Three matters are troubling me this evening.....

[flecc]

Ryanair makes out of town airports work...Memmingen 120 Kms from Munich, Hahn 130 Kms from Frankfurt...there are many such examples.
Dave
Kudoscycles

For budget tourists! They are notoriously used to being put upon, Ryanair's "convenience" and "service" being a rich vein for our comedians.

As for the M25, such connection problems are dealt with much less expensively than building a whole new airport at a remote location and a long distance fast rail line to connect to it.
.

 

[jhruk]

I consider Heathrow a dreadful airport, and avoid it whenever I can, but I have to agree with Flecc that it is the obvious choice for expansion.

I live near quite near Stansted, it is very convenient for me, but it has not been able to attract long haul scheduled airlines because it is just too far from London. It works fine for the low cost airlines as most of their passengers are not transferring, and are more concerned with price than convenience. I don’t see how building a second Stansted runway would attract any more airlines.

The same argument could be made about Gatwick – it has most of the long haul overspill at the moment but these airlines would much rather fly from Heathrow if there was room.

Any new airport would have to be bigger than Heathrow, no less convenient for access to London, and would result in the closure of Heathrow. Costs would be horrendous and the timescale far too long.

 

[neptune]

In another 10 years or less, the number of flights will decline rapidly as the effects of past-peak-oil begin to bite. No extra runways necessary. The biggest problem will be to find uses for the old redundant runways. They will however make excellent test tracks for bikes and Ebikes, until houses are built on them to house the tide of immigrants.

 

[flecc]

In another 10 years or less, the number of flights will decline rapidly as the effects of past-peak-oil begin to bite.

The peak oil myth yet again! If it does begin to bite it will be at least half a century away.

Not long ago the USA had to import most of it's energy, now it will be energy self sufficient in five years time being well on the way to that already. Such is the progress on extraction of what was previously thought to be spent or inaccessible resources. Others are already making progress in that direction, and the resources currently opening up or yet to be exploited are numerous and very large.

Far from business and other flying declining, it will continue to expand for many years to come. We can take part or we can miss the bus and end up as theme park Britain, relying on tourism and like all such countries, among the world's poorest for it's residents.

 

[smudger1956]

Heathrow Airport is a dysfunctional leviathan. it should have been flattened and rebuilt decades ago. Air travel should be realistically priced, we are all now ‘mind set’ on having our cheap holiday in the Sun, were the cost of your flight is less than it cost you to get to the airport by coach.( shame all transport cannot run on artificially cheap lip service taxed Jet A1 he says sarcastically but factually..)

 

[indalo]

As one who qualifies as a frequent flyer which, as far as I can see, means only that I get more spam email than ordinary mortals, I think it's worth pointing out for the benefit of those who perhaps haven't sampled the delights of travel to and from our three major London airports, that the time element between each airport and central London isn't in fact greatly different.

It's true that Heathrow has the quickest route but only by the relatively expensive Heathrow Express non-stop train at a little over 15 minutes usually. Using the tube or bus from airport into town works out at roughly the same time as it does using the fastest connections at the other airports. The actual distance between each airport and central London becomes irrelevant really when the time difference involved in the journey is taken into account.

There are costs involved for airlines using Heathrow which deter many operators from using that airport and that's why the likes of Ryanair utilise other bases, keeping costs down. Even Branson has complained at the charges extant at Heathrow!

I take Dave Elderfield's point about the bird life on Dungeness but Heathrow Heath was not dissimilar when it was decided to up sticks and move London airport from the old Croydon Aerodrome. Today, the green brigade would probably prevent such a move on account of the wildlife habitat. What I find extraordinary is that people seem to count for so little as we have seen when Heathrow expansion was being considered. The same thing is happening with HS2 and the scheme's proponents seem to take notice when wildlife habitats are mentioned but totally ignore the potential blight to humans unfortunate enough to live near the proposed routes. As it happens and returning to Dave Elderfield's point, I'm not sure that expanding the existing estate at Lydd airport would have such a great effect on the bird life as the airport has been there for more than half a century already. Further over on the marsh, I believe Dungeness C station will never happen primarily on account of habitat issues so who knows?

I think it's important that we keep in mind also that not all travellers to and from London airports are London-bound or London-based. Many use one or other airport for different reasons.

Now, let's see.....where shall we build the next wind farm or nuclear power station?

Indalo

 

[flecc]

Heathrow Heath! Hardly the same environentally as Dungeness, although we did get the odd grass snake crossing the Longford River and had some cherry orchards.

How do I know? Because I lived there and was a pupil at Bedfont School right on the edge of what is Heathrow airport now and when Heathrow construction started. And in any case, there was already an aerodrome there, it was the airfield of aircraft manufacturer Fairey Aviation who post war built the Fairey Gyrodyne jet helicopter following their wartime plane making. Not exactly a rural idyll.

But this is academic, LHR is there and we should use and if necessary expand it to the full. I totally reject the anti-noise protests from those under the flight paths since they've all bought or rented their homes knowing full well the blight was there. They will have seen and heard the frequent aircraft during their property viewing since that has been obvious ever since the 1950s, but still decided to buy or rent.

New nuclear power station location? How about Lake Windermere, plenty of cooling water! Seriously, it needs to be in the south to correct the northern inbalance in generation which leads to power transmission wastage.
.

 

[shemozzle999]

Where would you propose to site the extra stacking holding zones required for the expansion of traffic.
The current ones being - Heathrow holds - Bovingdon, Lambourne, Biggin and Ockham.
You could theoretically have upto 20 planes holding over these sites a busy times, would the local residents of any new proposed sites have a case for compensation?
Or should we just create one big new one - how about using the M25 - then we could all share in the misery only fair.

 

[flecc]

No extra stacking zones are needed, there's capacity in the present ones and stacking demand will drop. The problem is the lack of runways at present often causing more stacking at peak arrival times than would be necessary with another runway.

I live under one of those stacking zones by the way (Biggin) and have done for 45 years, it's no bother.

 

[shemozzle999]

I thought the extra runway was required for increase in traffic, not to reduce stacking, would potentially generate 50% extra traffic.

 

[flecc]

It is, but having extra capacity reduces the incidence of arrival peaks. The greater the total number of facilities and usages, the less the chances of arrivals coinciding in peaks, particularly since the additional traffic will be from new destinations, spreading the usage time spectrum. Lack of capacity exacerbates peaks by delay build-ups.
.

 

[shemozzle999]

I assume the new runway will be run at the same capacity levels as the exsisting ones, so therefore, would not the current problems it be the same.
I wish I had your confidence that this increase in traffic, concentrated in such a limited area, would run like clockwork.
I still think your preference is putting too many eggs in one basket, should an incident occur I visualize a nightmare scenario in the skies above London, with not much time to resolve it and putting strain on nearby airports to accommodate the overspill.

 

[flecc]

No, increasing the number of facilities even with the same average overall usage per unit does reduce the opportunity for peak demand incidences. Might seem odd but it's true.

Obviously there can be event disruption when other airports must come to the rescue, but using them more instead of increasing LHR's capacity means even more chance of disruption.

 

[shemozzle999]

Another problem would be the present system of the 3 o'clock change over where the existing 2 runways are reversed around from landing to take off. With the addition of only one new runway you would only have either additional landings in the morning and and additional takeoffs in the afternoon or the other way around - longer turnaround times, not very efficient.

 

[Cakey]

I do agree with flecc , keep the blight in heathrow . Manchester needs to expand.
Britain needs to grow up a bit. Public transport, roads are shocking.
Have a trip to the Swiss or Germany, wonderful transport.

 

[flecc]

Another problem would be the present system of the 3 o'clock change over where the existing 2 runways are reversed around from landing to take off. With the addition of only one new runway you would only have either additional landings in the morning and and additional takeoffs in the afternoon or the other way around - longer turnaround times, not very efficient.

It can easily be efficient. You seem to be thinking in terms of the whole system being random with planes flying whenever someone wants them to. It isn't, flights are scheduled so the scheduling is designed to match receiving airport capacities. If they weren't a fully loaded airport like LHR would have totally collapsed long ago.

 

[shemozzle999]

A major expansion of the boundaries would be required just to park approximately 300 extra incoming aero planes while waiting for takeoff slots - its not going to happen

 

[Synthman]

It seems that there was a third runway at Heathrow, on the eastern side. It was clearly visible in various flight simulators. The runway is still there in FS2004, but it is no longer marked. In the previous versions I think the runway was still in use.

You can still see the outline of that runway on Google maps. I don't know how old the Google image is either. Might look up the history of Heathrow when I'm bored!

 

[indalo]

In order that no-one is under the misapprehension promulgated by some that Heathrow is the only realistic choice for the expansion of London's air traffic on account of its closer proximity to central London, I attach a little information on times between the three airports and central London.

It's clear that the time is broadly similar.....not identical but within a number of minutes tolerable to most so let's not get the idea that Stansted or Gatwick are simply too far away.

Getting from the Airports - Heathrow Airport, London Heathrow Airport, London Airport | LondonTown.com


Gatwick Airport | Travel to and from London


http://www.stansted-airport-guide.co.uk/london.html


I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Luton airport, more recently re-christened London-Luton which suggests some sort of proximity. Re-christened is probably a tad non-PC these days however I shan't correct it! Once again, in terms of time, it isn't very far removed from the times between the other London airports and central London. I'd guess though that Luton is probably the least likely candidate of the four London airports for expansion should the need for such ever be demonstrated satisfactorily.

After the debunking of all the arguments proffered by the self-interested proponents of Heathrow expansion, I have a real difficulty understanding what has changed since the law lords gave their opinion.

In truth, nothing has changed. The whole story about the urgent need for expansion at Heathrow is fiction; a myth put about by selfish, greedy people in high places in order to line their own pockets and those of their friends. It's all smoke and mirrors and there are no facts at all which could possibly compel any reasonable disinterested party to accept that any expansion required to ensure we can deal with growth, should it occur, needs to be at Heathrow. The greatest legal brains in the country accepted that.

It's important to know the difference between a fact and a politician saying that it is imperative or essential that something happens yet providing no information or evidence to support the contention. Politicians are always saying, "The fact of the matter is...." when what they really mean is that they have no idea, are out of their depth... but will keep saying something meaningless because if they say it for long enough, some idiot is bound to believe it and while they're pontificating, no-one else gets a word in edgeways so they need not face any more difficult questions.


And that's the fact of the matter
Indalo

 

[flecc]

A major expansion of the boundaries would be required just to park approximately 300 extra incoming aero planes while waiting for takeoff slots - its not going to happen

Clutching at straws now!

This is already planned, the village of Sipson has already had a high proportion of it's homes purchased by the BAA and they stand empty. The area is ready and is ideal for airport expansion, a major reason why it has been politically popular since the cost is lower than all the alternatives and it's more easily and cheaply achieved. Add to that the fact that it's the preferred business flyer option and the case is very strong.