Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
More Reason For A 3rd LHR Runway..  
User currently offlineeire123 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2011, 41 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3648 times:

Again, things broke down at Heathrow last Friday 10th June with back logs for over 2 hours for many flights. This was due to storms and heavy rain earlier in the day.. If a third runway was available this back log would simply have been cleared sooner. Saving millions of pounds, and less pollution.. So there is a reason right back at the Greens who oppose the third runway..

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3075 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3439 times:

Quoting eire123 (Thread starter):
If a third runway was available this back log would simply have been cleared sooner. Saving millions of pounds, and less pollution.. So there is a reason right back at the Greens who oppose the third runway..

Or BAA would have it maxed to capacity as soon as possible making things, er what's the word I'm looking for, worse?

Which is more likely?


User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3359 times:

Personally I don't think London needs another runway. There's enough aircraft activity over the city as it is.

I have no objection to a brand new airport out in kent though.  


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3094 times:

Quoting Babybus (Reply 2):
Personally I don't think London needs another runway. There's enough aircraft activity over the city as it is.

   agree entirely Babybus. Most people here don't seem to get the analogy of building roads.......the more roads you build the more traffic will find to will use them and you're back to where you started! Give LHR a thrird runway and in how many few years will there be 'demands' for a fourth?

Quoting eire123 (Thread starter):
Saving millions of pounds, and less pollution..

That's interesting surely.......proponents of airport expansion and a third runway conveniently using 'less pollution' as a reason. How do you figure that though?


User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3033 times:

With all the U-turns the government has done in the last year, I wonder if the 3rd runway might be next?!

User currently offlinelhr380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3020 times:

Quoting Babybus (Reply 2):
I have no objection to a brand new airport out in kent though.  

I do!

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3):
That's interesting surely.......proponents of airport expansion and a third runway conveniently using 'less pollution' as a reason. How do you figure that though?

Well, less holding, more straight in approaches for one thing would cause less pollution would it not? As well as less holding on the ground.


User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7258 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2489 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3):
That's interesting surely.......proponents of airport expansion and a third runway conveniently using 'less pollution' as a reason. How do you figure that though?

Fortuneately the slot control system at LHR mitigates against the worst excesses in this area. But nevertheless at peak departure times there are often more than a handful of aircraft queuing to depart, all engines going and moving little more than an inch. At some other (non-British) airports the situation can be much worse.

And, of course, the same happens with arrivals. Aircraft go into one of four stacks at LHR and may at peak times circle for twenty minutes or longer going nowhere burning a lot of fuel as they do so.

A possible fallacy with the argument is, of course, that, as others have pointed out, traffic would expand and we would soon be back to today's situation where significant quantities of fuel are burnt causing significant additional pollution with the offending aircraft going absolutely nowhere.

However it is not beyond the ingenuity of man to address this issue. For many years the verbal Cranford Agreement has almost totally limited departures from LHR 09L. So a simple directive to Airport Co-ordination Ltd to limit the number of slots available at LHR to a maximum number in any one hour could have a significant impact on pollution.

At this time (Summer Season 2011) the number of departures and arrivals at LHR is limited to between a total of 39 to 44 and 41 to 44 respectively (the variation being due to the size of aircraft authorised to use slots in any one hour period). The total number of available (not issued) LHR slots is 676 daily arrivals and 688 daily departures.

Now let us assume that a third runway at LHR would increase the available capacity capacity figures by 50 per cent to 1,014 arrival slots and 1,032 departure slots. Under these circumstances a whole range of options would be available. At one extreme the number of available slots could be falsely restricted to the current level. The net result would be no increase in the number of flights and a very significant reduction in queuing and stacking with a very significant reduction in local pollution from aircraft exhausts. At the other extreme would be a 50 per cent increase in available slots and a 50 per cent increase in pollution levels. In between, of course, any intermediate change in pollution levels could be achieved by allowing an increase in total air traffic movements but not allowing full use of the theoretically available slots.

The sceptics will say that the idea of limiting the use of available slots to less than the theoretical maximum could not possibly last. They would be wrong. This is proven by the Cranford Agreement which is a verbal agreement that was reached 59 years ago in 1952. It is also proven by the fact that the number of slots available at LHR could be dramatically increased today. This could be achieved by reducing the length of the LHR night time curfew. It could also be achieved by changing from single to mixed mode runway use.

So yes. We could build a third parallel LHR runway purely for environmental reasons. Aerial pollution in the LHR area and in southeast England would be reduced if the number of slots issued were constrained to those currently available or limited to a relatively modest increase.


User currently offlineteme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2398 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Correct me if I'm wrong but is the gate space maxed out already at LHR? Now if the 3rd runway would be made there wouldn't be any increase in gate capacity at all. So the amount of AC's in LHR ground would be the same? The 3rd runway only would ease the queues on the ground for AC's waiting to take off and those that are going to gate/stand.


Flying high and low
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2342 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3):
agree entirely Babybus. Most people here don't seem to get the analogy of building roads.......the more roads you build the more traffic will find to will use them and you're back to where you started! Give LHR a thrird runway and in how many few years will there be 'demands' for a fourth?

That's a Green Party classic that totally ignores infrastructure required by a growing population. Might aswell tell people to stop having babies.

Quoting Babybus (Reply 2):
Personally I don't think London needs another runway. There's enough aircraft activity over the city as it is.

   You're right. Saying 'no' to a third runway without a major inquiry into how to 'best' use the available slots is irresponsible and a disservice to the British flying public and the city of London.



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2279 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 8):
That's a Green Party classic that totally ignores infrastructure required by a growing population. Might aswell tell people to stop having babies.

And that to be honest is EXACTLY the kind of answer which I was stating........priceless, and thanks!! So tell us, what's your answer to providing infrastructure to a 'growing population', and please provide specifics such as funding, prioritising whom such infrastructure serves and in a limited land area. Let us all see then what's ignored.


Quoting VV701 (Reply 6):
Fortuneately the slot control system at LHR mitigates against the worst excesses in this area. But nevertheless at peak departure times there are often more than a handful of aircraft queuing to depart, all engines going and moving little more than an inch. At some other (non-British) airports the situation can be much worse.

Again VV701, another excellent post. However, one then gets into the area of increased aircraft movements against what is in existence.....what safeguards do you envisage being in place to stop the substantially increased traffic from encroaching on the 'pollution' currently there? Pollution resulting from taxiing/waiting is not going to suddenly stop, but be replaced/increased by the additional traffic. I imagine there could be a form of limitation but, after a short while, what demands are going to be made that such be lifted......where does the 'demand' stop is my point? I would agree with you wholeheartedly in favour of a new airport in Kent, but absolutely support non-expansion at LHR.


User currently offlineyenne09 From Canada, joined Jun 2010, 186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2206 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 6):
So yes. We could build a third parallel LHR runway purely for environmental reasons. Aerial pollution in the LHR area and in southeast England would be reduced if the number of slots issued were constrained to those currently available or limited to a relatively modest increase.

Of course a third runway can be built at Heathrow but at least 2 problems will emerge:
1-the costs: between 700 and 900 hundred will have to be demolished. What about the amount of money to be paid to
building owners
2-runway length: if my memory is correct the length of the runway will be around 7500 feet so that it won't be useful for
long-haul aircrafts


User currently offlineslinky09 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 791 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2108 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 4):
With all the U-turns the government has done in the last year, I wonder if the 3rd runway might be next?!

Let's hope so, the economic and infrastructure arguments are so blatently in favour that at some point even the current gov's head in the sand thinking will change.

Quoting yenne09 (Reply 10):
Of course a third runway can be built at Heathrow but at least 2 problems will emerge:
1-the costs: between 700 and 900 hundred will have to be demolished. What about the amount of money to be paid to
building owners
2-runway length: if my memory is correct the length of the runway will be around 7500 feet so that it won't be useful for
long-haul aircrafts

Cost is not really an issue, BAA has already performed all of the assessments and can fund it. Length is not an issue either, a third runway that is mainly for short haul routes would work very well.


User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2087 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 9):
And that to be honest is EXACTLY the kind of answer which I was stating........priceless, and thanks!! So tell us, what's your answer to providing infrastructure to a 'growing population', and please provide specifics such as funding, prioritising whom such infrastructure serves and in a limited land area. Let us all see then what's ignored.

We as a species on this planet either have to commit ourselves to the way our world has always worked thus far or we have to introduce draconian measures now for a better greener future.

The latter i'm afraid is your only answer unitil we take a quantum leap with our technology. Also, try telling China or India or Brazil to put the brakes on. They'll tell you to get stuffed. We either do it as a planet or we don't do it. There's no point. We ARE committed to just getting on with it, those that don't will be left behind.

The only thing that can stop it is war and the way things are going in certain parts with unrest and or the economy that isn't that unlikely.

They should just build the damn runway, it isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.

[Edited 2011-06-14 04:59:19]

[Edited 2011-06-14 05:00:17]


Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinerichardw From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 3744 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2070 times:

I was on BA 470 LHR-BCN on Friday 10th June, we left 51 mins late at 5.06pm, it really wasn't that late and chaotic and definitely not

Quoting eire123 (Thread starter):
back logs for over 2 hours

It appears BA will operate their LHR-BCN service next summer 2012 with A319 aircraft, reduced from A320 aircraft, demand just seems to be falling.

[Edited 2011-06-14 05:04:08]

User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1968 times:

Quoting richardw (Reply 13):
It appears BA will operate their LHR-BCN service next summer 2012 with A319 aircraft, reduced from A320 aircraft, demand just seems to be falling.

They should build the runway for the sole purpsoe of taking the pressure off. Much better to have 3 runways comfortably handling the traffic than two going flat out all day.

Cap the traffic to shut the naysayers up !!



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11121 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 1943 times:

Lots of different constituencies in the U.K. and elsewhere with lots of different biases and agendas like to complicate it, but it's quite simple, really.

If London and the United Kingdom want Heathrow to continue to be a preeminent global air hub - and preeminent economic engine - going forward, it simply must be expanded. There is just no way around it.

Heathrow is continuing to fall further and further behind its immediate rivals - Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris - to say nothing of its emerging rivals in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, etc. because of its chronic underinvestment, political neglect, and lack of expansion. This is a major strategic problem for Britain that goes far beyond the airport itself. Heathrow is a massive economic engine and strategic asset for the entire country - if the U.K. does not have consistent, competitive, efficient global access through its only global gateway, it will not be able to attract the capital that is increasingly moving through the coursing veins of global commerce - airports.

Airplanes are among the most mobile economic assets on earth - if they aren't profitably deployable in one place, they can be easily and cheaply moved somewhere else. If regulators and bureaucrats in the U.K. insist on making Heathrow a less and less attractive place to do business, people will simply move the airplanes - and the jobs, and the investment, and the growth - somewhere else. Again, very simple.


User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 1939 times:

Do you think we expect too much from air travel these days ? I mean let's face it. You get on, you sit down. you get there.

Those that can afford it get a bit more space and some seafood !!

(sorry folks, this was meant for another thread)

[Edited 2011-06-14 05:45:59]


Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinerichardw From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 3744 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 1888 times:

Heathrow without a 3rd runway will just become a large aircraft airport in the long term.

User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7258 posts, RR: 17
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1780 times:

Quoting teme82 (Reply 7):
Correct me if I'm wrong but is the gate space maxed out already at LHR? Now if the 3rd runway would be made there wouldn't be any increase in gate capacity at all.

The proposal included the building of T6 with associated stands between the current northerly runway and the new runway.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 9):
what safeguards do you envisage being in place to stop the substantially increased traffic from encroaching on the 'pollution' currently there?

Sorry. I obviously did not make myself clear. There are already three specific restrictions on operations at LHR that have existed for many years.

First there is the 59 year old purely verbal Cranford Agreement. This restricts operations on 09L at LHR to departures. What are the safeguards to this agreement? None. Has it existed for 59 years? Yes.

Second there is the night time curfew. Is the curfew legally enforceable? Well there is no Act of Parliament about it. Has it existed for 65 years? Yes. Is it ever broken? Yes, but only under exceptional circumstances.

Third there is the single mode operation of 27L / 27R and 09L / 09R. How long has single mode operation at LHR operated? As long as I can remember and my first visit to LHR was in the mid 1950s. Would operating in mixed mode allow an increase in traffic? Yes. Does LHR ever operate in mixed mode with arrivals and departures on the same runway? Yes, but only occasionally purely for traffic reasons landings are sometimes made on 09R which, because of the Cranford Agreement - see above - usual operates as a departure only runway. And occasionally purely for operational reasons (such as the temporary closure of the other operational runway) arrivals are made on 27L or 27R when that runway is in operation as a departure only runway.

So the only safeguard in place for the (verbal) Cranford Agreement is that agreement. The only safeguard in place for the LHR Night Time Curfew is the night time curfew itself. The only safeguard in place to enforce single mode operation is the single mode operation. So I see no need for any new safeguard if ATMs were numerically restricted in the event that a third LHR runway was built. After all an aircraft cannot land without the direct help of ATC! And airlines get fined for the constant out-of-time misuse of LHR slots or operating without a slot. So they need an allocated slot before they can operate any flight to or from LHR.

Of course a similar situation applies to LGW. When the runway there was opened in July 1958 Planning Permission was granted with the condition that no additional runway would be constructed before 2018. As you probably know that restriction was still honoured in the last government's development plans for air travel in the southeast.

Quoting yenne09 (Reply 10):
if my memory is correct the length of the runway will be around 7500 feet so that it won't be useful for
long-haul aircrafts

Your memory is indeed correct. But LHR has many more short-haul flights than long-haul flights. So if it had two long and one short runway there would be no problem in landing all long haul flights on the longer runways as they do today. Indeed to maximise air traffic movements air traffic control currently segregates long and short haul or, rather Heavies and non-Heavies.

There are two stacks to the west of Heathrow, one to the northwest the other to the southwest, and two to the east. When aircraft land and take-off in an easterly direction ATC directs arriving Heavies into one westerly stack and the non-Heavies into the other. This frequently allows a group of Heavies to be landed consecutively. As a Heavy can follow another Heavy (as well as a non-Heavy) more closely than a non-Heavy can follow a Heavy because of wake turbulance, this increases the number of available slots. A similar effect occurs on take-offs.

Back in 2008 I carried out a study of all landings on 09L at LHR over a period of 3 hrs and 18 mins. In that time there were 136 arrivals. 92 arrivals were of non-Heavies, only 44 of Heavies.

When a Heavy followed a non-Heavy (as it did on 23 occasions) the separation was an average of 75.0 secs. When a non-Heavy followed a Heavy (as it did 24 times) the average separation was 133.9 secs. When a Heavy followed a Heavy (on 19 occasions) the average separation was 100.1 secs. On the 69 occasions a non-Heavy followed a non-Heavy the average separation was 75.1 secs.

From the above it is clear that keeping Heavies seperate from non-Heavies as far as is practical decreases the time separation of consecutive aircraft and therefore increases Air Traffic Movements over any given period of time. More specifically you will see that without the intended separation of aircraft according to their wake turbulance, the odds of a Heavy foillowing a Heavy on as many as 19 occasions when there were only 44 Heavies in a total of 136 arrivals without the aircraft being "sorted" by ATC are very long. So this illustrates that effectively the separation of Heavy (mainly long-haul aircraft) from non-Heavy (mainly short-haul aircraft) at LHR is not only pracxtical but occurs today.


User currently offlineeire123 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2011, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1718 times:

Quoting yenne09 (Reply 10):
2-runway length: if my memory is correct the length of the runway will be around 7500 feet so that it won't be useful for
long-haul aircrafts

It can be used by long-haul aircrafts for landing, and when you say long-haul, I am assuming you are talking about 747's and A380s. You'll have two other runways available for that.


User currently offlineteme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1360 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting VV701 (Reply 18):
The proposal included the building of T6 with associated stands between the current northerly runway and the new runway.

I see. Perhaps they just should try to get the 3rd runway alone approved and then few years after it's done the T6  



Flying high and low
User currently offlinef4f3a From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1350 times:

would it be more effiecient if they used one r/wy for heavies and one for mediums/light thus reducing the need for wake sep time thus getting more movement?.

User currently offlinegoblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1315 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3):
Most people here don't seem to get the analogy of building roads.......the more roads you build the more traffic will find to will use them and you're back to where you started! Give LHR a thrird runway and in how many few years will there be 'demands' for a fourth?

this is the same situation at any major airport. With all of ORD's runways, they still have soooo much traffic. I'm sure it would be no different at LHR. But I agree with the pollution reason and helps my interest in spotting landings and t/o there.



From the airport with love
User currently offlineSketty222 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1775 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1306 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 18):

   welcome to my respected user's list!!!



There's flying and then there's flying
User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7258 posts, RR: 17
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1269 times:

Quoting f4f3a (Reply 21):
would it be more effiecient if they used one r/wy for heavies and one for mediums/light thus reducing the need for wake sep time thus getting more movement?.

I do not think it would work. At around two-thirds of all Air Traffic Movements I think that there are too many short-haul or non-Heavy flights to operate all such flights from one runwa. Similarly with just around one third of all flights being ?Heavies the other runway would be under utilised.

The third / two thirds brakedown used above is based on my own limited observations - see Rerply 18. So over a more extended period of time the ratio could change. (My observations were on a weekday between approximately and 12.20 and 15.40 hrs BST.)

Quoting Sketty222 (Reply 23):
welcome to my respected user's list!!!

Thank you.


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...
Virgin Calls For Third LHR Runway posted Tue Jun 24 2003 16:28:14 by Kaitak
Feds Commit Money For 3rd GSO Runway posted Sat Mar 23 2002 04:09:05 by Gsoflyer
3rd Elevated Runway At LHR posted Sun Mar 14 2010 13:37:43 by simplikate
Enough Demand For 3rd Daily BA LHR-SFO Flight? posted Wed Mar 26 2008 14:07:24 by 8herveg
Reason For LY 106 Landing At LHR On 8/14? posted Tue Aug 14 2007 19:14:04 by Elal106
Wouldn't it make more sense for BA to fly DFW - ORD - LHR? posted Fri Feb 20 2004 04:38:07 by ORDnDFW777
LHR Runway 24 In Use For Landing! posted Fri Feb 1 2002 14:19:18 by Donder10
LHR Runway 23 Ever Used For TO/L? posted Sun Jul 22 2001 17:55:01 by 777kicksass
Republic Orders More E190s For Frontier posted Mon Nov 8 2010 07:09:06 by william
AV Applies For BOG-LHR/FRA/VLC/ALC posted Thu Oct 21 2010 17:23:41 by realsim