Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Heathrow proposes new runway options

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • EGTC
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jan 2009
    • 2835

    Heathrow proposes new runway options

    They have put forward 3 ideas:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23337754
    Y.N.W.A
  • cloud_9
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Sep 2005
    • 2418

    #2
    I for one am not definately not in favour of the South-West proposal as it will encrouch very closely to my property that I bought last year (see attached image!).

    I'm not so bothered about the nosie and pollution issue as unlike alot of protestors I accept that living near an airport will mean additional noise and increased pollution.

    Plus, have you seen the fact that no matter which one is eventually decided upon (if indeed they are!) all three of the proposals will result in the need for major works to be carried out on the M25 and M4-spur that goes directly into LHR...it will be absolute chaos on the roads for many years!

    I've always said and will continue to vouch my support for the re-location of a hub airport in the South-East...I'm more than happy to move to where the work would take me, and if it meant re-locating to a new part of London or the South-East then so be it.

    The option of the airport on the Isle of Grain in Kent is the best option...it would only take 24mins by high-speed rail into London Bridge, which is closer to the centre of London than London Paddington where the current Heathrow Express takes people to.

    Heathrow can/should be closed down once the new airport has been completed and is operational, and it can be turned into one of those new "eco-city" type places which offers opportunities to provide much needed housing and increased job opportunites (more than what LHR currently provides!).

    Whilst I know the primary argument against a new hub airport is the huge costs and the amount of time it would take to construct, but quite simply expanding Heathrow is a short-term solution to what is a large and long-term problem. I truly believe that a new more modern facility is required to take this country and aviation capcity forward into the future generations.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by cloud_9; 17th July 2013, 16:33.

    Comment

    • ~Alan~
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Mar 2010
      • 5018

      #3
      I don't think anyone would have problems with that.
      Engine Failure:.... A condition which occurs when all fuel tanks mysteriously become filled with air.

      Comment

      • nJayM
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jun 2008
        • 1687

        #4
        I think LHR has had its day and it is better shut and a new hub with 4-6 runway options being constructed elsewhere with a short journey into London (shorter than Heathrow Express).
        The 4 to 6 runways could continue being built while the new airport opens with say 3 runways making it operationally cost effective sooner than later e.g 2017-2018
        Jay

        Comment

        • Paul F
          Retired Lawnmower Racer
          • May 2005
          • 1108

          #5
          Originally posted by cloud_9 View Post
          The option of the airport on the Isle of Grain in Kent is the best option...it would only take 24mins by high-speed rail into London Bridge, which is closer to the centre of London than London Paddington where the current Heathrow Express takes people to.

          Heathrow can/should be closed down once the new airport has been completed and is operational, and it can be turned into one of those new "eco-city" type places which offers opportunities to provide much needed housing and increased job opportunites (more than what LHR currently provides!).

          Whilst I know the primary argument against a new hub airport is the huge costs and the amount of time it would take to construct, but quite simply expanding Heathrow is a short-term solution to what is a large and long-term problem. I truly believe that a new more modern facility is required to take this country and aviation capcity forward into the future generations.

          1. Drain two major reservoirs in an area were water supplies are already tight (and relocate water storage), and relocate/bury a major busy eight (or more) lane motorway and bury/relocate two/three busy motorway/trunk road junctions, plus build a new runway, terminal and linking taxiways...


          or: 2. build a new runway, taxiways and terminal and some improvmeents to road/rail links to London and LHR ... (Gatwick)


          or: 3. build a new runway, taxiways and terminal and significant improvement to road/rail links to London and LHR.... (Stansted)


          or: 4. build a major new airport from scratch and make major improvement to road/rail links including another much needed Thames Crossing ("Boris Island"/Isle of Grain)


          Sorry, I cannot see options 1 or 4 being the most likely. Yes Gatwick cannot have a second runway before 2019 IIRC, but would either scheme 1 or scheme 4 really be started any sooner by the time the inevitable public enquiries/appeals/court cases and second enquiries had happened...


          Nope, I reckon it is most likely that the Gatwick or Stansted options will be the end result.

          And IMHO Gatwick is the most likely outcome because it is closer to London (time wise) than Stansted. Victoria is only 35mins away by train, and an improved rail service between Gatwick and LHR could be sorted to give a better "hub" scenario.Yes M23 is busy at rush hours , but so to is the M11, and both are h3ll once you get inside the M25 ring.

          Maybe the best bet of all would be to establish a second major hub somewhere further north like Birmingham or Manchester, so that fewer people have to travel down to LHR/GAT to catch a wide selection of long hauls...?

          And, as an outside bet, why not improve surface transport links to Manston, where a perfectly good runway is relatively little used, and there might even be room to add yet another runway further into the future?



          Paul F

          Comment

          • ~Alan~
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Mar 2010
            • 5018

            #6
            The powers that be think the world revolves around London. So although it would be better if a new airport were located away from London, I don't see it ever happening.

            Question: Why do we need extra airport capacity ?
            Why do we need another Hub.
            Engine Failure:.... A condition which occurs when all fuel tanks mysteriously become filled with air.

            Comment

            • Amiga500
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Feb 2010
              • 2166

              #7
              Originally posted by ~Alan~ View Post
              Question: Why do we need extra airport capacity ?
              Because the number of people looking to fly is exceeding the capacity of the aircraft currently designated to the available aircraft slots.

              2 high-level solutions:

              - Mandate bigger aircraft
              - Increase number of slots available


              Originally posted by ~Alan~ View Post
              Why do we need another Hub.
              That is a question for the airline planners. What are the passenger flight patterns into out of the various airports?

              I personally think a proper fix is needed, not the "band-aid" option of another runway at heathrow.


              Those making the decisions need to man-up and make a hard decision - expand Gatwick and/or Stansted or another new airport somewhere. All of which need equipped with high speed rail links that run to the city centre and integrate with the subway system.

              It'll be expensive - the bean counters will be very quick to point that out. They won't be so quick to point out the price of not doing it.

              Comment

              • tenthije
                Harrie Spotter
                • Jan 2000
                • 5102

                #8
                Originally posted by Amiga500 View Post
                2 high-level solutions:

                - Mandate bigger aircraft
                - Increase number of slots available
                High level solution three: stimulate people / airlines to use other airports or modes of transport. Most likely through taxation and surcharges.

                The rest of your post is spot on if you ask me. It takes political courage to push through something controversial. Of course political courage is one of the larger oxymorons.



                Originally posted by Paul F
                Maybe the best bet of all would be to establish a second major hub somewhere further north like Birmingham or Manchester, so that fewer people have to travel down to LHR/GAT to catch a wide selection of long hauls...?
                Neither BA nor BMI / British Midland where able to run a MAN hub the way you describe.

                If anything running a hub is now more difficult then back in "ye good olde days" of BritMid and BA in their prime. The advent of the low cost carriers has given people a lot of choises. This makes it harder for an airline to develop the critical mass needed for a hub.

                The critical mass is always the most important factor for an hub. That's why a split hub operation like LHR/LGW hardly ever works*. For that reason any expansion plans would have to be either at LHR or at a green field. Unless of course the UK is willing to sacrifice their role as major transfer hub. Bare in mind that this will cost destinations and probably frequency as well. Again a route needs critical mass to be sustainable and that means having a hub. London is in a very fortunate situation that it is one of the world's largest O&D destinations. Except for London, New York, Beijing and Moscow I don't think there are cities that are able to run a large and profitable network on O&D alone.



                * there are examples of successful hubs operating within somewhat close proximity. For instance FRA/MUC. But usually dual hubs end up with one hub being the big one, and the other being used for regional/domestic/charter operations. For instance Paris's CDG/ORY or Tokyo's NRT/HND.
                Click here to view my photos at JetPhotos.net!
                Click here to visit my website!

                Comment

                • Skymonster
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jul 2004
                  • 1986

                  #9
                  Heathrow Airports Limited are only interested in Heathrow Airports Limited... They won't necessarily be promoting what's best for the UK or best for air traffic... Really, the best solution for the long term is to rip up LHR and start again somewhere else (e.g. Isle of Grain / Boris Island). The real estate value of the land on which Heathrow currently stands will go a huge way to paying for a new airport. However, I recognise that the political will is unlikely to be there to "bulldoze" plans for a new airport through and as a result such a project will get bogged down in huge amounts of largely politically motivated inquiries... There's anothe problem with sticking with Heathrow anyway which I believe NATS is concerned about - UK airspace in the south east is full for much of the day, and adding a lot more traffic at Heathrow won't help and it'll likely mean more airborne holding, further away from the London TMA. And more airborne holding means more delays, more fuel burned, more pollution...

                  Having said that - and as I've said before - there are what I think are viable solutions:

                  1. Route the High Speed 2 rail line directly under Heathrow and put a station there (forget about Old Oak Common - no one going to or coming from the north will want to double back there)

                  2. Provide airline checkin at the HS2 stations in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle. Provide secured "checked baggage" facilities on the HS2 trains, with checked baggage transferred from the HS2 station to aeroplanes without the passenger needing to lug it around again (it works for Frankfurt-Cologne where the trains have LH flight numbers - why not the UK?)

                  3. Make airlines offer pro-rated faring between train and air, and vice-versa, for domestic connections (much as domestic flight add-ons don't cost the full rate now)

                  4. When HS2 is completed, ban all flights between Heathrow and Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle - and when HS2 gets to Glasgow and Edinburgh, same for those too. Just over one hour Heathrow to Manchester or Leeds by train would be better than air, two and a quarter hours to Newcastle very competitive with air. Even Heathrow to Edinburgh in just over three hours is fairly competitive with domestic air when the air check-in / transfer time, and the distance and time for travel from/to airport and city centres is taken into account

                  5. Re-use the domestic slots for more international services

                  If further capacity is still needed...

                  6. Kick the RAF out of Northolt

                  7. Build an airside-only terminal at Northolt - there isn't space for all the landside infrastructure needed, such as parking, etc, and the ground transportation links to Northolt aren't good - check-in, baggage drop and reclaim, security would remain at Heathrow. Trains would have segregated secure compartments / carriages for checked baggage checked at Heathrow or being reclaimed at Heathrow, maybe even take baggage ULDs directly

                  8. Build an "airside only" (i.e. beyond secturity) high-speed "maglev" style train between each terminal at Heathow and the new terminal at Northolt - a five minute frequency, ten minute journey wouldn't take any longer than the transfer between the existing Heathrow terminals - Northolt's terminal could be called the Heathrow North terminal, or something similar

                  9. Move some short-haul services to the new Northolt facility
                  "Light travels faster than sound-that's why some people seem bright until they speak"
                  AirTeamImages
                  - the best aviation photography

                  Comment

                  Unconfigured Ad Widget

                  Collapse

                   

                  Working...
                  X