The new terminals at Heathrow - 2 and 5 are good, especially 2. You probably haven't flown from or to them if you think otherwise.
UK airport expansion: third runway at Heathrow receives government approval.
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Have you ever flown from London City?
Eurostar will soon be operating services direct to Amsterdam btw, no need to stop in Brussels for a connecting train.
If you live in London you already how long it will take to actually get those links going there by judging the Crossrail and Blackfriars improvements.
Probably won't be completed in our fecking lifetime. By that time we'll have flying cars as Nick says and won't even need ariports!
That's why the only viable option is Heathrow or Gatwick and I personally believe Gatwick is the better of the two but looks like the commission has chosen Heathrow.
I have, a very pleasant experience it was too.
Serious question, what's wrong with Stanstead?
It's in the middle of nowhere, they could surely improve transport links to London, and expand on the site there.
It's in the middle of nowhere, they could surely improve transport links to London, and expand on the site there.
This is the future of international travel.
Heathrow's the only airport I've ever been to where you regularly spend more time sitting in your aeroplane on the ground than you do when it's airborne. That's obviously a problem.
An issue which a third runway aims to solve however I don't think it will because the administrators will look to maximise profits again by maximasing the capacity of the third runway as well.
how big is the runway - it seems to be mainly short haul... plus they are upgrading facilities anyway and at the moment its shambolic - especially with business flights in a morning.
transfering to gatwick / heathrow from stansted would be a nightmare - the future of the airline business is apparently the model of regional and hub airports and i dont think the runway at stanstead could ever cope with what heathrow does now.
they put a proposal forward in 2013 to the davies commission but it wasnt considered a viable option
That seems to be debatable. Ive seen people argue the opposite, that the future of travel is more direct flights for smaller, more fuel efficient planes.
Obviously there will always be hubs, but smaller planes will be able to travel further so there will be more opportunities for direct flights between large but distant cities.
Tell the pilot land at Schiphol
Airspace congestion needs to be considered as well. With current air traffic control technology, only so many flights in a certain airspace can be controlled without the probability of a collision occurring. I forget who works in ATC on here, maybe they can chime in on this.
Heathrow has strict night flight restrictions as well, which minimizes the window of landing for flights originating from distant origins.
It's 38 miles from Central London. With the right rail infrastructure this would be the most feasible solution that satisfies green and noise pollution requirements, and help alleviate congestion at Heathrow. Just expanding the airport would lead to trunk roads becoming heavily congested.
indeed but those flights only make money when full and at the moment airlines are saying there is more demand for multiple flights a day from a central hub that they can fill up and therefore be commercially viable than there is for one flight every couple of days from a regional airport - it could of course change but when you look at abu dabi, dubai schipol etc it certainly seems to be the trend.
most of the flights I take into Asia I am looking to ultimatley get to regional airports but I so often have to route via Bangkok, or Bejing / HK or change at Dubai / Abu Dabi etc
T5 is terribly designed for passengers, especially compared to similarly aged airports.
LHR has been the obvious choice for the new runway for years but there are too many marginal seats under its flightpath. It desperately needs the new runway, if not two. Plenty of people now avoid connecting through London and a new runway is still at least 10 years away.
LGW ideally would also get a new runway, but noone really wants to fly there, and none of the other options were really serious contenders.
47 mins to central london on existing train links - if crossrail was extended they wanted to get this to 25 mins... that said they are already over eu polution levels in the area (as they are at heathrow though)... your big problem though is you need to either make it big enough to take half of heathrows existing capacity and become a proper hub or you simply exasperate the problem with people looking to transit into stanstead and then on via heathrow / gatwick - for whatever reason it was dismissed out of hand along with boris island as not viable
Longer flights are less taxing on aircraft engines in the long run. If the economics justify it, then yes, the new plane/engine combos coming out are better suited for direct flights. Good luck finding enough passengers for the Birmingham - Lyon route though.
Are pollution quotas taxed over the limit? IMO eliminating air transportation inefficiencies in the London metropolitan area would be worth as much as whatever tax the UK pays into the EU's purse for exceeding the limit. Imagine the revenue you'd be able to pull in from landing fees and ancillary taxes if Stanstead was a 24 hr airport with fast links to Heathrow. Plus cutting down on traffic and noise issues in the Heathrow area will have a domino effect on business in the area.
People are gonna fly regardless. It should be done efficiently. That's currently not the case.
True, so there will always be hubs, but they may not continue to grow at the rate they have.
Also, is it clear that having a hub in London is vital, economically? If it's just throughput?
The point is, if other airports are beefed up, they can relieve the pressure on Heathrow which can then grow for long haul / freight / hub traffic. While holidaymakers go to other airports.
Also, is it clear that having a hub in London is vital, economically? If it's just throughput?
The point is, if other airports are beefed up, they can relieve the pressure on Heathrow which can then grow for long haul / freight / hub traffic. While holidaymakers go to other airports.
No if pollutio levels are over a certain amount it is supposed to be a block on any expansion - I believe heathrow has bypassed that with claims from airlines that new engines will substantively reduce emissions by over 50% therefore having twice as many planes it will still be possibly to hit the levels - I doubt its true but hey thats what they say.
Fast links to heathrow would be a problem for stanstead - currently about an hour and a bit on motorways (presuming they are not gridlocked... which they typically are so its more like two hours) and one hour 45 on public transport through london - if they do crossrail 2 that could reduce by quite a chunk but the cost of crossrail two vs either a highspeed link between gatwick and london or just building a third and fourth runway at heathrow dows not stack up... I think these were the main reasons it was not taken as a viable contender.
Fron the davis report
Sir Howard’s team said it had not shortlisted proposals for expansion at Stansted – which some had suggested should have an extra runway or be made into a four-runway hub - but confirmed there is likely to be a case for considering them as potential options for a second new runway by 2050.
The Commission has not ruled out a Thames Estuary option - the mayor of London’s preferred choice - and will undertake further study of the Isle of Grain option next year to see if it offers a credible proposal.
The report also contains recommendations to the Government for immediate action to improve the use of existing runway capacity, including improving the rail link between London and Stansted.
Launching the report, Sir Howard said: “Decisions on airport capacity are important national strategicchoices and must be based upon the best evidence available.
“The UK enjoys excellent connectivity today. The capacity challenge is not yet critical but it will become so if no action is taken soon and our analysis clearly supports
“The Commission will now focus on the challenge of appraising the three options, further assessing the case for a new airport in the Thames Estuary, and delivering a robust final recommendation to Government in summer 2015.”
Charlie Cornish, chief executive of MAG - owners of Stansted Airport, said: “Stansted welcomes the Commission’s support for measures to increase capacity at the airport in the short term, including improving rail links between the airport and central London. We also support the Commission’s finding that Stansted is one of the viable options for a runway beyond 2030.
Read more: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Air...tory-22364805-detail/story.html#ixzz3ekbAR7ow
Follow us: @CambridgeNewsUK on Twitter | cambridgenews on Facebook
Surely the whole point is we need to look at this as more than just a question of financial cost. There's a quality of life issue for the largest density of the largest city in the county. There's an environmental cost. Those need to taken into account.
Re: Hub airports vs direct flights to smaller facilities.
It should be remembered that aircraft manufacturers have a vested interest in the prevailing trends in this regard, Airbus' pursuit of the A380 influences not only the company's policy on the matter but governments too.
Quieter and more fuel efficient aircraft will surely lend themselves to a more devolved airport infrastructure, it is a matter of advancing to that point. You could perhaps draw a parallel with the oil industry and the utilities sector, where market forces or the status quo acts as an impediment to the progress than might otherwise be possible.
It should be remembered that aircraft manufacturers have a vested interest in the prevailing trends in this regard, Airbus' pursuit of the A380 influences not only the company's policy on the matter but governments too.
Quieter and more fuel efficient aircraft will surely lend themselves to a more devolved airport infrastructure, it is a matter of advancing to that point. You could perhaps draw a parallel with the oil industry and the utilities sector, where market forces or the status quo acts as an impediment to the progress than might otherwise be possible.
fecking hell.
There have been substantial reductions in fuel emissions. 50% is pushing it. A lot. The true number for the new generation of engines is closer to 30%.
Hmmmm...
My view on this is entirely as someone working in the aviation industry, and obviously with vested interest in the ATC impact.
First things first.
This whole thing has been an absolute farce and you've all been taken for a ride. It was ALWAYS going to be an extra runway for Heathrow. It was NEVER not going to happen, they just want to make it look like they took your views on board. Quite frankly, its the only viable option - at least if there can only be one runway being built in the South East.
Secondly...my opinion on this completely disregards any impact on local communities and villages etc, im just not getting into that.
The best scenario would be an extra runway at both Heathrow and Gatwick. That would solve a lot of the issues, but apparently we can only have one.
The other thing you have to remember, is that this is mostly being funded by the airport. For the airports in the South East, there's only two that actually WANT a second runway. I think Stansted might be slightly interested but they cant fill their one runway at the moment, it just wouldn't make any financial sense (that may change in 10 years).
The reason it was only ever going to be Heathrow is that what will drive this is the customer. No, not you, although yes indirectly you, but the Airlines. The airlines want heathrow and heathrow only. They pay millions just to get a heathrow slot, they fly empty aeroplanes just to ensure they keep their heathrow slots. Gatwick is (long haul wise) a heathrow over-fill. If Heathrow suddenly had unlimited capacity for long haul, Gatwick would lose all its long haul from there, and probably all its BA short haul imo.
Its hard to comprehend just how at capacity Heathrow is. My company and Heathrow Ltd have spent millions developing a technology that now allows the aircraft on final approach to get a tiny fraction closer and shortens the flight time by about 10 seconds. It will still make heathrow millions because that works out as x amount of thousands of passengers a year.
ATC and airspace wise...well, it wont make the airspace quieter. All the space will be filled by new aircraft, The london airspace is full at the moment, this will relieve some of the congestion, but it will just be replaced by new aircraft holding. They'll have more outbounds though which will affect other airports like Luton, City and Stansted.
Please, nobody mention the idea of Boris Island..it wouldnt work on so many levels i cant be arsed explaining.
The business is at heathrow, thats where the runway should go.
It will be interesting to see what happens at Gatwick. really, i think the demand for air travel into London is such that even if Heathrow had 7 runways, there would still be overspill to Gatwick. Its a shame they cant have a second runway too, they could really do with one.
My view on this is entirely as someone working in the aviation industry, and obviously with vested interest in the ATC impact.
First things first.
This whole thing has been an absolute farce and you've all been taken for a ride. It was ALWAYS going to be an extra runway for Heathrow. It was NEVER not going to happen, they just want to make it look like they took your views on board. Quite frankly, its the only viable option - at least if there can only be one runway being built in the South East.
Secondly...my opinion on this completely disregards any impact on local communities and villages etc, im just not getting into that.
The best scenario would be an extra runway at both Heathrow and Gatwick. That would solve a lot of the issues, but apparently we can only have one.
The other thing you have to remember, is that this is mostly being funded by the airport. For the airports in the South East, there's only two that actually WANT a second runway. I think Stansted might be slightly interested but they cant fill their one runway at the moment, it just wouldn't make any financial sense (that may change in 10 years).
The reason it was only ever going to be Heathrow is that what will drive this is the customer. No, not you, although yes indirectly you, but the Airlines. The airlines want heathrow and heathrow only. They pay millions just to get a heathrow slot, they fly empty aeroplanes just to ensure they keep their heathrow slots. Gatwick is (long haul wise) a heathrow over-fill. If Heathrow suddenly had unlimited capacity for long haul, Gatwick would lose all its long haul from there, and probably all its BA short haul imo.
Its hard to comprehend just how at capacity Heathrow is. My company and Heathrow Ltd have spent millions developing a technology that now allows the aircraft on final approach to get a tiny fraction closer and shortens the flight time by about 10 seconds. It will still make heathrow millions because that works out as x amount of thousands of passengers a year.
ATC and airspace wise...well, it wont make the airspace quieter. All the space will be filled by new aircraft, The london airspace is full at the moment, this will relieve some of the congestion, but it will just be replaced by new aircraft holding. They'll have more outbounds though which will affect other airports like Luton, City and Stansted.
Please, nobody mention the idea of Boris Island..it wouldnt work on so many levels i cant be arsed explaining.
The business is at heathrow, thats where the runway should go.
It will be interesting to see what happens at Gatwick. really, i think the demand for air travel into London is such that even if Heathrow had 7 runways, there would still be overspill to Gatwick. Its a shame they cant have a second runway too, they could really do with one.
Surely if you disregard that, there is no debate? Nobody would be against it would they?
I agree that ultimately, when all is said and done, Heathrow will get its runway. In the end, business gets its way. It's just a question of how much dithering there is in the meantime.
No, i just meant i couldn't be bothered going into sick a complex argument on here. Obviously it matters
Why is Heathrow so popular? Is it the M4 and Heathrow Express train service? If you could somehow get to central London from the other airports in 15 minutes would that spread the load a bit?
I get the impression there's a critical mass issue. Everyone wants to be there because that's where everyone else already is.
I think the transport links are a major thing. Convenience and cost. If Gatwick was on the end of the Northern line, say, I reckon more people would be happy to fly from there.
I think the transport links are a major thing. Convenience and cost. If Gatwick was on the end of the Northern line, say, I reckon more people would be happy to fly from there.
Bunch of cargo, industry and logistical solution concentrations in the immediate area I would imagine, that can't be used from other airports without significant headaches. Heathrow is THE airport to be at.
Terminal 2 is brilliant
Had to edit that because posting on mobile has become impossible.
Airlines will always use the hub and spoke model imo, but using the new aircraft to increase frequency between long haul hubs. Sending two 777s at different times of day is preferable to sending a single A380 in most locations.
There just isnt the demand for direct flights between smaller cities, unless there is an alliance partner at the other end or a subsisdy somewhere.
Heathrow in and of itself is not the problem, sure it's a horribly inefficient, grubby airport that has way too many people packed in for way too long, can't handle the security checks, baggage control or even provide sufficient facilities to seat, feed and entertain the poor sods trapped in there but that's all logistics, same with the ludicrous time you spend taxiing or waiting on stand. Put enough decent staff in there and increase the efficiency flights are handled with and there's no reason it shouldn't be a decent hub airport like Singapore, HK, Dusseldorf or Schiphol.
The problem Heathrow has is also the reason it was put where it is, at the junction of the M3, M4, M40 and M25 it should be the most convenient location for most people in the the South and South East to get to but woeful underfunding and planning on the roads instead means it sits at the centre of one of the worst and most unpredictable traffic jams outside of the Paris Peripherique or downtown Bangalore. It means that unless you are departing at stupid O clock in the morning you need to allow double or even triple the time it should take you to get there which only serves to exacerbate the number of people crammed into the airport if you are fortunate to get there. Even landing late at night is no guarantee of a smooth journey home at the end of a long day as half the motorways are reduced to one lane for desperate maintenance work or are closed completely.
I'd personally far rather the effort went into Gatwick simply because I can get there on the country roads if the M25 has turned to shit, but that's only really a selfish answer for those in Kent and Sussex and as Dracula says, since most airlines and BA in particular only see it as an overflow destination, I often find I just can't get flights to the destination I want or at sensible times out of Gatwick and am forced to use Heathrow.
It needs sorting one way or the other though, when it's quicker for me to drive door to door from our office 30 miles south of Frankfurt to home in Kent than to fly, something in the system is very, very broken. The flight takes 1 hour and 35 minutes, but the last time I did it traffic uncertainties, security and a delay meant I was 45 minutes in a taxi, 3 hours in Frankfurt airport, 40 minutes on stand at Frankfurt, 1:35 in flight, 55 minutes on stand and taxiing at Heathrow, 1:20 in security, 40 minutes in getting back to the T5 parking and 1:50 on the M25. 10 hours and 45 minutes for a 1:35 flight and 2 45 minute drives at peak efficiency. Last time I said feck it and drove, 45 minutes to Folkstone, 20 minutes wait and 35 minutes on the Chunnel and a 6 hour 5 minute drive including a quick break for something to eat.
It's not even like the "you can't work on the move if you are driving" argument that some colleagues use really holds water, you can't sensibly find anywhere to sit and work in our airports and even if you have room to open a laptop on the plane, it's pointless on a 1.5 hour flight. At least in the car I can take phonecalls whenever I want, don't have the luggage restrictions or airport indignities. Flying in Asia was great as I rarely spent more than 25 minutes in an airport on arrival and usually less than an hour in departure and in most places except India and Jakarta, the transport to and from the airport was quick and efficient. Europe's going backwards though and Heathrow's just the worst example of it and without doubling the passenger carrying capacity or increasing the speed and efficiency of passenger handling and providing efficient transport routes into the airport it will only get worse. Not surprised that the answer in the consultation document is to bang an extra £20 congestion charge onto every passenger instead.
The problem Heathrow has is also the reason it was put where it is, at the junction of the M3, M4, M40 and M25 it should be the most convenient location for most people in the the South and South East to get to but woeful underfunding and planning on the roads instead means it sits at the centre of one of the worst and most unpredictable traffic jams outside of the Paris Peripherique or downtown Bangalore. It means that unless you are departing at stupid O clock in the morning you need to allow double or even triple the time it should take you to get there which only serves to exacerbate the number of people crammed into the airport if you are fortunate to get there. Even landing late at night is no guarantee of a smooth journey home at the end of a long day as half the motorways are reduced to one lane for desperate maintenance work or are closed completely.
I'd personally far rather the effort went into Gatwick simply because I can get there on the country roads if the M25 has turned to shit, but that's only really a selfish answer for those in Kent and Sussex and as Dracula says, since most airlines and BA in particular only see it as an overflow destination, I often find I just can't get flights to the destination I want or at sensible times out of Gatwick and am forced to use Heathrow.
It needs sorting one way or the other though, when it's quicker for me to drive door to door from our office 30 miles south of Frankfurt to home in Kent than to fly, something in the system is very, very broken. The flight takes 1 hour and 35 minutes, but the last time I did it traffic uncertainties, security and a delay meant I was 45 minutes in a taxi, 3 hours in Frankfurt airport, 40 minutes on stand at Frankfurt, 1:35 in flight, 55 minutes on stand and taxiing at Heathrow, 1:20 in security, 40 minutes in getting back to the T5 parking and 1:50 on the M25. 10 hours and 45 minutes for a 1:35 flight and 2 45 minute drives at peak efficiency. Last time I said feck it and drove, 45 minutes to Folkstone, 20 minutes wait and 35 minutes on the Chunnel and a 6 hour 5 minute drive including a quick break for something to eat.
It's not even like the "you can't work on the move if you are driving" argument that some colleagues use really holds water, you can't sensibly find anywhere to sit and work in our airports and even if you have room to open a laptop on the plane, it's pointless on a 1.5 hour flight. At least in the car I can take phonecalls whenever I want, don't have the luggage restrictions or airport indignities. Flying in Asia was great as I rarely spent more than 25 minutes in an airport on arrival and usually less than an hour in departure and in most places except India and Jakarta, the transport to and from the airport was quick and efficient. Europe's going backwards though and Heathrow's just the worst example of it and without doubling the passenger carrying capacity or increasing the speed and efficiency of passenger handling and providing efficient transport routes into the airport it will only get worse. Not surprised that the answer in the consultation document is to bang an extra £20 congestion charge onto every passenger instead.
I'm biased because I can get from my front door to being on a flight at Gatwick in less than an hour, but the problems caused by expanding Heathrow, particularly the road traffic impacts, make it seem entirely unreasonable to me. There will have to be part closures of the M25, and probably the M4 as well. The roads around Heathrow already grind to a halt most days, and extra passengers is only going to make that worse.
probably narrow lanes as they switch to smart motorway running (using hard shoulder as a lane at peak time) - But I believe this is planned for the whole of both motorways anyway regardless of Heathrow... they have done two major stretches of the M1 and are only a few months from finishing the next two - its been painful but it honestly only adds about 10 mins to your journey time for say 6 months.
Realistically it has to be Gatwick, Heathrow is a political and social hot-potato, the dilly-dallying is all annoying business bollocks really. Lots of powerful and rich companies & individuals behind the scenes have a lot of invested interest in this.
And most of them want heathrow - particularly cargo and supply chain people
I quite like the idea of Boris island. I don't know why you think it wouldn't work, but wouldn't it make sense to build in some extra capacity now, so that once its all finished we don't immediately have it full to capacity and have to start wondering where to build another runway? There you can have night-time takeoffs/landings as well.
Boris Island isnt a bad idea in theory (in my inexpert opinion). The problems with it are firstly that it would cost a fortune. I mean, just laying a new runway at an existing airport would cost billions. Building a whole new airport would cost many times more. If the UK is slashing disability benefit and tax credits for people on the minimum wage, how can it justify that kind of expenditure? And secondly, from what I understand the site is in some kind of important bird migration or mating area or something. So planes would be constantly getting birds caught in their engines or something.
Boris Island isnt going to happen.
Boris Island isnt going to happen.
Boris Island had three/four major issues.
1. Cost. It would cost a fortune and take many years to build
2. It was in the middle of nowhere, and all the infrastructure would have to be built to reach it.
3. It was in a wetlands area and aircraft would be having bird strikes all the time.
4. Anyone who works in ATC may be able to clarify, but there was something to do with its position screwing up all the European air corridors.
Plus, once it was built, everyone would flock to live near it, and in 50 years time we would be back to square one.
1. Cost. It would cost a fortune and take many years to build
2. It was in the middle of nowhere, and all the infrastructure would have to be built to reach it.
3. It was in a wetlands area and aircraft would be having bird strikes all the time.
4. Anyone who works in ATC may be able to clarify, but there was something to do with its position screwing up all the European air corridors.
Plus, once it was built, everyone would flock to live near it, and in 50 years time we would be back to square one.
Its also actually in a pretty shit position for everyone else outside London. Unlike Heathrow which is reasonably well placed for other cities to the north and west.