Airport Expansion in South East England

[Wolfie]

Expensive to us in our daily life, but in the context of the total investment at stake - it's peanuts - a new airport in the Thames was recently priced at nearly £50Bn (I'd expect double myself with the extras), expansion at Heathrow is tabbed at £15Bn IIRC - With the Airports Commission costs at £8m IIRC. The outcome is a recommendation of direction, the report doesn't bypass the planing processes that will still be required, which are subject to being called in by the Sec of State, which can have judicial reviews, challenged in parliament, taken to the high court, the Supreme Court then probably the European courts - regardless of the recommendation, there's a long way to go yet and could all change when the Tories have a new leader in circa 2019 - potentially Boris !

You missed a bit... otherwise spot on!

 

[Busaholic]

Then what's the point in doing these expensive reports if we're just going to ignore the results?

Because the government has to be seen to be 'doing something' when in reality it is just being dragged along by the tide of events. Heathrow expansion is seen as being far more toxic to Conservative voters than to Labour's, so you commission a report at vast expense (a) to shelve the problem for a few more months, if not years and (b) whatever public backlash there is can then be pinned on the report's authors. Gatwick will get their second runway within the amazingly short (for this country) next ten years, no doubt without the provision of onward transport having been adequately dealt with, and no decision will by then have been taken by government, of any political hue, on Heathrow. It'll be 'let's see how we get on with Gatwick first'. No-one on this forum, least of all me, will still be alive to witness a sod being turned at Heathrow!

 

[BananaRepublic]

The Davies Commission Final Report does provide some assistance for the government, if they are brave enough to approve the proposed new runway at Heathrow.
The recommendation includes legally binding, stringent conditions and restrictions on the building and operation of the new runway, to counter noise, pollution and visual intrusion.
Plus it includes a binding commitment to prevent any further runways being built there, effectively capping Heathrow's further growth once the added capacity is used up.

The conclusion of the commission is that a new runway will lessen the impact on those currently affected by Heathrow noise, by providing more respite through flexible use of the three runways, new operating techniques and runway alternation.
They say the noise footprint will be reduced through this process.

The door is still left open to a second runway at Gatwick, which itself is close to being full and needs that new runway in the near future, regardless.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I'm back...

Having just caught up on the thread, there is surprisingly only one main point for me to respond to at the moment; I had expected more...

The competition authorities forcing the sale of Gatwick, yes - that is a fly in the ointment to the suggestion, but it is not impossible to overcome their now separate ownership by negotiation or even by moving the political goalposts is it?



Meanwhile, expanding on an earlier point from last week, are inter-terminal transfers within Heathrow at the moment all kept "airside" or is there an element of USA style re-passing of security?

If the former, that is actually quite easy to solve - you would have a dedicated separate two platform island at both Heathrow and Gatwick for those trains being used as transfer shuttles. The stock on those would literally just be shuttles with no interworking during the day on any of the other services.

If the latter, it's surely not an issue in the first place?

 

[edwin_m]

Meanwhile, expanding on an earlier point from last week, are inter-terminal transfers within Heathrow at the moment all kept "airside" or is there an element of USA style re-passing of security?

If the former, that is actually quite easy to solve - you would have a dedicated separate two platform island at both Heathrow and Gatwick for those trains being used as transfer shuttles. The stock on those would literally just be shuttles with no interworking during the day on any of the other services.

If the latter, it's surely not an issue in the first place?

Not sure at all. If transfers go landside now they would probably have to remain airside to offset the extra time of transferring between airports.

I'm also unsure that a train on a shared use railway can meet airside security regulations. For example (and this is one of the reasons for Eurostar immigration control being in France/Belgium) couldn't someone not permitted to enter the UK pull an emergency handle, give some excuse so the driver would stop the train, then release a door and disappear?

 

[cjmillsnun]

A third runway at Heathrow will actually reduce levels of pollution. There will be less stacking of aircraft flying around in circles over London, they can more or less fly straight in. Also, as you know when you fly out of Heathrow you can sometimes spend more time on the ground than in the air whilst you are six or seventh in the queue waiting to take off, all this burns fuel. A third runway would ease this.

I take it you don't know where the stacks are then...

They are outside of London.

Bovingdon (Herts)
Ockham (Guildford)
Lambourne (Essex)
Biggin (Kent)

So it will reduce pollution in the home counties and increase it over London.

 

[Busaholic]

The Tories seem hellbent on approving Zac Goldsmith as their candidate for next London mayor: Matthew Parris, with all his Conservative connections, wrote a piece in the Times yesterday showing both his antipathy towards this shoe-in and his incredulity as to the reasons for it, saying they will come to bitterly regret it. The sole reason for his elevation to candidate would seem to be his opposition to Heathrow expansion (indeed, to Heathrow per se) so what sort of game are the Tories playing, and why is Cameron so weak as to allow it? Is it already assumed the wiff-waff champ is the anointed successor on the big stage?

 

[freetoview33]

I take it you don't know where the stacks are then...

They are outside of London.

Bovingdon (Herts)
Ockham (Guildford)
Lambourne (Essex)
Biggin (Kent)

So it will reduce pollution in the home counties and increase it over London.

I thought they planned to get rid of the Heathrow stacks anyway!

 

[BananaRepublic]

I thought they planned to get rid of the Heathrow stacks anyway!

The intention is reduce airborne holding, so that it wouldn't be necessary in normal circumstances. The basis of this being improved efficiency, reduced fuel consumption, reduced aircraft emissions and to improve airspace efficiency and help increase airspace capacity.
This goes hand in hand with new airport approach methodology and new air traffic control techniques, as well as new advanced operating techniques throughout the whole air traffic management environment.

There will still be a need for terminal holding fixes (colloquially referred to as "stacks") and en-route holding fixes, as a fallback for when it get's busier than the system can deal with, or for unforeseen circumstances, such as an unexpected sudden deterioration in the weather, an incident or a runway closure or blockage.
Heathrow's current holding "stacks" are being moved further out to free up London's terminal airspace, as part of a major airspace redesign for London and the SE of England.

 

[Busaholic]

I'm back...

Having just caught up on the thread, there is surprisingly only one main point for me to respond to at the moment; I had expected more...

The competition authorities forcing the sale of Gatwick, yes - that is a fly in the ointment to the suggestion, but it is not impossible to overcome their now separate ownership by negotiation or even by moving the political goalposts is it?

I hate using the phrase 'with all due respect' because people using it then tend to go on to trash someone else's views, and in no way would I wish to do so in this case, BUT the chances of Gatwick and Heathrow getting together are absolutely nil assuming we continue as members of the E.U. The Monopolies Commission ( or whatever it was called that week) duly pronounced and their decision was subject to every legal challenge known to man, and probably a few previously unknown, and in the end the BAA had to concede defeat and sell Gatwick. Any attempt to re-visit that decision would be fiercely opposed by the Dutch, French and German governments, among others, using European law on behalf of their own international airports.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Not sure at all. If transfers go landside now they would probably have to remain airside to offset the extra time of transferring between airports.

I'm also unsure that a train on a shared use railway can meet airside security regulations. For example (and this is one of the reasons for Eurostar immigration control being in France/Belgium) couldn't someone not permitted to enter the UK pull an emergency handle, give some excuse so the driver would stop the train, then release a door and disappear?

On the first point, if the transfer is by a high speed link as described with stock equivalent to 395s, you're looking at transfer times between the airports no greater than the present inter-terminal buses can achieve within Heathrow at present.

Regarding the second point, I was under the impression that persons not permitted to enter the UK are also not permitted to transfer between flights within the UK so such people should not be making the transfer anyway?

I hate using the phrase 'with all due respect' because people using it then tend to go on to trash someone else's views, and in no way would I wish to do so in this case, BUT the chances of Gatwick and Heathrow getting together are absolutely nil assuming we continue as members of the E.U. The Monopolies Commission ( or whatever it was called that week) duly pronounced and their decision was subject to every legal challenge known to man, and probably a few previously unknown, and in the end the BAA had to concede defeat and sell Gatwick. Any attempt to re-visit that decision would be fiercely opposed by the Dutch, French and German governments, among others, using European law on behalf of their own international airports.

There's always ways and means... For instance ( tongue in cheek a bit here... ) if the suggestion proceeds then upon completion of the scheme, re-declare Gatwick as "Heathrow South Terminal" and "formally close" Gatwick as an airport in its own right.....

 

[Airline Man]

I'm back...

Having just caught up on the thread, there is surprisingly only one main point for me to respond to at the moment; I had expected more...

The competition authorities forcing the sale of Gatwick, yes - that is a fly in the ointment to the suggestion, but it is not impossible to overcome their now separate ownership by negotiation or even by moving the political goalposts is it?



Meanwhile, expanding on an earlier point from last week, are inter-terminal transfers within Heathrow at the moment all kept "airside" or is there an element of USA style re-passing of security?

If the former, that is actually quite easy to solve - you would have a dedicated separate two platform island at both Heathrow and Gatwick for those trains being used as transfer shuttles. The stock on those would literally just be shuttles with no interworking during the day on any of the other services.

If the latter, it's surely not an issue in the first place?

All inter terminal transfer passengers are indeed kept airside But they still have to go through security. Of course if they are entitled to enter the UK they can go landslide before going back.

The only transfer passengers who do not have go through security are those arriving off UK domestic flights as they have already met UK security search standards at the first departure point. They get off the plane at Terminal 5 and just go up and escalator into the main terminal.

Incidentally, passengers who have been security cleared are known as 'clean' and ones who haven't are called 'dirty'!

 

[ivanhoe]

Meanwhile it is reported today in the news that Willie Walsh has stated that IAG will not want to pay for the third runway. He reckons that the increase in airport fees will be disproportionate for IAG.

 

[Rick1984]

Sorry if already mentioned but don't know why this proposal hasn't been taken up

http://www.heathrowhub.com/

Basically involves splitting Heathrow runways into four with modest extensions.
Much less obtrusive and a raft of other benefits. Would be my choice after an estuary airport.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Sorry if already mentioned but don't know why this proposal hasn't been taken up

http://www.heathrowhub.com/

Basically involves splitting Heathrow runways into four with modest extensions.
Much less obtrusive and a raft of other benefits. Would be my choice after an estuary airport.

The Davies Airports Commission final report gave the reasons why that proposal was not considered suitable.

It was quite an off the wall proposal to begin with and despite being led by an esteemed former BA pilot, was never going to be a practical solution and the submission itself was rather naive in several respects.
With the necessary safety separation that has to be applied between aircraft taking off and landing on such an end to end runway arrangement, the increase in runway capacity would only be marginal over the use of a single runway for take offs and landings. As a result, the cost of the extended runway would largely be a waste of money.






M
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Meanwhile it is reported today in the news that Willie Walsh has stated that IAG will not want to pay for the third runway. He reckons that the increase in airport fees will be disproportionate for IAG.

Is anyone surprised at Willie Walsh taking that stance?



.

 

[radamfi]

Meanwhile it is reported today in the news that Willie Walsh has stated that IAG will not want to pay for the third runway. He reckons that the increase in airport fees will be disproportionate for IAG.

Similarly easyJet didn't want Gatwick expansion because of the increased fees needed to pay for it.

 

[edwin_m]

Is anyone surprised at Willie Walsh taking that stance?

Sounds to me like IAG think they have pretty much all the slots they need at Heathrow and are worried any new ones will go to competitors.

 

[freetoview33]

Sounds to me like IAG think they have pretty much all the slots they need at Heathrow and are worried any new ones will go to competitors.

IAG still wouldn't say no to more slots just not the amount a third runway would open up! And then yes as you say they wouldn't want them to go to competitors.

 

[ivanhoe]

Are we infatuated with the need for a world class hub airport? Do we need instead to build more alliances with Countries that have the capacity for hub airports. Is there another Dubai type hub which could be used by say BA to serve South East Asia?

Does China (a growth market) have to be serviced by Heathrow? Cannot BA use Gatwick more? I thought the era of the Dreamliner meant more point to point flying and that the A380 was not getting as many orders as it was envisaged. Apart from domestic connections, do we need to cater for Heathrow to be used as a hub airport? Are there too many airlines ?

 

[BananaRepublic]

Are we infatuated with the need for a world class hub airport? .....do we need to cater for Heathrow to be used as a hub airport?

The hub aspect has been overplayed in much of the discussion.
While its function as a hub is very important for both HAL and its largest customer, BA; remember that two thirds of all Heathrow's passengers are still O&D ( i.e starting or ending their journey at Heathrow).

A fair proportion of Heathrow's O&D passengers are already flying to Hub airports elsewhere in the world, to make onward connections e.g. via the major US hubs, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha, Singapore, HKG and other European hubs, such as FRA, AMS, MAD and CDG.

Direct flights to new Chinese destinations are a must, otherwise the UK will miss out on not only trade, but also on a very large incoming tourist market.
The Chinese are starting to travel abroad in very large numbers and Mega-Bucks are flowing into the destinations they're heading for..

 

[Rhydgaled]

A third runway at Heathrow will actually reduce levels of pollution. There will be less stacking of aircraft flying around in circles over London, they can more or less fly straight in. Also, as you know when you fly out of Heathrow you can sometimes spend more time on the ground than in the air whilst you are six or seventh in the queue waiting to take off, all this burns fuel. A third runway would ease this.

Thank you for at least responding to my post, which is more than anyone else in favour of airport expansion seems to have done. None of them appear to give climate change any consideration whatsoever.

You make an interesting point about reduced stacking of aircraft reducing pollution. A similar argument is made for road expansion, that traffic jams cause more pollution than free-moving traffic, but in either case I just don't buy it. Sure, the local pollution will be less (providing of course the additional capacity isn't just filled up to the point of congestion again) but climate change is a global issue. Unless the new capacity is solely used to reduce congestion and does not generate any extra traffic, I expect the saving from reduced congestion is more than offset by the extra emmsions generated by the increased traffic. And of course, with aviation, there is an additional greenhouse effect caused by high-altitude emmisions; even water vapor, I believe, is a greenhouse gas at altitude whereas at ground level hydrogen-powered cars/buses are apparently greenhouse-free (although of course you have the problem of making the hydrogen, but that is a different debate).

As regards to economic benefits, I'd never thought about this! I guess long haul due to emerging markets in Asia, particularly China and India. At the moment unless you buy a set of Heathrow slots the only way you can start a new route is by cancelling flights on another route or by cancelling the route altogether or moving it to Gatwick.

Again, thanks for the answer.

 

[Airline Man]

Thanks I try. I've been with BA for thirty years! I'm overdue for a change.