Development at LHR seems to have ground to a halt, pending the 3rd runway inquiry, which I don't think will ever get approval now. The government should have pushed it through when they won the last election.

Heathrow can't even get the new holding areas built on 09L. They should have a plan B and it should begin now.

It's not just a new runway that Heathrow needs, but more terminals, satellites and stands. BA have said there should be more competition at LHR. Well why don't they build and run a new terminal? Possibly over part of the Bealine maintenance base. So much land is wasted there.

The fuel farm, T1 and T3 need demolishing, and I don't think T4 has a future either. It causes more problems with the operation than it solves.

All road traffic, (passengers, meet & greet) should be pushed out of the central area, outside the current perimeter, and replaced by toast rack satellites between the two existing runways.

The problem with your plan to keep all road traffic out of the central area, is that all of Terminal 2, the newest one at Heathrow, is actually inside the central area, public road access is through tunnels under the north runway. Nobody is going to knock down a terminal that only opened in 2014.
Terminal 5 works because it is at the end of the runways, Terminal 4 is on the south side of the south runway and as you suggest does cause conflicting ground movements. Removing the main functions of Terminals 2 and 3 to a new location also makes them inaccessible by public transport, since London Underground, Heathrow Express, Heathrow Connect, and soon Crossrail trains all run under the airport in tunnels that access the existing locations. Relocate the check-in and baggage reclaim functions to locations on the perimeter and it will be impossible to reach them by train, which huge numbers of people do each day at present. .
There is a plan to demolish the remains of Terminal 1 and extend Terminal 2 over the site - stalled for lack of funding.
Airports in the UK are mostly privately owned and run, funds have to be raised on the money markets,which are nervous at the moment because nobody knows if Brexit next year will bring an unprecedented boom or an unprecedented slump.
There's no precedent in the UK (or elsewhere in Europe for that matter) for airlines themselves building terminals at airports. The airport owners build the terminals and recoup the cost in charges for using them. Certainly until the Brexit impact becomes clear there's no way IAG is going to spend money to build a terminal for BA, even if it was allowed to. Buy planes, yes, they can be used elsewhere if the worst happens. Buying buildings would be a rash move.

I personally think that building over the top of 05/23 was short sighted. When you have an airport running at maximum capacity, resilience is an important factor. Take high winds as an example; flights are cancelled in order to allow for adequate separation distances when landing. Now, consider alternating those landings between 23 and 27L and the problem is solved! Likewise, landing an A320 on 23 behind an A380 on 27L could increase the rate of landings and reduce holding. Yes, I know T4 impacts 23/05 as well. I just think that closing it in the first place was short sighted!

As all the land is owned by Heathrow Airport, no one will build anything on the site without Heathrow consent. The public consultation for the build of T5 itself cost £1bn before a brick was laid. So no new (additional) terminals will be built by anyone before 3rd Runway decision is final, one way or the other.

However support for the 3rd runway is still quite strong and public consultation is ongoing, so by no means dead and buried.....

TedToToe wrote:

I personally think that building over the top of 05/23 was short sighted. When you have an airport running at maximum capacity, resilience is an important factor. Take high winds as an example; flights are cancelled in order to allow for adequate separation distances when landing. Now, consider alternating those landings between 23 and 27L and the problem is solved! Likewise, landing an A320 on 23 behind an A380 on 27L could increase the rate of landings and reduce holding. Yes, I know T4 impacts 23/05 as well. I just think that closing it in the first place was short sighted!

I see what you're getting at, but LAHSO operations are frowned upon in Europe and, specifically, not allowed by BA.

In my opinion, plan B for Heathrow is Gatwick.

Heathrow just can't grow anymore, it's at it's absolute maximum capacity. If there's any growth needed in the London area it has to come from the other airports. Gatwick has more than enough space for growth, it's far easier and cheaper to expand Gatwick than Heathrow. And if there's no room at Heathrow airlines will automatically search for alternatives which they'll find at Gatwick.

I believe LHR is close to approval of the 3rd runway. Living fairly close to Heathrow, I now see a lot of political will (both Labour and Conservative) building up in support of it. Heathrow Airport has done a solid job of building local support that now demonstrably and significantly outnumbers the NIMBYs. Those of you outside the UK and outside the Heathrow area may not see it, but the momentum is building.

Plan B is to stay as they are. All the main London airports are owned by different commercial organisations. They do not have responsibility for overall capacity planning. That rests with the government.

Geoff

TedToToe wrote:

I personally think that building over the top of 05/23 was short sighted. When you have an airport running at maximum capacity, resilience is an important factor. Take high winds as an example; flights are cancelled in order to allow for adequate separation distances when landing. Now, consider alternating those landings between 23 and 27L and the problem is solved! Likewise, landing an A320 on 23 behind an A380 on 27L could increase the rate of landings and reduce holding. Yes, I know T4 impacts 23/05 as well. I just think that closing it in the first place was short sighted!

A major problems with that was that 23 ops halved the traffic as the airport was basically cut in half, an operational nightmare. High wind ops have improved significantly since the introduction of the 'Time Based Separation' system where separation can be reduced due to vortices dissolving quicker in high winds see https://www.nats.aero/tbs/

The 09L changes to facilitate departures were initially rejected by the local council but then approved after a Govt appeal. However HAL then decided against proceeding due to the 3rd runway proposals changing things

Plan B ? I don't think anyone knows what plan A is yet !

TC957 wrote:

Plan B ? I don't think anyone knows what plan A is yet !

That's exactly why you need Plan B!

And I agree with the opinions above: Plan B is LGW.

mutu wrote:

As all the land is owned by Heathrow Airport, no one will build anything on the site without Heathrow consent. The public consultation for the build of T5 itself cost £1bn before a brick was laid. So no new (additional) terminals will be built by anyone before 3rd Runway decision is final, one way or the other.

However support for the 3rd runway is still quite strong and public consultation is ongoing, so by no means dead and buried.....

I’m 99% certain BA own the land over to the East where their hangers are.

Comments have been made above about demolishing these. How on earth would BA then coduct routine overnight maintenance? Where would they be moved too? They have other maintenance bases elsewhere in the UK that are also running at maximum capacity year round.

BA don’t need a Terminal etheir, they have the best terminal on the property which is no way out of date even though it is 10 years old this month. Haven’t flown from T2 yet, but I’m told T5 is better. I’m led to believe not quite the amount of money was Spent on T2 as it was built after the global financial crisis.

Plan B is not LGW. While it’s okay for an overspill and is growing it it’s own right, it’s in the wrong location. You wouldn’t believe the ammount of business parks around LHR (look at brentford) that locate there because of close proximity to the airport and central London.

Development of LHR sure is slow. The design work on T5 started in 1989 while the terminal opened in 2008. That terminal could just have just as easily been built at a brand new airport with 3 or 4 runways operational with room for more by the time the airport could start passenger service.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Development of LHR sure is slow. The design work on T5 started in 1989 while the terminal opened in 2008. That terminal could just have just as easily been built at a brand new airport with 3 or 4 runways operational with room for more by the time the airport could start passenger service.

One bad thing about developed countries! Takes forever to get anything like that done. Look at Brandenburg airport for example.

Arion640 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Development of LHR sure is slow. The design work on T5 started in 1989 while the terminal opened in 2008. That terminal could just have just as easily been built at a brand new airport with 3 or 4 runways operational with room for more by the time the airport could start passenger service.

One bad thing about developed countries! Takes forever to get anything like that done. Look at Brandenburg airport for example.

There are still some major cities in the US that have large tracts of land nearby.

Why couldn't Farnborough have been redeveloped as a Heathrow replacement airport? It's just further in the same general direction from the center of London.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Development of LHR sure is slow. The design work on T5 started in 1989 while the terminal opened in 2008. That terminal could just have just as easily been built at a brand new airport with 3 or 4 runways operational with room for more by the time the airport could start passenger service.

Regarding Terminal 5 the planning inquiry started in 1989 and it took 10 years to overcome due to many legalities and issues regarding the environment before it was finally granted planning permission in 1999 when construction of Terminal 5 was finally given the green light with construction starting a year later. It has nothing to do with the then owners BAA being 'slow' or complacent, Terminal 2 only took four years to complete and didn't go through the planning process like Terminal 5.

Others have mentioned the BA maintenance area, British Airways actually own this land and and it does not belong to Heathrow Airport Limited.

When it comes to Heathrow Airport we tend to get posters on these threads who are totally ill informed and add nothing to the discussion.

Regardless of R3 we will eventually see Terminal 2 expanded over the former Terminal 1 once it's finally demolished, the former piers have already gone and the apron where they were situated are currently being rebuilt to add two extra stands at Terminal 2A. Once Terminal 2 is expanded over the former Terminal 1 and T2C is built then we're see Terminal 3 demolished and Heathrow will then have a toast rack arrangement, all this work is still on the agenda with or without R3.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Development of LHR sure is slow. The design work on T5 started in 1989 while the terminal opened in 2008. That terminal could just have just as easily been built at a brand new airport with 3 or 4 runways operational with room for more by the time the airport could start passenger service.

One bad thing about developed countries! Takes forever to get anything like that done. Look at Brandenburg airport for example.

There are still some major cities in the US that have large tracts of land nearby.

Why couldn't Farnborough have been redeveloped as a Heathrow replacement airport? It's just further in the same general direction from the center of London.

The redevelopment of Farnborough as a replacement for LHR is an absolute non starter for so many reasons that your OBVIOUSLY not familiar with!

The big square white BA 'cathedral' hangar will be eventually demolished to make way a new north/south taxiway linking 27R and 27L thresholds (you can see the start of them on Google earth. This will make space for a new T2 pier on the current B taxiway...or at least that was the plan last I heard

Cunard wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Development of LHR sure is slow. The design work on T5 started in 1989 while the terminal opened in 2008. That terminal could just have just as easily been built at a brand new airport with 3 or 4 runways operational with room for more by the time the airport could start passenger service.

Regarding Terminal 5 the planning inquiry started in 1989 and it took 10 years to overcome due to many legalities and issues regarding the environment before it was finally granted planning permission in 1999 when construction of Terminal 5 was finally given the green light with construction starting a year later. It has nothing to do with the then owners BAA being 'slow' or complacent, Terminal 2 only took four years to complete and didn't go through the planning process like Terminal 5.

Others have mentioned the BA maintenance area, British Airways actually own this land and and it does not belong to Heathrow Airport Limited.

When it comes to Heathrow Airport we tend to get posters on these threads who are totally ill informed and add nothing to the discussion.

Regardless of R3 we will eventually see Terminal 2 expanded over the former Terminal 1 once it's finally demolished, the former piers have already gone and the apron where they were situated are currently being rebuilt to add two extra stands at Terminal 2A. Once Terminal 2 is expanded over the former Terminal 1 and T2C is built then we're see Terminal 3 demolished and Heathrow will then have a toast rack arrangement, all this work is still on the agenda with or without R3.

I'm not ill informed. Other countries don't take 30 to 40 years to make infrastructure decisions. Heathrow needed at least 3 runways 30 years ago. France planned CDG to supercede ORY as the primary international airport for Paris in the 1960's and opened it in 1974 with 4 parallel runways. The effort that went into building the new T5 could have been used at a totally new terminal at a new modern airport.

The British political class has made an art of being able to put off hard decisions for the entire careers of politicians, perhaps even longer. Having squandered the opportunity to buy up land around Heathrow in the 1940's to control development around the perimeter of the airport, Heathrow either needed to buy developed land nearby for expansion, or a new larger airport needed to be developed. While British politicians and bureaucrats muddle through, other countries are building totally new hub airports that allow airlines to totally bypass old hubs like LHR.

Cunard wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

One bad thing about developed countries! Takes forever to get anything like that done. Look at Brandenburg airport for example.

There are still some major cities in the US that have large tracts of land nearby.

Why couldn't Farnborough have been redeveloped as a Heathrow replacement airport? It's just further in the same general direction from the center of London.

The redevelopment of Farnborough as a replacement for LHR is an absolute non starter for so many reasons that your OBVIOUSLY not familiar with!

Then name another site. It seems every other site is a non-starter too. Not LGW! not STN! Not LTN!

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Development of LHR sure is slow. The design work on T5 started in 1989 while the terminal opened in 2008. That terminal could just have just as easily been built at a brand new airport with 3 or 4 runways operational with room for more by the time the airport could start passenger service.

Hilarious !!

Geoff1947 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Development of LHR sure is slow. The design work on T5 started in 1989 while the terminal opened in 2008. That terminal could just have just as easily been built at a brand new airport with 3 or 4 runways operational with room for more by the time the airport could start passenger service.

Hilarious !!

Yes isn't just, it amazes me that people post on these forums who don't fully appreciate the whole situation.

fcogafa wrote:

The big square white BA 'cathedral' hangar will be eventually demolished to make way a new north/south taxiway linking 27R and 27L thresholds (you can see the start of them on Google earth. This will make space for a new T2 pier on the current B taxiway...or at least that was the plan last I heard

The Cathedral hangar is supposed to be demolished sometime this year so that the north/south taxiway can be realigned, once this has been completed then hopefully construction of T2C can commence.

London and the South East of England is a very crowded corner of a very crowded island. All airports have issues and most are either on very expensive real estate or environmentally sensitive areas.

Gatwick to the south of London making it very difficult for many to get to.

London city - location means it will only ever be a small niche airport.

Heathrow best located for people from the west or North of London.

Luton single runway on a postage stamp of a site. Suits its low cost carriers well.

Stansted is quite a distance from London. Poor transport options from people to the West.

London Southend. Never flown from it but new and just low cost.

Northolt, Biggin Hill, Farnborough all niche private airports. No options for major development.

This is why Boris keeps trying to suggest an airport in the Thames estuary- but The proposals are not well located for people getting to them.

I hope R3 goes ahead. It should be being built now!

StTim wrote:

London and the South East of England is a very crowded corner of a very crowded island. All airports have issues and most are either on very expensive real estate or environmentally sensitive areas.

Gatwick to the south of London making it very difficult for many to get to.

London city - location means it will only ever be a small niche airport.

Heathrow best located for people from the west or North of London.

Luton single runway on a postage stamp of a site. Suits its low cost carriers well.

Stansted is quite a distance from London. Poor transport options from people to the West.

London Southend. Never flown from it but new and just low cost.

Northolt, Biggin Hill, Farnborough all niche private airports. No options for major development.

This is why Boris keeps trying to suggest an airport in the Thames estuary- but The proposals are not well located for people getting to them.

I hope R3 goes ahead. It should be being built now!

Absolutely it should be built ASAP. LHR originally was built in a couple of years at the end of WWII. The parliament should pass enabling legislation that would expedite the process for acquiring land and building the runway. Even with a new runway at LHR, LGW needs a new runway too.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Cunard wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

There are still some major cities in the US that have large tracts of land nearby.

Why couldn't Farnborough have been redeveloped as a Heathrow replacement airport? It's just further in the same general direction from the center of London.

The redevelopment of Farnborough as a replacement for LHR is an absolute non starter for so many reasons that your OBVIOUSLY not familiar with!

Then name another site. It seems every other site is a non-starter too. Not LGW! not STN! Not LTN!

THERE DOESNT NEED TO BE ANOTHER SITE for future expansion as there are already enough airports serving the London area which can be expanded as I. LGW or STN and to a lessor extent SEN.

Just have a look at Wikipedia and LGW LHR STN and FARNBOROUGH and study the details and compare all of them and your see that,

The land area at Farnborough is not huge and it couldn't be built up as an airport to replace LHR plus the NIMBYS surrounding the airport are far more vocal compared to to those around LHR.

LTN is also a non starter due to it's limitations stuck on the top of a hill with no real chances of future expansion from what we're currently seeing now.

LGW has a very good chance and is the best option if LHR doesn't get R3.

STN is the only current airport that has the land that could see large scale expansion but as the airport has recently submitted an application to the local council to increase the passenger throughput to 45m I don't think we're see any huge scale expansion there for a while.

Cunard wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Cunard wrote:

The redevelopment of Farnborough as a replacement for LHR is an absolute non starter for so many reasons that your OBVIOUSLY not familiar with!

Then name another site. It seems every other site is a non-starter too. Not LGW! not STN! Not LTN!

THERE DOESNT NEED TO BE ANOTHER SITE for future expansion as there are already enough airports serving the London area which can be expanded as I. LGW or STN and to a lessor extent SEN.

Just have a look at Wikipedia and LGW LHR STN and FARNBOROUGH and study the details and compare all of them and your see that,

The land area at Farnborough is not huge and it couldn't be built up as an airport to replace LHR plus the NIMBYS surrounding the airport are far more vocal compared to to those around LHR.

LTN is also a non starter due to it's limitations stuck on the top of a hill with no real chances of future expansion from what we're currently seeing now.

LGW has a very good chance and is the best option if LHR doesn't get R3.

STN is the only current airport that has the land that could see large scale expansion but as the airport has recently submitted an application to the local council to increase the passenger throughput to 45m I don't think we're see any huge scale expansion there for a while.

Only in the UK could 3 runways be considered adequate for the busiest international hub in the world. Having a bunch of one runway airports spread around London isn't the same thing as having at least one hub airport with 4 or more runways. Both DXB and IST have just 2 runways and will be replaced soon by new airports that will have expansion room for at least 6 runways. Currently with 2 runways, LHR operates at over 98% capacity. This means that if there is a weather or other disruption, it is very hard to recover. Aircraft often have to waste fuel flying in holding patterns waiting for a slot to become available. More runways allow for banking of flights to allow shorter connections.

ATL which is the busiest airport in the world has 5 runways. AMS which is closer to many British airports than LHR, will soon have 7 runways.

Cunard is bang on, please, please, read some of the MANY existing threads about the London airports. There are a host of good reasons why things are the way they are with no easy answers.
Willie Walsh said last week the chances of R3 have gone up to 50/50. A lot is going on cross party behind the scenes but still uncertainty remains.
The No1 base, the BOAC hangars to the east belong to BA, the BeaLine base, I am not sure. T1 is coming down, the piers are gone. The Europier has gone also, allowing T2B to be fully used. The last ten years have seen an enormous change for the better, but much remains to be done.

@flyingclrs727, you understand that on a like for like comparison, AMS uses only four runways? Not seven, just two for landing, two for departure.

We have to work within the geography we have in the UK, not the imaginary one in your head. There are NO greenfield spaces for a new London hub, none. Not even Boris’ Fantasy Island. I know this, I LIVE HERE.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Cunard wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Having squandered the opportunity to buy up land around Heathrow in the 1940's to control development around the perimeter of the airport,

I'm not sure if you are being serious here. I can remember being taken to Heathrow in 1951, when we came down to London for the Festival of Britain.

I was disappointed. I'm not sure if I saw more than one aircraft take off during our visit, but the one I remember was my favorite at that time - a Boeing Stratocruiser ! I loved the double bubble. We spent the rest of the time sitting in a Nissen hut on the north side of the airport drinking tea and waiting for something to happen.

But returning to the issue, even in the early 50's I think it would have taken a bigger crystal ball to envision more than one aircraft movement every ten minutes, and they already had 6 runways .....

Heathrow should quietly get on with T2C, T5D and extending T2A over the old T1. In due course redeveloping T3 as it empties out into the other terminals.

So in a toast rack from West to East, T5A-T5B-T5C-T5D-T3B-T3A-T2A-T2B-T2C-Hangers.

If the 3rd runway is approved great, if not they should push for mixed mode operation.

RobertPhoenix wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Cunard wrote:

I'm not sure if you are being serious here. I can remember being taken to Heathrow in 1951, when we came down to London for the Festival of Britain.

I was disappointed. I'm not sure if I saw more than one aircraft take off during our visit, but the one I remember was my favorite at that time - a Boeing Stratocruiser ! I loved the double bubble. We spent the rest of the time sitting in a Nissen hut on the north side of the airport drinking tea and waiting for something to happen.

But returning to the issue, even in the early 50's I think it would have taken a bigger crystal ball to envision more than one aircraft movement every ten minutes, and they already had 6 runways .....

Well most cities have done a poor job of protecting their airports against encroachment by new development. On the other hand, both Houston and the Dallas/Fort Worth area in Texas did a pretty good job in the 1960's and 70's of designing new international airports with plenty of room to expand for the next 100 years. I think DFW was laid out to have up to 12 runways eventually. They probably never will need that many, but the land was set aside.

The UK needs to as they say there "get on with it". LHR needs to be expanded and rebuilt, why Terminal 1 is not dust by now is embarrassing. How can there be no money for expanding Terminal 2 ? Float some bonds, if Argentina can so can the BAA(or whatever its called now). After T2 is completed whatever happens to T3 needs to be done. T4 may be a problem but its there, its fairly new and where do you move all those airlines?

The first thing is Terminal 2 has to be finished so that T3 airlines can be moved there and T3 demolished. A new T3 and T5 need to be joined to complete the refurbishment of anything from the 1960's. Any plans have to include expanding T5 without consideration to T3, LHR has many opinions on what should happen but new runway or not the terminals have to be finished.

skipness1E wrote:

@flyingclrs727, you understand that on a like for like comparison, AMS uses only four runways? Not seven, just two for landing, two for departure.

We have to work within the geography we have in the UK, not the imaginary one in your head. There are NO greenfield spaces for a new London hub, none. Not even Boris’ Fantasy Island. I know this, I LIVE HERE.

Well AMS has crosswind runways which LHR no longer has.

That's why governments have the power of eminent domain. How is it that the Netherlands, a small very densely populated country, has protected it's primary international airport and been able to expand it over the years? The UK could have protected one or two areas suitable to a major 4 runway hub but didn't.

Plan B : LGW
Plan C : Boris Island
Plan D : STN
Plan E : LTN
Plan F : BHX
Plan G : Severn Airport

GCT64 wrote:

I believe LHR is close to approval of the 3rd runway. Living fairly close to Heathrow, I now see a lot of political will (both Labour and Conservative) building up in support of it. Heathrow Airport has done a solid job of building local support that now demonstrably and significantly outnumbers the NIMBYs. Those of you outside the UK and outside the Heathrow area may not see it, but the momentum is building.

Is IAG stillopposed to the 3rd runway? They will be paying higher usage fees if the thing ever gets built.

What'd be the downside of another rwy @LGW? is it connection to the airport? because it sure seems more doable to improve its transportation, than this R3 which is bringing Anet into a civil war.

Also, wouldn't it be good for the consumer (and the airlines) to have some competition between LGW and LHR?

AtomicGarden wrote:

What'd be the downside of another rwy @LGW? is it connection to the airport? because it sure seems more doable to improve its transportation, than this R3 which is bringing Anet into a civil war.

Also, wouldn't it be good for the consumer (and the airlines) to have some competition between LGW and LHR?

A new runway at LGW would be desirable, but it would do nothing to improve the functionality of LHR which is operating at 98% capacity. According to articles I've read, it's cheaper to build another runway at LHR than to build a transit link between LHR and LGW that would allow the airports to work together as a virtual hub.

AtomicGarden wrote:

What'd be the downside of another rwy @LGW?

Apart from a non existing extremely expensive LGW-LHR, the railways between LGW and London are already almost at full capacity due to regional services and there is not a lot of room for expansion,

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

Thanks for tour replies. But I didn't mean to use H and G as a dual hub of sorts, it's my idea that some operations that cause a constraint in Heathrow could move entirely to Gatwick, relieving some of the pressure. However if train transportation to Gatwick is really that bad, I can see that increased capacity will cause more new troubles.

AtomicGarden wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

Thanks for tour replies. But I didn't mean to use H and G as a dual hub of sorts, it's my idea that some operations that cause a constraint in Heathrow could move entirely to Gatwick, relieving some of the pressure. However if train transportation to Gatwick is really that bad, I can see that increased capacity will cause more new troubles.

I understand and agree. I've seen lot's of posts over the years suggesting building a super duper high speed rail transporter between LHR and LGW to allow connections between the two airports. The estimate I read were a minimum of $10 to $20 billion for the connector, and who knows how long a system would take to build. It's not going to happen. If LGW had a second runway, perhaps it would be possible for LGW to be used as a hub by one of the alliances. Still that doesn't do away with the need to add a runway to LHR immediately. London is one of the largest O&D markets in the world. They can use more capacity at hub airports. It's ridiculous that it could be 2030 or later that a new runway could open.

AtomicGarden wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

However if train transportation to Gatwick is really that bad, I can see that increased capacity will cause more new troubles.

Train transportation to Gatwick isn't really that bad. There are lots of trains, serving multiple Central London stations, and indeed some going right across Central London and out the other side. Even off peak there can be as many as 17 trains an hour (though some get overtaken by others on the way). The problem is that this is not a dedicated city-airport railway, instead it is the main line from London to Brighton and all but 4 of those 17 trains are multi-purpose services carrying local or regional passengers as well as those travelling to and from the airport. As a result at peak periods they are all full for at least part of the journey. For years additional capacity has been squeezed out of the existing railway infrastructure by junction and signalling improvements and by running longer trains. The trouble is that there is now little or no scope for further capacity enhancements without tremendous capital expenditure in going from 4 to 6 tracks and/or extending platforms at all the stations - especially difficult in Central London.
So it works as it is, but increasing demand by air passengers significantly is not going to be capable of resolution, though of course not everyone actually wants to go to Central London.

The perennial hub to hub railway proposal that you avoided mentioning but others have, suffers from two problems - one is the incredibly high cost of land acquisition and tunnelling, and the other is the logistical one of whether it is technically landside or airside. If it is landside, passengers will need to go through UK immigration at their arrival airport, adding lots of time to the connection. If it is airside, the proponents need to explain how it is possible to maintain a secure border along 30+ miles of railway, especially in the event of trains breaking down or other incidents requiring evacuation. This certainly isn't done anywhere else in the world. Now it was done to an extent in communist East Germany for a strictly limited number of trains a day, by operating a shoot-to-kill policy, but this is scarcely acceptable in a democracy!

chunhimlai wrote:

Plan B : LGW
Plan C : Boris Island
Plan D : STN
Plan E : LTN
Plan F : BHX
Plan G : Severn Airport

The severn airport, more of a pipe dream than Boris Island!

There is no broad based consensus for more airport capacity in London. Many believe we already fly too often and should be reducing not increasing capacity. People don’t see the need for other than O&D. A transit hub at AMS suits us fine. We on A.net think air travel is a good thing most people don’t.
A third runway at LHR would give more capacity to BA’s competitors and increase airline costs. BA are not enthusiastic for good reason.

Geoff

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Only in the UK could 3 runways be considered adequate for the busiest international hub in the world.

Two things.

LHR is no longer the world's busiest (nor 2nd busiest) int'l gateway. That would be DXB and HKG, respectively.

Second, both of those also only have two concurrently active runways.... though to be fair, they're well on their way to getting more (sister airport and expansion).

Geoff1947 wrote:

Many believe we already fly too often and should be reducing not increasing capacity. People don’t see the need for other than O&D. A transit hub at AMS suits us fine. We on A.net think air travel is a good thing most people don’t.

The answer is: "What are unsubstantiated anecdotal statements"... for $500, Alex.

StTim wrote:

London Southend. Never flown from it but new and just low cost.

On google earth you can see the Vulcan at Southend, pretty cool!!!

From an operational stand point LGW needs the second runway more desperately than LHR needs the third, because with a plane stuck on the runway LGW is closed.

If the solution is a third runway at LHR , what is the problem ?!!

Geoff

If the solution is a third runway at LHR , what is the problem ?!!

Geoff