Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gatwick Publish Plans For A Second Runway  
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Posted (1 year 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 10771 times:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23410288

LGW have today published their submission to the Airport Commission, detailing three preferred sites for a second runway. LGW is not allowed to operate a second runway until 2019, so it is nice to see some planning for the future on a suitable timescale. On the downside, Option 1 and 2 will require demolition of the CAA's headquarters - that should go down well.


Dan  


Edit: Second, not third runway.

[Edited 2013-07-23 05:56:52]


...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13134 posts, RR: 100
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 10728 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlymSpotter (Thread starter):
LGW is not allowed to operate a second runway until 2019,

In terms of plannig, that is but a sneeze.

From an operational standpoint, I prefer either Option 2 or 3 and would leave the decision on which to build based on economics (is the Option #3, dual landing operations, worth the added land acquisition?).

IMHO, LHR expansion is far more critical. Without Bermuda II, LGW has become a sub-region offloader.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 10637 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1):
In terms of plannig, that is but a sneeze.

Indeed, getting the ball rolling a few years ago would have been preferable, but starting to plan now is still an improvement on past form.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1):
IMHO, LHR expansion is far more critical. Without Bermuda II, LGW has become a sub-region offloader.

My opinion is that you need both.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1008 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 10579 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 2):
My opinion is that you need both.

I have always thought the 'L' in LGW to be a bit of a misnomer so yes that is my opinion too.


User currently offlinegiblets From UK - England, joined Jun 2013, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 10483 times:

Interesting, I am sure that the Gatwick second runway plans placed the runway to the North, as opposed to todays plans to the south side. Would this require less destruction?

User currently offlinesolarflyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 1087 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 10410 times:

So I m going to be the "dumb Yankee" and ask why the airport planning around LGW and LHr is so hard. Between the two, I always thought LGW was a no brainer for expansion and offloading traffic from LHR. There is OPEN land there and there is a good rail connection in place! There is room for 4 runways if you wanted! Better still its in a sunnier part of London and is fairly isolated. In London you see a constant stream of planes flying over the city to Heathrow. Why not shift eastern traffic to the South so it doesn't buzz downtown? Luton is too far away and too small for expansion. LGW is the perfect solution and they need it now not in 2019. London is a global elite city so 2 HUBs is totally doable. I say close down LCY while you are at it and turn it into a new downtown city centre. LGW could accommodate that traffic too if expanded massively. It doesn't seem that expensive either to me. It's just buying farmland and building new buildings and paving some roads. Surely cheaper than the Chunnel.

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 10410 times:

Quoting giblets (Reply 4):
Interesting, I am sure that the Gatwick second runway plans placed the runway to the North, as opposed to todays plans to the south side. Would this require less destruction?

Going back quite a few years there was a plan, but this had to be a lot further away from the current runway to avoid villages and aimed directly at Horley. They were apparently considering a staggered threshold, similar to the set-up at MAN but with much greater spacing, to avoid the industrial/office complex to the east of the three new proposals. Evidently they have decided it's easier/cheaper to relocate these instead.

Former Options:

http://www.gacc.org.uk/resources/2002%20map.JPG


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 10299 times:

The taboo has been broken!  Wow!

While it's a long way for this to get approved (if ever), let alone from becoming reality, it is very important for LGW to generate that debate, which has previously not existed (and would have never happened under BAA).

IMO, it should be option 3 or nothing. If you're gonna go for a new runway, which is already hard enough to get approved, get it right from the start: independent ops allowing full use of each runway, for a total of 90 ops/hour. If approved, this will be LGW's last airside expansion, so don't go for a half-solution.

More info here (haven't had time to go through it yet):

http://www.mediacentre.gatwickairpor...-and-deliverable-solution-80b.aspx

http://www.gatwickairport.com/bettersolution

http://www.gatwickairport.com/Docume...gterm_runway_capacity19Jul2013.pdf

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1):
Without Bermuda II, LGW has become a sub-region offloader.

Partially agree, but IMO a lot less flights would have moved out of LGW if capacity had been there. If you're going to choose between a saturated airport with high yields (LHR) and a saturated airport with low yields (LGW), you'll go to the first. But a 2nd runway will remove the saturation problem and attract airlines back to LGW. Perhaps not the traditional, LHR-obsessed legacies, but the more dynamic, newer generation airlines.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Thread starter):
LGW is not allowed to operate a second runway until 2019,

Even if the submission is approved today, nothing would be finished before then anyway (extrapolating from the LHR thread, it would be 2025), so no impact. A pity they didn't post the submission earlier, so it could have been ready for 2019.


User currently offlinesk736 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 523 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 9924 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Does anyone really believe the Davies Commission will say that a two runway LGW is preferable to a third runway at LHR? Not a chance, I think. The Davies Commission will recommend expansion at LHR but not until after the next general election - meaning UK political parties won't have to campaign one way or the other on LHR expansion.

User currently offlineDAL763ER From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 9850 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 5):
So I m going to be the "dumb Yankee" and ask why the airport planning around LGW and LHr is so hard. Between the two, I always thought LGW was a no brainer for expansion and offloading traffic from LHR. There is OPEN land there and there is a good rail connection in place! There is room for 4 runways if you wanted! Better still its in a sunnier part of London and is fairly isolated. In London you see a constant stream of planes flying over the city to Heathrow. Why not shift eastern traffic to the South so it doesn't buzz downtown? Luton is too far away and too small for expansion. LGW is the perfect solution and they need it now not in 2019. London is a global elite city so 2 HUBs is totally doable. I say close down LCY while you are at it and turn it into a new downtown city centre. LGW could accommodate that traffic too if expanded massively. It doesn't seem that expensive either to me. It's just buying farmland and building new buildings and paving some roads. Surely cheaper than the Chunnel.

While your ideas are interesting, I have a few points to make:

1. LTN is not that far - they're almost the same distance away from central London
2. Good rail connection? Hmm...maybe. Although 30 minutes on the express is quite slow and far away. If you're unlucky to get on a standard service it can take up to an hour. So no, not really.
3. Close down LCY? LCY is a business airport mainly for, I assume, folks working in Canary Wharf. If you work in Canary Wharf you can leave your office less than an hour before take off and still make your flight.

LGW only appeals to people in the South and South-East of the country. For people that live anywhere North of the Thames, LHR is definitely the most appealing option.

I would say that while LGW thinks about a second runway, they should also think about a faster train service to central London.



Where aviation is not the side show, it's the main show!!!
User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3264 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 9409 times:

Quoting DAL763ER (Reply 9):
LGW only appeals to people in the South and South-East of the country. For people that live anywhere North of the Thames, LHR is definitely the most appealing option.

For me in SouthWest London, I preffer LGW over LHR, about the same time drive almost,but without the stress.
I think the Gatwick passenger numbers are okay at the present level,very busy single runway airport, I am okay with occational delay I encounter. A second runway and passenger increase would not enhance my "flying passenger experience" from this airport. Just my POV.  



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlineDanTaylor2006 From UK - England, joined Feb 2006, 495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 9353 times:

Quoting DAL763ER (Reply 9):
2. Good rail connection? Hmm...maybe. Although 30 minutes on the express is quite slow and far away. If you're unlucky to get on a standard service it can take up to an hour. So no, not really.

Really? A quick search on National Rail clearly shows that there are 9 trains per hour from London Victoria alone that are under 36 minutes to Gatwick Airport on a weekday. That's before we include the 5 trains per hour from London Bridge to Gatwick operated by First Capital Connect which also take between 28 and 37 minutes!

Gatwick is VERY well connected, and the reason why I almost always arrive by rail! 30 minutes is good considering the 'fast' option to LHR takes 15, and by tube 1 hour.

Quoting DAL763ER (Reply 9):
LGW only appeals to people in the South and South-East of the country. For people that live anywhere North of the Thames, LHR is definitely the most appealing option.

Not so. I've used Gatwick on numerous occasions because it's the cheaper option, or flies somewhere Heathrow doesn't. Two totally different markets, so you can't really say which is most appealing... it depends where you want to go!

I believe Gatwick should and will get a 2nd runway eventually, but the priority has to be Heathrow. No way is the Commission going to recommend a new airport in the Thames.



Flown: A319-21, A346, A380, B733-4, B738, B744, B752, B762-4, B77W, CR2, CR9, DH4, E190-95, F70-100, MD-11, MD-88, MD-90
User currently offlineBoysteve From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 9234 times:

Quoting DAL763ER (Reply 9):
I would say that while LGW thinks about a second runway, they should also think about a faster train service to central London.
Quoting DanTaylor2006 (Reply 11):
Gatwick is VERY well connected

I agree with DanTaylor2006. How many people on Heathrow Express actually want to go to Paddington area? Not many, the majority then have a significant tube journey to where they want to go. LGW rail passengers can get to the heart of the West End in 30 mins, or the City in 35 mins all direct. Canary Wharf anyone? Well from LGW jump on the Jubilee Line at London Bridge station and the total journey time is around 40 mins, try that from LHR!
The other advantage is that from LGW you can go direct by rail both IN and OUT of London. So when Crossrail is complete and LHR also has a direct rail link to Reading then it will have finally caught up with LGW as it has stood since Thameslink was created 25 years ago.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4230 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 8662 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 7):
Partially agree, but IMO a lot less flights would have moved out of LGW if capacity had been there. If you're going to choose between a saturated airport with high yields (LHR) and a saturated airport with low yields (LGW), you'll go to the first. But a 2nd runway will remove the saturation problem and attract airlines back to LGW. Perhaps not the traditional, LHR-obsessed legacies, but the more dynamic, newer generation airlines.

It would not attract airlines back to LGW, the second runway I mean. LGW has the capacity now with just the one runway and if there were a reason to go to LGW the airlines would go there now. When the Bermuda II ended, the airlines could not get out of there fast enough and move to LHR. That is a fact. The airlines that are going to be attracted to LGW are already there. You will never get the main US based airlines to move back to LGW which were the main airlines that moved from LGW. I don't see the attraction of LGW from the standpoint of a passenger who needs to get from the airport to London. It would also be tough to justify moving away from your alliance partners at LHR and the transfer from LHR to LGW can be labourious and time consuming.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2297 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 8628 times:

I used to live in Birmingham for 20 yrs then Bristol for 10. I only ever went to Gatwick 2 or 3 times and hated going there, would happily pay more money to fly from LHR. For those that live in south London and south of London, I'm sure it's fine. But for the masses that live anywhere north and west of London, LGW is a pain.


Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1600 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 8592 times:

I think LGW should choose both options one and three. Might as well build two runways and be done with it.

User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4015 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 8530 times:

Yawnnnn...

Yet another plan and another thread for more runways around London.

Nothing will get done about airport capacity in London. Other Brits will fly from their regional airports to AMS, DXB and EWR to make connections to the rest of the world. Europeans already try hard to avoid London airports. London airport capacity will be dedicated mostly to local traffic, which will choke connections that are so important to support a large destination list. It is another gentle push for London to become a second tier business destination in Europe on par with Rome and Berlin.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2469 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 8518 times:

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 5):
Luton is too far away and too small for expansion

LTN is equally as far to London by train, though fewer trains - and a funky set up to get to the station. About equal by road, one has to endure the nightmare that is the M25. LTN also has room to expand, but severe NIMBY problems there too.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 5):
I say close down LCY while you are at it

LCY has its niche and I understand a profitable one. It serves not only Canary Wharf but also the city of London which is to the east.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Thread starter):
so it is nice to see some planning for the future on a suitable timescale

Indeed, good on LGW - showing LHR how to do it if nothing else.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Thread starter):
On the downside, Option 1 and 2 will require demolition of the CAA's headquarters - that should go down well.

Which probably then means #3, but then again who wouldnt want a shiny new HQ somewhere else?  
Quoting DAL763ER (Reply 9):
For people that live anywhere North of the Thames, LHR is definitely the most appealing option.

Or LTN or STN - both are well connected by rail and road contrary to popular belief.

Quoting DanTaylor2006 (Reply 11):
considering the 'fast' option to LHR takes 15, and by tube 1 hour.
Quoting Boysteve (Reply 12):
I agree with DanTaylor2006. How many people on Heathrow Express actually want to go to Paddington area? Not many, the majority then have a significant tube journey to where they want to go

Indeed, Paddington is on the periphery of the tube network really with some connections to the west country. For most Londoners, Paddington sucks. I used to live and work in London and flew from LHR regularly and not once did I use Paddington.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 13):
It would not attract airlines back to LGW, the second runway I mean. LGW has the capacity now with just the one runway and if there were a reason to go to LGW the airlines would go there now

It will be interesting to see if it will encourage BA (maybe Vueling) to beef up operations, but really all the 2nd runway is going to do is help U2 expand P2P and other LCC's like Norwegian and probably ZB too. It may enable the likes of Flybe to operate profitably there again - if it is not too late for them. It doesnt seem that long ago when there were airlines operating Jetstreams & Brasilias into Gatters...



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13134 posts, RR: 100
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 8391 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 2):
My opinion is that you need both.

I'm all for both!

Partially because I think LHR is unlikely to happen.  
Quoting r2rho (Reply 7):
IMO, it should be option 3 or nothing. If you're gonna go for a new runway, which is already hard enough to get approved, get it right from the start: independent ops allowing full use of each runway, for a total of 90 ops/hour. If approved, this will be LGW's last airside expansion, so don't go for a half-solution.

I do not think Option 1 is enough. But I think Option 2 is enough to have a marked impact.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 7):
. But a 2nd runway will remove the saturation problem and attract airlines back to LGW. Perhaps not the traditional, LHR-obsessed legacies, but the more dynamic, newer generation airlines.

Agreed. It even opens up the chance of another London based hubbing airline doing very well. For only with TATL, Europe, mid-east, subcontinent, and Asia connection can a full hub thrive. I could see a narrowbody/787 (or A350) equipped airline doing well.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineMillwallSean From Singapore, joined Apr 2008, 1246 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7804 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 17):
Indeed, Paddington is on the periphery of the tube network really with some connections to the west country. For most Londoners, Paddington sucks. I used to live and work in London and flew from LHR regularly and not once did I use Paddington.

Finally someone with the eye of a Londoner. Paddington isn't central nor is it a location where many people connect. Heathrow express and all that is nice and dandy but.

LGW has lost traffic, no not really? They are at capacity during peak hours and in need of more slots. Thats why Easy bought over FlyBes slots .
They lost a few US airlines, but surprise surprise the world is bigger than that and the US airlines isnt the world...

LGW will need 2 or 3 runways and be the second airport of London. I hope they start planning and processing for the runways straight away then they might be able to build the first in 2020 or so.



No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7713 times:

Or, the other option being (if adding a runway is so difficult) having Boeing & Airbus go back to the drawing board and propose a Short Takeoff And Vertical Landing commercial jet to better utilize the existing resources. What does anybody lose with some out of the box thinking? I dunno if Boeing & Airbus have explored this concept (wouldn't be surprised if they have).

User currently offlineEnviableOne From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6777 times:

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 5):
So I m going to be the "dumb Yankee" and ask why the airport planning around LGW and LHr is so hard

The basic problem Is the areas around both are political. The areas are both Conservative heartlands and have very active NIMBY (for the un-informed Not In My Back Yard) pressure groups, that if you talk to them fly regularly or have businesses that depend on the airports they protest the expansion from.

Basically the party that approves expansion will lose votes at the next election.


On to the post topic. Got to go with option 3, similar investment and capacity to match no expanded LHR.

   to be a viable alternative to LHR, LGW needs at least two more runways

the rail links are fantastic compared to the rest of the London airports and when the Thameslink 2000 project (it got remnamed when they had issues with moving borough market, more NIMBYs, to the Thameslink Programme) finally finishes, the links will be even better, with the City -> LGW getting a significant Frequency boost and direct links to HS1/2 and crossrail, and also a possibility of a link to STN to go along with the current link to LTN.

As far as public transport goes, LGW is further away, but better connected.


I used to live on the main flight path into LGW and I think it would serve London much better as a HUB that LHR.



A wise man speaks because has something to say, a fool speaks because he has to say something - Plato
User currently offlineTUGMASTER From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Jul 2004, 699 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6646 times:

.... wow....

Great plans... and the answer is easily .......Option 3.....!!!

Once in place , all ground between the two runways will become LGW property, and then the real work can begin....

Build a terminal running east to west smack bang in the centre on the two runways.....

Then you've got virtually a brand new two runway airport in the South East....

Once everything is up and running, say in 15-20 years....the "old LGW can then be given back to the countryside / people , similar to Kai Tak...

There you go....Q.E.D.

ps.... and a 2nd & 3rd runway for LHR.


User currently offlineLOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 1156 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6608 times:

Quoting EnviableOne (Reply 21):
Basically the party that approves expansion will lose votes at the next election.

Which is why the airports commission will be reporting after the next General Election. I suspect Cameron knows in his heart of hearts that airport expansion is needed.

In any case, hearing the parameters of the commission (e.g. "What is the purpose of a Hub Airport? Is it beneficial?") makes me laugh. It sounds like an attempt by the Civil Service to defuse the situation until then.

Sir Humphrey would be proud.


User currently offlineicna05e From France, joined Feb 2006, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6371 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 7):
IMO, it should be option 3 or nothing. If you're gonna go for a new runway, which is already hard enough to get approved, get it right from the start: independent ops allowing full use of each runway, for a total of 90 ops/hour. If approved, this will be LGW's last airside expansion, so don't go for a half-solution.

I fully agree. Maximise the investment, which will be huge with regards to both money and efforts.

Go for the ambitious option 3. The existing runway needs to stay landing and T/O capable in order to keep taxi times as they are to and from the terminals (just as long as airspace mgmt doesn't need to make the runways flow-specific, i.e. North rwy for northbound traffic and South runway for, wait for it, southbound traffic)
Finally, and it's a thing I really like in the artist rendering, option 3 leaves open the possibility for LGW to build an in-field terminal. Connected to the current terminals and (expanded) train staion, It could host an alliance willing to hub there, while leaving the existing infrastructure to its existing use, that is, mostly LCC and charters.


25 Post contains images r2rho : Absolutely not - LGW, though slightly less congested than LHR, is still bursting at the seams and does not have capacity for any new airline to set u
26 Post contains images PlymSpotter : I believe it would - there are services which are currently not viable due to LGW levying a scheme of charges designed to force smaller operators out
27 airbazar : As a complete outsider who has flowing in/out of LGW only once and multiple times out of LHR I have to say: I wish there was more service to LGW. LHR
28 747megatop : Actually i see a whole lot of airports and airlines that would be interested in such an aircraft if it proves cost effective for airlines to buy and
29 Post contains images PlymSpotter : Such an aircraft may be theoretically possible and it is a nice idea which floats up from time to time, but in all probability the operational costs
30 Post contains links FlyKev : I think LGW deserves an extra runway as I feel for the South and Southeast it is a convenient airport to get to. However I feel the LHR expansion shou
31 airbazar : And by the looks of it still no stop at T5 which to me is just baffling and a huge missed opportunity.
32 Post contains images brilondon : I don't get that as well.
33 EnviableOne : Yeah but Crossrail will intersect Thameslink at Farringdon and quick change and your at LTN or LGW, and even possibly STN
34 art : I wouldn´t liken LGW expansion planning complications to LHR problems. To expand LGW you would need to demolish mostly blades of grass rather than h
35 Post contains images Scipio : Here is a plan: - Go for option 3 - Build another runway to the north of the current one as was considered in the past: - Give Heathrow its 3rd runway
36 B-HOP : The way I see it is even if it get a shorter 2000m runway for landing, it would only help U2 and Ryan, BA don't want to put more money into it, there
37 Post contains images lightsaber : So what I'm writing is for others to read: Such a plane would depend on premium customers. Customers easily stolen with a limo ride to an alternate a
38 slinky09 : Then you figure Victoria is as convenient a station as Paddington isn't. which of course it isn't for many people. But then you also forget that we'r
39 pa747sp : So would there also be a new terminal between the old and new runways?
40 r2rho : LGW expansion is muc easier indeed, but if you look at their document, my extrapolation was correct, as they also mention 2025 as date. This is becau
41 Post contains images PlymSpotter : Air Southwest and FlyBe's withdrawal, Blue Island's comment in May that is it not cost efficient for them to serve LGW, and Aurigny's struggle and li
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...
Plans For Second Atlanta Airport Doubtful posted Sat Jun 2 2012 06:16:14 by usdcaguy
GATWICK's New Owners Reject Second Runway posted Mon Feb 8 2010 04:41:58 by fcogafa
RSW Selects Contractor For Second Runway posted Tue Mar 13 2007 06:55:11 by LV
EMA 'will Get Backing For A Second Runway' posted Tue Jun 3 2003 19:19:03 by BDRules
Plans For A Third Runway At Lga? posted Thu Jun 27 2002 14:22:39 by Mirrodie
Protest For Noise From Second Runway At BOG! posted Fri May 22 2009 08:28:42 by Danimarroquin
Plans For The Second Rwy At NGO posted Fri Jul 4 2008 09:07:22 by Ktachiya
Birmingham Commence Plans For Runway Extension. posted Mon Jan 29 2007 21:36:30 by Gilesdavies
AKL Postpones Second Runway For 5+ Years posted Thu Mar 23 2006 07:23:02 by 777ER
Second Runway For Edinburgh Airport posted Fri Apr 12 2002 12:32:15 by SAS23