Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA) currently enable airports with parallel runways of a separation ranging from 750 to 3000 feet apart (center line to center line) to conduct nearly simultaneous approaches to the two runways, with the help of Raytheon's Precision Runway Monitor (PRM). SOIA's limits, although enough for SFO (whose runways are separated by just 750 feet), are not enough for LGW, whose runways have a center line separation of 200 meters, or approximately 656 feet. Do you think Raytheon could potentially improve PRM to lower SOIA's limits to 656 feet? If so, would Gatwick likely implement this? Would "enhanced" SOIA make Gatwick a stronger alternative to Heathrow?

Oops, I think this needs to be moved to Technical/Operations.

Even if they could, I don't think it is permitted by EASA and the UK CAA. The SFO thing is a US thing only.

VSMUT wrote:

Even if they could, I don't think it is permitted by EASA and the UK CAA. The SFO thing is a US thing only.

I think if Raytheon actually developed and proved the technology to FAA standards, EASA and the UK CAA would likely approve it. SYD currently uses SOIA, albeit with much greater runway separation than SFO.

quintol wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Even if they could, I don't think it is permitted by EASA and the UK CAA. The SFO thing is a US thing only.

I think if Raytheon actually developed and proved the technology to FAA standards, EASA and the UK CAA would likely approve it. SYD currently uses SOIA, albeit with much greater runway separation than SFO.

I doubt they would. They were removed for a reason.
Such close parallel approaches are bonkers anyway. If Gatwick needs an extra runway, they are better served by building a new one.

VSMUT wrote:

quintol wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Even if they could, I don't think it is permitted by EASA and the UK CAA. The SFO thing is a US thing only.

I think if Raytheon actually developed and proved the technology to FAA standards, EASA and the UK CAA would likely approve it. SYD currently uses SOIA, albeit with much greater runway separation than SFO.

I doubt they would. They were removed for a reason.
Such close parallel approaches are bonkers anyway. If Gatwick needs an extra runway, they are better served by building a new one.

Who's "they"?

I think an enhanced SOIA would be beneficial in using Gatwick's runways to their full potential, and avoiding all the debt and litigation incurred from a new runway. With the increased traffic associated with dual runway operations, they could ease high demand for London air travel and become a better alternative to Heathrow, especially if Heathrow is unable to expand in the future.

Nah, aside from the Runway and the taxiway cum runway being so close together, that’s such a congested Airspace, theres no space for near simultaneous realistic go around procedures, I just can’t see the CAA signing off on anything.

Bhoy wrote:

Nah, aside from the Runway and the taxiway cum runway being so close together, that’s such a congested Airspace, theres no space for near simultaneous realistic go around procedures, I just can’t see the CAA signing off on anything.

I think much of London's air congestion is actually caused by its lack of runways, not by its excess of them, especially due to the abundance of holding aircraft due to Heathrow's capacity issues. With an additional operational runway at Gatwick, this congestion should ease somewhat, and I can't see CAA supporting the congestion of London's airspace.

The distance between LGW 2 runway centre is around 200m (650ft)

quintol wrote:

Oops, I think this needs to be moved to Technical/Operations.

Done. You can make a request to get it moved by reporting it the next time.

The emerging view from the above posts is that Gatwick operates as a 2-runway airport. This is not the case, it is a single runway operation. However, to ensure continuity when the "only runway" is shut for whatever reason, the parallel taxiway has been equipped to serve as a replacement or backup runway.

Other than the necessary technology to make parallel ops a safe reality, I would imagine that there is some law/act/certificate/..... that expressly limits Gatwick to single-runway operations at any one time, and changing that might prove more difficult than getting the techno bits in place!

A quick search unearthed the Gatwick Master Plan 2018. Seems that the legal restriction of 2-runway use might expire this year (When, I don't know)

https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalas ... -final.pdf


A higher level of growth would be possible if
we bring the existing standby runway into regular
use (for departing flights only). The standby
runway is currently used only when the main
runway is temporarily closed. Our 1979 Section
52 Agreement2
with West Sussex County Council
precludes the simultaneous use of both runways.
This agreement expires in 2019. By operating
both runways simultaneously, we would be able
to add between 10 and 15 additional hourly
aircraft movements in the peak hours, which
could deliver up to 70 million passengers by 2032.
The airfield would need some reconfiguration
and some additional support infrastructure would
be required. However we expect to keep the
airport development within the airport’s existing
footprint and the airport would remain a two
terminal operation. Initial indications are that
aircraft noise generated by this scheme would
be broadly similar to today’s level.
1

sassiciai wrote:

The emerging view from the above posts is that Gatwick operates as a 2-runway airport. This is not the case, it is a single runway operation. However, to ensure continuity when the "only runway" is shut for whatever reason, the parallel taxiway has been equipped to serve as a replacement or backup runway.

Other than the necessary technology to make parallel ops a safe reality, I would imagine that there is some law/act/certificate/..... that expressly limits Gatwick to single-runway operations at any one time, and changing that might prove more difficult than getting the techno bits in place!

A quick search unearthed the Gatwick Master Plan 2018. Seems that the legal restriction of 2-runway use might expire this year (When, I don't know)

https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalas ... -final.pdf

The restriction should either expire around now or at the end of 2019. Apparently, big changes will come to Gatwick's operations as a result.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -back-door
https://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2019/09/gatwi ... -time-use/
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/18/london- ... e-use.html

The Guardian:

A 40-year agreement struck by Gatwick and local councils ruling out a second runway expires in summer 2019.

Gizmodo:

2019 is a key year for the operator of Gatwick airport, as it's when a 40-year agreement not to run flights on its second runway at the same time as its main runway expires. And bosses have wasted no time in preparing a planning application asking to be allowed to do just that.

The agreement covered the airport's emergency/part-time runway on the north side, and was put in place to keep locals happy way back in the late 1970s when planning permission for the airport as a whole was granted. Now that it's expired, Gatwick's current bosses have handed in a preliminary scoping report outlining what it would like to do, telling the council that it would also like to expand both of its terminals at the same time as bringing its second runway into full time operation; a move that could massively increase annual passenger numbers from around 46 million now to 74 million by the year 2038.

CNBC:

At present, the second runway at Gatwick is currently only allowed to be used for emergencies or when the main runway is closed for maintenance. However, that 40-year restriction is set to expire at the end of 2019.

Has anyone who thought this was a good idea ever operated regularly through Gatters?
There was a review as to where to build ONE additional runway for the South East which chose LHR. If you want a second LGW runway then that re-sets and we go round the hamster wheel again. The whold business case for a second runway at LGW hinges on LHR not having a third. If and when that opens, both Virgin and BA long haul will be off to LHR alongside China Airlines and Air China, if not also Cathay. The only long haul that would remain would be Emirates and Qatar with Norwegian likely to dip their toes at LHR as per the OAK-.SFO move.

skipness1E wrote:

Has anyone who thought this was a good idea ever operated regularly through Gatters?
There was a review as to where to build ONE additional runway for the South East which chose LHR. If you want a second LGW runway then that re-sets and we go round the hamster wheel again. The whold business case for a second runway at LGW hinges on LHR not having a third. If and when that opens, both Virgin and BA long haul will be off to LHR alongside China Airlines and Air China, if not also Cathay. The only long haul that would remain would be Emirates and Qatar with Norwegian likely to dip their toes at LHR as per the OAK-.SFO move.

How about the terminals? From what I've experienced, they are a chaotic mess. Could they even take an extra runways worth of passengers without a major rebuild? Look at the BA lounge for one. Stuck down a narrow corridor, up several flights of stairs and down another corridor!

VSMUT wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

Has anyone who thought this was a good idea ever operated regularly through Gatters?
There was a review as to where to build ONE additional runway for the South East which chose LHR. If you want a second LGW runway then that re-sets and we go round the hamster wheel again. The whold business case for a second runway at LGW hinges on LHR not having a third. If and when that opens, both Virgin and BA long haul will be off to LHR alongside China Airlines and Air China, if not also Cathay. The only long haul that would remain would be Emirates and Qatar with Norwegian likely to dip their toes at LHR as per the OAK-.SFO move.

How about the terminals? From what I've experienced, they are a chaotic mess. Could they even take an extra runways worth of passengers without a major rebuild? Look at the BA lounge for one. Stuck down a narrow corridor, up several flights of stairs and down another corridor!

I think the whole business case for a third runway at LHR hinges on LGW not having/using a second. LGW can easily expand its second runway to allow it to meet ICAO standards (and commence daily operations) far before LHR's third runway even begins paving, and if LGW works with CAA and Raytheon to bring an enhanced SOIA to its parallel runways, London could end up having two equally competitive airports. The difference between them, however, would be that LGW has more/better space to expand into than LHR, and that in my mind could be the death knell for LHR.

London will not have "two equally competitve airports", again you fundamentally misunderstand the role of Gatwick. It has been and remains a short haul point to point airport whereas LHR has been a world hub for decades.
No major long haul carrier ever chose LGW over LHR due to the vastly inferior connections. LHR has had a critical mass on this that LGW can never match. They cannot ever be equally competitve in a commercial environment. By all means expand LGW but to suggest that in doing so is "the death knell for Heathrow" is deranged nonsense. Unless you force-close LHR and all the jobs therein are lost, LHR will more often than not be chosen over LGW by the airlines, because they go where the market demands.

How about "Your London Airport, Gatwick-Mirabel" as the marketing slogan for this idea. I see you joined "One week ago." Perhaps read some of the many threads on this before closing Heathrow? Having more space to expand than LHR was the whole rationale for the Stansted rebuild in the 1990s, an idea whose time still has not come, and instead remains a decent loco p2p base for FR and EZY with some niche long haul.

VSMUT wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

Has anyone who thought this was a good idea ever operated regularly through Gatters?
There was a review as to where to build ONE additional runway for the South East which chose LHR. If you want a second LGW runway then that re-sets and we go round the hamster wheel again. The whold business case for a second runway at LGW hinges on LHR not having a third. If and when that opens, both Virgin and BA long haul will be off to LHR alongside China Airlines and Air China, if not also Cathay. The only long haul that would remain would be Emirates and Qatar with Norwegian likely to dip their toes at LHR as per the OAK-.SFO move.

How about the terminals? From what I've experienced, they are a chaotic mess. Could they even take an extra runways worth of passengers without a major rebuild? Look at the BA lounge for one. Stuck down a narrow corridor, up several flights of stairs and down another corridor!

Not without a step-change, a complete rebuild. The modern North Terminal home of BA's old hub is now an easyJet base and BA have retreated to the South where Pier 2 is a windowless 70s throwback. The new Pier 1 has just managed to sort a domestic arrivals route some years after they forgot to add it into the design after demolishing the old Pier 1, it's all very piecemeal as the ROI just isn't there. Even in summer whole swathes of the South Terminal stand empty as stand demand has massive peaks and troughs. At peak, certainly at first wave, it's a nightmare, but that's not unique to LGW. Not sure who exactly would *fill* a 2nd runway to be fair.

skipness1E wrote:

London will not have "two equally competitve airports", again you fundamentally misunderstand the role of Gatwick. It has been and remains a short haul point to point airport whereas LHR has been a world hub for decades.
No major long haul carrier ever chose LGW over LHR due to the vastly inferior connections. LHR has had a critical mass on this that LGW can never match. They cannot ever be equally competitve in a commercial environment. By all means expand LGW but to suggest that in doing so is "the death knell for Heathrow" is deranged nonsense. Unless you force-close LHR and all the jobs therein are lost, LHR will more often than not be chosen over LGW by the airlines, because they go where the market demands.

How about "Your London Airport, Gatwick-Mirabel" as the marketing slogan for this idea. I see you joined "One week ago." Perhaps read some of the many threads on this before closing Heathrow?

Mirabel was built as a replacement airport for Montreal when then Dorval Airport was still perfectly suited for Montreal. Heathrow is no longer suited for Montreal, which is why a third runway is supposed to be built there. What I'm suggesting is that due to expected delays in the construction of the third runway (if it ever begins, considering the British political climate), Gatwick has a chance of reaching that critical mass while Heathrow continues to be stifled by its two runways.

EDIT:

skipness1E wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

Has anyone who thought this was a good idea ever operated regularly through Gatters?
There was a review as to where to build ONE additional runway for the South East which chose LHR. If you want a second LGW runway then that re-sets and we go round the hamster wheel again. The whold business case for a second runway at LGW hinges on LHR not having a third. If and when that opens, both Virgin and BA long haul will be off to LHR alongside China Airlines and Air China, if not also Cathay. The only long haul that would remain would be Emirates and Qatar with Norwegian likely to dip their toes at LHR as per the OAK-.SFO move.

How about the terminals? From what I've experienced, they are a chaotic mess. Could they even take an extra runways worth of passengers without a major rebuild? Look at the BA lounge for one. Stuck down a narrow corridor, up several flights of stairs and down another corridor!

Not without a step-change, a complete rebuild. The modern North Terminal home of BA's old hub is now an easyJet base and BA have retreated to the South where Pier 2 is a windowless 70s throwback. The new Pier 1 has just managed to sort a domestic arrivals route some years after they forgot to add it into the design after demolishing the old Pier 1, it's all very piecemeal as the ROI just isn't there. Even in summer whole swathes of the South Terminal stand empty as stand demand has massive peaks and troughs. At peak, certainly at first wave, it's a nightmare, but that's not unique to LGW. Not sure who exactly would *fill* a 2nd runway to be fair.

I'd argue that Gatwick could undertake a massive renovation, falling short of the greater cost to rebuild, to create a more enticing North & South Terminal for Heathrow-level traffic. Additionally, Gatwick could build a third terminal if demand rises with the stalled Heathrow third runway.

You've literally never been to either Heathrow or Gatwick have you?
Have you any idea on the Delta in size between a full LHR today and LGW?
You would need to rebuild the totality of both North and South Terminals and still not approach today's levels of space needed at LHR.
Given LGW's current portfolio is BA's lowest cost operation, easyJet and Norwegian, who exactly is going to pick up the bill? It's daft mate, give it up. The locos won't pay up.

"Gatwick has a chance of reaching that critical mass"
You are conflating what I said. LHR's critical mass was gained in interlining and code sharing. Almost none of this happens at LGW, not even approaching LHR levels. Again, you are fundamentally ignoring the market dynamics at each airport, no alliance is asking to expand LGW so they can move there.

skipness1E wrote:

You've literally never been to either Heathrow or Gatwick have you?
Have you any idea on the Delta in size between a full LHR today and LGW?
You would need to rebuild the totality of both North and South Terminals and still not approach today's levels of space needed at LHR.
Given LGW's current portfolio is BA's lowest cost operation, easyJet and Norwegian, who exactly is going to pick up the bill? It's daft mate, give it up. The locos won't pay up.

"Gatwick has a chance of reaching that critical mass"
You are conflating what I said. LHR's critical mass was gained in interlining and code sharing. Almost none of this happens at LGW, not even approaching LHR levels. Again, you are fundamentally ignoring the market dynamics at each airport, no alliance is asking to expand LGW so they can move there.

I concede that a third terminal in conjunction with the North and South Terminals may not be able to accommodate Heathrow-level traffic, but I think LGW has sufficient space to construct enough terminals to reach Heathrow-level traffic, which would be financed by its new owner Vinci. Unlike LGW's previous owner, Vinci is much more ambitious, and likely aims to have it become Britain's #1 airport - they've already provided $1.32 billion USD to expand LIS and construct a new hub for the city last January, and it'd be miraculous if they didn't pump an even larger investment into LGW. If Vinci wants a hub in Lisbon, why wouldn't it want one in London? (See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vinc ... SKCN1P223J & https://www.vinci-airports.com/en/news/ ... -s-airport)

Sorry but
1) Have you ever been to either LHR or LGW? Ever?
2) What's the point in building a LHR sized airport when LHR remains open?

You are fundamentally wrong on your market analysis. Any new owner has to raise charges to pay for significant investment and take on substantial levels of debt. HAL for example will be squeezing their current customers to pay for expansion, those customers could move to LGW tomorrow for cheaper fees, except they won't because yields are generally much stronger out of LHR.
So you advocate doubling the size of LGW to compete with LHR and getting any ROI how exactly? You are arguing for an airport planners wet dream, not a remotely likely outcome. Who is going to PAY for this? It's hard enough getting LHR built with the taxpayer having a part to play on motorway access and public transport costs, TFL loving this as they can argue for even more budget.

So name some airlines who support your view LGW should be expanded to LHR levels?

You ask why Vici can build a hub in Lisbon and not at LGW? Lisbon's new airport will have a based hub (flag-)carrier, LGW does not. BA does not hub at Gatters, it's a point to point low cost outbound leisure business model. LIS does not have an airport twice it's size in the same airspace, the analogy doesn't work IMHO

skipness1E wrote:

Sorry but
1) Have you ever been to either LHR or LGW? Ever?
2) What's the point in building a LHR sized airport when LHR remains open?

You are fundamentally wrong on your market analysis. Any new owner has to raise charges to pay for significant investment and take on substantial levels of debt. HAL for example will be squeezing their current customers to pay for expansion, those customers could move to LGW tomorrow for cheaper fees, except they won't because yields are generally much stronger out of LHR.
So you advocate doubling the size of LGW to compete with LHR and getting any ROI how exactly? You are arguing for an airport planners wet dream, not a remotely likely outcome. Who is going to PAY for this? It's hard enough getting LHR built with the taxpayer having a part to play on motorway access and public transport costs, TFL loving this as they can argue for even more budget.

So name some airlines who support your view LGW should be expanded to LHR levels?

You ask why Vici can build a hub in Lisbon and not at LGW? Lisbon's new airport will have a based hub (flag-)carrier, LGW does not. BA does not hub at Gatters, it's a point to point low cost outbound leisure business model. LIS does not have an airport twice it's size in the same airspace, the analogy doesn't work IMHO

Vinci is currently €61.432 billion in capitalization, while Ferrovial (the multinational company that owns Heathrow) is currently €19.450 billion in capitalization.

Vinci is not your typical "new owner." Vinci is a giant multibillion dollar company more than three times as large as Ferrovial that has enough in its coffers to solve all of your aforementioned problems. Try not to jump to conclusions.

Sources:
Ferrovial - http://www.bolsamadrid.es/ing/aspx/Empr ... 010&id=ing
Vinci - https://live.euronext.com/en/product/eq ... 25486-XPAR

Bhoy wrote:

Nah, aside from the Runway and the taxiway cum runway being so close together, that’s such a congested Airspace, theres no space for near simultaneous realistic go around procedures, I just can’t see the CAA signing off on anything.

No space for simultaneous go-arounds? As to LHR, disagree. A 15 degree (or more) turn North for 9L/27R, and 15 degree (or more) turn South for 9R/27L. The congestion there isn't all that much, or complex.

And the ROI comes from where?
Who is asking for this?Which airlines has asked for LGW to replace LHR?
Their market cap didn't get so big by spending money with no business case.

I am not "jumping to conclusions", I have following this all my adult life. You have yet to suggest a compelling reason to spend money on a project no airline has asked for and that the market does not want. Again, let me press you.
What major airline has asked for this?
Will Lufthansa move to LGW? Why not?
Should British Airways abandon T5?
Perhaps American will do better at LGW?
DL/VS should leave LHR to Oneworld/STAR and build a new hub at LGW paying higher fees to pay for rebuilding the whole airport whilst leaving AA/BA to run up losses at LHR?

Utter nonsense. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. As for close parallel approaches, SFO is hated in poor weather as it's movement rate comes crashing down, it's unreliable in winter, much more so than LHR and SFO enjoys better weather than LGW.

skipness1E wrote:

And the ROI comes from where?
Who is asking for this?Which airlines has asked for LGW to replace LHR?
Their market cap didn't get so big by spending money with no business case.

I am not "jumping to conclusions", I have following this all my adult life. You have yet to suggest a compelling reason to spend money on a project no airline has asked for and that the market does not want. Again, let me press you.
What major airline has asked for this?
Will Lufthansa move to LGW? Why not?
Should British Airways abandon T5?
Perhaps American will do better at LGW?
DL/VS should leave LHR to Oneworld/STAR and build a new hub at LGW paying higher fees to pay for rebuilding the whole airport whilst leaving AA/BA to run up losses at LHR?

Utter nonsense. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. As for close parallel approaches, SFO is hated in poor weather as it's movement rate comes crashing down, it's unreliable in winter, much more so than LHR and SFO enjoys better weather than LGW.

The ROI would likely come with LGW becoming a Skyteam hub as DL/VS take advantage of LGW's greater expansion opportunities and two relatively free runways. A Skyteam hub at LGW would also provide the impetus for VS to finally join Skyteam. However, Skyteam would not pay "higher fees to pay for rebuilding the whole airport" - instead, Vinci would privately finance the entire renovation/expansion (similar to how LIS's expansion has been entirely financed by Vinci) in return for LGW becoming Skyteam's new home. On the topic of SOIA, the #1 and #6 airports in terms of annual passenger traffic use it (ATL & ORD), both ahead of LHR at #7.

AirFrance and KLM aren’t moving to LGW.
Delta fought hard to leave.
Virgin have their smallest LGW operation in the 15 years I have been London based, LAS recently moved to LHR.
But yeah, a SkyTeam hub at LGW.

Is it still on the plan to build a second runway in Gatwick?

I was looking at this plan and it looks pretty cool

https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalas ... _final.pdf

skipness1E wrote:

AirFrance and KLM aren’t moving to LGW.
Delta fought hard to leave.
Virgin have their smallest LGW operation in the 15 years I have been London based, LAS recently moved to LHR.
But yeah, a SkyTeam hub at LGW.

There is precedent for a large airline to move from the major airport of a metropolitan area to a slightly smaller alternative. UA moved from JFK to EWR, the new hub airport with nearly the same number of annual passengers as LGW with both around 46 million passengers per year. However, LGW's current annual passenger numbers are only with its one operating runway. If LGW follows through with its plan to widen 08L/26R 12 meters/~39 feet to ensure it meets the international standard for the minimum 210 meters/~689 feet separation between simultaneously operating runways, it could potentially meet its 70 million passenger (annum) goal by 2032/33. (Pg 88 of the Gatwick Airport Draft Master Plan - October 2018: https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalas ... -final.pdf) With an enhanced SOIA that would only have to decrease its minimum runway separation by ~60 feet, Gatwick could most definitely increase its goals above 70 million passengers, and combining this with a lengthening of 08L/26R to 10,879 feet, 1.5 nautical mile staggers as used by SFO in .308 approaches in IFR (see slides 4 & 5 of SFO SOIA RNAV (GPS) PRM, starting with JO 7110.308 https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_ ... Status.pdf), and mixed mode runways, Gatwick could meet Heathrow's 80 million annual passenger load. Technology & procedures for closely spaced parallel runways is improving dramatically, especially due to SFO's runways, and they could likely be transferred to how LGW operates to allow it to approach LHR's current capacity. LHR's third runway will likely never come to fruition with the current political climate in Britain, so the increasing air traffic in the South East of England should be accommodated by LGW.

rabader wrote:

Is it still on the plan to build a second runway in Gatwick?

I was looking at this plan and it looks pretty cool

https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalas ... _final.pdf

It's unlikely, since LGW is planning to bring the emergency/standby runway 08L/26R into daily operation. It will effectively become the second runway that was supposed to be built after 08L/26R is widened and possibly lengthened in the future.

quintol wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

AirFrance and KLM aren’t moving to LGW.
Delta fought hard to leave.
Virgin have their smallest LGW operation in the 15 years I have been London based, LAS recently moved to LHR.
But yeah, a SkyTeam hub at LGW.

There is precedent for a large airline to move from the major airport of a metropolitan area to a slightly smaller alternative. UA moved from JFK to EWR, the new hub airport with nearly the same number of annual passengers as LGW with both around 46 million passengers per year. However, LGW's current annual passenger numbers are only with its one operating runway. If LGW follows through with its plan to widen 08L/26R 12 meters/~39 feet to ensure it meets the international standard for the minimum 210 meters/~689 feet separation between simultaneously operating runways, it could potentially meet its 70 million passenger (annum) goal by 2032/33. (Pg 88 of the Gatwick Airport Draft Master Plan - October 2018: https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalas ... -final.pdf) With an enhanced SOIA that would only have to decrease its minimum runway separation by ~60 feet, Gatwick could most definitely increase its goals above 70 million passengers, and combining this with a lengthening of 08L/26R to 10,879 feet, 1.5 nautical mile staggers as used by SFO in .308 approaches in IFR (see slides 4 & 5 of SFO SOIA RNAV (GPS) PRM, starting with JO 7110.308 https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_ ... Status.pdf), and mixed mode runways, Gatwick could meet Heathrow's 80 million annual passenger load. Technology & procedures for closely spaced parallel runways is improving dramatically, especially due to SFO's runways, and they could likely be transferred to how LGW operates to allow it to approach LHR's current capacity. LHR's third runway will likely never come to fruition with the current political climate in Britain, so the increasing air traffic in the South East of England should be accommodated by LGW.

rabader wrote:

Is it still on the plan to build a second runway in Gatwick?

I was looking at this plan and it looks pretty cool

https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalas ... _final.pdf

It's unlikely, since LGW is planning to bring the emergency/standby runway 08L/26R into daily operation. It will effectively become the second runway that was supposed to be built after 08L/26R is widened and possibly lengthened in the future.

For UA, JFK was an outstation which they served with flights from their hubs at SFO and LAX. Instead of sending their premium transcons to an outstation, UA decided to fortify the massive hub they had 12 miles away and simplify the network. What you are proposing would be along the lines of UA moving their LGA operation to EWR, DL moving their DCA operation to IAD, or moving every domestic airline at DFW to DAL.

Gatwick can not replace Heathrow, at best, the Gatwick you propose would be a comprised Heathrow parody. It wold have 2 runways so close together, that operations on one runway would be dependent on what the other runway is doing, it would have the 75% potential capacity as Heathrow with more aircraft restrictions. The way Gatwick competes with Heathrow is having more airline access opportunities (they will do this with the airfield improvements bringing the second runway into normal use), similar or better access to the public transportation/city, and cheaper airport fees.

Web500sjc wrote:

quintol wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

AirFrance and KLM aren’t moving to LGW.
Delta fought hard to leave.
Virgin have their smallest LGW operation in the 15 years I have been London based, LAS recently moved to LHR.
But yeah, a SkyTeam hub at LGW.

There is precedent for a large airline to move from the major airport of a metropolitan area to a slightly smaller alternative. UA moved from JFK to EWR, the new hub airport with nearly the same number of annual passengers as LGW with both around 46 million passengers per year. However, LGW's current annual passenger numbers are only with its one operating runway. If LGW follows through with its plan to widen 08L/26R 12 meters/~39 feet to ensure it meets the international standard for the minimum 210 meters/~689 feet separation between simultaneously operating runways, it could potentially meet its 70 million passenger (annum) goal by 2032/33. (Pg 88 of the Gatwick Airport Draft Master Plan - October 2018: https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalas ... -final.pdf) With an enhanced SOIA that would only have to decrease its minimum runway separation by ~60 feet, Gatwick could most definitely increase its goals above 70 million passengers, and combining this with a lengthening of 08L/26R to 10,879 feet, 1.5 nautical mile staggers as used by SFO in .308 approaches in IFR (see slides 4 & 5 of SFO SOIA RNAV (GPS) PRM, starting with JO 7110.308 https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_ ... Status.pdf), and mixed mode runways, Gatwick could meet Heathrow's 80 million annual passenger load. Technology & procedures for closely spaced parallel runways is improving dramatically, especially due to SFO's runways, and they could likely be transferred to how LGW operates to allow it to approach LHR's current capacity. LHR's third runway will likely never come to fruition with the current political climate in Britain, so the increasing air traffic in the South East of England should be accommodated by LGW.

rabader wrote:

Is it still on the plan to build a second runway in Gatwick?

I was looking at this plan and it looks pretty cool

https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalas ... _final.pdf

It's unlikely, since LGW is planning to bring the emergency/standby runway 08L/26R into daily operation. It will effectively become the second runway that was supposed to be built after 08L/26R is widened and possibly lengthened in the future.

For UA, JFK was an outstation which they served with flights from their hubs at SFO and LAX. Instead of sending their premium transcons to an outstation, UA decided to fortify the massive hub they had 12 miles away and simplify the network. What you are proposing would be along the lines of UA moving their LGA operation to EWR, DL moving their DCA operation to IAD, or moving every domestic airline at DFW to DAL.

Gatwick can not replace Heathrow, at best, the Gatwick you propose would be a comprised Heathrow parody. It wold have 2 runways so close together, that operations on one runway would be dependent on what the other runway is doing, it would have the 75% potential capacity as Heathrow with more aircraft restrictions. The way Gatwick competes with Heathrow is having more airline access opportunities (they will do this with the airfield improvements bringing the second runway into normal use), similar or better access to the public transportation/city, and cheaper airport fees.

As detailed by my sources/links, approach procedures and technology are advancing at a rate that the distance between the runways at LGW is becoming insignificant, and just by widening 08L/26R, LGW can near ~88% of LHR's capacity. In the Gatwick Airport Draft Master Plan, LGW has already planned for this by at least 2032/33, if not earlier. If LGW also decided to lengthen the runway, use an enhanced SOIA, have .308 approaches, and use its runways in mixed mode, they should easily be able to meet 100% of LHR's capacity.

What I am proposing is better described as a mix of UA moving to EWR and Skyteam moving to PKX, since there would be construction on an existing airport to allow it to meet alliance hub capacity. Do you have any sources for LGW only having "75% potential capacity as Heathrow"?

Everyone has overlooked the 6-runway project at Exeter that will render LHR and LGW redundant. /humour