Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
aa3

Heathrow Runway Expansion

Recommended Posts

I do not live in London but I was proud to read on Wikipedia that the world's second busiest airport in terms of passenger traffic was in the UK. Then I read the capacity of the current runways was between 98% and 99%. So no brainer, a good way to spend I think they said £5 billion building a new runway.

But all these NIMBY's were against it. Which I thougth this time some of the NIMBY's actually might have a point.. why have planes roaring over head your main city all the time? Namely Boris Johnson who proposed a new airport outside of London.

Still wouldn't most other nations just slam in new capacity to meet growing demand.. and be proud to have so much capital in one place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heathrow is at 98/99% capacity becuase airports all around the country are not fulfilling the latent demand from their own catchment areas for air travel. Catch 22 - until the volume is sufficient those regional airport can't comepete on price/slot availability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heathrow is at 98/99% capacity becuase airports all around the country are not fulfilling the latent demand from their own catchment areas for air travel. Catch 22 - until the volume is sufficient those regional airport can't comepete on price/slot availability.

I don't know much about the air industry.. what do you mean by latent demand from their own catchment areas. Is that like people in a different city deciding to depart from London, instead of from their home airport?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understood why Heathrow was developed as London's main airport. Until relatively recently it didn't even have train links! Talk about joined up transport policy.

Surely anyone with half a brain would say to themselves - 'we need an airport for our capital city - let's build it in the middle of the country and build high speed transport links to it.'

In which case, the expansion of Gatwick is the obvious solution. Already has high speed(ish) rail into Victoria, it's on a Motorway and it's relatively sparsely populated.

The third runway solution at Heathrow was such a load of nonsense. Congestion around the airport is already appalling and with the two main runways running East / West - virtually every plane either lands or takes off right over West London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about the air industry.. what do you mean by latent demand from their own catchment areas. Is that like people in a different city deciding to depart from London, instead of from their home airport?

Yes, all the London airports are doing is sucking in travellers from very large parts of the rest of the country - far end of Cornwall to the Midlands, Wales and up the East coast. Largely dues to their existing size effectively monopolizing a large part of the market in terms of capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame BA. They force everyone from scotland/the north of england to go via Heathrow for any connection.

By funneling everyone through LHR, BA have brought this upon themselves and they deserve to go BK.

Not to mention the outrageous connection times and silly security for connecting flights.

Edited by chris c-t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understood why Heathrow was developed as London's main airport. Until relatively recently it didn't even have train links! Talk about joined up transport policy.

Surely anyone with half a brain would say to themselves - 'we need an airport for our capital city - let's build it in the middle of the country and build high speed transport links to it.'

In which case, the expansion of Gatwick is the obvious solution. Already has high speed(ish) rail into Victoria, it's on a Motorway and it's relatively sparsely populated.

The third runway solution at Heathrow was such a load of nonsense. Congestion around the airport is already appalling and with the two main runways running East / West - virtually every plane either lands or takes off right over West London.

The so called third runway would also have run east/west albeit a little further North of the existing tracks. The expansion was always about making BA and BAA more valuable Companies than it ever was for the economic good of the UK.

There is scope to improve throughput at Heathrow but it needs the will to do it. The airport has a huge cargo facility on the South Side and handles a significant number of cargo only flights. It is only will and lack of investment in the infrastructure that is stopping this being shifted out to Stanstead, Luton or other.

In addition there is a curfew on flights in and out between 23.30 and 05.30 ( I think) due to the surrounding populations and noise pollution. Not much we can do about that other than move the airport to a far less populated place..

Maplin Sands sounds good!!

Peak (more expensive) Oil and additional taxation (less disposable income) will mean the demand for air travel will reduce over the next few decades. We have lived in the time of plenty and must now experience the time of not so plenty. The time has come to look for greater returns on the energy we get from oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO the plan is to use Birmingham as a London runway, direct high speed trains out of London taking 40 mins. But its going to take 15 years to get the new train line, which is weird as Italy is going to build a high speed train intercity in under 1 year. And why Heathrow, wouldn't Gatwick be a better choice for a bigger airport for long haul?

Edited by AteMoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35% of passengers at heathrow are in transit so bring little economic benefit to Londoners unless you work for BA , BMI etc They just suffer from all the externalities.

Being woken up at 5.30 am every morning as a plane load of passengers transfering from Singapore to Oslo flys over your expensive home in Richmond or Putney is no joy :blink: The proposed new runaway allignment would have put places like NottingHill/South Ken/Maida Vale directly under the flightpath, no wonder there was so much lobbying to stop it :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of efficiency, one big airport is far better. If an airline flies to the UK, then it would simply fly to that airport - if there are loads of airports, then it has to decide where to fly to (thus pissing off all of its potential customers who don't live near its choice), or it has to put a service on to more than one of the airports.

The UK is small enough to have a small number of airports with a decent rail network linking the locations. Heathrow is not that airport at the moment - the train links are abysmal, and the motorways are at a standstill. If they expanded capacity, I have no idea how they would get the passengers to the airport.

For a really good example, try Schipol. When you get there, you're literally on top of a massive rail hub. Think Kings Cross and Paddington in the same place. You can go anywhere from Schipol for a few euros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An expansion at Gatwick sounds like a damn good plan. That is what it should be outside the city, with high speed transport links into various parts of the city from the airport.

Looking it up Heathrow is the biggest tranport airport in the UK. Surely they could move some transport to outlying airports.. and replace with commuter flights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it why don't they make use of the advanced software and computers in the aircraft?

Simply with computer control you can land the aircraft much closer and keep many many more aircraft in the stack although there are issues about jetwash etc you could have aircraft land at incredibly short intervals.

Back in the 1990s I remember seeing a documentary about La Guardia airport in NY, they had a crossing runway and aircraft would be packed TIGHT so an aircraft would take off rolling down the runway and another aircraft would land crossing the runway the first aircraft was taking off on, they were missing each other by as little as 25 metres. This was in the 1990s using manual air traffic controllers in the tower surely we can just rackem packem and stackem high with aircraft landing at 100 metre intervals. Once the stack gets full you reduce this and implement software upgrades so stack them closer and closer and closer.

Granted it is more complicated than cars, but if all cars moved at the same speed computer controlled motorway capacity could be increased massively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We used to live in West London and regularly travelled in and around Heathrow (wifes inlaws) and the congestion is incredible - I don't think it would be possible to get any more people in and out unless they massively increased infrastructure (road and rail and so on). We now live a few miles from Birmingham airport and the local press has been full of increasing capacity at Birmingham and extending the runway. Have only flown a couple of times from Brum and it seems pretty quiet to us (but we might have a false perspective having used Heathrow almost exclusively for the last 15 years) so I guess capacity is available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We used to live in West London and regularly travelled in and around Heathrow (wifes inlaws) and the congestion is incredible - I don't think it would be possible to get any more people in and out unless they massively increased infrastructure (road and rail and so on). We now live a few miles from Birmingham airport and the local press has been full of increasing capacity at Birmingham and extending the runway. Have only flown a couple of times from Brum and it seems pretty quiet to us (but we might have a false perspective having used Heathrow almost exclusively for the last 15 years) so I guess capacity is available.

If i remember correctly brum capcity could be increased by 80%, its a central to the country, a train station in the terminal and plans to upgrade/build TGV/HS train station in the airport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, all the London airports are doing is sucking in travellers from very large parts of the rest of the country - far end of Cornwall to the Midlands, Wales and up the East coast. Largely dues to their existing size effectively monopolizing a large part of the market in terms of capacity.

Something is going on with the regional airports. I've recently booked a trip to the US for early July. Cost from Manchester = £800. Cost from Teesside = £1,550, for exactly the same combination of flights except for the first and last ones (to and from Schiphol). Is the tax structure being changed to try to force the smaller airports out of business and concentrate civil aviation in two or three hubzillas?

In terms of efficiency, one big airport is far better. If an airline flies to the UK, then it would simply fly to that airport - if there are loads of airports, then it has to decide where to fly to (thus pissing off all of its potential customers who don't live near its choice), or it has to put a service on to more than one of the airports.

No it doesn't - it can operate a hub-and-spoke service. Little aeroplane flies from regional airport to large hub, then big aeroplane flies hub to hub long-haul.

The UK is small enough to have a small number of airports with a decent rail network linking the locations. Heathrow is not that airport at the moment - the train links are abysmal, and the motorways are at a standstill. If they expanded capacity, I have no idea how they would get the passengers to the airport.

For a really good example, try Schipol. When you get there, you're literally on top of a massive rail hub. Think Kings Cross and Paddington in the same place. You can go anywhere from Schipol for a few euros.

But The Netherlands is much smaller than the UK, and I'd guess that an even higher proportion of Schiphol's traffic is transit traffic than Heathrow's. It's much quicker and cheaper to get from, say, Utrecht to Schiphol than it is from York to Heathrow, primarily because the distance is so much shorter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it why don't they make use of the advanced software and computers in the aircraft?

Simply with computer control you can land the aircraft much closer and keep many many more aircraft in the stack although there are issues about jetwash etc you could have aircraft land at incredibly short intervals.

Have you ever stood in London and looked at a stack of 5-6 aircraft coming into land at Heathrow? they are as close as they can get. The noise pollution is terrible, even many miles away where we are not supposed to be affected.

Every council anywhere near Heathrow is dead against expansion; nobody who lives and could/does use the airport wants it expanding. The whole of south London is blighted by noise from Heathrow and you know what? its extremely difficult to get to Heathrow as there is no tube or overland connection for south London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every council anywhere near Heathrow is dead against expansion; nobody who lives and could/does use the airport wants it expanding. The whole of south London is blighted by noise from Heathrow and you know what? its extremely difficult to get to Heathrow as there is no tube or overland connection for south London.

That's the sort of thing that gets you dismissed as a NIMBY.

Can't say I've ever been to Heathrow for anything other than a transit to elsewhere, and it's a nuisance having to do that. Most alternative plans for new / expanded airports seem to be in locations that are even more inconvenient for the rest of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But The Netherlands is much smaller than the UK, and I'd guess that an even higher proportion of Schiphol's traffic is transit traffic than Heathrow's. It's much quicker and cheaper to get from, say, Utrecht to Schiphol than it is from York to Heathrow, primarily because the distance is so much shorter.

But the Schiphol rail hub doesn't just connect the airport to the rest of the Netherlands. You can get high-speed trains to Brussels or west Germany very easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a while since I last visited HPC, but Pedro asked for my opinion so I thought I'd see what was being discussed.

Infrastructure and it's development within the UK, fantastic, I've written a few dissertations in my time and been involved with the proposed second runway at Gatwick. My brother works for the railways doing major infrastructure projects so this ties in nicely with commercial aviation. I'll try and keep this short.

Roads, canals, railways, airports, and pretty much everty piece of infrastructure in this country has been developed my entrepreneurs (and government) with little regard for the future. It is all based on competition and short term profits, hence the haphazard systems you see around the country. Other countries aren't quite so rigid in their belief in the "Anglo-Saxon" business model, we really are different in the UK.

Our railways currently operate to near capacity and hence any maintenance or development is pretty much impossible as that would mean closing parts of the netwrok and hence reducing immediate income. So the railways potter along without maintenance because the owners are trying to squeeze as much income out of the system before it collapses. The planning laws make it pretty impossible for any new railways to be built and the capital expenditure required is no longer possible because the money is no longer available for such projects.

The airports are in pretty much the same situation. There is no overall planning for the transportation system in this country, that is why railways do not meet airports and bus stations and ports. It has been and will continue to be developed piecemeal.

Only one runway has been built in the UK in the last 65 years since the of the war. Indeed, we have the Germans to thank for most of our current airfields. If we hadn't gone to war we would have almost no aviation in this country.

Heathrow is the place airlines (and people) want to be. When it was first built it was a grass strip and some tents on some land usually used for growing vegetables. A few villages existed but it was on the edge of London. However, air travel grew beyond most people's imagination and the airport kept getting larger. It originally had 6 runways but they were steadily withdrawn as terminals were built. In addition the airport authorities owned more land than the current footprint. In typical British fashion the land was sold for a quick buck so that others could build houses, hotels, and businesses. So know it has nowhere to expand.

BA has been trying to get Heathrow enlarged for years, they succeeded at Gatwick where they managed to get a second terminal built, but the cost was a ban on any other runways until at least 2020.

In the meantime the competition has continued to expand and is now likely to surpass Heathrow (especially as the UK has particularly onerous security regulations). Amsterdam, Madrid, Paris, Frankfurt all have superior facilities and plenty of capacity. They will steadily replace Heathrow as the years progress.

It is now too late to built any third runway at Heathrow, it should have been done over 30 years ago and the links put in place to service it. The new government has put the third runway on the back burner indefintely.

So, we will just have to muddle through with what we have, which is no bad thing as commercial aviation is on the downslope now. Controlled contraction is the best we can do although I dare say we will muddle through the downside just like we did on the up.

Regional airports just do not offer the income streams necessary to support commercial aviation, it is an extremely expensive business and needs either high fares or subsidies (or both) in order to survive. I know that we all think that "low cost" airlines are a success story, but in reality they are the product of a unique set of circumstances, record low fuel prices, the arrival of the internet, the availability of cheap credit, and government subsidy to encourage growth in the regions.

Heathrow will probably never have any further expansion (they may pursue renovation/replacement of exisiting terminals) and it will probably be the site of the last bastion of UK civil aviation.

The industry is in terminal decline and this will be exascerbated by the collapse of the financial system. Capital intensive industries cannot survive without having the access to vast amounts of credit.

So, in a nutshell, Heathrow might be operating at 98% capacity now, but that figure will drop as the years progress, although when other airports start closing there will be a slight uptick. We can expect the aviation equivalent of Dr Beeching in the near future, within 5 years minor airports will start closing, within 10, some major ones will be consolidated, and within 25 years our biggest airports will cease to operate.

I guess then the denizens of Hounslow will get some sleep, although they are also likely to be un-employed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The third runway solution at Heathrow was such a load of nonsense. Congestion around the airport is already appalling and with the two main runways running East / West - virtually every plane either lands or takes off right over West London.

Given the prevailing winds here in the UK the preferred runway direction is East/West or Southeast/Northwest.Of course there will be some days of the year when North/South might be better but in general East/West (ish) is preferred.

Edited by Rare Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever stood in London and looked at a stack of 5-6 aircraft coming into land at Heathrow? they are as close as they can get. The noise pollution is terrible, even many miles away where we are not supposed to be affected.

Every council anywhere near Heathrow is dead against expansion; nobody who lives and could/does use the airport wants it expanding. The whole of south London is blighted by noise from Heathrow and you know what? its extremely difficult to get to Heathrow as there is no tube or overland connection for south London.

I'm not saying that less noise is not a good thing but I suspect that you younger people here, by younger I mean undr 40 or so, have probably not hear loud aircraft noise around the UK. I remember liveing in West London in the 1970s when the old 707s were still flying with pure jets rather then modern quiet fanjets and believe me, they were noisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

London's capacity is increasing anyway. They're up to five passenger airports, with Southend due to make a sixth in time for 2012 with upgraded terminal and runway, and new rail connection. How much can a vortexcity guzzle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skinty

smac67

From what you say, it sounds like the airline industry is well-aware of the problems of peak oil. Is everyone just resigned to it or is there some hope that some new technology will come and save us all? Or is everyone just burying their heads in the sand and not thinking about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

smac67

From what you say, it sounds like the airline industry is well-aware of the problems of peak oil. Is everyone just resigned to it or is there some hope that some new technology will come and save us all? Or is everyone just burying their heads in the sand and not thinking about it?

Navy tech will save us USN navy tech, as Jp8 jet fuel can be synthesised at enormous cost of energy which means lots of nuclear power stations or the solar power cracking water to turn to hydrogen then burning it to create synthetic Jp8 fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 153 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.