I was reading an article the other day and it was saying how the BAA wants a new third runway at LHR (in fact they view this as more important than the new terminal 5 under construction).
I was wondering---where are they going to build it? Looking at aerial views of LHR there isn't much room for expansion. Does anyone know where they intend to build it and how long it will be? Is it going to parallel 27/9-R or L?
Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: New Runway At LHR
4th - there is a diagonal runway mostly used for taxiing.
Somebody correct me, but I thought it was to be a north/south runway to the west of the main runways? There is that big car park called the M25 which gets in the way somewhat, no room to the east, or centre north/south of the airport.
Geoff M.
Somebody correct me, but I thought it was to be a north/south runway to the west of the main runways? There is that big car park called the M25 which gets in the way somewhat, no room to the east, or centre north/south of the airport.
Geoff M.
RE: New Runway At LHR
The current third runway (runway 23) is out of use indefinately since they parked G-BOAB on it for display.
Matt
Matt
you can't buy time but you can sell your soul and the closest thing to heaven is to rock'n'roll
RE: New Runway At LHR
More likely is a new shorter runway to the north of the current site as this requires the demolition of thousands fewer houses. It makes sense as the vast majority of movements are shorthaul flights which don't need the full runway length.
See link below for a map from the UK Department of Transport
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/graphic/dft_aviation_507724-7.gif
See link below for a map from the UK Department of Transport
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/graphic/dft_aviation_507724-7.gif
-
- UbiDenmark
- Posts: 63
- Joined:
RE: New Runway At LHR
The proposed (and possibly only practicable) site for a new runway at LHR is to the North of 27R/9L, on the other side of the existing perimeter road. Ariel photos of that area show a greenfield site which would accommodate a new, shorter, runway.
How that is linked to the existing infrastructure remains to be seen.
How that is linked to the existing infrastructure remains to be seen.
RE: New Runway At LHR
Not quite greenfield - the oh so NOT charming village of Harmondsworth will have to be concreted over (thereby enhancing the locality enormously !) - looking at the map, it looks like BA's Waterside HQ will be between the two runways - kewwlll ! I hope they build it.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
RE: New Runway At LHR
They could build it over the water reserves in SW between Stanwell and Stains! That way Staines could get some aircraft noise as well as they don't have it that much these days 
and the people living in Stanwell More could get some more noise compensation 
didn't BAA pay them thousands of pounds some years back?
I use to cycle through Stanwell More every day (going to work)... when 747 took off from the 27L (not to mention Concorde) and you happened to be right under it you could yell as loud as you can but you couldn't hear your own voice because the a/c was hardly in 2000ft (I can't remember the heights anymore)! And there's people living there!!!
and the people living in Stanwell More could get some more noise compensation didn't BAA pay them thousands of pounds some years back?
I use to cycle through Stanwell More every day (going to work)... when 747 took off from the 27L (not to mention Concorde) and you happened to be right under it you could yell as loud as you can but you couldn't hear your own voice because the a/c was hardly in 2000ft (I can't remember the heights anymore)! And there's people living there!!!
I like driving backwards in the fog cause it doesn't remind me of anything - Chris Cornell
RE: New Runway At LHR
An interesting map - do you have the link to the document?
I say interesting because of the practicalities of it. Apart from bulldozing about half a dozen airport hotels, including one rather large one which is not so old, and the logistical problem of rerouting several main roads, there is the issue of the railways. It suggests a "significant improvement" to a line which is a one-train-a-day oil branch which points in the wrong direction at the north end. And BAA appear to know nothing of this idea - the current plans as I know them are to continue the stub from the CTA to T5 and then onwards (in future) down to Staines/Feltham. There is nothing of rejoining the Paddington Main Line - and why should there be with the existing connection at Airport Junction? I know of this because my company is doing some feasibility work for BAA on this very subject.
Geoff M.
I say interesting because of the practicalities of it. Apart from bulldozing about half a dozen airport hotels, including one rather large one which is not so old, and the logistical problem of rerouting several main roads, there is the issue of the railways. It suggests a "significant improvement" to a line which is a one-train-a-day oil branch which points in the wrong direction at the north end. And BAA appear to know nothing of this idea - the current plans as I know them are to continue the stub from the CTA to T5 and then onwards (in future) down to Staines/Feltham. There is nothing of rejoining the Paddington Main Line - and why should there be with the existing connection at Airport Junction? I know of this because my company is doing some feasibility work for BAA on this very subject.
Geoff M.
-
- UbiDenmark
- Posts: 63
- Joined:
RE: New Runway At LHR
If Goeffm's query is for me, I don't have a link to a map but the image below shows the area in question, which, I recall, was identified at the time of Alistair Darling's announcement. Although not an expert on the subject, the area in question looks to be also north of the hotels and certainly the road. I'm not familiar with the railway. Presumably the existing road will have to be re-routed underground to provide taxiway access to/from (any) new runway in that area.
As another poster has pointed out, there will likely be implications for at least some of the existing built up area.
View Large View Medium
Photo © Michael Catchpole
As another poster has pointed out, there will likely be implications for at least some of the existing built up area.
Photo © Michael Catchpole
-
- Guest
RE: New Runway At LHR
This new runway would also mean that Chelsea's current training ground would be victim as well, I wonder if Mr Abramovich is willing to let this happen?
-
- UbiDenmark
- Posts: 63
- Joined:
RE: New Runway At LHR
If it was made the subject of a compulsory purchase order - which is entirely possible in such a strategic development - it's unlikely that he could ultimately resist.
Whether he would like it is of course another matter.......
Whether he would like it is of course another matter.......
RE: New Runway At LHR
Sorry, I meant the link to the article accompanying FlyLondon's picture.
UbiDenmark, according to the same picture, that would place the new runway in the top right of your picture. It does look as if access wouldn't be quite so much of a bulldozer effort, but what the picture doesn't show are the buildings alongside the M4.
Chelsea? Who cares!
Geoff M.
UbiDenmark, according to the same picture, that would place the new runway in the top right of your picture. It does look as if access wouldn't be quite so much of a bulldozer effort, but what the picture doesn't show are the buildings alongside the M4.
Chelsea? Who cares!
Geoff M.
-
- UbiDenmark
- Posts: 63
- Joined:
RE: New Runway At LHR
Geoffm,
No doubt there would be a considerable re-arrangement of the land and buildings to the North of 27R/9L if/when runway 4 materialises.
My (not exhaustive) understanding is that there is no firm commitment to the development of the new runway at this point and little prospect of it materialising before 2015. And even then subject to the meeting of environmental constraints.
At this stage it is being viewed in terms of providing possible support only for "regional" type aircraft (whatever that may mean), perhaps because of the limited availability of land. And perhaps because it makes it an easier sell at this stage.
Ubi
No doubt there would be a considerable re-arrangement of the land and buildings to the North of 27R/9L if/when runway 4 materialises.
My (not exhaustive) understanding is that there is no firm commitment to the development of the new runway at this point and little prospect of it materialising before 2015. And even then subject to the meeting of environmental constraints.
At this stage it is being viewed in terms of providing possible support only for "regional" type aircraft (whatever that may mean), perhaps because of the limited availability of land. And perhaps because it makes it an easier sell at this stage.
Ubi
RE: New Runway At LHR
I think another runway at Stansted is more of a priority then at Heathrow. At least traffic then will be thinned out a little rather then all merging over west London.
Trent.
Trent.
RE: New Runway At LHR
Trent900, I have to disagree.
LHR is running at near capacity now. STN is not.
LHR was given the go-ahead 2nd to STN purely for political reasons IMHO.
LHR is running at near capacity now. STN is not.
LHR was given the go-ahead 2nd to STN purely for political reasons IMHO.
RE: New Runway At LHR
Here is the link to the document the map accompanies:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_507725-07.hcsp
And yes a newspaper did point out the irony that BA Waterside would probably have to be demolished if it went ahead!
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_507725-07.hcsp
And yes a newspaper did point out the irony that BA Waterside would probably have to be demolished if it went ahead!
-
- UbiDenmark
- Posts: 63
- Joined:
RE: New Runway At LHR
With such a controversial subject it would be little surprise to find politics (and politicians) playing a long, electoral hand in the game.
There may also be some significance in the relatively meek (public) reaction of the major LHR carriers to such an apparently vague non-commitment.
Without being privy to the discrete, if not secret, lobbying which often surrounds this type of development, it is possible only to speculate on what assurances may or not have been given to keep the peace for the time being.....
There may also be some significance in the relatively meek (public) reaction of the major LHR carriers to such an apparently vague non-commitment.
Without being privy to the discrete, if not secret, lobbying which often surrounds this type of development, it is possible only to speculate on what assurances may or not have been given to keep the peace for the time being.....
RE: New Runway At LHR
If LHR is running at near capacity why not make the overspill fly from other London airports? STN has got much more land to expand. Whats the fascination with LHR? BA and a few other airlines have said they will not fly from STN. Why not? I have not heard a good enough reason not to use STN.
Trent.
Trent.
-
- [email protected]
- Posts: 7510
- Joined:
RE: New Runway At LHR
Trent900
Because airlines do not want to use any other airports other than LHR, Heathrow offers very strong yields for nearly every airline that flies there. Ask BA, AA, SQ or QF if they'd like to expand at STN, the answer will be a swift 'no'. LHR is the most convenient airport for business and premium pasengers, good links to the city and superb connections to the rest of the world make it a attractive airport. The real demand is at LHR, that's why BAA are busting the bank and building a new terminal and investing in the airport and maybe even a new runway in the future.
Because airlines do not want to use any other airports other than LHR, Heathrow offers very strong yields for nearly every airline that flies there. Ask BA, AA, SQ or QF if they'd like to expand at STN, the answer will be a swift 'no'. LHR is the most convenient airport for business and premium pasengers, good links to the city and superb connections to the rest of the world make it a attractive airport. The real demand is at LHR, that's why BAA are busting the bank and building a new terminal and investing in the airport and maybe even a new runway in the future.
In Arsene we trust!!
RE: New Runway At LHR
I understand what your saying, but there is a lot of people out there that can only fly from LHR to the majority of worldwide destinations, which means maybe a 2 hour car journey not including sitting on the M25 for an hour. Why can't airlines be a bit more helpful to their customers? STN does have good city links. It can sometimes take longer to travel into the city from LHR then it does from STN by train. I do live closer to STN and feel annoyed when I have to travel all the way to LHR to fly someware which could quite easily be flown from STN. And I'm not the only person who thinks this.
Trent.
Trent.
RE: New Runway At LHR
[email protected]LHR has hit the nail on the head.
In the recent consultation document, it was considered moving London's main hub from LHR, by giving seed capital for airlines to move, and other inducements, however even with these, all the airlines did not want to move.
For this reason many operators out of LGW (read Continental, Delta, Virgin, BA) would love to move some LGW ops to LHR, but are restricted by Slots and Bermuda II (in place largely because of the slot issue).
LHR is moving to mixed mode use soon, which will help free up a few more slots in peak time, and market forces clearly show demand more at LHR for a new runway than STN
Market forces should have the final say, if those damn politicians didn't get in the way!
In the recent consultation document, it was considered moving London's main hub from LHR, by giving seed capital for airlines to move, and other inducements, however even with these, all the airlines did not want to move.
For this reason many operators out of LGW (read Continental, Delta, Virgin, BA) would love to move some LGW ops to LHR, but are restricted by Slots and Bermuda II (in place largely because of the slot issue).
LHR is moving to mixed mode use soon, which will help free up a few more slots in peak time, and market forces clearly show demand more at LHR for a new runway than STN
Market forces should have the final say, if those damn politicians didn't get in the way!
RE: New Runway At LHR
Interesting that everyone wants LHR to be the big international gateway to the U.K., but they fret and frown and grumble and study and always come up with the same conclusion - there's no room to grow. I thought that was only an American phenomenon.
Fortunately, unlike most American cities, London is blessed with the tube and other sources of airport transportation. If the underground is extended to connect all the airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, & City), there would be no need to focus on making one a megalopolis of an airport, would there?
The same wait-until-its-too-late approach happens here in San Diego. As much affection as I have for Lindbergh Field, in all probability it will not be sufficient to handle any increases in traffic coming down the road. However, the requirements seem to be that (1) it needs to be tremendously convenient but NOT in the middle of things, (2) easily available by freeway but NOT where there will be traffic, (3) large enough to handle all the flights the public wants but NOT noisy. Isn't this what LHR is going through?
Fortunately, unlike most American cities, London is blessed with the tube and other sources of airport transportation. If the underground is extended to connect all the airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, & City), there would be no need to focus on making one a megalopolis of an airport, would there?
The same wait-until-its-too-late approach happens here in San Diego. As much affection as I have for Lindbergh Field, in all probability it will not be sufficient to handle any increases in traffic coming down the road. However, the requirements seem to be that (1) it needs to be tremendously convenient but NOT in the middle of things, (2) easily available by freeway but NOT where there will be traffic, (3) large enough to handle all the flights the public wants but NOT noisy. Isn't this what LHR is going through?
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
RE: New Runway At LHR
It will take hours to taxi from T4 to the new runway (if it is build).
BA flies to CDG from LHR.
You'll spend 40 mn in the air and 55 taxiing...
RE: New Runway At LHR
That's the price you pay for more flights and runways; I left from AMS on a BA 735 at Christmas, using the new runway there. The taxi distance was five miles, but hey, that's what people want. I think the main problem at LHR will not just be the distance, but rather the necessity to cross other runways. Since LHR is supposed to be moving to mixed mode, ending the current practice of switching runways at 3pm, I think they will try to keep runway usage as appropriately as possible to the nearest terminal. Certainly, when the new runway is opened (c.2012), I doubt if you will see any examples of aircraft taxying all the way from there to the new runway.
It is a necessity to have a new runway at LHR, much moreso that at STN. Also, don't forget that the construction of a new runway at STN will have to be financed somehow. LHR based airlines will not pay for it (and will use legal action to make sure they don't) and you can be sure FR won't put up with a significant increase in landing charges there.
It is a necessity to have a new runway at LHR, much moreso that at STN. Also, don't forget that the construction of a new runway at STN will have to be financed somehow. LHR based airlines will not pay for it (and will use legal action to make sure they don't) and you can be sure FR won't put up with a significant increase in landing charges there.
RE: New Runway At LHR
Tolosy, I agree with your LHR-CDG estimates!
Panam747, I was in San Diego last year, it's a shame BA pulled out as it's a great city to visit. However, do you think the limited capacity at Lindbergh field should go to Long range destinations (such as LHR) or to give more frequent links to the main US hubs? Also the runway at Lindbergh field seemed fairly short, is this the case or am I wrong and a 747 can take off/land there?
Panam747, I was in San Diego last year, it's a shame BA pulled out as it's a great city to visit. However, do you think the limited capacity at Lindbergh field should go to Long range destinations (such as LHR) or to give more frequent links to the main US hubs? Also the runway at Lindbergh field seemed fairly short, is this the case or am I wrong and a 747 can take off/land there?
RE: New Runway At LHR
If the underground is extended to connect all the airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, & City), there would be no need to focus on making one a megalopolis of an airport, would there?
Problems:
- Pax w/o visa are not entitled to take the tube, they could 'escape'
- Distances are still very huge. Transferring at one a/p reduces the connection time, and this solution, ie switching airports, would immensly increase connection time, so people would rather choose other cities with shorter distances
Problems:
- Pax w/o visa are not entitled to take the tube, they could 'escape'
- Distances are still very huge. Transferring at one a/p reduces the connection time, and this solution, ie switching airports, would immensly increase connection time, so people would rather choose other cities with shorter distances
"The earth provides enough resources for everyone's need, but not for some people's greed." (Gandhi)
-
- 747firstclass
- Posts: 821
- Joined:
RE: New Runway At LHR
Richard28,
Do you know exactly when they are moving to mixed mode on the runways at LHR?
Do you know exactly when they are moving to mixed mode on the runways at LHR?
RE: New Runway At LHR
I dont know when Mixed Mode is going to happen, just that it has got approval from Alistair Darling, and that the airlines are pushing for its implementation asap.
RE: New Runway At LHR
Hey Boysteve!! Thanks for visiting America's Finest City - hope you had a great time!!
Yes, British Airways used to fly into San Diego. No more dramatic a view of an approach than in Balboa Park or on the streets under the approach:
When re-started in 1997 (it's been an on-again, off-again thing), it was a 747-436 routed LGW-PHX-SAN-PHX-LGW. The technical stop was necessary due to weight restrictions - a fully loaded 747 cannot safely take off on the single runway. In fact, the Air Force One 747 utilizes Coronado Naval Air Station just across the harbor, but with a longer runway.
When the 777's came into service, the technical stop in Phoenix was no longer needed. The flight became a non-stop LGW-SAN, which was eventually changed to LHR-SAN. After 9/11, the service was pared down to five flights per week, and from what I am told, BA simply couldn't fill the business seats to make the flight profitable.
San Diego DESPERATELY misses this graceful lady from Heathrow!!
Yes, British Airways used to fly into San Diego. No more dramatic a view of an approach than in Balboa Park or on the streets under the approach:
 Photo © Abelardo Rodriguez |  Photo © Larry Wolff |
When re-started in 1997 (it's been an on-again, off-again thing), it was a 747-436 routed LGW-PHX-SAN-PHX-LGW. The technical stop was necessary due to weight restrictions - a fully loaded 747 cannot safely take off on the single runway. In fact, the Air Force One 747 utilizes Coronado Naval Air Station just across the harbor, but with a longer runway.
 Photo © Denis Roschlau |  Photo © Tony Zeljeznjak |
When the 777's came into service, the technical stop in Phoenix was no longer needed. The flight became a non-stop LGW-SAN, which was eventually changed to LHR-SAN. After 9/11, the service was pared down to five flights per week, and from what I am told, BA simply couldn't fill the business seats to make the flight profitable.
San Diego DESPERATELY misses this graceful lady from Heathrow!!
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
RE: New Runway At LHR
The real issue here is that London is a huge city and the biggest business center in Europe. Trent900 I think there's no place where FR cannot take you from Stanted as I see you love it, but if you are to go back to real world aviation you have to look at Heathrow. Somehow it's the only London Airport where airlines can charge a premium just because passengers want to fly there.
As for a third runway just for "regional" type aircraft, I think that would be a waste of money. If BAA it's to invest in this polemic project it has to be done in something it's worth it.
And now my two cents. This is my proposal.
Drawbacks
1) M25 : Nothing that a couple of bridges cannot solve as in other major airports
2) Some buildings to demolish: The same as in the north plan
3) Aircraft will have to overfly T5 to land there, but they also could land eastbound instead, cutting some air-traffic and noise over London.
Pros
1) These water reserves do not need a lot of noise protection as mentioned above
2) Terminal five would be close to all 3 runways shortening taxing times
I'm not a civil transport expert, so no aim to offend.
As for a third runway just for "regional" type aircraft, I think that would be a waste of money. If BAA it's to invest in this polemic project it has to be done in something it's worth it.
And now my two cents. This is my proposal.
Drawbacks
1) M25 : Nothing that a couple of bridges cannot solve as in other major airports
2) Some buildings to demolish: The same as in the north plan
3) Aircraft will have to overfly T5 to land there, but they also could land eastbound instead, cutting some air-traffic and noise over London.
Pros
1) These water reserves do not need a lot of noise protection as mentioned above
2) Terminal five would be close to all 3 runways shortening taxing times
I'm not a civil transport expert, so no aim to offend.
LHR, BHX, EDI, BKK, USM, CNX, PHU, GRU,PEI, BOG, CTG, CPH, AMS, DOH, DXB, FRA, MAD and always PEI
RE: New Runway At LHR
aces 320
The position of the runway looks good, because will not cause tto much trouble.
But, on final, planes will fly over T5, isn't dangerous.
Can en expert tell?
The position of the runway looks good, because will not cause tto much trouble.
But, on final, planes will fly over T5, isn't dangerous.
Can en expert tell?
RE: New Runway At LHR
ACES320,
Looks like a good plan - however I think there are regulations that would stop aircraft flying over T5 so short on final - just think you would have to overfly the entire of LHR at low altitude to get there. If anything happened to an aircraft on final (or climbing out over LHR) it could be disastrous...
Another thing with it being near the lakes - what about the possibility for flooding?
Good plan though and it would be great if they did it like that!
Noel.
Looks like a good plan - however I think there are regulations that would stop aircraft flying over T5 so short on final - just think you would have to overfly the entire of LHR at low altitude to get there. If anything happened to an aircraft on final (or climbing out over LHR) it could be disastrous...
Another thing with it being near the lakes - what about the possibility for flooding?
Good plan though and it would be great if they did it like that!
Noel.
RE: New Runway At LHR
It seems reasonable for me, but what if they try it eastbound instead? I am still waiting for an expert opinion.
LHR, BHX, EDI, BKK, USM, CNX, PHU, GRU,PEI, BOG, CTG, CPH, AMS, DOH, DXB, FRA, MAD and always PEI
-
- Alitalia7e7
- Posts: 183
- Joined:
RE: New Runway At LHR
If LHR was to have more runways would it allow or free up more take off and landing slots at this busy airport? Do you think it will allow a third US carrier into LHR???? And relax the current Bermuda Laws.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, arfbool, armagnac2010, bananaboy, BNEman, Buddys747, David L, davidjohnson6, Detroit313, Drucocu, f18raider, jplatts, mict, migair54, morrisond, pmanni1, PSU.DTW.SCE, qf789, Redox69, RockAir, SASViking, Teganuma, TheDBCooper, Thunderboltdrgn, Tristar787, Vasu, Virtual737 and 146 guests