Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Alternatives To 3rd Runway LHR  
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7613 posts, RR: 3
Posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4292 times:

http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosit...Id=2&ReleaseID=415781&SubjectId=36

Before the election, this was much touted by the now Govt.

If they do not start building until at least 2015, when will this actually be completed.

IMO this will result in no 3rd Runway AND no HSR either.

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4275 times:

Mixed mode. It will nearly double the arrival rate.

I have no idea why they don't do something so simple as this to help the airport while complaining about capacity. Its absurd.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12476 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4254 times:

This is going to cost c. £20b and is going to take years to build - and this at a time when the govt is looking high and low to find costs to cut; I can see it being deferred and deferred again. A new runway would have been financed without recourse to the exchequer and would have contributed a lot more ... but, of course, the new govt wants to be seen as green and fresh and this was a good thing to cut on Day One - you know, "just to show we've arrived".

The govt is anti-aviation and will continue to be in thrall to the green lobby; ironically, it means that aviation will not produce as much improvement in reducing greenhouse gases, because it will not be incentivised to do so; there's no carrot - it'll be just stick, stick, stick.

AMS has a new runway and FRA will be getting a new one; CDG has four and MAD, five. All of these airports have more growth potential than LHR now and this will make a difference to the UK's economic growth. Basically, it has throttled one of the single biggests catalysts for economic growth at a time when it is cutting back ruthlessly and therefore needs the private sector to produce as much growth as possible. Way to go, Dave ...

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 1):
Mixed mode. It will nearly double the arrival rate.

I have no idea why they don't do something so simple as this to help the airport while complaining about capacity. Its absurd.

Yes, they spotted that had potential to add growth, so they stopped it ... no mixed mode either.

[Edited 2010-10-05 13:30:49]

User currently offlineLHR27C From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 1279 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4084 times:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 1):
Mixed mode. It will nearly double the arrival rate.

While I agree with you that mixed mode would help a lot at LHR, it wouldn't do anything near to doubling the arrival rate.



Once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned forever skyward
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8376 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3974 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

AS much as we all hate(but love) LHR its time for the British Government to open a new airport in the London area. I have heard mentioned of a sight along teh Thames River big enogh for four rumways. The "something" estuary

User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3948 times:

Quoting LHR27C (Reply 3):
While I agree with you that mixed mode would help a lot at LHR, it wouldn't do anything near to doubling the arrival rate.

Single mode nets you an arrival rate of 58 best case scenario. Mixed mode takes that to 96 or better in IMC. You wanna try again?

Your arrival rate is everything in terms of airport capacity.


User currently offlineBritishWorld From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2010, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3896 times:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 5):
Single mode nets you an arrival rate of 58 best case scenario. Mixed mode takes that to 96 or better in IMC. You wanna try again?

An increase from 58 to 96 is an improvement of 65%. That's a substantial increase, but it's nowhere near a doubling of the original figure, which would be indicated by an increase of 100%.

You wanna try again?



"sic itur ad astra."
User currently offlineukoverlander From United Kingdom, joined May 2010, 368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3826 times:

Gatwick and Stansted? IF ONLY!!!!!!!!

A large amount of people live much closer to those airfields and would love to use them if the services and onward connections existed. The problems is the airlines all want the "prestige" of Heathrow (whatever that is exactly). As a passenger Heathrow is a place I'd much rather avoid - the trouble is all to often I have no choice, I have to use it.

I'd take Gatwick any day but the transatlantic operators fled Gatwick like the plague as soon as the had a chance to fly into and out of Heathrow. Gatwick is also pretty easy from Central London - often much more so than Heathrow. Now of course Gatwick has lost many of it's connnecting spokes and neither Gatwick nor Stansted really offer as many viable international connections through the major airline alliances. Stansted remains largely a LCC airport though facilities wise it is by far the most modern of the three.

In the end Heathrow will just get busier and busier. I guess we'll see more and more A 380's as those slots become increasesly precious especially on routes of 9 hours or more - it'll be interesting to see if anybody takes the plunge at Gatwick (which would really be a rebirth - it used to have a lot of international connectivity) or at Stansted - once heralded as the solution but of course there are infrastructural hurdles and perception issues that need to be overcome.


User currently offlinevv701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7538 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3802 times:

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 7):
I'd take Gatwick any day but the transatlantic operators fled Gatwick like the plague as soon as the had a chance to fly into and out of Heathrow.

Perhaps it is the passengers and not the airlines that fled LGW. After all did not BA start a new LGW-JFK flight when the American airlines all 'fled' to LHR. And did they not discontinue that service after one year because of poor demand?


User currently offlineleezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3788 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 2):
The govt is anti-aviation and will continue to be in thrall to the green lobby; ironically, it means that aviation will not produce as much improvement in reducing greenhouse gases, because it will not be incentivised to do so; there's no carrot - it'll be just stick, stick, stick.

Not to mention all that extra pollution going into the atmosphere due to a/c holding all round London in bad weather, but that's ok - out of sight out of mind etc........

If the 3rd runway had been built, capacity would obviously have increased but IIRC they were not going to let it get anywhere near it's maximum capacity as it currently is, so the arrival rates in lo-vis ops would be able to be increased, thus getting the a/c on the ground where they are polluting less.

Sadly the greenies don't seem to understand that.

 



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineukoverlander From United Kingdom, joined May 2010, 368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3776 times:

Quoting vv701 (Reply 8):
Perhaps it is the passengers and not the airlines that fled LGW

I wouldn't say so. During the 90's and early 'noughties' American (Chicago, Miami), BA, Continental (Newark, Cleveland, Houston), Northwest (Minneapolis, Detroit, Boston), US Airways (Charlotte), Virgin (Boston, Newark, (JFK I think), San Francisco also for a brief time), Delta (Atlanta and JFK I think), offered plentiful departures to North America.

I don't have a list, I'm working from memory here so if anyone knows ofthers feels free to mention them. Gatwick was a busy transAtlantic airport. When Heathrow slots became available many jumped ship immediately or at least in large part.

Today I think only Delta and US Airways still serve Gatwick - correct me if there are others but services have greatly diminished.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3773 times:

Some time ago, a little birdy told me to watch this spot, if you put the name through your search engine of choice you may find some speculation.

Quoting leezyjet (Reply 9):
all that extra pollution going into the atmosphere due to a/c holding all round London in bad weather, but that's ok - out of sight out of mind etc........

More like "out of earshot" in this case, but I digress.  



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3518 times:

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 7):
Single mode nets you an arrival rate of 58 best case scenario. Mixed mode takes that to 96 or better in IMC. You wanna try again?

Wrong wrong wrong

Very very rarely can you get even 50 per hour landing. Simultaneous approaches are not possible due to distance so arrivals have to be staggered, meaning only a small number of arrivals being added to the total. Also, Heathrow has a large percentage of heavies, requiring larger vortex gaps thus less arrivals. This is why more larger aircraft will mean less arrivals, maybe meaning 1 A380 instead of 3 smaller aircraft!

Then of course, if you are landing all these aircraft on the departures runway, how do you depart aircraft?


User currently offlinezkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4833 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3469 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 11):
Some time ago, a little birdy told me to watch this spot, if you put the name through your search engine of choice you may find some speculation.

Not much point... its so close to LGW and LGW has room to expand...



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7613 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3425 times:

http://www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/I...%2019.01.09%20v2PDF_tcm9-32667.pdf

Furthermore, there is no appetite in the area for even limited expansion.


User currently offlinespottingpete93 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3416 times:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 1):
Mixed mode. It will nearly double the arrival rate.

Totally wrong!

Currently LHR's runways work to capacity of about 40 - 45 movements per hour for each runway. Compare that to Gatwick's Single Runway which is used in mixed mode which has a current maximum capacity of about 52 movements per hour and you can see that at most you would only get an extra 20% per runway at most.

As someone else pointed out, when you take into account hat there are many more heavies at LHR compared to LGW and the fact that you can't have simultaneous Departures or Arrivals at LHR..I think you'll find switching to Mixed mode at LHR would not even allow the 20% increase mentioned above and it would be somewhere in the region of about 10% extra!

Is it really worth annoying local residents for a relatively small amount of additional movements as local residents will have to endure movements over their houses all day long (as opposed to just half a day as currently is with the Cranford agreement).


User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 709 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3388 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Thread starter):
IMO this will result in no 3rd Runway AND no HSR either.

The 3rd runway has already gone of course..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8678282.stm

..and as for HSR, it is not clear what the government mean when they say 'start work' by 2015, there is no way construction will start by 2015. The route isn't finalized and by the time all of the environmental studies, permits, protests and route acquistion are complete that will be a minimum of 10 years from now (and that is probably very optmistic). Construction will probably take another 5 years for the first section to Birmingham. I think at an absolute minimum completion would not occur until 2030 and I wouldn't want to place much of a bet on that date.

In the meantime, LHR will continue to be operate at or beyond max capacity, BA expansion will likely be in MAD and connecting passengers will increasingly look to AMS, DXB and CDG etc. UK aviation policy is in a mess with no easy answers.


User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3385 times:

Quoting BritishWorld (Reply 6):
An increase from 58 to 96 is an improvement of 65%. That's a substantial increase, but it's nowhere near a doubling of the original figure, which would be indicated by an increase of 100%.

You wanna try again?

I'm giving you best case (VFR) single mode vs. IMC. Best rate of IMC single mode is 48.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 12):
Very very rarely can you get even 50 per hour landing.

That's why I said best case.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 12):
Simultaneous approaches are not possible due to distance so arrivals have to be staggered, meaning only a small number of arrivals being added to the total.

Not true. Runway separation of nealry 1,400 meters is more than sufficient for simultaneous arrivals of all aircraft. You need 1,000m for staggered and 1,310m for IFR simultanious.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 12):
Then of course, if you are landing all these aircraft on the departures runway, how do you depart aircraft?

Same way every other twin runway airport does. Every airport has an arrival rate. Every flight has a turn time. You match your gates to the arrival rate and turn time factor and the rest takes care of itself. The longer turn time, the larger the number of gates a given runway system can support.

[Edited 2010-10-06 04:59:47]

User currently offlineBritishWorld From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2010, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3307 times:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 17):
I'm giving you best case single mode vs. IMC.

That's nice.

However, my post was calling into question your interpretation of basic math. You claimed that a change would almost double the number of arriving aircraft, and then somewhat dismissively questioned another user's belief - which is widely shared - that it wouldn't come close to doubling the arrival rate.

Your figures, which you used to support your assertion that the figure - best case or otherwise - would almost double don't make any sense. A 65% increase is a big increase, but it's not close to doubling - which is exactly what was said by the user whose comments you dismissed.

Even this 'best case' that you're hiding behind doesn't seem to be at all credible, unless you know something that everyone else doesn't.

It seems that your problem here is that you're unable to admit that you're wrong, even when the numbers (the math) and the facts (discussed by other users) are against you. Very undignified.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):
AS much as we all hate(but love) LHR its time for the British Government to open a new airport in the London area. I have heard mentioned of a sight along teh Thames River big enogh for four rumways. The "something" estuary

You came so close to saying it! The site you're thinking of is the Thames Estuary. Unfortunately - or fortunately, depending on your perspective - it's unlikely to happen; this article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8545118.stm - indicates a substantial lack of support for the project, for example; it's also worth considering, as mentioned in other posts, the significant austerity measures and budgetary pressures that the current government is facing. There's likely to be very little public support for a new project of this size and cost; and very little political appetite for fighting for something so unpopular.

Back in the 70s, of course, construction began on the 'new London airport' in the Thames Estuary, at Foulness (later renamed Maplin Sands, as the former name was deemed unattractive for obvious reasons!); the project would have also included a deep-water port for container shipping, and a high-speed rail link to central London. However, the project was abandoned in the very earliest stages (I believe that 'construction' never advanced beyond clearance and movement of earth across the site) due to the industry downturn during the oil crisis, and the much cheaper proposal for Stansted airport was approved instead.

One does wonder how things would have turned out had Maplin Sands been built. Even today though, there are good reasons for NOT building it - not least the considerable changes that would be require to air traffic management over the North Sea and Benelux zones, the massive cost of building offshore, and of course the much-discussed problem of coastal bird life and the increased threat of bird strikes.

The biggest problem of trying to find an alternative to the third runway is that there really isn't a win-win solution - every solution is going to piss someone off - and going back to the third runway wouldn't exactly be a popular move either.



"sic itur ad astra."
User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3260 times:

Quoting BritishWorld (Reply 18):
However, my post was calling into question your interpretation of basic math. You claimed that a change would almost double the number of arriving aircraft, and then somewhat dismissively questioned another user's belief - which is widely shared - that it wouldn't come close to doubling the arrival rate.

It does double it. I gave you the benefit of best case scenario for single mode. Read it. Its right here:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 5):
Single mode nets you an arrival rate of 58 best case scenario. Mixed mode takes that to 96 or better in IMC.
Quoting BritishWorld (Reply 18):
Even this 'best case' that you're hiding behind doesn't seem to be at all credible, unless you know something that everyone else doesn't.

Hiding behind? Why do you think I said "best case".

Quoting BritishWorld (Reply 18):
It seems that your problem here is that you're unable to admit that you're wrong, even when the numbers (the math) and the facts (discussed by other users) are against you. Very undignified.

Unable to admit I'm wrong? What?

I said best case throughput single mode was 58, this is the VFR throughput for a single runway in VFR. That is fact. IFR throughput is 48. That is fact. You are the one lacking knowledge on the subject matter. Furthermore, I expanded on my comments that have clealry left you spinning because all you seem to be capable of doing is trying to twist my comments to your advantage with your "basic math" comment and toss out insults like a child.

What is clear is that you know nothing of airport capacity.

[Edited 2010-10-06 05:47:32]

User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3201 times:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 19):

I said best case throughput single mode was 58, this is the VFR throughput for a single runway in VFR. That is fact. IFR throughput is 48. That is fact. You are the one lacking knowledge on the subject matter. Furthermore, I expanded on my comments that have clealry left you spinning because all you seem to be capable of doing is trying to twist my comments to your advantage with you "basic math" comments and toss out insults.

You may be using US procedures in your posts, the UK system/rules are different.

I still want to know how you can currently land 45 on one runway and depart 45 off the other how adding another 45 arrivals will maintain a departure rate even close to that required!


User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3124 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 20):
You may be using US procedures in your posts, the UK system/rules are different.

I still want to know how you can currently land 45 on one runway and depart 45 off the other how adding another 45 arrivals will maintain a departure rate even close to that required!

1. First of all, we're talking about a runway which has a specific throughput threshold where the differences between US and UK separation standards are negligible to the net capacity of a system of runways.

2. You are clearly assuming that an airport has no bank structure, that both runways are occupied at all times when in fact all airports have a very defined bank structure because of the connective flow provided by the bank. In mixed mode, flights are better distributed creating significant down times between departure and arrival banks. This is how you get a net gain in capacity. For example, at the begining of the bank if you have no departures, then the departure runway sits wasted while arrivals line up for miles on the arrival runway. At the end of a typical two hour bank, your arrival runway sits idle. That is wasted capacity.

3. The key to a well-functioning airport is getting planes on the ground and to the gates. The benefit of mixed mode is that you are using arrival capacity at the front end of a bank (and departure capacity at the other end of the bank) that cannot be used today.

It is completely absurd to use a twin runway facility in single mode while you complain about a lack of capacity. If you want to try and stand on "well our rules are different then maybe you need to consider changing the rules to take advantage of that unused capacity.


User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 6001 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3104 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):
AS much as we all hate(but love) LHR its time for the British Government to open a new airport in the London area. I have heard mentioned of a sight along teh Thames River big enogh for four rumways. The "something" estuary

If you think the fuss over LHR getting a 3rd runway was bad, just imagine what'll happen if the Thames Estuary airport is given the go-ahead. The greens will go absolutely bezerk.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3049 times:

Quoting zkpilot (Reply 13):
Not much point... its so close to LGW and LGW has room to expand...

The idea was LGW expanding at Redhill, with some sort of high-speed people mover or similar connecting both. Surely it's an idea born out of desperation - it could be easier to "upgrade" something as small as a grass airstrip that already exists than build all-new runways - but nevertheless an idea.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3046 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):
AS much as we all hate(but love) LHR its time for the British Government to open a new airport in the London area

Gatwick expansion makes more sense than a new airport - I mean build a 2nd runway and new terminal and be done with it! Then we could have some decent connections and offer an alternate hub to LHR


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8380 posts, RR: 10
Reply 25, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3022 times:

Quoting zkpilot (Reply 13):
Not much point... its so close to LGW and LGW has room to expand...
Quoting anstar (Reply 24):
Gatwick expansion makes more sense than a new airport - I mean build a 2nd runway and new terminal and be done with it! Then we could have some decent connections and offer an alternate hub to LHR

Why bother? The idea is to have an airport in London that will be an European super hub. I don't think LGW has THAT much room to expand.


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...
LHR 3rd Runway Back To Public Consultation posted Fri Mar 26 2010 03:20:04 by david_itl
LHR 3rd Runway Protestor Glues Himself To P.M! posted Tue Jul 22 2008 13:25:17 by Cumulus
3rd Runway At LHR-Public Meeting To Be Held posted Thu Jul 18 2002 10:35:11 by Qantas744
LHR 3rd Runway Now Cancelled? posted Tue May 11 2010 16:20:17 by AirbusA6
Alternate Location For LHR 3rd Runway posted Sun Feb 21 2010 18:43:35 by kaitak744
LHR 3rd Runway Decision Delayed Til Jan '09 posted Thu Dec 4 2008 02:05:27 by FLVILLA
LHR 3rd Runway, Status? posted Wed Nov 26 2008 18:26:38 by B747forever
News Reports That LHR Heathrow Will Get 3rd Runway posted Tue Sep 23 2008 00:32:48 by OA260
SEA-TAC's 3rd Runway Set To Open posted Sun Jun 29 2008 10:43:30 by HikesWithEyes
LHR 3rd Runway Progress? posted Wed Nov 21 2007 08:19:41 by LHR27C