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, 11648 posts, RR: 60
Posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10675 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, 13043 posts, RR: 100
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10632 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, 11648 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10541 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, 906 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10483 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, 31 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10387 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, 1060 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10314 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, 11648 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10314 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, 2621 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10203 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, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 9828 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, 524 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 9754 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 onlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3232 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9313 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 1 month 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9257 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, 937 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9138 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, 4221 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8566 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, 2292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8532 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, 1585 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8496 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, 4009 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8434 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, 2454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8422 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, 13043 posts, RR: 100
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8295 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, 1243 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7708 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 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7617 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 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6681 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 onlineTUGMASTER From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Jul 2004, 692 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6550 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, 1143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6512 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 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6275 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.


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2621 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6282 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 13):
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.

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 up any significant ops there.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 13):
I don't see the attraction of LGW from the standpoint of a passenger who needs to get from the airport to London.

From these and similar posts I regulary see, I conclude that LGW clearly needs to work on communicating about their transport links, as many people do not seem to be aware of how convenient they are. LGW is in fact better connected to both London and the airport's surrounding region than LHR.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 13):
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. 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.

I already explained why I think airlines moved to LHR in my other post - keep in mind LON cannot be considered a normal market due to its capacity constraints, which influence all business decisions.
US airlines... so? They are no longer the only players. Let them stay at LHR if they like. As I said, it's not the traditional but the new generation carriers that would mainly be atttracted by the new LGW.
I agree that a single carrier will not move away from its alliance partners at LHR, and LHR-LGW transfers are a total no-go. If there is a move, it would have to be from several or all alliance members at the same time. But this cannot happen due to lack of capacity at LGW - hence why airlines today cannot physically move to LGW regardless of whether they want to or not. The 2nd rwy would remove this constraint and could make someone rethink. Even more so if LGW expansion is approved, but LHR isn't.

Quoting incitatus (Reply 16):
Yet another plan and another thread for more runways around London.

Yes, but the novelty is that this is the first time we have an official, serious 2nd rwy proposal for LGW, which up to now was a taboo.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 20):
(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

Just because the UK can't add airport capacity doesn't mean others don't. Instead of designing an all-new STOL plane for the UK, A&B prefer selling 77W's and A380's by the dozena to Middle East carriers  


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11648 posts, RR: 60
Reply 26, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6115 times:

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. 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.

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 and maximise runway capacity.

Quoting incitatus (Reply 16):
Nothing will get done about airport capacity in London.

Do nothing is not an option, that has been made very clear. Something will be done, the question is what?

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 17):
Which probably then means #3, but then again who wouldnt want a shiny new HQ somewhere else?

I've got to say their current HQ is pretty nice, I can't think they will be too please at having to relocate.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently onlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8323 posts, RR: 10
Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5994 times:

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 is a royal pain to get to and from London as a visitor. The tube takes no less than one hour and for 90% of the people like me visiting London, the tube is the only option. LGW has a fast comfortable ride straight into London. I understand why airlines prefere LHR (for the connections and consolidated ops), but as a leisure passenger LGW is a much more convenient airport for London. That's my opinion.


User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5673 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 25):
Just because the UK can't add airport capacity doesn't mean others don't. Instead of designing an all-new STOL plane for the UK, A&B prefer selling 77W's and A380's by the dozena to Middle East carriers

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 operate. In fact runway addition is a major headache faced with a lot of protests not just in the UK and is a drawn out affair taking decades of planning and execution. A long list of such airports come to mind that could benefit from such an aircraft

Chronically congested and delay prone airports with sparse land for expansion

SFO, BOM(remember that this airport is in a country with fastest aviation growth other than china so whole world of opportunities in India), LHR, LGW (these 4 are the most notorious airports either for congestion, delays, constrains for expansion or all of these factors. I am sure that there are more airports that fit this description but i am not aware of).


Other airports that can perhaps double, tripe (and maybe quadruple?) their capacity without worrying on expanding their footprint? -

NRT, SNA, LAX, LGA, DCA, ORD, even JFK perhaps (i remember going through to JFK couple of times during rush hour and there were long delays with a long line of planes waiting for takeoff). Everyone complains of too many regional jets clogging up major airports, but i think if STOVL is made to work with at least regional jets to begin with then precious runway resource could be freed up for bigger jets. I think rather than the white elephant "bullet trains" that the US is trying to build we should concentrate on how to increase airport capacity multi fold through a STOVL aircraft provided of course like i said before it is cost effective to buy and operate. If Airbus or Boeing cannot do it then perhaps a consortium of airlines and airports should approach Elon Musk of SpaceX fame to think out of the box and build one.

And regarding your comment "Just because the UK can't add airport capacity doesn't mean others don't."; i certainly DON'T think adding aircraft capacity is a joke; it is not like folks place an order and it materializes in a couple of years. The problem UK is facing is not a unique one. It is not that most countries have endless amount of desert space like the middle eastern countries.

[Edited 2013-07-24 10:09:37]

[Edited 2013-07-24 10:10:55]

[Edited 2013-07-24 10:11:50]

[Edited 2013-07-24 10:17:02]

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11648 posts, RR: 60
Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5574 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 28):
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 operate.

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 would be very significantly higher than today's aircraft, as would the noise and emissions, whilst speed and payload would decrease.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 28):
Other airports that can perhaps double, tripe (and maybe quadruple?) their capacity without worrying on expanding their footprint?

An airport has two footprints: The physical footprint on the ground, and the noise footprint experienced by the surrounding community. The latter is fast becoming the most important. For airports operating at or near capacity to benefit from STOL or VTOL aircraft you would still need to add extra runways and with them extra approach/departure paths over local communities, most likely at a right angle to the current runway orientation to maintain separation which (aside of aircraft being nosier) would massively increase the noise footprints. Then there is the flow rate; VTOL movements are slower; in the case of LHR or LGW you would have to triple or quadruple the number of available runways just to maintain current capacity at suitable aircraft separation.

In short, it's great fodder for a far thinking concept, but I'm afraid it is not a practical solution.


Dan  

[Edited 2013-07-24 11:28:57]


...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineFlyKev From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 1382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5503 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

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 should get priority -

LGW may currently have more central connections to London; however it is easy to forget that we are only a few years away now from Crossrail which will connect London Heathrow to the east of London; including the financial area around Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf with just a single train journey taking just 40 minutes.
This I feel alone will give LHR the leg up on the competition in terms of speed and convenience.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/benefits/...orld-class-new-railway/timetabling

Kev.



The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only
User currently onlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8323 posts, RR: 10
Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5241 times:

Quoting FlyKev (Reply 30):
LGW may currently have more central connections to London; however it is easy to forget that we are only a few years away now from Crossrail which will connect London Heathrow to the east of London; including the financial area around Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf with just a single train journey taking just 40 minutes.

And by the looks of it still no stop at T5 which to me is just baffling and a huge missed opportunity.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4221 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5167 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 31):
And by the looks of it still no stop at T5 which to me is just baffling and a huge missed opportunity.

  

I don't get that as well.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineEnviableOne From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5047 times:

Yeah but Crossrail will intersect Thameslink at Farringdon and quick change and your at LTN or LGW, and even possibly STN


A wise man speaks because has something to say, a fool speaks because he has to say something - Plato
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4665 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 7):
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.

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 houses inhabited by people. The grass affected won´t know how to object to a plan but the people affected will.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 25):
Just because the UK can't add airport capacity doesn't mean others don't. Instead of designing an all-new STOL plane for the UK, A&B prefer selling 77W's and A380's by the dozena to Middle East carriers

Wrong idea IMO. A STOL airliner would not be competitive with conventional. Sales would be small so neither A or B could expect to see a profit on the project ergo would never launch one.

In any case, the capacity problem that faces the UK needs to be solved, not worked around so as to perpetuate it.


User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 881 posts, RR: 10
Reply 35, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 4467 times:

Here is a plan:

- Go for option 3
- Build another runway to the north of the current one as was considered in the past:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 6):
Former Options:

- Give Heathrow its 3rd runway

- Build a high-speed rail link between Gatwick and Heathrow. In bird's flight, they are only 40 km apart. High-speed trains should be able to cover that distance in less than 20 mins. Have trains connecting airside Gatwick with airside Heathrow at least once every 20 mins.

This would give London an integrated 6-runway hub airport, allowing it to properly serve the city and compete with the likes of DWC.

Hey, it doesn't hurt to be ambitious  


User currently offlineB-HOP From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2000, 630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4233 times:

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 are no flights to Far East as EK/QR got it all,the catchment area is too small and journey from say M4 corridor are just too far. Let see how the electrification of Great Western Line all the way from South Wales (transit though Reading) would have an impact to LGW, if journey to airport is longer than 3 hours, people won't bother.


Live life to max!!!
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13043 posts, RR: 100
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4037 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 29):
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 would be very significantly higher than today's aircraft, as would the noise and emissions, whilst speed and payload would decrease.

   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 airport where a long runway will enable far lower CASM aircraft to easily pay for that chauffeured ride. Sort of how EK flies out of Glasgow and will limo Edinburgh Scotland F/J class passenger over. Premium markets already have long runways... Which is why any STOL aircraft built, other than for rather short range missions, will be in a scrap yard quick.

Hubs will expand. This means that secondary airports that can accept long haul aircraft, such as BHX, will grow. But it won't be as convenient to the jobs in place and thus *far* less effective in growing the UK economy. Heck, no STOL aircraft would be effective for that.

What the UK needs is hub growth to connect existing economic centers for trade/business with new economic centers. We already know Indonesia, secondary cities of China, and Africa will grow. Without more hubbing in the UK, that means other hubs will have to fill the need which means they get first chance to bid for work.

A second runway would be of benefit at LGW. That I have no doubt. It is the minimum to keep the UK connected. Sadly it will be fought and delayed.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineslinky09 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3989 times:

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. 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!

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're spending £16 bn on Crossrail which will further establish LHR as the principal London airport and add a not insignificant transport option right through the centre of the city.

Quoting FlyKev (Reply 30):
however it is easy to forget that we are only a few years away now from Crossrail which will connect London Heathrow to the east of London; including the financial area around Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf

Exactly.

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.

LGW does have capacity, albeit more limited at peak hours, so the arguments that LGW needs more runways are IMO somewhat less important than elsewhere.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 26):
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 and maximise runway capacity.

Such as? Actually, if EK et al could centre their operations at Heathrow I think they'd be very happy to, as would BA, as would any other airline looking to manage the most efficient operation.

What should this hapless commission decide, well I think close down LGW and add two runways to LHR.


User currently offlinepa747sp From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3946 times:

So would there also be a new terminal between the old and new runways?


Nothing seems as good since the VC10.
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2621 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3529 times:

Quoting art (Reply 34):
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 houses inhabited by people.

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 because the main obstacles at both airports are political, not technical.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11648 posts, RR: 60
Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3503 times:

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 38):
Such as?

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 likely move to a larger aircraft to stay in the game. Frequency is important to the markets these carriers serve, and there have been big drops in recent years as the prices have been hiked up.


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...
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