Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2803 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4069 times:
They did promise to not allow the third runway, so waiting until they go back before the electorate again is the right thing to do even if it annoys us.
However, they could at least give Heathrow mixed mode. It would be a stop gap that would cost very little (some ATC work to accomodate).
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10695 posts, RR: 100 Reply 4, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3777 times:
Quoting bennett123 (Thread starter): Our politicians will seemingly do anything to avoid this issue.
To whom does the EK/QF agreement send the gift basket?
The little airports of Britain will grow, but they'll be feeding the big hubs.
Quoting huaiwei (Reply 3): If there is anything positive from this delay, it is that this thing could actually get built!
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."
huaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1086 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3660 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4): Split hubs are not nearly as effective as a concentrated hub. There is the adage "grow from strength."
The Thames Estuary proposals tend to involve consolidating all LON traffic into one airport. So it is still very much concentrated, in case that worries you.
It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10695 posts, RR: 100 Reply 6, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3610 times:
Quoting huaiwei (Reply 5): The Thames Estuary proposals tend to involve consolidating all LON traffic into one airport. So it is still very much concentrated, in case that worries you.
I'm a HUGE proponent of the concept. In particular if it is a 24/7 airport.
I do not worry about concentration if *that* airport is built. But will it? 2 runways at LHR, LGW, STN, and LTN is not my ideal. Until the bulldozers flatten "Boris Island," I will be a skeptic.
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 2382 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3530 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 United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2485 posts, RR: 35 Reply 8, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3473 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?
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2803 posts, RR: 10 Reply 10, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2661 times:
Quoting huaiwei (Reply 3): If there is anything positive from this delay, it is that this thing could actually get built!
That looks really cool.
Though not as ostentatious, I quite like this one. It is better placed for the wider country and technically easier to do. Not sure if it would have operating hours constraints though.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10695 posts, RR: 100 Reply 13, posted (8 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1136 times:
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.
declarets From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2011, 16 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (8 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1065 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, 11957 posts, RR: 37 Reply 16, posted (8 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1005 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6363 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2007, 719 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1086 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10695 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2703 posts, 
From China, joined Sep 2004, 1501 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11957 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
