at any remote prospect. This unfortunately is not just limited to LHR, but Gatwick, STN, BHX, MAN, the whole lot.
The whole LHR situation has been discussed many times and I think we all agree, that if the current status is to continue, then LHR will lose it's competiveness over time, if indeed it is not already losing it! I am not really sure what advantage T5 will ultimately bring without an increase in slots. Just shoving a new terminal into an already crowded airport, whilst nice for BA, never really solves the problem. T3 although being refitted, is really a dump of a terminal and needs rebuilding, every time I pass through LHR, my mind automatically goes back to the 60's with the style of the outside of the building, then I think about some of the newer terminals out there in the world, and think, if only!
As to what to do, well in my A.Net mind they should just get on with it and get that 3rd runway built (although I agree, the current place for it, will be an infrastructure nightmare). If they are serious about London being a premier destination in the future, they need the additional capacity. How else are they going to cope with all those A380's coming in from Emirates!!!!!
But the problem here is governmental too. They are so scared about upsetting the local population, that no one will dare do anything but appease the NIMBY'S and that's why policitians do not always make good decision makers, they do it for the good of themselves or their party, not the country as a whole!
Joost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 2204 posts, RR: 6 Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3847 times:
Quoting EmiratesUK (Reply 15): Very true, I flew to AMS back in Feb and we landed on the new runway.....it took us almost the same amount of time to taxi to the terminal as it did to fly from BHX-AMS.....haha, but it was an awfully long time....anyone know how this affects low cost carriers who like turn around times to be 30mins or less if they can?
It defenitely does effect lowcost operation. However, many of the LCC's don't really have a choice if they want to serve the Dutch (Randstad - Amsterdam-Rotterdam-The Hague area) population. RTM is overcrowded (Wizzair requested both this winter as next summer for slots and didn't get them, http://www.slotcoordination.nl ) and EIN is too distant for many people and also on it's sound limits. But LCC's don't like it; a FR executive (not MOL) also mentioned that a couple of weeks ago in "de Volkskrant".
Nonetheless, as a move towards the LCC's, AMS is building it's new lowcost pier (H). This one will be closest to the Polderbaan (when you need to go to C or one of the lower D-gates, then it is really long) so it will take more like 15 minutes to taxi then the 25 minutes to C/D.
About the London-story. Last year the budget for London airports expansion was allocated to STN for a second runway. So I think it may take many years more for LHR to get it's 3rd runway. (no sources now - I'm not at home with my bookmarks)
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2235 posts, RR: 10 Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3822 times:
The extra STN runway was a bit of a copout IMO. STN needs it less than any of the others but it is also the one where it is easiest to get because there's empty space around so not as many NIMBYs to upset.
£37 Aberdeen to Birmingham, £38 Birmingham to Watford => trains are rubbish!
Airbusa340 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 48 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3781 times:
Bastard NIMBY's... They sure need to get a life. We need new runways at all four airports in the S.E. of England. Gatwick for sure needs another.
Too many Do-Gooders around this place.
Not in these terms. The legal proceedings alone could easily swallow a decade.
Quoting EmiratesUK (Reply 11): Can you imagine what taxing time would be to reach this third runway....if You are departing from terminal 4 you would have to cross both active runways. The longest taxi I have done at LHR (without any unexpected delays) is around 40mins at peak times. I reckon you would be looking at 50mins - 1 hour at peak times to get to the third runway. by the time you have boarded taxed and took off you would have been better off traveling up the M6 and flying out of BHX.....
Well, I think the idea is that with an extra runway there will be reduced congestion. It's not like it would take an hour to get there if the plane was trundling along taxiways the whole time. Also, by having only (or almost only) long-haul at T4 you would never have the double runway crossing.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
Concorde001 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1227 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3669 times:
At the moment, are there not THREE runways at LHR? I may be mistaken, but where Concorde is parked at the moment, is that not a small runway?
Could any use be made out of that for shorthaul flights?
You can make out the strip from this picture, it is the one with an aircraft on it.
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2235 posts, RR: 10 Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3654 times:
Quoting Concorde001 (Reply 22): Could any use be made out of that for shorthaul flights?
None whatsoever. It is only useable in one direction. It cross 26L and it's threshold it right up against 26R. It cannot be used while the two main runways are being used.
Technically, Gatwick has two, but they are so close to each other that only one can be active at any one time.
£37 Aberdeen to Birmingham, £38 Birmingham to Watford => trains are rubbish!
Pogo From United Kingdom (England), joined Mar 2005, 338 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3614 times:
Quoting Concorde001 (Reply 22): Could any use be made out of that for shorthaul flights?
That used to be runway 23 which was used, mainly for landings, when there were severe weather conditions, wind etc.
RTFM From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 321 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3526 times:
Quoting Glom (Reply 23): None whatsoever. It is only useable in one direction. It cross 26L and it's threshold it right up against 26R. It cannot be used while the two main runways are being used.
Not strictly true... Runway 23 was only used for landings when there was a very strong croswind. When it was in use then 27R (not 26..) was used for take-offs using the taxiways above where Concorde is in the photo.
One of the issues with using 23 was that the stands beyond the end of the runway (what are now 451 - 456) had to be cleared (I guess in case of an over-run). taking 6 stands out of an airport that is already restricted for stand space was a real pain, especially for BA.
26 ZRH: The best solution would be to build a new airport. I am not very familiar with surroundings. Is there no possibility for it? When it would be 100 km o
27 Glom: I stand corrected. But the point still stands that you cannot have full use of the main runways and the cross wind runway at the same time. Sorry abo
28 Starlionblue: True enough. But there a couple of problems with this: - It would cost a lot of money. - It would cost more than a lot of money. - Find me somewhere
29 GQfluffy: Ain't it always the way? Not so sure about LHR, but I know around here, people always complain about the noise. They build houses right up to the airp
30 Pilot kaz: In the past it was a runway... But it is now a Taxiway.. There is no way it can be used as a runway now due to it being to near to the T1 gate area..
31 Propulsion: They suggested Cliff in Kent, but who is really going to go there? It is a protected area of scientific and ecological interest. It is very close to
32 Commavia: To the extent that they are not holding up the economic development of an entire nation, a great one at that.
33 Atmx2000: Screw 'em. I want to fly direct anyway.
34 Propulsion: A little impractical don't you think?
35 Commavia: I think what's more impractical is FRA, CDG and AMS slowly but surely eroding away LHR's historic dominant position among European airports because a
36 Espion007: Nuke it and start from scratch. Only way i see any hope for LHR.
37 Art: At least 2 proposals were made to build an airport east of London in the sea (or what is the sea at the moment). These could be revived. One big adva
38 Propulsion: The number of things which affect any economy are so vast that under your assertions, everyone doing anything could have a negative impact on the eco
39 Commavia: I'm all for credence, believe me, but at some point you have to draw the line. How many environmental impact studies are needed? How many public foru
40 IADLHR: Even if the final approval for a third runway at LHR was given today, it would still be years before the runway was in operation. During that time AMA
41 RTFM: A new airport is basically not going to happen. Whay - as already mentioned - cost. It would take billions to build a new airport, the transport infra
42 EmiratesUK: that's why they are going to expand BHX into a mega hub with three extra terminals four runways and build a direct high speed train link that takes 4
43 LHR27C: The hope is that eventually LHR will get its third runway north of 09L/27R, but as stated in posts above, it relies on BAA meeting government noise ta
44 Bennett123: Why is the airport boundary being extended in the West. I think that the chances of a third runway happening by 2015 are not good. There is always Man
45 Flygaz: I agree with LHR27C, that the third runway would greatly help LHR, but as this will not be built until 2015, I think the DoT really need to approve th
46 Starlionblue: IIRC this is because they want to do engine runs next to T5 and limit noise impact. There was no one living in the area anyway as far as I know. You
47 Propulsion: I agree completely, but this has become a feature of British life. Unfortunately, even when we know something is going to go ahead because it is so v
48 Bennett123: The proposed boundary also requires the diversion or closure of the A3044 and M25.
49 Glom: Why? If it's for noise abatement, the motorway won't care.
50 GDB: As someone who lives very near LHR, but also works there, I should have mixed feelings, but I haven't, LHR has to expand. One problem, though this has
51 Stirling: What I find hard to believe, is that for a country with such an affinity for aviation, let alone the necessity, being that it is indeed an island, tha
52 Bennett123: My assumption is that if the BAA expands its teritory the a fence will follow. If there is a fence across the A3044, then traffic will stop.
53 Glom: Maybe I should rename the thread. Is there any hope for Britain?
54 Glom: I had a new thought. What about rejigging the runways at Gatwick? Replace the current one with two new runways, possibly including a short haul to tak
55 Scotron11: Thank you for taking the time in reading this long-winded note....you all have my sincerest of appreciation. Not at all, as what you said is true. It
56 Concorde001: Sorry to be so picky, BUT England is NOT the only country of the United Kingdom, and should NOT be used when talking about the whole of BRITAIN! Ther
57 Cornish: The 2015 short haul regional runway to the north of the airport, between the A4 and M4 has been outlined in the White Paper as being desirable, should
58 Charliecossie: Can someone detail the expansion at Frankfurt that's nibbling away at Heathrow? I've worked here for 10 years now and only noticed T2 and an extension
59 Glom: I'm dying a death here. http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=21424 Can anyone give me something good to use?
60 Glom: Anyone? I'm being outflanked. I'll soon have no choice but to surrender.
61 Skymonster: Actually, runway 23 is still available although it is only used when the crosswind component on 27L/27R or 09L/09R is above 25 kts. There is still a
62 Cornish: This is true, I landed on it about two years ago in a big storm. Fortunately I was on a KLM flight from AMS, so the 737 was small enough to do it - h
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2235 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Italy, joined Apr 2005, 496 posts, 
From United States, joined Apr 2005, 6767 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 2204 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13564 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Mar 2005, 338 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
