Read the forum code of contact
By: - 21st February 2006 at 14:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From an visitor's perspective, I've only been to LHR, I think they're definitely moving in the right direction to stay competitive. T5, new runway consideration and overhaul of the completed outdated and cluttered T1-3. Also, it's great that BA is moving everything under one roof. When terminal overhauls are complete, Star should bring as much of its services as possible into the same terminal and oneworld the same, because you're most likely connecting to partner of your alliance. It's a major pain in the you know what.
By: - 21st February 2006 at 15:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Completely agree with alliances consolidating in 1 terminal. bmi have stopped transfering your bags from bmi flights to, for example, Lufthansa due to costs incurred at LHR to do so.
It would be great from a consumer point of view to be able to have bags transfered again!
By: - 21st February 2006 at 16:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you're talking about the major developments taking place then I think you need to focus on the main issues at Stansted. The proposals at STN are a ridiculous cost, and many of the plans in their G1 and G2 masterplans are elaborate beyond the necessary. The BAA seem to have forgotten who their main clients are at these airports, and shoudl have consulted them better as to how they could develop the airport going forward. The LCCs are happy not to have airbridges and other elaborate infrastructure for example, it just adds silly cost to the overall schemes. Additionally there are even question marks over the NEED for a new runway at STN!!
By: - 21st February 2006 at 16:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hiya - saw this on a BAA Presentation ages ago and sourced it from their website - shows all what's happening at LHR when T5 opens - the so called "musical chairs" which will leave T2 all but empty ready for Heathrow East if (when) that happens. I assume it's all gradual though and begins with BA leaving T4 & 1 for T5 - with some gradual changes at each terminal to reflect the new operators:
By: - 21st February 2006 at 16:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
USAF/RAF Alconbury is prime for development, nice long runway,nice wide taxiways (as the U2,SR71 and Galaxy's used to operate out of there) all the handstanding is still in place... Excellent links to the A1M,M11,M1 and M6..but there is a pretty strong NIMBY movement which has the ear of the the local authority
By: - 21st February 2006 at 18:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So who is going to T2 in the above diagram? Are they reconstructing?
By: - 21st February 2006 at 19:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
T2 is being left empty- (bar perhaps from the odd charter or special flight) while BAA await permission to pull it and the Queen's Building for the HE plan.
By: - 21st February 2006 at 23:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Additionally there are even question marks over the NEED for a new runway at STN!!
Really? Have you never, ever checked out the BAA STN arrivals page or Ceefax page 450 to count the arrivals and then doubled it to take account of the departures? As I write this (2308 on 21 Feb) page 3 of 9 on ceefax shows 17 arrivals due in the 40 minutes from 2200 to 2240 which is pretty impressive - and that's not even peak period! Puiely on traffic grounds alone you could justify the runway. The only thing that will be the drawback for the BAA is that the LHR airlines, correctly, will refuse to foot the bill for STN expansion as it could be easily thought that the STN expansion that has taken place is as a result of cross-subsidisation of STN by the LHR/LGW operations.
However, what the country needs is the 3rd "commuter" runway at LHR so that domestic links will not be harmed as and when more long-haul operations are started (and no, I'm not ignoring the fact that more people are taking the train from Manchester to London so it could be possible to use the slots taken by the 18 or so daily services on this route for long-haul expansion - an awful lot of passengers on BA and BD are connecting, if MAN is to be believed).
By: - 23rd February 2006 at 12:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interestingly enough when I was at the CAA library at Gatwick a few months ago I came accross the original plan for Heathrow and it was meant to have an additional 3 runway layout North of the current site and was part of the current site and would have taken the boundary of Heathrow up to near where the railway line is that runs to the west from Paddington. It was dropped on grounds of cost. I took a photocopy of the plan and will post it when I get a minute. I bet BAA wish that they had kept to the original plan. :D
By: - 23rd February 2006 at 12:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you're talking about the major developments taking place then I think you need to focus on the main issues at Stansted. The proposals at STN are a ridiculous cost, and many of the plans in their G1 and G2 masterplans are elaborate beyond the necessary. The BAA seem to have forgotten who their main clients are at these airports, and shoudl have consulted them better as to how they could develop the airport going forward. The LCCs are happy not to have airbridges and other elaborate infrastructure for example, it just adds silly cost to the overall schemes. Additionally there are even question marks over the NEED for a new runway at STN!!
Partly a chicken and egg problem. How many full-service airlines would like to fly to Stansted rather than Gatwick if they found infrastructure there?
By: - 23rd February 2006 at 15:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Also if full service airlines switched, there is no guarentee that passengers would also switch - especially for those south of London. LHR / LGW will always be the first choice.
Ask people where Heathrow is and the majority would answer London - ask the same question about Stansted and you would be unlikley to London as an answer.
Regional airports should be encouraged but you do pay a premium for the convenience
and unless you are willing to connect, long or even medium haul is unlikely.
As for disused airfields - I always though that RAF Greenham Common would have been ideal as an overflow. (until the runway was removed)
By: - 23rd February 2006 at 17:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pardon me for asking but, what is this Heathrow East concept?
By: - 23rd February 2006 at 17:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
T1 and T2 being knocked down and rebuilding it over the current after beside Taxiway "Alpha" (aka Rwy 23)
By: - 23rd February 2006 at 18:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
T1 and T2 being knocked down and rebuilding it over the current after beside Taxiway "Alpha" (aka Rwy 23)
That is it is a basic sense.
In a bit more detail...BAA are due to submit plans in 2007 for the demolition of Terminal 2 and the adjacent Queen's Building office block, with the new terminal being built on the site and spreading to the east (hence the name Heathrow East :p)!
The new terminal would be capable of handling up to 30 million passengers a year and has been designed to complement Terminal 5. Once complete it will be used by Virgin Atlantic as well as by airlines of the Star Alliance group, including bmi, Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines.
If permission is granted in 2008, work will begin in 2009 and they are hoping that will be completed in time for the 2012 Olympics.
See pictures below for more details. First one is the birds-eye view of what it could look like after the development is complete, the second is an artists impression of the main entrance.
Pardon me for asking...
You are pardoned! :D
By: - 24th February 2006 at 23:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What about the possibility of building the third runway at LHR instead of over sipson alongside the M25 as a satellite runway and have a secure rail-link to transfer the passengers from Terminal 5. Creating a win-win Sipson and Harmondsworth remain, BAA gets their extra runway and people driving down the M25 get something to look at whilst stuck in traffic!!
By: - 25th February 2006 at 15:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If there is a need for more runways in the southeast (I don't know if there is). I would think that Stansted is the cheapest & offers the best chance further expansion over the long term. Stansted is not that far from London & with proper infrastructure development, could easily replace Heathrow as the main London airport.
IMO Heathrow is a fragmented mess from the passengers point of view & London would be much better served by a new properly planned airport. There is enough open countryside around Stansted for a major development without displacing thousands of homes.
Simon.
By: - 25th February 2006 at 16:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IMO Heathrow is a fragmented mess from the passengers point of view & London would be much better served by a new properly planned airport. There is enough open countryside around Stansted for a major development without displacing thousands of homes.Simon.
I think at the moment you're absolutely right about Heathrow but from what I've seen of the T5/HE projects BAA are determined to make LHR a new airport within the next 10 years.
By: - 26th February 2006 at 11:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IMO Heathrow is a fragmented mess from the passengers point of view & London would be much better served by a new properly planned airport. There is enough open countryside around Stansted for a major development without displacing thousands of homes.Stansted...could easily replace Heathrow as the main London airport.
Simon.
I dought very much that Heathrow will ever be replaced as the main London airport, especially not by Stansted.
One airport that has not seen much discussion is LGW, I know in my opening post I said I was focusing on LHR and STN, but does anyone think that LGW would be the ideal airport for development?
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 21st February 2006 at 13:59
I am undertaking a research project into airport development, mainly focusing on the development proposals for LHR and STN. Am interested to know what people's opinion are on the development plans for these two airports.
And also, does anyone know of any ex military airfields in the UK that could be developed into a commerical enterprise?