OT- may be a silly question RE Heathrow

[watsongooal]

All this talk of a third runway being built.

So with 5 terminals is it right that Heathrow only has 2 runways as I always presumed each termnial had its own?

 

[Medwayseagull]

Just two runways - Gatwick has one runway and two terminals.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

All this talk of a third runway being built.

So with 5 terminals is it right that Heathrow only has 2 runways as I always presumed each termnial had its own?

Yes, certainly only 2 runways for one of the busiest airports in the world. We need more capacity, but I don't know the right answer. Boris' estuary airport seems a bit fanciful - presumably cost far more than a land based solution. It always worries me that airports are built so close to major cities - any accident around take-off or landing would be horrendous. I don't know why they don't embiggen Gatwick

 

[Wardy]

Yes, certainly only 2 runways for one of the busiest airports in the world. We need more capacity, but I don't know the right answer. Boris' estuary airport seems a bit fanciful - presumably cost far more than a land based solution. It always worries me that airports are built so close to major cities - any accident around take-off or landing would be horrendous. I don't know why they don't embiggen Gatwick

What and knock down Crawley?



Oh wait that's not such a bad plan after all

 

[Badger]

What and knock down Crawley?



Oh wait that's not such a bad plan after all

I always like a plan with no drawbacks.

 

[beorhthelm]

Yes, certainly only 2 runways for one of the busiest airports in the world. We need more capacity,

we dont need more capacity. Gatwick and Stanstead have massive capacity surplus. Heathrow needs more capacity, or at least so its owners claim so it can continue in a dual business/tourism role. if its supposed to be about business travel, shift tourist destination traffic to Gatwick and Stanstead. when you hear "aviation" policy, read "Heathrow" policy, as they dont seem to talk about the wider aviation industry.

 

[Lethargic]

we dont need more capacity. Gatwick and Stanstead have massive capacity surplus. Heathrow needs more capacity, or at least so its owners claim so it can continue in a dual business/tourism role. if its supposed to be about business travel, shift tourist destination traffic to Gatwick and Stanstead. when you hear "aviation" policy, read "Heathrow" policy, as they dont seem to talk about the wider aviation industry.

Not quite true its all about being a hub not about single flights, the big international airports are the links to other countries ie if someone in Mexico wants to fly to Sweden then they would fly to a hub ie London, Amsterdam, Paris etc and change flights to get to Sweden. Heathrow can no longer compete with other European hubs and traveling by our "quaint" land transport system between Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead is not an option. I am sure the situation is exaggerated by the authorities but Heathrow is slipping behind the others.
OP you can have any number of terminals per runway terminals are more aligned to airlines, destinations etc than runways, ie T5 was build for British Airways only.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

we dont need more capacity. Gatwick and Stanstead have massive capacity surplus. Heathrow needs more capacity, or at least so its owners claim so it can continue in a dual business/tourism role. if its supposed to be about business travel, shift tourist destination traffic to Gatwick and Stanstead. when you hear "aviation" policy, read "Heathrow" policy, as they dont seem to talk about the wider aviation industry.

Gatwick and Standstead are not currently big enough, but by all means it certainly doesn't have to be Heathrow that get the business, just needs easy access to/from London.

 

[beorhthelm]

Not quite true its all about being a hub not about single flights, the big international airports are the links to other countries ie if someone in Mexico wants to fly to Sweden then they would fly to a hub ie London, Amsterdam, Paris etc and change flights to get to Sweden.

yeah, i get that, but the slots are chook full of flights to non-business destinations. how many business trips to Orlando or Malaga?

Gatwick and Standstead are not currently big enough, but by all means it certainly doesn't have to be Heathrow that get the business, just needs easy access to/from London.

its about capacity, how many flights you can land/take off. i recall Gatwick is somthing like 40% spare and Stanstead over 50%. the other week Gatwick's CEO was announcing they are putting in flights to Chinese and Brazilian cities and saying they have loads of capacity come on down to Sussex.

fact is theres is conflict of interest, the airport operator wants lots of volume from tourist but the airlines want to serve the more lucrative business routes. Heathrow's requirements has somehow become the byword for policy makers, so the whole discussion is centered around them.

 

[BLOCK F]

Not quite true its all about being a hub not about single flights, the big international airports are the links to other countries ie if someone in Mexico wants to fly to Sweden then they would fly to a hub ie London, Amsterdam, Paris etc and change flights to get to Sweden. Heathrow can no longer compete with other European hubs and traveling by our "quaint" land transport system between Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead is not an option. I am sure the situation is exaggerated by the authorities but Heathrow is slipping behind the others.
OP you can have any number of terminals per runway terminals are more aligned to airlines, destinations etc than runways, ie T5 was build for British Airways only.

Agreed.Sooner or later,Heathrow will have a third runway and Gatwick a second runway(when the agreement re no second runway expires).Sooner the better for the econmics of this country.

 

[Napper]

Another Cameron U turn on the cards. Couldnt make it up

 

[Waynflete]

Agreed.Sooner or later,Heathrow will have a third runway and Gatwick a second runway(when the agreement re no second runway expires).Sooner the better for the econmics of this country.

Why stop there? Hell, let's tarmac the whole of the South East. Wonderful thing, progress.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Heathrow needs an additional runway not only for increased capacity but to also enable it to operate more efficiciently with its current capacity. I can fully understand why business heads in the city are getting so worried as Schiphol was recently upgraded and now has 6 runways and Berlin will soon open a new hub airport. If you want Britain to be open for business then you need better and more efficient airports.

The coalition transport policy looks like it is in tatters at the moment what with the review of the farcical granting of First to take over Virgin rail.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Another Cameron U turn on the cards. Couldnt make it up

Joke of a government. Who is actually leading the country these days?

 

[DTES]

Heathwick. High-speed rail link between Heathrow & Gatwick - if it's as fast as HS1, or the St Pancras-Stratford Javelin it'll only be a 15 minute journey. You don't even need to "check out" as it'll be one big airport with the platforms at both ends within customs etc. Get the most out of Gatwick's capacity without taking all the business away from Heathrow.

Heathwick

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

i recall Gatwick is somthing like 40% spare

I find this very hard to believe especially given the noise for an extra runway.

 

[beorhthelm]

I find this very hard to believe especially given the noise for an extra runway.

so was i. i may have it 10% over, but its was a very large amount and was from some air industry analyst. there was a claim that capacity was available until 2030 at current trends. the noise is being made by Heathrow, which is rather my point. business leaders seem happier to back Heathrow as they can get in a cab from Canary Wharf/City/West End and be at the lounge within 30-45 minutes, not two hours through Brixtan, Streatham etc. I can see the strong case for Heathrow as a hub for business use, but the arguements are disingenuous.

the obvious answer is HeathWick of course. but i think Heathrow is against that because it will shift the volume passengers (tourists) away from them.

 

[Captain Sensible]

There should definately be a 3rd runway at heathrow first, before any silly plans for a new airport in the Thames that will take 20years to build.

If you buy a house near an airport, you have to expect a bit of noise. I live on a bus route, but instead I'll get up at 6am and ask the bus driver if he wouldn't mind turning off his engine and pushing his bus past my house because of noise.

 

[goldstone]

The short term solution in my opinion is:
1. Approve mixed-mode utilisation of Heathrow's existing two runways, i.e permit take-offs and landings from both runways at all times of the day, which will immediately add 15% more capacity to the airport. At present one runway is used for landings and one for take-offs and this is switched around at certain times of the day. The reason is to give nearby residents some respite from aircraft noise.
2. Extend operating hours at LHR. At present there is a night jet ban from 11pm to 5am. Thye ban should be restricted to midnight to 4am.
2. Make use of nearby Northolt airport for some short-haul flights in order to free up slots at LHR for services to new destinations.
3. Move any all-cargo flights and business jet flights to other London airports.

There would be almost no cost involved in this.

In addition we need to immedaitely start planning for a Thames Estuary airport and the associated infrastructure to replace Heathrow in the medium term as London's hub airport.

 

[Storer 68]

Yes, certainly only 2 runways for one of the busiest airports in the world. We need more capacity, but I don't know the right answer. Boris' estuary airport seems a bit fanciful - presumably cost far more than a land based solution. It always worries me that airports are built so close to major cities - any accident around take-off or landing would be horrendous. I don't know why they don't embiggen Gatwick

no room