Heathrow Expansion

[adb968008]

BA have only 12 A380's and recently had the opportunity to take on a couple more from Singapore Airlines, who are now replacing some of their own A380 fleet with smaller A350's.

BA considered it but decided not to increase the size of their present A380 fleet.

 

Although some of the earliest ones have gone to the desert, they still have a sizeable fleet of 747-400's, but these are now very old and will be retired in a few years time.

They have a large fleet of A350's on order, which will in part replace the 747's.

The 787's are smaller and have replaced most of the BA fleet of 767's, of which only a small handful have been retained for use on European and domestic routes.

 

 

.

Which brings us right back to the point. Boeing was right back in 2003, when they said the future isn’t in large planes once a day, it’s small planes multiple times a day.

 

That means more space is needed on the ground, to handle an increased number of flights of a smaller size.

This is why LHR needs the runway, but also shows why regional airports will benefit too.

Hubs will always be hubs, but small planes can now go to more smaller but long haul distance airports than the past.

 

I always look amazed at seeing those Air Canada A320’s at LHR every day a little plane covering the Atlantic, but in the future market aircraft could see places like BHX with a market to San Francisco, whilst equally BA could find a route like LHR to Manchester (New Hampshire) as worthwhile.

 

As an aside I couldn’t help but laugh at Tim Clarke’s “revolutionary” idea of an aircraft without windows but fake LED displays, i’m Not convinced on the savings of a £5-10k per window LED complete with supporting IT server racks against a window... but a planeless window exists already... it’s called a cargo plane... all he’s doing is proposing turning people into cattle,why not dispense with the LED and give everyone an iPad with oval corners.

I doubt that will take off.. the least popular rooms on cruise ships are interior rooms, which come with fake led portholes...I for one won’t be rushing to fly on it.

Edited June 6, 2018 by adb968008

[Mike Storey]

At least this announcement has diverted attention away from the GTR and Northern troubles......for the moment.

[Legend]

Which brings us right back to the point. Boeing was right back in 2003, when they said the future isn’t in large planes once a day, it’s small planes multiple times a day.

That means more space is needed on the ground, to handle an increased number of flights of a smaller size.

This is why LHR needs the runway, but also shows why regional airports will benefit too.

Hubs will always be hubs, but small planes can now go to more smaller but long haul distance airports than the past.

I always look amazed at seeing those Air Canada A320’s at LHR every day a little plane covering the Atlantic, but in the future market aircraft could see places like BHX with a market to San Francisco, whilst equally BA could find a route like LHR to Manchester (New Hampshire) as worthwhile.

As an aside I couldn’t help but laugh at Tim Clarke’s “revolutionary” idea of an aircraft without windows but fake LED displays, i’m Not convinced on the savings of a £5-10k per window LED complete with supporting IT server racks against a window... but a planeless window exists already... it’s called a cargo plane... all he’s doing is proposing turning people into cattle,why not dispense with the LED and give everyone an iPad with oval corners.

I doubt that will take off.. the least popular rooms on cruise ships are interior rooms, which come with fake led portholes...I for one won’t be rushing to fly on it.

Yep agree it’s all about frequencies . Boeing appears to have called it correctly by concentrating on smaller aircraft. I think the Air Canada flights you refer to are actually 737s which now have range to cross Atlantic. In Glasgow I now see Westjet using them to Halifax/Toronto.

[Legend]

Deleted

Edited June 7, 2018 by Legend

[Fenman]

Yep agree it’s all about frequencies . Boeing appears to have called it correctly by concentrating on smaller aircraft. I think the Air Canada flights you refer to are actually 737s which now have range to cross Atlantic. In Glasgow I now see Westjet using them to Halifax/Toronto.

Air Canada has previously operated a teeny-tiny A319 on its LHR to St John’s route, though I think that’s now replaced by a 737MAX.

 

But I’m not sure you’re right about it being “all” about frequency. The original question for Airbus and Boeing was whether in future airlines would predominantly use a hub-and-spoke model (the legacy US carriers are obsessed with this), or whether they would move to direct flights between secondary airports (still in the US, new carriers like Frontier have a business model where they *only* provide direct flights, usually between two secondary destinations).

 

The 787 was designed to improve economics on the latter, and we’re seeing some of those routes beginning to emerge. The larger A350 was a response to that, and again we’re seeing some new routes opening up (Singapore has just announced some).

 

The picture is a bit complicated because both new planes offer greater range - hence Qantas opening up LHR non-stop to Perth.

 

But frequency in transport is a tricky business because there are lots of forces at play other than just customer demand: remember bus deregulation, where operators started throwing frequency at routes in order to crush their opponents - and usually timing their own busses to depart just 1 or 2 minutes before their rivals?

 

A choice of 2 or 3 flights (or more!) a day is a nice luxury for me. But for my work travel I’m not distraught if there’s only one flight a day - or, actually, if it’s every other day. To take one example, a single daily flight to the massive commercial city of São Paulo is fine. Factors like length of flight (and consequent exhaustion) along with time zone shifts mean I anyway need to allow some down time around the trip. It’s always nice to have the option of getting home a few hours earlier (or later!) by taking a different flight, but it actually makes little difference over the course of a work trip.

 

Thrusting Turks who are younger and fitter than me may value every lost second as a money-making opportunity, but I think they’re mostly living in a bit of a fantasy world where their own importance is perhaps exaggerated. Rio de Janeiro has 6 BA flights a week and, last month, the day I wanted to travel was the one day with no flight. I just went the day before. Like many road warriors, much of my life involves remote working, so it’s just not a big problem.

 

Paul

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

 

 

All in all, I can see little alternative to Heathrow expansion. Let's not forget that under Sir Howard Davies, an extensive process considering all the facts with detailed testimony from airlines, airports, users and numerous experts considered the issues of where to expand UK airport capacity. They concluded Heathrow.

 

A fairly typical Govt enquiry/consultation. How often have you seen one come up with a different answer to that which Govt wanted?

 

It's all down to Sir Humphrey choosing the right chairman,

[Joseph_Pestell]

"North-West of London"? Where abouts are you thinking there? Inside the M25, maybe demolish Rickmansworth? Or were you thinking outside of the M25 and squashing it between your Chalfonts?

 

Fair question.

 

Clearly we need to be outside the M25 to find the space and we want good connectivity on the ground, both rail and road.

 

Oxford - Cambridge "Expressway", HS2, Oxford - Milton Keynes (Cambridge) railway, redundant land (ex quarries), flat ground.

 

It's obvious where it should be.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell

[PMP]

A fairly typical Govt enquiry/consultation. How often have you seen one come up with a different answer to that which Govt wanted?

 

It's all down to Sir Humphrey choosing the right chairman,

Successive governments of all colours have had their heads in the sand since the 1970’s. The continuation of expansion and infrastructure at Heathrow and in its vicinity particularly through the 1980’s and 1990’s, have meant that a third runway at Heathrow was always going to be the answer. Not one of them however had the courage to make the stand.

 

It has however supported a lucrative and vibrant industry in the transport planning sector on imagining and proposing unfeasible solutions to the answer ‘Heathrow’.

Edited June 7, 2018 by PMP

[Ron Ron Ron]

It's obvious where it should be.

 

 

It's those darned Chiltern hills.

Who put them there?

 

Seriously though, this is no longer a question of where best to put a new airport.

The debate has been had and that ship sailed some time ago.

The government has finally chosen to allow expansion at Heathrow.

If for whatever reason, that doesn't come to pass, the fallback position will almost certainly be the Davies Commissions' second choice, Gatwick.

 

 

.

[PMP]

I

 

The government has finally chosen to allow expansion at Heathrow.

If for whatever reason, that doesn't come to pass, the fallback position will almost certainly be the Davies Commissions' second choice, Gatwick.

 

 

.

Highly unlikely, Gatwick is ‘south of the river’ and in the wrong place geographically. The additional volume of surface traffic from the north and west that would have to drive past Heathrow’s front door to get to Gatwick, would be unsustainable both in road as well as rail terms.

[Horsetan]

Eventually LHR's third runway may not be enough, and we might see much of the surrounding area absorbed by an ever-expanding LHR.

 

I think there was a mention a while back in this thread of the wisdom of having a more centrally located airport for all of Britain. Wouldn't Birmingham International fit the bill perfectly, with room to expand for more "world cl-ars*" flights from overseas?

Edited June 7, 2018 by Horsetan

[bike2steam]

So here we go again. Govt has decided that there should be a third runway at Heathrow.

 

I totally understand the need for a third runway (at least) so that we have a world-class hub airport.

 

But isn't this an opportunity to go back to the drawing board and put the main London airport where it should be - i.e. north-west of London where it is easily accessible from the rest of the country.

 

That might seem like an expensive option and in gross cost terms it is. But in net costs, it could cost a lot less. Imagine how much money could be recovered once the new airport was open by selling off Heathrow for mixed-use housing and commercial development. It is ideally suited for this with all the main infrastructure in place. The existing terminal buildings would become shopping malls (which they are already in effect).

 

A quick back of an envelope calculation (fag packets no longer allowed) suggests that the land at Heathrow is worth £60bn. So, added to the £19bn cost of the third runway, there is scope to spend £79bn on an all new airport.

 

I love it, I can see the logic, BUT the Chiltern/SE Cotswold nimby lobby is very powerful - light the blue touch paper, laugh, and run!!!!

[PMP]

Unfortunately not Ivan, due to the concentration of population within the southeast, hence the emphasis on the London region. The ideal would have been the Cublington proposal, (in effect Milton Keynes), with subsequent infrastructure development to allow rapid transit from the London area, as well as other regions. In 1971 the Maplin (Essex ) proposal was selected over the Cublington plan, and then subsequently cancelled by Labour in 1974. These early flawed decisions set in process the answer ‘Heathrow’.

[PMP]

I love it, I can see the logic,

I can’t regardless of the environment lobby which will be massive regardless of location. Reading the proposal for me is like “3,2,1 You’re back in the room”, dealing with politicians and councillors with no idea of the subject to hand. Providing operational data into the RUCATSE report was an eye opener into the levels of ignorance, and grasp of reality across the political spectrums and boundaries from parish councillors to ministerial level on aviation and the environment.

 

There’s two immediate problems, the M1 corridor, already massively congested and bursting at the seams, M1 rush hour anyone?, and Luton Airport. Luton has 12 million passengers per year with around 135,000 aircraft movements. Those passengers largely use the M1 corridor. If you close the airport those 12m pax and 135k flights will need to be redirected. If they go to the new airport you’ve already massively underestimated its impact operationally and environmentally. If Luton stays open you’re now adding new Heathrow to the M1 corridor and have to manage the airspace to accommodate the new traffic, and Luton and Stansted. You need a bigger envelope to write the money number on.

And the answer to the above paragraph is ‘Heathrow ‘

[Clearwater]

Eventually LHR's third runway may not be enough, and we might see much of the surrounding area absorbed by an ever-expanding LHR.

 

I think there was a mention a while back in this thread of the wisdom of having a more centrally located airport for all of Britain. Wouldn't Birmingham International fit the bill perfectly, with room to expand for more "world cl-ars*" flights from overseas?

I believe that Birmingham has issues with the length of its runway and that it would be very expensive to extend.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I love it, I can see the logic, BUT the Chiltern/SE Cotswold nimby lobby is very powerful - light the blue touch paper, laugh, and run!!!!

 

Of course they are. But so is the much larger number of people in West London - many of them in marginal constituencies.

 

Not only financially but politically, replacing Heathrow rather than expanding it (and then possibly expanding again in future) works well. It's not for nothing that the ultra-populist BoJo came up with the idea of an airport on the Thames east of London.

[chris p bacon]

I think there was a mention a while back in this thread of the wisdom of having a more centrally located airport for all of Britain. Wouldn't Birmingham International fit the bill perfectly, with room to expand for more "world cl-ars*" flights from overseas?

 

 

Birmingham......It's even got its own promotional film.......

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EGWCG8fq9A

 

.....This is my kind of town.....says Telly Savalas

[Ron Ron Ron]

I believe that Birmingham has issues with the length of its runway and that it would be very expensive to extend.

 

 

Birmingham's runway has recently been extended.

The site is now quite constrained.

Any further expansion of runway length or capacity will require a new runway, positioned some distance from the present airport site.

This would ultimately also lead to the need for larger terminal capacity, which would also have to be located towards the new runway site.

The favoured location for this is to the east of the NEC, M42 and HS2 Birmingham Interchange station.

 

However, Birmingham Airport is not going to be the solution to London and the south east's need for additional airport capacity.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Ron Ron Ron

[bike2steam]

I know the ideal location - Chequers  .

Edited June 7, 2018 by bike2steam

[Ron Ron Ron]

Highly unlikely, Gatwick is ‘south of the river’ and in the wrong place geographically. The additional volume of surface traffic from the north and west that would have to drive past Heathrow’s front door to get to Gatwick, would be unsustainable both in road as well as rail terms.

 

You are absolutely right regarding surface transport infrastructure, however, if for whatever reason the decision to go ahead with Heathrow R3 is thwarted by, for example the HoC vote, legal challenges, or the weight of other political pressures, what is the (a) government to do?

 

Do they attempt to kick it into the long grass again and instigate yet another commission?

I venture to say that time has finally run out on that option as it's perfectly transparent that successive administrations have been doing this for some 30 years.

It simply won't wash anymore and political opponents (of whatever hue) will make much (deserved) capital from such a crass move.

 

The Davies Commission shortlisted 3 options and prioritised its recommendations.

Whoever the government happens to be, the commission's recommendations provide a ready alternative if needed.

 

As for geography, Gatwick is not located in the best place with regards to the whole of the SE of England, but one only has to look at the detailed analysis of where Heathrow's originating and terminating passenger traffic is coming from and going to, to see that Gatwick is actually not that badly placed for most of Heathrow's passengers.

As you say, the existing surface infrastructure (Motorway, road and rail links) would not be able to cope with such an expansion at Gatwick, without major investment in additional routes and surface transport capacity.

 

Ron

 

.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Ron Ron Ron

[Nick C]

 

However, Birmingham Airport is not going to be the solution to London and the south east's need for additional airport capacity.

 

 

I'm not so sure about that - they keep telling us that HS2 will bring London-Birminham time down to 49 minutes. Compare that with the existing airports - Gatwick 30 minutes, Heathrow 22-35 minutes, Luton 1hr, Stanstead 45 minutes - and it doesn't look so bad. 

 

It's also much easier to get to from everywhere that isn't London - for example I can get a direct train from here (Basingstoke) to Birmingham International in 1h48m - Heathrow takes 1h44m with two changes, despite being only a third of the distance! The last couple of times I've flown from Heathrow I've ended up having to drive (just over half an hour, depending on traffic) as it's such a pain to get to by public transport, if you're not going to/from central London...

[Ron Ron Ron]

.... I discovered a few weeks ago that 25% of passengers at Heathrow are simply transferring from one international flight to another....

 

 

According to HAL's own figures, it's actually 30%.

Some is domestic to international and v.v., but the vast majority is international to international.

 

 

On a wider note, I'm not sure if it helps, but in an effort to "inform the discussion", here are some factual statistics.

(Source the CAA annual passenger survey and airline booking data)

 

Looking at the number of Heathrow's terminating passengers (i.e. starting or ending their air journey at Heathrow and not transferring between flights).

 

76.1% are travelling to/from the SE of England.

Of that number, 69.6% are travelling to/from Greater London (i.e. 53% of the total).

 

to/from the S & SE of Heathrow.

(Kent, East & West Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire & the IOW) = 13.1%

(the same counties plus Berkshire) = 17.9%

 

Therefore from the lower Thames Valley (Berks) in a lower arc round to Kent, plus Greater London = 70.9%

 

Add Buckinghamshire (2.2%), Oxfordshire (3%) - the extremities of both are not that far away from the airport = 76.1%

 

The percentage of Heathrow passengers travelling to/from Heathrow from the W Midlands (2.5%) and E Midlands (2.5%) = 5%

 

The percentage of Heathrow passengers travelling to/from the NW, Yorks & Humberside, NE and Scotland, by surface transportation = 2.1%

 

 

The percentage figures for the remaining areas served by Heathrow are difficult to interpret.

 

The South West = 6.9% ...but from where?

This includes the largish population centres of east Dorset (Christchurch, Bournemouth, Poole and the surrounding hinterland) and Wilts, which should really be included with Hampshire and the IOW.

The rest of the SW includes Bristol and Glocestershire, which you could argue, is partially within reach of Birmingham.

Then there is the SW proper, if you can call it that. A long way from any large airport.

 

Wales = 1.8% 

Again difficult to access whether from the south, north or wherever.

 

Eastern England = 8.3%

This includes the M1 corridor, extending from just to the north and east of London - Herts, Beds & Essex to Northants, Cambridgeshire, Peterborough, Suffolk and Norfolk.

Another wide and diverse area, including from just outside outer London, through the London commuter belt to the further reaches of East Anglia and the Wash.

 

 

Cut the data anyway you want, but it demonstrates conclusively that Heathrow is predominately serving Greater London, the SE of England and the near Home Counties.

 

 

 

 

.

[PMP]

L

 

The Davies Commission shortlisted 3 options and prioritised its recommendations.

Whoever the government happens to be, the commission's recommendations provide a ready alternative if needed.

 

Ron

 

.

In the event of a no go I think the option a realistic government would choose, allowing for future proofing, would remember Stansted. The core infrastructure and space is already there. The A14/A1/M1/M11 links are all upgrading or upgraded since RUCATSE, the station as I recall is also built with pre planned expansion, as is the airport operational infrastructure. It minimises the M25 south to northwest quadrant impact particularly with the A14 links now being viable, or will be by the time the first sod for the runway is cut. Why my emphasis on road accessibility? Because that’s where the customers will predominantly arrive from, as well as the suppliers and support for airport operations. Historically the greatest amounts of air pollution around airports came from road vehicles airside and especially landslide, I.e. passengers.

 

A number of us across a couple of airports thought with RUCATSE that either Stansted would get it, or ‘they’ would do nothing. We were right on the second part at least.

 

If ever there were an example of mad ideas from uninformed politicians (any colour) and a free lunch for transport planners anc consultants, Boris Island is it...

[Ron Ron Ron]

I'm not so sure about that - they keep telling us that HS2 will bring London-Birminham time down to 49 minutes. ...

 

 

That will suit people travelling between London and Birmingham Nick, but have you considered the practicalities of moving additional vast numbers of people over that distance, to an airport that's not only too far away from the city it's supposed to be serving, but almost halfway across the country?

 

For arguments sake, in a worst case scenario, if you were to take all the passengers travelling from Greater London alone to/from Heathrow and put them on a HS2 train, the system couldn't cope.

That's not including all those travelling to/from the rest of the SE who would also have to use HS2.

 

Heathrow is handling some 80 million p.p.a.

56 million are non-transit passengers.

Some 30 million plus are travelling to/from Greater London

Over 365 days a year and 18 hours a day that equates to approx. 4500 passengers per hour, or 5,6 trains carrying 800 people per hour on top of the regular London - Birmingham rail traffic.

But demand wouldn't be evened out like that. There would be peaks where demand would be four or five fold that average hourly rate.

How could HS2 accommodate an extra 20 trains per hour in the peak period, let alone an extra 5 per hour?

It would require another HS2 to be built.

That hypothetical scenario doesn't allow for any growth either.

 

Alternatively, if it was a case of capping Heathrow traffic at present levels and diverting additional passenger growth to Birmingham, then there's still a problem.

With growth producing say an additional 20 million p.p.a., with those additional passengers routed via Birmingham, you would still need at least an average of 4 extra HS2 tph.

In the peaks that would need 14-16 extra tph.

You still need to build another HS2.

 

I haven't mentioned any allowance for non-airport HS2 passenger growth.

 

The figures can be played around with and other scenarios can be developed.

It is food for thought and shows the scale of the problem when looking to put very large numbers of additional passengers onto an already busy rail network.

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

In the event of a no go I think the option a realistic government would choose, allowing for future proofing, would remember Stansted.

I personally think the commissions analysis of Stansted as a candidate was deeply flawed.

How it was dismissed so easily deserves severe examination.

 

However, as it was crossed off during that exercise, I cannot see any government arbitrarily choosing Stansted without convening another commission or holding another enquiry, to overturn the evidence they already have in front of them.

More delays, more cost, the grass gets longer.

 

 

 

If ever there were an example of mad ideas from uninformed politicians (any colour) and a free lunch for transport planners anc consultants, Boris Island is it...

Absolutely true.

 

For the benefit of anyone who didn't follow the issue that closely; the name Boris Island was actually given to several different proposals two of which Boris backed in turn.

It ended up not being Boris Island at all, as Boris ended up backing Norman Foster's Isle of Grain/Hoo peninsula scheme and not an island in the estuary.

 

 

.