Airport Expansion in South East England

[BananaRepublic]

Three realistic options are
1, lengthen the North runway at Heathrow to allow landing and taking off on the same path
2, second runway at Gatwick
3, move more flights to Manchester

I suspect all will get done

1, That is a bit of a harebrained scheme and for technical operational reasons, carries a lot of safety issues. To mitigate the operational and safety risks, there would be a restriction on runway utilisation and the resulting increase in capacity is actually not that great.
It amounts to very poor value for money compared to another parallel runway.

2, Looking likely.

3, Already happening, but until HS2 and its airport station is delivered, it won't have much impact on air traffic demand in the SE of England.
Manchester has the runway capacity (twin runways) and has recently announced its £1billion plans to redevelop and enlarge its terminals.
With the announcement that they will be providing USA "pre-clearance" facilities at the airport, the construction of "Airport City" and with major airport expansion, Manchester is going to continue growing anyway.
It will become an increasingly attractive option for travellers from the Midlands and North, who would otherwise have routed via London.

 

[freetoview33]

1, That is a bit of a harebrained scheme and for technical operational reasons, carries a lot of safety issues. To mitigate the operational and safety risks, there would be a restriction on runway utilisation and the resulting increase in capacity is actually not that great.
It amounts to very poor value for money compared to another parallel runway.

2, Looking likely.

3, Already happening, but until HS2 and the airport station is delivered, it won't have much impact on air traffic demand in the SE of England.
Manchester has the runway capacity (twin runways) and has recently announced its £1billion plans to redevelop and enlarge its terminals.
With the announcement that they will be providing USA "pre-clearance" facilities at the airport, the construction of "Airport City" and with major airport expansion, Manchester is going to continue growing anyway.
It will become an increasingly attractive option for travellers from the Midlands and North, who would otherwise have routed via London.

It's not just HS2 but the calling on CrossCountry trains there and West Coast trains. And then there would be a possibility for trains from Gatwick - Manchester

 

[fowler9]

It's not just HS2 but the calling on CrossCountry trains there and West Coast trains. And then there would be a possibility for trains from Gatwick - Manchester

In all seriousness what is the point of trains from Manchester to Gatwick. Think about it.

 

[Hophead]

I'd agree. The main problem is caused by the fact that there is competition between Southern and themselves (!), and Thameslink. The air travellers need to be on the GatEx, and that needs to have luggage provision. It makes no sense to price them off whatsoever, ramming them onto already overcrowded commuter trains and resulting in luggage piled unnecessarily where another commuter could stand, while the overpriced GatExes run nearly empty.

Although I understand that it is a requirement of the GTR franchise to remove the competitive element between Thameslink & Southern fares.

Furthermore, the airport station is in line for an upgrade of the station & booking hall (£50m and 'doubling in size' are both aspects that spring to mind). Hopefully this will include improved access to Platform 7.

Seems I'm a little out, according to the airport:

"The £120.5 million redesign will transform the station and passenger experience, with work scheduled to start in 2017 and complete in 2020."​

 

[radamfi]

So what if Heathrow 'loses business' to Amsterdam or Frankfurt? Amsterdam and Frankfurt are well placed geographically to take hub traffic from all over NW Europe. There is no need for Heathrow to duplicate Amsterdam and Frankfurt. The fact that Heathrow is inside the UK boundary is irrelevant to me.

 

[Haydn1971]

1, That is a bit of a harebrained scheme and for technical operational reasons, carries a lot of safety issues. To mitigate the operational and safety risks, there would be a restriction on runway utilisation and the resulting increase in capacity is actually not that great.
It amounts to very poor value for money compared to another parallel runway.

Is that an opinion or do you have clear evidence that the proposal being put forward has operational and safety risks ?

 

[fowler9]

I think we should expand Heathrow where possible and all it's links or put a proper amount of investment in to a new hub airport with all the necessary transport links. It is a complete waste of money expanding Gatwick, Stanstead or Luton unless you are going to force some of the alliances to move.

 

[Haydn1971]

It is a complete waste of money expanding Gatwick, Stanstead or Luton unless you are going to force some of the alliances to move.

I'd agree that Heathrow isn't going anywhere, but I'd disagree that investment at Gatwick/Luton/Stanstead is a waste - for anyone north of London, Luton/Stanstead are viable car options, similarly for Gatwick SouthEast of London - these all service the leisure industry well and would provide resilience for Heathrow when things go wrong - it's rare to see the weather affecting all four sites.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Is that an opinion or do you have clear evidence that the proposal being put forward has operational and safety risks ?

Not an opinion, as in uninformed.
This is a known issue to those asked to look at the proposal.

Not safety risks, because no risks are contemplated. It's either safe or it isn't.
I won't try to explain the technicalities of how this arrangement could be made to work, because it would take up a page and a half and probably lose people along the way. Basically, the sort of operational procedures that would be required to make it a safe operation, would result in a much smaller increase in runway capacity than that provided by an independently operated parallel runway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Fascinating, according to transport committee of the London Assembly meeting, Kent County Council blocked TfL taking over Southeastern routes in direct retaliation for the proposal of Boris Island.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33066006

That's Mr Edwards making his own, rather rash, assessment.

Kent CC had their concerns, but ultimately it was the Treasury wot stopped it.

Meanwhile, the odds on Gatwick are shortening at the bookies...

 

[BananaRepublic]

We all know that choosing Gatwick alone would be a political cop-out, whatever the merits of a second runway there.
Gatwick needs a second runway regardless and the airport owners are keen to invest vast amounts of money to build it and new terminal facilities.
It makes a good fit for any politicians who'd prefer to duck and dive rather than make unpopular and controversial decisions.

 

[Haydn1971]

I won't try to explain the technicalities of how this arrangement could be made to work, because it would take up a page and a half and probably lose people along the way. Basically, the sort of operational procedures that would be required to make it a safe operation, would result in a much smaller increase in runway capacity than that provided by an independently operated parallel runway.

No please do, I build complex transport systems as part of my day job ! You won't lose me

 

[Aictos]

So what if Heathrow 'loses business' to Amsterdam or Frankfurt? Amsterdam and Frankfurt are well placed geographically to take hub traffic from all over NW Europe. There is no need for Heathrow to duplicate Amsterdam and Frankfurt. The fact that Heathrow is inside the UK boundary is irrelevant to me.

Not really because that's traffic that Heathrow could take to improve OUR economy why do you think 30 airlines and counting are waiting for slots at Heathrow because they know it makes perfect business sense to serve Heathrow.

Heathrow contributes a lot to the UK economy by means of freight and passengers and not just improving the airport by expanding is short termism nimby behaviour at its worse.

Heathrow ought to be looking at TWO more runways so have parallel landings and takeoffs as other major airports can do which will be good for the environment as aircraft will spend less time in the holds waiting for a slot to land.

 

[radamfi]

Not really because that's traffic that Heathrow could take to improve OUR economy why do you think 30 airlines and counting are waiting for slots at Heathrow because they know it makes perfect business sense to serve Heathrow.

The London airports can be used for terminating traffic with hub traffic moved to more appropriate airports like Amsterdam. Amsterdam has already invested in capacity, which would be wasted if Heathrow duplicated it. You need to think of the total hub capacity across Europe, not just London in isolation. "Our" economy is the EU, and Amsterdam and Frankfurt are also in the EU.

Certainly if Heathrow wants to expand it need to pay it by itself but that's not the plan at the moment. Gatwick expansion on the other hand would not be funded by the taxpayer.

 

[AndyW33]

I'd agree. The main problem is caused by the fact that there is competition between Southern and themselves (!), and Thameslink. The air travellers need to be on the GatEx, and that needs to have luggage provision. It makes no sense to price them off whatsoever, ramming them onto already overcrowded commuter trains and resulting in luggage piled unnecessarily where another commuter could stand, while the overpriced GatExes run nearly empty.

So instead air travellers arriving by rail at St Pancras or Kings Cross who currently have a same-station connection on to Thameslink should be forced onto the overcrowded Victoria Line to get to Victoria and join Gatex?
By no means all the air travellers who use Gatwick start or finish their journey in Central London, and even for those who do, Central London is a big place. Why should air travellers who want the City area have to go via Victoria when there's already a direct service in place for them?

Then there's the air passengers who don't want to go to Victoria because they actually want stations in between Victoria and Gatwick. Why should they go into Victoria and back out again?

Eliminate these groups, and how many air travellers who actually need to use Victoria complete with their vast amounts of baggage are using commuter services, at commuting times of day, instead of the "empty and overpriced Gatex" which strangely at peak periods is extended to/from the South Coast and fills up with commuters...

 

[edwin_m]

Not an opinion, as in uninformed.
This is a known issue to those asked to look at the proposal.

Not safety risks, because no risks are contemplated. It's either safe or it isn't.
I won't try to explain the technicalities of how this arrangement could be made to work, because it would take up a page and a half and probably lose people along the way. Basically, the sort of operational procedures that would be required to make it a safe operation, would result in a much smaller increase in runway capacity than that provided by an independently operated parallel runway.

I'd also be interested in seeing this explanation if it's not too much trouble and doesn't breach any confidentiality. To my uninformed mind the northern runway lengthening made a lot of sense, and their proposal appeared to address some safety issues.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Having pretty comprehensively demolished easyJet's case, Lea then turns his attention to Gatwick, and this being predominantly a rail forum I've chosen these comments:-
'Gatwick does a passable impression of being a shambles at the point at which it meets the real world; the booking hall to get a train out of there. Rows of those unfathomable touchscreen ticket machines, hundreds of baffled international travellers and three lanyarded officials in need of multiple language degrees plus a post-grad education diploma in explaining difficult technology. Mayhem. Gatwick can argue that the provision of onward surface travel is not its responsibility - the sort of connected-transport thinking that has earned Britain's airports the reputation they have today. It probably isn't Gatwick's fault that many of the onward trains have total luggage space provision to cater for as much as one Italian family's luggage requirements, but it is part of the Gatwick image problem.'

Ouch!

The same could be applied, in spades, to National Express at Luton last night.

 

[Wolfie]

I think we should expand Heathrow where possible and all it's links or put a proper amount of investment in to a new hub airport with all the necessary transport links. It is a complete waste of money expanding Gatwick, Stanstead or Luton unless you are going to force some of the alliances to move.

My previous post of the subject was deleted by the mods so I have to be careful. Suffice to say that most if not all of those in favour of Heathrow expansion do not live in London and will not suffer the consequences. There will be massive legal opposition to any attempt to expand Heathrow. I for one will happily contribute to any such legal opposition and would actively consider participation in civil disobedience on the issue.

Not really because that's traffic that Heathrow could take to improve OUR economy why do you think 30 airlines and counting are waiting for slots at Heathrow because they know it makes perfect business sense to serve Heathrow.

Heathrow contributes a lot to the UK economy by means of freight and passengers and not just improving the airport by expanding is short termism nimby behaviour at its worse.

Heathrow ought to be looking at TWO more runways so have parallel landings and takeoffs as other major airports can do which will be good for the environment as aircraft will spend less time in the holds waiting for a slot to land.

I am sorry but 8 million people in Greater London should not have to suffer (you do know that many of the flight paths go right over the city I assume) to boost transit passenger numbers or indeed "boost the UK economy" - to suggest any such thing is the ultimate "I'm alright Jack" statement!

Heathrow is in the wrong place (indeed past Governments recognised that eg the Maplin plans), every past expansion was accompanied by out and out lies that there would be no further expansion, the plans to address pollution (noise and environmental) associated with expansion are farcical, and most London inhabitants have had quite enough of it thank you. That's why the 'Boris island' concept was so popular in London.

The London airports can be used for terminating traffic with hub traffic moved to more appropriate airports like Amsterdam. Amsterdam has already invested in capacity, which would be wasted if Heathrow duplicated it. You need to think of the total hub capacity across Europe, not just London in isolation. "Our" economy is the EU, and Amsterdam and Frankfurt are also in the EU.

Certainly if Heathrow wants to expand it need to pay it by itself but that's not the plan at the moment. Gatwick expansion on the other hand would not be funded by the taxpayer.

I agree with your first paragraph.

Heathrow is offering to pay for the extra runways etc itself (well, of course it wishes to increase landing fees to do so....). It expects the taxpayer to pick up the tab for all of the infrastructure (road, rail etc) associated with such expansion and also seems to want the Mayor of London to introduce a road congestion charge zone in the area (possibly including a chunk of the M4!) to reduce vehicle emisssions in the area so that aircraft emissions can increase....

 

[BananaRepublic]

No please do, I build complex transport systems as part of my day job ! You won't lose me

With due respect, I suspect your expertise won't cover detailed understanding of Air Traffic Control procedures, Air Traffic Management, operational airport matters and air safety?
It's a complex subject and too much to fully detail here.
I'm also just about to travel to the other side of the planet and really don't have the time, but basically there has to be safe operating distances and time separations between aircraft operating on active runways and in the air.

In the case of runway operations and landings and take-offs, there are a number of set minimum criteria to ensure aircraft are not in conflict with each other.

For landing aircraft, the possibility of a missed approach, or go-around has to be at taken into account. A missed approach or aborted landing can be initiated from as late as on the actual landing roll and the aircraft will climb away to a safe height and have to be stabilised before it can be safely flown back into the traffic pattern for another attempt at landing.
That would mean an aircraft following a missed approach, initially climbing straight ahead and if that occurs from the runway itself, or on very short finals, the aircraft is very likely to overfly the proposed extended runway in question here, before it could be safely turned away.

Nothing, including another aircraft, can be on the runway in front of a landing aircraft once it has been given clearance to land.
In the hypothetical case of the proposed extra long runway as a solution at Heathrow, if aircraft were to be lined up on the extended runway, even beyond the normal safe landing distance of other aircraft behind them on the landing part of the runway, account has to be taken of a possible over run or a missed approach being carried out. The second of these would be problematic and take-off clearances would have to be timed to ensure there is no loss of the minimum required separation between a departing aircraft and one that is performing a "go around" following a missed approach or aborted landing.
It's that timing and required separation which will restrict the capacity of that particular runway arrangement.

In low visibility conditions, the situation will even more constrained.

Just for the record, IMHO HAL have shot themselves in the foot with the limited options and proposals they submitted to the enquiry.
There are possible runway layouts and modes of operation that would have resulted in a new parallel runway that would not only provide the most optimal capacity, but in some cases meant no overflying of additional areas of west London than currently is the case. Unfortunately the horse has bolted on those more pragmatic solutions.

 

[Haydn1971]

Thank you for the explanation of your opinion, from what you are saying, it would appear that the extended runway would have its limitations, but surely if put forward would offer some improvement. Are there any comparisons of the parallel vs same path capacity for Heathrow ?

 

[Hornet]

My previous post of the subject was deleted by the mods so I have to be careful. Suffice to say that most if not all of those in favour of Heathrow expansion do not live in London and will not suffer the consequences. There will be massive legal opposition to any attempt to expand Heathrow. I for one will happily contribute to any such legal opposition and would actively consider participation in civil disobedience on the issue.



I am sorry but 8 million people in Greater London should not have to suffer (you do know that many of the flight paths go right over the city I assume) to boost transit passenger numbers or indeed "boost the UK economy" - to suggest any such thing is the ultimate "I'm alright Jack" statement!

Heathrow is in the wrong place (indeed past Governments recognised that eg the Maplin plans), every past expansion was accompanied by out and out lies that there would be no further expansion, the plans to address pollution (noise and environmental) associated with expansion are farcical, and most London inhabitants have had quite enough of it thank you. That's why the 'Boris island' concept was so popular in London.

Usual NIMBY rubbish and lies.

 

[Wolfie]

Usual NIMBY rubbish and lies.

Really? Instead of using language which has got every chance of getting you an infraction how about you state which bit is allegedly lies?

Certainly when I get woken just before 0600 in my house (Islington so nowhere near Heathrow - it's not in my backyard but does damn well inconvenience me and millions of others!) when they, as they regularly do, route flights over my area, I do not think how great if would be for people in the Midlands and North for Heathrow to be expanded....

The material about promises made and broken during previous Heathrow expansion is freely available as is highly respected scientific questioning of how Heathrow's alleged pollution reductions while increasing flights.

 

[HilversumNS]

My previous post of the subject was deleted by the mods so I have to be careful. Suffice to say that most if not all of those in favour of Heathrow expansion do not live in London and will not suffer the consequences. There will be massive legal opposition to any attempt to expand Heathrow. I for one will happily contribute to any such legal opposition and would actively consider participation in civil disobedience on the issue.

I am sorry but 8 million people in Greater London should not have to suffer (you do know that many of the flight paths go right over the city I assume) to boost transit passenger numbers or indeed "boost the UK economy" - to suggest any such thing is the ultimate "I'm alright Jack" statement!

Your deleted post that you refer to included telling me to get lost and calling me a NIMBY, after I mentioned that Heathrow should be expanded over Gatwick.

You had failed to see my previous contributions within this thread:

Post #2

I believe that the fees for Birmingham are also a factor for Easyjet. Shame, as I'd love to see more flights from there, its a 20 minute drive or less than an hour by bus and train for me.

and post #38

Schiphol may well have 6 runways, but they never operate more than 2 at any one time. They vary which ones are used throughout the day so nearby residents don't have the aggravation all day, every day.

They also pay for noise insulation for affected homes, such as the one I lived in up to a few years ago (300 meters from the main flight path of the Aalsmeerbaan - one of the runways)

My post #47 was in regard to Airport expansion in the South East, which is the title of this thread, hence I stated my preference:

Not all people who travel do so from London. Boris Island would not be easy to access except from London, and that causes those who live in the Midland, West and North the same issues as we now have accessing Gatwick, Southend and the frequently mentioned Manston.

As long as HS2 gets a Heathrow spur, that would be the place to expand that is most accessible for those of us living further away.

My preference is still for my local airport to get me to where I want to go. If the powers that be insist on expanding one of the London airports instead then my personal preference is for that to be Heathrow.

Incidentally, I went to school in Windsor and remember many assemblies being interrupted by planes flying overhead. I can not remember once in the 10 years I lived there, being woken up by a plane.

I wish you all the best in your campaigning.

 

[Wolfie]

Your deleted post that you refer to included telling me to get lost and calling me a NIMBY, after I mentioned that Heathrow should be expanded over Gatwick.

You had failed to see my previous contributions within this thread:

Post #2


and post #38


My post #47 was in regard to Airport expansion in the South East, which is the title of this thread, hence I stated my preference:



My preference is still for my local airport to get me to where I want to go. If the powers that be insist on expanding one of the London airports instead then my personal preference is for that to be Heathrow.

Incidentally, I went to school in Windsor and remember many assemblies being interrupted by planes flying overhead. I can not remember once in the 10 years I lived there, being woken up by a plane.

I wish you all the best in your campaigning.

For the record I said that you could get lost if you wanted to expand Heathrow and I never referred to you as a NIMBY. That was not however, the reason the post was deleted.

 

[HilversumNS]

For the record I said that you could get lost if you wanted to expand Heathrow and I never referred to you as a NIMBY. That was not however, the reason the post was deleted.

I apologize, I've just found the relevant email archive in my deleted stuff, your remark was "Architypical I'm alright jack comment. 8million Londoners can suffer noise and atmospheric pollution to make my journey easier - get lost!"

 

[Hornet]

Really? Instead of using language which has got every chance of getting you an infraction how about you state which bit is allegedly lies?

Certainly when I get woken just before 0600 in my house (Islington so nowhere near Heathrow - it's not in my backyard but does damn well inconvenience me and millions of others!) when they, as they regularly do, route flights over my area, I do not think how great if would be for people in the Midlands and North for Heathrow to be expanded....

The material about promises made and broken during previous Heathrow expansion is freely available as is highly respected scientific questioning of how Heathrow's alleged pollution reductions while increasing flights.

Well I was born and bred in Slough, (a bit nearer to LHR than Islington), was bought up close to the flight path, listening to DC-8, 707, VC10's, Trident 3's, the first 747-100's and Concorde taking off and landing. Never bothered me. Lived in Slough as the Airport was expanded, and as planes got less noisy. Remember people in Slough and surrounding area's welcoming the expansions as it meant more jobs. Have used LHR for the last thirty odd years for regular flights to/from Dublin. Present day noise levels are minimal considered to the 70's and 80's, (I don't notice them either inside or outside the house), and pollution levels are decreasing, in marked contrast of that caused by London Traffic volumes.

There is a large amount of people in London and the surrounding area's who welcome the expansion plans, (I do). The huge amount of employment opportunities have to be welcomed. Also the Thames Valley Tech sector would not have expanded without LHR being where it is.

in the late 60's the third London Airport was recommended to be built at Cublington, (not Maplin). Foulness was considered, but the inordinate expense of building an airport there which nobody would use was dropped by the government of the day. To this day Maplin is the wrong place to build an airport. Even Stansted struggles with all except LCC. Southend has few London bound pax. City is expanding. Its a case of where the demand is and LHR satisfies and needs to further satisfy that demand.

I normally find that those who shout loudest against these schemes have moved into the area. Do they not know there was an airport there when they moved in? They probably most likely to moan about anything. If not a NIMBY then Luddites, against anything that may offer a job, improve the quality of people's life, their ability to travel. You are probably anti HS2, anti Luton/Stansted/City/Gatwick expansion.

Next time I fly into LHR I will marvel at the ability to get from my partners house to my parents house in five hours, and treat with contempt the begrudgers who wish to deny me, and others from London and the South-East my choice. Find youself a remote farmhouse in the Highlands and take your infraction with you. You will be a lot more chilled out, and away from what is called progress. (You may want to take that buffoon MP for Uxbridge with you. You could use his hypocritical air miles).

 

[Wolfie]

I normally find that those who shout loudest against these schemes have moved into the area. Do they not know there was an airport there when they moved in? They probably most likely to moan about anything. If not a NIMBY then Luddites, against anything that may offer a job, improve the quality of people's life, their ability to travel. You are probably anti HS2, anti Luton/Stansted/City/Gatwick expansion.

Next time I fly into LHR I will marvel at the ability to get from my partners house to my parents house in five hours, and treat with contempt the begrudgers who wish to deny me, and others from London and the South-East my choice. Find youself a remote farmhouse in the Highlands and take your infraction with you. You will be a lot more chilled out, and away from what is called progress. (You may want to take that buffoon MP for Uxbridge with you. You could use his hypocritical air miles).

"I find it ok, and it's convenient for me, so everyone else should" seems to sum up your position. I notice that you merely say "Didn't they know there was an airport there" while ignoring the hypocritical and down right lying promises that BAA gave out over expansion.

I have zero respect for your logical incoherence. Because I oppose Heathrow expansion and believe it is in the wrong place that means I anti all progress does it? The lecturers on my analysis masters would have given you 5/100 at best for that one!

For the record I support HS2 (and HS3) and Gatwick and Stansted expansion. I am minded to oppose expansion of Luton because in many ways it mirrors Heathrow albeit on a smaller scale.

 

[HilversumNS]

For the record I support HS2 (and HS3) and Gatwick and Stansted expansion. I am minded to oppose expansion of Luton because in many ways it mirrors Heathrow albeit on a smaller scale.

This means that those of us who do not have a local airport catering for our needs would have to travel further and by less desirable routes to reach the newly expanded airports, Gatwick or Stansted.

Neither of these are nice to travel to if you are not starting from London or close to the actual airport.

Heathrow and Luton are not only used by the 8m people in London. Some of us in the Midlands, the West and the North are forced to 1st travel to the South to get on a plane.

 

[Wolfie]

This means that those of us who do not have a local airport catering for our needs would have to travel further and by less desirable routes to reach the newly expanded airports, Gatwick or Stansted.

Neither of these are nice to travel to if you are not starting from London or close to the actual airport.

Heathrow and Luton are not only used by the 8m people in London. Some of us in the Midlands, the West and the North are forced to 1st travel to the South to get on a plane.

I was, with the exception of HS3, only commenting on those options cited in a previous post. As someone who originates in the Midlands I would welcome, subject to local agreement, a much enhanced Birmingham airport and regret the relative decline of East Midlands airport. Doubtless Manchester airport's expansion will continue also...

 

[Hornet]

"I find it ok, and it's convenient for me, so everyone else should" seems to sum up your position. I notice that you merely say "Didn't they know there was an airport there" while ignoring the hypocritical and down right lying promises that BAA gave out over expansion.

I have zero respect for your logical incoherence. Because I oppose Heathrow expansion and believe it is in the wrong place that means I an anto all progress does it? The lecturers on my analysis masters would have given you 5/100 at best for that one!

For the record I support HS2 (and HS3) and Gatwick and Stansted expansion. I am minded to oppose expansion of Luton because in many ways it mirrors Heathrow albeit on a smaller scale.

Yawn. Thought just struck me. You seem like an intelligent sort. Ever thought of buying earplugs. It would stop you being woken up at 6am by those nasty planes. :roll::roll::roll:

 

[BananaRepublic]

.....Doubtless Manchester airport's expansion will continue also...

It already is.
As mentioned in a previous post, Manchester Airport's owners MAG (who also own Stansted, East Midlands and Bournemouth), have just made public their latest £billion development plan to expand and redevelop their terminal facilities.

They already have the runways, three terminals, railway station, MetroLink tram and direct motorway link.
There is an increasing selection of long haul destinations.
The only UK airport other than Heathrow that has regular A380 flights.

The terminal development will see T2 more than double in size, complete with new piers and parking stands, an extended and refurbished T3 and the eventual demolition of T1.
Also in prospect is the proposed HS2 station and the soon to be started large Airport City business park.