A second runway at Gatwick or other airports

Back to Forum

Tagged: ,

This topic contains 17 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by  Flightlevel 15 Nov 2018
at 23:46
.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)

  • transtraxman
    Participant

    In August 2019 the legal agreement between Gatwick and the local authorities prohibiting the expansion of the airport runs out and most probably will not be renewed. That leaves Gatwick free to build a second runway subject to all the rest of permissions needed.
    It is apparent that the airport wants to expand but feels it will not be granted permission for a second runway so they are looking at ways to achieve that within the present limitations.
    Travel Weekly publishes today (15th Oct) an article explaining this. “Updated: Gatwick ‘seeks to raise capacity through use of emergency runway’”.

    http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/313896/updated-gatwick-seeks-to-raise-capacity-through-use-of-emergency-runway

    There is no mention about this on Gatwick airport´s own website.

    To make it possible for runways to operate independently you need a minimal parallel space of 1350 meters (I believe). When that is not the case but less then the runways operate together limiting their capacity. However, Gatwick see that if they do this there can be an increase in traffic of 84,000 movements or 20-30% in capacity. The two runways together could be operational in 2023 which is well before Heathrow. It is using present infrastructure.
    This method of close parallel runways is already in use at many of the world large airports so could be used here.

    Maybe this is the way forward to increase capacity at Gatwick using the creep creep approach – which is just what Government has been using so far.


    TimFitzgeraldTC
    Participant

    I was speaking to a client who is an expert in this area and they think this is “not safe” as I pointed out SFO where you have dual runways. LGW has closer runways and the issue SFO has is that to have parallel runways in operation you must have 2 planes of similar size (so not an A380 on one side and a turbo jet the other) flying close together otherwise the air flow will knock the other plane out. Likewise SFO has issue with dual landings as planes have to hold until they can be paired up with similar to come in and land side by side.

    So yes I think it is sensible to look at it but I don’t know if it actually going to be feasible from talking to people who know way more than me about how this would work operationally. With EZY running a fleet of Airbus A319/320/321’s and being the largest customer may make it easier to pair up slots, whether it is doable is another question.


    openfly
    Participant

    This is Gatwick’s way of getting quick permission for a “proper” second runway, by the ridiculous prospect of suggesting that the “emergency” runway, 26R/08L, constitutes a usable second runway. There is no ILS on the emergency runway. The emergency runway is too close to the east/west taxiway.
    But, I still have a one penny bet that LGW will have its proper second runway well before LHRs third runway is built. Unless….unless….the West Sussex planners realise that aircraft departing and arriving on the planned position of the newly built runway will fly directly over the new massive estate of Forge Wood just one mile from the threshold….an altitude of some 700ft when landing!! That could scupper plans.


    canucklad
    Participant

    Well at least in the case of Forge Wood , NIMBYism doesn’t work as the houses were there first. Not an argument most homeowners can moan about around LHR.

    1 user thanked author for this post.

    Montysaurus
    Participant

    As a fairly regular user of LGW I would like to make the following point. Whatever the safety/environmental issues are concerning a second runway and hence an increase in passenger numbers, the existing transport networks to LGW are inadequate. In particular, disruption to one train then compounds itself during the day. Today’s reports naming Gatwick Airport station as the 3rd poorest for timekeeping and the regular disruption (train/infrastructure failures) on the route to the airport should surely raise questions about the airport’s ability to cope with significant increases in passenger numbers.

    1 user thanked author for this post.

    Tallinnman
    Participant

    Hi – thinking that smaller aircraft can depart from the ‘new’ second runway allowing more efficient landing sequences on the main runway as not as many gaps have to be created to accommodate departing smaller aircraft.

    Once landing aircraft is clear of both active runways, the departing aircraft can roll on the active departing runway to be followed shortly by the next landing aircraft onto the separate active landing runway.

    Why wait until 2023? Wouldn’t it make sense to allow this procedure now but with a cap on movements at current levels until 2023 when the current agreement runs out. Guess fire response would have to be increased.

    Less fuel wasted in holding for arrivals, reduced delays on departure and more efficient operations?

    Madness – why wasn’t it thought of sooner 🙂


    openfly
    Participant

    From internal LGW sources, apparently the big announcement is tomorrow, the 18th Oct. I hope their insurers are happy with the plans to denigrate the safety. It will be interesting to see how they integrate the taxiway and an active second main runway in such close proximity to each other.


    LuganoPirate
    Participant

    I’ve always felt expanding LGW would be the better option, and to then build a high speed rail tunnel linking LHR to LGW, at a distance of 25 miles, would make airport transfers very quick and easy.

    1 user thanked author for this post.

    transtraxman
    Participant

    #898033 LuganoPirate´s suggestion of linking Gatwick with Heathrow with a fast direct rail route is one I have been proposing for years. At Heathrow the link could join the Heathrow to Reading link and thus connect both airports with the West. South Wales and even through Oxford to Birmingham. The missing part would be the high speed link from Gatwick to Ashford which would open up the possibilities of trains to Amsterdam and Brussels, as well as Paris. This rail link would help reduce the air traffic on these routes and provide breathing space for the airports. It also would divert traffic from the the “provinces” out of and past London so the pressure on the capital would be lessened. That could prove to be a great benefit to commuters.

    Gatwick airport´s Draft Master Plan 2018 is published before the final one next year after consultations with the public.It is indicated on the airport´s own website while also indicating the programmed public consultations.

    https://www.gatwickairport.com/masterplan2018

    From that page you can connect to the full document and a shorter summary document.

    1 user thanked author for this post.

    SimonS1
    Participant

    Hi – thinking that smaller aircraft can depart from the ‘new’ second runway allowing more efficient landing sequences on the main runway as not as many gaps have to be created to accommodate departing smaller aircraft.

    Once landing aircraft is clear of both active runways, the departing aircraft can roll on the active departing runway to be followed shortly by the next landing aircraft onto the separate active landing runway.

    <ins data-ad-format=”auto” class=”adsbygoogle adsbygoogle-noablate” data-ad-client=”ca-pub-6689620535744021″ data-adsbygoogle-status=”done” style=”display: block; margin: auto; background-color: transparent;”><ins id=”aswift_3_expand” style=”display: inline-table; border: none; height: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 272px; background-color: transparent;”><ins id=”aswift_3_anchor” style=”display: block; border: none; height: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 272px; background-color: transparent; overflow: hidden; opacity: 0;”><iframe width=”272″ height=”227″ frameborder=”0″ marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″ vspace=”0″ hspace=”0″ allowtransparency=”true” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen=”true” onload=”var i=this.id,s=window.google_iframe_oncopy,H=s&&s.handlers,h=H&&H,w=this.contentWindow,d;try{d=w.document}catch(e){}if(h&&d&&(!d.body||!d.body.firstChild)){if(h.call){setTimeout(h,0)}else if(h.match){try{h=s.upd(h,i)}catch(e){}w.location.replace(h)}}” id=”aswift_3″ name=”aswift_3″ style=”left:0;position:absolute;top:0;width:272px;height:227px;”></iframe></ins></ins></ins>

    Why wait until 2023? Wouldn’t it make sense to allow this procedure now but with a cap on movements at current levels until 2023 when the current agreement runs out. Guess fire response would have to be increased.

    Less fuel wasted in holding for arrivals, reduced delays on departure and more efficient operations?

    Madness – why wasn’t it thought of sooner 🙂

    And this is basically it.

    Minimal infrastructure changes and an extra 15-20 shirt haul take off (only) down the second runway.

    Just good common sense.

    Why wasn’t it thought of before – I’m sure it was but there is a legal agreement preventing use of a second runway before August 2019.

    I don’t believe there is any need to wait until 2023 other than due to need for consultations and planning consents as the second runway needs to be widened by 12m and a taxiway realigned and such things take time.


    canucklad
    Participant

    The title mentions “or other airports” , so I’m going to ask the question about EDI’s 2nd runway, yes it has 2 runways .

    The 2nd runway, from what I can observe is mainly used as a parking space for aircraft that aren’t going anyway fast.
    However it’s close proximity to the gates where FlyBe , Loganair and Aer Lingus arrive and depart would allow those smaller turbo-prop aircraft an option to depart /arrive quicker, due to shorter taxiing and not having to wait in the now regular queues at the main runway.

    Plus, dependant on flight paths expedite lesser fuel burns due to a more direct approach, rather than the current time consuming approach over the Forth estuary.


    AMcWhirter
    Participant

    The title mentions “or other airports” , so I’m going to ask the question about EDI’s 2nd runway, yes it has 2 runways .

    The 2nd runway, from what I can observe is mainly used as a parking space for aircraft that aren’t going anyway fast.

    Is that EDI’s original runway, Canucklad ?

    I ask because when I first used Turnhouse many decades ago the then single runway was susceptible to cross winds and occasionally flights had to be diverted to GLA.

    It may also have been a short runway but it could still cope with jet aircraft. I recall BUA (later to become B.Cal) used BAC 1-11s ex-LGW for all flights and BEA used Comet 4Bs ex-LHR at peak times.


    canucklad
    Participant

    Yes Alex, it’s the original runway ……
    And actually I’ve landed on it a couple of times on recent years, both flights operated by Flybe’s Q400’s and a short taxi to the gate.
    Valid point about crosswinds , and actually I’ve had more than my fair share of stomach churning (3 go a round’s) cross wind landings on the primary runway. Including a collective cabin sigh of relief after a roller coaster crab approach last month.
    I might be wrong, but I’m sure that the demolish gang have moved into the original terminal. Sad that part of our aviation history is now dust


    AMcWhirter
    Participant

    I might be wrong, but I’m sure that the demolish gang have moved into the original terminal. Sad that part of our aviation history is now dust

    It is sad, canucklad. My first domestic flight was EDI-LHR with a BEA Vanguard (a four-engined turbo prop) in the late 1960s.

    The then terminal was little more than a shed. And the arrival of BEA’s Vanguard from LHR was an event.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Be up-to-date
Magazine Subscription
To see our latest subscription offers for Business Traveller editions worldwide, click on the Subscribe & Save link below
Polls