Airport Expansion in South East England

[ivanhoe]

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.

Not really true. You can fly to other hubs for long distance flights. For the majority of us who travel to Europe, there are enough flights. That's unless anybody has an issue with low cost airlines. Not an issue for me though, I love them as most passengers do. I agree though that Gatwick is the worse solution, but I'm afraid I'm expecting the classic English fudge decision which will be a mixture of using current Heathrow runways in both directions and some investment in Gatwick. What is needed is a Government with a steely resolve to do the best for London. You don't lose elections because you have decided to build a new airport or runway. You do lose them when you fudge issues!

 

[BananaRepublic]

.......using current Heathrow runways in both directions...

???????????

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Remember that Luton is basically (as well as providing cheap fares for people going to/from London) a Home Counties and South East Midlands Airport, and Stansted also serves those areas and much of East Anglia very well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

NNot safety risks, because no risks are contemplated. It's either safe or it isn't.

Erm, yes they are. Air travel is very safe, but it is not absolutely safe - there are accidents, just not many of them. It's all about risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, just like anything else, the railway included.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

In what way, out of interest? I find it generally a pleasant airport to use, and it's the one I use most. It also operates (unlike Heathrow) well below its operational capacity (though could perhaps do with a bigger terminal), which makes operations very reliable even in bad weather.

 

[HilversumNS]

Not really true. You can fly to other hubs for long distance flights. For the majority of us who travel to Europe, there are enough flights. That's unless anybody has an issue with low cost airlines.

I've had problems being able to get to european destinations for work from Birmingham, unless I waste a whole day each way. Try for example going to Berlin for a week's work, or Madrid. Neither of those are very far away, just a 2.5 hour flight if it is direct.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've had problems being able to get to european destinations for work from Birmingham, unless I waste a whole day each way. Try for example going to Berlin for a week's work, or Madrid. Neither of those are very far away, just a 2.5 hour flight if it is direct.

Quite a few people drive from Birmingham to Luton as the early easyJet flights from there often suit.

 

[fowler9]

Remember that Luton is basically (as well as providing cheap fares for people going to/from London) a Home Counties and South East Midlands Airport, and Stansted also serves those areas and much of East Anglia very well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Erm, yes they are. Air travel is very safe, but it is not absolutely safe - there are accidents, just not many of them. It's all about risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, just like anything else, the railway included.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


In what way, out of interest? I find it generally a pleasant airport to use, and it's the one I use most. It also operates (unlike Heathrow) well below its operational capacity (though could perhaps do with a bigger terminal), which makes operations very reliable even in bad weather.

I would personally say Luton has little in common with Heathrow. Heathrow is a hub for many of the alliances. We are basically talking about expanding Heathrow or building a new airport for the UK when it comes to the UK. To an extent Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle are similar in that they are spoke airports for some major airlines. The rest are minor hubs or spokes for big airlines or major hubs for budget airlines.

 

[HilversumNS]

Quite a few people drive from Birmingham to Luton as the early easyJet flights from there often suit.

Yes, After East Midlands, Luton is my 3rd nearest. Biggest problem is that Easyjet etc may fly on a few mornings a week, not always the ones I need.

I also dislike the M1 most of the time, but that's another story.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Not safety risks, because no risks are contemplated. It's either safe or it isn't.

Erm, yes they are. Air travel is very safe, but it is not absolutely safe - there are accidents, just not many of them. It's all about risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, just like anything else, the railway included.

Neil, I was speaking in the context of ATC procedures for normal operation of runways and in particular how a multi runway configuration such as the one under discussion, could be used safely and how that would affect runway capacity.
These sort of procedures are designed in terms of black or white. Procedures that are potentially unsafe in their application, will not be adopted. The hazard ID, safety hazard analysis and other parts of the safety process are there to eliminate flaws or risks in the procedure entirely.
Of course there are various other sort of risks that could come into play, including things going wrong, but these will be managed or mitigated against as far is practically possible. But it remains that the basic principle of operation as laid down, are black and white.
e.g.'s in this context, minimum departure separations, minimum separation between subsequent landing aircraft, minimum separation between aircraft in the air, clearances to enter or cross an active runway, wake vortex separations, low visibility procedures, minimum safe altitudes, conditional clearances.
"Cost benefit analysis" does not enter into these matters. Transgression is not tolerated.

 

[Haydn1971]

Quite a few people drive from Birmingham to Luton as the early easyJet flights from there often suit.

Indeed, living in SE Sheffield we normally try to fly from East Midlands, with Birmingham as a second choice, Manchester a third. Leeds is just a pain to get to, Doncaster is normally at least twice the price of other places. However, given a return flight to Palma was looking like costing over £250 each at inhumane times in September (once you factor baggage, seat reservations and extra legroom) we are flying from Luton this time for £150 each and more human flight times.

 

[edwin_m]

From Nottingham I'm increasingly inclined towards using Luton because of the reasonably convenient train service. Although it's further it takes the same time as Birmingham and not much longer than East Midlands to get to by public transport.

With runways having to be roughly east and west, airports north and south of London like Stansted Luton or Gatwick ought to have less noise impact on the city itself than Heathrow, City or indeed Boris Island. Along with being a low population area, I think this was the reasoning behind the Cublington proposal in the 60s, but the extent of protest that stirred up probably means nobody will consider anything like that ever again.

 

[BananaRepublic]

If Heathrow gets nothing and Gatwick their new runway, the impact on the UK's larger regional airports might be quite beneficial, even if for the smaller ones it would mostly be in the form of feeder flights into larger hubs elsewhere. As is currently the case with the wide array of UK regional flights to Amsterdam.

Manchester is already well placed commercially to take advantage of such a situation and I think it would be a welcome opportunity for smaller Birmingham to gain some meaningful growth.

 

[Wolfie]

In what way, out of interest? I find it generally a pleasant airport to use, and it's the one I use most. It also operates (unlike Heathrow) well below its operational capacity (though could perhaps do with a bigger terminal), which makes operations very reliable even in bad weather.

I was talking about its setting and the impact rather than the nature of the flights which operate from there. The proximity of Luton airport to the town and the fact that planes have to fly directly over the population is what I had in mind.

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:

The number of planes going over my house, bought years ago, has already gone up. Why should I lose the ability to sleep with my windows open in summer? Incidentally I hate earplugs...

In an ideal world my personal solution to Heathrow expansion might just feature Starstreak or similar.....

For some reason flight noise, particularly early morning flight noise, is so intrusive. I live adjacent to Canonbury station and thus the East London and North London lines and have no problem whatsoever with the freight trains that trundle through every night....

 

[jopsuk]

I live in Cambridge and have no car. Luton is physically close, but in terms of public transport is a very long way away. It's a pain to get to from anywhere to the east of it- even from Stevenage, where you can stand on the station platform watching planes pass overhead with undercarriage down, it'll take you 55 minutes by hourly bus or 45 minutes by two-three hourly coach. Hitchin gives slightly better connections but not early or late.

 

[edwin_m]

I live in Cambridge and have no car. Luton is physically close, but in terms of public transport is a very long way away. It's a pain to get to from anywhere to the east of it- even from Stevenage, where you can stand on the station platform watching planes pass overhead with undercarriage down, it'll take you 55 minutes by hourly bus or 45 minutes by two-three hourly coach. Hitchin gives slightly better connections but not early or late.

That's one reason why the eastward extension of East West Rail is so needed. The effect on competition between Luton and Stansted could be interesting - some of the more popular destinations currently have flights from both with the same airline.

 

[radamfi]

I'm three miles from Gatwick and hear almost nothing from aircraft. Maybe one or two loud planes a day. I heard far more when I lived in Surbition, miles from Heathrow. There isn't much local opposition to a second runway because it would affect very few people. Does Bishop's Stortford get much noise? I haven't heard much there when I've been in the area. Manchester airport is poorly sited, flying over heavily populated Stockport.

 

[fowler9]

Hope this isn't straying too far off topic, I live under the flight path of planes flying from Liverpool to Northern Europe and have the Liverpool to Parkway line at the bottom of my garden. The trains and planes bother me far less than random car noises echoing off buildings in the local area through the night. Indeed if I stay somewhere near a busy road my sleep is far more disturbed.

 

[Bald Rick]

I live in Cambridge and have no car. Luton is physically close, but in terms of public transport is a very long way away. It's a pain to get to from anywhere to the east of it- even from Stevenage, where you can stand on the station platform watching planes pass overhead with undercarriage down, it'll take you 55 minutes by hourly bus or 45 minutes by two-three hourly coach. Hitchin gives slightly better connections but not early or late.

Taxi from Hitchin. £20. 20 minutes tops. Job done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm three miles from Gatwick and hear almost nothing from aircraft. Maybe one or two loud planes a day. I heard far more when I lived in Surbition, miles from Heathrow. There isn't much local opposition to a second runway because it would affect very few people. Does Bishop's Stortford get much noise? I haven't heard much there when I've been in the area. Manchester airport is poorly sited, flying over heavily populated Stockport.

I live 25 miles from Heathrow, and 15 from Luton, and am under the departure flight paths for both. Having a 747 opening up the taps at 5000 feet as it starts the main ascent is quite an event. One that I happen to enjoy, although this is not shared by all.

 

[freetoview33]

It is a tough balance trying to not have the noise of flight paths over crowded areas but at the same time having an airport that is close enough to serve a large proportion of people.

Thing is Heathrow is at full capacity! Well at at least 97%! They are always trying to find ways to try and add as much as possible!

Gatwick is Europes' (Not sure if it is the worlds) busiest single runway airport.

Stansted apparently has enough capacity to over double it's current passenger numbers to about 45 million.

And Manchester has a 50 million capacity so there is spare capacity.

But it all comes down to the question of does the UK need a hub airport? If the answer is yes then Heathrow will be expanded, if the answer is no then Gatwick.

Hopefully in the short term Stansted will cover any additional South East capacity, until the new runway (wherever it might be) is built.

Then I just found an interesting bit about Birmingham Airport. It is centrally located, it has a capacity of 27/36 million (Depending on source) and with HS2 would be just over half an hour away from London. So this has made me start to think again! It could be a very good location.

 

[Busaholic]

The publication of the Davies Report has apparently been delayed until after Christmas - is this a sign that Heathrow expansion is part of his recommendation, because surely Gatwick will be in the mix anyway? Heathrow expansion will be much more of a problem for Cameron, not least within his own party (Boris, Theresa, Zac Goldsmith threatening a by-election, Justine Greening) whereas it would be a pleasant surprise for anti-Gatwickeans if nothing is proposed there.

 

[WatcherZero]

Publication hasn't been delayed, still due this month. Government however has announced this week they wont make a formal response to the report until near Christmas. Likely they will want to publish their response over the Christmas holidays to help bury the bad news and mute the response (lot harder to organise demonstrations or build momentum in the media).

 

[Mikey C]

The publication of the Davies Report has apparently been delayed until after Christmas - is this a sign that Heathrow expansion is part of his recommendation, because surely Gatwick will be in the mix anyway? Heathrow expansion will be much more of a problem for Cameron, not least within his own party (Boris, Theresa, Zac Goldsmith threatening a by-election, Justine Greening) whereas it would be a pleasant surprise for anti-Gatwickeans if nothing is proposed there.

Zac Goldsmith is also considering running to be London Mayor, I can imagine he would take a very anti Heathrow stance

 

[Wolfie]

Zac Goldsmith is also considering running to be London Mayor, I can imagine he would take a very anti Heathrow stance

Given that he threatened to cause a byelection as an MP if Heathrow expansion was permitted I imagine that you are correct....

Tessa Jowell, the claimed Labour leading candidate, voted for Heathrow expansion in Cabinet however.

The Evening Standard has reported that only George Osbourne in the Cabinet is strongly pro-Heathrow with at least three major Cabinet Ministers strongly against.

 

[freetoview33]

Can someone explain how expanding one of Heathrows runways would help?

 

[Busaholic]

Given that he threatened to cause a byelection as an MP if Heathrow expansion was permitted I imagine that you are correct....

Tessa Jowell, the claimed Labour leading candidate, voted for Heathrow expansion in Cabinet however.

The Evening Standard has reported that only George Osbourne in the Cabinet is strongly pro-Heathrow with at least three major Cabinet Ministers strongly against.

Tessa Jowell can expect (rightly imo) to get the full treatment from the newspapers if she does get the candidature. 'Forgetting' to include VAT in the Olympic bid figures, not questioning her husband, David Mills, over a £350,000 payment from Berlusconi's aides, and her brother-in-law John Mills being the Labour Party's most profligate individual donor in recent years. Being a crony of Ken Livingstone's will also detract from her appeal to many Londoners. Any of the other prospective candidates I've heard mentioned would be a better bet than Jowell, even Diane Abbott!

 

[edwin_m]

Can someone explain how expanding one of Heathrows runways would help?

The idea is that it would effectively be two runways end to end, with planes landing on the near end while others are taking off at the far end. The publicity for Heathrow Hub claims this would be safe with a sufficient gap between the two, but a previous poster on this thread has some doubts.

 

[fowler9]

The idea is that it would effectively be two runways end to end, with planes landing on the near end while others are taking off at the far end. The publicity for Heathrow Hub claims this would be safe with a sufficient gap between the two, but a previous poster on this thread has some doubts.

It sounds dodgy to my me. Surely if you extend one runway slightly to have planes taking off at one end and landing at the other that will only be by smaller aircraft (737's, A320's etc) so all of the heavies have to use the other runway. That is probably quite a simplistic view but the idea sounds a bit bonkers to me.

 

[edwin_m]

It sounds dodgy to my me. Surely if you extend one runway slightly to have planes taking off at one end and landing at the other that will only be by smaller aircraft (737's, A320's etc) so all of the heavies have to use the other runway. That is probably quite a simplistic view but the idea sounds a bit bonkers to me.

I think each piece of the extended runway would be at least as long as the existing runway, with an extra section in between. I'm not able to comment on how dodgy or bonkers that may be. Details are at heathrowhub.com.

 

[fowler9]

I think each piece of the extended runway would be at least as long as the existing runway, with an extra section in between. I'm not able to comment on how dodgy or bonkers that may be. Details are at heathrowhub.com.

I would have thought, and I am obviously no expert, that you could still only have one aircraft on the runway at a time in case something goes wrong.

 

[Bald Rick]

I would have thought, and I am obviously no expert, that you could still only have one aircraft on the runway at a time in case something goes wrong.

But it would be two runways, that happen to be end on end, with a suitably large safety gap between them.

 

[BananaRepublic]

But it would be two runways, that happen to be end on end, with a suitably large safety gap between them.

It isn't that simple.