Heathrow 3rd Runway

[Rainsberger]

Hi Guys

In the last 30 minutes the British Parliament has voted in favor of the Heathrow 3rd Runway by over 400 to 110, let battle commence.   

[Stillearly]

Brilliant news , shame it's taken so long !!!

[michael400]

Boris was busy in Afghanistan missed the vote

Sent from my WAS-LX1A using Tapatalk

[lfc4dp]

I don't agree with it, it's big enough. no idea where the appeal is.

[semi-retired member]

Personally I thought the alternative option, which was discarded previously, to extend the existing North-runway and operate it as if it were two different ones, was cheaper & likely to be less-disruptive to local residents ?

But whatever they go with, this decision is decades overdue, and there will be a considerable reduction in pollution when delays/stacking of arriving-flights over London is reduced.  It makes no sense to have planes circling, burning fuel while waiting for space to land, on an over-congested Runway !

I would also have let Gatwick get their second Runway, and Stansted too, then let the three of them fight-it-out  ...  this would have been cheaper & better for the customers IMO.  Competition is good for customers, lack-of-competition is bad, who cares about the shareholders of the owning-companies ?

[deano4598]

20 minutes ago, semi-retired member said:

Personally I thought the alternative option, which was discarded previously, to extend the existing North-runway and operate it as if it were two different ones, was cheaper & likely to be less-disruptive to local residents ?

 

Mate, not trying to have a go at your post, there may be a lot of reasons why this might have been proposed by the uninitiated into avaition safety but as a long term Air Traffic Controller I can tell you there is simply no way to extend a Runway and have it used as two runways for normal passenger jet aircraft. For a helicopter base yes, for fixed wing aircraft, no. 

[overseas516]

27 minutes ago, semi-retired member said:

 

 

I would also have let Gatwick get their second runway, and Stansted too, then let the three of them fight-it-out  ...  this would have been cheaper & better for the customers IMO.  Competition is good for customers, lack-of-competition is bad, who cares about the shareholders of the owning-companies ?

Agree 100%

[Pinoydave]

Just build the thing...... by the time it's completed Gatwick and Stansted will both need additional runways as well...... can't stop progress 

[gmingot]

9 hours ago, semi-retired member said:

Personally I thought the alternative option, which was discarded previously, to extend the existing North-runway and operate it as if it were two different ones, was cheaper & likely to be less-disruptive to local residents ?

But whatever they go with, this decision is decades overdue, and there will be a considerable reduction in pollution when delays/stacking of arriving-flights over London is reduced.  It makes no sense to have planes circling, burning fuel while waiting for space to land, on an over-congested runway !

I would also have let Gatwick get their second runway, and Stansted too, then let the three of them fight-it-out  ...  this would have been cheaper & better for the customers IMO.  Competition is good for customers, lack-of-competition is bad, who cares about the shareholders of the owning-companies ?

Totally agree with allowing Gatwick and Stansted to compete. I dont like either of them at present, not that I am a fan of Heathow either but it's convienient. As you say competiton is good for the consumer, whoever could come up to the standards of Changi or Hong Kong, or even somewhere close, would reap the rewards.But,no, we end up with the state subsidising a spanish owned company whose target is to provide mediocre service at best.

[semi-retired member]

14 hours ago, deano4598 said:

Mate, not trying to have a go at your post, there may be a lot of reasons why this might have been proposed by the uninitiated into avaition safety but as a long term Air Traffic Controller I can tell you there is simply no way to extend a runway and have it used as two runways for normal passenger jet aircraft. For a helicopter base yes, for fixed wing aircraft, no. 

 

Not taken the wrong way, none of us would want safety to be ignored, but when you leave a mile of unused-runway between the end of the first(used exclusively for landings), and the start of the second (used for take-offs only) ?

I can see it might still be a problem with  (rare)  go-arounds, but apart from that, the extension was to be constructed into much-less built-up countryside, and further away from the villages which will now be affected.

It was defintely one major-option considered, and avoided any development North of the exiting airport land.

https://www.heathrowhub.com/our-proposal.aspx

 

[deano4598]

Yeah

1 hour ago, semi-retired member said:

 

Not taken the wrong way, none of us would want safety to be ignored, but when you leave a mile of unused-runway between the end of the first(used exclusively for landings), and the start of the second (used for take-offs only) ?

I can see it might still be a problem with  (rare)  go-arounds, but apart from that, the extension was to be constructed into much-less built-up countryside, and further away from the villages which will now be affected.

It was defintely one major-option considered, and avoided any development North of the exiting airport land.

https://www.heathrowhub.com/our-proposal.aspx

 

Yeah I hear you, two things make that a problem and you have named the first with go-rounds which simply put means (either the pilot cocks it up of the Tower cocks it up which does happen) you have no way to separate two aircraft in a critical phase of flight.  You can't turn the go-round aircraft nor can you limit the climb of the one taking off. The second is, runways have exclusive areas beyond each end which in most ICAO compiant nations totals 150 metres (clearway and Runway end safety area), so there is 300 metres of very expensive Runway to build which is completely useless.

Most high capacity jets need about 2.5 to 3 Km of Runway to operate to full capacity (around 10,000FT or 1.8 miles) so now we would be talking a Runway at least 4 miles long. Is there that much space available at Heathrow? Google earth tells me the locality of Horton lies just 3 km due west of Runway 27 L. So I'm guessing whoever proposed such a thing had no idea of how an aerodrome works and by the sounds of it, the idea was shot down by those who do.

[semi-retired member]

The Heathrow-Hub proposal allowed for 650m between the two, and was for an end-to-end distance of 6.65 km, also they'd run the idea past the FAA already, according to the link.

I thought it was an innovative (and several-billion cheaper) alternative to the final proposal, nice to know there is still creative-thinking in the UK's construction & aviation management.

At least they didn't go for Boris Island !

 

[bangna]

Even cheaper to use existing runways 24 hours, no need to build anything.

[par47]

I'm not in favour, I think we should expand and use the regional airports more.

I live about 140 miles from LHR... thats a 5 hour!!!! bus trip, or 3 different trains, or about £200 to park my car for a long trip. All options are ridiculous. We don't need a bigger airport, we need better connections to it or better still avoid having to use it at all.

[Tripp]

11 hours ago, deano4598 said:

Yeah

Yeah I hear you, two things make that a problem and you have named the first with go-rounds which simply put means (either the pilot cocks it up of the Tower cocks it up which does happen) you have no way to separate two aircraft in a critical phase of flight.  You can't turn the go-round aircraft nor can you limit the climb of the one taking off. The second is, runways have exclusive areas beyond each end which in most ICAO compiant nations totals 150 metres (clearway and runway end safety area), so there is 300 metres of very expensive runway to build which is completely useless.

Most high capacity jets need about 2.5 to 3 Km of runway to operate to full capacity (around 10,000FT or 1.8 miles) so now we would be talking a runway at least 4 miles long. Is there that much space available at Heathrow? Google earth tells me the locality of Horton lies just 3 km due west of Runway 27 L. So I'm guessing whoever proposed such a thing had no idea of how an aerodrome works and by the sounds of it, the idea was shot down by those who do.

You are right of course. Having flown into LHR for many years, I can say that it is never a pleasure, always  a place where aircraft operations are on the limit of reliability  and a place that has been operating at over capacity for many years, both in terms of airspace capacity and passenger facilitation.  While other countries have invested, sucessive UK govenments have produced report after report, pontificated, delayed and blundered over runway/airport capacity.  Geographically, LHR has never been in the right location since its inception, but it's too late  now to correct that intial blunder. A third Runway will do very little to address the issues.  Like LHR, T5, it's too little, too late and in the wrong place. 

[davidge]

TBH, I’m dreading going through LHR again next week - though the month in Pattaya that follows will make it worth it.

3 hour drive. Traffic around the airport - I’ll be hitting ‘going to work’ traffic. The hell that is Terminal 2 - not far off a 3 mile walk from leaving car to getting to gate, queues for security, unpleasant G4S security.

My sister will be driving the car back so no long term parking fees. Otherwise, expensive parking or the hassle of taxi & 2 trains, or taxi and slow coach trip. Bad enough even without luggage.

I’ll probably start using Qatar from Cardiff at some point, but doesn’t suit at the moment. 

[castledrive]

They need to seriously think about putting in a rail station that accommodates trains coming into the airport direct from northern parts of the country and bypass that bloody 24 stop underground trip if your getting into London via the east coast line to king Cross station, whoever had the idea of naming the link the Heathrow Express wants a good right hander for taking the piss.

[storytime]

There must be a lot of  airline pilot schools around Heathrow.

[PepeLePew]

On 27/06/2018 at 08:37, semi-retired member said:

I thought it was an innovative (and several-billion cheaper) alternative to the final proposal, nice to know there is still creative-thinking in the UK's construction & aviation management.

 

And there is your answer. Why go for the efficient option when you can go for one that has loads of nice juicy contracts to hand out to your mates, new terminals, new roads, new infrastructure, lots of PFI to be done, new super yachts and holiday homes to be bought,  lovely job!

 

 

On 27/06/2018 at 10:20, bangna said:

Even cheaper to use existing runways 24 hours, no need to build anything.

I'd agree but then I live far enough away for aircraft noise not to be an issue, plus I'm a heavy sleeper.

[gmingot]

On 6/27/2018 at 18:47, castledrive said:

They need to seriously think about putting in a rail station that accommodates trains coming into the airport direct from northern parts of the country and bypass that bloody 24 stop underground trip if your getting into London via the east coast line to king Cross station, whoever had the idea of naming the link the Heathrow Express wants a good right hander for taking the piss.

Agree, it should improve though when cross-rail opens. But at what cost? I hope its not the stupid prices like the Heathrow Express.

As a word of advice to those who may not be famiilar. If taking the train from LHR to Paddington, take the "Heathrow Connect" service rather than Heathrow Express, it makes four or five stops along the way but is much cheaper. The ticket 'touts' just beyond customs and at the ticket office will not tell you this

[smiler]

Heathrow  Connect is now TFL Rail - a bit cheaper (I think) but seems to be more reliable

[Shaksey]

On ‎27‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 17:47, castledrive said:

They need to seriously think about putting in a rail station that accommodates trains coming into the airport direct from northern parts of the country and bypass that bloody 24 stop underground trip if your getting into London via the east coast line to king Cross station, whoever had the idea of naming the link the Heathrow Express wants a good right hander for taking the piss.

They are, Crossrail and HS2 I think..

Crossrail will be at standard London overground prices.

Tube is ok between 05:30 and 07:00, 09:30 and 15:00, and 19:00 - 00:00 but avoid at peak times.

The Heathrow Express is from Paddington and really is an express service, about 20 min I think but it will cost you £££.

[Shaksey]

On ‎27‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 04:59, deano4598 said:

Yeah

Yeah I hear you, two things make that a problem and you have named the first with go-rounds which simply put means (either the pilot cocks it up of the Tower cocks it up which does happen) you have no way to separate two aircraft in a critical phase of flight.  You can't turn the go-round aircraft nor can you limit the climb of the one taking off. The second is, runways have exclusive areas beyond each end which in most ICAO compiant nations totals 150 metres (clearway and runway end safety area), so there is 300 metres of very expensive runway to build which is completely useless.

Most high capacity jets need about 2.5 to 3 Km of runway to operate to full capacity (around 10,000FT or 1.8 miles) so now we would be talking a runway at least 4 miles long. Is there that much space available at Heathrow? Google earth tells me the locality of Horton lies just 3 km due west of Runway 27 L. So I'm guessing whoever proposed such a thing had no idea of how an aerodrome works and by the sounds of it, the idea was shot down by those who do.

It was who proposed it and led the bid that made me think it was a viable option!

It was Dr. Jock Lowe.....

British Airways Chief Pilot 1991-1996
British Airways Concorde Commercial Manager 1996-1999
British Airways Chief Concorde Pilot 1989-1991
British Airways Concorde Captain 1989-2001
British Airways Concorde Pilot 1975-2001

 

[deano4598]

15 minutes ago, Shaksey said:

It was who proposed it and led the bid that made me think it was a viable option!

It was Dr. Jock Lowe.....

British Airways Chief Pilot 1991-1996
British Airways Concorde Commercial Manager 1996-1999
British Airways Chief Concorde Pilot 1989-1991
British Airways Concorde Captain 1989-2001
British Airways Concorde Pilot 1975-2001

 

Yes Shaksey, a very credible person no doubt, but pilots only know how to control one aeroplane at one time, they rarely grasp the complexities of controlling 10 to 20 or more at one time and rightly so as their training drives them to a singular excellence.

[Shaksey]

47 minutes ago, deano4598 said:

Yes Shaksey, a very credible person no doubt, but pilots only know how to control one aeroplane at one time, they rarely grasp the complexities of controlling 10 to 20 or more at one time and rightly so as their training drives them to a singular excellence.

For sure mate. What I meant was I assumed he had wider knowledge and was perhaps "blinded" by his credentials and didn't think of the bigger picture.