Heathrow Expansion - News and Debates

[paul]

The court's are going to be very busy

 

[Aviador]

Hundreds attend Heathrow consultation events on north-west runway proposal

Read more: http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/loc ... ts-6832268

Breaking news:

Heathrow gets go ahead for third runway.

 

[Coathanger16]

So, LHR only. Government has chickened out. LGW should also have been included. But this is a decision on a new runway on the south east so it does not rule out growth in other regions. If I was PK I would continue with plans for BHX and the tie in with HS2. Let's fight our own corner of the market rather than becoming a London option.

Pretty much everyone in the know has said it would be very difficult politically and legally for the government to have approved both Heathrow and Gatwick. For starters, Sir Howard said only 1 new runway was needed by 2030 and thats what his report focused on. Birmingham and Stansted were ruled out by Sir Howard for this first runway - something that both airports accepted largely because Sir Howard said they could be suitable for the "second" runway by 2050. The first new runway would have gone to either Heathrow or Gatwick, whilst the second would have been a choice between the loser (now known to be Gatwick) and Stansted and Birmingham. Basically, if the government had approved a new runway at Gatwick now, Stansted and Birmingham would have cried foul as they should have been considered alongside Gatwick - which as of yet they haven't.

With regards to what happens with Birmingham now, as many have pointed out, a new runway won't open until 2025 at the earliest. BHX has plenty of time to grow, attract new airlines and implement its new master plan. A third runway at Heathrow will have negligible impact on short haul flights from the regions. The larger impact will be on long haul flights, but only from the smaller airports. By 2025, Birmingham "should" have grown to at least 16mppa, perhaps even >20mppa. An airport of such size "should" be able to hold onto any long haul routes it has.

This decision for Heathrow is by no means the end, but actually the start of a long process.

 

[Butty]

Coathanger

I agree with your comments, but LGW does and will need a new runway. It is a shame that such a decision was not taken now.

As for the impact on BHX, I am not that bothered. It is the Midlands airport and will stand on its own two feet without the need to be a London airport.

As the Shadow Transport Secretary has just challenged the government "what happens in the meantime?" there is a 10 to 15 year gap between now and the new runway. That is one heck of a long time and a lot of growth which LHR and LGW are zero seriously constrained to deliver.

 

[BHXsupporter]

Well! Having sent a copy of the conservativehome.com article by Daniel Dalton MEP in support of BHX many days ago to my MP (Clifton-Brown, Cotswolds), at 1223h today (coincidence or what?) his assistant sent me a thank you saying that he agrees with what Daniel Dalton has to say 'n this important matter!

 

[Coathanger16]

Butty

I'd argue a new runway at Gatwick isn't essential just yet - certainly by no means as much as a new runway at Heathrow is.

Gatwick's record for number of flights handled in a single day is over 900. If Gatwick were to achieve that every day of the year, their capacity would be ~330,000 movements. No reason also why Luton and Stansted couldn't do the same (yes they will probably need taxiway works, Luton would need a longer runway, and both would need terminal expansions). Combined with City's expansion now allowing it to handle the full 120,000 movements they're allowed the following is possible:

LGW 267,760 --> 330,000 (62,240 extra movements)
STN 168,629 --> 330,000 (161,371 extra movements)
LTN 114,083 --> 330,000 (215,917 extra movements)
LCY 84,753 --> 120,000 (35,247 extra movements)

In total, that would provide 474,775 extra movements - or put another, the same throughput as Heathrow now. Plenty of spare capacity for P2P flights can be found without the need for new runways. On the other hand, there is no hub capacity remaining.

I'm not against a new runway at Gatwick, at the very least it would help to reduce delays, but make no mistake, between Heathrow and Gatwick, Heathrow is the priority.

 

[Aviador]

Zac Goldsmith has just resigned from the government after the governments decision to back a third runway at Heathrow.

#byebyezac #Heathrow

 

[58terminus]

Ok everybody lets move on.Who can honestly say they did not know what the decision would be years ago?

 

[EGCC_MAN]

Coathanger16 - I'm just back home following a couple of days away, so apologies for the delay in responding to your earlier posts. Obviously, recent announcements mean that this debate has moved on since then, but a couple of points are still worth answering. Firstly, I did not propose to restrict air capacity growth in the SE. It is already restricted. The debate surrounds identifying the best solution to remedy that. I favoured one proposal, you favoured another.

Next, I must point out some flaws in your post No.27 on this thread. Many variables contribute to the determination of a runway's capacity. One can't simply take LGW's record day, multiply that by 365 and extrapolate a similar figure to other SE runways. That is just not realistic. Taking LGW itself, scheduling must be coordinated responsibly at a manageable level befitting a day with average (rather than perfect) operating conditions. ATC require a degree of resilience, so the record is not a number they can safely work towards as a routine daily target.

Now, the matter of extrapolating those numbers to other runways at different airports. Those runways have different operating parameters, approach restrictions and layouts. SID's and STAR's can be more restrictive at one airport than another. The layout and number of runway exits is also critical to capacity. At an airport such as LTN, another consideration is terminal capacity on the ground. They're on top of a hill and very restricted for development space. Even allowing for all the bizjet movements (smaller aircraft), where would they get the space to cope with the level of throughput you suggest? STN is less restricted than LTN of course, but that is not to say that it could be safely scheduled for anything like 330K movements annually.

Moving beyond specific runway limitations, there is the whole issue of airspace management. Airspace conflicts increase exponentially in a scenario featuring several closely-located major airports with a challenging traffic mix. Could NATS en-route ATC actually cope with the volume of movements you suggest on a murky, rainy day with gusting winds (because that's what they have to plan for)? Probably not. A major redesign of London TMA airspace would be required to cope with anything approaching the volume increases you cite, and it is most unlikely that your target figures could be accommodated even then. A third runway at LHR is already a big ask ... add in the numbers you suggest elsewhere and there's a real problem. Note too that a major airspace redesign involving thousands of hours of expensive simulation scenarios and subsequent staff training would produce a proposal which would itself be subject to all manner of public consultations, objections, reviews and legal challenges. And safety considerations are paramount. Where do all these aircraft serving five fully-subscribed major airports divert to when the worst happens?

Suggestions like those you make look great on a scrap of paper in a pub. In the real world, they just don't fly.

 

[Coathanger16]

EGCC_MAN

Fair enough to your post. My main point I was trying to make was to highlight there is a fair amount of spare capacity available in the system for point to point growth. If we don't need a hub then any number of airports can potentially provide capacity for London - Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, City, Southend, Lydd, Birmingham, Southampton etc

With regards to airspace - I don't know if you are aware of LAMP (London Airspace Management Program) being implemented by NATS over the coming years. This is a complete overhaul of airspace design in the SE in order to be able to handle the expected growth there. Whether this redesign is able to accommodate the number of flights if all SE airports are operating to full capacity or just for a certain amount of growth, I don't know - I expect there is sufficient airspace in the SE to handle many more flights, the problem will be maintaining efficient operations and the noise impacts of such flight paths. We've already seen how difficult it can be to introduce new flight paths (e.g. trials at Heathrow & Gatwick).

http://www.nats.aero/news/newsbrief/janfeb-2016/lamp-phase-1a-airspace-change-now-live/

 

[Aceshigh]

I may have to dig deep but I'm sure Davies "glossed over" the airspace issue insofar as it didn't seem to be covered in forensic detail despite being absolutely front and centre of any increase at Heathrow.

I think he suggested there "might" have to be some restrictions to Stansted and Luton but such is the mans incompetance with just about everything else he has had his finger prints on they were given the, how shall we describe it "the light touch ".

Final Report July 2016
16 Chapters.
17 IF you actually consider Air Traffic Control and airspace modelling of some minor importance !

Still no sense in getting to tied down with minor detail.

 

[Coathanger16]

I may have to dig deep but I'm sure Davies "glossed over" the airspace issue insofar as it didn't seem to be covered in forensic detail despite being absolutely front and centre of any increase at Heathrow.

I think he suggested there "might" have to be some restrictions to Stansted and Luton but such is the mans incompetance with just about everything else he has had his finger prints on they were given the, how shall we describe it "the light touch ".

Final Report July 2016
16 Chapters.
17 IF you actually consider Air Traffic Control and airspace modelling of some minor importance !

Still no sense in getting to tied down with minor detail.

I recall NATS did the work on airspace and said that all of the options were feasible from an airspace perspective.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

According to a poster on another forum these airports have expressed support for LHR expansion.

Alderney - Barra - Belfast City - Benbecula - Biggin Hill - Blackpool - Campbeltown - Cardiff - Carlisle - Coventry - Derry - Doncaster Sheffield - Dundee - Durham Tees Valley - Exeter - Glasgow - Gloucestershire - Guernsey - Humberside -Inverness - Islay - Isle of Man - Jersey - Kirwall - Lands End - Leeds Bradford - Liverpool - Lydd - Newcastle - Newquay - Norwich - Prestwick - Southend - Stornoway - Sumburgh - Tiree - Wick.

If that is correct it follows that these other airports are either against expansion or have expressed no opinion:

Aberdeen - Belfast Int - Birmingham - Bournemouth - Bristol - Cambridge - Edinburgh - East Midlands - Gatwick - London City - Luton - Lerwick - Manchester - Oxford - Scatsta- Scilly Isles - Stansted.

If this is anywhere near correct - I have taken the other poster's list in good faith without being able to confirm everything in that person's list - it's interesting that some neighbouring airports appear to have taken contrary views, or at the very least have not expressed the same view publicly as that of a neighbouring airport.

 

[Jerry]

Roger Lewis and the WAG have expressed support for it especially if it allows CWL to have flights to LHR but I don't think CWL was on the governments list of extra regional flights.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Roger Lewis and the WAG have expressed support for it especially if it allows CWL to have flights to LHR but I don't think CWL was on the governments list of extra regional flights.

When the LHR CEO was talking about this probably a year ago, saying that an expanded LHR would allow more UK regional flights CWL was one of the airports mentioned, or it may have been along the lines, 'airports such as Cardiff' and others that were listed in his examples.

Some people said than that airports don't operate flights, airlines do, and certainly not governments, although some slots would apparently be ring-fenced for domestic routes.

 

[Coathanger16]

it's interesting that some neighbouring airports appear to have taken contrary views, or at the very least have not expressed the same view publicly as that of a neighbouring airport.

Try looking at the owners of those airports and you may see why. Glasgow airport used to be owned by Heathrow, and they've voiced support for Heathrow. Edinburgh airport on the other hand has said they're against it - not a surprise considering they are owned by the same group that owns Gatwick.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Try looking at the owners of those airports and you may see why. Glasgow airport used to be owned by Heathrow, and they've voiced support for Heathrow. Edinburgh airport on the other hand has said they're against it - not a surprise considering they are owned by the same group that owns Gatwick.

As you say there are underlying reasons in some cases.

BRS and CWL are interesting though.

As Jerry points out in an earlier post the CWL management seems broadly in favour of LHR expansion, partly perhaps because they think they might get a LHR link.

The BRS CEO on the other hand put out a statement last week saying he believes more growth should go to regional airports and that an enhanced LHR would only suck more passengers from the South West's airports, which he says already lose 6-7 million passengers each year to the London airports, mainly Heathrow.

 

[Jerry]

The BRS CEO on the other hand put out a statement last week saying he believes more growth should go to regional airports and that an enhanced LHR would only suck more passengers from the South West's airports, which he says already lose 6-7 million passengers each year to the London airports, mainly Heathrow.

I think if you look at BRS they won't benefit from an expanded LHR and don't have a connection to an airline flying out of there. Also there could be the worry for BRS that Easyjet could relocate some aircraft to LHR if they could get slots.
As for CWL they have a good relationship with IAG and no doubt would possibly hope for flights to LHR especially if Flybe were to get slots at LHR. In the end any runway is a long way away and I think both airports would hope to have their own long haul flights by then.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I think if you look at BRS they won't benefit from an expanded LHR and don't have a connection to an airline flying out of there. Also there could be the worry for BRS that Easyjet could relocate some aircraft to LHR if they could get slots.
As for CWL they have a good relationship with IAG and no doubt would possibly hope for flights to LHR especially if Flybe were to get slots at LHR. In the end any runway is a long way away and I think both airports would hope to have their own long haul flights by then.

BRS is far too close to London (any airport there) to have a London link.

In the 1990s the BA franchisee did operate an afternoon flight BRS-PLH-LGW for a while, but this was mainly for aircraft utilisation rather than a serious Bristol-London link. It was great for aviation aficionados wanting a tour of the south of England but not many passengers used it from BRS. There was no connectivity at LGW, even with BA, so far as I can remember so anyone using this flight to LGW in order to fly on somewhere else would have been taking a big risk if it was cancelled or seriously delayed.

As you say, any LHR third runway is many years away and no-one knows what the aviation scene will be like then.

 

[Tarn Spotter]

Its a pity the residents of the heathrow area cant be made aware the damage a lack of runway capacity at LHR is doing to business in this country.
Any operational problem sees a curtailment in the u.k. shuttle service. Its crazy our airport having the greatest connectivity to the rest of the world has such a lack of runway capicity, adding just one runway in the next 15 years a bad joke. LBA - LHR problems will get worse not better in the next decade.