London Sunday Times. (no link as it is pay to view)

The UK chancellor has been “secretly” pushing a proposal that would see an extra
1000 flights per week at LHR. He wants to see the permanent use of “mixed mode” as it would
help increase competitiveness. More people would be affected by aircraft noise as under
mixed mode ops aircraft would have to start their final approach 8 miles further out than currently.
The Department for Transport is against it warning it faces fines from the EU if it breaches air
pollution limits from the extra traffic.
Next weekend sees the start of a 9 week trail by BAA to assess the effects of using both runways when there is a backlog of flights. (which is why the news article I guess)

The Department for Transport will begin a consultation on the future of aviation in the UK in
the next few weeks and I guess it will fall into two camps, short term fix or long term strategy.
The current government has made it clear it is against a 3rd runway before the next election but after that, who knows, oh and BJ, London Mayor, will formally present plans for a 4 runway Thames Estuary airport.
Interesting times.

I'm all in favour of London Boris Johnson International. Think its the best idea for London in terms of Balance. Offers capacity, sustainable transport network options, keeps it away from people idiotic enough to buy an house near an airport if they don't like aircraft noise, sorry I mean NIMBY's and can be a facility London (and Boris) can be proud off.

Quoting readytotaxi (Thread starter): BJ, London Mayor, will formally present plans for a 4 runway Thames Estuary airport.

This would only work if there was a willingness to invest not just in the airport but the transport links too. I know the plans would call for all of that, but knowing the UK you could see go-ahead given initially in a two runway airport with the rest to follow over 20 years!

We have a history of this - We commit to the Channel tunnel, but wait years to open the High Speed Link (HS1) to London, making Eurostar services in the UK use "classic" lines for over a decade to reach London from the Tunnel. And HS2 which the current government seemed so keen to run with now seems to be dropping like a stone on their agenda, and even if it goes ahead it's initially a line to just Birmingham, to be extended onwards afterwards!

Boris Johnson's plans have to address what will happen to LHR if his Thames airport goes ahead. Worst case scenaario is a new airport built and LHR remains operating as is. It would have to shut, or a serious perimeter rule brought in to limit it to shorthaul flights (possibly UK and Ireland only).

Back to LHR itself, I think mixed mode could be the way to go - even if not throughout the day, but at key times to increase capacity.

Quoting ACdreamliner (Reply 1): I'm all in favour of London Boris Johnson International. Think its the best idea for London in terms of Balance.

Only works if Heathrow closes and that's a fantasy. That would decimate the economy of West London.

Rather than use mixed mode to increase available slots, why don't they use them to decrease current wait times for departures and arrivals, would at least keep the NIMBY's happy and improve the travel performance for current pax.

In time if LHR starts loosing traffic to the continent then those additional slots could be put on the market.

As someone who lives under the LHR flightpath I'm all in favour of a brand new airport in the Thames estuary.

LHR has got to capacity and now it's time for a new airport.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 2): This would only work if there was a willingness to invest not just in the airport but the transport links too.

True. We can expect the UK gov't to allow a very expensive rail service to exist ripping off every passenger who uses it. Transport links usually follow the facility about 10 years or more later.

If the airport and transport infrastructure aren't being built together in unison then you know it will be a disaster.

Quoting par13del (Reply 4): In time if LHR starts loosing traffic to the continent then those additional slots could be put on the market.

If? My understanding is that LHR is already losing in the sense that it's growing at a slower pace than the rest.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6): If? My understanding is that LHR is already losing in the sense that it's growing at a slower pace than the rest.

May well be, but as long as carriers are willing to spend millions to get current slots those losses can be "played down" by stating that the airport is still in demand.
Perception goes a long way before reality kicks in.

Quoting readytotaxi (Thread starter): The UK chancellor has been “secretly” pushing a proposal that would see an extra 1000 flights per week at LHR.

What's secret about it? Doing simultaneous takeoffs and landings has been discussed at LHR for years to increase the number of flights.

Quoting readytotaxi (Thread starter): will formally present plans for a 4 runway Thames Estuary airport. Interesting times.

About time. If its not a 24/7 airport, it won't be enough. London will grow and high paying jobs need air transport. Ideally closing LHR, but I do not think that is required. It might not be advisable due to the time required to build the ground transportation too.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3): Only works if Heathrow closes and that's a fantasy. That would decimate the economy of West London.

If the ground transportation links were done well enough, West London would do fine. It would be a quick shift in a HUGE number of positions.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6): If? My understanding is that LHR is already losing in the sense that it's growing at a slower pace than the rest.

  

And dropping smaller cities for the trunk routes.
Airports With Greatest Number Of Connected Cities (by lightsaber May 14 2012 in Aviation Polls)

LHR is tied for connectivity at #15 with 155 destinations:
Rank by airport destinations Airport # destinations
1 FRA 253
2 AMS 221
3 CDG 218
4 ATL 200
5 PEK 190
6 DME 189
7 IST 185
8 MUC 184
9 ORD 182
10 DXB 175
11 DFW 173
12 IAH 168
13 DEN 161
14 LGW 157
15 FCO 155
15 LHR 155
15 MAD 155

Lightsaber

Lighsaber speaking as a local, it's a fantasy. The M4 corrirdor and so many jobs depend on proximity to LHR. Low paid jobs with handlers, drivers, minimum wagers. None of whom could afford to move lock stock and barrell East. It's dead easy to say " well if this were done it would work", however the implementation, the attention to detail all say it can't be done on an acceptable budget. This is mature, semi bust western Europe, not booming Hong Kong. The compariosn to Chep Lap Kok is disingenuous. Terminal 2 at LHR is not complete yet, opens 2014. Do you honestly think they're building that for a ten year lifespan? BA have said they have no intention of moving out of West London. Why would they when they can have LHR all to themselves? Crossrail is underway, again they're not connecting it to LHR on the assumption it will be closing. See what is being DONE, not what is bring SAID. Boris is an ambitious man who folds when details need to be looked at. He's all jokes, humour and ideas. Currently he wants a new runway at a green field half empty Stansted. He is saying what voters want to hear, the govt by stealth will do what needs to be done, against the wishes of some voters.

[Edited 2012-06-24 08:42:02]

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 8): What's secret about it? Doing simultaneous takeoffs and landings has been discussed at LHR for years to increase the number of flights.

Agreed, newspapers words not mine.

Interesting about the additional 8 mile line up needed for approach.

You gotta love the UK...

Why build new infrastructure or plan for the future, when we can make do with what we have!

Supposedly one of the top ten wealthiest countries in the world, with third world transport facilities!

BJ gets a lot of bad press and not my favourite person, but atleast he is forward thinking and trying to plan for the future, on this particular project.

Its an absolute joke how you have an airport, that handles more passenger than any other European airport, and airports like CDG, AMS, FRA, MAD and FCO all have twice as many runways!

I wonder what our European and Worldwide counterparts think of us Brits?!

Its exactly the same with our motorways and rail network.

Instead of building motorways, they just convert the hard shoulder into a new lane. With our railways they just continue to use a rail network, developed in the Victoian ages and make do.

While at the same time, we pay the highest rail fares in Europe, some of the highest fuel prices in the world and the highest level of taxes of air tickets in the world.

If any new runway or airport is agreed, there will be legal challenges and judicial review that will take 20 years to be agreed and a further 10 years to be built!

Just take HS2 for example, its gonna take 20 years and that only goes as far as Birmingham!

Rant over!

And Breath!

[Edited 2012-06-24 12:02:44]

A third runway at LHR is a hell of a lot cheaper than a Themes airport. Combine the third runway with updating the ATC system with the newer technologies which are available will enable many more flights. Aircraft are becoming quieter and more fuel efficient/less polluting which will be a benefit for all.

The curfew would be maintained as an accommodation to West Londoners.

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 11):

  Now that was a GOOD rant.   

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 13): Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 11):   Now that was a GOOD rant.

I agree!

Although I do like the idea of a Thames Hub in general I do not think it is the best idea for London, as many have said before it would lead or need to lead to the closure of LHR which we all know is very unlikely. The only reason a new airport in Hong Kong, Berlin and Denver worked was because the closing airport(s) were publicly owned, closing down a privalty owned business would never be allowed (especially with all the money invested e.g. T5 and the new T2). However I do believe that LHR and BAA should be forward thinking for a 4th runway as well. which is why I like the idea of a Thames estuary airport. Heathrow, with the new Crossrail and HS2 (linked to HS1), plus an improved and tidier centre area, and better airside connections between Terminals would make LHR much better to compete with the rest of Europe.

Also theres a debate on the expansion of airports in London in a couple of weeks:
http://www.standardevents.co.uk/airports/

About the Thames Estuary site: I'm thinking low lying marshland, plenty of water.... is it a fog factory just asking for weather problems? Migratory birds and associated bird-strikes? How would it compare to the fog issues at LHR and LGW?

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 11): Why build new infrastructure or plan for the future, when we can make do with what we have! Supposedly one of the top ten wealthiest countries in the world, with third world transport facilities! BJ gets a lot of bad press and not my favourite person, but atleast he is forward thinking and trying to plan for the future, on this particular project. Its an absolute joke how you have an airport, that handles more passenger than any other European airport, and airports like CDG, AMS, FRA, MAD and FCO all have twice as many runways! I wonder what our European and Worldwide counterparts think of us Brits?! Its exactly the same with our motorways and rail network. Instead of building motorways, they just convert the hard shoulder into a new lane. With our railways they just continue to use a rail network, developed in the Victoian ages and make do. While at the same time, we pay the highest rail fares in Europe, some of the highest fuel prices in the world and the highest level of taxes of air tickets in the world.

Tell me more about how difficult is your life. Get over it, you talk like you don't have food on your table everyday. What I think of you brits? Too little thinking. You have at least 4 airports in London area that I remember, and still, you think of doing another one because you can't make any of them work? Tell those guys talking about plane noise to go listen a 732 taking off or landing. Or even worse, a 707. The highway most people live near by is more noisy then a triple seven or a 744, cmon guys! Build a third runway or whatever you need to in LHR, because if you guys don't, in 20 years time you will be here in the same forum complaining about you airport system because you now have 5 airports and guess what? They don't work.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 9): Do you honestly think they're building that for a ten year lifespan? BA have said they have no intention of moving out of West London. Why would they when they can have LHR all to themselves?

Then maybe the solution is to build the Thames Estuary in stages. The reality is that London needs more capacity. Not for the jobs at the airport, but for the much higher paying jobs flying the flights.

Quoting rg787 (Reply 16): Build a third runway or whatever you need to in LHR, because if you guys don't, in 20 years time you will be here in the same forum complaining about you airport system because you now have 5 airports and guess what? They don't work.

I *really* wanted the 3rd runway at LHR. However, it isn't happening.    5 airports won't work. They'll mostly be spokes for other hubbing airlines for long haul.

Lightsaber

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 2): We have a history of this - We commit to the Channel tunnel, but wait years to open the High Speed Link (HS1) to London, making Eurostar services in the UK use "classic" lines for over a decade to reach London from the Tunnel. And HS2 which the current government seemed so keen to run with now seems to be dropping like a stone on their agenda, and even if it goes ahead it's initially a line to just Birmingham, to be extended onwards afterwards!

Don't complain. At least your country builds passenger rail. My country's idea of "transport links" is a highway.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 17): 5 airports won't work. They'll mostly be spokes for other hubbing airlines for long haul.

That sounds like a valid business model, actually. Have LHR and LGW be reserved for hub operations and the other airports be for spoke carriers. Why not? A similar system is at work with three airports in NYC. EWR is a UA hub, JFK is a DL/AA hub(ish). LGA is a spoke for everyone else.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 2): Boris Johnson's plans have to address what will happen to LHR if his Thames airport goes ahead. Worst case scenaario is a new airport built and LHR remains operating as is. It would have to shut, or a serious perimeter rule brought in to limit it to shorthaul flights (possibly UK and Ireland only).

We go over this again and again ... for Boris's fantasy island to succeed LHR would have to be forced to close - otherwise why would any airline incur the huge cost of moving? BA could sit back and wait to take over the whole airport perhaps, then be very happy indeed, rendering fantasy island a secondary diversion ...

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 9): Lighsaber speaking as a local, it's a fantasy. The M4 corrirdor and so many jobs depend on proximity to LHR. Low paid jobs with handlers, drivers, minimum wagers. None of whom could afford to move lock stock and barrell East.

In total agreement - none would be able to move without massive subsidy, consequently if LHR was forced to close there'd be a huge increase in social security costs. Then you have to add all the businesses that have located west of London on the M4 corridor, global enterprises to small suppliers, and consider the cost to them. A new airport rationally needs to consider all of the attendant costs, not just the one about building it.

Quoting par13del (Reply 4): Rather than use mixed mode to increase available slots, why don't they use them to decrease current wait times for departures and arrivals, would at least keep the NIMBY's happy and improve the travel performance for current pax.

Mixed mode that allowed 200 extra flights per week, not a 1,000 would be a good start. It creates some scope for expansion to meet requirements and helps reduced circling waits in the sky, or ground delays - both of which create pollution.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 12): A third runway at LHR is a hell of a lot cheaper than a Thames airport. Combine the third runway with updating the ATC system with the newer technologies which are available will enable many more flights. Aircraft are becoming quieter and more fuel efficient/less polluting which will be a benefit for all.

I always thought the UK NATS was world leading in technology and efficiency, certainly better than the US system.

Mixed mode will do what politicians like most.It will allow them not to make a decision at all and kick it into the long grass for a while. Reply 9 (a local) understands it.As a Londoner you only have to understand the whole of this cities infrastructure and communication to understand that anything other than Heathrow (a our global hub) is pure fantacy.

Dual mode will allow the status quo to continue for a few years. After that? The right decision is the short third runway with major concessions/rules on noise and 'opening hours'.The most likley route is probably a second runway at Gatwick 2020 or Stanstead.

London has a ring of good airports Heathrow, Luton, Stanstead, Southend, London City, Gatwick. We are not talking capacity we are talking Global Hub destinations with decent regional links.Anything that cannot be described as that has no business being at Heathrow today.

The third runway option remains the best for LHR. BAA were busy a few years ago buying up properties in the area and I do wonder if that is still on going?

One of the objections to a third runway was the pollution levels at LHR had to be reduced. These are mostly caused by all the queues of departing aircraft awaiting their turn. If you remove the queues you remove the pollution and presto a third runway overcomes the pollution problem.

I read in today's The Independent that LGW's CEO will again press for a second runway - notwithstanding the legal issue on the matter.

i do miss the old helicopter link we used to have between LHR - LGW, that was fun to fly. 

Quoting ACdreamliner (Reply 1): I'm all in favour of London Boris Johnson International. Think its the best idea for London in terms of Balance. Offers capacity, sustainable transport network options, keeps it away from people idiotic enough to buy an house near an airport if they don't like aircraft noise,

But it could be the worst option for London in terms of economic prosperity.

LHR directly employs over 70,000 people. It has been suggested that LHR supports another 120,000 jobs indirectly through the suppoprtring infra-structure. Workers in this infrastructure range from doctors to freight forwarders' truck drivers, from accountants to hotel cleaners. It is proposed to "move" all of this to East Kent. Would that not leave a highly depreseed economy in West London, particularly the London Borough of Hounslow where it is located?

The proposed airport is in an area of as many as five separate Special Protection Areas. Additionally much of the area is also covered by the Ramsar International Convention on Wetlands that recognises the crucial role that area of the estuary plays for birds migrating to and from areas as far afield as Siberia, Canada and north Africa.

http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-...in/ramsar/1-31-38%5E20671_4000_0__

Finally the airport will be larger than LHR and will therefore directly and indirectly create something of the order of a quarter of a million jobs in what are currently the rural areas near where it will be located. Not only will the cost of providing housing and suppporting infrastructure (such as schools and hospitals) for these employees and their families be very high, but most will have to be built on greenfield sites to the further detriment of the East Kent environment. This infrastructure would have to include the construction of hotels to more than replace most of the scores of hotels listed on this web site:

http://heathrow.airporthotelguide.com/

To sumarise, moving London's main airport will create an economically depressed area in the London Borough of Hounslow by transferring an important area of economic activity to an area of rural East Kent much of which is in Special Protection Areas and is covered by the Ramsar Convention:

Having said this there would be one economic benefit. Traffic on the M25 would flow much more freely to the economic benefit of future users.

Quoting [email protected] (Reply 22): I read in today's The Independent that LGW's CEO will again press for a second runway - notwithstanding the legal issue on the matter.

The legal restriction on operating a second runway at LGW expires in 2019. As far as I know the restriction is on a second operational runway. If the current owners of LGW wanted a second runway to be built ready for use in 2019 they would still need to go through the formal planning process. So they would need to submit a detailed Planning Application pretty quickly.

Putney MP and Transport Secretary admits in tonights Evening Standard that she thinks LHR needs two more runways so won't grant a third as they need a fourth. She wants expansions in that magical place, "elsewhere".


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...ver-airport-expansion-7880630.html

Even funnier is the compaint about VFR aircraft disturbing the peace at Wimbledon. ( the same Wimbledon on the final approach path for Heathrow, where the whine of V2500 powered Airbuses is prevalent on TV coverage! )
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...y-zone-over-wimbledon-7880541.html

[Edited 2012-06-25 09:41:26]

Quoting ACdreamliner (Reply 1): keeps it away from people idiotic enough to buy an house near an airport if they don't like aircraft noise

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 12): The curfew would be maintained as an accommodation to West Londoners

The smugness [I was going to say arrogance but that might be a bit provocative] of people who decide its their right to accuse west Londoners of NIMBYism and telling us its our own fault for living here is awesome.

I am a HUGE LHR fan and have lived under and just off the flight path for 25 yrs, moving in when the level of flying was much less than it is now. Why do some people feel we have lost the right to object to having our way of life disturbed by yet more expansion - and as for the folk who'd have their homes demolished to allow for expansion perish the thought that they should be allowed to raise any objections.

Rant over

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 26): The smugness [I was going to say arrogance but that might be a bit provocative] of people who decide its their right to accuse west Londoners of NIMBYism and telling us its our own fault for living here is awesome. I am a HUGE LHR fan and have lived under and just off the flight path for 25 yrs, moving in when the level of flying was much less than it is now. Why do some people feel we have lost the right to object to having our way of life disturbed by yet more expansion - and as for the folk who'd have their homes demolished to allow for expansion perish the thought that they should be allowed to raise any objections. Rant over

Well said. There need to be a balance between everyone's needs. The argument that the airport was there before ignores that the villages have sometimes been there as much as 1,000 years before.