Heathrow Expansion

[aeropilot]

paulrockliffe said:

Welshbeef said:

aeropilot said:

Err.....yes, thanks for reminding me of my own post from the previous page stating that fact


And this is what that scheme looked like.

No worries pal.


I look at that picture and really don't understand it

Ha ha, me too, I can see 7 runways on that!

9 actually

[jamoor]

Fozziebear said:

Not for freight, it's in a perfect location to cover the entire country. EMA could take plenty more passenger flights, unfortunately everyone thinks they have to fly via Heathrow.

Welll, they do if they want to make connections.

32% of passengers are there to make a connection.

I'm assuming you know how a hub and spoke works?

[aeropilot]

robinessex said:

New Heathrow runway may be built on ramp over M25

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37773052

The third runway at Heathrow Airport could involve planes taking off from a "ramp" over a motorway, the transport secretary says.

Chris Grayling said this would be "cheaper and quicker" than building a tunnel for the M25 under the new runway and would cause less disruption for drivers.

He said many other airports around the world had built runways over motorways.

It would involve "a very gentle hill up which the planes can take off".

The Transport Sec should really keep his mouth shut about things he has no understanding off

The issue with the M25 really isn't that much of an issue in the general scheme of this project - even though there seems to be many on here that think it is, although it would have been nicer to have not had to re-align it, but you can thank the NIMBYS for that for forcing it to be moved to the west.

[paulrockliffe]

What about a catapult system and a shorter runway?

[Swervin_Mervin]

Welshbeef said:

Swervin_Mervin said:

Can someone enlighten me, and I am asking from a genuinely interested to know perspective rather than as a form of criticism of the decision, what the reasoning is as to why capacity is apparently needed int he SW, when it's also seemingly stated that this capacity is needed to accommodate more connections, taking that traffic from other European airports such as Schipol?

Why, for example, isn't Manchester Airport being pushed those connections when it has ample capacity (operating at c50%) and is the only other UK airport with 2 full runways? The surrounding area has practically been sold to the Chinese and development of Airport City is well underway. Add to that there's an HS2 connection proposed and the surrounding strategic and primary road network is finally undergoing major change with schemes which have been in the pipeline for decades.

Because Manchester is a good 3hours drive away
Heathrow 45mins door to door.

If you have a family with kids you want short door to holiday destination else screaming in the plane which no one likes.

But everyone's talking about Heathrow needing capacity for connecting flights. So that's passengers that never leave the airport. So drive time to anywhere is irrelevant if connections is the real driving motive behind increased capacity.

[aeropilot]

Swervin_Mervin said:

But everyone's talking about Heathrow needing capacity for connecting flights. So that's passengers that never leave the airport. So drive time to anywhere is irrelevant if connections is the real driving motive behind increased capacity.

Connections is but one aspect, not the ONLY aspect.

[Swervin_Mervin]

don4l said:

Swervin_Mervin said:

Can someone enlighten me, and I am asking from a genuinely interested to know perspective rather than as a form of criticism of the decision, what the reasoning is as to why capacity is apparently needed int he SW, when it's also seemingly stated that this capacity is needed to accommodate more connections, taking that traffic from other European airports such as Schipol?

Why, for example, isn't Manchester Airport being pushed those connections when it has ample capacity (operating at c50%) and is the only other UK airport with 2 full runways? The surrounding area has practically been sold to the Chinese and development of Airport City is well underway. Add to that there's an HS2 connection proposed and the surrounding strategic and primary road network is finally undergoing major change with schemes which have been in the pipeline for decades.

Did you read my post about Southampton docks? If not, scroll up and look for it.

If you did read it, then clearly I didn't make myself understood. That would be entirely my fault, and not yours. So, feel free to tell me that I didn't explain it properly, and I will rewrite the post.

I'd missed that one Don4l. Fair enough point. Is Liverpool not a key hub port then? Or can it not become one? Much is being made of the Atlantic Gateway project up here and, from my very light skim of the recently released Greater Manchester Strategic Framework, that project's path is being further eased through the planning process.

[ClaphamGT3]

In reality, we need to the new runway at Heathrow and, in addition, a second runway at Gatwick and a genuine high-speed rail link (sub 30 mins and non stop) from central London to Stansted.

To all those talking about Birmingham/East Mids/Leeds Bradford, just get a grip; this is about strengthening our economy and keeping London as a global hub, not about helping Provincials get to Alicante that bit easier every summer

[Swervin_Mervin]

aeropilot said:

Swervin_Mervin said:

But everyone's talking about Heathrow needing capacity for connecting flights. So that's passengers that never leave the airport. So drive time to anywhere is irrelevant if connections is the real driving motive behind increased capacity.

Connections is but one aspect, not the ONLY aspect.

Alright, if we keep to the drivetime case it's not a 3hr drive from everywhere is it? It's actually significantly less than a 3hr drive for much of the country. One can only assume therefore that by far the greatest demand lies within the southeast. That I'm not entirely convinced about, as I'd imagine a fair chunk of the domestic traffic that goes through must be from other UK airports making onward connections.

[AyBee]

paulrockliffe said:

What about a catapult system and a shorter runway?

Or one runway on stilts over an existing runway

[aeropilot]

Swervin_Mervin said:

aeropilot said:

Swervin_Mervin said:

But everyone's talking about Heathrow needing capacity for connecting flights. So that's passengers that never leave the airport. So drive time to anywhere is irrelevant if connections is the real driving motive behind increased capacity.

Connections is but one aspect, not the ONLY aspect.

Alright, if we keep to the drivetime case it's not a 3hr drive from everywhere is it? It's actually significantly less than a 3hr drive for much of the country. One can only assume therefore that by far the greatest demand lies within the southeast. That I'm not entirely convinced about, as I'd imagine a fair chunk of the domestic traffic that goes through must be from other UK airports making onward connections.

As an example......see my post a few pages back of my recent experience flying back from Scotland to Heathrow on first day of Scottish half term.

[Vizsla]

AyBee said:

paulrockliffe said:

What about a catapult system and a shorter runway?

Or one runway on stilts over an existing runway

And another one which goes down into a tunnel under the existing one, that would work

[LHRFlightman]

AyBee said:

Or one runway on stilts over an existing runway

Someone at the DfT once asked why we didn't put it underground to reduce noise.


True story.

[Fozziebear]

jamoor said:

Fozziebear said:

Not for freight, it's in a perfect location to cover the entire country. EMA could take plenty more passenger flights, unfortunately everyone thinks they have to fly via Heathrow.

Welll, they do if they want to make connections.

32% of passengers are there to make a connection.

I'm assuming you know how a hub and spoke works?

Yep, I've got a couple of bikes. Plenty of connections at EMA, just needs expanding to give it further reach. The whole connection thing is down to Heathrow and London being hyped up more than other airheads, shame really as it's a long drive for most

[aeropilot]

LHRFlightman said:

AyBee said:

Or one runway on stilts over an existing runway

Someone at the DfT once asked why we didn't put it underground to reduce noise.


True story.

I've heard many a daft question from Govt over the years, but asked in all seriousness, so it doesn't surprise me. Local Govt. is even worse, you really couldn't make up some of the daft st that emanates from that level!
And people wonder why we can't get anything done in the UK.

[LHRFlightman]

Fozziebear said:

Yep, I've got a couple of bikes. Plenty of connections at EMA, just needs expanding to give it further reach. The whole connection thing is down to Heathrow and London being hyped up more than other airheads, shame really as it's a long drive for most

Heathrow works because it is a hub, it takes decades to build a hub airport. I'm sure EMA has slots aplenty for all those connections you speak of. Well ring them up and ask when the next flight is to Rio for example. Heathrow will have at least one today. And tomorrow. And Friday. And so on. It can do that because it pools all those passengers from across the UK and in doing so creates a demand for daily flights.

Picking a more popular destination, NYC. I can fly to EWR from EMA daily. Via BRU on the way out, and YYZ and BRU on the way back. There just isn't the demand I'm afraid.

[Swervin_Mervin]

LHRFlightman said:

Heathrow works because it is a hub, it takes decades to build a hub airport. It can do that because it pools all those passengers from across the UK and in doing so creates a demand for daily flights.

That's what I'm trying to understand. How are routes "won"? Is it a commercial market that they compete with other domestic airports for flights, or is there some higher (Governmental) involvement?

[Targarama]

jamoor said:

Fittster said:

Why does the UK need a hub airport?

One third of heathrow passengers simply transfer from one plane to another, nice for the Heathrow shops but doesn't really make much difference to most people in the UK.

Would it really hurt if Heathrow passed up at being a hub and let that traffic go to Schiphol?

People coming through the country is always a good thing, a busy airport is always a good thing.

This is exactly how some of the gulf states, particularly UAE have managed to build a world city from nothing in 30 years.

It is quite spooky when you arrive in DXB on an EK flight, then head for arrivals. Nearly every other passenger heads to flight connections, makes me do a double take to be sure I'm heading in the right direction.

LHR needs 2 extra runways IMO, expand it properly and make it a real competitor. They should also expand Gatwick with a second runway, for safety if nothing else.

LHR is 1hr 45 mins drive for me, then the time it takes to get from the carpark to the terminal/gate. But I have no issue using it for flights to the US, I get a late flight and have a relaxing lunch in the terminal. I use BHX for everything else (40 mins drive), it has many more connections than the previously mentioned EMA and it will (one day) have a HS2 station directly connected to the airport (not via a bus, I hate buses). BHX also has Emirates and Qatar Airlines, giving me access to anywhere in Asia or Africa I care to visit.

Pity we're not like Dubai, where they have a 'spare' mega airport waiting to be used properly :-)

[alangla]

LHRFlightman said:

Heathrow works because it is a hub, it takes decades to build a hub airport. I'm sure EMA has slots aplenty for all those connections you speak of. Well ring them up and ask when the next flight is to Rio for example. Heathrow will have at least one today. And tomorrow. And Friday. And so on. It can do that because it pools all those passengers from across the UK and in doing so creates a demand for daily flights.

Picking a more popular destination, NYC. I can fly to EWR from EMA daily. Via BRU on the way out, and YYZ and BRU on the way back. There just isn't the demand I'm afraid.

Surprised you can't do it direct. United do Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast, Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham etc all from Newark. Delta seem to be doing more UK regional airports as well.
The hub thing is key though - any time I've used United, I've not actually been going to New York - it's always been for a connection to somewhere else on their network. United also don't appear to do flights from UK regionals to anywhere else other than their main hub at Newark - all the other destinations they have are Heathrow only.

[J4CKO]

I think the third runway should be installed as a conveyor belt system so we can confirm once and for all....