Heathrow Expansion

[The Don of Croy]

Planning ahead, what consumables can I corner the market in which the inevitable crusty army will require once they start camping around the site?

No reason why some of us shouldn't make a mint out of the situation (like our legal friends and the numerous sustainability advisors who will be signed up soon).

Notwithstanding the fact I'm about to start a contract in Reading, commuting from Kent, which hopefully will be over before they move the M25 for the new runway (in fact I might be retired before they get a round tuit).

[PostHeads123]

I live NW London and have to use the Heathrow section of the M25 regularly, its a horrific section of the motor way for traffic and it seems to always be bad not just at rush hour, these days its quicker to drive into London to get were you want then use that section of M25. My view is if its the M25 is that bad now how much worse will it be with a 3rd run way, it doesn't matter that the 3rd run way will bring more capacity as the reality will be the M25 and roads around Heathrow will be so grid locked no one will be able to get to the terminals.

Also Boris is my local MP, after what happened yesterday I have totally lost respect for him, I always gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was infact on the ball and just came across as a dick, but now after this and Brexit I can confirm he is just a dick.

[crankedup]

Digga said:

Jonesy23 said:

Someone should really have pointed out what other major airports have done - relocate to a better position to build a modern facility then sell the existing site for redevelopment. Not piss about on a constrained site with all the legacy mess. After all it's not the location that's important is it?

crankedup said:

Agree with this pov, why not build a new airport and conjoin with the new rail link in the middle of the Country. Start spreading the major infrastructure and encourage business into the midland / northern areas.

This is the UK FFS, not China. Where else are you going to find a decent site, with all the ancillary support network that it requires, for an airport the size that Heathrow needs to become?

I didn’t suggest that new airport in the middle of the Country should be the size of a new Heathrow. We need to start building away from London which is already at breaking point in terms of infrastructure congestion.

[2gins]

Convert Luton to an airfreight hub. Right by the M1, good access to ports and the M25.

Use the spare capacity at LHR/GTW/STN for passenger flights.

Build HS2 as a circular route linking the 3 of them together, possibly also via City and Docklands.

Big logistical problem to sort out making the transfer process between terminal at different fields seamless, secure and reliable... but can't be beyond the wit of man...

[crankedup]

Johnnytheboy said:

Digga said:

captain_cynic said:

Operations wise, the Thames Estuary makes a lot of sense (good flight path, 24/7 operations) but if you cant get passengers to go there, the airlines wont land there.

You have to get everything there to be a hub. Everything from drinks serviettes to aircraft fuel and spares. It's an impossible task, given the road transport situation in the UK. A huge risk, given Heathrow already has this supply chain established.

The only way we could make another airport a secondary hub would be to build some kind of super-duper high-speed transport link.

But this is Great Britain, so...

Now that’s a thought, powerhouse Northern Britain anyone.

[Vanden Saab]

The Don of Croy said:

Planning ahead, what consumables can I corner the market in which the inevitable crusty army will require once they start camping around the site?

No reason why some of us shouldn't make a mint out of the situation (like our legal friends and the numerous sustainability advisors who will be signed up soon).

Notwithstanding the fact I'm about to start a contract in Reading, commuting from Kent, which hopefully will be over before they move the M25 for the new runway (in fact I might be retired before they get a round tuit).

Cannabis and soap...
I was joking about the soap...

[captain_cynic]

ruggedscotty said:

It needs a rail system to link it to the wider area.

This. The only major issue with LHR is getting there from outside London.

The Heathrow Connect stations need to be linked up with the GWR and SWR lines running to Reading.

[rich1231]

Johnnytheboy said:

The only way we could make another airport a secondary hub would be to build some kind of super-duper high-speed transport link.

But this is Great Britain, so...

Fuel for Gatwick comes from Canvey. Thames still has lots of freight capacity with Tilbury and the new port. The logistics of supplies isn't the issue. Transport infrastructure is the issue. Need crossrail like punch into London. Dartford crossing capicy increase and channel tunnel links. I don't think it is impossible just we lack the vision to deliver many significant infrastructure projects.

[oyster]

dcb said:

BlackLabel said:

There isn't a solution that keeps everyone happy however if expansion at a particular airport creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and generate billions for the economy then there comes a point where the greater good of the nation trumps the concerns of West London NIMBYs who are against expansion.

There is more to it than that. West London is already pretty affluent and the
M25 from M40 to M3 is already one of Europe's most congested roads.Making a
already very bad situation worse doesn't sound like progress to me.

If I were in charge, I'd be developing regional infrastructure in a variety of local airports.
Each could be done piecemeal, in serial or parallel. A billion £ here and there
to develop the provinces.

This would lead to reduced journeys to Heathrow, spread the wealth about,
reduce pressure on the M25.

M25 already worth avoiding most times of the day, adding a runway
at Heathrow will cause significant extra aggro for years.

In you are going to put all your eggs in one basket make sure it's
a good basket. Heathrow isn't it. It's already a hotspot and putting
in another runway will make it hotter.

You are coming at this from the leisure traveller perspective.

How will all your regional airports sustain flights to/from China, Brazil, Indonesia, USA etc?

[ClaphamGT3]

captain_cynic said:

ruggedscotty said:

It needs a rail system to link it to the wider area.

This. The only major issue with LHR is getting there from outside London.

The Heathrow Connect stations need to be linked up with the GWR and SWR lines running to Reading.

Planning on the privately funded spur into Heathrow from GWR and the Windsor to Heathrow extension are already well advanced which will leave only the north unserved by rail. The obvious answer would be to spur off HS at some point

[Shakermaker]

captain_cynic said:

DurianIceCream said:

I'm a West London IMBY

I think the LHR third runway is great Shoukd have happened years ago. They should give LGW a second runway too.

Boris is a tt btw.

LGW already has a 2nd runway, 08R/26L and 08L/26R. The issue (from memory) is that they cant use both at once because the north runway does not have an ILS and they use the same flight path so wake turbulence is an issue.

Wake turbulence is one of the major reasons the new LHR runway needs to be so far away from the current runways.

The second runway at Gatwick is the emergency runway, which is too close to the main runway for dual operation, and at all other times it is the taxiway for aircraft accessing or departing the runway to use.

The proposed second proper runway at Gatwick was about 1,000 metres away from the current one, to give proper separation between aircraft and flight paths

[dcb]

oyster said:

You are coming at this from the leisure traveller perspective.

I don't see that at all. I thought my post advocated balanced development across the country,
for the benefit of us all.

With this Heathrow decision, the Northern Powerhouse looks like what it
really is, political rhetoric without real action.

oyster said:

How will all your regional airports sustain flights to/from China, Brazil, Indonesia, USA etc?

However they want.

Interestingly, from this list : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_...
we can see Heathrow on about 78M passengers, Gatwick on 46M, Manchester on 28M.

If 25M Heathrow passengers can be persuaded to use Manchester instead, then that leads
to much more balanced figures of Heathrow 53M, Gatwick 46 M and Manchester 53 M.

Known as "Load Balancing" in the trade. I bet reducing Heathrow in size by about one third
would remove an awful lot of traffic off the M25, eastern end of the M40, M4 and M3.

it might even be the case that the M25 from the M40 to M3 stops being the car-park
it currently is. And Manchester might suffer some economic development too.

Airports do move. Munich airport moved out into the countryside years ago.
It's sitting at #9, at 45M passengers, only slightly less busy than Gatwick.

[Digga]

dcb said:

Airports do move. Munich airport moved out into the countryside years ago.
It's sitting at #9, at 45M passengers, only slightly less busy than Gatwick.

Munich was exceptional - due as much as anything to the Manchester United air crash IIRC - moved due to climatic issues. It's also tiny compared to Heathrow.

[Shakermaker]

Best not to use the Germans as an example of how to build an airport

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Brandenburg_A...

[Talksteer]

2gins said:

Convert Luton to an airfreight hub. Right by the M1, good access to ports and the M25.

Use the spare capacity at LHR/GTW/STN for passenger flights.

Build HS2 as a circular route linking the 3 of them together, possibly also via City and Docklands.

Big logistical problem to sort out making the transfer process between terminal at different fields seamless, secure and reliable... but can't be beyond the wit of man...

You are aware of East Midlands airport, it is basically this:

Also 95% of cargo at Heathrow comes in airliner bellies, you would never take up a used passenger slot with a cargo plane.

Your proposed HS2 would probably cost in the region of £60 billion and wouldn't work as the transfers would take excessively long and make scheduling impossible.

[captain_cynic]

dcb said:

However they want.

Interestingly, from this list : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_...
we can see Heathrow on about 78M passengers, Gatwick on 46M, Manchester on 28M.

If 25M Heathrow passengers can be persuaded to use Manchester instead, then that leads
to much more balanced figures of Heathrow 53M, Gatwick 46 M and Manchester 53 M.

Known as "Load Balancing" in the trade. I bet reducing Heathrow in size by about one third
would remove an awful lot of traffic off the M25, eastern end of the M40, M4 and M3.

The thing is, people don't "load balance" like statistics or IP packets. The phrase "herding cats" is the first thing that comes to mind about organising the movement of groups of people (well the first thing that comes to mind which can be said in polite company).

There's 78m passenger going to LHR because there's something at LHR that draws them there, for many of them London is their final destination, others are seeking connections that LHR provides. They aren't going to want to go via Manchester because someone says it'll "load balance". How do you get 25m people to _want_ to use an airport that is hundreds of miles out of their way?

Also, 25m passengers will double Manchester's current passenger movements... This means at the very least, it'll need another runway and terminal. Even at the worst possible speed, LHR's 3rd runway will be completed in half the time and the extra cash could be used to upgrade the M25 or build a bypass in Berkshire.

LHR isn't a bad airport at all, I rate it highly (after Amstedam Schipol and Singapore Changi). The problems with Heathrow are the problems that are inherent to big airports and there isn't much you can do about that. Gatwick I'll try never to use ever again.

[dcb]

captain_cynic said:

There's 78m passenger going to LHR because there's something at LHR that draws them there, for many of them London is their final destination, others are seeking connections that LHR provides. They aren't going to want to go via Manchester because someone says it'll "load balance". How do you get 25m people to _want_ to use an airport that is hundreds of miles out of their way?

They do if you price it right. Put up APT for LHR users. Redistribute that new tax
on reductions in APT for users of other non-LHR airports.

For many LHR users, they don't want to go there, they just want to use it to get elsewhere.
Many people in the UK who want to go to many places outside Europe have to go to LHR because
it's the only choice they have.

Give them the choice of Manchester or LHR, they'd much rather be in the 20 miles
of 50 mph limits on the M6 than on the M25 car park. Oh wait, I might have that wrong ;->

captain_cynic said:

Also, 25m passengers will double Manchester's current passenger movements... This means at the very least, it'll need another runway and terminal.

That's fine. Manchester could use the development. Makes a change from
doing everything in SE England. It would remove a lot of journeys down the M1 and M40
for folks in Scotland, North & the Midlands.

captain_cynic said:

Even at the worst possible speed, LHR's 3rd runway will be completed in half the time and the extra cash could be used to upgrade the M25 or build a bypass in Berkshire.

Nonsense. Cost of construction up North is far far less than SE England.
There are voters and taxpayers North of the Watford Gap, you know.

[captain_cynic]

dcb said:

captain_cynic said:

There's 78m passenger going to LHR because there's something at LHR that draws them there, for many of them London is their final destination, others are seeking connections that LHR provides. They aren't going to want to go via Manchester because someone says it'll "load balance". How do you get 25m people to _want_ to use an airport that is hundreds of miles out of their way?

They do if you price it right. Put up APT for LHR users. Redistribute that new tax
on reductions in APT for users of other non-LHR airports.

So you need to artificially inflate the market to make this plan work. That means either taxing or subsidising... or taxing and subsidising. Either way, it never works and will have unintended consequences, like fewer people travelling or more people taking the train to France to get away from the taxation.

dcb said:

For many LHR users, they don't want to go there, they just want to use it to get elsewhere.
Many people in the UK who want to go to many places outside Europe have to go to LHR because
it's the only choice they have.

Give them the choice of Manchester or LHR, they'd much rather be in the 20 miles
of 50 mph limits on the M6 than on the M25 car park. Oh wait, I might have that wrong ;->

captain_cynic said:

Also, 25m passengers will double Manchester's current passenger movements... This means at the very least, it'll need another runway and terminal.

That's fine. Manchester could use the development. Makes a change from
doing everything in SE England. It would remove a lot of journeys down the M1 and M40
for folks in Scotland, North & the Midlands.

captain_cynic said:

Even at the worst possible speed, LHR's 3rd runway will be completed in half the time and the extra cash could be used to upgrade the M25 or build a bypass in Berkshire.

Nonsense. Cost of construction up North is far far less than SE England.
There are voters and taxpayers North of the Watford Gap, you know.

LoL, I don't think you realise just how much construction is needed... The floor plan of Manchester airport would need to more than double. At least one entirely new terminal will need to be constructed. New runways (existing runways upgraded to handle larger planes and more traffic) gates upgraded, facilities to hand transit passengers not entering the UK... Heathrow has all of this already bar the third runway.

There is no way 25 million passengers per year will move to Manchester... as you said, it lacks the development.

[Matthen]

dcb said:

Known as "Load Balancing" in the trade. I bet reducing Heathrow in size by about one third
would remove an awful lot of traffic off the M25, eastern end of the M40, M4 and M3.

it might even be the case that the M25 from the M40 to M3 stops being the car-park
it currently is. And Manchester might suffer some economic development too.

I'm not buying this, sorry. In my experience, the queues bypass the airport - very few people actually leave to access the terminals. The M25 carpark is because people use it for commuting. Yes, the airport is a big employer, but downsizing it isn't going to change that. The issue is house prices in london are far too high, trains are too expensive, slow, uncomfortable and unreliable - and if you're on a bus, you're sat in the same traffic, just less comfortable. Driving from the commuter towns to london is the only viable way for people to live out of london and commute in.

You want to fix the M25, we need massive apartment blocks with suitable parking in the nicer parts of town; or thousands of jobs out of the city that pay the same as those inside of it.

As for the runway... Build one at Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow - i'm all for internal flights becoming viable.

[Swervin_Mervin]

captain_cynic said:

LoL, I don't think you realise just how much construction is needed... The floor plan of Manchester airport would need to more than double. At least one entirely new terminal will need to be constructed. New runways (existing runways upgraded to handle larger planes and more traffic) gates upgraded, facilities to hand transit passengers not entering the UK... Heathrow has all of this already bar the third runway.

There is no way 25 million passengers per year will move to Manchester... as you said, it lacks the development.

http://mantp.co.uk

T1 will go. T2 massively expanded. T3 expanded and linked to new super terminal. Host of other improvements.

Current pass numbers of c28mppa with capacity following expansion to 50mppa.

Add in Gatwick expa sion and you have much more cost effective solution.

That said i appreciate it isnt that simple and we won't know for some time what an expanded MAN is capable of attracting. Gatwick should just wang an application in for 2nd runway and terminal expansion. Could he delivered much more quickly than the Heathrow expansion, which isnt going to happen anytime soon