Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LHR Proposed Capacity Solution  
User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 738 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 12610 times:

I saw this link in another thread, and thought it was a intresting solution to the LHR runway capacity issue. It suggest the best solution is two pairs of parallell runways to the west of the existing runways with all currant terminals except T4 to be used. There would also be a west terminal built similar to the east terminal toast rack type layout under construction now. The 4 runways and new terminals would increase capacity significantly.

I would like to see what everyone thinks of the ideas put forward in the link

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...cations/bigger%20and%20quieter.pdf

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2072 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 12517 times:

Okay, I don't have time to read the link policy study report now, but does it address: -

* the lost reservoir capacity
* the problems of building on top of such a large stretch of the M25
* who pays for all this



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7403 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 12352 times:

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 1):
* who pays for all this

This is an interesting question in terms of all suggested solutiuons.

It seems reasonably clear that if a third LHR runway and T6 were built , Heathrow Airport Ltd, owned by BAA who are in turn owned by FGP TopCo Limited in which the majority shareholder is the Spanish construction company, the Ferrovial Group, would pay.

But whether they would pay for the westward extension of LHR and the replacement of the lost resevoir capacity is another matter. However it would seem appropriate that Heathrow Airport Ltd would make a minority contribution (determined by the medium term financial advantage that the expansion would bring to the company).

The majority of the cost, like all of the cost of building a replacement airport in the Thames Estuary, would have to be carried, at least initially, by the British taxpayer. Any new airport could, of course, be privatised. But the income the tax payer would receive on privatisation would only be that that represented the operational value of the airport. The cost of the land recovery and of all the supporting infrastructure from roads and railways to schools and hospitals would almost certainly need to be permanently carried by the tax payer.


User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11264 times:

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 1):
* the lost reservoir capacity

* the problems of building on top of such a large stretch of the M25

* who pays for all this


It suggest Abingdon, Thames water has previously applied for a reservoir there.

It dosen't address the building on top of the M25, but it includes it as one of the challenges the project would need to overcome. It also staes that it isn't a case of having to 'invent' the engineering as its already been done at ATL & CDG etc.

It suggests travellers pay for it, there could be up to twice as many pax at LHR to pick up the bill.

[Edited 2012-10-07 11:52:00]

User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11058 times:

The paper is noteworthy for showing a map with runways 2/3 of the existing ones.

Also, Poyle and Colnbrook might have a thing or two to say about it.


User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10990 times:

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 1):
* who pays for all this

I think this isn't the top issue as any expansion/new airport will need to be funded. Environmental/public opposition/EU regs are the bigger issues.


User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10678 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 4):
The paper is noteworthy for showing a map with runways 2/3 of the existing ones

The new runways are 3km. From the western end of the preasent runway to the wetern end of the new runway(as on the map) is 3km and the new runway would therefore start on the western shore of the reservoir and end at the western end of the preasent runway. The map looks accurate to me, or am I missing something.

Quoting Glom (Reply 4):
Also, Poyle and Colnbrook might have a thing or two to say about it.

Everywhere has someone who will say a thing or two about it. How many people will it affect against other proposals?


User currently offlineAA94 From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 579 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10617 times:

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 5):
I think this isn't the top issue as any expansion/new airport will need to be funded. Environmental/public opposition/EU regs are the bigger issues.

I don't think that the question of "Is there money available" is what's being asked, but rather "Where does this money come from?"

Obviously a solution will be funded by someone, but by who is the question.



Choose a challenge over competence / Eleanor Roosevelt
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11617 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10565 times:

This paper does make some valid points and is generally quite well composed. Their suggestion to solve LHR's capacity issues isn't even too wide of the mark, but it's execution and the physical design is not, in my view, a viable option.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 813 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10477 times:

They could build two new runways in a MAD -Layout without tearing down any buildings and with only minimal land-claiming from the reservoirs.


Have a look at the following map (copyright by Google Maps):

2 new runways, MAD-Style

Link: Google Maps, London Heathrow


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7403 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10229 times:

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 3):
It suggests travellers pay for it, there could be up to twice as many pax at LHR to pick up the bill.

The perception that if you double the size of LHR you (immediately?) get twice as many passengers who can then pay for the new airport that they are using to be constructed seems to me to be a little optimistic. Any guesses if this proposal were to go ahead how quickly (or slowly) that LHR passengers would grow from 2011's 69 million to 138 million?

By the way in 2011 the six airports calling themselves "London Airport", namely LCY LGW, LHR, LTN, SEN and STN handled 134 million passengers.

Having said this, one of the biggest advantages of the proposal is, apart from relocating the reservoirs and relatively small adjustments to road and rail services, the only investments in infrastructure that would be required could b e made (and paid for) as the number of passengers grew from today's 69 million.


User currently offlineRTFM From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 415 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10209 times:

Quoting CARST (Reply 9):
They could build two new runways in a MAD -Layout without tearing down any buildings and with only minimal land-claiming from the reservoirs.

Prevailing winds at LHR are generally from the W or SW..... these are orientated in completely the wrong direction....


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1813 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10064 times:

Maybe its best to do nothing and let the problem sort itself out? The market will solve it in the end, don´t you think?

All want more capacity, no one wants more noise and pollution..


User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 813 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10044 times:

Quoting RTFM (Reply 11):

Prevailing winds at LHR are generally from the W or SW..... these are orientated in completely the wrong direction....

Didn't know that, but there is enough room for two runways facing SW-NE, too, without tearing down homes and taking up to much reservoir space.


Map with 2 runways facing SW/NE: http://www.airliners.net/ufview.file?id=40106&filename=phpJKaz6D.jpeg


User currently offlinethereckoner From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9995 times:

What about this? Minimises the amount of buildings that need to be demolished.



User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 813 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9949 times:

Quoting thereckoner (Reply 14):

1) Not enough spacing between the runways, no parallel takeoffs and landings.

2) Too much of the reservoirs taken up.


User currently offlineRTFM From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 415 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9121 times:

Quoting thereckoner (Reply 14):
What about this? Minimises the amount of buildings that need to be demolished.

But, as already pointed out, it maximises the number of resevoirs that need to be demolished. These resevoirs supply a considerable amount of water for London. Also, they are not flat - they are built up... Look on streetview...

Also, Wraysbury is surrounded by water (and has often been flooded as a result). All that area is essentially a flood plain of the River Thames. Of course that can be overcome, but all that water then has to go somewhere else... not an insignificant engineering challenge (as anyone who lives there and has experienced flooding will tell you).


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24917 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8966 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10):
By the way in 2011 the six airports calling themselves "London Airport", namely LCY LGW, LHR, LTN, SEN and STN handled 134 million passengers.

Actually seven. You overlooked London Oxford (OXF). Expect their few scheduled services won't affect the total much.
http://www.oxfordairport.co.uk/


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7403 posts, RR: 17
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7980 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
Actually seven. You overlooked London Oxford (OXF). Expect their few scheduled services won't affect the total much.

There were no scheduled flights out of OXF in 2011. So it actually did not affect the total of 133 million passengers at all.

On 1 March 2010 start-up airline Varsity Express did begin to operate scheduled flights with a BAe Jetstream 31 between OXF and EDI. But it went out of business less than two weeks later on 12 March. On that date Links Air, the owners of the aircraft, repossesed it for non-payment of wet lease fees.

There were then no scheduled flights to or from OXF until May this year. Then Manx2 began operations to IOM and JER again with a 19 seat BAe Jetstream 31. So the only passengers using OXF in 2011, the period I presented data for, were biz jet passengers. The CAA reports a total of 1,678 such air traffic movements carrying 1,491 passengers. Note that the number of flights exceeds the number of passengers because of positioning flights carrying zero passengers.

According to the CAA here:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport...Provisional_Airport_Statistics.pdf

the number of flights still exceeded the number of passengers for the 12 month period ending 31 August last.

The CAA are reporting that the 2,714 air transport movements in this period was greater than the 2,491 passengers. Of these passengers they report that only 331 flew between OXF and JER and only 366 between OXF and IOM. Both routes averaged between 100 and 110 passengers per month for June, July and August with the maximum being 113 passengers flying on the JER route in July and the minimum 94 on the same route in June.

The OXF web site says that both these flights operate daily. If this is correct - and I am not sure it is as I thought both flights were operated six days a week - the average number of passengers per flight is less than two. So the load factor is below 10 per cent. So even if these services survive, which must be in some doubt, I do not think that OXF is about to have any impact at all on the monthly average of over 10 million passengers handled at the six airports I identified.

So yes, OXF styles itself London Oxford Airport. But . . .


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7403 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7694 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 18):
On 1 March 2010 start-up airline Varsity Express did begin to operate scheduled flights with a BAe Jetstream 31 between OXF and EDI. But it went out of business less than two weeks later on 12 March.

Forgot to mention that, according to the CAA, in 12 days of operation Varsity Express carried 33 passengers. on 24 flights between OXF and EDI.


User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6646 times:

I've had a read of the airport plan and it is quite comprehensive. It address lots of issues and also backs up all of its statements, as well as 'evaluating' the other proposals. What I especially like is that it plans for the future using ideas that could be seen a prefectly feasible now, not "but by 2030 the technology will be available".

User currently offlinebluesky73 From UK - England, joined Oct 2012, 321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6515 times:

The estuary idea is great but unrealistic when you have so much infrastructure already at Heathrow especially in this current financial climate.

I can't see m25 being moved, having a crash in motorway causes enough commuter problems let alone moving it. They would have to build most of the diverted motorway first before linking up.

From an air traffic POV would it be better to have 4 parallel runways, add one south and north of existing airport (controversial) or are the options above over the reservoir with different approaches just as good?

Hope they make decision soon.


User currently offlinewoodentom From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5915 times:

out of interest how close can parallel runways be to each other?

after looking at a satellite view i was wondering would it be possible as a last resort to put 2 runways where the southern one is now. taxi ways would need to be used but it is the only option i could think of when keeping the same footprint.

i assume the proximity of them would defeat the object of being able to use 3 runways simultaneously but I am no expert.


User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5780 times:

Quoting woodentom (Reply 22):
i was wondering would it be possible as a last resort to put 2 runways where the southern one is now.

The problem here is where does all the capacity go whilst you're building these new runways?

Ideally you would shut LHR for 3 years or whatever and just put 4 new runways in, but thats just not possible


User currently offlinemigair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5693 times:

Quoting woodentom (Reply 22):

If i´m not mistaken the minimum distance between runways to be operated simultaneously is 730m but if the threshold are displaced that distance can be reduce up to around 500m i think... i don´t remember completly.... I think this can be check in the Doc 8.1.6.8 of ICAO or the DOC 4.4.4.

I don´t really see any solution to the problem of Heathrow, maybe this one propose in the document is the best one but I think it´s so expesive to develop that it will never be true, now LHR is private airport and to raise the funds for such a large project it will awesome task.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12360 posts, RR: 25
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5771 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 4):
Also, Poyle and Colnbrook might have a thing or two to say about it.

Not to mention all the owners of the commercial structures to the west of the airport.

The map in the presentation somewhat disingenuously does not present these structures as obstructions.

The map makes it look like the only obstructions to the west are the highway and the reservoir, which are serious enough, but add to that these commercial structures and their owners, and you have a plan that's a non-starter, IMHO.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5746 times:

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 23):
The problem here is where does all the capacity go whilst you're building these new runways?

Use the preasent northern runway for arrivals whilst building the new southern pair, then use the new southern pair for arrivals whilst using the preasent northern runway for departures. Shuldn't cause to many problems that can't be managed.


User currently offlineQANTASvJet From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2012, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5781 times:

I have often looked at the map and wondered why nobody was suggesting building more runways and terminals at Heathrow, to the west. Clearly the reservoirs and motorway are problems, but dealing with them can hardly be greater than the challenge of building in the Thames estuary, plus all the new railways and motorways that would require. Also, some variations of this could be implemented incrementally, one or two runways/terminals at a time, which could potentially greatly improve the economics.

And the publication is nicely timed to mess-up Boris's appearance at the Tory conference. Sweet.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4807 posts, RR: 9
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5686 times:

This is the first time I have seen this proposal for LHR. I think this is an excellent idea!

I like it because:
1) uses a lot of existing airport infrastructure to keep costs down
2) uses a lot of existing transport infrastructure (including being close to crossrail) (also keeping costs down), and this infrastructure is quicker to London than from other airports and cheaper (not to mention adding National Rail services for the first time). Also the Piccadilly line is due to be upgraded in the next decade which will increase capacity and speed.
3) finally gives LHR more than 2 runways. 4 runways is ideal in modern airports
4) is quite a clever and efficient design which will be loved by passengers.
5) remains accessible for a large portion of the population
6) the estuary has issues with fog and wildlife not to mention cost and accessibility problems so this proposal is good
7) it frees up capacity at LGW for LCC and P2P flights (BA and VS would almost certainly move all of their operations to LHR).
8) vastly quietens aircraft noise under the flight paths and reduces/eliminates need for night flights
9) LHR itself would become much more efficient (no need for transfer buses etc, no more T4, easy connections, less congestion, less pollution).
10) £10b all up vs £20b+ for estuary airport.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5466 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 25):
Not to mention all the owners of the commercial structures to the west of the airport.

The map in the presentation somewhat disingenuously does not present these structures as obstructions.

The map makes it look like the only obstructions to the west are the highway and the reservoir, which are serious enough, but add to that these commercial structures and their owners, and you have a plan that's a non-starter, IMHO

Offer the owners enough cash and they will sell, or build them new commercial structures not too far away. I would think there will be alot less opposition over a few commercial units than there is over peoples homes.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 28):
This is the first time I have seen this proposal for LHR. I think this is an excellent idea!

I like it because:
1) uses a lot of existing airport infrastructure to keep costs down
2) uses a lot of existing transport infrastructure (including being close to crossrail) (also keeping costs down), and this infrastructure is quicker to London than from other airports and cheaper (not to mention adding National Rail services for the first time). Also the Piccadilly line is due to be upgraded in the next decade which will increase capacity and speed.
3) finally gives LHR more than 2 runways. 4 runways is ideal in modern airports
4) is quite a clever and efficient design which will be loved by passengers.
5) remains accessible for a large portion of the population
6) the estuary has issues with fog and wildlife not to mention cost and accessibility problems so this proposal is good
7) it frees up capacity at LGW for LCC and P2P flights (BA and VS would almost certainly move all of their operations to LHR).
8) vastly quietens aircraft noise under the flight paths and reduces/eliminates need for night flights
9) LHR itself would become much more efficient (no need for transfer buses etc, no more T4, easy connections, less congestion, less pollution).
10) £10b all up vs £20b+ for estuary airport

I agree with the above, from the solutions so far this appears to be the best i've seen. But I'm by no means an expert on the subject, just an intrested observer. There will be opposition, obsticles and engineering challenges for any development.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12360 posts, RR: 25
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5441 times:

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 29):

Offer the owners enough cash and they will sell, or build them new commercial structures not too far away. I would think there will be alot less opposition over a few commercial units than there is over peoples homes.

Certainly less opposition yet far from none, and quite costly to placate.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12910 posts, RR: 100
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5470 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This proposal won't happen as it makes economic sense.  

The article also notes the possible of hub bypass without intending to. If MAX-HKG is really at 372 pax/day (pg. 21 of OP link), CX should be able to add a non-stop as soon as they receive new small aircraft. If LHR isn't expanded, customers will instead be served by new service.

I also agree that LHR is 'punching below its weight.' LHR should have a few dozen more longhaul destinations driven by connections. There is also a need for more frequency to remain competitive. For Example Toronto to Dubai was listed as a top connection at LHR. I speculate that is only due to the EK connecting banks that could be bypassed by a better LHR network. Note: This is based on speculation that passengers fly Toronto-London-Dubai-XXX. I've noted before that the mid-east hub carriers have thrived partially due to the under-expansion of the European hubs.

Quoting thereckoner (Reply 14):
What about this?

Take your Southern most runway and move it a bit further south and it works as a 3 runway LHR. Even one more runway at LHR would be a boon.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 28):
4 runways is ideal in modern airports

London could grow with more... but I know of no rational proposal to do that.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5337 times:

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 26):
Use the preasent northern runway for arrivals whilst building the new southern pair, then use the new southern pair for arrivals whilst using the preasent northern runway for departures. Shuldn't cause to many problems that can't be managed.

Are you allowed to have such extensive construction works so close to an active runway? Would be a nightmare for operations with taxiways.


User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5140 times:

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 32):
Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 26):
Use the preasent northern runway for arrivals whilst building the new southern pair, then use the new southern pair for arrivals whilst using the preasent northern runway for departures. Shuldn't cause to many problems that can't be managed.

Are you allowed to have such extensive construction works so close to an active runway? Would be a nightmare for operations with taxiways.

Maybe they will have to manage it by having heavies land and depart on the runway that is in full use, whilst reducing the usable length of the runway with construction at the end of it for planes that don't need the length. Either way, once the first pair is built, it shouldn't be much of an issue. I'm assuming taxiways will be almost unaffected as the preasent ones can be used whilst new ones are built.


User currently offlinea320211 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5115 times:

It seems like I've been following this saga forever, yet I don't remember ever seeing this proposal before.

Whilst nothing is ever cost-free this does seem to have a lot going for it. I don't know how feasible the steep approach would be for all narrowbodies by 2030 but it would certainly tick a lot of boxes in terms of noise reduction.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11617 posts, RR: 60
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5085 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 19):
Forgot to mention that, according to the CAA, in 12 days of operation Varsity Express carried 33 passengers. on 24 flights between OXF and EDI.

The information they have is completely wrong. They lasted 8 days and flew 11 flights, the aircraft was withdrawn by LinksAir after the morning flight to Edinburgh on day 8, but no flights were made over the weekend. Passenger numbers were in excess of 33 though, ironically the loads weren't bad.

Quoting bluesky73 (Reply 21):
I can't see m25 being moved, having a crash in motorway causes enough commuter problems let alone moving it. They would have to build most of the diverted motorway first before linking up.

You don't need to move the M25, you just go over it. This is a significant cost, but not as much as re-routing a 10 or more lane motorway and building the runway.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4870 times:

If I'm not mistaken, placing the runways there will mean that the existing runways will not be usable because they will be directly in-line with the new runways. So essentially, this "extension" would move most of the airport west, no?

Would it not make more sense to just replace LHR altogether?


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11617 posts, RR: 60
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4710 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36):

If I'm not mistaken, placing the runways there will mean that the existing runways will not be usable because they will be directly in-line with the new runways. So essentially, this "extension" would move most of the airport west, no?

Would it not make more sense to just replace LHR altogether?

It would extend the airport West, presumably creating two near 7,000m runways. I think the report is excellent, but I think their design conclusion is far from ideal.

Thinking about their ideas, I would suggest staggering the set up. Leave the existing runways as they are and offset the two new outer ones, much like Manchester only mirrored with four runways. Use the East set for arrivals on 27s, West set for departures on 27, and visa versa. This way the majority of departures/arrivals would not have to cross an active runway, as the overlap of declared runway would be only around 500m. The spacing could also be taken right down to (IIRC) 390m this way.

All runways could be operated with arrivals/departures in only one direction, meaning buildings like the World Cargo Centre and various hotels are not an issue to airspace surfaces. This would also free up a much wider strip of land West of T5, which could be used to place two additional terminals, one adjacent to each new runway with a central 'hub' containing ground infrastructure extended from T5 and/or linking with the M25. I'm pretty sure that only one reservoir (Wraysbury) would have to be relocated in this orientation; the approach and departure surfaces for the new North runway I have suggested pass 28m above unaltered ground level, which should comfortably clear the Queen Mother reservoir. The study's plans would not however.



Grey = 3,000m x 60m new runway
Brown = 3,600m x 300m runway strip and RESAs

This approach would create slightly narrower noise contours compared to the study's design, and significantly narrower than BAA's proposal for a third runway to the North of Heathrow.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 699 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4507 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 37):
I would suggest staggering the set up

That's a great design, PlymSpotter. Very compact, would appear to have minimal noise impacts, and would also minimize taxi times.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3355 posts, RR: 9
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4359 times:

Quoting migair54 (Reply 24):
If i´m not mistaken the minimum distance between runways to be operated simultaneously is 730m but if the threshold are displaced that distance can be reduce up to around 500m i think... i don´t remember completly.... I think this can be check in the Doc 8.1.6.8 of ICAO or the DOC 4.4.4.

I think you mean feet and not meters.

SFO's runways are 750ft apart and you can do simultaneous landings there if it's clear.

How close to runways have to be for one to handle a takeoff and the other to handle a landing, such as done at LAX, CDG, ATL etc.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineMAN2SIN2BKK From Thailand, joined Feb 2009, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4311 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 38):
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 37): I would suggest staggering the set upThat's a great design, PlymSpotter. Very compact, would appear to have minimal noise impacts, and would also minimize taxi times.

I agree, this looks a great solution


User currently offlineImperialAero From Canada, joined May 2005, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3919 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 39):
How close to runways have to be for one to handle a takeoff and the other to handle a landing, such as done at LAX, CDG, ATL etc.

1035m for independent parallel approaches,
915m for dependent parallel approaches,
760m for indepenent parallel departures,
760m for segregated parallel operations

except that;
for segregated parallel operations the specified distances can be;
- decreased by 30 for every 150m that the arrival runway is staggered away from the arriving aircraft, to a minimum of 300m

from ICAO Annex 14, Doc 4444 and Doc 8168 Vol 1.



ICURFC - Who Is Sylvia?
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11617 posts, RR: 60
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3837 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 38):
That's a great design, PlymSpotter. Very compact, would appear to have minimal noise impacts, and would also minimize taxi times.
Quoting MAN2SIN2BKK (Reply 40):
I agree, this looks a great solution

Thank you.  
Quoting ImperialAero (Reply 41):
1035m for independent parallel approaches,
915m for dependent parallel approaches,
760m for indepenent parallel departures,
760m for segregated parallel operations

except that;
for segregated parallel operations the specified distances can be;
- decreased by 30 for every 150m that the arrival runway is staggered away from the arriving aircraft, to a minimum of 300m

from ICAO Annex 14, Doc 4444 and Doc 8168 Vol 1.

  

Although a central taxiway would be essential. Minimum runway centerline to taxiway centerline separation is 190m for code 4F, so practically the minimum runway separation is 380m, not 390m as I earlier stated.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineNZStevenC From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3519 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 37):
Thinking about their ideas, I would suggest staggering the set up. Leave the existing runways as they are and offset the two new outer ones, much like Manchester only mirrored with four runways. Use the East set for arrivals on 27s, West set for departures on 27, and visa versa. This way the majority of departures/arrivals would not have to cross an active runway, as the overlap of declared runway would be only around 500m. The spacing could also be taken right down to (IIRC) 390m this way.

This makes a lot more sense purely from an expansion point of view. However Tim Leunig's proposal would limit the demolition largely to the reservoirs, Poyle industrial area and part of Stanwell Moor. PlymSpotter's proposal looks to me to entirely remove Stanwell, Stanwell Moor and Poyle Village from the map.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11617 posts, RR: 60
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3333 times:

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 43):
However Tim Leunig's proposal would limit the demolition largely to the reservoirs, Poyle industrial area and part of Stanwell Moor. PlymSpotter's proposal looks to me to entirely remove Stanwell, Stanwell Moor and Poyle Village from the map.

As they are described and presented, Tim's plans are completely non-viable on every level. It's probably easier if I explain with another quick diagram, this is the result of adding four runways as he suggests:

The two
pairs of close spaced runways would be around 380m apart, while the distance
between the sets of runways would be 1,035m.132 The most northerly runway
would be level with the current northern runway, with the most southerly
approximately 300m south of the current southern runway




Grey = 3,000m x 60m new runway
Brown = 3,600m x 300m runway strip and RESAs
Green = 3,000m x 80m central taxiway strip
Blue = 3,000m x 190m double taxiway strip

Most notable is that you would have to completely demolish Terminal 5A and around half of the satellites. With approaches and departures in both directions you would also have to take out the control tower, much of the World Cargo Center, two major reservoirs, and probably large chunks of Terminal 3 where it penetrates the take off/approach surfaces. In between you would be left with a strip of land just 100-200m wide to build aircraft stands and terminals on. Perhaps worse still the spacing is not sufficient for full segregated operations on each set of parallel runways, as they are not offset, whilst the inner spacing is nearer 900m not 1,035m which will also cause issues. Basically it's a very poor design which obviously hasn't been thought out or, in my opinion, even overlayed on a decent map.

Having said that, four runways could be added at that end of Heathrow as suggested, but it would only be practical to do so if the inner pair maintained the spacing of the current runways, with the outer pair spaced a further 760m out:



By the time you add in taxiway infrastructure between each set of runways you would be looking at a huge footprint. On top of that creating the Public Safety Zones would require even more houses to be demolished at the new runway ends, plus four reservoirs. My plan would still mean a significant amount of housing needs to be removed, but it doesn't look to be more than BAA's proposed third runway would necessitate and is significantly less than a practical arrangement of Tim's design would require the demolition of.

I'm intrigued at how a report which is for the most part articulate and reasonably accurate (of what I read) can ultimately come up with such a frankly mad proposal. It's almost like it was prepared with the oversight of an aviation expert/consult, who happened to be on holiday when they produced the plan.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6770 posts, RR: 75
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3264 times:

Quoting ncfc99 (Thread starter):
The 4 runways and new terminals would increase capacity significantly.

Oooh, very close to Windsor Castle... No no!   

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 37):


Even worse...

But anyways... these parallel runway options are an obsession in my opinion. It would be much cheaper to just move LHR to the west, between M25, M4, Windsor, and mow down Old Windsor... make a megaplex with whatever you want there, on an alignment of 04/22. Langney and Egham will be affected, but "that's about it"...   

Or, just make a single 4000m runway of 02/20, next to the M25, starting from the 09L/27R extended centerline to the southwest... as a capacity reliever. In peak times, plough everything coming in on 27L, some on 27R, with departures on 27R and 20. When heavies go 20, you can actually depart traffic on 27s... (people of Staines will hate me for this).
For 09 ops, if the wind isn't too great, you can still use 20 departures.

And let the mowing down of LHR central and turn it into T5 extensions continue!   

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineNZStevenC From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3261 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 44):
Most notable is that you would have to completely demolish Terminal 5A and around half of the satellites.

Clearly, Tim's report makes no such suggestion and it's quite obvious that there's going to be little appetite to demolish any part of T5.

However, we're right to wonder where taxiways are going to go with a limited amount of space between the toaster-rack piers and the runways. He does go into a wee bit of detail around taxiways on Page 25:

Quote:
In order to further facilitate efficient movement of planes around the airport, it is useful to have a parallel taxi way between each of the pairs of close spaced runways. This allows a plane to land on the outer runway, and immediately pull off the landing runway onto the taxi way, via a rapid exit taxiway.86 This frees up the landing runway for the next plane. The previous plane waits on the taxi way until it is given permission to cross the inner (take-off) runway and proceed directly to the terminal or pier.

There's similar detail on page 38 too. But nothing specific to provide a taxiway layout. So the question in my mind is, has he grossly underestimated the space required between terminals, taxiways and runways? Surely in preparing a report of this level of detail, he would have been aware of ICAO minimums?

PlymSpotter, would it be possible to redraw the first plan in Post 44, showing the runways and taxiways while preserving the T5 buildings and Tim's longitudes?


User currently offlineNZStevenC From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3183 times:

I had a crack at the southern runways and taxiways, loosely to scale in Visio. Blue lines are taxiway centre lines, yellow re runway centre lines. But the clincher is the northern configuration I think... so that'll be next  

I'm no expert on airfield measurements though, just trying to take into the rules described above.



[Edited 2012-10-10 07:44:04]

User currently offlineNZStevenC From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3167 times:

Here's the northern runway version. This shows the top edge of the northernmost runway touching the A4 Bath Road, while preserving the existing T5 buildings.

Have I missed something here or does one of us have our scales not quite right, PlymSpotter?



User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11617 posts, RR: 60
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3124 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 45):
Even worse...

How would this create a worse situation when the threshold is further from Windsor than the think tank's proposal, along what would have to be a more offset runway?

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 46):
Clearly, Tim's report makes no such suggestion and it's quite obvious that there's going to be little appetite to demolish any part of T5.

But that is exactly what the design requires according to the given parameters, therefore meaning it's what he/the think tank has suggested - whether this has actually been realised or not is another thing. The report states:

"The most northerly runway would be level with the current northern runway"

and that

"The two pairs of close spaced runways would be around 380m apart, while the distance between the sets of runways would be 1,035m"

What this states that the most Northern runway of the four he proposes would be sited along the projected centerline of 09L/27R, meaning the centerline of the other Northern runway would be 380m further South. The plan graphic backs this up. In this scenario the extended centerline of the extra North runway runs through the middle of the stands serving the North side of T5A. Then you have to consider at least one, preferably two parallel taxiways. The required minimum separation between runway centerline and taxiway centerline is 190m, with a 55m taxiway strip to the nearest obstacle, meaning no building could be sited (to the South) within 625m of the current centerline of 09L/27R. Even with just one taxiway, that's almost half of T5A's main building which would need to be removed to make the plan work according to the given specifications.

I understand that the new runways are envisaged to start a little West of the current 09 thresholds, but that doesn't mitigate the issue I mention above, because the transitional, take off and landing surfaces are all fouled by T5A. T5B and C would have to be removed in order to route the taxiway outside of the safety areas and again not to breach any of the airspace surfaces for the East end of the new North runways. For these surfaces to clear the roof of T5A (40m), the runway strips would have to be offset a further 2,000m West of where it is suggested they might start. That is neither feasible nor what the plans show, therefore the suggested design implies that Terminal 5 would need such significant remodeling that it would require demolition.

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 46):
There's similar detail on page 38 too. But nothing specific to provide a taxiway layout. So the question in my mind is, has he grossly underestimated the space required between terminals, taxiways and runways? Surely in preparing a report of this level of detail, he would have been aware of ICAO minimums?

A combination. I think whoever produced this plan has massively underestimated the space available and has very little knowledge about airport design, meaning the proposal is fatally flawed in several respects. The latter reason strikes me as odd for two reasons; firstly ICAO design manuals and CAP 168, the CAA's version, are freely available to download and not that difficult to get your head around and, secondly; if you are a think tank preparing guidance you hope will influence government policy, then you seek expert advice and get your facts and design right.

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 46):
PlymSpotter, would it be possible to redraw the first plan in Post 44, showing the runways and taxiways while preserving the T5 buildings and Tim's longitudes?

How do you mean - preserving the 380m spacing between runway pairs, or with the runways offset far enough West to clear the height of T5? To be honest, neither are possible.

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 48):
Have I missed something here or does one of us have our scales not quite right, PlymSpotter?

Yes, your drawing for the North side does not take into account that the most Northerly runway will, according to the text and plan, be sited along the extended centerline of the current 09L/27R. Redraw your overlay accordingly, with the second Northerly runway inside the current one, and you will see where the bulk of the problem lies.

Also consider that the taxiway strip for Code F is 55m not 47.5m and that in reality the runway spacing should be 760m not 380m to achieve a real benefit from having four parallel runways and segregated operations on each pair. Practical operation with a separation of 380m can only be achieved if one runway's threshold was staggered by around 2,000m, such as the design Manchester used.


Dan  

[Edited 2012-10-10 08:32:37]


...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6770 posts, RR: 75
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3067 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 49):
How would this create a worse situation when the threshold is further from Windsor than the think tank's proposal, along what would have to be a more offset runway?

And trust me to miss putting the "  " on that one.

Actually, it's not worse than the think tank proposal...
Politics and politicians be damned, I'd simply expand to add a northern runway and another southern runway if it was only runway capacity. But what the paper and what you proposed obviously go beyond that.

For mega growth, the first one at Reply 37 and with new terminal space, would probably give the most realistic value for money, but this is just a quickie reply. One can compact the footprint, and jiggle with the threshold positions longitudinally to get an optimum result, but without putting missed approach aircraft at risk. Reply 44 picture 1 is a no no, the last one is wayyyyyy better, but the outer runways may be redundant for 27 ops. You're risking a lot on missed approaches for that config.

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11617 posts, RR: 60
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3029 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 50):
And trust me to miss putting the "  " on that one.

There was me thinking that Liz had got on the blower to you about the aircraft noise and people being able to look in through the Royal bathroom window   
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 50):
One can compact the footprint, and jiggle with the threshold positions longitudinally to get an optimum result, but without putting missed approach aircraft at risk

Also important to account for is building life, as the think tank touches on in regards to T4. Many of the buildings around LHR which could constrain future layouts are coming to the end of their useful lives, or would be by the time anything like this is likely to happen.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 50):
Reply 44 picture 1 is a no no

It's quite spectacularly a no-no I think. To the extent that I'm beginning to wonder if it's a mistake in the report, although for it to be in both the wording and the graphics without being picked up or corrected makes me think not.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineNZStevenC From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2888 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 49):
The report states:

"The most northerly runway would be level with the current northern runway"

I think we should cut the guy some slack... it's a mostly coherent report so I think we just need to put this point to bed... it's never going to happen while T5 stands. The northern runways would have to head north, like in reply 48.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11617 posts, RR: 60
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2815 times:

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 52):
I think we should cut the guy some slack... it's a mostly coherent report so I think we just need to put this point to bed... it's never going to happen while T5 stands.

Well, yes and no. I can see where you are coming from, but in this case I'm not inclined to cut someone slack for a poor design/conclusion when they are a chief economist of a very well funded (and respected) Liberal think-tank, among other things. Somewhere someone screwed up, and the result has now been read by liberal policy makers in government - and yes I know that for a fact. Which raises some interesting questions - how far does it go until somebody notices the mistakes, in the mean time to what extent will it have influenced the opinions of MPs, the Libs Dems, etc... and will it damage the political case for LHR's expansion when it's discovered to be unfeasible.

But I agree that it is mostly coherent and articulate, which makes the whole thing even more baffling.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineNZStevenC From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2697 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 53):
Well, yes and no. I can see where you are coming from, but in this case I'm not inclined to cut someone slack for a poor design/conclusion when they are a chief economist of a very well funded (and respected) Liberal think-tank, among other things. Somewhere someone screwed up, and the result has now been read by liberal policy makers in government - and yes I know that for a fact.

I agree there's a screw up but I don't believe the impact is anything too great... it just needs tweaking  

So I'm a make-it-work kinda guy (which comes from the NZ element of my username and heritage!) so I've been playing around in Visio again. This variation removes the centre taxiway for the northern pair of runways... kinda like LAX. Obviously LHR doesn't have the same kind of midfield space and T5A presents a major pinch point if we want to keep the pair of runways from taking out a large part of Poyle village.

The problem is, I don't pretend to be an expert on some of these ICAO airfield measurements, so I'm hoping I can call on the forum to help with some of these so we can put something together at a proper scale.

This one specifically has me confused...

Quoting ImperialAero (Reply 41):
for segregated parallel operations the specified distances can be;
- decreased by 30 for every 150m that the arrival runway is staggered away from the arriving aircraft, to a minimum of 300m

Can anyone give me an example of something "staggered away from the arriving aircraft"?

Anyway, here's by drawing...




So in this approach, I need to work out the following measurements:

A, B, C: Minimum distance between runway centreline and taxiway centreline = 190m
D: Minimum distance between two parallel taxiway centrelines = ?
E: Minimum distance between two pairs of runways = ?
F: Minimum distance between two runways in segregated operation = ?
G: Minimum distance between taxiway centreline and building = ?
H: Minimum distance between runway centreline and building = ?
I: Minimum distance between end of runway and perpendicular taxiway = ?

All assistance appreciated!


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11617 posts, RR: 60
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2626 times:

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 54):
Can anyone give me an example of something "staggered away from the arriving aircraft"?

Look at Manchester Airport in Google Earth.

The two parallel runways are not completely side by side - the threshold of 05R is located approximately 2,300m before the threshold of 05L - this is the stagger, also referred to as an offset. Without the stagger the two runways should be 760m apart, but:

Quote:
for segregated parallel operations the specified distances can be;
- decreased by 30 for every 150m that the arrival runway is staggered away from the arriving aircraft, to a minimum of 300m

So with a stagger of 2,300m you can reduce the runway centerline to runway centerline distance to the very minimum of 300m:

2,300 stagger divided by 150 = 15.33
Times by the reduction of 30m = 460m total reduction
Subtract this from the ordinary separation distance of 760m, giving you the 300m minimum.

But the runway centerline to taxiway centerline separation for a code F runway is 190m, so in order to have a central taxiway the separation distance is actually capped at twice this - 380m.

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 54):
So in this approach, I need to work out the following measurements:
Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 54):
A, B, C: Minimum distance between runway centreline and taxiway centreline = 190m

  

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 54):
D: Minimum distance between two parallel taxiway centrelines = ?

95m for code F.

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 54):
E: Minimum distance between two pairs of runways = ?

Depends very much on how they will be operated.

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 54):
F: Minimum distance between two runways in segregated operation = ?

Depends on the stagger, but ranges from 760m for no stagger to 300m for a 2,300m stagger. See Manchester example above.

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 54):
G: Minimum distance between taxiway centreline and building = ?

55m for code F - treat a building as an obstacle.

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 54):
H: Minimum distance between runway centreline and building = ?

Depends entirely on the height/nature of the building and the landform around the runway. As a guide, imagine a line projecting upwards away from the edge of the runway strip at a ratio of 1:7 - this gives you a reasonable enough idea of where the transitional surface is, which terminals should not penetrate.

To take another example, look at Terminal 5 at Heathrow.

The runway strip extends 150m either side of the centerline
Project this along past T5, the transitional surface also projects beyond the end of the runway strip
The distance between T5 and the edge of the runway strip is approximately 300m
So 300m divided by 7 is just under 43m, which explains why T5 is 40m high - just beneath the transitional surface

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 54):
I: Minimum distance between end of runway and perpendicular taxiway = ?

It would depend on how the runways are being used, but as a guide project a line along the centerline from the end of the runway strip at a gradient of 1:50. Then work out how long that line needs to be before you can fit your tallest aircraft beneath it - at that point you may be able to put such a taxiway in. I would say 1,250m assuming code F and A380s, but it's not something I would do out of choice.


I hope this will help you


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
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...
BFL-part Of The SoCal Capacity Solution? posted Sat Aug 16 2003 21:22:57 by FATFlyer
EgyptAir Increases Capacity To LHR/CDG/DXB/NRT posted Mon Aug 9 2010 08:38:29 by MSYYZ
LHR-CAI - Why So Much Capacity? posted Wed Oct 14 2009 13:34:27 by Noelg
CX/SQ's Proposed LHR-JFK/LAX-SYD Routes posted Mon Sep 21 2009 20:23:03 by United Airline
AC Reduce YYZ/LHR Capacity Winter 09/10 posted Fri Aug 14 2009 01:20:44 by BALHRWWCC
CX's Proposed HKG-LHR-JFK Route posted Fri Dec 12 2008 18:31:11 by United Airline
Proposed New Runway At LHR posted Sun Apr 13 2008 01:25:13 by Readytotaxi
Higher Fees For Smaller Aircraft Proposed At LHR posted Tue Jan 29 2008 21:06:55 by LAXDESI
VS's Proposed 2nd Daily LHR-HKG Flight posted Fri Apr 27 2007 14:46:00 by United Airline
Willie Walsh : A380 May Reduce LHR Capacity posted Mon Nov 13 2006 21:00:06 by NYC777