Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
in reference to 'Go-ahead For Heathrow Expansion' article  
User currently offlineItsonlyme From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 9 months 3 hours ago) and read 5298 times:

Hey People - first post - looooong time visitor!

Anyway, just wanted to direct a bit of attention to the following article i read in todays Times:


Basically it says that after the recently published Eddington report the government will announce next week it is supporting expansion of Heathrow, which will include a 3rd runway and possible 6th terminal. There will also be measures in place to help curb pollution etc. All I can say is bout bloody time! However, after what happened with T5 - they officially started planning that thing in 1993! - who knows the furor that will erupt with this. I live in Heston, and Heathrow expansion doesn't bother me! Although I'm probably biased! Although I am concerned with regards to general transportation - crowding on Piccadilly Line, A4 etc. Anyway, just thought id put this out there, seeing as its gonna be official now.

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineVasu From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 4086 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 2 hours ago) and read 5281 times:

Excellent news!

Now they'll have to put up with all those bloody protestors...

User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 14068 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 2 hours ago) and read 5248 times:

Great news for LHR, about time they build that third runway.

Just a question: How would that third runway reduce the slot restrictions at LHR when built? Any estimated numbers on that?

User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12960 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 hour ago) and read 5126 times:

The key part of building R3 is that there will need to be a sixth terminal, built in parallel (timewise!) with it, because otherwise, aircraft landing on/departing from the new runway will have to cross 27R/9L and that will have an effect on its efficiency. I see T6 being for short haul aircraft, effectively those capable of using a 6,000' runway.

This approach to runway building is common sense; the airlines operating at STN didn't want to pay for a second runway; the govt has recognised that the economic benefits of R3 vastly outweigh the environmental negatives, particularly as there are ways of controlling and reducing these negatives. Personally, I think more could be done:
- Make LHR public transport access only: buses and trains.
- Make sure all buses and commercial transport that operate at the airport are electric (or hybrid, at least)

The next step is the change to mixed mode, which BA is pressurising the govt and BAA to bring forward. That should increase slots by about 15% (?) and will hopefully allow some regional routes to retain their LHR access.

I heard John Stewart (no, not the Daily Show guy, but one of the anti-airport lobbyists!) saying today that the LHR expansion would be the "Newbury bypass of the skies". We know how that ended, don't we. The bypass was built. This will be built. Memo to Swampy types: save yourselves the discomfort of sleeping in trees and let's not waste time trying to hold this back.

User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9374 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 hour ago) and read 5126 times:

Quoting Itsonlyme (Thread starter):
Hey People - first post - looooong time visitor!

Welcome aboard, chap!

After reading that article, and already considering how supremely busy that airport is, I find that expansion to be needed very badly. Does anybody have a link or imiage of the current airport layout? I would love to see it!

Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineItsonlyme From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4968 times:

Hmm, ok, the thread title has been changed and now it looks like I have bad grammar! Anyway the following site has a bunch of diagrams for the expansion


(Hope that came out ok!)

Also, the article doesn;t state how many flights the runway would allow, but it says mixed mode would allow 60,000 extra flights a year - and even this has local opposition!!

User currently offline8herveg From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4917 times:

What sort of airlines would use Terminal 6 though?

Surely it can't be those who will be in one of the terminal alliances? E.g. T1 Star, T3 OneWorld, T4, Sky + non aligned, and T5, BA.

It would just create problems with connecting passengers again!

User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12960 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4846 times:

Remember that with the pressure on slots at LHR, many regional destinations have either lost or have their LHR links under threat; I live in Jersey and it is one of those places; there are also many other UK regional destinations which value that link. Being able to get to LHR and take a airport shuttle to the main area (particularly while one's bags are being interlined) is a hell of a lot better than getting the LGW-LHR bus and having to lug one's bags onto and off the bus and make a way through the heaving masses from the central bus terminal to any of the terminals. It's a nightmare. Anything is better than that.

The aircraft that use this terminal will be short haul commuter types, up to A320/737 size, or whatever their equivalent will be in 2017!

One of the fears expressed by LHR is that the need for aircraft to cross active runways needs to be kept as a minimum and with the move to mixed mode, it will be important that to maximise use of runways. My solution:
each arriving and departing aircraft should indicate at the end of its flight number, which terminal it needs to use. Thus, arriving flight BA 524 will be recognised by ATC as needing to use T4 and will thus be assigned Runway 27L (or 9R). Arriving flight EI 166 would need to use Terminal 6 and would therefore be assigned 27R/9L or the new parallel runway. And so on. Shouldn't be too difficult for airlines to change flight numbers - and definitely a lot more efficient for airports than having planes cross active runways.

User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7642 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4820 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 7):
each arriving and departing aircraft should indicate at the end of its flight number, which terminal it needs to use

Didn't BA do this already when they moved a number of European services to T4?

User currently offlineItsonlyme From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4788 times:

The print article also has a nice little diagram, and one annotation points to a proposed 'parking area' near the M4/M25 junction with rail links to terminals. I think if we had a similar type of rail network, we could do what other European countries are doing and shit domestic flights to a high speed rail connection. Would certainly free up space and seems to be working well in Germany, France etc.

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...
Denver To Go Ahead With Airport Expansion posted Wed Sep 18 2002 23:54:02 by BA
SAS To Go Ahead With Expansion posted Wed Sep 26 2001 09:32:35 by TR
Airbus Gives The Go-ahead For The A350 posted Fri Dec 1 2006 14:11:39 by Gh123
Best Regional To Go Work For? posted Sun Apr 16 2006 20:30:46 by Higney85
WSJ: Nome, AK To Spend $3.5m For Airport Expansion posted Wed Apr 12 2006 23:28:32 by N328KF
Aer Lingus Privatisation To Go Ahead. posted Sun Jan 8 2006 05:58:32 by Kaitak
Are They Going To Go Ahead With EOS Airlines? posted Fri Jul 22 2005 21:20:04 by Xtra1
Go Ahead For The 767-300 ACA Retroffiting Plan? posted Mon Jun 20 2005 11:12:05 by FCKC
Court Gives Go Ahead For US/ Republic Deal. posted Fri Apr 1 2005 23:45:33 by Jdwfloyd
Hawaiian Airlines Gets Final Go-Ahead For SYD posted Thu Apr 15 2004 05:15:26 by QF744