Carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2779 posts, RR: 4 Posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3317 times:
Apparently, in the latest round of government action to boost the ailing economy, a plan has been put forth to extend one of the runways at Tokyo Haneda.
Probably one of the current 3,000m runway (Runway 34/16s) will be extended.
While 3,000m is good for most long-haul flights, the extra 500 or so meters will allow extra margin for those low flying A340s.
Let the competition begin on HND vs NRT in 2010.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11996 posts, RR: 36 Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3274 times:
Good idea, but what would help even more is an extension of the opening hours for international flights, which (if I'm not mistaken) are still limited to between 2300 and 0600.
I recall, a few years ago, there was a disagreement over this, as a result of which the Yokohama prefecture refused to fund any improvements to HND until/unless the opening hours were extended. Has this been resolved?
Carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2779 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3161 times:
The operating hours for routes longer than the longest domestic run is 2200 to 0700.
Other int'l routes of shorter duration will not have any restrictions on operating hours.
Once int'l operations start and HND gets more comfortable with the increased number of operations, there will surely be a big debate on how far to extend the range limitations and operating hours for long-haul int'l flights.
Just a minor correction. Yokohama is in Kanagawa prefecture but yes, its very true that Kanagawa threatened the ministry that they will not pay for the rwy if it weren't used partially for major frequencies.
But just same to be on the safe side, wouldn't extending on of the 34/16 and the 04/22 to be better? It rarely happens but I see 04 being used for takeoff. If this were the case, having some longhaul AC take-off from 34/16 and then having other domestic flights using 04/22 would cause headaches for ATC.
Interesting development though and of course my company is monitoring this closely.
BlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2533 posts, RR: 24 Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2996 times:
Quoting Carpethead (Thread starter): While 3,000m is good for most long-haul flights, the extra 500 or so meters will allow extra margin for those low flying A340s.
Another baseless swipe at the A340 on a.net.
So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6191 posts, RR: 25 Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2980 times:
Quoting Ktachiya (Reply 3): It rarely happens but I see 04 being used for takeoff. If this were the case, having some longhaul AC take-off from 34/16 and then having other domestic flights using 04/22 would cause headaches for ATC.
This might work well. Yes there would be some issues for the use of Rwy 04 for takeoffs, but they are really pretty minor. A great many airports around the world use such a configuration with great success.
A longer runway on the 16/34 pair can add capability, but unless the traffic has diminished significantly since the last time I lived in Japan, which I doubt, the only way to add much capacity is to open another runway.
Warren747sp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1132 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2296 times:
Sponsor Message: 
From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2779 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11996 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2533 posts, 
Another baseless swipe at the A340 on a.net. 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6191 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
