Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA Tries To Keep 3rd Runway Alive At LHR.  
User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3357 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 3 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13829 times:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...o-keep-third-runway-hopes-alive.do

It appears that last week BA made a formal submission to the local council not to approve development of local land
incase it "jeopardise future development of a third runway".

The local council dismissed the airlines request.


you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 580 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13710 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

...and two stories above it the need for a new airport in the Thames estuary:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...hnson-island-ministers-are-told.do

This is going to be one hell of a puzzle. Build on Heathrow or, stop Heathrow expansion and focus on a new airport in the Thames estuary?

Sounthend is starting ops with easyJet... possibility to expand maybe? Saying that, it is way out east but, the glide path is over the sea and with high speed rail... (we have Cross rail going in as far as Canary Wharf) fastforward 15 years and anything could be possible...

[Edited 2011-09-16 09:52:23]


146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12930 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 13234 times:

The only thing that can work is what was done in Hong Kong:
- Build a new greenfield airport with enough land for future growth
- Build the road and high speed rail links at the same time as the airport
- Close the old airport so it doesn't undermine the new airport

But it's extremely unlikely that there will be the money or the political will for all this to happen in the UKany time soon.

Interesting how it was the UK that got the ball rolling on the HKG replacement, eh?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 13015 times:

It's not the "only" option believe me. The UK does not have the money or the political will, or frankly the track record to build a new island on the wrong side of London and the wealth of the M4 corridor, on Western European labour costs, in an undisturbed area full of birds???? That is NOT the only option. Besides which, they'd have to force the closure of LHR to make the business case. I love Boris but he doesn't do detail!

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13520 posts, RR: 100
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 12933 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
The only thing that can work is what was done in Hong Kong:

I agree with everything in your post except it has to been a new greenfield airport. While that is more likely, BHX and LTN seem to have enough land around them for a LHR replacement *assuming* the ground transportation was built (high speed rail and a major road expansion).

The A320NEO and 737MAX will bring a new low CASM TATL competition that will benefit whatever hub 'hosts' the flights. IAD, CHL and other potential hubs in the USA will grow. CDG, BER, MUC, and MAD seem to be ready for that level of growth. The extra runway at FRA is nice, but not enough. I'm guessing UA and US should be sending the Green party thank you cards.   This will be analogous to the mid-east hubs; under-expansion of the European hubs pushes the growth from secondary European cities to elsewhere.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineDano1977 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Jun 2008, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 12798 times:

This is one thing that dissapoints me with the UK, anything that might improve links to the UK and improve its business position is interefered with politically and ends up with years of consultations and public enquiries, and by the time it gets some sort of approval its out of date and you end up back at square one.

It seems and i'm not saying it is, but if another european country wants a new high speed rail line or increase airport capacity and runways, the politicians get it and understand at what benefits it could bring , and the process seems to take half the time and the relevent populations understand what it means to them , despite what the negatives could be.

Having been invovled in local politics at a planning level, some of the negativities that i've heard against local planning issues are a farce at best. I know you can't compare local politics to national politics, but some of the arguments are the same and attitudes will not change.

Until we get a government that understands that spending money/allowing expansion on infrastructure is a good thing, and helps British based companies pay more tax, then the UK will be left in the dark ages. But unfortunatly we have a governments thats afraid to upset the greenies and lose votes.

Sorry for the rant... probably had one to many glasses of Rioja



Children should only be allowed on aircraft if 1. Muzzled and heavily sedated 2. Go as freight
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6920 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12671 times:

I vote green in my country regularly, but I really don't understand the problem with the third runway. Unless you believe you can limit worldwide aviation industry battling it, which seems foolish. Surely, building a new airport on the Thames would be far worse, environmentally speaking !


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineJHCRJ700 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 12491 times:

While the new parts of Heathrow are great and things somehow work there with two runways...a third runway is desperately needed. I think that building a new airport is a great idea. Hopefully they can work something out in the near future.


RUSH
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12930 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 12148 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3):
The UK does not have the money or the political will, or frankly the track record to build a new island on the wrong side of London and the wealth of the M4 corridor
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):

I agree with everything in your post except it has to been a new greenfield airport. While that is more likely, BHX and LTN seem to have enough land around them for a LHR replacement *assuming* the ground transportation was built (high speed rail and a major road expansion).

Greenfield, not really, but we are really talking about a place that would start with three runways with room for a fourth, and LTN isn't that:

Quote:

In 2004 the airport management announced[7] that they supported the government plans to expand the facilities to include a full-length runway and a new terminal.[8] However, local campaign groups, including Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (LADACAN)[9] and Stop Luton Airport Plan (SLAP)[10] opposed the new expansion plans, for reasons including noise pollution and traffic concerns; LADACAN also claimed that various sites, including Someries Castle, a Scheduled Monument, would be threatened by the expansion. On 6 July 2007, it was announced that the owners of London Luton Airport decided to scrap plans to build a second runway and new terminal due to financial reasons.[11]
Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 5):
This is one thing that dissapoints me with the UK, anything that might improve links to the UK and improve its business position is interefered with politically and ends up with years of consultations and public enquiries

That's pretty much everywhere these days.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineluganopirate From Switzerland, joined Apr 2010, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 10525 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm not sure there's really room to expand at BHX, though Luton would be a possibility, but I seem to recall there is also opposition to any expansion there. Mind you, where isn't there opposition to expanding airports?

My idea is more radical, would be a fantastic infrastructure project, provide thousands of jobs and free up valuable development land by closing three airports. That would be to build an airport in the N. Sea, roughly inside a triangle formed by Southend, Ostend and Felixstowe.

I would envision 8+ runways with Road / High Speed rail links to AMS, Brussels and of course London, using a combination of tunnels and bridges. Those airports could then close for use as housing or whatever other use Governments decide on.

No greenfields or housing nearby. No-one close to be disturbed by noise. Travel between those cities by air would be eliminated and travel time LON - AMS would be less than an hour by HST.

A crazy idea perhaps, with many technical challenges to overcome, but what a project it would be!


User currently offlinesuperhub From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2006, 478 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 10339 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
The only thing that can work is what was done in Hong Kong:
- Build a new greenfield airport with enough land for future growth
- Build the road and high speed rail links at the same time as the airport
- Close the old airport so it doesn't undermine the new airport

But it's extremely unlikely that there will be the money or the political will for all this to happen in the UKany time soon.

Interesting how it was the UK that got the ball rolling on the HKG replacement, eh?

HKG is already exploring the idea of building a third runway and another terminal north of the current 25R / 7L - but it's also facing significant opposition mainly because of environmental concerns and the expensive cost of reclaiming land. I hope this doesn't get scrapped like what happened to LHR.


User currently offlinegingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 898 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9808 times:

Quoting luganopirate (Reply 9):

I'm not sure there's really room to expand at BHX, though Luton would be a possibility, but I seem to recall there is also opposition to any expansion there. Mind you, where isn't there opposition to expanding airports?

Luton is also right on top of a large mound/hill whatever, which could complicate matters.

BHX I believe are about to extend the runway at the Northern end, but that's about it. BHX could probably allow for expansion, but the old Elmdon side would need to be demolished and facilities replaced to allow that expansion IMO.



Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently onlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8982 times:

It's a pity that the conservative government axed the third runway and it is even worse now that local councils seem to establish facts that make it impossible in the future to pick up the lans again.

A green field airport, or better, a blue water airport in the Thames estuary is nothing more than a dream. The environmentalists will kill that project instantly. But even if, closing LHR would mean that thousands of businesses would be at the wrong location from one day to the next. Starting from small shops, petrol stations, hotels, warehouses, freight forwarders and many more would have their investments zeroed and many except the large corporations would not have enough money to buiuld new on the other side of London. Oh, I almost forgot the tens of thousands employees who have centred their lives on the present location.

The only positive thing I could see is that the tax base of the councils that oppose the third runway would be zeroed as well. Unfortunately, they don't care, the council employees and the councillors would not personally suffer. Something is wrong in our societies.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineitsonlyme From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8870 times:

Still think there needs to be much more discussion of STN. Tons of land around it, much easier than an Estuary airport. Can also be part of a North/South High Speed Rail network from London, unlike Heathrow or an Estuary Airport.

User currently offlinevhtje From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 380 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8357 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Has not privatisation of the airports complicated this beyond comprehension?

Heathrow is not positioned optimally for London - we all know this - it forces too many aircraft movements over areas of population, etc. Moving to a greenfields site in the east, be it in the Thames estuary or redevelopment of STN, would be the ideal solution.

But my question is, how would BAA need to be compensated for the loss of Heathrow? Would the compensation needed to be paid price the project out of possibility? What guarantees are written into the BAA contract with the Civil Aviation Authority?

If the airport was still under government control, this would be easy. With it privatised... how would it work?


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12930 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7940 times:

Quoting superhub (Reply 10):
HKG is already exploring the idea of building a third runway and another terminal north of the current 25R / 7L - but it's also facing significant opposition mainly because of environmental concerns and the expensive cost of reclaiming land.

The opposition is a concern, but on the flip side, the desire to add another runway and terminal so soon shows what a great economic stimulus a well-designed airport is.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 12):
A green field airport, or better, a blue water airport in the Thames estuary is nothing more than a dream. The environmentalists will kill that project instantly. But even if, closing LHR would mean that thousands of businesses would be at the wrong location from one day to the next. Starting from small shops, petrol stations, hotels, warehouses, freight forwarders and many more would have their investments zeroed and many except the large corporations would not have enough money to buiuld new on the other side of London. Oh, I almost forgot the tens of thousands employees who have centred their lives on the present location.

Agreed, it's a consideration, but we've seen examples of greenfield airports like HKG and DEN that show it can be dealt with. In particular, I doubt the investments will be zero'd: there's always need for hotel space et al in the greater London area. It's not like the LHR area will magically be transported to Siberia.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7553 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
Agreed, it's a consideration, but we've seen examples of greenfield airports like HKG and DEN t

HKG and DEN are different situations, specially HKG which had no room for needed expansion. DEN was close enough to the city for redevelopment.

What reason should be there for hotels around a vacated Heathrow airport? What sort of re-development would sustaoin the number of hotels, there is neither industry nor other suitable transport infrastructure for the number of warehouses and transport firms around Heathrow. A closure and relocation of that airport would be a similar waste of resources as what Germany is doing with its nuclear power plants and like in Germany the users of transport services or energy would have to pay for the waste.

Developing STN and keeping Heathrow at capacity would make more sense. The question is how to distribute the routes - the second hub did not work with LGW, why should it at STN? Best would be to provide room for needed expansion at LHR.



.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12593 posts, RR: 34
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7512 times:

The real trouble here is that the Conservative government is hostile to aviation per se and it's policies are designed to limit the growth of aviation; this is purely on environmental grounds. Thus, less aviation means less demand and less need (as it perceives it) for new runways. The government recently said that NO new runways would be built in the UK until 2050.

So, no 2nd runway at Gatwick, 3rd at Heathrow, Boris Island or anywhere else.

Basically, current government policy of a country which is experiencing serious economic difficulty is to limit the growth of a sector which could contribute positively to that growth.

As long as this govt is in office, just say goodbye to any policy that would help aviation in any way.


User currently offlineSUNRISEVALLEY From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5216 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7267 times:

In my view the solution is in the airline's own hands. They must reduce the frequencies between LHR and destinations in about a 500nm radius . A quick check shows 112 flights weekly to CDG/ORY; 103 to AMS; 77 to FRA ; 54 to BRU; 40 to TXL and 44 to CPH. Most are operated with 150 to 180 seat aircraft.
BAA should be telling the carriers that they are going to reduce the takeoff/landing slots at peak periods and if the carriers want to maintain the present seat counts they will have to put on bigger aircraft. BA would probably be affected most and , as an example, may be forced to convert some 757's or 767's to higher density. With reduced frequency turn around times can afford to be a little longer.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7204 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 17):
this is purely on environmental grounds.

But they are ok with planes burning jet-a while on "hold", which happens constantly at LHR....

Real bright they are..  ...



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlinejetblast From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1232 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7128 times:

Quoting SUNRISEVALLEY (Reply 18):
as an example, may be forced to convert some 757's

BA does not have 757s in the fleet anymore.

Quoting SUNRISEVALLEY (Reply 18):
or 767's to higher density

The European birds already seat 247 I believe, how many more seats should they cram in there?

I figure if BA starts putting larger aircraft on many of these frequencies many of the A320-series airplanes will just be sitting at Heathrow, taking up even more much-needed room.



Speedbird Concorde One
User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1015 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7104 times:

A third runway at Heathrow is an environmentally wise solution. I continue to be amazed at the relative lack of discussion regarding the environmental cost of frequent holding patterns of aircraft arriving at LHR during IFR conditions, and the environmental cost of the long lines of aircraft burning jet fuel waiting to depart. A third runway will have significant positive effect on both of these necessary (currently) inefficient and wasteful practices.

User currently offlinebojangles From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7095 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19):
But they are ok with planes burning jet-a while on "hold", which happens constantly at LHR....

Real bright they are..  ...

Yeah, but as everyone knows. the new runway would simply 'fill up' and you'd be back to square one with lots of 'planes circling and people calling for a 4th runway!


User currently offlineSUNRISEVALLEY From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5216 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7070 times:

Quoting jetblast (Reply 20):
The European birds already seat 247 I believe, how many more seats should they cram in there?

Boeing show a 290- seat configuration but I would expect this would require 3 exit doors. Not sure how BA's 767's are configured in this respect.


User currently offlinepolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2359 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7038 times:

Quoting SUNRISEVALLEY (Reply 23):
Boeing show a 290- seat configuration but I would expect this would require 3 exit doors. Not sure how BA's 767's are configured in this respect.

I believe that they can be configured with 299 seats max. BA's 767s have the mid cabin type A doors as oppose to a pair of overwing exits, which allows for slightly more seats.


25 jetblast : I work the longhaul birds (seating 189) and I believe it is the same door configuration - we have three doors on each side as well as one exit door p
26 PanHAM : we had a good number of 767s on FRA/LHR, that is reduced to 1 flight a day, FRA/LHR is an important route with a good mix of local and hub feeding tr
27 Vasu : I was on an SU flight from SVO to LHR and we had to circle for ages in a turbulent part of southern UK due to congestion at LHR... a lot of the passen
28 LJ : If so, how would you get all the pax from London to AMS or CDG? Those 103 or 112 flights carry not only connecting traffic but a lot of it is point-t
29 lhr380 : If you were in turbulent conditions, it could have been the flow rate for arrivals had been reduced due to the weather, hence the holding?
30 lofty : How about building a TTS between Heathrow and Northholt. or even a High Speed Rail link between LGW and LHR we already have trains from Reading and Wo
31 Navion : At that point you build a 4th runway! It's called growth and progress. Artificially stunting fluidity in a system has negative side effects. If we wa
32 yenne09 : The problem with London airports is not a problem that arise recently. When the government decided long time ago that Croydon will not be acceptable a
33 Jacobin777 : Flights could be capped at say 75%-80% of the current maximum. That would prevent "fill up". At least the Cranford Agreement has ended after 57 years
34 SUNRISEVALLEY : On the matter of holding it would reduce the aggravation to those below the holding pattern areas if they were moved further to over the English chan
35 sonomaflyer : It is no secret that any community around any airport will usually oppose any expansion of that airport. LHR is no exception. The problem for the UK i
36 SKAirbus : Unfortunately we have a government that is obsessed with austerity and has very little forsight when it comes to stimulating economic growth... Touris
37 skipness1E : They left the London market, the biggest in Europe, that's a clue as to their finances.
38 UAL777UK : I think actually it was Labour that brought in those taxes but in any event I do agree, I am really disappointed that the Cons have said not to a thi
39 slinky09 : That assumes that LHR would be forced to close, in which case there'd be massive compensation - but if it were not to close, why would BA or anyone e
40 DFWHeavy : Ugh, people need to get off this darn environmental kick in London. Building a new airport or runway is not going to make the world end or raise Earth
41 Post contains images DCA-ROCguy : It has long amazed me that business interests in a historically mercantile country like Britain have never been able to push through a third runway a
42 Post contains links Jacobin777 : Meanwhile other places in the world just keep moving forward: "Beijing to overtake London as world’s largest aviation hub. Massive new airport plann
43 Post contains links and images readytotaxi : Now the BAA join the chase with a new report they have commissioned. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-britain-will-be-cut-off-island.do "Boost
44 Zkpilot : Its not REAL opposition... It will be built... the bigger issue is whether they build 1 or 2 more runways and their configuration... My thoughts are
45 skipness1E : Mixing up past and present there, the last Labour government moved the politics of this country quite far to the left, so much so that the ability to
46 gingersnap : How close do you mean? As you can't operate two runways too close regardless of their operation (unless one is closed of course).
47 Zkpilot : like LAX or similar airports for example... so in LAX case they have 2 parallel pairs of runways... 1 runway in each pair handles landings whilst the
48 YTZ : I get the pressures on LHR. But would it not be easier politically to fix the 2 runway situation at LGW? The problem that I find with London airports
49 YTZ : Addendum to my last post. I know there's a masterplan for LCY. Perhaps they should consider dramatically accelerating the thing. Right now the plan ta
50 slinky09 : That's an amazing comment - not least because the business unfriendly last Labour government took the tough strategic decision and approved R3 at Hea
51 JoeCanuck : Stansted is pretty much surrounded by farmland and is no further from London than the estuary airport would be...what are the issues with expanding St
52 par13del : So the fact that all and sundry are lining up to get into LHR and slots are so expensive makes no never mind in there wanting to maintain that exclusi
53 YTZ : I don't know about this. I think a huge part of the reason why LHR is so busy is because London is in and of itself a huge destination for travellers
54 JoeCanuck : I have travelled extensivelly through FRA and it is very 'English' friendly...in fact I much prefer transiting through that airport than LHR.
55 Zkpilot : Read again... my quote was referring to HKG in reply to superhub in 10.
56 fcogafa : It is quite difficult to find employees at any major European airports that don't speak English well these days, plus all the signs are duplicated in
57 Bennett123 : IMO, if Hillingdon Council had agreed tp take any step to facilitate further expamsion, then BAA would have fallen off their seats. Regrettably, any e
58 gingersnap : Don't be so sure. I've connected through AMS & FRA (hell I connected through FRA on a flight in from LHR ironically), and I know plenty of others
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...
BA To Offer Free Taxi Transfers At LHR posted Thu May 14 2009 03:42:14 by LondonCity
BD To Operate More LH Flts At LHR posted Wed Mar 3 2010 04:36:34 by LondonCity
PDX: $3.5M Proposed To Keep NRT Link Alive posted Mon Jul 6 2009 15:00:23 by MAH4546
Runway Switch At LHR For A380 posted Sun Aug 17 2008 11:01:14 by Itsonlyme
Runway Use At LHR posted Sun Apr 13 2008 02:42:03 by Robertmalpass
Ryanair To Sell Aer Lingus Slots At LHR / DUB posted Tue May 15 2007 16:39:08 by KL911
A380 Runway Slots At LHR posted Sun Mar 25 2007 08:33:03 by Macilree
Quickest Way To Connect T4>T1 At LHR posted Sat Apr 29 2006 02:45:17 by Radelow
Strange Runway Change At LHR Today? posted Fri Mar 25 2005 18:47:34 by Gman94
Runway 27L At LHR posted Fri Feb 4 2005 02:45:05 by GBOAF