Transport Tycoon Forums

Kevo00 wrote:Looking at the map of Schipol, it would suggest that perpendicular runways are fine, so they could also accommodate one running roughly north-south between Charlwood and Horley, and one across the M23 between Smallfield and Copthorne. Bingo, our problems are solved, a 4 runway hub with motorway and mainline rail access and no need to build an island.

However Perpendicular Runways can only be used in certain Wind Conditions. Amsterdam has a lot of Wind Chnges so they need the Perpendicular Runways, where as at Gatwick it probs wouldn't be so.

Parallel runways are favourable as they'd allow the existing flight corridors (give or take) to be maintained, you build a perdenicular runway you're suddenly going to p*** off a hell of a lot more of Sussex.

Hehe that's true. You could make the Smallfield one a parallel I guess with a bit more taxiing.

British Airways certainly doesn't want to move to a new airport. BA, of course, definitely did want the third runway, as they literally can't grow any more at LHR without getting slots from other airlines (see, for instance, the current bmi purchase).

Alan Fry wrote:I support this idea, but I fell that in the long term, this airport should replace all of Londons Main airports!

I must disagree there completely I'm afraid.

Heathrow is in a perfect location as it is in close proximity to central London, strong (though busy) road links and in an area that is not too densely populated.
The only issue for transport is that there are not enough rail links to the airport and the existing ones, Heathrow Express and Connect, are extortionately expensive!
Heathrow does need expansion but no one could have expected when it was built that it would become so busy. Realistically, so much land around the airport shouldn't have been built upon leaving the airport open to expand in the future. Unfortunately, no matter what solution is put forward, people will always go up in arms and protest against it. I dare say, even if there were ways to create a power station that was 100% clean and provided free energy, people would still try and say no to it (that's how much faith I have in our race these days..)

As for replacing all London airports, I do believe that's a terrible idea. Especially when you factor in how much traffic each one deals with as well as the types of traffic.

Heathrow for instance deals mainly with the high-standard airlines, intercontinental, major freight etc. Such as BA, Air France, Lufthansa, SAS, Singapore Airlines, Cathy Pacific, Emirates, Virgin Atlantic and so on. Very wide range of airlines but no 'budget' or holiday airlines. Also don't forget there is a mass of freight that is dealt with at Heathrow.

Gatwick deals with more or less the same but not as many. They also have the cheaper and some budget and holiday airlines such as EasyJet, Norwegian Air Shuttle, Thompson etc. Gatwick more or less combines a bit of everything but without freight. It's almost like an 'over-flow' for Heathrow perhaps though that is just my view of it.

London City is almost like the 'business airport'. Small planes, some long distance but only smaller aircraft. Perfect for businesses, corporations and those with private jets trying to access London as it is in central London and next to business area of Canary Wharf.

As for the outter London ones, although they aren't really 'main' London airports, it's worth brushing up on them.

Stansted is more or less for the budget and holiday flights for the UK and Europe. Easyjet, Thompson, Monarch, WOW, RyanAir (spit..). However, they also deal with a large number of flight freight carriers as well which covers not only the UK but intercontinental too.

Luton Airport... that's only there to make Luton seem a better place. Doesn't work.
Joking aside and in all seriousness though, pretty much all budget, short haul and holiday airlines. Easyjet, Monarch, Wizz, flybe and... RyanAir (urg... again)

I think you see where I'm going with that one.
If not, look at it this way - you wouldn't see a shop like pound-land next to Harrods would you? So why would you see a high-standard airline next to a budget airline at an airport.

Geo Ghost wrote:Heathrow is in a perfect location as it is in close proximity to central London, strong (though busy) road links and in an area that is not too densely populated.

Heathrow is in a terrible location for an airport. Really, its horrific. If you are putting a major airport to the east or west of the city you have north/south runways so that the flightpaths do not cross the city, and vice versa for an airport to the north/south. And it is pretty densely populated around the airport. However I still think that Heathrow should be extended and the estuary should be left alone.

I didn't mention runway direction for that reason

Location wise, it's not too close to central London and not too far either. But as you mentioned, the runway direction isn't exactly perfect. Then again, gives a nice view over London on the way in so that's some kind of plus. Even if a very small one.
I don't see it as heavily densely populated. Yes there are a lot of built up areas in the area as anyone can tell just from a satellite map. But there's also a lot of open ground to the West, some North and some south of the airport.
Compared with some airports in the world that are completely packed out with built-up and populated areas on all sides right up to the boundaries.

It's a shame there's no way to extend it towards the west where there's more land. Though I think we all know why that would never work for a number of reasons.

For all these people who want to close Heathrow and move everything to the middle of nowhere in the Thames Estuary, remember that Heathrow itself employs over 75,000 workers, not to mention the many more indirect jobs that are in existence because of the airport. Do you propose to move all those people to the other side of London? How about all the business parks, etc, that have located near Heathrow? The same is true of the other airports, although on a lesser scale.

Basically you have all the infrastructure you need Heathrow at Heathrow; it just needs more capacity. The third runway really should have been built.

Geo Ghost wrote:So why would you see a high-standard airline next to a budget airline at an airport.

Happens everyday at Manchester. Emirates A380 dwarfs EasyJet A319's and RyanAir 737's.

A321Pilot wrote:

Geo Ghost wrote:So why would you see a high-standard airline next to a budget airline at an airport.

Happens everyday at Manchester. Emirates A380 dwarfs EasyJet A319's and RyanAir 737's.

You just had to kill my poor attempt at an analogy didn't you
True though. Then again, Manchester only has one Airport whilst London has 3 main and 2 outer ones.

Also after reading Owen's post, that as well is enough of a reason! Well said!
Then again, conserving jobs hasn't exactly been top of the list for places lately

Geo Ghost wrote:

A321Pilot wrote:

Geo Ghost wrote:So why would you see a high-standard airline next to a budget airline at an airport.

Happens everyday at Manchester. Emirates A380 dwarfs EasyJet A319's and RyanAir 737's.

You just had to kill my poor attempt at an analogy didn't you
True though. Then again, Manchester only has one Airport whilst London has 3 main and 2 outer ones.

Technically we have 2, Manchester International and City Airport - Manchester (Barton) lol. Barton is only Grass though.

Geo Ghost wrote: Stansted is more or less ...

Luton Airport...

Stansted I believe also has a large amount of freight, and Luton Airport is a GA airport for London (especially private jets).

Class 165 wrote: If you are putting a major airport to the east or west of the city you have north/south runways so that the flightpaths do not cross the city, and vice versa for an airport to the north/south.

Runways are aligned primarily with prevailing wind conditions, not where the flight path will be.

John wrote: Stansted I believe also has a large amount of freight

It does indeed. I mentioned that also for Stansted

Edit: oh wait my mistake. I wrote flight instead of freight! Corrected it now.


As for Luton, forgot about the private jets. Not sure how I forgot, the flight-path comes right over Stevenage My mistake on that one.

Well, it seems BAA/Ferrovial intend Heathrow to remain the leading airport, whether or not it gets a new runway. They sealed the roof on the new look Terminal 2 the other day and have a long term vision to reshape the terminals as a 'toast rack' similar in design to T5, consolidating into three or perhaps two terminals.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7af0a4d8-58cc ... z1n9v8niGd

Would be interesting to know if Stansted has yet repaid the cost of capital from the huge sums of money poured into it in the 1980s-90s. It's the best London airport IMO; I wouldn't consider it peripheral as Geo does. Oh, and don't forget that Southend has become airport no 6 with some Easyjet flights (though even Lydd calls itself London Lydd these days ).

One lesson to learn from Japan is that you simply cannot replace an airport. Kansai International Airport was originally built as a replacement for Osaka, but when plans came through to close Osaka the local residents were up in arms about a lack of jobs. It's a much closer airport to Osaka than Kansai, which requires a 30 minute trip on a weird train. Likewise in Tokyo, plans to move all international flights to Narita, a good hour away from Tokyo (now reduced by the opening of a new rail line) have crumbled after the government relented and let BA and the likes fly into it (although with very odd time restrictions: BA land first thing in the morning but can't take off until midnight, or something like that!).

Thus if we opening this Estuary Airport, we'd just end up with two very good airports. The fact that Heathrow is 15 minutes from Central London will forever be a selling point, and it's so firmly engrained in the world's consciousness (everyone's heard of Heathrow) that it will always continue to hold weight.

On a completely unrelated note, the new Gatwick logo would look much better on a box of tampons.

JamieLei wrote:One lesson to learn from Japan is that you simply cannot replace an airport.

Well, you can, although it's not always something that has been achieved properly in the past. Berlin is going to replace Tegel and Schönefeld (and Tempelhof, which closed a few years ago) with Brandenburg on the 3rd of June. Currently, Tegel is the main hub for "traditional" scheduled airlines, with Schönefeld hosting LCCs and some of the smaller mainstream airlines. The new airport is being built on the site of Schönefeld, though, which in some ways perhaps makes the exercise a bit easier.

Hong Kong, of course, replaced its old (and somewhat dangerous) Kai Tek Airport with a brand new airport built on an artificial island in the late 1990s - some say it was a way of Britain draining Hong Kong's capital reserves before the Chinese got hold of the place!

Let's hope it's not a Montreal Mirabel if this ever gets off the ground: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montr%C3%A ... t,_Mirabel

Ameecher wrote:Let's hope it's not a Montreal Mirabel if this ever gets off the ground: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montr%C3%A ... t,_Mirabel

Couldn't have put it better myself, Mirabel is a great example of personal 'legacy building' by a leader taking the place of common sense and good planning.

orudge wrote:

JamieLei wrote:One lesson to learn from Japan is that you simply cannot replace an airport.

Well, you can, although it's not always something that has been achieved properly in the past. Berlin is going to replace Tegel and Schönefeld (and Tempelhof, which closed a few years ago) with Brandenburg on the 3rd of June. Currently, Tegel is the main hub for "traditional" scheduled airlines, with Schönefeld hosting LCCs and some of the smaller mainstream airlines. The new airport is being built on the site of Schönefeld, though, which in some ways perhaps makes the exercise a bit easier.

Hong Kong, of course, replaced its old (and somewhat dangerous) Kai Tek Airport with a brand new airport built on an artificial island in the late 1990s - some say it was a way of Britain draining Hong Kong's capital reserves before the Chinese got hold of the place!

Munich is another example of a successful replacing of an airport back in 1992. And Berlin will succeed, as it will follow the reason why Munich and Kai Tek succeeded - good infrastructure in place before the airport opens, and most importantly, the old airport is getting shut.
Fail to shut the old airport, and no-one will want to use the new one - the best example of which is Tokyo.

In terms of passenger numbers, Berlin is doing the rough equivalent of moving Stansted to a new airport that uses Luton's existing runway and shutting Luton's existing terminal. Gatwick already handles more than the new Berlin airport will handle (with only a single runway), and Heathrow handles double what Gatwick handles.

If the estuary airport is too succeed Heathrow must get shut as a minimum and probably Gatwick as well. Given the two different companies owning them, and the huge huge numbers of passengers they already handle, good luck!

Hi Alan - I already asked you in a PM not to double post (or, indeed, quad post as you did before). Please use the "quote" icon in the "topic review" section of the posting page instead. Also, please trim down your posts rather than quoting entire messages.

I've edited your last two posts together into a single post and removed the quoted image.