FlightMan

LGW handles approx 800 movements a day, on one runway. LHR does 1350 on two, so mixed mode does in practice, squeeze more aircraft in. LHR's flow rate is normally 42 - 43 per hour. LGW can be over 50.
How does LGW do more with less? Well at LHR, as at all airports, sequencing the arrivals stream is the key. Imagine you have 3 aircraft wanting to land, an A319, a 747 and an A380. Ideally the 319 goes first, followed by the 747, folllowed by the A380. Due to wake vortex, the A319 would need ( and this isn't my field so bear with me ) approx 6 miles of clear air if it was behind either of the other two. The 747 would only need 2.5miles. So sequence correctly and you don't loose time. So, that's arrivals, and that is the same for each airport. What's different, and what answers your question, is departures. At LHR, you have an aircraft depart, then the next aircraft to go has to wait until there is sufficient seperation before starting it's take-off roll. At LGW, one aircraft departs, shortly afterwards an aircraft lands, and as soon as it's vacted the runway the next departure rolls. I used to work at LGW and you can easily get a departure, arrival and another departure in 90 seconds. You can see the advantage over LHR, where your timings were 90 secs ( sometimes 60 ) for two departures.

The ATC guys at LGW can cut down the number of gaps, and squeeze more aircraft in. The downside is LGW has far more go-arounds than LHR. LHR averages 20 per month, LGW over 30.

As I said, this isn't my field, but it's what I've gleaned from pilots and ATC staff in various meetings I attend.

DJ_Jon

iTrader: (7)

I really hope it doesn't get built. LHR is a ****e airport already, with far too much traffic already.

I spent 4 months working right next to LHR & the fecking noise & pollution is mental. whey the **** they don't expand a more remote airport, like Bristol, and have better rail links into London, baffles me.

I doubt it will happen anyway, Labour are unlikely to win the next election & the Tories have already said they would scrap the plans if they got into power.

While I can see the extra jobs it will create, surely improving LHR at its current site would create more jobs, both long & short term.

Flatcapdriver

Plus this should considerably improve congestion on the ground and given the requirement for ever larger ramp areas, again this should be alleviated.

FlightMan

I've spent 6 years working INSIDE THE AIRPORT, and don't think the noise is that bad. Am I unusual, or are you easily annoyed? It's all about perception. One man's maddening noise is another's background hum. I find my next door neighbours dog barking far more annoying than aircraft noise.

As for the idea of Bristol, I think you answered your own question. The only airline that flies to destinations over 100 miles away from where you want to be is Ryan Air!

And how much is a HSR link going to cost, how long will it take to build (East coast mainline anyone? ) and how many planning enquiries will it take?

Any major construction project like this has to do battle with NIMBYS. And they're everywhere!

DJ_Jon

iTrader: (7)

You said it yourself, you work inside the airport - its bloody well sound proofed, isn't it. I have spent many a Friday afternoon in BA's Terraces lounge, sipping whiskey & watching the planes - all without breaking my eardrums. On the other hand while walking to my office, in Hillingdon on the A4, several 747 - 400's pass overhead & it feels & sounds like the world is about to end

I'm not some anti aviation enviro-mental-ist either, I'm currently doing my PPL, but bugger me sideways with a fishfork, the noise that the aircraft at LHR produce is bonkers & to say we need more is double

I don't think I'm easily annoyed by aircraft noise I think you are just accustomed to the continual drone of gas turbines


Doesn't BA have a strong presence at Bristol or did all that go when Flybe bought BA Connect?

I hardly think I answered my own question though.

I'm sure they could knock one up by 2020 - which is the planned completion date for terminal 6 & the third runway. I've got no clue as to the cost, but I would guess its comparable to the 9bn they have estimated for the new runway, terminal & "Heathrow hub". After the debacle that is Terminal 5, I seriously doubt that it will come in on budget anyway, not that it matters as you & I will be footing the bill, regardless

Indeed & quite rightly so. I actually spend 5 days out of 7 living right next to a regional airport, at 6:15 the flights start taking off & it wakes me up - now I've lived with this for the last 26 years & I don't mind it too much as the flights aren't arriving or departing every 5 minutes & the aircraft are only either Dash 8 300's or GA stuff - but I would oppose the expansion of this airport with every last breath a it is smack bang in the middle of a residential estate & to expand it would require the compulsory purchase of a lot of land, much like the proposed 3rd runway at LHR.

bugeyeandy

With the best will in the world Bristol is abso-f-in-lutely no where near London! That's why.
If Heathrow is so crap now why build at Bristol and turn that in to much the same, I'm sure the Bristolians would have something to say about it.

I work at Heathrow for a large airline and I don't particularly want this to go ahead but if you look at it as a cold business decision there really is no other alternative. If Heathrow doesn't expand the traffic will go to mainland Europe and we'll be nothing more that a bus stop on the European tour. Might be a good thing envirnmentally if that happens but personally I don't want see the whole coutry working in Tescos and would prefer the Uk to invest in the future rather than roll over and die.

A great decision in the dying days of a s**te government

Jaybird-UK

I'll make it plain (plane?) and simple, what would you rather :

This


or

This

DJ_Jon

iTrader: (7)

Yep All I want for Christmas is another crazy Air-Hostess...

Bugeyeandy> I know what you are saying, but Bristol International isn't slap bang in the middle of Bristol (IIRC Filton is, but that isn't used for the same traffic as Bristol International.) - its on the outskirts. No matter where an airport is, its going to upset someone. I just don't see why we need more air traffic over London - Its not like I even live there either, but I feel strongly about this.

cster

Decisions, decisions

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

There's only any problem if you assume that there is any consistency whatsoever on environmental issues from this govt.

If there were, petrol, diesel, gas and electricity would be taxed at the same rate per unit CO2 produced, rather than at whatever rate is politically fashionable given their perceived necessity. But they're not, and by an enormous margin.

Just give up, Les - actual science has no place in this debate

FlightMan

1. When I said inside the airport, I meant inside the perimeter, I'm not cooped up in a soundproof office all day!

2. I'd suggest if a 744 over Hillingdon sounds to you like the world is coming to an end, you are sensitive to noise. If you'd said Concorde, well I'd agree with you.

3. No-one is saying we need more noise. Read the statement. 2,000,000 people inside the 57 contour in 1990, 250,000 inside it now. Aircraft are getting quieter. By 2019, the 787 and A345 will be onstream, and along with the A380 the old 744's will be pretty much gone. That will make a huge dent in the total noise output, and Co2 and NOx emissions too.

4. AFAIK, BA don't use Bristol. But I don't see what difference it would make if they did, who in their right mind would want to fly to Bristol, to visit London? They may fly from Southampton though. Should we start tarmacing the New Forest?

5.T5 is working fine thanks, and has been since about May last year. Sure day one was major, major ***** up, and it took 4 weeks to put right. But it's working sweetly now.

6. T5 never cost you a penny. It was paid for by BAA. Same for R3 and T6.

7. So you don't see major planning enquires, environmental damage and compulsary purchase orders for a HSR link? Look at the history of the TGV and see what our own version would bring!

8.As for living next to a regional airport, 5 days out of 7, so what? I live next to Farnborough 7 days a week. Big deal. If I didn't like it I wouldn't have moved here. If they wanted to expand, I'd find out what the plans were, and if I didn't like them, I'd move.

LHR has been there for 60 years. No-one living anywhere near it can say they weren't aware of it. As for the people of Sispon, I do feel genuinely sorry for them, but all this talk of " the beautiful village and it's history " make me sick. The place is sandwiched between LHR, the A4 and the M4, and frankly it's a dump. Village my @rse!

DJ_Jon

iTrader: (7)

Yep, you are right Flightman, what was I thinking.. all aboard for a third Runway!

Actually, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be more Airport expansion, but does it have to be LHR? if you are a transiting passenger, from what I gather these are the ones that the govt/BAA want to hold onto & increase, surely it doesn't matter where your plane lands & takes off from, if you never leave the airport & step foot on "British" soil?

Back to the noise issue - like I said, you are used to it - I & my colleagues found it extremely loud. Thats life, to you its just background noise & part of your daily job. If as you say these new aircraft do reduce noise then I'm all in favour

T5 did cost me money, the charges that BAA levied against BA for using their airport, the charges that BAA levied against Costa coffee etc to trade in the departure lounge - I didn't actually realise that the Govt didn't partly fund T5 (I'm still a bit skeptical on that one, but I will take your word for it) - so fair enough I didn't pay for it through taxation.

T5 may be working sweetly now, but as you say, it was an epic fail on BAA/BA's part. After they lost my luggage for the second time last year I now avoid BA at all costs.

I'll edit a further reply tomorrow, when my brain is cooperating

Turbo2

Thanks for your comprehensive reply FM. This is good news all round then: LHR doesn't need to spend all that money and upset all those people by building a 3rd Runway after all! They just need to employ the mix-mode system on the existing 2 strips. Going by your LGW model, they could automatically increase the traffic flow practically overnight by 17%. Job done.

I also fully agree with DJ Jon's comment about transit passengers not leaving the perimeter of the airport. The only money they spend in the UK goes to the stores renting space off BAA.

Call me cynical, but with BAA now having to sell off one or both of LGW & STN, they will stop at nothing to increase their revenue and provide every advantage to LHR, even if it's not the best option for everyone else.

As for the already hugely congested road system around LHR, don't get me started. I never know how long my journey to LHR is going to take me, unlike most other UK airports.

85rob

spot on, exacly what i think.

Flatcapdriver

That doesn't ease congestion around the airfield and if anything, particularly with an area like Heathrow utilising mixed mode to any greater extent will exacerbate the situation, plus as I've already explained the additional RWY will ease congestion round LAM/OCK and other holding points which will not only speed things up but also reduce emissions.

Fine but that misses the point as transiting UK airspace is a significant revenue generator for the Exchequer and given that its amongst the most expensive in the world, airlines need to be persuaded that its a worthwhile investment to retain landing slots. By allowing Heathrow an additional RWY, it can then operate more efficiently not only as an international hub but also regionally creating more jobs thus helping the UK retain its position amongst the top tier countries involved in the aerospace industry.

That's the south east for you. The same argument can be applied to Stansted or Gatwick but if you know the area well enough you can plan round congested times but remember, HMG is planning to improve the M25/3 and other roads around the area and given the success of the multi-lane section round Heathrow recently completed I'm all for it.

FlightMan

People on here crack me up. So many armchair experts.

OK, let's dump runway 3, go for mixed mode, and what happens? I'll tell you what happens, the millions of people, who I just know whose interests you have at heart, loose runway alternation. What does that mean? Well, instantly you, have increased the flights at the airport by 17%, (your figs) AND scrapped the 8 hours of peace runway alternation gives them. Mention that plan to them, then run and hide pal, because they'd string you up, and cut your ***** off. Job done? My ****.

If you'd read the consultation document, or been part of the roadshow team, you'd know that virtually without exception, everyone who responded wanted alternation to stay. Those who didn't were those at the western end who didn't benefit when we're on Easterlies, because of the Cranford agreement. ( Look it up ) Well, Cranford's been scrapped, about time well done Geoff Hoon, so now we can alternate on Easterlies as well, everyone will get that benefit.

As for the roads, yeah, it's congested, but as someone who drives there EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE WEEK, from J4 of the M3 to LHR, let me tell you how I find it. 95% of the time, I'll do it in 45 minutes. That's 07:15 to 08:00 right in the middle of rush hour. When I'm delayed, it's because of a queue from the M3 at J4 to J3 at Bagshot. Nothing to do with Heathrow. Then, coming off the M25 at J14, no problems, ever. If I take the T5 spur, no problems, ever. That nice new sliproad from the M25 to T5? Paid for by BAA.

Weds night we stopped over 180 aircraft from operating into the night, to give our residents some piece and quiet, because it was foggy. Not our fault, not the airlines fault, but we did it. People were squeezed onto other flights, or night stopped. Inconvenient for some pax, yes, but its an ababtement measure and we follow it. What do we get out of it, nothing but grief. Do you hear about that in the press? Of course you don't!

Heathrow is the most tightly regulated airport in the world, and a world leader in noise abatement. I should know, I have 5 - 6 arports a year come from all over the world to see how we do it. Most go away scratching their heads, wondering how we ever get an aircraft off the ground.

One example, I was in Washingtom meeting the guys who do noise from Baltimore airport. I asked them why they don't do Continuous Descent Approaches ( CDA) They told me the airport, with its 4 runways and 800 mvts per day ( remember LHR has 2 and 1350 mvts ) was too busy to implement CDA as the technique disrupts airport operations. When I gave her our figures, 82% over 24 hours, she looked very sheepish and mumbled they'd look into it.

That's it for me. I'm done with this subject.

Turbo2

Paragraph 1: this runway capacity argument seems to be going round in circles, a bit like the holding patterns over Essex and N London!

Paragraph 2: OK, but why does this have to be LHR? Why not LGW or STN: the airports that BAA might lose?

Paragraph 3: road improvements are always good news (after they'e been completed!). Like many people I don't live anywhere near the Hounslow area, so honestly wouldn't know a quick route to LHR from my previous home in SE Essex or my current home in E Northants, other than using the M25. I'd be amazed and delighted if there is one. I have rarely used LGW, but have driven myself to flights from STN and LTN dozens of times and the journey times are always pretty similar.

One final point regarding jobs: once again why does it have to be LHR? There are other areas of SE England that coul do with extra employment.

In conclusion, I frankly don't care if and where an extra runway is built, but what does get my back up is the way BAA and their political henchmen try to railroad all and sundry into accepting only what they want. If BAA had been forced to sell LHR rather than either/both of the other two airports, do you really think they would still be telling everyone that a 3rd runway at LHR is the best thing for Britain? Yeah, right....

Flatcapdriver

Quick summary then.

You can rule out LGW as there is a moratorium on the second RWY until 2016 as agreed with Sussex Council way back in the mists of time so forget that one.

Heathrow's third RWY has been in the consultation/planning stages for the last decade or so, long before the CAA insisted BAA loses it's monopoly so there's no railroading going on but simply picking the best option.

With your location, I can see why Stansted would suit you but for me, its a pain in the backside to get to so the moral is 'you can't please all of the people, all of the time'...

Having said that, the same objections have been used by NIMBIES at Stansted so whichever airfield was chosen the Government would be facing the same problems and realistically it takes so long to get into London from Stansted that most business travellers find it a pain.

DJ_Jon

iTrader: (7)

My thoughts exactly

FlightMan

LGW 2nd runway ban runs until 2019 and is between BAA and Sussex CC. When the airport is sold the ban could be null and void.

Extra capacity is required at LHR BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE/AIRLINES WANT TO FLY FROM. Simple as that, and if you don't believe it, when Alitalia sold some slots early last year, look how much those slots went for, £millions, and look how quickly they were filled. Delta, NWA, US Airways and Continental all left LGW in a heartbeat.

Leslie

I have in fact spent a good bit of time in the LHR holding patterns taking VIP VC 10's into and out of that airfield thank you. And yes I know it is a classic of course, one of the "real" passenger aircraft as most airline pilots will tell you, even while taxying around a civil airport!

I would certainly expect the aircraft to be physically able to take off and land on a 7200 foot runway of course but the decision speed for takeoff is going to be pretty low should they hope to stop in the remaining runway in case of a serious failure during the takeoff run. They might even be forced to reduce fuel loads to manage safely. You could well be in the situation where you would not be able to continue take off due to lack of speed but be unable to stop in the runway remaining and overshoot area if you had a normal fuel load on board.

That is why I consider a runaway as short as that to be rather surprising.

Les

Flatcapdriver

I don't know what you're referring to but early examples of the 747 are referred to as Classics.

stuart n

The plans are for 2020, sometime away yet. It'll be at least 5 years before work starts. At least yesterdays annoucement confirmed what we already knew, this government is anti car

Leslie

I thought what I was referring to was pretty clear at the beginning of my post.

Yes I remember seeing the first ever 747 doing a flypast at an air display at Offutt AFB in Nebraska. Quite a sight on those days.

Les

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

They only crack on about it so they can charge us more to drive etc. They're not that bothered really if you take them on their actions rather than words ...

TX.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

Eh! Hardly a debacle, they lost a few bags in first few days of opening & cancelled a few flights. Considering it cost £4.3bn (on budget BTW) and was built over a 6yr period, it sounds OK to me!

TX.

DJ_Jon

iTrader: (7)

Didn't they cancel 300 odd flights? ...I nearly LOL'd

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

LHR is their most lucrative airport ... hell would have to freeze over before they'd sell it!

TX.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

20 flights on Day One whilst 300 flew out fine ... it's a big terminal fella with 100s of flights a day.

TX.

FlightMan

I see the anti modern life brigade invaded T5 today, for some reasoned debate with key movers and shakers.

Did you walk there love?