skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3903 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5398 times:
Dude, nothing in SE England gets to be ideal. There's too many people, vested interests and not enough room. The tube is the classic example. We need to be as realistic as possible in the timeframe. At least George Osbourne is going in the right direction on this one.
cmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5341 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4): London needs to do something to expand capacity in a big way. But will they? Split hubs are not nearly as effective as a concentrated hub. There is the adage "grow from strength."
Or would UK benefit more by creating a MUC kind of second hub?
The situation in Germany certainly was different as FRA isn't anything like London is in UK and MUC is strong commercially, tourism, significant population. But isn't UK too much London and this is one way they can spearhead the rest of the country?
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 15638 posts, RR: 100
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3004 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting cmf (Reply 8): Or would UK benefit more by creating a MUC kind of second hub?
They tried at MAN. The issue is there are not two separable markets a la FRA/MUC. MUC has enough O&D to start flights and by being LH's "Italian gateway" has created a separate niche for itself. MUC is just enough geographically distant from FRA to allow the specialization. However... it would be better to have it all at FRA.
At MAN, we have long haul being fragmented by non-UK airlines. I doubt that is what the UK wants, but it is the risk of a 'split-hub.' Could London support a JFK/EWR like competing hubs? Sure! For connections a LAX/FRA style hub is superior.
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
declarets From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2011, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2933 times:
A few things that need to be considered if London Britannia Airport goes ahead and heathrow is closed
1) Most of the freight forwarders, transport companies etc that are based around heathrow would need to relocate nearer to the new airport (from stanwell, colnbrook, hounslow, hayes, slough, egham etc)
2) The people that work at the airport would need to relocate nearer.
3) Alot of companies not related to the airport i.e. hotels, restaurants, cafe's, pubs, shops etc would end up going out of business.
They may create housing for 300,000 people but there wont be any work.
Why waste billions of pounds, just build a third runway and move all the NIMBY's to the Estuary.
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 13264 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2873 times:
I think it's somewhat ironic that those currently living under the flightpaths object so much; building a new runway could actually bring them some relief. Also, a shorter runway with strict performance rules (e.g. 5 degree descent paths and steep climb performance) would help to keep a lot of the traffic away from populated areas; as that runway is north of the current airport, approach paths could be kept well north of the city. They could also be alternated, with various traffic patterns designed to keep traffic away from built up areas, on takeoff and climb.
We know that aircraft like the Embraer E-jets and A32X (ok, just A318 currently) can descend on 5 degree glidepaths and the BAA and CAA can work with manufacturers of current and future planned aircraft, to make sure that their aircraft can meet the new tougher requirements, so that when the new runway is opened, the Bombardier C-series, 737 MAX, MRJ, A32xNEO and various other types can fly in.
There is a LOT that can be done to relief noise pressure from areas around the airport and R3 is a key part of this. It's unlikely that the runway would be opened this decade, so there's a long lead in time in terms of new technology which can be used to the runway's advantage. The big danger is "mission creep", i.e. gradually stretching the runway from its current planned c.6,000' to 7,000', then 8,000' etc etc; focus on getting the runway built and it being a shorter runway for feeder types. That way, it's going to be far easier to set and meet noise targets; an A380 at MTOW is not going to be a great climber! You're always going to have a core group of people who will be vocal and who will oppose any new development no matter what, BUT by being focused from day one on assuaging the reasonable fears about greater noise, there will be a much great chance of success.
I do agree, however, that in order to optimise the use of all three runways, a new terminal will be required to serve the new runway, so that crossing of 09L/27R can be kept to a minimum.