Heathrow Runway 3 Approved

[Chris]

I think the key issue for London's air pollution problem is as Dave pointed out the amount of diesel road traffic. Sure planes probably don't help but I doubt they actually cause a significant amount of air pollution apart from in the near vicinity of the airport.

Having the 3rd runway should also in the short term reduce pollution as planes won't need to be stacked in holding patterns.

[Redirect Left]

I'm surprised London City hasn't been scrapped. It can't operate 24/7 due to noise restrictions, also has a lot of restrictions as to what can and can not fly from that airport due to the short runway and the steep glide required. Single engine aircraft and helicopters are also barred from the airport, except dire emergencies.
Furthermore, to lack of space for taxiing causes the airport to get very busy and rapidly descends into delays over very minor things. There is no space for maintenance of any kind at London City, due to the constraints of building an airport surrounded by water.

I go to a pub where the urinal is slightly to the left of the middle of the pub, in full view of all the customers.

Not entirely a bad thing, no?
Possibly just me though.

[Pilot]

I'm surprised London City hasn't been scrapped.

I'm not, it is mostly used for business passengers for accessing Canary Wharf (being only 20 minutes away).

It can't operate 24/7 due to noise restrictions

Nor can LHR, and LGW has severe restrictions on night flights.

also has a lot of restrictions as to what can and can not fly from that airport due to the short runway

London City has a runway capable of handling regional aircraft, to major business centres, and also have a Long-haul flight to New York's JFK (albeit the outbound flight makes a fuel stop in Shannon, Ireland, but this also doubles as an immigration stop for passengers). The runway has recently been approved a 1100 foot extension, which could open up the Airport to slightly bigger aircraft (more like what your LCCs use).

the steep glide required.

Whilst the glideslope at LCY is unique, it's not something that can't be overcome, after all, the A318s that fly there have been modified, and I imagine this to be possible on other types also. When opened LCYs Glideslope was 7 degrees, it is now just 5.5 degrees, so it's not as steep as it once was either (The average glideslope is 3 degrees).

Single engine aircraft and helicopters are also barred from the airport, except dire emergencies.

Many major airports ban such traffic. LHR, LGW and MAN don't allow Single Engine traffic anymore (MAN used to, my old college tutor was an instructor there!), but they may allow Heli traffic. LCY doesn't need this, thanks to the nearby Battersea Heliport.

Furthermore, to lack of space for taxiing causes the airport to get very busy and rapidly descends into delays over very minor things.

Backtracking on runways isn't uncommon, LBA and MAN (05R/23L only) use this as well, and it has potential to cause delays anyway.

There is no space for maintenance of any kind at London City, due to the constraints of building an airport surrounded by water.

The only Airline based at LCY are BA Cityflyer, they will likely use BAs Maintenance bases at CWL and CBG, instead of bothering with it at LCY, other airlines will do the same, so this is rather irrelevant really. Other airports don't have maintenance facilities, or room for maintenance also, but cope just fine.

I go to a pub where the urinal is slightly to the left of the middle of the pub, in full view of all the customers.

Not entirely a bad thing, no?
Possibly just me though.

Depends on who's using it

----
Abbreviations -
CBG - Cambridge Airport
CWL - Cardiff Airport
LBA - Leeds Bradford Airport
LCCs - Low Cost Carriers
LCY - London City Airport
LGW - London Gatwick Airport
LHR - London Heathrow Airport
MAN - Manchester Airport

[Redirect Left]

Well that was my post sufficiently rekt.
I shall return to my den with my tail tucked firmly behind my legs.

Sadly, I also understood all of the abbreviations. Wow I need a life

[Pilot]

Well that was my post sufficiently rekt.
I shall return to my den with my tail tucked firmly behind my legs.

Not rekt, just politely showing you why it's still there, the ways around some of the issues, and other examples of such things

Sadly, I also understood all of the abbreviations. Wow I need a life

My excuse is that I studied it! What's yours!

[Dave]

City and Battersea "close".

Psh. 90 minutes in a taxi.

I take your points, but a four runway Heathrow is inevitable - demand will meet capacity, etc. At that point why not follow the rest of the world's example and build a big airport outside ? Think of the infrastructure jobs... huge boost to the economy, etc, etc, etc.

FWIW Gatwick was my preferred choice of the two on offer. You then have two world class airports and two decent ones. Not one super airport and three decent ones.

As for your green credentials, chemtrails man... give us all cancer.

[Ameecher]

As well linked as Gatwick is, it is in the wrong place for the rest of the country to take on the role as a hub airport.

[Pilot]

City and Battersea "close".

Psh. 90 minutes in a taxi.

Closer than Heathrow and City And imagine that journey is only so long due to traffic.

I take your points, but a four runway Heathrow is inevitable - demand will meet capacity, etc. At that point why not follow the rest of the world's example and build a big airport outside ? Think of the infrastructure jobs... huge boost to the economy, etc, etc, etc.

Infrastructure jobs is only short term, and can a new bigger airport deliver the same economic benefits as an expanded Heathrow, after all, the costs of each project also takes away from the economic benefits. It's cheaper to expand what is already there than to build something completely new.

One of the things that intrigues me about the reasons for closing Heathrow was that they were saying that it would see the "Release of 2,500 acres (10 km2) of prime land at Heathrow, close to the M4 and with excellent rail links, highly suitable for housing redevelopment". Now one of the main reasons that is prime land is because of Heathrow. You close Heathrow, you take away one of the reasons it is prime land. I also doubt that an express service would be kept if Heathrow is closed, so you'd lose one of the 'excellent rail links' too.

FWIW Gatwick was my preferred choice of the two on offer. You then have two world class airports and two decent ones. Not one super airport and three decent ones.

I think Ameecher has given a good reason as to why Gatwick isn't as preferable. To get to Gatwick from the North, you have to get around the entirety of London, using that awful motorway known as the M25. Whereas with Heathrow you have the option of using the M40, M4, M1 (Yes, I'm aware that some of this involves the M25 too, but for a much shorter amount of time). Another reason Gatwick isn't preferable is the fact that you lost connectivity that is available at Heathrow. For example, if I wanted to go from Manchester to Shanghai, I would have to fly to Heathrow, and change to a Shanghai flight. All of that is possible thanks to Heathrow. If the Shanghai flight were to be moved to Gatwick, I would have to fly to Heathrow (no direct MAN-LGW flight anymore), get to Gatwick then fly from there adding an inconvenience onto my journey. Now I'm fairly familiar with London and the Transport system there. Imagine someone flying from Shanghai to New York via London, having to get off at Gatwick, then find there way through an unfamiliar city to Heathrow. Even if that direct rail link was built, it still wouldn't be as good as changing at LHR directly.

As for your green credentials, chemtrails man... give us all cancer.

You gone all hippy on us there Dave?

[supermop]

Imagine someone flying from Shanghai to New York via London,

That someone must be trying to rack up miles - there are plenty of direct PVG-JFK flights, and barring those, other options via SEA, SFO, or ORD, all quicker than via London.

Maybe that hits on something; apart from Americans going to the UK or to the Middle East, LHR doesn't have that much of a tight monopoly on being a hub for international flights to and from the US...

[Pilot]

That someone must be trying to rack up miles - there are plenty of direct PVG-JFK flights, and barring those, other options via SEA, SFO, or ORD, all quicker than via London.

Maybe that hits on something; apart from Americans going to the UK or to the Middle East, LHR doesn't have that much of a tight monopoly on being a hub for international flights to and from the US...

Not necessarily, sometimes it can be as simple as being cheaper to go the long way round.

And LHR used to have a monopoly, however, in recent times due to restrictions in Capacity, LHR cannot compete with places like AMS or CDG, which have many more runways than LHR. Remember, most flights from Europe even used to stop at LHR on the way to the US. Pan Am 103 (the flight bombed over Lockerbie) was flying from FRA to DTW via LHR and JFK (747-100s had the range to do a FRA-DTW flight non-stop too).

[Translink]

Another potential issue is that Boris island would be within close proximity of SS Richard Montgomery. Now, I wouldn't want to be there if something went wrong...

[Pilot]

Another potential issue is that Boris island would be within close proximity of SS Richard Montgomery. Now, I wouldn't want to be there if something went wrong...

The wreck will have to be removed eventually, so if an airport was to be built that process would be expedited. The last time something similar to that sort of removal was undertaken was 1967, and yes, that exploded, however, technology has moved on, and therefore, removing the wreck would be much safer today than it is now. At the end of the day, the ship is a safety hazard anyway, not just to construction of the airport, but to shipping in the Thames Estuary, and the sooner it's removed, the better.

[YNM]

... Whilst they wouldn't be over the Centre of London anymore, they would likely interfere with Amsterdam's Schipol Airport, potentially leading to longer arrival and approach paths at both, to avoid one another. ...

Interesting. Are approaches THAT long ?

[Pilot]

... Whilst they wouldn't be over the Centre of London anymore, they would likely interfere with Amsterdam's Schipol Airport, potentially leading to longer arrival and approach paths at both, to avoid one another. ...

Interesting. Are approaches THAT long ?

Indeed so, whilst the approaches are normally between 10-15 miles long (last time I landed at Heathrow, our approach was 20 miles long), and you have to take into account the fact that you would need flight paths to get to the approach. Then you'd have to take into account that you have Amsterdam's approach and arrival paths jutting out to work around too. Therefore, whilst they wouldn't be directly in each others way, there would definitely be interference and a reorganisation of the airspace there.