LHRjc From Netherlands, joined Apr 2006, 1961 posts, RR: 23 Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 1385 times:
Quoting SAAB900 (Reply 7): With Manchester Airport Group's main airport having such fantastic facilities for spotters/enthusiasts/photographers what are the chances of a decent viewing area at LGW again if they do buy it?
Well it can't get any worse! LGW has to be the worst airport in the UK for spotting.
"Our 319's are very reliable. They get fixed very quickly."
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6618 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months ago) and read 1343 times:
Quoting LHRjc (Reply 6): It is, but the 2nd (Well actually 3rd) runway is not allowed to be built until after 2019
When permission was given for the grass strip at LGW to be metalled in 1958 to yield two parallel almost adjacent runways, part of the agreement was that there would be no further runway expansion at LGW for sixty years. Amazingly, with the notable exception of the LCY runway, the current LGW runway proved to be the last to be built in southeast England until whenever we build the next one.
This sounds totally awful and retrograde. And to an extent it is. However it must be remembered that in 1945 the southeast of England found itself with a glut of formerly military airfields. The ex-fighter airfields were primarily grass strips. But airfields used by bomber squadrons and for logistics were often metalled. This explains why so many of today's 'London' airports including Gatwick, Luton, Manston and Stansted are single runway airports.
Consider one of these, STN. It was built by the 817th, 825th and 850th Engineering Battalions of the US Army. It was completed during Summer 1943 and was formally opened in early August of that year. Initially the 30th Air Depot Group of the USAAF were the airport's residents. The USAAF 9th Air Force took the airfield over that October.
Early in 1944 the 494th, 495th, 496th and 497th Squadrons of the USAAF 344th Bombardment Group moved their B-26 Martin Marauders to Stansted from Hunter Army Air Force Base in Georgia. Initially their prime objectives were strategic targets in occupied France, Belgium and the Netherlands. In May 1944 these squadrons focused on communication targets in France, particularly strategic bridges that could be used to reinforce the Nazi army in Normandy. On D-Day (6 July) itself the Marauders were used to attack coastal batteries in the Cherbourg region and subsequently provided bomber support for the allied armies on the Cherbourg Peninsula.
Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 2): Is there anywhere near London where a modern international hub airport can be built?
Yes and, of course, no! The starting point is the relatively small size of the UK. Its area is smaller than the state of Colorado. Like Colorado it has sparsely populated areas such as the Scottish Highlands and Islands, the north of England and Central Wales. Of the highly populated ares where the majority of the UK's 60 million population live, one of the most densely populated is the south east around and including London.
Over the years there have been various proposals to build an entirely new London Airport. Lullingstone in the North Downs in north west Kent about 20 miles south of London was the pre World War II proposal. A station was built on an existing railway line to serve the airport. But the war came, the proposal was abandoned and the derelict, never-used station is still there between Swanley and Eynsford stations.
Effectively Heathrow replaced the Lullingstone proposal in the immediate post war era. Here the big mistake was to use an existing airfield due west of central London when the prevailing winds are from the south west. So most approaches start over the |City of London and the descent is over the densely populated western suburbs.
In the late 1960s it was proposed to build a new London Airport at Wing/Cubblington in northern Buckinghamshire about 40 miles north west of London. Plans reached a fairly advanced state but were abandoned due to environmental objections even though its position with reference to the prevailing winds and highly populated areas is good.
The next proposal in the mid 1970s was to build an airport off the Essex coast at Foulness on the north edge of the Thames Estuary. This was again abandoned because of environmental considerations.
There was then a long period of doing nothing before in the last several years we had two new proposals. The first was to build an airport at Cliffe on the north Kent coast on the south side of the Thames Estuary. And the latest proposal is to build an airport in the middle of the Thames Estuary.
Again these three proposals are very problematic. They all include east-west runways because of prevailing wind directions. Being positioned to the east of London is better than being positioned west of London but I do not think you will find another major north west European airport to either the west or east of the conurbation it serves.
I suppose we might get a new London Airport one day. But do not hold your breath.
Boysteve From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 872 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1218 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 9): Again these three proposals are very problematic. They all include east-west runways because of prevailing wind directions. Being positioned to the east of London is better than being positioned west of London but I do not think you will find another major north west European airport to either the west or east of the conurbation it serves.
I suppose we might get a new London Airport one day. But do not hold your breath.
The Thames estuary should not be too bad. 80% of the time incoming flights would line up over the North Sea and line fly down the estuary. Departing flights could bank left or right a couple of minutes after take off and fly above the M25 corridor to minimise the effect of extra noise. The only issue would be when the 09's are in operation as opposed to 27's. Incoming flights would have to converge on Central/East London to line up for landing. However this would occur far less than the current situation of lining up over the same area to fly in to LHR now. Whilst residents of Dagenham, Dartford etc may complain bitterly they will be effected less than the residents of West London are now. There would be a benefit for the greater good.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6618 posts, RR: 17 Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1120 times:
Quoting Boysteve (Reply 10): However this would occur far less than the current situation of lining up over the same area to fly in to LHR now. Whilst residents of Dagenham, Dartford etc may complain bitterly they will be effected less than the residents of West London are now. There would be a benefit for the greater good.
The difference, of course, is that aircraft have been landing on what are now 27L and 27R and overflying the City of London and suburban west London for 62 years (since 1946). So few if any residents living below the flightpath can be under any illusion that aircraft landing at LHR are a fact of their lives. However there would be gains for these residents in terms of property values if these aircraft were to disappear.
On the other hand residents of Dagenham, Dartford and the eastern suburbs would be newly impacted by noise from a new Thames Estuary airport. They would suffer a decline in property values. Some recent property purchasers in the area would be pushed into negative equity. Some of the good in terms of regeneration of parts of eastern London from the 2012 Olympics would be lost. And there would be a total blight in property sales over a wide area while the proposal went through the planning process.
If it is for the greater good that some residents living to the east of London, a relatively poor area, suffer negative equity when they suddenly find their property under the final approach to a new London airport while many living in the relatively affluent western suburbs make a capital gain, if it is for the greater good that a whole area suffers a prolonged property blight during the planning process, then so be it. But why build a new London airport on an east-west axis? What is wrong with the north-south axis other than if to the north it would require the closure of STN and LTN and if to the south the closure of LGW?