[VintageKrug]

Good point about Cathay; HK is not somewhere I travel to so CX is off the radar for me.

I think the point is, fundamentally, that whereas in the past you needed to be in the same terminal to easily transfer that in future the T2/T3 transfer will be significantly easier and so the need to co-location between those two terminals will significantly diminish.

KJ, I think you’ll be impressed by Gatwick North. The No. 1 Traveller Lounge is well worth booking in advance/taking along your Priority Pass for access:

http://www.no1traveller.com/gatwick-airport-lounges-north.htm

[IanFromHKG]

VK, your points are well taken

The verb, incidentally, is “co-locate”. If you did mean to use the noun, it should have read “for co-location”

I know how important you feel it is to correct posters’ incorrect English (smile)

[LHREXPANSION2012]

It seems that T5 could/will be expanded to the south with additional satelites T5D AND T5E!

C:\Users\Darren\Pictures\airports and aircraft\ea079178-598b-11e1-8d36-00144feabdc0.gif

[VintageKrug]

Just a typo, alas!

T5D and T5E as well as a southern extension for T5 itself are all possible; the D satellite is very much on the cards once T2 is completed.

Of course if a new hub is decided, then that T5E and T5South would be off the menu.

[AnthonyDunn]

@ VintageKrug – 13/09/2012 10:54 GMT

You say that BA is keen to get out of the “Third World Hell-hole of T3” but the advantage it has is a direct baggage link to T5 opening this year/opened this year. Is there a comparable baggage link between T5 and any other LHR terminal? This would clearly explain why BA would wish to retain the use of T3 – for purely operational reasons.

[VintageKrug]

Good point. But it’s always good for BA to have influence at every terminal – especially when T2 will be considerably better Thant T3; remember BA ran MIA wxT3 for many years for this very reason.

[LeTigre]

T3 is not quite the hell-hole as it has many A380-capable stands and several of Heathrow’s best lounges. However, it could be a lot better.

There is definitely room at the Southern end of T5A to extend it about 50-100m, however, this would be hugely expensive, majorly disruptive and only add about 3-4 of those all important aircraft stands.

In contrast T5D would add about 15-16 aircraft stands with jetties meaning roughly a net gain of about 8ish stands compared to the current parking slots now available.

Where would T5E go though?

[LHREXPANSION2012]

@LeTigre

I would expect an enlarged T5A would boost capacity by about 10-15million, the T5E would be roughly where the current Pier 7 is on T3 where the Virgin birds hang out 🙂

By 2030 the central area could have a capacity for approx 90-100M coupled with T4(10M) and a possible T6(35M) thats is around 135-145M. This is the sell that BAA could use to make the Estuary airport (150M capacity) seem not that much of a gain.

[VintageKrug]

…except that an Estuary Airport would have scope to deliver upwards of 200m+ with additional runways and terminals, possibly up to six runways all in use 24 hours a day and terminal capacity added as needed.

Heathrow would struggle ever to deliver more than 90-100m and then only if a hugely destructive short Third Runway was constructed and with considerably more crowded facilities.

And all the above while chemical and noise pollution rains down on central London and the opportunity of a generation to develop land East of London and transform the Heathrow site into a mixed use, wealth generating site which would be an asset for years to come.

[LHREXPANSION2012]

@VintageKrug

Good reply to my last, one of your more constructive ones. You do have a point, i like the sound of this Estuary Airport to be honest but unless they close Heathrow, which i doubt they will, then i just don’t see how it could function as a Hub….pity really as it seems a great idea as London could maintain it’s position as home to the World’s busiest International airport as i can’t see LHR hanging on to that title for more than another five years.

[AnthonyDunn]

@ LHREXPANSION2012 – 18/09/2012 05:46 GMT

Clearly, for any mooted Thames hub/ Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Dubai Sovereign Wealth Fund International Airport to function commercially, those airlines operating from LHR would have to move to the new airport and LHR would, eventually, have to be wound up to become a business park and massive housing development. But that is exactly what has been done in HKG, in MUC and (eventually) in BER. Sure, it’s an expense and an organisational/ logistical issue but, if others can do this (and the UK has shown this Summer that we can [EDIT: “more than merely”] organise a p*** up in a brewery), then should we be able to do this as well.

[VintageKrug]

…and to continue the love-in, I also like the sound of a Third Runway. Indeed, had it been constructed in the early 1990s, alongside T5, then we would have avoided the unpleasantness that was Heathrow in the early 2000s.

Having said that, LCY has picked up a considerable amount of the slack for shorthaul, so we should not underestimate the effect of that runway and terminal which did effectively provide the Third Runways capacity, and was only properly exploited in the mid/late 1990s.

However, with the size of aircraft increasing and pollution and noise becoming more of a focus globally, as well as the inexorable growth in air travel (much more than was reasonably predicted) it is clear that this short Third Runway cannot provide the capacity needed.

It is also clear to me that far from being a problem, closing LHR and using its land for alternative developments is actually one of the more exciting prospects which the Thames Hub brings with it.

I thought this summer’s events were certainly rather more than a piss up in a brewery; even more than a cheese and wine.

Perhaps an evening soiree in a vineyard might be a more appropriate analogy.

There are certainly lessons to be learned from other re-sitings of airports, and not all have been successful (is it Mirabel which is always dredged up? – but that was a long time ago and had its own issues, not least fundamental lack of demand from which a Thames Hub would never suffer).

But many HAVE been successful, and it’s time we as a nation built this extension, otherwise many of us will be forced to move house.

PS I like your proposed name, though it might end up being the Hu Jintao Wind and Sail Ferry Terminal if the oil runs out or the Middle East self-implodes.

Developing Heathrow into alternative uses does seem to be ahuge positive on many levels.

[BigDog.]

BA appears to be a proponent of Hub and Spoke.

Traffic between hubs will use long runways and A380 types.

Traffic between hubs and spokes are fine with small, more efficient aircraft and shorter runways.

A short runway could be fully utilized.

[LHREXPANSION2012]

@BigDog

Well said! i can tell you are very Pro Heathrow and it’s 3rd runway, for sure a 2200m runway could handle 250,000+ movements per year and relieve the two 12000ft+ runways for the Heavies. This could enable a multitude of opportunities for the airport to expand and if they could put a 4th runway 385m south of 27L/09R then they would have the biggest aiport in Europe in terms of hourly aircraft capacity. If we look at ORD for example and how they are adding runways we can get a bigger picture of the way aircaft can take-off/land

e.g New LHR 3rd runway – 1500M North of 27R/09L in Mixed Mode = 250,000atms +

Current 27R/09L used in Mixed Mode = 250,000atms+
Current 27L/09R used for take-offs with the new
close-parallel runway to the south used for landings = 380,000atms

New total capacity for LHR with all 4 runways would be close on a whopping 900,000atm’s per year…this is not an impossible dream, it’s exactly what BAA know and HACAN very much know, about this possibilty.

[LeTigre]

As interesting as your statistics are, this thread is about T5.

A question: when will T5D finally get built?

[Author]

Posts