[Anonymous]

[VintageKrug]

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/

[Age_of_Reason]

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.

[VintageKrug]

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.

[Age_of_Reason]

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.

[Age_of_Reason]

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?

[VintageKrug]

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-890×380.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.

[Age_of_Reason]

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?)

[Travellator]

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 !

[Age_of_Reason]

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.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

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.

[kellner]

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.

[Age_of_Reason]

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).

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

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.

[VintageKrug]

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

[Author]

Posts