I think it's a shame Mixed Mode is not being allowed; all the more reason to look for an alternative hub in the South East to LHR which is not sustainable in the longer term:

------------

Transport minister: No change to Heathrow runway use

Residents living near Heathrow Airport worried about increased noise have been assured there will be no change to runway use.

Following the cancellation of plans for a third runway, there were concerns the existing two may be utilised in a manner that increased disruption.

But transport minister Teresa Villiers ruled out a switch to an "all-day" system that may cause more noise.

...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

Continues...

The world operates 24h/7d/52w; LHR is a commercial enterprise. To serve its customers and minimise costs, the asset must work til it sweats. Noise can be restricted, with aggressive targets for night operations. But people who don't want the benefits or liabilities of proximity to airports should move elsewhere.

Continues...

I agree with that sentiment about maximising the use of the asset AoR, but to be fair it's not just a few hundred thousand people affected by night noise.

The approach goes right over Central London (so millions of people), and any amount of quiet running doesn't make up for the fact that with windows open in the summer, even the quietest aircraft will be noticed.

Sadly, noise reduction just isn't that effective.

Nearer the airport the "move elsewhere" mantra is more appropriate as most will have moved in the past 50 years, with the full knowledge of the proximity to the airport and will have taken a price advantage when purchasing as a consequence of that.

What is really needed is some brave strategic thinking which finds an alternative for Heathrow which is now clearly not sustainable as the main UK airport.

I was a supporter of the Third Runway until about two years ago when I reviewed the evidence and realised that while additional capacity would be welcome and is indeed needed, it isn't anything near the amount of capacity needed for the medium term expansion and falls seriously (and alarmingly) short of the required long term demand.

Continues...

So we observe (again) the politician with the luxury of being able to make one negative decision without the necessity of a positive offer on what to do (as businessmen face). The -ve decision is no doubt biased by the need for the current govt to be ready for an election at all times, and West London tory votes were relatively scarce.

What else can be done? Eurostar has captured the point-to-point cross-channel trade, so this govt must be encouraged to repeat that mode-transfer success with hi-speed on-land competition. Hookup of LHR-Brum and MAN (and why not LGW too) provides lots of runways and opportunities for Brits to escape UK without clogging LHR.

Continues...

Further signs of things to come for LHR would be the strategic decision by CSA to pull out of UK services completely, leaving the discretionary touristic trade to convenient point-to point low-cost carriers to UK regionals, high-value direct service to local carrier BA and to consolidate within Skyteam using KLM-AF connections to the world at AMS and CDG.

How many does BAA/LHR have to lose before their short-term-ism is perceived as detrimental to UK national interest?

Continues...

The only domestic routes from LHR are to Manchester, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Manchester now has an excellent rail service and with journey times at around the 2hr mark and new-ish trainsets there really isn't much of an argument for this air route, and that is reflected in the reduction in these services being offered by airlines.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were reduced even further in the very near future.

Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow are (I think) the only other domestic destinations exLHR? Any others? Maybe you could include Belfast, but that's rather a special case, being over water.

I am not certain how many flights/slot pairs are used per day to these four mainland destinations, but it really is a tiny proportion of the overall capacity; dropping them entirely wouldn't make that much difference to the real capacity issue at LHR.

In fact, the Conservative Mayor of London was a strong proponent of the "Boris Island"/Thames Estuary Airport:

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/estuary_airport-890x380.jpg

I am no expert, but something similar to this, properly integrated into our wider transport network, must surely be what is required for long term prosperity.

Continues...

The key phrase, VK, is 'properly integrated'. 2h Man Picc to Euston is admirable, but that's neither a LHR connection nor a MAN service feeder (see other contributions on the 1km walk from MAN station to MAN-T3 for BA).

Extension of that service on a through basis to LHR and LGW would provide enormous versatility and destroy the economics of a London Estuarial airport (near the existing Stansted?)

Continues...

Belfast (George Best City ) would be a welcome addition for me if BA came back. Trains dont work too well on the Irish Sea and the current BMi product is inconsistent and haphazard just now !

Continues...

VK Don't forget ABZ, served by BA and BMid, and competitively KLM to AMS. ABZ lies beyond the reasonable surface-travel day-return time (excepting the admirable Caledonian Sleeper).

The common factor for Scotland is the BAA monopoly, which was advantageous when it represented an efficient public-service which has been identified as an intolerable anacronysm, but BAA resists divestment (for obvious profit-motivated self-interest).

BAA seems to be an obstruction to the natural evolution of the transport hub linkage issue.

Continues...

I support VK on the need for a strategic decision.

The French made a strategic decision to create CDG; now you might not like the design and how it works, but they made the call.

Heathrow was out of date by the late 70's.

The 'no brainer' is to expand Stansted and make it London's primary port, send the locos to a converted Alconbury, close Heathrow and build on the site, and support Stansted/Alconbury with the necessary investment in rail infrastructure and fast trains to various parts of London and other major cities.

Continues...

I am pleased mix mode flying wont be allowed (I happen to live under the flight path where aircraft turn for approach to LHR on the westerly runways) - the current noise is just about bearable.

The other concern I have is the amount of aircraft already in the skies above London and the recent near miss with a business aircraft and a Turkish 777. If mix mode was in operation how many more near misses would occur?

I am all for the expansion of air services to the UK and London, however, I am not keen on the expansion of LHR purely because of its location and runway directions that would increase flights over London. I actually thought Boris's plan to build a complete new airport with a high speed link to London to be a better option than expanding LHR..... We mustn't forget LHR was never intended in its inception to be the worlds busiest airport. It is running a near full capacity and there is no real room for expansion in my humble opinion.

Continues...

No Brainer?? Indeed, Stansted or anywhere near it is a no brainer daft option. London has 4 airports (if Luton can be counted). The world wants an interchange and the UK needs a hub. There's no need for that facility to actually serve London, except by feeder (like 30m out of 55m UK citizens have to accept if flying international via Our Capital).

The international hub should be centrally located, and a child could see that Brum on a population weighted basis is a very good place to start.

BA has chosen to go it alone at T5 and should consolidate there. Highspeed rail from Channel tunnel-LGW-LHR-Brum would cost much the same as the cross-London rail needed to hook up Novi-Stansted to LHR (nothing else would do unless you're suggesting shutting down UK-air for the duration of the project).

Continues...

Age of Reason

I would shut down air traffic for the time it takes to transfer ground equipment and people from one place to the other, just like at Gardermoen or Athens.

The restriction at Heathrow is runway/taxiway capacity and now the 3rd runway has gone, that is effectively the end to expansion, unless everyone uses larger aircraft and reduces frequency.

If you are suggesting a split international hub, then I don't see that working, look at the exodus from LGW to LHR following open skies, airlines wish to be together to leverage transfer traffic.

Also, there is an awful lot of business passenger traffic to the London area and they would not appreciate the 120 mile add on.

Stansted, with 3 runways would offer a lot of headroom and the public enquiry pain would likely be less than a greenfield site in the midlands.

By the way, I've always thought the UK national stadia should be in and around Brum, for the reasons you give.

Also, high speed rail is a good investment, IMHO, I agree with you.

Continues...

Er...BA has very much NOT chosen to go it alone at T5, hence the merger with Iberia to grow capacity at MAD.

Continues...

Weel VK, it feels like 'going it alone' to me, with BA international and domestic conveniently concentrated in T5, and rather tortuous connection to T1 for competitive domestics on BMid.. It works, so long as you're booked through on BA, but devalues LHR as an interconnect hub using BA changes.

Look forward to development of MAD as a hub serving UK regions. Nice architect-designed terminal (British quality believe), metro to town where metropolitan night-stop delights await, and a well-timed EJ feeder to EDI, albeit using a.tedious internal airport bus. Room for improvement, scope for investment.

Continues...

Pleased to see this decision has been reconsidered, and Mixed Mode will now be permitted:

http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/government-announces-plan-to-combat-delays-at-h

Continues...

Until when, VK? The next election?

Continues...

There's a whole raft of changes which need to happen to remove political interference from Aviation Policy, including beefing up the toothless CAA.

Continues...

Mixed mode is not as simple to implement as one might think.

Trials were done in the 1960s at Heathrow and provision made for two final director and PAR positions.

There are some particular challenges, apart from the resident's objections.

1) Airspace is tight and vectoring becomes challenging
2) Mixed mode is ideal when a steady stream of aircraft can land/depart from/to the north and south, this is not the reality
3) Stands are a major constraint, so if you increase the arrival flow rate, you may not be able to find a stand
4) Taxiways are very busy, so it may become difficult to support the airborne movments with land movements

The only long term answer is an airport built for the 2000s.

Continues...

Swissdiver , yes. The current administration was honest in this respect and made its anti aviation, lack of international business understanding clear in the last election prefering to go after the Nimby vote in the home counties surrounding LHR. Maybe the changing political realities and the current quagmire over phone tapping will make it search for new constituents and proponents.
It seems ironic to say within the understood political mdoel in the UK but let us all hope that a pro-international business political option is available to us in the next election so we can promote a dynamic international economy for Britain on a world stage rather than a stagnant backwater reliant on Amsterdam, Madrid or Paris for its comunication links..

Continues...

I thought that the principle reason that mixed mode could not be operated at LHR was because it would bust the infamous Cranford agreement.

Certainly, there is no way that a mixed mode usage could prevent aircraft from taking off on 90L which would be against the Cranford agreement. A further complication would be the impact on the cross runway, although this is only ever used when there are strong adverse winds

Continues...

VK, plurality of opinion makes these forums stronger.
In the absence of prior knowledge I deduce the understanding and views of an actor by their actions.
Further my comments do not relate to a party political view of business more the specific communication requirements of international commerce which often benefits from direct experience to fully appreciate.
In preference to didacticism I would appreciate your sharing insights into the decisions re LHR and aviation infrastructure development.

Continues...

It is my understanding that the cross runway is permanently out of service, and has been for a number of years.

The comments about the current government lacking an understanding of international business are twaddle.

What is needed is a joined up aviation strategy, and a new airport fit for the needs of the next 100 years.

Building a smaller extra runway at LHR simply would never have addressed this issue, and would have added only marginal additional capacity for smaller jets while adding considerably to congestion on the airfield, and in the skies above London and with significant environmental impact in the area to the north of the current airfield.

Introducing Mixed Mode is a sensible interim measure; the terminal improvements will help airfield congestion, as will the introduction of larger aircraft.

But all of this is simply window dressing to the real issue; Heathrow is not the right place to locate an international airport.

Continues...

Vintage Krug

You are right, 23 was withdrawn a long time ago, fo better or for worse.

Mixed mode is not an easy option.

I agree with your conclusion about Heathrow, but think you need to learn more about the challenges of the TMA and LHR, before expressing a opinion that "Introducing Mixed Mode is a sensible interim measure."

Perhaps speak to some Heathrow ATCers and hear the challenges from the professionals.

Continues...

I don't think I ever stated that Mixed Mode would be simpler than standards ops.

But it already happens when required, and the improved number of stands at LHR and better visibility from the Tower will make airfield operations more manageable than they have been historically.

The LHR TMA has its own challenges, but with new systems now in place and NATS being a world leader in deploying strategies to address issues of congested airspace, including some very interesting technical advances, I maintain my position that Mixed Mode is a "sensible interim measure" given the available alternatives.

Continues...

As always there are some views where I align with you VK. I think many agree "Heathrow is not the right place to locate an international airport."

Where discord breaks out is how you balance the needs of travellers inclduing transport infrastructure, the needs of airlines for support facilities and connection capabilites, the needs of local residents both human and threatened wildlife, the cost factor, the vagaries of UK weather notably Snow, Fog and Ice and the ways to maximise safety such as avoiding approach patterns over high density population centers and providing a healthy range of alternates such as the terrorist alternate at STN. Any thoughts?. I always come up with more antis than pros on suggestions.

Continues...

"I don't think I ever stated that Mixed Mode would be simpler than standards ops."

I don't recall saying that you did.

Could you explain to me how stack balancing can be made to work during the early morning rush and also how you balance the two runways to allow the northerly runways to depart to the north and arrive from the north and also the same for the southerly runway (from/to the south).

Are you absolutely sure that mixed mode is used after disruption or are you confusing it with the ad hoc use of both runways?

Continues...

Another example of the tail wagging the dog society putting another nail into what is a major business concern for the UK, with the lack of investment at LHR and the over priced cost fo flying in and out how long before CDG,AMS & FRA start to make it so easy to fly long haul through there and really start to eat up at the business in LHR, the only hope is that BA has the sense to set up a major hub at one of these very easy to get to airports

Continues...

Much as I hate to praise BAA, they are investing over £1billion per annum in new terminals, having already invested almost £5b in T5.

These are not small numbers.

In fact, Mixed Mode HAS been permitted by the government, I just added to this thread to keep everything in one place.

AMS, FRA and CDG all their own foibles (I personally avoid CDG as far as possible, and certainly will only fly in, not out of, that airport).

BA/IAG is already focussing growth on MAD, expansion is planned at LGW, and we haven't heard much about plans for BA's subsidiary Open Skies, for which there is significant potential in these markets.

Continues...