Discussion
LHRFlightman said:
P-Jay said:
Perhaps, with all this talk of needed a Hub, oh I don't know they could invest money away from the South East (heaven forbid) build a new tourist airport off a motorway somewhere, and 'free up' capacity in Heathrow instead of trying to create a freight hub and making the entire population travel to fecking Heathrow or even worse Gatwick just to go on their Holidays.
And the reason why that doesn't happen is that wherever it is you live, the passenger numbers dont support a regular flight to wherever it is you want to go. That's why the hub and spoke method works. You have one Hub airport flying everyday to everywhere (in utopia) and that flight is fed by smaller flights across the UK to the Hub. You gather up the demand to one airport, to support that daily flight to wherever. The issue Heathrow has is that it has no spare capacity on the runways to add to those destinations perople now wish to travel too. Hence the need for a new runway(s). Airlines dont' make a lot of money, are prone to natural disasters (volcanoes etc) that are unforeseen and further erode profits. They will not provide a service from your local airport if it doesn't make them money.
As an aside, if you total the net worth of every US carrier, they total $2 billion LESS than Starbucks. Frankly I'm amazed we have a private aviation sector at all!
There are far more practical places you could increase capacity, there's a huge expanses of very little between Oxford and Cheltenham, Birmingham and Swindon where you service it by the M4, M5 or M4 depending on where you place it, but there are more than a few political reasons why that won't happen, or just bite the bullet and build it somewhere more remote and start afresh, but poor old London might lose out.
Never happened though, the powers that be demand London first as ever, they'll follow ever more expensive and impractical plans to increase runway capacity for Heathrow, then low and behold a few years later greater terminal capacity will be needed and plans for a new terminal will be drawn up and the cycle will continue until every regional airport less than an a
hole of a drive from the M25 dies.P-Jay said:
LHRFlightman said:
P-Jay said:
Perhaps, with all this talk of needed a Hub, oh I don't know they could invest money away from the South East (heaven forbid) build a new tourist airport off a motorway somewhere, and 'free up' capacity in Heathrow instead of trying to create a freight hub and making the entire population travel to fecking Heathrow or even worse Gatwick just to go on their Holidays.
And the reason why that doesn't happen is that wherever it is you live, the passenger numbers dont support a regular flight to wherever it is you want to go. That's why the hub and spoke method works. You have one Hub airport flying everyday to everywhere (in utopia) and that flight is fed by smaller flights across the UK to the Hub. You gather up the demand to one airport, to support that daily flight to wherever. The issue Heathrow has is that it has no spare capacity on the runways to add to those destinations perople now wish to travel too. Hence the need for a new runway(s). Airlines dont' make a lot of money, are prone to natural disasters (volcanoes etc) that are unforeseen and further erode profits. They will not provide a service from your local airport if it doesn't make them money.
As an aside, if you total the net worth of every US carrier, they total $2 billion LESS than Starbucks. Frankly I'm amazed we have a private aviation sector at all!
There are far more practical places you could increase capacity, there's a huge expanses of very little between Oxford and Cheltenham, Birmingham and Swindon where you service it by the M4, M5 or M4 depending on where you place it, but there are more than a few political reasons why that won't happen, or just bite the bullet and build it somewhere more remote and start afresh, but poor old London might lose out.
Never happened though, the powers that be demand London first as ever, they'll follow ever more expensive and impractical plans to increase runway capacity for Heathrow, then low and behold a few years later greater terminal capacity will be needed and plans for a new terminal will be drawn up and the cycle will continue until every regional airport less than an a
hole of a drive from the M25 dies.Yes, it does. Sorry.
202 of the UK's top 300 companies have their HQ's with 25 miles of Heathrow.
12 million people live with 60 minutes of Heathrow. Find another location that has that catchment. You won't.
Between $14 and 18 billion of private money to build runway 3. £70-80 billion for Boris' Fantasy Island, of which £25 billion comes from the public purse.
Plans for a 4th runway have already been submitted. By the time that is full we'll all be using transporters beams to go on holiday.
RichB said:
Do they currently land side by side on the two existing runways at Heathrow? If so is the plan to land three abreast, so to speak, or is the idea to have two landing and one taking off and vice versa?
I think they rotate, but one is for landing and the other for taking off, both in the same direction I think. P-Jay said:
It doesn't really work like that though does it, the UK isn't that large a country that there's much of a domestic flight market, the far reaches of Scotland or islands aside everyone drives to Heathrow and it's stuck in a far corner of the country. The South East has more than enough capacity for travel / tourism or the population who actually live in the area and to act as an international freight hub if it didn't also have the rest of the country turning up at it's various doors after a 3,4,5 hour whatever drive to get there. To most people who don't live in the South East the idea of going to such lengths as building a manmade island to cram another runway into the most densely populated corner of the UK is ludicrous, but it's no different to our Motorway network, train network, seat of Government, it's all focused towards the South East.
There are far more practical places you could increase capacity, there's a huge expanses of very little between Oxford and Cheltenham, Birmingham and Swindon where you service it by the M4, M5 or M4 depending on where you place it, but there are more than a few political reasons why that won't happen, or just bite the bullet and build it somewhere more remote and start afresh, but poor old London might lose out.
Never happened though, the powers that be demand London first as ever, they'll follow ever more expensive and impractical plans to increase runway capacity for Heathrow, then low and behold a few years later greater terminal capacity will be needed and plans for a new terminal will be drawn up and the cycle will continue until every regional airport less than an ahole of a drive from the M25 dies.
Isn't just about those living near an Airport. Its about those coming from elsewhere and what they want from it. Transfers and London.... almost every time.There are far more practical places you could increase capacity, there's a huge expanses of very little between Oxford and Cheltenham, Birmingham and Swindon where you service it by the M4, M5 or M4 depending on where you place it, but there are more than a few political reasons why that won't happen, or just bite the bullet and build it somewhere more remote and start afresh, but poor old London might lose out.
Never happened though, the powers that be demand London first as ever, they'll follow ever more expensive and impractical plans to increase runway capacity for Heathrow, then low and behold a few years later greater terminal capacity will be needed and plans for a new terminal will be drawn up and the cycle will continue until every regional airport less than an a
hole of a drive from the M25 dies.RichB said:
Do they currently land side by side on the two existing runways at Heathrow? If so is the plan to land three abreast, so to speak, or is the idea to have two landing and one taking off and vice versa?
They can land side by side I think, two Concordes landed simultaneously in parallel on one of the final days of operation, but it certainly doesn't happen normally. It's usually one for take offs and one for landings, they alternate the runways to alleviate noise disturbance for residents;http://www.heathrowairport.com/noise/what-we-do-ab...
nonuts said:
RichB said:
Do they currently land side by side on the two existing runways at Heathrow? If so is the plan to land three abreast, so to speak, or is the idea to have two landing and one taking off and vice versa?
I think they rotate, but one is for landing and the other for taking off, both in the same direction I think. RichB said:
nonuts said:
RichB said:
Do they currently land side by side on the two existing runways at Heathrow? If so is the plan to land three abreast, so to speak, or is the idea to have two landing and one taking off and vice versa?
I think they rotate, but one is for landing and the other for taking off, both in the same direction I think. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7074906....
LHRFlightman said:
The bit where you said "It doesn't really work like that though does it"
Yes, it does. Sorry.
202 of the UK's top 300 companies have their HQ's with 25 miles of Heathrow.
12 million people live with 60 minutes of Heathrow. Find another location that has that catchment. You won't.
Between $14 and 18 billion of private money to build runway 3. £70-80 billion for Boris' Fantasy Island, of which £25 billion comes from the public purse.
Plans for a 4th runway have already been submitted. By the time that is full we'll all be using transporters beams to go on holiday.
I was referring to the notion of people using regional airports to fly only stopping in Heathrow to change at the hub, it doesn't really happen. Yes, it does. Sorry.
202 of the UK's top 300 companies have their HQ's with 25 miles of Heathrow.
12 million people live with 60 minutes of Heathrow. Find another location that has that catchment. You won't.
Between $14 and 18 billion of private money to build runway 3. £70-80 billion for Boris' Fantasy Island, of which £25 billion comes from the public purse.
Plans for a 4th runway have already been submitted. By the time that is full we'll all be using transporters beams to go on holiday.
I agree with your stats, but I'm looking at them from the other side of the fence. Those 202 companies didn't decide to set up shop where they did because it's handy for boating on the Thames and those 12m people didn't wake up one morning and have a Dick Whittington like call to London for the scenery.
For decades and decades any serious investment in the UK has been focused towards London and the South East and it's flourished, more business and people move there to get on board, area has grown because of it whilst the rest of the UK has scrabbled along trying to keep up, the way the UK is organised means that other major cities in the UK trade with London, not each other. it hasn't taken long before the powers that be in the South East talk about net contributors and bounce about stats like the ones above to justify further focus.
In short my issue is 'correct thinking' is we should focus our investment at London and the South East because it's the economic heart of the UK, which seems the correct thing to do, my argument it that London and the South East is the economic heart of the UK because we've had many decades of investment and the rest of the UK has suffered for it, further investing in that one area is only going to compound it.
Perhaps I'm just grumpy because of the heat / lack of sleep, but I'd just like, one day, to hear about a large scale infrastructure investment which wasn't just to create stronger links with London.
loafer123 said:
Stacking isn't a <noise> problem except for airlines, if you look at the noise maps....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7074906....
Ah, thanks... Interestingly I will still be in the 50dB area rather than the estimated 57dB area with a 3rd runway.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7074906....
Planes don't land simultaneously on both runways, but can land in a staggered fashion on both. HOWEVER, to appease the community and provide some noise respite this only happens when the traffic dictates. So between 0600 & 0700 each day planes land on both runways, it's called TEAM, Tactically Enhanced Arrivals Mode. Other than this time it's land on one, depart on the other, and swap at 1500. There are exceptions but the plan is published in Decemebr each year. That's what happens to arrivals on westerly operations which is typically the operation for 70% of the year. Direction is SOLELY down to the wind. On easterlies, 95% will land on the northern runway and departures occur not be southern. This as due to the Cranford agreement and is now due to infrastructure changes required to enable us to switch runways. Those a changes are subject to a planning application.
Stacks? Just under half of the aircraft that arrive stack. Average stack time per aircraft is Around 6 minutes per flight. That's an average of all that hold, not all the arrivals. In disruption this time can go up, for obvious reasons.
A third runway would mean some changes to traffic flows, but the principles of respite would remain and Heathrow would still operate runway alternation, for example.
Stacks? Just under half of the aircraft that arrive stack. Average stack time per aircraft is Around 6 minutes per flight. That's an average of all that hold, not all the arrivals. In disruption this time can go up, for obvious reasons.
A third runway would mean some changes to traffic flows, but the principles of respite would remain and Heathrow would still operate runway alternation, for example.
Some interesting points here.
OK I agree that paying for a taxi from CDG into Paris is probably more expensive than buying a small car at the airport and that as a percentage of the overall cost of the flight £10 on a Heathrow Express ticket isn't going to break the bank.... but... what's so important about landing at/taking off from a big field just west of Windsor Castle?
It seems to me that we've all bought into the myth that you're not a proper business/long haul/important (delete as appropriate) passenger if you use Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow etc.
I accept that eleventy squillion percent of Top Multinational companies like to say that their HQ is in London, but if their massively-trousered top execs could swan into a less chaotic, more modern airport within 30/40 mins of central London by air-conditioned train, why would it matter if that airport wasn't just outside Slough (see my earlier reference to dump).
Heathrow is an anachronism and its owners are petrified that it will go the same way as the Emperor's new clothes. So to prevent them losing their nice little earner, they perpetuate the myth that Heathrow is good for Britain because it is near London and that it is vitally important that overpaid businessmen have the opportunity to kick their heels for a couple of hours in the transit lounge there whilst they wait for their connecting flight zum Dusseldorf, buying overpriced chocolate on their expenses, frantically hoping that their luggage will catch up with them once they get to Der Vaterland.
The Isle of Grain is poorly served for transport links (HS1 doesn't go there and the M2/A2 is a nightmare) and Boris Island will simply become a massive overwintering destination for migratory birds.
We used to have people who were paid to plan how the country would deal with issues like this, now all we have are pressure groups, lobbyists and consultants, none of which have anything but their own self-interest at heart.
OK I agree that paying for a taxi from CDG into Paris is probably more expensive than buying a small car at the airport and that as a percentage of the overall cost of the flight £10 on a Heathrow Express ticket isn't going to break the bank.... but... what's so important about landing at/taking off from a big field just west of Windsor Castle?
It seems to me that we've all bought into the myth that you're not a proper business/long haul/important (delete as appropriate) passenger if you use Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow etc.
I accept that eleventy squillion percent of Top Multinational companies like to say that their HQ is in London, but if their massively-trousered top execs could swan into a less chaotic, more modern airport within 30/40 mins of central London by air-conditioned train, why would it matter if that airport wasn't just outside Slough (see my earlier reference to dump).
Heathrow is an anachronism and its owners are petrified that it will go the same way as the Emperor's new clothes. So to prevent them losing their nice little earner, they perpetuate the myth that Heathrow is good for Britain because it is near London and that it is vitally important that overpaid businessmen have the opportunity to kick their heels for a couple of hours in the transit lounge there whilst they wait for their connecting flight zum Dusseldorf, buying overpriced chocolate on their expenses, frantically hoping that their luggage will catch up with them once they get to Der Vaterland.
The Isle of Grain is poorly served for transport links (HS1 doesn't go there and the M2/A2 is a nightmare) and Boris Island will simply become a massive overwintering destination for migratory birds.
We used to have people who were paid to plan how the country would deal with issues like this, now all we have are pressure groups, lobbyists and consultants, none of which have anything but their own self-interest at heart.
The Isle of Grain is poorly served with transport because there's fk all there, in common with every other greenfield site; any newbuild superhub will need a metric steload of infrastructure building for it, Boris Island, London Heyford or wherever.
k all there, in common with every other greenfield site; any newbuild superhub will need a metric steload of infrastructure building for it, Boris Island, London Heyford or wherever.Tootles the Taxi said:
It seems to me that we've all bought into the myth that you're not a proper business/long haul/important (delete as appropriate) passenger if you use Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow etc.
The first three have capacity and planning problems of their own, and have lost planning fights with nimbys for new runways etc. The others don't count because prospective airlines wanting to add routes from the numerous regional capitals in China want to fly to Heathrow because it's London's hub and they can pick up extra traffic if they fly there(the perception being they wouldn't if they landed anywhere else in the UK), and if that's not an option(which it isn't because of capacity) they'll fly to Schipol, Frankfurt, CDG etc which do have capacity to spare.hidetheelephants said:
The Isle of Grain is poorly served with transport because there's fk all there, in common with every other greenfield site; any newbuild superhub will need a metric steload of infrastructure building for it, Boris Island, London Heyford or wherever.
But you can actually plan it with minimum disruption to the existing infrastructure and for the same reason the contractors can just get on with it.k all there, in common with every other greenfield site; any newbuild superhub will need a metric steload of infrastructure building for it, Boris Island, London Heyford or wherever.Personally I'd go with Heyford because it's so close to existing transport links and would be easiest for the biggest proportion population. Stanstead wouldn't be a bad call either if the A14 were to become part of the M6...
Tootles the Taxi said:
I accept that eleventy squillion percent of Top Multinational companies like to say that their HQ is in London, but if their massively-trousered top execs could swan into a less chaotic, more modern airport within 30/40 mins of central London by air-conditioned train, why would it matter if that airport wasn't just outside Slough (see my earlier reference to dump).
You may want to also look outside London, starting with Slough, Bracknell, Reading etc. They each have a huge number of very large companies UK headquarters. If there is no decent airport on the west of London and Boris island happens it will mean all of these people will need to travel across or around London to get to the airport, which from my point of view sounds like a bad idea.loafer123 said:
Ironically, it is ideal, and is designed to form part of the replacement for the Thames Barrier.
Ha, you misunderstand me. I mean from a design point of view. It's going to have to have some hefty tidal surge defences on it, the studies on the impact of funnelling water will be interesting too. Hope we get the job 
nonuts said:
You may want to also look outside London, starting with Slough, Bracknell, Reading etc. They each have a huge number of very large companies UK headquarters. If there is no decent airport on the west of London and Boris island happens it will mean all of these people will need to travel across or around London to get to the airport, which from my point of view sounds like a bad idea.
Very true. Draw an arc from the A3 to the M40, out as far as say Woking, Basingstoke, see how many multinationals you capture. They are there for may reasons... easy access to LHR being one of the keys. Move your main airport to the other side of London & see what happens. IroningMan said:
Does anyone enjoy using Heathrow? Every time I've had to go to the States it's been Bristol-Schipol and on from there: the only thing that has less appeal than using LHR is using public transport to get to it.
I've used it a couple of times and it was fine. Once to SF and once to Schipol. OK, there are better airports but I've certainly used worse too. Having traveled there by tube and Heathrow express from King's Cross I'd save the money and stick with the tube in future.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff