|
Title: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Btline on August 27, 2012, 20:08:44 The coalition is on th everge of doing a gigantic U-Turn in a bulldozer in Sipson, West London as homes and graves are axed to make way for planes.
Is this the right decision? Do we even need more runways? For me, it has to be Boris Island. We need a single hub airport, and it is wrong to have more planes flying over people's homes. As well as heathrow, you could close two of City/Gatwick/Luton/Stansted, freeing up much of the South East from constant noise. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Chris from Nailsea on August 27, 2012, 20:32:07 The coalition is on th everge of doing a gigantic U-Turn in a bulldozer in Sipson, West London as homes and graves are axed to make way for planes. I think you are exaggerating. ;) Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Electric train on August 28, 2012, 08:38:36 Where I leave a third runway at Heathrow will no doubt generate a greater noise from planes, greater levels of road traffic, more business wanting to locate in the area. However the reality of it is Heathow is the UK's hub airport a key hub in Europe and a worldwide center for travel a lot of the UK's transport infrastructure and compaines has gravitated to Heathrow over the last 50 / 60 years there is no way this can be relocated cheaply to another place.
As part of the third runway HS2 has to be built along with the western link to the GWML, freight links should be built off of the GWML and Windsor / Reading line with companies like TNT, Royal Mail, FedEx encouraged to build rail linked hubs elsewhere in the UK. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: matt473 on August 28, 2012, 15:35:27 How about none of the options? Why not develop plans for a long term high speed network in addition to HS 1 and 2 reducing the need for domestic and short haul flights reducing the need for not only a new runway at Heathrow, but needs for increasing number of airports throughout the UK to a small number of hubs connected to regional transport hubs with High speed rail with local rail, bus and coach connections. Entirely feasible if only governments both locally and throughout Europe work together to achieve such an aim.
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on August 28, 2012, 16:24:54 Its the old story - UK does not have an integrated longer term transportation policy. Heathrow is clearly too close to densely occupied areas and a third runway would just make environmental conditions worse for any one living near to a low level flight path. Gatwick is further out in the country and much of the residential development around Gatwick is airport related. Build a second runway there but the government has given reassurance in the past that it would not permit this.
Just look at France where ytansportation has been treated as a public service. The French government many years ago decided that Orly, which was then the main Paris airport was inadequate and authorised the building of CDG. Tis is well out in the country but has fast RER trains to central Paris, the line being extended, of course, to CDG as part of the master plan. Then look at French rail and the steady development of TGV lines across the country. The EU now requires competion but look at how slowly that is progressing in France with SNCF still the major train company. There again, the French look after their own interests before European wide. That's enough of my moan. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: welshman on August 28, 2012, 21:51:13 Why are all these people flying about wasting fuel anyway?
I've managed quite happily without being on an aeroplane since 1969. And I REALLY don't understand why there's no tax on aviation fuel. Given the typical 4 gallons per mile fuel consumption, we could clear the budget deficit fairly quickly if aviation fuel was taxed like road fuel. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Rhydgaled on August 28, 2012, 21:58:39 Why are all these people flying about wasting fuel anyway? Agreed, aviation fuel should be taxed, at least as much as road fuel. Unfortunatly there is an international agreement (I have a feeling it's called 'The Chicago Convention' but I'm probably wrong) forbiding it, though perhaps the government should try to see if they can tax fuel for domestic flights. If aviation was taxed to an extent that reflects the huge enviromental damage it causes, would there be a need for even the number of runways/airports we have now?I've managed quite happily without being on an aeroplane since 1969. And I REALLY don't understand why there's no tax on aviation fuel. Given the typical 4 gallons per mile fuel consumption, we could clear the budget deficit fairly quickly if aviation fuel was taxed like road fuel. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Steve Bray on August 28, 2012, 22:01:23 Definitely. I'd start building it tomorrow. It's one of the current embarrassments we have in this country. It should have been acted on years ago. Every day for about 16 or 17 hours we have plane after plane circling over the home counties awaiting clearance to begin a final approach, something which a 3rd runway would solve. I see the aircraft overhead every morning where I live and I work in south-west London on the flightpath into LHR. The facts are that the airlines love Heathrow; in the main, they are only interested in Heathrow and they cannot get enough of it. Stansted, which was a bad decision in my opinion, has hardly ever attracted serious airlines in 25 years. American Airlines tried a transatlantic service from there, but that didn't work out (OK - it was around 9/11 time). Gatwick's runway is limited (as is its expansion) so that restricts some fully laden aircraft. So it has to be Heathrow. The trouble is, in this country, we love protests and appeals and even if a third runway was agreed tomorrow, it would probably be 10 years or more before it opened.
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Btline on August 28, 2012, 22:36:49 It is worth noting that any new runway would be HALF SIZE - so full size aircraft wouldn't be able to use it.
Unsurprisingly, the winner of the poll so far (for airport expansion) is Boris Island. Work on this needs to start tomorrow. How can people who say they want a new runway? It will blight thousands more lives! Imagine sitting in the garden and having a 747 come over at 1000ft every 90 secs! The same number of people say no to expansion - do we want more planes pollute the air? I still believe building a new hub airport in the Thames and then shutting the others to get the planes over the sea/Thames and off the Home Counties. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: eightf48544 on August 29, 2012, 08:53:42 I am surprised UJKIP hasn't consider CDG as a London Airport you coulds have the palnes from all the dodgy countries going in there with UK Border agency checking before they catch Eurostar. Would cut down illegal immigration and land the French with all the undesirables a win win for the UK.
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: SapperPsmith on August 29, 2012, 09:00:35 Interesting letter in the DTel yesterday - suggested existing site could be progressivly redeveloped to create three full size runways - it would cost a fortunue but could solve the problem without expanding the site. I am sure those affected by noise would still object.
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Super Guard on August 29, 2012, 11:29:52 There was interesting commentary in The Times yesterday from a journalist who lives 15 miles from Heathrow under the flight-path, who was originally campaigning against the third runway. She now believes it is a good thing, given the economic position that London has, and unless better flight connections are provided for the future through Heathrow, then other world cities will benefit from companies doing more trade elsewhere, as no major airline is going to want to add additional capacity to Stanstead, if Heathrow is full.
I cannot post the article as it is behind the "Murdoch-Wall". As for the "We should tax aviation fuel brigade..." Quote British air passengers are already the most heavily taxed in the world: on average, they pay almost nine times more duty than their European counterparts. In fact, the Treasury will collect almost twice as much in passenger taxes this year (^2.2 billion) as all other European countries combined (^1.17 billion), according to new research published by the Fair Tax on Flying alliance, a group of more than 30 travel organisations. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/air-passenger-duty/8945430/Air-Passenger-Duty-a-tax-on-all-your-dreams.html I am sure your average hard-pressed and outraged commuter is looking forward to some DfT bright-spark dreaming up "Rail Passenger Duty" ;) Also Boris Island will never happen, as the Private Sector will not pay for it, whereas they will pay for the Heathrow 3rd Runway. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Btline on August 29, 2012, 12:06:30 The problem with 3 runways is that one has to be alternated.
A new 4 runway airport could have 2 for take offs (i.e. 1 takeoff per minute) and 2 for landings (1 per minute). With 3 runways, because planes have to be separated -you can't have planes landing at parallel runways unless they are a minute apart- you don't get a 50% increase in flights. It's also likely that it will only be used for take offs West or landings to East, to avoid flying over the capital. This degrades capacity more. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: SapperPsmith on August 29, 2012, 12:23:23 The problem with 3 runways is that one has to be alternated. A new 4 runway airport could have 2 for take offs (i.e. 1 takeoff per minute) and 2 for landings (1 per minute). With 3 runways, because planes have to be separated -you can't have planes landing at parallel runways unless they are a minute apart- you don't get a 50% increase in flights. It's also likely that it will only be used for take offs West or landings to East, to avoid flying over the capital. This degrades capacity more. Works at Gatwick Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Btline on August 29, 2012, 12:41:34 Gatwick has one (operational) runway, not three.
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: devon_metro on August 29, 2012, 15:51:12 Heathrow has peak flows though, the number of departures probably rarely matches arrivals and vice versa. Thus a third runway would be used as "overflow".
Boris Island is a ridiculous idea. Heathrow already has the infrasture and the local residents are used to it, no point building another airport further from London when Heathrow is so well established. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Btline on August 29, 2012, 16:11:10 True, but isn't that a waste of a runway?
Meanwhile AMS has 6 runways with plans for a 7th. CDG has 4... Boris Island is not a mad idea. Ok, it's slightly further away from the centre (but only just outside the M25) - but this is GOOD! Other cities have relocated - we need to think big. Only in Britain do we have planes landing and taking off over the capital. Plus The Queen must get disturbed when she is at Windsor Castle. That is reason enough to close the airport IMO. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Andy W on August 29, 2012, 17:46:34 Presumably Boris Island was inspired by the new airport in Hong Kong.
Landing at the old Kai Tak airport was more effective than Exlax. The pilot had to avoid chinese airspace, while you would see skyscrapers zinging past the windows and to top it all there could be fearsome crosswinds. This is a great complitation of landings http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PCOcyt7BPI On topic - to be effective you really need 4 runways if expansion is to be taken seriously - 2 take off 2 landing. Particularly important if there is a mix of aircraft as wide bodied jets create so much turbulence that you cannot necessarily get a smaller aircraft down just 2 minutes later. A third runway would just be a Trojan Horse to a 4 runway objective. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on August 30, 2012, 15:34:36 The reason that aviation fuel is not taxed is that on international flights it would be so easy to evade when tax rates are fixed by each country by the airline filling up in a low tax country in just the same way as people buy cheap booze on the continent to bring home to avoid high UK taxed booze. The other comparative is the practice of foreign HGVs entering the country filled to the brim with fuel bought in a lower taxed country so that they do not have to buy high priced fuel in Uk for their travels in UK. Ideally there should be an entrance tax to UK calculated on the amount of fuel in the tank on entering UK but that would be very difficult to work and probably be vetoed by the EU rulers.The UK tax on ticket sales for flights departing UK is difficult to avoid. However that could be improved if the tax was changed, as has been proposed, to a flight departure tax on each aircraft. This would encourage, flights to be filled instead of many being half empty as the tax per passenger for a half filled flight would be twice that of a fully filled flight. However many of the operators have complained about this as it would in effect put up the price of the current low fares for off-peak flights. It is all very complicated.
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Western Enterprise on August 31, 2012, 16:10:20 There was interesting commentary in The Times yesterday from a journalist who lives 15 miles from Heathrow under the flight-path, who was originally campaigning against the third runway. She now believes it is a good thing, .... She is probably now moving to the Isle of Sheppey !.... ;DWest London is full and a new small 3rd runway would not be the panacea people are making out. A radical new option is needed, which should have been chosen by the new labour govt 15 years ago. :P Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on September 03, 2012, 14:35:39 Take a look heare for further Heathrow replacement sites: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/9906960.Oxfordshire_eyed_as_site_for_London_airport/
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Surrey 455 on September 04, 2012, 21:38:04 As a former resident of Sipson I am naturally against the third runway.
My opinion is that if BA and other airlines want to increase the number of destinations in China that they serve they can do so by cutting out 1 or 2 of the departures to cities in Europe that are served several times a day. If there is a strong demand to fly to certain destinations then use bigger aircraft. Doesn't have to be an A380 which not all airports can handle. A 747 should be sufficient for those airports that can't. Does Heathrow need a new runway? Virgin say yes but they've managed to find slots to fly to Manchester, not sure how if the airport is supposedly full. None of the above options have considered the needs of west / south west London residents who suffer with noise greatly so I have to conclude that a new runway(s) elsewhere away from dense population is preferable - LGW, STN, BHX or even Boris Island which having initially having been considered as a pie in the sky could work (air traffic complications with Schipol permitting). Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: JayMac on September 04, 2012, 21:44:42 Does Heathrow need a new runway? Virgin say yes but they've managed to find slots to fly to Manchester, not sure how if the airport is supposedly full. Those are slots that were formerly used by BMI. IAG/BA, having taken over BMI, were forced to give up the slots on competition grounds. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Btline on September 04, 2012, 22:17:51 An Oxfordshire airport would be an excellent idea, as it on the right side of the M25 (as opposed to the... right (i.e. wrong) hand side).
And presumably the runways would align as to avoid major urban areas. Sites: *Near the A34 (that would be uprgaded to motorway between the M3 and the M40) *Near HS2 - lots of free land near the line *In M40 corridor Of course, all of this ONLY if Heathrow and at least one or two other SE airports were shut to compensate environmentally. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: bobm on September 04, 2012, 23:25:35 What like the "London Oxford" airport at Kidlington..... ;D ;D
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: grahame on September 04, 2012, 23:28:11 What like the "London Oxford" airport at Kidlington..... ;D ;D Nah - I think we need a "London Kemble" airfield. Just off the main railway line, convenient for a large area including Swindon and North Bristol, and with just half a mile of railway to build across fields to connect it to the network. 747s already land there (although rather fewer if any take off) ... Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: bobm on September 04, 2012, 23:30:16 .. but then they'd fly over my house if the wind was in a particular direction! ;D
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: didcotdean on September 05, 2012, 11:57:20 This was the LOX (London Oxford) proposal of just under 10 years ago:
http://www.pleiade.org/projectzone/LOX/pdf/LOX02.1.3_airport_layout.pdf Marcham would finally get its bypass ... Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on September 05, 2012, 16:45:06 I cannot understand why the allocation of airport slots is not put out to competetiver tender as almost all other public services run by commercial orgaisations is nowadays ah la Rail Franchises. If there is more demand than available slots at Heathrow, the highest bidder would get the slot. At present existing airlines have rights at particular airports based upon historic allocations. One of the quoted reasons that BA recently bought out BM from Lufthansa was the Heathrow landing slot that BM possessed. Tendering the best price would mean that lesser used airports could attract use by charging less than Heathrow.
The important thing, in my view, is that if additional runways are needed for London, they should be built where fight paths would not go over densely populated areas and with good rail/road links. So many Heathrow landing paths go straight bover central and west London creating noise nuisance to millions. Boris Island would be enormously expensive to develop but what about the other options. I would rule out Northolt as that would create similar noise polution levels as Heathrow but what about, additional runways for Gatwick, Standsted, Luton, Southend, Manston, Biggin Hill, Farnborough, etc. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: didcotdean on September 05, 2012, 17:16:40 Generally speaking airports are better situated north or south of the city they are serving, to minimise overflying. An Oxfordshire or Berkshire location is therefore not the most sensible from that perspective. Heathrow is in just about the worst place.
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: bobm on September 05, 2012, 19:26:05 This article in the Wokingham Times (http://www.getwokingham.co.uk/news/s/2119950_secret_plan_for_60_billion_airport_on_edge_of_borough)suggests an airport in East Berkshire.
Quote Plans for an international airport to be built on the edge of the borough have been slammed by Wokingham^s MP and councillors. A British business consortium is believed to be assessing land between Reading, Maidenhead and Bracknell for a ^60bn four-runway airport. Secret plans from the consortium, said to be backed by Chinese sovereign wealth funds, reveal an airport could be built near Twyford or between Aylesbury and Banbury to solve the country^s aviation crisis. Noise, traffic and the airport^s affect on the village are among the objectors main concerns. Wokingham MP John Redwood said: ^It^s certainly not something I^m supporting. It doesn^t sound like a plausible plan to me. ^I don^t see where there could be the space ^ a lot of land near Bracknell is quite hilly and what would happen to Twyford? ^I think there are other serious options they will value and review like another runway at Heathrow, extensions to Stansted or Gatwick and a new airport in the Thames estuary. This idea is wildly impractical.^ It^s believed the area^s direct rail link and close proximity to London help make it an attractive location. Councillor David Lee, leader of Wokingham Borough Council, said: ^I wasn^t aware of this plan and I certainly wouldn^t want an airport built on my doorstep. ^I can^t really see why this plan would be a flyer ^ why develop a new airport when there is one down the road? From a personal perspective I^d be in favour of a third runway at Heathrow.^ Chancellor George Osborne has backed expansion to airport capacity in the South East but said the government would seek cross-party agreement on any plans. Proposals for an artificial island in the Thames estuary, known as Boris Island, or a ^50bn airport on the Isle of Grain have been put forward. Cllr Lee added: ^I think moving the international hub to the east would have serious consequences for the Thames Valley. ^We have some of the biggest business parks with the biggest names and they would have placed themselves here because of the high educational standards and the ease of international travel.^ Specialist engineers are believed to have been asked to evaluate flat tracts of land that could support an international airport near Wokingham or in Oxfordshire. Cllr Keith Baker, executive member for highways and planning, said: ^As a principle any idea that will boost economic activity in the borough has the potential to be a good one. ^Clearly there will be a downside in the sense that such a major operation is going to require huge amounts of land and have a major impact on life in the surrounding area. There would be serious noise and traffic issues.^ Patrick Heather, chairman of Twyford Village Partnership, said: ^I would be gobsmacked if this actually happened. ^We need to wait until we have more details before reacting. ^Personally I^m opposed to an extra runway at Heathrow and I think they would be mad to come into Berkshire. ^If they are going to build a new airport it makes more sense to me to put it in the Thames estuary with a fast train link.^ Prime Minister David Cameron said today in Parliament the Government would not drop its opposition to the third runway at Heathrow Airport. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Btline on September 05, 2012, 19:30:05 A furious Boris Johnson has attacked David Cameron over a possible U-turn. He is also demanding an assurance that the expansion is ruled out.
I think the Abingdon option posted above is ideal. The landing aircraft would align just West of High Wycombe, and there is barely any population between there and the airport. That part of Oxfordshire is already plagued by industrial developments such as the Diamond Light Resource centre. Road links to London may have to be improved, plus an extra Oxford bypass. And a new rail link would be needed from Didcot - easy enough. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Btline on September 05, 2012, 19:32:44 The Berkshire idea is poor, as planes would land and take off over busy areas.
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: TonyK on September 05, 2012, 19:39:20 Nah - I think we need a "London Kemble" airfield. Just off the main railway line, convenient for a large area including Swindon and North Bristol, and with just half a mile of railway to build across fields to connect it to the network. 747s already land there (although rather fewer if any take off) ... I remember the first time I tried to land a PA28 (Piper Cherokee for the uninitiated) at Kemble. I had an instructor, who did not touch the controls at all, in the the right hand seat, and a pal from the office behind. I flew a good downwind leg, parallel to the runway, doing the full BUMPFFICHHLA checklist, turned a perfect base leg, then called "Finals to land". I lined up, and the runway seemed to slide gently to the right. "Get yer bluddy wing down!" cried the instructor. "Yes Miss", said I, with a trembling in my bottom lip (and in my bottom, truth to tell). I got the balance of wing and rudder close enough to tell me that all was well, but still thought the runway was too narrow to land on. I had taken off at Filton, which is huge. To cut a short story long, I levelled out at exactly the right height, touched down so gently that my passenger didn't realise that she had landed, although this was her first ever flight in an aeroplane, and lost my smug grin as soon as I realised that someone had landed a 747 before me. A PA 28 could, at least in theory, get airborne inside a 747. I have exaggerated part of this. My lovely instructor Lavinia doesn't shout at anyone, she just lets them get into trouble, then either tells them what to do, or says "I have control". Reassuring. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: JayMac on September 05, 2012, 22:07:19 doing the full BUMPFFICHHLA checklist Intrigued. ??? Google was no help. Could you please explain this rather long initialism, FTN? Don't think I'll be adding it to the forum's Acronyms/Abbreviations page though.... Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Electric train on September 05, 2012, 22:30:30 A furious Boris Johnson has attacked David Cameron over a possible U-turn. He is also demanding an assurance that the expansion is ruled out. I think the Abingdon option posted above is ideal. The landing aircraft would align just West of High Wycombe, and there is barely any population between there and the airport. That part of Oxfordshire is already plagued by industrial developments such as the Diamond Light Resource centre. Road links to London may have to be improved, plus an extra Oxford bypass. And a new rail link would be needed from Didcot - easy enough. Problem with that its in Cameron's constituencies back yard an upset Mayor of London is easier to deal with Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Chris from Nailsea on September 05, 2012, 23:08:18 Google was no help. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BUMMMFITCHH ;) Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: 81F on September 06, 2012, 07:40:03 There is a perfect site for a new London airport, where for over 40 years the residents put up with noisy planes landing and taking off all times of day and night. It's at Upper Heyford, adjacent to the existing railway between Banbury and Oxford, close to the alignment of HS2, which could surely be adjusted slightly, and there are no significant areas of population to the east or west. Might not suit a handful of wealthy landowners in north Oxfordshire around Chipping Norton, though...
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: TonyK on September 06, 2012, 23:39:26 doing the full BUMPFFICHHLA checklist Intrigued. ??? Google was no help. Could you please explain this rather long initialism, FTN? Don't think I'll be adding it to the forum's Acronyms/Abbreviations page though.... Sorry bignose! Thought everyone knew. Brakes off Undercarriage down* Mixture (fuel, that is) rich Propeller pitch coarse* Fuel pump on (electric one, that is) Fuel cock to highest tank** Instruments - check (engine and other bits) Carburretor heater - switch on, watch for signs of icing, switch off, but back on for finals Hatches - doors and windows closed Harnesses - seat belts fastened Landing lights on Altimeter - correct pressure setting. The three most important things to watch on finals are: 1. Airspeed 2. Airspeed 3. Airspeed. As we've (I've) started this, how about two other checks I have done whilst flying: FREDA; and BRENDA. Offers? * Superfluous on a PA28, as it has fixed undercarriage and propeller pitch ** Not sure I can use that word on this site in our politically-correct age. Should it be "fuel repository" rather than tank? Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Btline on September 08, 2012, 23:02:12 Boris Johnson in secret talks to make SHOCK comeback in the Commons and take on Cameron ahead of the election
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200393/Boris-Johnson-secret-talks-make-sensational-comeback-MP.html Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: TonyK on September 08, 2012, 23:50:57 Boris Johnson in secret talks to make SHOCK comeback in the Commons and take on Cameron ahead of the election http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200393/Boris-Johnson-secret-talks-make-sensational-comeback-MP.html Probably so secret that even BoJo himself doesn't know about these talks. Who are involved in these secret talks? The Mail editor, a sub-editor, and a couple of half-cut hacks? In any case, BoJo doesn't shock people anymore - think about it. He's done the shocking things, as well as a few outrageous ones. Short of toppling the monarchy, announcing that he's gay, or pulling off the mask to reveal Tony Benn, I can't think what he would do that could even mildly surprise me. As for taking on David Cameron, I wouldn't even bet against Robert Mugabe or that mad I'm a Dinner Jacket cove from somewhere out east in a straight contest in the current political climate. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Chris from Nailsea on September 09, 2012, 13:02:20 Purely in the interests of ease of readability, I've reduced the font size of the headline used in the previous two posts.
Hope this helps! Chris. :) Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: TonyK on September 09, 2012, 18:39:29 Purely in the interests of ease of readability, I've reduced the font size of the headline used in the previous two posts. Hope this helps! Chris. :) Much better, ta... Going back to my earlier post about checks, FREDA was a half-hourly or so check of: Fuel - enough for the journey, switch tanks to balance Radio - correct frequency set, volume up, do I need to speak to anyone? Engine - carb heat on for a short while, any signs of ice, gauges all in the green Direction - does it look like I'm where I should be? Altimeter - is it set to the right pressure, am I at the right altitude, etc The BRENDA check was much easier. I turned to my passenger in the back seat, and asked "Everything all right, Brenda?" Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Thatcham Crossing on October 19, 2012, 22:39:01 It has to be the 3rd runway at LHR. We should stop dithering (or more specifically the politicians should) and get on and build it.
It's not perfect, but anything else will take far too long and UK PLC will miss the economic boat loaded with the benefits that more capacity will bring. LHR is still, at the moment, the world's most important hub airport (by virtue that it handles more international pax than anywhere else), but there are many other airports with more runways and space in Europe and the middle and far east waiting to take on that mantle. As the 3rd runway at LHR will be shorter (around 2200m) than the existing 2 (at over 3500m), it will take less time to build, but will still be able to handle most short-to-medium haul aircraft (ie, Boeing and Airbus narrowbodies and other regional jets and turboprops), taking many of these out of the pattern for the longer runways. One of the great inefficiencies of LHR today is that these smaller aircraft have different "wake turbulence categories" to the larger aircraft, meaning that for safety reasons they have to have greater spacing when on the approach behind a "heavy" (which is effectively anything the size of a Boeing 757 or larger). Although ATC do their best to group batches of similarly categorised aircraft together in the approach patterns, that cannot always be done due to the complexity of trying to juggle a mix of these onto 1 approach path from 4 holding areas. My second choice would be a second proper runway at LGW, but due to a local legal Agreement no construction can start before 2019, which is way too long to wait aswell. Boris Island is a silly idea for so many reasons. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: TonyK on October 20, 2012, 19:32:55 Wake turbulence vortices are a nuisance, but not a huge one at Heathrow. A B747 following another B747 only has to be 4 nautical miles behind it, which doesn't take long to cover. If there is a crosswind, the vortex can be assumed to move away from the runway, and in any case, if the following flight touches down before the point on the runway where the preceding flight touched down, he doesn't need to pay as much heed. The drift tendency of wake vortex means that you can't ignore it, even if using parallel runways, although those at LHR are far enough apart for this not to be a big issue.
It's difficult to see the day that a politician will be able to decide on this issue, as it will always be a potential election loser. The only conceivable way would be for a major party to actually include a commitment to build the third runway in a manifesto, then starting demolition works on Day One. Can't see that happening. The first proposal for a northern extension over Sipson was made in 1946, before the airport was even open, and the first announcement of abandonment was made in 1953. London and its surrounds has grown greatly since, and an enlarged Heathrow, even for smaller aircraft only, would introduce noise to many hundreds of thousands more people. More likely will be a second full runway at Gatwick, which will annoy many fewer people. The big mistake at LHR was building the second runway in the late 1940s, but no-one could have imagined then how aviation would be today. That would have been the best time to build a brand new airport somewhere East of London, but we all see the past more clearly than the future. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: eightf48544 on December 11, 2015, 10:58:28 Is there a later thread on the third runway if so please move this post.
This topic seems to be hotting up again with the goverment hitting into the long grass once again. I have one question. I thought the Davies report said 70,000 new jobs around Heathrow, but the airport chappie on the Today programme said 40,000. However my question still apllies. Where are they all going to live and how will they get to work? Another thing he said was the M4/25 were more polluting than the airport! Willy Walsh was quoted as saying BA wouldn't pay for the expansion in increased landing fees and they'd move out possibly to Madrid. I can't see the airport being able to pay for the new runway terminals and all the infra structure upgrades to road and rail links etc. so the taxpayer will have to subsidise it. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Red Squirrel on December 11, 2015, 11:06:40 If Dr Steve Melia's sources are correct, 80% of flights are for leisure purposes and most of those from the UK are outbound - i.e. British people taking trips (and spending their money) abroad. Therefore the best thing we can do, if we wish to benefit our own economy is: nothing.
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Richard Fairhurst on December 11, 2015, 11:53:16 Indeed. A cursory scan through http://www.heathrow.com/departures always shows a long list of flights to Brussels, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Aberdeen, Paris - places that should be better reached by train (and Amsterdam should be on that list, too). If Heathrow's capacity is at its limits, start by removing the flights to these places, and improving interchange to make integrated air/rail journeys easy.
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: TaplowGreen on December 11, 2015, 11:54:03 Listen to the CBI, it needs to be done for the sake of British business, and it needs to be at Heathrow. Business demands it, the economy and thousands of jobs will depend on it and there needs to be an end to this ceaseless kicking the can down the road before making a decision.
Virtually no-one who lives in the area now was there before the airport was built so they all knew it was there when they made the decision to live there. It's unfortunate for Sipson etc but no worse than the scar that HS2 will rip across the land. I realise a lot of people on this forum see rail as a panacea for everything when it comes to transport but I'm afraid it just doesn't work The argument about binning all domestic flights doesn't stack up - they don't just cater for domestic flights, there are people flying in from all over the World and changing flights at Heathrow for these destinations and elsewhere (hence it's a "hub"), do you seriously expect them to hump all their luggage across London to get on a train for hours on our unreliable network? it takes over 7 hours to get to Aberdeen (one of those cited) by train from London, in most cases involving at least one change of train! No - they will take their Business elsewhere instead........and what message would this send to those in Scotland who want to break up the Union? Get on with it, and get it built (but for God's sake don't let the rail industry price it or give it a timeline!!!) Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Rhydgaled on December 11, 2015, 12:23:59 Listen to the CBI, it needs to be done for the sake of British business, and it needs to be at Heathrow. Business demands it, the economy and thousands of jobs will depend on it and there needs to be an end to this ceaseless kicking the can down the road before making a decision. The endless derferral of a decision needs to stop, agreed, but don't listen to the CBI. Listen to the scientists; certain greenhouse gases cause more damage to the climate when emitted at altitude than at ground level, and even water vapour is a greenhouse gas at altitude unlike at ground level.I don't think there are many pepole left who deny that we should cut emmisions. If we take that word (cut) in a different context, there has been much argument over the government's spending cuts and one comment was that the NHS is exlcuded from spending cuts but this means deeper cuts elsewhere. There are stong arguments for excluding the NHS from spending cuts but in the case of greenhouse gas emmissions is it right that anything should be excluded at the expense of other sectors having to cut more? I certainly don't think aviation should be excluded from having to make cuts. Stop delaying and make a final decision: NO MORE AVIATION EXPANSION, FULL STOP! Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Richard Fairhurst on December 11, 2015, 12:42:15 The argument about binning all domestic flights doesn't stack up - they don't just cater for domestic flights, there are people flying in from all over the World and changing flights at Heathrow for these destinations and elsewhere (hence it's a "hub"), do you seriously expect them to hump all their luggage across London to get on a train for hours on our unreliable network? No, which is why I said: Quote improving interchange to make integrated air/rail journeys easy Fact is that Heathrow's major competitor as a hub, Schiphol, utterly trounces it for air-rail interchange. As, of course, do Gatwick and even Birmingham. It can be done (heavens, you could run trains from Heathrow to Kings Cross/St Pancras and remove the need to "hump" with just one small bit of knitting), it's just that Heathrow and its cheerleaders rarely understand anything other than unquestioningly piling on more and more capacity. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Thatcham Crossing on December 11, 2015, 12:47:16 I'm with TG, the latest hoofing into the long grass is purely for political reasons, which is just plain weak on the part of our current Govt. I almost felt sorry for McLoughlin on TV this morning having to be the apologist for this latest situation.
He's now even saying that Gatwick is still in the running, so what was the point of the money and time spent by the Davies Commission? Gatwick is not a hub airport (and never will be). There is simply not enough long haul throughput (flights to various "beach" destinations excepted) and the airlines will not be persuaded to put it there. Recent examples of the LHR vs. LGW situation, in the news this week: - Cathay Pacific fly 5 times daily from Heathrow to Hong Kong (25 flights a week). They announced yesterday that next year they will start flights from Gatwick, 4 times a week. I suspect this LGW schedule is only starting because there is no room left for them to expand at LHR. - Indonesian flag-carrier Garuda re-started flights to Jakarta, via Amsterdam, out of Gatwick about 18 months ago. Just announced that these will move to Heathrow next year. Heathrow is where the World's biggest airlines want to be, Gatwick is the waiting room. As further evidence of this, here is a list (off the top of my head) of long-haul airlines over the last approx. 20-25 years that have started Ops at Gatwick, then moved them to Heathrow: Cathay Pacific (they were originally a LGW operator, before moving to LHR and building their operation to what it is today) Air New Zealand Philippine Airlines Korean Air All Nippon (ANA, Japan) American Airlines Continental (although now as part of United) Aeromexico Virgin Atlantic (were originally an LGW-only operator) Garuda Indonesia (were an LGW airline back in the 80's and 90's, then stopped operations for many years - they were banned from EU airspace on safety grounds - then restarted at LGW - with shiny new Boeings - and will move to LHR). We are an international laughing stock :'( Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: simonw on December 11, 2015, 13:10:42 It is interesting that everyone want to brush environmental issues under the carpet.
For a local airport Heathrow is fine, but placing a major airport hub for 70m passengers in between dozens of villages, small towns, M4, M25 and upwind of London means the financials costs will be ridiculous. If the country wants a single airport with 4-6 runways, then the only option is a Boris Island plan. One of the options mentioned years ago was adding a 2nd runway to Gatwick and a MagLev link Gatwick to Heathrow. Another option is to move Terminals away from airports, but have them in the centre of cities and use MagLev trains to link these to the airports. Then London can have 2/3/4 airports serviced by a single Terminal. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Steve Bray on December 11, 2015, 13:34:58 I agree with Thatcham. The airlines all want Heathrow and the sooner the 3rd runway is built there, the better. As we know there are a few anti-LHR politicians making a lot of noise (Boris, Zac Goldsmith & Justine Greening etc). Would anyone really care if Justine Greening resigned her post if a third runway went ahead?
Noise from aircraft is a way of life (I work in Isleworth with aircraft flying overhead on the approach to LHR every few minutes). Anyone who has moved to this area in the last 40+ years (which would be most people) cannot really have any arguments, as big planes have been flying into LHR all that time. An extra runway won't all of a sudden mean extra flights to New York, for instance - there is only a finite amount of demand - but it would allow new destinations to be linked directly to the UK. LHR is one of the few airports where you stack for ages before landing; a new runway should mean that aircraft descend and then land, as happens when with most other airports I've flown into. My only concession is that currently you get the same airlines operating flights in rapid succession to certain destinations. This evening, for instance, Iberia has 3 flights from LHR to Madrid departing at 1830, 1850 and 1920. KLM has 2 flights from LHR to Amsterdam departing at 2015 and 2025, on relatively small Embraer Jets. If they were able to find a larger aircraft, they could operate just 1 flight. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Tim on December 11, 2015, 13:47:10 If we need a huge hub airport for the whole nation is the answer isn't Boris island (wrong side of London), Gatwick (wrong side of London) or Heathrow (too close to London) but somewhere NW of London between Didcott, Aylesbury and Thame.
If that is politically impossible, then the next best thing is an expanded Heathrow (with very strict environmental limits so that it only grows gradually and in step with planes becoming quieter and more efficient) AND an expanded Gatwick AND the Heathwick rail link between the two AND a high speed rail network property integrated with air to remove the like of Manchester-London flights. A combination of these four is less then perfect but would be an improvement on where we are today. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Thatcham Crossing on December 11, 2015, 14:00:35 simonw said:
Quote placing a major airport hub for 70m passengers in between dozens of villages, small towns, M4, M25 and upwind of London means the financials costs will be ridiculous. LHR already has around 70m pax per year. It continues to edge up slightly simply due to increased Load Factors and because on average the no. of seats on each aircraft is increasing, not because more flights are operating. Aircraft are far far quieter than they have ever been - think 707's, Trident's, BAC 1-11's and the like for real noise. Today's latest aircraft (eg, 787, A380 and the just entering service A350) are incomparable really. They have much better performance, ie, they climb more quickly so you experience the noise over a smaller footprint. They use much less fuel and emit much less pollution/CO2 per passenger than those built and operated during the 60's and 70's. They (in general) carry a lot more people, so less flights need to operate. Steve Bray is right though that there are some anomalies and cases where scheduling could be cleverer, but there are many factors to consider, not least aircraft availability (as another example, one of those Iberia flights is a widebody/long haul A340, but I understand it's needed due to the cargo demand on the route - bear in mind that sometimes high value cargo - which widebodies can carry a lot more of - makes more money for the airlines than us "self-loading-freight"). I'm not pushing environmental issues aside, rather pointing out that they have been addressed (as realistically as they are ever going to be IMHO). Forget Boris Island, airports need to be where the business/money/catchment area is, not on a marsh miles away in Essex. Boris is also (for some strange reason, it can only also be political) against expansion at London City Airport. That is also approaching capacity as it becomes a victim of it's own success. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: eightf48544 on December 11, 2015, 14:45:25 Nobody has answered my question, where are the people who are going to fill the 40,000 new jobs going to live and how will they get to work?
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Red Squirrel on December 11, 2015, 14:51:10 I completely agree that endlessly kicking the can down the road looks ridiculous, and that our politicians should stop being such bloody cowards and make a decision.
I just worry that the need to expand Heathrow is 'obvious' in the same way that the need to build bigger wider roads and better car parks is obvious - it's obvious if you think it needs to happen, but less obvious if you don't. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Bmblbzzz on December 11, 2015, 15:34:53 Boris Island is a deliberate red herring, the far-out option placed by Boris to make LHR expansion the obvious, sensible choice.
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: paul7575 on December 11, 2015, 16:26:58 Boris Island is a deliberate red herring, the far-out option placed by Boris to make LHR expansion the obvious, sensible choice. The Boris Island proposal seemed to consist of sketches of a big airport but never really answered the question of how you move all the businesses and warehouses etc already clustered around the existing airport right across to the other side of London. Would they have just been expected to fend for themselves, or would places such as Slough have been moved to Kent as well? Paul Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Tim on December 11, 2015, 16:53:45 Boris Island is a deliberate red herring, the far-out option placed by Boris to make LHR expansion the obvious, sensible choice. I'm not sure. Boris island might well be the best option for London (especially for a London that is expanding eastwards). It isn't the best option for the UK as a whole. Boris is mayor of London so all credit to him for pushing a scheme that brings London benefits. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Bmblbzzz on December 11, 2015, 16:56:20 That's what Boris wants you to think he thinks!
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Timmer on December 11, 2015, 17:11:11 As further evidence of this, here is a list (off the top of my head) of long-haul airlines over the last approx. 20-25 years that have started Ops at Gatwick, then moved them to Heathrow: Not to mention British Airways moving most of their ex British Caledonian routes from LGW to LHR...Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston are two that spring to mind.Cathay Pacific (they were originally a LGW operator, before moving to LHR and building their operation to what it is today) Air New Zealand Philippine Airlines Korean Air All Nippon (ANA, Japan) American Airlines Continental (although now as part of United) Aeromexico Virgin Atlantic (were originally an LGW-only operator) Garuda Indonesia (were an LGW airline back in the 80's and 90's, then stopped operations for many years - they were banned from EU airspace on safety grounds - then restarted at LGW - with shiny new Boeings - and will move to LHR). Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: ellendune on December 11, 2015, 21:52:04 It is interesting that everyone want to brush environmental issues under the carpet. I don't If the country wants a single airport with 4-6 runways, then the only option is a Boris Island plan. You mean create a hugely expensive piece of infrastructure that would cost more than HS2 and put it in one of the most vulnerable parts of the UK (to flooding) near to a bird colony (that would be a risk to aircraft) and an explosion hazard (a WW2 wreck with a large cargo of explosives) in a location that is most difficult for all but the people of London and Kent to access. This does not sound a sensible use of money to me. One of the options mentioned years ago was adding a 2nd runway to Gatwick and a MagLev link Gatwick to Heathrow. Has anyone tried this anywhere else? Another option is to move Terminals away from airports, but have them in the centre of cities and use MagLev trains to link these to the airports. Then London can have 2/3/4 airports serviced by a single Terminal. Strange then that the check in at Paddington failed. The one in Vienna is little used as well. Not sure this would work. Nor do I see how it would solve the problem of runway capacity. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: simonw on December 11, 2015, 22:27:44 If the country needs a traditional Hub airport, such as CDG, JFK or Schiphol, then adding a single runway will not be enough, it will need two more. This process will drag on for years after a 3rd runway is built, and how many times will the M4/M25 have to be moved, raised or lowered, how man more villages will be levelled.
Heathrow is already breaching environmental controls, and no matter what improvements are made, adding another runway will not help. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: TaplowGreen on December 12, 2015, 08:58:32 The argument about binning all domestic flights doesn't stack up - they don't just cater for domestic flights, there are people flying in from all over the World and changing flights at Heathrow for these destinations and elsewhere (hence it's a "hub"), do you seriously expect them to hump all their luggage across London to get on a train for hours on our unreliable network? No, which is why I said: Quote improving interchange to make integrated air/rail journeys easy Fact is that Heathrow's major competitor as a hub, Schiphol, utterly trounces it for air-rail interchange. As, of course, do Gatwick and even Birmingham. It can be done (heavens, you could run trains from Heathrow to Kings Cross/St Pancras and remove the need to "hump" with just one small bit of knitting), it's just that Heathrow and its cheerleaders rarely understand anything other than unquestioningly piling on more and more capacity. OK, lets say another rail interchange is built at Heathrow and some domestic flights are removed - taking one of your scenarios, how long via your method would it take to get from LHR to Aberdeen (for example) by train? Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: ellendune on December 12, 2015, 09:19:58 OK, lets say another rail interchange is built at Heathrow and some domestic flights are removed - taking one of your scenarios, how long via your method would it take to get from LHR to Aberdeen (for example) by train? Aberdeen probably a bad example because I doubt whether demand would be enough to justify the rail improvements necessary. However this is the justification for building HS2 as a high speed line rather than just as a conventional 125mph route. I have shown that from here to Delft (via high speed train to Rotterdam) and to Bonn (via high speed train to Cologne) takes pretty much the same time and that is even with the change at Brussels. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: TaplowGreen on December 12, 2015, 09:39:42 OK, lets say another rail interchange is built at Heathrow and some domestic flights are removed - taking one of your scenarios, how long via your method would it take to get from LHR to Aberdeen (for example) by train? Aberdeen probably a bad example because I doubt whether demand would be enough to justify the rail improvements necessary. However this is the justification for building HS2 as a high speed line rather than just as a conventional 125mph route. I have shown that from here to Delft (via high speed train to Rotterdam) and to Bonn (via high speed train to Cologne) takes pretty much the same time and that is even with the change at Brussels. BA operate 8 flights a day from LHR to Aberdeen so clearly there is considerable demand - you have heard of the North Sea Oil industry? I'm just using one of the examples given by someone flagging it up as an alternative, but OK how about Glasgow (1 hr 25 by air from LHR) or Edinburgh (1 hr 20 via rail from Heathrow? How long, how many changes of trains? Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: eightf48544 on December 12, 2015, 10:19:30 Can nobody answer my question where will the people who will fill the 40.000 new jobs created in and around the expanded airport live and how will they get to work?
i know someone who works at LHR and is lucky enough to have a carpark pass near his place of work. Some of his colleauges have to park on the other side of the airport and catch the staff bus Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: ellendune on December 12, 2015, 11:08:03 I am not sure that all the 40,000 jobs or even most of them would be at the airport itself. But you are right to raise the issue. Better public transport would have to be an essential part of this.
For the polar opposite case - i.e. if Heathrow were totally replaced (i.e. closed) as envisaged, I think, by the Boris island proposal then I assume there would be mass unemployment in that part of west London. There is already a chronic housing shortage in London and the South East creating 40,000 new jobs it likely to accelerate the overheating of London's economy. When does it reach a point where jobs are created (i.e. posts) that cannot be filled because London is unaffordable for all but those in high paid jobs. Creating capacity does not really serve the rest of the country well. A hub at Birmingham on HS2 would create jobs in an area where there is more capacity for growth. It's not a bad journey for me from here either. I fear we have a bigger problem now because politicians have ducked the issue several times over the last 50 years. What's the betting they duck it again? Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on December 12, 2015, 11:39:10 The flight times comparison shown above for journeys to Scotland as against rail are very misleading as the flight times take no account of all the other times needed to use air (getting to airport, checkin, luggage retrieval, etc.).
A few years ago I had some airmiles to use up and travelled by air to Inverness (from Oxfordshire). For a 2.00 pm approx flight departure I had to leave home around 10.00 and arrived in central Inverness around 17.00, overall time about 7 hours - not that different frrom overall rail travel time but much cheaper by air. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Richard Fairhurst on December 12, 2015, 12:45:38 Given that a Heathrow third runway is unlikely to be built much before HS2 is finished, then direct journey times from London to domestic and Eurostar-connected destinations will be:
And, as Andrew alludes, it doesn't take 1hr20 to fly from London to Edinburgh. It takes 1hr20 to fly from Heathrow to a non-rail connected bunch of sheds in Ingliston, with a 35-minute tram journey to the city centre. Add all the attendant faff of airports (and Heathrow in particular, which is only equalled by JFK for unpleasantness and inefficiency in my experience), and train and air times are less divergent. Aberdeen? Yep. I'll throw my hands in the air for this one. It's 2hr20 beyond Edinburgh by rail, so ~6hr by train from London. So I'll happily grant that rail is never going to be competitive purely time-wise with air in this case. But this is the crux of the matter. Expanding airport capacity has a large environmental and social cost. If you need to save three/four hours on your journey to Aberdeen, fine: but you should shoulder that cost, rather than expecting the rest of the country to subsidise your cheap ^130 fare. That means racking up the cost of short-haul flights such that demand is reduced and capacity is freed up for long-haul destinations - the sort of red-blooded supply-and-demand capitalism that the beloved CBI should in theory approve of. And if that's true of Aberdeen, it's many times more true for closer destinations. Should Heathrow be expanded, at enormous cost, so that people can save negligible minutes on their London-Edinburgh connection for which they pay just ^115? What justification is there, at all, for Heathrow-Manchester flights when Old Oak Common to Manchester Piccadilly will actually be the same 1hr travel time as Heathrow to Ringway Airport? I find it hard to see one. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: TaplowGreen on December 12, 2015, 13:40:21 ;)
Given that a Heathrow third runway is unlikely to be built much before HS2 is finished, then direct journey times from London to domestic and Eurostar-connected destinations will be:
And, as Andrew alludes, it doesn't take 1hr20 to fly from London to Edinburgh. It takes 1hr20 to fly from Heathrow to a non-rail connected bunch of sheds in Ingliston, with a 35-minute tram journey to the city centre. Add all the attendant faff of airports (and Heathrow in particular, which is only equalled by JFK for unpleasantness and inefficiency in my experience), and train and air times are less divergent. Aberdeen? Yep. I'll throw my hands in the air for this one. It's 2hr20 beyond Edinburgh by rail, so ~6hr by train from London. So I'll happily grant that rail is never going to be competitive purely time-wise with air in this case. But this is the crux of the matter. Expanding airport capacity has a large environmental and social cost. If you need to save three/four hours on your journey to Aberdeen, fine: but you should shoulder that cost, rather than expecting the rest of the country to subsidise your cheap ^130 fare. That means racking up the cost of short-haul flights such that demand is reduced and capacity is freed up for long-haul destinations - the sort of red-blooded supply-and-demand capitalism that the beloved CBI should in theory approve of. And if that's true of Aberdeen, it's many times more true for closer destinations. Should Heathrow be expanded, at enormous cost, so that people can save negligible minutes on their London-Edinburgh connection for which they pay just ^115? What justification is there, at all, for Heathrow-Manchester flights when Old Oak Common to Manchester Piccadilly will actually be the same 1hr travel time as Heathrow to Ringway Airport? I find it hard to see one. IF HS2 is finished! ;) Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: simonw on December 12, 2015, 18:44:52 If HS2 is finished, then Birmingham airport will better rail connections than any other airport, and will be quicker to get to. After all, Birmingham airport will be 38 minutes from Euston.
So why not add two runways here and make it the hub? As a bonus, M5/M6/M1/M42 are all nearby with local and national rail lines and HS2 in a few years. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: TaplowGreen on December 13, 2015, 09:46:31 If HS2 is finished, then Birmingham airport will better rail connections than any other airport, and will be quicker to get to. After all, Birmingham airport will be 38 minutes from Euston. So why not add two runways here and make it the hub? As a bonus, M5/M6/M1/M42 are all nearby with local and national rail lines and HS2 in a few years. Well I guess we already have "London Luton", "London Stansted" and even "London Southend", so why not "London Birmingham"? ::) Ultimately it has to be Gatwick or Heathrow, the main criteria for the decision has to be economic/business and that points firmly to the latter, someone just needs to grow a pair and make the decision one way or the other. Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Bmblbzzz on December 14, 2015, 10:18:00 Someone was saying that although planes are quick, the time spent travelling to and from airports and checking in, waiting for baggage, etc, means total journey time is comparable to rail for journeys such as London to Edinburgh. This holds true for much longer journeys as well. I used to live in Poland for several years and have travelled from various parts of Poland to UK (Bristol and/or Gloucestershire) by plane, bus and car. A flight from Warsaw to any of the London airports takes about 2h30. An international bus from *town of your choice* to London Victoria takes about 28 hours. But add in getting to Warsaw, getting to the airport, checking in, and the same at the other end, both means take in effect a full day; it's just that on the bus you get an extra night to sleep in! Bus is cheaper and allows almost unlimited luggage, plane more comfortable. By car it took us about two and a half days, but that was our choice, it can be done far quicker. The big loser here is rail: the various connections and border crossings mean it is slower than the bus (and though doubtless more comfortable to sit on, there will be luggage lugging at stations ^ once on the bus, you're on till London) and costs more than flying (and I'm comparing to BA and LOT, not Whizz or Ryanair).
Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: Tim on December 14, 2015, 11:57:25 If HS2 is finished, then Birmingham airport will better rail connections than any other airport, and will be quicker to get to. After all, Birmingham airport will be 38 minutes from Euston. So why not add two runways here and make it the hub? As a bonus, M5/M6/M1/M42 are all nearby with local and national rail lines and HS2 in a few years. I completely agree than Birmingham Airport will do very well out of HS2 (it will be closer to London than Stansted) I am not sure it is a good location for a national hub though because it is rather close to Birmingham's suburbs and in many ways would cause as many problems for Brum as LHR does for London. To avoid city centre over-flights an ideally sited airport needs to be North or South of the city it serves not West (as with Heathrow) or East (as with Birmingham) Title: Re: Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion Post by: simonw on December 14, 2015, 14:08:13 In an ideal world, this country would build a national hub record on the coast, or a sparsely populated piece of land, with good communications to the whole country.
Unfortunately, we are one of the most densely populated countries in the world, leaving the option of an existing coastal air (Glasgow Prestwick or Liverpool John Lennon) or building a new airport (Thames Marshes or Bristol-Newport) or extending an existing airport and inconveniencing the lives and health of many people. None of these options really works, hence the last four governments have ducked the issue, after all who wants to approve Heathrow expansion with every one living miles around Heathrow being exposed to the health risks of the most polluted airport in Western Europe. Title: Heathrow third runway public consultation reopened - October 2017 Post by: Chris from Nailsea on October 24, 2017, 23:16:13 From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41736124):
Quote Heathrow third runway public consultation reopened A public consultation into the planned third runway at Heathrow Airport has been reopened to include new evidence. The Department for Transport (DfT) published a series of new reports on the environmental impact of expanding the west London airport. It also revealed that London's airports are expected to hit full capacity by 2034 if there is no expansion. The consultation initially closed in May, but will now be reopened until December. The DfT insisted it is "on track" to publish final proposals for expansion in the first half of 2018, ahead of a vote in Parliament. Among the series of new reports are an updated noise analysis and a new air quality plan. The government said higher demand for flights also meant the capital's five airports would hit full capacity six years sooner than expected. Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said the case for building a third runway at Heathrow was "as strong as ever". If the scheme is approved by MPs, Heathrow will submit a planning application and consult with local communities on detailed proposals. The airport hopes to begin construction of the new runway in early 2021, with it being completed by the end of 2025. Cait Hewitt, deputy director of campaign group the Aviation Environment Federation, claimed the "scale of this re-consultation" shows that the government's case for Heathrow expansion is "unconvincing". The DfT's estimate about capacity will help to fuel calls for expansion at other airports in the South East, especially at Gatwick which has restated its pledge to build a second runway. "It is clear that demand for further airport capacity in the South East continues to grow," a spokesperson for Gatwick said. "That's why we have today reiterated our pledge to government to build a second runway at Gatwick regardless of what happens at Heathrow." This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |