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.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12166 posts, RR: 35 Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3491 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.
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.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12166 posts, RR: 35 Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3211 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.
Itsonlyme From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3153 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.